United Nations Human Rights Council

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Image:United Nations Human Rights Council logo.png
The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

The United Nations Human Rights Council is an international body within the United Nations System. Its stated purpose is to address human rights violations. The Council is the successor to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, which was often criticised for the high-profile positions it gave to member states that did not guarantee the human rights of their own citizens.[1]

The United Nations General Assembly established the Human Rights Council on 15 March 2006.[2] by a vote which was opposed only by United States, Marshall Islands and Palau (bound to the United States through Compacts of Free Association), and Israel.[3] The United States explained its vote was due to there being not enough safeguards to keep human rights abusing nations off the council. Venezuela expressed serious objections to the certain paragraphs which it believed implicitly makes it possible to find pretexts to intervene in the internal affairs of States[4] and abstained.

Contents

[edit] Council structure

The 47-seat Human Rights Council replaced the former 53-member Commission on Human Rights. The Commission was an independent body, but the Council has been elevated to the status of a subsidiary body of the General Assembly. The 47 seats in the Council are distributed among the UN's regional groups as follows: 13 for Africa, 13 for Asia, 6 for Eastern Europe, 8 for Latin America and the Caribbean, and 7 for the Western European and Others Group.

In an attempt to remedy problems of the former Commission, which was criticised among other actions for the election of Libya to its chairmanship in 2003, the resolution establishing the Council specified that "members elected to the Council shall uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights" and will be subject to periodic review. Each member nation of the Council must be approved individually and directly by a majority (96 of 191) of the members of the General Assembly, in a secret ballot (in contrast to the former Commission, voting for which took place within ECOSOC). Council membership is limited to two consecutive terms, and any Council member may be suspended by a two-thirds vote of the Assembly. The Commission concluded its work on 16 June 2006, making way for the first meeting of the Council which was held on 19 to 30 June 2006.

[edit] Members

Members of the Council are elected to staggered three-year terms. The first election of members was held on 9 May 2006.[5] The successful candidates were (year that the mandate expires is listed in parathesis):

African States Asian States Eastern European States Latin American & Caribbean States Western European & Other States
Angola (2010) Bangladesh (2009) Azerbaijan (2009) Argentina (2007) Canada (2009)
Cameroon (2009) China (2009) Bosnia and Herzegovina (2007) Brazil (2008) Finland (2007)
Djibouti (2009) India (2007) Romania (2008) Cuba (2009) France (2008)
Egypt (2010) Indonesia (2007) Russian Federation (2009) Ecuador (2007) Germany (2009)
Gabon (2008) Japan (2008) Slovenia (2010) Guatemala (2008) Netherlands (2007)
Ghana (2008) Jordan (2009) Ukraine (2008) Mexico (2009) Switzerland (2009)
Madagascar (2010) Malaysia (2009) Peru (2008) United Kingdom (2008)
Mali (2008) Pakistan (2008) Uruguay (2009)
Mauritius (2009) Philippines (2007)
Nigeria (2009) Qatar (2010)
Senegal (2009) South Korea (2008)
South Africa (2010) Saudi Arabia (2009)
Zambia (2008) Sri Lanka (2008)

2007 Group[6]

2008 Group[7]

2009 Group[8]

Their terms of office began on 19 June 2006. On 19 May it was announced that Mexico would serve as the Council's chair during its first year of existence.

The next group of states, to replace the "2007 Group", was duly elected by the General Assembly on 17 May 2007.

2010 Group[9][10]

[edit] Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights

The Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights was the main subsidiary body of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. The Human Rights Council extended its for one year until June 2007. It was composed of 26 elected human rights experts whose mandate was to conduct studies on discriminatory practices and make recommendations to ensure that racial, national, religious and linguistic minorities are protected by law.

The Human Rights Council assumed responsibility for the Sub-Commission when it replaced the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 2006. On 30 June 2006 the Council resolved to extend the Sub-Commission's mandate on an exceptional one-year basis and subject to the Council's subsequent review. The Sub-Commission met for the final time in August 2006; among the recommendations it adopted at that session was one for the creation of a Human Rights Consultative Committee as a standing body to assist the Human Rights Council.

