5 UN Human Rights Commission Historical Overview

Dr. Y R S Murthy

epgp books

Table of Contents

1. Learning Outcomes

2. Introduction: History of UN Commission on Human Rights

3. ECOSOC and the Commission

4. Composition

5. Mandate of the Commission

6. Sessions of the Commission

7. Activities of the Commission

7.1 ECOSOC Resolution of 1235 (XLII) of 6 June 1967

7.2 ECOSOC Resolution 1503 (XLVIII) Of 27 May 1970

7.3 Special Procedures Mandate Holders

8. Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights

8.1 History and Composition

8.2 Functions and Analysis

9. Cique of the Commission on Human Rights

10 Summary

 

Learning outcomes

  • To give students a historical overview of the evolution of the UN Commission on Human Rights, its activities and the role played by it in developing effective procedures for responding to human rights violations.
  • By the end of the module, students will have an understanding of history and functioning of the Commission, as well as its past activities for the promotion and protection of human rights.

Introduction: History of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights

The Commission on Human rights came to an end at its 62nd session held in Geneva on 27 March 2006. The first session of the Commission took place in 1946 under the chairmanship of Eleanor Roosevelt. The Commission has been aptly described as having become “an annual convention on the whole international human rights movement, in all its governmental, intergovernmental and nongovernmental expressions.”

The Commission was set up as a functional body of the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). It was answerable to ECOSOC and thus in turn was answerable to the UN General Assembly. ECOSOC established the Commission under the purview of Article 68 of the UN Charter which authorized ECOSOC to “entrust commissions with the care of many tasks, among them ‘in economic and social fields and for human rights”.’ Under this provision, ECOSOC appointed a number of regional and functional commissions including three commissions directly responsible for human rights: the Commission on Human Rights, a commission on the status of women and ca commission on crime prevention and criminal justice.

3. ECOSOC and the Commission

The Commission was responsible for most of ECOSOC’s human rights activities. As a subsidiary institution it could adopt its own substantive resolutions, but all decisions with organizational and especially financial implications required the formal consent of ECOSOC. Declarations and conventions drafted by the Commission had to be approved by ECOSOC before they were finally adopted by the UN General Assembly. While ECOSOC generally considered this a mere formality and routinely confirmed the Commission’s decisions without major discussions, in certain cases it caused unnecessary delays or was even abused as a delay strategy.

4. Composition

At the outset of the work of the Commission, the question arose whether it should be comprised of individuals with expertise on human rights serving independently Governments. The initial Commission was established in ‘nuclear form’ and was chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt. It proposed that since States’ representatives sat in the parent body ECOSOC and in the General Assembly to which ECOSOC reported, there was the need for an independent and expert perspective which could be provided through the Commission. In its report to ECOSOC it advocated that the Commission be composed of independent experts and that it be given an open-ended mandate including a general brief not only to assist ECOSOC and the General Assembly in their work but also to “aid the Security Council in the task entrusted to it by Article 39 of the Charter, by pointing to cases where a violation of human rights committed in one country may, by its gravity, its frequency, or its systematic nature, constitute a threat to the peace”.

The initial members of the Commission clearly expected it to do more than drafting; their vision was of a Commission endowed with a wide-ranging political mandate which would enable it to be truly effective in promoting “universal respect for, and observance of, human rights”. This conception of independent membership did not prove acceptable to Governments, which opted for membership of the Commission at its second session, in June 1946. Thus, while originally the Commission in its “nuclear” form comprised nine members, ECOSOC decided at its second session that the Commission should consist of 18 UN Member States elected by ECOSOC on the basis of equitable geographical representation. The membership was later increased to 53.

It has been noted that over the first two decades of its existence the Commission was effectively dominated by the United States, other Western States, and their allies. There was no sub-Saharan African State in the Commission until 1964.

Figure: Eleanor Roosevelt and René Cassin played a major role in guiding the Commission in its initial years http://www.un.org/apps/news/photostories_detail.asp?PsID=33

Mandate of the Commission

The first major task of the Commission was the drafting of an International Bill of Rights, beginning with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and followed by the two International Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and on Civil and Political Rights. The Commission had the mandate of submitting proposals, recommendations and reports to ECOSOC regarding:

  • An international bill of rights
  • International declarations or conventions on civil liberties, the status of women, freedom of information and similar matters
  • The protection of minorities
  • The prevention of discrimination on grounds of race, sex, language or religion
  • Any other matter concerning human rights not covered by the other items.

ECOSOC authorized the Commission to call ad hoc working groups of non-governmental experts in specialized fields or individual experts without further reference to the Council, but with the approval of the President of the Council and the UN Secretary-General. The Commission was allowed to initiate numerous projects and to establish, as discussed below, mechanisms international implementation. The first international treaty to enter into force, in 1966, the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, was drafted under the Commission’s auspices.

