Three Cheers for the New Human Rights Council?
| DOI | 10.1177/016934410502300401 |
| Published date | 01 December 2005 |
| Date | 01 December 2005 |
| Subject Matter | Column |
THREE CHEERS FOR THE NEW
HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL?*
Has the point of no return been passed? It seems so, since the Heads of State and
Government, gathered in New York in the framework of the General Assembly,
resolved on 15 September 2005 to create a Human Rights Council. This new Council
will be ‘responsible for promoting universal respect for the protection of all human
rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction of any kind and in a fair
and equal manner’.
1
This decision at the highest possible level seems to have
blocked the way back to a revitalisation of the present United Nations Commission
on Human Rights, especially also in the light of the severe criticism of the role of this
Commission. The United Nations Secretary-General, for example, had made the
point that the capacity of the Commission on Human Rights to perform its tasks has
been increasingly undermined by its declining credibility and professionalism. This
criticism was certainly widely shared, but contributed at the same time to a kiss of
death for the Commission. So, can we say now: ‘La Commission est morte, vive le
Conseil de Droits de l’Homme’?
It may yet be too early for such a jubilant attitude. The 2005 World Summit
Outcome leaves yet too many things open. It indicates only in the vaguest possible
terms the mandate of the new Council: it ‘should address situations of violations of
human rights, including gross and systematic violations, and make recommenda-
tions thereon. It should also promote effective coordination and the mainstreaming
of human rights within the United Nations’.
2
But nothing more is said; all other
matters, such as the exact mandate, the modalities, functions, size, composition,
working methods and procedures, are referred to further negotiations, which
should be completed as soon as possible during the present 60th session of the
General Assembly. The 2005 World Summit Outcome is in that sense a missed
opportunity.
Much will thus depend on the outcomes of these negotiations. It seems to us that
these negotiations could only be deemed successful if the outcome would lead to a
Human Rights Council which could be seen as a substantial improvement of the
present Commission on Human Rights which, despite all its present shortcomings,
has a proud history in the creation, consolidation and gradual strengthening of the
present international system of protection and promotion of human rights.
It seems to us that there may be reasons to cheer the creation of a Human Rights
Council if at least the five following concerns will be adequately taken care of in the
upcoming negotiations. Firstly, it would be very important that the new Human
Rights Council would be a standing body that can meet throughout the year. One of
the main disadvantages of the present Commission on Human Rights is that it is
meeting in a sort of pressure cooker context of a six weeks session, in which more
COLUMN
Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, Vol. 23/4, 547-549, 2005.
#Netherlands Institute of Human Rights (SIM), Printed in the Netherlands. 547
* Cees Flinterman, Director Netherlands Institute of Human Rights (SIM) and Peter Baehr, former
Director Netherlands Institute of Human Rights (SIM).
1
2005 World Summit Outcome, Draft resolution referred to the High-level Plenary Meeting of the
General Assembly by the General Assembly at its fifty-ninth session, 20 September 2005, para. 158.
2
Ibidem, para. 159.
To continue reading
Request your trial