On November 12, the UN General Assembly will hold elections to fill eighteen soon-to-be vacant membership positions on the UN Human Rights Council. As in the past, this election is controversial both for the lack of competition on most regional slates, thereby depriving the General Assembly of the ability to choose from among multiple States to fill the open slots, and due to concern for the poor human rights records of some candidates.
The Human Rights Council, successor to the Commission on Human Rights, is made up of forty-seven Member States who are elected to serve staggered three-year terms. A Member State may not immediately seek reelection after serving two consecutive terms. Council Members are elected by a two-thirds majority vote of the members of the General Assembly in an election conducted by secret ballot.
In order to maintain an equitable geographic representation, the General Assembly has stipulated, from within the UN’s 193 Member States, thirteen Human Rights Council members are to come from the Group of African States, thirteen from the Group of Asian States, six from the Group of Eastern European States, eight from the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States, and seven from the Group of Western European and other States.
The States currently running for election are: Ethiopia, Gabon, Kenya, Sierra Leone, Côte d’Ivoire (African States) Pakistan, United Arab Emirates, Kazakhstan, Japan, South Korea (Asian States), Montenegro, Estonia (Eastern European States), Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela (Latin American and Caribbean States), and Sweden, United States, Germany, Ireland, and Greece (Western European and other States). Elected States will fill the posts that will be left vacant by Cameroon, Djibouti, Mauritius, Nigeria, Senegal, Bangladesh, China, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Hungary, Cuba, Mexico, Uruguay, Belgium, Norway, and the United States (if it is not reelected).
The Human Rights Council and its Election Process
If elected, the candidate States will be charged with fulfilling the mandate of the Human Rights Council. The Human Rights Council was established by General Assembly Resolution 60/251 in order to “promot[e] 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” and to “address situations of violations of human rights, including gross and systematic violations, and make recommendations thereon.” Accordingly, the Human Rights Council holds Regular and Special Sessions in which it hears presentations of human rights reports, including from its special procedures (experts appointed to monitor conditions on certain themes and in specific countries) and from the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and it debates a wide range of human rights issues.
The Council also conducts the Universal Periodic Review of Member States’ human rights records, particularly with regard to their implementation of and adherence to international human rights instruments. Although the Human Rights Council is not mandated to hear individual complaints or issue legally binding decisions, it is empowered to “receive complaints alleging patterns of human rights violations, which are considered by the Working Group on Communications and may be referred to the Working Group on Situations.”
Because of the important role the Human Rights Council plays in promoting and protecting human rights, Member States are to “take into account the contribution of candidates to the promotion and protection of human rights and their voluntary pledges and commitments made thereto.” Nearly all of the States running for a position on the Council have submitted voluntary pledges outlining the measures they have taken at the national level, including the passage of legislation and formation of human rights institutions, to strengthen the protection of human rights within their countries. States have also included in these voluntary pledges promises to fulfill the mandate of the Human Rights Council and comply with UN human rights mechanisms. Gabon, Sierra Leone, Côte d’Ivoire, and Ethiopia have apparently not submitted any voluntary pledges. While Brazil and Kenya reportedly have, their pledges have yet to be published on the UN website.
Controversy Surrounding Candidates with Poor Human Rights Records
Despite the stated emphasis on the human rights records of the candidates, civil society organizations have criticized the process for leading to the election of States with poor human rights records. Freedom House has noted that the two-thirds majority (ninety-seven votes) required by the General Assembly is fairly easy to win, meaning that:
no country has ever failed to garner the required 97 votes, including known human rights abusers such as Cuba, Libya, and Saudi Arabia.
Another factor contributing to this issue is the number of “clean slates” (also known as “closed” or “fixed” slates) found in each election, where there are only as many candidates as there are openings for the regional group. The reluctance of some governments to create a competitive election often results in a predominance of no contest slates in each regional group. In this election, the only regional group in which there is a contested election is the Western European and other States category, which is also one of the least controversial slates this time around. Further, according to Freedom House, there are other Asian and African countries with stronger human rights records than some of the present candidates; these States are eligible to run but who declined to do so, leading the organization to conclude that “[r]egional groups clearly are not heeding calls for better candidates and competitive slates.”
Freedom House has listed seven countries — Pakistan, United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia, Gabon, Venezuela, Kazakhstan, and Côte d’Ivoire — in its “Not Recommended” category based on each States’ human rights and General Assembly voting record. Freedom House has also deemed the qualifications of three other countries — Brazil, Kenya, and Sierra Leone — “Questionable” based on the same criteria. Freedom House made these determinations based on each country’s human rights standards as measured by the organization’s Freedom in the World 2012 report, which rates countries based on their respect for political rights and civil liberties. Candidates were also evaluated based on their voting records, in particular regarding the resolutions condemning the human rights situations in Syria, Iran, and North Korea, as well as a number of resolutions that had the potential to “curtail” human rights, such as the Resolution on globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of all human rights (A/RES/66/161), which essentially proposed holding developing countries to a lower human rights standard given their more limited resources.
Amnesty International has also sent open letters to the governments of each candidate State. Although not as strongly worded as Freedom House’s commentary, the letters encourage the candidates to make good on their promises to ratify and implement relevant human rights treaties and to faithfully carry out the duties of the Human Rights Council, as articulated in General Assembly resolution 60/251. Amnesty International also highlighted human rights issues in each candidate State, including the detention and treatment of asylum seekers in Greece and the United States’ continued indefinite detention of 150 men at Guantanamo Bay, and encouraged States to take the necessary measures to address these concerns.
In the past, a small number of States have withdrawn their candidacy amid widespread criticism from the human rights community. With the election less than a week away, this does not seem likely to happen especially given the large number of clean slates. General Assembly Resolution 60/251 does, however, provide that a State’s membership rights may be suspended after a two-thirds majority vote where the council member has committed “gross and systematic violations of human rights.” This has only happened once; in March 2011 when Libya’s membership rights were suspended in response to the country’s violent and crackdown on protesters.
For more information on the Human Rights Council see the following IJRC’ resources: UN Human Rights Council; Primer for Advocacy Opportunities with the United Nations Human Rights Council; and 10 Essential Steps for First Time Advocacy at the Human Rights Council.