In December 2024, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 79/177, emphasizing the role of Ombudsman and mediator institutions in promoting human rights, good governance, and the rule of law. The resolution is strikingly similar to another resolution adopted in 2020. Both notably omitted any mention of Organizational Ombuds or the International Ombuds Association.The latest resolution encourages member states to establish and strengthen these offices, ensuring they have the independence and resources necessary to operate effectively. It also highlights the value of international collaboration, naming several Ombuds associations as key stakeholders, including:
- International Ombudsman Institute
- Association of Mediterranean Ombudsmen
- Ibero-American Federation of Ombudsmen
- Association of Ombudsmen and Mediators of la Francophonie
- Asian Ombudsman Association
- African Ombudsman and Mediators Association
- Arab Ombudsman Network
- European Mediation Network Initiative
- Pacific Ombudsman Alliance
- Eurasian Ombudsman Alliance
All of the named associations represent "classical ombudsman" models, which primarily focus on public-sector oversight. IOA is notably absent from the resolution, despite its prominence in the field. This exclusion is particularly ironic given that the UN itself has multiple internal Ombuds offices operating as organizational ombuds and following IOA Standards. While the resolution reinforces the importance of independent Ombuds institutions, the omission of the IOA seems deliberate and puzzling. (UN Digital Library, Resolution 79/177.)
Related posts: UN Ombuds Reports on Reorganization Efforts; Internal Report Surveys Ombuds Programs Throughout UN System; United Nations Appoints American to be Next Ombudsman; UN Resolution Endorsing International Ombuds Organizations Notably Excludes IOA; American Bar Association Endorses Ombuds Again.
This continued passive rebuke of IOA raises this question, why? It also raises the question, what a tions has the IOA taken to engage with UN leadership? The observation I have is that the UN ombuds with whom I have interacted--many, many--did not have high regard for IOA.
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing this. While it's understandable to feel a sense of exclusion when organizational ombuds are not mentioned alongside classical ombudspersons, it might be helpful to recognize the distinct roles and contexts in which we operate. As an organizational ombuds myself, I can see why we might not be included in a plea or demand to states by the UNGA. Maybe the IOA sees itself differently. I would be glad to understand.
ReplyDeleteOur function as organizational ombuds, while – I have no doubt – super valuable, I cannot see as directly linked to rule of law, state governance, or human rights in the same way as classical ombudspersons. We serve a different purpose within our organizations, focusing on informal and alternative dispute resolution.
The unfortunate reality is that we share the same title, but our roles and the value we add differ significantly. This distinction, while sometimes overlooked, actually highlights the unique contributions of both classical and organizational ombuds.
Rather than viewing this as a negative, perhaps we can see it as an opportunity to further clarify and promote the specific benefits of organizational ombuds work
In essence, while we may not be part of this particular plea, it doesn't diminish the importance of our role. Instead, it underscores the need for continued education about the diverse ways in which different types of ombuds contribute to fairness and conflict resolution across various sectors of society. I hope I am making sense..
ReplyDeleteThe first time a similar grievance was posted a couple of years ago, I chose to ignore it despite the fact that it was ill-informed, lacked sound basis and seemed more like a personal gripe from the author and subsequent contributors rather than a matter of genuine concern for an entire professional organization (the IOA). It didn’t seem to create any positive value for the ombuds community.
Apparently, it did have a negative impact and created a confirmation bias in the direction of a mistruth which now seems to have devolved into a full-blown conspiracy theory (gauging from the content and tone of the original post (not to mention its caption))!
This time I feel compelled to respond.
Those of us who work/have worked or are familiar with the UN system - especially in the ombuds line of work in the UN system – will tell you that the UN system is a mammoth organization with a complex governance structure. The org chart here should lend some insights - https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/un_system_chart.pdf.
To contextualize the matter even further, the UN’s General Assembly is one of its six organs - it is further divided into six committees each of which has a specific and codified mandate, in furtherance of which periodic resolutions are passed. The resolution referenced by the author in the original post i.e., Resolution 79/177 is from the Third Committee whose mandate is social, cultural and humanitarian matters across the globe – its thematic areas have no overlap with the work done by organizational ombuds.
The work of the UN organizational ombuds office comes within the purview of the Fifth (administrative and budgetary) and Sixth (Legal) Committees of the UN General Assembly. All resolutions pertaining to the work of the UN’s organizational ombuds office are issued by the Fifth Committee and can be found under the Agenda Item AOJ (Administration of Justice).
For more information, see https://research.un.org/en/docs/ga/committees
Isn’t fact-finding one of our core day-to-day tasks?
I don't have a grievance, Anonymous. I tried to present the plain facts (and I really respect you doing the same). Also, I wouldn't extrapolate too much from the handful of commenters here; I don't have any evidence that they reflect a majority opinion.
DeleteI stand by my inference even in light of your comment. The UN's resolution was detailed and thorough. Yet, as you point out, there is a robust Ombuds program within the UN. Indeed, the UN has led by example and now many IGO's and NGO's have created Organizational Ombuds programs over the past several years. It therefore remains surprising to me that there wasn't even a footnote in the resolution acknowledging it's own in-house program with the very same name.