United Nations

High-level Segment at the UN Human Rights Council

The United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) 58th session engaged in a segment featuring keynote speeches from high-level representatives such as Antonio Guterres, the Secretary-General of the UN, the High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk and 116 Foreign, Deputy or Prime Ministers speaking on behalf of their countries.

Volker Türk, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, emphasized in his opening speech the importance of the UN human rights work. Human rights are a matter of facts and law, he said, stressing that the documented facts serve as the basis for any legal procedures.

The geopolitical tensions fueled by the high number of armed conflicts, the climate crisis and autocracy around the world made its way into Room XX at the Palais des Nations in Geneva. Some delegations, like Switzerland and Ukraine, used the opportunity to address these issues and reiterate their commitment to the HRC. Other Ministers used it to call out other countries or to present the human rights situation in their country.

Calling Russia the aggressor

The 58th session started on the day of the third anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Many countries expressed their desire for the war to stop, be it in diverging contexts. While Western and European states such as Liechtenstein, Georgia, Austria and Poland clearly portrayed Russia as the aggressor and the one to be held responsible, some other countries were not as concise. Sates such as Saudi Arabia for instance, addressed the war as the ‘Ukraine-Russia Crisis’, clearly refraining from calling Russia an aggressor.

Ukraine, speaking on the same day as Russia, emphasized that the aggressor must be punished. Mariana Betsa, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine stressed that the conflict is a cornerstone of global stability and justice. Impunity for the aggressor would be a death sentence for the democratized world because it would set a dangerous precedent. In this sense, she added that aggression must be discredited as a statecraft. This reflects the consensus among the Western European countries such as Slovenia, Estonia, Austria, the Netherlands and many others.

In parallel to the high-level segment of the HRC, the UN General Assembly also met in New York and held a vote on a resolution on ‘Advancing a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine’ (A/ES-11/L.10). The US aligned their vote with Russia, Belarus and North Korea and voted against its adoption. The US clearly refused to wording ‘full-scale invasion of Ukraine by the Russian federation’ and thus refrained from calling Russia the aggressor, according to UN News.

Many states completely refrained from mentioning the ongoing war and thereby avoided any political implications. Those include China, India, South Africa, and Belarus, just to name a few. They made use of their speech to make different statements, for instance about the Human Rights Council itself.

The end of the UN Human Rights Council?

With very few exceptions, every Western and European state that took part in the high-level segment reaffirmed its commitment to the HRC. Within the Western democratic block, one exception was Poland. While strongly reaffirming their commitment to upholding and protecting human rights, they also staunchly criticized their ideological peers and questioned the credibility of the HRC. The central criticism was the apparent acceptance of Russia’s behavior as the new norm, alluding to Assad finding refuge in Moscow, the killing of Alexey Navalny and Russia supporting military juntas throughout the African continent.

On the other hand, the voices of the autocracies are getting louder in the HRC. The strategic alliance called ‘Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations’  was founded in 2021 and consists of 18 member states which include Russia, China, Venezuela, Cuba, Zimbabwe and Nicaragua. These autocracies align their statements through the different UN bodies and seek to push a counter narrative to the established norms in human rights. Their voice has been amplified by the absence of the US.

The arguments brought forward by the delegations of these countries seek to discredit the Western democratic states. The autocracies frame the HRC as a blame game, used by Western states to push political narratives by selectively using Independent International Fact Finding Missions’ reports as a legal basis to impose sanctions. Those sanctioned autocracies then argue that the ‘unilateral coercive measures’ (sanctions) hinder the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights of their populations.

According to these autocratic states, the HRC is violating their sovereignty, labelling the HRC ‘interventionist’. Additionally, they claim that the West does not respect the UN General Assembly Resolution that established the HRC in 2006. They accuse the West of violating the principle of non-selectivity as well as disregarding the commitment to the elimination of double standards and politicization.

As for double standards and non-selectivity, Russia for instance argues that fundamental rights of Russians are violated in Ukraine and that the HRC choses to ignore this. Rwanda accuses the Democratic Republic of Congo of committing war crimes. North Korea and China claim that the Report of the Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua (A/HRC/58/26) is selective and politically motivated.

Among the autocracies, Venezuela and Cuba were the most notable denouncers of the HRC. Mr. Yvan Gil Pinto, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Venezuela, proclaimed a global crisis of credibility and called the HRC the ‘Summit of Hypocrisy’. The Cuban representative claimed that Western states use the HRC to subvert other countries, while also pointing out a supposed rollback of fundamental rights in developed countries.

The situation in Gaza has long been the most polarizing issue in the debates of the UN Human Rights Council - long before the current war and ceasfire; considering the complex historical implications. The recent outbreak of war intensified this polarizing effect and revealed the diverging positions around the issue, especially between the Global North and the Global South. Many countries chose not to position themselves regarding this issue while others, like Austria, are strong advocates of a two state solution.

Missing from this geopolitical positioning in the HRC are the United States of America. As Trump has already declared in an Executive Order in early February, the US left and will defund the HRC. The absence of the US left a vacuum that is being filled by the shared perceptions of its political rivals, China and Russia. Their intentions reveal signs of a power grab of authoritarian states within the UN. Instead of denouncing the UN human rights system, both primarily emphasized their commitment to it.

Alignment in the Human Rights Council

During their speech at the high-level segment, China invited all states to join their ‘Global Development Initiative’, which is based on the Sustainable Development Goals of the UN (SGDs) and was brought to life on UN level through a speech of Xi Jinping in 2021 at the UN General Assembly. However, while engaging in the UN system, China simultaneously seeks to restructure and reframe the UN human rights architecture. The PRC’s goal is shifting the focus away from individual civil rights towards collective social rights, such as the right to development.

Similarly, Sergey Verschinin, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia eluded to a resolution that Russia submitted to the UN General Assembly about combatting nazism (A/C.3/79/L.2), which was adopted in December 2024. Most surprisingly, he ended his speech not by denouncing the HRC, but by stating that Russia recognizes the HRC as the main UN human rights body and that Russia will engage in it. The resolution and statement of intent to engage in the HRC are unusual for a country, which ignores the aims of the UN Charter and its special responsibility as member of the Security Council. This reveals that Russia, like China, is no longer condemning the UN human rights system, but actively engaging within it.

Both states also align in their approach to tackling human rights problems. Russia stated that Western countries are imposing a value and development system, which has failed as evidenced by the current geopolitical tensions. Similarly, China argued that there is not one single path of development and that no path to development is superior to others. They propose and advocate for a ‘people centered’ or bottom-up approach in human rights. Their ideological peers share this focus on a ‘people centered’ approach, as Belarus for instance called for the prohibition of hierarchy in human rights.

The Future of the Rule-Based International Order

The observations made during this high-level segment summarize the following situation. The UN human rights system is at a crossroads. The protection of human rights and the rule of law will face a difficult phase. The HRC is now more needed than ever because of the high number of wars, armed conflicts and human rights violations around the world, while at the same time, the voices calling it out and denouncing it are getting louder, and support for the democracy and rule of law is waning.

The PRC has long been trying to reform the established rule-based international order by shaping the discussions on the UN level in a way that they focus on development aid and social and economic rights instead. What could be observed at the high-level segment is that the disengagement of the US has allowed this narrative to take center stage. The future of the established rule-based international order seems uncertain as the world experiences a geopolitical reshuffle. The future of the HRC and multilateralism in general lies in the hands of the current delegations according to Jakub Wiśniewski, Undersecretary of State at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Poland.

Read more