CONCLUDING STATEMENT BY DAVID WEISSBRODT CHAIRPERSON OF THE SUB-COMMISSION AT THE FIFTY-THIRD SESSION

Sub-Comission on Promotion
and Protection of Human Rights
53rd session
17 August 2001





As we end our 53rd session, I would like to talk about our accomplishments and reflect upon the future of the Sub-Commission. My general theme will be that the Sub-Commission has shown that it can make a tangible contribution to the promotion and protection of human rights. If we have suffered some difficulties and damage in the last few years, we are definitely coming back stronger and better.


ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE SESSION

We can be pleased at the substantive achievements of the session.

We continued and intensified our review of the relationship between trade and human rights by studying globalization and human rights and looking at the impact of intellectual property agreements on the enjoyment of basic rights as well as the dispute settlement system of the World Trade Organization and its accessibility to human rights concerns and Civil Society. For the first time we had a real encounter between the human rights community and the relevant global economic institutions. The Sub-Commission also embarked on further study of the human rights impact of intellectual property on indigenous rights and the relationship between trade in services and human rights.

Furthermore, the Sub-Commission’s Working Group on Transnational Corporations made real progress in clarifying the international human rights obligations of transnational corporations and other economic actors as well as developing relevant binding standards.

The Sub-Commission took the first concrete steps towards the establishment of the Social Forum which is scheduled to meet next year. We had a special debate with a panel of outside experts for the first time in the history of the Sub-Commission to help select the topics for next year’s forum and to model the innovative approach we will follow. The topic we selected was “The relationship between poverty reduction and the realization of the right to food.”

This session also began several new research projects related to economic, social and cultural rights, including a working paper on non-discrimination at the request of the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. For the first time in the history of the Sub-Commission a member of the Committee addressed the Sub-Commission and encouraged further joint work, for example, on intellectual property rights. The Sub-Commission also for the third time asked the Commission for authority to undertake a study of the right to drinking water and sanitation. In addition, the Sub-Commission responded to the request of the Commission on Human Rights to begin developing guidelines on how to overcome extreme poverty.

We were able, without rancor, to make recommendations to the forthcoming World Conference Against Racism about the need for acknowledgement of the historical and present reality and responsibility for slavery and other grave manifestations of racism. We also continued two studies recommended by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination on affirmative action and the rights of non-citizens, an expanded working paper the Committee had requested on the substance of reservations to human rights treaties, and we authorized a new working paper the Committee had requested on the restoration of property to returned refugees.

Madame Daes completed her research on Indigenous Peoples and their Relationship to Land. The Sub-Commission had solid discussions and continued its studies and/or working papers on terrorism and human rights, traditional practices affecting the health of women, democracy, discrimination based on work and descent, discrimination in the criminal justice system, and the fairness of procedures in military tribunals. The Sub-Commission initiated new working papers on the human rights implications of the use of depleted uranium, the accountability of UN peacekeepers and related UN personnel, bioethics and human rights, and the human rights impact of trade in small arms.


INSTITUTIONAL AND PROCEDURAL ACHIEVEMENTS

Let me mention a number of the institutional and procedural achievements of this year.

First, the Sub-Commission had a lively and productive exchange of views not only with the Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights, but also with the expanded Bureau of the Commission. Everyone seemed to agree that such encounters must be continued each year, so that cooperation can improve.

I was pleased that we were able to implement the streamlined 7 point agenda this year for the first time which allowed us to complete the public debate in a timely manner. I would encourage continued self-restraint in not allowing the agenda to balloon back in future years.

The Sub-Commission followed the Commission’s request this year of meeting in private session to adopt our timetable and working rules. We also followed the Commission’s approach of giving joint NGO statements more time to encourage combining such remarks.

Another idea borrowed this year from the Commission’s practice was the encouragement of parallel meetings outside of the plenary sessions with members who are preparing reports, working papers or studies, to broaden the input they receive from NGO’s, governments, and other interested persons. I would encourage members who have working papers and studies to think about this mechanism next year, for helping them generate ideas and comments for their future work. I received several helpful ideas and resources for my progress report next year on the rights of non-citizens, in the parallel meetings that I held this year. As Chair of the Sub-Commission I also held three regular weekly meetings with NGO’s during the session that were immensely valuable to me and, I hope, to the participating NGO’s.

