UN Special Procedures: System Puppets or User's Saviours?

This chapter considers the background to, and current developments concerning the manner in which international law has engaged with the protection of human rights, including both civil and political rights and economic, social, and cultural rights. It looks at historical, philosophical, and political factors which have shaped our understanding of human rights and the current systems of international protection. It focuses on the systems of protection developed by and through the United Nations through the ‘International Bill of Rights’, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN human rights treaties and treaty bodies, and the UN Special Procedures as well as the work of the Human Rights Council. It also looks at the systems of regional human rights protection which have been established.

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.

The human rights issues of the Uighur ethnic group have become the international spotlight as a result of the policies implemented by China government which are considered to have violated human rights. For Indonesia, the human rights issue of the Uighur ethnic group is a dilemma in itself that has emerged in foreign policy both at the bilateral level towards China and bilaterally through the UN Human Rights Council mechanism. Indonesia's foreign policy is considered ambiguous because it does not reflect Indonesia's position as a member of the UN Human Rights Council and Islamic solidarity. Therefore, this article attempts to discuss by presenting the question why there is ambiguity in Indonesia's foreign policy in responding to the human rights issue of the Uighur ethnic group? The discussion of this question was analyzed using a constructivist approach through identity and interests with the argument that Indonesia's foreign policy towards human rights issues of the Uighur ethnic group was based on personal and social identities, giving rise to differences in interests that must be achieved. The article was prepared using qualitative methods with secondary data used to support research arguments. This paper finds that the foreign policy presented by Indonesia as an alternative has emerged based on its identity as a developing country with an interest in maintaining and maintaining good relations with China and an identity as a global human rights promoter with an interest in avoiding politicization of the UN Human Rights Council by Western countries.

Resorting to armed conflicts is a human-made disaster. Sovereign states are under an obligation to apply relevant principles governing armed conflicts to minimize the ravages of such disasters, to provide effective remedies, and to rebuild their societies. International humanitarian law (IHL) provides rules to protect civilians and civilian objectives in armed conflicts. This research aims at examining the international obligations of states as established by IHL to protect civilians from the ravages of armed conflicts with special reference to Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka experienced a protracted non-international armed conflict, which spanned over three decades. Since the cessation of hostilities, the international community, particularly the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), is scrutinizing whether the government of Sri Lanka has effectively discharged its international obligations during the war, specifically based on the alleged human rights and humanitarian law violations committed against civilians. UN Human Rights Council has adopted several resolutions, which require the government to address the accusations and to foster transitional justice. This research analyzes relevant legal principles, practical situations, and responses of the international community, in particular the resolutions adopted by the UN Human Rights Council on Sri Lanka to assess international and domestic legal responses regarding the protection of civilians during Sri Lanka’s armed conflict. Key findings reveal that the frequent changes of governments, their policies, and strategies have impeded addressing the disaster effectively. Failure to adopt necessary enabling legislations and the disinclination to allow international mechanisms to probe into the alleged incidents weaken the defenses of Sri Lanka. This research recommends that diligent discharge of international obligations and upholding rule of law would provide a sustainable solution to Sri Lanka’s human-made disaster.

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.

The current conflict between Ukraine and Russia in Eastern Europe is not a new conflict and is part of the remnants of the Cold War that still exists today, although some claim that the Cold War has ended since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Most recently, Russia's invasion of Ukraine led the UN to vote on Russia's suspension from the UN Human Rights Council because it considered Russia to have committed gross human rights violations. This research aims to explain why Indonesia made the decision to abstain from voting on Russia's suspension from the UN Human Rights Council. This research uses rational choice theory to explain the rational considerations of both advantages and disadvantages that encourage Indonesia to abstain from voting. The research method is qualitative research with data collection techniques based on literature studies. The results showed that Indonesia's decision to abstain was the right and rational decision. Indonesia wants to maintain its long-standing bilateral relations with Russia. Indonesia's decision to abstain has also shown that Indonesia has a free and active foreign policy principle. Free in making decisions in the voting without any pressure from any party and active in achieving world peace. Indonesia hopes that the conflict between Russia and Ukraine will end soon.

The Universal Periodic Review of the UN Human Rights Council is a peer review mechanism through which states make recommendations to each other regarding human rights practices. Representing new global approaches to promoting human rights, the UPR experiment is critical to the fate of the HRC. Understanding the UPR's performance is timely and of considerable importance considering that the second round of country reviews begins in May 2012. This article analyzes state and regional behavior by utilizing an innovative methodology in which recommendations are coded by level of action requested. It finds that, while long-standing North-South differences regarding definition and protection of human rights remain, the global increase of democratic states modestly attenuates this dichotomy.

A recurring theme in both Andrew Byrnes and Andrea (Andy) Durbach’s research and activism is the uncertain status of the international human rights system in Australian law, and they have worked in many different capacities to encourage Australian lawmakers to take international standards seriously. Overall, Australia seems to assume that the international human rights system is designed to bring pressure on other countries to improve their protection of human rights, notably those outside the fold of Western democracies, and that the system has little to offer Australia itself. In this paper, guided by the critical insights of Andrew and Andy’s work, I review Australia’s response to the third cycle of the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review in 2021. It provides a case study of the techniques Australia has developed to deflect human rights scrutiny.

