Submitted by crinadmin on
Summary: Document that the IHF has prepared based on
statements made by civil society organisations
in response to both the UN Secretary
General's report In Larger Freedom (March
2005) and UN General Assembly President's
Draft Outcome Document (June 2005).
NGO involvement in the 2005 September Summit
Since the release of the UN Secretary General’s March 2005 report In
Larger Freedom many civil society organizations based in a variety of
countries have been actively responding to the UN reforms proposed in the
report. Civil society organizations have come together in numerous forums
to discuss their views and communicate them to UN Member States. Many
of these organizations were invited to share their positions regarding the
reforms with the UN General Assembly in the so-called “Hearings of the
General Assembly with non-governmental organizations, civil society
organizations and the private sector” (Civil Society Hearings) that took
place on 23-24 June 2005. More than 200 representatives of civil society
gathered to give their input on the reforms to be considered at the
September UN summit.
This document provides a basic overview of civil society positions on a
number of issues concerning the proposal to replace the UN Commission
on Human Rights with a Human Rights Council. The following summaries
are based upon comments made by organizations at the Civil Society
Hearings and in other forums.
General Response to Proposed Reform of the UN Commission on
Human Rights
Much of civil society favors a reform of the current UN Commission on
Human Rights. As Pera Wells, a rapporteur at the Civil Society Hearings,
summarized, there is “broadly based (but not unanimous) support for a
Human Rights Council.” Some organizations are in favor of the reform
proposals as they currently stand, such as the Save the Children Alliance,
which has indicated that the new council “as envisioned” would be a more
effective and efficient body than the current Commission. Human Rights
Watch also endorses the reform, indicating that “[r]eplacing the discredited
United Nations Commission on Human Rights with a standing Human Rights
Council would be a major step forward for the protection of human rights
worldwide.” The Copenhagen NGO-Conference involving civil society
participants from 37 countries, which took place on 8-10 June 2005, “fully
endorse[d] elevating the Commission on Human Rights to the level of a
Council on Human Rights.”
While agreeing upon the need for reform, many organizations have praised
particular aspects of the present Commission such as the system of Special
Procedures and NGO participation and stressed the importance of not
allowing the more effective features of the Commission to be undermined
by the creation of the new Council. Organizations have expressed concern
that the new Council would dedicate less energy than the current
Commission towards issues like women’s rights and socio-economic rights.
Global Rights Partners for Justice has stated for example, that the
Commission “has significantly expanded human rights protections in the
areas of gender equality, racial equality and the rights of indigenous
persons” and “ these hard-won successes should not be lost in the rush to
reform.”
Several organizations hold that the problems with the current commission
stem not so much from its structure but from the actions of Member States.
Numerous groups doubt that structural reforms of the human rights body
will necessarily remedy its problems of politicization and selectivity. The
International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) has stated for
example, “the success of the reform will depend primarily on the political
will of States to show their commitment and submit to the protection
mandate of the Commission / Council.” The Women’s International League
for Peace and Freedom has similarly stated, “the erosion of credibility of
the Commission on Human Rights lies in the absence of political will of the
Member States to integrate a human rights framework into national level
legislation and law, not in the structure and architecture of the
institution.” United Nations Watch summed up these sentiments by
cautioning, “the great danger is that we will empower a body without first
curing the underlying problem, being composition.”
Many organizations have voiced the opinion that indeed the current
Commission on Human Rights could be improved upon and communicated
appreciation for the UN initiative to make changes but hesitated to fully
endorse the formation of a new body due to a current “lack of concrete
details” in the reform proposals.
Others have been overall enthusiastic about the prospect of a new Human
Rights Council but have particularized doubts and recommendations on
select issues within the reform, such as the World Forum of Civil Society
Networks, which stated in a June 2005 position paper, that “even though
the creation of a Human Rights Council should be welcome, in that it raises
the importance of human rights, conceptually clarifies the overall structure
of the UN and is capable of giving new impetus to the existing Commission,
there are a number of aspects to bear in mind.” Some of the aspects that
various organizations found problematic are generally outlined below.