Inspired by this year’s meeting with the Commission, the Sub-Commission has unanimously proposed that the Commission seek authority from the Economic and Social Council to act upon Sub-Commission requests for studies and other concrete measures at its September meeting rather than waiting until April. The Sub-Commission also unanimously recommended that the Commission restore the fourth week of its session. Those two measures will make it possible for the Sub-Commission to fulfill more effectively its “think-tank” role and have the kind of deliberations which will avoid the spectacle of the public drafting of resolutions.

While we are awaiting Commission action, however, the Sub-Commission was able to make quite a number of procedural improvements this year. We increased the transparency of our work on resolutions. Within 24 hours of the submission of any draft resolution, it was disseminated to all members and listed on a public board in the front of the room.

Debates on each agenda item were restructured around reports, working papers, and substantive issues, so that there was some cohesiveness to our deliberations.

As I mentioned earlier, inter-active discussions were fostered particularly during the early part of the session when we had time. The Q&A format used in the globalization and Social Forum debates seemed to be a useful experiment.

For the first time in many years we handled our debates so that there was no need to diminish the speaking time of observers towards the end of the session. Indeed, we were able to find three precious hours to hold private consultations prior to voting on resolutions. Because of the constraints of the reduced three-week session, however, there was not sufficient time to engage in anywhere near enough consultations.

The Sub-Commission found a balanced approach to discouraging government v. government exchanges that may belong in the Commission, but do not generally belong in this expert body.

For the first time the Chairperson was authorized to discourage personal attacks upon any participant and that authority was occasionally used.

We were able to begin the process of gathering a complete list of email contact addresses for all members, which will also improve our ability to communicate with ourselves between sessions.

I’m pleased that I can say that I was able to continue the tradition which has now been established for three consecutive years, of beginning each session on time.


ITEM 2 (HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS DEBATE)

In addition to its studies, the Sub-Commission continues to have a mandate to discuss country situations in all parts of the world, particularly as to those places not on the Commission’s agenda or where there is an urgent problem. I think the Commission made a mistake in depriving the Sub-Commission of authority to adopt resolutions and decisions mentioning countries. Nonetheless, I am pleased that we are still having a meaningful discussion under this Item.

I especially wish to thank the NGOs who have continued to participate in the Sub-Commission’s debate and to continue to bring serious violations of human rights to our attention. I would also like to thank the governments who have been willing to respond and in some cases to offer constructive and concrete commitments to new human rights mechanisms or initiatives in their countries.

One cannot help but notice that the NGO participation in this year’s item 2 debate was down dramatically from prior years. By my count, only 21 NGO’s spoke this year under item 2, compared to 29 in 2000 and 33 in 1999. Hence, nearly a 40% decrease has occurred in just 2 years. Item 2 now has fewer NGO interventions than any of our other agenda items. I’m pleased to report that NGO’s are now more interested in our work on economic, social and cultural rights. NGO participation is the lifeblood of the Sub-Commission and must be maintained on item 2 as well as other agenda items.

The Sub-Commission needs to be able to apply its expertise to concrete situations. When I look back at some of the most courageous and important decisions this Sub-Commission has taken in the past, they often involved an informed response to a current or escalating human rights crisis happening in the world around us. The Sub-Commission was the only human rights body to adopt a resolution responding to Tianamen Square in 1989. But look around us today – serious human rights violations in the Middle East, in Macedonia, and -- just before the Sub-Commission began -- in Genoa, have gone unmentioned in our resolutions and decisions.

I believe we need to find a principled way to comment on these situations – we should continue to explore this issue in our dialogue with the Commission. Let’s continue to keep Item 2 alive and find new ways to keep the conscience of the Sub-Commission focused not only on the other important substantive work that is before us, but also on particular country situations that deserve our attention.

Since we are unable to mention countries, our concrete concerns arise in other ways, for example, in the resolution on sexual slavery and armed conflict. At this session we had for the first time a substantive debate on the plight of Korean comfort women. Similarly, the Sub-Commission’s study on discrimination in regard to occupation and descent reflected real concern about the situation in a number of countries.


