Oxford Handbooks Online: Human Rights: Norms and Machinery

Human Rights: Norms and Machinery
Oxford Handbooks Online

Natalie Samarsinghe
The Oxford Handbook on the United Nations (2 ed.)
Edited by Thomas G. Weiss and Sam Daws
Print Publication Date: Jun 2018

Subject: Political Science, International Relations, Political Institutions
Online Publication Date: Aug 2018 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198803164.013.30
Abstract and Keywords
This chapter discusses the UN’s role in creating the international human rights system,
with descriptions of key UN human rights instruments, mechanisms and bodies (notably
the Human Rights Council), as well as information on other parts of the organization
tasked with promoting and protecting human rights. It also considers opportunities and
challenges for norm development and institutional advances over the next decade. The
chapter argues that while human rights are recognized as one of the UN’s main purposes,
with every member state having some degree of involvement with human rights laws and
machinery, this area remains a source of contention, raising issues of legitimacy,
universality, and sovereignty. At the same time, this so-called pillar of the UN has
produced some of the organization’s most transformative successes, at the normative
level and on the ground.
Keywords: human rights, human rights instruments, human rights machinery, norms, universality, sovereignty,
accountability, Human Rights Council
NOW considered a key purpose and guiding principle of the United Nations, the
protection and promotion of human rights has had a difficult trajectory within the
organization and remains a source of contention. This area of work, perhaps more than
any other, sees the UN grapple with fundamental questions of legitimacy, universality,
and sovereignty. At the same time, it has produced some of the UN’s most transformative
successes, at the normative level and on the ground.
Over the past seven decades, the UN has been central to the creation of the international
human rights system. Every UN member state has some involvement with its laws,
mechanisms, and accountability frameworks. It has given voice to civil society groups,
Page 1 of 28
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 02 October 2018

supported efforts to further democracy and self-determination, and played a role in

ending apartheid in South Africa.
These developments have helped to reframe the concept of sovereignty and the principle
of non-interference in states’ domestic matters, enshrined in UN Charter Article 2(7).
They have also been accompanied by deep challenges. Too often, the UN appears a
helpless bystander, unable to deal with egregious human rights violations. It has even
been accused of complicity.
This chapter summarizes key developments over the past seven decades, focusing first on
normative advances and then on institutional developments.
Norms
The creation of the UN was not the first attempt to protect human rights through
international law and organization. The first two Geneva Conventions and the
International Labour Organization (ILO), for example, predate it. But following World War
II, ‘conventional wisdom held that internationally recognized human rights would have to
be (p. 544) reaffirmed and expanded, not erased.’1 Views on what constituted such rights,
though, differed greatly.
Early drafts of the Charter made scant mention of human rights. The Soviet Union
objected to language on civil and political rights, the United Kingdom and France to
language that they considered problematic as colonial powers, and the segregated United
States to language asserting racial equality. Eventually, efforts by other states and civil
society groups led to the inclusion of human rights in the Charter.2 These references
paved the way for the creation of a Commission on Human Rights (CHR), which was
tasked with drafting a Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)—whose preamble
contained a first attempt to define fundamental human rights as a ‘common standard of
achievement for all peoples and nations.’
With Cold War divisions politicizing UN action, the world organization focused on
standard-setting in its first decades. This was by no means straightforward. Many states
were reluctant to subject themselves to binding obligations, let alone scrutiny of their
implementation. It took nearly two decades for the first legally binding treaty—the
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination—to be
approved.
On the normative side, however, a broad consensus has emerged, which holds that rights
are universal, indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated.3 And while the categorization
of rights remains a matter of debate, the following descriptions are now commonly used:4
Page 2 of 28

• Civil and political rights, such as the rights to: life, political participation, and
asylum; freedom of speech, religion, and assembly; and freedom from torture, slavery,
and arbitrary detention. Associated with liberalism, they are sometimes called ‘first-
generation rights’ because they reflect early writings on human rights, and ‘negative
rights’, because their implementation is said to require states to refrain from doing
something.
• Economic, social, and cultural rights, such as the rights to education, food, shelter,
health, work, social security, and an adequate standard of living. Associated with
socialism, they are sometimes called ‘second-generation rights’ because of their
association with nineteenth and twentieth century economic and social movements,
and ‘positive rights’ because they require states to take measures to implement them.
• Collective rights, such as the rights of minorities and indigenous peoples, and the
rights to peace, development, and a healthy environment. Associated with
decolonization, they are sometimes called ‘solidarity rights’ because they pertain to
groups of persons, and ‘third-generation rights’ because the process of defining and
codifying them is still ongoing at the UN (the right to self-determination is a notable
exception).
Enforcement has proved more elusive. This is especially evident in relation to the most
egregious human rights violations, for which the impact of norms such as the
‘responsibility to protect’ (R2P)5 still depends largely on the political will of big powers.
(p. 545) Nonetheless, the development of the UN’s human rights instruments has
changed the very nature of sovereignty and of states’ relationships to one another.
Seventy years after the UDHR was adopted in 1948, all UN member states have ratified
at least one of the nine core international human rights treaties (see Table 30.1). Eighty
percent have ratified four or more.
Key UN Human Rights Instruments

The articulation of human rights is found in several legal documents, and the key
instances are described in this section.
UN Charter (1945)
The Charter makes seven references to human rights. The preamble and Article 1 affirm
the promotion of human rights as a principal purpose of the world organization. Article
56 assigns to member states responsibility to take ‘joint and separate action’ to promote
human rights and fundamental freedoms. Articles 13 and 62 enumerate the tasks for two
of the UN’s principal organs, the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council
Page 3 of 28

(ECOSOC), making recommendations to further human rights. Article 76 lists

encouraging respect for human rights as an objective of the UN trusteeship system.
Most important in institutional terms is undoubtedly Article 68, which paved the way for
ECOSOC to establish the CHR, which it did in early 1946. The commission was asked to
formulate a draft international bill of human rights, a task later handed to a committee
headed by Eleanor Roosevelt. She was supported by eight committee members from
different countries.6
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
Forging consensus proved challenging in the Cold War context. The drafting committee
eventually agreed to produce two documents: a non-binding declaration to elaborate a set
of principles, and a legally binding convention to define specific rights. Both were sent to
the CHR for consideration. However, the commission only had time to consider the draft
declaration, which was submitted through ECOSOC to the General Assembly. Its Third
Committee spent eighty-one meetings considering the draft, and a total of 168 formal
draft resolutions containing amendments to various articles were submitted.7 In plenary,
after Poland secured separate votes on the preamble and each individual article, the
Declaration as a whole was finally adopted on 10 December 1948—now celebrated as
Human Rights Day. No state voted against its adoption, but eight abstained (the Soviet
Union and its allies, Saudi Arabia, and South Africa). (p. 546)
Table 30.1 The core international human rights instrumentsAccording to the OHCHR,
there are nine core international human rights instruments. Each has a committee of
experts to monitor implementation of the treaty provisions by its states parties. Some
of the treaties are supplemented by optional protocols that deal with specific concerns
or assist implementation.
Acronym Human rights treaty Date Monitoring body

adopted
ICERD International Convention on 21 Dec. Committee on the

the Elimination of All Forms of 1965 Elimination of Racial
Racial Discrimination Discrimination (CERD)
ICCPR International Covenant on 16 Dec. Human Rights

