n response to reports that Russian forces committed grave human rights violations in Ukraine, the United Nations General Assembly voted last year to suspend Russia from the UN Human Rights Council (HRC)—begging the question of how Russia obtained an elected seat on the HRC in the first place.
While elected membership in the HRC is open to all UN member states, the HRC Charter requires that votes, “take into account the contribution of candidates to the promotion and protection of human rights.” However, the HRC’s current membership includes several countries with less than sterling human rights records. Of the current 47 members, 14 have a “Not Free” Freedom House rating.
In a mechanism historically dependent on “naming and shaming,” a spot in one of the HRC’s 47 elected seats affords member states the power to set the UN’s human rights agenda. Not only does it tarnish the image of the HRC when serial human rights abusers are among its members, but those countries are also allowed the opportunity to undermine the work of the HRC by keeping their violations in the dark.
Russia’s removal provides a critical inflection point to consider the existing structures that routinely allow countries with poor human rights records to be elected to the HRC. Two such practices, clean slate ballots and secret voting, are among the most critical that must be addressed.
Clean Slate Ballots
The General Assembly annually elects members by majority vote to serve on the HRC in staggered three-year terms. To promote geographic equity, the seats are apportioned using the UN regional grouping systems. When a seat is available within a regional group, that region puts forth a ballot of eligible member states for the General Assembly to vote on. However, the regional blocs will frequently only put forth the same number of candidates as available seats—a “clean slate”—which all but guarantees those candidates’ election. For instance, during the 2022 election cycle, only 17 countries ran for 14 available seats with 3 of the 5 blocs presenting clean slate ballots. The 2020 HRC election saw Russia and Ukraine presented as the only two candidates for the two available seats in the Eastern European bloc.
Clean slates effectively eliminate choice among the General Assembly, shifting the power to the regional blocs to independently decide which countries will occupy their available seats. Without a competitive ballot from which to vote, the General Assembly’s votes are rendered essentially meaningless. While states could refuse to vote on unqualified candidates, only a simple majority is necessary for election, so it remains likely that these candidates will be pushed through.
A potential solution would be automatically placing all eligible states on the ballot for a given year. Greater competition would lead to more competitive elections, fostering increased dialogue around elections and making it harder for unfit candidates to be elected. It would also shift voting power back to the General Assembly and position membership in the HRC as a carrot for states to improve their human rights record.
Secret Voting
During the vote to suspend Russia’s membership from the HRC, a large screen at the front of the General Assembly displayed each member state’s position on the resolution. Footage shows delegates pulling out phones to capture images of the final vote. News outlets quickly reported on how each country voted—mentioning state’s commentary on how they aligned themselves.
In stark contrast, votes for the HRC membership—including the vote that gave Russia its seat—are cast in secret as mandated by the HRC Charter. By allowing each member to vote anonymously, secret voting makes it nearly impossible to hold member states responsible for consideration of the HRC’s membership criteria. It also hides vote trading and stifles dialogue surrounding each member’s ballot.
As shown by the discourse following the vote to suspend Russia’s membership, on the record voting would also make states more accountable to civil society and other member states, increasing dialogue around a given country’s human rights record. It would also safeguard against clean slate ballots by increasing the likelihood that states withhold votes should a qualified candidate not be presented for a particular bloc.
The General Assembly is currently in the midst of conducting its 2021-2026 review of the HRC, and states and civil society should use the opportunity to voice concerns about clean slate ballots and secret voting. While these structural changes may not guarantee that rights abusers are not elected, the removal of Russia from the HRC forces a critical look at the structures that led to its election in the first place.
a global affairs media network
How Serial Rights Abusers Are Elected to the Human Rights Council
Photo via United States Mission Geneva on Flickr under CC BY-ND 2.0.
July 9, 2023
Russia's suspension from the UN Human Rights Council last year begs the question of how a serial human rights abuser like Russia got a seat on the HRC in the first place. Two practices—clean slate ballots and secret voting—make this possible, a weakness that must be addressed, writes Colleen Devine.
I
n response to reports that Russian forces committed grave human rights violations in Ukraine, the United Nations General Assembly voted last year to suspend Russia from the UN Human Rights Council (HRC)—begging the question of how Russia obtained an elected seat on the HRC in the first place.
While elected membership in the HRC is open to all UN member states, the HRC Charter requires that votes, “take into account the contribution of candidates to the promotion and protection of human rights.” However, the HRC’s current membership includes several countries with less than sterling human rights records. Of the current 47 members, 14 have a “Not Free” Freedom House rating.
In a mechanism historically dependent on “naming and shaming,” a spot in one of the HRC’s 47 elected seats affords member states the power to set the UN’s human rights agenda. Not only does it tarnish the image of the HRC when serial human rights abusers are among its members, but those countries are also allowed the opportunity to undermine the work of the HRC by keeping their violations in the dark.
Russia’s removal provides a critical inflection point to consider the existing structures that routinely allow countries with poor human rights records to be elected to the HRC. Two such practices, clean slate ballots and secret voting, are among the most critical that must be addressed.
Clean Slate Ballots
The General Assembly annually elects members by majority vote to serve on the HRC in staggered three-year terms. To promote geographic equity, the seats are apportioned using the UN regional grouping systems. When a seat is available within a regional group, that region puts forth a ballot of eligible member states for the General Assembly to vote on. However, the regional blocs will frequently only put forth the same number of candidates as available seats—a “clean slate”—which all but guarantees those candidates’ election. For instance, during the 2022 election cycle, only 17 countries ran for 14 available seats with 3 of the 5 blocs presenting clean slate ballots. The 2020 HRC election saw Russia and Ukraine presented as the only two candidates for the two available seats in the Eastern European bloc.
Clean slates effectively eliminate choice among the General Assembly, shifting the power to the regional blocs to independently decide which countries will occupy their available seats. Without a competitive ballot from which to vote, the General Assembly’s votes are rendered essentially meaningless. While states could refuse to vote on unqualified candidates, only a simple majority is necessary for election, so it remains likely that these candidates will be pushed through.
A potential solution would be automatically placing all eligible states on the ballot for a given year. Greater competition would lead to more competitive elections, fostering increased dialogue around elections and making it harder for unfit candidates to be elected. It would also shift voting power back to the General Assembly and position membership in the HRC as a carrot for states to improve their human rights record.
Secret Voting
During the vote to suspend Russia’s membership from the HRC, a large screen at the front of the General Assembly displayed each member state’s position on the resolution. Footage shows delegates pulling out phones to capture images of the final vote. News outlets quickly reported on how each country voted—mentioning state’s commentary on how they aligned themselves.
In stark contrast, votes for the HRC membership—including the vote that gave Russia its seat—are cast in secret as mandated by the HRC Charter. By allowing each member to vote anonymously, secret voting makes it nearly impossible to hold member states responsible for consideration of the HRC’s membership criteria. It also hides vote trading and stifles dialogue surrounding each member’s ballot.
As shown by the discourse following the vote to suspend Russia’s membership, on the record voting would also make states more accountable to civil society and other member states, increasing dialogue around a given country’s human rights record. It would also safeguard against clean slate ballots by increasing the likelihood that states withhold votes should a qualified candidate not be presented for a particular bloc.
The General Assembly is currently in the midst of conducting its 2021-2026 review of the HRC, and states and civil society should use the opportunity to voice concerns about clean slate ballots and secret voting. While these structural changes may not guarantee that rights abusers are not elected, the removal of Russia from the HRC forces a critical look at the structures that led to its election in the first place.
