Advertisement

The Use (or Misuse) of Amendments to Contest Human Rights Norms at the UN Human Rights Council

  • M. Joel VossEmail author
Article

Abstract

The development of international human rights norms and law is an often-contentious process. Despite significant gains from recent research on the development and implementation of human rights law, little research has focused on strategies of contestation prior to final outcome documents like resolutions, declarations, or treaties. Amendments to UN Human Rights Council resolutions are a form of contestation, particularly validity contestation that happens prior to the passage of Council resolutions. This paper examines the use of amendments by states using descriptive statistics from Council proceedings from 2006 through 2018 as well as case studies on women’s rights and civil society space to illustrate how states use amendments to frame their positions. Amendments are increasingly being used by states from the Global South to contest the validity of potential human rights norms at the Council. The long-term impacts of the use of amendments are an often overlooked but important part of the Council’s ability to promote and protect rights.

Keywords

International law Human rights Contestation Norms United Nations 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback on this piece and the University of Toledo for a generous grant for this research.

References

  1. A/HRC/33/L.3, 28 September 2016.Google Scholar
  2. A/HRC/38/L.1/Rev.1, 3 July 2018.Google Scholar
  3. Ahsan (2016), Bangladesh, Comments on Draft Resolution A/HRC/33/L.3/Rev.1, 30 September 2016.Google Scholar
  4. Al-Hammadi (2018), Qatar, Comments on Draft Resolution A/HRC/38/L.1/Rev.1, 5 July 2018.Google Scholar
  5. Alwasil (2018), Saudi Arabia, Comments on Draft Resolution A/HRC/38/L.1/Rev.1, 5 July 2018.Google Scholar
  6. Amendment L.46, A/HRC/32/L.46, 1 July 2016.Google Scholar
  7. Amendment L38, A/HRC/32/L.38, 1 July 2016.Google Scholar
  8. Andrabi (2018), Pakistan, Comments on Draft Resolution A/HRC/38/L.1/Rev.1, 5 July 2018.Google Scholar
  9. Ausderan (2014) How Naming and Shaming Affects Human Rights Perceptions in the Shamed Country. Journal of Peace Research 51: 81–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Azevêdo (2018), Brazil, Comments on Draft Resolution A/HRC/38/L.1/Rev.1, 5 July 2018.Google Scholar
  11. Balom'ma (2016), Togo, Comments on Draft Resolution A/HRC/32/L.28/Rev.1, 1 July 2016.Google Scholar
  12. Bob (2012) The Global Right Wing and the Clash of World Politics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Braithwaite, (2016a) United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Comments on Draft Resolution A/HRC/32/L.28/Rev.1, 1 July 2016.Google Scholar
  14. Braithwaite (2016b), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Comments on Draft Resolution A/HRC/32/L.29, 1 July 2016.Google Scholar
  15. Braithwaite (2018), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Comments on Draft Resolution A/HRC/38/L.1/Rev.1, 5 July 2018.Google Scholar
  16. Brunnée and Toope (2019) Norm Robustness and Contestation in International Law: Self-Defense Against Non-State Actors. Journal of Global Security Studies 4:73–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Brysk and Stohl (2017) Expanding Human Rights: 21st Century Norms and Governance (2017). Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Brysk and Stohl (2019) Contesting Human Rights: Norms, Institutions, and Practice. Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Camejo (2014), Cuba, Comments on Draft Resolution A/HRC/27/L.24, 26 September 2014.Google Scholar
  20. Carraro and Conzelmann (2019). Fears of Peers? Explaining Peer and Public Shaming in Global Governance. Cooperation and Conflict 54: 335–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Coleman (2011) Locating Norm Diplomacy: Venue Change in International Norm Negotiations. European Journal of International Relations 19: 163–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Deitelhoff and Zimmermann (2019) Norms Under Challenge: Unpacking the Dynamics of Norm Robustness. Journal of Global Security Studies 4:2–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dhaene (2016) Belgium, Comments on Draft Resolution A/HRC/32/L.29, 1 July 2016.Google Scholar
  24. Dietelhoff and Zimmermann (2018) Things We Lost in the Fire: How Different Types of Contestation Affect the Robustness of International Norms. International Studies Review 0:1–26.Google Scholar
  25. Eguiguren (2018), Chile, Comments on Draft Resolution A/HRC/38/L.37/Rev.1, 6 July 2018.Google Scholar
