3 The international legal order, human rights and gender equality
Co-existence between states is rooted in important principles laid down in the UN Charter such as state sovereignty and the prohibition on the use of force against another state. Both major powers and small states have found that predictable international cooperation governed by the rule of law is in their interests. Owing to our geographical location and particular resource-related and economic features, the maintenance and further development of the international legal order and multilateral governance systems is one of Norway’s primary foreign policy interests. The multilateral agreements, rules and regulatory frameworks of international law are essential if we are to meet our society’s needs and achieve its goals.
Countries that respect fundamental human rights are crucial to the development of a stable international legal order. The human rights standards to which all the UN’s member states are committed are necessary for holding states accountable, and the UN is the most important platform for safeguarding and developing human rights. This includes the principle that women have equal worth and equal rights, which follows from the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Organisation has made a significant contribution to the promotion of women’s rights and gender equality. However, established rights and values may be challenged by a shift in the international balance of power. The current international legal order cannot be taken for granted – it needs to be continually upheld and further developed.
3.1 The international legal order
The international community is guided by an international legal order that provides a clear and predictable framework for the conduct of states in the international arena and that is developed through an increasingly bilaterally and multilaterally binding cooperation. The world is becoming more closely interwoven, and an international system of rules needs to be developed to regulate the growing contact across national borders and to address fresh global challenges. No other actor can compete with the UN as a global arena for developing the international legal order and the norms governing relations between states.
Figure 3.1 A judgment by the International Court of Justice in The Hague.
Source Photo: ICJ/Jeroen Bouman
3.1.1 The normative role of the UN
The UN plays a key normative role in the international community, and many parts of the UN system have important functions in this work.
One of the main tasks of the UN General Assembly is to encourage the progressive development of international law and its codification, and in 1948 the International Law Commission was established for this purpose. The Commission prepares some draft conventions for adoption by the General Assembly, while others are first negotiated in separate intergovernmental working groups before being adopted by the Assembly.
The Security Council also has a strong normative function. This is particularly evident in the case of the Council’s resolutions imposing sanctions against states, entities or individuals that threaten international peace and security, which are binding on all member states.
Non-binding rules are also adopted in all UN spheres of activity in the form of resolutions, declarations and other decisions. Despite the fact that they are not binding, these texts have considerable political influence, especially if they have been adopted by consensus. Such documents, for example the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, may under certain circumstances also constitute binding customary law.
The International Court of Justice in The Hague is the foremost body for the peaceful resolution of disputes between states, but it also has another important role. Through its interpretation and application of conventions and state practice, the Court plays a part in clarifying and developing international law. For example, it has made a significant contribution to clarifying the rules of international law relating to maritime delimitation. The Court’s thorough evaluations and use of legal method were useful guidelines for Norway and Russia in their negotiations on maritime delimitation in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean.
The Secretary-General has a particular responsibility for instruments of international law, in two ways. The first is by serving as a depository for multilateral treaties. The depository must accept all notifications and documents related to the treaty, examine whether all formal requirements are met, deposit them, register the treaty, and notify all relevant acts to the parties concerned. Secondly, all agreements that are binding under international law, not merely treaties but also agreements entered into by member states, must be registered with the Secretary-General.
3.1.2 Compliance with international law
In order for the goals and results of international legal instruments to be achieved, these must be implemented in national legislation and respected by the individual state. It is the states themselves that are responsible for complying with their commitments under international law. However, the UN has a number of tools at its disposal to assist states, not only in complying with their obligations, but also in safeguarding their rights under international law. The Secretary-General provides information on the rules of international law and assists states in building competence on legal matters in this field.
There are a number of mechanisms in the UN system for monitoring states’ compliance with their obligations under international law. These consist for example of dealing with reports and complaints submitted by states or individuals, and the establishment of commissions of inquiry or teams of observers by bodies such as the Human Rights Council, the General Assembly and the Security Council.
