The UN Human Rights Council

Last spring, I attended the Ralph Bunch Institute for International Studies Spring 2010 Forum series. As part of this, I had the opportunity to hear Roland Paris talking about "The Future of Liberal Peace-building." It was exciting because I almost undertook a PhD at Trinity University using his research as my basis for further study in Conflict Resolution. Therefore, I had done a lot of reading of his theories and texts --so it was interesting to see how they had evolved...

However, much more interestingly was the discussion on the UN Human Rights Council that was held on the 13th of April 2010. The speakers Peggy Hicks (Human Rights Watch) and Yvonne Terlingen (Amnesty International) provided a non academic practical explanation of the Human Rights Council that came in very helpful to me since then.

Yvonne Terlingen, spoke about the 2011 review of the Human Rights Council's methods and procedures in Geneva. She discussed that one would be held before the 15th of March-a review of status by General Assembly. She expressed her personal opinion that she doubted its status would be increased as it would require a statute change.

Then she discussed the Human Rights Commission. She said that they had functioned better than they were given credit for....because it was dealing with country actors and the same problems exist today. She mentioned then continued to discuss the Human Rights Council...

So, to summarise her views:

What is good about the Human Rights Council?

• It sits all year... 
• Periodic Universal Review (1st time a mechanism addresses all countries and dedicates 3 hours of the Human Rights Council to a State actor). This review consists of three reports....own assessment (by country), external and what NGOs said. This system is allowing Civil Society for the first time to create a human rights database for civil society activists. 
• Every country has to be before the council... 
• All countries have a voice...for example : Haiti asked France about its domestic violence statistics. 
• New Approaches 
• Not exclusive club. 
• Mandate is fine...problem is with implementation 
• Furthermore, fact finding missions get both sides. e.g Goldstein report on Hamas and Israel. 

She discussed the potential of the role of the Human Rights Council President:

Potential 

• Double standards --Countries that should be on the agenda (Sri Lanka as levels of Human Rights Violations are high)..but Pakistan supplies arms and China friends etc. 
• Negative World Culture... very confrontational approach. The North / South Divide creates political deficit that needs to be addressed. 

The Councils Negatives according to Yvonne Terlingen were:

• Attacks on strong rapporteurs simply because they are strong (e.g by Spain) 
• Election tendency toward clean slates by countries who claim 
• Failure of human rights leadership (considering that they are the most important body in the UN of Human Rights 

She then discussed functions of special procedures

• Functions of early warning system (e.g Olsen in the DRC)-- disconnect of information and special procedures is a challenge. 
• Can take action. **PROBLEM.--no penalties for not responding to special rapporteur. 
• Urgent Appeals: Statistics being released on response to special rapporteur. 

After mentioning the criteria for membership, the existing flaws ...she then moved on to her suggested improvements:

-Cross regional initiatives

-Taking early warning seriously


-Special Procedures

-Have very little funding

-Get rid of clean slates

-Sanctions to be taken into account

- Human Rights Council member states should have a increase responsibility to ensure their own Human Rights.


Well, that is a summary of my notes and my memories...I hope it is a little interesting? If you want to read more...you can read my earlier blog on this event about Peggy Hicks perspective http://sabotageadventure.blogspot.com/2010/04/un-human-rights-council.html