JBI Human Rights

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.

Assessing NHRIs: Does Growth Represent Progress?

National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) play a key role as authoritative human rights bodies organized by governments to function at the national level.

In the attached remarks, delivered at a UN Development Program (UNDP) seminar, JBI Director Felice Gaer illuminates the past and present of NHRIs. She concludes that many problems arise when NHRIs lack the political and operational independence essential to conduct unbiased human rights reporting.

Gaer discusses how participating governments treated NHRIs at the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna, and explores aspects of their current status. The Paris principles, which require NHRIs to be independent from government financial and political control, were cited favorably at the Vienna Conference. These principles remain the basis for assessing national human rights organizations.

Gaer explains that in spite of the Paris principles, not all NHRIs meet these conditions. Monitoring member states’ compliance with international human rights treaties has made many NHRIs indispensable to some UN procedures. However, concerns remain about how to evaluate whether NHRIs are truly pluralistic and independent. Moreover, media censorship and inadequate funding threaten the ability of NHRIs to monitor human rights effectively. Gaer notes that some have begun to question whether NHRIs detract from the activities of non-governmental organizations (NGOs); others have called for NHRIs themselves to be monitored.

Gaer’s full analysis of NHRIs and the challenges they face can be found here.

US & UN Human Rights Council: The Next Chapter— Discussion with US Amb. Keith Harper

 

On February 2, 2016, the Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights (JBI) and the United Nations Foundation (UNF) convened a discussion with Ambassador Keith Harper, United States Representative to the UN Human Rights Council, entitled “The United States and the UN Human Rights Council: The Next Chapter.” An abridged edited version of the event, created by the Jewish Broadcasting Service, is available above.

Country-Specific Scrutiny by the UN Human Rights Council: Changes Documented During US Membership, 2009-2015

At the end of 2015, the United States completed its second consecutive three-year term as a member of the UN Human Rights Council, the intergovernmental body created in 2006 to replace the Commission on Human Rights. In an effort to review the effect of US membership on the Council’s performance, the Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights has periodically documented the number of country-specific resolutions adopted by the Council, the special sessions convened by the Council on country-specific human rights crises, and the number of independent “special procedures” created by the Council to investigate country-specific and thematic human rights issues.  These are a number of areas to which the US has devoted substantial attention during its time on the Council.

While there remain many aspects of the Council’s performance that states should continue to work to improve, and while the Council still devotes a highly disproportionate degree of its country-specific action to Israel, JBI’s review reveals that US engagement has had a number of beneficial effects on the Council’s performance. 

The procedural rules of the Council require the US, and any other State that has served two consecutive three-year terms, to remain off of the Council for one year before it will be eligible for membership again. During 2016, when the US is off the Council, JBI urges the United States to use its substantial influence in Geneva to appeal to current members of the Council to continue the positive trends its engagement brought about. Such trends included a noticeable increase in the number of resolutions that address human rights abuses in particular countries. JBI also encourages the US to take action to ensure the Council’s credibility and professionalism, both with respect to its treatment of Israel and other key issues.  We also encourage the US to act on the commitment it has made to seek re-election to the Council for another three-year term from 2017-2019. The elections for this term of Council membership will take place at the UN General Assembly in October 2016.

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

 

JBI Calls for Combatting Religious Repression Worldwide

Hanukkah, the Festival of Lights, is an 8-day holiday celebrating religious freedom. On each night, candles are lit.  JBI encourages concerned persons also to mark eight nights of human rights, shining a light on the areas of the world where darkness remains, and the freedoms of many religious communities are suppressed.  Here are eight examples to reflect upon, one for each night:

