❝After 75 years, what is the UN human rights system’s theory of change?

As celebrations for the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recede, many commentaries have focused on the historical importance and beauty of the document, its enduring relevance, and the fact that it would likely be impossible today for United Nations member states to adopt such an ambitious and far-sighted agreement.

Yet two equally – if not more – crucial questions linger: what was the Universal Declaration’s theory of change, meaning how did its authors intend for it to improve the situation of human rights for all “the Peoples” of the UN, and has the UN succeeded in translating the universal norms into local reality?

The Universal Declaration was the first building block of what we know today as the UN human rights system. From these rights, set out in broad terms, states crafted the international human rights treaties, turning the Declaration’s political commitments into legally binding obligations. This growing canopy of universal human rights norms grew further through soft law instruments such as guidelines, principles and resolutions.

Human rights mechanisms, mainly special procedures, treaty bodies and the state-led Universal Periodic Review, were then created to hold states accountable for their obligations under the treaties – and violations thereof – and to promote improved compliance over time – all of this guided by the Commission on Human Rights followed by the Human Rights Council since 2006.

But what is this system’s theory of change? Since its adoption in 1948, not enough thought has been given to how it drives change at the national and local levels. Worse, different groups of states, civil society actors, UN independent experts and even high commissioners for human rights have developed markedly different theories of what the UN human rights system is, what it is supposed to do, and how it is supposed to improve the situation of human rights at the national level.

For some, the system is mainly for the benefit of developing countries, and its principal utility is to respond to serious human rights violations and hold abusing states accountable. Its main purpose, in other words, is to protect human rights.

For others, it is a universal system in which all states should be treated equally. It is there to engage with them through cooperation and dialogue to gradually improve human rights laws, policies and practices over time, including through the delivery of international capacity-building support. The system’s main objective here is, in other words, to promote human rights.

For some, human rights norms should be in a constant state of progressive development, even in sensitive issues such as sexual orientation and gender identity, or sexual and reproductive health and rights, and should be imposed by the UN. Where states resist, it is because they are not committed to human rights and should be called out and forced to catch up.

For others, the UN is there to provide a platform where states can reach a common understanding of universal human rights norms. This is what happened in the case of the UN’s recognition of the right to a healthy environment. After that, it can provide capacity-building and technical support to help those countries making insufficient progress.

Horses for courses

So, who is right? There is some truth to both views. For example, the mandate of the Human Rights Council explicitly includes both the protection and promotion dimensions of human rights. And therein lies the answer – the international human rights system, built from the foundations of the Universal Declaration, embodies different – yet complementary – theories of change.

In some cases – and I would argue in a large majority of cases – the most effective way to drive real and sustainable progress in the domestic enjoyment of human rights, in line with the Universal Declaration, is through cooperation and dialogue and by ensuring that states feel ownership and accept the UN human rights system’s norms and outputs, such as the treaty bodies’ recommendations and the Council’s resolutions.

The simple truth is that human rights change cannot be imposed from the outside, by certain states or even by the international community as a whole, without the consent of the state concerned. Bottom-up demands for change, for example, led by local civil society, can and frequently do succeed in securing improvements in the enjoyment of human rights, especially in democracies.

However, in many countries, the power imbalance between civil society and governments means that NGOs and local communities, acting alone, can be easily ignored or even suppressed.

Over a decade of the Universal Rights Group’s research shows that a winning approach, instead, is to combine top-down pressure for improvement with bottom-up calls for change within a framework that is accepted by the state or government and of which it feels a sense of ownership.

That framework is the multilateral human rights system. Because states took the sovereign decision to sign and ratify international human rights treaties and to cooperate with compliance mechanisms, they tend to feel a sense of ownership of the output of those processes, making them more likely to implement them.

It also makes it easier for UN teams and other actors to engage with states and agree on frameworks that help it put into practice those recommendations. Local civil society can also engage with the UN mechanisms by submitting alternative, or so-called shadow reports, and then press the government to implement the recommendations, many of which the state has accepted, and thus better comply with its international obligations. This creates dual pressure for change.

In other cases, in particular where a state commits serious human rights violations and refuses to cooperate with the UN or – worse – refuses to even acknowledge the problem, like with North Korea, Syria, Russia and Myanmar, the UN human rights system should step in to protect human rights by holding that state to account, whether that be through public diplomacy (naming and shaming) or by establishing legal accountability pathways, such as commissions of inquiry.

While the international human rights system, therefore, encapsulates different and complementary theories of change (think “carrot and stick”), for a vast majority of states, the vast majority of the time, the former theory of change is the most relevant.

As we celebrate the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there are increasing signs, from states (both developed and developing), civil society, the secretary general, the high commissioner, UN resident coordinators and others, of a shift towards a common understanding of this predominant theory of change. Building on that shared understanding and thereby effectively translating universal rights into local reality would truly be the best way to mark the adoption of this historic document.

Marc Limon is executive director of the Universal Rights Group, a think tank focused on international human rights policy, with offices in Geneva, New York and Bogota.

Geneva Solutions publishes opinions and columns proposed by or requested from external contributors and experts. These texts reflect the point of view of their authors and do not represent the position of the media.