Textbox 3.1 The Fisheries Case
Before the regime of the exclusive economic zone was introduced under the Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1982, a state could claim exclusive fishing rights in its territorial waters, while the high seas were open to fishing by all countries. During the 1930s a dispute arose between Norway and the UK on the delimitation of Norwegian territorial waters and thus the area to which Norway had exclusive fishing rights. The UK claimed that the method used by Norway to determine the baselines for delimiting its territorial waters was in violation of international law, and referred the dispute to the International Court of Justice in The Hague in 1948. On 18 December 1951, the Court ruled that the Norwegian baselines were not contrary to international law. The method of drawing straight baselines has since become part of state practice and is now regulated by the Convention on the Law of the Sea.
The UN also has tools for the peaceful settlement of disputes. The most important of these is the International Court of Justice at The Hague, which gives advisory opinions on legal questions and delivers binding judgments on specific disputes between states. Accepting the Court’s authority to decide a dispute is voluntary, and a state may do so on a general basis, in the case of disputes on particular legal questions, or on a case-by-case basis. The Court’s high level of activity indicates its considerable relevance, and it enjoys a high degree of legitimacy by virtue of its position as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. Norway considers that this role needs to be further strengthened and that more countries should give the Court general authority to decide disputes under international law.
It is in Norway’s interest that rules are complied with, that states have the will and capacity to stand by their commitments under international law, that their actions are credible and predictable, and that disputes are settled peacefully. The UN’s role in monitoring and dispute settlement, and the assistance and guidance it provides to member states on the content of international law, directly serve Norway’s interests.
Textbox 3.2 The UN and international environmental law
Legally binding multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) are a key instrument in the efforts to address the problem of climate change and other global environmental problems. A number of global MEAs have been concluded under the auspices of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), and intergovernmental negotiations on new binding agreements are conducted under its leadership. Conventions have been negotiated on key environmental areas including the Climate Change Convention and the Kyoto Protocol, the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (genetically modified organisms) and the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources etc., the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade, and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.
Currently negotiations are being conducted on a new global agreement to reduce the use and release of mercury, which is one of the most hazardous substances, both to the environment and to human health.
Norway’s policy is to be at the forefront of efforts to develop new and stricter environmental agreements, and has played a leading role in initiating negotiations on several MEAs. Although the existing conventions together cover a wide field, the obligations they entail only target a fraction of the massive environmental problems that need to be addressed. Many of the environmental problem areas covered by existing MEAs are closely linked. For example deforestation and forest degradation are linked with climate change, since they are responsible for one-sixth of annual global greenhouse gas emissions. Deforestation also reduces the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems to temporarily store surface water, which can lead to soil erosion and desertification. This in turn affects the biodiversity of these ecosystems, thereby undermining the livelihoods of local communities. Achieving the goals of the Climate Change Convention, the Convention to Combat Desertification and the Convention on Biological Diversity requires sustainable forest management. It is therefore important to view the MEAs in relation to one another, and the synergies between them should be utilised and further developed. For example, in the area of hazardous chemicals, Norway has played a leading role in the efforts to coordinate the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions through the establishment of a joint secretariat and conferences of the parties. Ensuring compliance with existing obligations under these conventions is a challenge, and more work is needed to establish more effective mechanisms for this purpose.
3.1.3 The UN and the Law of the Sea
One of the most important international instruments in line with fundamental Norwegian interests is the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. There are 162 parties to the convention, which means that it enjoys almost universal support. It has been called “a constitution for the oceans”, and establishes rules for all maritime activity. In 1995 it was supplemented by the United Nations Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (Fish Stocks Agreement), which elaborates on and strengthens important provisions of the convention. Norway ratified both instruments in 1996.
The Law of the Sea Convention and the Fish Stocks Agreement are reviewed annually by the General Assembly. This is the only global forum for the general review of sea-related issues and is thus a key arena for promoting Norway’s interests, values and views in this area.
The 2009 Binding International Agreement on Port State Control Measures to Combat, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing (Port State Agreement) is an example of how the Law of the Sea regime is implemented and of how Norwegian interests are promoted in several different forums. In the last few years we have intensified our efforts to combat IUU fishing both in our own region and at the global level, and control measures for landings of fish are crucial in this respect. However, implementing control measures in Norway has little effect as long as illegally caught fish are being landed elsewhere. Measures at the global level were needed, and in 2006 Norway succeeded in getting the Review Conference on the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement to recommend that a binding international agreement on port state control should be negotiated. The General Assembly followed up the Norwegian proposal, and in autumn 2006 recommended that the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) should open negotiations. The negotiations were terminated in 2009, and Norway ratified the agreement in 2011.
