D The High Commissioner (1993)
As the first High Commissioner noted in his first report to the General Assembly in 1994, ‘the establishment of the post of United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights is a dream almost as old as the United Nations’.117
A High Commissioner for Human Rights (1965)
In 1965, the Commission added to its agenda, the ‘Election of a High Commissioner for Human Rights’. This elicited an engaged discussion, which led to its inclusion in the agenda of the Commission under the general title of the ‘Question concerning implementation of human rights, through a United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights or some other appropriate international machinery’.118 Subsequently, in 1967, the Commission adopted a resolution119 recommending the establishment of a UN High Commissioner’s Office for Human Rights.120
In 1973, the General Assembly decided to include in its agenda ‘Alternative approaches’ in the context of the ongoing discussion on the creation of the post of a High Commissioner.121
The Sub-Commission addressed the issue in 1981 when it shared its
conviction that the number and scale of gross violations of human rights occurring in many parts of the world require[d] urgent and effective forms of action by the United Nations and … that in the view of the Sub-Commission the establishment of a post of United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights would be highly valuable in advancing the promotion and protection of human rights in the world.122
In response, the Commission asked the Sub-Commission to ‘formulate a first study on possible terms of reference for the mandate of a High Commissioner for Human Rights’.123
In 1980 and 1981, with its membership increased to forty-three states and more meeting time, the Commission124 notified the General Assembly that it had not yet reached any decision.125 The General Assembly was not impressed. It requested the Commission in 1982 ‘to consider the question with the attention it deserve[d]’.126
(p. 735) The Commission in response informed the General Assembly ‘that it intend[ed] to keep under continued consideration the proposal for the creation of a post of a United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, taking into account the work being undertaken [by the Sub-Commission]’.127
The following year, the Commission took up the Sub-Commission’s proposals and, after some discussion, decided to return them, asking the Sub-Commission to resubmit them the following year after having taken into account the Commission’s comments.128 No action was taken until 1993.
A High Commissioner for Human Rights (1993)
In December 1993, following the recommendation of the World Conference on Human Rights, the General Assembly decided ‘to create the post of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’.129
The Conference recommended to the General Assembly “that when examining the report of the Conference … it begin, as a matter of priority, consideration of the question of the establishment of a High Commissioner for Human Rights for the promotion and protection of all human rights’.130
The first High Commissioner for Human Rights (José Ayala Lasso, 1994–1997; followed by Mary Robinson, 1997–2002; Sergio Vieira de Mello, 2002–2003; Louise Arbour, 2004–2008; Navanethem Pillay, 2008–2014; Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, 2014–2018; Michelle Bachelet Jeria, 2018) took up his responsibilities in February 1994. His first major challenge was the genocide in Rwanda.
The High Commissioner first addressed the Commission on 3 March 1994 when he shared his vision of the implementation of his mandate and the challenges it presented. Among them was
the growing awareness of the need to base international security on the triad of democracy, development and human rights … reflected in greater participation by international institutions in programmes to promote fundamental rights. He had been entrusted with the immense task of coordinating those activities within the United Nations systems and, in that connection, he wished to mention the important work being carried out by UNESCO, ILO, WHO, FAO, UNDP, UNICEF, UNHCR and, of course, the United Nations Secretariat. Coordination would be directed towards ensuring the common objective, and that would have a multiplying effect in terms of benefits and would avoid unnecessary duplication.131
On that occasion, the Commission ‘heard a recording of the first session of the Commission on Human Rights, in 1946’ to mark its fiftieth session. The arrival of the High Commissioner coincided with the arrival of information technology at the Commission: the Commission was given ‘a demonstration of the CD-ROM system’.132 The human rights website was launched in December 1996.
(p. 736) Resources remained an issue. In 1997, the Commission expressed appreciation for the report of the High Commissioner (Building a partnership for human rights) and thanked him for his efforts in strengthening human rights activities ‘in spite of the prevailing financial constraints’.133
The Office
Upon taking office, issues developed with the Centre for Human Rights on the modalities and the general hierarchical relationship with the High Commissioner. These were addressed in the years that followed. In 1995, the General Assembly ‘support[ed] and encourage[d] the efforts of the Secretary-General to enhance the role and further improve the functioning of the Centre for Human Rights … under the overall supervision of the … High Commissioner’ and supported ‘fully the High Commissioner in his efforts to strengthen the human rights activities of the United Nations, inter alia through measures aimed at restructuring the Centre for Human Rights to improve its efficiency and effectiveness’.134
The situation was finally clarified with the decision of the Secretary-General (Kofi Annan) to consolidate the OHCHR. The original intention of the General Assembly to maintain two separate structures, with the High Commissioner having overall supervision of the Centre, had not worked ‘inadequate coordination and complementarity between the two entities hindered performance, diminished the impact of human rights activities and resulted in a lack of appropriate coordination of related activities throughout the organisation’. The Secretary-General consolidated the High Commissioner’s Office and the Centre for Human Rights into a single unit, ‘to be called the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’.135
The OHCHR as it exists today came into being in 1996. ‘The new High Commissioner for Human Rights [would], therefore, have a solid institutional basis from which to lead the organization’s mission in the domain of human rights.’136
The reform of 1997
On his appointment in 1997, the Secretary-General (Kofi Annan) undertook a wide-ranging reform of the organization, giving a special focus to the human rights programme. This was consistent with the emerging mainstreaming process in the human rights programme, as formally sanctioned in the terms of reference of the newly established High Commissioner.137
In 1997, Kofi Annan launched the reform of the United Nations secretariat. Following a ‘thorough review of the activities of the United Nations … to identify the ways in which the United Nations can more effectively and efficiently meet the challenges that [lay] ahead’. He (p. 737) described the reform as ‘the most extensive and far-reaching … in the fifty-two-year history of this Organization’.138
In addition to announcing the consolidation of the OHCHR, the report described human rights as
integral to the promotion of peace and security, economic prosperity and social equity. For its entire life as a world organisation, the United Nations has been actively promoting and protecting human rights, devising instruments to monitor compliance with international agreements, while at the same time remaining cognisant of national and cultural diversities. Accordingly, the issue of human rights has been designated as cutting across each of the four substantive fields of the Secretariat’s work program (peace and security; economic and social affairs; development cooperation; and humanitarian affairs).139
The report cited the Vienna Conference and the ‘growing demands for a human rights presence in the United Nations field operations’ as a considerable evolution in the mandate of the United Nations. Referring to the need for mainstreaming of human rights, ‘[a] major task for the future [was] to enhance the human rights programme and integrate it into the broad range of the organization’s activities, including in the development and humanitarian areas’.140
A review of the human rights programme had been carried out by the Office of Internal Oversight Services and PriceWaterhouseCoopers and
following their recommendations, a major reorganization [had been] implemented. The streamlined structure … in place reflect[ed] the priorities of the work programme and … focused on three areas of activity (a) information, analysis and policy development; (b) support to human rights bodies and organs; (c) and actions for the promotion and protection of human rights.141
The reform envisaged the appointment of a Deputy High Commissioner ‘to assist and provide management support to the High Commissioner and manage the Office in her absence’.142
Addressing the link between human rights and peace and security, which ‘[was] laid out in the Charter and [had] been amply confirmed by recent experience’ (see Chapter 6.A, 1994—Rwanda), the report proposed that
an analysis of developments and trends in the area of human rights should be incorporated in the early warning activities of the organization; human rights [were] a key element in peace making and peace building efforts and should be addressed in the context of humanitarian operations. The capacity of the office of the High Commissioner to provide support in this regard [was] one of the objectives of the current reorganization.143
(p. 738) The growth of technical assistance under the human rights programme and under other entities of the organization who provided technical cooperation in areas which had a bearing on human rights called for better coordination in providing such services. ‘The Office of the High Commissioner should be able to provide its advice for the design of technical assistance projects and participate in needs assessment missions.’144
The human rights programme was to be represented in the work of each of the four Executive Committees set up under the reform on Peace and Security, Economic and Social Affairs, Development Operations (later to subsumed into the United Nations Development Group—UNDG) and Humanitarian Affairs.145 In addition to strengthening the representation of the OHCHR in New York, the report mandated the Office of the High Commissioner to ‘assess the work carried out on human rights issues in the Executive Committees and regularly participate in every stage of the organization’s activities in relation to actual or potential conflicts or post-conflict situations that have a human rights dimension’. The High Commissioner was to ‘undertake an analysis of the technical assistance provided by the United Nations entities in areas related to human rights and to formulate proposals for improving complementarity of action’.146
The framework established by the Secretary-General is reproduced below. It illustrates the place of human rights as cross-cutting and participating in the work of each of the newly established Executive Committees laying the ground for the ‘mainstreaming’ that was to follow.147

Finally, the report asked the High Commissioner to review the human rights machinery and ‘to develop recommendations on possible ways to streamline and rationalise it’. The highest priority was to be given to
actions underway in the context of the restructuring of the human rights program to strengthen and coordinate the substantive and technical support to the legislative bodies, monitoring committees and special procedures. The establishment of common (p. 739) data banks of information, research and analysis to assist these bodies [was to] be accelerated.148
The Millennium Declaration and the Development Goals (2000)
On 8 September 2000, the General Assembly adopted the Millennium Declaration, which included a commitment to ‘promote democracy and strengthen the rule of law, as well as respect for all internationally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the right to development’.149
The Declaration was adopted by a total of 189 states, including 147 Heads of State and Government. They ‘solemnly reaffirm[ed], on this historic occasion, that the United Nations is the indispensable common house of the entire human family, through which [they would] seek to realize … universal aspirations for peace, cooperation and development’.150
The goals and commitments in the Declaration—later to be ‘crystallized’ into the Millennium Development Goals—were to be attained by 2015. Their fulfilment was to be addressed through ‘a comprehensive approach and a coordinated strategy, tackling many problems simultaneously across a broad front” since ‘the problems facing humanity [were] closely intertwined, and that each tend[ed] to complicate the solution of one or more others’.151
The commitments on human rights alongside those on peace, security and disarmament, development and poverty eradication, protecting the environment, protecting the vulnerable, meeting the special needs of Africa and strengthening the United Nations, were defined as goals and corresponding strategies put forward towards their attainment set out in the Road map towards the implementation of the United Nations Millennium Declaration.152
This was to take place in the following context:
