JBI Human Rights

New JBI Appeal on the One-Year Anniversary of the Russian Invasion of Ukraine: Collective Action Needed to Uphold Human Rights, Secure Peace, and Ensure Justice

The Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights has published a new assessment of the international response to Russia’s unprovoked attack against and its reported commission of widespread and systematic human rights violations and war crimes in Ukraine to mark the one-year anniversary of the invasion.

Entitled JBI Appeal on the One-Year Anniversary of the Russian Invasion of Ukraine: Collective Action Needed to Uphold Human Rights, Secure Peace, and Ensure Justice, the new assessment calls on States to take further action, individually and collectively, to bring about an end to the conflict and the widespread human rights violations that are ongoing, while upholding Ukraine’s territorial integrity and creating the necessary conditions for the people of Ukraine to obtain redress, including guarantees that the harm to which they have been subjected will not be repeated in the future.

Among its recommendations, the assessment calls on States to:

• Maintain and continue to support the independent monitoring mechanisms documenting and verifying the reports of widespread violations emerging from Ukraine and Russia.
• Vote in favor of a resolution calling for extending the mandate of the Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine for another year which will be considered by the UN Human Rights Council in early April 2023.
• Provide financial support to the UN Human Rights Office to ensure the continued operation of the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (HRMMU).
• Encourage the UN Human Rights Office to provide adequate assistance to the new Special Rapporteur on human rights in Russia.
• Support and facilitate the work of independent human rights monitors and journalists reporting on human rights concerns in Ukraine and Russia.
• Continue to amplify the findings and conclusions of independent and impartial monitors and raise alarm about egregious abuses.
• Continue to draw attention to and amplify the findings of independent UN human rights monitors about serious violations in Ukraine, including at the Human Rights Council and the resumed emergency special session of the UN General Assembly on Ukraine.
• Following its publication in March 2023, circulate the report of the Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine as an official document of the UN Security Council and invite the Chair of the COI to brief the Council.
• Continue inviting senior UN human rights officials to brief the UN Security Council on Ukraine.
• Continue to invest diplomatic energy in mobilizing widespread support for collective responses to the crisis in Ukraine that reaffirm the importance of respect for human rights.
• Vote in favor of the draft resolution that the UN General Assembly will consider at the next meeting of the emergency special session on Ukraine on February 22, 2023.
• Consistently to express support for Ukraine’s territorial integrity and the need for accountability for atrocity crimes committed during the conflict.
• Encourage UN officials to continue to publicize information about the commission of serious human rights violations in Ukraine and Russia.
• Take further action to hold accountable and deter further harmful actions by the individuals and entities most responsible for violations in Ukraine.
• Provide support to efforts to gather evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Ukraine and facilitate prosecution of perpetrators of such acts.
• Increase the financial and personal consequences facing the individuals and entities most responsible for the continued aggression and gross human rights violations that Russian forces and those associated with them continue to commit against the people of Ukraine, including by strengthening existing sanctions.
• Ensure that those affected by the conflict in Ukraine receive needed assistance.
• Support measures aimed at ensuring that Ukrainian victims of the Russian aggression obtain redress and reparation for the harm they have experienced.
• Provide funds to support the UN’s $5.6 billion humanitarian appeal for Ukraine and neighboring countries that have accepted large numbers of refugees.
• Expand domestic infrastructure for refugee resettlement.

As Russia’s offensive campaign and illegitimate claim to sovereignty over several areas of Ukraine show no sign of abating, it is critical that States sustain these positive measures and deepen their commitment to securing a just resolution of the conflict in which Ukraine’s territorial integrity is maintained and in which victims of the many grave violations that have been committed are able to obtain justice and redress, as expeditiously as possible.

The full statement is available here.

JBI Statement on the Need for Urgent Human Rights Protection and Monitoring in Afghanistan

The crisis in Afghanistan requires urgent protection of people and their human rights. The Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights (JBI) has released a statement that outlines the human rights dimensions of the situation and advises on what governments, acting individually and through international organizations, can and must do. It also recommends actions and principles to guide the responses of the United Nations system.  We call on the international community to ensure the safety of Afghans, particularly women and girls, who are most at risk under the Taliban, a UN designated terrorist organization.

As a matter of priority, JBI calls on governments to identify ways to evacuate women leaders, human rights defenders, and other at-risk persons, including US and NATO allies. JBI calls on member States at the UN to adopt a resolution both at the upcoming emergency session of the Human Rights Council as well as the UN General Assembly session for an effective monitoring and reporting mechanism. JBI also calls on the UN to state clearly that all UN system actors active in Afghanistan or engaging with the Taliban will adhere to a system-wide approach that prioritizes respect for human rights, which is a core purpose of the United Nations according to its Charter.

Please find our full statement and list of recommendations here.

China's 'Unconscionable' Campaign Against the Uyghurs: Stopping the Genocide Occurring on Our Watch

On May 5, 2021, Felice Gaer, Director of the Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights (JBI), delivered the presentation below entitled, “China's 'Unconscionable' Campaign Against the Uyghurs: Stopping the Genocide Occurring on Our Watch.” Gaer discusses the reports of serious human rights violations perpetrated by the Chinese government against the Uyghur population and other Turkic Muslims in Xinjiang. She describes the legal components of the crime of genocide and the justifications that have been provided by the analysts and governments that have determined that China's conduct constitutes this crime. 

 

Gaer also discusses the reactions and measures taken by the U.S. and other governments in response to these allegations, as well as China’s reaction. Gaer also reviews the measures that JBI and other non-governmental organizations have taken to express concern about the situation facing the Uyghurs and to call for action to protect them, as well as additional measures that could encourage China to change course.

 

JBI Critiques the Draft Report of the Commission on Unalienable Rights, Calls for U.S. Foreign Policy to Uphold the Universality of Rights

In a public comment submitted on July 24, JBI called on the "Commission on Unalienable Rights" to substantially amend its draft report. The comment expresses alarm that the report will be used to support radical changes to the traditional U.S. approach to promoting human rights in its foreign policy, and particularly to encourage U.S. diplomats to provide tacit support and encouragement to governments that violate the human rights of members of certain historically marginalized groups, including women, LGBTQ people, and racial minorities.

The Commission, an independent advisory body established by U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in 2019, published its draft report on July 16. Among other shortcomings, the Commission's report subtly but clearly encourages the U.S. to reverse its longstanding position on the universality of human rights, as set out in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (VDPA). It justifies this by claiming that countries’ “particularities” and “backgrounds” allow them some “leeway” in the implementation of their human rights commitments and suggests that human rights claims lacking a “clear consensus across a broad plurality of different traditions and cultures” might be illegitimate.

JBI's Comment draws particular attention to the Commission's very troubling treatment of the second sentence of paragraph 5 of the VDPA, which reads:

“While the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

The first part of this sentence is a legacy of what is known as the “Bangkok Declaration,” the Final Declaration of the Regional Meeting for Asia that preceded the 1993 Vienna World Conference, which was reportedly particularly influenced by the governments of Malaysia and China. These words of the VDPA, and the Bangkok Declaration as a whole, are generally interpreted as aimed at repudiating the universality of human rights in favor of "cultural relativism." The U.S. strongly opposed this language at Vienna and insisted successfully on the inclusion of other language in the VDPA that reaffirms that “the universal nature of these rights and freedoms is beyond question.” The U.S. also insisted that the sentence be read together with the sentence of paragraph 5 that precedes it, which proclaims that “All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated.”

Yet rather than stressing these latter aspects of the VDPA, the Commission's report instead places great weight on the first part of the sentence as evidence of the existence and importance of the principle of "subsidiarity" - the notion that States must be given a degree of "leeway" in upholding their human rights commitments. As often done by States that seek to justify departures from universal rights standards, the draft report then suggests that the U.S. should generally refrain from endorsing or supporting “new” human rights claims made by “competing groups in society over political priorities,” and should leave such issues to be resolved through “ordinary democratic processes.” An earlier reference in the report to “abortion, affirmative action, [and] same-sex marriage” as examples of “divisive social and political controversies” in the U.S. in which “both sides couch their claims in terms of basic rights” suggests that the report is intended to be read as recommending that U.S. should not engage on these or similar human rights issues – particularly claims about laws and policies that discriminate against women, racial minorities, and LGBTQ people – in its foreign policy.

Since 1993 the U.S. has repeatedly invoked the VDPA to reject attempts by governments – including but not limited to Iran – to cite religious or cultural traditions of the majority of their citizens as a justification for denying equal treatment to individuals belonging to marginalized groups. The Commission's report, on the other hand, would seem to urge U.S. officials to exercise caution and be silent in the face of human rights violations justified by their perpetrators with reference to their cultural or religious background, and to expressly rely on the VDPA in support of such a position.  As JBI's comment points out, the Commission's report thus urges the U.S. to completely reverse the approach that it traditionally has taken with respect to the principle of universality, and its precise articulation in the VDPA. 

