Human Rights Council

Human Rights Council

United States Statement at the Human Rights Council in 2011

United States views on international law (based on the document “Digest of U.S. Practice in International Law”): On September 14, 2011, at the 18th session of the Human Rights Council, Ambassador Donahoe delivered a statement at a panel discussion on the realization of the right to development. Ambassador Donahoe's statement is excerpted below and is available in full at (internet link) geneva.usmission.gov/2011/09/14/making-right-to-development-a-uniting-rather-than-divisive-issue-on-the-human-rights-agenda/.

Developments

The United States has some well-known concerns about the “right to development.” To move forward, we would like to consider ways we can work together constructively and make the right to development a uniting, rather than divisive, issue on the international human rights agenda.

Fostering development continues to be a cornerstone of U.S. international engagement, and we are the largest bilateral donor of overseas development assistance…

The United States is committed to development, but we continue to have concerns about the direction discussions on the right to development have taken over the years.

We are willing to work with the proponents of the right to development to expand the consensus on this topic in a way that will be mutually beneficial, if we take into account the following five points:

First, discussions and resolutions on the right to development should not include unrelated material on controversial topics, particularly topics that are being addressed elsewhere. For example, the most recent version of the annual UNGA Third Committee resolution on the right to development contains 41 operative paragraphs, as opposed to four operative paragraphs in the most recent Human Rights Council resolution on the same topic.

Details

Second, we are not prepared to join consensus on the possibility of negotiating a binding international agreement on this topic. At the very least, we would need more of a shared consensus on the definition and nature of the right to development before considering whether such a time- and resource-intensive course of action would be necessary and beneficial.

Third, theoretical work is needed to define the right to development and in particular to explain how it is a human right, i.e., a universal right that every individual possesses and may demand from his or her own government. This fundamental concern has not been adequately addressed.

Fourth, the recent efforts to come up with numeric or concrete indicators of development and its progress are interesting and warrant serious further consideration, though these efforts should leverage, not duplicate, the statistics of the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, regional United Nations statistical agencies, and the work done to monitor the Millennium Development Goals.

More about the Issue

Finally, discussion of this topic needs to focus on aspects of development that relate to human rights, i.e., those of individuals. Of course, that includes all human rights, civil and political as well as economic, social and cultural rights.

While we are strong supporters of international development, we have long expressed significant concerns about some understandings and interpretations of the right to development. We are willing to work to address those concerns in order to move forward on this important topic.

Human Rights Council in 2011

United States views on international law (based on the document “Digest of U.S. Practice in International Law”): At the 16th Session of the Human Rights Council, the United States co-sponsored a resolution on the rights of the child. On March 23, 2011, the United States delivered a general statement on the resolution, set forth below and available at (internet link) geneva.usmission.gov/2011/03/23/rights-chil/. The resolution was adopted by consensus at the 16th Session. U.N. Doc. A/HRC/RES/16/12.

Developments

…The United States is extremely pleased to co-sponsor the “Rights of the Child resolution: a holistic approach to the protection and promotion of the rights of children working and/or living in the streets” and thanks the co-sponsors for their transparency and flexibility during the negotiations. Consistent with the principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its Optional Protocols and the objectives expressed in the resolution, the United States continues its domestic efforts to strengthen already existing protections for children and to pursue new and innovative ways of ensuring that the rights of children are realized.

The plight of homeless and runaway children at risk of exploitation is a global concern. The problem occurs internationally, from the city to the countryside, in affluent areas as well as in poor. Homeless children go to great lengths to stay out of sight and out of mind of the public and the authorities. They endure terrible circumstances as a result, and it is the U.S. job as concerned human beings and responsible governments to care, to take notice, and to give these children hope for a brighter future. We need to help these children find access to a caring adult, a secure home, an education, and a sustainable future.

Details

Domestically, the United States Government is strongly committed to fighting homelessness, including for children. To contribute to this effort, President Obama included $1.5 billion in the stimulus bill for the Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing program in 2010.

