kenny - when needs are rights

8/14/2019 Kenny - When Needs Are Rights

1/102

Occasional Paper #38

WHEN NEEDS ARE RIGHTS: AN OVERVIEWOF UN EFFORTSTO INTEGRATE

HUMAN RIGHTSIN HUMANITARIAN ACTION

Karen Kenny


2/102

ii

Occasional Papers is a series published by

The Thomas J. Watson Jr.Institute for International StudiesBrown University, Box 19702 Stimson AvenueProvidence, RI 02912USA

Telephone: (401) 863-2809Fax: (401) 863-1270E-mail: [email protected]://www.brown.edu/Departments/Watson_Institute/

Thomas J. Biersteker, Ph.D., DirectorFrederick F. Fullerton, Writer/Editor

Statements of fact or opinions are solely those of the authors; theirpublication does not imply endorsement by the Thomas J. Watson Jr.Institute for International Studies.

Copyright 2000 by the Thomas J. Watson Jr. Institute for Interna-tional Studies. All rights reserved under International and PanAmerican Convention. No part of this report may be reproduced byany other means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy,recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without

prior written permission from the publisher. All inquiries should beaddressed to Publications Group, Thomas J. Watson Jr. Institute forInternational Studies.


3/102

iii

CONTENTS

Foreword..............................................................................vAcronyms............................................................................xiExecutive Summary.........................................................xv

1. The Setting.......................................................................1

2. Policy..............................................................................13

3. Operations......................................................................27

4. Interagency Relations...................................................41

5. Leadership......................................................................57

Notes...................................................................................69

Appendix I: Mandate of the High Commissionerfor Human Rights...................................81

Appendix II: About the Author andthe Research Institutions..........................83


4/102


5/102

v

FOREWORD

This study concerns how key United Nations organi-zations have understood and implemented their man-date to integrate human rights into their humanitarianwork. The 1993 World Conference on Human Rights andits Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action recom-mended that integration. Then in July 1997, as part of hisreform program, the UN Secretary-General gave human

rights new centerpiece status within the UN system.This is one of several reviews of the interface be-

tween humanitarian action and human rights carriedout by the Humanitarianism and War Project in the lastseveral years. Its predecessors includeA HumanitarianPractitioners Guide to International Human Rights Law, by William G. ONeill (1999) and Protecting HumanRights: The Challenge to International Organizations, byMark Frohardt, Diane Paul, and Larry Minear (1999). Athird volume,Wars Offensive on Women: The Humanitar-ian Challenge in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan, by JulieA. Mertus, will be published shortly by KumarianPress. This research is part of Phase 3 of the Project, thetheme of which concerns institutional learning andchange among humanitarian institutions in the post-

Cold War era.Although part of our ongoing exploration of the

connections between humanitarian action and humanrights, the present study frames the issues in somewhatdifferent fashion than did our earlier works. From theoutset of our Project in 1991, we have described thedelivery of relief assistance and the protection of human

rights as twin pillars of humanitarian action. By contrast,Karen Kenny views humanitarian action as one of anumber of ways in which fundamental human rights canbe affirmed and actualized. As she sees it, humanitarianaction should be pursued as an intrinsic dimension of


6/102

vi

human rights work. Human rights, which are interde-pendent and indivisible, form the framework for assis-tance activities.

Whether the overarching rubric is that of humanitar-ian action, human rights, or a new paradigm altogether,the essential challenge in putting flesh on the Secretary-Generals mandate includes identifying and managingthe tensions between providing assistance to civilianpopulations and protecting their human rights. The study

cites numerous instances in which specific activitiesthe delivery of aid, the conduct of peacekeeping opera-tion, the negotiation of peace agreementshave beenpursued in isolation from a human rights framework andgoals, and at their own peril.

The study proceeds inductively based on interviewswith the principal actors. In this instance, due to limita-tions of time and resources, discussions with practitionerstook place only at the headquarters level, with some 150interviews conducted in New York, Geneva, and Romeduring 1999. In one sense, the absence of field perspec-tives presents a problem. The true test of whether the UNsystem has integrated human rights into its humanitar-ian work will be found not in what is said at agencyheadquarters but in what happens on the front lines. In

another sense, however, the volume provides a usefulsnapshot of the UNs understanding of the integrationmandate at one point in time. Headquarters interviewsilluminate some of the disconnects that have under-mined effective functioning in the field on human rightsmatters.

The agencies of the system differ widely in how theyidentify their human rights roles. Some take what Ms.Kenny calls an add-on approach. They proceed as ifrepackaging existing activities and stepping up collabo-ration among newly appointed human rights specialistsmeets their full responsibility. Others show signs oftaking Ms. Kennys preferred transformative route,


7/102

vii

approaching the integration of human rights as an op-portunity to reconceptualize their activities to reflect thehuman rights goals of the United Nations as a system.

Ms. Kenny gives UN performance mixed reviews.Of the eight UN actors examined, four represent themajor UN humanitarian organizations with operationalportfolios: the United Nations High Commissioner forRefugees (UNHCR), the United Nations Childrens Fund(UNICEF), the World Food Programme (WFP), and the

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).These differ widely in how much they have incorpo-rated human rights into their policies and programs,training and evaluation. She finds that the Departmentof Political Affairs (DPA) and the Department of Peace-Keeping Operations (DPKO), two secretariat entitiesthat are, if anything, even more crucial to the humanrights endeavor and the framework within which ittakes place, have very limited views of their own humanrights roles. Indeed, there is some question, she believes,whether they see themselves as having any such inher-ent roles at all.

The final two units, the Office of the High Commis-sioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the Office for theCoordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), have

clearly designated leadership roles on these issues withinthe UN system. The study outlines the activities of each,citing a number of positive developments in recent years.At the same time, it articulates the need for enhancedleadership, conceptual and programmatic alike, on thepart of each office within its respective areas of responsi-bility.

We wish to express appreciation to the many UNofficials and others who shared their views on thesesubjects during the course of the research. We are pleasedwith the interest expressed by the Office of the HighCommissioner for Human Rights and by the High Com-missioner herself. The engagement of so many UN offi-


8/102

viii

cials in the process bodes well for follow-up action. Wehope that this research and its recommendations willserve as a stimulus for moving the process of internaldiscussion forward. While individuals may disagree withMs. Kennys judgment on this particular point or that,most will welcome this stocktaking that she provides ofthe UN systems uptake of the Secretary-Generals inte-gration mandate.

We expect the study to be of considerable interest to

other intergovernmental actors (including the WorldBank) and to nongovernmental organization (NGO) ac-tors as well. Although it focuses on UN implementationof the integration mandate, NGO pressure is reflected inthe Vienna conference and declaration, in the issuance ofthe Secretary-Generals mandate, and in the follow-upsteps taken by individual UN agencies. Many NGOs arethemselves taking a fresh look at the interrelationshipsbetween the delivery of relief assistance and the protec-tion of fundamental human rights and are reviewingtheir links to the principal UN actors on these issues.Donor governments, too, are attempting to formulatemore coherent policies for their own involvement withthe UN and NGOs in this area.

The study represents a joint undertaking between the

Humanitarianism and War Project and the InternationalHuman Rights Trust of Dublin, Ireland. The effort is anindependent one, although made possible by contribu-tions from a wide range of stakeholders with interests inthese issues. (See Appendix II.) We determined early onthat the interviewing and report writing should be doneby a single person. We express our appreciation to KarenKenny for having shouldered that task.

Also closely involved in framing the issues and inreflecting on the data have been Brian McKeown, co-director of the Trust; Thomas G. Weiss, principal consult-ant of the Project; and myself. We are grateful to twoother colleagues, Patrick Twomey and Julie Mertus, who


9/102

ix

read the draft manuscript and offered helpful sugges-tions.

We are also indebted to colleagues at the WatsonInstitute for their assistance: Margareta Levitsky, LauraSadovnikoff, Ryoko Saito, and Fred Fullerton. We areespecially grateful to Mary Lhowe, who edited the manu-script.

A biographical note on Karen Kenny and a descrip-tion of the two collaborating institutions and the organi-

zations that support our work are found in Appendix II.The electronic text of this study and other Project publi-cations are available from the website of each organiza-tion: www.brown.edu/Departments/Watson_Institute/H_W and www.ihrt.org.

We welcome comments from readers.

