Council adopts 41 resolutions while nations remain silent
The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) held its 51st regular session from September 12 to October 7, 2022, at its headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, amid a slew of human rights violations that are already spiraling into global chaos.
Human rights violations erupting around the world were raised and discussed in a wide range of interactive dialogues and panel discussions. On October 7, the council concluded its month-long regular session, having adopted 41 resolutions and decisions.
Issues ranging from safe abortion, to the right of Least Developed Countries (LDCs) to development, to the Russia-Ukraine war, were discussed.
As a body established to strengthen the promotion and protection of human rights around the world, as well as to address instances of human rights violations and make recommendations, the 47-member council holds three regular sessions annually, including the main session, for a total duration of not less than ten weeks.
The council raised the frequency of its regular sessions held in a year to three sessions from the previous two.
The most recent session debated and approved a slew of thematic resolutions and decisions and issued presidential statements. Among the various resolutions adopted, the role of good governance in the promotion and protection of human rights, conscientious objection to military service, cyberbullying prevention, journalist safety, and local government and human rights can be mentioned.
Indigenous peoples’ human rights, older people’s human rights, the right to the best possible physical and mental health, transitional justice, and terrorism were also mentioned.
The council has also passed country-specific resolutions, including ones on the human rights situation in Afghanistan, the Russian Federation, the Syrian Arab Republic, Ethiopia, Burundi, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, and the Xinjiang Uyghur autonomous region in China.
The UN, on the other hand, is still concerned about enforcing resolutions and reducing the prevalence of human rights violations. This is primarily due to the UNHRC member countries’ inactivity and fractured voices, which have failed to speak with a unified voice in punishing human rights violators.
As a result, the council is slowly turning into a toothless lion.
The first issue is the difficulty of passing resolutions as member countries continue to form informal alliances and cast counter-votes. The second problem is the inability to pass resolutions.
Human rights organizations and experts in the field have strongly criticized the council’s division of member states and its failure to uphold its core mission of protecting victims of human rights violations worldwide.
Despite the fact that it was created to prevent any type of human rights violation in the world through collective action, the UNHRC has frequently found itself stymied.
Economic dependence of poor nations, unofficial lobbying of countries, pressure from developed nations, regional and political alliances of nations, and, in some cases, countries’ skepticism of the UN and the intent of the proposed texts, among other factors, have continued to cause division among member countries.
For instance, the US, the UK, Canada, Norway, and other countries tabled a document during the session to discuss the situation of Uyghurs in China.
Despite the fact that the UN’s human rights office concluded that the scale of the alleged abuses may amount to “crimes against humanity,” members of the council voted not to debate the treatment of Uyghurs in China’s northwestern region of Xinjiang.
The motion, which had been tabled for debate, was blocked by a vote of 19 to 17, with 11 countries abstaining.
Unsurprisingly, several Muslim-majority countries voted against the motion, including Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Indonesia, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan. These states have benefited from Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative.
The resolution was rejected because many countries do not want to “pick a fight” with China, the source of massive infrastructure investments and loans, according to observers. Some leading human rights advocacy groups expressed disappointment, with some even claiming that the nations’ solidarity violated UN norms.
Following the rejection of the request to debate the case, Amnesty International stated, “Today’s vote protects perpetrators of human rights violations rather than victims—a dismaying result that puts the UN’s main human rights body in the farcical position of ignoring the findings of the UN’s own human rights office.”
A resolution on Ethiopia’s was also adopted. The council decided to extend the mandate of the International Commission of Human Rights Experts on Ethiopia (ICHREE) by one year.
While 21 countries voted in favor of the resolution, 12 of the 19 that voted against the resolution were from Africa. The majority of European countries voted in favor.
Similarly, a resolution on the situation of human rights in Burundi was adopted, which extended the Special Rapporteur’s mandate in Burundi by a year. 15 of the 22 states that voted in favor of adoption were from Europe and Latin America, while six African states voted against it.
The resolution on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela was also approved, with 11 of the 19 countries that voted in favor were from Europe. China, Cuba, Eritrea, Venezuela, and Bolivia voted against the resolution.
All of the 23 states that abstained were also from Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East.
While China supported African nations in these resolutions, the majority of EU members and the US supported the resolution against Ethiopia, Burundi, and Venezuela.
The United Nations is founded on three pillars: human rights, peace and security, and development. But scholars, however, argue that it is a partisan move by nations to enter into an informal alliance in exchange for protecting one another’s interests to avoid human rights issues.
Speaking to a group of journalists invited by the Universal Rights Group (URG) from several countries, including Ethiopia, to attend the council’s final session, Federico Villegas, the Argentine president of the UNHRC, said that he will continue the dialogue to understand all points of view.
“As a person, I felt pressured to bring everything to the forefront, but what I really need to do is maintain the balance, keep the votes floating, and continue the dialogue to understand all points of view,” Villegas said.
The mere responsibility of protecting human rights issues is in the hands of states, and the council is less positioned to enact on the ground, according to Villegas.
“The only person who can effect change is someone who is in that country’s territory and under its jurisdiction. Cooperation and dialogue are always required to build a bridge for better access,” Villegas explained.
The global south accuses the UNHRC of serving as a vehicle for rich nations’ interests to assert dominance, which manifests as global polarization, injustice, and inequalities.
While less developed countries like Ethiopia criticized the Human Rights Council’s decisions and resolutions as politically motivated and one-sided, rights advocates criticized the council’s inability to stand for collective responsibility in upholding human rights around the world.
The world’s two largest economies, the US and China, as well as their animosity and strategic competition, have divided UN member states beyond organizational value.
The council members are elected every two years on a regional bloc basis. Experts in international law and human rights believe that the council’s authority and mechanisms to protect human rights must be strengthened if the world is to live up to the universal human rights principles.
The council’s 52nd session will take place in February 2023.
