HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL BEGINS INTERACTIVE DIALOGUE ON AN EQUITABLE INTERNATIONAL ORDER AND ON UNILATERAL COERCIVE MEASURES

The Human Rights Council this morning began an interactive clustered dialogue with Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, and with Idriss Jazairy, Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights. It also concluded its clustered interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the implications for human rights of the environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes, Baskut Tuncak, and with the Special Rapporteur on the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation, Leo Heller.

At the end of the meeting, the Council heard an address from Aichetou Mint M'Haiham, Commissioner for Human Rights and Humanitarian Action of Mauritania, who underlined the importance of tolerance and moderation in the field of human rights, and reiterated Mauritania’s commitment to promote and protect human rights and to combat religious extremism. To that end, the country had launched an awareness-raising campaign to better combat slavery, and it had brought its national legislation on this issue in line with its international commitments.

Presenting his report, Mr. de Zayas addressed the challenge to the international order posed by investors and transnational corporations. Their activities constituted an attack on the very essence of sovereignty and self-determination, the founding principles of the United Nations. He warned that the international order of sovereign and equal States should not be undermined by private attempts to replace it with an international order ruled by investors, speculators and transnational enterprises lacking democratic legitimacy. Globalization and targeted investment had to foster an environment where human rights were fully realized through the State’s regulatory functions. The world economy had to adjust time and again to advance the cause of human dignity.

In his presentation, Mr. Jazairy noted that unilateral coercive measures seemed to run counter to international law, and their legality should be further discussed as they entailed the enjoyment of human rights by the most vulnerable segments of the population, including political, civil, economic, social and cultural rights, and swelled the flow of migrants from targeted countries. There had however been a spectacular increase in resort to unilateral coercive measures since the 1990s. Accordingly, the elaboration of draft guidelines to prevent, minimize and redress these adverse effects would be an important task of his mandate, together with the identification of mechanisms and best practices to provide redress and remedy for adverse human rights outcomes of unilateral coercive measures.

In the ensuing discussion, speakers expressed deep concern over unilateral measures that negatively impacted the sovereignty of States, as well as civil and political, and economic, social and cultural rights. They particularly criticized the negative effect of sanctions on developing countries, noting that such measures were contrary to the spirit of the United Nations Charter.

Speaking were Saudi Arabia on behalf of the Arab Group, and Algeria on behalf of the African Group.

During the clustered interactive dialogue on hazardous waste and on safe drinking water and sanitation, speakers noted that access to safe drinking water and sanitation had not achieved the attention it deserved and agreed that service providers had to ensure that the principle of accessibility was at the centre of their decisions. They stressed the importance of integrated planning and working with communities on rational use of water in in order to ensure continuous access and affordability of water and sanitation to citizens. Water security constituted an integral part of social sustainability. Relevant strategies should thus be geared towards ensuring social justice in countries. Some speakers stated that the disconnection of services due to the inability to pay was a human right violation, noting that when water and sanitation were unavailable people could not fully enjoy their other rights, such as the right to life, health, and prosperity.

As for the issue of hazardous waste management, some speakers drew attention to the fact that an alarming number of people lived near hazardous waste sites without knowing it. The information about hazardous situations had to be made available to the public, and the failure to do so by industries and Governments had to be criminalized at the international level. To that end, it was necessary to come up with coordinated international action on hazardous waste management and international benchmarks to better regulate the negative effects of hazardous waste on human health. Some speakers reminded that the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, or the Aarhus Convention, and its Protocol on Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers provided a solid framework on access to environmental information through guaranteeing public rights and imposing obligations on public authorities.

In concluding remarks, Mr. Tuncak said that business and human rights were a strong priority for his mandate given the links between this issue and the use of hazardous substances, reminding that more than 90 per cent of hazardous waste was illegally traded or dumped, and that information on health implications of a number of chemicals remained largely unavailable.