The 26 members of the Sub-Commission divided their work between eight Working Groups which examined the following issues:

  • Working Group on Administration of Justice
  • Working Group on Communication
  • Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery
  • Working Group on Indigenous Populations
  • Working Group on Minorities
  • The Social Forum
  • Working Group on Transnational Corporations
  • Working Group on Terrorism

In September 2007 the Human Rights Council decided to create a new Advisory Committee to provide the Council with expert advice.

[edit] Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council

Main article: United Nations Special Rapporteur

"Special procedures" is the name given to the mechanisms established by the former United Nations Commission on Human Rights and continued by the Human Rights Council to monitor human rights violations in specific countries or examine global human rights issues. Special procedures can be either individuals (called "Special Rapporteurs", "Special Representatives" or "Independent Experts") who are leading experts in a particular area of human rights, or working groups usually composed of five members. In order to preserve their independence they do not receive pay for their work.

Various activities can be undertaken by special procedures, including responding to individual complaints, conducting studies, providing advice on technical cooperation, and engaging in promotional activities. The special mechanisms are categorised according to thematic mandates and country mandates. Currently, there are 29 thematic and 13 country mandates under special procedures.[11] The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights provides staffing and logistical support to aid each mandate-holder in carrying out their work.

During its first session (19-30 June 2006), the Human Rights Council decided to extend the special procedures mandates for one year, subject to further review. An intergovernmental working group has been established to assess the mandates and make recommendations for improving their effectiveness.

Special procedures also include Working Groups made up of legal experts who monitor and investigate specific human rights concerns. There are currently four such groups:

  • Working Group on people of African descent
  • Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
  • Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances
  • Working Group on the use of mercenaries to impede the right of peoples to self-determination

[edit] Position of the United States

U.S. President George W. Bush declared that the United States would not seek a seat on the Council, saying it would be more effective from the outside. He did pledge, however, to support the Council financially. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said, "We will work closely with partners in the international community to encourage the council to address serious cases of human rights abuse in countries such as Iran, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Burma, Sudan, and North Korea."

A spokesman for Kofi Annan expressed the Secretary-General's disappointment that the United States had decided not to run for the Council, but he said that Annan hoped that the United States would reconsider in 2007.

U.S. Ambassador John R. Bolton rejected a reporter's question which asked him if the United States thought that, after the alleged abuses in the Abu Ghraib prison and at Guantánamo Bay, the United States would be unable to muster the 96 votes from the General Assembly necessary to gain a seat.[citation needed]

The U.S. State Department said on 5 March 2007 that, for the second year in a row, the United States has decided not to seek a seat on the Human Rights Council, asserting the body had lost its credibility with repeated attacks on Israel and a failure to confront other rights abusers.[12] Spokesman Sean McCormack said the council has had a “singular focus” on Israel, while countries such as Cuba, Myanmar and North Korea have been spared scrutiny. He said that though the United States will have only an observer role, it will continue to shine a spotlight on human rights issues. The most senior Republican member of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, supported the administration decision. “Rather than standing as a strong defender of fundamental human rights, the Human Rights Council has faltered as a weak voice subject to gross political manipulation,” she said.

Upon passage of UNHRC's June 2007 institution building package, the U.S. restated its condemnation of bias in the institution's agenda. Spokesman Sean McCormack again criticised the Commission for focusing on Israel in light of many more pressing human rights issues around the world, such as Sudan or Myanmar, and went on to criticise the termination of Special Rapporteurs to Cuba and Belarus, as well as procedural irregularities that prevented member-states from voting on the issues; a similar critique was issued by the Canadian representative.[13]

