8 UK's participation in the UN Human
Rights Council
UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
77. The UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) is an intergovernmental
body made up of 47 UN member states elected for three-year terms.
According to its website, the Council is responsible for promoting
and protecting human rights around the globe. Its principal mechanisms
are: the Universal Periodic Review system which serves to assess
the human rights situation in each United Nations member state;
the Advisory Committee, which provides the Council with expertise
and advice on thematic human rights issues; and the Complaint
Procedure which allows individuals and organisations to bring
human rights violations to the attention of the Council. The Council's
membership is based on equitable geographic distribution with
13 seats for Africa, 13 for Asia, six for Eastern Europe, eight
for Latin America and the Caribbean, and seven for Western Europe
and other states.
78. The UK served two terms on the UNHRC from 2006-2011,
and election to the Council for the 2014-16 term was a priority
for the UK Government in 2013. In November 2013, elections took
place at the 68th Session of the UN General Assembly, and the
UK was elected. Following the election, the Foreign Secretary
stated that, as well as being active on country-specific resolutions,
the UK would champion a number of thematic issues, including ending
sexual violence in conflict, the need for full participation of
women in peace-building and the universal right to freedom of
expression and freedom of religion or belief.
79. Since the election, the UK has been involved
in a number of high-profile issues. A number of written submissions
to the Committee gave credit to the UK for its leadership in securing
strong resolutions on Sri Lanka and Democratic People's Republic
of Korea. On the other hand, criticisms have been levelled at
the UK for not supporting a resolution on the use of drones and
not providing access for a UN Special Rapporteur to a site in
the UK. In some quarters, this is seen as indicating an inconsistency
of approach.
DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF
KOREA
80. In March 2013, a United Nations Commission of
Inquiry on Human Rights in the Democratic People's Republic of
Korea (North Korea) was established by a unanimous decision of
the UN Human Rights Council. The Commission was given a mandate
to investigate independently the reports of systematic, widespread
and grave violations of human rights in the country.[147]
81. In February 2014, the Commission of Inquiry published
its final report, which detailed accounts of human rights violations
in North Korea. It found evidence of: murder, enslavement, torture,
rape, executions and disappearances; deliberate use of starvation
as a means of control and punishment in detention centres; almost
absolute bans on ordinary citizens travelling abroad; and persecution
on political, religious, racial and gender grounds. The Commission
concluded that the "the gravity, scale and nature of these
violations reveal a state that does not have any parallel in the
contemporary world", and it believed that its findings constituted
reasonable grounds to establish that crimes against humanity had
been committed.[148]
82. We asked Human Rights Watch what it thought could
be done to follow up on the Commission's report, given that the
UK and its global partners had almost no leverage and influence
over the North Korea. Mr Mepham, the UK Director of Human Rights
Watch, said that it was incumbent on the British Government to
"find ways in which the findings of [the] report, via the
General Assembly, can get onto the agenda of the Security Council".[149]
Without a referral from the UN Security Council, the International
Criminal Court (ICC) has no jurisdiction to investigate or prosecute
North Korea.[150] The
Government has stated that it is keeping the prospect of a UN
Security Council Resolution under review. When we pressed Baroness
Warsi on what steps the Government was taking to table a resolution
on human rights violations in North Korea at the UN Security Council,
she said "[the Committee] will be aware of how the UN Security
Council operates and some of our challenges with the P5 and the
impact that could have".[151]
83. Whilst we recognise the difficulties of garnering
support at the UN Security Council for action against the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), the gravity of the human
rights violations by North Korea is so severe that the UK and
its partners at the UN Security Council should not be seen to
stand by. We encourage the FCO not to give up on using UN organs,
including the Security Council, to bring pressure to bear on North
Korea to improve the human rights of the population, and to work
towards securing referral of North Korea to the International
Criminal Court for crimes against humanity.
UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL RESOLUTION
ON DRONES
84. The UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and
protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering
terrorism, Ben Emmerson QC, was commissioned by UN Human Rights
Council in June 2012 to report on the use of remotely piloted
aircraft in extraterritorial lethal counter-terrorism operations.
In his final report in March 2014, the Special Rapporteur concluded
that the current legal uncertainty in relation to the interpretation
and application of international law to the use of remotely piloted
aircraft had left a "dangerous latitude" for differences
of practice by states.[152]
He called for states to provide greater legal clarity and transparency
on their use of remotely piloted aircraft, and to launch independent
inquiries in all cases where use of such systems has resulted
in civilian death or injury.[153]
The Defence Committee, in its report on the current and future
use of RPAS, has recommended that the UK Government should "engage
actively in the debate" on the matters raised by the UN Special
Rapporteur.[154] The
Government, in its response to the Defence Committee report, observed
that the "UN Special Rapporteur had identified a number of
interesting legal questions" and said that it was "carefully
considering the recommendation of the Special Rapporteur".[155]
85. On 28 March 2014, the UN Human Rights Council
adopted Resolution L32 on the use of remotely piloted aircraft
in counter-terrorism and military operations, backing the main
conclusions of the Special Rapporteur's report. However, the UK
joined the US, South Korea, Japan, France and Macedonia in voting
against the Resolution. The written submission from Human Rights
Watch states that the resolution "simply called on states
to comply with their obligations under international law and for
application of principles of precaution, distinction and proportionality",
and describes it as "regrettable" that the UK was described
the one of six states that voted against this "modest"
resolution.[156] Amnesty
International described the UK's failure to support it as a "black
spot" in an otherwise good session.[157]
86. In explaining its 'No' vote at UN Human Rights
Council, the UK questioned whether the issue lay within the scope
of the Human Rights Council's mandate, arguing that the appropriate
law was international humanitarian law, which the Council did
not have a mandate to consider.[158]
Baroness Warsi told us that the appropriate forum for a debate
around the use of drones would either be the UN General Assembly
or UN Security Council.[159]
When pressed on the implications on the use of drones of international
law and international humanitarian law, she wrote to us, stating
that the Government believes that "existing rules of international
law governing the use of force and armed conflict are sufficient
to regulate the use of RPAS [drones]".[160]
87. We wrote to the Foreign Secretary in September
2014, and asked two questions about the use of drones:
i) What steps the Government was taking to satisfy
itself that the use of armed drones by the UK was consistent with
international law; and
ii) Whether the FCO accepted the view of the
UN Special Rapporteur that there was a lack of international consensus
on various key legal questions on the use of RPAS, all of which
needed to be resolved urgently.
The Foreign Secretary, in his letter on 10 October,
replied that before undertaking any form of military operation,
the Government satisfied itself that the use of armed drones was
lawful by undertaking an analysis of its legality, including how
detailed rules of international humanitarian law might apply.[161]
88. With respect to the various legal questions raised
by the UN Special Rapporteur, the Foreign Secretary told us that
the "UK Government believes that international law on the
use of military force is absolutely clear", and that the
"existing international legal framework is clear and robust",
and is "fully capable of governing" the use of drones.[162]
Baroness Anelay, the FCO Minister with responsibility for human
rights, has said that the FCO had "no plans to respond in
writing to the report by the UN Special Rapporteur" as the
UK had set out its position on the legality of RPAS at the UN
Human Rights Council 'expert meeting' on 22 September 2014.[163]
We see signs of a shift in the Government's policy: when asked
previously about the need for greater legal clarity, the Government
had replied that the UN Special Rapporteur had raised important
legal questions; but its recent answer to us appeared rather dismissive
of his findings. There is a clearly a difference of opinion
between the UK Government and the UN Special Rapporteur on whether
there is international consensus on the legal parameters surrounding
the use of drones. We believe that the Government should acknowledge
this and provide a written response detailing its points of disagreement
with the UN Special Rapporteur's findings to both Parliament and
the UN Human Rights Council.
