Engaging Today's Global Citizens

In Search of Strength

Representatives of 53 nations gathered in Geneva last month for the 62nd session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. As they do each spring, commission members weighed in on the state of human rights around the world and how to improve it. This was also their last session—in their present form at least.

On March 15, the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly approved a resolution to replace the existing body with a new Human Rights Council, with provisions to make the council more effective than its predecessor. While the old commission made some important contributions—such as appointing special rapporteurs to delve into a number of especially troubling abuses—it had become nearly paralyzed by division, particularly in recent years.

The commission's annual six-week sessions were dominated by intense tugs of war to decide which countries should be singled out for their human rights records. This back-and-forth made it difficult to work constructively to protect people's rights. As Secretary-General Kofi Annan put it in his In Larger Freedom report, "states have sought membership of the Commission not to strengthen human rights but to protect themselves against criticism or to criticize others." With an election process that was essentially decided within regional caucuses, some of the world's worst rights-abusing governments were voted onto the body.

Instead of being elected as a group by the Economic and Social Council, each country running for a seat on the new Human Rights Council must be approved individually by an absolute majority of the 191-country General Assembly. There is also a new provision allowing for the removal of any country with a problematic human rights record, though this requires a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly.

In keeping with the shared obligation of all UN member states to protect human rights, the council will receive from experts a review examining the records of all 191 countries, starting with those on the council. This accelerated scrutiny should serve as an additional disincentive for rights-violating governments to seek election.

The council's schedule of meetings will also help make it more constructive than the old body. Instead of one feverish annual meeting, it will meet at least three times a year for a minimum total of ten weeks. To give it flexibility to deal with urgent human rights crises, extra sessions of the council can be convened at the behest of one-third of its members.

The General Assembly adopted the resolution establishing the new council by a vote of 170 to 4, with three abstentions. The United States voted against the resolution, holding out for measures the Bush administration believed would make the council even stronger. The United States, for instance, pushed hard for a provision that would disqualify for membership any country under UN sanctions for rights abuses. While this would have applied currently to only two countries (Sudan and Côte d'Ivoire), Washington made it a top priority, at a cost to other measures, like election by a two-thirds "supermajority" that enjoyed wider support.

The United States pledged its cooperation with the council, though it is not clear whether it will seek a seat on the new body—a hotly debated topic right now. Elections are scheduled for May 9, with the first meeting to take place in June.

General Assembly President Jan Eliasson, who brokered the compromise resolution, expressed hope that the new mechanism would foster a new political dynamic: "By strengthening this machinery and at the same time making the Council an instrument of co-operation and of dialogue, we enhance the common ownership of the human rights work of the United Nations."

—David Shorr