The United Nations exist[ed] to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, the equal rights of men and women, and the right of minorities and migrants to live in peace. All human rights—civil, political, economic, social and cultural—[were] comprehensive, universal and interdependent. They [were] the foundations that support[ed] human dignity, and any violations of human rights represent[ed] an attack on human dignity’s very core.153
Six goals were defined under Human Rights, democracy and good governance, each of which was accompanied by strategies. The goals and strategies set out in the Declaration contained elements which were relevant to human rights activities.154(p. 740)
Goals and strategies for human rights, democracy and good governance |
Goal |
Strategies |
To respect and fully uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and strive for the full protection and promotion in all countries of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights for all |
|
To strengthen the capacity of all our countries to implement the principles and practices of democracy and human rights, including minority rights |
|
To combat all forms of violence against women and to implement the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women |
|
|
|
To take measures to ensure respect for and the protection of the human rights of migrants, migrant workers and their families, to eliminate the increasing acts of racism and xenophobia in many societies, and to promote greater harmony and tolerance in all societies |
|
To work collectively for more inclusive political processes, allowing genuine participation by all citizens in all our countries |
|
To ensure the freedom of the media to perform their essential role and the right of the public to have access to information |
|
(p. 741)
The Millennium Declaration, with its priorities and time-bound goals became ‘a common policy framework for the entire United Nations system’.155 The Great Enterprise was now integrated into the system. (See below, The Sustainable Development Goals (2015))
(p. 742) Further change (2002)
In 2002, as part of his comprehensive review of the work of the organization, the Secretary-General presented a report in follow-up to the 1997 reform and the Millennium Development Goals.156
The report focused on strengthening of human rights.157 Referring to the Commission on Human Rights, it warned against ‘political considerations’ and ‘block positions’ in its work and the danger of erosion of ‘its credibility and usefulness’. Progress had been achieved in integrating human rights into the UN system,
for example, human rights specialists are deployed as part of peacekeeping missions. In most humanitarian operations, the protection of refugees or internally displaced persons [was] a crucial aspect of the response to emergency situations. Development programmes supported by the United Nations promote[d] human rights through information dissemination and education, as well as through support for human rights institutions, such as national human rights commissions.158
The report put forward four actions in regard to the human rights programme, addressing respectively:
(p. 743) At the same time, the Office for Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) presented the results of its management review of the OHCHR, making a number of proposals on the upgrading of the management structures of the Office, and pointing out the need to strengthen the core staffing through increased regular budget allocation. The rapid increase in the activities of the Office had not been supported by a commensurate budget, creating a reliance on voluntary contributions which amounted to 67 per cent of the overall OHCHR budget.160
In 2003, the Secretary-General reported on changes made in the OHCHR in its internal management and in the services it provided.161 Specifically, the report mentioned ‘increased support for national human rights capacity building’, where a plan was being developed with other UN partners aiming at encouraging ratification of human rights treaties, integrating human rights into national development plans and supporting reform of national legislation and institutions, and more generally, promoting enhanced awareness of human rights. The report pointed out that ‘the protection mandate for monitoring, investigations and reporting [would] remain the exclusive responsibility of the Office … and the wider human rights machinery’.162
The report mentioned various measures on the human rights treaties that were being taken or were being discussed to enhance their implementation. This included enhanced cooperation among the treaty bodies, governments and NGOs, and meetings among the treaty bodies. These meetings were producing suggestions for streamlining procedures, including the elaboration of a core document for the various treaties.163 (See Chapter 7)
The report described steps being taken to enhance support for the special procedures such as the production of a manual for special rapporteurs, internal guiding principles governing working relations between mandate holders and staff, an induction kit for special procedures, additional human resources to support special rapporteurs, and the establishment of a quick response desk. The mandate holders had also agreed to take measures, among them:
(a) strengthened joint initiatives, including joint urgent appeals… (b) … identifying good practices (c) … systematic debriefing between desk officers after country visits … (d) strengthened cooperation with United Nations country teams … in country visits … (e) preparation of a feasibility study on ways to enhance the dissemination of findings and recommendations … (f)interaction between special procedures … and the Counter-Terrorism Committee of the Security Council … (g) continuous exchange of information and communications between mandate holders … (h) further strengthening of the interactive dialogue with the Commission on Human Rights.164
Improvements had also been carried out in the OHCHR consistent with the recommendations of the Office of Oversight Services:
(a) the establishment of two new branches, one on special procedures and the other on external relations … (b) the rationalization of the system of OHCHR regional (p. 744) representatives … (c) the initiation of a roster of human rights officers to serve with United Nations peacekeeping missions … (d) the regularization of [the contractual status of] OHCHR staff … (e) strengthened financial and budgetary management through the development of a … database … (f) … a refined system of annual appeals for voluntary contributions and the corresponding annual report on the use of those contributions.165
The high-level panel on threats, challenges and change (2004)
In 2003, the Secretary-General set up a High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, to ‘provide [him] with a shared, comprehensive view about the way forward on the critical issues’. The issues stemmed from the ‘deep divisions among Member States on the nature of the threats that we faced and the appropriateness of the use of force to address those threats’.166
The panel167 was asked to ‘assess current threats to international peace and security; to evaluate how our existing policies and institutions have done in addressing those threats; and to make recommendations for strengthening the United Nations so that it can provide collective security for all in the twenty-first century’.168
The panel emphasized the need for the international community to acknowledge priority for collective security, and the prevention of the emergence of threats to such collective security. It identified six clusters of threats:
The panel underlined the need to
combine power with principle. Recommendations that ignore underlying power realities will be doomed to failure or irrelevance, but recommendations that simply reflect raw distributions (p. 745) of power and make no effort to bolster international principles are unlikely to gain the widespread adherence required to shift international behaviour … Change for its own sake is likely to run the well-worn course of the endless reform debates of the past decade.170
The panel identified institutional weaknesses of which a number stood
as the most urgently in need of remedy:
The panel addressed the Commission on Human Rights:
‘In recent years, the Commission’s capacity to perform these tasks has been undermined by eroding credibility and professionalism. Standard-setting to reinforce human rights cannot be performed by States that lack[ed] a demonstrated commitment to their promotion and protection. We are concerned that in recent years States have sought membership of the Commission not to strengthen human rights but to protect themselves against criticism or to criticize others. The Commission [could not] be credible if it [were] seen to be maintaining double standards in addressing human rights concerns.172
The panel supported the mainstreaming of human rights in the international system as well as the support for strengthening national human rights institutions. It made the point that
[i]n many ways, the most difficult and sensitive issue relating to the Commission on Human Rights [was] that of membership. In recent years, the issue of which States [were] (p. 746) elected to the Commission [had] become a source of heated international tension, with no positive impact on human rights and a negative impact on the work of the Commission. Proposals for membership criteria [had] little chance of changing these dynamics and indeed risk[ed] further politicizing the issue. Rather, we recommend that the membership of the Commission on Human Rights be expanded to universal membership. This would underscore that all members are committed by the Charter to the promotion of human rights and might help to focus attention back on to substantive issues rather than who is debating and voting on them.
In addition, it proposed that heads of delegation to the Commission should be ‘prominent and experienced human rights figures’ restoring the practice in the Commission in its earlier years. The new Commission of the whole, was to be supported by ‘an advisory council or panel’ of some fifteen independent experts, ‘in addition to advising on country-specific issues, the council or panel could give advice on the rationalization of some of the thematic mandates and could itself carry out some of the current mandates dealing with research, standard-setting and definitions’ (emphasis added).173
The panel recommended that the High Commissioner prepare an annual report on the situation of human rights worldwide. The Security Council was invited to involve the High Commissioner
more actively in its deliberations, including on peace operations mandates … We also welcome the fact that the Security Council [had], with increasing frequency, invited the High Commissioner to brief it on country-specific situations. We believe that this should become a general rule and that the Security Council and the Peacebuilding Commission should request the High Commissioner to report to them regularly about the implementation of all human rights-related provisions of Security Council resolutions.
The panel underlined the need for adequate funding of the Office, pointing out that there was a
clear contradiction between a regular budget allocation of 2% for this Office and the obligation under the Charter … to make the promotion of and protection of human rights one of the principal objectives of the Organization … In the longer term, Member States should consider upgrading the Commission to become a ‘Human Rights Council’ that is no longer subsidiary to the Economic and Social Council but a Charter body standing alongside it and the Security Council, and reflecting in the process the weight given to human rights, alongside security and economic issues, in the Preamble of the Charter.174
Among other recommendations addressed to other areas of the Organization, the Panel proposed some ‘modest changes’ to the Charter, including:
(p. 747)
The Panel recommended that ‘[a]ll Member States should rededicate themselves to the purposes and principles of the Charter and to applying them in a purposeful way, matching political will with the necessary resources’.175
In larger freedom (2005)
Following on from the Millennium Development Goals, and the report of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, the Secretary-General in 2005 presented his report In larger freedom: toward development, security and human rights for all.176 The Secretary-General made the point, in addressing the objective ‘to perfect the triangle of development, freedom and peace’177 that ‘we [would] not enjoy development without security, we [would] not enjoy security without development, and we [would] not enjoy either without respect for human rights’.178
The report addressed collective responsibility:
In today’s world, no State, however powerful, can protect itself on its own. Likewise, no country, weak or strong, can realize prosperity in a vacuum. We can and must act together … If we live up to these mutual commitments, we can make the new millennium worthy of its name.179
The human rights system was ‘under considerable strain … important change [was] already under way … the human rights machinery [had] expanded its protection work, technical assistance and support for national human rights institutions, so that international human rights standards [were] now better implemented in many countries’. The Secretary-General appealed for more resources and staff for the human rights programme.180
The Secretary-General addressed the role of the High Commissioner and the Security Council in the context of mainstreaming of human rights.