In addition, through the USG's Department of Health and Human Services, the Administration on Children, Youth and Families program awarded a total of $48.6 million to 362 Basic Center Programs. The Basic Center Programs provided shelter to 44,929 youth up to age 18 or higher in some U.S. states. The youth received services including counseling, life skills training, and physical health care.

More about the Issue

Internationally, the United States government provides significant resources to assist highly vulnerable children, including homeless and runaway children who are at risk of exploitation. There is an array of separate programs led and managed by over 20 different offices in seven USG agencies. These offices funded approximately 1,900 projects in 107countries in fiscal year 2009. It is important to underscore that the United States considers prostitution of children to be a serious form of exploitation and that child prostitution should never be considered a legitimate form of work. This of course applies to homeless and runaway children who are at risk of exploitation.

Human Rights Council in 2011

United States views on international law (based on the document “Digest of U.S. Practice in International Law”): Throughout 2011, when United Nations bodies or other States raised issues relating to the 2001 World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in Durban, South Africa and the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (“DDPA”) and its follow-up, the United States continued to articulate its longstanding concerns with the conference, its outcome document, and the outcome document of the 2009 Durban Review Conference. For background see this world legal encyclopedia in relation with the year 2001 at 267-68, World Encyclopedia of Law 2007 at 315-17, World Encyclopedia of Law 2008 at 284-85, World Encyclopedia of Law 2009 at 174-75 and World Encyclopedia of Law 2010 at 222-23. For example, on March 25, 2011, the United States disassociated from consensus on the resolution renewing the mandate of the special rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance at the 16th Session of the Human Rights Council. U.N. Doc. A/HRC/RES/16/33. The U.S. explanation of position, set forth below, is available at (internet link) geneva.usmission.gov/2011/03/25/eop-racism/.

Developments

The United States has consistently sought to support practical and concrete efforts to end racism and racial discrimination wherever it occurs. We feel there is an important role for a Special Rapporteur on racism and have worked constructively over the past several years to focus his work on ensuring that all states live up to their obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) and other practical measures to bring the promise of that Convention and other instruments barring racism and racial discrimination to fruition. We cannot, however, endorse all of the provisions of the current mandate as delineated in the prior resolution, language which we believe neither reflects international law nor appropriate policy.

Details

It is, therefore, with sincere regret that the United States must disassociate from consensus on the resolution before us. the U.S. position on the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action is well known. We have been careful to identify those parts of the Durban process that we find neither relevant nor practical in guiding the Council's work in combating racism. We cannot endorse full implementation of the DDPA. We have also been careful to communicate the importance of balancing necessary legal protections for freedom of expression with solutions to the problem of incitement. As such, we cannot accept the language of the mandate as currently conceived.

We will continue to look for ways to balance the U.S. differences with the overriding goal we all share to eliminate racism in all its forms, wherever it occurs. We are proud of the efforts we have made in that regard and will continue to seek consensus on practical ways to make progress on that worthy objective.

More about the Issue

Similarly, on September 30, 2011, the United States disassociated from consensus on the resolution on the mandate of the Working Group of Experts on Peoples of African Descent at the 18th Session of the Human Rights Council. U.N. Doc. A/HRC/RES/18/28. The United States delivered the following explanation of position, available at (internet link) geneva.usmission.gov/2011/09/30/eop-peopleofafricandescent/.

Human Rights Council in 2011

United States views on international law (based on the document “Digest of U.S. Practice in International Law”): On September 15, 2011, Ambassador Donahoe delivered a statement for the United States during the 18th Session of the Human Rights Council on the critical foundation that civil society provides for promoting all human rights. Her statement, excerpted below, is available at (internet link) geneva.usmission.gov/2011/09/15/civil-society-promoting-all-human-rights/.

Developments

The United States is glad to have to the opportunity to affirm the U.S. unwavering commitment to the protection and promotion of human rights.

People around the world continue to demonstrate their desire for democratic government. We are inspired by the strength, courage, and innovation shown by peaceful demonstrators across the Middle East, and we support transitions to genuine democracies that reflect the aspirations of people across the region.

