Human Rights for Who?
It's just a phrase; it has little substansive meaning.
Today the UN formed a new Human Rights Council to replace the Human Rights Commission. So the new council doesn't contain members with bad records on human rights. But so what? What is anyone actually going to do about human rights violations?
Studying International Law as part of my course, it's becoming increasingly obvious that there is not really any such thing as International Law. The basic reason is that it can't be enforced. Sanctions inevitably hurt the people they are designed to protect; military intervention is rare, has to be approved by the UN, and seldom has a sufficient mandae to achieve anything concrete.
The only real remedy is the 'motivation of shame'; which doesn't work when the governments and individuals concerned are utterly shameless.
Meanwhile, serial abusers such as Milosevic are free to pass peacefully away in their cells; others still, like Karadzic and Mladic, remain at large.
What we need are not just councils and conventions but a real, permanent standing force capable of taking swift and decisive action, removing the authority of abusive regimes and of dragging these people straight from their palaces to face the firing squad. That I'm afraid is the only thing these people will recognise, and will be the only deterrent to human rights violators elsewhere.
Yet with the ICC a joke and the Iraq War a mess, there's a long way to go yet.
UN creates new human rights body
The UN General Assembly has voted overwhelmingly to create a new human rights organisation for the world body, despite opposition from the US.
The 47-nation UN Human Rights Council will replace the current 53-country UN Human Rights Commission.
The existing body has been heavily criticised for having countries with poor human rights records as members.
The US was one of four nations which voted against the proposal, saying the reforms did not go far enough.
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan welcomed what he called an "historic resolution... that gives the United Nations a much-needed chance to make a new beginning in its work for human rights around the world."
He had proposed the changes last year to replace the discredited commission, which has in recent years included countries accused of gross human rights violations such as Sudan, China, Cuba and Zimbabwe.
The resolution, which had been negotiated over many months by Assembly President Jan Eliasson, was approved by 170 members of the 191-nation assembly.
Three nations abstained. Israel, Marshall Islands and Palau joined the US in voting against the plan.
Members of the assembly burst into applause when the result was announced.
The new council will comprise of members that are elected by secret ballot by an absolute majority of the General Assembly.
There will be periodic reviews of membership, and any state accused of systematic human rights violations could be suspended.
The US had wanted tighter rules to ensure a credible membership.
But US Ambassador John Bolton said Washington would work with the body to make it "as strong as it can be".
NEW HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
Every UN member state eligible to join
Elected by secret ballot, needs absolute Assembly majority
Each member serves for three-year term
All UN members will eventually have rights record reviewed
Systematic violators of human rights could be suspended