Larry Minear, DirectorHumanitarianism and War ProjectProvidence, R.I.February 2000


10/102


11/102

xi

ACRONYMS

ACC Administrative Committee onCoordination (UN)

AIDS Acquired immunodeficiencysyndrome

ARC Action for the Rights of ChildrenProgramme (UNHCR)

CAC Children and Armed Conflict (UN)

CAP Consolidated Appeals Process (IASC)CHR Commission on Human RightsCIS Commonwealth of

Independent StatesCRC Convention on the Rights

of the Child (UN)DESA Department of Social and

Economic Affairs (UN)DHA Department of Humanitarian

Affairs (UN)DIP Division of International

Protection (UNHCR)DPA Department of Political Affairs (UN)DPR Democratic Party of RussiaDPKO Department of Peace-Keeping

Operations (UN)ECHA Executive Committee on

Humanitarian Affairs (UN)ECOSOC Economic and Social Council (UN)ECPS Executive Committee on Peace and

Security (UN)EPAU Evaluation and Policy Analysis

Unit (UNHCR)ERC Emergency Relief Coordinator (UN)ERD Emergency Response Division

(UNDP)FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

(UN)


12/102

xii

FIAN Food First Information andAction Network

GA General Assembly (UN)HIV Human immunodeficiency virusHRFOR Human Rights Field Operation

in Rwanda (OHCHR)HURIST Human Rights Strengthening

Programme (UNDP-OHCHR)IASC Inter-Agency Standing Committee

ICC International Criminal CourtICRC International Committee

of the Red CrossICVA International Council of

Voluntary AgenciesIDPs Internally displaced personsIFAD International Fund for Agriculture

and DevelopmentIFRC International Federation of Red Cross

and Red Crescent SocietiesIHRT The International Human Rights TrustINSTRAW International Research and

Training Institute for theAdvancement of Women (UN)

IOM International Organization

for MigrationMDGD Management Development and

Governance Division (UNDP)MONUA United Nations Observer Mission

in AngolaMOU Memorandum of UnderstandingMSF Mdecins sans Frontires

[Doctors without Borders]NGO Nongovernmental organizationOAU Organization of African UnityOCHA Office for the Coordination of

Humanitarian Affairs (UN)


13/102

xiii

ODCCP Office for Drug Control andCrime Prevention (UN)

OHCHR Office of the High Commissioner forHuman Rights (UN)

OLA Office of Legal Affairs (UN)ONUSAL United Nations Observer Mission in

El SalvadorOSCE Organization for Security and

Cooperation in Europe

SCHR Steering Committee forHumanitarian Response

SRSG Special Representative of theSecretary-General (UN)

UN United NationsUNAIDS Joint United Nations Programme

on HIV/AIDSUNAMET United Nations Assistance Mission in

East TimorUNAMIR United Nations Assistance Mission for

RwandaUNCHS United Nations Center for

Human Settlements [Habitat]UNCTAD United Nations Conference on

Trade and Development

UNDAF United Nations DevelopmentAssistance Framework

UNDCP United Nations InternationalDrug Control Programme

UNDP United Nations DevelopmentProgramme

UNEP United Nations EnvironmentProgramme

UNFPA United Nations Fund forPopulation Activities

UNHCR United Nations High Commissionerfor Refugees

UNICEF United Nations Childrens Fund


14/102

xiv

UNIFEM United Nations Development Fundfor Women

UNITAR United Nations Institute forTraining and Research

UNMIK United Nations InterimAdministration Mission in Kosovo

UNOG United Nations Office at GenevaUNOMSIL United Nation Observer Mission in

Sierra Leone

UNOPS United Nations Office forProject Services

UNPROFOR United Nations Protection Force(Yugoslavia)

UNRISD United Nations Research Institute forSocial Development

UNRWA United Nations Relief and WorksAgency for Palestine Refugeesin the Near East

UNSECOORD United Nations Security CoordinatorUNTAET United Nations Transitional

Administration in East TimorUNU United Nations UniversityUSG UnderSecretary-GeneralWB World Bank

WFP World Food Programme (UN)WHO World Health Organization


15/102

xv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Integration of human rights throughout the UnitedNations system is, and always has been, a legal impera-tive flowing from the UN Charter. More recently, how-ever, it has also become stated policy of the organizationand its component parts. The commitment to integrationexpressed by the Secretary-General in his reform pro-gram of July 1997 builds on the directions in the Vienna

Declaration and Programme of Action, to which 171states agreed in 1993.

This study examines progress in the 1990s in fullyintegrating human rights in one of the UNs severalfunctional areas: humanitarian action. It also sheds lighton the same challenge in the areas of peace and security,development, and economic and social affairs. It focuseson eight UN actors within the UN system with a role inhumanitarian emergencies: the four principal operationalagencies (UNHCR, UNDP, UNICEF, and WFP) and foursecretariat units (DPA, DPKO , OCHA, and OHCHR).

Based on interviews in 1999 with some 150 officials atthe headquarters level, the study notes, on the positiveside, a new visibility of human rights within the UN.Most of the actors have reviewed applicable policy,

identified a focal point for human rights concerns, andmade commitments to train staff.

Beyond steps taken by individual agencies, however,the picture is more negative. Each actor views its particu-lar human rights mandate in partial terms. UNHCRthinks of its protection functions but not of its assistanceactivities in human rights terms. UNDP adds a humanrights view to its development work but not to its emer-gency involvement. DPKO does not see itself as havingan inherent human rights role at all. Thus, there is nocommon premise that international law, or even the UNCharter, is a direct source of human rights responsibility


16/102

xvi

for all the actors. They rely instead on their own missionstatements, Security Council resolutions, and othersources.

Most of the actors see the adding on of an activitysharing human rights information is oneas the extentof the necessary integration of human rights in theiroperational work. Operational guidance is uneven andby no means mutually consistent among actors. OHCHR,the focal point for human rights in the UN system as a

whole, reinforces the fragmentation by adopting an add-on rather than a transformative approach.

The study findings do not indicate that each of theactors is moving in a consistent and positive direction inincremental steps, albeit at various speeds. Rather, thepicture is one of continued fragmentation, with fewindications that system-wide approaches are emerging.Integration would require UN agencies, separately andtogether, to identify common human rights goals andmaximizethe positive impact of their work on the entirespectrum of human rights. It will be far more difficult forone actor to integrate if others who shape its operatingenvironment do not do so as well.

The Secretary-Generals directive has the potential tounify the organization and bring to its disparate efforts a

certain coherence around a mutually understood humanrights goal. Such an outcome would rank among themost important breakthroughs in the development ofinternational human rights law and practice of the last 50years. To nurture and accelerate efforts that are takingplace, leadership is indispensable both within individualactors and across the UN system. The voices of NGOs areessential in such a process, continuing their documentedinfluence on the development of policy regarding inter-nally displaced persons (IDPs), on the movement ofUNICEF towards human rights-based programming,and on the convening and the results of the ViennaConference itself.


17/102

xvii

The Office of the High Commissioner for HumanRights is uniquely mandated, and committed, to act as anagent of change. Its role as system-wide leader in concep-tualizing, promoting, and ensuring the integration ofhuman rights is a comparative advantage that otheractors encourage it to embrace. Resisting both the temp-tation and the pressures to go it alone, the OHCHRshould act as the fulcrum for integration.

There is now a fair wind for human rights in the UN.

Strong support from the Secretary-General, combinedwith stirrings of change within and among its agencies,require nurturing, reinforcement, and consolidation.OHCHR, OCHA, and the other actors each have distinc-tive and indispensable contributions to make. They shouldseize the moment.


18/102

1

CHAPTER 1

THE SETTING

This report reviews the status of efforts by the UnitedNations to integrate human rights in the conduct of itshumanitarian work. Chapter 1 examines the setting inwhich those efforts take place. It presents the frameworkand basic concepts employed by the study, which draws

on interviews with some 150 UN officials conducted in1999. The chapter concludes with an overview of theremaining chapters in the report.1

The New Prominence of Human Rights

Member states of the United Nations are chargedwith the collective and individual responsibility to pro-mote universal respect for and observance of humanrights. This is a founding principle and purpose of theUnited Nations organization. Article 1 of the UN Charterdefines its three purposes: to maintain international peaceand security; to develop friendly relations among na-tions based on respect for the principle of equal rightsand self-determination of peoples; and to achieve inter-

national cooperation, including promoting and encour-aging respect for human rights and fundamental free-doms for all. Article 55 commits the UN to promoteuniversal respect for, and observance of, human rightsand fundamental freedoms for all without distinction asto race, sex, language, or religion.2

In the half century since its foundation, the United

Nations has carried out essential work in drafting andpromoting ratification of human rights treaties that sethuman rights standards and in creating fact-finding andother procedures for monitoring and adjudicating hu-man rights issues. Since the 1980s, however, attentionincreasingly has turned to the effective implementation


19/102

2

of those standards, many of which had been marginalizedin the UNs work, a casualty of the ideological standoff ofthe Cold War.3

Until recently, the budget of the UN secretariat forhuman rights has been less than 1 percent of the UNstotal budget. Moved in the mid-1980s from New York toGeneva, the human rights secretariat was remote fromthe seat of high policy and political decisionmaking atUN headquarters in New York.4 But with the end of the

Cold War has come increased understanding of humanrights and of the roles of international organizations insafeguarding them. While the primary responsibility forensuring respect for human rights still resides with states,the UN itself has come to be seen as having a key role insecuring the implementation of human rights, whichtouch almost all aspects of its own direct work.