The High Commissioner must play a more active role in the deliberations of the Security Council and of the proposed Peacebuilding Commission, with emphasis on the implementation of relevant provisions in Security Council resolutions. Indeed, human rights (p. 748) must be incorporated into decision-making and discussion throughout the work of the Organization. The concept of ‘mainstreaming’ human rights [had] gained greater attention in recent years, but it [had] still not been adequately reflected in key policy and resource decisions.181
The Secretary General proposed the creation of a Human Rights Council:
The Commission on Human Rights [had] given the international community a universal human rights framework … During its annual session, the Commission [drew] public attention to human rights issues and debates, provide[d] a forum for the development of United Nations human rights policy and established a unique system of independent and expert special procedures to observe and analyse human rights compliance by theme and by country. The Commission’s close engagement with hundreds of civil society organizations provide[d] an opportunity for working with civil society that [did] not exist elsewhere … Yet the Commission’s capacity to perform its tasks has been increasingly undermined by its declining credibility and professionalism. In particular, States have sought membership of the Commission not to strengthen human rights but to protect themselves against criticism or to criticize others. As a result, a credibility deficit has developed, which casts a shadow on the reputation of the United Nations system as a whole …
If the United Nations [was] to meet the expectations of men and women everywhere—and indeed, if the Organization [was] to take the cause of human rights as seriously as those of security and development—then Member States should agree to replace the Commission on Human Rights with a smaller standing Human Rights Council. Member States would need to decide if they want the Human Rights Council to be a principal organ of the United Nations or a subsidiary body of the General Assembly, but in either case its members would be elected directly by the General Assembly by a two-thirds majority of members present and voting. The creation of the Council would accord human rights a more authoritative position, corresponding to the primacy of human rights in the Charter of the United Nations.182
The Human Rights Council was established one year later, on 15 March 2006.183 (See Chapter 9)
The Sustainable Development Goals (2015)
In 2015, the General Assembly adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development ‘the outcome document of the United Nations summit for the adoption of the post-2015 development agenda’.184
(p. 749) The Preamble gave the context:
This Agenda [was] a plan of action for people, planet and prosperity. It also [sought] to strengthen universal peace in larger freedom … eradicating poverty in all its forms and dimensions, including extreme poverty, [was] the greatest global challenge and an indispensable requirement for sustainable development … The 17 Sustainable Development Goals and 169 targets … demonstrate[d] the scale and ambition of this new universal Agenda. They [sought] to build on the Millennium Development Goals and complete what they did not achieve. They [sought] to realize the human rights of all and to achieve gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls.185
In 2018, the Council addressed the ‘promotion and protection of human rights and the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’ and decided to organize
two one-day inter-sessional meetings for dialogue and cooperation on human rights and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which [would] provide a space for States, relevant United Nations and regional human rights mechanisms, United Nations agencies, funds and programmes, national human rights institutions and civil society organizations to voluntarily share good practices, achievements, challenges and lessons learned in the promotion and protection of human rights and the implementation of the 2030 Agenda.186
The Council further ‘reaffirm[ed] that the 2030 Agenda … [was] grounded in and [sought] to realize human rights and fundamental freedoms for all’.187
Sustainable Development Goals |
Goal 1 |
End poverty in all its forms everywhere |
Goal 2 |
End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture |
Goal 3 |
Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages |
Goal 4 |
Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all |
Goal 5 |
Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls |
Goal 6 |
Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all |
Goal 7 |
Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all |
Goal 8 |
Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all |
Goal 9 |
Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation |
Goal 10 |
Reduce inequality within and among countries |
Goal 11 |
Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable |
Goal 12 |
Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns |
Goal 13 |
Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts* |
Goal 14 |
Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development |
Goal 15 |
Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss |
Goal 16 |
Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels |
Goal 17 |
Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development |
Source: General Assembly Seventieth session, resolution 70/1 of 25 September 2015 para 54 et seq.
* Acknowledging that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is the primary international, intergovernmental forum for negotiating the global response to climate change
(p. 750)
E Mainstreaming the Great Enterprise (1994)
Introduction (1962)
Activity in human rights during the early years and up to the mid-1950s was concentrated within the Commission and almost exclusively focused on the drafting of the International Bill of Human Rights in the Commission and the Sub-Commission, with the statutory involvement of the Economic and Social Council and the General Assembly. UNESCO and the International Labour Organization (ILO) contributed to the work of the Commission during this formative period. Once this phase was completed, the focus shifted to the search for ways to implement the International Bill. In the Commission, these aspects were treated under agenda items such as ‘Further promotion’ and ‘Alternative ways and means’. (See Chapter 4.C, Rationalization (1992–2006))
Given the nature and scope of the International Bill of Human Rights, its contents related to matters which were handled in other areas of the UN system. The system had evolved over several decades and the objectives of its components were individually related to human rights values, some more so than others. The International Bill of Human Rights provided the catalyst to bring the individual components of the international system together as an organic totality. The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action provided the consensus basis for action.
The process of implementation which took off in the late 1970s necessarily involved the system as a whole—this was to become the ‘mainstreaming’ that emerged in the 1990s.
The first attempt at this outreach to other areas of the international system came in 1962, when the General Assembly suggested that the Commission ‘devote special attention [to the adoption of measures designed to accelerate the promotion of respect for human rights] (p. 751) during the United Nations Development Decade’.188 The Commission had reported on its (heavy) programme and on the status of the various projects before it.189
The report of the discussion in the Third Committee contained the following:
the importance of human rights in connexion with the United Nations Development Decade was emphasized; delegations considered, for example, that questions of human rights constituted an implicit element in every Development Decade project, and it was suggested that programmes to promote respect for human rights should be included within the Development Decade.190
The reaction of the Commission was not constructive. Instead of following the exhortation of the Assembly to establish a link with development activities, it sent the General Assembly a ‘report’—consisting of a few paragraphs embodied in a resolution191—giving a list of its activities, spelling out the various studies and draft instruments that occupied its agenda and were likely to do so in the future; it also reminded the Assembly to expedite its own work on the Covenants which by then had been before it for nine years. In other words, the Commission informed the Assembly that it had no time (or intention) to follow its suggestion.
The need for the Commission to organize its programme within the UN system and the improvement in the respect for human rights in the outside world became intertwined in the following years. A corollary of this process was the need for the Commission to coordinate its work with those UN bodies with responsibility for administrative and budgetary procedures,192 especially when the demands for more resources for the Commission increased dramatically as its agenda expanded.
The need for substantive coordination became evident. This in turn affected the resources and management available to the human rights secretariat. These elements combined in the years that followed, to give the need for organization and planning of the Commission’s work a central role in the continuing evolution.
The Assembly returned to its call regarding human rights and development activities in 1965, when it urged Governments ‘to make special efforts during the United Nations Development Decade to promote respect for and observance of Human Rights and fundamental freedoms’. It called on the technical assistance authorities of the United Nations and the Specialized Agencies to give all possible assistance under their respective programmes to such activities, ‘with a view to achieving progress in the field of human rights’, and asked the Commission ‘to continue its consideration of the question of further promotion and encouragement of respect for human rights’.193
The Commission, however, did not give any substantive consideration to the issue until 1975. By then the Decade was over; between 1964 and 1974, for a variety of reasons, the Commission did not take up the démarches of the General Assembly. That year, in 1975, (p. 752) the Commission asked for views on its future programme of work194 and the following year, ‘noting that only a small number of states [had] sent replies’, asked for five reports on the question of its future programme,195 including on proceedings of international conferences taking place at the time whose subject matter was relevant to human rights aspects and the implementation of human rights. This was the era when the Covenants were coming into force and their implementation was about to be tested.
