Within the UN system itself, challenges to accountability are visible at the highest levels. There is a difference of opinion on the very definition of accountability between the UN General Assembly (UNGA) and the UN Secretariat, with starkly contrasting views about the scope of responsibility.

The UN Secretariat seems to present a “results based management” focus to account for formally assigned specific results:

Accountability represents the obligation of the Organization and its staff members to be answerable for delivering specific results that have been determined through a clear and transparent assignment of responsibility, subject to the availability of resources and the constraints posed by external factors. Accountability includes achievement of objectives and results in response to mandates, fair and accurate reporting on performance results, stewardship of funds, and all aspects of performance in accordance with regulations, rules and standards, including a clearly defined system of rewards and sanctions.
Towards an accountability system in the United Nations Secretariat, Report of the Secretary-General, 2010, A/64/640.

The UNGA takes a broader principled approach: “to be answerable for all [their ] decisions […] and actions”:

Accountability is the obligation of the Secretariat and its staff members to be answerable for all decisions made and actions taken by them, and to be responsible for honouring their commitments, without qualification or exception. Accountability includes achieving objectives and high-quality results in a timely and cost-effective manner, in fully implementing and delivering on all mandates to the Secretariat approved by the United Nations intergovernmental bodies 0 by them in compliance with all resolutions, regulations, rules and ethical standards; truthful, objective, accurate and timely reporting on performance results; responsible stewardship of funds and resources; all aspects of performance, including a clearly defined system of rewards and sanctions; and with due recognition to the important role of the oversight bodies and in full compliance with accepted recommendations.
Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 29 March 2010, A/RES/64/259.

This difference of opinion on the very definition of accountability raises questions about how and when the UNGA can hold the Secretariat accountable – and vice versa. In short, stakeholders have no way of clearly evaluating whether international organizations in the UN System, individually and collectively, are a) doing what they are supposed to do, b) doing it how they are supposed to do it, and c) appropriately developing new work in desirable areas that remain undefined by their formal mandate – an important area, given the need to address new topics and work together effectively.

The UN Joint Inspection Unit writes in its 2011 report on “Accountability frameworks in the United Nations System” that the “political covenant” between the UNGA and the Secretariat is crucial, but does not identify a means to resolve the issue of the difference of opinion between the UN Secretariat and UNGA: ”the Inspector notes that accountability is complex, multi-dimensional and expectations vary and change depending on the lens through which it is viewed”.

The report does not evaluate the unclear contract at the highest level, choosing in its methodology to survey a number of representative entities “to see how accountability was being operationalized away from headquarters”. Unfortunately, however, “the present review does not delve into the implementation of the framework”, leaving the paramount question of actual results – and accountability – unexplored.

The report does, however, state that “without this mutual and political agreement the accountability will be dysfunctional from the outset. This relationship must be based on mutual agreement and political will.” There is no comparative and system-wide approach that addresses political accountability at the highest levels and this precludes an identification of duplication or working at cross purposes, or gap areas in the context of accountability.

One World Trust defines accountability as:

“[…] the process through which an organisation makes a commitment to respond to and balance the needs of stakeholders in its decision-making processes and activities and delivers against this commitment.”
PATHWAYS_5.qxd (oneworldtrust.org)

This definition emphasises the need for organizations to balance their response to accountability claims and prioritize between different stakeholder groups according to organizational missions and criteria such as influence, responsibility and representation. Importantly, an organization must do this through a ”conscious, verifiable, transparent process, which, given the dynamics of external circumstances, needs to be repeated in a cyclical manner. “

An update to the 2011 JIU report on accountability will be published by the same entity in the summer of 2023.

Within what framework can Member States, the UN System and other stakeholders best interact to work together on a common understanding and engage for an overarching accountability system to increase the credibility of the UN?

Which checks and balances can be set in place to create the right incentives?