Universal Rights Group - Academia.edu (original) (raw)

Papers by Universal Rights Group

A C K U preface the links between climate change and human rights are more widely accepted than e... more A C K U preface the links between climate change and human rights are more widely accepted than ever before. the Human rights council has adopted a series of resolutions calling attention to the effects of climate change on the full enjoyment of human rights, and the conference of the parties to the unFccc has also recognised that 'the adverse effects of climate change have a range of direct and indirect implications for the effective enjoyment of human rights.' While climate change impacts have implications for the human rights of individuals in all parts of the world, it is well established that the rights of those in already vulnerable situations are at particular risk. as sea levels rise and extreme weather events increase in frequency and magnitude, more and more people in such situations are expected to be displaced by disasters, some of them across international borders. and yet, despite a growing recognition of the human rights implications of climate change, including in the context of human displacement, and despite an understanding that adherence to international human rights commitments and principles can help to strengthen policymaking in response to global warming, relatively few concrete steps have been taken to bring a human rights perspective to climate negotiations. likewise, beyond expressing concern about a possible human rights protection gap for the increasing number of people who are expected to be displaced across borders in the context of climate change, the international community has not done enough to consider how to fill that gap. this report is an important step towards clarifying what un bodies can and should do to begin to safeguard human rights against the effects of climate change, including in the context of human displacement. John H Knox un special rapporteur on Human rights and the environment Henry c lauerman professor of international law Wake Forest university school of law © universal rights group 2015 acknowledgements the authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of a number of researchers who helped prepare this policy brief, including rebecca dowd, asu durmus, diya Jugessur and Kunal sharma.

The report analyses the historical underpinnings of the UN human rights petitions system (compris... more The report analyses the historical underpinnings of the UN human rights petitions system (comprised of the Special Procedures communications, Treaty Body communications, and the Human Rights Council’s Confidential Complaint Procedure); assesses the visibility, accessibility, responsiveness, and effectiveness of the current system; and makes recommendations for strengthening this vital protection tool in the future Authors: Marc Limon, Universal Rights Group Other Contributors: Elvira Dominguez-Redondo, University of Middlesex Hilary Power, formerly with the Universal Rights Group Ingela Stahl-Zulu, independent consultant Nathalie Munoz Tord, Universal Rights Group

The human rights communications procedures are central to the purpose, effectiveness and credibil... more The human rights communications procedures are central to the purpose, effectiveness and credibility of the United Nations – representing the only direct link between the victims of human rights violations and the international human rights protection system. However, over the past half-century, what was once a vibrant part of the UN’s human rights work has become increasingly neglected and somewhat discredited – the victim of its own complexity and distance from ‘the Peoples’ of the UN.

This report on the UN’s system of individual human rights communications is the result of a two-year project led by the Universal Rights Group. It offers a number of conclusions.

First, each of the three main communications procedures plays a distinct and crucial role in the overall UN human rights petitions system. Each has its own strengths when viewed from a victim’s perspective.

Second, the challenges faced by, and the weaknesses of, each procedure, especially when viewed from a victim’s perspective, show significant overlap.

Third, these weaknesses or challenges cannot be addressed, within existing resources, by focusing on each procedure in isolation. Rather, States and the UN Secretariat must once again (as was the case in the late 1970s when the then Secretary-General published a ground-breaking analysis of contemporary communications procedures and their interaction) look at the procedures as three interconnected and complementary parts of a single coherent UN petitions system – with a single user interface and, perhaps, a single Secretariat.

Fourth, modern technology presents enormous opportunities to finally put in place such a ‘fully coordinated approach’ within ‘a fully automated system’ (as called for by the Chair of the Commission on Human Rights in 2000).

With these conclusions in mind, this policy report makes a number of recommendations. In particular, the report argues that reforming and re-energising the UN human rights petitions system should be a priority for States as they look towards the 2021-2026 review of the Human Rights Council by the General Assembly. In considering those reforms, States should adopt a victim’s perspective, viewing the current system – and possible changes thereto – through the lens of those people who need to use it.

In the opinion of the Universal Rights Group, such reforms, in order to be successful, must be based on the overarching objective of establishing a single, coherent UN human rights petitions system comprising a single user interface and single UN petitions Secretariat, responsible for channelling petitions to the most appropriate communications procedure(s) and following up on each and every case. To make this possible, the UN will need to leverage the power of modern information technology.

There is a growing recognition that as the Human Rights Council (HRC) approaches its twelve year ... more There is a growing recognition that as the Human Rights Council (HRC) approaches its twelve year anniversary there is a need to undertake an inclusive, cross regional and structured dialogue to review how the HRC could best fulfil its mandate and purpose, as set down in GA resolution 60/251. This includes discussions around how the work and effectiveness of the HRC might be further enhanced and strengthened in the future.