  26. Finnemore and Sikkink (1998) International Norm Dynamics and Political Change. International Organization 52:897–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fontana (2016), Switzerland, Comments on Draft Resolution A/HRC/32/L.29, 1 July 2016.Google Scholar
  28. Freedom (2013) The United Nations Human Rights Council: A critique and early assessment. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  29. Freedman (2015) Failing to Protect: The UN and the Politicization of Human Rights. Hurst, London.Google Scholar
  30. Greenhill (2010) The Company You Keep: International Socialization and the Diffusion of Human Rights Norms. International Studies Quarterly 54: 127–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Guillermet-Fernández (2014), Costa Rica, Comments on Draft Resolution A/HRC/27.L.24, 26 September 2014.Google Scholar
  32. Hafner-Burton (2008) Sticks and Stones: Naming and Shaming the Human Rights Enforcement Problem. International Organization 62: 689–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Harper (2014), United States of America, Comments on Draft Resolution A/HRC/27/L.24, 26 September 2014.Google Scholar
  34. Hathaway (2007) Why Do Countries Commit to Human Rights Treaties? Journal of Conflict Resolution 51: 588–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hill (2010) Estimating the Effects of Human Rights Treaties on State Behavior. The Journal of Politics 72: 1161–1174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hill (2016) Avoiding Obligation: Reservations to Human Rights Treaties.’ Journal of Conflict Resolution 60: 1129–1158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hug (2016) Dealing with Human Rights in International Organizations. Journal of Human Rights 15: 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hug and Lukács (2014) ‘Preferences or Blocs? Voting in the United Nations Human Rights Council.’ The Review of International Organizations 9:83–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Human Rights Council (2014), Civil Society Space, A/HRC/RES/27/31, 3 October 2014.Google Scholar
  40. Human Rights Council (2018), Civil Society Space: Engagement with international and regional organizations, A/HRC/RES/38/12, 16 July 2018.Google Scholar
  41. Isa (2018), Nigeria, Comments on Draft Resolution A/HRC/38/L.1/Rev.1, 5 July 2018.Google Scholar
  42. Jarasch (2016), Germany, Comments on Draft Resolution A/HRC/32/L.28/Rev.1, 1 July 2016.Google Scholar
  43. Jianhua (2018), China, Comments on Draft Resolution A/HRC/38/L.17/Rev.1, 6 July 2018.Google Scholar
  44. Jordaan (2014) South Africa and Abusive Regimes at the UN Human Rights Council. Global Governance 20:233–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Karklins (2016), Latvia, Comments on Draft Resolution A/HRC/32/L.28/Rev.1, 1 July 2016.Google Scholar
  46. Keith (1999) The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Does it Make a Difference in Human Rights Behavior? Journal of Peace Research 36: 95–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kumar (2016), India, Comments on Draft Resolution A/HRC/32/L.29, 1 July 2016.Google Scholar
  48. Lantis (2017) Theories of International Norm Contestation: Structure and Outcomes. Oxford Encyclopedia of Politics.Google Scholar
  49. Lebovic and Voeten (2006) The Politics of Shame: The Condemnation of Country Human Rights Practices in the UNCHR. International Studies Quarterly 50: 861–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Liang (2014), China, Comments on Draft Resolution A/HRC/27/L.24, 26 September 2014.Google Scholar
  51. Liera (2018), Mexico, Comments on Draft Resolution A/HRC/38/L.1/Rev.1, 5 July 2018.Google Scholar
  52. Mansfield (2018), Australia, Comments on Draft Resolution A/HRC/38/L.1/Rev.1, 5 July 2018.Google Scholar
  53. Mantilla (2019) Social Pressure and the Making of Wartime Civilian Protection Rules. European Journal of International Relations: 1–26.Google Scholar
  54. Martínez (2016), Paraguay, Comments on Draft Resolution A/HRC/32/L.28/Rev.1, 1 July 2016.Google Scholar
  55. Minty (2014), South Africa, Comments on Draft Resolution A/HRC/27/L.24, 26 September 2014.Google Scholar
  56. Muller and Wunderlich (2013) Norm Dynamics in Multilateral Arms Control: Interests, Conflicts, and Justice. University of Georgia Press, Athens.Google Scholar
  57. Muylle (2016), Belgium, Comments on Draft Resolution A/HRC/33/L.3/Rev.1, 30 September 2016.Google Scholar
  58. O’brien (2016), Ireland, Comments on Draft Resolution A/HRC/32/L.29, 1 July 2016.Google Scholar
