Resolutions

The passing of resolutions is the means by which the Commission and Sub-Commission set up new human rights mechanisms, for example by appointing a new Special Rapporteur to focus on a particular country or a specific human rights violation.

It is only government delegations who can put down resolutions, although they will sometimes agree to sponsor a resolution proposed to them by an NGO. Working on resolutions can be a highly complex and political process and it is very much the province of NGOs with consultative status. They often work together on these matters, and are sometimes more concerned about them than country- or issue-specific affairs. Other NGOs will find that raising an issue prior to the Commission with a Special Rapporteur or a Working Group, to whom they can have direct access, is a more productive way of working.

It can be particularly difficult to persuade the Commission to take up the human rights situation in a particular country. It should be kept in mind that UN members (i.e. governments) see human rights as a facet of national pride and prestige. They will go to considerable lengths to avoid criticism in front of, let alone by, their peers. Human rights concerns are frequently used as a means of political point-scoring over other states and almost always take second place to a state’s perceived economic and security interests.

As a rule – and there are occasional exceptions, both more and less deserving – the Commission will only take action on individual countries where there are serious and long standing human rights violations and the government concerned is internationally isolated. This is not solely a result of current globalised economic dependency: the Commission from its earliest days has been reluctant to tackle country situations. Indeed, at its very first meeting in 1947 it decided that “it had no power to take action in regard to any complaints concerning human rights”. Two years later its Secretariat, presumably embarrassed by the number of complaints that it was anyway receiving, commented that this decision was “bound to lower the prestige and authority not only of the Commission on Human Rights but of the United Nations … This irritates the general public and brings disappointment and disillusionment to thousands of people all over the world.”

And so it continues. Press releases issued by two major international NGOs for the 1999 session of the Commission will demonstrate the Commission’s approach to the adoption of resolutions criticising the human rights’ record of named countries.

Amnesty international, at the start of the session, said, “The UN Commission on Human Rights should have the courage once and for all to make human rights and not politics the yardstick of its work.” The then Secretary General Pierre Sané continued, “By putting powerful political and economic interests above their obligation to protect and promote human rights, Commission members have seriously hampered the effectiveness and credibility of the Commission throughout its history.”

Six weeks later, as the session ended, NGO confidence was no higher. Human Rights Watch called the Commission’s decision to take no action on a resolution on China “deeply disappointing”. Their summary of government excuses for taking no action on China will sound only too familiar to regular Commission watchers: “The European Union, Australia and Canada all said that their ongoing human rights dialogues with China were more productive than public criticism. Some Asian countries quietly said that they could not take on China politically. The Japanese press suggested the US only introduced the motion to appease a domestic constituency. Some countries remembered the treatment Denmark received when it co-sponsored a China resolution in 1997 – China threatened to cancel all business deals with Danish companies, a threat that was never carried out.”

For human rights campaigners from Britain and Ireland, this may seem like an interesting lobbying opportunity denied, but bear in mind that in many countries whose human rights record the Commission persistently ignores, NGOs may not be allowed to organise, let alone to travel to Geneva to make their views on their government known. In reality, the chances of getting the Commission to pass a resolution singling out either Ireland or the UK for condemnation on their human rights record are virtually zero.

As for resolutions on particular human rights issues, the only chance of the UN passing resolutions that reflect the concerns of NGOs and others in the UK and/or Ireland is if there is international concern about those issues. In such cases, the scale of concern is likely to be much greater in other countries. Although the situation in Northern Ireland has caused anxiety, for instance, over the safety of lawyers and allegations of a shoot-to-kill policy, the resolutions giving rise to the appointments of Special Rapporteurs on the independence of lawyers and on extrajudicial executions had their origins in far more serious situations in other countries. The scope for influence in these matters by domestic NGOs, campaigns etc is small. The construction and promotion of resolutions is best left to the professionals, i.e. the international NGOs with consultative status.