Against the backdrop of dramatic developments from Cairo to Tripoli to Damascus, we would like to emphasize in particular the essential role that civil society plays in the protection and promotion of human rights, and in the transition to genuine, vibrant democracies.

Civil society provides a critical foundation for holding governments accountable, ensuring good governance, and promoting all human rights, including economic, social and cultural rights. Citizens, activists, organizations, congregations, writers, journalists and reporters each play a vital role in encouraging governments to respect human rights. The mandate of this Council acknowledges the importance of these groups in creating and maintaining a healthy, vibrant society. the U.S. commitment to civil society is renewed every time NGOs and national human rights institutions are given a voice in this chamber.

Details

We call upon emerging democracies to recognize and publicly defend the vital role civil society plays in the transition to healthy and vibrant democracies. New governments must recognize this important role through their laws and their actions. To allow civil society to develop and flourish, governments must respect the right to freedom of expression and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. In this light, we especially appreciated the timely and informative panel on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of peaceful protests earlier this week.

Recent events in the Middle East and North Africa have demonstrated the importance of peaceful assembly, the time-honored right to come together in public to demonstrate demands, as a vital tool for civil society. This Council has acknowledged its importance in the appointment of a Special Rapporteur for Peaceful Assembly and Freedom of Association.

Likewise, civil society members must be able to express themselves in person, in the media, and over the internet. The drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the U.S. bedrock document, showed great wisdom when they emphasized that freedom of expression applies equally “through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

More about the Issue

States using the excuses of security, order, or stability as a justification to unduly restrict these rights do so at their peril. The permissible scope of restrictions under international human rights law is very narrow and should only be used when absolutely necessary. The former governments of Libya, Tunisia, and Egypt used these arguments to justify restricting basic rights and freedoms. But they had to answer to their people in the end. In Syria, we are again seeing what happens when a government tries to silence its people for too long.

Civil society must be able to make its voice heard in government and have a meaningful role in the conduct of public affairs. In many parts of the world we have seen civil society work effectively to demand transparency, protect the environment, battle corruption, promote charity and relief work, and defend the rights of the poor and disenfranchised elements of societies. We strongly support these efforts. As Secretary Clinton recently stated, “We have to protect civil society…They are the ones going to prison, they are the ones being beaten up, they are the ones on the front lines of democracy.”

Human Rights Council in 2011

United States views on international law (based on the document “Digest of U.S. Practice in International Law”): The United States participated in three regular sessions of the Human Rights Council in 2011. The Council convened for its 16th session in March. For U.S. statements and positions at the 16th session, see (internet link) geneva.usmission.gov/tag/16th-session/. U.S. accomplishments at the 17th session, which concluded on June 17, are also described on the website of the U.S. Mission in Geneva at (internet link) geneva.usmission.gov/2011/06/21/u-s-accomplishments-at-u-n-human-rights-council%E2%80%99s-17th-session/. Key accomplishments of the United States at the 18th session, which concluded on September 30, are summarized at (internet link) geneva.usmission.gov/2011/10/03/accomplishments-unhrc18/.

Developments

On June 17, 2011, John F. Sammis, U.S. Deputy Representative to the Economic and Social Council (“ECOSOC”), provided an explanation of the U.S. vote on a resolution in the General Assembly on the Human Rights Council 2011 Review. The U.S. voted no because of its unfavorable view regarding the process and outcome of the Human Rights Council Review, a process authorized in the General Assembly resolution that established the Council in 2006. U.N. Doc. No. A/RES/60/251. Mr. Sammis' statement is excerpted below and available at (internet link) usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/2011/166477.htm.

Details

Thank you, Mr. President. In Geneva and New York, the United States has repeatedly urged the U.S. fellow members to join us in conducting a thorough, comprehensive review of the Human Rights Council that would significantly improve its ability to meet its core mission: promoting and protecting human rights.

Unfortunately, the Geneva process failed to yield even minimally positive results, forcing us to dissociate from the outcome. We appreciate the work that the co-facilitators have done in New York over the past months, but the final resolution before us also fails to address the core problems that still plague the Human Rights Council. We deeply regret that this opportunity has been missed. The United States has therefore voted “no” on the resolution.

