Will UN Settle for Piecemeal Reforms to Treaty Bodies?

By Stefano Gennarini, J.D. | 2013

NEW YORK, September 6 (C-FAM) After more than a year of negotiations the General Assembly has to decide what to do about the UN committees that monitor human rights.

The question everyone is asking is: will the General Assembly begin a complete overhaul injecting more accountability in the system, or will it settle for piecemeal change?

The process for strengthening the expert committees, also known as treaty bodies, began in January 2012. It is the first time UN member states have systematically reviewed the work of the committees that monitor the implementation of human rights agreements, also known as treaty bodies. For many UN member states it has been revealing.

The committees are plagued by inefficiencies and waste. Seldom able to complete the work they are assigned each year, backlogs accumulate from one year to the next.

Insiders have known the challenges facing the system for some time. The UN bureaucracy and treaty bodies have tried piecemeal changes to working methods over the past two decades without improvements. Countries, on the other hand, have never had an opportunity to become intimately involved in the working methods of the treaty bodies until now.

European nations are adamant they want to finish the process before the start of the next session of the General Assembly at the end of the month. They don’t want to leave the treaty bodies open to criticism for another year. Other countries want to extend the inter-governmental process in order to find a comprehensive reform strategy acceptable to all.

European governments are content with a piecemeal reform effort that would allow the committees to conduct business as usual, give the treaty bodies more money, and leave any major changes up to the committees and UN bureaucrats. But many countries feel they are only just beginning to scratch the surface when it comes to understanding the treaty body system.

Developing nations want more time to work on lasting solutions. They say they have had little more than a year to analyze the work of treaty bodies and come up with solutions.

Treaty bodies have been criticized about their institutional role and substantive output. They frequently interpret treaties expansively, using “evolving” standards that include abortion rights and special new rights for homosexuals.

During the past year nations complained about a lack of transparency in treaty body working methods, specifically regarding the influence of the UN human rights bureaucracy and non-governmental organizations.

Whether the General Assembly opts for a piecemeal or comprehensive approach, profound disagreements still exist about what should change.

Countries that support a piecemeal approach don’t want reforms that would make treaty body experts more accountable. That is precisely what many developing countries want to achieve through an ethics code and procedure.

Treaty bodies are unlikely to obtain an increase in resources without significant changes to their working methods. The United States has little confidence in the current working methods chosen by the treaty bodies and the UN bureaucracy. It would only support reasonable increases in resources if changes in the way treaty bodies operate made it worthwhile.

The final resolution on the issue will likely be a compromise, but the inter-governmental process is unlikely to end this year. The resolution will have budgetary implications, and the UN process to approve budget measures takes time. It will be hard for Europeans to bypass the normal funding mechanisms.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter