What is the UN Human Rights Council?

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Research Procedure
Creation of the Human Rights Council
Addressing Issues of the CHR
Failures of the HRC
Assessment of the Commission’s Status
Conclusion
Works Cited

Introduction

The principal drive for founding the United Nations was security and economic development as the world had just emerged from an international armed conflict that had devastated many nations. However, the advancement of human rights emerged as a secondary goal of this international organization.

The quest to both protect and promote human rights was first advanced through the creation of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (CHR) in 1948. This subsidiary of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) achieved great success by expanding the international legal framework of human rights.

Even so, the commission lost its credibility due to intense politicization and this led to its ultimate replacement in 2006 with the Human Rights Council (HRC). The Human Rights Council endeavoured to bring forth a “new era in the human rights work of the United Nations” (Terlingen 167). This council styled itself as a more authoritative and credible apparatus that could be used to protect and promote human rights globally.

This paper will provide a detailed discussion of the HRC. A major objective of this research will be to articulate the history of the Human Rights Council with special focus on the conditions that necessitated its establishment. The paper will then highlight the successes that the council has had in fulfilling its role. A review at the failures of the HRC will then be engaged in and an estimate of its future given.

Research Procedure

The research method utilized in this study was qualitative in nature. This is because the research consisted of numerous verbal and symbolic materials obtained from the United Nation’s past. A number of steps where utilized in carrying out my research and they involved; collecting, classifying, ordering, synthesizing, evaluating and interpreting the date obtained from the source materials.

The sources used were selected because of their reliability and relevance to the subject being discussed. The primary sources were made up of documents such as treaties, official publications, and official records, all of which transmitted a firsthand account of the events under discussion.

United Nations documents were consulted to shed light on the progress that the Human Rights Council has made since its inception in 2006. The primary sources made a significant contribution by helping me to make valid and reliable conclusions on the research question. Secondary sources, which are the material that do not bear a direct physical relationship to the event, were also used.

These secondary sources explicitly drew on information provided from primary sources and provided an enlightening analysis of the various issues discussed. The primary resources were obtained from government websites as well as the United Nations website. The secondary sources were obtained from journal publications and from the library. With this sources in hand, I had to exhibit creativity and high standards of objective and systematic analysis in writing the final report.

Creation of the Human Rights Council

The Council can trace its birth to the landmark report presented by the then UN Secretary General, Koffi Annan in March 2005. In the report, Annan criticized nations for degrading the credibility of the commission since in particular, “states have sought membership of the commission not to strengthen human rights but to protect themselves against criticism or to criticize others” (In Larger Freedom para. 182.).

For example, Libya, Sudan, and Zimbabwe made use of their membership to the CHR to hamper examination on their own human rights violations. By using the commission as a vehicle for their own agenda, member states had caused a credibility deficit that damaged the reputation of the UN as a whole.

In its last years of existence, Rivlin sums up the universal unpopularity of the Commission on Human Rights as “to NGOs it seemed disingenuous and invariably impotent; to the West its judgments were passed by criminals, and to the South it turned a blind eye to abuses by the world powers (345).

The UN World Summit of 2005 endorsed the proposal by the secretary-general and instead of radical reforms to try assist the CHR regain its credibility, the organization decided to create a new council. It was therefore agreed that the CHR should be dissolved.

Negotiations in the General Assembly culminated in the adoption of Resolution 60/251 on March 15, 2006, which created a Human Rights Council (UN General Assembly, Sixtieth Session 2). The Resolution was adopted by an overwhelming majority with only 4 votes against it and 3 nations abstaining. The council has more authority than its predecessor, which demonstrates the importance with which human rights issues have been regarded over the last decade.

While the initial proposals to elevate Human rights to the status of a “principal organ” on the same footing with the Security Council, the General Assembly, and ECOSOC were not realized, the Human Rights Council was given significant authority and made a subsidiary organ of the General Assembly (Terlingen 170). By shifting from being a subsidiary of the ECOSOC to being a subsidiary organ of the General Assembly, the council gained greater authority and capacity to provide protection.

During the negotiations on the structure of the HRC, some members proposed universal membership to the commission since this would increase its legitimacy and authority by the sheer force of its members. However, a smaller standing council was deemed more productive and such a council was eventually implemented.

This small council was preferred due to advocacy by some countries that a leaner human rights body would be more efficient and effective in addressing human rights issues. A body of forty-seven members was agreed upon and membership was created along customary UN lines of equitable geographical distribution.

A major issue that the newly formed HRC had to face was how it would remain credible and legitimate in the face of the power politics that had led to the steady decline in its predecessors’ credibility and eventually caused its disbandment.

This was an issue of great importance since the dissolution of the CHR had been caused by the politicization and selectivity that had undermined the commission’s credibility and irreparably damaged its reputation (Rahmani-Ocora 15). The newly formed council therefore engaged in a number of notable actions in order to buttress its credibility.