  59. O'brien (2014), Ireland, Comments on Draft Resolution A/HRC/27.L.24, 26 September 2014.Google Scholar
  60. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (2014) A Practical Guide for Civil Society: Civil Society Space and the United Nations Human Rights System.Google Scholar
  61. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (2016) Practical recommendations for the creation and maintenance of a safe and enabling environment for civil society, based on good practices and lessons learned, A/HRC/32/20.Google Scholar
  62. Otto (1996) Nongovernmental Organizations in the United Nations System: The Emerging Role of International Civil Society. Human Rights Quarterly 18:107–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Podhorský (2018), Slovakia, Comments on Draft Resolution A/HRC/38/L.1/Rev.1, 5 July 2018.Google Scholar
  64. Pouliot and Thérien (2018) Global Governance: A Struggle over Universal Values. International Studies Review 20: 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rights Docs (2019), ‘Rights Docs, available at https://www.right-docs.org/ Accessed on 10 June 2019.
  66. Rodriguez (2016), Panama, Comments on Draft Resolution A/HRC/32/L.29, 1 July 2016.Google Scholar
  67. El Salvador (2016), Comments on Draft Resolution A/HRC/33/L.3/Rev.1, 30 September 2016.Google Scholar
  68. Sandholtz (2019) Norm Contestation, Robustness, and Replacement. Journal of Global Security Studies 4:139–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sandholtz and Stiles (2009) International Norms and Cycles of Change. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  70. Sikkink (2001) The Justice Cascade: How Human Rights Prosecutions are Changing World Politics. Norton, New York.Google Scholar
  71. Sinha (2014), India, Comments on Draft Resolution A/HRC/27/L.24, 26 September 2014.Google Scholar
  72. Smith (2010) The European Union at the Human Rights Council: Speaking with One Voice but Having Little Influence. Journal of European Public Policy 17:224–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Terman and Voeten (2018) The Relational Politics of Shame: Evidence from the Universal Periodic Review. Review of International Organizations 13: 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Trad (2016), Saudi Arabia, Comments on Draft Resolution A/HRC/33/L.3/Rev.1, 30 September 2016.Google Scholar
  75. Tsiskarashvili (2016), Georgia, Comments on Draft Resolution A/HRC/32/L.28/Rev.1, 1 July 2016.Google Scholar
  76. United Nations, ‘Web TV’, available at http://webtv.un.org/. Accessed 10 June 2019.
  77. Van Delinde (2016), Netherlands, Comments on Draft Resolution A/HRC/32/L.29, 1 July 2016.Google Scholar
  78. Voss (2018) Contesting Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity at the UN Human Rights Council. Human Rights Review 19: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Voss (2019) Contesting ‘Family’ at the United Nations Human Rights Council. Religion & Human Rights 14: 95–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Voss (2020) Backlash against Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity at the UN Human Rights Council in de Vries-Jordan and Anderson The Politics of LGBTQ Equality: Marriage and Beyond. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence.Google Scholar
  81. Wiener (2014) A Theory of Contestation. Springer, Heidelberg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wiener (2018) Contestation and Constitution of Norms in Global International Relations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Wiener and Puetter (2009) The Quality of Norms is What Actors Make of It: Critical Constructivist Research on Norms. Journal of International Law and International Relations 5: 1–16.Google Scholar
  84. Yi (2016), China, Comments on Draft Resolution A/HRC/32/L.28/Rev.1, 1 July 2016.Google Scholar
  85. Youssef (2018), Egypt, Comments on Draft Resolution A/HRC/38/L.1/Rev.1, 5 July 2018.Google Scholar
  86. Zhaoxu (2016), China, Comments on Draft Resolution A/HRC/32/L.29, 1 July 2016.Google Scholar
  87. Zolotova (2014), Russian Federation, Comments on Draft Resolution A/HRC/27/L.24, 26 September 2014.Google Scholar
  88. Zolotova (2016a), Russian Federation, Comments on Draft Resolution A/HRC/32/L.38/Rev.1, 1 July 2016.Google Scholar
  89. Zolotova (2016b), Russian Federation, Comments on Draft Resolution A/HRC/33/L.3/Rev.1, 30 September 2016.Google Scholar
  90. Zolotova (2016c), Russian Federation, Comments on Draft Resolution A/HRC/32/L.29, 1 July 2016.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of ToledoToledoUSA

Personalised recommendations