An issue currently being debated in the UN concerns the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction and whether a new agreement is needed to regulate this. A large number of countries have long demanded a new agreement to supplement the Law of the Sea Convention, and some have pointed out the need for an agreement to cover marine genetic resources as well. Others would like to see an agreement establishing Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). At the Rio conference in June 2012, Norway supported a declaration stating that by the end of its 69th session, the General Assembly should decide on the development of such an agreement. The provisions of the agreement will have to be negotiated afterwards. The issue has implications for a wide range of Norwegian interests, and we will give it high priority. We will seek to ensure that our interests are safeguarded and that the agreement is integrated into the Law of the Sea regime, with a firm basis in the General Assembly.
The question of regulating the use of bottom fishing gear in order to prevent damage to benthic habitats such as coral reefs has been addressed by the General Assembly together with FAO, regional organisations and fishing nations. Decisions in the General Assembly have been incorporated in an unusually direct way into national legislation and the rules of the regional fisheries management organisations. Norway has laid down rules for the protection of its extensive coldwater coral reefs and has played an active part in the implementation of such rules in the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission and the Joint Norwegian–Russian Fisheries Commission. However, an evaluation commissioned by the UN of developments in this field revealed that compliance with the rules varies from one sea area to another.
In spite of inherent conflicts of views between North and South and between various country groupings in different UN forums, law of the sea work under UN auspices has been productive, and a focus has been maintained on areas of common interest. However, in the last few years existing conflicts of a more structural nature have become more pronounced, and have increasingly often impeded the development of new initiatives. In the time to come, Norway will therefore focus on seeking to prevent disagreements in certain areas from standing in the way of developments in areas where all states are likely to have common interests. This requires close contact and dialogue with all the various groups.
Textbox 3.3 Determining the outer limit of the continental shelf, and the Norwegian Continental Shelf Initiative
Under the provisions of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the continental shelf of a coastal state extends automatically to a distance of 200 nautical miles from the baselines. However, a number of states, including Norway, have a continental shelf that according to specific criteria set out in the convention extends further out. Coastal states that wish to establish the outer limits of their continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles have to submit the necessary technical and scientific data to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, which makes recommendations that the state in question will use to establish the final limits, which are then binding. Norway submitted its data to the commission in 2006, and received its recommendations in 2009. The outer limits of our continental shelf will be determined in accordance with the recommendations.
Many developing countries have encountered considerable technical and financial problems when preparing their submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. In 2008, Norway therefore launched the Norwegian Continental Shelf Initiative, which is a trust fund for facilitating the preparation of submissions to the Commission by developing states. The fund has so far provided assistance to 11 African coastal states, and currently most of the assistance is being concentrated on a large cooperation project in West Africa.
The Norwegian Continental Shelf Initiative has two aims. One is to ensure that African coastal states have access to natural resources in accordance with the Convention on the Law of the Sea. This will contribute substantially to economic and social progress in these countries. The other is to avoid the international Law of the Sea regime becoming undermined. This is not only in Norway’s interests, but also in those of the whole international community.
The Government will
seek to strengthen the implementation of international law by various means, including monitoring, dispute settlement, capacity-building and, where appropriate, new agreements.
3.2 Human rights
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 states that all human beings are born equal, and is based on the principle of equal rights and non-discrimination. The UN is Norway’s most important platform in the work for human rights.
Textbox 3.4 Human rights conventions
Nine core conventions dealing specifically with human rights have been adopted, together with a number of attendant protocols, some of which contain a communications procedure.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966)
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966)
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965)
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1979)
Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989)
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984)
International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (1990)
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006)
International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (2006)
Norway has ratified all except the last three of these conventions. We stated in our 2009 report to the Human Rights Council that work on ratifying and implementing the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, and the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment is among our national human rights priorities.