Mr. Heller said that international cooperation was a strong element of the Sustainable Development Goals, adding that cooperation had to be rights-oriented and integrated in national policies. States should have in place national plans and policies for ensuring access to safe water and sanitation, and they should also communicate to the international community how they planned to go about achieving their goals. He also underlined the links between climate change and access to water and sanitation, which would be addressed in one of his reports.

The interactive dialogue on hazardous waste and on safe drinking water and sanitation started on 16 September and a summary can be found here.

Speaking in the discussion were: Spain, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Slovenia, Iran, Hungary, State of Palestine, Russian Federation, Chile, Mali, South Africa, Fiji, Singapore, Morocco, Republic of Korea, Eritrea, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Ecuador, Georgia, Panama, Côte d’Ivoire, France, Djibouti, and Bangladesh.

The following civil society organizations also took the floor: American Association of Jurists, International Committee for the Indians of the Americas, China Society for Human Rights Studies, Khiam Rehabilitation Centre for Victims of Torture, Human Rights Now, Mbororo Social and Cultural Development Association, Centre for Human Rights and Peace Advocacy, Arab Commission for Human Rights, International Lawyers Organization, Badil Resource Centre for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights, Verein Sudwind Entwicklungspolitik, and United Villages.

The Human Rights Council is holding a full day of meetings today. It is scheduled to hold a panel discussion on unilateral coercive measures and human rights at noon. In the afternoon it will continue the clustered interactive dialogue with the Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, and with the Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights, before starting another clustered interactive dialogue with the Working Group on private military and security companies and on the right to development.

Interactive Debate on Hazardous Wastes and on Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation

Spain said that so far, the issue of accessibility to water and sanitation had not achieved the attention it deserved, and agreed that service providers must ensure that the principle of accessibility was at the centre of their decisions. Water potential was a source of sustainable development for Tajikistan which had made significant progress in achieving international targets in this regard, including the water and sanitation related Millennium Development Goal. Kyrgyzstan said that there were sites with toxic and radioactive waste left by the mining and military operations of the former Soviet Union, adding that international assistance was needed to prevent accidents. Kyrgyzstan agreed with the Special Rapporteur that a universal standard for water accessibility should be established at regional levels. Slovenia agreed on the importance of ensuring that public finance reached the most marginalized and disadvantaged individuals and communities who were often not connected to a formal network and asked about best practice in public administration to ensure access to safe drinking water to informal settlements.

Iran said that as hazardous substances and waste could impact all human rights, Iran had set up a system to classify hazardous materials. The ever-increasing amounts of hazardous waste, mostly produced by Western countries, needed to be tackled. A clear definition of the right to access to sanitation and water was necessary. Hungary agreed that affordability was a key concern when it came to the right to access to water. It was also a social protection issue and had to go hand in hand with the sustainability of the infrastructure and water resources. What was the relationship between affordability and sustainable water usage in the Rapporteur’s view? Palestine stated that the Fourth Geneva Convention compelled the occupying power to provide clean water and adequate sanitation, which Israel did not respect. In the Gaza Strip, because of the illegal blockade, over 120,000 Palestinians were disconnected from the water network. Russian Federation said that the right to a healthy environment was enshrined in the Constitution. Close attention was given to the protection of the environment from hazardous waste and substances. Particular attention should be paid to the incident when the Ukrainian authorities had closed the north-Crimean water supply pipe. Chile stressed the need to ensure that water and sanitation services were provided to everyone and asked about the best practices to guarantee affordable access to water and sanitation. States must ensure that information on hazardous wastes and substances was available and accessible to all and Chile underscored the importance of the Stockholm Protocol.

LEO HELLER, Special Rapporteur on the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation, said that there was no internationally agreed standard for access to water and sanitation, which depended on the economic possibilities of households. States needed to ensure access for all, especially those most disadvantaged; best practices and mechanisms in this regard already existed in a number of countries, and included special tariffs and subsidies, and public financing to ensure accessibility for all. With regards to the Post-2015 Development Agenda, Mr. Heller said that there were two targets specifically related to water and sanitation, one on achieving universal access to safe drinking water by 2030, and another on achieving equitable universal access to safe sanitation and hygiene for all by 2030. Visibility of the situation of the poorest was one of the priorities and in this sense monitoring would be crucial so strong investment in data collection must be made. This would ensure that gaps were visible, gaps between poor and rich, urban and rural, gender-based gaps and others.