More about the Issue

The Council has had many significant achievements in recent weeks; including a historic resolution highlighting the human rights abuses faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons around the world, a special session on Syria, the Commission of Inquiry in Libya, and the historic creation of a Special Rapporteur to investigate human rights violations in Iran. But the Council's effectiveness and legitimacy will always be compromised so long as one country in all the world is unfairly and uniquely singled out while others, including chronic human rights abusers, escape scrutiny.

Human Rights Council in 2011

United States views on international law (based on the document “Digest of U.S. Practice in International Law”): The United States is profoundly committed to ending racism and racial discrimination. We remain fully and firmly committed to upholding the human rights of all people and to combating racial discrimination, xenophobia, intolerance, anti-Semitism and bigotry, including by enhancing the U.S. implementation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. This commitment is rooted in the saddest chapters of the U.S. history and reflected in the most cherished values of the U.S. union. We will continue to work in partnership with all nations of goodwill to uphold human rights and combat racism, bigotry, and racial discrimination in all forms and all places.

More about Human Rights Council

Nevertheless the U.S. concerns about the DDPA are well known and we cannot therefore endorse all efforts undertaken by the Working Group in this regard. The US will therefore disassociate from consensus on the resolution before us. Since its inception at the 2001 World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa, the Durban process has included ugly displays of intolerance and anti-Semitism. In 2009, after working to try to achieve a positive, constructive outcome in the Durban Review Conference that would get past the deep flaws of the Durban process to date to focus on the critical issues of racism, the United States withdrew from participating because the review conference's outcome document reaffirmed, in its entirety, the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (DDPA) from 2001, which unfairly and unacceptably singled out Israel. The DDPA also endorsed overbroad restrictions on freedom of expression that run counter to the U.S. commitment to robust free speech.

We are confident that beneath the U.S. shared differences, we share the same goals and we are proud of efforts we have jointly made in this and other forums to underscore this fact. We support the objective of the Working Group to explore means of combating racial discrimination against persons of African descent around the world. This topic is important to us, and we want to be able to support it. The United States supported declaring 2011 the United Nations Year of People of African Descent and has worked on important programs to combat racism, including special sessions at the OAS, bilateral work with Brazil and Colombia, and programming at the U.S. embassies around the world.

Developments

The United States reiterated its concerns with the Durban process in a statement at the 18th Session of the Human Rights Council on September 27, 2011 on Item 9: “Racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance, follow-up and implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action,” available at (internet link) geneva.usmission.gov/2011/09/27/durban-declaration-and-programme-of-action/.

Human Rights Council in 2011

United States views on international law (based on the document “Digest of U.S. Practice in International Law”): The gravest of the Council's structural problems remains its politicized standing Agenda Item 7 on Israel. No member state during this Review has been able to explain how Item 7 is consistent with the principles clearly outlined in the resolution that established the Human Rights Council: “impartiality, non-selectiveness, and balance.” This Review should have eliminated this unfair and unbalanced Agenda Item and instead ensured that all member states, including Israel, are treated on an equal and impartial basis. The Review is over, but this struggle is not. My government will continue to fight to remove this item and the biased and unfair resolutions that flow from it.

More about Human Rights Council

This Review also failed to tackle another fundamental issue: Council membership. The Council discredits, dishonors, and diminishes itself when the worst violators of human rights have a seat at its table. During the Review in New York, the United States put forward a proposal to ensure that GA members have real choices in Human Rights Council elections by calling on all regional groups, including the U.S. own, to run competitive slates. This was rejected out of hand. We were also dismayed that another much more modest proposal, which simply called on candidate states to hold an interactive dialogue about their human rights records with member states and civil society groups, was also blocked. These failures to address the critical problem of membership do a serious disservice to the Council and to the brave men and women around the world standing up for their universal rights. Let there be no doubt: membership on the Human Rights Council should be earned through respect for human rights, not accorded to those who abuse them.