Status
Numerous organizations prefer that the Council be established as a
charter body rather than as a subsidiary organ of the General Assembly.
Youth With a Mission has taken this position because a charter body
would “mainstream human rights throughout the organization and… put
human rights on par with security and development.”
Some organizations are worried that making the new body a subsidiary
organ of the General Assembly would limit civil society’s interaction with the
body. The Congregations of St. Joseph have articulated this concern,
explaining that because NGOS are “restricted from active participation in
the General Assembly in any other capacity…the creation of a Human
Rights Council as a subsidiary of the General Assembly [c]ould hinder the
essential role of NGOs in their vital work concerning Human Rights.”
On the other hand, the Ecological Youth of Angola has taken the position
that the council be a “subsidiary body of the General Assembly aimed at
enhancing its work”…because creating a new principal organ “may provoke
some functional issues with the Security Council.” The organization
advises Member States to make careful assessments of the ramifications of
creating a new body before opting to do so.
Size
For a variety of reasons, much of civil society has rejected the Secretary
General’s initial suggestion that the new human rights body be smaller
than the existing body. For instance, the American Association of Jurists
has expressed misgivings that a smaller body would be more susceptible
to pressure from individual states and Global Rights Partners for Justice
has communicated the hope that the new body would “be large enough to
avoid being dismissed as elite and non-representative.” Civil society has
for the most part indicated a preference that the body remain comparable
in size to the current body to ensure a sufficiently diverse representation.
Sessions
Many organizations agree with the Secretary General’s proposal that the
new human rights organ be a standing body with regular sessions. Among
others, Amnesty International has suggested that the Council be formally
in session all year, convening for an extended annual meeting but also
capable of coming together for “focused sittings…to deal effectively and in
a timely manner with crisis situations.”
Some organizations have especially encouraged maintaining the practice of
holding regular sessions because such sessions are conducive to NGO
participation. The Center for Women’s Global Leadership has pointed out
that “it has been easier for smaller NGOs to attend the Commission when
the primary session can be planned and budgeted for in advance.”
Some Organizations recommend that regularly scheduled sessions be held
in a variety of locations in order to promote broad representation such as
Reflexion Group, which has requested that regular sessions be held, “in
regions and sub-regions and…be open to the public and the media.”
Election/ membership
The issue of election procedure and membership criteria has elicited a full
array of responses from civil society. At the Civil Society Hearings,
Rappoteur Peggy Hicks attempted to summarize the diverse views by
saying that civil society finds the Council’s membership should be “inclusive
and not exclusive.”
On one hand, organizations like The American Association of Jurists (AAJ)
and the Europe-Third World Center (CETIM) have expressed reservations
about the establishment of membership criteria. AAJ and CETIM together
have indicated that states are not clearly qualified to judge other states’
human rights records and that “the broadening of criteria will suffer
necessarily from arbitrariness.” Similarly Amnesty International has
suggested that “all UN Member States can become Council Members” in
order to ensure diversity.
In response to the argument that membership criteria will detract from
cultural and regional diversity, Global Rights Partners for Justice has
asserts that “requiring broad commitments” would not have an adverse
affect on diversity. The organization underlines the importance of “modest
requirements to avoid, [t]he defacto devolution of membership decisions to
regional groups.”
Many Organizations have agreed that minimum membership criteria should
be established. The Baha'i International Community has proposed that this
minimum criteria be Member States’ “ratification of key human rights
documents or a statement of intent to do so within a given period of
time.” The organization has further suggested that membership should be
closed to states that repeatedly violate human rights.