The United states joined with Australia, Canada, Israel, and three other countries in opposing the UNHRC's draft resolution on working rules citing continuing misplaced focus on Israel at the expense of action against countries with poor human-rights' records. The resolution passed 154-7 in a rare vote forced by Israel including the support of France, the United Kingdom, and China, although it is usually approved through consensus. United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, spoke about the "council's relentless focus during the year on a single country - Israel," contrasting that with failure "to address serious human rights violations taking place in other countries such as Zimbabwe, DPRK (North Korea), Iran, Belarus and Cuba." Khalilzad said that aside from condemnation of the crackdown of the Burmese anti-government protests, the council's past year was "very bad" and it "had failed to fulfill our hopes."[14]

[edit] Council's position on Israel

The new UN Human Rights Council has specifically condemned only one country, Israel. Meanwhile, in the cases of other countries with severe human rights abuses documented by the Council's own work groups, such as Sudan, it has only expressed "deep concern."[15] It voted on 30 June 2006 to make a review of alleged human rights abuses by Israel a permanent feature of every council session. The Council’s special rapporteur on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is its only expert mandate with no year of expiry. The resolution, which was sponsored by Organization of the Islamic Conference, passed by a vote of 29 to 12 with five abstentions. By April 2007, the Council had passed nine resolutions condemning Israel, and none condemning any other country.[15] More resolutions targeting Israel have been proposed for upcoming sessions. Israel, the United States and some human rights groups raised concerns about this revival of a practice of the UN's discredited former Commission on Human Rights.[16]

At its Second Special Session in August 2006, the Council announced the establishment of a High-Level Commission of Inquiry charged with probing allegations that Israel systematically targeted and killed Lebanese civilians during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.[17] The resolution was passed by a vote of 27 in favour to 11 against, with 8 abstentions. Before and after the vote several member states and NGOs objected that by targeting the resolution solely at Israel and failing to address Hezbollah attacks on Israeli civilians, the Council risked damaging its credibility. The members of the Commission of Inquiry, as announced on 1 September 2006, are Clemente Baena Soares of Brazil, Mohamed Chande Othman of Tanzania, and Stelios Perrakis of Greece. The Commission noted that its report on the conflict would be incomplete without fully investigating both sides, but that "the Commission is not entitled, even if it had wished, to construe [its charter] as equally authorizing the investigation of the actions by Hezbollah in Israel,"[18] as the Council had explicitly prohibited it from investigating the actions of Hezbollah.

On 29 November 2006, Secretary-General Kofi Annan criticised the Human Rights Council for "disproportionate focus on violations by Israel" while neglecting other parts of the world such as Darfur, which had what he termed "graver" crises.[19][20] Annan reiterated this position in his formal address on 8 December 2006 (International Human Rights Day), noting the Commission's "disproportionate focus on violations by Israel. Not that Israel should be given a free pass. Absolutely not. But the Council should give the same attention to grave violations committed by other states as well."[21]

On 20 June 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon joined Western nations in criticising the world body's own Human Rights Council for picking on Israel as part of an agreement on its working rules. The European Union, Canada and the United States had already attacked the singling-out of Israel's role in the Palestinian territories for continued special investigation, under the deal reached in Geneva two days earlier. A UN statement said, "The Secretary-General is disappointed at the council's decision to single out only one specific regional item given the range and scope of allegations of human rights violations throughout the world."

The Geneva meeting aroused further controversy after Cuba and Belarus, both accused of abuses, were removed from a list of nine special mandates, which included North Korea, Cambodia and Sudan, carried forward from the defunct Commission.

The Council's charter preserves the watchdog's right to appoint special investigators for countries whose human rights records are of particular concern, something many developing states have long opposed. Commenting on Cuba and Belarus, the UN statement said Ban noted "that not having a Special Rapporteur assigned to a particular country does not absolve that country from its obligations under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights." The United States said a day before the UN statement that the Council deal raised serious questions about whether the new body could be unbiased. Alejandro Wolff, deputy US permanent representative at the United Nations, accused the council of "a pathological obsession with Israel" and also denounced its action on Cuba and Belarus. "I think the record is starting to speak for itself," he told journalists.[5][6]

