* George Washington University School of Law.

¹ Assessed contributions by member states to the United Nations are determined in accordance with Article 17 of the UN Charter. Under that article, the General Assembly considers and approves the budget of the United Nations, payments for which are distributed among members states in accordance with previously agreed scales of assessments. The scale of assessments for the regular expenses of the budget is different from the scale of assessments for large peacekeeping operations. The United States’ current share of the former is 25 percent, and of the latter, approximately 31 percent. For an example of the scale of assessments for regular expenses, see GA Res. 52/215A (Dec. 22, 1997).

² U.S. Ousted from Panel on U.N.’s Budget, N.Y. Times, Nov. 9, 1996, at 7; see Colum Lynch, Holbrooke Faces Challenge at U.N.; New Ambassador Seeks to Restore U.S. Clout Eroded by Fights over Dues, Policy, Wash. Post, Aug. 24, 1999, at A12.

³ Article 19 of the UN Charter provides that a member “which is in arrears in the payment of its financial contributions to the Organization shall have no vote in the General Assembly if the amount of its arrears equals or exceeds the amount of the contributions due from it for the preceding two years.” In 1964 the Soviet Union and other Soviet bloc states came within the scope of Article 19 due to their refusal to contribute to the costs of peacekeeping operations in the Middle East (UNEF) and the Congo (ONUC). That refusal was in the face of an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice that such expenses were valid UN expenses. Certain Expenses, 1962 ICJ Rep. 151. UN member states decided, however, not to enforce Article 19 against the Soviet bloc states.

⁴ Christopher S. Wren, U.S. Told It Must Pay $550 Million or Risk Losing U.N. Vote, N.Y. Times, Oct. 6, 1999, at A10.

⁵ For an analysis of payment withholding in the 1980s, see Jose E. Alvarez, Legal Remedies and the United Nations a la Carte Problem, 12 Mich. J. Int’l L. 229 (1991); Elisabeth Zoller, The “Corporate Will” of the United Nations and the Rights of the Minority, 81 AJIL 610 (1987); and Richard W. Nelson, International Law and U.S. Withholding of Payments to International Organizations, 80 AJIL 973 (1986). For a discussion in the context of United States arrears in the 1990s, see Stacy Williams, Note, A Billion Dollar Donation, Should the United Nations Look a Gift Horse in the Mouth?, 27 Ga. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 425 (1999). For a general discussion on United Nations financing, see Emilio J. Cardenas, Panel Discussion: Financing the United Nation’s Activities: A Matter of Commitment, 1995 U. Ill. L. Rev. 147 (1995).

⁶ Helen Dewar, Dispute Imperils U.S. Vote at U.N., Wash. Post, Oct. 28, 1999, at A10; Thomas W. Lippman, Drive Seeks to Get U.N. Funding Approved on Hill Without Strings, Wash. Post, June 13, 1999, at A22; Philip Shenon, Senate Backs U.N. Payment, But More Hurdles Remain, N.Y. Times, June 23, 1999, at A4.

⁷ Since 1973 the United States has prohibited the direct use of U.S. funds to perform abortions. See Foreign Assistance Act of 1973, §114, Pub. L. No. 93–189, 87 Stat. 714, 716 (1973). In 1984 the Reagan administration established a policy, known as the “Mexico City policy,” which also prohibited the United States from financing any nongovernmental organization that provided or promoted abortions abroad, regardless of its source of funds for those specific activities. The U.S. delegate, James L. Buckley, announced the policy at a UN conference on population. U. S. Policy Statement at the United Nations International Conference on Population, 2d Sess., Mexico City (Aug 6–13, 1984), reprinted in 10 Population & Dev. Rev. (1985). The policy was unsuccessfully challenged in U.S. court. DKT Memorial Fund Ltd. v. Agency for Int’l Dev., 887 F.2d 275 (D.C. Cir. 1989). President Clinton revoked this policy shordy after he assumed office. Memorandum on the Mexico City Policy, 1 Pub. Papers 10 (1993). The 1999 legislation was an effort to codify the Mexico City policy into law. See Peter T. Kilborn, Definition of Abortion Is Found to Vary Abroad, N.Y. Times, Nov. 23, 1999, at A18.

⁸ The “United Nations Reform Act of 1999” appears at the Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 2000–01, Tide IX, H.R. 3427 (1999), as contained in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2000, §1000(a)(7), Pub. L. No. 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501, 1536 (1999). The family planning restrictions and waiver provisions appear at Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act of 2000, §599D, H.R. 3422, as contained in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2000, §1000(a)(2), Pub. L. No. 106-113 113 Stat. 1501, 1535 (1999). See David Stout, A Deal is Reached on Family Planning Money, N.Y. Times, Dec. 1, 1999, at A21.

⁹ 64 Fed. Reg. 68,275 (1999).

¹⁰ Statement on Signing Consolidated Appropriations Legislation for Fiscal Year 2000, 35 Weekly Comp. Pres. DOC. 2458 (Dec. 6, 1999). See also Madeleine K. Albright, The Role of the UN and Its Relationship to the United States, U.S. Dep’t of State Dispatch 6 (Oct. 1998).

¹¹ Madeleine K. Albright, U.S. Secretary of State, U.S. Dep’t of State Press Release on Remarks to the Press on European Trip and International Family Planning (Nov. 24, 1999), available in <>.

¹² See U.S. Dep’t of State Fact Sheet on U.S. Plan for Paying UN Arrears (Dec. 3, 1999), available in <>.

¹³ The first certification was not made publicly available.

¹⁴ Barbara Crossette, Dues Payment By U.S. Saves Its UN Vote, N.Y. Times, Dec. 22, 1999, at A10; U.S. Pays U.N. $151 Million, Saves Its Vote, Wash. Post, Dec. 22, 1999, at A2. On the prior reforms, see U.S. Dep’t of State Fact Sheet on UN Reform Progress (Jan. 5, 2000), available in <>.

¹⁵ United Nations Reform Act of 1999, supra note 8, §§931, 941; see Christopher S. Wren, U.S. Still Might Lose General Assembly Vote, N.Y. Times, Nov. 16, 1999, at A18.