Prof. Pietro de Perini – 28.09.2020 – 11.11.

2020

1st Cluster

28.09.2020

29.09.2020

30.09.2020

05.10.2020

2nd Cluster

- Who does the <HR job> at the UN?

- Why does the UN often look weak and inconsistent in advancing HR?

- How do UN HR political monitoring and expert monitoring relate?

- Do regional systems and actors complement or challenge Universal HR?

Overview of Cluster 2A

- How do UN principal organs approach HRs

- UN “ad hoc” HR bodies: advantages and limits

- Expert bodies vs political bodies

- Case study: the UPR

- Regional groups in the UN

- Overview of regional systems for HR (similarities and differences)

The UN and Human Rights

- Promotion of HR among UN purposes (art. 1 UN Charter)

- Process of progressive “HR institutionalization” > “mainstreaming”
- > “covered by several other bodies than those created ad hoc for promoting them
o UN principal organs
o UN specific HR bodies
o UN agencies, programmes and funds (attention to one or more HR)

Principal organs (Charter-based)

 - General Assembly: more promotion than protection; adoption of crucial resolutions (3 rd
Committee) and approval of HR treaties; resolutions to put pressure on specific issues
(e.g. Apartheid)
- ECOSOC: much less relevant than what the UN charter attributes: decided
intergovernmental composition of HR Commission; Res. 1235 and 1503; decides status
of NGOs in UN; role in sustainable development
- International Court of Justice: only states have standing before it; political role through
“opinions”
- Security Council:
o Take actions to remove threats to peace (HR violations as early warning in
internal conflicts)
o Extensively expanded mandate post-Cold War > expand the scope of “security” –
blur borders of state sovereignty
 Some HR “Milestones” in the work of the Security Council:
 Reform of Peacekeeping operations; other “tasks” and “tools”
 Establishment of ICTY/ICTR in the 1990s ICC
 Introduction of “Arria Formula” briefings
o Key role in actualizing the Responsibility to Protect (RtP) principle
o Gradual SC approach to HR shows its pragmatism, adaptability, and creativity.
But declaratory and uneven resort to tools (Wechler – Knutson 2018)
o Main obstacles: inconsistencies and vetoes of P5; Gap between SC Res (Ch. VII)
and lack of political will to take the costs of implement their mandate; little real
dialogue with HR bodies

Responsibility to Protect

2005 – UN World Summit outcome document

138. Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from
genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. This
responsibility entails the prevention of such crimes, including their incitement,
through appropriate and necessary means. We accept that responsibility and will act
in accordance with it. The international community should, as appropriate,
encourage and help States to […]

139. The international community, through the United […]

Would a reformed SC ensure stricter HR protection?

- Current reform attempt – based on GA Dec 62/50 (2008)

- Five key issues: categories of membership; the question of the veto; regional
representation, size of an enlarged Security Council, working methods of the Council;
and the relationship between SC and GA;
- Vastly different positions and interests among “groups” (e.g. G4, Uniting for Consensus,
African group, Arab group…)
- Voting on reform to be based on consensus (2/3 + P5)
- So what?

06.10.2020
The Secretary-General

[gap]

Boutros Boutros-Ghali (Egypt)

- An Agenda for Peace, 1992

- An Agenda for Development, 1994

- An Agenda for Democratization, 1996

- Claims strong integration of HR, democracy, and development > [gap]

Kofi Annan (Ghana): strong on HR; constrains by some UN member states + UN weakness in Balkans
and Rwanda in the 1990s.

In larger freedom (2005) >

- Reform of the UN (including SC) > creation of HRC

- Part III > Freedom to live in Dignity > Strengthen the rule of law, HR and democracy in concrete
ways

- Focus on RtP > 2000 Millennium Report

Antonio Guterres (Portugal): initially strong on HR (call for mobilization in 2017 with OHCHR) >
former UNCHCR

- Actual priority: reform of the UN to make it more coherent, consistent, and effective: 1) Secretariat
Management; 2) Development; 3) Peace and Security

- Roth (HRW, 2019): “A more outspoken approach undoubtedly will rankle some states, but it will
help restore the credibility of the Secretary-General as a world leader willing to fulfill his
responsibility to defend people at greatest risk of abuse”.

- Much more dynamism in late 2019/2020

- Feb. 2020: The highest aspiration: a call to action for Human Rights: 7 domains; 11 guiding
principles (reaffirmation of ongoing work + areas needing more efforts)

Our purpose is, above all, to have a positive impact. This means being open to all available
channels and opportunities to engage. There is a place for negotiations behind the scenes, a place for
building and strengthening national capacities, a place for supporting different stakeholders, and a
time when speaking out is essential

- April 2020: COVID-19 and Human Rights – we are all in this together (policy brief)

Office of the High Commissioner for HR (OHCHR)

- Created by GA after Vienna Conference of 1993

- Global reach of the HR Council but less complicated and politicized
- May deal directly with governments and approach them on any issue, at his or her
discretion
 - Directly accountable to (and appointed by) the SG
- Personifies information advocacy model > specific contributions by individual mandate-
holders
- OHCHR represents “the world’s commitment to universal ideals of human dignity” …

UN Human Rights bodies

- Political vs Expert mechanisms/bodies (non-judicial in UN)

- Political mechanism: Human Rights Council; UPR (intergovernmental, broader scope of
action)
- Expert mechanisms: Treaty bodies and Special Procedures (personal capacity, specific
aspects of Human Rights norms).

Human Rights Council

- Established with GA resolution 60/251

- Subsidiary body of the GA (not of ECOSOC);
- Intergovernmental body composed of 47 members (term is three years – two
consecutive terms max.)
- Membership shall be based on equitable geographical distribution
- Criteria for elections are: the candidate country’s record on HR, voluntary pledges, and
commitment to HR in general.

The Human Rights Council is responsible for:

- Promoting universal respect for the protection of all human rights and fundamental
freedoms for all
- Promoting the effective coordination and the mainstreaming of HR within the Un system
- And… promoting HR education; serving as a forum for debate; preventing HR violations
through dialogue; making recommendations to the GA for the further development of
international HR law; undertaking the UPR, etc.
- Functions also include:
o Start urgent debates (28 special sessions): oPt (7 sessions), Syria (5), Myanmar
(2), Sud Sudan/Darfur (2), Burundi, Nigeria, Central Africa Republic, Libya, Côte
d’Ivoire, Haiti, Sri Lanka, Democratic Republic of Congo, Lebanon; world food
crisis (2008), the impact of HR of the world financial crisis (2009), the
implications of [gap]
o Launch ad hoc fact-finding missions and inquiry commissions

Main mechanisms

- Advisory Committee:
o 18 independent experts;
o Think tank function – replaces former Sub-Commission on the Promotion and
Protection of Human Rights
o Downgrade compared to Sub-Commission?
 Less influence VS
 Less potential disagreements with the Council
- Special Procedures
o “Crown Jewel” of UN HR Regime?
o 44 thematic / 12 country specific
 o Advantage of not depending on any treaty (ratifications/reservations)
o Functions: country visits/communications to states; thematic studies; contribute
to the development of HR standards (standard-setting); technical advice; engage
in advocacy