Civil and Political Rights 1966 Committee (the initials
CCPR are used to avoid
conflation with the
Human Rights Council)
Page 4 of 28

ICESCR International Covenant on 16 Dec. Committee on Economic,

Economic, Social and Cultural 1966 Social and Cultural
Rights Rights (CESCR)
CEDAW Convention on the Elimination 18 Dec. Committee on the

of All Forms of Discrimination 1979 Elimination of
against Women Discrimination against
Women (CEDAW)
CAT Convention against Torture 10 Dec. Committee against

and Other Cruel, Inhuman or 1984 Torture (CAT)
Degrading Treatment or
Punishment
CRC Convention on the Rights of 20 Nov. Committee on the Rights

the Child 1989 of the Child (CRC)
ICMW International Convention on 18 Dec. Committee on the

the Protection of the Rights of 1990 Protection of the Rights
All Migrant Workers and of All Migrant Workers
Members of Their Families and Members of Their
Families (CMW)
CRPD Convention on the Rights of 13 Dec. Committee on the Rights

Persons with Disabilities 2006 of Persons with
Disabilities (CRPD)
CPED International Convention for 20 Dec. Committee on Enforced

the Protection of All Persons 2006 Disappearances (CED)
from Enforced Disappearance
ICESCR - Optional Protocol to the 10 Dec. CESCR

OP International Covenant on 2008
Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights (to enable its
monitoring committee to
receive and consider
communications from
individuals and groups)
ICCPR- Optional Protocol to the 16 Dec. CCPR

OP1 International Covenant on 1966
Page 5 of 28

Civil and Political Rights (as

for ICESCR-OP)
ICCPR- Second Optional Protocol to 15 Dec. CCPR

OP2 the International Covenant on 1989
Civil and Political Rights,
aiming at the abolition of the
death penalty
OP- Optional Protocol to the 6 Oct. CEDAW

CEDAW Convention on the Elimination 1999
of All Forms of Discrimination
against Women (as for
ICESCR-OP)
OP-CRC- Optional Protocol to the 25 May CRC

AC Convention on the Rights of 2000
the Child on the involvement
of children in armed conflict
OP-CRC- Optional Protocol to the 25 May CRC

SC Convention on the Rights of 2000
the Child on the sale of
children, child prostitution
and child pornography
OP-CRC- Optional Protocol to the 19 Dec. CRC

IC Convention on the Rights of 2011
the Child on a
communications procedure
OP-CAT Optional Protocol to the 18 Dec. Subcommittee on

Convention against Torture 2002 Prevention of Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or and other Cruel,
Degrading Treatment or Inhuman or Degrading
Punishment (to establish a Treatment or Punishment
system of visits undertaken by (SPT)
experts to places where
people are detained)
OP-CRPD Optional Protocol to the 13 Dec. CPRD

Convention on the Rights of 2006
Page 6 of 28

Persons with Disabilities (as

for ICESCR-OP)
Source: Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, www.ohchr.org
(p. 547)
(p. 548)The UDHR consists of a preamble and 30 articles. Article 1 sets out its
underlying principles: ‘all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a
spirit of brotherhood.’
Article 2 affirms the principle of equality and non-discrimination. Articles 3 to 21 set out
civil and political rights. Articles 22 to 27 address economic, social, and cultural rights.
The final three articles recognize the need for a social and international order in which
rights can be realized; emphasize the duties and responsibilities that each individual
owes his or her community; and warn that no state, group, or person should engage in
action of any kind to destroy any of the rights set out in the Declaration.
Today, the UDHR is widely seen as the cornerstone of the international human rights
system. Although it does not create legal obligations, it has acquired significant moral
weight and a number of its provisions now constitute customary international law. It has
been translated into over 500 languages and has inspired more than eighty international,
regional, and national human rights treaties, declarations, and instruments.
International Bill of Rights
On the same day it adopted the UDHR, the General Assembly asked the CHR to prepare a
covenant on human rights that translated the UDHR into a legally binding format. The
first iteration incorporated all of the UDHR’s articles, along with implementation
measures, such as the submission of regular progress reports.
After a long debate in the General Assembly, the draft was separated into an International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and an International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Together with the UDHR, they are known
as the ‘International Bill of Rights.’
The covenants have nearly identical preambles and share a common first article on the
right to self-determination. Both reaffirm the equal rights of men and women in Article 3.
One key difference is that while the ICESCR permits rights to be limited by law, the
ICCPR holds that certain rights may never be limited, not even in emergency situations.
These are the rights to: life; freedom from torture, enslavement, and servitude; freedom
of thought, conscience, and religion; recognition as a person before the law; protection
from retroactive penal laws, and from imprisonment as a result of debt.
Page 7 of 28

The decision to create two treaties was not solely due to the Cold War’s ideological
differences. There was broad agreement that implementation of first-generation rights
was different to that of second-generation rights. It was thought that the former were
enforceable by judicial proceedings, and could be put in place immediately (although the
upholding of the right to a fair trial, for instance, depends on prior investment in judicial,
security, and education systems). The latter, meanwhile, were too context-specific to be
justiciable, and needed to be realized progressively, as they (p. 549) required resources.
This view has subsequently been rebutted by UN bodies but remains prevalent.8
It took nearly twenty years to agree the draft covenants. A further decade elapsed before
the required number of states had ratified them to trigger entry into force—in 1976.
Today, the vast majority of states have ratified the covenants—as of mid-2018, the ICCPR
had 169 states parties and the ICESCR 166 states parties.9
Other Human Rights Instruments
The covenants are two of the UN’s nine core human rights treaties. The others are
focused on particular issues or social groups. In addition to protecting specific rights,
they have made broader normative contributions.
For example, while other treaties operate on the basis of traditional territorial
jurisdiction, the Convention against Torture (CAT) obliges states parties to act regardless
of the location of the offence or the nationality of the victim or perpetrator. The
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was the first to be open to signature
by regional organizations.
Some of the core treaties have optional protocols that deal with discrete concerns. For
example, the Optional Protocol to CAT enables states to agree to a system of regular
visits by experts to places where people are detained. The Convention on the Rights of
the Child (CRC) has optional protocols on children in armed conflict and on the sale of
children, child prostitution, and child pornography.
There are a number of other documents that promote and protect human rights. This
includes legally binding treaties, such as the 1951 Refugee Convention; non-binding
documents, such as the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; and resolutions
by bodies such as the General Assembly and, since 2006, the Human Rights Council
(HRC).
Implementation
The General Assembly approves human rights treaties, after which they are open for
signature. By signing, a state signals its intention to be bound by the treaty, but it is not
Page 8 of 28

