8. Human Rights Diplomacy From A UN Perspective: A Complement To Advocacy

The 2008 Annual Meeting of American Society of International Law explored topic ?The Politics of International Law'. The organisers of Annual Meeting posed certain questions about this relationship in following terms: Critics contend that international law is really deployment of power politics, and that resolving disputes under auspices of international law in a judicialized forum serves only to ?launder' rule of powerful. The establishment of United Nations Human Rights Council in 2006 and its activities in its first years give occasion for an analysis of relationship between politics and law in human rights work of United Nations. The United Nations General Assembly, in preamble to its resolution establishing Council, recognised the importance of ensuring universality, objectivity and non-selectivity in consideration of human rights issues, and elimination of double standards and politicization. Keywords: American Society; human rights issues; international Law; politics; United Nations General Assembly; United Nations Human Rights Council

Today, the United Nations plays a leading role in the development of international law and cooperation among the world's states. Member states have pledged to realize their rights and fulfill their obligations under the UN Charter. The main objectives of the UN are envisaged in Article 1 of the Charter, where the key provision relating to human rights is reflected in paragraph 3 of Article 1. According to it, the UN aims to achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural and humanitarian character and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction of race, sex, language or religion [1]. As it can be seen, the Charter only calls on states parties to promote the protection of human rights, without establishing clear obligations to protect and guarantee them. Since 2014, i.e. since Russia launched its war against Ukraine, the aggressor has not stopped committing crimes against our country and our people. Russia's actions encroach not only on the sovereignty of our state, but also on human rights and freedoms. Under such circumstances, the international community cannot stand aside from these events. Many international human rights organizations have offices in Ukraine. Among them is the UN. On 31.07.2014, the Government of Ukraine and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights signed an agreement on the deployment of a short-term UN human rights monitoring mission in Ukraine. The legal status of UN monitoring missions in legal science has not been the subject of a separate study. Certain aspects of the activities and competence of such missions have been considered in the works of such scholars as I.A. Shumilo [14], F. Megre [13], K. Boyle [12] and others, which are devoted to the coverage of international mechanisms for the protection of human rights and freedoms, the status of the UN General Assembly and the UN Human Rights Council. Therefore, the task set out in this article is to analyze and establish the specifics of the legal status of the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission (hereinafter - the Mission), in particular, the one established for Ukraine, and the limits of the Mission's powers under the UN Charter, UN General Assembly resolutions, and international agreements between UN agencies and Ukraine. Therefore, the relevance of this article is beyond doubt. It has been established that the purpose of the Mission is to facilitate cooperation between the Government of Ukraine and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (hereinafter - OHCHR)[2] and it plays the role of a subsidiary mechanism for the protection of human rights and freedoms within the UN. The conclusions of the mission will undoubtedly serve as a convincing additional evidence base for Ukraine in international judicial and other bodies in protecting its interests and establishing the guilt of the Russian Federation for actions committed against our country.

In 2011, the United Nations Human Rights Council passed its first resolution recognizing LGBT rights, following which the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights issued a report documenting violations of the rights of LGBT people, including hate crimes, criminalization of homosexual activity, and discrimination. There are reports of human rights violations based on real or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity in Nigeria. In 2018, the Initiative for Equal Rights and other organizations' reports show 213 human rights violations based on real or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity in Nigeria. Using a doctrinal method of analyses, the chapter examines critically the human rights provisions of the Nigerian law to determine whether or not sexual minority rights are recognised. The chapter concludes on the note that the Nigerian government has overstepped in regulating what transpires in the private affairs of two consenting adults of the same sex. It is the recommendation of the chapter that same sex sexual conduct should be decriminalised.

This article examines the evolution of the United Nations� (UN) human rights agency from the UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) into the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC). It explains that UNHRC was created in March 2006 to replace the UNCHR and become the world�s premier human rights body. It evaluates the effectiveness of the UNHRC�s peer-review human rights mechanism called the Universal Periodic Review. This article also offers some suggestions on how to improve the performance of the UNHRC including changes in size and distribution of membership, membership criteria, voting patterns and participation of non-state actors.

The United Nations Human Rights Council condemned Syria on Friday 29 April for resorting to lethal violence in its intensified crackdown against antigovernment protestors and for denying access to medical...

