Special Feature on Human Rights Council – Institution-Building in Progress

New York, 8 February 2007: The UN Human Rights Council’s next session will take place 12 March - 6 April 2007.  The Council and NGOs are preparing for the meeting, and a Latest Development on these preparations will be sent out shortly. 

This “Special Feature” issue provides an in-depth update on the work of the Human Rights Council at its most recent Session (Session 3), held from 29 November-8 December.  Much of the Session was devoted to shaping the central procedural features of the Council, including the procedure for raising complaints of human rights violations by a state, functions and contributions of human rights “experts,” and the Universal Periodic Review.    

Discussion at the Council was based on the preparatory meetings of the Working Group on the Review of Mandates and Mechanisms, and the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review.

Click here for the timetable of the Session.

Working Group on the Review of Mandates and Mechanisms

At the first session of the Human Rights Council it adopted Decision 2006/104 creating the mandate for an “inter-sessional open-ended Working Group” to review the Council’s mandates and mechanisms.  Its purpose would be three-fold: to incorporate expert advice, to create an appropriate complaint procedure, and to maintain a system of special procedures.

The Working Group met for the first time on 13-24 November 2006 to debate these issues.  It then presented its findings to the Council at its Third Session, where discussion continued.

1. Future Expert Body - General Conclusions

The Working Group discussed questions related to the Council’s future system of expert advice, which would serve as a “think tank” for the Council – to advise, report to, and guide the Council based on research and monitoring issues of human rights. 

Areas of consensus and key disagreements are highlighted below and followed by the reaction from the Council when it took up these issues on 6 December.  (Working Group findings were presented by Facilitator and Vice-President of the Human Rights Council, Ambassador Musa Burayzat of Jordan.)

Name

• WG: GA Resolution 60/251 states that the HRC shall “maintain a system of…expert advice”; Consensus appeared on the name “Expert Advice Body.”
• HRC: EU and Switzerland opposed the name. No decision was made.

Structure

• WG: Divergence dominated discussion – whether to have an ad-hoc structure flexible to discuss cases whenever needed, or a formal structure as the previous Sub-Commission had held.
• HRC: Disagreement continued.  No decision was made.

Size

• WG: The majority of countries favored a formal structure consisting of 26 members, like the former Sub-Commission on the Promotion of Human Rights[1]. Finland and other states[2] requested a more informal structure composed by a roster of experts, monitored and updated by the OHCHR, and able to highlight areas of interest. The United States[3] and Australia argued for a smaller size of the future body (5 to 10 members) and the EU, Brazil, Canada, the Republic of Korea and Japan supported an option of having ten to twelve members.
• HRC: No decision was made.

Terms of Membership

• WG: Delegations were united in opposition of the structure of the former Sub-Commission, in which members could serve multiple terms.  Delegations agreed that members of the future expert body could hold no more than two consecutive, three-year terms.
• HRC: Based upon the decision reached in the WG, no substantial debate took place. 

Function

• WG: Consensus was found in identifying the expert body’s primary function as providing advice to the Council in the area of the promotion of human rights.
• HRC: Switzerland, Argentina, Republic of Korea and Guatemala favored the inclusion of the word “protection” so the function of the expert body would be to both promote and protect human rights.  No decision was made.

Composition

• WG: Member States found a general consensus on the principle that the body should reflect fair geographical representation, including representation of main legal traditions and civilizations, and also including a “gender perspective.” Delegations also agreed that the Council would elect the expert body as a subsidiary body of the Council, and that the body would only be involved in other human rights mechanisms upon request of the Council.
• HRC: Several delegations stressed the importance of involving NGOs and/or OHCHR in the selection process[4]. Algeria opposed this option and argued for states to be included exclusively, due to the Council’s intergovernmental character. No decision was made.

Mandate

• WG: The Working Group’s discussion over the expert body’s mandate ranged from broad and general[5] opposed to narrow and somewhat focused[6]. The EU proposed that the Council would decide on the bodies mandate on an un-restricted, thematic and ad hoc basis (which would allow for country-specific issues), that the expert body should engage in informal dialog with other human rights mechanisms and favored for experts to work on an individually basis. However the majority of states preferred that the new expert body would solely deal with thematic issues – and retaining from country-specific-situations.
• HRC: This topic was not discussed in the Council.