JBI's comment urges the Commission to amend the text of its draft report to more accurately describe the principle of universality of human rights, reaffirm the approach that the U.S. traditionally has taken with respect to the principle of universality, acknowledge more fully the significance of international human rights treaty obligations the U.S. has voluntarily assumed, and refrain from encouraging the U.S. to reverse its longstanding foreign policy position on the fundamental importance of the universality of rights. It urges the Commission to instead encourage the U.S. to conduct its foreign policy in a manner that promotes equal respect for the human rights of all persons.

The full text of the comment is available here: https://www.jbi-humanrights.org/JBI%20Comment%20on%20Commission%20on%20Unalienable%20Rights%207-24.pdf

AJC and JBI Oppose Proposed Changes to U.S. Asylum System that Violate U.S. International Obligations

In an official comment, AJC and its Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights have called on the U.S. Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to withdraw a sweeping set of changes they have proposed to implement to the U.S. asylum system and which appear to contradict important international obligations that the U.S. has voluntarily assumed and that AJC and JBI have long championed.

The agencies' proposals, entitled “Procedures for Asylum and Withholding of Removal; Credible Fear and Reasonable Fear Review,” are open for public comment until 11:59 pm on July 15. The comment expresses opposition to a number of the agencies’ specific proposals, including those that would:

• alter the definition of key legal terms to bar asylum claims made by people fleeing criminal gangs and gender-based violence, contradicting guidance on who can qualify as a refugee pursuant to the Refugee Convention issued by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR);
• discourage the granting of asylum claims from anyone who transited through another country on their way to the U.S., without any regard to whether they would have faced persecution or torture in the countries through which they traveled, again contradicting UNHCR;
• change the asylum determination process in ways that would deny applicants a “fair” proceeding, as defined by UNHCR;
• bar claims for protection from people fleeing a risk of torture by a “rogue official,” though the UN Committee Against Torture’s interpretation of the definition of torture recognizes no such distinction.

The comment expresses AJC's and JBI's serious concern that if implemented, the proposed regulations would effectively deny many people fleeing for their lives and livelihoods their right to seek asylum and would put them at risk of being returned or expelled to countries where they face a substantial risk of persecution, torture, or other serious harm. It calls on the agencies to withdraw their proposed regulations and instead pursue alternative ways to accomplish their policy aims, such as providing clarification for adjudicators and increasing efficiency and consistency in the handling of asylum claims, in ways that would not give rise to such a serious risk of harming asylum-seekers.

On the UN Charter's 75th Anniversary, JBI's New Publication Recounts AJC's Advocacy for Human Rights & High-Level Event Explores the UN's Place in U.S. Foreign Policy Today

On June 26, the 75th anniversary of the signing of the UN Charter, JBI published a new report recounting AJC's role in ensuring the inclusion of human rights as a principal purpose of the UN and led an AJC Advocacy Anywhere event with two former U.S. Ambassadors to the UN examining the organization's enduring role in U.S. foreign policy.

The new JBI publication, Making a Difference: AJC's Advocacy for Human Rights in the United Nations Charter, details the efforts made by AJC leaders Judge Joseph Proskauer, AJC President, and Jacob Blaustein, Chair of AJC’s Executive Committee, to ensure that the preeminent multilateral organization to emerge from the ashes of the Holocaust would have human rights at its core.

Authored by Felice Gaer, Director of AJC's Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights (JBI), the report details the essential contributions of AJC and other non-governmental organizations which were invited to send representatives to serve as "consultants" to the U.S. delegation to the 1945 Conference on International Organizations in San Francisco, where the UN Charter was finalized.

The NGO consultants engaged with the U.S. delegation on a number of issues, especially on the need to ensure that human rights would be a central purpose of the UN and a body dedicated to addressing human rights would be created. Among the consultants, Proskauer and Blaustein played a particularly decisive role in persuading the American delegation to seek the key human rights-related amendments to the draft UN Charter. With the U.S taking the lead among all 50 countries participating in the San Francisco conference, the consultants’ proposals on human rights were incorporated in the UN Charter signed on June 26, 1945.

An abbreviated version of the report, also published on June 26 on the Universal Rights Group's URG Insights blog series, is available here.

Also on June 26, AJC convened a virtual event as part of its Advocacy Anywhere series entitled "The United Nations at 75: What Role in U.S. Foreign Policy?" The event featured former U.S. Ambassadors to the UN John Negroponte and David Pressman, in conversation with Ms. Gaer about the UN's enduring value as a forum to advance U.S. interests - including promotion of human rights - globally.

A recording of the event can be viewed 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. 

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.