That does not mean root and branch reform based on a premise that the Council is fundamentally failing. It is not. Rather, it means pursuing evidence-based improvements in a number of specific areas where the experience of the past twelve years suggests the Council could do better. Examples of such areas include: 1) working methods; 2) the agenda and the programme of work; 3) the effective delivery of capacity-building and technical support; 4) membership – in particular supporting inclusivity and accessibility for a more diverse membership, and improved compliance with the principles and criteria set down in GA resolution 60/251; 5) support for domestic implementation; 6) strengthening coordination and communication between ‘Geneva’ and ‘New York’; and 7) securing a shift in how the Council considers and deals with situations of human rights violations – from reaction to prevention.

Calls for, and debates around, Council strengthening have steadily increased over the past two years. There appears to be broad agreement on the need for a process of reflection and review with a view to improving the functioning of the Council even further. Today, the key difference between States is not over whether there is a need to bring improvements to the work of the Council, but rather how and when to proceed in that effort and what improvements are needed.

Against this background, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Mexico, Rwanda, Japan, and Latvia, supported by the Universal Rights Group, organised, on 1st December 2017, a one day conference designed to provide an open platform for States to exchange views on the question of Human Rights Council strengthening.

This outcome document report aims to capture the spirit and substance of those discussions, to reflect all views put forward, while respecting the ‘Chatham House Rule’ format of the discussion. The report is not an exhaustive summary of all the discussions, focusing instead on the main outcomes. The report does not take a position on the ideas put forward, nor does it provide suggestions on the process for taking any of these ideas forward. The report is intended to be a reference document for future discussions on the strengthening of the Human Rights Council.

If the 2030 Agenda is to be realised in a way that truly does ‘leave no one behind,’ then human r... more If the 2030 Agenda is to be realised in a way that truly does ‘leave no one behind,’ then human rights obligations and commitments must be applied, implemented and protected by all UN member States. Similarly, the full enjoyment of all human rights will only be possible in the context of worldwide progress with the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals and Targets, including the eradication of poverty in all its forms and dimensions.

As the UN Secretary-General himself remarked during his recent address to this Council: 'human rights, including the right to development, lie at the core of the 2030 Agenda;' while - seen the other way around – the 2030 Agenda provides States with “an ideal platform to demonstrate their commitment to all human rights.'

Human rights and the 2030 Agenda

Human rights lie at the core of the 2030 Agenda. The Agenda envisages a world of universal respect for human rights and human dignity, the rule of law, justice, equality and non-discrimination; of respect for race, sex, ethnicity and cultural diversity; and of equal opportunity permitting the full realisation of human potential and contributing to shared prosperity; a just, equitable, tolerant, open and socially inclusive world in which the needs of the most vulnerable are met.

Yet, thus far, the main body responsible for human rights at the UN, the Human Rights Council, has paid only ad hoc attention to understanding and strengthening the human rights pillar’s contribution to the implementation of the SDGs in all countries. That is important, because, simply put, without the support of the international human rights system, and without the strengthened enjoyment of human rights on the ground, it will not be possible to fulfil the promise of the SDGs to ‘leave no one behind.’

Against this background, in late 2016 a group of States, in consultation with interested NGOs, including the Universal Rights Group and the Danish Institute for Human Rights, set up a Group of Friends to consider and guide the UN human rights system’s support for the SDGs.

The Permanent Missions of Azerbaijan, Chile, Denmark, Ecuador, Fiji, Luxembourg, Portugal, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Thailand, and Uruguay, with the support of the Danish Institute for Human Rights and the Universal Rights Group, are delighted to launch, an important new report on: ‘Human Rights and the Sustainable Development Goals – Pursuing Synergies.’

The report provides a summary of an open-ended meeting held on 29 June this year in Satigny, Switzerland, which considered how to leverage the interdependent and mutually reinforcing nature of human rights and sustainable development. The Satigny meeting gathered more than 130 people, including high-level representatives and delegates from Geneva permanent missions, government institutions, UN agencies, national human rights institutions, and civil society.

As well as providing a summary of that meeting, the report also offers several conclusions and possible next steps. It seeks to ‘unpack’ the issues related to the convergence of the human rights agenda and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, in order to contribute to the realisation of both agendas in a integrated and mutually reinforcing manner.

The ‘Human Rights Council in 2017’ report provides a critique of the main events, developments, s... more The ‘Human Rights Council in 2017’ report provides a critique of the main events, developments, successes and failures of the Human Rights Council in 2017. The review includes:

- A quantitative analysis of the Council’s work in 2017, as well as since the body’s establishment in 2006. This includes the number of resolutions adopted; the number of voted resolutions; the number of ‘hostile amendments’; levels of cooperation with the Council's mechanism; the substantive focus of the Council’s work and output – by agenda idea and by theme; the geographic reach of the Council’s resolutions; and the budgetary implications of its work.