BASKUT TUNCAK, Special Rapporteur on the implications for human rights of the environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes, thanked all States for their support and recognition of the importance of the mandate. He stressed that all individuals should enjoy free access to information about hazardous substances and waste, noting that the issue should be viewed in light of civil and political rights, as well as economic, social and cultural rights. He looked forward to further advances of Kazakhstan in that respect, and commended China for its efforts to investigate the recent chemical accident. Mr. Tuncak said he had participated in several conferences on chemicals and their management where he stressed the rights-based approach to the management of chemicals, which could illuminate gaps in the international framework of laws and standards. One of the major deficiencies was the right to information, which was the focus of his report. Regarding how to stop illegal dumping of hazardous waste on States’ territories, he admitted that the problem was serious and that often companies produced significant waste to make only one product. The Basel Convention had a high ratification rate, but the Basel Ban Amendment still had not entered into force, and Mr. Tuncak called on States to give it serious consideration.

Mali said that problems sometimes arouse when water resources were available, but not accessible to all. The water framework in Mali made local structures responsible for the implementation of national laws and promoted a programme-based approach. South Africa believed that the Human Rights Council should work towards the codification of the right to clean water and sanitation under international human rights law. South Africa noted with interest the reference to human rights issues relating to transnational corporations and other business enterprises regarding environmentally sound management. Fiji said that its Constitution provided for the right to accessible and adequate housing and sanitation, and the right to clean and safe water, and would be inviting the Special Rapporteur to Fiji. A great challenge was to secure clean and safe water to all of its communities, especially on the outer lying islands. Singapore said that sustainable water management was a matter of survival to Singapore. Integrated planning and working with communities on rational use had been factors in ensuring continuous access and affordability to all. Singapore shared its experiences and exchanged innovative ideas with its international partners.

Morocco agreed that the right to information and access to information contributed to awareness raising about the risks linked with the management of hazardous waste and substances, and asked the Special Rapporteur how he interacted with other Special Procedures given the crosscutting nature of his mandate. Morocco called for special attention to developing countries affected by desertification to strengthen their capacities to guarantee equal access to drinking water. In 2013, the Republic of Korea had enacted the Act on the Registration, Evaluation of Chemical Substances, or “K-REACH” which aimed at protecting public health and the environment from any harm posed by chemical substances by means of registering, examining and evaluating information on chemical substances before their manufacture or import into the country. Eritrea said that water security constituted an integral part of its sustainable social sector policy and strategy geared towards ensuring social justice in the country, and that the major issue was to promote equitable access and availability of clean water and sanitation. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe said that its Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, or the Aarhus Convention, and its Protocol on Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers provided a solid framework on access to environmental information through guaranteeing public rights and imposing obligations on public authorities.

Ecuador stated that the management of waste and hazardous substances had to be based on free access to information because the lack of information increased health risks and in that way impeded human rights. It was necessary to come up with a coordinated international action on hazardous waste management and international benchmarks to better regulate the negative effects of hazardous waste on human health. Georgia reiterated that safe drinking water and sanitation were crucial for healthy and dignified life. As some 2.4 billion people worldwide still lacked that right, Georgia supported the increased role of United Nations treaty bodies in bringing access to that right. Panama considered the right to safe drinking water and sanitation as a basic right that States had to provide. To that end, the Government of Panama had launched its Basic Sanitation Programme, which sought to improve the water and sanitation infrastructure in the country and to improve access. Côte d’Ivoire welcomed the Special Rapporteur’s focus on the right to information about hazardous waste as a prerequisite for the full enjoyment of human rights. The availability and accessibility of information to people could prevent harmful effects of hazardous substances.