In May 2012 the Government submitted a proposition requesting the Storting to consent to the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. A new Guardianship Act has been passed that may not enter into force after the entry into force of the convention in Norway. The aim is that this Act should enter into force on 1 July 2013.
Ratification of the Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance raises issues related to the possible need to amend legislation and/or practice, which are being examined.
Ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture requires setting up or designating one or several independent national preventive mechanisms to undertake regular visits to places of detention. Norway signed the protocol on 24 September 2003. In June 2011, the Government appointed an interministerial working group to consider which body or bodies should serve as a national prevention mechanism and to examine the consequences of possible Norwegian ratification. Their report was submitted for public consultation in June 2012. The working group proposed that the Parliamentary Ombudsman for Public Administration should be designated as the national prevention mechanism and that the Act and instructions relating to the Parliamentary Ombudsman for Public Administration should be amended accordingly. Ratification of the protocol requires the Storting’s consent.
The Government has not yet decided whether or not to become party to the optional protocols on communications procedures to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, respectively. In its considerations, the Government will review the relation of these instruments to Norwegian practice and the consequences of ratification. As regards the protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Government has commissioned an independent report on the possible consequences of Norwegian ratification, which has been submitted to public consultation and which will serve as a basis for the Government’s decision.
3.2.1 Pressure on human rights
International human rights work also has a political dimension, and has given rise to considerable discord among UN member states, between those that promote human rights and those that are attempting to avoid criticism. Another division is between Western countries, which have always focused mainly on civil and political rights, and most developing countries, which focus primarily on economic, social and cultural rights. A number of states are against the idea that the UN should address the human rights situation in individual countries, and regard the UN monitoring mechanisms with suspicion.
The greatest challenge in the field of human rights is the discrepancy between the obligations undertaken by states and their practical implementation. Human rights are being systematically violated and ignored in all regions of the world. Norway has therefore made it a priority to strengthen respect for human rights internally in countries where they are being violated.
Figure 3.2 Sadaf Nasim, a volunteer at the Rahnuma Family Planning Association, discusses the problems involved in introducing sexual education in Pakistan.
Source Photo: Norway UN/Sigrun Agøy Engum
Another international challenge is to reach agreement on how to interpret human rights. For example there is strong disagreement on whether or not the right to freedom of expression includes the right to criticise a religion or religious leaders. Women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights is another example of a field under growing pressure from conservative forces. The requirement that human rights must be interpreted in a historical, cultural or religious context is in conflict with their status as universal standards. The requirement is not new, but its opponents are becoming stronger and more united. However, the situation is not completely negative, since the group of moderate non-European countries that wish to strengthen the UN’s human rights work is growing. The result is an increasing tendency towards cross-regional initiatives that overcome differences between geographical and political groups. Norway attaches importance to working in such cross-regional groups and will continue to do so.
Textbox 3.5 Freedom of religion and freedom of expression
The question of freedom of religion versus freedom of expression is a major source of discord in UN debates on human rights. Since 1999, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has regularly proposed a resolution protecting religion and religious symbols and focusing more strongly on blasphemy and “defamation of religion” than on the individual’s rights, including the right to be protected from abuse. The resolution has received a majority of votes in the General Assembly. At the same time, the EU has proposed a resolution focusing on the right to freedom of religion and belief.
In 2011 the OIC proposed a revised resolution placing the individual at the centre, a step Norway considers very encouraging. However, the possibility of converting to another religion, which is an important element in the EU text, is not included in the OIC’s text, which in our view is a weakness.
In order to ensure tolerance and freedom of religion, we must continue to work towards a resolution that contains all the important principles in the two existing texts and that safeguards religious freedom and combats intolerance.
The two resolution texts are a good illustration of the tug-of-war in the UN between countries with different approaches to human rights and a different emphasis on the importance of the individual versus that of the group. The negotiations clearly show that we must not cease our efforts to ensure that the content of the norms adopted by the UN is in line with our values.
Norway’s goal for its UN work is to defend universal human rights, and to take specific initiatives to promote the development of norms and standards and to strengthen the position of human rights on the ground. We need to draw up a strategy to deal with countries that try to undermine these efforts, and in order to do so we must strengthen our relations with countries in all regions that share our views on the significance of human rights. We will only achieve results if the human rights issues that we promote internationally are in line with our bilateral cooperation at country level. The latter includes not only efforts to establish human rights dialogues, but also the day-to-day work at foreign service missions and other representatives of Norway abroad, and our support to civil society.