- Infographics showing the global reach and influence of the Council’s mechanisms and OHCHR.

- An in-depth analysis of the contribution of all current HRC member States, against the criteria for membership set down in GA resolution 60/251. This includes an analysis of their cooperation with the Special Procedures, UPR and Treaty Bodies, their voting records in 2017, and their leadership on key thematic and country-specific issues.

The Human Rights Council’s mandate to respond to human rights violations, including gross and sys... more The Human Rights Council’s mandate to respond to human rights violations, including gross and systematic violations - as set down in operative paragraph 3 of GA resolution 60/251 - is well known. Less well known, but equally important, is the Council’s mandate to prevent such violations from happening in the first place and to respond promptly to emerging crises. According to paragraph 5f of GA resolution 60/251, the Council shall ‘contribute, through dialogue and cooperation, towards the prevention of human rights violations,’ and shall ‘respond promptly to human rights emergencies.’

Notwithstanding this clear and explicit mandate, and eleven years after the Council’s establishment, member States are yet to put in place an explicit and coherent policy framework (e.g. a strategy, dedicated processes, tailored mechanisms) to fulfil the body’s prevention mandate. It is true that some steps have been taken to build a stronger prevention capacity. For example, taking forward an idea developed at the second Glion Human Rights Dialogue (Glion II) in 2015, the President of the Council convened a first informal ‘conversation’ with the High Commissioner (where the latter was able to brief members on emerging situations of concern). As of today, three such informal briefings have been held. In another example, building on an idea generated during Glion III, in June 2016 a cross-regional group of 32 states delivered a statement proposing a series of ‘objective criteria’ (i.e. the ‘Irish Principles’) that should guide delegations when considering which emerging situations might require/benefit from the Council’s attention. However, each of these developments, important as they may be, has happened in isolation and in a rather ad hoc manner.

Against this background and building on initial discussions on the issue of prevention at Glion III, the fourth Glion Human Rights Dialogue (Glion IV, held from 18-19 May 2017) aimed to provide a platform for UN member States, the President of the Council, senior UN officials (including the Deputy High Commissioner and representatives of the Secretary-General), Special Procedures, NGOs, human rights defenders and others, to consider the precise meaning of paragraph 5f of GA resolution 60/251 and to generate ideas for its operationalization. Through inclusive dialogue, held under the Chatham House rule, the retreat sought to move the international human rights community towards a common understanding of the Council’s prevention mandate, and a common vision as to how the Council might turn that understanding into a practical policy framework. Glion IV also aimed to place that mandate within - and as a key component part of - UN Secretary-General António Guterres’ wider prevention agenda.

Glion IV adopted a bottom-up approach to the issue of prevention, focusing on understanding the situation and needs of domestic stakeholders, and using that understanding to develop practical policy solutions at international-level.

The report of the fourth Glion Human Rights Dialogue is an informal document summarising (in a non-attributable manner) some of the key ideas developed during the Glion retreat, and based on three policy dialogues which preceded it. The document does not represent the position of Norway or Switzerland, nor any of the participants, but rather is a non-exhaustive collection of ideas generated during those meetings. It is the hope of the organisers that these ideas and proposals will encourage and contribute to wider consideration by all stakeholders from all regions, thus making the Glion Dialogue a starting point for a fruitful and inclusive process. It is also the hope of the organisers that, where appropriate, States and other stakeholders will take forward useful ideas generated in Glion and thus contribute to an improvement in the Council’s relevance and impact in the field of human rights.

URG’s new Policy Report on ‘The march of universality?’ by Başak Çalı and Mariana Montoya present... more URG’s new Policy Report on ‘The march of universality?’ by Başak Çalı and Mariana Montoya presents the findings of a two-year project to map and analyse the implications of all reservations to the core human rights conventions, and to better understand the extent and nature of these key checks on the universality of human rights.

As part of the project, the URG was particularly interested in identifying and analysing reservations that are – or appear to be – motivated by doubts, on the part of the reserving State, as to the compatibility of the treaty in question with certain religious or belief systems.

The practice of entering reservations to the UN human rights treaties raises crucial questions about the universality of human rights and, conversely, about cultural and religious relativism.

If a given treaty, or article within a treaty, is the subject of a large number of reservations, it is clearly suggestive of a perceived incompatibility between the rights concerned and the cultural norms or religious sensibilities of certain States. The presence of reservations, in other words, reinforces the arguments of cultural relativists; while the withdrawal of reservations, or the decision of a certain State to accede to a convention without reservations in the first place, is a powerful indicator of ‘the march of universality.’

A desire to win this argument - to demonstrate the inalienable and universal nature of human rights - explains the strong opposition, amongst many State officials, UN experts, NGO representatives and academics, to reservations to the international human rights treaties.

However, another reading of reservations is that they can be a useful political tool – a means through which States can demonstrate their commitment to human rights by acceding to a treaty even where they may face strong domestic opposition to some of the treaty’s individual provisions.

