Multilateral Human Rights in a Shifting World Order: Perspectives From a UN Special Procedure Mandate

In 1980, the United Nations established the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (WGEID), the first special thematic procedure of the United Nations Human Rights System (UN HR System). Enforced disappearances occur when The WGEID is composed of five independent experts. Its main mandate is to assist the relatives of the disappeared in establishing a fluid and transparent communication with the competent national authorities in order to determine the faith or whereabouts of the disappeared. It deals with reports of disappearances in accordance with its Methods of Work, which regulate its proceedings Since its creation, the group has received more than 57,000 cases, of which more than 45,000 have not yet been clarified. In addition, following the General Assembly’s adoption of the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance in 1992, the group is also responsible for overseeing the progress made by States in implementing their obligations under the Declaration and in providing assistance to governments for this purpose. For example, the WGEID undertakes country visits, makes recommendations to governments, prepares general comments and thematic reports, and so on. It reports annually to the UN Human Rights Council and presents observations to the General Assembly. For the purpose of our discussion, it is suggested to address multilateral human rights in a shifting world order from three angles: first from the perspective of universal and regional human rights institutions, from the perspective of UN Special Procedures and lastly from the perspective of the Working Group’s specific thematic mandate. As former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, indicated on 6 May 2019 in the New York Times: “Abuses used to be called out and stopped, and human rights offenders had something to fear. Today, they are met with silence instead.” Indeed, one could say that, in recent years, certain important States have progressively or drastically disengaged from the multilateral human rights regime, a phenomenon, of course, illustrated by the United States pulling out of the Human Rights Council in June 2018. Sometime, this has allowed other important players to occupy the empty chair, thereby setting the agenda and the tone of certain debates − not necessarily for the better. At the regional level, the US’ disengagement in the Inter-American Human Rights System is well-illustrated by the fact that, for the second time in its sixty-year history, no American sits on the Commission. This atmosphere allows for coordinated attacks against Inter-American institutions, in particular since Venezuela’s denunciation of the American Convention, followed by the vocal criticism of the System by its traditional allies, including Bolivia and Nicaragua. Some will rightly say that this form of disengagement from the regime, both at the universal and regional levels, has also allowed for States to adopt policies, which are at odds with human rights. This is particularly the case in the so-called fight against terrorism, often invoked to restrict civil liberties, public debate and unfortunately oppress minorities, religious groups or political opponents. As indicated in the Working Group’s 2018 annual report, enforced disappearances have, for example, been alleged to occur in China, Egypt and Turkey against such groups, in the context of the fight against terrorism. Similarly, security-oriented policies adopted in the context of recent increased migration have also resulted in human rights violations on a large scale, as analyzed in the Working Group’s recent thematic Report on enforced disappearances in the context of migration. This shift could also be interpreted as having generated a change in the tone or the official discourse of certain public officials, with respect to human rights’ recent achievements. Nationalist and …