Human Rights Council
AHMED UZAIR
Human rights are dependent on the socio-economic and political environment prevalent in a country. Historically speaking, the response to human rights has been reactive rather than proactive. All human rights instruments to date have come about as a result of human rights violations, be it the Magna Carta or the more contemporary “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”(UDHR). UNCHR, the earlier UN organ responsible for UNÂ’s human rights activities, had a broad mandate of promotion and protection of all human rights, be they civil, political, economic, social or cultural. However, the UNCHR proved to be inadequate due to the lack of a structural base and also because of the scarcity of resources.
Later, in the “Millennium Declaration”, broad outlines were drawn regarding the change in the UN’s Human Rights agenda. The changes included technical assistance and support for national human rights institutions with emphasis on their capacity building, crisis response and conflict prevention. A global programme designed to equip UN “inter-agency country teams” to work with member states to improve their human rights promotion and protection systems was also formulated. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan noted the system’s inability to cope with the changed agenda. In his statement to the General Assembly in March 2005, he recommended the creation of a Human Rights Council (hereinafter: “HRC”).
The HRC which came into existence by a General Assembly resolution on 15th March 2006 consists of 47 members. As a subsidiary of the General Assembly, it has a higher institutional standing compared to its predecessor. The resolution stipulates that each member state is to be elected by a secret ballot in the General Assembly. Moreover, each member state needs to obtain absolute majority in the General Assembly in order to get elected. This would make it possible for countries to block individual states with bad human rights record.
The resolution requires the Council to periodically assess the human rights record of all member countries, starting with the countries represented in the HRC. This is called the “universal and periodic review” mechanism. Another important aspect of the resolution is that it promotes and appreciates NGOs for their efforts in relation to human rights.
The most contentious issue for HRC is the lack of enforcement mechanism, a problem that plagued its predecessor as well. This was one of the reasons why the US was initially against the creation of HRC. Change in attitude will only be achieved when a sense of responsibility is developed among member states
At the end of its first session, in June 2006, HRC decided to meet again for a special session and consider the report by a fact-finding mission on violations of human rights in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories. This mission is to be headed by Mr John Dugard. Mr Dugard and his predecessors have been denied access to the Palestinian area by Israel in the past. Whether Israel allows this mission to carry out its task, is still to be seen. Nevertheless, it is a bold step for the Council to take in its very first session. Some human rights activists have raised concerns that the Council may fall victim to a confrontation similar to the one that dampened the progress of its predecessor.
It should be acknowledged that the change is slow. It will take time before the credibility of the Council is firmly established, where after it could be expected that the Council moves at a more rapid pace for the realisation of the objectives set out in its resolution. The writer is a Research Associate at the Research Society of International Law (RSIL) Pakistan. E-mail: [email protected]
Source: The Nation
Date:8/4/2006
” 
” 
” 
” 
” 