Norway will stand by its principles and at the same time be guided by pragmatic considerations. Improving human rights requires a long-term effort.
In our human rights policy we will give priority to the following objectives.
Protecting freedom of expression and freedom of religion. A number of countries are attempting to achieve protection from religious criticism by limiting free expression. We cannot allow the right to free expression to be weakened. Norway believes that freedom of religion combined with freedom of expression is the best means of safeguarding the individual’s right to freely practise his religion.
Figure 3.3 President of the Sámediggi (the Sami Parliament), Egil Olli, and Ambassador Tine Mørch Smith from Norway’s Mission to the United Nations at the opening of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, 2011.
Source Photo: Norway UN
Protection of human rights defenders. One of Norway’s main priorities in international human rights work is protection of human rights defenders. In many countries these men and women work under extremely difficult conditions and in the face of threats and persecution to safeguard other people’s human rights. Norway has headed the negotiations on protection of human rights defenders in the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council for many years. We will continue to promote resolutions affirming that the individual state is responsible for ensuring the right of human rights defenders to freedom of expression and of association, and seek to ensure that legislation in these areas is in accordance with international law. In 2011, in connection with the political upheavals in the Arab world, the member states succeeded in adopting a unanimous resolution strengthening the right to conduct peaceful protests. This is the first time the General Assembly has adopted a resolution in which the highly controversial political term “peaceful protest” is affirmed.
A global moratorium on the abolition of the death penalty. Norway will actively promote the imposition of a global moratorium as a step towards the total abolition of the death penalty, and continue to take a leading role in the cross-regional efforts to recruit more support for the UN resolution on a moratorium. We will seek to intensify the efforts to abolish the death penalty in the time leading up to the World Congress against the Death Penalty in Madrid in 2013, among other things during our presidency of the Support Group for the International Commission against the Death Penalty.
The fight against racism. Norway is actively engaged in the work against racism and discrimination in the UN. Some countries are attempting to limit freedom of expression as a measure to combat racism. We are therefore strongly involved in the implementation of the 2001 World Conference against Racism in Durban. We also made active efforts to make sure that the outcome of the Durban Review Conference of 2009 was positive, and emphasised the importance of freedom of expression in this context. We are continually involved in the work against racism and discrimination in the UN while at the same time we seek to ensure that these goals are not achieved at the expense of the right to free expression.
Promoting children’s rights. Norway attaches great importance to strengthening and further developing the normative basis for protecting children and promoting their rights. We advocated the establishment of the Special Rapporteur on Violence against Children and are providing both political and financial support for the mandate. We also actively support the efforts to protect children in conflict situations, which are headed by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict. The Special Representative attaches particular importance to combating impunity for abuse of these children. Through our development cooperation we are working to strengthen the implementation of children’s rights in individual countries in order to improve their situation in practice. We are particularly involved in education and health, especially child mortality and maternal health.
3.2.2 UN efforts in the field of human rights
The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) serves as advocate and voice for human rights at global and country level, and OHCHR’s advisory and capacity-building functions in member states have given the UN human rights system an operative capability.
Norway will seek to strengthen OHCHR in view of its vital role in relation to the Human Rights Council and the importance we attach to the work for peace, security and development. The Office’s special competence on human rights and its role as dedicated voice for human rights in general require support if we are to see positive developments in the human rights situation.
Integrating human rights into the work at country level is a considerable challenge for the UN. UN organisations are only present in a country at the country’s invitation and are dependent on close cooperation with the authorities. In Norway’s view there needs to be an open and respectful dialogue between UN country teams and local authorities if the teams are to work effectively and obtain results. The greater the country team’s knowledge of the international human rights system and how its norms and recommendations can help the country in question, the easier it is to use human rights as a tool in the day-to-day work. Greater knowledge of this field will also put the team in a better position to take up human rights problems when the situation calls for it. It is also important in UN peace operations both to establish good relations with the authorities and to point out human rights violations when they occur. We will seek to ensure that the whole UN system becomes a stronger voice for human rights.
