Summary: EU Presidency Statement - Human Rights Council: Status, Size, Composition and Membership (24 October 2005: New York)
STATEMENT BY THE UNITED KINGDOM ON BEHALF OF THE EUROPEAN UNION INFORMAL MEETING OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY PLENARY, FOLLOW-UP TO THE WORLD SUMMIT, THE HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL: STATUS, SIZE, COMPOSTION & MEMBERSHIP OF THE COUNCIL, New York
I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union.
Co-Chairs, thank you for convening the third in our series of consultations on the establishment of the Human Rights Council. Our discussion last week was on the mandate of the Human Rights Council. What it should actually do in order to fulfil the terms agreed by our Heads of State and Government at the World Summit: to promote universal respect for the protection of human rights, address situations of violations of human rights and contribute to human rights mainstreaming. The issues you have
put before us today represent the key to the effectiveness with which the Human Rights Council will carry out its mandate.
On all of the main issues we have various models in the UN to follow. We have bodies occupying various positions within the UN architecture, with varying sizes of membership and with members elected by different methods. All of the options expressed have some merit. Our challenge is to establish an operational Council which would find the balance between: representativity, legitimacy, effectiveness and efficiency.
Status
The EU has the strong conviction that this Council should be a standing body, meeting throughout the year. This will ensure that our new body will be linked to the real world. As a standing organ, the Council will be able to address, in a timely manner, all situations and challenges, whether thematic or geographic, that need its careful attention.
Co-Chairs, the European Union has often stated its view that the status of the Human Rights Council should reflect, at the institutional level, the centrality and universality of human rights. The EU believes the Council should preferably be a main, freestanding Charter body of the United Nations. Of course, it should be linked to the General Assembly. The General Assembly could take such a decision now and we believe it should.
But pending such a decision in the General Assembly, the Council should be established as a subsidiary body of the General Assembly. If this is the decision, we might also decide to review this decision in 5 years time. The General Assembly is always able to take such a decision, but we might consider building in such a review in order to ensure that we follow-up on such a major institutional change.
If the Council is established as a subsidiary body of the General Assembly, it should be able to address recommendations both to countries and to UN bodies, without all its decisions automatically needing to be endorsed by the General Assembly - except those on standards setting or with financial implications. This is consistent with our firm view that the Council must be able to meet and act speedily to address urgent human rights matters and serious or ongoing situations of human rights
violations and to continue to monitor them.
Size
The issue of the size of the Council is as much one of representativity and legitimacy as it is efficiency and effectiveness. A Human Rights Council smaller than the current size of the Commission on Human Rights may be able to work more effectively. But the Council must also guarantee representativity of the UN membership at large. The European Union believes that the Council should preferably be of a comparable size or smaller than the Commission and is open to discussion on this issue.
Composition and Membership
The European Union believes that for the Human Rights Council to be truly effective, the membership should comprise states that are genuinely interested in the promotion and protection of human rights and are able to demonstrate their commitment to abide by the highest standards of human rights.
The EU believes that the universal membership of the General Assembly should have a genuine choice between candidates for the Council in order that we might improve the quality of membership. For this reason, co-chairs, we believe that each member mightbe chosen by a positive vote - for example, either by regional groups nominating more candidates than seats, or through each candidate being subject to a vote whether on a clean slate or not.
The EU would support election of the Council's members by a 2/3 majority of the General Assembly. It also believes that prospective members should demonstrate their good faith by making voluntary commitments about the action they will take, domestically and internationally, in support of human rights during their term of office.
Co-Chairs
While the mandate and functions of the Council are of primary importance, the choices we make on these issues discussed today will help make the difference between a Human Rights Council which has credibility, is effective and efficient, and a Council which fails to live up to expectations.
The European Union stands ready to enter into discussion on these issues and to narrow any differences between views. But we will be guided by a desire to create an institution which is genuinely able to promote and protect human rights and to respond to the expectations of our people and the commitments of our leaders.
| Top |
European Union Member States
Alerts by email
Email this page
Print this page