formally bound until the treaty has been ratified by its legislature. Most treaties set out
the number of ratifications needed for it to enter into force.
At this point, states parties must ensure that every person in their jurisdiction enjoys
their rights under that treaty. To achieve this, states are supposed to take legislative,
administrative, and any other necessary measures to incorporate the rights into domestic
law and national policies, and to provide for adequate measures of redress, for example
through the courts. The time between signature and ratification can be used by states to
prepare for implementation.10
(p. 550) Treaty Bodies
The core human rights treaties require states to submit regular reports to a committee of
independent experts. While there is no sanction for not submitting a report, or for failure
to make progress, these treaty bodies can make recommendations to states, issue public
statements, and compile information that is made available to other parts of the UN
system.
If states have agreed, treaty bodies can undertake country visits and consider specific
cases. For example, a state that has ratified the Optional Protocol to the ICCPR has
recognized the competence of its treaty body to receive communications from individuals
who have exhausted all available domestic remedies. Five other treaties have such
arrangements in place (see Table 30.1).
Pronouncements on individual cases can have practical and normative outcomes. The
communication A.S. vs. Hungary11 to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination
against Women helped a woman who had been sterilized without her informed consent to
secure compensation, as well as a change in national legislation. In A. vs. Australia,12 the
Human Rights Committee affirmed that: the notion of ‘arbitrariness’ must not be equated
with ‘against the law’ but be interpreted more broadly to include elements such as
‘inappropriateness’ and ‘injustice.’
Meanwhile ‘General Comments’ issued by the treaty bodies serve as guidance on the
interpretation and implementation of rights. For example, in General Comment 27, the
Human Rights Committee states that restrictions on human rights treaty provisions must
be based on clear criteria, and must not impair the essence of the right. The Committee
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’ General Comment 3 addresses concerns that
the principle of progressive realization effectively gives states a free pass to do nothing
on economic, social, and cultural rights. It maintains that states must take deliberate,
concrete, and targeted steps within a reasonably short timeframe after ratification.
Opportunities and Challenges
Page 9 of 28

By definition, norms are constantly renegotiated. At the time of writing, new instruments
on the rights of older persons and on human rights and transnational corporations are
being considered. Some states are calling for binding treaties for third-generation rights,
such as those in the Declaration on the Right to Development, while others are wary of
rights that straddle other pillars of the UN’s work.13
Concerns over mass surveillance have prompted UN discussions on the right to privacy in
the digital age, and high-profile climate change lawsuits14 have sparked studies on the
litigation of environmental rights. And each year brings with it a greater number of states
supporting resolutions on issues such as a moratorium on the death penalty, and gender
and sexual minority (often referred to as LGBT+ or GSM) rights.15
There are also some regressive trends. Advances in LGBT+ rights, including the
(p. 551)
UN’s first-ever campaign on this issue, have been marred by thousands of brutal attacks
and attempts to reverse progress.16 Hard-won gains in women’s rights have provoked a
backlash too—part of the ‘traditional values’ debate that is by no means confined to
developing countries or to the human rights sphere.17 Language on reproductive health
and rights proved particularly contentious in discussions on the Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs) adopted in 2015.18
The rise in terrorist attacks in the West and of extremist groups in the Middle East and
North Africa has led to new calls for the ability to limit even the most basic human rights
for national security. Counter-terror measures, such as the use of drones in extrajudicial
killings, have raised concerns about due process.
The refugee and migrant crisis has seen many states shy away from discharging their
international obligations. The issue of disaster-induced displacement has illustrated the
need to review protection frameworks created several decades ago. And longstanding
challenges remain, notably the prevention of egregious abuses, the enforcement of
human rights, and accountability for violations.
Machinery
From the outset, UN efforts to protect human rights have lagged behind efforts to
promote them. The Charter does not explicitly authorize the monitoring of human rights
and scholars have argued that the term ‘protection’ was deliberately left out of the
document, reflecting many states’ deep reluctance to be held accountable for human
rights violations.19 This reluctance was spelled out at the first meeting of the Commission
on Human Rights in 1947, when member states declared that it had no power ‘to take any
action in regard to any complaints.’20 And so the work of the CHR—and of the wider UN—
was mainly normative for the next two decades.
There were notable exceptions. The situations in Israel-Palestine and South Africa
received widespread scrutiny throughout this period, which also saw a robust human
Page 10 of 28

rights critique of colonialism put forward by non-self-governing territories. Another

lesser-known example is the 1963 push by fourteen developing countries to discuss
‘Violation of Human Rights in South Viet-Nam’ at the General Assembly.21
Newly independent countries played an important role in challenging the notion that the
UN had no power and no business to address human rights violations. In 1967 the CHR
set up its first country-specific mechanism: the Ad Hoc Working Group on human rights in
southern Africa. In 1980, despite vigorous protests from Argentina against a similar
group to investigate disappearances, the CHR created the first thematic mechanism able
to consider situations from around the world: the Working Group on Enforced or
Involuntary Disappearances.22
Today, the CHR’s successor body, the Human Rights Council, has over forty thematic and
more than ten country-specific mandate-holders under its purview. The HRC itself devotes
significant time to human rights protection, as do several other parts of the (p. 552) UN,
from the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to the Security
Council, which now regards human rights as an important factor in the situations it
addresses.
While the UN’s human rights infrastructure has developed considerably, state
cooperation remains a crucial ingredient. UN officials and organs, with the support of
civil society, can ‘encourage, prod, push, and sometimes embarrass states.’23 But there
are few options, and big hurdles, to action when a state is unable or unwilling to comply
with its obligations.
Moreover, governments do not act in a vacuum at the UN—their behavior must be seen in
the context of furthering their objectives. Some, such as Sweden, have integrated human
rights into a broad definition of national interest. The country’s feminist foreign policy
saw it raise gender issues during its time on the Security Council. Others have used
human rights mechanisms to attack their enemies and shield their allies. The HRC’s 2009
Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict has been cited as an example of both.24
Key Bodies and Mechanisms