“Unless the international community strengthens its support for, and improves its protection of, ... more “Unless the international community strengthens its support for, and improves its protection of, environmental human rights defenders, the full enjoyment of human rights and the realisation of the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals will be impossible…”

While many aspects of the relationship between human rights and the environment are important, none is more urgent than the need to protect those individuals who work, often at great personal risk, to protect their natural environment from unsustainable exploitation, and defend the human rights of themselves and their communities.

Without these dedicated individuals, the protection of the environment and of the rights that depend upon it would be impossible.

Reporting from the front line of environmental protection around the world, the threats facing EHRDs are perilous and increasing.

Less than three years ago, Global Witness conducted the first comprehensive review of the number of killings of EHRDs around the world. Going back to the beginning of 2002, and covering cases through to the end of 2013, it found that at least 908 people had been killed as a result of protecting their rights to land and the environment. More than 90% of recorded deaths occurred in only nine countries.

Moreover, the crisis appears to be rapidly growing. Global Witness reported that ‘three times as many people were killed in 2012 than 10 years previously, with the death rate rising in the past four years to an average of two activists a week.’

While some of this increase may have been due to better reporting, it seems likely that the problem is worsening in large part because ‘competition for access to natural resources is intensifying against a backdrop of extreme global inequality,’ while ‘more and more ordinary people are finding themselves on the frontline of the battle to defend their environment from corporate or State abuse, and from unsustainable exploitation.’

Shocking as these numbers may be, they are, in themselves, an inadequate means of conveying the scale and nature of the challenges and risks faced by EHRDs.

For one thing, data on the number of killings tells us nothing about the myriad other human rights violations suffered by EHRDs. Killings may be ‘the most acute and measurable end of a range of threats’ to EHRDs, but for every EHRD murdered, many more, in every region of the world, are subjected to other types of violence or harassment, designed to instil fear and prevent activism.

Most importantly, behind the above-mentioned statistics, behind each of those numbers, is a face - a person killed merely for trying to assert their rights and protect their environment, and a person whose loss continues to be felt by their family, their community and their cause.

URG’s new Policy Brief, authored by John Knox, seeks to:

Understand the contemporary situation of EHRDs around the world.
Understand why human rights violations against EHRDs appear to be on the increase in all parts of the world, and especially in Latin America and Asia.
Explain why the work of EHRDs is so vital – for the planet, for local communities, including indigenous communities, and for sustainable development.
Present some of the inspiring stories of EHRDs who have sought to assert their human rights to defend the environment, including those who have paid the ultimate price for their bravery and dedication.
Assess current international efforts, led by the United Nations, to support EHRDs and their work.
Present recommendations, to all stakeholders, as to how the Human Rights Council, its mechanisms, and the wider international community can better protect and promote the rights of EHRDs, and ‘defend the defenders’ so that they can continue their vital work.
URG, Global Witness, N1M and other NGOs, in collaboration with the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and environment, have come together to begin the development of such a portal. When completed, this new resource will be available at the following web address: www.environment-rights.org.

The ‘Human Rights Council in 2016’ report provides a critique of the main events, developments, s... more The ‘Human Rights Council in 2016’ report provides a critique of the main events, developments, successes and failures of the Human Rights Council in 2016. The review includes:

- A quantitative analysis of the Council’s work in 2016, as well as since the body’s establishment in 2006. This includes the number of resolutions adopted; the number of voted resolutions; the number of ‘hostile amendments’; levels of cooperation with the Council's mechanism; the substantive focus of the Council’s work and output – by agenda idea and by theme; the geographic reach of the Council’s resolutions; and the budgetary implications of its work.

- Infographics showing the global reach and influence of the Council’s mechanisms and OHCHR.

- An in-depth analysis of the contribution of all current HRC member States, against the criteria for membership set down in GA resolution 60/251. This includes an analysis of their cooperation with the Special Procedures, UPR and Treaty Bodies, their voting records in 2016, and their leadership on key thematic and country-specific issues.

Global human rights crises and concerns are never far for the front pages of the world's major ne... more Global human rights crises and concerns are never far for the front pages of the world's major newspapers, nor far from the screens of our TVs and iPads. Yet this major study of global media trends, conducted by the Universal Rights Group (URG) with the support of the Federal Republic of Germany, shows that the body established by the international community to respond to those crises and address those concerns - the UN Human Rights Council - has a relatively low public profile, both in absolute terms and as compared with other major UN bodies (e.g. the Security Council, the WHO). What is more, global media coverage of the Council and its work tends to focus on a quite narrow range of stories (e.g. the conflict in Syria or the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories).

Does this matter?

In short: yes. The low profile of the Council is a potential challenge to its legitimacy, credibility and, ultimately, its on-the-ground impact.

