THE CONTEXT: United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) on 07 April 2022 suspended Russia from the UN Human Rights Council over reports of gross and systematic violations and abuses of human rights by invading Russian troops in Ukraine. This article analyses the issue in detail.
AN ANALYSIS OF THE DEVELOPMENT
REASONS BEHIND THE SUSPENSION
- Russia was suspended from the UN Human Rights Council after the 193-member General Assembly voted to adopt a resolution moved by the United States over allegations that Russian troops killed civilians while pulling back from towns around the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv.
- In the 193-member UNGA, 93 nations voted in favour of the resolution, while 24 were against it. Fifty-eight countries, including India, abstained from the process.
- This met the two-thirds majority benchmark in which only the voting members, not abstentions, are counted from the 193-member General Assembly.
THE PROCEDURE AND HISTORY
- As per the rules, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) can suspend the rights and privileges of any Council member that it decides has persistently committed gross and systematic violations of human rights during its term of membership.
- To suspend a member, one needs a two-thirds majority vote by the General Assembly.
- This is only the second time the UNGA has suspended a country from the 47-member UN Human Rights Council after its formation in 2006. In 2011, Libya was thrown out through a resolution adopted by UNGA through consensus.
- But for the first time, one of the permanent members has lost its membership rights in a UN body.
INDIA’S STAND
India chose to abstain from the vote, saying that any such decision must follow the “due process” of investigation first. However, India also sharpened its criticism of Russia by reiterating the need to respect the three red lines in international relations:
- “Respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states”,
- “UN Charter” and
- “International law”.
AN ANALYSIS OF THE VOTE
- Less than half the members of the UNGA voted in favour of the resolution, but it was enough to pass the resolution. The Russian permanent mission to the UN voiced its opinion on the social media platform that the adoption of the resolution was an “illegal and politically motivated step” to punish a country that pursues an independent foreign policy and also announced that Russia was voluntarily “terminating” its membership in UNHRC with immediate effect.
- Some countries even voted against the resolution for the reasons being:
- Heavier pressure from Russia for outright opposition to the resolution, rather than abstentions especially the countries having close ties with Moscow.
- The precedent of removing a country from the UNHRC because of human rights violations – while it may seem like an obvious step – would be controversial for a number of countries such as Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan both have faced criticisms for violations of human rights at home (both are members of UNHRC currently).
- Russia was in its second year of a three-year term on the Geneva-based council, which cannot make legally binding decisions. However, the council’s decisions send important political messages and can authorise investigations.
- Furthermore, India abstained from the resolution albeit reiterating the condemnation of the civilian killings in Bucha and supported the call for an independent investigation.
THE UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
ABOUT
- The Human Rights Council is an inter-governmental body within the United Nations system responsible for strengthening the promotion and protection of human rights around the world.
FORMATION
- The Council was created by the United Nations General Assembly in 2006. It replaced the former United Nations Commission on Human Rights.
- The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) serves as the Secretariat of the Human Rights Council.
- Headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland.
MEMBERS
- It is made up of 47 United Nations Member States which are elected by the UN General Assembly (UNGA).
- The Council’s Membership is based on equitable geographical distribution. Seats are distributed as follows:
ü African States: 13 seats
ü Asia-Pacific States: 13 seats
ü Latin American and Caribbean States: 8 seats
ü Western European and other States: 7 seats
ü Eastern European States: 6 seats
- The UNGA takes into account the candidate States’ contribution to the promotion and protection of human rights, as well as their voluntary pledges and commitments in this regard.
- Members of the Council serve for a period of three years and are not eligible for immediate re-election after serving two consecutive terms.
MECHANISMS
- Universal Periodic Review: UPR serves to assess the human rights situations in all United Nations Member States.Currently, no other universal mechanism of this kind exists.
- Advisory Committee: It serves as the Council’s “think tank” providing it with expertise and advice on thematic human rights issues.
- Complaint Procedure: The complaint procedure addresses communications submitted by individuals, groups or non-governmental organizations that claim to be victims of human rights violations or that have direct, reliable knowledge of such violations.
