The Work of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in Advancing the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights

Navanethem Pillay, former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, discusses how the United Nations, its human rights mechanisms, and all of us as individuals, can help to advance the realization of human rights.

In recent times thare has been great awareness of human rights all over the world, as well as a clamour for rights, including civil, political, economic, social and cultural. In the light of raging conflicts, massive human rights violations and crimes and forced displacement of populations, some question the relevance of human rights to finding solutions. How can the United Nations, its human rights mechanisms, and all of us as individuals, help to advance the realization of rights?

I am delighted to be back at Durham University, to join with you in a discourse on human rights. I was deeply moved when the University conferred an honorary degree upon me a few years ago in a glorious ceremony. Thank you for inviting me.

As you know, I retired as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on 31st August this year, after serving for six years. I look back with great pride at the achievements of OHCHR and its highly committed staff in advancing the protection and promotion of human rights and the right to development. At the same time, I am deeply concerned by the number of raging conflicts and massive human rights violations in some countries.

The UN Secretary General spoke of his despair as he confronts the extraordinary demands made upon the UN to provide peacekeeping support and humanitarian aid. My successor, Zeid Raa’d Al Husein said he was entering a bleak world of human rights. In these testing times, I am being asked, ‘What have you achieved? Are Human Rights still relevant?’

Advances in human rights protection both nationally and internationally, are largely due to sustained actions by civil society actors. Twenty years ago, 7000 participants gathered for the World Conference on Human Rights, in Vienna. It was June 1993, shortly before we achieved democracy in South Africa.

For the first time, many South African NGOs were able to participate in a UN conference. I was amongst them, hanging out in the basement, little knowing that I will one day fill the position of High Commissioner for Human Rights, a post that was the outcome of Vienna.

Western countries favoured civil and political rights; the Eastern bloc and many developing countries argued that economic, social and cultural rights, and the right to development, had priority. In addition, a sizeable group of states were vigorously arguing that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was the product of a specifically western culture, and that in reality, human rights should be considered relative to the characteristics and traditions of different cultures.

Yet, as discussions unfurled, a consensus emerged. The key to this is the notion of universality, indivisibility and interrelatedness of all human rights. You see, a number of States had been resisting the entire concept of economic and social rights – because they saw them as aspirations rather than rights intrinsic to human dignity and freedom.

The vision of an inter-related and inter-dependent constellation of human rights allowed for economic and social rights to be on board, as well as the right to development.

The debate regarding the so-called cultural specifications of human rights was resolved with an equally deft and inclusive approach. Of course all countries are indeed not the same, and all voices must, naturally be heard. But these cultural specificities in no way erode the universality of human rights.

The formula that ultimately created consensus on this point was:- you choose your path, but the goal is something we all hold in common. Your specificity will influence the way you move forward. But that goal of human dignity and human freedom, via implementation of the human rights elucidated in the International Bill of Rights – is something we all share.

And so the assembled delegates overcame major differences on contentious issues such as universality, sovereignty, impunity and how to give a voice to victims. The result was a powerful outcome document: the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (VDPA).

The VDPA is the most significant human rights document produced in the last quarter of a century and one of the strongest human rights documents of the past hundred years. It crystallised the principle that human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated, and firmly entrenched the notion of universality by committing States to the promotion and protection of all human rights for all people “regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems.”

The Vienna Conference led to historic advances in many vital areas, among them Women’s rights; the NGO slogan “Women’s rights are human rights” was heard loudly; the fight against impunity for serious human rights violations, by the creation of the International Criminal Court and stronger UN mechanisms to protect the rights of minorities, migrants and children.

But we must recognise that in many areas, we have failed to build on the foundations of the VDPA. The inspiring opening promise of the Universal Declaration – that all human beings are born equal in dignity and rights, and that these will be respected as such – is still a dream for far too many people.

The challenge is how to get Governments to implement the legal framework that they themselves set and deliver on the undertakings they made to protect and promote the human rights of all. How to ensure that the policies and actions they take are people-centred and follow a rights-based approach?

When I took office as High Commissioner for Human Rights in September 2008, I was amazed at the comments I heard: human rights are highly politicized, it is divisive and western-oriented, the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva is a discredited body – all it does is bash Israel. Someone even advised me not to enter the pool of crocodiles.

I pledged to embark on an open-minded, frank, and reciprocally reinforcing interaction, based on the premise that the credibility of human rights work depends on impartiality and commitment to truth, with no tolerance for double standards.

I have engaged with the Human Rights Council for six of its eight years of existence, and that premise has stood the test of time. Human rights bodies are inevitably confronted with issues on which stakeholders have divergent views. It is through independence, impartiality, probity and truth-telling that they gain stature and influence. Only then can they achieve real impact on states’ protection of human rights – and therefore achieve the ability to improve people’s lives.

When I left, my work was generally favourably acknowledged, but I also received abuse and threats including some choice labels: lunatic, monster, and Tamil tigress. Yet another reason as to why I value my degree honoris causa from Durham!

Achievements of the International Human Rights System

Since the creation of the office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights twenty years ago, a strong framework of International human rights law has been consolidated and a flexible and interlocking structure assists states to comply with their human rights obligations.

The creation of the Human Rights Council in 2006 has brought that structure strength and efficacy. In particular, the Council’s Universal Periodic Review has been admirably universal, impartial and non-selective, and it has had remarkable success in encouraging many states to recognize and resolve gaps in human rights protection, with new emphasis on dialogue with civil society.

Also operating impartially and independently, the Special Procedures System has expanded its scrutiny to cover the full range of human rights world-wide with all states on an equal footing. In addition, the Council has become increasingly reactive to human rights emergencies, convening special sessions and urgent debates and creating country mandates, fact-finding missions and Commissions of Inquiry, with OHCHR assistance. The Council and its mechanisms are complemented by the Treaty bodies, which have also grown in number and scope. The treaty-body strengthening process that I initiated in 2009, and which was mandated by the UN General Assembly in April, will open a new horizon for technical cooperation in relation to states’ treaty body obligations.

OHCHR, building on the work of previous high commissioners, has developed into an operational and field-based organization, with 58 human rights presences globally, and increased engagement in the context of crises. Within days of the start of the conflicts in Tunisia, Ukraine and Central African Republic, or natural disasters in Haiti and Philippines, for instance, we had human rights advisers on the ground.

Our field presences have enhanced our direct assistance to member states in crucial areas such as constitutional development, legislative reforms, and stronger institutions, including justice systems. They have also influenced the political culture and decision-making of states and regional organizations, by introducing human rights into dialogue on a vast range of topics.

Complementing the work of treaty bodies, special procedures and UPR reviews, OHCHR plays a key role in detecting protection and capacity gaps, and assists states to address these gaps, thus fulfilling the real meaning of our dual mandate to promote and to protect.

Importantly, OHCHR works in close cooperation with civil society organizations, assisting and strengthening them and has direct contact with more than 2,000 NGOs.

To highlight just one topic, we have made great strides in addressing discrimination – extending our work to fight discrimination on the basis of race, religion and ethnicity to the grounds of gender, migration status, sexual orientation, disability, age and caste. On the related topic of incitement to national, racial and religious hatred, the Rabat Plan of Action provides states and relevant stakeholders with many implementable recommendations emanating from experiences around the world.

One of the first challenges that I faced as High Commissioner was the organization of the Durban Review Conference which resulted in a landmark plan of action that sets a principled international agenda for the global movement against racism and discrimination. Yet even within states with long established democratic processes, the fight against discrimination can be undermined by extremist political rhetoric. I am disturbed by the recent increase across the political spectrum in several states in Western Europe of a discourse rooted in anti-immigrant and racist sentiment and religious intolerance.

The new European Parliament includes a German party leader who has said, “Europe is the continent of white people and it should remain that way”, a French party leader who has compared peaceful Muslim street prayers to the military occupation of her country by the Nazis and an Italian member who has been found guilty of arson for setting fire to the pallets of migrants sleeping under a bridge.

There is a road to perpetration of human rights violations – and hate speech, particularly by political leaders – is on that road. In the UN ICTR genocide trials, witnesses told us that hate speech was spread over the years like small drops of petrol that set the whole country on fire. Violent attacks based on religion or ethnicity such as the anti-Semitic murder of four people at the Jewish museum in Brussels, or the atrocities and forced conversion of Christian and other ethnic groups at the hands of ISIL in Iraq are acts of extremism. Expressions of racial, religious or xenophobic division that overtly call for or suggest targeted actions against minority groups should be anathema in every member state of the UN.