Figure: In 1950, on the second anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, students at the UN International Nursery School in New York viewed a poster of the historic document. After adopting it on December 10, 1948, the UN General Assembly had called upon all Member States to publicize the text of the Declaration and ‘to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories’ http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/history.shtml

6. Sessions

The Commission met once each year with its sessions lasting up to six weeks in Geneva (March/April). It also had the option of calling special sessions.

These sessions were attended by approximately 3000 individuals who had an interest in human rights including: high ranking politicians, diplomats, human rights experts, representatives from regional organizations, media, persons belonging to indigenous groups, NGO representatives and human rights activists who contributed in deliberating resolutions and drafting decisions. NGO representatives and non-member States having observer status were integrated in the Commission’s work.

7. Activities of the Commission

P Alston divides the Commission’s activities into three distinct phases: firstly, 1946 to 1966, during which time the Commission was not prepared to address the issue of specific violations at all; secondly, 1967 to 1978, when the Commission struggled to evolve procedures which were initially designed to respond only to problems associated with racism and colonialism; and thirdly, 1979 to 2006, when the procedures developed earlier were applied in an increasingly creative and tailored fashion to an ever-widening range of States and categories of violations.

Initially, the Commission’s highest priority was to prepare a draft Universal Declaration on Human Rights. That task was speedily completed between January 1947 and June 1948.

The Commission dealt with issues such as discrimination, the status of women, the protection of minorities and the procedure for dealing with individual complaints of human rights violations (called “communications” in UN parlance).

From the outset, the Commission resisted examining individual complaints and petitions which streamed into the United Nations appealing for action on human rights violations. ECOSOC had resolved that the Commission had ‘no power to take any action in regard to any complaints concerning human rights.’ It was argued that since the UN Charter did not speak of ‘protection’ but only of ‘promotion’ of human rights, the Commission was in not entitled to act

in any way as to infringe State sovereignty. Writing in 1969, John Humphrey, Director of the UN Human Rights Division from 1946 to 1965, conceded that there was “some truth in the proposition [that] the Commission has been little more than a drafting committee for the General Assembly”.

However, the use of the ‘no power to act’ doctrine was undermined through the Commission’s response to South Africa’s Apartheid Politics (see below, 7.3).

In 1967 and 1970, ECOSOC adopted resolutions 1235 (XLII) and 1503 (XLVIII), respectively, which widened the Commission’s terms of reference to enable it to deal with gross violations of human rights.

7.1 ECOSOC resolution 235 (XLII) of 6 June 1967

This resolution established the first procedure for examining human rights complaints. It provided a basis for public discussion and examination of gross and systematic human rights violations in all States. The Commission was also empowered to make thorough studies of situations which revealed a consistent pattern of human rights violations, and to report these to ECOSOC with relevant recommendations. This authorization provided the legal basis for appointing country-specific and thematic working groups and special rapporteurs who proved to be Commission’s most effective remedies. The authorization to examine, however, did not cover individual cases, but rather only general situations of gross and systematic human rights violations.

Source: Manfred Nowak, Introduction to the International Human Rights Regime (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2002) 104-115.

7.2 ECOSOC resolution 1503 (XLVIII) of 27 May 1970

The resolution introduced a confidential procedure for examining communications of human rights violations. It was considered a big success, particularly by NGOs, as it opened up ways of

ECOSOC RESOLUTION 1503 (XLVIII) OF 27 MAY 1970

 

‘1503’ Procedure revised by ECOSOC Resolution 2000/3 of 16 June 2000

  • Confidential complaints procedure
  • Communications by victims, other persons or NGOs addressed to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva
  • UN Secretariat screened out manifestly ill-founded communications
  • Sub-Commission Working Group on Communications examined communications – where reasonable evidence of a consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights existed-referred to it
  • Human Rights Commission Working Group on Situations examined the particular country situations and decided whether or not to refer any of these situations to the full Commission
  • Commission decision
    • o Report and and make recommendation to ECOSOC
    • o Whether to appoint an ad-hoc committee for investigation and/or a special rapporteur
    • o Whether to transfer from 1503 to 1235 procedure (“to go public”)
    • o Keep the situation under review
    • o Terminate/end the investigation
  • Chair of the Commission announced the names of countries under examination

having their communications examined in a formal procedure, including those against States which were not parties to the relevant human rights treaties. But with time, other procedures involving independent monitoring bodies were developed and the strictly confidential, highly complicated and time consuming 1503 procedure lost much of its significance.

Source: Manfred Nowak, Introduction to the International Human Rights Regime (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2002) 104-115.