It is essential that national populations are armed with the information they need to hold their governments to account against the commitments they make, and actions they take, at international level. The media can play a crucial role in providing that information, translating UN jargon into the everyday language of the world's rights-holders and, eventually, transposing universal norms into local reality.

Notwithstanding this situation, there are reasons to be optimistic about the future.

First, URG's media analysis shows that, compared with the proportion of UN resources attributed to human rights (a paltry 3% of the regular budget), the Organisation's human rights pillar punches well above its weight in terms of media voice share.

Second, certain parts of the international human rights system are natural and effective global 'spokespeople.' A considerable number of press articles across 2016 were generated by, or directly referenced, the Special Procedures (26% of all Council media coverage) or the High Commissioner for Human Rights (24%).

Thirdly, while the press tends to focus much of its attention on a fairly narrow range of concerns (e.g. Syria, the OPT); scratch beneath the surface and it becomes clear that the media - and the public - take an interest in a notably wide array of issues and questions: from torture to terrorism, and from religion to climate change. The URG survey furthermore shows that the gegraphic spread of that interest extends from East to West and from the Global North to the Global South.

The survey therefore shows that a strong baseline exists from which the international community can take steps to strengthen the visibility, credibility and dynamism of the Council and the wider human rights pillar.

It is vital as we look to the year ahead, that all stakeholders – including Council members and observers, UN organisations, departments and officials, Special Procedures mandate-holders and civil society – seize the opportunity to improve communication and public relations, and leverage global public interest and scrutiny to power improvements in the Council's effectiveness and impact.

As the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council (‘the Council’) celebrates it tenth anniversary i... more As the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council (‘the Council’) celebrates it tenth anniversary in 2016, this policy paper aims to provide an overview of the institutional issues relating to its status as a subsidiary body within the UN system. In light of its subsidiary status, the paper explores the Council’s synergies and interactions with its parent body – the General Assembly (GA) – and the UN Security Council (UNSC).

The paper addresses important questions regarding the structural positioning of the Council, its impact, and its potential for future growth within the UN system, including: What is the institutional architecture in which the Council finds itself, and how does it exert its influence to mainstream human rights within the UN system? To what extent is there overlap between the Council and other UN organs? What can be done to reduce bureaucratic overlap, and strengthen synergies, in regards to human rights work within the UN system?

In 2006, the then UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, called on the Council to lead the internation... more In 2006, the then UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, called on the Council to lead the international community from “the era of declaration” to “the era of implementation.” As the Council marks its 10th, and the two human rights Covenants their 50th anniversaries, there are important signs that UN Member States are increasingly turning their attention to the question of implementation, and how best to support it. 2016 therefore offers an important opportunity for a process of inclusive and collective reflection on remaining gaps, lessons learned, and best practices and how to replicate them.

There are also signs that the international community is moving to strengthen its ability to use evidence of serious non-compliance with obligations under international human rights law – i.e. evidence of emerging patterns of gross violations of human rights – as an ‘early warning’ sign of potential crises, and as a signal that the UN should act to prevent further violations and any further escalation of the crisis. Yet while there appears to be broad agreement about the value of a preventative (rather than reactive) approach, and that the Council should be central to any UN prevention strategy, there is little agreement about what ‘prevention’ actually is – what it means in practice, what tools or mechanisms are needed to do the job, and how the role of the Council fits within the wider UN prevention architecture.

The third Glion Human Rights Dialogue (Glion III), organised by Norway and Switzerland, with the support of the Universal Rights Group (URG) and held from 3rd to 4th May 2016, provided a a platform for representatives of key parts of the international human rights system such as States, OHCHR, Special Procedure mandate-holders and members of Treaty Bodies, and NGOs, to discuss these important issues in an informal setting. Glion III adopted a 'bottom-up' approach to the issues of implementation and prevention.

The report of the third Glion Human Rights Dialogue is an informal document summarising (in a non-attributable manner) some of the key ideas developed during the Glion retreat, and based on four policy dialogues which preceded it. The document does not represent the position of Norway or Switzerland, nor any of the participants, but rather is a non-exhaustive collection of ideas generated during those meetings. It is the hope of the organisers that these ideas and proposals will encourage and contribute to wider consideration by all stakeholders from all regions, thus making the Glion Dialogue a starting point for a fruitful and inclusive process. It is also the hope of the organisers that, where appropriate, States and other stakeholders will take forward useful ideas generated in Glion and thus contribute to an improvement in the Council’s relevance and impact in the field of human rights.

In 2005, Heads of State meeting at the UN’s World Summit resolved to create the Human Rights Coun... more In 2005, Heads of State meeting at the UN’s World Summit resolved to create the Human Rights Council and asked the President of the General Assembly to begin negotiations to establish its mandate, functions, composition and working methods. One of the defining outcomes of those negotiations would be the decision to establish, as a central pillar of the Council’s work, a new mechanism: the Universal Periodic Review (UPR).