Universal Periodic Review – UPR

- Intergovernmental peer review mechanism

- Aimed at improving the HR situation on the ground of each of the 193 UN Member
States
- The full HR situation of every country is monitored approx. every 4.5 years (about 42
states reviewed per year: 3 sessions / 14 states each).
- Main outcome is a report of the UPR working group (WG) which lists recommendations
to state under review (troika: group of 3 states from the WG which are selected)
- States can <<support>> [accept] or <<note>> [not accept] these recommendations
(Addendum)
- Three-stage process:
o Preparation for the review and reporting on implementation
o Review of the Human Rights situation of the State under Review (interactive
dialogue) and adoption of the Final Report by the WG
o Implementation of Recommendations and reporting at mid-term (by the State
reviewed)
o Main CSOs contributions are on the first and third stages (plus lobbying at pre-
sessions)
- Analysis by the UPR WG is made with reference to:
o (a) The Charter of the United Nations
o (b) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
o (c) Human Rights instruments to which a state is party
o (d) Voluntary pledges and commitments made by States, including those
undertaken when presenting their candidatures for election to the HRC
- Based on:
o A state’s report
o A compilation report by the OHCHR
o Other stakeholders’ report (NGOs, NHRIs)

07.10.2020

UPR – statistics (from upr.info)

- 80,060 total recommendations (three UPR cycles)

- 27,181 recommendations containing a specific action (category 5)
- About 18 countries did not make any recommendations (remains stable)
- The top 5 states under review are
o 1. China, 2. Turkey, 3. Kuwait, 4. Viet Nam, 5. Kenya
- The top 5 recommending States are:
o 1. France, 2. Spain, 3. Canada, 4. Mexico, 5. Norway
- The top 5 issues raised are:
o 1. International instruments, 2. Women’s rights, 3. Rights of the child, 4. Torture
and other CID treatment, 5. Justice
UPR – types of recommendations

- UPR-info analysis > recommendations ask for:

1) Minimal action; 2) Considering action; 3) Continuing action; 4) General action; 5)
Specific action
o 5: Finalize and implement a National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security
(to AFGH, from Australia)
o 4: Take further measures to enhance relevant human rights laws and regulations
(to FRA, from Oman)
o 3: Continue its efforts to strengthen human rights, particularly within the
framework of the family (to BRA, from Saudi A.)
o 2: Consider enacting, in consultation with civil society, an optional civil code that
takes into account Lebanon’s international HR obligations (to LEB, from USA)
o 1: Seek support of the international community in Nepal’s efforts to firmly
institutionalize peace building efforts (to NEPAL, from Pakistan)

UPR – issues

- Formality of its structure and procedures (risks of ritualism) (Charlesworth and Larking
2014)
- Time and space restrictions: review is rarely thorough and comprehensive in analyzing
compliance with all salient human rights obligations; “snapshot” (Smith 2013)
- No assessment and enforcement mechanism > states can claim compliance without
making any substantial change (Chauville 2014; Cofelice and de Perini 2020);
- “no impartial analysis but strategic relations provide the actual mechanism linking
rhetorical pressure to behavioral outcomes in the UPR” (Terman and Voeten 2018);
- Reports are often not prepared in consultation with stakeholders (CSOs) as they would
be expected to;
- General vs Specific recommendations (need to measure progress)
- Muting criticism/strategies to avoid negative reactions by peers (many politically neutral
recommendations)
- Level of implementation varies from the type or recommendation > when “easy”
recommendations are implemented, overall implementation level may shrink.
- Overlapping with TBs, SPs?

UPR – strengths

- Most inclusive and comprehensive of the UN Mechanisms…

- “If the UPR matters, it is precisely because of its political nature, not in spite of it”
(Alvarez 2019)
- Effective tool to keep HR in the international political agenda > international socialization
helps shape consensus on HR and better locate them
- Number of recommendations has grown dramatically > increasing commitment and
participation by peers;
- Recommendations are increasingly measurable
- Growing participation by delegations
- About 30% of “noted” recommendations resulted in some domestic reforms > indirect
impact of UPR

UPR – helpful for students/scholars

 - Overview of global HR trends, numbers (difficult when dealing with HR), and thanks to
UPR-Info, updated statistics…
- Insights on a country’s domestic HR situation and of its foreign policy approach vis-à-vis
HR
- Understand the international politics of HR and the regional politics of HR
- Investigate the international community’s efforts to implement the 2030 Agenda
(analyzing the link between human rights and sustainable development)
https://sdgdata.humanrights.dk/en/explorer

12.10.2020

Regional systems for human rights

- Do regional systems and actors complement and challenge the UN system?

Definition:

- A set of norms, mechanisms and procedures for the protection and monitoring of HR
that are established under the auspices of a (regional and sub-regional)
intergovernmental organization;

Not just “HR organizations”, general aims

- i.e.: - OAS: achieve among its member states “an order of peace and justice, to promote
their solidarity, to strengthen their collaboration, and to defend their sovereignty, their
territorial integrity and their independence.” (Charter 1948)

Some regional organizations have not established a system although they have shown
attention to HR issues (e.g. OIC)

Europe: Council of Europe (47, all geographical Europe), OSCE (54), European Union

Americas: OAS (35 American States)

Africa: African Union (55)

Arab nations: Arab League

Southeastern Asia: ASEAN

Established systems (individual access to a court issuing legally binding judgments for the violating
states)

- Council of Europe (CoE)

- Organization of American States (OAS)
- African Union (AU)
- European Union (*)

Other incomplete or incipient systems (only legal [gap])

- Council of Europe (CoE)

European System – CoE

- Organization: Council of Europe (47)

 - Date of establishment and raison d’être: in 1949, to prevent further conflict on the
continent, promote human rights and democracy as well as respect of the rule of law
- Creation of the HR system: in 1950, adoption in Rome of the ECHR
- Main legal instruments: ECHR with 16 Protocols, European Social Charter 1961
- Main mechanisms: Court of HR, Committee of Social Rights, Commissioner for HR…

Inter-American System

- Organization: Organization of American States (35)

- Date of establishment and raison d’être: 1948, to achieve peace, justice, solidarity, to
strengthen collaboration, and to defend sovereignty, territorial integrity, and
independence.
- Origin of the HR system: 1948 Charter + American Declaration of the Rights and Duties
of Man; 1959 creation of the Inter-American Commission on HR
- Main legal instruments: American Convention onf HR, 1969; Additional Protocol to the
American Convention in the Area of Eocnomic, Social and Cultural Rights (“
- Main mechanisms: Court of HR, Committee of Social Rights, Commissioner for HR…

Established systems (differences)