The аrticle еxplores thе rоlе of UN Cоnvеntіоns оn Humаn Rіghts аs а kеy element of the international system ensuring law, justice, and security. It analyzes the legal and institutional framework of state cooperation within the United Nations system, in particular, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966), which together form the foundation of the modern international human rights protection mechanism. The main directions of implementing the UN Conventions are examined, including the activities of the Human Rights Committee, the Committee against Torture, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, and other treaty bodies. The procedures for submitting state and individual reports, reviewing complaints, and monitoring compliance with human rights at the national level are analyzed. Special attention is given to instruments such as the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984), the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965), and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), which provide specialized protection for specific groups. The article examines the mechanisms for implementing the obligations of states parties to the Conventions, including the periodic reporting system, monitoring missions, and the consideration of individual communications on human rights violations. The importance of cooperation between states and the UN Human Rights Council, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), and other international human rights protection structures is emphasized. Particular attention is devoted to the challenges of implementing international standards in national legislation, discrepancies in law enforcement practices among different countries, and the difficulties of ensuring effective human rights protection in situations of armed conflict and political crises. The author stresses the necessity of harmonizing national legislation with the provisions of UN Conventions, improving international monitoring mechanisms, and strengthening institutional cooperation among states. The article concludes that the further development of the UN human rights conventions system is essential for upholding the rule of law, justice, and the protection of human dignity on a global scale.

Fionnuala D. Ní Aoláin is the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism. She was initially appointed to this position by the UN Human Rights Council in 2017 and was re-elected by member States for a further three-year term in 2020. In this capacity she works closely with States and UN entities to advance human rights protections in some of the most difficult contexts globally. She is also a University Regents Professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, and a Professor of Law at the Queen's University of Belfast, Northern Ireland.In this interview, Ms Ní Aoláin discusses her duties as Special Rapporteur and illustrates the current challenges to the humanitarian space in the context of counterterrorism (CT) regulation.

ABSTRACTIn recent years, the United Kingdom’s influence in multilateral human rights diplomacy has stemmed from its ability to advance its own priorities independently while contemporaneously shaping the collective concerns championed by the European Union. This paper explores the ways in which Brexit may change this state of play. Based on analysis of contributions made at the interactive dialogue sessions at the United Nations Human Rights Council, the paper identifies varying concerns of the United Kingdom and European Union, shedding light on a series of significant gaps that, unless addressed, will exist in Britain’s international human rights diplomacy post-Brexit.

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) has been a promising instrument in the hands of the United Nations Human Rights Council. With more emphasis on constructive criticism than an adversarial approach, it was thought that this method would help states to improve their human rights records. This article takes the case of India’s last review through this process and derives various trends and patterns of interaction with other states. It starts by outlining the process of the UPR itself and how it works procedurally, after which it highlights India’s presentation of its human rights record, and subsequently how the international community reacted to it. One of the core arguments of this article is that when it comes to human rights, it is important to analyse its politics through a regional lens since geographical continuities determine an overall outlook towards human rights and priorities that states highlight when they consider human rights records on the whole. This is further substantiated by looking at instances when bilateralism has not succeeded in its goals. It also makes certain statistical inferences after close examination of the recommendations posed by states, as well as India’s response (or lack thereof) to those recommendations. The article also highlights certain cases from India’s domestic developments to see how it plays out in the international community and their perception of India’s human rights record.

With the advancement of globalisation, economic and technological processes, and the disruption of obsolete social standards, it is no longer acceptable for corporations to seek their development and profits without observing the pertinent aspects of the human condition, which have their guiding principles established by the United Nations Human Rights Council. Thus, in order to encourage the adoption of good practices in Human Rights by national and multinational companies, the Decree No. 9.571/2018 established the guidelines for implementing Human Rights Compliance programmes in organisations. This study analyses Decree No. 9.571/2018 and demonstrates the importance of implementing Human Rights Compliance programmes, which, in addition to providing protection and encouragement to Human Rights in the corporate-business environment, may positively influence the results and reputation of businesses in the market. While some companies are adopting Human Rights policies, from a Corporate Social Responsibility perspective, the decree under analysis is optional and does not provide an incentive for companies to implement Human Rights Compliance programmes, resulting in a guideline without practical effectiveness.

From 2012-2019, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) adopted a series of resolutions on Sri Lanka calling for accountability for war crimes and other crimes purportedly committed during the war against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). This paper challenges the traditional narrative regarding the resolutions – ie that it was a well-intentioned effort by the sponsoring nations, the United States (US) and its allies, to foster peace and reconciliation in Sri Lanka. Instead, this paper argues that in pursuing the resolutions, the UNHRC has violated the fundamental principles of the Charter of the United Nations (UN Charter) as well as the UNHRC’s founding documents. The author contends that, through these resolutions, the US and its allies have developed a series of innovative tactics to enable them to intervene in the internal affairs of weak nations by using the UNHRC as a conduit. It is in the interest of the friends of the United Nations (UN) and, in general, all persons who value the rule of law in international affairs to know about what has happened so that they can advocate for the relevant reforms in order to prevent the UN from losing its credibility any further.

