Susi Snyder, WILPF – susi.snyder@wilpf.ch.
behalf of an organization. Though ECOSOC UN
indicate if the organization is a UN NGO.
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 eagerness 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)
Organisation (AAPSO)
================================================================
To
leave the list, send your request by email to:
wunrn_listserve-request@lists.wunrn.com. Thank you.
Categories: Releases