Two landmark developments in this process providethe immediate backdrop for this study. The first was the1993 World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna, inwhich 171 states agreed by consensus on a Declarationand Programme of Action. The declaration called uponall agencies of the UN to engage in the formulation,promotion, and implementation of human rights.5 In themanner familiar to state parties to human rights treaties,

UN actors were asked to report back five years later ontheir progress in implementing the action program.6

The second milestone was the Program for Reformannounced by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan on July14, 1997. Designed to streamline the UNs work whileimproving its coordination and management structures,it acknowledged human rights as both a principal goal ofthe organization and a means by which its other goalscould be advanced. Four executive committees werecreated to bring greater coherence to activities across theUN system. The reform program states that:


20/102


21/102

4

relevant to human rights. Instead, it reviews the broadoutlines of how the task is being approached, emphasiz-ing system-wide issues, observations, and recommenda-tions with a view to informing and stimulating a processof reflection.

The analysis focuses on the area of humanitarianaffairs, reviewing the approaches to integrating humanrights of eight key UN actors. These are, in the firstinstance, the four major UN operational actors with

programs in the humanitarian sphere: the United Na-tions High Commissioner for Refugees, the United Na-tions Development Programme, The United NationsChildrens Fund, and the World Food Programme. Sec-ond, the role and relative importance of human rights inthe context-setting work of the UN Department of Politi-cal Affairs and UN Department of Peace-Keeping Opera-tions are considered. Finally, the Office for the Coordina-tion of Humanitarian Affairs provides a nexus betweenoperational humanitarian agencies and other UN actors,and the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees isviewed in terms of its role as focal point for human rightswithin the UN system.

The study is based on consultations with officials ofeach of the eight actors in New York, Geneva, and Rome

during the period from March to September 1999 andaugmented by official documents and secondary litera-ture. Since interviews were conducted at the agencyheadquarters level only, the focus is on actors statedapproaches to human rights. Although some field illus-trations are included, review of the implementation ofthe integration mandate in the field remains a matter forfuture research.

The key concepts used in the study deserve elabora-tion at the outset. Human rights is used as a legal term ofart that encompasses the full spectrum of human rights(civil, cultural, economic, political, and social rights).Reflecting the legal principles reaffirmed in the Vienna


22/102

5

Declaration and Programme of Action, human rights areuniversal, indivisible, interrelated, and interdependent.International refugee law and international humanitar-ian law are treated as subsets of human rights law. Eachof the eight humanitarian actors is understood to haveroles and responsibilities of a human rights nature, bothdirect and indirect, that are applicable at all times. Hencethe subtitle of the study, An Overview of UN Efforts toIntegrate Human Rights in Humanitarian Action.

In reviewing the progress of the actors, the studyidentifies four elements essential for full integration. Thefour are: to recognize applicable international law, toidentify the common human rights goal, to adapt actionto achieve that goal, and to construct a managementsystems approach for doing so. The first element in-volves the law itself, the others involve its practicalimplications.

Recognizing Applicable Law

The norms of international law most relevant hereare drawn from human rights law, treaty law, and thelaw of international organizations. These norms framelife-threatening needs in terms of the rights involved and

also recognize that the legal framework is directly appli-cable to the work of UN actors. Based on this body of law,any one of three considerations is sufficient to requirereconceptualizing UN humanitarian action in humanrights law terms. These are the inherent nature of humanrights, the fact that responsibility is in effect delegated bystate members of the UN, and the nature of the Charteras the constituent legal instrument of the organization.

The first argument drawn from public internationallaw reflects the inherent nature of human rights. Fromthe Universal Declaration of Human Rights throughhundreds of treaties, declarations, and resolutions, themodern edifice of human rights is founded on the ex-


23/102

6

pressed recognition by states that human rights inhere toeach person by virtue of being human. This contrastswith the focus of an earlier era on the rights of the citizen.Since they are inherent in the nature of being human,these rights are automatically part of the legal frame-work applicable to the work of humanitarian actors.

A second argument from international law sees hu-manitarian actors as stepping in to assure respect forhuman rights in situations in which the state is unwilling

or unable to do so. Finally, the law of the Charter of theUnited Nations, whether seen as a constituent treaty oras an international constitution, makes human rights apurpose of the organization, with legal obligations re-sulting for all components of the UN system as well as formember states. These obligations exist regardless of thehost states obligations under international law.

Reinforcing the three arguments are the principles ofthe indivisibility, interrelatedness, and interdependenceof human rights, most recently reaffirmed by states in theVienna Declaration. Applying the principles requires arecognition that humanitarian action concerns humanrights, whether it is the right to food or to physicalsecurity that is at issue.

In sum, beneficiaries of humanitarian action are rights

holders, no less when life is at risk from lack of food,shelter, or medical care than when they are tortured ordenied their right to vote. In practice, under pressure ofemergencies, rights are often reduced to needs, andpublic international law is perceived as moot in emer-gencies.8 Integrating human rights involves challengingthe prevalent needs-based orthodoxy in humanitarianaction. The centrality of human rights is not simply amatter of policy of the UN system but also a legal impera-tive flowing from the law applicable to its work. Theremaining three elements involved in full integration ofhuman rights in humanitarian action flow from this legalframework.


24/102

7

Identifying the Common Human Rights Goal

The second element of integration involves askingwhy humanitarian action is required and identifyingamong the root causes the rights issues whose resolutionis the ultimate goal. In this broader context, the presenceof humanitarian personnel in a crisis area and theiraccess to civilian populations is not an end in itself butone element in a process toward that goal. Identifying the

human rights issues that are frequently among the rootcauses of humanitarian crises and charting action toaddress them is a function not only of individual actors

but also of the UN as a system.

Adapting Action to Achieve the Goal

Recognition of the human rights goal of the UNsystem requires as a matter of law that each componentof the UN system adapt its work accordingly. Using thelanguage of human rights and affirming that the vindica-tion of human rights is the goal of humanitarian action isa first but insufficient step. The act of feeding a starvingperson can reflect either a needs-based approach or arights-based approach to humanitarian action, depend-

ing on the manner in which and the wider context inwhich it is carried out. Adapting action to achieve thecommon human rights goal of the UN system will trans-form needs-based ways of providing humanitarian as-sistance.

For example, food aid may be provided in ways thatreinforce the primary human rights responsibility of thehost state, leaving claims holders better prepared todefend their own rights in the future. Such aid may helpensure that the right to food security is not undermined,enhancing empowerment and the right to participationrather than dependency or distortion of local markets.Aid can be provided in ways respectful of culture and


25/102

8

religion and without discrimination (as, for example,between refugees and local resident populations). Par-ticipation, already recognized in terms of its efficiency as

best practice by many humanitarian actors, forms a cor-nerstone of a human rights approach, and as such appliesto all UN actors, including secretariat departments.9

Action also needs to reflect the indivisibility andinterdependence of human rights. A UN official deliver-ing emergency food should see the right to food as part

of a wider array of rights, including the right to organizeto defend the right to food. An ongoing process of UNstrategic analysis should examine the full spectrum ofhuman rights under threat, with decisions then takenregarding if, when, how, with whom, and why food isdelivered. Each of these decisions affects the immediateand long-term human rights situation. Therefore, thecriteria used to evaluate such programs should includetheir effects on the full spectrum of human rights as wellas on the rights of people indirectly affected.

