NGO Statement on Human Rights
Reform
Keeping Faith with the Charter
The World Summit of Heads of States and Governments
at the UN General Assembly in September 2005 declared its "resolve
to create a Human Rights Council", to succeed the Commission on
Human Rights. It did not however reach agreement on the mandate, functions,
size, composition, membership, working methods and procedures for the
Council, nor on NGO participation in its work.
The UN Commission on Human Rights has for some time been the target
of an intensive discrediting campaign because of its composition and
its "politicization". Its willingness to deal with hitherto
neglected areas of social and economic rights has also been questioned.
Few, if any, United Nations organs can point to a more successful record
in responding to peoples concerns. By setting international norms –
developing and spearheading declarations, covenants and conventions
- the Commission has provided a basis for promoting and protecting human
rights everywhere. The Commission has established special procedures
and technical services to assist in the implementation by governments
of these norms. This is acknowledged by the vast majority of UN member
states that wish to maintain and further the achievements of the Commission.
Removing the human rights work from the Economic and Social Council
to a Council under the UN General Assembly, that is, separating the
work of the Commission from that of other Commissions under ECOSOC with
close linkages to human rights, requires much thought and must not be
rushed.
As NGOs we have a responsibility to weigh our words carefully when characterising
an institution in which our achievements have played such an important
role, as the Commission on Human Rights has been more open to engagement
from a diverse range of NGOs than any other UN body. Accordingly, this
statement by the undersigned organizations is made in an effort to contribute
to a more balanced and broader dialogue on the matter of human rights
reform and the setting up of a Human Rights Council.
The agreement, in principle, to replace the Commission on Human Rights
with a Human Rights Council is a serious process that should be conducted
carefully, considering every aspect of its implications for the human
rights machinery as a whole and the core principles of the UN Charter.
The decision of the General Assembly was for "open, transparent
and inclusive" negotiations to be completed during the 60th session
of the General Assembly, which ends in September 2006. To allow the
Commission on Human Rights to hold its scheduled 2006 session and complete
its work in dignity will ensure that there is no interruption in the
UN human rights work and allow for a new Council to start its work on
a solid basis.
We strongly believe that more time is needed to engage people and governments
everywhere in a broad and rational democratic dialogue on constructing
a Human Rights Council that genuinely encompasses a strengthening of
the human rights system as a whole and its universality - ensuring equal
consideration of economic and social rights as well as civil and political
rights and promoting the right to development.
It is of fundamental importance that the reform of the UN human rights
machinery is undertaken in the spirit of the Charter, respecting the
equal rights of nations large and small, and without the pressure and
threats of withholding assessed contributions to the UN budget.
While there is room in every institution to improve its work, it is
our view that the erosion of credibility of the Commission on Human
Rights, does not lie primarily in its structure and architecture. It
lies in the absence of will of the parties concerned to work together
to agree on the means for genuine promotion and protection of human
rights.
The Commission on Human Rights located within ECOSOC was an initiative
of NGOs attending the San Francisco Conference. It was inscribed in
the Charter without dissent at the proposal of one of the UN's founding
members. The Commission on Human Rights is the only Commission specifically
mentioned in the Charter as a body that the ECOSOC "shall"
establish. To instruct the ECOSOC no longer to deal with human rights
and abolish the Commission amounts to a Charter amendment, which if
not undertaken formally according to the Charter procedures, would require
almost unanimity in view of the previous understanding of the Law of
the Charter.
Removing human rights from the social and economic development context
of the ECOSOC may include a risk that social and economic rights are
conceptually given less priority as well as marginalising a rights based
approach to development. These matters must be fully considered and
answered in the reform process. Furthermore little attention seems to
have been given to the problem of setting up a Council under the General
Assembly while keeping the Commission on the Status of Women and the
Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in the ECOSOC orbit and thus structurally
isolated from the main human rights body.
Throughout the governmental deliberations there have been overwhelming
majorities for keeping the number of members of the new Human Rights
Council at the same level as that of the Commission on Human Rights.
