A new policy brief has just been published on the outcome of recent negotiations at the United Nations to reform the ten independent expert committees that review States’ performance under the core international human rights treaties (the "treaty bodies"). Authored by JBI Associate Director Christen Broecker and Professor Michael O’Flaherty of the National University of Ireland in Galway, and published by the Universal Rights Group in Geneva, the policy brief makes it clear that in the wake of this process there remains a long way to go to strengthen the treaty bodies.
The outcome of the recent UN reform effort, carried out by Member States at the UN General Assembly in New York from February 2012 to April 2014, makes important changes to way the UN allocates the resources it already devotes to the treaty bodies and encourages the treaty bodies to bring their procedures into greater harmony; these changes could improve the functioning of the treaty bodies. However, the outcome does relatively little to press States to engage more meaningfully with the treaty bodies and to ensure better compliance with their reporting and human rights obligations under the core international human rights treaties. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights undertook a reform initiative of her own from 2009 to 2012 that identified a number of measures that could increase procedural and substantive compliance with the human rights treaties. Going forward, it will be important for all stakeholders of the UN treaty bodies to reflect back on the wider reforms advocated by the High Commissioner and to continue to seek to improve the treaty bodies’ contribution to achieving more effective protection of rights-holders worldwide.
The treaty bodies, comprised of independent experts elected by States parties but who serve in their personal capacities, play several important roles; among them evaluating States’ compliance with their human rights obligations and clarifying the contours and scope of human rights norms. Yet they face several challenges including inadequate compliance by States with their treaty obligations as well as resource constraints. These concerns have provoked several reform efforts at the UN in past decades. The most recent of these was an intergovernmental reform process at the UN General Assembly, which was initiated in early 2012 and concluded in April 2014. This initiative was created in response to and as an attempt by some States to supersede an earlier effort by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to identify reforms to “strengthen” the treaty bodies in a series of meetings from 2009-2012 that became known as the “Dublin Process.”
The new policy brief, “The Outcome of the General Assembly’s Treaty Body Strengthening Process: An Important Milestone on a Longer Journey,” describes the path leading from the High Commissioner’s process to the intergovernmental process, examines the extent to which the General Assembly’s outcome reflects the recommendations in the High Commissioner’s 2012 report on the Dublin Process as well as other proposals made by States, and outlines the implications of General Assembly Resolution 68/268, which concluded the intergovernmental process.
The policy brief concludes that the General Assembly’s resolution will make important changes to the UN financing for the treaty bodies; it also will increase the amount of time per year that the treaty bodies meet. The resolution also encourages the treaty bodies to take steps to harmonize their various procedures; its recommendations in this area will be considered and acted upon by the treaty body experts, including by their ten Chairpersons at a meeting in Geneva at the end of June. The report notes that the General Assembly did not endorse several of the High Commissioner’s recommendations aimed at promoting better implementation by States of their human rights obligations; it does, however, devote substantial funding to create a capacity-building program to provide States with UN assistance in preparing their reports to the treaty bodies. Significantly, the report also identifies several proposals made during the process that threatened the independence and autonomy of the treaty bodies but were not incorporated in the final resolution. These proposals reflect some States’ enduring opposition to the treaty bodies’ practice of rigorously, independently scrutinizing States’ human rights performance. The threats posed by those proposals have been averted for the time being.
The Jacob Blaustein Institute played an active role in the intergovernmental process, including by contributing input on the process at the three “civil society forums” that were convened in 2012 and 2013. JBI’s submissions to these forums are available here (May 2013), here (Feb 2012), and here (Sept 2012). In May 2013, JBI co-sponsored a civil society briefing for the Chairpersons of the treaty bodies in New York, together with the International Service for Human Rights and Amnesty International.
Comments