Addressing Issues of the CHR

The HRC began its official operations in June 2006 and from the onset, it set out to address the problems that had been experienced by its predecessor, the CHR. The first feature pertained to the size of the council. The CHR had been regarded as cumbersome with a membership of 53. To remedy this, the HRC had 47 members. By cutting six seats, the council’s membership was slightly smaller than that of the CHR.

To address the criticism of selectivity and double standards that had been levelled against the CHR, the Human Rights Council adopted a system of Universal Periodic Review.

This system means that the human rights records of all UN member states (including powerful countries such as China, Russia and the US), will be examined by the council and appropriate actions taken in case there are human rights violations. Rahmani-Ocora observes that over the decades, the CHR had come to resemble a club where friendships easily overlooked wrongdoings. For example, the members of this commission often included political regimes that had been accused of major human rights violations (16).

The selectivity and double standards of the commission in dealing with such countries greatly tarnished its reputation. The double standards issue was especially evident when it came to the selection of countries for public scrutiny. Some countries began to question why the five permanent members of the Security Council never adopted a resolution condemning well-known and gross abuses in Tibet and Chechnya.

Criticism had been levelled against the HRC for having in its membership countries that violated human rights. Mertus reveals that the commission was at times under intense criticism for its politicized membership which included countries with appalling human rights records (41).

The HRC addressed this problem by making use of a thorough mechanism to vet countries before they became members. A prerequisite to membership in the HRC is a strong record of respect for human rights by the country. This precondition was very important since it ensured that states where not seeking membership to avoid scrutiny on their own human rights issues (Davies 457).

The human rights records are periodically appraised to ensure that the country continues to uphold human rights. Purna and Vincent note that the appraisals are not just about being reviewed by the HRC; rather they are about progressing and protecting human rights on the ground (3). In addition to this, membership to the HRC is not universal and states that violate human rights are deterred from joining since members are exhorted to abide by the highest human rights standards.

The council monitors human rights issues globally and carries out investigations into allegation of human right violations. To fulfil this task, the council makes use of Special Rapporteurs, who are “a body of independent and objective human rights experts and working groups” (Terlingen 168).

These “country specific thematic experts” are the council’s eyes and ears and they monitor and rapidly respond to reports of human rights violations all over the world. At the present, these Special Rapporteurs number forty-one and they perform the crucial function of providing objective information which the UN can then use to take action in its human rights work.

The former commission suffered a major drawback since it only convened once a year for six weeks. During this one annual session, all agenda items, debates, resolutions, and decisions have to be addressed in the six-week period. The commission was therefore not able to effectively deal with crises that emerged in the course of the year in a timely manner.

The council overcame this problem by increasing the sitting time per year to a minimum of ten weeks. This session is divided into at least three independent meetings throughout the year with special sessions being called in the event of emergencies (Terlingen 172). This has resulted in a timely reaction to human rights crisis since only a third of the council’s members need to request a special session and it is subsequently convened.

Failures of the HRC

For all its efforts, the HRC has not fully succeeded in changing the political character of the UN’s treatment of human rights. Terlingen documents that the African and Asian members who have a comfortable majority (26 out of 47 votes) in this human rights body are using their numbers to set the agenda (171).

Through their voting power, the countries are dictating which countries should be selected for immediate attention by “special session” and also boycotting proposals made by the Western European and Others Group and the Latin American Group. European and Latin American countries are therefore forced to adopt a cross-regional approach in order to address human rights issues since they have lost their power to win a vote without the support of at least three African and Asian states.

The HRC has not been impartial especially with regard to the passing of resolutions and special procedures. In particular, a disproportionate number of resolutions have targeted Israel which had 12 of the 20 resolutions passed in the 2007 session addressed to it. Some members have attributed this inordinate focus on Israel on the fact that the Organization of Islamic Conference has a significant presence in the HRC due to the majority African and Asian membership.

The council has not been very effective in fulfilling its mandate to promote and protect human rights for everyone. Widespread human rights violations in countries such as North Korea, Iraq, and Myanmar continue to exist with the HRC doing little to address these grave situations. In the cases where the HRC has expressed concern, it has been in the form of non-binding resolutions which have in essence allowed the offending country to continue with its activities without consequences.

In spite of its shortcomings, the council’s predecessor, the CHR had achieved significant results in the human rights issues most notably of which are drafting the Universal declaration of Human Rights and advancing human rights protections globally. As yet, the HRC has not made any significant contribution to the body of human rights. As has been noted, most of the resolutions passed have been non-binding and the council is yet to make any groundbreaking declarations in the area of human rights.

Assessment of the Commission’s Status

A roundtable meeting held on May 2008 in New York City to assess if the HRC had managed to rectify the credibility deficit which had been attributed to the CHR which it replaced revealed that the council had fulfilled most of its objectives (Rivlin 347). The HRC has shown great boldness by addressing Human rights violations by major countries such as the US.

The council has conducted investigations into the conditions of detainees at Guantanamo Bay and the Special Rapporteurs have given detailed reports following the study with recommendations on the issue included in report A/HRC/13/42 (HRC, 13 Sess.). By doing this, the HRC has affirmed that secret detention is a violation of the personal liberty of the individual and therefore a human rights abuse.

