|
The rules of the Council call for all mandates to be reviewed every year (for country mandates) and every three years (for thematic mandates). General Assembly Resolution 60/251 states that:
‘The review, rationalization and improvement of mandates, as well as the creation of new ones, must be guided by the principles of universality, impartiality, objectivity and non‑selectivity, constructive international dialogue and cooperation, with a view to enhancing the promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development.’
These reviews generally focus upon the relevance, scope and contents of the mandates, and use as a framework: existing human rights standards, the system of special procedures and General Assembly resolution 60/251 quoted above.
Ongoing Reviews:
The review of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 is disputed. It was originally scheduled for review during the September session as well, but was subsequently removed from the list. At the organisational session for the 3rd cycle of the Council on 19 June 2008, Israel recalled that both General Assembly Resolution 60/251 and Council Resolution 5/1 provide for all special procedures mandates to be reviewed. Unsurprisingly, Egypt, Palestine, and Pakistan were quick to react, arguing that the mandate in question should not be reviewed. Egypt quoted the institution-building text to support its argument that ‘the duration of this mandate has been established until the end of the occupation.’
There is little doubt that all special procedures mandates have to undergo review according to the way the Council has so far interpreted General Assembly Resolution 60/251 and its institution-building text. In this particular instance, even Israel seemed to at least put up with the ‘perpetual nature’ of the mandate, and did not call for its abolition. Instead, it was careful to point out that ‘the allegedly perpetual nature of the mandate’ was a separate matter from the review process.
Further reading
-
For more information on the review process, see the section on Institution building.
-
For a mandate-by-mandate description of each review process, see the List of mandates
On the stakes involved in the review of mandates, see Meghna Abraham, A New Chapter for Human Rights, ISHR and the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (Geneva, 2006). For the outcome of the review of mandates in the first two years, see any of the following publications:
|