Discriminatory rhetoric has also been directed against people because of their sexual orientation and gender identity. I welcome the call made by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights for states to take steps to protect persons from human rights violations on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Human rights principles now have a heightened role in the broader UN system. The Secretary General’s “Rights up Front” Plan of Action, in response to the UN’s own failure to protect civilians in situations such as Rwanda, Srebrenica and Sri Lanka, is the culmination of our efforts to mainstream human rights within the UN, including its political, humanitarian, economic, peacekeeping and development related work. Under the Action Plan, human rights must inform the agenda of UN peace missions, of humanitarian response and UN Development Assistance Framework. We must ensure that all of the future sustainable development goals will be firmly anchored in universal human rights and values. We must also ensure that the new goals rest on a strong accountability framework and that a global partnership effectively addresses power imbalances in global governance systems.

Another central aspect of the Rights up Front Plan of Action is better preparedness by the UN system to ensure quick, appropriate and concerted reaction to early warning of human rights crises. This was done in Ukraine and South Sudan. In South Sudan, the UN opened its gates to safeguard victims of the violence, rather than shutting its gates, bent on how best to evacuate its staff.

Before I turn to the considerable challenges ahead of us, a word about the progress we have achieved in terms of awareness of rights.

OHCHR’s stature as an authoritative voice on human rights is attributable to its insistence on probity, independence and distance from political influence.

Today, one cannot read a newspaper, a blog, or switch on a channel without hearing about human rights. Together with the heightened visibility and activism of civil society organizations, this is surely one of the most remarkable developments of the last twenty years. Despite some push backs, individuals and groups feel empowered to demand greater equality, participation, accountability and freedom. Respect for human rights bestows legitimacy on leaders. Those who ignore this imperative are beginning to realise that sooner or later they may be called to account.

Challenges

Many of the achievements I have outlined are at risk of being undermined in coming years, unless we safeguard against political pressures and financial constraints. This echoes the recent backlash on women’s rights in the Commission on the Status of Women and in the context of the International Conference on Population and Development review. And it will entail sustained efforts to maintain our clarity and forcefulness.

We are observing renewed assaults on the democratic space in which civil society actors operate. There is an alarming growth of restrictions on NGOs, arrests and imprisonment of human rights defenders, journalists, whistle-blowers and individuals seeking to exercise their right to peaceful protest. In the face of push backs, we will need to protect public freedoms and intensify our efforts to broaden the democratic space.

In the past twenty years, despite early warning there have been many tragic failures by the international community to safeguard human rights and prevent conflict. Conflicts, often involving multiple armed groups, that deliberately target civilians are, and will continue to be, a persistent and major human rights concern. We must continue working to fight impunity, including of non-state actors, and strengthen the rule of law at national and international levels.

Today, an alarming number of armed conflicts are raging in Syria, Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan, South Sudan, Iraq, Somalia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic and Afghanistan, to name a few.

Time and again, the international community has promised to protect civilians from slaughter and gross violations of rights. And yet, even as I speak to you now, civilians and others are being killed in their thousands: 191,000 in Syria; 2,000 in Gaza; women are being abducted and raped; children lose their lives or are forcibly recruited to fight; hospitals and ambulances are targeted; millions of people have been displaced and indiscriminate shelling and deliberate massacres stain the earth with the blood of innocents.

None of these crises erupted without warning. They built up over years – and sometimes decades of human rights grievances, deficient or corrupt governance and lack of independent judicial institutions; discrimination and exclusion; inequalities in development; exploitation; denial of economic and social rights and repression of fundamental freedoms.
Although the specifics of each conflict could not necessarily be predicted, many of the human rights violations that were at their core were known. They could and should have been addressed.

This was, in the first place the duty of the relevant states. But when Governments are unable or unwilling to protect their people, international law is clear: it is the responsibility of the international community through its various UN system bodies, but specifically the Security Council, to intervene, and to deploy the range of good offices, support, inducements and coercion at its disposal to defuse the triggers of conflict.

I am grateful for the many opportunities opened to me to place these concerns before the Security Council. The Council’s interest in human rights increased markedly during my tenure with a growing acknowledgement that it cannot safeguard international peace, security and development without being alerted to the situation of human rights. But despite repeated briefings regarding escalating violations in multiple crises, by OHCHR and other human rights mechanisms and the Secretary General’s appeal for greater collective action, there has not always been a firm and principled decision by members to put an end to conflicts. Short term geopolitical considerations and national interest - narrowly defined - have repeatedly taken precedence over intolerable human suffering and grave breaches of, and long term threats to international peace and security.

In my address to the Security Council on prevention of conflict, I suggested that the Council can take a number of innovative approaches to prevent threats to international peace and security. Within Rights up Font, the Secretary General can be even more proactive in alerting to potential crises, including situations that are not formally on the agenda of the Council. To further strengthen early warning, the Council could also ask for more regular and comprehensive human rights reporting by protection actors.

Let me recall that the Human Rights Council provides a representative international forum to urgently convene states, notably through special sessions and urgent debates. On occasions, the HRC has sent a united and strong signal that such atrocities will not be tolerated and individual perpetrators must be brought to account.

Commissions of Inquiry and other fact finding mechanisms are also invaluable; they provide a means to gather objective and up to date information. Their recommendations point to appropriate national or international actions to curb violations and creimes.

The COIs include:

SC-COI for Central African Republic
HRC’s COIs for Gaza, Syria, Libya, DPRK, Eritrea and investigative reports on Sri Lanka and
Ukraine
AU’s COI for South Sudan.

Other substantive challenges

A few words on some other challenges:

Given the broad spectrum of social and economic failures that are manifest in acute income inequalities within and among countries, there is also a fundamental need for more consistent application of human rights in the economic sphere. Our challenge will be to ensure that governments are accountable and respond without discrimination to the needs of the people, so that the poor and marginalized can also participate in decision-making. Corporations must also ground their activities in human rights standards.

Another area of concern is climate change, which will unquestionably generate human rights challenges on a significant scale, including its impact on migration and the prospect of entire peoples becoming stateless.

We will also face challenges related to technological innovation. Advances in biotechnology and assisted human reproduction generate profound ethical dilemmas. Data surveillance by states and corporations impacts on the right to privacy in the digital era. Regarding cyber-warfare, we must continue to insist that international humanitarian law and human rights norms should apply to all acts of war including those that are computer-based or operated by remote control, such as armed drones.

Many of the issues I have named point us to the responsibility of states to support human rights norms and in that regard, the record is not a perfect one.

Even well-established democracies have their forgotten rights-holders. The treatment of people with intellectual or psychosocial disabilities, or older persons with cognitive problems, often ignores their right to participate in decisions. Certain communities, such as people of African descent, the Roma and migrants – including those in irregular situation – may encounter persistent stigma. In many countries, lesbians, gays, bisexual and transgender people or people of certain castes are seen as having fewer rights than others. Women and children suffer violence and inequalities; and we have yet to confront the commodification of women, long tolerated as the “oldest profession in the world”. These too are challenges that may deepen.

Every country has an interest in defending a common set of values and a norm-based principled structure, without selectivity. Homophobia is no less an evil than Islamophobia, and migrants are as much human beings as citizens. Still we constantly see pushback from the compact embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human rights.

In conclusion may I say that despite all the violations and conflict I referred to, the broad trajectory of humanity is a positive one and human rights are being widely upheld in more countries than ever before. Credit for that should go to human rights defenders, journalists, NGOs, lawyers and others who are striving to route human rights norms into their societies.

The appointment of Navanethem Pillay (Navi) as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights was approved by the General Assembly on 28 July 2008 and she assumed her functions on 1st September 2008. On 24 May 2012, the United Nations General Assembly extended her mandate for a further two years which ended in 2014. She also worked as a lecturer at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, and later was appointed Vice-President of the Council of the University of Durban Westville. In 1995, after the end of apartheid, Ms. Pillay was appointed as acting judge on the South African High Court. In 2003, she was elected as a judge on the International Criminal Court in the Hague, where she remained until August 2008.

The proceeding text is from a lecture given at University College, Durham, UK on the 5th November 2015. For the video please see here.