Earlier this month, Human Rights Pulse spoke to Chris Gawronski, an American lawyer who spent the last several months working with the Geneva International Centre for Justice on various human rights issues at the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC, or simply the Council) in Geneva.

Chris had plenty to say about the importance of the HRC in promoting and furthering the cause of human rights. Chris’ answers to our questions have been edited for clarity:

Can you describe your role with the Human Rights Council generally, as an NGO observer?

In general, as an NGO participant at the HRC, I was a witness to how human rights is used in the global context. I observed how states used human rights to characterise or justify various actions and positions. At a practical level, I helped my NGO contribute to the human rights discourse through oral statements, written reports, and events highlighting certain human rights issues and situations.

The United States, particularly under President Donald J. Trump, has publicly taken a very strong stance against international institutions. How would you describe the conduct of the United States at the Human Right Council?

Due to the US withdrawal from the HRC, it had no presence at the regular meetings. I would say its absence was noticeable given how omnipresent the US usually is on the global stage. However, the US continued to participate in the Universal Periodic Review sessions in between HRC meetings. In my opinion, this partial participation, noted with irony by other states, is better than a complete rejection of the HRC system. 

Nevertheless, I believe the US disengagement is unhelpful both to the US, because it reduces US legitimacy when engaging in other international fora, and to the UN because it removes its most powerful member from the table where critical human rights issues are being discussed.

Do the P5 politics tend to dominate the Council, or does the more egalitarian rotation system promote better dialogue?

I am confident that P5 politics are a significant influence in the Council simply because the P5 members exercise such significant influence on the overall UN system. Although I was not in a position to know exactly to what extent the P5 influence the Council, I think to say they dominated it would be an overstatement. The large membership of the Council and the requirement that members come from all global regions, I believe, does promote reasonably broad dialogue. 

The lack of a veto by any member and a requirement that members must step down after two consecutive terms means that the Council membership is always shifting and any member can raise any issue they believe is important. This is demonstrated by the fact that many Council resolutions have been adopted against the wishes of one or more P5 states. That said, it would probably be unlikely for an issue to be raised if all P5 members opposed it because of the pressure they would apply on the other Council members elsewhere in the UN system.

Was there any particular incident in which you were surprised at the efficacy of the Human Rights Council? Put another way, was there any particular moment or issue that came up where you saw the institution work at its best?

Although other diplomatic issues often overshadow human rights discussions in the Council, I am very impressed with the system of special procedures created by the Council. The international experts who fill the various positions that research human rights issues and investigate situations (called “special procedures” by the Council) produce valuable and timely insights into the nature of and implications of human rights on an ongoing basis. This wealth of material is, I think, the greatest contribution of the Council to the development and understanding of human rights and its application to various specific situations.

The United Nations has been criticised for stifling access to civil society groups (see here for example). Given your experience with the Council, how could the Council better permit NGO / civil society access? Is access in itself an inherent good?

In general, I would say civil society access is inherently good because it helps prevent decisions of global import from being made in secret and gives the UN a certain amount of legitimacy with the global public. That said, there is also an inherent difficulty with broad access because of the number of NGOs from around the world representing so many important issues. There is simply not enough time in a single session of the Council (or any other UN body) to hear from all the civil society groups that have something meaningful to contribute. Therefore, the UN is faced with having to provide reasonable access to enough groups to continue raising critical issues and maintain some level of public legitimacy. I cannot say what a better system would be, but I am skeptical of moves to restrict civil society access below the level currently provided.

A related issue is the creation of sham NGOs by some states to serve as promoters of those states at UN bodies. These NGOs become accredited by the UN and then displace legitimate NGOs by taking up seats and speaking slots at the Council and other UN meetings. This is not to say that the many NGOs that receive funding from governments and advocate for important issues are not legitimate. The problem is those that spend their time defending a state against international criticism rather than truly promoting a civil cause. Through such NGOs, some states attempt to crowd out the legitimate NGOs and sow discord within the NGO community.

Jamaal Khashoggi was killed in October 2018, and I know his fiance spoke at the Council. In some ways, his case is almost a signature example of how the UN can amplify human rights abuses directed against any single individual. Were you satisfied at how the Council treated his case, or could more have been done?

Similarly, the Council tackled the issue of genocide in Myanmar through the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Mynamar (IIMM), and issued a damning report against Myanmar. Was this the Council at its best, or could more be done by the Council?

Again, the creation of the special procedures, like the IIMM, are critical to the Council’s role in monitoring human rights issues around the world. The IIMM was not popular with many of the members, yet they performed their task admirably considering the difficult circumstances and obstacles they faced. With an international system based on state sovereignty and the need for voluntary cooperation with human rights mechanisms, I’m not sure the Council could have done any more than it did. 

Same with the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. Would I have liked to see more done? Yes—the Council could have taken a stronger position against the obvious and deliberate violations of individual and group human rights in these cases. However, to have the Council do more would mean one of two things. Either the Council would risk alienating member states—thus reducing participation and, ultimately, the Council's usefulness in the long run. Or, it would mean that the UN now has evolved into more of a global government able to force states to comply with its interpretation of human rights obligations. The latter has very far-reaching implications, and I think UN members in general (and especially the major powers) are not ready for this type of UN. 

In fact, I doubt the global public is ready for a global government either. Before this happens, I think humanity needs to experience some truly global crises that help us understand just how interconnected—and similar—we all are and how our fates are intertwined regardless of nationality, language, or religion. The current global pandemic might help raise this awareness in the short term, while climate change may do the job in the long term. But we are not there yet.

Chris wrote a Featured Content piece for Human Rights Pulse which you can read here.