Summary of the material for the final exam (2021) for Introduction to International Organisations
(IIOs). INCLUDES notes from Frédéric Mégret and Florian Hoffmann’s article “The UN as a Human
Rights Violator? Some Reflections on the United Nations Changing Human Rights Responsibilities”
(Total: 8 pages).
1
“The UN as a Human Rights Violator? Some Reflections on the
United Nations Changing Human Rights Responsibilities” by Frédéric
Mégret and Florian Hoffmann - Notes
Table of Contents
I. Introduction 2
II. The UN as an Unlikely Human Rights Violator 2
III. New Tasks, New Responsibilities, New Risks 4
IV. Bringing Human Rights to the Forefront 5
V International Administrations and Beyond 6
VI Conclusion: Toward a Global Human Rights Governance? 7
, 2
I. Introduction
The United Nations (UN) has a long history of human rights involvement, through its specialized or
non-specialized organs.
➔ The creation of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) following
the landmark Vienna Conference, and its subsequent reinforcement, gave human rights more
prominence than previously achieved in the UN system.
Old criticism does exist that the UN does not pursue human rights causes with enough resolve in the
face of competing commitments of international peace and security.
The UN conception of its human rights role has at times appeared exceedingly limited and has had
many shortcomings.
➔ What if the UN could commit human rights violations?
The transformation of the UN from a traditional intergovernmental organization (IGO) into a more
supra-governmental one involved in occasional direct tasks of governance is potentially reshaping its
human rights mission.
II. The UN as an Unlikely Human Rights Violator
A. Possible Foundations for the Applicability of Human Rights Standards to the UN
Technically, the problem is that from a strictly legal standpoint, the UN is not a human rights
instrument.
➔ As it is not a state and because the Universal Declaration of the Covenants (the only general
human rights text which the UN might adhere to) are open only to states, it appears barred
from being formally bound.
➔ The UN itself has, at times, given the impression of carefully drawing the line.
Three main ways that the UN can be bound by international human rights standards. These
conceptions can be combined, with the logical conclusion being that the UN could not have it both
ways, namely to be a leading human rights actor while being immune to criticism for human rights
failures.
1. The “External” Conception: Focuses on the UN as a subject of international law, and assesses
the extent to which it is bound by relevant international human rights standards. The UN is
bound “customarily” as a result and to the extent that international human rights standards
have reached customary international law status.
2. The “Internal” Conception: Focuses on the UN as an international organization (IO) and its
internal juridical order. This argument is that the UN is bound by international human rights
standards as a result of being tasked to promote them by its own internal and constitutional
legal order.
3. The “Hybrid” Conception: Argues that the UN is bound “transitively” by international human
rights standards as a result and to the extent that its members are bound. This conception
mixes elements of both the “internal” conception (since the binding character flows from
membership of the organization) and the “external” one (since states “bring in” binding
international human rights norms ”from the outside”).
, 3
B. Possible Meanings of “Applicability” of Human Rights Standards to the UN
The real difficulty in determining whether the UN might commit human rights “violations”, is that it
is not clear what it means exactly to say that human rights are “applicable” to the UN.
➔ The UN is bound by its Charter to “promote and encourage respect for human rights.”
◆ Failure to promote or encourage, however, does not lend itself easily to a human
rights violations framework.
◆ Within that conception, the UN is not the addressee of the obligation to respect
human rights, and is merely asked to “assist in the[ir] realization.”
◆ Failures to sufficiently pursue one’s mandate are violations of the UN internal order.
➔ Start looking at human rights violations from the international human rights instruments
themselves.
◆ International human rights instruments typically stipulate that state parties should
“respect and ensure” human rights.
➔ The UN is not a state and may otherwise be bound to generally abide by the standards
contained in international human rights instruments, but it cannot properly be said to violate
rights.
That the UN is bound to respect human rights constitutionally means that it is more bound than if it
were not so mandated. HOWEVER, the fact that the UN is not contemplated as an active subject by
human rights treaties means that it is less clearly prone to commit human rights violations than if it
were.
C. The Limits of Applicability of Human Rights to the UN as a Non-State Actor
Developing a human rights framework for the UN to not only encourage but also abide by, is linked to
difficulties in thinking of human rights as owed by anything but sovereign states.
Historically, rights have expressed the relationship between the sovereign state and its citizens.
HOWEVER, IGOs do not have a constituency whose rights they might violate, so it seemed
unnecessary to think of them as violating human rights.
➔ The UN has contributed to this division by consistently emphasizing that, although “the
promotion and protection of all human rights is a legitimate concern of the international
community,” the responsibility for implementing them is primarily left to states. This because:
◆ IOs are not states and can at times have a significant negative impact on the
enjoyment of human rights. The difficulties in assigning direct human rights
responsibilities to the UN is seen as part of the larger problem of how to assign
human rights responsibilities to non-state actors (impact-based reasoning).
HOWEVER, the argument begins by noting the relative loss of importance of the
state in a globalized world, and the resulting rise in the importance of non-state
actors. The UN distinguishes those cases where the organization is merely a benign
bystander, from those where it is arguably part of a direct chain of causation leading
to human rights violations.
◆ There exists a fundamental ambiguity involved; can the UN be said to go as far as to
violate human rights? In ordinary social life, every person or group influences all the
others’ rights. Ultimate human rights responsibility, depends on the unique capacity
to impact human rights that result from some form of exclusive control over
individuals.