- Judicial Oversight Mechanism:

o OAS and AU – two-tier system (commission + court)
o CoE – only the court
o Only courts adopt binding judgments
- Jurisdiction
o OAS: all MS under scrutiny of the Commission (1948 Declaration); Court has
jurisdiction over 24 out of 35 MS (American Convention of 1969)
o AU: commission has jurisdiction over all 54 MS (Banjul Charter of 1981); Only 30
AU MS (1998 Protocol) scrutiny of the Court
o CoE: Court > jurisdiction on all member states
- Access to the Court:
o CoE: direct access to the Court
o OAS: the way to the Court is through the Commission only
o AU: MS must make a special declaration to allow individuals bypassing the
Commission
- Individual/groups:
o CoE: only the victim can bring a case to the Court
o OAS and AU: action popularis; anyone may bring a case to the Commission
(OAS) or to the Court (AU, if the states made the declaration)
- Time/sessions:
o CoE is permanent (it was not before 1998)
o I-A Comm; 7 weeks per 3 sessions per annum; I-A Court: about 7 weeks per
annum
o AFR Comm. 4 weeks of regular session/AFR Court meets 4 sessions of two weeks
> small amount of cases). Just the President sits permanently.
- Budget:
o CoE: 60 million Euro for the ECtHR
 o I-A Comm: 10 million + 2 million for the Court
o AFR. Comm: 5 million + 7 million for the Court
- Approach to different <categories> of rights
o CoE: ECHR for civil, political (+ few social rights; [gap]
o AU: [gap]
o OAS: [gap]
- Access for civil society:
o OAS and UA: because of action popularis; NGOs are much more involved in
cases; both Commissions established accreditation system for NGOs
(participatory status)
o CoE: allows amicus curiae[gap]
- Non-Judicial Mechanisms
o CoE: variety of “autonomous” monitoring mechanisms and approaches.
o OAS and UA: mostly special rapporteurs to (or units/offices within) respective
Commission, plus some “autonomous” institution
- [gap]
- OAS’s Inter-American Commission of Women

In general systems and MS have developed a more “technical” approach to HR (expert-

based mechanisms), less politicised than UN. Is that a limit or an advantage?

13.10.2020

Cluster 2B’s key questions:

- how and to what extent non-state actors may affect HR in int’l politics?

- What are the pros and cons of HR NGO’s advocacy (is all gold what glitters?)

- What makes proper National Human Rights Institutions (NHRI) international actors?

- gap

Overview of Cluster 2B

- Definition, conceptual challenges and typologies of “Global Civil Society” > HR NGOs

- Success and legitimation for HR NGOs

- Standards and networking channels for National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs)

- International HR functions and strategies for sub-national governments

- Standard and mechanisms for HR defenders

- Case study: The Shelter City’s network

Civil society (CS) and global CS

- Civil society (CS) > a contested concept

- Enlightenment: a voluntary association, based on a hypothetical social contract that
outlined the rights and obligations of citizens
- Gramsci’s notion > primary political realm where socio-economic groups acquire
consciousness of their interests and expectations, ideologies are produced and spread,
and alliances formed.
- Global CS > continuation and extension of the concept on the international scene >
o “Global” or “transnational” civil society?

Who is part of global civil society?

- National Human Rights institutions

- Transnational criminal groups
- Business enterprises
- NGOs
- Humanitarian associations
- Social movements
- Academia and scholars
- Government officials in their personal capacity
- Religious representatives
- Political parties
- IGO’s officials
- Consumers’ organizations
- Trade unions
- Cooperatives
- Families
- Other…

Global civil society (definitions)

- … consists of people organizing to influence their (life) world (Glasius and Lettinga 2015)
- The sphere of ideas, values, institutions, organizations, networks and individuals located
between the family, the state and the market and operating beyond the confines of
national societies, politics and economies.
- A “platform inhabited by activists, NGOs and neoliberals, as well as national and religious
groups, where they argue about [gap]” (Kaldor 2003)

Global civil society (some issues)

- GCS > empirical term with a normative aspiration

- “Dichotomic conception” (contrastive and polarized relations) vs “integral conception”
(control the state but also contribute to its legitimation)
- Independent from or encompassing the “primordial structures of society”?
o Relation with religious social capital

GCS frames > HR NGOs

- Very heterogeneous actors > difficult to provide general patterns or comprehensive

survey
- HR only one of several conflicting “ethical frames on which civil society may operate “
(Glasius and Lettinga 2015)
- Focus on HR NGOs only (no specific reference to other GCS actors such as
humanitarian/relief NGOs; or pro-profit private organisations; GONGOs)

NGOs (aspects to be considered)

- Two broad types of HR NGOs: some address human rights generally: AI, HRW… > others
focus explicitly on a subset of internationally recognized human rights or even a single
right…
- Dramatic increase of international HR NGOs but only few can get the global media and
major governments to pay them attention
- International HR NGOs are yet a small part of global civil society

Different agendas:

- Oldest and best-funded HR NGOs are based in the west > civil and political rights
(agenda gradually expanded > issue of poverty)
- HR NGOs in the “global south” tend to emphasize the right to development and socio-
economic rights
-

Key criticism to NGOs

- representation
- elitism
- lack of internal democracy
- accountability
- legitimacy

Overall little and unbalanced advocacy for social, economic rights? (Mutua M. 2001)

Participation (UN system)

- Consultative status at ECOSOC > three status: General, Special, Roster

- UN Non-Governmental Liaison Service (UN-NGLS) inter-agency service
- DPI/NGOs
- Other participation “interstices”: providing accurate information; shadow/alternative
reports; UPR-pre-sessions; Arria Formula briefings…

CoE

- Consultative status [GAP]

EU

- Engagement of NGOs in EU’s “dialogues” > civil dialogue / human rights dialogues
- Externally: European Endowment for Democracy / civil society facility / EIDHR
- Internally: “European Values Instrument”? (supporting civil society engagement vs
member state’s violations of the rule of law)

AU

- [GAP]

HR NGO’s actions

- Forsythe (2017) identifies 4 main actions for HR NGOs:

1. Collection of accurate information and its timely dissemination
2. Persuading public authorities to adopt new HR standards or apply those
adopted.
 3. Publishing information in the hopes of long-term education
4. Providing direct services to those victimized by human rights violations
- How desirable is the support of celebrities to HR causes?
- Any side effects?
- Celebrity campaigns / social networks (Donnelly 2017)
- Help bring wider visibility to HR problems around the world BUT success may depend on
spectacle
- Often celebrity messages presuppose that a problem has a quick fix > simplification of
complex HR issues
- Social networks: larger awareness BUT loss of actual “message”?
- Are contemporary advocacy methods (based on social networks and short video
messages) a good thing for HR advocacy in our “click it and forget it” times?

NGOs impact/influence

- Challenge of specifying and then generalising HRNGOs influence in IP

- Influence/impact difficult to evaluate (measure) in IR/IP
- What is success for NGOs? (Forsythe 2017)
- Find support of an epistemic community… still so?

NGOs impact/influence (indicators)

- UN bodies increasingly depending on NGOs’ information – reduction of state funding

- All HR mechanisms envisage a special role to include NGOs
- International organisations seek NGOs’ advice
- Dependence on NGOs > states’ restricted sovereignty?
- International HR NGOs’ action is increasingly acknowledged, respected, contested and
hindered by certain states
- Contributed to HR standard setting > (death penalty; children’s rights, torture…)
- Public officials take the decision to adopt HR standards or seek implementation > acting
in an environment created by HR NGOs and networks
- HR NGOs often do the work that governments are unable or unwilling to do, using their
transnational networks in support of their action
- A complementary “responsibility to protect”?
- Forsythe’s null hypothesis:
o If human rights NGOs had not existed during the past forty years, human rights
would have a much less salient position in international relations

Criticism of bias/partisanship

- Criticism of bias/partisanship/double standards: usually by targeted governments

- Difference between nonpartisan and nonpolitical (Donnely 2017) > promoting HR is and
must be intensely political.
- But: advocacy for human rights must be carried out in a nonpartisan fashion > not based
on or intended to promote any particular party, person, or cause (other than HR
themselves)
- Being nonpartisan is crucial for NGOs legitimacy
- Staying within the substantive scope of the international bill of HR offers a form of
protection against charges of partisanship
- What about rights which are not (yet) included under this bill?
 - Other paths: advocate for new standards (see art. 7 UN Dec. HR Defenders).