The fact that the vindication of human rights is a goalfor the UN system as a whole and not just for its humani-tarian actors underscores the need for coherent action.Each of the eight actors clearly affects the operatingenvironment of the others, for example, in pursuing

inconsistent political, military, or humanitarian goals.No single actor can achieve full integration in its ownwork unless its humanitarian colleagues and other UNactors in peace and security, development, and economicand social affairs do so in a mutually reinforcing manner.Coherence and consistency are essential elements of anUnited Nations-wide human rights approach, promot-ing a search for what might be called seamlessnessacross actors and functional areas.10

For example, WFPs commitment to empower womenby working to address the root causes of early malnutri-tion can be reinforced or undermined by the extent towhich DPA, DPKO, OHCHR, and other UN actors apply


26/102

9

gender analysis in their respective spheres of work. In ElSalvador, if DPAs facilitation of the peace process doesnot ensure that the human rights causes of the conflict areaddressed, UNDPs programs and funding of fledglinghuman rights institutions will suffer. A weak humanrights field operation in Rwanda may affect the work ofother UN agencies involved in emergency relief, institu-tion-building, and repatriation. When one UN agencycontinues to cooperate closely with the Zairian authori-

ties after they have rebuffed a human rights fact-findingmission mounted by another UN agency, the responsi-

bility of all UN agencies to respect, and to ensure respectfor, human rights is undercut. In sum, the key to fullintegration of human rights is for each UN actor to workin a coherent, mutually reinforcing way.

Constructing a Management Systems Approach

Finally, the identification of common human rightsgoals and the formulation of concerted strategies foraction throughout an entity as complex as the UnitedNations requires significant changes in existing manage-ment systems. This study emphasizes a managementsystem approach as more relevant to the nature and

context of UN actors than the violations approach,which is most often associated with state compliancewith civil and political rights. The violations approach is

based on the assumption that there exists an identifiablemoment in time when a state action curtails or denies theexercise of such rights. In addition to being reactive, theviolations approach prioritizes judicial redress, a matterof limited application in the UN context.

By contrast, achieving full integration requires theeight actors of the UN system to have structures,sys-tems, and procedures designed to prevent working to thedetriment of human rights, whether by intention orinadvertence. Actions proposed and implemented need


27/102


28/102

11

Overview of the Chapters

Chapter 2 focuses on policy. It outlines the manner inwhich individual actors identify their human rightsmandate and interpret its content. For purposes of analy-sis, actors are grouped according to those that focus oncertain claims holders (UNHCR, UNICEF), certain rights(WFP, UNDP), and certain activities (DPA, DPKO). Whilethe policy of most individual actors is presented by them

as being guided by international human rights law, eachtakes a selective approach to the particular part of thatframework that is relevant to its work.

Chapter 3 deals with the operational activities of theactors and, more particularly, with the means throughwhich operational guidance is given by headquarters tofield staff. The chapter starts from the premise thatintegration has the potential to cast new light on everyaspect of the program cycle, from early warning to im-pact evaluation. To date, none of the eight actors hasassigned a single unit or senior manager with overallresponsibility for translating the Secretary-Generals com-mitment into operational reality.

A range of individual and joint program strategies isreviewed, including human rights training, the conclu-

sion (in the case of DPKO and UNDP) of Memoranda ofUnderstanding (MOU) with OHCHR, internal review ofemergency practice and procedures (UNICEF), and thesetting up of country-specific task forces for individualpeacekeeping missions. The general pattern involvesadding on human rights elements to the work of indi-vidual agencies or undertaking to work more closelywith human rights specialists. While potentially posi-tive, the results are not transformative, particularly againstthe backdrop of factors that constrain the operationalintegration of human rights. These include the absence ofclear overall management responsibility within eachactor, relations with host governments and with NGO


29/102

12

implementing partners, the independence of the UNsecretariat from member states, and current interpreta-tions of humanitarian principles.

Chapter 4 moves beyond policy and operations to theinteraction among the actors. It examines the two mainrelevant interagency forums: the Inter-Agency StandingCommittee (IASC), including its subgroups, and theexecutive committees.

Chapter 5 reviews the current state of leadership

within the UN system on integration issues. The focus ison the roles of OCHA and OHCHR in seeking coherentstrategies across humanitarian actors, host governments,and donors. OHCHRs mandate makes it central to theintegration of human rights not only in humanitarianaction but also the other functional areas. Its currentpolicy and capacity for such leadership are explored.


30/102

13

CHAPTER 2

POLICY

This chapter outlines the manner in which six indi-vidual UN actors identify their human rights mandatesand interpret their conceptual content. With respect totheir human rights roles, the actors form three clusters, toa certain extent overlapping. UNICEF and UNHCR fo-

cus on the rights of particular claims holders; WFP andUNDP work on particular rights; and DPKO and DPA

bring their respective peacekeeping and political special-izations to bear on efforts to protect human rights. Thefinal two actors, OCHA and OHCHR, analyzed in Chap-ter 5, have leadership responsibilities in the human rightssphere.

Actors Specializing in Certain Rights Holders

In recent years, UNICEF and UNHCR have come todescribe themselves as promoters of the human rights ofparticular categories of people: women and children forthe former, and refugees and others of concern for thelatter. In the case of UNICEF, the shift in awareness,

however gradual, has been substantial. In 1979, recallsProfessor Philip Alston, the UN Commission for HumanRights adopted a resolution in which it asked interna-tional organizations about their activities to addressexploitative child labor. The UNs Children Fund, thelead agency for childrens issues, responded by sayingthat, of course, this was not an issue within its domain

because it was a human rights matter.1

In the intervening period, UNICEF has come to frameits work in explicitly human rights terms. It was a primemover behind the campaign for ratification of the 1989UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), press-


31/102

14

ing to ensure that ratification was secured in unprec-edented numbers and in record time. Today only theUnited States and Somalia have not accepted theconventions terms.

UNICEFs child rights policy has evolved accord-ingly. Its 1996 mission statement, framed by its executive

board, drew on human rights treaties concerning womenand children:

UNICEF is guided by the Convention onthe Rights of the Child and strives to es-tablish childrens rights as enduring ethi-cal principles and international standardsof behavior towards children. UNICEFaims, through its country programs, topromote the equal rights of women andgirls and to support their full participa-tion in the political, social and economicdevelopment of their communities.2

Other sources of relevant law referred to include theGeneva Conventions and the African Charter on Humanand Peoples Rights. The near-universal ratification ofthe CRC, however, provides UNICEF with what it con-

siders the most potent foundation for its work.Since UNHCRs creation in 1950 as a subsidiary body

of the General Assembly, many more international hu-man rights treaties, of both universal and regional appli-cation, have been adopted by states beyond the primaryrefugee treaties that guide UNHCRs work.3 Affirmingthis wider context, the High Commissioner for Refugeesstated in her address to the 50th session of the UNCommission on Human Rights in February 1994 thatUNHCR today is very much an operational humanrights organization, albeit for certain categories ofpeople.4

The High Commissioner has articulated the linkage


32/102

15

between human rights concerns and refugee issues in thefollowing terms:

Violations of human rights are a majorcause of refugee exodus and in its effortsto curb such violations this Commission[on Human Rights] also contributes to theprevention of refugee flows. Violations ofhuman rights also create complex prob-

lems of protection in countries of asylum... Finally, too, restoration of acceptablehuman rights situations in countries oforigin can be the key to successful resolu-tion of long-standing refugee problems.5

Over the years UNHCR has also incorporated hu-man rights into various sets of operational guidelines.The lack of clearly specified responsibility, whether inUNHCR or another UN organization, for internally dis-placed persons has led to an unusual process of humanrights policy development.6 The Guiding Principles onInternal Displacement aim to address the situation ofIDPs worldwide by identifying the relevant rights andguarantees. 7 The principles, based upon existing inter-

national human rights law, serve as standards for gov-ernments as well as international humanitarian and de-velopment agencies. The IDP policy process has beenstimulated by actors external to the UN such as NGOsand research institutions. The resulting principles evolvedthrough interagency discussion and have been adoptedas policy rather quickly.

Derived from human rights standards, most of theIDP principles apply equally to those not displaced. Forexample, they call for participation of displaced womenin planning and management of humanitarian activities,a principle no less applicable to women in other situa-tions.8 The process of the elaboration of the principles


33/102

16

and their acceptance as policy is noted in the discussionof system-wide leadership in human rights policy devel-opment in Chapter 5.

UNHCR and UNICEF played active roles in thepreparation for and follow-up to the UNs Fourth WorldConference on Women at Beijing in 1999. Their involve-ment illustrates how the three identified clusters of ac-tors overlap in their roles, whether specializing in certainrights, claims holders, or functions.

Actors Specializing in Certain Rights

Founded as an emergency relief body in the after-math of World War II, UNICEF has strengthened thedevelopmental component of its activities over a periodof years. By contrast, UNDP has become increasinglyemergency-oriented. WFP has seen the proportion of itsemergency work grow to 70 percent in recent years.