The Commission also asked for ‘a complete description of the use made of the advisory services programme in all its components (for example, experts, seminars, training courses, fellowships) since the adoption of General Assembly resolution 926 (X) [1955]’ and on
ways and means of achieving, within the framework of the Committee for Programme and Co-ordination, intensified co-operation and co-ordination between various organs and secretariat units of the United Nations and of the specialized agencies whose work bears on the enjoyment of various aspects of human rights, with a view to developing the Commission’s over-all approach and concern on the question of the realization of economic, social and cultural rights.196
The report ‘on the discussions and recommendations … relating to the various aspects of the implementation of human rights’ of the Conference on The Human Environment (Stockholm, 5–16 June 1972) the World Population Conference (Bucharest, 19–30 August 1974), the World Food Conference (Rome, 5–16 November 1974) reflected the newness of the approach. In preparing the report,
the Secretary-General … understood the words ‘relating to the various aspects of the implementation of ‘human rights’ in a broad sense, as referring to all aspects, not merely the (p. 753) institutional aspects, of implementation and as embracing all human rights—economic, social and cultural as well as civil and political.197
The Commission also had before it an account of the discussions and recommendations of the Fifth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (Geneva, 1–21 September 1975) referring to human rights issues, principally related to torture and treatment of offenders.198
The other study by the Secretary-General identified possible common ground in the various components of the UN system and in the UN Secretariat, in the matter of the realization of economic, social and cultural rights.199
The report contained some pertinent observations:
It [was] not until recently that emphasis seems to have been laid on this latter aspect in the United Nation with regard to human rights. Only in the last few years has the Commission on Human Rights tried to draw up its own unified long-term programme of work and it [was] at its last session in 1975 that it concentrated in its resolution 10 (XXXI) on the problem of co-ordination between the various United Nations organs and services whose activities [were] in one way or another concerned with human rights. For a long time, such activities were mainly of a normative character engaged in by a small number of bodies and presented no great problems as regards priorities or coordination. The situation [was] of course quite different today because the United Nations [had] not only extended the scope of its basic concepts concerning human rights to encompass many scientific technological, demographic and economic questions but also diversified its methods of action, so that monitoring the application of standards and information, education and aid activities [were] receiving as much if not more attention than work on legislation. This [had] increased the complexity of human right’s programmes and opened the door to dispersion and duplication of efforts. The co-ordination of human rights activities within the United Nations system [had] thus become both more necessary and more difficult to achieve.200
In the area of peace and security, human rights had yet to establish its relevance. 1976 also coincided with the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. In the Commission, reference was made to the Final Act of that Conference as being ‘of capital importance for human rights, not only in Europe but also for the world as a whole’.201 Against this, it was argued that the ‘primary responsibility of the Commission was in the field of promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms and not in the field of international peace and security, which was within the competence of the Security Council and the General Assembly under the Charter’.202 This limited thinking persisted through the decades that followed until the early 1990s when the massacres of Yugoslavia and Rwanda left no doubt as to the link between international peace (p. 754) and security and the respect of human rights. (See Chapter 6.A, 1992—Yugoslavia and Chapter 6.A, 1994—Rwanda)
In 1977, to mark the thirtieth anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Commission asked UNESCO for a study and recommendations on the ‘teaching of human rights throughout the world’ and invited Member States and the other sectors of the international community to report to it on ‘efforts made with a view to marking the thirtieth anniversary’.203
Later that year, the General Assembly asserted the international character of the protection of human rights, affirming that
in approaching human rights questions within the United Nations system, the international community should accord … priority to the search for solutions to the mass and flagrant violations of human rights of persons … and of every nation to the exercise of full sovereignty over its wealth and natural resources.204
The request of the Commission in 1975 for the five reports marked the point when the modern ‘mainstreaming’ of human rights in the UN system may be said to have originated.205 In 1991, the Commission took up the coordination role of the Centre for Human Rights ‘within the United Nations bodies and machinery dealing with … human rights’.206 The outreach to other parts of the international system was on the agenda and growing—but not without challenges.
In its evaluation of the human rights programme (1989) the Committee for Programme and Coordination addressing human rights advisory services and technical cooperation, recommended that
in so far as technical assistance projects [were] concerned, the country programmes of UNDP [might] include human rights projects … Governments should be encouraged by the organizations of the United Nations system to take into account the long-term importance of human rights projects. The Centre for Human Rights should play an advisory and catalytic role in that regard by communicating through the resident representatives to the Governments its advice on human rights projects… Human rights projects should be incorporated into the existing technical assistance and economic and social development programmes of the United Nations system.207
In the general area of the implementation of economic, social and cultural rights, in 1993 the Commission welcomed the suggestion of the Special Rapporteur on the realization of economic, social and cultural rights of the Sub-Commission (Danilo Turk) ‘that cooperation between the financial institutions and the human rights organs … be strengthened, in particular by encouraging the participation of the representatives of those institutions in the meetings of the human rights organs’.208
(p. 755) The focus on issues relating to the implementation of economic and social rights continued and expanded in the following years, combining support for the work of the Committee under the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights209 with initiatives on particular issues in the economic and social rights sector, not least the implementation of the Declaration on the Right to Development.210 (See Chapter 5.B, The right to development (1977))
The High Commissioner and mainstreaming (1993)
With the World Conference and the establishment of a High Commissioner for Human Rights, the mainstreaming of human rights received its official mandate. The High Commissioner was entrusted with the coordination of ‘the human rights promotion and protection activities throughout the United Nations system’ having been designated the ‘United Nations official with principal responsibility for United Nations human rights activities’.211
In his first report to the General Assembly, the High Commissioner confirmed his mandate underlining ‘the important responsibility of enhancing international cooperation in the field of human rights and coordinating human rights promotion and protection activities throughout the United Nations system’.212 He outlined his vision of mainstreaming human rights across the United Nations system, being ‘responsible for promoting and protecting the effective enjoyment by all of all civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights; promoting and protecting the realization of the right to development and enhancing support from relevant bodies of the United Nations system for that purpose’.213
The High Commissioner announced his intention, consistent with the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, to integrate the protection of the human rights of women and the protection of children into the mainstream of human rights activities of the United Nations system.
The High Commissioner summarized his first six months in office, he had ‘sought during the first six months of his mandate to open avenues of action for the United Nations human rights programme in keeping within his mandate. Priority areas [had] been the promotion of international cooperation in human rights and strengthening coordination within the United Nations system.’214
In June 1994, the Security Council welcomed the visit by the High Commissioner to Rwanda and the region shortly after taking up his office and noted the appointment by the Commission on Human Rights of a Special Rapporteur for Rwanda. Later that year, the Security Council, as it set up the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), took (p. 756) note of the reports of the Special Rapporteur. By November 1994, the Security Council mentioned
the deployment of human rights officers to Rwanda by the High Commissioner for Human Rights in order to monitor the ongoing human rights situation … and the establishment of a more secure environment and thus facilitate the return of refugees and displaced persons, and to implement programmes of technical cooperation in the field of human rights, particularly in the area of administration of justice.
This marked the ‘mainstreaming’ of human rights in issues of peace and security.215
In 1995, in the context of the search for strengthening the implementation of economic, social and cultural rights, the Commission welcomed ‘the dialogue which [had] been established between human rights bodies, in particular the Centre for Human Rights as coordinating focal point, and other bodies of the United Nations system, including the international financial institutions’.216
The Commission encouraged these institutions ‘to increase their participation in the meetings of human rights bodies, including the treaty monitoring bodies, as well as to assess the impact of their policies and programmes on the enjoyment of human rights’.217
At the same session, the Commission asked the High Commissioner to undertake ‘in cooperation with the joint and co-sponsored United Nations programme on HIV/AIDS, non-governmental agencies and other actors in the field, the task of elaborating guidelines on promoting and protecting respect for human rights in the context of HIV/AIDS’.218
Consistent with the focus on the implementation of economic, social and cultural rights, the emergence of the HIV/AIDS pandemic brought about coordination between World Health Organization (WHO) and the Commission on Human Rights. As seen earlier, the topic reached the Commission agenda in the late 1980s. A Global Consultation on AIDS was convened in July 1989,219 followed by two others in 1996 (23–25 September 1996) and 2002 (25–26 July 2002). (See Chapter 2, 1987—Health)
In 1996, in the context of the human rights of women, the Commission called for ‘intensified effort at the international level to integrate the equal status and human rights of women into the mainstream of United Nations system-wide activity’ and encouraged ‘the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, within his mandate … to coordinate the activities of relevant United Nations organs, bodies and mechanisms dealing with human rights in considering violations of the human rights of women’.220
The High Commissioner reported on the mainstreaming process in his annual reports in succeeding years. In 1996, reporting on cooperation within the United Nations system, the High Commissioner reported:
(p. 757)
Coordination within the United Nations system is probably one of the most difficult challenges. Progress has been made, however. The Administrative Committee on Coordination (ACC),221 when it met in the spring of 1994, had human rights on its agenda for the first time ever. On that occasion, the High Commissioner stressed to ACC the need for a permanent dialogue within the system to promote human rights through the systematic exchange of information, experience and expertise. The members of ACC concluded that session by affirming the commitment of all the agencies to the implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action.222
In his report to the General Assembly that year, the High Commissioner referred to
initiatives aimed at concluding working agreements or memoranda of understanding with programmes and agencies. These define[d] the framework for cooperation at the operational level. In 1994 a joint work –programme was signed between the Centre for human rights and UNICEF, and in 1995 memoranda of understanding were signed with UNESCO and with the United Nations Volunteers programme.223
Integrating the Great Enterprise into the UN system (1997)
Mainstreaming gathered momentum in parallel to the process of rationalization of the work of the Commission in the post-Vienna period (see Chapter 4.C, Rationalization (1992–2006)). The Office of the High Commissioner in turn needed to adapt its internal organization to support the expanding work programme of the Commission, whilst enhancing interaction with the other sectors of the UN system.