The second half of this chapter explains the essential UN mechanisms responsible for
advocating and monitoring human rights.
Human Rights Council (HRC)
In 2006, the General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to set up the HRC to replace the
CHR (see Figure 30.1 and Figure 30.2 for more details). Since 1947, the latter had been
Page 11 of 28

central to the development of the UN’s human rights system, but by the early 1990s it
was widely perceived as suffering from a severe credibility deficit.
Its membership was at the heart of this criticism. Kenneth Roth, the executive director of
Human Rights Watch, described it as: ‘a jury that includes murderers and rapists, or a
police force run in large part by suspected murderers and rapists who are determined to
stymie investigation of their crimes.’25 For many, the uncontested election of Sudan to the
CHR was the last straw, coming at a time when UN officials were raising alarm over
ethnic cleansing in Darfur.26 Secretary-General Kofi Annan warned: ‘unless we re-make
our human rights machinery, we may be unable to renew public confidence in the United
Nations itself.’27
The 2004 report of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change called for a
new intergovernmental forum that addressed these shortcomings. It envisaged a
universal body, thereby side-stepping the issue of membership, and one that would not be
subsidiary to ECOSOC but stand alongside it as a principal organ. Others proposed a
(p. 553) membership of just fifteen states with a higher election threshold—if it was to
approach the profile of the Security Council, then the HRC should also be a restricted
club.28
In the end, the General Assembly only tweaked membership provisions—the new HRC
would have forty-seven members (the CHR had fifty-three) elected by simple majority,
with no strict criteria. It did, however, endow the HRC with a number of new features,
such as the capacity to meet year-round and a peer-review mechanism to enable scrutiny
of all UN member states. It also made the HRC its own subsidiary body. Crucially, the
HRC received a clear mandate to ‘address situations of violations of human rights,
including gross and systematic violations.’
After a slow start,29 the HRC has made progress on many fronts. At the same time, it
continues to experience many issues that dogged its predecessor. In terms of improving
its composition, countries’ human rights records appear to have influenced some
elections. For example, Sri Lanka was not elected to the HRC in 2008 due to concerns
about gross violations; Iran and Syria withdrew their candidacies following pressure in
2010 and 2011 respectively; and Libya was suspended from the Council in 2011 after
reports of mass atrocities. However, the fielding of clean slates—a common practice
among all regional groups—has led to the election of gross violators on several occasions.
In terms of countering politicization, the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is widely

considered to be the HRC’s most significant innovation,30 with every UN member state
being subject to review by peers once every four years. Three times a year UPR working
group sessions address the records of fourteen countries. The scrutiny results in
recommendations for implementation before the subsequent review. The process is far
from perfect. States can reject all recommendations generated, and the sheer number of
Page 12 of 28

recommendations produced (over 36,000 during the UPR’s second cycle) is impractical,
to put it mildly.
Nonetheless, the UPR process has ameliorated somewhat the issue of selectivity, and it
has proved a useful and effective tool for civil society to hold governments to account on
recommendations accepted, even if NGOs cannot take the floor during the working group
sessions. Throughout the HRC’s first decade, the UPR had a 100 percent participation
rate, and so similar mechanisms—the word ‘model’ has even been used—have been
proposed in relation to states’ performance on the SDGs, for instance. More importantly,
the UPR has contributed to concrete change: following recommendations generated by
the process, the Republic of Korea criminalized marital rape and the Seychelles
decriminalized male same-sex activity.31
And the HRC is one of the most accessible bodies for civil society organizations and
human rights defenders. NGOs that have consultative status with ECOSOC, the body
responsible for civil society accreditation, can observe all proceedings (except the
confidential Complaint Procedure); submit written statements; make oral interventions;
and organize ‘parallel events’ during HRC sessions. In addition, any stakeholder,
regardless of accreditation, can make a submission to a state’s UPR. Webcasting and the
ability to participate through video message have further widened access, particularly for
those unable to travel to the HRC in Geneva. (p. 554)
(p. 555)
Click to view larger

Figure 30.1: Key UN human rights bodies and
mechanisms
Page 13 of 28

Perhaps the most(p. 556)
important improvement on
its predecessor is that the
HRC has been able to take
more timely action on a
wider range of situations.
Between 2011 and 2016, it
arguably did more on the
Syrian crisis than the
Security Council, adopting
several resolutions
condemning the
humanitarian and human
rights situations, and
Click to view larger
setting up a Commission of
Figure 30.2: The UN Human Rights Council and its
Inquiry (COI). Another
subsidiary bodies and mechanisms COI, on human rights in
the Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea (DPRK), carried out groundbreaking work in terms of documenting
violations. It led to General Assembly resolution 69/188 in 2014, which urged the Security
Council to refer the situation to the International Criminal Court (ICC). At the time of
writing, a COI was in operation in Burundi, alongside a fact-finding mission to Myanmar
and the Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan.
The HRC has made considerable use of its ability to convene special sessions, holding
twenty-six from 2006 to 2016, on situations such as human rights abuses committed by
Boko Haram and ISIL, post-election violence in Côte d’Ivoire, and widespread abuses in
the Central African Republic (CAR). Some sessions have had substantive outcomes. The
session on CAR, for example, led to the appointment of an independent expert. Others
have had little, or even negative, impact. The conduct of Sri Lanka during the final stages
of its civil war was praised during a special session in 2009. It later became the subject of
an investigation mandated by the HRC itself, which concluded that egregious violations
had taken place and recommended a series of measures on justice and accountability. The
HRC’s success in encouraging progress on these measures has been described as a ‘test
case.’32
The HRC has also continued essential functions and mechanisms set up by its
predecessor. Space here precludes doing more than pointing to the work, summarized in
Table 30.2, begun by the Commission on Human Rights and its sub-commission, working
groups, special rapporteurs, and independent experts.
Unfortunately, HRC members have continued the disproportionate focus on Israel for
which the CHR was repeatedly criticized. There is a standing agenda item on the ‘Human
Rights Situation in Palestine and other Occupied Arab Territories.’ Seven of the Council’s
twenty-six special sessions in 2006–2016 related to Israel, and eight of its twenty-five
Page 14 of 28

missions during this period (one was not implemented). This has contributed to tensions
in the US relationship with the HRC, and to Israel nearly becoming the first country not
to participate in its UPR.
And like its predecessor, the HRC suffers from a lack of enforcement measures. While it
can take a range of actions, from making explicit references to follow up in its resolutions
to establishing fact-finding missions, it has little power to deal with non-compliance.
Despite a mandate to encourage coordination and mainstreaming of human rights, it also
has no formal channels for referral of situations to other parts of the UN system, other
than through the General Assembly to which it reports.
General Assembly
The General Assembly is the UN’s chief deliberative, policy-making, and representative
organ. It presents recommendations and non-binding decisions to states but these are
(p. 557) (p. 558) (p. 559) nonetheless crucial to human rights standard-setting as they
reflect the weight of world opinion.
Table 30.2 Special Rapporteurs, Independent Experts, and Working Groups (‘Special
Procedures’) by country and by theme, March 2018
Country mandates
Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus
Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Cambodia
Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Central African Republic
Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s

