Teaching Peace from Tales of the City: Peace Education through the Memoryscapes of Nagasaki Patporn Phoothong
Special Report
Reflections of Refugees in Africa Wyclife Ong'eta Mose
Freedom of Expression Under Threat in Zambia Mariateresa Garrido
Women’s Political Representation in Sri Lanka: Leading towards Prosperity or Peril Pujika Rathnayake
The political Crisis of the 2017 Honduran Election Daniel Bagheri S.
Notes On A Controversy Amardo Rodriguez

The Unraveled and Disquieting Human Rights Violation of Afghanistan Priya Pandey
Special Report
Nepal's recovery process since the 2015 earthquake Jini Agrawal
Challenges and prospects of AU to implement the Ezulwini Consensus: The case of collective security and the use of force Tunamsifu Shirambere Philippe
The Right to Food Shant Melkonian
Land of the Golden Pagodas: Checking in on Myanmar’s Peace Process Monica Paniagua
Douglas Janoff on LGBTQIA Human Rights Luciana Téllez
Common Things: Communication, Community, Communal Peacebuilding Lina Patricia Forero Martínez
Periodismo Ciudadano e Internet Gina Paola Parra
Research Summary
Water Security in the Sixaola River Basin Adrián Martinez Blanco and Diana Ubico Durán
Reborn Arunima Chouguley
An Open Letter to the American People: Political Responsibility in the Nuclear Age Richard Falk, David Krieger, and Robert Laney


Last Updated: 12/08/2004
UN Reform
Simon Stander

On 2 December 2004, the high-level panel of reform of the UN reported to Kofi Annan. The panel was indeed high-level, but, interestingly, excluded anyone from the academic world:


Anand Panyarachun (Chairman), former Prime Minister of Thailand

Robert Badinter (France)

Joao Clemente Baena Soares (Brazil)

Gro Harlem Brundtland (Norway)

Mary Chinery-Hesse (Ghana)

Gareth Evans (Australia)

Lord David Hannay (United Kingdom)

Enrique Iglesias (Uruguay)

Amre Moussa (Egypt)

Satish Nambiar (India)

Sadako Ogata (Japan)

Yevgenii Primakov (Russia)

Qian Qichen (China)

Nafis Sadik (Pakistan)

Salim Ahmed Salim (Tanzania)

Brent Scowcroft (United States)



Among its primary recommendations are:


  • The principle of “responsibility to protect” is proposed which would allow intervention in the internal affairs of countries that might otherwise allow genocide, breed terrorism or be faced with famine.


  • The Security Council should be enlarged to 24 members but the current five members (all represented on the panel) would keep their vetoes and no new member would be allowed one.


The Report is entitled A more secure world: Our Shared Responsibility. It identifies six clusters of threats Viz:

  • war between States;
  • violence within States, including civil wars, large-scale human rights abuses and genocide;
  • poverty, infectious disease and environmental degradation;
  • nuclear, radiological, chemical and biological weapons;
  • terrorism;
  • and transnational organized crime.



Development is put first as the major pre-requisite in making the world a safer place:


“Development has to be the first line of defence for a collective security system that takes prevention seriously. Combating poverty will not only save millions of lives but also strengthen States’ capacity to combat terrorism, organized crime and proliferation. Development makes everyone more secure. There is an agreed international framework for how to achieve these goals, set out in the Millennium Declaration and the Monterrey Consensus, but implementation lags.”


Of course, defining development is problematic. As far as the high-level Report is concerned”development” is synonymous with the eradication of poverty. That, in itself, is contentious. Massive amelioration of the effects of poverty would create a better world: that it would make the world more secure is a leap of faith, but a worthwhile leap.


The Report in five languages can be found at