Human Rights Council in 2013

United States views on international law [1] in relation to Human Rights Council: At the 23rd session of the HRC, the United States and 32 other countries supported a statement on human rights, sexual orientation, and gender identity. The statement, available at (link resource) geneva.usmission.gov/2013/06/10/joint-statement-by-33-nations-onhuman-rights-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity, appears below.

Some Aspects of Human Rights Council

On this 20th anniversary of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, we recall that while 'various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms.' The VDPA declares that 'human rights and fundamental freedoms are the birthright of all human beings.'

Developments

We recall Human Rights Council resolution 17/19, the report of the High Commissioner and the panel discussion last year. This has provided a solid foundation on which to build a framework for addressing discrimination and violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Mr. President, The International Conference on Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity held in Oslo, 15-16 April of this year, co-chaired by South-Africa and Norway, gathered more than 200 participants from 84 countries of all regions of the world. The Conference was the result of a cross regional process, initiated by South Africa and supported by Norway, Brazil and other friends of the resolution 17/19. In all countries of the world, individuals are subjected to discrimination and violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity. We would like to thank partner countries for the good collaboration in conducting the consultative regional seminars in Kathmandu, Paris and Brasilia early this year leading up to the concluding international conference in Oslo in April. We would also like to thank civil society for the invaluable contributions to this process. We also extend a special recognition to ARC and ILGA for organizing the side event here in Geneva on 5 June (cosponsored by Brazil, France, Norway, Poland and South-Africa), an event which gave an overview of the process undertaken on the basis of the plan presented by South Africa to the Group of Friends in 2012.

Details

In this regard, we draw attention to the report distributed on 5 June, entitled SOGI Conference Summary and Toolkit. * This contains the Co-Chair's Summary and Conclusions; Report from the Oslo Conference (15-16 April); Report from Paris (26 March); Report from Kathmandu (22-23 March); Report from Brasilia (4-5 April); input from Africa; statements by Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, High Commissioner Pillay, ASG Simonovic; as well as key reference documents in the UN context (resolution 17/19 and the High Commissioner's report on the issue). Mr. President, In Oslo, the Co-Chairs together with the regional organizers drew up and issued a set of agreed conclusions. These are contained in the Co-Chairs' Summary and Conclusions. Of particular relevance for the work on the global level, we reaffirmed the responsibility of the Human Rights Council to address human rights violations against all persons, including on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. We recognized the ongoing work of treaty bodies, special procedures and under the Universal Periodic Review, and encouraged continued and strengthened efforts in this area. Together we found that the identified gaps and challenges are pervasive in all regions and require systemic solutions. Against this background, we concluded that there is a need to integrate the issues systematically in the work of the United Nations, through the establishment of a relevant mechanism, at the appropriate time. The Co-Chairs' Summary and Conclusions specifies the objectives of such a mechanism, in essence the need to study and document the situation; recommend concrete steps and encourage good practices; work collaboratively with other UN bodies; present reports to the Human Rights Council and engage its members in inter-active dialogue; and offer technical assistance to states.

More

Mr. President,

Let me conclude by stating that the countries behind this statement remain committed to working with all partners in keeping the issue of human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity on the agenda of the United Nations through an appropriate decision of the Human Rights Council, in accordance with the spirit of resolution 17/19 and drawing upon the outcome of the process as outlined in the report just described. Moving forward we support further efforts and dialogue among all parties, on the national, regional and global levels. We believe that the United Nations and the Human Rights Council provide a useful framework for such a dialogue on the global level.

More

* Editor's note: The Conference Summary and Toolkit are available at (link resource) geneva.usmission.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2013/06/SOGI-conference-summary-and-toolkit.pdf.

Human Rights Council in 2013

United States views on international law [1] in relation to Human Rights Council: The United States continued its participation on the Human Rights Council (“HRC”) in 2013, after its election to a second term in 2012. On February 26, 2013, at the 22nd session of the HRC, Esther Brimmer, Assistant U.S. Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, delivered the first U.S. intervention of its second term. Assistant Secretary Brimmer summarized the key achievements of the HRC during the United States' first term and identified work that remains for the HRC. Her remarks are excerpted below and available at (link resource) geneva.usmission.gov/2013/02/26/estherbrimmer-presents-u-s-priorities-at-hrc-22-commencement/.