Republic of Korea
Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Eritrea
Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran
Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Mali
Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar
Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories

occupied since 1967
Page 15 of 28

Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Somalia
Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in the Sudan
Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Syrian Arab Republic
Thematic mandates
Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent
Independent Expert on the enjoyment of human rights by persons with albinism
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other
business enterprises
Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights
Special Rapporteur on the right to development
Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities
Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances
Special Rapporteur on the right to education
Special Rapporteur on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment
of a safe, clean, healthy, and sustainable environment
Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions
Special Rapporteur on the right to food
Independent Expert on the effects of foreign debt and other related international
financial obligations of States on the full enjoyment of all human rights, particularly
economic, social, and cultural rights
Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion
and expressionSpecial Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and
of association
Page 16 of 28

Special Rapporteur on the implications for human rights of the environmentally sound
management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes
Thematic mandates (continued)
Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable
standard of physical and mental health
Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate

standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context
Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders
Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers
Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples
Special Rapporteur on the human rights of internally displaced persons
Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international

order
Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity
Special Rapporteur on the elimination of discrimination against persons affected by

leprosy and their family members
Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and
impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination
Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants
Special Rapporteur on minority issues
Independent Expert on the enjoyment of all human rights by older persons
Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights
Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy
Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination,

xenophobia, and related intolerance
Page 17 of 28

Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief
Special Rapporteur on the sale and sexual exploitation of children, including child
prostitution, child pornography, and other child sexual abuse material
Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual

orientation and gender identity
Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, including its causes and

consequences
Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental
freedoms while countering terrorism
Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or

punishment
Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children
Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation, and guarantees of

non-recurrence
Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the

enjoyment of human rights
Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes, and consequences
Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation
Working Group on the issue of discrimination against women in law and in practice
Source: Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Drafts of human rights instruments go to the Assembly for approval. It can endorse
normative advances, such as R2P, and resolutions condemning violations of human rights.
On rare occasions when the vast majority of states were onside, it has been able to take
further action—an example being its 1968 call for a cultural boycott of South Africa.
Since the HRC was set up, examination of its work has formed an important part of the
General Assembly’s activities.
Much of this work is routed through its Third Committee, which, like every one of its
committees, consists of representatives of all UN member states. In 2012–2013, the NGO
Page 18 of 28

Universal Rights Group found considerable duplication between the Third Committee and
the HRC, with 40 percent of all resolutions overlapping to some extent.33
While the HRC has a considerable degree of procedural and substantive autonomy, the
General Assembly controls important processes, notably electing and suspending HRC
members, and the adoption of its reports. The HRC is required to report annually to the
Assembly, which then ‘validates the report via a short resolution prepared in the Third
Committee’ taking note of its recommendations.34
This process has raised concerns over the Third Committee’s ability to challenge HRC
decisions. In 2013, the General Assembly upheld the committee’s deferral of a HRC
resolution on a UN-wide senior focal point on reprisals and intimidation related to
cooperation with the UN. The African Group had argued that the HRC could not intervene
at the UN system level without prior discussion in the Third Committee. In 2016, the
African Group, with support from others, tried to block the HRC’s appointment of an
independent expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual
orientation and gender identity (SOGI), contesting the legality of the mandate by arguing
that SOGI rights are not universally recognized as human rights.
Security Council
For decades, human rights were seen as falling outside the scope of the Security Council;
but over the last quarter-century, it has altered its interpretation of the meaning in the
Charter’s charge of ‘maintenance of international peace and security.’ Today, most
situations on the Security Council’s agenda are internal conflicts, and there is widespread
recognition that human rights violations are often root causes of armed conflicts and
humanitarian disasters, one of the first warning signs, and a feature of wars as they
progress.
This shift has been matched by increased interaction with human rights mechanisms.
Between 1994, when OHCHR began operating, and 2008, representatives of the office
met with the Security Council just twelve times, including informal occasions such as
retreats. In 2010–2015, this number rose to fifty two, with OHCHR representatives
addressing the Security Council repeatedly on such situations as Ukraine, Syria, and
Burundi. Special Rapporteurs also brief the Council. These meetings are often (p. 560)
conducted through so-called Arria-formula meetings—informal sessions that allow for
substantive interactions but are not always attended by all Security Council members and
usually have no record.
Contact with the HRC is ad hoc in lieu of formal arrangements. In 2014, rather than
waiting for the General Assembly to consider the HRC’s request to transmit the report of
the DPRK Commission of Inquiry to the Security Council, three of the latter’s members—
Australia, France, and the United States—sent a letter to the Security Council’s President
asking for it to be circulated.35 The ensuing discussion marked the first time the Security
Page 19 of 28

Council had placed a situation on its agenda largely or exclusively because of human
rights violations.
This circumspection does not mean that the Security Council does not deal with human
rights issues, but that rights in specific countries are generally discussed as part of a
broader debate on that country’s situation as a threat to international peace and security.
In fact, there has been a marked increase in the percentage of Security Council
resolutions that mention human rights and international human rights law. In 2006, just
27 percent did so, but 74 percent did in 2013.36
The Security Council has also developed a number of human rights tools, including the
following six:
• Commissions of inquiry: The Council has made use of its power under Article 34 of
the UN Charter to investigate ‘any situation which might lead to international friction.’
In 1995, for example, it set up a commission to examine violations following the coup
in Burundi. In 2004, it did so for the situation in Darfur. The commission’s report
contributed to the Security Council’s decision to refer that situation to the ICC.
• Country visits: The Security Council’s members have collectively undertaken country
visits for purposes such as preventive diplomacy and mediation. During the Cold War,
it conducted about a dozen visits. Between 1992 and 2015, that number rose to fifty
one. These initiatives have sometimes provided opportunities for action with direct
impact, such as the evacuation of those displaced by violence following East Timor’s
independence referendum.
• Human rights components of peace operations: First established for the 1991
mission in El Salvador, nearly all contemporary missions have human rights-related
tasks in their mandates, such as monitoring and support for policing and judicial
reform.
• Judicial mechanisms: Since the 1990s, the Security Council has taken steps to
promote individual criminal accountability for human rights abuses, by setting up in
1993 the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and in 1994
the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), and by supporting in 2000 the
creation of the Special Court for Sierra Leone. These paved the way for the
establishment of the ICC, a permanent mechanism that addresses the most heinous
human rights abuses: war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, and
genocide.
• Sanctions: Over time, the Security Council has moved from comprehensive
(p. 561)
to targeted sanctions, ostensibly to protect human rights, and toward including human
rights violations among the criteria that can lead to inclusion on a sanctions list.
Examples are the travel bans and asset freezes relating to Yemen (2014) and South
Sudan (2015).
Page 20 of 28