Some organizations feel strongly about the need for membership criteria
such as the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, which has
stated, “only countries with a demonstrated commitment to the protection
of human rights must be admitted. This may be ascertained from how a
country conducts its internal affairs and also from its record of ratifying
international conventions and reporting to treaty bodies.” Among many
others Human Rights Watch “endorses Kofi Annan's call that members of
the new Human Rights Council abide by ‘the highest human rights
standards’... in order to make council members more accountable to the
broader U.N. membership.”
United Nations Watch champions the Secretary General’s proposal to form
a “society of the committed” and has placed special emphasis on
the “Secretary-General's statement that membership be limited to states
with ‘a solid record of commitment to the highest human rights standards.’”
Some organizations feel that membership criteria should be very clearly
defined as soon as possible. The Asian Civil Society Forum on UN Reform,
held on June 13-14 2005 at UN ESCAP in Bangkok, produced a number of
such concrete membership criteria agreed upon by multiple NGOs. Among
other recommendations the forum suggested that, Council members
should pledge to ratify all human rights treaties and optional protocols,
withdraw all reservations to human rights treaties that are contrary to the
purpose of the treaties, submit reports required by the treaty monitoring
bodies, and extend standing invitations to all Special Procedures. The
Forum agreed further that the Council should develop a “compliance
mechanism to ensure that Member States fulfill their human rights
obligations.”
Other recommendations regarding the Council’s membership include that
of, the Center for Women’s Global Leadership: “The Council should also be
comprised of state representatives with thematic skill in economic, social
and cultural as well as civil and political rights.” At the Civil Society
Hearings the Rapporteur Peggy Hicks reiterated one organization’s idea
that “newly elected members” in particular come up for review.
Mandate
Many organizations agree that under its mandate the new body should at
a minimum:
- continue to set international human rights standards
- be granted the capacity to take quick appropriate action in response to
crises
- address a full range of issues and rights
Some organizations have expressed hopes that the body would have
additional priorities such as that to provide “assistance for building up
institutional capacity for human rights at country as well as regional
levels.” The International Service for Human Rights has proposed that the
body be responsible for ensuring “follow up and implementation of country
specific commitments and decisions, and recommendations from Special
Procedures and treaty bodies.”
Some organizations have emphasized a need for the Council to be able to
notify the Security Council directly “[w]hen egregious situations occur and
require urgent action. The Asian Civil Society Forum took this position,
stating that the human rights body should “move from supervision toward
enforcement measures, by empowering it to refer cases of gross human
rights violations to the International Criminal Court and to the Security
Council.”
The International Association of Charities has raised the concern that the
recommendations and resolutions of the Human Rights Council would not
be binding and has inquired whether the council’s recommendations
could “serve as a basis for Security Council decisions.”
Peer review
One of the aspects of the proposed council’s mandate that has provoked
an especially broad range of responses is the peer review mechanism. As
Rapporteur Peggy Hicks, summarized at the Civil Society Hearings there
is “some support for peer review.” Many organizations have hesitated to
fully endorse peer review due to the current lack of clear definition for the
mechanism.
Baha'i International Community is both hopeful and skeptical regarding the
concept of peer review. The organization recommends that “careful
consideration…be given to the efficacy of peer review; this initiative should
not become yet another procedure but an earnest means for the concrete
improvement of human rights situations in the countries reviewed.”
Similarly, International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) has hesitated
to advocate for the peer review mechanism as proposed. FIDH values the
basic concept of peer review because it “embraces the idea of examination
of the human rights situation in all countries, without exception.” But FIDH
questions the mechanism as it has been proposed because the concept
is, “misleading in that it implies that States would be truly equal. On the
contrary there are many reasons to think that the severity of the
assessment will vary according to the power and importance of the State
in the international arena.” FIDH has indicated that States’ compliance with
human rights obligations is best assessed by independent experts and UN
special procedures because when states evaluate states the result is auto-
assessment, which “brings the major risk of auto-absolution.”