For development actors, the United Nations acknowl-edged early on the linkages with human rights. As far

back as 1957, UN member states recognized in GeneralAssembly resolutions and through such landmarks asthe World Conferences on Human Rights in Teheran(1968) and Vienna (1993) that development and human

rightsare interdependent and mutually reinforcing. Therecannot be full attainment of human rights without devel-opment, nor development without respect for the fullspectrum of human rights.

However, while the General Assemblys Declarationon the Right to Development dates from 1986, it wasanother 12 years before UNDP published its strategy forsupporting the integration of human rights.9 The lan-guage and concepts of the document reveal that UNDPswork, while inherently concerning human rights, has not

been approached as such in the past. UNDPs HumanDevelopment Report 2000 has human rights as its theme. Itis too early to tell whether and how human rights concepts


34/102


35/102

18

to food), rather than respecting and pro-tecting the rights related to food, as well asemphasizing the obligations of individu-als and civil society in this regard.13

The most conceptually evolved of WFPs relevantpolicy areas concerns gender. It holds the greatest poten-tial to lead the agency towards a rights-based approachin its emergency work. WFPs senior gender adviser

explains the operational rationale behind the proposedadoption of this subset of the human rights frameworkapplicable to humanitarian action. In the context of de-creasing food aid supplies, food providers should iden-tify the most effective and efficient methods. Targetingwomen is understood to reduce hunger by increasingconsumption at the household level, particularly amongchildren:

Using the gender framework of equality-efficiency-empowerment, WFP haswomen play an equal role in the fooddistribution committees, targets womenwith the food as the most efficient methodof ensuring that food reaches the right

hands, and gives women new leadershipskills which empower them. These strate-gies move towards a rights-based ap-proach.14

An approach that recognizes the normative basis ofrights does not require efficiency as an additional justifi-cation. However, exploring the efficiency of rights-basedapproaches should be an important element of learningfrom experience and, as noted in Chapter 4, may provideadditional justification for a rights-based approach.15


36/102


37/102

20

department to another. The UN approach to negotiationsconcerning Bosnia and Herzegovina has been recentlydescribed by the Secretary-General as having amountedto appeasement of those responsible for widespreadand systematic human rights violations.20 El Salvadorwas not the watershed for the United Nations that itmight have been.

The Secretary-Generals 1997 reform program desig-nated DPA as the UN focal point for enhancing the

coherence of political and humanitarian responses inpostconflict situations. DPA chairs the Executive Com-mittee on Peace and Security (ECPS) and is responsiblefor coordinating UN responses following peace settle-ments. For those operational humanitarian actors notthemselves present on the ECPS, the role of DPA iscentral.

In 1999 DPA sought to develop policy regarding itsrole in postconflict peace building. A draft policy paperprepared by former Special Representative of the Secre-tary-General Dame Margaret Joan Anstee recommendedthat DPA play a coordination role vis--vis actors rang-ing from UNDP to the World Bank. However, somesecretariat staff from within, and some NGOs from out-side, have expressed concern that human rights are not

given sufficient emphasis. Indeed, DPA policy has yet tobe finalized.

DPKOs most recent statement of policy is containedin a November 1999 Memorandum of Understandingagreed to after long negotiations between Under-Secre-tary-General for Peacekeeping Operations Bernard Miyetand UN High Commissioner for Human Rights MaryRobinson. Respect for human rights is itself fundamen-tal to the promotion of peace and security, notes theMOU, and a unified United Nations approach to theseends is essential to the fulfillment of these two Charter-mandated objectives.21 Once the Security Council orGeneral Assembly determines the specific mandate of


38/102

21

a given peacekeeping operation, including tasks relatingto human rights, DPKO will proceed as appropriate. Inits most positive interpretation, the MOU leaves open thequestion of whether peacekeeping officials have an in-herent, Charter-derived human rights mandate. Inter-views, suggest, however, that DPKO takes the positionthat it has neither such a mandate nor the authority tointerpret its peacekeeping mandate to maximize humanrights effects.

The fact that DPA has no comparable MOU withOHCHR does not mean that it accords less importancethan DPKO to human rights. It does suggest, however, alack of policy coherence. Thus, peacekeeping operationsrun by DPKO will be expected to apply the commitmentsin the memorandum while activities orchestrated byDPA will not. In a broader sense, DPKO and DPA are theleast likely among the eight actors considered to articu-late the human rights implications of their work, despitegrowing pressure to do so. Still less have they clarifiedtheir direct responsibility for the human rights conse-quences of their actions.

It comes as no surprise, therefore, that other UNorganizations have few expectations of these depart-ments as human rights actors. In 1998 DPA and DPKO

were conspicuously absent among the many UN agen-cies reporting on their progress in fulfilling the goals ofthe Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action.

Issues in the Search for a System-Wide Policy

Why has it proved so difficult for the United Nationssystem to develop comprehensive and coherent policy toguide its component parts with respect to human rights?Interviews reveal three principal constraints: the absenceof a common understanding among officials of theirhuman rights role and responsibilities; the fragmenta-tion of policymaking; and the lack of a mechanism pro-


39/102

22

viding system-wide direction and accountability.The primary constraint to system-wide policy stems

from the absence of a common UN understanding of thesystems human rights role and responsibilities. In thereform program, the Charter is acknowledged as thefoundation of the human rights role of the UNs compo-nent parts, whether secretariat departments, subsidiaryorgans, or specialized agencies. Yet not all actors investthe terms of the Charter with real significance, focusing

instead on secondary mandates. A resolution of theGeneral Assembly or of the Security Council is seen asproviding a specific mandate on a case-by-case, crisis-

by-crisis basis. While secondary mandates can reinforcemore fundamental obligations, they may also lead agen-cies in divergent directions.

DPKO officials, for example, express the view thatthey have no human rights mandate absent an expressedreference from the Security Council. That the secretariatis a principal organ of the UN is not seen as providing, ofitself, normative content for their work. Such an attitudehas practical consequences such as self-censorship innegotiating access or peace agreements or in interpretingpeacekeeping mandates. It also ignores the will of theGeneral Assembly in endorsing the Secretary-Generals

Program for Reform.Second, policymaking on matters related to the inte-

gration of human rights is fragmented both within actorsand throughout the UN system along internal fissures

between emergency and development work, and be-tween protection and assistance activities. Each actordevelops policy that reflects its own institutional inter-ests, priorities, and resource constraints, using distinctprocesses and operating largely without reference toothers. While this may reflect conscious self-interest,ingrained habits and institutional stasis are also at play.The benefits of a process of policy development that hasa major interagency component and includes voices ex-


40/102

23

ternal to the UN are illustrated by the Guiding Principlesregarding Internal Displacement mentioned earlier. How-ever, the executive office of the Secretary-General hasmade clear that it is for each actor to consider what, ifanything, the integration of human rights means for itswork, even though the issues are of system-wide import.

Third, there is a lack of UN system-wide directionand accountability, a problem not limited to the humanrights sphere. Asked whether they regarded themselves

as human rights actors with direct responsibilities torespect and ensure respect for human rights, mostinterviewees were unaware whether the UN or theirparticular agencies or departments had policy on thisfundamental question of law. UNICEF officials spoke of

being guided by the Convention on the Rights of theChild, UNHCR staff saw themselves as entitled to invokeinternational human rights standards and to draw on thenew IDP principles for guidance. DPKO staff had notdirectly addressed the issue.

A recent policy statement by the Secretary-General,however, has potentially far-reaching implications.Speaking in September 1999 on the fiftieth anniversary ofthe signing of the Geneva Conventions in the context ofclarifying the individual criminal responsibility of peace-

keepers, Mr. Annan committed UN peacekeeping per-sonnel to respecting the conventions, even though theUN itself cannot ratify the treaties.22 Acting as Secretary-General, he articulated new policy for the UN as anorganization.

His statement has major implications for recognitionof the applicability of the international human rightsframework to the UNs work. The Geneva Conventionsoblige parties to respect their terms and to ensure respect

by others. Peacekeepers have a legal duty to ensure thatparties to a conflict respect the Geneva Conventionswhere they are deployed. Do UN officials have the sameduty to ensure respect of the law by other UN colleagues?


41/102

24

If so, OCHA or, for that matter, UNHCR or UNICEF,could not then negotiate access for emergency assistancein a manner that does not reflect the United Nationssystems human rights obligations.