THE FUTURE

I want to say a few words about the future of the Sub-Commission. It is much easier to be a historian than a prophet. Nonetheless, during this coming year we certainly can anticipate that the Sub-Commission’s working groups on communications, minorities, contemporary forms of slavery, and indigenous populations will meet.

Along with studies and country issues, the working groups of the Sub-Commission continue to be a fundament aspect of our contribution to human rights. The Working Group on Indigenous Populations, had greater numbers of participants than the Sub-Commission itself. Nowhere else in the UN system is the issue of minorities handled in such a focused way as the Sub-Commission’s Working Group on Minorities.

The intra sessional Working Group on Administration of Justice has also set in motion some valuable discussions and working papers for our consideration. I also think the proposal of Mr. Yokota on behalf of this working group to begin their meetings next year on the first afternoon of our session is an excellent idea – a good use of some early time on our schedule that otherwise tends to go to waste.

The intra sessional Working Group on Transnational Corporations chaired by Mr. Guisse had a successful third meeting, with its mandate extended for three more years in recognition of the significant tasks yet to be accomplished.

One of the trends in all of the working groups seems to be to invite a wider variety of participants to their sessions – not just the traditional UN accredited representatives, but new, relevant bodies and groups from civil society. The Working Group on Indigenous Populations involves indigenous peoples and representatives regardless of their UN accreditation. Minority community representatives participate in that working group. Similar trends are occurring in the Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery and the Working Group on Transnational Corporations. It is expected that the Social Forum will involve emerging actors in the South, grass roots organizations, voluntary youth associations, trade unions, associations of workers, and other representatives of the private sector. I think this trend is healthy and constructive. As I noted earlier in the session, though we are a body of experts, like any good experts we try to identify areas where better expertise or experience might be available.


Consultation with UN Specialized Bodies

I might also say a word about the trend of consulting UN specialized bodies on our work. The Social Forum will also need the input of such relevant UN agencies. When we consider issues within the expertise of those agencies we should regularly consult them. For example, this year we considered several resolutions on refugee matters and we should in that context systematically consult the UNHCR.


Documentation

We all suffered from the documentation problems this year. Given the unusual demands of simultaneous conferences, we can’t be too critical about the unavailability of translated documents. But I believe we must institute procedures to decrease the probability of this problem happening again, since the lack of documents had such a negative effect on our work. Sometimes the problem is that our working papers and reports are submitted late. I hope this year that the Secretariat will remind all members in January that the effective deadline for the submission of documents for translation and dissemination is in May.

We should also be more flexible and effective in using the Internet (e.g. to post documents for comment), and email (e.g. to circulate earlier, unedited versions of documents, with the understanding they are preliminary). Following an initiative of my predecessor Mme. Motoc, I hope we will broaden our new practice of transmitting unedited documents electronically (or if necessary, via paper copies) to members of the Sub-Commission immediately as the documents are submitted.


WORLD CONFERENCE

I’d like to say a few words about the upcoming World Conference Against Racism in Durban and its follow-up. The Sub-Commission adopted two resolutions and has produced several documents for the World Conference. I hope that we can play an even more active role after Durban. If the representatives in Durban are unable to resolve some difficult issues, the World Conference may wish to refer those questions to the Sub-Commission for further study.


CONCLUSION

In conclusion, my statement opening this year’s session emphasized the need for us to be creative, focused, and coordinated with other UN bodies in order to have the maximum concrete positive impact on promoting and protecting human rights. Many of the accomplishments of the Sub-Commission this session, including the substantive and procedural approaches I’ve highlighted, illustrate the sort of unique, value-added contribution we can make.


Tribute to Daes & Joinet

I’d like to close by paying special tribute to two of my colleagues who have indicated that they are retiring from Sub-Commission membership after this year -- Madame Daes and Mr. Joinet. They have been true pioneers in their contributions to the Sub-Commission and an inspiration to all of us. Please know that you both will be very much missed and that you have left a lasting legacy of which you should be very proud. Since both of you have agreed to do working papers for next year, hence we should not say “goodbye” but only thank you.

I warmly thank all of you for your participation in this year’s session. Bon voyage, good health, and see you next year.


-----