Global Rights Partners for Justice is optimistic about the peer review
mechanism’s potential for ameliorating the current Commission’s problems
of selectivity. The organization encourages western countries in particular
to “take steps to demonstrate that they are open to review and critique of
their performance,” in an effort to overcome the appearance of selectivity.
Special Procedures
There is widespread support among civil society for the continuation of the
system of Special Procedures. For the most part civil society hopes that the
special procedures will not be abolished because it has already proven to
be a very effective mechanism for human rights protection. The Secretary
General recommended in his explanatory note on the reform of the
Commission on Human Rights that the Council “reconsider, refine or
amend” thematic and country-specific procedure mandates according to its
own terms of reference.” Like many others, the Center for Women’s Global
Leadership fears that such a suggestion opens the door to undesirable
changes in the current system of Special Procedures. According to the
organization, “[t]his provides a dangerous opportunity for those who have
opposed the creative and innovative work of these independent experts to
curtail their work or eliminate them entirely.”
Civil Society Participation
In his address at the Civil Society Hearings UN Secretary-General Kofi
Annan, indicated that he was grateful for the engagement of civil society
and called on civil society to continue to take an active role in UN activities
stating “I hope you will keep making your voices heard in the lead-up to
the World Summit in September, and afterwards, to hold Governments and
us responsible to our obligations and promises.”
Despite this encouragement from the Secretary General some
organizations are worried that NGO participation in the activities of the
Commission on Human Rights may be threatened by the proposed reforms.
The AAJ and CETIM has stated that it is “far from certain that NGOs will
have in the future Council the same opportunities as in the [Commission],
given that their status is currently supervised by the ECOSOC…whereas
the future Council would seemingly depend on the General Assembly.
Furthermore, the [Commission] competes with the General Assembly with,
for instance this year, five thousand participants…and approximately a
hundred ministers that came from all over the world.”
Other organizations are optimistic that civil society participation will be
maintained and possibly even enhanced. Some organizations have
suggested for example that NGOs could be consulted at the policy
development stage rather than being called upon exclusively to implement
policy.
Many organizations feel that the participation of localized and issue-specific
organizations especially requires enhancement. The United Nations
Association of Denmark has emphasized the value of national NGO input
urging “governments to interact with their national NGOs in order to
establish the best possible platform of knowledge, resources and
commitment.” Groups based in the global south have explained that their
ability to participate in the UN system is often hindered by problems such
as lack of visas and travel funds. These groups are hopeful that a new
Council would be able to more actively solicit input from community based
and grassroots organizations using the internet, regional and thematic
consultations and other means. Reflexion Group shares this sentiment,
stating “[t]he human rights bodies, public and private, in developing
countries must be supported and equipped to play effective roles in
national and regional jurisdictions”
Post Summit Deliberations
In his Draft Outcome Document, predicting the outcome of the September
Summit, the President of the General Assembly Jean Ping proposed that
the General Assembly be mandated to “elaborate further in order to adopt
during the 60th session the modalities, functions, procedures and working
methods as well as the composition of the proposed Human Rights
Council.” Many civil society groups have voiced concern that too many
details will be left undecided at the September Summit and insufficiently
defined procedures will be proposed for deciding on the open-ended
issues.
Many organizations have thus emphasized the importance of outlining an
inclusive participatory process for the follow up on the Summit declaration.
At the Civil Society Hearings, Rapporteur, Pera Wells indicated that since
the Draft Outcome Document envisages negotiations on about 40 issues
continuing beyond the September summit, civil society is calling for the
General Assembly to ensure participation of NGOs in the ongoing process.
Official United Nations Civil Society Hearings website:
http://www.un.org/ga/civilsocietyhearings/
Links to Civil Society Statements on UN Reform:
http://www.reformtheun.org/index.php/civil_society_statements/?
startnum=61&theme=alt1
http://www.un-ngls.org/GA-hearings-fear.htm
This note was prepared by the International Helsinki Federation for Human
Rights (IHF), June 2005