Some Aspects of Human Rights Council

… In September 2009, I delivered the first U.S. intervention as a member of this esteemed body, in which the United States pledged to pursue broad international cooperation, both with traditional partners and across longstanding divides, to advance universal human rights and strengthen the Human Rights Council's ability to achieve its essential mandate. I set out four aspirations that this Council must work to attain: universality, dialogue, principle, and truth. And in the three and a half years since the United States first joined the Human Rights Council, we have seen much progress toward these aspirations, and have reached a number of impressive achievements, principally through broad cooperation and collaboration by this Council's diverse membership. First among these achievements has been the Human Rights Council's heightened willingness and capacity to address heinous human rights violations. Over the past three years, the Council has taken concrete measures, often in real-time, that shine the spotlight on abuses, and muster international political will toward ending them. It is not a coincidence that violence can imperil human rights, and the Human Rights Council has not shied away from acting amidst ongoing instability and violence. Faced with crises in Libya and Cote d'Ivoire, the Council quickly established new mechanisms for documenting human rights abuses and violations, which have built a strong foundation for future accountability processes and helped maintain international pressure on human rights violators. This Council spoke the truth about human rights violations and abuses in some of the world's most difficult crises, and we must continue to do so.

Developments

Another remarkable advance was Resolution 16/18, through which the Council—after years of chronic division—came together to combat religious intolerance, including discrimination and violence. We applaud the leadership that Turkey, Pakistan, and other countries have shown on this resolution, and appreciate as well the support of the OIC SecretaryGeneral. The international consensus on this issue offers a practical and effective means to fight intolerance, while avoiding the false choice of restricting the complementary and mutuallydependent freedoms of religion and expression. In today's networked world, hateful, insulting, and intolerant speech can be marginalized and defeated, not by less speech, but by more, only by encouraging positive and respectful expression. Countless examples have taught us that attempting to outlaw free expression is as dangerous as it is ineffective. That is why Resolution 16/18's catalogue of positive tools to fight intolerance—including education, nondiscrimination laws, and protecting places of worship—is so important, and why we must all continue our joint efforts to translate this consensus into concrete implementation of those policies. This pursuit of honest, open dialogue among member states was one of the themes I pledged the United States would pursue during our first term on the Council, and we will continue to do so during the coming three years.

Details

The Council also has demonstrated its commitment to another benchmark I underscored in 2009, namely the universality of human rights obligations. In establishing the first ever special rapporteur on freedom of peaceable assembly and freedom of association, the Council took an important step towards helping to protect and realize these crucial rights. The Council's creation of a working group on discriminatory impediments to women's human rights demonstrated our commitment to combat continuing gender bias in all its forms. By formally recognizing that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender men and women enjoy the same human rights as everyone else, the Council helped advance true universality of human rights worldwide. And completion of the first round of Universal Periodic Reviews, in which the human rights record of every single UN member state was subject to scrutiny before the Human Rights Council, has demonstrated that no country is exempt from the universality of its human rights obligations. But as I speak here today for the first time since the United States was elected to a second term on the Human Rights Council, I must say that for all these achievements, the work of the Council remains unfinished, so long as any of us cannot exercise those fundamental rights that we all share by virtue of our common humanity. It is toward those unfinished tasks that we must devote ourselves in this twenty-second session, and beyond. The Council's work remains unfinished so long as the Assad regime continues its outrageous attacks on innocent civilians, and disregards its international human rights obligations. The Human Rights Council acted quickly and courageously as one of the earliest voices to condemn these heinous depredations, and through multiple regular and special sessions has continued to call for an end to the violence. Given the essential role the independent commission of inquiry has played, the United States will strongly support at this session the extension of the commission's mandate for another year.

