Is the Human Rights Council Following in Its Failed Predecessor’s Footsteps?

The trend of electing human rights violators to the Human Rights Council raises the question of whether the Human Rights Council is living up to its mission of promoting human rights or if it is following in the footsteps of its failed predecessor, the Commission on Human Rights.

By: Jennifer El-Fakir, staff member

On October 17, 2019, 14 the UN General Assembly voted on the 14 new states to become members of the Human Rights Council. The newly elected states included: Armenia, Brazil, Germany, Indonesia, Japan, Libya, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Namibia, Netherlands, Poland, Republic of Korea, Sudan, and Venezuela. Typically this election occurs each year without much discussion in the news or without much competition—for example, 6 states were elected due to lack of competition. But this year’s election was quite controversial, to say the least. After Costa Rica announced its candidacy for the Council on October 3, 2019, the international human rights community, led by Human Rights Watch, and people across the world, began a campaign to elect Costa Rica and to defeat Venezuela. Until this announcement, Venezuela was running unopposed for one of the Latin America and Caribbean seats despite an being the subject of an open Human Rights Council investigation for human rights violations including torture and summary executions. Yet, Venezuela was still elected to a three-year term on the Human Rights Council.

Though most of the spotlight and controversy surrounding the Human Rights Council election focused on Venezuela, this is unfortunately only the latest in the trend of electing states that have a track record of committing human rights abuses. In fact, in this election alone, six other member states with recent histories of human rights violations were elected. These included Libya, Sudan, Mauritania, Brazil, Poland, and Indonesia, though half of these members ran unopposed. The violations alleged against these nations vary from rise of religious intolerance, discrimination against minorities, anti-human rights rhetoric, torture and attacks on civilians, and more. Past members include Saudi Arabia and China, both of which are retiring this year amidst numerous claims of human rights violations. The presence of human rights violators on the council was even cited by the Trump Administration as a reason for its decision to withdraw from the Council. Thus, this trend of electing human rights violators, forces us to question whether the Human Rights Council is living up to its mission of promoting human rights or if it is unfortunately following in the footsteps of its failed predecessor, the Commission on Human Rights.

The Human Rights Council’s Record

The Human Rights Council was formed in 2006 as a replacement for the Commission on Human Rights. The Commission, which was established to address human rights problems in the world and to establish standards of conduct for states, was undermined and discredited by the frequent election of countries accused of gross human rights violations, like Cuba, Sudan, and Zimbabwe all of which were members in 2006. While it was considered flawed at its establishment, many still hoped that the Human Rights Council would be able to do better than its discredited predecessor.

And in many ways, the Human Rights Council has been able to achieve successes in the realm of human rights due to significant changes to the membership rules, including having the entire General Assembly vote on the candidates for membership and disqualifying members that have served two consecutive terms from automatic reelection. Additionally, the resolution adds that UN Member States should take into account the candidates’ contributions to the promotion and protection of human rights and their related voluntary pledges and commitments when deciding whether to elect a Member State to the Council. The resolution also provides for a mechanism to suspend a Council member for committing gross and systemic violations of human rights.

In the years since the establishment of the Human Rights Council, the Council has been praised for its strong and effective responses to a number of human rights crises including how it handled the crisis in Syria, Myanmar, Yemen, and Burundi. And in 2016, the changes to the election protocol saw a major victory for the human rights community as Russia was defeated in its bid for re-election to the Council following its attacks on civilians in Aleppo, Syria. But despite these achievements, the lack of response to human rights violations committed by Council members and the frequent election of human rights violators to the Council have diminished the strength of the Council. Though China and Saudi Arabia are retiring from the Council this year due to the consecutive term limitations, over the past few years of their membership, both States have been accused of committing gross human rights violations.

Saudi Arabia arrested and detained opponents of the government including many female activists, murdered a prominent journalist and dissident in their consulate in Turkey in 2018, and has been accused of other violations on the Arabian Peninsula broadly. China has been accused of violating numerous human rights ranging from prohibiting the freedoms of expression and assembly, responding to recent protests violently, committing unlawful killings, and systematically torturing the minority Uighur ethnic group in internment camps. Moreover, in 2018, China was reviewed by the Human Rights Council under the Universal Periodic Review. The Council found that human rights in China are deteriorating, despite the fact that the Office of the High Commissioner failed to include detailed submissions of China’s human rights abuses against Hong Kong, Tibet, or Uighur groups. Yet, despite these well-known violations, neither Saudi Arabia nor China were suspended from the Human Rights Council.

In light of this lack of action it is clear that the Human Rights Council is plagued by the same issues its predecessor faced. Moreover, this blatant disregard for members’ violations undermines the Council’s ability to achieve its goals of promoting human rights.

Paths to Alter Course

Thus, it seems that the Human Rights Council and the UN broadly are at another inflection point comparable to when they decided to reform the Commission on Human Rights in 2006. If they want the Huma Rights Council to be effective and strong in its responses to human rights violations, the UN and the Human Rights Council need to reevaluate the rules of suspension and membership eligibility. One basic suggestion would be to disqualify any candidate for election if there is an open investigation on that Member State for gross human rights violations. Another would be to establish a provisional mechanism for automatic temporary suspension of a Council member’s rights when complaints of egregious human rights violations—such as the Chinese treatment of the Uighurs or Venezuela’s summary executions—are alleged and corroborated. Or, the geographic distribution can be changed so that nations with histories of human rights abuses are not automatically elected because of lack of competition for the spots. Regardless, until the Human Rights Council and the UN make changes, the Human Rights Council will be plagued by members like Venezuela and its mission will be undermined.

Jennifer El-Fakir is a second-year student at Columbia Law School and a Staff member of the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law. Jennifer graduated from Princeton University in 2018 with a B.A. in History.