The new Council met for the first time in June 2006, and began negotiations on an ‘institution-building package,’ which was to include ‘the modalities of the universal periodic review mechanism.’ Negotiations on the UPR, which were often difficult, focused on a number of key themes, including: normative foundation of the reviews; principles; periodicity of reviews; modalities; documentary basis of reviews; conduct of reviews; and outcome of the UPR. The end result was adopted as resolution 5/1 on 18th June 2007.

Five years later, on 25th March 2011, the Council adopted resolution 16/21, presenting the outcome of its five-year review. The overall package contained in resolution 16/21 was notably unambitious, though the Council did agree on some important changes to the UPR.

The sum total of these innovations and reforms is a mechanism that today has assumed a central role in the international human rights promotion system, and which is widely seen as a success. Key to that success is the mechanism’s universality – the notion that it covers, potentially, every human rights concern in every country – as well as its peer review and cooperative character.

Notwithstanding these strengths, as the UPR mechanism nears the end of its second cycle (which will conclude in 2016/2017), questions are being asked about whether it can maintain its success in the medium- to long-term. It is therefore important, ahead of the third cycle, to analyse and learn lessons from the first two cycles, and to give careful consideration to whether it is necessary to introduce certain reforms to the mechanism. Should States maintain the status quo, or are some tweaks desirable? From a political standpoint: should international policymakers stick or twist?

URG's multi-year project on the UPR seeks to answer these questions. It seeks to analyse and understand the political history of the UPR from its inception to the end of the second cycle. The project then analyses each stage of the 'UPR cycle' to see what lessons can be learnt from the UPR's first ten years, to identify achievements and weaknesses, and to offer ideas for the future strengthening of the mechanism. The final results and conclusions are presented in a new URG Policy Report.

During the summer of 2016, the URG conducted a human rights-based assessment of the candidates co... more During the summer of 2016, the URG conducted a human rights-based assessment of the candidates competing to fill the post of UN Secretary-General. A new policy brief on: 'Candidates for the post of UN Secretary-General: where do they stand on human rights?’ presents an overview of the selection and appointment procedure of the UN Secretary-General, and a summary of each candidate's experience, commitments, and pledges/vision in the area of human rights. Because human rights is one of the three pillars of the UN system, it is vital that States take this information into account when selecting the best individual for this vital post.

As the chief administrative officer of the UN, the Secretary-General is expected to promote the fulfilment of the UN’s objectives, including the promotion and realisation of human rights. According to the current officer-holder, a Secretary-General is ‘equal parts diplomat and advocate, civil servant and CEO…[and] is a symbol of United Nations ideals and a spokesperson for the interests of the world’s peoples, in particular the poor and vulnerable among them.’

The Secretary-General is appointed by the General Assembly, upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

The selection and appointment process of the UN Secretary-General has been the focus of regular criticism over the years, due to its lack of transparency and inclusivity. Although the formal inter-governmental decision-making process has not changed, this year, for the first time, reforms have been introduced to open the process up to wider participation and scrutiny, by, inter alia, asking the candidates to provide vision statements, convening informal dialogues and 'town hall' meetings, and allowing civil society and the media, in addition to States, to engage with the candidates.

As a contribution to that process, URG's new policy brief offers an assessment of where each candidate stands on questions of human rights. It does so by analysing their vision statements, their experience, their speeches and responses to questions during the informal dialogues, and their comments during the July 'town hall' meeting. The policy brief also explains the reformed appointment procedure, and analyses the degree to which scrutiny, questions, and statements have focused on important human rights issues (including thematic issues, and institutional issues related to the Human Rights Council and its mechanisms and programmes).

2015 will be remembered for many important initiatives and developments, from the body’s work to ... more 2015 will be remembered for many important initiatives and developments, from the body’s work to support human rights in Sri Lanka to the creation of a new Special Procedures mandate on the right to privacy. This new report on 'The Human Rights Council in 2015,' published by the Universal Rights Group and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway as part of the yourHRC.org project, offers an at-a-glance summary of the work, output and impact of the Council, and the engagement and leadership of its Member States.

It is likely that, in years to come, people will mainly remember 2015 as a year of efficiency drives, of nascent efforts to tackle the international ‘implementation gap,’ and (towards the end of the year) of a re-emergent recognition of the importance of prevention in the UN’s human rights toolkit.

Upon taking Office on 1st January, H.E. Ambassador Joachim Ruecker, the incoming ninth President of Council, announced three ‘baskets’ of priorities that would guide his work over the coming year. These were:

Efficiency
Effectiveness
Relationship with New York
Over the course of the year, the President and the Bureau probably devoted most attention to the first of the three ‘baskets’ – efficiency, and, as we look back at the year now ending, it is clear that their efforts have borne some important results. For example, the calendar year witnessed the first sustained quantitative contraction in the output of the Council since the body’s establishment in 2006. The number of resolutions adopted at the 28th session in March (37) was 12% lower than during the corresponding session one year earlier; and the 29th and 30th sessions likewise saw drops of 24% and 11% respectively (compared to the corresponding sessions of 2014). Overall, 2015 saw 95 resolutions adopted, 15% less than the number adopted in 2014 (112).

