By Dharshan Weerasekera Courtesy The Island

The walkout raises serious questions about the future viability of the UNHRC because it suggests that the Council has degenerated into theater, pantomime and farce. In these circumstances, it is incumbent on the General Assembly to immediately launch a thorough assessment of the work of the Council since 2006 to find out whether the UNHRC is worth the enormous cost that goes into maintaining it and what reforms if any can be implemented in order to ensure that the institution or any successor to it really conforms to and abides by the principles that are embodied in their founding statutes.

On 01 March 2022, an extraordinary scene unfolded at the UNHRC when nearly 100 diplomats from Western countries including the US, U.K, Canada, Germany and others walked out when Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was addressing the Council via a video-link. According to reports, the gesture was in protest over Russia’s ongoing military action in Ukraine. Two questions arise, first, whether this sort of conduct is proper and second, what does it entail for the future of the UNHRC?

In my opinion, the walkout was completely improper because, first, according to the UNHRC’s founding statute (UN General Assembly resolution 60/251) a fundamental principle that must guide the Council in its work is constructive international dialogue.” Obviously, if diplomats simply walk out when the other side is speaking then no dialogue, constructive or otherwise, is possible.

Secondly, the countries whose delegates walked out are heirs to two of the most illustrious legal traditions in history, the Roman Law in the case of the European countries and the Common Law in the case of the US, the U.K, Canada and others. An indispensable component of both those traditions is respect for natural justice and one of the pillars of natural justice is the injunction to hear the other side.” Therefore, the nations that walked out during Mr. Lavrov’s speech have repudiated their own historical traditions.

This is unfortunate because, regardless of how Westerners today might view their historical traditions, many people especially in developing countries including Sri Lanka which were once colonies of Western countries may still believe in concepts such as natural justice and the walkout sends the wrong message to such people because it suggests that the related concepts have no real meaning or force in the lands of their birth.

To turn next to the question of what the walkout means for the future of the UNHRC, in my opinion it represents the absolute nadir of the UNHRC as an institution. The General Assembly created the UNHRC in 2006 to replace the U.N. Commission on Human Rights because the

General Assembly was persuaded that the latter institution had become too politicised. Accordingly, in setting out the principles that were to guide the new institution, the General Assembly stated:

The work of the Council shall be guided by the principles of universality, impartiality, objectivity, non-selectivity, constructive international dialogue and cooperation.” (Paragraph 4, resolution 60/251, 3^rd April 2006)

To turn to the walkout, according to the participants the reason for it was to show their outrage at what the Russians had done and also to show solidarity with the Ukrainians. Canadian Foreign Minister Melanie Joly, one of the diplomats who walked out, is reported as saying:

Minister Lavrov was giving his version, which is false, about what is happening in Ukraine and so we wanted to show a very strong stance together.” (1^st March 2022.)

Certainly, each of the delegates in question has an inherent right to show his or her outrage at what the Russians had done especially if they consider that the reasons given by the Russians for their actions are wrong or false. However, given the principles that are supposed to guide the UNHRC set out inter alia in paragraph 4 of the founding statute, if a delegate considers that what the Russian Foreign Minister or anyone else is saying is false they have an obligation to objectively demonstrate it both for the benefit of the Council as well as the rest of the world.

A walkout does not demonstrate in any way the truth or falsity of the Russian Foreign Minister’s assertions. It simply makes a political point, namely, that one disagrees with the said assertions. It gives the impression that the Western nations consider that the UNHRC is a forum for people to discuss only ideas or matters with which they (i.e. the Western nations) agree.

However, the UNHRC has a mandate to promote and protect human rights worldwide and reason and common sense suggest that this would require a consideration of contrary or opposing viewpoints, that is, viewpoints with which one may disagree. If the UNHRC could not provide a forum for such discussions, then of what use is the institution? In sum, the walkout negates the very purpose behind the UNHRC as envisioned by the General Assembly when it created the institution.

Conclusion

The walkout raises serious questions about the future viability of the UNHRC because it suggests that the Council has degenerated into theater, pantomime and farce. In these circumstances, it is incumbent on the General Assembly to immediately launch a thorough assessment of the work of the Council since 2006 to find out whether the UNHRC is worth the enormous cost that goes into maintaining it and what reforms if any can be implemented in order to ensure that the institution or any successor to it really conforms to and abides by the principles that are embodied in their founding statutes.

The writer is an Attorney-at-Law and also consultant to the Strategic Communications Unit (Lakshman Kadirgamar Institute)