CRIN - Child Rights Information Network

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

Previous CHR News items

Organisation Contact Details:

International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights
Wickenburggasse 14
1080 Vienna
Tel: + 43 1 408 88 22
Email: office@ihf-hr.org
Website: www.ihf-hr.org

Last updated 27/07/2005 08:11:10

Please note that these reports are hosted by CRIN as a resource for Child Rights campaigners, researchers and other interested parties. Unless otherwise stated, they are not the work of CRIN and their inclusion in our database does not necessarily signify endorsement or agreement with their content by CRIN.

General Overview of Civil Society Responses to the Reform Proposals (26 July 2005)

Previous CHR News items

Have your say!