Summary

Few decisions were made regarding the expert body.  Only one issue reached a full consensus and was decided upon – members of the future expert body can hold no more than two consecutive, three-year terms terms.  Consensus also was found on the issue of keeping a thematic approach opposed to adopting country-specific issues.

Click here for the Facilitator’s Preliminary Conclusions of discussions in the Working Group

Next steps

Facilitator Musa Burayzat was asked to prepare a discussion paper for the next meeting of the group, currently being held (5-13 February).

2. Complaint Procedure – General Conclusions

The Working Group on Review of Mechanisms and Mandates discussed questions related to the Council’s complaint procedure.  The complaint procedure is the channel by which victims, or others acting on behalf of the victims, raise a specific human rights violation and request the Council to take action.

Areas of consensus and key disagreements are highlighted below, followed by the reaction from the Council when it took up these issues on 6 December.  (Working Group findings were presented by the Facilitator and Vice-President of the Human Rights Council, Mr. Blaise Godet of Switzerland.)

Objective

• WG: Most states agreed that the complaint procedure should be founded largely on the existing 1503 procedure[7]. The only substantial disagreement amongst delegations was whether the word systematic should be included in the stated objective of the new complaint procedure. If so decided, the objective of the complaint procedure would read: “Through the complaint procedure, the allegations of a consistent pattern of gross, systematic and reliably attested violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms shall be brought to the attention of and addressed by the Human Rights Council.” Several states[8] preferred to include the criteria while Canada, United States, Great Britain, Ecuador, Argentina, Norway – as well as the Geneva-based non-governmental organization, International Service of Human Rights – opposed, on the grounds that it would prevent the submission of gross human rights violations only because there was no proof that they had committed in a systematic manner.  
• HRC: EU and Czech Republic argued in favor of mandating the complaint procedure to act as an early warning mechanism. At least one delegation objected.  No decision was made.                 

Scope

• WG: All speakers agreed to define issues appropriate for the Council as, “All human rights under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with a high threshold of violations.”  The majority of countries favored a broad scope of application.
• HRC: The African Group, Pakistan, China and Russia supported a narrower mandate for the Council in order to prevent confusion and duplication of work. No decision was found.

Criteria for Agenda

• WG: Based upon suggestions from the Facilitator, delegations discussed which criteria should apply before a complaint could be adopted for consideration by the Council. Agreement was found on some criteria, including: 1) complaints should contain a factual description of the alleged violations, and 2) complaints should not be exclusively based on media reports.  The most controversial point of discussion was whether domestic remedies would have to be exhausted before a complaint could come before the Council.  Many countries[9] favored inclusion of the latter, which was opposed by Uruguay and Argentina. Guatemala explained that domestic procedures often take an insufficient approach to complaints, leaving the complaint lost in the system.
• HRC: No decision was made.

Screening

• WG: A majority of delegations expressed a desire to have two stages or Working Groups dealing with complaints: 1) screening by the Working Group, and 2) (if approved) a second Working Group proposing measures to be taken by the Council regarding human rights violations.
• HRC: No decision was made on this matter. 

Confidentiality

• WG: All delegations that took the floor stressed the importance of retaining the confidentiality of the complaint procedure.
• HRC: Algeria and Argentina repeated the Working Group’s conclusion, while opposition was stated by EU and Canada, which favored taking issues to the public in cases where countries are unwilling to cooperate. No decision was made.    

“Author” Participation

• WG: Regarding whether the person/persons submitting the complaint (the “author”) should be informed about the progress of their complaint, most states said that the procedure would be both more effective and more victim-oriented if the author participated in the entire process. The majority of states agreed to let the author provide additional information during the process.
• HRC: The EU stressed the importance of informing the author about each stage of the process, while Algeria and Iran instead favored to inform the state. No decision was made.

Additional Working Groups

• WG: General agreement was found on composing a Working Group on Communications (composed by independent experts) and a Working Group on Situations (represented by States) similar to those of the 1503 procedure. Delegations discussed the composition of the Working Groups with several states[10] favoring the word “fair” instead of “equitable”. The substitution would thus change the wording to “equitable geographic representation”. Several states[11] favored the President of the Human Rights Council to appoint members to the two Working Groups; namely after consultation with regional groups. EU preferred the High Commissioner for Human Rights to appoint experts to the Working Group on Communications, and Council member states to appoint the Working Group on Situations.  The majority of states taking the floor[12] favored a member-rotation-model of three-year terms, which should be renewable for both Working Groups.
• HRC: The Working Group’s conclusion on the composition of the potential new WGs was repeated at the Council, but no decision was made.  The other topics were not discussed by the Council.

Timeline

• WG: While most delegations agreed on the importance of speedy and timely complaint procedures, opposition emerged on the Facilitator’s proposal for an actual timeline for the process. Several states[13] expressed concern over the possible consequences a timeline could bring to the process, and it was noted that flexibility had to be incorporated if timelines were decided upon anyways[14]. The United States and Mexico asked the Secretariat to submit statistics to all delegations outlining the number of cases taking on by the 1503 procedure.
• HRC: EU said that it was flexible in terms of the length of deadlines.   No decision was made. 

UPR Referrals

• WG: The Facilitator’s proposal to mandate the Council to express when they find reason for a country to be reviewed through the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). Delegations disagreed on whether information on cases under the complaint procedure should be forwarded to UPR or not, and whether individual complaints could be considered by the UPR. Many states[15] expressed skepticism about this “relationship” between the complaint procedure and UPR, stating that it would diminish the UPR’s reputation of being a forum for cooperation and mutual strengthening.
• HRC: Discussions in the Council were contentious.  No agreement was found.

Summary

Progress on the Complaint Procedure was very slow and needs much further consideration. Questions remains unanswered in terms of who can complain, the authors’ obligations and rights, how broad a mandate the Council should have in order to deal with complaint issues, and what relationship the Complaint Procedures should have with the Universal Periodic Review.   

Click here for the Facilitator’s Preliminary Conclusions based on the Working Group’s discussion on the complaint procedure.

Next Steps

Based on the discussions and points of consensus in the Working Group and the Council, Mr. Godet planned to continue consultations with the Working Group in February to develop a “road map” for the Council’s future complaint procedure.  The next meeting on the complaint procedure is to take place during the Working Group’s current session, 5-16 February 2007.

3. Special Procedures – General Conclusions

One of the primary functions of the former UN Human Rights Commission was its monitoring and examining role through which it reported on human rights situations in specific countries and on specific human rights and issues. These reporting activities were referred to as the “special procedures” and mandated the Commission to undertake fact-finding missions to countries, issue communications and urgent appeals to governments, issue press releases or statements, identify trends or emerging issues, contribute to the elaboration of human rights standards falling within their mandate, and submit reports to the Commission and in some instances the General Assembly.

In the founding resolution of the Human Rights Council, Member States decided that the Council would “assume…all mandates, mechanisms, functions and responsibilities of the Commission of Human Rights in order to maintain a system of special procedures….”  It thus transferred the Commission’s monitoring function to the Council.

The Working Group on the Review of Mandates and Mechanisms, therefore, was tasked with evaluating the criteria and content of the Special Procedures within one year of its first session (March 2006). 

While no final decisions were made during the Working Group’s meetings on the special procedures, Member States elaborated on the principles of the review as well as on its objectives and structure.

General consensus was found on the following considerations:

• Strengthening the thematic approach and establishment of new criteria for the country mandates in order to overcome past controversies (in the Commission of Human Rights).  
• Regarding review of mandates, substantial agreement was found on the need to establish predictable and flexible criteria for the review process. Consensus was also reached in creating greater coherence with respect to the establishment and functioning of special procedures and their working methods.
• Delegations stressed the importance of cooperation and interaction of the special procedures with the Council itself.
• The effectiveness of the special procedures is strongly dependent on the extent that involved governments are willing to cooperate with the Council.  Further, standardized procedures are required in order to improve the dialogue between governments and the Council.
• Sharing of findings between the complaint procedure and special procedures (while still respecting confidentiality when required by the complaint procedure).
• Hiring long-term, professional and regionally balanced staff for the Special Procedures Branch[16] needed in order to provide stable surroundings for the implementation of the special procedures.
• Two-way cooperation of the special procedures with the United Nations country teams.

Also, several delegations criticized other delegations for their past negative comments about NGO participation.