In 1996, the High Commissioner made the point that ‘human rights, as the moral foundation of international relations, must permeate all activities of the United Nations. The need for cooperation and coordination of the related efforts [had been] forcefully stressed by the World Conference in 1993’.224
The High Commissioner expressed the view that
The complementarity of United Nations programmes [was] becoming a reality. This perspective was adopted in the Medium-Term Plan (1998-2001) for human rights and provided the framework for the restructuring of the High Commissioner/Centre for Human Rights. The United Nations human rights programme [was] part of the United Nations programme and require[d] the continuing support of other United Nations agencies and programmes… Today’s expectations result[ed] from recent positive experience: Cooperation with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and UNDP in establishing national human rights institutions in Latvia and Mongolia, a stand-by agreement with (p. 758) the Norwegian Resource Bank for Democracy and Human Rights (NORDEM) … cooperation with the International Commission of Jurists in establishing the field office in Colombia, support by the European Union for the programmes in Burundi, Colombia and Rwanda, support for the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Memoranda of Understanding with UNESCO, the United Nations Volunteer programme, and with the International Human Rights Institute in Strasbourg and the Andean Commission of Jurists [were] examples of extended partnerships.225
Mainstreaming proved to be an ongoing process: in 2013, for example, the Council held a ‘high-level panel discussion on the mainstreaming of human rights throughout the United Nations system’.226
OHCHR website launched (1996)
In the same report, the High Commissioner announced the launch of the UN Human Rights Website on 10 December 1996, Human Rights Day, ‘to meet the need for timely and worldwide dissemination of information on human rights’227 as well as the development of ‘an integrated human rights information system, which require[d] a basic change in the existing procedure of human rights information management’.228
The introduction of information technology, following on from the introduction of word-processing some years earlier, brought a new approach to communication, information storage and analysis and therefore to the work of the various procedures, including the treaty monitoring system, the support for special procedures, and the preparation and dissemination of human rights education materials and related programmes. The Great Enterprise had truly entered the modern era.229
As the inter-agency body at the Chief Executive level, the Administrative Committee on Coordination (restyled Chief Executives Board for Coordination—CEB)230 provided an important forum for the mainstreaming of human rights activities. Over the years, human rights was gradually inserted into the CEB agenda and work programme.
The Great Enterprise goes overseas (1993)
Technical cooperation activities emerged as a result of the evolution in special procedures, as epitomised in the example cited earlier in the case of the Special Envoy on Bolivia in 1982. (See Chapter 6.A, 1981—Bolivia) In the years that followed, more countries requested technical assistance, leading to the establishment of programmes of technical cooperation, some necessitating the presence of human rights personnel on site.
(p. 759) Special procedures teams had long undertaken visits to countries as part of their procedures, but there was not yet a human rights presence outside the headquarters offices in Geneva and New York. It was in 1993 that the Great Enterprise received its first overseas assignment. That year, the Commission on Human Rights asked the Secretary-General ‘to ensure a continued United Nations human rights presence in Cambodia after the expiry of the mandate of the United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia, inter alia through the operational presence of the Centre for Human Rights’. The Commission also decided on the appointment of a Special Representative (Michael Kirby) ‘to maintain contact with the Government and the people of Cambodia … to guide and coordinate the United Nations human rights presence in Cambodia … to assist the Government in the promotion and protection of human rights’.231
Activities in the field increased rapidly. Offices were established in Rwanda232 and Burundi in 1994.233 (See Chapter 6.A, 1994—Rwanda) In 1994, the General Assembly asked for an ‘adequate monitoring presence in Kosovo’.234
In 1998 the High Commissioner reported ‘field activities [were] being carried out through offices or presences in 15 countries or territories staffed by over 200 individuals’ each with its own with mandate.
These field offices [were] organized in a number of ways. Some [were] part of wider United Nations presences, while some [were] organized in cooperation with other organizations such as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe or offices directly set up by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.235
In 1999, the number of presences had risen to twenty countries, making a total of forty countries where technical cooperation activities were being carried out.236
Reporting in 2000, the High Commissioner recalled:
Starting in 1992 with the deployment of two officers in Zagreb with the mandate to provide support to the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the countries of the former Yugoslavia, following a recommendation of the Commission on Human Rights the same year OHCHR established an office in Cambodia with a comprehensive mandate. Since then, field presences [had] been established with diversified profiles to meet needs at the national level, from the human rights field operation in Rwanda in 1994—to date the largest OHCHR field presence—to the establishment of relatively small field presences linked to the implementation of technical cooperation projects such as those in Malawi, Mongolia, and the Gaza Strip.237
(p. 760) Field offices
In 1996, the High Commissioner reported:
Human rights field presence, either in the form of field operations or field offices, [was] one of the major innovations in the implementation of the human rights programme in recent years. There [was] a variety of forms in which field presence [was] manifested, ranging from one professional staff office, such as in Malawi, to an operation in Rwanda involving more than 120 staff. In some countries, the human rights presence [had] been established as an autonomous project, in others it supports a broader United Nations involvement as in the case of the human rights programme for Abkhazia, Georgia. In some cases, the operations integrate[d] assistance and monitoring functions, whereas in others they [were] mandated exclusively in the area of technical assistance.238
The following year the High Commissioner shared further:
Experience has proved that the effective implementation of human rights [was] greatly facilitated by activities in situ … Some operations integrate[d] assistance and monitoring functions, whereas others [were] mandated exclusively in the area of technical assistance. The flexibility of the human rights field presence [was] one of its strongest assets. In 1992 there were no human rights field activities; the High Commissioner/Centre for human rights now [had] offices in 11 countries in all regions. Recently, human rights field offices [had] been opened in Abkhazia (Georgia), Colombia, Gaza (Palestine) and Zaire.239 (See above, Chapter 8.A. Technical cooperation (1987))
Complex projects,
or [those] requiring a longer period of implementation [were] often carried out with assistance of human rights presences in the field, acting as offices of OHCHR or components of larger United Nations operations … in 1999, in addition to the technical cooperation field presences in El Salvador, Guatemala, Mongolia, Palestine, South Africa, southern Africa and Togo, which [had] been operational for several years, new presences were established in Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Indonesia and Uganda. The sub-regional office based in Pretoria continued to implement and facilitate the implementation of activities at the regional level as well as in various countries of the southern African region. The Afghanistan presence, which operat[ed] from the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Activities (OCHA) in Islamabad, [was] responsible for assisting other United Nations agencies in integrating a human rights dimension in their assistance programmes. A number of OHCHR field presences combining monitoring and technical cooperation mandates also carried out programmes and activities in Abkhazia-Georgia, Angola, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Cambodia, Croatia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia and Sierra Leone.240
(p. 761) In 2006, the High Commissioner presented a study on transitional justice activities undertaken by its field presences and by its human rights components of peacekeeping operations.241 A typical case was that of Tunisia in 2011, when the Council welcomed
the process of political transition that … started in Tunisia and the commitment of the transitional Government of Tunisia to fully realize the universal values of human dignity, liberty, democracy and human rights … [and took] … note of the assessment mission of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to Tunisia and … the decision, … to set up a country office of the Office of the High Commissioner in Tunisia.242
Human rights advisers
The UN system reforms of 1997 and 2002 were reflected in field operations with the formation of ‘Country Teams’ (UNCTs)—comprising the agencies and programmes active in the country, headed by a Resident Coordinator. The High Commissioner reported in 2006 that he was
encouraged by the increasing number of Resident and Humanitarian Coordinators, UNCTs and Special Representatives of the Secretary-General, who [were] actively integrating human rights in their work and by applying human rights-based approaches. To support these efforts, OHCHR … provided advisory services through its headquarters, regional and country offices as well as through human rights advisers deployed to Resident Coordinator’s Offices.243
Human rights and human development (1998)
In the late 1980s, the UN Development Programme (UNDP) developed the notion of ‘human development’ and in 1990 produced its first Human Development Report. The process coincided with the opening up of technical assistance in the human rights programme, the establishment of the Voluntary Fund for Technical Assistance in the Field of Human Rights (1987) and the emergence of mainstreaming of human rights into the United Nations development system, described earlier.
The report developed the Human Development Index, described as ‘a summary measure of average achievement in key dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life, being knowledgeable and have a decent standard of living’. States were ranked according to their score of ‘the geometric mean of normalized indices for each of the three dimensions’.244
The 2000 version of the Human Development Report was dedicated to human rights. In introducing the report, the UNDP Administrator (Mark Malloch-Brown) wrote:
While the Report cite[d] and examine[d] many examples of egregious human rights violations across the world, it [was] not aimed at producing legalistic rankings of the worst offenders. Instead, it [was] intended primarily to help promote practical action that put a (p. 762) human rights–based approach to human development and poverty eradication firmly on the global agenda.245
UNDAF (1998)
The reform of 1997 enabled the mainstreaming of human rights through the presence of the High Commissioner on the Executive Committees established in that reform. The Executive Committee on Development (later the United Nations Development Group or UNDG) coordinated by UNDP, served as the channel for human rights into development activities. A new approach to programming was introduced on a trial basis in 1998: UNDP issued its policy Integrating human rights with sustainable human development. This led to the drawing up of the United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF). Its purpose was ‘to achieve goal-oriented collaboration in preparing a single framework with common objectives and time-frame’.246
The World Bank launched its Comprehensive Development Framework in January 1999.247
It was during this period that the term ‘Human rights-based approach’ (HRBA) first emerged, following the introduction of the cooperation between the Office of the High Commissioner and the UNDP starting in 1998.
UNDP focused on three strategic areas of intervention:
The Framework was adopted by UNDP after the initial piloting stages and was applied since then. Together with the Common Country Analysis (CCA), it became the procedure followed by Country Teams in developing programmes.
HURIST (1998–2005)
In 1999, the first joint programme was signed between UNDP and OHCHR to support the integration of human rights with human development. The programme, Human Rights Strengthening (HURIST), enabled the introduction of a human rights-based approach to UNDP’s work.