• Thematic advances: The Security Council has furthered normative and substantive
progress in areas such as children and armed conflict (including through an annual list
of countries that have carried out grave violations) and women, peace, and security. In
2008, it adopted a resolution that recognized rape as a weapon of war.
Where the most egregious abuses are concerned, however, the Security Council has been
able to act only on those rare occasions when its five permanent members were in
agreement. This was evident in 2007, for example, when China and Russia blocked the
adoption of a resolution on Myanmar, arguing that the violations taking place there were
not a threat to international peace and security, and in the Security Council’s repeated
failures since 2011 to prevent atrocities in Syria.
Secretariat
The 1993 Vienna World Conference on Human Rights created the OHCHR. At first, it had
a vague mandate with weak authority and an inaugural high commissioner without a
prior background in rights advocacy.37 Subsequently, however, there have been a number
of outspoken high commissioners, and the office has expanded to more than 1,000 staff
based in Geneva, New York, and field offices worldwide. The duties of the office have also
significantly grown. In addition to servicing the HRC, the UPR process, special
procedures and treaty bodies, the OHCHR is mandated to speak out when human rights
violations occur, to provide assistance to states (e.g. on administration of justice and
electoral process), and to serve as the UN focal point for human rights research,
education, public information, and advocacy. It is also tasked with mainstreaming human
rights within the UN, which means injecting—to the extent possible—a human rights
perspective into all UN activities.
The budget of OHCHR has remained modest. While human rights is recognized as one of
the UN’s three pillars, just 3.5 percent of the UN’s regular budget is allocated to it. In
2014, the high commissioner noted that his office’s annual budget was less than what
Americans spend on Halloween costumes for their pets.38
Like the high commissioner, the Secretary-General is now expected to use the bully
pulpit. However, prior to Kofi Annan, the first to speak forcefully and publicly about
human rights, most were reluctant to do so, although virtually all used their ‘good offices’
to advance them. Ban Ki-moon made several statements on situations including Darfur,
Côte d’Ivoire, Libya, and Syria. He also championed LGBT+ rights. Setting out his vision
during the appointment process in 2016, António Guterres stated that human rights
would be crucial to his focus on prevention.
(p. 562) Other UN Bodies
Page 21 of 28

Two other principal organs have also supported human rights. The Trusteeship Council
(which suspended its operations in 1994 having finished its work) was set up to assist
with self-determination and self-government. The International Court of Justice, of which
all UN member states are parties, has issued several pronouncements with human rights
implications. In 2004, for example, it issued an advisory opinion on the legal
consequences arising from a wall that Israel had constructed in Palestinian territory,
concluding that it violated provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention, ICCPR, ICESCR,
and CRC. In 2009 in Belgium v. Senegal on questions relating to the duty to prosecute or
extradite, it ruled that Senegal had breached its obligations under CAT.39
In the UN’s early years, its development and humanitarian funds and programs focused
on economic growth and emergency relief. But such bodies as UNICEF and the Office of
the UN High Commissioner for Refugees soon found that human rights were embedded in
their work, from campaigning for girls’ education to combatting discrimination against
asylum seekers and the servicing of basic needs. The specialized agencies, meanwhile,
contribute to standard-setting and international cooperation to protect rights. Examples
include the World Health Organization’s efforts to codify the right to health and the work
of the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization to support teaching about
human rights. By the late 1980s, the UN Development Programme (UNDP) and World
Bank had started to incorporate human rights into their policies. Some thirty years later,
a rights-based approach to development is no longer controversial. The 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development is peppered with human rights language and includes targets
for SDGs on areas such as child trafficking, gender equality, and political participation.
The OHCHR deploys human rights advisors to UN Country Teams (UNCTs) at the request
of UNDP resident coordinators.
But deep challenges remain. The UN’s 2012 internal review panel on UN action in Sri
Lanka40 concluded that there had been a systemic failure to protect civilians. It
recommended that every UNCT includes staff with expertise in political analysis and
human rights; that UNCT planning tools incorporate a complete and honest analysis of
the human rights situation; that all UN bodies embed human rights into their vision and
strategy; and that resident coordinators (UNCT heads) be evaluated in part on their
human rights performance.
The report led to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s ‘Human Rights Up Front’ initiative,
which largely embraced these recommendations. Some have been put into practice, such
as the incorporation of human rights duties into job descriptions. There has been
resistance to others, notably a stronger role for OHCHR in development activities, lest
host countries see this emphasis as an infringement of their sovereignty.
(p. 563) Opportunities and Challenges
Page 22 of 28

Over the next decade, advances in UN human rights machinery are likely to be more
modest than in norm development. The General Assembly’s 2020 treaty body review
brings with it opportunities to strengthen the system. This could include steps to:
streamline best practice, particularly on follow-up and NGO participation; institute a
reporting calendar to reduce the burden on states, civil society, and OHCHR; and
emphasize the distinct value of the detailed work of the treaty bodies in providing the
basis for the UPR. It also brings dangers. The 2014 review saw a group of states seek to
undermine the independence of the treaty bodies by instituting a code of conduct and an
oversight committee comprising states. And 2020 will likely see them try again.
There are many opportunities to make the Human Rights Council more effective, from
improving its composition by avoiding ‘clean slate’ elections, to strengthening its links to
other parts of the UN system, particularly the relationship between Geneva and New
York. The HRC has untapped potential to provide early warning about potential threats to
peace and security. Regular interaction with the Security Council and General Assembly,
and improved processes for information sharing and referrals, could have a significant
impact on the UN’s capacity for effective and rapid response. Upgrading the HRC to
principal organ status, on the other hand, is likely to remain a red herring. It would
require amendment of the UN Charter, which is notoriously difficult and is only likely to
occur at the same time as other amendments that states have been calling for, such as
reform of the Security Council’s composition and the elimination of the moribund
Trusteeship Council.
A more realistic goal would be increased funding for OHCHR, which would have benefits
across the board, as OHCHR supports the HRC and the treaty bodies as well as the
human rights elements of development and peace operations. So would funding to
support the special rapporteurs, since such appointees are not remunerated by the UN.
Preferably these funds would come from the UN’s regular budget. An alternative could be
a pooled voluntary fund comprising un-earmarked contributions from states, thereby
avoiding accusations of bias toward donors and enabling funds to be directed to where
they are most needed.
Avoiding duplication—and reversal—of HRC decisions by the General Assembly’s Third