Guidance for implementing the Secretary-Generalscommitment with respect to peacekeeping personnel hasnot yet been issued by his military adviser. In reality,however, the Geneva Conventions are only part of theinternational law applicable to UN military forces. As a

result, many questions remain regarding which humanrights provisions apply to UN soldiers when there is noarmed conflict or whether the UN can derogate from anyof these human rights responsibilities. Moreover, recentdiscussions have yet to address whether the organiza-tional commitment to respect the human rights frame-work extends beyond peacekeeping personnel to thesecretariat as a whole and to UN agencies and subsidiary

bodies as well.The fragmented and selective approach to human

rights policy is reflected in the assistance-protection di-chotomy. For many actors, it is their protection activitiesthat they associate with human rights. The field guide forNGOs on the protection of refugees recently produced

by UNHCR states promisingly that the phrase interna-

tional protection covers the gamut of activities throughwhich refugees rights are secured.If this means theirrights both as refugees and the full spectrum of theirrights as human beings, such a formulation would ad-dress the issue of indivisibility of rights. Yet, the remain-der of the text clearly limits the term protection to civiland political rights.23

UNHCR policy toward assistance does not framethese functions in terms of the right to food, housing, orhealth. It uses the language of benefits and beneficiaries,reflecting a needs-based approach to assistance. Theparts of its work described as involving human rights arewhat are called protection functions. While UNHCR


42/102

25

policy contributes to standard-setting for operations con-cerning refugee women and children,24not until 1995were elements of human rights standards incorporatedinto UNHCRs program even of protection officer train-ing.25 The prevailing assistance-protection dichotomyencourages a selective approach to the human rightsframework, rendering divisible rights that are inherentlyindivisible.26

The integration mandate requires monitoring the

impacts of activities on the full spectrum of humanrights. Mechanisms to encourage accountability for suchimpacts are also of the essence. A human rights approachwill reinforce the primary human rights responsibility ofhost political authorities and the primary capacities ofthe host society, leaving claims holders better preparedto defend their own rights.

The direct legal responsibility of the UN has arisenmost recently in the case of Kosovo, where the OSCEshuman rights division has reported alleged human rightsviolations for which under international law the UN isostensibly responsible. Examples include the allegedfailure by the United Nations Interim AdministrationMission in Kosovo (UNMIK) to provide effective protec-tion to threatened minorities, compounded by the al-

leged failure of UN civilian police to investigate suchallegations energetically. Such deficiencies in law en-forcement and administration of justice have been de-scribed as contributing to the climate of impunity inwhich further human rights violations are likely to occur.Similar questions were raised concerning other UN mis-sions mandated to exercise governmental functions on atransitional basis, acting, for the purposes of interna-tional legal responsibility, in place of the state.27

The human rights framework for UN action dependsnot on which specific human rights treaties are appli-cable to a host state or on whether the state has madederogations. The content of the framework is a univer-


43/102

26

sally applicable core of human rights applying at all timeand in all places to the work of all UN actors. Thus, if UNagencies were to recognize their direct responsibility torespect human rights in their work, the impacts would betransformative.

The legal responsibilities of the UN are likely to befurther clarified in the coming years. Contributing to theincreased pressure is the growing expertise of NGOs inholding UN actors accountable in relation to the full

spectrum of human rights.28

Conclusion

At present, there is no system-wide policy process toaddress issues raised by the mandate to integrate humanrights in humanitarian action. Each UN actor has distinctpolicy approaches to, and perceived institutional inter-ests in, a human rights framework for their activities.The component parts of the UN system lack policy ar-ticulating common human rights responsibility and theintegration of such a framework into their work. Incontrast with the right to development, the human rightsnature of humanitarian action has been the subject ofrelatively little conceptual attention.

While policy evolution is still lacking, all actors ac-knowledge that complex emergencies require a responsethat goes beyond the mandate or capacity of any singleagency or country program. Indeed, most of the actorsindependently of each other recognized the relevance ofhuman rights before the program of reform. Thus thepossibility of agreeing upon and implementing a com-mon framework already exists. Such a framework can belikened to each actor continuing to play its own instru-ment but reading from the same music sheet and beingaccountable to the same conductor and audience.


44/102

27

CHAPTER 3

OPERATIONS

This chapter examines how six major UN actors giveoperational meaning to the integration of human rightsin their work. The remaining two agencies, OCHA andOHCHR, are considered in Chapter 5 following a reviewof interactions among the actors at the interagency level

in Chapter 4. In the present chapter, an overview ofagency programs, recruitment, and training is followed

by an examination of constraints in providing opera-tional guidance regarding the integration of human rights.

None of the six actorsUNHCR, UNICEF, WFP,UNDP, DPA, and DPKOhas assigned a particular unitor senior manager with overall responsibility to translate

into practice the mandate to integrate human rights intoall aspects of their work. Instead, they have used variousmeans for giving ad hoc operational guidance on humanrights concerns to staff. Steps underway include trainingin human rights, internal reviews of emergency practiceand procedures, conclusion of Memoranda of Under-standing with OHCHR, and country-specific in-housetask forces for discussion of peacekeeping missions. By

and large, however, they have opted for the add-onrather than the transformative approach.

Significant recurring constraints affect developmentand implementation of operational human rights guid-ance. These include lack of effective learning from expe-rience concerning relations with host political authori-ties, the nature of working through NGO implementing

partners, and the lack of independence of the UN secre-tariat from member state pressures. Taken together, thesteps described in this chapter fall substantially short ofthe transformative approach necessary to realize the fullintegration of human rights.


45/102

28

The Quest for Operational Guidance

Programs

The nature and extent of operational human rightsguidance to field staff vary not only from actor to actor

but also within individual agencies. UNDP, WFP,UNICEF, and UNHCR carry out reconstruction or devel-opment as well as emergency activities. These activities

often are organized in isolation from each other, evenwithin the same agency. To date, operational guidancefor integrating human rights has mainly addressed rela-tively stable development contexts. Guidance for emer-gencies is in its early days, even though such settingscomprise the majority of activities.

To facilitate the integration process, UNDP negoti-ated an MOU with OHCHR in 1998. OHCHR agreed toorchestrate close cooperation between UNDP and UNhuman rights organs, bodies, and procedures. OHCHRalso is to engage UNDP in joint initiatives concerning theright to development, including defining indicators inthe area of economic and social rights and devisingmethods and tools for their implementation. One out-come is a joint Human Rights Strengthening Programme

(HURIST) involving monthly meetings at headquarterslevel.1 Although some areas of cooperation such asOHCHR briefings for UNDP resident representativeshave a bearing on emergencies, the memorandum and itsapplication have not explicitly concerned the context ofhumanitarian action.

In the meantime, UNDPs emergency work is intransition. A review of organizational issues and struc-tures, including UNDPS Emergency Response Division(ERD), is currently taking place. Reflection on whatUNDP calls protection issues through a governance lensas well as conflict prevention and resolution conceptswas scheduled for the September 1999 meeting of its


46/102

29

Expanded Executive Committee. With the appointmentof a new UNDP administrator, ERD is being reinforcedand UNDP policy clarified.2 However, development ofoperational guidance on integrating human rights intoemergency activities is in its early stages.3

Similarly, UNICEFs watershed 1998 directive to staffon human rights-based programming for the most partassumed stable program environments and was not fullyadapted to emergencies. For the UN as a whole, the

concept was relatively new. In the words of one UNofficial, rights-based programming is assistance in-formed by human rights thinking and designed to achievecrosssectoral and sustainable improvements in the hu-man rights situation. It focuses attention on structuralinequalities that contribute to poverty, social exclusionand marginalization.4 A standard goal in the field ofdevelopment, this approach is only now being applied incrisis contexts, with UNICEF in the vanguard.

Also in 1998 UNICEF undertook to break down thedichotomy between relief and development by recogniz-ing that all its work involves development and thatemergencies are a normal part of its operating environ-ment. It is now formulating guidance for rights-basedprogramming that reflects the realities of emergencies.

UNICEF is updating its policy and procedures manualfor emergencies of 1985 (Book E), which predated theConvention on the Rights of the Child and most complexemergencies. A new draft,Assisting in Emergencies: Hand-book for UNICEF Field Staff, was prepared in 1997, draw-ing together ad hoc updates from the intervening period.The 1997 draft has been circulated internally for com-ment. It is not yet clear how the new draft of Book E willapproach integrating human rights; the earlier draft wascriticized in house for not reflecting UNICEFs statedhuman rights policy.