According to a 2005 UNDP Practice Note, activities included the drawing up of National Action Plans for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, Human Rights (p. 763) Programme Reviews, Poverty Reduction and Human Rights, Parliamentary Development and Human Rights, Human Rights and the Environment, Decentralised Governance and Human Rights, and Human Rights and the Police.249
In the annual report to donors in 2004, the High Commissioner addressed cooperation with UNDP on the implementation of the HURIST project:
active in some 30 countries worldwide, HURIST pilot[ed] a human rights based approach to UNDP activities and explore[d] capacity development for a human rights-based approach to poverty reduction, indigenous peoples, the environment, access to justice and parliamentary development. In 2004, HURIST supported human rights-based reviews of seven UNDP country programmes in China, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Rwanda. It also focused on building capacities in UNDP Regional Resource Centres … Pilot projects were also launched under HURIST in Ecuador and Kenya focusing on indigenous people’s rights; and another pilot project was launched in Timor-Leste to promote better integration of human rights treaty reporting.250
Footnotes:
1 Economic and Social Council, resolution 1990/48 of 25 May 1990,
3 E/CN.4/1982/30, resolution 1982/26 of 10 March 1982.
4 E/CN.4/1982/30 paras 266–280, and resolution 1982/26 of 10 March 1982.
5 E/CN.4/1982/30, resolution 1982/27 of 11 March 1982.
6 See Charter of the United Nations, Article 2.
7 E/CN.4/1475, resolution 29 (XXXVII) of 11 March 1981.
8 Funding was a chronic obstacle in the way of the expansion of the work of the Commission; notably, the creation of special procedures, originally not envisaged in the budget, were provided for on an ad hoc basis by seeking approval for each activity from the budgetary organs. The Director of the Division on Human Rights, Theo van Boven, underlined the problem in his last statement to the Commission (SR 14, para 73).
9 General Assembly fortieth session, resolution 40/116 of 13 December 1985.
11 E/CN.4/1983/30 para 16 See also: E/CN.4/1445 para 16:
In accordance with General Assembly resolution 926 (x) the programme of advisory services also provides for the advisory services of experts in the field of human rights. Since the inception of the programme in I956 only a few Governments have availed themselves of these expert services. The Secretary-General wishes to inform the Commission that, depending on the availability of funds, this component of the advisory services programme is still in existence and that he would welcome the interest of Member States in this regard.
12 E/CN.4/1986/34 and Adds 1–6.
13 E/CN.4/1986/65, resolution 1986/52 of 13 March 1986.
14 E/CN.4/1986/65, resolution 1986/52 of 13 March 1986.
15 E/CN.4/1987/33 para 13.
16 A/43/711 para 16: ‘Since 1979, the Commission on Human Rights has each year adopted a specific resolution on the development of public information activities in the field of human rights (E/CN.4/1347, resolution 23 (XXXV) of 14 March 1979, E/CN.4/1408, resolution 24 (XXXVI) of 11 March 1980, E/CN.4/1475, resolution 24 (XXXVII) of 10 March 1981, E/CN.4/1982/30, resolution 1982/42 of 11 March 1982, E/CN.4/1983/60, resolution 1983/50 of 10 March 1983, E/CN.4/1984/77, resolution 1984/58 of 15 March 1984, E/CN.4/1985/66, resolution 1985/49 of 14 March 1985, E/CN.4/1986/65, resolution1986/54 of 13 March 1986, E/CN.4/1987/60, resolution 1987/39 of 10 March 1987, and E/CN.4/1988/88, resolution 1988/74 of 10 March 1988).’
17 E/CN.4/1987/60, resolution 1987/38 of 10 March 1987.
18 E/CN.4/1988/88, resolution 1988/53 of 8 March 1988.
19 E/CN.4/1992/84, resolution 1992/80 of 5 March 1992; E/CN.4/1993/122, resolution 1993/87 of 10 March 1993.
20 E/CN.4/1996/177, resolution 1996/55 of 19 April 1996.
21 E/CN.4/1997/150, resolution 1997/46 of 11 April 1997.
22 E/CN.4/1997/150, resolution 1997/46 of 11 April 1997.
25 E/CN.4/1998/177, resolution 1998/57 of 17 April 1998.
27 E/CN.4/1999/167, resolutions 1999/73 and 1999/74 of 28 April 1999.
28 E/CN.4/2000/105 I.B paras 6–8, and Annex. See also E/CN.4/2002/116.
29 E/CN.4/2000/105 I.B paras 6–8, and Annex; E/CN.4/2004/99 Annex I. See also E/CN.4/2000/167, resolution 2000/80 of 26 April 2000; E/CN.4/2002/200, resolution 2002/87 of 26 April 2002; E/CN.4/2004/127, resolution 2004/81 of 21 April 2004.
30 A/HRC/18/2, resolution 18/18 of 29 September 2011. See also E/CN.4/1993/122, resolution 1993/87 of 10 March 1993 and E/CN.4/2004/127, resolution 2004/81 of 21 April 2004.
31 A/HRC/21/2, resolution 21/21 of 27 September 2012.
32 A/HRC/27/2, resolution 27/20 of 25 September 2014.
33 A/HRC/27/2, resolution 27/20 of 25 September 2014.
34 A/HRC/30/2, resolution 30/21 of 2 October 2015. See A/HRC/31/80.
35 A/HRC/33/2, resolution 33/28 of 30 September 2016.
36 A/72/53 Add.1, resolution 36/28 of 29 September 2017.
37 A/HRC/39/2, resolution 39/18 of 28 September 2018.
38 A/HRC/18/2, resolution 18/18 of 29 September 2011; A/HRC/26/51. See also E/CN.4/2006/104; A/HRC/4/94; A/HRC/7/74; A/HRC/10/57 and Corr.1; A/HRC/13/61; A/HRC/16/66; A/HRC/20/34; A/HRC/23/16; A/HRC/26/51; A/HRC/32/51; A/HRC/34/74; A/HRC/37/79; A/HRC/40/78.
39 E/CN.4/1982/30, resolution 1982/33 of 11 March 1982.
40 E/CN.4/1982/30, resolution 1982/37 of 11 March 1982.
41 E/CN.4/1982/30, resolution 1982/34 of 11 March 1982.
42 E/CN.4/1983/30 para 17.
43 E/CN.4/1475, resolution 15 (XXXVII) of 9 March 1981.
44 E/CN.4/1994/132, resolution 1994/88 of 9 March 1994.
45 E/CN.4/1985/30 para 3.
46 E/CN.4.1985/30 para 4, citing A/39/484.
47 E/CN.4.1985/30 para 4, citing A/39/484.
48 E/CN.4/1985/66, resolution 1985/26 of 11 March 1985.
49 E/CN.4/1985/34 para 5.
50 E/CN.4/1988/88, resolution 1988/54 of 6 March 1988.
51 E/CN.4/1987/60, resolution 1987/37 of 10 March 1987.
52 E/CN.4/1987/60, resolution 1987/38 of 10 March 1987.
53 General Assembly forty-third session, resolution 43/128 of 8 December 1988.
54 General Assembly forty-third session, resolution 43/128 of 8 December 1988.
55 General Assembly forty-third session, resolution 43/128 of 8 December 1988.
56 A/HRC/6/22, resolution 6/10 of 28 September 2007.
57 General Assembly eighteenth session, resolution 1961 (XVIII) of 12 December 1963.
58 General Assembly twentieth session, resolution 2081 (XX) of 20 December 1965.
59 General Assembly twenty-third session, resolution 2442 (XXIII) of 19 December 1968 endorsed the Proclamation of Teheran.
60 A/CONF.32/41 resolution I of 7 May 1968.
61 General Assembly forty-fourth session, resolution 44/156 of 15 December 1989. See also A/44/848 Report of the Third Committee, and A/44/PV.52.
62 E/CN.4/1990/94, decision 1990/110 of 7 March 1990.
63 General Assembly forty-fifth session, resolution 45/155 of 18 December 1990.
64 General Assembly forty-fifth session, resolution 45/155 of 18 December 1990.
65 General Assembly forty-fifth session, resolution 45/155 of 18 December 1990. See also E/CN.4/1991/91, resolution 1991/30 of 5 March 1991 Annex.
66 A/CONF.157/PC/54, decision PC.3/3, Annex Section XI Rule 60.
67 General Assembly forty-fifth session, resolution 45/155 of 18 December 1990 para 7.
69 A/46/24 decision PC/1.
70 A/46/24 decision PC/3.
71 A/46/24 decision PC/4.
72 A/CONF.157/PC/60 and Adds 1–7: The following were the topics addressed:
(a) Objective 1: Jean Mayer, ‘Progress and obstacles in the implementation of human rights: review of the period 1945-1992 and suggestions for the future’ (b) Objective 2: Hubert Wieland Conroy, ‘On the relation between development and the enjoyment of all human rights, recognizing the importance of creating the conditions whereby everyone may enjoy these rights’ (c) Objectives 1 and 2: Sergio Pinheiro, ‘Poverty, marginalization, violence and the realization of human rights’ (d) Objective 3: Fausto Pocar, ‘Enhancing the universal application of human rights standards and instruments’; (e) Objective 4: Maxime Tardu, ‘The effectiveness of United Nations methods and mechanisms in the field of human rights: a critical overview’; (f) Objective 5: Nigel Rodley, ‘Towards a more effective and integrated system of human rights protection by the United Nations’ (g) Objective 6: Maria Vassiliou, ‘Strengthening of the United Nations human rights programme: one of the priorities of the Organization’.
73 A/46/24 decision PC/5.
75 General Assembly forty-seventh session, resolution 47/122 of 18 December 1992 The approval of the provisional agenda was ‘on the understanding that participants can raise issues of interest to them under the appropriate agenda item at the fourth session of the preparatory committee and at the Conference for possible inclusion in the final text’.
76 A/CONF.157/PC/98 Report of the Preparatory Committee for the World Conference fourth session, decision PC.4/3 of 7 May 1993 sets out the composition of the General Committee as follows:
35 members to be made up of the following: the President, 29 Vice-Presidents, the Rapporteur-General, 2 Chairmen of the main committees, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee and the Chairman of the Credentials Committee, and that the 35 offices should be distributed as follows: Africa: 9 offices, Asia: 8 offices, Eastern European: 4 offices, Latin American and the Caribbean: 7 offices, Western European and other States: 7 offices.