France stressed that the right to information was crucial in any democratic society and said that the disclosure of information on the disposal of hazardous waste and substances was a public interest which should not be curtailed by private interests. France said that the affordability aspect of the right to clean water and sanitation was of particular importance for marginalized groups and inquired about the best means to involve the private sector in the realization of the right to water and sanitation. Djibouti said that hazardous waste and substances were a global public health problem but above all a problem of national public health and Djibouti agreed that access to information was a prerequisite to the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights and participation in public affairs. It was unjustifiable that deprivation of access to even a basic provision of water and sanitation persisted in countries that had the necessary resources, said Bangladesh and stressed the importance of international cooperation to support developing countries in ensuring the basic provision of water and sanitation. Bangladesh asked the Special Rapporteur on hazardous waste how to ensure that some of the recommendations he had mate were not construed or abused as non-tariff trade barriers.

American Association of Jurists encouraged the Special Rapporteur on the right to water and sanitation to pay special attention to the violation of this right for minorities and indigenous people impacted by mining activities and, recalling that 95 per cent of the water in Gaza was deemed unfit for human consumption, called upon Mr. Heller to place this situation high on his agenda. International Committee for the Indians of the Americas drew attention to the fact that more than 15,000 abandoned uranium mines existed in the United States, and that more than 10 million people lived within 50 miles of an abandoned uranium mine but did not know it. The information about hazardous situations had to be made available to the public and international criminalization of such actions by industry and Governments had to be implemented. China Society for Human Rights Studies noted that in order to reduce hazardous waste accidents there should be relevant labour regulations, which would prevent casualties. Immediate cleaning of water would increase water quality and bring it to more people, and in that way improve their right to health. Judicial remedies should also be introduced so that people could get access to their rights. Khiam Rehabilitation Center for Victims of Torture noted that in Yemen a large number of individuals did not have access to basic services due to the imposed embargo. Due to lack of electricity, agricultural land was not being cultivated. Women and sick people did not have access to medicines. The people of Yemen could therefore not have any hope for a healthy life, due to the aggression of the coalition. Human Rights Now raised concern over the health of people affected by the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident. The Japanese Government continued to ignore recommendations made by the Human Rights Committee to follow international human rights standards, and it had discounted health consequences. Human Rights Now requested immediate action by the Human Rights Council in that respect.

Mbororo Social and Cultural Development Association expressed concern about the deplorable state of access to safe water and sanitation in India, where more than 90 per cent of the poor and low-caste persons living in the hilly areas did not enjoy this human right. Centre for Human Rights and Peace Advocacy said that in many parts of rural areas in India the availability of clean water was a major problem, while in many areas the Dalits, who were considered unclean, were not allowed to use water sources. Arab Commission for Human Rights, in a joint statement with CIRID (Centre Independant de Recherches et d'Initiatives pour le Dialogue), said that Mr. Heller’s report was a road map for the achievement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which included water development goals. International-Lawyers.Org asked the Special Rapporteur to comment on the situation in Palestine, where despite it being one of the largest aquifers in the Middle East, people were forced to buy water from the occupying Israeli authorities.

BADIL Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights drew attention to the fact that Israel denied access to water to the Palestinians living in the occupied territories, and that it unlawfully used Palestinian water resources solely for those living in the Israeli settlements. The limited access to water increased the dependability of Palestinians on Israel, increased the cost of access, and forced them to survive with only 20 litres of water per day per capita. Verein Sudwind warned that in Iran there was no efficient long-term water resource management, and that in some Iranian cities the level of water resources had dropped to such a low level that those cities were scientifically declared dead. United Villages underlined that the disconnection of services due to the inability to pay was a human right violation. When water and sanitation were unavailable people could not fully enjoy their other rights, such as the right to health, food production and prosperity. It called on States and stakeholders to join them in their efforts to conduct research and propose solutions.