We have noted that not only developing countries have insisted on this
but also that the European Union in its statement of 11 October accepted
it as one of its preferred options. Keeping the membership at the present
number has won support from a diversity of member states from all regions,
a fact that should not be ignored.
We believe that in order to ensure a broad pluralistic reflection of
all human rights concerns from all regions of the world the present
number of members as a minimum must be preserved. It would be a serious
step backwards if its membership were reduced, accompanied by a preponderance
of major powers in its membership.
While efforts to enhance the quality and credibility of the membership
of the new Council is desirable, utmost care must be taken that no new
double standards are being established and that the election of members
rather than the work of the new Council becomes the focus of public
attention. If an imaginary claim is made for the Council only to be
composed of members with the "highest" human rights standards
few countries would qualify. A radical departure from the principle
of universality applied in all other UN organs would not be to the benefit
of engaging the membership and further empowering the UN to effectively
deal with human rights. In particular, suggestions that election to
the Council be undertaken by two thirds majority may result in an unhealthy
strengthening of geopolitical considerations and time consuming and
costly election campaigns in the General Assembly to the detriment of
small and impoverished countries. Such a provision is not likely to
meet the test of equality among member states. The suggestion to require
more candidates than seats from each regional group however could introduce
a situation of equality among all regions in electing the members of
the Commission. Furthermore, the suggestion to limit membership to two
consecutive terms respects the equality of all member states and offers
the opportunity to broaden participation in the Council.
We wish to stress the need to consider fully the Charter principle of
equal rights for countries, large and small, in the setting up of the
Council. For example, if the Council is established as a standing body,
that meets year round, it may affect the ability of states without permanent
missions in Geneva, in particular the least developed and small island
states, to fully participate. Those concerns must be resolved before
the Council is set up.
The meetings of the Commission on Human Rights and its Sub-Commission
have functioned as unique forums in which the international human rights
community has come together. To preserve this extraordinary characteristic
of the Commission there is a need to maintain a principal major session
of the Council similar to the annual meeting of the Commission. If the
work of the Council is spread out over the year in many sessions the
very crucial aspect of civil society participation is at risk and attendance
at the Council may be reduced. We would also like to stress the importance
of preserving the role and status of the Sub-Commission as an expert
body in the new system.
The treaty bodies have set good examples of a systematic and de-politicized
review of the human rights performance of states. It would be unfortunate
if any new mechanism established were to duplicate, undermine or overshadow
the important role of the treaty bodies. As expert bodies they have
a greater ability to perform their role with credibility. A peer review
system among states raises many questions, including that it may consume
a disproportionate part of the meeting time and resources of the new
Council. In our view the treaty bodies need renewed and strengthened
support. The General Assembly could make an important gesture of support
for the Human Rights Committee by restoring in the UN budget the honorarium
its members are entitled to, as stipulated in the Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights.
Non-governmental organisations need to be assured of a continued and
unreduced role in the new Council through a specific decision by the
General Assembly that the Council will apply the ECOSOC rules for NGO-participation
in its work as if it were a functional commission of ECOSOC.
If reform of the United Nations human rights machinery is to be successful
it must build on a desire to seek agreement in the same spirit that
guided the founders of the United Nations. It must inherit and respect
the comprehensive human rights agenda developed by the Commission on
Human Rights. It must ensure that in practice and at every stage the
Human Rights Council will give fair, equal and energetic attention to
all human rights, social and economic rights, civil and political rights
as well as the right to development.
Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF)
Migrants Rights International
International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations (ISMUN)
Third World Institute - Instituto del Tercer Mundo
Tebtebba - Indigenous Peoples' International Centre for Policy Research
and Education
Indigenous World Association
International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples
Europe-Third World Centre (CETIM)
Afro-Asian Peoples Solidarity Organisation (AAPSO)
Mouvement contre le racisme et pour l'amitié entre les peuples
(MRAP)
International Educational Development
African Society of International and Comparative Law
Interfaith International
African Centre for Democracy and Human Rights Studies (ACDHRS)
African Youth Network for Sustainable Development
To sign on
to this statement- send your name
and organization
(and clearly mark whether you are in ECOSOC consultative status).