- The Council also established various subsidiary expert mechanisms to provide the Council with thematic expertise and forums providing a platform for dialogue and cooperation. These bodies focus mainly on studies, research-based advice or best practices.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE UNHRC
UNHRC has played the role of a political platform which aims to ensure that human rights remain a top priority within the UN.
GLOBAL REACH
- UNHRC has a wide mandate which facilitates it to respond to human rights cases across the globe. In doing so, it also brings the members of civil society together for voicing concerns related to human rights in their respective local regions.
SPECIAL PROCEDURES
- The Human Rights Council’s Special Procedures mandate-holders are made up of special rapporteurs, independent experts or working groups composed of five members who are appointed by the Council and who serve in their personal capacity. Special procedures undertake country visits; act on individual cases and concerns of a broader, structural nature by sending communications to States and other actors bringing alleged violations or abuses to their attention
- These independent experts report at least once a year to the Council on their findings and recommendations, as well as to the UN General Assembly. At times they are the only mechanism alerting the international community to certain human rights issues.
- There are two types of Special Procedures mandates: the thematic mandates, such as water and sanitation, arbitrary detention, the rights of migrants, violence against women, torture and human trafficking, and the country-specific mandates.
UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW
- The Universal Periodic Review motivates nation-level dialogues on human rights and also mandates that every UN member state examines human rights on a regular basis. It ensures transparency and accountability in the functioning of UNHCR.
- i.e. the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a unique process which involves a review of the human rights records of all UN Member States. The UPR is a State-driven process, under the auspices of the Human Rights Council, which provides the opportunity for each State to declare what actions they have taken to improve the human rights situations in their countries and to fulfil their human rights obligations.
CONDEMNING THE VIOLATIONS
- In the recent past, the resolutions adopted by the UNHRC have highlighted and condemned distinctive violations despite the efforts to the contrary by some members of the HRC. For example, in the midst of the Arab Spring, the Human Rights Council voted unanimously to suspend Libya’s membership. More recently, the Council did not permit Syria to bid for a seat on grounds of human rights violations and appointed an investigation there.
ISSUE-BASED COALITIONS
- There are an increasing number of countries from all parts of the world which have started working together to further human rights, irrespective of their shared history and regional politics. The regional bloc voting practices have become a matter of the past and considered discussion along with collective action is becoming possible.
DEBATE ON CONTROVERSIAL SUBJECT AREAS
- Controversial subject areas have also been addressed at the HRC, including LGBTIQ rights and religious discrimination. South Africa’s efforts to acknowledge the rights of LGBTIQ faced strong opposition from neighbouring countries but it was supported by far-away countries like Brazil, Colombia, the United States, and many others.
THE CRITICISM OF THE UNHRC
BIASED FOCUS ON THE ISRAEL-PALESTINE CONFLICT
- The UNHRC is accused of an anti-Israel bias as it passes resolutions that focus on alleged Israeli human rights violations while ignoring similar allegations against the Palestinian side. Most recently the 49th session of UNHRC that ended on 01 April 2022 passed a total of 35 resolutions and 3 of them were concerned with the Israel-Palestine issue (All 3 of them were in favour of Palestine).
MEMBERS WITH QUESTIONABLE HUMAN RIGHTS RECORDS
- Just like the UN Commission on Humans Rights, the UN Human Rights Council also elects members like China, Pakistan and Russia who have poor or questionable track records on Human rights. It raises questions on how effective or unbiased the organisation is.
NEXUS FORMATION
- It was reported in 2008 that the UNHRC was being controlled by a few Middle-East and African nations with support from China and Russia, in order to shield each other from criticism.
LACK OF STANDARDS
- The USA withdrew from the council during the Trump regime but again joined in the present regime. The powerful member nations taking such steps also undermine the credibility of the global body.
GLOBAL REPRESENTATION
- Although the geographical quota system addresses the disparities in global representation, it is also the Council’s most serious flaw.
- With a few honourable exceptions, the overwhelming majority of countries outside Western Europe and other groupings have flawed-to-abysmal human-rights records and policies. Many are not democracies. Few have representative governments. Fewer still have an incentive to pursue and commit to universal human rights.
INDIA AND THE UNHRC
- India was elected for the sixth time to the Council for a three-year term with an overwhelming majority that began on January 1, 2022.
