International law, Sixth edition
Download 7.77 Mb. Pdf ko'rish
|
International Law MALCOLM N. SHAW
Human Rights, pp. 126, 145 ff., and M. Bossuyt, ‘The Development of Special Procedures
of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights’, 6 HRLJ, 1985, p. 179. 213 ECOSOC resolution 2000/3. 214 See also Sub-Committee resolution 1 (XXIV), 1971. 215 See e.g. T. Van Boven, ‘Human Rights Fora at the United Nations’ in International Human Rights Law and Practice (ed. J. C. Tuttle), Philadelphia, 1978, p. 83; H. M¨oller, ‘Petition- ing the United Nations’, 1 Universal Human Rights, 1979, p. 57; N. Rodley, ‘Monitoring 306 i n t e r nat i o na l l aw Despite good work in the field of standard-setting and in drawing at- tention to abuses of human rights, albeit on rather less than a universalist basis, the Commission began to attract an increasing level of criticism, mainly concerning political selectivity and the failure to review objectively the situation in particular countries. 216 The High Level Panel on Threats, Challenge and Change convened by the United Nations Secretary-General concluded in its Report of 2004 that, ‘In recent years, the Commission’s capacity to perform these tasks has been undermined by eroding credi- bility and professionalism.’ 217 As a result, the Human Rights Council was created to replace the Commission by General Assembly resolution 60/251 on 3 April 2006. The Human Rights Council The Council was established with a higher status in the UN hierarchy as a subsidiary organ of the General Assembly with forty-seven members, 218 elected by a majority of members of the Assembly for three years for up to two consecutive terms. The Commission’s special procedures function was retained, although all functions and responsibilities of the Commission assumed by the Council are subject to a review aimed at their rationali- sation and improvement. A new universal periodic review mechanism by which the human rights record of all countries is to be examined was also established. This was intended as a partial response to the criticisms of Human Rights by the UN System and Non-governmental Organisations’ in Kommers and Loescher, Human Rights and American Foreign Policy, p. 157, and Tolley, ‘Con- cealed Crack’, pp. 429 ff. Note that the Commission chairman began the practice of announcing the names of the countries subject to complaints under resolution 1503, al- though no further details were disclosed: see e.g. E/CN.4/1984/77, p. 151, naming Albania, Argentina, Benin, Haiti, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Paraguay, the Philippines, Turkey and Uruguay. 216 See e.g. the Amnesty International Report, ‘Meeting the Challenge’, AI Index, IOR 40/008/2005. 217 www.un.org/secureworld/report3.pdf, at para. 283. See also the Secretary-General’s Report, ‘In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All’, A/59/2005, at para. 182. It was noted that the Commission had been ‘undermined by the politicisation of its sessions and the selectivity of its work’, A/59/2005/Add.1, para. 2. Note also, for example, the inability of the Commission in 1990 even to discuss draft resolutions relating to China and Iraq: E. Zoller, ‘46th Session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights’, 8(2) NQHR, 1990, pp. 140, 142. Note also the election of Libya to chair the Commission in 2003. 218 Distributed regionally with thirteen seats for the African group; thirteen seats for the Asian group; six seats for the Eastern European group; eight seats for the Latin American and Caribbean group and seven seats for the Western European and Other group. t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f h u m a n r i g h t s 307 the Commission’s selectivity. 219 The Council adopted resolution 5/1 on 18 June 2007 entitled ‘United Nations Human Rights Council: Institution- Building’, which ranged over a wide area and established the details of the universal periodic review mechanism. The principles laid down for this mechanism include the universality of human rights, universal cov- erage and equal treatment of all states and the conduct of the review in an objective, transparent, non-selective, constructive, non-confrontational and non-politicised manner. This resolution also laid down details for the conduct and review of the special procedures, provided for the cre- ation of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee, composed of eighteen experts serving in their personal capacity, intended to function as a think-tank for the Council and work at its direction, and provided for the establishment of a confidential complaints procedure based upon the mechanism created by ECOSOC resolution 1503 (1970). 220 Download 7.77 Mb. Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
Ma'lumotlar bazasi mualliflik huquqi bilan himoyalangan ©fayllar.org 2024
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling