[MUSIC] I don't deal directly with human rights, but the principles that apply International Humanitarian Law and Humanitarian Principles for Delivery of Aid. Very much a kin, which is impartial, a neutral response, we don't take sides on the belligerents, we help all people in need. The primacy of our focus is on people in need, the beneficiaries and we also use the Hippocratic idea of do no harm, so our processes, our aid, should not have any adverse effects. And I had a General Kennedy, of the US Marine Corps, who'd worked in Iraq and Afghanistan, many difficult places. And he'd initially complained about UN or International Humanitarian principles, and at his retirement speech, he was saying that the principles are the only thing that enable you to do your work. And this is a guy who'd been a three star general in command of numerous responses in numerous conflicts. And had come to understand that the humanitarian agencies are not a means to implement a political agenda, but that the impartial helping of people in need according to a principled action was the most credible response the UN could make. >> Within the United Nations, the Human Rights Council is responsible for the overall promotion and protection of human rights system. And within the Human Rights Council, there are different organs by which they do this. And one of the important mechanisms is what is called the special procedures mechanism. And within the special procedures mechanism, independent expats are appointed. And we also have working groups of special appointees. Independent expats are appointed under the Human Rights Council agenda. It can either be under agenda four, which relates to monitoring of the human rights situation in different countries. We have about 14 mandates in that regard, country specific. Then there could be also mandates on what we call item ten of the agenda which relates to engaging with respective governments, engaging with the governments to build capacity and to provide technical assistance. But without the presence of the United Nations or not actually based on special procedures mechanisms. Things could be far, far, far worse. >> In what way? >> I mean in many ways, there's a phrase usually used within the United Nations in relation to this. They call it, well, they use the phrase, protection by presence. Protection by presence in the sense that, I mean, when the independent exparts come into the country, it's a big issue. I mean, all international press follows it. The government is aware, it is concerned, it wants to make sure that it cleans up its acts. It ensures, I mean and they engage. And also the independent experts are able to get information, I mean confidentially, from civil society organizations on the ground. >> Yes. >> So it gives a picture of the real situation going on. And when the interactive sessions, the Human Rights Council occur, the individuals states, their respective states are confronted with these facts. I mean, so it makes a big difference, it makes a very, very big difference in relation to the fact that, I mean, people who are victims of human rights violations have somebody to talk to. Who then brings it back within the international community for people to really know what is happening on the ground. >> The UN has had tremendous difficulties with human rights from the very beginning. The human rights principles and standards of the UN were probably developed more significantly by Eleanor Roosevelt as the head of the first American delegation on this in the late 40s. And it was an ambitious agenda which drew heavily on America's own ambitions in the human rights field and it was already a big involvement of American civil society around Eleanor Roosevelt. And in that way the standards have always had a western stamp on them, and a sort of western aspirational ambition to them which is often even not being matched by the west own actions. And hence the very correct allegations of hypocrisy when it comes to the Middle East and many other places as well. But it is foundational for the UN to press for the Human Rights of people around the world. The challenge as an interstate organization. Is where and how hard can it press, without undermining the whole interstate architecture of the institution. If you push countries so hard that they withdraw from the UN, you've lost its real legitimacy and power that comes from its universality. If you don't press them enough you're properly charged with double standards and allowing states to get away with behaviors that fall below the standards of the charter. So it's a constant balancing act, and my own view is, the UN's probably never going to get it right. And that it's very dependent on franchising out a lot of human rights advocacy and lobbying and name calling to civil society. To NGOs who can act more freely and when they do, ring pressure to bear on the UN mechanisms, to be more rigorous and to stand out more clearly for these things. But to say the prime movers are in my view, likely to remain civil society in this space. It's going to remain critical to brand international humanitarian interventions as UN or Red Cross. Because these are the the brand names that carry the force of international humanitarian law behind them with all the demands on competence not to attack them to allow them the space provide relief to civilians in a non-political way. But behind that brand name, under the bonnet, we're going to see a huge amount change because we've got two sort of related things happening. One, a hugely more professionalized group of NGOs, groups like Mesas Frontier or Save the Children or Oxfam, many others. Who have become more of cost effective international delivers of assistance often than the UN. They're just lower costs, nimbler, the rest. But they need that UN badge to operate under. And then secondly, we've seen the rise of local civil society. So if we look, for example, at the conflict in Syria, it is Syrian White Helmets, Syrian nationals themselves, who are being really the last mile of the relief effort. The ones who've gone into Aleppo or other War-torn cities and rescued people, delivered assistance to them in situ etc. And so I think we're going to see a lot more localizing of humanitarian action. And a lot more deployment of very competent non-governmental relief organizations to support that. And the UN stepping back a bit more to be the protector, the funder, the standard setter, the franchisee of all of this, but with a lower operational presence itself. >> International law, it's a fragile thing, whether we're talking human rights or anything else. It doesn't have the sovereign enforcement built in that domestic sovereign law does. So essentially they're normative declarations that everybody sees an interest in subscribing to, but not necessarily following. And no one can hold them too it. I think that's particularly true of human rights law and convention that's top down. I think when you can create human rights standards, a sort of template, for countries to adopt into their own law, you have a stronger international human rights regime. Coming back to the UN, we have the Human Rights Council which was supposed to be some kind of reform, but really repeated the problems of its predecessors. How do you have an organization of states monitoring the observance of human rights by states? When states are typically the main violator or threats to human rights. It's not very promising structurally. It's hard to see within the United Nations organization how you get around that. But certainly, when you have things like, regions nominating regional blocks, nominating regional members. And that no threshold that a country has to pass in its own performance. Other than accepting review to be a member of the Human Rights Council. You're reinforcing some of the worst anti human rights tendencies of your chief human rights body. The commissioner can be an attempt to get above that. >> I think it's quite an interesting story because on the one hand you have over the last 70 years development of this system of human rights that really does bind every country. Every single UN member state has ratified at least one human rights treaty most have signed up for more. You have independent human rights experts, you have a human rights council, you have a very, I think, savvy network of NGOs, and of people, who want to claim their rights, who think they're important. Who use everything that the UN has put out there in terms of laws and tools who use that to challenge there governments and sometimes have success. But the UN doesn't have powers of enforcement, it can advise, sometimes it can criticize, it can make recommendations. But implementation is left to states. That means that it becomes political. So whether or not states would like to really challenge Saudi Arabia on their human rights record, will depend on their overall relationship with Saudi Arabia. Equally, internally whether states guarantee their citizens rights is part of a much broader process. It's not sort of, we've signed up to a human rights treaty so we'll make it happen. And you can see that in countries including the UK where there's been a very I think an increasingly negative debate on human rights that has even lead people themselves to question their value. So I think we are at a very interesting point where we see lots of development on the one hand, great strides in areas such as LGBT rights. And a real backlash, back-sliding on the sort of taboo around torture for security reasons, backsliding on women's rights, especially reproductive rights. And a real challenge to the very concept of human rights made by populists. [MUSIC]
