Opinio Juris

The U.S. government has announced that it will oppose the current proposal for a new Human Rights Council to take the place of the much-derided U.N. Commission on Human Rights. (The new proposal is here.) Although the U.S. has been pushing for a new Council, it is not happy with the current proposal, which would not guarantee the exclusion of countries with serious human rights abuses.

There are a lot of complicated policy issues and Anne Bayesky is right as usual on these things. One tedious legal issue: Can the U.S. block the new Council? The answer is no, because the new Council will be a subsidiary of the General Assembly pursuant to Article 22 of the U.N. Charter. The U.S. does not have a veto and, in fact, only has five votes in the GA, just like everyone else. So expect the U.S. to go down in flames next week if this comes to a vote.

U.S. opposition may result in a delay on the current proposal to replace the U.N. Human Rights Commission with a new Human Rights Council, Reuters reports. Although, as I pointed out, the U.S. only has five votes in the General Assembly, it does have other levers of influence. Britain, for instance, is supporting a delay and members of Congress are making noises about limiting dues payments if the new Council is voted on. Stay tuned.

Nominations began Monday for seats on the new U.N. Human Rights Council. According to Reuters, 17 nations have already nominated themselves including Germany, Greece, Portugal, Switzerland, Algeria, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Czech Republic, Georgia, Hungary, Ukraine, Latvia, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Peru and Nicaragua. The U.S. has not yet acted. 47 seats are available with seven from Western Europe and North America.

In a twist, nations can now nominate themselves on a special website (if someone has a link, please let me know where it is). Apparently, the instruction sheet reminds voters to take "into account the contribution to candidates to the promotion and protection of human rights." That does sound like a fairly relevant consideration and I'm certainly glad this is something voters are supposed to at least consider.

As I noted below, the campaigning for membership of the new U.N. Human Rights Council has begun in earnest (34 nations have declared themselves). The United States, however, will not be seeking a seat. The strategy behind staying off the new Council is unclear. The U.S. has pledged to fund and support the new council, but it might also be useful for the U.S. to stay off the Council if it plans to snipe at it. The likelihood that countries like Cuba and Iran get a seat on the Council may provide the U.S. with a good basis for sniping.

UPDATE: The U.S is now saying it will probably wait a year before running. I am not exactly sure what the point of that is, and all the usual suspects have been jumping on the U.S. for deciding not to join. I realize that Senator Bill Frist has called on the U.S. to boycott the new Council, but it is not doing that either because it has agreed to fund it. I don't think this ultimately is that big a deal, but I have to admit I have no idea what the strategy is here.