14.10.2020

Standards and networking channels for National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs)

International HR functions and strategies for sub-national governments

Standard and mechanisms for HR defenders

Case study: The Shelter City’s network

National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs)

- State bodies with a constitutional and/or legislative mandate to protect and promote
HR
- Cornerstone of national HR protection systems
- Relay mechanisms between international human rights norms and the State
- NHRIs have formalized roles in public debate and the national policy process > often
created and funded by states
- Existing in more than 115 countries
- Different types: mostly Ombudsman and National HR Commissions
- In some cases, there are single institutions which perform both functions (+ other
competences)
- Paris principles > international community’s manual to recognize and assess NHRIs >
provide the agreed benchmarks against which NHRIs can be assessed.
o Goals
 Protect HR (receiving, investigating and resolving complaints; mediating
conflicts and monitoring state activities)
 Promote HR (education, outreach, [gap])
o Six criteria that NHRIs must meet:
 Mandate and competence: a broad mandate, based on universal HR
norms and standards
 Autonomy from Government
 Independence
 Pluralism
 Adequate resources
 Adequate powers of investigation
o GANHRI > Subcommittee on accreditation > compliance with Paris Principles >
three status for NHRIs
 A (full compliance): 80
 B (partial compliance): 34
 C (no compliance): 10
o Accreditation process has limits: evaluations every 5 years; change of national
circumstances can affect NHRIs.
- NHRIs: international dimension
o Depending on status, NHRIs can be recognized different level or participation
(including voting) in international HR mechanisms (Human Rights
Council/GANHRI); and regional mechanisms
o Can provide reporting on national HR situation to international HR mechanisms
o Can support the creation of NHRIs in other countries
 o Establish cooperation ties with similar institutions and participate in
transnational, regional and sub-regional networks
o Ombudsmen international institutes (EOI, IOI, EU Mediateur)
o Regional/subregional networks or associations of NHRIs:
 Participate in Human Rights Council as observers
 Enable institutions from the same region to meet and discuss issues of
common concert more frequently
 The network of African National Human Rights Institutions
 The Network of National Institutions for the Promotion and
Protection of Human Rights in the Americas
 The Asia-Pacific Forum of NHRIs
 The European Group of National Institutions for the [gap]
- NHRIs vs. NGOs (Hafner-Burton 2009)
o Scope of their activities > it can be difficult to integrate international agendas for
NHRIs
o Different stakeholders, for NHRIs include CSOs; government agencies (different
reach: direct connection to government)
o Access to government institutions. NHRIs are embedded in governing
institutions in ways that give them access that most NGOs do not enjoy; > risk of
constraints on NHRIs power by governments (independence, autonomy,
impartiality)
- NHRIs and NGOs (partnership)
o NHRIs and NGOs sometime work at odds (due to overlapping functions and
variations in scope and stakeholders)
o Other times they work cooperatively and in synergy (when NGOs are included
in the NHRI’s activity planning, represented in its membership or act as
implementers of an NHRI’s activities)

- In UPR: (link to list of recommendations)

- Local governments
o Local governments can be directly linked to HR protection as they represent the
nearest level of governance for individuals (subsidiarity principle)
o > plenty of examples of successful local policies for inclusion and HR (as well as
against)
o Key level in an effective and comprehensive multi-level governance of HR
o Can local governments also affect HR in IP?
 Due to subsidiarity they have a legitimacy to act, also beyond national
borders, which comes first from their “responsibility to protect” the
internationally recognised fundamental rights of all those living in a
municipality (Papisca 2013) aka yes they can
 There is an increasing participation of local authorities in a global
governance agenda of HR, human development and human security
- Formal representation and participation
o “Consultative status” conferred on associations of local governments vs formal
representation of local governments inside organs and bodies of IGOs.
 o Formal representation greater at the European level: CoE (Congress of Regional
and Local Authorities) and EU (Committee of the Region)
o UN Habitat established the first representative cell of local governments within
the UN system that is the UN Advisory Committee of Local Authorities (UNACLA)
- Key international policy developments
o Opinion on “local and regional authorities and the multilevel protection of the
rule of law and fundamental rights in the EU
o Progress report of the HR Council Advisory Committee on the role of local
governments in the promotion and protection of HR, including HR
mainstreaming in local administration and public services (A/RES/27/59)
o SDG 11: make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and
sustainable
o New Urban Agenda (2016): a new framework that lays out how cities and towns
should be planned and managed to best promote sustainable urbanization
(SDGs).
- Standard setting
o Claim for “right to the city”: city is a collective space which belongs to all its
residents and which must offer the necessary conditions for a decent life from a
social, political, cultural, economic and environmental point of view
 European Charter for the Safeguarding of HR in the City (Saint-Denis,
2000), signed by >400 European cities
 World Charter on the Right to the City, drafted by social movements at
the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre (2001)
 Charter of Rights and Responsibilities of Montreal (2006)
 Mexico City Charter for the Right to the City (2010)
 Gwangju Human Rights Charter (South Korea, 2012)
 Global Charter-Agenda for Human Rights in the City (UCLG, 2011)
- Case Study: shelter cities
o Interaction among local authorities, NGOs, and individual HR defenders through
“shelter cities”
 https://sheltercity.nl/

19.10.2020. Monday

Who is an HRD?

- Everyone who, individually and in association with others, promotes and strives for the protection
and realization of HR and fundamental freedoms at the national and int’l levels

No qualifications but standards:

1. HRDs must accept the universality of HR

2. The actions taken by HRDs must be peaceful/non-violent
3. Their concerns must fall within the scope of HR

The Defender’s right to defend

- Declaration on HRD (adopted by UNGA in 1998)

- Negotiations began in 1984 and ended with the adoption of the text on the occasion of the 50 th
anniversary of the UDHR (adopted by consensus)

- Strong and pragmatic text also due to HR NGOs

- Declaration > not legally binding but principles and rights are based on legally binding HR standards

The Declaration

Responsibilities:

[gap]

Case study – Shelter cities

- Goal: offering temporary shelter (rest and respite), training and safety to international HRDs
who fight against human rights violations in their home countries
- MLG: cooperation with NGOs, universities, other local governments in network, and the
MFA and/or Mol (visa and stay permits indispensable; possible resources); international
NGOs;
- Hosted HRDs selections through periodic calls

[gap]

Protection/monitoring of HRDs

- UN Special Rapporteur (created in 2000) current: Michel Forst (France, since 2014)
- Regional rapporteurs (African Union, Organisation of American States)
- EU: guideline on HRDs, protectdefenders.eu, relocation platform
- OSCE: guidelines
- NGOs initiatives:
o FIDH & OMCT-WOAT); Justice and Peace Netherlands – Shelter Cities; In Difesa Di
(Città rifiugio); Frontline Defenders…

Cluster 3’s key questions

- Is there such a thing as international “consensus” on HR? If so, of what type? And on what is
this consensus about?
- If there is, is existing international consensus on HR a given or perpetually negotiated?
- What does the existing consensus tell us about (relative) universality of HR?

