Experiencing Time and Space within the United Nations

Abstract

Departing from an objective understanding of time and space, this article investigates time and space together as daily individual and social experiences within the United Nations (UN) system. Focused on both staff members and civil society partners, it explores how experiences of time and space affect the way the UN functions. Based on two case studies, it first shows that time and space as they are experienced by individuals shape UN everyday practices pointing to a form of unlimited connectedness among individuals and overlapping and delocalized temporalities. It then demonstrates that time and space constitute socially constructed resources to maintain hierarchical relations: looking at temporal and spatial experiences gives insight into power dynamics over decision-making within the UN. Overall these findings show that time and space are relevant to capture overlooked dimensions in the study of the UN. Policy Implications• Be mindful of different ways time and space can be experienced: temporal and spatial opportunities are relative and differ from one organization to another, influencing reform initiatives and decision-making.• Increased collaboration can be fostered by considering different organizational working paces and spatial constraints which affect how UN entities work individually and together.• Various organizational calendars must be taken seriously to facilitate participation.• Growing familiarity over time and across spaces among UN staff, member state delegates and other partners could facilitate or hamper negotiations and their outcomes.

Controversial Practices: Tracing the Proceduralization of the IPCC in Time and Space

“…Yet, over its thirty years of existence, the IPCC has become more than a transnational network of experts and has witnessed an unprecedented institutionalization. While it is not legally an IO, it is an “IO progeny" and bears similarities with other United Nations bodies (Johnson, 2014; Kimber and Maertens, this issue). The IPCC is also an interesting case because it is often presented as a model for the production of global expert assessments.…”

“…The contrarians accused the IPCC of breaching its own rules by modifying the content of the chapter after it had been reviewed and formally approved by governments. Later investigations into the controversy revealed that the IPCC lacked a formal closure mechanism and that procedures neither allowed nor prohibited modifications after the approval session (Edwards and Schneider, 1997; Lahsen, 1999). Similar procedural disputes emerged in the approval of the WG III reports, when authors refused to remove controversial statements about the statistical value of human lives from their chapter (Masood and Ochert, 1995).…”

Understanding International Organizations’ Headquarters as Ecosystems: The Case of Geneva

“…First, the Swiss political authorities at different levels provide resources to the International Geneva. Second, this location impacts the temporality within the IO ecosystem in Geneva (Kimber and Maertens 2021).…”

Time and space in the study of international organizations: An introduction

“…Articles here argue that taking these into account can help better understand the origins, the performance and the future of IOs (Dairon & Badache, this special issue). Such an attention to IOs’ spatiotemporal environment also displays a broader methodological function, such as facilitating the work of the researcher in accessing relevant fieldwork (Dairon & Badache, this special issue; Eckl, this special issue; Kimber & Maertens, this special issue). The contributions to this issue do so in an original way, applying a qualitative lens to IO studies with new and complementary case studies at different scales of IO presence – the local (Geneva), national (Haiti, Vietnam/Mozambique) and regional levels (Middle East) – and at various moments of an IO’s life – exceptional events (emergency relief interventions, international summits), annually‐organized conferences, regular coordination meetings.…”

“…What is more striking however is the difference in terms of consequences: the specific combination of a location and its temporal routine or a particular political schedule can result in very contrasting impacts. This disparity appears particularly strongly when it comes to individuals’ participation: time and space have a significant impact on who is participating in IO undertakings, de facto leaving aside some actors who cannot afford long‐haul travels or expensive rents (Dairon & Badache, this special issue; Kimber & Maertens, this special issue), or on the contrary allowing others to join (Eckl, this special issue). A less expected repercussion lies with the success of local actors in trying to capitalize on the role of time and space: while they may sometimes gain political power and concrete influence on IOs (Campos, this special issue; Dairon & Badache, this special issue), they can also be marginalized compared to distant stakeholders, such as donors and IOs’ headquarters, which succeed in imposing their rules at a distance (Verlin, this special issue).…”