The council has also had significant success in pressuring government to fulfil their human rights treaty obligations. This is a marked difference from the early days of the UN where scrutiny of any individual state’s human rights practices was seen as an imposition on sovereignty (Keller and Geir 322). Specifically, the HRC has been active in the Syrian Arab Republic where there have been numerous allegations of human rights abuses (HRC Syria Issue).

By reporting on the gross violations of human rights in the ongoing conflict, the HRC has been about to call for action to be taken by the UN in order to alleviate the situation. A report by the HRC documented that the indiscriminate killings of civilians and the deliberate targeting of children provided grounds for the case to be dealt with by the Security Council (para. 6).

The HRC has also been instrumental in helping countries recover after disasters. A case in point is the Special Session held to assist in the recovery process of Haiti after the devastating earthquake of 2010. The HRC sought to use its influence to garner the necessary political support to assist in the recovery and reconstruction efforts in the country (Mulugeta 99). The Haitian Earthquake had human rights consequences since it resulted in the displacement of over a million people and injured more than 300,000 persons.

The limited capacity of the state led to the dramatically worsening of the dire humanitarian condition especially with regard to access to health services, water, food, and sanitation (Mulugeta 99). HRC’s 13th Special Session on Haiti was the first special session held in the context of disasters and it led to the adoption of resolution A/HRC/S-13/1 (HRC Haiti). By engaging in the topic of disaster, the council has expanded its mandate and ensured that human rights issues are given even more consideration within the UN system.

Conclusion

This paper set out to provide a detailed discussion on the Human Rights Council. The paper has documented how the HRC was created to be a more authoritative human rights body replacing the 59-year-old commission for Human Rights. It began by observing that the formation of the council was precipitate by the demise of the CHR which was dissolved because of the loss of credibility that the body had suffered due to politicization and selectivity by the commission.

The paper documented that the prime consideration given to the issue of de-politicization by the council was in response to the criticisms levelled against the commission. While the HRC has not been immune to politics, it has by the large transcended politics and managed to fulfil its core mandate with significant success.

The changes and innovations of the HRC make it more credible and effective than the CHR. This enhances the legitimacy of the council and aid in its ability to make authoritative decisions on issues of human rights. The HRC has succeeded in defusing most of the tensions that led to the disbandment of the CHR. In this respect, the resolution can be considered a major achievement in human rights and an indication of the UN’s firm commitment to uphold its historic mission to promote and protect human rights for all people.

From this report, it is clear that an independent human rights body is incredibly difficult to implement. Even so, the Human Rights council has done a commendable job in protecting and promoting human rights. It can be expected that over the years, the HRC will make tremendous contribution to the body of human rights therefore benefiting the entire world.

Works Cited

Davies, Mathew. “Rhetorical Inaction? Compliance and the Human Rights Council of the United Nations.” Alternatives 35.1 (2010): 449–468.

Human Rights Council, Haiti. “The Support of the Human Rights Council to the Recovery Process in Haiti after the Earthquake of January 12, 2010: A Human Rights Approach.” Resolutions and Decisions of the Human Rights Council 2010 (A/HRC/S-13–1). Official Record. Brazil, 2010. Print.

Human Rights Council, 13th Sess. “Joint study on global practices in relation to secret detention in the context of countering terrorism.” Special Report (A/HRC/13/42). Official Record, Geneva, 2010. Web.

Human Rights Council, Syria Issue. Human Rights Council discusses human rights situation in Syria. 2012. Web.

In Larger Freedom. “Toward Development, Security, and Human Rights for All.” Report of the Secretary-General (A/59/2005), March 21, 2005, para. 182.

Keller, Hellen and Geir Ulfstein. UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies: Law and Legitimacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Print.

Mertus, Julie. The United Nations and Human Rights: A Guide for a New Era. NY: Taylor & Francis, 2009. Print.

Mulugeta, Abebe. “Special Report—Human Rights in the Context of Disasters: The Special Session of the UN Human Rights Council on Haiti.” Journal of Human Rights 10.1 (2011): 99–111. Print.

Purna, Sen and Vincent Monica. Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights: Towards Best Practice. London: Commonwealth Secretariat, 2009. Print.

Rahmani-Ocora, Ladan. “Giving the Emperor Real Clothes: The UN Human Rights Council.” Global Governance 12.1 (2006): 15-20. Print.

Rivlin, Benjamin. “The United Nations Human Rights Council: A U.S. Foreign Policy Dilemma.” American Foreign Policy Interests 30.1 (2008): 347–372. Print.

Terlingen, Yvonne. “The Human Rights Council: A New Era in UN Human Rights Work?” Ethics & International Affairs 24.2 (2010): 131-142. Web.

UN General Assembly, Sixtieth session. “Resolution 60/251 [Human Rights Council]” (A/RES/60/251). 3 April 2006. Official Record. New York, 2006.

Click Here To Order Now!