JBI Human Rights

Available now: JBI Human Rights Lecture "Why We Stand for Human Rights" by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights

“Why We Stand for Human Rights,” delivered by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein was the third Jacob Blaustein Institute Human Rights Lecture, presented at an event in New York City.

In the lecture, available here, the High Commissioner asks “What is happening to us?” and expresses dismay about the global retreat from human rights. He criticizes a number of world leaders, including presidents of Russia and China. He cites particular alarm at rhetoric from various Western officials and responds to the remarks by the US president before the UN General Assembly. Zeid characterizes the latter speech as “One part chauvinistic nationalisms. One part balance-of-power swordplay and a crumbling adherence to law…” Recalling that “we have been here before,” the High Commissioner suggests that limiting international and domestic policy to security and sovereignty, and failing to include human rights considerations, will lead to calamitous results.

The High Commissioner concludes with a compelling response to the threats facing human rights today: “What would change the trajectory, would be the existence of a world-wide wave of popular support for universal human rights – pushing, prodding, holding their governments to the mark, and shaking-up the slumbering politicians. We must now intensify, greatly, our advocacy and expand our reach in a manner that is without precedent.”

The publication of Zeid’s lecture also contains a brief introduction by JBI Director Felice Gaer. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the lecture, please contact us at [email protected].

Groundbreaking Joint Statement Declares Abuse of Human Rights Defenders Violate Human Rights Treaties

The UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders, together with representatives from each international human rights treaty body, issued a joint statement at the outset of the 30^th annual meeting of Treaty Body chairs this summer, affirming that abuse and undue limitation of human rights defenders violates State party obligations delineated in the treaties. JBI’s Director, Felice Gaer, who is vice chair of the UN Committee against Torture, was one of the signatories.

The joint statement emphasizes the importance of human rights defenders in the application of the rights included within the treaties and the UN Declaration on human rights defenders, marking its 20^th anniversary. In addition, the statement affirms that all individuals should be able to engage with the UN treaty body system without risk of discrimination, reprisals, or retaliation. It includes a list of recommended measures States may adopt to ensure the protection of human rights defenders.

The full text of the joint statement can be found here.

“The Universality of Human Rights: Pragmatism Meets Idealism” by Professor Yuval Shany

“The Universality of Human Rights: Pragmatism Meets Idealism” by Professor Yuval Shany,  the second JBI Human Rights Lecture,  is now available online here.

Professor Shany explores whether the universality of human rights is fixed and beyond challenge. He confronts a number of ways in which rights may not be delivered to right holders in a uniform or universally similar form. Shany recounts some familiar arguments concerning the need to adapt to different cultures. He delves into issues of enforcement of rights including the failure of States to invest adequate financial resources to monitor rights, resulting in a lack of effective monitoring.

In an introduction to the lecture, JBI points out that while all human rights are not upheld in every situation, de facto, this does  not necessarily mean the rights themselves lack universal application or normative value. The availability and effectiveness of enforcement mechanisms (or lack thereof) for human rights obligations do not alter the universality of the rights themselves.

As with other JBI Human Rights Lectures, we encourage readers to address the questions Professor Shany raises in the framework of the ongoing effort to promote and protect human rights.

For a hard copy of the lecture, please send a request to [email protected].

A Critical Moment for the UN and Human Rights: Selection of the Next UN High Commissioner for Human Rights

On August 31, 2018, the four-year term in office of UN High Commissioner Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein will come to an end.  Noting that Zeid has already publicly announced that he is not seeking reappointment to a second term, the Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights has written to UN Secretary-General António Guterres to stress that the selection of the next High Commissioner is a critical moment for the UN and its human rights programs.  Our letter calls on the Secretary-General to openly solicit input from civil society as he seeks to identify the person best suited for this high-level and highly-regarded post, and to seek a capable leader who will be able to effectively:

(1) exercise leadership, by maintaining and defending the independence of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, monitoring and publicly presenting information about emerging human rights crises, and ensuring effective work by human rights field presences;

(2) maintain the UN’s credibility on human rights, by gathering accurate information about human rights conditions, conveying it to relevant UN stakeholders and ensuring that UN officials respond appropriately to the human rights conditions they encounter; and

(3) remain accountable to victims of rights violations, not only by speaking out against the commission of gross human rights abuses, but more generally by acting as well as being seen to act in a way that provides protection for the work of human rights defenders and affirms the principle of “all human rights for all.”