Concluding Remarks

BASKUT TUNCAK, Special Rapporteur on the implications for human rights of the environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes, in concluding remarks, said business and human rights were a strong priority for his mandate given the links between this issue and the use of hazardous substances. He said he was collaborating with other Special Procedures mandate holders. Under international law, health and safety information was not supposed to be considered confidential. Information on health implications of a number of chemicals remained largely unavailable. The scope of his mandate was extended recently to the full life-circle of hazardous substances, which was crucial to address the issue of the human rights impact of wastes. He underlined that more than 90 per cent of hazardous waste was illegally traded or dumped. On international cooperation, he said one initial step was the sharing of best practices among States. He welcomed the contributions by States, national human rights institutions and non-governmental organizations to the elaboration of his thematic report. He reiterated that information remained largely unavailable regarding hazardous substances and waste, and said that thousands of different hazardous substances were created and disposed of all the time. There had been a 20 per cent increase of child cancers over recent years, which could not be explained other than by them being exposed to hazardous substances.

LEO HELLER, Special Rapporteur on the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation, encouraged non-governmental organizations to be in contact with the mandate and keep it informed about alleged violations of the right to water and sanitation, and reiterated his commitment to use human rights mechanisms to remedy and provide good responses to such cases. International cooperation was a strong element of the Sustainable Development Goals and the Special Rapporteur thought there was room to use it to raise human rights values, adding that this cooperation must be rights-oriented and integrated in national policies. States should have in place national plans and policies, which would enable them to have broad vision of challenges in ensuring access to safe water and sanitation, and which would also communicate to the international community how they planned to go about achieving it. Mr. Heller agreed on the importance of understanding the links between climate change and access to water and sanitation, which would be addressed in one of his reports. While there was no prescription on the best way to provide water and sanitation services, it was clear that the profit making aim of private companies must be reconciled with the principle of affordability. States that used private use of the provision of services should have in place a strong regulatory framework to ensure affordability of services to the poorest. In terms of the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and in particular its Goal 6, the Special Rapporteur stressed the importance of the involvement of the population and also how attainment of this Goal could support achievement of other Sustainable Development Goals.

Documentation

The Council has before it the report of the Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order (A/HRC/30/44)

The Council has before it the report of the Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights (A/HRC/30/45)

Presentation of Reports on an Equitable International Order and on Unilateral Coercive Measures

ALFRED-MAURICE DE ZAYAS, Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, explained that his report addressed the challenge to the international order posed by certain activities of investors and transnational corporations that entailed much more than interference in the regulatory space of States. They actually constituted an attack on the very essence of sovereignty and self-determination, which were founding principles of the United Nations. Mr. De Zayas strongly endorsed the 2011 Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, as well as the United Nations “Protect, respect and Remedy” Framework. His report proposed a sensible compromise that promoted business and foreign direct investment while ensuring the protection of human rights. That proposal bore in mind two ontologies: first that by nature the function of the State was to legislate in the public interest, and to advance the welfare of the persons living under its jurisdiction; and secondly that business and investment activities were risk-taking in their nature, but that they could not demand a guarantee of profits from Governments and could not usurp State functions. The investor-State dispute settlement mechanism established under most bilateral and multilateral investment agreements had proven to be a Trojan horse and mutated into a privatized system of dispute settlement outside and contrary to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Experience had shown that many of the 608 arbitration awards overrode national law and hindered States in the sovereign determination of fiscal and budgetary policy, labour, health and environmental regulation, and that they had adverse effects on human rights.
An international order of sovereign and equal States under the United Nations Charter should not be undermined by private attempts to replace it with an international order ruled by investors, speculators and transnational enterprises lacking democratic legitimacy. Globalization and targeted investment had to foster an environment where human rights were fully realized through the State’s regulatory functions. Globalization could not be allowed to become the grand global casino where investors rigged the system to guarantee that they always won. The world economy had to adjust time and again to advance the cause of human dignity. The rule of thumb should be to give corporations what belonged to them, give back to States what was fundamentally and inalienably theirs, i.e. sovereignty and space, give parliaments the faculty to consider all aspects of treaties without undemocratic secrecy and fast-tracking, and give to the people the right to public participation, due process and democracy.

