Explore the issues - Responding to human rights crises
When mass atrocities occur or are threatened – usually in the midst of armed conflict – the UN Security Council and Human Rights Council can take several steps to protect civilians at risk. They might hold extraordinary or ‘crisis’ sessions to debate their response, send civilian human rights monitors, or establish and dispatch commissions of inquiry with a mandate to report on international crimes. The Security Council has the power to refer the situation to the International Criminal Court, to impose financial and travel bans on those who might be responsible for or tolerating international crimes, or to deploy peacekeeping troops with a civilian protection mandate. Ultimately, if the country won’t accept peacekeepers, the Security Council might authorise a forceful military intervention.
Read the following four scenarios, each based on a real-life situation. Consider the scenario and then try and guess what response you think the UN might have taken. Click on the answer to see what actually transpired.
SCENARIO 1
Protestors take to the streets in a country with an authoritarian leader (who has been in power for decades) demanding he cede power. Many of them are killed and hundreds arrested. In response, some of those protesting take up arms and declare key cities ‘liberated’. Fighting spreads, as various militias form to challenge the army. The ruler vows his army will retake the cities: “And there will be no mercy. We will search for traitors house by house, alley by alley.” As his tank units advance on one of these cities, the Security Council meets in crisis session.
How should the UN respond?
Answer: How did the UN respond? This scenario approximates the situation in Libya in the first few months of 2011. The UN Human Rights Council held a crisis session, voted Libya off the Council, and established a Commission of Inquiry to report on international crimes. The Security Council very shortly thereafter imposed targeted sanctions on the Libyan leadership, imposed an arms embargo, and referred the situation in Libya to the International Criminal Court. A few weeks later, the Security Council voted to allow NATO to enforce a no fly zone over Libya and use airpower to protect civilians. Controversially, NATO soon declared its mission was to depose the Libyan leader, Muammar Qaddafi as this would most effectively end the fighting. Qaddafi was killed some months later, and NATO ended its mission. The UN sought to assist Libya towards a transition to democracy, but although elections were held the government that was formed failed to win the support of all Libyans and Libya remains trapped in a cycle of conflict today.
SCENARIO 2
Consistent and reliable reports emerged from a very closed and authoritarian regime that it was using extremely repressive measures to keep its hold on power. No independent monitors were being allowed into the country, but a small but growing number of refugees were fleeing with testimonies of murder, enslavement, torture, arbitrary imprisonment, rape, forced abortions and other sexual violence, persecution on political, religious, racial and gender grounds, the forcible transfer of populations, and the enforced disappearance of persons.
How should the UN respond?
Answer: How did the UN respond? This example approximates the situation in the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea (North Korea) over the past decade. The Human Rights Council appointed a Commission of Inquiry which reported in 2014 that the serious human rights violations amounted to crimes against humanity, and recommended that the Security Council refer the situation in North Korea to the International Criminal Court. In the wake of the Commission’s report the Security Council did hold discussions on the human rights situation in North Korea, but it took no further action. The Security Council has, however, passed several resolutions – and imposed sanctions – in relation to North Korea’s nuclear weapons programme.
SCENARIO 3
A small UN peacekeeping force is deployed in a country to monitor a ceasefire and political transition agreed in a peace accord between a rebel group (largely comprised of one, minority ethnic group), and the government and army (largely comprised of another, majority ethnic group). After a plane crash in which the President dies in uncertain circumstances, fighting resumes and the government and army and associated militias initiate what appears to be a well-planned mass killing of tens of thousands civilians belonging to the minority ethnic group. The UN force commander asks for reinforcements.
How should the UN respond?
Answer: How did the UN respond? This scenario approximates the situation in Rwanda in April-May 1994 as the genocide against the Tutsi minority by the Hutu majority government unfolded. The UN Security Council responded by debating the withdrawal of the UN force, and some troop-contributing countries did withdraw their soldiers. It did not reinforce the UN force for several weeks, until the genocidal killing was largely over. Eventually, months later, the Security Council established the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda to punish the perpetrators of the genocide The UN Commission on Human Rights (the body that preceded the Human Rights Council) met in special session, appointed a Rapporteur to visit Rwanda and, eventually, some weeks later, asked the High Commissioner for Human Rights to dispatch civilian human rights monitors to the country.
SCENARIO 4
An authoritarian regime collapses, and a UN-assisted ‘national dialogue’ between all political and religious factions meets for several months to agree on a new constitution and a process towards democratic elections. The dialogue breaks down and one, minority religious faction – which had been fighting the authoritarian regime – resumes the war claiming its rights are being denied; it seizes half the country including the capital. The weak de facto government invites a coalition of foreign powers to join the war against the minority faction. Credible sources point to human rights abuses by both sides, and indiscriminate bombing by the foreign powers that leads to several thousand civilian deaths.
How should the UN respond?
Answer: How did the UN respond? This scenario approximates the situation in Yemen from 2011 to the present. The UN Security Council passed resolutions supporting the national dialogue, urging respect for human rights and humanitarian law, and eventually placing sanctions in the form of arms embargoes, asset freezes and travel plans on those (primarily from the minority faction) who threatened Yemen’s peaceful transition. The Human Rights Council debated proposals in 2015 and 2016 to establish a Commission of Inquiry to report on abuses by all parties to the conflict. These were not adopted due to strong opposition from some countries including Saudi Arabia and its allies who were fighting in support of the de facto government. Finally, in September 2017 the Council appointed a “group of eminent international experts” to monitor and report on the situation in Yemen.”
Were you surprised – or confused – by any of the answers? The next sections will help you understand better the UN’s authority to act in these crises, the range of actions it can take, and why it chooses to do so, or not.