Interview with Fionnuala D. Ní Aoláin

At the United Nations (UN) level, the expert human rights mechanisms are human rights treaty bodies and the special procedures mandate-holders and working groups established by the UN Human Rights Council (HRC). This chapter addresses some of the key challenges of engaging in human rights diplomacy and discusses opportunities hidden in relying on diplomatic means for the promotion and protection of human rights. In laying out the case for a pro-active approach to human rights diplomacy, it relies on selected examples and recent milestones such as the Durban Review Conference that took place in Geneva in April 2009, the ongoing process of strengthening the UN human rights treaty body system. The chapter sheds more light on the role of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Author stresses that public advocacy and human rights diplomacy should always go hand in hand as both approaches complement and mutually reinforce each other. Keywords: advocacy; Durban Review Conference; Human Rights Council (HRC); human rights diplomacy; protection of human rights; treaty bodies; UN High Commissioner; United Nations (UN)

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

I am grateful to have the opportunity to share with you recent developments in law with regard to the human rights to water and sanitation in the United States. The Unitarian Universalist Service Committee is a nonsectarian human rights and social justice organization related to the liberal religious tradition of Unitarian Universalism--advocating for human rights since the 1940s when the organization rescued children from Nazi repression in Europe. Faith-based institutions and service organizations are familiar with assisting families and individuals in difficulty. However, a disturbing problem has begun to introduce itself into the pastoral care of major faith institutions: families impacted by lack of access to safe drinking water in the United States. To illustrate the complexities of implementing a human right to water in the United States, and the gaps in protections, I will share an anecdotal experience. In one of our congregations a few years ago, we held a public lecture on the human right to water. After the event, a woman approached and told me that her well had failed because, she believed, the water table dropped from nearby (recently permitted) agricultural pumping. She had made arrangements with a neighbor for bathing, cooking, dishes and clothes washing, and drinking water for her and her three children. She explained that she had exhausted all of her options--she looked into digging a deeper well and purchasing a more powerful pump, which would cost thousands of dollars, and she was not eligible for financing. She approached the county to extend water services to her home; connections per household were $10,000 and twenty of her neighbors would also have to join the extension scheme. Litigating the damages through the legal system was not an option without the ability to pay for legal fees with the high costs of evidence to prove causality (the water lawyers on the panel can affirm the complexity of litigating water rights). Child Protective Services had learned of the situation and removed her children from her home, placing them in custodial care where the water bills are subsidized. She asked me, Can the human right to water help me? In the United States, the implications for water shutoffs go far beyond the extreme difficulty of losing access to water, to sanitation--it can mean that parents lose their children, that people are put out of their homes, or that their homes are foreclosed for unpaid water bills. As duty bearers and rights holders, parents have an obligation to provide for the welfare of their children. In rural areas, where residents and small communities rely on groundwater and household wells--and where environmental and hydrologic water resources and their management are out of their control--impacts on rural communities of decisions by government and private actors are especially difficult to predict, manage, and legislate. Where society gives preferential treatment to the highest and best use of water, and permits agricultural, industrial, mining and other extractive uses, we ultimately pass the burden of our economic priorities on to the individual. In many cases, these are the individuals who are least able to bear that burden. This is where human rights can assist in sorting through our fiscal and environmental priorities. Our churches, synagogues, temples, meeting houses, and mosques are also bearing the burden of decisions by public and private actors in the water and sanitation sector. In one of the early warning systems in our society--our faith institutions--alarm bells are ringing. The United Nations Human Rights Council Special Rapporteur on the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation, Dr. Catarina de Albuquerque, reported her findings on the human right to water and sanitation in the United States to the UN Human Rights Council in September 2011. (1) She found that while the United States has made significant progress in ensuring access to safe, sufficient, affordable water and sanitation, there is evidence of serious problems with access for vulnerable populations. …

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.

: Vietnam recently announced its intent to provide the United Nations (UN) with peacekeeping forces in calendar year 2014. Through their new participation in UN peacekeeping, Vietnam has an opportunity to expand their international and regional influence. This paper evaluates the ways peacekeeping can advance Vietnam's interests. It shows participation in UN activities will increase support for Vietnam's future bids to the UN Human Rights Council and Security Council. It will also serve as an avenue for Vietnam to improve their human rights record. On the regional level, peacekeeping operations provide an opportunity for improving relations and interoperability with fellow members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). If aggressive in developing their peacekeeping force, Vietnam will have the potential to fill a leadership role in ASEAN as that organization also takes on increased peacekeeping responsibilities. Furthermore, peacekeeping activities will improve Vietnam's interoperability with regional partners, indirectly helping hedge against Chinese claims in the South China Sea. All of this comes with the added benefit of increased expertise the Communist Party of Vietnam can use to deal with domestic issues. To maximize the benefits of participating in UN peacekeeping, the government of Vietnam should move forward quickly, but cautiously. This paper concludes by providing several recommendations for Vietnam as they enter the world of peacekeeping.

This chapter is a commentary on Principle 7 of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). The UNGPs, endorsed by the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2011, are the first universally accepted framework for addressing business responsibilities for human rights. They outline State obligations to protect human rights, businesses’ responsibility to respect human rights, and the importance of both States and businesses offering adequate remedies for human rights breaches.

This chapter is a commentary on Principle 3 of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). The UNGPs, endorsed by the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2011, are the first universally accepted framework for addressing business responsibilities for human rights. They outline State obligations to protect human rights, businesses’ responsibility to respect human rights, and the importance of both States and businesses offering adequate remedies for human rights breaches.