VISIT BY UN SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR TO
THE UK
89. Under Special Procedures authorised by the UN
Human Rights Council, independent human rights experts are given
mandates to report and advise on human rights from a thematic
or country-specific perspective.[164]
United Nations Association-UK described 'Special Procedures' as
the "jewel in the crown" of the UN human rights system.[165]
90. One such special procedure was the mandate given
to Ms Rashida Manjoo, the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against
women. She came to the UK in April 2014 as part of her mandate,
to examine the causes and consequences of violence against women.
Following her visit, she reported that:
"I regret that, despite my repeated requests,
a visit to Yarl's Wood immigration detention centre was not facilitated
by the Government, and that my access to the Centre was denied,
when I tried to visit it independently. Due to receiving information
from the third sector, I was keen to speak to detainees in this
facility to objectively seek information on violations being experienced."[166]
United Nations Association-UK raised concerns about
the UK's handling of this visit, and drew on it as an example
of where the UK's own human rights record may "affect its
ability to operate effectively at the Council".[167]
Baroness Warsi explained that the visit to the centre was requested
at short notice, and as Yarl's Wood is an operational centre,
"short notice visits are unlikely to be possible". The
FCO is now developing a new process to work with other government
departments to improve cross-Whitehall preparations for future
visits of UN Special Rapporteurs.[168]
91. We find it surprising that the Home Office
was unable to facilitate a request, even at short notice, from
a UN Special Rapporteur to visit Yarl's Wood immigration detention
centre. It sets a dangerous precedent for other countries to follow
suit and has caused embarrassment to the UK. We welcome the Minister's
assurance that the FCO is developing a new process to work with
other government departments to improve cross-Whitehall preparations
for future visits by UN Special Rapporteurs.
147 "North Korea: UN Commission documents wide-ranging
and ongoing crimes against humanity, urges referral to ICC",
OHCHR press release, 17 February 2014, www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/hrc/coidprk/pages/commissioninquiryonhrindprk.aspx Back
148
"North Korea: UN Commission documents wide-ranging and ongoing
crimes against humanity, urges referral to ICC", OHCHR press
release, 17 February 2014, www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/hrc/coidprk/pages/commissioninquiryonhrindprk.aspx Back
149
Q 35 Back
150
North Korea is not a signatory to the Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court. Back
151
Q 101 Back
152
Ben Emmerson QC, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion
and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while
countering terrorism, 10 March 2014 Back
153
Ibid. Back
154
Defence Committee, Tenth Report of Session 2013-14, Remote
Control: Remotely Piloted Air Systems - current and future UK
use, HC 772, para 157 Back
155
Defence Committee, Sixth Special Report of Session 2014-15, Remote
Control: Remotely Piloted Air Systems - current and future UK
use: Government Response to the Committee's Tenth Report of Session
2013-14, HC 611, paragraph 18 Back
156
Memorandum from Human Rights Watch, paragraph 27 Back
157
Q 22 Back
158
"Human Rights Council, Geneva : UK Statement on Resolution
L32", FCO news article, 28 March 2014, www.gov.uk/government/world-location-news/human-rights-council-geneva-uk-statement-on-resolution-l32-28-march-2014 Back
159
Q 82 Back
160
Memorandum from the FCO (HRS0034) Back
161
Letter from Foreign Secretary to Committee Chairman on 10 October
2014 Back
162
Ibid. Back
163
HL Debate, 14 October 2014, col WA29 Back
164
"Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council", OHCHR
webpage, www.ohchr.org/en/HRBodies/SP/Pages/Welcomepage.aspx Back
165
Memorandum from United Nations Association-UK, paragraph 11 Back
166
"Special Rapporteur on violence against women finalizes country
mission to the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland", OHCHR
news article, 15 April 2014, www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=14514&LangID=E
Back
167
Memorandum from United Nations Association-UK, paragraph 24 Back
168
Memorandum from the FCO (HRS0034) Back
| 