1. Yazidis. Last year the world watched in horror as tens of thousands of Yazidis sought refuge in Iraqi mountains near their homes in Sinjar. New reports reveal mass killings and public executions; abductions, rape, and enslavement of women and young girls, with girls and women being openly sold at slave markets; and  forced recruitment of children as young as 12. Thousands of Christians and Sabaean-Mandaeans, as well as Shabak, Turkmen, and Kaka’i people have also fled after ISIS’s targeted attacks. In all, the UN estimates 15,000 civilians have been killed in Iraq and more than one million have been displaced.
2. Jews in Europe. Lingering prejudices and anti-Semitic attacks in Paris, Brussels, and Copenhagen have contributed to feelings of insecurity among European Jews. Synagogues throughout the continent have closed due to heightened threat levels, and the Chief Rabbi of Brussels has speculated that there may be no future for Jews in Europe. Fear of recent increases in anti-Semitism has led nearly one third of European Jews to consider leaving their home country because they do not feel protected.
3. Catholics in China. China has repeatedly been cited by the US government as a country with systematic repression of religious freedom. Practicing any faith outside the State’s five approved religions is strictly prohibited and punishable with prison sentences. Unrecognized Catholics are among the numerous groups that have suffered many human rights abuses and limitations on their ability to freely practice their religion. Unrecognized Catholic priests and bishops have been arrested and disappeared, and churches have been destroyed.
4. Baha’is in Iran. According to Iranian law, Baha’is may be killed with impunity.  Discrimination against Baha’is has worsened under President Hassan Rouhani’s tenure – 74 members of the Baha’i faith are currently unjustly imprisoned solely for their religious beliefs. Iran is one of the world’s most egregious human rights violators. The UN Special Rapporteur on Iran, Dr. Ahmed Shaheed, has confirmed that Iran continues to persecute members of Baha’i and other religious and ethnic minority groups and to commit other serious rights violations.
5. Central African Republic. A quarter of the country’s population has been displaced and an estimated 6,000 people have been killed. Intergroup violence has continued between the Seleka, a coalition of armed paramilitary Muslim groups that initially staged a coup against the government, and “anti-balaka” coalitions of Christian fighters who fought back. The UN Security Council Commission of Inquiry found gross human rights abuses amounting to crimes against humanity on each side. Through his visit, Pope Francis attempted to advance peace and end this state of affairs. However, serious tensions remain.
6. Ecumenical Patriarch and Greek Orthodox Christians in Tukey. Turkey maintains several prohibitive laws that have led to the severe decline of the presence of Greek Orthodox Christians in Turkey.  The government has yet to allow the patriarchate’s main school of theology in Halki to reopen since Turkey’s highest court closed it in 1971. It is estimated that as of 2013, fewer than 2,000 Greek Orthodox remain in Turkey.
7. North Koreans.  It has been authoritatively documented in recent years that North Koreans suffer atrocious abuses under the current government, including egregious violations of freedom of religion. The UN Human Rights Council’s Commission of Inquiry found that “countless numbers of persons in the DPRK who attempt to practice their religious beliefs have been severely punished, even unto death,” causing the population of religious adherents in the country to drop from about 24% of the population in 1950 to only 0.16% in 2002.
8. Jews in the Arab World. The ability for Jews to live peacefully and safely in the Arab world is uncertain. In Egypt, for example, the miniscule Jewish community is subjected to anti-Semitic sentiment spread by state and privately owned media. In addition, the Alexandria Administrative Court decided to permanently ban the Jewish Abu Hassira pilgrimage festival. Anti-Semitic rhetoric and violence has also increased in Yemen despite its diminished Jewish population numbering less than 100.

With these 8 examples, it is clear that great strides still must be taken to achieve freedom of religion throughout the world. Join JBI in speaking out and calling for an end to repression and accountability for those responsible for discrimination, violence, and abuse.

20th Anniversary of Beijing Women’s Conference: JBI Director Featured in New Film Account

On the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the Beijing Women’s Conference, the women’s leadership platform “Makers” produced “Once and for All,” a documentary film that tells the story of the pivotal conference that recognized women’s rights as human rights. The filmmakers identified 20 women who helped the conference become a reality, including JBI Director Felice Gaer, and a clip about her is available here and below. More information, and a link to the full film can be found here.

As a public member of the US delegation, Gaer played a key role, working closely with US Ambassador Geraldine Ferraro and others, to negotiate and gain support for language affirming women’s rights as human rights, and ensuring violence against women was addressed as a human rights violation, requiring monitoring of abuses and accountability of perpetrators.

Connected to this, Gaer wrote a widely cited article entitled “And Never the Twain Shall Meet? The Struggle to Establish Women’s Rights as International Human Rights,” published by the American Bar Association in a 1998 volume entitled The International Human Rights of Women: Instruments of Change. You can find the article here.

 

JBI releases Backgrounder on migration crisis

Europe’s Migration Crisis

The world is presently experiencing a wave of migration of a size unseen since World War II, with West European governments now encountering a highly publicized surge in asylum seekers and refugees. In Backgrounder on the Current European Migration Crisis, the Jacob Blaustein Institute examines the dimensions of the current migration crisis and presents estimates of the casualties reported to date, the reasons for the current wave of migration, relevant asylum and refugee law, responses of European governments including the consequences of the inadequate responses to date. JBI notes some suggested responses proposed by European leaders and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. This informational note is available here.

