A New Frontier: The Early Experience and Future of International Human Rights Field Operations
| Author | Ian Martin |
| Date | 01 June 1998 |
| DOI | 10.1177/092405199801600202 |
| Published date | 01 June 1998 |
| Subject Matter | Part A: Articles |
Part A: Articles
A New Frontier: The Early Experience and Future
of
International Human Rights Field Operations
Ian Martin'
Abstract
In this article the practice
of
international human rights field operations established in a
number
of
countries, by the UN, by the UN jointly with a regional organisation, or by a
regional organisation alone are discussed. By looking at the early operations, the
difficulties experienced and their positive contributions, suggestions are made
for
improved
and more effective arrangements in order to carry on this work according to the highest
possible standards.
I The Development of Human Rights Field Operations
When the protection of human rights through the United Nations and other international
organisations moved beyond standard-setting into implementation, it still took place mostly
in the committee rooms
of
Geneva, New York and Washington. Country rapporteurs and
experts and the thematic procedures
of
the UN Commission on Human Rights, as well as
the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, began to make short visits to allow for
in-country fact-finding and a more direct dialogue with the government concerned. These
have become
of
increasing frequency, and occasionally the UN treaty bodies too have
made their own country visits. But in the last six years, human rights has been taken to
the field in a radically different manner, as substantial human rights field operations have
been established in a number
of
countries, by the UN, by the UN jointly with a regional
organisation, or by a regional organisation alone.
The pioneering operation was in El Salvador: UN-brokered peace negotiations led to
commitments by both Government and armed opposition to respect human rights and
invite UN verification
of
their observance: in July 1991 the human rights division
of
ONUSAL was established, with an international staff
of
101, including 42 human rights
observers. The huge UN Transitional Administration in Cambodia, established in February
1992, initially provided for 10 human rights officers (out
of
a total UNT AC deployment
of
some 20,000); this was later increased so that there was one human rights officer in
each province and a substantial headquarters and training staff, but the Human Rights
Component remained a relatively small one. The Organisation
of
American States
established a small International Civilian Mission under military rule in Haiti in September
Human Rights Centre, University of Essex. Previously Secretary General, Amnesty International, 1986-1992;
Director for Human Rights/Deputy Executive Director,
UN/OAS
International Civilian Mission in Haiti
(MICIVIH), 1993 and 1994-1995; and Chief, UN Human Rights Field Operation in Rwanda (HRFOR),
1995-1996. The views expressed in this paper are solely those of the author: they do not represent the official
views of the United Nations. The author wishes to thank the Ford Foundation for support during the writing
of
this paper, which was presented at the International Diplomatic Seminar of the Federal Ministry
of
Foreign Affairs, Government of Austria, 28 July - I August 1997.
Netherlands Quarterly
of
Human Rights, Vol,
1612,
121-139, 1998,
©Netherlands Institute
of
Human Rights (81M), Printed in the Netherlands, 121
NQHR
2//998
1992; from February 1993 this was absorbed into a large joint UN/OAS human rights
mission (MICIVIH). The UN/OAS budget for MICIVIH provided for 280 international
staff: at its peak before its first evacuation in October 1993, it reached around 200, the
largest human rights presence in any single country up to that time. This was exceeded in
Guatemala, where peace negotiations led to a human rights verification mission
(MINUGUA) being established from November 1994, with an authorised strength
of
245
international staff, including 10 military liaison officers and 60 civilian police observers.
These four human rights field presences had their origins in attempts to negotiate and
oversee political transitions: they were part
of
a new generation
of
UN peace-operations.
They were conceptualised and mounted by the
UN's
political departments in New York,
in virtual isolation from its human rights mechanisms and supporting staff in the Centre
for Human Rights in Geneva. In the cases
of
EI Salvador, Haiti and Guatemala, the UN
Commission on Human Rights had already mandated special country rapporteurs,
representatives or experts: these had no formal relationship with the field operations, and
both they and the field mission were left to work out a relationship without any consistent
guidance from their respective headquarters in Geneva and New York. Still less was
consideration given to any relationship with the Commission's thematic procedures or the
treaty bodies.
The advantages of a field presence were quickly apparent, however, to the Geneva
human rights milieu. In July 1991, Amnesty International proposed that a UN human
rights monitoring presence should be imposed on Iraq. This was taken up by the special
rapporteur on Iraq in his February 1992 report to the Commission on Human Rights, and
although a presence in Iraq never became feasible, he was allocated staff able to travel
more extensively and collect information in the region. The special rapporteur
onformer
Yugoslavia was provided with field staff based in the territory of his mandate from March
1993. It rapidly became de rigueur for special country rapporteurs to recommend that they
be similarly supported by in-country monitoring.
By the time the proposal to create the post
of
UN High Commissioner for Human
Rights was debated ahead
of
the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights, the
disconnection between the New York initiatives and the Geneva-based system was well-
remarked. Bridging that gulf was a major motive which led Amnesty International to
advance the most detailed proposal for the post:
'While some
of
the most innovative and far-reaching human rights initiatives have been
developed in the context
of
recent UN peace-keeping and peace-building operations, these have
tended to be developed in an ad hoc and uncoordinated way and with little or no involvement
of
the Geneva-based human rights bodies (...) The task
of
the Special Commissioner would be
to maintain an overview
of
all the UN's human rights activities and their relationship to other
program areas; to take initiatives and coordinate UN action in response to human rights
emergencies; to ensure that appropriate attention is given to human rights concerns in any
country
of
the world; to develop programs in areas which have been neglected or insufficiently
developed; to formulate and oversee the human rights components
of
other UN operations, such
as
In
the area
of
peace-keeping and peace-building, and to facilitate the involvement
of
the
UN's human rights mechanisms and experts in these activities; and to ensure the integration
of human rights issues and concerns in the full range
of
other UN activities and programs.
'I
The World Conference itself addressed the exclusion
of
the Centre for Human Rights
from the new operations in its Vienna Declaration:
Amnesty International, World Conference on Human Rights -Facing Up to the Failures: Proposals
for
Improving the Protection
of
Human Rights by the United Nations, AI, London, December 1992, pp. 4-6.
122
To continue reading
Request your trial