Committee will also be challenging, with politics likely to trump reform efforts.
Institutional fixes might include carving out distinct areas of work and developing clear
guidelines. However, ensuring strong cross-regional support for the HRC within the Third
Committee will probably prove more fruitful. HRC members should be encouraged to
increase inter-bloc collaboration to support this.
Whether ‘Human Rights Up Front’ can avoid the fate of initiatives launched in the
aftermath of Rwanda and Srebrenica remains to be seen. Without political will at all
levels, from the Security Council to various development bodies, progress will not be
made in (p. 564) preventing and responding to gross violations of human rights. The issue
of leadership is crucial. While the quality of permanent representatives is out of the UN’s
Page 23 of 28

hands, the Secretary-General and other parts of the system could do more to improve
recruitment and appointment processes for senior officials, which should be more
transparent, inclusive, and merit-based than in the past.
Finally, strengthening civil society is vital to countering states hiding behind arguments
of sovereignty, national interest, and non-interference in domestic affairs. Steps could
include: de-politicizing ECOSOC’s NGO accreditation committee; adopting measures to
prevent and respond to reprisals against human rights defenders; appointing a senior
official to serve as a system-wide focal point for civil society; and increased access and
funding to support relevant civil society actors that do not yet engage with the UN.
Conclusion
Over seven decades, the UN Charter’s seven brief references to human rights have
evolved into an international human rights system, which involves all member states and
influences every aspect of the world organization’s work. This system has helped to
deliver major advances in human rights, from supporting decolonization to providing
electoral assistance in over a hundred countries. It has helped thousands of individuals,
from victims of torture and enforced disappearance to those mentioned throughout these
pages. And it has created legally binding human rights laws that speak to the protection
of all.
Critics rightly point to ongoing human rights abuses, to the backlash against progress
and to multiple failures to protect people from mass atrocities. But these criticisms are
akin to questioning the value of a criminal justice system because of the existence of
crime. Instead, we should focus on removing the barriers to progress. The UN itself—
officials and mechanisms—is not without blame, as the internal reviews after crises have
repeatedly shown. Ultimately, though, political will remains the biggest stumbling block,
including to institutional reform, and there is little sign in 2018 of dramatic improvement
in this regard.
At a time when the international system is under increasing strain, and when the gulf
between people and institutions is growing, strengthening the UN’s human rights pillar
must be a priority. As Eleanor Roosevelt put it, human rights ‘are the world of the
individual person.’41 The UN cannot afford a credibility deficit in this area. In the coming
years, the Secretary-General’s focus on prevention and the 2030 SDG agenda will provide
opportunities for putting into practice the maxim: there is no peace without development,
no development without peace, and neither without respect for human rights.
Notes:
Page 24 of 28

(1.) Thomas G. Weiss, David P. Forsythe, Roger A. Coate, and Kelly-Kate Pease, The United
Nations and Changing World Politics, 8th edn. (Boulder, Colo.: Westview, 2017), 165.
(2.) Jan Herman Burgers, ‘The Road to San Francisco: The Revival of the Human Rights
Idea in the Twentieth Century,’ Human Rights Quarterly 14, no. 4 (1992): 447–477.
(3.) Article 5, Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, World Conference on Human
Rights, 25 June 1993.
(4.) Karel Vasak, ‘Human Rights: A Thirty-Year Struggle: the Sustained Efforts to Give
Force of Law to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,’ UNESCO Courier 30, no. 11
(1977): 29; a critique of his categorization is provided in Patrick Macklem, ‘Human Rights
in International Law: Three Generations or One?’ London Review of International Law 3,
no. 1 (2015): 61–92.
(5.) Consideration of this norm is beyond the scope of this chapter. See e.g. Edward C.
Luck, ‘The Responsibility to Protect: The First Decade,’ Global Responsibility to Protect 3,
no. 6 (2011): 387–399.
(6.) Alexander E. Bogomolov (USSR), René Cassin (France), Peng-chun Chang (China),
Charles Dukes (United Kingdom), William Hodgson (Australia), and John P. Humphrey
(Canada), Charles Habib Malik (Lebanon), and Hernán Santa Cruz (Chile).
(7.) UN Dag Hammarskjöld Library Research Guides, ‘Drafting of the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights,’ http://research.un.org/en/undhr/ga/thirdcommittee; http://
research.un.org/en/undhr/ga/plenary.
(8.) OHCHR, Key Concepts on ESCR, www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/ESCR.
(9.) OHCHR, ‘Status of Ratification Interactive Dashboard,’ http://indicators.ohchr.org.
(10.) Anne Breivik and Natalie Samarasinghe, Human Rights Teaching Pack (London:
UNA-UK and UNESCO, 2008), 2.
(11.) CEDAW/C/36/D/4/2004.
(12.) CCPR/C/59/D/560/1993.
(13.) Bonny Ibhawoh, ‘The Right to Development: The Politics and Polemics of Power and
Resistance,’ Human Rights Quarterly 33, no. 1 (2011): 76–104.
(14.) Ridhima Pandey v. Union of India and Central Pollution Control Board (2017).
(15.) General Assembly resolution 69/186, 18 December 2014; Human Rights Council
resolution 32/2, 30 June 2016.
(16.) Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights,
UN document A/HRC/29/23, 4 May 2015.
Page 25 of 28

(17.) Graeme Reid, ‘The Trouble With Tradition: When Values ‘Trample’ over Rights,’ in
World Report 2013 (New York: Human Rights Watch, 2013), 20–28.
(18.) Gita Sen, ‘Achieving Gender Equality and Empowering Women and Girls: Is SDG 5
Missing Something?’ UN Chronicle LI, no. 4 (2014).
(19.) Jeroen Gutter, Thematic Procedures of the United Nations Commission on Human
Rights and International Law: In Search of a Sense of Community (Antwerpen,
Netherlands: Intersentia, 2006), 76–77.
(20.) Report of the Commission on Human Rights to the Economic and Social Council on
the First Session of the Commission on Human Rights, ECOSOC, 4th session, 2 June
1947.
(21.) Letter Addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, UN document A/