The full letter is available here: JBI Letter to SG Guterres on selection of the next High Commissioner for Human Rights.

 

 

Continue U.S. Engagement in UN Human Rights Council

The Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights along with Human Rights First, Freedom Now, the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, and the Better World Campaign dispatched a letter to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on 6 March, 2018 encouraging the U.S. maintain its engagement in the UN Human Rights Council. The letter details the need for Human Rights Council reform and the impact U.S. engagement has already had on the Human Rights Council, and encourages continued participation and engagement to further improve the Council's work. The full text of the letter can be found at the following link.

2017 JBI Human Rights Lecture features UN High Commissioner for Human Rights

 

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zaid Ra’ad Al Hussein, delivered the 2017 JBI Human Rights Lecture, entitled “Why We Stand for Human Rights.” He expressed dismay about the recent retreat from human rights demonstrated by some world leaders, including Russia and China, and express particular alarm at rhetoric from the US President to the UN General Assembly, which he characterized as “One part chauvinistic nationalisms. One part balance-of-power swordplay and a crumbling adherence to law…”

Zeid stressed further that “time and again, the denial of human rights considerations by national leaders, diplomats and international actors alike has in the longer term proven itself to be absolutely disastrous.” Moreover, the High Commissioner suggested that limiting the international and domestic focus to security and nationalism, and failing to include human rights considerations, is certain to lead to calamitous results.

Zeid outlined a compelling response to the threats facing human rights today: “What would change the trajectory, would be the existence of a world-wide wave of popular support for universal human rights – pushing, prodding, holding their governments to the mark, and shaking-up the slumbering politicians. We must now intensify, greatly, our advocacy and expand our reach in a manner that is without precedent.”

New JBI Report on the Impact of the UN's Human Rights Office in New York

A new report by the Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights charts the progress made by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in New York (OHCHR-NY), focusing particularly on the years since an Assistant Secretary-General (ASG) for Human Rights was created to head the office in 2010. The report reveals that OHCHR-NY has made great strides in increasing the impact of the UN’s human rights program on the United Nations’ broader work related to peace and security, development, and humanitarian assistance, and at the same time has begun to serve as a key New York-based facilitator for independent UN human rights experts, human rights defenders, and NGOs.

Informed by an expert discussion convened by JBI in early 2017, the report proposes a number of recommendations to strengthen the UN's response to serious human rights crises around the world in the years ahead.

The report is available for download here.

 

Game-Changer: the U.S. at the UN Human Rights Council

JBI's new briefing paper, Game-Changer: the U.S. at the UN Human Rights Council, presents data and analysis demonstrating how the U.S. presence on the Human Rights Council has led to results in key U.S. priority areas, including  on the body’s performance with respect to country-specific scrutiny and its treatment of Israel.

Noting that further reforms to address the Council’s enduring flaws are both necessary and achievable, the briefing paper puts forward recommendations on how the U.S. can work with allies to achieve these reforms in the years ahead.  It also concludes, with an eye to the Council's record of performance during the years prior to U.S. engagement, that a U.S. withdrawal from the world body would result in negative consequences for multilateral efforts to protect and advance human rights.

Key findings include:

• The U.S. presence on the Human Rights Council has resulted in scrutiny of many of the world’s worst human rights violators. 
• The Council has promoted universal human rights principles as a result of U.S. engagement.
• U.S. participation has improved the Human Rights Council’s treatment of Israel.
• The Council’s membership is more rights-respecting as a result of U.S. leadership.
• U.S. engagement with the Human Rights Council has been a “game changer” for the world body, and redoubled commitment to reform could bring significant improvements.

The full text of the briefing paper is available for download here: JBI Briefing Paper - Game Changer - US on UNHRC

 

 

 

The Impact of US Engagement on the UN Human Rights Council’s Country-Specific* Scrutiny

For the past seven and a half years, the United States has devoted substantial diplomatic effort to improving the performance of the UN Human Rights Council, the preeminent intergovernmental body devoted to human rights. When the US began to engage with the Council in 2009, it identified two areas of the body’s performance as in particular need of improvement: (1) the number of human rights violators that the Council identified by name and targeted for scrutiny in its resolutions; and (2) the Council’s strikingly disproportionate focus on one State –Israel.