- As part of the third stage of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process, India’s National Human Rights Commission delivered its mid-term report to the Council in 2020.
- A number of UN Special Rapporteurs have also written to the Indian government, voicing their concerns about the draft Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) notification 2020. Though there are several concerns with the draft, a few of which are related to human rights are mentioned below:
- Opens the Floodgates of Violations: The environmental lawyers have argued that the Post-Facto Clearance of the Projects is likely to encourage industries to commence operations without bothering clearance and eventually get regularized by paying the penalty amount and thus opening the floodgates of violations.
- Strengthens the Government but Weakens the Public: The draft offers no remedy for the political and bureaucratic stronghold on the EIA process, and thereby on industries. Instead, it proposes to bolster the government’s discretionary power while limiting public engagement in safeguarding the environment. Also, the draft, by limiting public consultation, is not in consonance with protecting the rights of tribals, among others.
- Reduced Time means Reduced Awareness: The reduced notice period for a public hearing from 30 days to 20 days will only make it difficult to study the draft EIA report, more so when it is not widely available or provided in the regional language. Moreover, the reduction of time would particularly pose a problem in those areas where information is not easily accessible or areas in which people are not that well aware of the process itself.
- UNHRC Chief also voiced concerns and criticisms against India on various occasions such as:
- The impact of actions by the government of India on the human rights of the Kashmiri people, including restrictions on internet communications and peaceful assembly, and the detention of local political leaders and activists.
- Arbitrary use of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act throughout India.
- The National Register of Citizens verification process in the northeast Indian state of Assam, caused great uncertainty and anxiety among the people.
- The unprecedented farmers’ agitation at the borders of the national capital over the three farm laws also drew the attention of the UN human rights chief.
- India was quick and firm to present counter statements in defence of India’s stand on such issues and stated that:
- The UNHRC needs to be uniform, consistent, and even-handed when it comes to human rights abuse or denial of civil rights to people across the world and should not resort to a selective approach to seeking accountability for civil rights from different member states.
- India is also of the view that human rights shall be implemented in a non-selective manner and with due respect to non-interference in internal affairs.
THE RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
- India recently abstained from a vote at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva. The Council passed a resolution calling for the formation of an international commission to investigate Russia’s conduct in Ukraine.
- India abstained from voting on resolutions concerning Russia – Ukraine crisis, on as many as six occasions including the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) resolution concerning the safety of four nuclear power plants and a number of nuclear waste sites, including Chernobyl, because the Russians had taken control of them.
THE WAY FORWARD – IMPROVING THE WORKING OF UNHRC
- The impact of the crisis had been felt beyond the region, with increasing food and energy costs, especially for developing countries, and it is in everyone’s collective interest to work constructively, within the UN and outside, towards seeking an early resolution to the conflict.
- No solution can be arrived at, by shedding blood and at the cost of innocent lives and it is peremptory to choose the side of peace and collectively work towards an immediate end to violence.
- UNHRC does not have a separate Secretariat. Though UNHRC and OHCHR function in tandem, both the bodies should have separate specialized secretariat staffs which will further enhance their functioning.
- The decisions on resolutions of the UNHCR are taken, based on the voting of the member nations. Consensus building might prove to be a more feasible approach in a multilateral body.
- To strengthen the global trust in the organisation it is imperative not to have a nation with a bad human rights record as a member of UNHRC.
THE CONCLUSION: Over a decade ago, when the UNHRC recommended the suspension of Libya to the General Assembly, there had been no vote since the resolution was adopted by consensus. The resolution against Russia is passed with 93 votes in favour, 24 against and 58 abstentions i.e with consensus. A hasty move at the General Assembly, which forces countries to choose sides, will aggravate the division among member states, intensify the confrontation between the parties concerned and could be adding fuel to the fire. The move to expel Russia may not contribute to reaching a peaceful resolution of the Ukraine war and could further escalate the polarisation in the international community. The credibility and legitimacy of the multilateral platforms will be enhanced with concrete steps to end the conflict, merely ousting a member would not be sufficient. The response/retaliation from Russia is yet to be seen which will further define the course of history.
Spread the Word