Neither WFP nor UNHCR has a specific process foridentifying the implications of integrating human rights


47/102

30

in its work. In the case of WFP, officials emphasized thatits recent policy pronouncements are way ahead of theattitudes and practices of many staff. As for UNHCR,several recent documents have reviewed human rightsissues.5 Asked on a recent occasion to outline her visionof the integration of human rights, the High Commis-sioner mentioned only her relations with the Commis-sion on Human Rights and its human rights machinery.6

To be sure, UNHCR has worked closely with OHCHR

the emergency session of the Commission on HumanRights on Kosovo in 1999 is one examplebut largely onan ad hoc basis, and cooperation has not been formal-ized. In any event, the implications of integration ofhuman rights goes well beyond UNHCR links to the UNsystems formal human rights machinery, affecting therefugee agencys own operational activities.7

The selective approach of UNHCR policy concerninghuman rights noted in Chapter 2 carries over into itsprograms. Its work in Colombia was mentioned in inter-views as evidence of the persistence of a needs-basedorientation. UNHCR bases its work with IDPs there onthe Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, whichreflect international human rights law. Moreover, itsanalysis of the displacement concluded that protection

activities and durable solutions were required, but notassistance as such. However, agency officials interviewedexpressed the view that because the approach taken inColombia was out of step with what has becomeUNHCRs needs-based orientation, it was unlikely to

be replicated.Operational guidance to peacekeeping personnel

shows a similar combination of progress and problems.The early UN peacekeeping missions were planned andfielded almost entirely without input from the then-UNCentre for Human Rights. In 1993, DPKO introducedmultiagency, multidepartmental task forces at headquar-ters on each peacekeeping mission. While a step forward,


48/102

31

attention to human rights remained ad hoc. In November1999, however, an MOU between DPKO and OHCHRreiterated the possibility of OHCHR participation inDPKO-led assessment and preparatory missions.Whether this arrangement will give greater importanceto human rights in future peacekeeping operations re-mains to be seen.

The Secretary-General is committed to making suchmultidisciplinary peacekeeping operations the rule rather

than the exception. The MOU aims to systematize ar-rangements such as those used in the UN ObserverMission in Sierra Leone (UNOMSIL). There, the humanrights program is headed by an officer recruited byDPKO, working under the supervision of the SpecialRepresentative of the Secretary-General (SRSG), withsubstantive backstopping from OHCHR in Geneva.

The number of such field-based UN human rightsspecialists is increasing, sometimes as part of peacekeep-ing operations and sometimes independent of them. Afurther positive development is increased secundmentto OHCHR from agencies such as OCHA or UNDP ofpersons then fielded under the High Commissionersmandate. One senior human rights adviser from OCHAwas assigned to work with OHCHR in Afghanistan,

another from UNDP to support its work in Colombia.Other interagency efforts, including the role of the Ex-ecutive Committee on Peace and Security in adjudicatingdisputes among actors, are discussed in Chapter 4. Takentogether, such developments reflect considerably greateropportunities for OHCHR input.

The design of two recent peacekeeping missions inthe summer of 1999 by DPA for East Timor and byDPKO for Kosovosuggest the higher priority nowaccorded human rights concerns both in the SecurityCouncils expressed rationale for intervention and in theUN secretariats follow-through. The Asia and PacificDivision of DPA had formulated the terms of reference of


49/102

32

the United Nations Assistance Mission in East Timor(UNAMET). UNAMET was to arrange a referendum inAugust in East Timor regarding its future and ensurethat it was free and fair. Many UNAMET officials, in-cluding the head of the UN mission itself, were humanrights specialists.8 Human rights activities in its terms ofreference, included, in addition to the referendum itself,the training of the new East Timor police after the vote.

In June 1999, DPKO drafted plans for the UN mission

in Kosovo as part of what those involved describe as apositive team effort. DPKO officials took into accountthe East Timor discussions and pooled comments fromOHCHR and other UN agencies and departments as wellas from the International Committee of the Red Cross(ICRC) and NGOs, such as Amnesty International.9

UNMIKs design, which was intended to have hu-man rights infused throughout the operation, was en-couraged by the High Commissioner for Human Rights,who drew attention in her speeches to the human rightscauses of the Kosovo crisis. OHCHR identified the per-son then appointed by DPKO as senior human rightsadviser to the SRSG, whose task is to ensure the integra-tion of a human rights culture in UNMIK and to providehuman rights advice to the UN mission. The human

rights monitoring role in Kosovo is carried out mainly bythe Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe(OSCE), which had taken on a similar role in the formerYugoslavia. The OHCHR field presence in Kosovo isoutside the UNMIK structure.

Recruitment and Training

The integration of human rights into day-to-day op-erations has implications for the selection and training ofUN staff. For the most part, outside human rights expertshave not been recruited, although this may reflect frozenUN recruitment generally rather than a specific approach


50/102

33

to the integration mandate. However, none of the actorsspecifies as a general condition that new recruits showfamiliarity with international human rights standards.

A number of the actors have appointed or nominatedindividuals as focal points for human rights. Their roletends to be that of liaison officer, sometimes with respon-sibility for training staff in human rights. In one case, anexisting staff member with no familiarity with humanrights was named. In view of the scale of the organiza-

tional opportunity and challenge that the integrationmandate represents, focal points may be helpful. How-ever, substantially more significant authority and re-sources are required.

The process of recruiting and training SRSGs meritsspecial study, given their influence on UN human rightscoherence from one country situation to the next. Having

been charged with responsibility for all UN actors in agiven mission area, SRSGs are in a position to promoteclear and coherent operational guidance and training,

both by individual organizations and on an interagencybasis. Central to fulfillment of the integration mandate istherefore the process by which SRSG candidates areidentified, selected, briefed, and debriefed on UN hu-man rights policy and operations. The selection process

is not transparent, the criteria not clear.In December 1998 for the first time a group of 15

former SRSGs met for an exchange of views with theSecretary-General, the Deputy Secretary-General, andthe heads of key departments.10 One major conclusionwas that their expectations at the time of their appoint-ments differed dramatically from what proved to be thereality of their posts. The UN agreed that a list of possiblecandidates for future SRSG positions would be drawn upand realistic training provided. A further meeting inmid-1999 returned to some of these themes. Also reflect-ing these discussions, an SRSG handbook is being drafted.The fact that one does not already exist confirms the lack


51/102

34

of system-wide coherence identified by the present re-port.

A recurrent feature of discussion regarding integra-tion is the increase in demand for human rights training.Broad support for such training for personnel involvedin peacemaking, peacekeeping, and peace building ac-tivities has been recently expressed by the Security Coun-cil in the context of childrens human rights.11 A sampleof training activities is mentioned here.

UNICEF is reviewing past training for emergencieswith an eye to mainstreaming emergency responses intoits normal work. The mid-1990s saw a training emphasisin both UNICEF and UNHCR on mobilizing rapid re-sponse teams of highly trained and experienced techni-cal personnel. While some of this training remains rele-vant, UNICEF realized that humanitarian principleswere missing and has started to fill the gap in regionaltraining for its country representatives. WFP and UNDPhave launched modest efforts to increase familiarity withinternational human rights standards. OCHA has re-cently begun workshops for its headquarters staff in suchstandards.

Training is a major focus of activity through whichOHCHR seeks to support the integration of human rights

in the work of other actors. In 1999 it produced a basichandbook on human rights for dissemination to new UNstaff. For DPKO, it has created a range of manuals andguides for training of peacekeepers.12 Yet there is nosystematic assessment of the human rights training needsof secretariat staff at headquarters, whether for seniormanagers, desk officers, or political affairs officers inDPA and DPKO. Users of such materials confirm thatthey provide useful reference material on internationallegal standards and mechanisms but are not particularlyhelpful as tools for providing training or operationalguidance. There is no planned evaluation of the materi-als impact on decisions or behavior.


52/102

35

The IASC Task Force on Training, under UNHCRauspices, encourages information exchange on trainingissues to identify gaps. Individual agencies have takenthe lead on particular issues: safety and security of staff(WFP), humanitarian principles (UNICEF), and inter-agency coordination (OCHA). Other training has beensimilarly piecemeal. A number of interagency trainingcourses on prevention and early warning have been heldat the UN Staff College in Turin, which, with OHCHR

participation, incorporate elements of human rightsanalysis. Yet the process is not designed to ensure contin-ued application of such training and better human rightsoutcomes.

Constraints in the Quest

Three factors in particular that inhibit integrationand the development of human rights guidance for staffemerge from interviews. They are relations with hostpolitical authorities, the lack of independence of the UNsecretariat from member state pressures, and the dynam-ics of working through implementing partners.