UN General Assembly Poised to Designate December 9 as the International Day to Memorialize Victims of Genocide

On September 11, the United Nations General Assembly is expected to adopt a resolution (UN Document A/69/L.88) that will designate December 9 as a day to remember and honor all victims of genocide. The adoption by the UN General Assembly of this draft resolution, and its creation of an international day for prevention of genocide and the memorialization of its victims, will send a clear message to the world that the international community is united in its resolve to confront the horrors of past genocides and to take more effective action to prevent it in the future. 

The General Assembly is taking this step at the recommendation of the UN Human Rights Council, which called on the GA to designate this international day in a resolution (28/34) introduced by Armenia at its March 2014 session. The full title of the memorial day will be “International Day of Commemoration and Dignity of the Victims of the Crime of Genocide and of the Prevention of this Crime.”

JBI welcomes the proposal to create an annual occasion for the United Nations to remember all those who have perished in past genocides and to assess the effectiveness of efforts by the UN and its Member States to prevent this crime.  We also welcome the attention it will direct to the Genocide Convention, as JBI has long pressed for universal ratification of this important treaty, to which 146 of the UN’s Member States are parties.  The proposed commemorative date, December 9, marks the anniversary of the 1948 General Assembly resolution adopting the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. 

Since its founding in 1971, JBI has supported efforts to prohibit the crime of genocide in law and to identify the early warning signs of genocide and has urged the UN and its Member States to take action to prevent genocide and punish perpetrators of the crime. In particular, JBI has long advocated for universal ratification of the Genocide Convention.  In 2001, on the eve of the centenary of the birth of Raphael Lemkin, the Polish Jewish legal scholar who coined the term “genocide” and drafted much of the Genocide Convention, JBI published An Epitaph for Raphael Lemkin, a monograph by Dr. William F. Korey.  At a launch event held at the United Nations, Secretary-General Kofi Annan acknowledged Lemkin, who had never been previously recognized by the UN, as “one of the unsung heroes of the international human rights movement.”

Today, JBI also supports the work of the Special Adviser to the UN Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide, the first UN post to explicitly address and advise UN leadership on genocide-related issues. In 2008, at the request of the Special Adviser, JBI began its Genocide Prevention Project (GPP) aimed at the central goal of deepening the world’s understanding of what it means to “prevent genocide” and when the presence of patterns of human rights violations triggers States’ responsibility to engage in preventive action. JBI’s Manual on Human Rights and the Prevention of Genocide, published in April 2015, is the most recent publication to result from this project.  JBI also supports the UN’s Holocaust Remembrance Program and the annual Holocaust Remembrance Day activities carried out at the UN General Assembly and through the UN Department of Public Information.

In Inaugural Jacob Blaustein Institute Human Rights Lecture, Prof. Moshe Halbertal Examines the Moral Obligation to Protect Civilians in Asymmetric War

JBI is pleased to announce the publication of the inaugural Jacob Blaustein Institute Human Rights Lecture, delivered by Professor Moshe Halbertal at a December 9, 2014 event in New York City attended by legal scholars, diplomats, human rights advocates, and friends of JBI.

Prof. Halbertal delivering the inaugural JBI Human Rights Lecture on Dec. 9, 2014

The lecture, which can be downloaded here, outlines a moral argument demonstrating why governments and societies must demand that their military forces adhere to the requirements of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, even when they find themselves battling non-state adversaries that gain tactical advantages when they deliberately violate the law by hiding among civilians and putting their lives at risk.  Halbertal defines this duty as one of “responsibility,” which requires soldiers to take steps to minimize the collateral harm they cause to civilians as much as possible, even when this means assuming risks to their own lives to protect civilians.  Halbertal emphasizes the need for militaries to train their soldiers so that they are prepared to do "what decency demands" even in asymmetric conflict.

The JBI Human Rights Lecture series was established by Robert S. Rifkind, a distinguished attorney and civic leader, who served as Chair of the Institute’s Administrative Council from 2000 to 2007. Other lectures in this series will examine key human rights issues from other perspectives, such as through the lens of human rights law and practice, as well as in a historical or policy context.