No agreement was reached on the following issues, which in fact remained unbridgeable in all three categories (special procedures, complaint procedure, expert body):

• Representation of mandate holders (the design of methods needed to ensure equal representation of different regions)

• Rotation of mandates (duration of term), independent versus experts mandate holders (a “hybrid” model was also suggested)

• Appointment of mandate holders (President of HRC or the Council itself etc)

Not all the scheduled issues on the agenda were actually discussed by the Working Group, as several topics absorbed substantial time because of deep disagreement. The following issues, among others, were not dealt with at all:

• When and how the special procedures may contribute to the Responsibility to Protect;

• The interaction between special procedures and UPR (some delegations would like to see UPR, and eventually Special Sessions of the Council, as a primary instrument for taking up country-specific situations);

• The relationship between the Council and the special procedures, establishment of criteria for a code of conduct or code of ethics.

Summary

In the course of the Council’s meetings on the special procedures, approximately half of the member states as well as several NGOs took the floor expressing opinions either on the Working Group’s conclusions or new issues.  Facilitator Tomas Husak of the Czech Republic offered his main reflections of the meeting;

• Further consideration is needed on the selection and appointment of mandate holders;

• Agreement was found on improving country mandates (no delegations objected to the issue of country mandates);

• Further discussion is needed on the issue of a potential Code of Conduct;

• More consideration is needed of how to deal with states that are unwilling to co-operate with the Council;

• Further discussion is needed on the issue of standardize special procedures.

In sum, no decisions were made during the 5 December meeting.  Click here for the Facilitator’s non-paper on the Working Group’s discussions.

For a summary of the Human Rights Council’s discussion on the Working Group’s Progress Report on Special Procedures, prepared by the United Nations Office in Geneva, click here (morning) and here (afternoon).

Next steps

The next session of the Working Group of the Special Procedures was held on 9-11 January 2007.  No update on the outcome of those meetings has yet been released.  A “mandate listing” is available, however, which provides the status of existing special procedures mandates.  This table has been prepared by the Secretariat. 

Another meeting on the complaint procedure, expert advice, and review of mandates, is taking place currently (5-9 February).  Consultations will most likely continue between the Facilitator and Member States before the Council’s Fourth Session in order to reach a conclusion before the year-mark of the Council’s inauguration.

ReformtheUN.org will be monitoring the ongoing discussions of the Council and its Working Groups and will report as decisions are made on these issues.

Working Group on Universal Periodic Review

The Council also has delved into the complex questions surrounding the Universal Periodic Mechanism (UPR).   

In the HRC’s founding resolution, the General Assembly created a new mechanism under which all UN member states would be subject to review, or scrutiny of how well each state fulfills its human rights obligations.  The purpose of the mechanism was to minimize the selectivity and double standards associated with the former Commission of Human Rights. The Resolution does not describe how the review should proceed, however, which is why the GA established an “inter-sessional open-ended Working Group” to develop the necessary modalities within the Council’s first year.  No countries have yet been reviewed under the mechanism; the Council aims to start conducting reviews in its second year (which begins in June 2007).

UPR is one of the most complicated issues of the work of the Human Rights Council as human rights obligations and commitments differ from state to state. Consequently the Working Group will have to decide if other organs beside the Council itself should provide information specifically for the purpose of UPR, which, if decided, could lead to an increased role of NGOs, National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs), and other specialized agencies.

The Working Group met for the first time 20-24 November 2006 to debate the future modalities of the UPR, with the participation of states, observer states and NGOs.  The Council then discussed the preliminary conclusions at its Third Session, on 4 December 2006.  (Ambassador Mohammed Loulichki of Morocco presented the findings.)  While the Council made no decisions on the UPR at its Third Session, it established areas of agreement and divergence between Member States on several key issues.

Basis for Review

• Convergence: Member States agreed that the following organs should constitute the basis for review of how and to what degree states live up to their human rights responsibilities: United Nations Charter (opposed by the United States, an observer, which argued that the Charter is not a human rights instrument); Universal Declaration of Human Rights; human rights instruments to which a State is a party; and voluntary pledges and commitments made by States, including those undertaken when presenting their candidatures for election to the Human Rights Council.

• Divergence: Organs that some speakers opposed as a basis for review included national constitutions; legislations and domestic laws (opposed by Switzerland); international customary law/other human rights standards; international humanitarian law; commitments in United Nations conferences and summits (supported by Cuba, Iran and Sudan); existing information including the conclusion and recommendations of treaty bodies and Special Procedures.

