FX 20 – Taking concrete steps to improve the efficiency – and thus inclusivity and effectiveness – of the Human Rights Council

Rationalisation and efficiency have been discussed and debated many times by Council delegations and in various formats. Some of the ideas from those discussions (e.g., biennialising resolutions, reducing the duration of panel discussions, reducing speaking times) have been implemented, oftentimes with positive (if at times short-lived) benefits for the efficient work of the Council. Notwithstanding, it is likely that the Council has reached the limits of what these ‘tweaks’ to the Council’s methods of work can achieve.

Going forward, if States agree that if there is a continued need to rationalise and improve the Council’s methods of work and mandates, and make the body yet more efficient (and thereby effective), delegations will need to either:

• Look again at more ‘structural’ reforms (within/consistent with the IBP) such as moving UPR adoptions out of regular Council sessions, or ‘staggering’ or ‘sharing’ the consideration of agenda items over the three annual sessions.
• Take responsibility themselves by lowering the number of resolutions, thereby lowering the number of interactive dialogues, reports, panels, intersessional meetings, etc., and/or agree to give meaningful consideration to the rationalisation of Special Procedures mandates. Without such individual national restraint (and, related to this, greater trust and cooperation between delegations) it will remain difficult for any President to ensure the efficiency and ultimately the functionality of the Council.

Fortunately, thanks to the many discussions had over the past ten years regarding efficiency, improvement and rationalisation, there are already many ideas out there in terms of steps that States might take (across both the above areas). Many of those ideas could, and perhaps should, be revisited.

Against this background, the dialogue will consider the following questions:

1. Is there a pressing need to improve efficiency and rationalise the Council’s work and mandates?
2. What can we learn from the efficiency initiatives undertaken to-date? What works, and what does not?
3. Is there political will to look again at more structural reforms such as staggering agenda items over the course of an annual programme of work, clustering general debates, or moving UPR adoptions out of regular Council plenary sessions?
4. Is there political will amongst States to take responsibility themselves by rationalising initiatives/resolutions, showing restraint in requesting more panel debates or reports, and/or giving renewed attention to the review, rationalisation, and improvement of Special Procedures mandates (for example, by merging overlapping mandates)?
5. What are the main obstacles to generating this political will?