78 A/CONF.157/AFRM/14 – A/CONF.157/PC/57.
79 A/CONF.157/AFRM/14–A/CONF.157/PC/57.
80 A/CONF.157/AFRM/14–A/CONF.157/PC/57.
81 A/CONF.157/LACRM/15–A/CONF.157/PC/58.
82 A/CONF.157/LACRM/15–A/CONF.157/PC/58.
83 A/CONF.157/ASRM/8–A/CONF.157/PC/59 I, page 3.
84 A/CONF.157/ASRM/8–A/CONF.157/PC/59 I. pages 4–5.
85 E/CN.4/1992/43 and Adds 1 and 2; A/CONF.157/PC/6/Add.7/Rev.1; PC/7; PC/32;/PC/42/Rev.1 and Adds 1–12, PC/43; PC/65; PC/71; PC/66; and Adds 1 and 2; PC/73; PC/76; PC/77; PC/78; PC/79; PC/81; PC/84; PC/85/Rev.1; PC/86; PC/89; PC/93; PC/95; PC/96A/CONF.157/AFRM/5.
86 A/CON.157/PC/54 decision P.3/2 of 18 September 1982.
87 A/CONF.157/AFRM/14-A/CONF.157/PC/57 III para 4; A/CONF.157/LACRM/15 II para 6; A/CONF.157/ASRM/8-A/CONF/157/PC/59 II. A para 6; A/CONF.157/PC/85.
88 A/CONF.157/PC/63/Add.30; A/CONF.157/PC/85; A/CONF.157/PC/42/Add.5; A/CONF.157/PC/42/Add.4; A/CONF.157/PC/63/Add.6; Add.14; Add.15; Add.22; Add.22; Add.24; Add.25; Add.26; Add.30.
89 A/CONF.157/AFRM/14—A/CONF.157/PC/57 III. A para 4. See also A/CONF.157/AFRM/2; AFRM/4; AFRM/11.
92 A/CONF.157/7 and Add.1.
93 See, for example, A/CONF.157/PC/70.
96 A/CONF.157/24 (Part I), para 27.
97 A/CONF.157/24 (Part I) I C para 17. See also A/CONF.157/Misc.1/ and Adds 1–3.
98 A/CONF.157/24 (Part I) I. C. paras 19 and 20.
99 A/CONF.157/11 Annex I and Annex II. The Laureates participating in the Vienna gathering were:
Individual personalities: Dr. Norman E. Borlaug (award 1970); Mrs. Betty Williams (1976); Mr. Adolfo Perez Esquivel (1980); Mr. Tenzin Gyatso, The Fourteenth Dalai Lama of Tibet (1989); Mrs. Rigoberta Menchú Tum (1992). Institutions and organizations: The Institute for International Law (1904) represented by Mr. Christian Dominicé; the International Committee of the Red Cross (1917, 1944, 1963) represented by Mr. Dietrich Schindler; the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) (1947) represented by Mrs. Brenda Bailey; the American Friends Service Committee (1947) represented by Mr. Stephen Cary; the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (1954, 1981) represented by Mrs. Sadako Ogata; the Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (1963) represented by Mr. George Weber; the United Nations Childrens’ Fund (1965) represented by Mr. Samir Sanad Basta; the International Labour Office (1969) represented by Mr. Heribert Maier; Amnesty International (1977) represented by Mr. Pierre Sané; the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (1985) represented by Co-President Dr. Mikhael Kuzin … Furthermore, the President of the Polish Republic, H.E. Mr. Lech Walesa, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate 1983, who was not in a position to come to the gathering of Laureates in Vienna, sent a special message of his own to the World Conference.
100 A/CONF.157/TBB/1 to 4 and TBB/4 Add.1; A/CONF.157/PC/62/Add.11/Rev.1.
102 A/CONF.157/NI/7/Rev.1. See also: A/CONF.157/PC/92/Add.2.
103 A/CONF.157/PC/42/Add.2; Add.6 and Add.11; A/CONF.157/PC/61 and Adds; A/CONF.157/61/Rev.1; A/CONF.157/PC/62 and Adds.
110 A/CONF.157/23 Part I pages 3–13 paras 1–39.
111 A/CONF.157/23 Part II pages 13–28 paras 1–100.
112 General Assembly forty-eighth session, resolution 48/121 of 20 December 1992.
113 E/CN.4/1994/132, resolution 1994/95 of 9 March 1994.
114 E/CN.4/1997/150, resolution 1997/69 of 16 April 1997.
115 E/CN.4/1998/104. See also E/CN.4/1998/177, resolution 1998/78 of 22 April 1998.
116 A/HRC/21/2 resolution 21/20 of 27 September 2012.
118 E/CN.4/891 paras 7–25, especially para 25.
119 E/CN.4/940, resolution 14 (XXIII) of 22 March 1967.
120 E/CN.4/940, resolution 14 (XXIII) of 22 March 1967.
121 General Assembly eighteenth session, resolution 3136 (XXVIII) of 14 December 1973. See also Assembly resolution 3221 (XXIX) of 6 November 1974.
122 E/CN.4/Sub.2/495, resolution 12 (XXXIV) of 10 September 1981.
123 E/CN.4/1982/30, resolution 1982/22 of 10 March 1982.
124 Notably the redesignation of the Division of Human Rights as a Centre for Human Rights with an Assistant Secretary-General as its Director. It also invited the Secretary-General to address it and encouraged the resort to good offices as a means of addressing human rights issues. See also E/CN.4/1408 and Add.1 resolutions 22 (XXXVI) of 28 February 1980, 27 (XXXVI) of 11 March 1980 and 28 (XXXVI) of 11 March 1980.
125 E/CN.4/1475 decision 6 (XXXVII) of 10 March 1981.
126 General Assembly thirty-sixth session, resolution 36/135 of 14 December 1981.
127 E/CN.4/1982/30, resolution 1982/22 of 10 March 1982 and resolution 1982/40 of 11 March 1982.
128 E/CN.4/1983/60, resolution 1983/49 of 10 March 1983.
129 General Assembly forty-eighth session, resolution 48/141 of 20 December 1993.
130 A/CONF.157/23 Part II A.
131 E/CN.4/1994/SR 52 paras 1–24.
132 E/CN.4/1994/132 paras 3, 4, and 63.
133 E/CN.4/1997/150 resolution 1997/68 of 16 April 1997.
134 General Assembly fiftieth session, resolution 50/187 of 22 December 1995. See also Commission resolution 1996/83 of 24 April 1996.
135 A/51/950 paras 197 and 198 Action 14.
137 General Assembly forty-eighth session, resolution 48/141 of 20 December 1993 op para 4. See also General Assembly fiftieth session, resolution 50/187 of 22 December 1995.
142 A/51/950 para 198, Action 14.
146 A/51/950 para 201 Action 15 (a).
148 A/51/950 para 206; Actions 15 and 16.
149 General Assembly fifty-fifth session, resolution 55/2 of 8 September 2000 Section V.
150 General Assembly fifty-fifth session, resolution 55/2 of 8 September 2000, para 32.
154 A/56/326 V paras 195–224.
161 A/58/351. See also General Assembly fifty-seventh session, resolution 57/300 of 20 December 2002.
167 A/59/565 para 2:
I asked Anand Panyarachun, former Prime Minister of Thailand, to chair the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, which included the following eminent persons from around the world, who represent a wide range of experience and expertise: Robert Badinter (France), João Baena Soares (Brazil), Gro Harlem Brundtland (Norway), Mary Chinery Hesse (Ghana), Gareth Evans (Australia), David Hannay (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), Enrique Iglesias (Uruguay), Amre Moussa (Egypt), Satish Nambiar (India), Sadako Ogata (Japan), Yevgeny Primakov (Russian Federation), Qian Qiqian (China), Salim Salim (United Republic of Tanzania), Nafis Sadik (Pakistan) and Brent Scowcroft (United States of America).
171 A/59/565 Part two and Part four.
172 A/59/565 Part four XVIII paras 282–291.
173 A/59/565 XVIII para 285.
174 A/59/565 XVIII para 291.
175 A/59/565. See also Annex I.
181 A/59/2005 para 144, emphasis added.
182 A/59/2005 paras 181–183.
183 General Assembly sixtieth session, resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006.
184 General Assembly seventieth session, resolution 70/1 of 25 September 2015.
185 General Assembly seventieth session, resolution 70/1 of 25 September 2015 Preamble.
186 A/HRC/37/2, resolution 37/24 of 23 March 2018.
187 A/HRC/37/2, resolution 37/25 of 23 March 2018. See A/70/684; E/2017/66.
188 General Assembly Eighteenth session, resolution 1776 (XVIII) of 7 December 1962.
189 E/CN.4/832/Rev.1 para 313.
191 E/CN.4/857, resolution 8 (XIX) of 3 April 1963.
192 These include the Committee on Programme and Coordination, the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions, and the Fifth (Budgetary) Committee of the General Assembly.
193 General Assembly twentieth session, resolution 2027 (XX) of 18 November 1965.
194 E/CN.4/1154, resolution 10 (XXX) of 5 March 1974.
195 E/CN.4/1179, resolution 10 (XXXI) of 5 March 1975. The Commission, ‘taking into account the need for establishing unified long-term programme of work for the Commission’, asked for reports on:
196 E/CN.4/1191 Introduction.
197 E/CN.4/1191 Introduction.
200 E/CN.4/1193 para 167, emphasis added.
201 E/CN.4/1213 para 100.
202 E/CN.4/1213 para 101.
203 E/CN.4/1257, resolution 3 (XXXIII) of 21 February 1977.
204 General Assembly thirty-second session, resolution 32/130 of 16 December 1977.
205 E/CN.4/1179, resolution 10 (XXXI) of 5 March 1975.
206 E/CN.4/1991/91, resolution 1991/22 of 5 March 1991.
207 E/AC.51/1989/2 Recommendation 8, paras 129, 130.
208 E/CN.4/1993/122, resolution 1993/14 of 26 February 1993.
209 Such as E/CN.4/1990/94, resolution 1990/17 of 23 February 1990, and E/CN.4/1992/84, resolution 1992/10 of 21 February 1992.