Addressing the United Nations General Assembly on 25 September 2007, U.S. President George W. Bush highlighted points such as "dictatorship... [in] Belarus, North Korea, Syria, and Iran, brutal regimes deny their people the fundamental rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration," "the situation in Burma, where a military junta has imposed a 19-year reign of fear. Basic freedoms of speech, assembly, and worship are severely restricted. Ethnic minorities are persecuted. Forced child labor, human trafficking, and rape are common. ... In Cuba, the long rule of a cruel dictator is nearing its end. ... In Zimbabwe, ordinary citizens suffer under a tyrannical regime. ... In Sudan, innocent civilians are suffering repression – and in the Darfur region, many are losing their lives to genocide."

The president added: "The goals I've outlined today cannot be achieved overnight – and they cannot be achieved without reform in this vital institution. The United States is committed to a strong and vibrant United Nations. Yet the American people are disappointed by the failures of the Human Rights Council. This body has been silent on repression by regimes from Havana to Caracas to Pyongyang and Tehran – while focusing its criticism excessively on Israel. To be credible on human rights in the world, the United Nations must reform its own Human Rights Council."[7]

Surprisingly, the UNHRC President himself, Doru Costea, recognized the existence of an anti-Israel bias: "I agree with him (G.W. Bush). The functioning of the Council must be constantly improved," Costea told Le Temps on Saturday. He added that the Council must examine the behaviour of all parties involved in complex disputes and not place just one state under the magnifying glass. [22]. This mea culpa is, however, contradicted by accusations of personal interference by Costea. Canadian officials focused on how the council chair used "procedural manoeuvering" last June to sideline Canadian delegates as they sought to call a vote at that time on the package. "We categorically reject the manner in which the ... package was pushed through at the council," said Henri-Paul Normandin, who is Canada's deputy representative at the UN. "Canada was denied its sovereign right to call a vote" [23] .

[edit] Resolution concerning religion

The Council has sparked concern from free speech and human rights groups over a proposed resolution, introduced by Pakistan, that would prevent "defamation of religions."[15] Human Rights Watch noted that passing a resolution concerned with religion, rather than individual freedoms, could result in a mandate to stifle freedom of expression and thought in countries around the world. Freedom House said that the resolution went against what the Human Rights Council should stand for, protecting human rights and freedom of speech, calling it “a perversion of the language and institutions hitherto used to protect human rights”. The resolution itself at first calls for freedom of religion, but then goes on to say that people must speak “with responsibility”, and freedoms of speech may be limited in areas regarding “public health and morals” or “respect for religions and beliefs”.[15] Of the Council's members from the Organization of the Islamic Conference, 16 of 17 voted for the resolution, along with China, Russia, and South Africa. The 14 members that voted against included all of the European Union, Japan, Ukraine and South Korea. Nine developing countries abstained from the vote.[15]

[edit] Periodic reviews of member states

A key component of the Council consists in a periodic review of all 192 UN member states, called Universal Periodic Review (UPR).[24]

The new mechanism will be based on reports coming from different sources, one of them being based on contributions from NGOs. Each country's situation will be examined during a three hours debate.[25], [26]

First session (7–18 April 2008): Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, South Africa, Bahrain, Indonesia, India, Philippines, Ecuador, Brazil, Argentina, Finland, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Poland, Czech Republic.

Second session (5–16 May 2008): Gabon, Ghana, Peru, Guatemala, Benin, Republic of Korea, Switzerland, Pakistan, Zambia, Japan, Ukraine, Sri Lanka, France, Tonga, Romania, and Mali.

Third session (1–12 December 2008): Botswana, Bahamas, Burundi, Luxembourg, Barbados, Montenegro, United Arab Emirates, Israel, Liechtenstein, Serbia, Turkmenistan, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Colombia, Uzbekistan, and Tuvalu.

The remainder of the first 192 reviews will take until 2011.