INTRODUCTION On 21 December 2010, in recognition of the significance of knowing the truth about the circumstances and consequences of gross and systematic violations of human rights, the United Nations General Assembly proclaimed 24 March as the International Day for the Right to the Truth concerning Gross Human Rights Violations and for the Dignity of Victims. This day aims to honour victims and pays tribute to and recognises those who have devoted themselves to the promotion and protection of human rights. One year later, on 16 December 2011 the Sri Lankan Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) presented its report to the Sri Lankan Parliament. In a press release of 22 December 2011 the International Crisis Group, a major think tank on conflict and conflict prevention, wrote: [t]he report acknowledges important events and grievances that have contributed to decades of political violence and civil war in Sri Lanka and makes sensible recommendations on governance, land issues and the need for a political solution. But it fails in a crucial task – providing the thorough and independent investigation of alleged violations of international humanitarian and human rights law that the UN and other partners of Sri Lanka have been asking for. It is now incumbent on the international community, through the UN Human Rights Council, to establish an independent international investigation in 2012. This is one of the more recent examples highlighting both the potential of a mechanism, set up to deal with human rights violations and international crimes of the past and provide a forum to victims to tell their stories and challenges such mechanisms encounter contextually. Over the past decades, nearly forty truth commissions have seen the light of day and have also disappeared after completing their term. The cradle of truth commissions is found in Latin America, with the commissions in Argentina, Chile and Guatemala amongst the most prominent examples. Later on the model spread over the whole world, and most notably the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) has received lots of attention from around the globe for its reconciliatory and restorative approach. More recently, truth commissions have also been set up to deal with past human rights abuses in Western countries like Canada and the United States.

This article examines states' voting records at the United Nations Human Rights Commission/Council during the period 1992–2008 on resolutions targeting specific countries, and tests competing hypotheses about voting behaviour derived from liberal and realist theory. I conclude that a liberal framework explains voting behaviour on resolutions addressing most states and show that democracies were more likely than non-democracies to support resolutions criticizing states with poor human rights records. However, I also show that the liberal framework fails to explain voting behaviour on resolutions addressing Israel because the issue uniquely polarized states according to geo-political groupings – Western democracies often opposed resolutions addressing Israel, but developing world states often supported these resolutions. These findings hold for both the Commission and its successor body: the Human Rights Council.

Non-governmental organisations are vital to the progression and realisation of global human rights. In particular, they play a pivotal role as “Stakeholders” in the United Nations Human Rights Council’s (UNHRC) Universal Periodic Review (UPR). The UPR is an innovative mechanism with the aim of ensuring the protection and promotion of human rights across the world. Stakeholders can submit individual reports, based upon experience and research, detailing both problem areas and advances in human rights on the ground in UN Member States. This paper draws upon the experiences of submitting Stakeholder reports from an academic institution through the “UPR Project at BCU,” and the recognition it has achieved to date through citations in the USA’s final 2020 Stakeholder Report. This paper also seeks to encourage further academic input to the UPR process through the submission of individual Stakeholder reports, in order for scholarly research to support human rights discourse and seek to influence change on the ground.

The Nordic states portray themselves as promoters and defenders of gender equality and the rights of vulnerable groups, such as disabled persons, children, human rights defenders, and sexual, ethnic, and religious minorities. This article studies how Nordic states define and advocate for these rights at the UN Human Rights Council. Five strategies of norm advocacy are identified: acting as an example, building coalitions, setting the agenda, taking the initiative, and using social pressure. The data consists of Nordic human rights priorities outlined in documents, speeches, resolution sponsorships, and statements. The findings demonstrate strong Nordic commitment and activity in advocating for the rights of the vulnerable. The strategies of norm advocacy vary, demonstrating a prudent balancing between principled advocacy and pragmatism in the contested institutional HRC framework. This article contributes to the literature on Nordic norm advocacy at the UN and refines understanding of the norm advocacy strategies used to forward the vulnerability agenda.

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. …

In the context of this article, the author takes stock of the legacy of the UN Commission on Human Rights (CHR) and the changes that its replacement by the Human Rights Council (HRC) in 2006 have led to. A political body such as the CHR/HRC cannot do more than the member states allow it to do, and cannot be blamed for being driven by political motivations. Against this background it is not surprising that the new institutional framework did not solve the political problems associated with the CHR, since the new body was almost identical in size to its predecessor, involved the same actors, and operated under similar political conditions. The establishment of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) mechanism, however, introduced a new approach to the UN system by ensuring a cooperative review of the human rights situation of all UN member states, thus awarding an increasingly important role to the technical assistance pillar in implementing its recommendations. Notwithstanding the above, the UPR process has not rendered the adoption of country-specific resolutions unnecessary, but their use should be more strategic, ensuring better coordination within the UN system as a whole, and increasing the importance of the regional dimension in the work of the world organisation. It is not politically realistic to expect all HRC member states to have excellent, flawless human rights records, but the nomination of governments committed to and supportive of human rights should be encouraged. It is important to underline that over the past years, WEOG, EEG, and GRULAC countries, together with some pro-human-rights countries from Asia and Africa, have built successful coalitions within the HRC concerning a number of sensitive issues. The process of democratisation around the world, despite the decline in recent years, will further reinforce these positive trends, improving the composition of the HRC as more and more democratic countries hopefully seek to join the body.

The main pillars of the United Nations human rights machinery are: the Secretariat; the human rights treaties and their monitoring bodies; the Human Rights Council (HRC); and the General Assembly. The small human rights division of the Secretariat was about to be transferred from the UN headquarters in New York to Geneva, a move that the then small non-governmental organisation (NGO) community and the tiny press corps interested in human rights tended to describe as further marginalisation of activities that were already attracting little interest. Today, the situation is fundamentally different from the one described under all the main pillars of the UN human rights system. This chapter describes some of the developments that have taken place and discusses some of the challenges that lay ahead. The debates on country situations and resolutions at the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) and the HRC are characterised by allegations of double standards. Keywords: commission on human rights (CHR); human rights council (HRC); human rights treaties; non-governmental organisation (NGO) community; secretariat; United Nations human rights machinery