The Government will
seek to maintain and strengthen the established UN norms and standards in the field of human rights,
seek to ensure that OHCHR maintains its independence and that the office is given sufficient resources,
work for the integration of the human rights perspective in the UN's development efforts,
strengthen the UN’s implementation and monitoring mechanisms in the field of human rights,
give priority to strengthening countries’ implementation of the accepted recommendations of the Universal Periodic Reviews.
3.3 Norway’s membership of the Human Rights Council (2009–12)
In the recommendation by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence (Recommendation No. 397 S (2010–2011) to the Storting) on the deliberations on the white paper on Norway’s participation in the 65th session of the General Assembly (Report No. 23 (2010–2011) to the Storting), the Government was requested to evaluate Norway’s membership of the Human Rights Council up to the present, including whether the new council is an improvement on the old in relation to UN human rights efforts.
Figure 3.4 A meeting of the Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland, 2011.
Source Photo: UN Photo/Jean-Marc Ferré
Strengthening human rights at the global level, and ensuring the effectiveness of UN bodies that promote human rights, are in Norway’s interests. The Government’s policy is based on promoting international law, universal human rights and an international legal order. Norway therefore sought to become a member of the Human Rights Council, and in May 2009 we were elected for the period 2009–12. Norway was the candidate with the largest number of votes (177).
3.3.1 From Commission on Human Rights to Human Rights Council
The establishment of the Human Rights Council was a step in UN reform that was unanimously adopted by the heads of state and government at the 2005 World Summit. It was intended to replace the Commission on Human Rights (1946–2006), which was felt to have become politicised, irrelevant and ineffective.
The Human Rights Council is far more flexible than the commission was. It holds both regular and special sessions together with periodic country reviews (Universal Periodic Reviews, UPRs) several times a year.
Textbox 3.6 Five-year Review
The Human Rights Council’s functions and procedures were reviewed in 2011, with a view to making improvements based on the first five years of its existence.
Norway’s strategy for the review was to support moderate proposals for improvements in the council’s working methods. Our view was that the council’s mandate and working methods had succeeded in making it an active and relevant body. There was a high risk that if the proposals for change were too ambitious they would give rise to counter-proposals that were more likely to damage the mechanisms that had been so painstakingly built up than to result in improvements. We also resisted proposals that we believed would weaken the council’s mechanisms and affect the frequency of its meetings.
In spring 2011 the council submitted the review conclusions to the General Assembly. Norway found the results of the review fully acceptable; significant reverses had been avoided and certain improvements had been adopted. The review also showed that there was broad agreement on the institutional framework of the council. The moderate nature of the reform proposals must be counted a success for a body that handles such politically sensitive issues. The council’s overall form and organisation are now generally accepted, even though it will still be possible and necessary to find more effective solutions to organisational and procedural problems. It will also be necessary to resist attempts at regular intervals by certain countries to revive opposition.
3.3.2 In what way is the new Human Rights Council an improvement on the old Commission on Human Rights?
There have been a number of positive developments in the Human Rights Council in recent years in terms of both the types of issue raised and the situations in individual countries, especially in connection with the Arab Spring. The geopolitical changes reflected in the new regional composition of the council have encouraged cross-regional cooperation. Proposals that are not supported by a cross-regional group of countries are becoming increasingly rare, and the equal treatment of all countries through the UPR system provides legitimacy.
The Human Rights Council has established an increasing number of special thematic and country mandates, and appointed independent commissions of inquiry into acute crises. Examples of new thematic mandates are the right to clean water, transitional justice, human rights and environment, women and gender equality, and freedom of assembly and association. Examples of country mandates are Iran and Syria. Commissions of inquiry have been set up to investigate acute situations in Cote d'Ivoire, Libya and Syria. These are concrete, targeted measures that strengthen the ability of the international community to deal with major ongoing human rights issues.
3.3.3 Norway’s engagement in the Human Rights Council
Norway believes in being a bridge-builder between the different regions and interests represented in the council. At the same time we make it clear that we support the council’s working methods and the independence and functions of OHCHR, together with the fundamental rights and freedoms laid down in UN treaties.
