Abstract
The purpose of this thesis is to examine and evaluate arguments about double standards, selectivity and politicization for and against the application of public country specific procedures including monitoring, criticism and condemnation, by the UN Human Rights Council. Such practices took place under the so-called 1235- procedure of its predecessor, the UN Human Rights Commission,
where their application was highly contested, especially with reference to double standards, selectivity and politicization ( DSSP ).
The thesis presents and examines some of the expressed criticisms against the Commission as well as the positions taken in the official UN studies, recommendations and resolutions most central in the reform process leading to the Council s replacement of the Commission.
Examination of the criticisms leads to the conclusion that there are different and competing interpretations of how and whether the presence of DSSP constitutes a problem. Its presence, as such, is not contested. A position challenging the usefulness of the 1235-procedure, presented by some developing countries focuses the
different treatment of governments as unfair and that the procedure is abused for political purposes of control and domination. An NGO approach complains that states behind gross and systematic violations are not always censured (an idealist position) or not often enough (a realist position) to serve the purpose of protection. An altogether different position considers that criticising the state members of the Commission for being too political is not meaningful and
misrepresents the political nature of the influence that the Commission may exert.
The thesis discusses and evaluates problematic elements in these positions, especially empirical arguments about what best serves the stated goals of protection of human rights in case governments are unwilling to protect human rights, or are actively pursuing policies or strategies that lead to gross and systematic violations of human rights, as well as empirical arguments about how it would be
possible to contribute to more fair treatment of governments by utilising the 1235-procedure more, rather than less often. It concludes that the understanding of DSSP as problematic with regard to the different treatment of states fails to respond well to these challenges.
The official positions expressed in the reform process are analysed in light of these insights. The analyses reveal the presence of strong normative support and insistence on a responsibility to protect individuals against genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, and to a large extent even towards all
human rights. This strong normative commitment has a particular bearing on the interpretation of DSSP as unfortunate hindrances to the consistent application of procedures like 1235. The strengthening of this understanding further undermines an alternative understanding of DSSP as a problem of different treatment of governments.
The strong normative language insists that action shall always be taken, without undue political considerations and selectivity, consistently applying the same standards to all cases, for the fulfilment of a responsibility to protect, including the utilisation of a procedure similar to 1235 whenever the procedure may be relevant to that goal. Such formulation of principles may be inducing states into such action.
On the other hand, the references to double-standards, selectivity and politicization may not be construed by all in the same fashion with reference to 1235 as we have argued best fit our knowledge of the 1235 procedure, the logical consistency of the arguments and the normative positions and interpretations expressed by the official documents.
Ironically, it is indeed to be expected that the interpretation of the adopted language, which stresses the importance of the elimination of double standards and politicization will it self be subject to political interpretation and use.