The issue of state accountability for human rights violations remains a central concern within contemporary international law. While the international legal framework has progressively evolved to recognize and protect fundamental human rights, enforcement mechanisms against sovereign states often remain fragmented and politically constrained. This paper critically examines the legal principles, institutional mechanisms, and practical challenges involved in holding states accountable for violations of internationally recognized human rights norms. The study explores the inherent tension between state sovereignty and international human rights obligations, emphasizing how traditional notions of non-intervention have been reshaped by emerging doctrines such as the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). It further analyzes the role of global and regional institutions, including the International Criminal Court and the United Nations Human Rights Council, in promoting accountability and ensuring compliance with international standards. Through doctrinal analysis and case studies—such as allegations of torture linked to the United States and the international response to the Rwandan Genocide—the paper highlights both the progress and limitations of international accountability mechanisms. It also evaluates the concept of state responsibility, the duty to prosecute, and the effectiveness of enforcement tools such as economic sanctions and international adjudication. The research concludes that while significant advancements have been made in codifying human rights norms and establishing accountability frameworks, substantial gaps remain in implementation due to political interests, lack of universal jurisdiction, and enforcement challenges. Strengthening international cooperation, enhancing institutional independence, and reinforcing legal obligations are essential to ensure that states are held accountable for human rights violations in a consistent and effective manner. Keywords: State Accountability; Human Rights Violations; International Law; State Responsibility; Duty to Prosecute; Sovereignty; Responsibility to Protect; International Justice; Genocide; Torture; Economic Sanctions; Universal Jurisdiction; Rule of Law; Global Governance; Human Rights Protection.

The election of human rights-abusing states to the human rights bodies of the United Nations has long been a source of dissatisfaction. There have been repeated calls that such states should not be members of the UN Human Rights Council. This article compares the HRC records of Rwanda, an authoritarian state, with that of South Africa, a liberal democracy. The focus falls on 12 country-specific situations and nine civil and political rights issues that appeared before the HRC from 2017 to 2019. It is demonstrated that Rwanda has been a much stronger defender of international human rights than South Africa. This finding contradicts various empirical and theoretical studies that posit a positive relationship between domestic democracy and respect for human rights, on the one hand, and international support for human rights, on the other. This finding further suggests that demands that the HRC should only have members with respectable domestic human rights records should be tempered.

Since 1980, the right to water has been seen mainly as implicitly subsumed under other social human and political rights. The global recognition of the need for access to sanitation services has led to formulations of a right to sanitation that emphasizes both the responsibilities of States and the rights of individuals. However, efforts to prioritize access to water and sanitation services have led to a gradual merger of these ideas in the human right to water and sanitation as adopted by the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2010. Much of the literature on this subject focuses on water and sanitation simultaneously. This article fills a gap in knowledge by examining the different evolution of the human right(s) to water and sanitation at the international and national levels. It argues that the practical and social requirements for an environmentally sustainable and cost‐effective implementation of access to water and sanitation are so different that, even if there is a combined right, the implementation may call for separating these two issues in some cases.

The operation of military courts is clearly allowed for and, in some cases, mandated by international humanitarian law (IHL). Nevertheless, the use of military courts has been one of the most controversial and hotly debated areas of human rights. Despite the ostensibly exclusive military domain, many human rights bodies have registered significant scepticism towards this type of justice. Consequently, they have sought actively to regulate this ‘IHL space’ with scant attention to the requirements of IHL itself. The article examines comments, case law, draft rules and other measures taken by two human rights frameworks: the United Nations Human Rights Council and the African Commission on Human and People's Rights. It will analyse how, since 2000, these bodies have approached the issue of IHL when assessing the legitimacy and operation of military courts. For instance, do they consider IHL as a source of law guiding their efforts and rely on IHL instruments? How do they resolve conflicts between IHL and international human rights law? Additionally, the article will consider the validity, legality and effectiveness of these efforts. It concludes that, in reviewing military courts, there exists significant neglect of IHL in human rights frameworks. Through overlooking IHL or relegating it to a sub-specialty of international human rights law, these bodies not only ignore applicable law, they deprive themselves of the wealth of expertise found in commentary, debate, jurisprudence and practice in the IHL sphere. Instead, integrating IHL analysis and theory and affording it its appropriate respect within relevant human rights discussions will allow for greater legal and policy coherence, and human rights bodies will be better placed to fulfil their mandates.