One relative constant over the twenty-year history of the Human Rights Council has been that the body’s mandate to ‘address situations of violations of human rights, including gross and systematic violations’ (paragraph 3 of GA resolution 60/251) has largely been implemented in one direction only. Developed or Western States have sought to realise the mandate and developing countries, especially geopolitical opponents of the West, have – almost always – been its object. While there have been some exceptions to this rule, such as item 4 resolutions on Russia, and item 7 resolutions on Israel, it has broadly held since the Council’s establishment in 2006, with situations addressed limited to places such as Belarus, Burundi, DPRK, DRC, Iran, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Syria, and Venezuela.
The 61st session of the Council saw that norm of multilateral human rights diplomacy, if not overturned, then certainly challenged. Towards the end of the session, on 27 March, China, Cuba, and Iran called for a Council urgent debate to consider ‘The aerial attacks on Shajareh Tayyebeh Girls’ School in Minab, Iran, as a grave breach of international humanitarian law and international human rights law.’
Earlier that week (25 March) the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and Jordan had convened another urgent debate on ‘The recent military aggression launched by Iran against Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates on 28 February 2026, targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure, which has resulted in the loss of innocent lives.’ That debate had – understandably – focused on Iran’s attacks against its neighbours in the wake of Israeli and US strikes. However, State (especially developed State) interventions during the debate largely or wholly ignored the context of Iran’s ‘military aggression’ – namely that it was carried out in response (no matter how misguided or illegal one might consider that response to have been) to Israeli and US acts of ‘military aggression’ (which were themselves not endorsed by the UN Security Council, and thus had no basis under international law).
That was the context in which China, Cuba, and Iran called for a second urgent debate on 27 March. By focusing on the killing of 168 (according to Iranian sources) children at Shajareh Tayyebeh Girls’ School, rather than the wider conflict, the main sponsors ensured that there would be no Western objections to the convening of the debate.
At the start of the meeting, the Council heard statements from the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mr. Volker Türk, the Special Rapporteur on the right to education Ms. Farida Shaheed, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran H.E. Mr. Seyyed Abbas Araghchi, as well as a poignant video testimony from Ms. Mohaddeseh Fallahat, the mother of two children killed in the strike on Shajareh Tayyebeh school.
During the debate that followed, only a small number of States, including China, Colombia, Cuba, Indonesia, Norway (on behalf of Norway and Iceland), Spain, Switzerland, and Venezuela (on behalf of the Group of Friends in Defence of the UN Charter) explicitly referenced US actions in their statements. Nevertheless, it was an important moment at the Council, reflecting significant geopolitical power shifts in the multilateral system.
It is true that this was not the first time the US has been the object of Council efforts to address situations of human rights violations. In 2020, for example, the US was criticised during an urgent debate on racially inspired human rights violations and police brutality, triggered by the murder of George Floyd. However, the implicit (i.e., the fact that the debate happened at all) and explicit criticism of the US levelled in the context of the 27 March 2026 urgent debate reflects a new and historically significant departure for the Council, reflecting the waning influence of the US (especially since it pulled out of the body in February 2025), the growing power of China, and a growing sense among States, including traditional American allies, that the US should be held to the same standards as everyone else and should not, therefore, be above criticism.
Speaking about the significance of these developments, URG Executive Director, Dr Marc Limon, said: ‘Until recently, and probably throughout the history of the UN, it would have been almost inconceivable to imagine a situation in which the US would be an object of UN work to address country-specific human rights violations. The fact that the debate took place at all, and the fact that some Western States took a principled stance and were willing to reference the US during their interventions, are,’ he said, ‘reflective of major power shifts at the Human Rights Council and across the wider United Nations.’
Featured image: Minab School Tragedy, Matthias Berg
Share this Post