Overview of cluster 3

- Critical overview of the “foundational” history of international HR standard setting

- Cases – poilitics behind standard setting processes of:
o UN Charter and UDHR
o CRC (art. 1 – definition of “child”)
o Optional Protocol on the Convention against Torture
o UN Declaration on the Right to Peace
- Class discussion

Quote of the day

 - “as unassailable, obvious, and natural as these principles now appear, it is easy to overlook
the fact that every word and phrase withn the Universal Declartion is awash in the conflict
that defines the modern epoch”

Roberts C. 2014 – The contentious history of the International Bill of Human Rights

Trend towards HR legalization

- Alternatives after WW2? Executions without trial; impunity; soft law agreements…
- Competing word order views at San Francisco
- Beth Simmons identifies 3 historical trends that supported move from non-interference to
HR legal regime (XX Century) (they increase state accountability)
o Democratisation
o Accountability in Int’l Law
o Transnational/global civil society

20.10.2020

The introduction of HR in UN Charter

- Broader pattern of conflict/oppression in the 1910s-1940s

- 1941 Roosevelt’s 4 freedoms -> hope for new world order after WW2
- US and GB reluctant to give away power to global institution(s)
- Door to HR had been opened -> criticism (smaller powers, Latin American countries, NGOs…)
- Art 2(7) -> US price to have HR into UN Charter

The case of the UDHR

- Basis for contemporary consensus on internationally recognized human rights

- Claim that it is distinctively Western:
o Origin;
o Substance;
- Main drafters: CAN + FR; US leading role within the UN HR Commission
- Important contributions: Lebanon, China, Chile, USSR
- Additional contributions from NGOs and individuals
- But also efforts to narrow the scope by some countries
- Adoption by UNGA in Paris on 10.12.1948 with a vote of 48-0-8 (+2 non-attending)
- South Africa -> only fundamentally opposed
- In favor: 19 LatAm, 15 Africa and Asia; 14 West (less than 1/3)
- ‘West’ = states in Europe +US, Can, AU, NZ
- Harsh discussion among delegations in drafting committee, Commission on HR and GA third
committee;
- Non-binding character (early Soviet-US axis)
- Analyses of debates during the drafting show
o Drafters draw from numerous emancipatory traditions, spiritual systems and
political projects
o Crucial role for non-Western states
- Striking in its radicalism (pathway for a world of equality to be imagined – Burke and Kirby
2018)
- Greatest challenge for UDHR’s claim to universality: transcending further generations and
changes in the global milieu
[gap]

The Case of OPCAT

- 70’s: widespread state violence -> campaigns to draft a convention against torture (civil
society, including AI)
- JJ Gautier (a Swiss bank official) started proposing system to prevent torture: regular,
independent visits to places of detention (without prior authorization)
- Alliances between States and NGOs (APT, ICJ, Switzerland, Sweden, Costa Rica)
- 1980 Draft text by Costa Rica but postponed
- Progress in Europe (convention and preventive system) and Americas (only convention)
- 1987: CAT into force -> CoE adopts CPT -> European system of monitoring visits to places of
detention (no authorization -> principles of confidentiality and cooperation > state
authorizes publication of report); also IA Convention into force
- New developments revive OPCAT -> 1991 Costa Rica submitted new draft
- 1992 Working Group open to all: States, experts, NGOs
- 2001 Mexico adds idea of national mechanism
- 2002 Chairwoman presented text with international and national features and called for a
vote
- Adopted on 18 December 2002 with majority vote
- Long process of ratification (in 2020 – 91 R; 68 NPMs)

21.10.2020

Desirée campagna

26.10.2020

HR and FP (foreign policy) in Practice

Three elements:

- Goals of HR in FP > what do we expect international HR policies to achieve?

- FP Tools which can push HR > how can these goals be achieved?
- Limits, shortcomings, problems > why, often, these HR goals cannot or are not achieved and
tools are used inconsistently?

Goals:

What do we expect HR policies to achieve? Donnelly 2017

- Improve the HR practices of the practice government

- Prevent further deterioration or deter similar future violations
- Support local HR advocates or delegitimize repressive regimes (long term effects)
- Alter the broader normative environment
- Change the direction of FP in the acting state
- Satisfy domestic constituencies > negotiation between internal and external pressures (two-
level game)
- Save international credibility
- Have punitive effects even when they have no remedial effect
- Diffuse impact > help to further disseminate int’l HR norms (cumulative effect)

HR and FP instruments
 How can these HR goals be achieved? FP instruments can generally include:

a) Political/diplomatic tools (+ “cultural tools”)

b) Economic tools > (+ “humanitarian tools”)
c) Military tools (?)
d) Sui generis tools (held only by non-state or supranational actors)

Tools typologies are part of a continuum (not easily distinguished) and often used in combination

Some distinctions:

- Persuasive – coercive – expressive

- Negative – positive (carrot and stick)
- Same tool can cover all dimensions in different phases of its employment

HR Diplomacy

- Quiet (private) diplomacy

- Public diplomacy (gathering information; communicate opposing vies; mobilizing shame
[Donnelly 2017])
- Other persuasive/expressive diplomatic techniques: visits, invitations, symbolic events,
cultural diplomacy, …)
- Other more coercive diplomatic tools:
o Link foreign aid to the HR practices of recipients
o Interruption of diplomatic relations (double-edged sword)
o Cultural or sports-related embargoes enacted by states

A> They deal unobtrusively with each other in private meetings, bringing matters of mutual
concern to each other’s attention. 2. One way of using diplomatic means is to undertake a
formal démarche through one’s diplomatic representative.
Public or private; it is a matter of judgement, which may differ from case to case, whether it
is more effective to take up HR matters in public

Economic tools – sanctions

- Boycott / embargo / cutting development assistance

- Effectiveness vs Ethical issues (B. Ghali)
- General sanctions vs targeted or (smart) sanctions
- Governments often reluctant to undertake economic sanctions against another state
- More effective and appropriate if they are multilateral (EU, SC), combine positive and
negative measures and applied for short periods?
- Positive economic means (positive conditionality, loans or credits provisions, aid;
economic/technical assistance for democratic promotion);

Among economic sanctions one may distinguish boycott actions from embargo measures. A
boycott prohibits the importing of goods from the state against which the boycott is
directed (BDS against Israel for instance is a sort of HR related boycott – not state mandated
– more CS) whereas an embargo prohibits the exporting of goods to the [gap, not provided]

Military tools (?)

 - Role of military tools to advance HR is controversial
- Longstanding problem > states who claim to be engaged in “humanitarian intervention” are
suspect (e.g. Iraq 2003…)
- Military operations without SC approval > illegitimate
- State military support for a UNSC resolution designed to alleviate HR problems > less
controversial > (see RtP/peacekeeping)
- Other possible tools: threat of use of force; military alliances, permanent structured
cooperation EU

When undertaken without UNSC approval, such action is highly controversial, as seen by
NATO’s bombing of Serbia in 1999 to try to stop violent persecution and forced
displacement of ethnic Albanians constituting a majority of the Kosovars. I’d say rather
illegitimate (violate the UN charter). Such unilateral use of force is, however, not permitted
under the rules of international law.