◆ One might want to accuse IGOs of “violating human rights” each time one of their
policies affects such rights. HOWEVER, putting IGOs on a par with states for
(IIOs). INCLUDES notes from Frédéric Mégret and Florian Hoffmann’s article “The UN as a Human
Rights Violator? Some Reflections on the United Nations Changing Human Rights Responsibilities”
(Total: 8 pages).
1
“The UN as a Human Rights Violator? Some Reflections on the
United Nations Changing Human Rights Responsibilities” by Frédéric
Mégret and Florian Hoffmann - Notes
Table of Contents
I. Introduction 2
II. The UN as an Unlikely Human Rights Violator 2
III. New Tasks, New Responsibilities, New Risks 4
IV. Bringing Human Rights to the Forefront 5
V International Administrations and Beyond 6
VI Conclusion: Toward a Global Human Rights Governance? 7
, 2
I. Introduction
The United Nations (UN) has a long history of human rights involvement, through its specialized or
non-specialized organs.
➔ The creation of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) following
the landmark Vienna Conference, and its subsequent reinforcement, gave human rights more
prominence than previously achieved in the UN system.
Old criticism does exist that the UN does not pursue human rights causes with enough resolve in the
face of competing commitments of international peace and security.
The UN conception of its human rights role has at times appeared exceedingly limited and has had
many shortcomings.
➔ What if the UN could commit human rights violations?
The transformation of the UN from a traditional intergovernmental organization (IGO) into a more
supra-governmental one involved in occasional direct tasks of governance is potentially reshaping its
human rights mission.
II. The UN as an Unlikely Human Rights Violator
A. Possible Foundations for the Applicability of Human Rights Standards to the UN
Technically, the problem is that from a strictly legal standpoint, the UN is not a human rights
instrument.
➔ As it is not a state and because the Universal Declaration of the Covenants (the only general
human rights text which the UN might adhere to) are open only to states, it appears barred
from being formally bound.
➔ The UN itself has, at times, given the impression of carefully drawing the line.
Three main ways that the UN can be bound by international human rights standards. These
conceptions can be combined, with the logical conclusion being that the UN could not have it both
ways, namely to be a leading human rights actor while being immune to criticism for human rights
failures.
1. The “External” Conception: Focuses on the UN as a subject of international law, and assesses
the extent to which it is bound by relevant international human rights standards. The UN is
bound “customarily” as a result and to the extent that international human rights standards
have reached customary international law status.
2. The “Internal” Conception: Focuses on the UN as an international organization (IO) and its
internal juridical order. This argument is that the UN is bound by international human rights
standards as a result of being tasked to promote them by its own internal and constitutional
legal order.
3. The “Hybrid” Conception: Argues that the UN is bound “transitively” by international human
rights standards as a result and to the extent that its members are bound. This conception
mixes elements of both the “internal” conception (since the binding character flows from
membership of the organization) and the “external” one (since states “bring in” binding
international human rights norms ”from the outside”).
, 3
B. Possible Meanings of “Applicability” of Human Rights Standards to the UN
The real difficulty in determining whether the UN might commit human rights “violations”, is that it
is not clear what it means exactly to say that human rights are “applicable” to the UN.
➔ The UN is bound by its Charter to “promote and encourage respect for human rights.”
◆ Failure to promote or encourage, however, does not lend itself easily to a human
rights violations framework.
◆ Within that conception, the UN is not the addressee of the obligation to respect
human rights, and is merely asked to “assist in the[ir] realization.”
◆ Failures to sufficiently pursue one’s mandate are violations of the UN internal order.
➔ Start looking at human rights violations from the international human rights instruments
themselves.
◆ International human rights instruments typically stipulate that state parties should
“respect and ensure” human rights.
➔ The UN is not a state and may otherwise be bound to generally abide by the standards
contained in international human rights instruments, but it cannot properly be said to violate
rights.
That the UN is bound to respect human rights constitutionally means that it is more bound than if it
were not so mandated. HOWEVER, the fact that the UN is not contemplated as an active subject by
human rights treaties means that it is less clearly prone to commit human rights violations than if it
were.
C. The Limits of Applicability of Human Rights to the UN as a Non-State Actor
Developing a human rights framework for the UN to not only encourage but also abide by, is linked to
difficulties in thinking of human rights as owed by anything but sovereign states.
Historically, rights have expressed the relationship between the sovereign state and its citizens.
HOWEVER, IGOs do not have a constituency whose rights they might violate, so it seemed
unnecessary to think of them as violating human rights.
➔ The UN has contributed to this division by consistently emphasizing that, although “the
promotion and protection of all human rights is a legitimate concern of the international
community,” the responsibility for implementing them is primarily left to states. This because:
◆ IOs are not states and can at times have a significant negative impact on the
enjoyment of human rights. The difficulties in assigning direct human rights
responsibilities to the UN is seen as part of the larger problem of how to assign
human rights responsibilities to non-state actors (impact-based reasoning).
HOWEVER, the argument begins by noting the relative loss of importance of the
state in a globalized world, and the resulting rise in the importance of non-state
actors. The UN distinguishes those cases where the organization is merely a benign
bystander, from those where it is arguably part of a direct chain of causation leading
to human rights violations.
◆ There exists a fundamental ambiguity involved; can the UN be said to go as far as to
violate human rights? In ordinary social life, every person or group influences all the
others’ rights. Ultimate human rights responsibility, depends on the unique capacity
to impact human rights that result from some form of exclusive control over
individuals.
◆ One might want to accuse IGOs of “violating human rights” each time one of their
policies affects such rights. HOWEVER, putting IGOs on a par with states for