Principles

• Convergence: Member States agreed that the UPR should be based on objective and reliable information, be a cooperative mechanism based on interactive dialogue, promote universality, interdependence, indivisibility and the interrelatedness of all human rights; to not add more reporting obligations on States or be burdensome to the Council or the Secretariat; complement and not duplicate other human rights mechanisms; ensure universal coverage and equal treatment of all States; be conducted in an objective, transparent, non-selective, constructive, non-confrontational and non-politicized manner; fully involve the country under review; be an intergovernmental process, Member-driven and action-oriented; and ensure the participation of all stakeholders, including NGOs and NHRIs.
• Divergence: Disagreement remained over whether the UPR should be considered a human rights mechanism at the disposal of the Human Rights Council, or function separately from the HRC; what measures should be sought if a country does not cooperate with UPR; the level, nature and stage of participation of stakeholders other than Member States (EU supported that the objectives and principles of the UPR should be conducted in public; and on welcoming participation of NGOs and other stakeholders.  Several states[17] opposed the inclusion of such stakeholders, arguing that the UPR should be a State-centric exercise as well as have an intergovernmental nature).  Delegations also diverged on whether the UPR should take into account the level of development and specificities of countries. This point of discussion was one of the most controversial and heavily-discussed issues at the meetings (both in the Working Group and in the Council) dividing Member States between supporting inclusion of special treatment depending on the level[18], and underlining that the UPR process should proceed in a similar manner regardless of countries status (Switzerland).

Objectives

• Convergence:  Most states agreed that the following elements define the UPR’s objectives: Assessment of states human rights work, including positive developments and challenges faced by it in that process; improvement of the human rights situation on the ground, fulfillment of the States’ capacity and technical assistance; sharing of best practices among States and other Stakeholders; support for cooperation in the promotion and protection of human rights; not diminishing HRC’s capacity to respond to urgent human rights situations.

• Divergence: Further consideration is needed on the topic of encouragement of full cooperation and engagement with human rights bodies, HRC and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.  Cuba stressed the importance of keeping the intergovernmental character of the UPR, while the UK pointed at the potential politicization that an explicitly intergovernmental approach could create, as was the case with the Commission of Human Rights).  Further consideration also is needed on the assessment of situations of human rights violations, including gross and systematic violations and any recommendations in this regard.

Periodicity and Order of Review

• Convergence: General consensus was found on the ideas that: review of states’ commitment to human rights obligations would begin after the adoption of the UPR mechanism by the HRC; the order of review should reflect principles of universality and equal treatment; the order of review should be established as soon as possible in order to allow States to prepare adequately; all Member States of the Council should be reviewed during their terms of membership; a mix of member and observer States of the HRC should be reviewed; States may volunteer to be reviewed at any time; and the period between review cycles should be reasonable so as to take into account the capacity of States to prepare and the capacity of other stakeholders to respond to the request arising from the review.

• Divergence: Member States could not agree on the periodicity of reviews (suggestions ranged from 3[19] to 6 years, or more), whether the review should be done by working groups or subcommittees meeting in parallel or inter-sessionally; the duration of the review in the Council (how many hours), if Members to be reviewed should be selected based on alphabetical order or determined by lot; what Members should be selected first; whether equitable geographical distribution should be respected in the selection of countries for review (favored by the African Group).  The main point of discussion was whether periodicity of reviews should differ depending on countries level of development. Pakistan suggested for developed countries to be reviewed every three years while developing countries should undergo review every seven years. Nigeria and Bangladesh supported the argument and stressed that developing countries need longer cycles of review as a natural consequence of their capacity to take on reporting burdens as well as to implement the Councils recommendations. Other states opposed this argument stating that equal treatment should apply at all times.[20]

Process and Modalities of Review

• Convergence: Member States agreed that review should be based on objective and reliable information; some form of background document should be elaborated in preparation for the review; interactive dialogue between the State reviewed and the Council should take place; review should be opened to all stakeholders although the scope of their participation requires further reflection; final decision by the Council should be adopted in plenary; UPR should not be overly long, it should instead be realistic and not absorb a disproportionate amount of time, human and financial resources. 