Sui generis tools:

- The EU has some of traditional states’ tools

- Some are weakened by the fact that the difficulty to speak with one voice in FP
- Some are strengthened by EU economic power
- Some are specific of the EU
- Promise of accession (pre-accession negotiations)
- Big partnership with other IGOs and States (rather than tools… toolkits)
- …

Finally, the EU can count on a number of instruments that are distinctive of its sui generis
nature and therefore unique. For instance, “offering EU membership” is undoubtedly a
unique foreign policy instrument and, as many underlined, it has been one of the most
effective forms of conditionality employed by Europe insofar the trump card of accession
could be wielded. Another example of EU sui generis instruments is its ability [gap]

Trade-offs/compromises (Donnelly)

- HR to be balanced against other interests – which can appropriately take priority (different
gradations within each category of intertest)
- HR advocates categorical demands VS FP makers need to consider and balance different
interests (moral goals vs national interest)
- HR balanced with other FP interests VS weights assigned to the balanced values > setting
priorities among various national interests
- Pursue HR in FP should have costs as any other interest

The foreign policies of most states can, in a highly stylized fashion, be said to include security,
economic, and other goals. Most states tend to rank these classes of goals within each
category. High-order security interest usually take priority over all other objectives of foreign
policy, including HR. And there is nothing wrong with that [gap]

Inconsistencies / double standards

 - No need of identical response to every comparable violation of any right > consideration of
all costs involved
- Need of balancing competing values requires taking account of all the values involved >
Consistency: treaty like cases alike, all things considered, not only HR (broader perspective)
- When subordination of HR objectives cannot reasonably be justified in terms of previously
established FP priorities > unjustifiable sacrifice of HR interests

Inconsistencies (double standards)

Problem of SELECTIVITY (of countries; of rights) Another policy choice refers to the selection
of countries one may want to concentrate on

Consistency: it is often that governments should pursue a certain degree of constituency in

their HR policy. This means that in equal [gap]

Blowbacks (Donnelly and Forsythe)

- Increasingly frequent response to Int’l HR pressures (i.e. Duterte threats to withdraw from
UN, but also US withdraws from everywhere, Italy’s reactions to UN SPs)
o Idiosyncratic factors (decision makers’ world views)
o Defense of national pride, state sovereignty vs international pressures
 Modest costs
 Some degree of internal respect

A final concert is when states subject to international human rights pressures push back. As
the relative power of these states has grown, though, their ability to push back more
successfully against HR pressures has also grown.

Duterte’s threats to withdraw from the UN are certainly empty, but they are a striking
example of his sense of [gap]

Final considerations

- Main questions: A) how much are HR valued, both intrinsically and relative to other national
interests; B) and how seriously are HR taken in the practice of FP?
- Despite contradictions > gradual attention to HR in FP also by countries without HR tradition
(Forsythe 2017)
- Producing impact is within the reach of almost all countries that have HR in their FP agenda
> need more political will
- No government can afford to pay attention only to HR (multiple interests; continuous
weighting process)
- Advocacy > raise HR position in the construction of national interest construction

The important question is what place they have in foreign policy. How much are HR valued,
both intrinsically and relative to other national interests? And how seriously are those values
in fact taken in the practice of foreign policy? Many states have made substantial progress
toward a more serious incorporation of human rights into their foreign policy.
Limits, shortcomings, problems

27.10.2020

Some preliminary reflections:

- EU foreign policy (EUFP) complex > puts together (sum? Distinguish among?) 27 national
interests (and foreign policies) and one common European interest (difficult do build)
- Can we speak about a distinct EU FP (EU agency)?
- Who makes EU FP?
- …
- Where do HR stand in EU FP? How can we evaluate their consistency? Is there a rhetoric-
performance gap?

Foreign policy analysis concerns the roles of actors within the broader context created by domestic
and external factors

I’ll try to focus on EU interest and EU policies … of course you cannot consider the weight of single
actors and their interests

- Case study: HR in EU FP towards the Mediterranean

EU FP Principles

Principles:

- Article 21.1 TEU (external action)

we can see the EXPECTED PLACE of HR in the goals and in the key principles of action in the treaties

and in the current global strategy which was developed by the HR Mogherini to increase the
centrality and consistency of the UE in the global scene

Objectives:

- Article 21.2 TEU

a) Safeguard
b) Consolidate and support democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the
principles of international law
c) Preserve peace, prevent conflicts and strengthen international security
d) Development eradicating poverty
e) Progressive abolition of restrictions
f) Quality of the environment; sustainable development

EUGS (2016) – Goals

Promoting peace and security (of its citizens and territory)

“Internal and external security are ever more intertwined: our security at home entails a parallel
interest in peace in our neighboring and surrounding regions. It implies a broader interest in
preventing conflict, promoting human security, addressing the root causes of instability and working
towards a safer world

Promoting Prosperity
“Promoting growth, jobs, equality, and a safe and healthy environment. While a prosperous Union is
the basis for a stronger Europe in the world, prosperity must be shared and requires fulfilling the
SDGs worldwide, including in Europe”

Promoting Democracy

“the EU will foster the resilience of its democracies and live up to the values that have inspired its
creatin and development. These include respect for and promotion of human rights, fundamental
freedoms and the rule of law. They encompass justice, solidarity, equality, non-discrimination,
pluralism, and respect for diversity. Living up consistently to our values internally will determine our
external credibility and influence.

Promoting “a Rules-Based Global Order

A multilateral order grounded in international law, including the principles of the UN Charter and
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is the only guarantee for peace and security at home and
abroad. A rules-based global order unlocks the full potential of a prosperous Union with open
economies and deep global connections and embeds democratic values within the international
system.

EUGS (2016) – Principles compared

 Principled realism (USS NSS 2017) Principled pragmatism (EUGS 2016)

system.

Practice oriented tools

- 13 EU HR guidelines (Death penalty, torture, freedom of religion, LGBTI rights, HRDs,

children’s rights, violence against women, etc.
- Multi-annual action plans for HR and democracy defies EU and MS priorities in the HR field
in relations with all third countries (Plan for 2020-2024 adopted in March 2020)
- EU Global HR Sanctions Regime (joint proposal for regulations submitted 19 October 2020)

Global strategy is the overall strategic framework which ALSO include HR.

Death penalty – 2013

Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment – 2012

[gap]
CASE STUDY: HR IN EU FP TOWARDS THE MEDITERRANEAN

The Mediterranean for the UE?

