Reforming the Commission on Human Rights

By Laura Mucha, Research Associate, UNA-UK Human Rights Programme

Established under the UN Charter as a subsidiary body of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) is the leading human rights body within the UN system. Today, its mandate is to promote and protect human rights worldwide, and take action against violations wherever they occur. While the CHR has been successful in bringing onto the international agenda a number of key issues – among them violence against women, economic and social rights, the death penalty and corporate social responsibility – it has come under increasing criticism over its composition, operational effectiveness and susceptibility to politicisation. There has been widespread concern over the election to the CHR of states with poor human rights records (such as Libya , a recent Chair) and, more broadly, over state motivations in seeking election (to criticise others or to provide insulation against criticism). Last year, for example, certain Commission members blocked Cuba ’s draft resolution on the Guantánamo Bay detainees, which means that this important issue has not yet made it onto the CHR agenda. Speaking before the CHR’s annual session in 2004, Irene Khan of Amnesty International warned that, without the proper reform, the CHR ‘risks becoming irrelevant’.

The December 2004 report of the UN High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change acknowledges that the CHR’s capacity to fulfil its tasks has been “undermined by eroding credibility and professionalism”. It accordingly makes a number of short- and longer-term recommendations to ensure that human rights are at the centre of the debate on UN reform.

 

  • Membership of the CHR should be made universal.
  • All members of the CHR should designate prominent and experienced human rights figures as the heads of their delegations.
  • The CHR should be supported in its work by an advisory council or panel.
  • The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights should prepare an annual report on the situation of human rights worldwide.
  • The Security Council and the Peacebuilding Commission should request that the High Commissioner report to them regularly on the implementation of all human rights-related provisions of Security Council resolutions.
  • Funding for the Office of the High Commissioner should be increased, as the current rate of funding – at just 2% of the regular budget – is inadequate.
  • In the longer term, member states should consider upgrading the CHR to a ‘Human Rights Council’ standing alongside ECOSOC and the Security Council.

 

Among the Panel’s proposals on strengthening the UN’s human rights machinery, the most controversial recommendation is that of universalising membership of the CHR, which currently comprises a panel of 53 states, each elected for a four-year term. The UN Advocacy Director for Human Rights Watch (HRW), Joanna Weschler, has stated that after “accurately diagnos[ing] the sorry state of the CHR”, the Panel “proposes an inadequate cure”. Both HRW and Amnesty International have proposed instead that membership should depend upon fulfilling criteria linked to a member state’s human rights record, such as its ratification of the main human rights treaties, its record of reporting to UN human rights bodies and whether or not it has issued an open invitation to UN human rights investigators. Notably, 35 members of the current CHR have not issued such invitations; these include the current chair, Australia , and three permanent members of the Security Council – namely China , Russia and the US .

Neither model for CHR membership is without its flaws. There are obvious difficulties in devising a set of equitable membership criteria (not least of which is the risk of further politicisation). Equally, while there are clear advantages, in a system designed to protect universal human rights, of having a globally-representative Commission, the idea of universal membership raises a serious practical problem. In short, a larger, more diverse Commission may function even less effectively. “There’s little that a 191-member body could accomplish during a six-week session - at best, it would be yet another talk shop,” states Ms Weschler of HRW.  This, as the High-Level Panel recognises, is a problem currently facing the UN’s General Assembly - the only UN body with universal membership. In fact, the Panel recommends streamlining the General Assembly into “smaller, more tightly focused committees” because its size impedes decision-making and this, in turn, “undermines its relevance”.

So is universal membership the wrong route for reforming the CHR? Not necessarily, provided universalisation forms part of a package of wider reform. For example, if the CHR were - as the Panel also suggests - upgraded to a Human Rights Council, this could go some way towards overcoming the operational problems associated with universal membership. At the least, such a Council would be able to react to human rights crises as they occur, rather than waiting for the six-week annual session.

The apparent urgency of the need to reform the CHR does not, however, appear to be mirrored within the body itself: as the Commission’s 61 st annual session gets underway (March 14- April 22, 2005), reform of the UN’s human rights machinery comes near the bottom of the provisional agenda: item 18(c) out of 21.

United Nations Association - UK, 3 Whitehall Court, London, SW1A 2EL
Tel: +44 (0)20 7766 3444   -   Fax: +44 (0)20 7930 5893   -   Email: info@una-uk.org

UNA-UK is a Company limited by Guarantee. Registered in England no. 2885557. Registered office 3 Whitehall Court SW1A 2EL