Linked with the drive to develop more efficient and effective methods of work, 2015 also saw some important innovations in the way the Council operates.

Taking forward ideas incubated during informal retreats and dialogues in Berlin, Geneva, Glion and elsewhere, a range of actors introduced new and improved ways of realising the Council’s mandate, including, inter alia: Informal Council Briefings by the High Commissioner; Enhanced Interactive Dialogues; country-specific Panel Debates (on the situation in North Korea); and ‘hybrid’ resolutions (i.e. texts focused on specific thematic concerns within a geographically-defined situation, such as, for example, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation’s resolution on the rights of Rohingya and other minorities in Myanmar).

2015 also saw the first adoption, outside of a formal Council review, of a text dealing with institutional reform. At the end of the 29th session, Ambassador Ruecker delivered a Statement by the President (PRST) on ‘enhancing the efficiency of the Human Rights Council.’ The PRST sought to bring improvements to the voluntary yearly calendar for thematic resolutions (to promote transparency and efficiency); introduce improved modalities for the appointment of Special Procedures mandates over time; and support the development of a 'more distinguishable, accessible and user-friendly webpage for the Human Rights Council, its mechanisms and procedures.’

Key goals of these rationalisation efforts, and of associated innovations in the Council’s working methods, were to create space for States and NGOs to focus on new and emerging human rights challenges, and to enable the Council to become more effective and thus move to fill the long-standing ‘implementation gap’ – the difference between international norms and local reality.

2015 saw some progress made in both regards...

yourHRC.org

The links between climate change and human rights are more widely accepted than ever before. The ... more The links between climate change and human rights are more widely accepted than ever before. The Human Rights Council has adopted a series of resolutions calling attention to the effects of climate change on the full enjoyment of human rights, and the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC has also recognised that ‘the adverse effects of climate change have a range of direct and indirect implications for the effective enjoyment of human rights.’ While climate change impacts have implications for the human rights of individuals in all parts of the world, it is well established that the rights of those in already vulnerable situations are at particular risk. As sea levels rise and extreme weather events increase in frequency and magnitude, more and more people in such situations are expected to be displaced by disasters, some of them across international borders.

And yet, despite a growing recognition of the human rights implications of climate change, including in the context of human displacement, and despite an understanding that adherence to international human rights commitments and principles can help to strengthen policymaking in response to global warming, relatively few concrete steps have been taken to bring a human rights perspective to climate negotiations. Likewise, beyond expressing concern about a possible human rights protection gap for the increasing number of people who are expected to be displaced across borders in the context of climate change, the international community has not done enough to consider how to fill that gap. This Policy Report is an important step towards clarifying what UN bodies can and should do to begin to safeguard human rights against the effects of climate change, including in the context of human displacement.

In 2006, member States took a significant step towards strengthening the human rights pillar of t... more In 2006, member States took a significant step towards strengthening the human rights pillar of the United Nations by establishing, with General Assembly resolution 60/251, the Human Rights Council.

Since then the Council has grown significantly in confidence and stature, positioning itself as a relevant and influential political body in the multilateral arena, and has registered important achievements at both a thematic and a country-specific level.

Established Council mechanisms, especially Special Procedures, have continued to expand in scope and sophistication, while a new mechanism – the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) – has seen the human rights record of every single UN member State scrutinised, thereby strengthening universality, inclusivity and dialogue.

While recognising these and other achievements, it is important to recognise that there are also areas where the Council has fallen short of its mandate and objectives. For example, the body has been criticised for focusing too heavily on general thematic issues and debate, while remaining silent on many serious human rights violations, including gross and systematic violations. Other critics point to deficiencies in the domestic implementation of resolutions, decisions and recommendations made by the Council and its mechanisms, and insufficient progress in effectively mainstreaming human rights across the UN system.

As the Council looks towards its 10th anniversary in 2016, it is important for stakeholders to take a step back and make an honest appraisal of the body’s achievements and challenges, and work together to identify new and innovative solutions to equip it to better meet those challenges in the decades to come.

In this spirit, on 5th and 6th May 2015, the Governments of Norway and Switzerland, supported by the Universal Rights Group (URG), hosted a second two-day retreat in Glion, Switzerland, designed to provide an informal, non-attributable platform for forward-looking and solutions-focused discussion on how to strengthen the relevance, effectiveness and impact of the Council. This year, three informal policy dialogues, organised by the URG in cooperation with the Permanent Missions of Mexico, Thailand and Morocco, preceded the Glion retreat. These policy dialogues were designed to promote the participation of a wide range of States, NGOs, UN officials and experts in discussions about the future of the Council. The dialogues allowed for an initial consideration of key challenges and the provisional identification of possible solutions.