- For decades… an area of challenges and opportunities:

o Migration/refugees
o Fundamentalism/terrorism
o Regional conflicts (instability)
o Transnational crime (smuggling migrants, trafficking)
o Socio-economic gaps
o Socio-cultural tensions (hate speech)
o Economic and security interdependences
o A prospectively huge market
o Natural resources
o Strategic position

Some are not mediterranean, some – those with whom the EU has agreements. Number of policies –
ENP south/ UFM

EU policies in the Mediterranean

- Global Mediterranean Policy and Euro-Arab dialogue (during Cold War)

- Renovated Mediterranean Policy (1990-1995)
- Maastricht Treaty (1992) > introduction of Common Foreign and Security Policy with a
priority on the Mediterranean
- Euro-Mediterranean Partnership – Barcelona Process (1995-2007) > 3 “baskets”: political
and security; economic and financial; human and cultural
- European Neighbourhood Policy (2004-)
- Union for the Mediterranean (2008-)

not a specific priority; the confrontation East-West decided global priorities and the role of allied
countries

“Global Mediterranean Policy”: bilateral trade and financial agreements between the EC and some
Mediterranean Countries (e.g. Tunisia, Egypt)

Euro-Arab Dialogue (largely unsuccessful)

Different Mediterraneans
Human rights and EU Med policy

- Dire HR situation in many EU’s Mediterranean Partner Countries suggests that EU efforts
overall have been either limited, insufficient or unwilling to favour any significant
improvements.
- Empirical evidence and “mea culpas” by the EU following the “Arab Uprisings” (speeches
admit the “stability-democracy” dilemma);
- But… promises of a paradigm shift that has not been matched so far with appropriate action:
o Support to CSOs; more positive conditionality; shared co-responsibility
o HR developments in many Med countries increasingly worrisome

Different programmes, objectives, partners, resources, approaches… but we eventually consider all of
this as a comprehensive although multi-faceted Mediterranean policy, where HR have always been
advanced rhetorically by the EU, especially after the Arab uprisings

- Why despite strong and renovated commitment the EU’s outcome on HR in these areas has
been so poor overall?
o ‘Rhetoric-performance gap’ affecting EU foreign policy
o Prevalence of stability considerations in the ‘securitization/democratization’
(construction of the actual European interest).
o Vagueness and inconsistency of EU policy formulation

the dire HR situation in many EU’s MPCs (Mediterranean partner countries) suggests that EU efforts
overall have been either limited, insufficient or unwilling to favour any significant improvements
therein. Explanations of this poor outcome have stressed, among others, the longstanding “rhetoric-
performance gap’ affecting EU

Why vagueness and inconsistency

 - Claim: caused by EU’s protracted incapability to conciliate competing views held by the key
actors who affect the direction of its Mediterranean policy (who affects EU FP?)
- Three “preference gaps”
o 1) ‘institutional distance’; (among EU institutions)
o 2) ‘north-south divide’; (among Northern and Southern EU member states)
o 3) ‘boundary gap’; (among EU vision for HR and Mediterranean country resistance to
it)
- Tensions among gaps > produce diverse unconnected efforts to advance HR. two broad
approaches
o “Political dialogue”: top down, based on conditionality, attentive to southern EU MS
– HR sacrificed to other interests; weak > HR part of political discourse more than of
EU international action
o “Engaging society”: support change from the bottom up; based on Commission and
Parliament views; concrete > based on providing financial resources to CSOs; but
fuzzy; contradictory and contentions > particularly revealing of the tensions
underlying the ‘boundary gap’.

Read Prof. De Perini’s article, which is among the optional readings

‘institutional schizophrenia’ in foreign policymaking 21

The European Parliament has traditionally been more vocal and enterprising in prioritizing HR, as
well as keener on denouncing violations by partner countries and the limits of other institutions’
agency through its resolutions.

My contention is that the continuous tension running through these three gaps is reflected in the
multitude of diverse efforts and projects promoted by the EU to advance HR in the Mediterranean

The existence (and persistence) of HR in the Agenda makes the EU consistent with its founding

Conclusion

Applying this analytical framework to the study of HR in EU policy towards the Mediterranean (1990-
2019), it emerges that:

- The EU has rarely found a balance among the two approaches producing contradictions,
vagueness, and conceptual inconsistencies over time (no comprehensive HR approach)
- Tensions characterizing the ‘boundary gap’ has systematically played the lion’s share in
affecting the role and scope of HR initiatives in Euro-Med cooperation
- Med countries preferences influential because EU institutions and Member states’ views on
HR in FP remain distinct and distant (see also rule of Law)
- Conciliate these views crucial for consistency and to support effective HR FP.

However, excluding the first months of 2011, when contextual conditions temporarily allowed the
views of the Commission to stand out over others’, the EU has [gap]

Cluster 5’s key questions

- How and to what extent the current global commitment for sustainable development
support HR?
 - How HR infrastructures, processes and states commitments can be functionally integrated
to social development efforts (and vice versa)?

Overview of cluster 5

- Conceptual interrelations between HR and development (from an IP perspective)

- Main HR perspectives on development issues
- 2030 Agenda
- Mutually reinforcing ties between 2030 Agenda and HR regime
- Guest lectures: Culture, HR and Int’l Politics (Campagna, 21/10/2020); HR Education (Tracchi,
02/11/2020) > relate to SDGs

HR and Development

- From 1980s, people increasingly at the centre of development processes (no more
economists’ domain)
- Recognition of poverty as a human rights challenge
- Development not only about economic growth but also about how the benefits of economic
growth are distributed
- Development can help fulfil HR of poor and marginalised/vulnerable… if integrates strategies
that can be positive for the promotion of HR

HR and Development (Osmani)

- “HR norms can effectively counterweigh the disruptive effects of globalization; whose
burden is likely to fall disproportionately on the most vulnerable people”
- Key two “twin” principles of the HR framework: “non-discrimination/equality” and “non-
retrogression of rights/progressive realization”
- >>linkage between HR and development: the contribution HR bring to protect vulnerable
people and ensure the respect of equality, non-discrimination, inclusion in development
processes

HR and Development (Fukuda Parr)

- Two ways to connect HR discourse and development:

o Right to Development (RtD) > a discourse in the HR field promoted by Govts of
developing countries > goal: recognise right to development as a category of IHRL
o Human Rights-Based Approach (HRBA) > a discourse in the development field
promoted by CSOs and practitioners that set HR as the objective and uses HR
principles and instruments (IHRL)

HR and Development (Fukuda-Parr)

- Two ways to connect HR discourse and development:

Right to Development (RtD)

- Advocated by developing countries, resisted by developed ones > nations’ rights to

economic dev.
- RtD implies a collective/corporate right; how to link with the individual fulfilment of HR? >
human person as core subject/beneficiary of development
- Implementation: obligations of rich countries to provide international assistance and aid
and to shape global economic systems ad conductive to development
1993 Vienna Declaration and PoA

10.

Regional instruments

African Charter 1981

ASEAN Declaration (2012)

35

04/11/2020

HRBA – contextual factors

- Emerged in the 1990s in the context of globalization in reaction to neoliberal economic

policies
- End of the Cold War -> new political dynamics for both HR and development (efforts for
indivisibility and interdependence of HR; global poverty on HR agenda; HR on the
development agenda)
- Democratization and growth of global civil society
- Emergence of people-centred discourse in the development field (CA/HD) ->
complementary/overlapping concepts

HRBA – core aspects

- Seeks to analyse inequalities at the heart of development and redress discriminatory

practices and unjust distributions of power
- Already-existing HR law and practice provides a fruitful foundation for scrutinizing
development policy and practice > HR tool to assess development practices
- Broad use of the concept (UN “Common Understanding” in 2003)

HR critique of MDGs

- MDGs served as proxy for certain econ/social rights but ignored other important HR linkages
- Core HR principles of participation and equality were not reflected into MDGs
- MDGs did not go far enough to realize HR
- Not universal (only developing countries addressed, rich countries dominated their
formulation)
- MDGs were very technocratic
- Despite progress in reducing extreme poverty rates globally, MDGs neglected some of the
poorest and most marginalised groups
- Not enough indicators revealing discrimination and inequality to build an effective
framework of accountability for human rights
- Goal 8 (creating a global partnership for development) was weak

HR in SDGs (sustainable development goals)

 Some excerpts from the 2030 agenda

- Preamble: SDGs ‘seek to realize the human rights of all and to achieve gender equality and
the empowerment of all women and girls’.
- 8. We envisage a world of universal respect for HR and human dignity, the rule of law,
justice, equality, and non-discrimination […] the needs of the most vulnerable people are
met.
- 10. It is grounded in the Universal Declaration of HR, int’l HR treaties […] the declaration on
the Right to Development
- 20.