210 See, for instance, E/CN.4/Sub. 2/1989/19; E/CN.4/Sub. 2/1990/19; E/CN.4/Sub.2/1991/17; E/CN.4/Sub.2/1992/16; E/CN.4/1990/94, resolution 1990/18 of 23 February 1990; E/CN.4/1990/9/Rev.1; E/CN.4/1991/91, resolution 1991/13 of 22 February 1991 and E/CN.4/1992/84, resolution 1992/9 of 21 February 1992.
211 General Assembly forty-eighth session, resolution 48/141 of 20 December 1993.
214 A/49/36 X paras 84, 87, 107, 117.
215 Security Council resolutions 925 (1994) of 8 June 1994, 955 of 8 November 1994 and 965 of 30 November 1994.
216 E/CN.4/1995/176, resolution 1995/15 of 24 February 1995, emphasis added.
217 E/CN.4/1995/176, resolution 1995/15 of 24 February 1995.
218 E/CN.4/1995/176, resolution 1995/45 of 3 March 1995.
220 E/CN.4/1996/177, resolution 1996/48 of 19 April 1996.
221 The Administrative Committee on Coordination (ACC), now restyled the United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination (CEB), ‘brings together the Chief Executives of 31 specialized agencies, to deliver as one at the global, regional, and country levels’. They consist of “15 specialized agencies established by intergovernmental agreement; 3 Related Organizations; and 12 funds and programmes created by the United Nations General Assembly’. See http://www.unsceb.org visited on 28 January 2020.
222 E/CN.4/1996/103 para 31.
223 A/50/36 IV A paras 88 and 89.
224 A/CONF.157/23 Section II A. See E/CN.4/1997/98.
225 E/CN.4/1997/98. See also E/CN.4/1996/177, resolution 1996/78 of 23 April 1996, emphasis added.
226 A/HRC/22/2, PRST 22/1 of 22 March 2013.
227 E/CN.4/1997/98 para 48.
228 E/CN.4/1997/98, para 49. Known as HURICANE (Human Rights Integrated Comparative Analysis Environment), it was to provide a window to human rights-relevant information within the various components of the Office of the High Commissioner, and links to the other sectors of the UN system.
231 E/CN.4/1993/122, resolution 1993/6 of 19 February 1993.
232 See, for example, E/CN.4/1996/111.
233 E/CN.4/1995/98 paras 29 and 36.
234 General Assembly forty-ninth session, resolution 49/204 of 23 December 1994. See also E/CN.4/1995/98 para 37.
235 E/CN.4/1998/122 para 119.
237 E/CN.4/2000/12/Add.1 Addendum para 13 et seq, emphasis added.
239 E/CN.4/1997/98 para 29, emphasis added.
240 E/CN.4/2000/105 I.B paras 6–8, and Annex.
242 A/HRC/16/2, resolution 16/19 of 24 March 2011.
244 United Nations Development Programme—Human Development Report 2000 UNDP, Oxford University Press 2000.
245 United Nations Development Programme—Human Development Report 2000 UNDP, Oxford University Press 2000.
246 A/53/226 VIII B, and Add. 1, II B.
247 See, for example, Comprehensive Development Framework—Meeting the promise?—Early experience and emerging issues 17 September 2001 CDF Secretariat, the World Bank. The Framework was described as
an approach by which countries can achieve more effective poverty reduction. It emphasizes the interdependence of all elements of development—social, structural, human, governance, environmental, economic, and financial. It encompasses a set of principles to guide development and poverty reduction, including the provision of external assistance. The four CDF principles are: Long-term, holistic vision, Country ownership, Country-led partnership, Results focus. http://web.worldbank.org/archive/website01013/WEB/0__CO-14.HTM visited on 10 October 2019.
248 Human Rights in UNDP—Practice Note—April 2005.
249 Human Rights in UNDP—Practice Note—April 2005.
250 Annual Report 2004—Implementation of activities and use of funds—Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
251 General Assembly Forty-first session, resolution 41/128 of 4 December 1986.
252 See, for example, E/CN.4/1991/91, resolution 1991/13 of 22 February 1991 and E/CN.4/1992/84, resolutions 1992/9 and 1992/11 of 21 February 1992, E/CN.4/1993/122, resolution 1993/12 of 26 February 1993, E/CN.4/1994/132, resolutions 1994/11 and 1994/12 of 25 February 1994, E/CN.4/1995/176, resolution 1995/13 of 25 February 1995, E/CN.4/1996/177, resolution 1996/15 11 April 1966, E/CN.4/1997/150, resolution 1997/10 of 3 April 1997.
254 E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/45 resolution 1998/8 of 20 August 1998.
255 E/CN.4/2002/WG.2/WP1 and Adds.1 and 2.
256 E/CN.4/Sub.2/2002/46, resolution 2002/8 of 14 August 2002.
257 E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/12/Rev.2 adopted on 13 August 2003.
258 E/CN.4/2004/127 decision 2004/116 of 20 April 2004.
259 E/CN.4/2004/127 decision 2004/116 of 20 April 2004.
260 E/CN.4/2004/127 decision 2004/116 of 20 April 2004.
261 E/CN.4/2005/91 VI paras 37–40.
262 General Assembly fifty-fifth session, resolution 55/215 of 21 December 2000.
264 Press Release SG/SM/6881, 1 February 1999.
266 The 2017 summit: ‘The UN Global Compact Leaders Summit (21 September, New York) brings together an international community of leaders from business, civil society, academia, Government and the United Nations to accelerate local and global business action and partnerships to achieve the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)’ at https://www.unglobalcompact.org/take-action/events/leaders-summit-2017/faq. visited 28 January 2020.
267 A/58/227 paras 33–43.
268 The Foundation ‘is based on the principle that public-private collaboration is essential to find lasting solutions to pressing global problems’.
273 General Assembly, sixty-sixth session, resolution 66/223 of 12 December 2011. See also: General Assembly, sixty-eighth session, resolution 66/234 of 20 December 2013.
274 A/73/326; See also: A/56/323; A/58/227; A/60/214; A/64/337; A/66/320; A/68/326; A/70/296.
275 General Assembly seventy-third session, resolution 73/254 of 20 December 2018. See also resolutions 55/215 of 21 December 2000; 56/76 of 11 December 2001; 58/129 of 19 December 2003; 60/215 of 22 December 2005; 62/211 of 19 December 2007; 64/223 of 21 December 2009; 66/223 of 22 December 2011; 68/234 of 20 December 2013; 70/224 of 22 December 2015; decision 72/543 of 20 December 2017.
277 E/CN.4/2005/135 resolution 2005/69 of 20 April 2005.
279 A/HRC/4/35 and Corr.1 and Add.1–4 and A/HRC/4/74; See also: E/CN.4/2005/135 resolution 2005/69 of 20 April 2005.
280 A/HRC/8/5 paras 1, 5, 9.
281 A/HRC/8/5/Add.2. Addendum.
282 A/HRC/8/5/Add.1. Addendum. See also resolution 8/7 of 18 June 2008 and A/HRC/11/13.
284 A/HRC/17/31 paras 13 to 15 and Annex. See also HR/PUB/11/04.
285 A/HRC/17/2, resolution 17/4 of 16 June 2011.
287 A/HRC/17/2, resolution 17/4 of 18 June 2011.
289 A/HRC/20/29 IX paras 92–95.
290 A/HRC/17/2 resolution 17/4 of 16 June 2011:
… the Forum shall be open to the participation of States, United Nations mechanisms, bodies and specialized agencies, funds and programmes, intergovernmental organizations, regional organizations and mechanisms in the field of human rights, national human rights institutions and other relevant bodies, transnational corporations and other business enterprises, business associations, labour unions, academics and experts in the field of business and human rights, representatives of indigenous peoples and non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council; the Forum shall also be open to other non-governmental organizations whose aims and purposes are in conformity with the spirit, purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, including affected individuals and groups, based on arrangements, including Economic and Social Council resolution 1996/31 of 25 July 1996, and practices observed by the Commission on Human Rights, through an open and transparent accreditation procedure in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the Human Rights Council.
291 A/HRC/17/2 resolution 17/4 of 16 June 2011:
… the Forum shall be open to the participation of States, United Nations mechanisms, bodies and specialized agencies, funds and programmes, intergovernmental organizations, regional organizations and mechanisms in the field of human rights, national human rights institutions and other relevant bodies, transnational corporations and other business enterprises, business associations, labour unions, academics and experts in the field of business and human rights, representatives of indigenous peoples and non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council; the Forum shall also be open to other non-governmental organizations whose aims and purposes are in conformity with the spirit, purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, including affected individuals and groups, based on arrangements, including Economic and Social Council resolution 1996/31 of 25 July 1996, and practices observed by the Commission on Human Rights, through an open and transparent accreditation procedure in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the Human Rights Council.
292 A/HRC/FBHR/2012/4; A/HRC/FBHR/2013/34; AR/2014/3; A/HRC/FBHR/2015/2; A/HRC/FBHR/2016/2;
293 A/HRC/26/2 resolution 26/9 of 26 June 2014; The resolution qualified the term ‘other business enterprises [as denoting] all business enterprises that have a transnational character in their operational activities, and does not apply to local businesses registered in terms of relevant domestic law.’
294 A/HRC/26/2 resolution 26/9 of 26 June 2014.