Justice? Not yet. UNGA Stalls in 30-Minute Debate Over How to Debate!

The United Nations General Assembly began as a promising session starting off with discussing the legitimacy of independent international tribunals. But instead of solving global problems, delegates spent over 30 minutes trying to agree on how to begin.

From the start, things were slow. The delegate of Australia repeatedly brought up “procedural fallacies” basically claiming that others were breaking the rules. France’s motion for a moderated caucus was questioned twice. And just when delegates thought they could move on, Australia suggested changing the time and duration of speeches too. This back and forth over rules went on for so long that the actual topic of international justice was barely discussed. Chairs looked tired, delegates looked confused, and some just sat silently waiting for something to happen.

It was clear the committee wasn’t moving forward. Instead of talking about war crimes, genocide, or global justice, most of the energy went into small details about speaking times and what to talk about first. The committee was meant to explore one of the most urgent questions in global justice: whether independent courts have the legal right to hold people accountable for the world’s worst crimes. But by the end of the session, all that had been judged was the order of the speaking list.

Damon Crook

CNN