7.3 Special Procedure Mandate Holders

In 1965, in response to the situation the Apartheid Era South Africa the Commission departed from previous practice and established an ad-hoc working group of experts (CHR resolution 2 (XXIII)). The ad-hoc working group can be considered as the Commission’s first “Special Procedure”. In 1975, the Commission established an ad-hoc working group to inquire into the situation of human rights in Chile. In 1979, this working group was replaced by a special rapporteur and two experts to study the fate of the disappeared in Chile. This led to the establishment of the first thematic Special Procedure in 1980: the Working Group on Enforced Disappearances to deal with the question of enforced disappearances throughout the world (CHR resolution 20 (XXXVI)). Under the Commission’s successor body, the Human Rights Council, there are, as of August 2015, 41 thematic and 14 country mandates.

ECOSOC RESOLUTION OF 1235 (XLII) OF 6 JUNE 1967

  • Human Rights Commission and Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights
    • Examination of information relevant to systematic human rights violations in public sessions
    • Thorough study of situations which reveal a consistent pattern of human rights violations
    • Report on the issue to ECOSOC
  • Information may be submitted by
    • States
    • Members of the Sub-commission
    • NGOs with consultative status
  • Thorough studies may be conducted by
    • Working groups
    • Individual experts (special rapporteurs, representatives, envoys, etc.
    • UN Secretary-General

8. Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights

The Sub-Commission was the main institution created by the Commission and subordinate to it. It was established in 1947 as the ‘Sub-Commission for the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities’ with the specific mandate to conduct studies related to discrimination in various fields. Over the years, Sub-Commission became a permanent advisory body on all human rights issues. In 1999 it was renamed ‘Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights’.

The Sub-Commission was not composed of Member States like the Commission but rather of 26 independent experts elected on the basis of equitable geographical representation. It was envisaged as a kind of ‘scientific’ advisory body or ‘think tank’ for the Commission to deal with difficult and intensive tasks such as drafting standards, conducting comprehensive studies and dealing with thousands of individual communications relating to human rights abuses.

SUB-COMMISSION ON THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

  • Main subsidiary body of the Commission on Human Rights; established in 1947 as Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities; name and functions changed by ECOSOC Res. 1999/256 of 27 July 1999
  • Composed of 26 independent experts
  • Observers from States, UN bodies and specialized agencies, IGOs and NGOs
  • Annual session for three weeks in Geneva (August)
  • Main function to act as a ‘think tank’ of the Commission (undertaking studies, evaluating country situations, drafting standards, making recommendations to the Commission)
  • Six working groups on:
    • Communications (1503 procedure)
    • Contemporary forms of slavery
    • Indigenous populations
    • Minorities
    • Transnational corporations
    • Administration of Justice

Source: Manfred Nowak, Introduction to the International Human Rights Regime (Martimus Nijhoff Publishers, 2002) 104-119

Critique of the Commission on Human Rights

In theory, the Commission was established to serve the noble idea of human rights protection; in reality, however, as one of the international community’s political bodies it is made up of State representatives who act on the basis of political criteria. The Commission had been criticized for its ‘politicized’ treatment of human rights, and for its selective treatment of States. Less powerful States were targeted for violations of human rights while no measures were taken against more powerful States. Another cririccism was that States which were notorious human rights violators sought membership of the Commission to shield themselves from accountability.

10 Summary

After the adoption of the United Nations Charter in 1945, the UN Commission on Human Rights was established in accordance with Article 68 as a functional commission under ECOSOC. It comprised 53 Member States and met in Geneva for an annual session of six weeks. It passed resolutions and established country-specific and thematic mechanisms. The Commission and its Sub-Commission on Promotion and Protection of Human Rights worked through Special Rapporteurs and Working Groups. Its priority task at the outset was the elaboration of the International Bill of Rights. It thus drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and on Civil and Political Rights, followed by other international human rights Conventions. In terms of standard setting and human rights promotion, its record in the 60 years of its existence was impressive. However, its activities were marred by allegations of politicization, lack of consistency and double standards.

you can view video on UN Human Rights Commission Historical Overview

Reference

  1. Howard Tolley, Jr., ‘The Concealed Crack in the Citadel: ‘The United Nations Commission on Human Rights’ Response to Confidential Communications’’, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 6, No. 4 (Nov., 1984), 420-462.
  2. A Eide, The Sub-Commission for the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities’ in P Alston (ed.), The United Nations and Human Rights: A Critical Appraisal (1992) 211-264.
  3. P Alston, ‘Reconceiving the UN Human Rights Regime: Challenges Confronting the New UN Human Rights Council’, 7 Melbourne Journal of International Law 2006, 185-224.
  4. P Alston, ‘The Commission on Human Rights’ in P Alston (ed.), The United Nations and Human Rights: A Critical Appraisal (1992) 126-210.