|
|
|
|
 The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) is an inter-governmental body within the United Nations System. The UNHRC is the successor to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (CHR), and is a subsidiary body of the United Nations General Assembly. Based in Geneva, the UNHRC's main purpose is to make recommendations to the General Assembly about situations in which human rights are violated.[1] The UNHRC has no authority except to make recommendations to the General Assembly. The General Assembly has no authority except to advise the Security Council. The General Assembly established the UNHRC by adopting a resolution (A/RES/60/251) on 15 March 2006. The United States, the Marshall Islands, Palau, and Israel voted against the resolution. The United States said the UNHRC did not have adequate provision to keep states which abused human rights from being on the Council. Belarus, Iran, and Venezuela abstained from voting. Venezuela said that the resolution had some troubling provisions, including the implicit permission to states to intervene in the internal affairs of other states.[2] On 18 June 2007, one year after holding its first meeting, the UNHRC adopted its Institution-building package, which provides elements to guide it in its future work. Among the elements was the Universal Periodic Review. The Review will assess the human rights situations in all 192 UN Member States. Another element is an Advisory Committee, which serves as the UNHRC’s think tank, and provides it with expertise and advice on thematic human rights issues, that is, issues which pertain to all parts of the world. Another element is a Complaints Procedure, which allows individuals and organizations to bring complaints about human rights violations to the attention of the Council. The UNHRC works closely with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and engages the United Nations' Special Procedures.
Council structureThe members of the General Assembly elect the members who occupy the UNHRC's forty-seven seats. The term of each seat is three years, and no member may occupy a seat for more than two consecutive terms. The seats 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. The resolution establishing the UNHRC states that "members elected to the Council shall uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights." The General Assembly may, by a vote of two-thirds of its members, suspend the rights and privileges of a member if that member has persistently committed gross and systematic violations of human rights. MembersMembers of the UNHRC are elected to staggered three-year terms. The first election of members was held on 9 May 2006.[3] The current members, with the year that the mandate expires in parentheses, are the following, re-elected members are in italics:
2007 Group[4]
2008 Group[4]
2009 Group[4]
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 replacement for the "2007 Group", was duly elected by the General Assembly on 17 May 2007, known as the 2010 Group, the year when their terms expire.In this election Angola and Egypt were elected to the council,where as Belarus was rejected.[5]
The replacement for the "2008 Group", was duly elected by the General Assembly on 21 May 2008, known as the 2011 Group, the year when their terms expire. 2011 Group[7]
PresidentsMr. Luis Alfonso de Alba (Mexico) 19 June 2006 to 18 June 2007. Mr. Doru Romulus Costea (Romania) 19 June 2007 to 18 June 2008. Mr. Martin Ihoeghian Uhomoibhi (Nigeria) 19 June 2008 to 18 June 2009. Advisory CommitteeThe 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 mandate 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:
In September 2007 the Human Rights Council decided to create a new Advisory Committee to provide the Council with expert advice. Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council"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.[8] 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:
Controversial country-specific rapporteursThe UN Human Rights Council has been meeting to determine some of the fundamental procedures that will be used by the body in years to come. It is proposed that "country-specific “special procedures”—the special experts, representatives and rapporteurs who investigate human rights abuses in particular countries—be abolished, particularly those assigned to Cuba, Belarus, Burma and North Korea."[9] Another issue being considered is "whether outside experts and nongovernmental organizations will be able to play a key role in the review; currently, documents provided by the state in question appear to comprise the bulk of the evidence used for the review."[9] Special Rapporteur on Freedom of ExpressionA amendment to the duties of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, passed by the Human Rights Council on 28 March 2008, has given rise to sharp criticism from western countries and human rights NGO's. The additional duty is phrased thus:
(quoted from p. 67 in the official draft record[10] of the council). The amendment was proposed by Egypt and Pakistan[11] and passed by 27 votes to 15 against, with three abstentions with the support of other members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, China, Russia and Cuba.[12] As a result of the amendment over 20 of the original 53 co-sponsors of the main resolution - to renew the mandate of the Special Rapporteur - withdrew their support[12], although the resolution was carried by 32 votes to 0, with 15 abstentions[10]. Inter alia the delegates from India and Canada protested that the Special Rapporteur now has as his/her duty to report not only infringements of the rights to freedom of expression, but in some cases also employment of the rights, which "turns the special rapporteur's mandate on its head"[11]. Outside the UN, the amendment was criticised by organizations including Reporters Without Borders, Human Rights Watch[11] and the International Humanist and Ethical Union[12], all of whom share the view that the amendment threatens freedom of expression. In terms of the finally cast votes, this was far from the most controversial of the 36 resolutions adapted by the 7'th session of the Council. The highest dissents concerned combating defamation of religions, with 21 votes for, 10 against, and 14 abstentions (resolution 19, pp. 91-97), and the continued severe condemnation of and appointment of a Special Rapporteur for North Korea, with votes 22-7 and 18 abstentions (resolution 15, pp. 78-80)[13]. There were also varying degrees of dissent for most of the various reports criticising Israel; while on the other hand a large number of resolutions were taken unanimously without voting, including the rather severe criticism of Myanmar (resolutions 31 and 32).[10], and the somewhat less severe on Sudan (resolution 16)[13]. Position of the United StatesIn regard to the United Nations Human Rights Council, the position of the United States is: "human rights have been a cornerstone of American values since the country's birth and the United States is committed to support the work of the UN Commission in promoting the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[14] 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." 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.[15] 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.[16] On September 2007, The US Senate voted to cut off funding to the council [1]. 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."[17] On 6 June 2008, Human Rights Tribune announced that the United States had withdrawn entirely from the UNHRC[18], as its mission to the UNHRC had resigned his observer status. Although the US did not hold a seat on the UNHRC, it had held observer status and been involved in the review of other nations' human rights records. As of June 7th, the US has not formally confirmed or denied this report. Council's position on IsraelThe UN Human Rights Council, like its predecessor the UN Human Rights Commission, has been criticised by mainly Western countries for focusing too much on Israel.[19] By April 2007, the Council had passed nine resolutions condemning Israel, the only country which it had specifically condemned.[20][21] By comparison, toward Sudan, a country with severe human rights abuses in Darfur as documented by the Council's work groups, it has only expressed "deep concern."[20] Other observers disagree with criticism of the UN Human Rights Council. Richard Falk finds the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories to be unprecedented in international experience and has produced immense suffering for Palestinians. He believes that it would not be forgivable if the Human Rights Council overlooked charges of Israeli violation of international humanitarian law. He notes that the HRC has appointed special rapporteurs for other situations, including the DPRK and Myanmar. Falk says that his experience suggests that the Council gives complete freedom to its special rapporteurs to report on a situation and adhere to impartiality. [22] Other observers took the view that the Human Rights Council's has to condemn Israel's violations of international law because the basic mission of the Council is to safeguard human rights. [23] The council voted on 30 June 2006 to make a review of possible 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. Human Rights Watch urged it to look at international human rights and humanitarian law violations committed by Palestinian armed groups as well. Human Rights Watch called on the council to avoid the selectivity that discredited its predecessor and urged it to hold special sessions on other urgent situations, such as Darfur.[24] 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.[25] 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,"[26] as the Council had explicitly prohibited it from investigating the actions of Hezbollah. On 29 November 2006, UN 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.[27][28] 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. 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. 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 European Union, Canada and the United States 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. 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.[29] 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.[30][31] The UNHRC President Doru Costea responded that: "I agree with him. The functioning of the Council must be constantly improved." 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.[32][33]. Speaking at the IDC's Herzliya Conference in Israel in January 2008, Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen criticized the actions of the Human Rights Council actions against Israel. "At the United Nations, censuring Israel has become something of a habit, while Hamas's terror is referred to in coded language or not at all. The Netherlands believes the record should be set straight, both in New York and at the Human Rights Council in Geneva," Verhagen said. As of January 24, 2008, Israel has been condemned 15 times in less than two years since the council was established. Myanmar (formerly Burma), has also been condemned by the council. January 2008 decreeThe council released a statement calling on Israel to stop its military operations in the Gaza Strip and to open the Strip's borders to allow the entry of food, fuel and medicine. The council adopted the resolution by a vote of 30 to 1 that had been tabled by Pakistan and Syria on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Canada cast the lone opposing vote, while a total of 15 other states (7 from the European Union) abstained. "Unfortunately, neither this resolution nor the current session addressed the role of both parties. It was regretful that the current draft resolution did not condemn the rocket attacks on Israeli civilians," said Canada's representative Terry Cormier, the lone voter against. The United States and Israel boycotted the session. US ambassador Warren Tichenor said the Council's unbalanced approach had "squandered its credibility" by failing to address continued rocket attacks against Israel. "Today's actions do nothing to help the Palestinian people, in whose name the supporters of this session claim to act," he said in a statement. "Supporters of a Palestinian state must avoid the kind of inflammatory rhetoric and actions that this session represents, which only stoke tensions and erode the chances for peace," he added.