5489, 4 September 1963.
(22.) Philip Alston, ‘The UN’s Human Rights Record: From San Francisco to Vienna and
Beyond,’ Human Rights Quarterly 16, no. 2 (1994): 375–390.
(23.) Weiss et al., The United Nations and Changing World Politics, 186.
(24.) Milena Sterio, ‘The Gaza Strip: Israel, Its Foreign Policy, and the Goldstone Report,’
Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 43, no. 1 (2010): 229–254.
(25.) Kenneth Roth, ‘Despots Pretending to Spot and Shame Despots,’ International
Herald Tribune, 17 April 2001.
(26.) UN Press Release, ‘Sudan: Envoy Warns of Ethnic Cleansing as Security Council
Calls for Ceasefire,’ 2 April 2004.
(27.) Secretary-General’s Address to the Commission on Human Rights, 7 April 2005.
(28.) Nazila Ghanea, ‘From UN Commission on Human Rights to UN Human Rights

Council: One Step Forwards or Two Steps Sideways?’ The International and Comparative
Law Quarterly 55, no.3 (2006): 695–705.
(29.) Naomi McMillen and Ted Piccone, Country-specific Scrutiny at the UN Human
Rights Council: More than Meets the Eye (Washington D.C.: Brookings, May 2016).
(30.) Secretary-General’s Video Message for the Opening of the Fourth Session of the
Human Rights Council, 12 March 2007.
(31.) Statement by Natalie Samarasinghe to the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the UN,
Houses of Parliament, London, 27 March 2017; and Hans Fridlund, ‘A Butterfly Effect—
Steps to Improve UPR Implementation,’ Open Democracy, 24 January 2017.
Page 26 of 28

(32.) James Crabtee, ‘Sri Lanka Hits Back at UN Human Rights Chief over Criticism,’
Financial Times, 1 September 2013.
(33.) Subhas Gujadhur and Toby Lamarque, Ensuring Relevance, Driving Impact: The
Evolution and Future Direction of the UN Human Rights Council’s Resolution System
(Geneva: Universal Rights Group, 2015), 6.
(34.) Emmanuel Bichet and Stephanie Rutz, The Human Rights Council as a Subsidiary
Organ (Geneva: Universal Rights Group, 2016), 5.
(35.) Security Council Report, Human Rights and the Security Council—An Evolving Role
(New York: Security Council Report, 2016), 6.
(36.) Bichet and Rutz, The Human Rights Council as a Subsidiary Organ, 10.
(37.) Felice D. Gaer and Christen L. Broeckerp, eds., The United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights: Conscience for the World (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill,
2014).
(38.) Press Conference by United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid
Ra’ad Al Hussein, 16 October 2014.
(39.) Lyal S. Sunga, ‘The International Court of Justice’s Growing Contribution to Human
Rights and Humanitarian Law,’ (The Hague: The Hague Institute for Global Justice, 18
April 2006).
(40.) Report of the Secretary-General’s Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action in
Sri Lanka, November 2012, available at www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Sri_Lanka/
The_Internal_Review_Panel_report_on_Sri_Lanka.pdf.
(41.) Remarks delivered by Eleanor Roosevelt to the United Nations in New York, 27
March 1958.
Natalie Samarsinghe
Natalie Samarasinghe is Executive Director of the United Nations Association-UK

(UNA-UK), where she has worked since 2006. In 2013, she co-founded the ‘1 for 7
Billion’ campaign to improve the selection process for the UN Secretary-General. She
is an editor for WITAN Media, a trustee of the documentary foundation Doc Society,
an advisor to the Sri Lanka Campaign for Peace and Justice, and on the Steering
Committees of the World Federation of UNAs and the International Coalition for the
Responsibility to Protect. She previously worked in local government and for the
University of Oxford.
Page 27 of 28

Page 28 of 28

Oxford Handbooks Online: Human Rights: Norms and Machinery

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Oxford Handbooks Online: Human Rights: Norms and Machinery

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Human Rights: Norms and Machinery

Oxford Handbooks Online

Print Publication Date: Jun 2018

Abstract and Keywords

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 02 October 2018

supported efforts to further democracy and self-determination, and played a role in

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 02 October 2018

Key UN Human Rights Instruments

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 02 October 2018

(ECOSOC), making recommendations to further human rights. Article 76 lists

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)

Acronym Human rights treaty Date Monitoring body

ICERD International Convention on 21 Dec. Committee on the

ICCPR International Covenant on 16 Dec. Human Rights

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 02 October 2018

ICESCR International Covenant on 16 Dec. Committee on Economic,

CEDAW Convention on the Elimination 18 Dec. Committee on the

CAT Convention against Torture 10 Dec. Committee against

CRC Convention on the Rights of 20 Nov. Committee on the Rights

ICMW International Convention on 18 Dec. Committee on the

CRPD Convention on the Rights of 13 Dec. Committee on the Rights

CPED International Convention for 20 Dec. Committee on Enforced

ICESCR - Optional Protocol to the 10 Dec. CESCR

ICCPR- Optional Protocol to the 16 Dec. CCPR

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 02 October 2018

Civil and Political Rights (as

ICCPR- Second Optional Protocol to 15 Dec. CCPR

OP- Optional Protocol to the 6 Oct. CEDAW

OP-CRC- Optional Protocol to the 25 May CRC

OP-CRC- Optional Protocol to the 25 May CRC

OP-CRC- Optional Protocol to the 19 Dec. CRC

OP-CAT Optional Protocol to the 18 Dec. Subcommittee on

OP-CRPD Optional Protocol to the 13 Dec. CPRD

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 02 October 2018

Persons with Disabilities (as

Source: Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, www.ohchr.org

International Bill of Rights

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 02 October 2018

Other Human Rights Instruments

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 02 October 2018

(p. 550) Treaty Bodies

Opportunities and Challenges

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 02 October 2018

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 02 October 2018

rights critique of colonialism put forward by non-self-governing territories. Another

Key Bodies and Mechanisms

Human Rights Council (HRC)

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 02 October 2018

In terms of countering politicization, the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is widely

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 02 October 2018

Click to view larger

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 02 October 2018

Perhaps the most(p. 556)

Subscriber: Freie Universitaet Berlin; date: 02 October 2018

reflect the weight of world opinion.

Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus

Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Cambodia

Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Central African Republic

Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s

Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Eritrea

Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Mali

Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar

Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories