Georgetown University home page Search: Full text search Site Index: Find a web site by name or keyword Site Map: Overview of main pages Directory: Find a person; contact us About this site: Copyright, disclaimer, policies, terms of use Georgetown University home page Home page for prospective students Home page for current students Home page for alumni and alumnae Home page for family and friends Home page for faculty and staff Georgetown University Search: Full text search Site Index: Find a web site by name or keyword Site Map: Overview of main pages Directory: Find a person; contact us About this site: Copyright, disclaimer, policies, terms of use
Navigation bar Navigation bar
spacer spacer spacer spacer
border
spacer spacer spacer
border
spacer spacer
US Votes Against Establishment of Human Rights Council
Mar-15-06 11:39 pm
As noted in previous posts, the United States has been greatly troubled by the legitimacy of the current United Nations Human Rights Commission and has supported the creation of a new Human Rights Council. But today, the United States voted against the proposal in the General Assembly. As the New York Times reports:
With the United States in virtually lone opposition, the United Nations overwhelmingly approved a new Human Rights Council today to replace the widely discredited Human Rights Commission.

The vote in the 191-nation General Assembly was 170 to 4, with three abstentions.

Joining the United States in opposing the resolution were Israel, the Marshall Islands and Palau. Abstaining were Belarus, Iran and Venezuela.

The main problem with the final proposal was that it contained a provision that makes it too easy-- from the U.S. perspective-- for states to be elected to the Council. The concern is that states that are themselves serious human rights abusers will be elected. The U.S. had supported the proposal presented by Secretary-General Kofi Annan that would have required a two-thirds vote of those voting to elect members to the Council. But the version approved today requires a majority vote of all U.N. members for a state to be elected to the Council. As the Times explains:
[T]he final text had a weakened version of the crucial membership restriction in Mr. Annan's original plan that required new members to be elected by two-thirds of those voting. Instead, council members will be elected by an absolute majority of member states.

Major rights organizations and a number of American allies in the United Nations who lobbied Washington to reconsider its opposition argued that the terms were far better than existing ones and would keep major abusers off the council.

But [US Ambaddor to the UN] Mr. Bolton disagreed and singled out the compromise as a reason why the United States could not back the council.

"The higher hurdle for membership would have made it harder for countries that are not demonstrably committed to human rights to win seats on the council," he said. "It would have helped to prevent the election of countries that only seek to undermine the body from within."

But despite U.S. opposition, the new Council has been being established. Only time will tell if it can gain more legitimacy than its predecessor.
Tags: human rights United Nations

About the editor:

Anthony Clark Arend

Professor

Commentary and analysis at the intersection of international law and politics.

» Contact the editor



» Learn more about the M.A. in International Law and Government at Georgetown University.


Tags

9/11 Commission aggression Alien Tort Statute censorship CIA civil liberties civil rights civil war climate change compensation Congress contractors crimes against humanity customary international law cyber security democracy detainee detainees detainess development diplomatic immunity electronic surveillance enemy combatant enemy combatants enviromental law environmental law expropriation extradition foreign law game theory genocide global economy habeas corpus human right human rights humanitarian assistance intelligence International Court of Justice international courts International Criminal Court international criminal law international environmental law international finance international health international law international legal theory international trade just war doctrine law of the sea law of war laws of war military commission military commissions military law multilateral negotiations nationalization natural law North Korea nuclear nonproliferation nuclear proliferation nuclear weapons outer space peacekeeping piracy poverty preemption prisoner of war prisoners of war rendition rule of law self-executing separation of powers sovereign wealth fund sovereignty Supreme Court SWF terrorism torture treaties United Nations universal jurisdiction use of force war crimes

More

 spacer spacer
Navigation bar Navigation bar