[2] "We believe that this council should deplore the fact that innocent civilians on both sides are suffering," Slovenian Ambassador Andrej Logar said on behalf of the seven EU states on the council. At a press conference in Geneva on Wednesday, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon responded when asked about its special session on Gaza, that "I appreciate that the council is looking in depth into this particular situation. And it is rightly doing so. I would also appreciate it if the council will be looking with the same level of attention and urgency at all other matters around the world. There are still many areas where human rights are abused and not properly protected," he said.[34] Resolutions on defamation of religionsIn 1999, Pakistan brought before the CHR a resolution entitled 'Defamation of Islam'. The purpose of the resolution was to have the Commission condemn what the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) said was a worldwide campaign to defame Islam.[35] Some members of the CHR put forward amendments that called for the protection of all religions. Consequently, the Commission adopted a resolution entitled 'Defamation of Religions'. The resolution expressed "deep concern at negative stereotyping of religions" and concern with the way the communications-media "incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination towards Islam and any other religion."[36] Each year between 1999 and 2006, the CHR approved similar resolutions about protecting religions in general and about protecting Islam in particular.[37] In 2005, the CHR, through the ministration of Yemen, introduced a resolution entitled 'Combating Defamation of Religions' to the General Assembly.[38] The resolution stressed "the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions, Islam and Muslims in particular, especially in human rights forums." The resolution urged states "to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and their value systems and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance." 101 states voted in favour of the resolution. In 2006 and thereafter, the UNHRC approved similar resolutions. In August 2007, the Special Rapporteur to the UNHRC, Doudou Diène, reported to the General Assembly "on the manifestations of defamation of religions and in particular on the serious implications of Islamophobia on the enjoyment of all rights." The Special Rapporteur recommended that the member states promote dialogue between cultures, civilizations, and religions taking into consideration:
On 27 March 2008, the UNHRC requested that the High Commissioner for Human Rights compile a report on "relevant existing legislations and jurisprudence concerning defamation of and contempt for religions."[40] The High Commissioner presented the report on 5 September 2008.[41] On 28 March 2008, the UNHRC asked its Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression to bring to the Council's attention all instances of racism and blasphemy. In the words of the resolution, the Rapporteur was to “report on instances in which the abuse of the right of freedom of expression constitutes an act of racial or religious discrimination ....”[42] At a meeting of the UNHRC on 16 June 2008, David G. Littman, representing the Association of World Education, in a joint statement with the International Humanist and Ethical Union, denounced some practices of Sharia. In particular, Littman said the stoning of women for adultery and the marriage of pre-teen girls were abuses of human rights. The representatives of Islamic countries objected to Littman's remarks. The Egyptian delegate, Amr Roshdy Hassan, said “... Islam will not be crucified in this Council.” The President of the Council, Doru Romulus Costea, said the Council "is not prepared to discuss ... religious matters in depth. Consequently we should not do it." The President ruled, "Declarations must avoid judgments or evaluation about religion. … I promise that next time a speaker judges a religion or a religious law or document, I will interrupt him and pass on to the next speaker."[43] Later, the President said only religious scholars should be allowed to discuss matters of faith.[44] On 19 September 2008, Githu Muigai, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, addressed the Council. He delivered the report prepared by Doudou Diène.[45] The report called on member states to shift the present discussion in international fora from the idea of "defamation of religions" to the legal concept: "incitement to national, racial and religious hatred, hostility or violence," which was grounded on international legal instruments. For more detail about the resolutions of the United Nations on the defamation of religion, see Blasphemy. Bloc votingHuman rights groups say the council is being controlled by some Middle East and African nations, supported by China, Russia and Cuba, which protect each other from criticism. [46] This drew criticism from the UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon at the ineffectiveness of the council, saying it had fallen short of its obligations. He urged countries to 'drop rhetoric' and rise above "partisan posturing and regional divides"[47] and get on with defending people around the world.[46] This follows criticism since the council was set up, where Israel has been condemned on most occasions and other incidences in the world such as Darfur, Tibet, North Korea and Zimbabwe have not been discussed at the council.[46] Ban Ki-Moon also appealed for the United States to fully join the council and play a more active role.[47] Universal Periodic ReviewA key component of the Council consists in a periodic review of all 192 UN member states, called Universal Periodic Review (UPR).[48] 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-hour debate.[49], [50] 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. See also
References
External links
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