[edit] References

  1. ^ "The Shame of the United Nations", New York Times, 2006-02-26. Retrieved on 2006-08-15. 
  2. ^ United Nations General Assembly Resolution 251 session 60 on 15 March 2006 (retrieved 2007-09-19)
  3. ^ United Nations General Assembly Verbotim Report meeting 72 session 60 page 5 on 15 March 2006 at 11:00 (retrieved 2007-09-19)
  4. ^ United Nations General Assembly Verbotim Report meeting 72 session 60 page 5, Mr. Toro Jiménez Venezuela on 15 March 2006 at 11:00 (retrieved 2007-09-19)
  5. ^ http://www.un.org/ga/60/elect/hrc/
  6. ^ http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/year.htm
  7. ^ http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/year.htm
  8. ^ http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/year.htm
  9. ^ http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/year.htm
  10. ^ http://www.un.org/ga/61/elect/hrc/
  11. ^ http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/chr/special/docs/13threport.AEV.pdf
  12. ^ [1]
  13. ^ Staff, Tovah Lazaroff & AP. "US slams UNHRC's singling out of Israel", The Jerusalem Post, 20 June 2007. 
  14. ^ Associated Press. "US attacks UN Human Rights Council", The Jerusalem Post, November 17, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-11-18. 
  15. ^ a b c d e "Bad counsel", The Economist, 2007-04-04. Retrieved on 2006-08-16. 
  16. ^ http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/06/30/global13685.htm
  17. ^ http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/2/index.htm
  18. ^ Human Rights Council, United Nations (2006). Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Lebanon pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution S-2/1*.
  19. ^ [2]
  20. ^ [3]
  21. ^ [4]
  22. ^ Human Rights Council president wants reform, September 29, 2007, www.swissinfo.org
  23. ^ Controversial changes to UN rights body passes, by Steven Edwards, CanWest News ServicePublished: November 16, 2007, National Post
  24. ^ List of countries on UN Human rights council Webpage
  25. ^ Main points : Universal periodic review launched, retrieved on nov 1st 2007
  26. ^ More details on  : Information note for NGOs regarding the Universal Periodic Review mechanism (as of 16 October 2007) , retrieved on nov 1st 2007

[edit] External links

Image:Wikinews-logo.svg
Wikinews has related news:
United Nations General Assembly votes to establish UN Human Rights Council
v • d • e
Image:Flag of the United Nations.svg United Nations (UN)
HistoryUnited Nations CharterImage:Flag of the United Nations.svg
MembershipMember states · Observers
UN SystemGeneral Assembly · Security Council · Economic and Social Council · Secretariat · Trusteeship Council · International Court of Justice
Programs,
funds and agencies		FAO · ICAO · ILO · IPCC · ITU · UNCTAD · UNDCP · UNDP · UNEP · UNESCO  · UNFIP  · UNFPA · UNHCR · UNHRC · UN-HABITAT · UNICEF · UNRWA · UPU · WFP · WHO · WMO
ResolutionsGeneral Assembly · Security Council
ca:Consell de Drets Humans de les Nacions Unides

de:UN-Menschenrechtsrat es:Consejo de Derechos Humanos de las Naciones Unidas fr:Conseil des droits de l'homme de l'ONU id:Dewan Hak Asasi Manusia PBB it:Consiglio per i Diritti Umani delle Nazioni Unite he:מועצת האומות המאוחדות לזכויות אדם ms:Majlis Hak Asasi Manusia Pertubuhan Bangsa-bangsa Bersatu nl:Mensenrechtenraad van de Verenigde Naties ja:国際連合人権理事会 no:FNs menneskerettighetsråd pt:Conselho dos Direitos Humanos fi:Yhdistyneiden kansakuntien ihmisoikeusneuvosto sv:FN:s råd för mänskliga rättigheter ta:மனித உரிமைகளுக்கான ஐக்கிய நாடுகள் அமைப்பு th:คณะมนตรีสิทธิมนุษยชนแห่งสหประชาชาติ vi:Hội đồng Nhân quyền Liên Hiệp Quốc zh:联合国人权理事会

Retrieved from "http://india.smashits.com/wikipedia/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council"
Views
Personal tools

Toolbox