FX 22 – How to operationalise the Human Rights Council’s prevention mandate – the eyes, ears, and outreached hand of the UN system

GA resolution 60/251 founding the Council and setting out its mandate makes clear that it shall ‘contribute, through dialogue and cooperation, towards the prevention of human rights violations and respond promptly to human rights emergencies,’ (operative paragraph 5f). However, for much of the Council’s existence, that mandate was not actively implemented.

That began to (slowly) change over recent years. During the mid 2010’s, the Council held a series of intersessional meetings and consultation processes to elaborate in more detail how it could contribute to the prevention of human rights violations and crises on the ground. This culminated at the Human Rights Council’s 45th session in September 2020, when a draft resolution entitled ‘The contribution of the Human Rights Council to the prevention of human rights violations’  was tabled (by Norway, Sierra Leone, Switzerland, and Uruguay), and adopted by vote (resolution 45/31).

The resolution seeks to operationalise the Council’s prevention mandate, as set out in paragraph 5f of GA resolution 60/251, including by calling on OHCHR to strengthen its early warning capability; calling on the High Commissioner to initiate urgent briefings where he ‘identifies patterns of human rights violations that point to a heightened risk of a human rights emergency’; and calling for the Secretary-General ‘to bring regularly to the attention of the relevant bodies of the UN the reports of the Human Rights Council relevant to prevention.’ This last point, although weaker than in the original draft text, was designed to better connect the Council’s work on prevention with the ongoing work of the Security Council.

The vision was that the Human Rights Council, according to its mandate, should identify emerging crises at an early stage, and should then seek to engage with the country and region concerned through preventative diplomacy. In other words, the Council should be the UN’s ‘eyes, ears, and outreached hand.’ However, where, despite these efforts, the Council is unable to prevent the crisis from worsening, it should invite relevant bodies of the UN (i.e., the Security Council) to address the situation as per their mandates (in addition to continuing its own work to ensure accountability for serious violations).

However, despite the adoption of resolution 45/31 in 2020, the Council has made little progress in the implementation of its prevention mandate. This means that the work of the Council is still falls short of complementing the work of the Security Council through an increased and efficient ‘first instance’ focus on prevention of human rights abuses and crises.

Why is it the case that the Council’s mandate and follow-up resolutions are not being implemented in this respect?

One key reason why prevention ambitions have failed to turn into practical policies could be the perceived de facto side-lining of the UN’s human rights pillar. While each of the Secretaries-General mentioned above has recognised the importance of a ‘whole of UN’ approach to prevention, when it has come to putting forward concrete proposals, they have each retreated into a more traditional conception of prevention as being synonymous with ‘conflict prevention’ and thus something to be carried out, principally, by the Security Council alone – ignoring the different yet interconnected mandates and somewhat complementary roles of the Human Rights Council and Security Council.

Another reason relates to ‘mindsets’ in the UN human rights system – a system that, throughout its history, has tended towards a reactive (based on ‘naming and shaming’ or the establishment of post-facto accountability mechanisms) approach to situations of concern. Consequently, the system has given little thought to the mechanics of how to build effective rights-based early warning systems, how to create more discreet and less confrontational channels of communication with concerned countries and regions, and how to establish mechanisms premised on preventative diplomacy, including ‘good offices missions.’

On this basis, the question is, if States do in fact agree that the Human Rights Council should strengthen its focus on prevention, as set out its mandate, then how might the Council move forward so that prevention can happen effectively at country-level?

Questions for consideration

1. Is there a way for States to engage in dialogue on prevention and early warning, without such an effort being criticised for contributing to polarisation and politicisation?
2. What could meaningful prevention look like on the ground and how can the Human Rights Council support those efforts in a consensual way?
3. Mindful of its mandate, how can the Human Rights Council compliment the work of the Security Council though giving early warnings and working on prevention?