• Divergence: Member States could not agree on who should provide the background document (the state, the OHCHR or appointed experts); whether questionnaires should be standardized or individualized when used for preparatory work of UPR; whether regional groups of a group of friend of the country reviewed should submit prior reviews (Nigeria took the argument further by favoring that reviews of States should be undertaken solely by the regional grouping to whom the State align itself); who should provide background information (state reviewed, other states, treaty bodies, Special Procedures, regional organizations, NHRIs, NGOs or other civil society actors); the extent of the states presentation during review (comprehensive report or brief presentation); UPR conducted in HRC plenary meeting or in committees, working groups or chambers, meeting in parallel with the Council or during the inter-sessional period (EU favored separate inter-sessional working groups consisting of experts while Nigeria, Japan , Guatemala and Malaysia argued that the review should be conducted in the Council plenary. USA and Algeria agreed that experts should not conduct the review); scope of participation of stakeholders (discussion emerged on whether the review should be undertaken exclusively by Member States, or if observer states, NGOs, NHRIs or other relevant stakeholders should be included in the process. Uruguay favored a strong NGO presence in the review process, while Pakistan argued that only members of the Council should be able to conduct the review); possible contribution during the interactive dialogue of experts or a country rapporteur from the relevant regional group.

Outcome of the Review

• Convergence: Assessment in an objective and transparent manner of the human rights situation in the reviewed country; sharing of best practices; emphasis on enhancing cooperation for the promotion and protection of human rights; provision of technical assistance and capacity-building; voluntary commitments and pledges made by the country reviewed; whether the review is done by the HRC plenary, a chamber(s) or a subcommittee(s), working groups, or experts, members of the working group share the view that the outcome should be adopted by the plenary; the reviewed country should be fully involved in the outcome.

• Divergence: Divergence remained over whether there should be appointed a Special Procedure mandate, dispatching of fact-finding missions (Ecuador was particular against fact-finding missions as well as appointment of Special Procedures), investigative teams or commissions of inquiry; adoption of resolutions or decisions for each country reviewed; assessment of the implementation of treaty body and Special Procedure recommendations and conclusions, as well as their follow-up; establishment of OHCHR field offices or other forms of field presence; financing of technical assistance and capacity-building (establishment of a dedicated ad hoc fund or use of existing mechanisms); whether decision-making on the outcome should be done by adoption by consensus or by vote; if adoption by consensus should be circumvented by the objections of a single country, including the reviewed country; if the State concerned should be offered the possibility to present written replies to questions or issues that were not sufficiently addressed during the interactive dialogue before the adoption of the outcome; what the level of involvement of the State reviewed in drafting and approving the outcome should be (Iran supported full involvement of the State and required an identical formal for every country); and whether the outcome should be published and widely disseminated (favored by the African Group).

Follow-Up to the Review

• Convergence: The outcome of UPR should be implemented by all relevant stakeholders, in particular the State concerned; the subsequent review should focus, inter alia, on the implementations of the preceding outcome.

• Divergence: Disagreement continued through-out the discussion on whether the State reviewed should have the main responsibility in implementing and following up the UPR outcome (EU argued that it was the States prime responsibility in implementing the recommendations provided by the UPR); if the State reviewed should present a report on the implementation of UPR conclusions and recommendations; if recommendations and conclusions regarding capacity-building and technical assistance should be implemented by relevant actors of the international community (Guatemala stressed the need for the UPR to provide technical assistance); if other actors should play a role in the implementation of UPR outcomes; if the Council should have a standing item on its agenda devoted to the follow-up of UPR outcomes; if IOHCHR should regularly report to the Council on the implementation of UPR outcomes; if a rapporteur should be nominated to ensure the follow-up of UPR outcomes; if all UPR reports should be consolidated into a global report (at the end of every UPR cycle); and finally what measures should be taken in case of non-compliance by a State with the UPR outcome (Singapore suggested that states reviewed should submit a report on the implementation of UPR recommendations and suggested that a clear explanation should be provided in case of non-compliance).

Summary and Next Steps

The Council made no decisions on the UPR.  Its goal is to produce a program of work for the UPR before the Fifth Session.  Such an outcome appears unlikely, given the slow progress to date.  The Working Group’s next meeting – to be held on 12-16 February – will need to make significant progress in order to meet that goal. 

ReformtheUN.org will be monitoring the ongoing discussions of the Council and its Working Groups and will report as decisions are made on these issues.

The e-Newsletter of ReformtheUN.org is a free service.  To subscribe, go to http://reformtheun.org/mailman/listinfo/latestdevelopments_reformtheun.org. Please forward this announcement widely to individuals and organizations that have expressed an interest in UN reform.