IDRISS JAZAIRY, Special Rapporteur on the Negative Impact of Unilateral Coercive Measures on the Enjoyment of Human Rights, noted that some United Nations Member States had expressed concerns about his nomination and said he was looking forward to re-building support and confidence with them, while he appealed to all States to support his efforts to broaden consensus on the mandate. He explained that his mandate would consider unilateral coercive measures other than those taken by the United Nations Security Council under article 41 of the Charter of the United Nations. Analysing motivations for unilateral coercive measures was a political exercise; drawing attention to the possible adverse human rights impact of unilateral coercive measures was not. He said he would be looking at comprehensive and targeted measures. Comprehensive measures tended to be indiscriminate and have more adverse human rights impacts, and their effectiveness was gauged in light of their capacity to impose broad-based policy changes. Targeted measures for their part could be aimed at destabilizing a particular sector. Unilateral coercive measures seemed to run counter to international law, and their legality should be further discussed as they entailed the enjoyment of human rights by the most vulnerable segments of the population, including political, economic, social and cultural rights, and swelled the flow of migrants from targeted countries. Outside of the Security Council framework, there was no legal hierarchy between States entitling some States to sanction others.

There had however been a spectacular increase in resorting to unilateral coercive measures since the 1990s, Mr. Jazairy said. Fortunately, qualitative improvements had occurred in response to human rights concerns, and countries had moved towards sector-based measures. Progress had not been homogenous however, and challenges remained. There was need in the United Nations System for a clear house or public register of on-going unilateral coercive measures. An inter-agency task force should elaborate appropriate assessment parameters to avoid source countries’ under-estimation of adverse impacts of unilateral coercive measures. The elaboration of draft guidelines to prevent, minimize and redress these adverse effects would be an important task of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, together with the identification of mechanisms and best practices to provide redress and remedy for adverse human rights outcomes of unilateral coercive measures.

Interactive Dialogue on an Equitable International Order and on Unilateral Coercive Measures

Saudi Arabia, speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, expressed deep concern over the measures that negatively impacted the sovereignty of States, as well as civil and political, and economic, social and cultural rights. The Arab Group also criticized the negative effect of sanctions and other unilateral coercive measures, especially those affecting developing countries, among them some Arab countries. Such measures were contrary to the spirit of the United Nations Charter. Algeria, speaking on behalf of the African Group, noted that the promotion of a just and equitable international order should be ensured through State guarantees that all trade agreements represented the will of their people. It noted that embargoes and other unilateral coercive measures ran contrary to the United Nations Charter and had a negative impact on human rights.

Address by Dignitary from Mauritania

AICHETOU MINT M'HAIHAM, Commissioner for Human Rights and Humanitarian Action of Mauritania, in an address to the Council, underlined the importance of tolerance and moderation in the field of human rights, and reiterated Mauritania’s commitment to promote and protect human rights and to combat religious extremism. Mauritania had launched an awareness-raising campaign to better combat slavery, and had brought its national legislation on this issue into line with its international commitments. Mauritania had ratified a law which criminalized torture, and another law which prevented torture in all its forms. It had ratified a new law to allow vulnerable groups to have better access to legal assistance, and had included vulnerable groups into priority groups that would receive immediate attention. Mauritania implemented a number of micro-projects in the framework of the solidarity programme, to combat poverty and unemployment. Fundamental freedoms had clearly seen a more significant momentum. There were no prisoners of conscience in Mauritania. All stakeholders supported the democratic momentum and worked together to promote the rule of law and strengthen institutions. Mauritania would soon submit its report to the Universal Periodic Review, as well as periodic reports to treaty bodies. It had accepted requests for visits by the Special Rapporteurs on torture and on persons of African descent. Mauritania reiterated its support for international efforts that aimed to protect human dignity and human rights.


For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC15/113E