In an effort to review the effect of US engagement on the Council’s performance, the Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights (JBI) has reviewed the number of “country-specific resolutions” adopted by the Council, the number of special sessions convened by the Council on human rights crises, and the number of independent “special procedure mandates” created by the Council to investigate country-specific and thematic human rights issues. 

Our review reveals that US engagement has made a significant mark on the Council’s performance. In particular, US engagement brought about a significant increase in the number of Council resolutions that address specific human rights violations. For example, in 2015, the last year of the second US term of membership, the Council adopted 31 “country-specific” resolutions, more than twice as many as the Council adopted in 2006, 2007, or 2008. These resolutions address and call for further UN reporting on human rights violations in North Korea, Iran, Syria, Myanmar (Burma), South Sudan, Belarus, Eritrea, Sri Lanka, Burundi, Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Congo,  Central African Republic, Somalia, Libya, Mali, Yemen, Guinea, Cote d’Ivoire, Cambodia, and Ukraine. In 2015 the Council also adopted resolutions condemning human rights abuses perpetrated by the terrorist groups Da’esh and Boko Haram.

Moreover, the number of Israel-specific resolutions adopted by the Council declined during the period of US membership, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of all country-specific resolutions. From 2006 to 2008, the period of US disengagement from the Council, Israel was condemned in more than half (17 out of 33) of all country-specific resolutions. In contrast, in 2015 the Council adopted five resolutions condemning Israel, which constituted 19 percent of the country-specific resolutions adopted by the Council that year.

The US served two three-year terms on the Council, from 2009 to 2015. Procedural rules required the US to rotate off the Council in 2016.  During this mandatory off-year, the US remained deeply engaged: the US maintained a dedicated Ambassador to the Council in Geneva who served as coordinator of the Western European and Others Group of States (WEOG) and continued to make the Council a diplomatic priority.  This was reflected in the Council’s performance; the number of country-specific resolutions adopted in 2016 declined slightly, but not substantially, and by the end of the year the Council had adopted 27 country-specific resolutions.

The US has been re-elected to a three-year term of membership on the Council beginning in 2017, and thus far the Council has completed only one of its three annual sessions.  There, the Council adopted more country-specific resolutions (15) than it did at the corresponding sessions in 2016 (12) and 2015 (12). The number of country-specific resolutions on Israel remained the same (5) from the Spring 2016 to Spring 2017 sessions.

Despite these positive changes, the Human Rights Council’s performance remains lacking in key respects.  The Council continues to focus its attention exceedingly disproportionately on the human rights situation in Israel. It also has not adopted resolutions criticizing a number of States that bear responsibility for the commission of particularly serious violations of human rights, though groups of Member States have made joint statements expressing concern about human rights conditions on some of these countries, including China. 

Nevertheless, this updated review demonstrates that US engagement has corresponded with a marked improvement in the Council’s performance. The findings suggest that this hard-earned progress might well be lost should the US retreat from its leadership role.

Our detailed documentation and analysis of trends over time, as well as background information, can be found in the full analysis below.

* In this study, the term “country-specific” is used to designate resolutions and special sessions that draw attention to particular human rights violations as opposed to thematic human rights issues. This term includes resolutions and special sessions that address specific countries and those that are primarily aimed at monitoring human rights abuses perpetrated by specific non-State actors, such as armed terrorist groups. 

Picking and Choosing: Unpacking Country Visits by Special Procedures

^{In a new analysis, "Picking and Choosing? Country Visits by Thematic Special Procedures," JBI Director Felice Gaer explores country visits by  UN human rights independent experts and responses to them. She reviews the growth of such visits, some of the countries visited, and the issuance of ‘standing invitations’ to mandate holders. Her analysis looks at how the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) elections and its Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process may have influenced government decisions to cooperate with these experts. Gaer explores how five countries that formally complained to the HRC about country visits have themselves engaged with independent experts. The analysis ends with a discussion of measures the HRC might take to avoid problematic ‘picking and choosing.’}

^{This analysis will be published in a forthcoming collection edited by A. Nolan, R. Freedman & T. Murphy entitled The United Nations Special Procedures System.}

See the full analysis here.