More

The Council's work remains unfinished so long as millions of North Koreans face untold human rights abuses amidst a daily struggle for survival. Principle demands that the countless human rights violations exacted by the Pyongyang government merit international condemnation and accountability. That is why the United States will support the call by High Commissioner Pillay and Special Rapporteur Marzuki for a mechanism of inquiry to document the DPRK's wanton human rights violations. The Council's work remains unfinished so long as Sri Lanka continues to fall short in implementing even the recommendations of its own Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission, or in addressing the underlying sources of its longstanding ethnic conflict. Last year's HRC resolution encouraged brave civil society groups on the ground to continue their efforts, and the United States will introduce another resolution at this session to ensure that the international community continues to monitor progress, and to again offer assistance on outstanding reconciliation and accountability issues. The United States hopes this resolution will be a cooperative effort with the Sri Lankan government. And the Council's work remains unfinished so long as it continues to unfairly single out Israel, the only country with a stand-alone agenda item. Until this Council ceases to subject Israel to an unfair and unacceptable bias, its unprincipled and unjust approach will continue to tarnish the reputation of this body, while doing nothing to support progress toward the peace among Israelis and Palestinians that we all desire so deeply.

More

The United States participated in three sessions of the HRC in 2013. The key outcomes of each session for the United States are summarized in fact sheets issued by the State Department. The key outcomes at the 22nd session, described in a March 25, 2013 fact sheet, available at (Secretary of State website) state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2013/03/206606.htm, include: resolutions on Sri Lanka, North Korea, Syria, Iran, Burma, Libya, and Mali as well as resolutions relating to cross-cutting human rights priorities relating to human rights defenders, genocide prevention, and freedom of religion or belief and combating religious intolerance. The key outcomes at the 23rd session are described in a June 19, 2013 fact sheet, available at (link resource) geneva.usmission.gov/2013/06/20/key-u-soutcomes-at-the-un-human-rights-council-23rd-session/. They include responses to the situations in Syria, Belarus, Eritrea, and Egypt and resolutions on freedom of expression, and women's human rights. The key outcomes at the 24th session are summarized in the State Department's October 1, 2013 fact sheet, available at (Secretary of State website) state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2013/10/215010.htm. They include responses to the situations in Syria, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic, Somalia, and Sri Lanka, as well as resolutions on freedom of assembly and association, on preventing reprisals, condemning female genital mutilation, on the rights of indigenous peoples, and on human rights in sports and the Olympics.

Human Rights Council

In relation to the international law practice and Human Rights Council in this world legal Encyclopedia, please see the following section:

Nationality, Citizenship, Immigration

About this subject:

Asylum and Refugee Status and Related Issues

. Note: there is detailed information and resources, in relation with these topics during the year 2011, covered by the entry, in this law Encyclopedia, about Honduras and Nicaragua

Human Rights in General

In relation to the international law practice and general in this world legal Encyclopedia, please see the following section:

Human Rights

About this subject:

ICCPR

Note: there is detailed information and resources under these topics during the year 2013, covered by this entry on general in this law Encyclopedia.

Human Rights Council

Embracing mainstream international law, this section on human rights council explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here.

Human Rights Council

In relation to the international law practice and Human Rights Council in this world legal Encyclopedia, please see the following section:

International Human Rights

About this subject:

Rule of Law and Democracy Promotion

Under this topic, in the Encyclopedia, find out information on Civil Society. Note: there is detailed information and resources, in relation with these topics during the year 2011, covered by the entry, in this law Encyclopedia, about Human Rights Council

Resources

See Also

  • International Human Rights
  • Rule Of Law
  • Democracy Promotion
  • Civil Society
  • Human Rights Council

Resources

See Also

  • International Human Rights
  • Human Rights Council

Resources

See Also

  • International Human Rights
  • Economic Rights
  • Social Rights
  • Cultural Rights
  • United States
  • Human Rights Council

Resources

See Also

  • International Human Rights
  • Discrimination
  • Race

Resources

See Also

  • International Human Rights
  • Children
  • Human Rights Council

Resources

Further Reading

  • The entry “human rights council” in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law (currently, the Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law, 2009), Oxford University Press

Resources

Notes

  1. Human Rights Council in Digest of United States Practice in International Law
  • Resources

    Notes

    1. Human Rights Council in the Digest of United States Practice in International Law
  • Comments

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *