The UN Human Rights Council is invaluable, but we need a body with more teeth

As a young woman born free in 1994, a love of human rights and an understanding of their importance have shaped every part of my life.

With a copy of the preamble to the Constitution fixed squarely on the bedroom wall and a stolen copy of the Constitution taking up permanent residence on my bookshelf, it’s no wonder that passion shaped my path into journalism.

So when I received word that I would be part of a cohort of African journalists who were selected by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation to travel to the Human Rights capital of the world, Geneva, Switzerland, for a study tour of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), it’s safe to say that I was more than a little overjoyed.

I must admit that my excitement was tempered by deep-seated reservations about the UNHRC, not regarding its mandate or work, but rather its effectiveness in light of the geopolitical tensions and human rights violations that continue to rage around the world.

Human rights regressions

In 2023, the UNHRC adopted approximately 1,481  resolutions, and yet, as I write this, human rights regressions are intensifying globally.

Increasingly, authoritarian crackdowns, escalating armed conflicts and systemic violations disproportionately affect marginalised populations. 

According to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights 2o24 report, while civilian deaths in armed conflicts decreased after 2015, the numbers skyrocketed by nearly 40% in 2022 and 70% in 2023.

Armed conflicts on the African continent are causing massive displacement, severe food insecurity and widespread sexual violence, with humanitarian conditions worsening dramatically.

Around the world, governments are suppressing dissent through harsh laws, with countries such as Nigeria, Cambodia and Panama targeting labour rights activists and protesters, often under repressive charges.

Nothing could highlight this better than what unfolded on my second day at the UN headquarters in Geneva. After almost two years of investigations, South Africa’s own Navi Pillay held a press conference, releasing the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory’s report, which unequivocally found that Israeli authorities and Israeli security forces committed four of five genocidal acts.

The acts, defined by the 1948  Genocide Convention, included:

• Killing
• Causing serious bodily or mental harm
• Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of the Palestinians in whole or in part
• Imposing measures intended to prevent births

The headquarters in Geneva were abuzz with the landmark finding, with the ambassadors of the majority of member states accepting and celebrating the outcome.

What was Israel’s response? To not only reject the report, as it has done so many times before, but to continue a massive ground offensive that has killed hundreds and forcibly displaced thousands of people.

“In stark contrast to the lies in the report, Hamas is the party that attempted genocide in Israel,” said Oren Marmorstein, a spokesperson for the Israeli Foreign Ministry. 

While the findings carry weight with the International Court of Justice, as well as the International Criminal Court, and may strengthen South Africa’s case for the International Criminal Court to declare that Israel is committing genocide, the commission that issued the report has no enforcement power.

The importance of the commission’s report cannot be overstated; it has provided an additional means to help other nations and international bodies hold Israel to account and stop gross human rights abuses down the line. But for the Palestinians on the ground in Gaza, the wheels of justice will turn too slowly.

The same can be said about the council’s involvement in conflicts right here on the African continent.

In 2023, the council established an Independent International Fact-Finding Mission to investigate alleged human rights violations and crimes in the ongoing armed conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces and Rapid Support Forces.

In the Democratic Republic of Congo, the council highlighted the severe humanitarian crisis caused by the conflict with M23 and called for international support for reconciliation and peace. 

And yet these conflicts rage on, with a great toll on the lives and human rights of women, children and men on the ground. 

A human rights council with teeth requires proper funding

With the current rate of human rights regression we are seeing globally, burning questions weigh heavily on my mind: Is it time to consider giving the UN Human Rights Council more teeth? Should the body be imbued with the power to make its resolutions and reports legally binding? Is there the political will to do this?

I posed the latter question to Ambassador Jürg Lauber, the president of the Human Rights Commission, sitting in an office overlooking Lake Geneva, with the rest of the cohort from the Friedrich Naumann Foundation tour.

“If I am honest, I have not asked myself the question. What I like about the council is that it is the place where we come together and really try to convince each other to come to a decision. Everybody has a say and shares their opinions, and it may take time, but once we find that common ground, it holds. We have other instruments, like the general assembly, International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice, and I think those instruments, in large part, play the enforcement role better,” he responded.

Ambassador Lauber also added that several mechanisms within the Human Rights Council also go a long way in helping the body fulfil its mandate, particularly the Universal Periodic Review, a procedure in which all 193 member states must report on their human rights record and face scrutiny and special procedures (a group of experts and working groups tasked with monitoring and documenting human rights violations).

However, the efficacy of these mechanisms is limited by geopolitical tensions and voluntary compliance from member states, and a deepening funding crisis.

A primary cause of this financial emergency is the failure of major UN member states, notably the United States and China, to pay their dues on time or in full. These two powers together contribute nearly half of the UN’s budget, and their payment delays or cuts have created a cascading shortfall affecting almost all facets of the Human Rights Council’s work.

The financial crisis has real-world consequences. This year, the council disclosed that critical activities, including vital commissions of inquiry into grave abuses in eastern Congo, cannot be fully delivered due to severe budget shortfalls. Investigations in conflict zones like Sudan, Palestine and Ukraine operate at only 30-60% capacity, significantly limiting the council’s reach and effectiveness in preventing abuses and supporting victims.

The argument has been made that to strengthen the Human Rights Council, reforms must tackle both its authority and financial sustainability. Only then can it truly serve as a guardian of human rights.

However, as it stands with the current geopolitical climate coupled with the funding crisis, it doesn’t seem likely that member states could muster the political will to advocate for reform, nor does the council itself have the money to fund said reforms.

Unfortunately, even with the incredible work the council is doing worldwide, with its limited resources, it is the more than seven billion people globally who will suffer the most and continue to have their rights curtailed. DM