Living up to our own standards?

The United Nations Human Rights Council emerged in response to the failures of the former Commission on Human Rights to effectively implement the rich normative framework of human rights standards that most members of the international community have committed themselves to. Our human rights architecture in 2014 appears to be both solid and comprehensive:

• The Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICECSR), which clearly intertwine the indivisibility and universality of political and civil as well as economic, social and cultural rights.
• Ten international human rights treaties, with their respective Treaty Bodies driving the process of integrating individual rights into our societies and acting as a constant reminder of states’ human rights obligations.
• The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) acting as guardian of these commitments and as a source of assistance and advice for all those who honestly seek domestic paths to develop their legislation in line with human rights norms.

General Assembly resolution 60/251 was a forceful expression of the determination of our Heads of State and Governments, delivered during the Millennium Summit, to give this comprehensive architecture a powerful means of implementation: the Human Rights Council. The Council was established to, inter alia, respond to urgent and chronic human rights violations in specific country situations in a timely manner, to advocate for the protection of victims when their rights have been violated by governments, and to support human rights defenders and civil society by providing a forum for cross-regional attention. Those core issues were at the heart of the negotiations that led, with the gentle guidance of the then Secretary-General Kofi Annan, to the unanimous adoption of resolution 60/251 in 2006 and the establishment of the Council as the human rights system’s apex body.

The Council, especially when compared with the former Commission, has managed to shed light on human rights issues that formerly went unnoticed. Nevertheless, the body appears to be continuously criticised: by some for not living up to its normative nature and not providing efficient remedy for human rights violations, and by others for exceeding its responsibilities, interfering in internal affairs and, allegedly, violating the demand for ‘genuine dialogue’.

In its efforts to be fair to everyone, find compromise and seek consensus, the Council is, however, being increasingly suffocated by its own aspirations. The number of resolutions continues to escalate, ‘informal’ negotiations are becoming ever more numerous and ‘side-events’ continue to mushroom. With regard to the latter, this risks creating higher aspirations and greater expectations without proposing workable solutions.

We are well aware of the challenges facing the Council eight years after its creation, especially with regard to its methods of work. The Universal Rights Group (URG) has taken up the challenge of tackling those challenges one-by-one. Turkey and Norway have also taken it up by introducing a first cross-regional statement during the 25th session of the Council. This is an important first step, which must – despite significant and recognizable resistance – be further and vigorously pursued.

Furthermore, we are all obliged to take our commitments seriously and act accordingly. This implies a responsibility to not merely address symptoms but rather to tackle underlying root causes. I would draw attention to five such ‘systemic’ issues, in particular.

First, as stated in the Charter of the United Nations, human rights, along with peace and security and development, form the three pillars of the United Nations. One may follow from this triad that human rights should receive the same financial support from the UN budget, or at least similar amounts than the other two well-established pillars. Otherwise, the implementation of human rights norms, the Council’s work and the work of the Office of the High Commissioner will be increasingly dependent on voluntary contributions. To resolve this problem, the 5th Committee in New York must, sooner rather than later, broach this question in-line with political demands and requests made by the same member states in Geneva.

Second, Resolution 60/251 states very clearly the qualifications that must be met by candidates aspiring to a seat, and thus voting rights, on the 47-member Council: members must uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights, and make a strong contribution to human rights worldwide. While I am aware of the difference between ‘realpolitik’ and ‘wishful thinking’, I nonetheless believe that each UN member state that decides to put forward its candidature and each delegation that votes in the elections at the General Assembly, should be mindful of these conditions, which were set and agreed unanimously upon in 2006.

Third, one of the great achievements of 60/251 is that it allowed civil society to finally take a place at the table and to engage actively in discussions with states about the promotion and protection of human rights. No state, including my own, enjoys being criticised, attacked or called upon by representatives of civil society to better fulfil their duties. Nevertheless, it remains a superior expression of state sovereignty to face such criticism openly and constructively and to provide factual responses. In this context, the discussion and subsequent vote on procedural issues surrounding the adoption of the UPR report of China remain a low point for the culture of dialogue at the Council.

Fourth, the Treaty Bodies should be provided with the basic means with which to carry out their vital work and to fulfil the mandates that we, the states, have given them. Over recent years, we, the states, have inflated the system, agreeing new treaties, establishing new processes and imposing new tasks. This has, inter alia, created a significant backlog of work, and has also put at risk the credibility and momentum of this ‘engine room’ of the human rights architecture. Against this background, General Assembly resolution 68/268, adopted in April, represents a reasonable conclusion to the much-needed Treaty Body reform process. Instead of discussing this resolution further, we should now focus our energy on implementing it quickly and efficiently.

And fifth, last month, the number of active Special Procedure mandates reached fifty for the first time in the history of the UN. There are now 50 active mandates and 74 mandate-holders. URG recently published a comprehensive report entitled ‘Special Procedures: Determinants of Influence’. Have we, the member states, ever developed a coherent concept or even thought about what functions and qualifications are necessary to fulfil the role of a UN ‘independent expert’? Should we not admit that only leading up to the 25th session of the Council did the Consultative Group finally fulfil the task it was set up to do — an intensive screening of all applicants for such positions? The URG report provides sensible recommendations – it is up to the member states to incorporate these and, where appropriate, to implement them.

In conclusion, I would say only this: if we take our work seriously, we should implement what has been unanimously adopted by all member states. The new High Commissioner for Human Rights, who will take up his duties in September, is an experienced and highly respected diplomat. Again and again, he will remind us of those essential issues and ask us to address them courageously – as did his predecessor to whom we will soon say goodbye and to whom we extend our heartfelt thanks.