On 10 and 11 October 2016, David Westenfelder (MA in International Affairs, 2016) attended an expert meeting in Berlin assessing the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) on the occasion of its 10th birthday. Mr Westenfelder presented the results of an Applied Research Seminar conducted by a group of three students of the Institute in collaboration with the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU).
Since 2008, the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, the German Institute for Human Rights and the German Forum on Human Rights have organised an annual conference to assess the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) from both the legal perspective of rights holders and the political perspective of civil society. The 10th anniversary of the HRC provided a timely opportunity to reflect on its work and effectiveness. The expert meeting in Berlin called for greater efficiency and relevance of the Council in the protection of human rights on the ground and more systematic follow-up of recommendations by HRC mechanisms, such as the Universal Periodic Review (UPR).
While the UPR is a unique procedure within the UN human rights system, and one in which every member state of the United Nations participates, the extent to which the resulting recommendations are implemented varies immensely. In his speech, David Westenfelder argued that the systematic involvement of national parliaments in the UPR process could enhance both the debate about human rights issues in the national context and the implementation of recommendations. In the subsequent panel discussion, it was mentioned that pressure for parliamentary involvement must come from below. The panelists argued that politicians would only be encouraged to take action as long as voters in their constituencies showed an interest in human rights issues and pushed for greater involvement of parliaments in the UPR.
Mr Westenfelder’s speech was based on the results of an Applied Research Seminar on parliamentary involvement in the UPR process conducted with Shannon Walker and Eva Diaz Piola and in partnership with the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU). From case studies on Australia, Mexico and Germany, the student team concluded that parliamentary involvement is highly country specific – Mexico’s parliament, for instance, is considerable more involved than Australia’s. Another key finding was that parliamentary involvement differs substantially from one stage of the UPR process to the next, with the main challenge being the implementation of UPR recommendations. Finally, and most importantly, the study found that a systematic discussion of the UPR in parliaments is still lacking today, as parliaments mostly remain passive spectators rather than active drivers of the UPR process. Involving parliaments more comprehensively in the process thus constitutes a key challenge for future UPR cycles.
Illustration: (From left to right) Yves Lador, José Parra, Edward McMahon, David Westenfelder, Florence Simbiri-Jaoko and Jochen Motte at the international expert meeting “10 Years Human Rights Council – What difference has it made? What difference should it make in the future?” on 11 October 2016. Lena Schill/FES.