The question of relations with host political authori-ties in complex emergencies is viewed as perhaps the

most fundamental impediment to integrating humanrights. Good relations are seen as essential for the successof a given actors programs and built into the UNssystem of rewards and incentives. The perceived needfor humanitarian actors to maintain neutrality may alsolimit how extensively UN officials are prepared to raisecontroversial human rights issues with their interlocu-tors.

Integrating human rights is frequently reduced to thestereotype of behind-the-scenes and sometimes publiclyapplied pressure, which is then sometimes discarded

because of the perceived risk of creating a backlash. Thehuman rights mandate thus engenders what some offi-


53/102

36

cials call subliminal resistance, discouraging the pro-cess of making the operational level connections withhuman rights concerns. Some officials interviewed spokeof self-censorship, by which they meant that fear of a

backlash had stopped them from being more assertive inacting on human rights concerns, which they, in retro-spect, regretted.

A second factor inhibiting the development of clearguidance regarding the integration mandate involves

the vulnerability of the UN and its personnel to memberstate pressure. DPA and DPKO officials at headquartersare subjected to greater day-to-day scrutiny than otherUN actors. The secretariats role in drafting reports in-volving human rights provides an example.

In the spring of 1999, DPKO drafted the Secretary-Generals report to the Security Council concerning theSierra Leone peace agreement, the terms of which gave

blanket amnesty to all parties. The SRSG had been di-rected by the Secretary-General to add a disclaimer re-garding the amnesty provision when he signed the peaceagreement as one of its witnesses and moral guaran-tors. Although not UN-brokered, the agreement wasone that the Security Council has since committed some6,000 troops to monitor. The disclaimer was intended to

distance the UN from a blanket amnesty for war crimesand crimes against humanity.

Issues for DPKO in drafting the report includedwhether the Secretary-General would recommend aninternational commission of inquiry and increase thenumber of human rights officers serving with UNOMSIL.Council members were split. Some urged pragmatism,viewing any insistence on accountability for past humanrights violations as delaying the process of reconstruc-tion in Sierra Leone. Others, lobbied by OHCHR andNGOs such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty Inter-national, argued that such impunity would contradict


54/102

37

the principles of the future International Criminal Court(ICC), the thrust of statements by the Security Councilpresident, and the Secretary-Generals announced com-mitment to integrate human rights. The report stoppedshort of recommending a commission of inquiry but didurge an increase in the human rights unit of UNOMSIL,a recommendation adopted by the Council.13

In articulating human rights concerns within suchdrafting processes, DPKO and DPA may come under

intense pressure. Although UN officials are increasinglyfamiliar with human rights issues, they have not re-ceived operational guidance regarding their responsibil-ity to provide informed advice to assist in achieving theUNs human rights goals. Unless actively lobbied for,human rights remain simply another interest ratherthan the UNs core preoccupation.

A third inhibiting factor is that UN agencies andofficials often are not the implementers of their ownprograms. Many WFP, UNICEF, and UNHCR activities,for example, are implemented by NGOs, whether inter-national or local, and some by other intergovernmentalorganizations. Ensuring that the UNs chosen partnersare themselves committed to integrating human rights intheir humanitarian work raises a host of difficulties.

Some NGOs may be more assertive on human rightsissues than are the UN actors whom they serve as imple-menting partners; other NGOs may be less so.

UNICEF is considering how its partners may beselected and how mechanisms for monitoring contractsmay be established to help ensure that such partners arethemselves committed to its rights-based programming.The recent field guide for NGOs produced by UNHCR inconsultation with its NGO partners gives practical ad-vice for on-the-ground interventions that can make thedifference between rights abused and rights secured.14

Yet it does not make maximizing protection of the full


55/102

38

spectrum of human rights a requirement for NGO col-laborators. The choice is left to NGOs as to the nature anddegree of their interest in human rights.

If UN operations are to integrate human rights, itspartners should be chosen and monitored accordingly.The experience with gender integration injects a caution-ary note. In Eastern Zaire in 1996, despite all the formu-lated recommendations and training that may have beengiven to them, NGO implementing partners made no

particular effort in approaching women in planning andimplementing operations.15 While NGOs asimplementers of UN programs rightly expect to be treatedwith respect, they need to reflect a commitment to inte-grating human rights throughout such work.

Conclusion

Recent years have witnessed an extraordinary in-crease in awareness at headquarters level of the rel-evance of human rights issues to field operations . Advo-cacy for a permanent ICC is but one example. However,there is wide divergence among the actors in the depth oftheir commitment to the implementation of human rightsin their work. While they welcome the ICC, there are no

signs of their planning to provide operational guidanceto their staffs to help ensure its effectiveness.16

The spectrum of approaches to integration rangesfrom UNICEF, which is seeking to give operational con-tent to its commitment to rights-based programming, toDPKO, for which human rights remains essentially thework of others. The typical approach is to add humanrights elements in piecemeal fashion here or there. Yetthe addition of human rights officers to peacekeepingmissions, accelerated since the 1994 Rwanda debacle,while giving higher visibility to the human rights-basednature of such crises, does not ensure the integration ofsuch concerns into peacekeeping operations. Similarly,


56/102

39

for human rights-based programs, the risk of contradic-tions and incoherence is also high if such strategies arepursued in an operating environment shaped by needs-

based approaches.The Rwanda experience is particularly instructive. In

1994, the UNAMIR force commander lacked the essen-tial policy, doctrine, and tools to respond to the genocide.While the absence of adequate human rights analysis inthat crisis led the Secretary-General to add human rights

officers to later peacekeeping missions, the Rwanda ex-perience was repeated the following year when the DutchUNPROFOR contingent in Srebrenica lacked the requi-site operational human rights guidance. Adding humanrights experts is not integration.

There is thus a need to revisit operational humanitar-ian principles, examining their relationship with thehuman rights law framework applicable to the UNswork.17 During the July 1999 negotiations on the ICC,UNHCR sought an exemption from the requirement thatit give evidence to the Court, an exemption requested byICRC in view of its unique role and status under interna-tional law. The UNHCR initiative, which threatenedICRCs exemption request as it might have led to a floodof such requests from other UN agencies, was quickly

and quietly dropped. Yet the incident illuminated afundamental confusion between the mandate of the ICRC,which is palliative in nature, and those of the organiza-tions of the United Nations system, whose Charter iscommitted to preventing conflict, including through theadvancement of human rights.18

The same operational principles are not appropriatefor both organizations. A set of human rights principles,

based on the Vienna Declaration and Programme ofAction, should be recognized to apply to all UN actorsacross all functional areas.19 Each such area could then beapproached in mutually coherent human rights terms.Such a process would clarify that the goal of humanitar-


57/102

40

ian action is not access, as those who place the highestpremium on the delivery of assistance suggest. Accesswould emerge as one method among many in the UNtoolbox, not a goal in and of itself.

A set of human rights principles, drawn from theexisting international legal framework, would bringgreater coherence to the responses of UN actors to theintegration mandate. One of the reasons for divergencesamong actors in their understandings of, and approaches

to, human rights is that senior officials from variousactors have not taken a root and branch approach toidentifying the operational implications of integratinghuman rights. Some of themUNHCR and DPA areexampleshave, as individual actors, no such process atall. None has assigned a senior official or a unit to the taskof carrying out a human rights audit to identify areaswhere human rights integration is relevant and requiressupport to give it effect.

Each actor needs a single authoritative locus forreflection on the operational implications of the integrat-ing mandate for the whole of their work. Reflection onthe operationalization of human rights principles would

be a step toward greater coherence at the level of opera-tions across the UN system as a whole.


58/102

41

CHAPTER 4

INTERAGENCY RELATIONS

The previous two chapters examined efforts by themajor individual actors to integrate human rights inpolicy and operations. This chapter reviews progress inaddressing the integration of human rights through widerinteractions. The two principal forums which structure

these interactions are the Inter-Agency Standing Com-mittee (IASC) and the four UN Executive Committees.

After recapping recent developments, the chapterexamines the need for a UN system-wide approach toidentifying and incorporating lessons from its experi-ence. This involves pooling the human rights experienceof individual actors for the benefit of all and developing

a system-wide evaluation of efforts toward the commonhuman rights goal.The roles of the Office for the Coordination of Hu-

manitarian Affairs (OCHA), which provides staff sup-port to the IASC, and of the Office of the High Commis-sioner for Human Rights, which is a member of each ofthe Executive Committees, are reviewed in the finalchapter.

The Inter-Agency Standing Committee

Officials interviewed during the study identified th

kenny - when needs are rights

Documents