The present document is an informal report summarising (in a non-attributable manner) some of the key ideas developed during the Glion retreat and based on the three policy dialogues. The document does not represent the position of Norway or Switzerland, nor any of the participants, but rather is a non-exhaustive collection of ideas generated during those meetings. It is the hope of the organisers that these ideas and proposals will encourage and contribute to wider consideration by all stakeholders from all regions, thus making the Glion Dialogue a starting point for a fruitful and inclusive process. It is also the hope of the organisers that, where appropriate, States and other stakeholders will take forward useful ideas generated in Glion and thus contribute to an improvement in the Council’s relevance and impact.

The report is divided into four parts. The first presents ideas generated during the opening plenary of the Glion Dialogue, which considered ‘big picture’ questions relating to the Council’s performance since 2006, and how the body’s relevance and impact might be strengthened in the future. The next three sections then present key ideas generated during the three policy dialogues and the more focused discussions in Glion on: the operation of the Council – how to better deliver on its mandate; strengthening implementation and impact on-the-ground; and the Council’s relationship with the wider UN system, and the mandate-resource gap.

On 4th September, the Governments of Norway and Switzerland, together with the Universal Rights G... more On 4th September, the Governments of Norway and Switzerland, together with the Universal Rights Group, presented a report on 'Reflections on the future of the UN human rights pillar' containing ideas and proposals generated during the 2014 Glion Human Rights Dialogue (held in May 2014).

The report looks ahead to the 10th anniversary of the Human Rights Council and offers thoughts on how the international human rights system might be strengthened in the years to come.

This report on the United Nations system of independent human rights experts is the result of a y... more This report on the United Nations system of independent human rights experts is the result of a year-long project led by Marc Limon of the Universal Rights Group and Ted Piccone of the Brookings Institution. It reflects primary and secondary research, two policy dialogues (in Geneva and in New York) and nearly fifty interviews with key policymakers, including United Nations Special Procedures mandate-holders, staff of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, diplomats and human rights NGOs. The project builds upon two previous publications by Ted Piccone – the book Catalysts for Change: How the UN's Independent Experts Promote Human Rights (Brookings Institution Press, 2012) and the Brookings Foreign Policy report Catalysts for Rights: the Unique Contribution of the UN's Independent Experts for Human Rights (October 2010). It analyses the historical underpinnings of the Special Procedures mechanism, assesses the current activities and impact of the mandate-holders, and makes recommendations for strengthening this core component of the United Nations human rights system and its long-term efficacy. The conclusions reached in the report are entirely the authors' responsibility and do not necessarily reflect the views of their respective institutions, donors or partners. The authors wish to acknowledge the invaluable contribution to this report of Hilary Power of the Universal Rights Group and Ashley Miller of the Brookings Institution. © Universal Rights Group 2014.

This report on the UN’s system of individual human rights communications is the result of a two-year project led by the Universal Rights Group. It offers a number of conclusions.

Second, the challenges faced by, and the weaknesses of, each procedure, especially when viewed from a victim’s perspective, show significant overlap.

Human rights and the 2030 Agenda

- Infographics showing the global reach and influence of the Council’s mechanisms and OHCHR.

The practice of entering reservations to the UN human rights treaties raises crucial questions about the universality of human rights and, conversely, about cultural and religious relativism.

Without these dedicated individuals, the protection of the environment and of the rights that depend upon it would be impossible.

Reporting from the front line of environmental protection around the world, the threats facing EHRDs are perilous and increasing.

Shocking as these numbers may be, they are, in themselves, an inadequate means of conveying the scale and nature of the challenges and risks faced by EHRDs.

URG’s new Policy Brief, authored by John Knox, seeks to:

- Infographics showing the global reach and influence of the Council’s mechanisms and OHCHR.

- An in-depth analysis of the contribution of all current HRC member States, against the criteria for membership set down in GA resolution 60/251. This includes an analysis of their cooperation with the Special Procedures, UPR and Treaty Bodies, their voting records in 2016, and their leadership on key thematic and country-specific issues.

Does this matter?

In short: yes. The low profile of the Council is a potential challenge to its legitimacy, credibility and, ultimately, its on-the-ground impact.

Notwithstanding this situation, there are reasons to be optimistic about the future.

The Secretary-General is appointed by the General Assembly, upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

Linked with the drive to develop more efficient and effective methods of work, 2015 also saw some important innovations in the way the Council operates.

2015 saw some progress made in both regards...

yourHRC.org

The report looks ahead to the 10th anniversary of the Human Rights Council and offers thoughts on how the international human rights system might be strengthened in the years to come.