Improvement from a HR perspective

- Paradigm shift -> transformative vision for people- and planet-centred, HR-based and gender
sensitive sustainable development
- Grounded in international HR law
- Most inclusive and participatory process in UN history
- Truly universal (applicable to all countries)
- Includes issues related to all human rights (also civil, cultural rights and RTD)
- Emphasizes the responsibilities of all States to respect, protect and promote HR for all,
without distinction > accountability
- “Leaving no one behind” / “reach the furthest behind first”
o Reflects HR principles of equality and non-discrimination
o two dedicated goals on combating discrimination and inequality (SDG 5, 10)
o Transversal targets
o Inclusive and peaceful societies (SDG 16)’
- Agenda 2030’s focus on principles of equality, non-discrimination, participation and
accountability implies:
o Flexibility: a framework for translating commitments in diverse national contexts
(localizing)
o Promoting sustainability addresses diversity and focus on rights of marginalised
vulnerable groups

Follow-up and review (FUR)

- FUR platforms: High Level Political Forum (HLPF); Regional Forums for Sustainable
Development
- Voluntary National Reviews (country-led monitoring on progress and challenges)
o Common guidelines to compare progress and challenges
o Encouraging inclusive, participatory, and transparent processes
o Encourage sharing data
- Annual UN Secretary-general report (based on “global indicator framework”)
- FUR mechanisms should promote respect for HR and accountability to citizens, focus on
vulnerable groups, ensure inclusion, participation, and transparency
- Critical importance of disaggregated data to make inequalities visible and develop
evidence-based policies aimed at targeting those further behind
- Disaggregation (by income, sex, age, race, ethnicity, migration status, disability, and
geographic location) is a complex issue
- OHCHR’s HRBA approach to data – six components
o 1. Self-identification
 o 2. Participation
o 3. Disaggregation
o 4. Transparency
o 5. Accountability
o 6. Privacy

How to integrate HRs and SDGs?

- 2030 agenda and HR are tied together in a mutually reinforcing way; there is a search for
integrated approaches
- > need for identifying
o 1. Concrete linkages between HR and the 2030 Agenda
 Goal 16 (UDHR, ICCPR, ICERD, CRC)
o 2. How HR mechanisms and institutions can contribute to fulfil the 2030 agenda
 SDGs targets anchored in HR already monitored by HR Monitoring
mechanisms (at all levels, including NHRIs and NMRF)
 Importance of HR machinery expertise (TBs, SPs, UPR, HRC) – Danish
Institute
 Recycling HR reports and recommendations by machinery
 Enhance efficiency, coherence, and accountability of FUR (reporting
obligations)
 The challenges of “qualitative analysis” (SDGs have quantitative
targets)
o 3. How can the 2030 agenda help the fulfilment of HRs
 Engagement of the HRC in 2030 Agenda discussions and of OCHRC in
preparing report s for states on how to implement SDGs
 Some additional proposals by the Danish Institute:
 Cluster discussion of a group of SDGs in every HRC session for
review at HLPF
 General debate on SDGs in the framework of UPR
 States promote side-events during session
 Mainstreaming HR and SDGs in UN operations on the ground

Mutual added values

- HR provides a value change in the int’l development agenda

- HR mechanisms and norms:
o Offer guidance for the implementation of the 2030 Agenda (underpinned by legally
binding HR treaties)
o Constitute a shelter against incoherent and unequal progress.
o Ensure accountability and provide a wealth of qualitative data to support
implementing SDGs
o SDGs works as a operational plan for realising HR
o SDGs include “hot” topics affecting HR but addressed in instruments and processes
originating outside HR regime (e.g. climate change, sustainable cities)

11 November 2020
HR in IP: Critical overview

- Human rights as controversial and contested at different levels

o Historical, philosophical (origin and normative tradition)
o Political: HR as response to inequalities in existing power structures
o Compliance and implementation

Hafner-Burton and Tsutsui

Evidence shows that international laws are working in some democratic states with an active civil
society. But we are confronted with overwhelming evidence that these cases of influence are not
applicable to the world’s most repressive states; that, more often than not, repressive governments
that formally commit to int’l treaties protecting our most basic HRs never come close to reform; that
socialization, persuasion, and learning…

Some complexity to be considered

- International HR are at the same time:

o A movement for social change
o An emerging model of global governance
o Ethos of mediation between norms and power (Brisk 2019)
- Further complication by the global political environment where HR have developed and are
expected to make the difference

The international politics context

Complex structural dynamics

- Made of: interdependence; globalisation; conflict

- Based on: uneven and unequal standard of living in different regions of the world
- Fuelled by: territorial disputes; fundamentalisms (religious and non-religious; violent and
non-violent…); transnational crime and violence; political, aggressive and detrimental use of
 financial and economic tools; return to attitudes that prioritise State sovereignty, border
protection

HR in IP: a constructive perspective

- Human beings under permanent threats

- Paradise on earth will never be achieved
- Very difficult that HR are all fully realised
- Always a worthwhile vision of where we should go/be (compass)

Eric Prosner’s objections (reading)

- The truth is that HR law has failed to accomplish its objectives. There is little evidence that
HR treaties, on the whole, have improved the wellbeing of people. The reason is that HR
were never as universal as people hoped…
- The central problem with HR law is that it is hopelessly ambiguous. The sheer quantity and
variety of rights, which protect virtually all human interests, can provide no guidance to
governments… thus, the existence of a huge number of vaguely defined rights ends up giving
governments enormous discretion…
- The int’l institutions that have been established for this purpose are very weak. In truly int’l
HR institutions, such as the UN HR Council, there is a drastic lack of consensus between
nations. To avoid being compelled by int’l institutions to recognise rights that they reject,
countries give them little power.
- While governments all use the idiom of HR, they use it to make radically different arguments
about how countries should behave… the language of rights can easily be used to clothe
illiberal agendas in words soothing to the Western ear.
- If the ends are admirable, the means are faulty
- A humbler approach is long overdue.

[comment: while the law is loose and soft, it legitimizes efforts. Efforts are substantially stronger,
and their customary practice legitimizes further improvements and “hardening” of the law]
Select answer TWO questions ONLY. NO MORE.

Course-related thinking + well argued discussion/critical thinking (optional reading can help this part)

Assessment on clarity, strength of argumentation and factual accuracy

1.5 pages for each question

Usually 4-5 paragraphs.