Should the UN General Assembly’s Third Committee take country-specific human rights resolutions?

The 20-21 November New York Update from the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) reports that Cuba, the Sudan and Nicaragua took the floor before the Third Committee considered any of the country-specific resolutions on its agenda to say why the General Assembly should not deal with such resolutions.

Their primary objection is that they consider the [UN Human Rights] Council to be the most appropriate body within the UN system to consider human rights matters in specific countries, using the UPR [Universal Periodic Review] mechanism, which they regard as non-selective, non-confrontational, and an effective mechanism for engaging States in a human rights dialogue.

The USA and Australia responded to this claim by saying that country-specific resolutions were necessary to stop countries getting away with human rights violations with impunity and to help the victims of human rights abuses. As Liechtenstein pointed out, the Third Committee, unlike the Human Rights Council, has universal membership and the responsibility to deal with serious human rights violations.

The ISHR’s Update also reported that:

States in favour of country-specific resolutions also objected to any moves to stifle debate on serious human rights matters within the Third Committee, and pointed to the right of any State to bring forward a resolution in the General Assembly on any matter of concern.

As I reported on Wednesday, Iran did in fact try to stifle debate on serious human rights issues, in so far as they affected Iran, by tabling a no-action motion. That the motion failed by only one vote tells us that something is sadly amiss as far as the UN’s consideration of human rights is concerned.

I am very much in favour of appropriately used country-specific resolutions. (I say “appropriately used” because country-specific resolutions can be used vexatiously to target countries that do not deserve to be targeted while neglecting countries that do deserve to be targeted.) Iran is a country that cannot be allowed to get away with its appalling treatment of minorities, including the Baha’is, and with its many other terrible violations of its citizens’ human rights.

Claims by countries that the Third Committee should not consider country-specific human rights resolutions are entirely self-serving. Just look at the countries that took time at the Third Committee to argue against country-specific resolutions: Cuba, Sudan and Nicaragua are not exactly shining examples of human rights compliant states.

And to say that human rights matters should be handled only by the UN Human Rights Council is also self-serving, since the Council’s effectiveness has been limited - neutered, some would say - by the machinations of member states that are amongst the worst human rights abusers. In fact, the Human Rights Council has largely abandoned country-specific resolutions, except with respect to Israel.

Technorati Tags: human rights, UN, Third Committee, Iran, Israel, Baha’i, Bahai