The following are some examples of cases where Norway has played a key role.
The Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders. The Special Rapporteur has an important role as a voice for human rights defenders, and her duties include visiting particular countries and discussing the situation of human rights defenders with the authorities, independent institutions and civil society. In March 2011, the mandate was extended by a further three years under Norway’s leadership. Since many states regard human rights defenders as a threat to the power and authority of the state, negotiations on renewal of the mandate were difficult.
Discrimination and violence on the grounds of sexual orientation and sexual identity as a human rights problem. In June 2011, the Human Rights Council made a historic decision on this issue. The decision was very controversial and encountered considerable opposition. However, it was supported by a majority in the council, showing that the council is able to deal with controversial issues in a constructive way. The success of the effort was largely due to South Africa’s leadership.
The private sector’s responsibility for human rights. Norway, together with a cross-regional group consisting of Russia, India, Argentina and Nigeria, has been a driving force in this work. It is a complicated field legally speaking since private legal entities like companies have no obligations under international human rights conventions. However, companies have a corporate social responsibility to respect human rights norms and standards, even though the responsibility may not be legally binding. In 2008 the UN Special Representative on business and human rights proposed the Protect, Respect, Remedy Framework. In 2011, after difficult negotiations led by Norway in cooperation with a cross-regional group, the Human Rights Council adopted by consensus the Special Representative’s proposal for Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. A UN Working Group on Business & Human Rights was also appointed to promote the implementation of the guidelines.
Promotion of women’s rights and gender equality. This has been one of Norway’s main priorities in the Human Rights Council, and in autumn 2010 we played an active role in the establishment of the Working Group on Discrimination against Women in Law and Practice. Systematic discrimination against women is still widespread in many countries, and the working group will identify and promote good practices related to the elimination of legislation that discriminates against women, such as legislation that prohibits women from owning land or running a business.
3.3.4 The way ahead
During our membership of the Human Rights Council we made strategic efforts to promote our foreign and human rights policy goals in this new and challenging international forum. In order to gain acceptance for our policies, we are dependent on new as well as existing supporters. In addition to promoting our views, we sought to break up the negative blocs that tend to form in so many areas of UN work. Alliance-building across established groups has become a Norwegian trademark and the results have been good. There is still room for improvement, but we need engagement and participation if we are to steer developments in the right direction. This is at the core of our participation in the Human Rights Council.
The Human Rights Council is increasingly perceived as a relevant, effective body that promotes and protects human rights. Ensuring that this positive development continues will be an important task in the time ahead.
Efforts should now be concentrated more closely on mainstreaming human rights in UN activities and ensuring that a rights-based approach is adopted throughout the UN system.
The Government will
build further on the knowledge and experience Norway has gained through membership of the Human Rights Council, and continue our active participation as observer in the Council.
3.4 Women’s rights and gender equality
Promoting women’s rights and gender equality internationally is an important political priority for Norway. Gender equality is crucial to safeguarding women’s human rights; women have the right to influence their futures and their daily lives in the same way as men. Gender equality is also an important tool for promoting peace and development.
Investment in women and gender equality is also smart economics, as the World Bank demonstrated in its World Development Report 2012, which focuses on gender equality. Removing barriers to women’s ownership rights and their right to education and paid work increases economic efficiency and productivity. Because women often invest their incomes in their children’s health and education, securing their economic participation and rights also has positive consequences for long-term development. It is well known that women’s participation in peace processes often gives added value, for example by bringing a broader set of political and social issues into the process and by making it more inclusive and legitimate. This in turn increases the possibility of achieving robust, lasting peace agreements that take the whole population into account and establish a firm foundation for the building of a democratic and egalitarian society.
The white paper On Equal Terms: Women’s Rights and Gender Equality in Development Policy (Report No. 11 (2007–2008) to the Storting), and the Government’s Plan of Action for the Implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security (2000) form the foundation of the Government’s proactive policy for women’s rights and gender equality. The action plan has now been updated and strengthened by a new plan, Women, Peace and Security: a Strategic Plan 2011–2013. Norway attaches importance to safeguarding women’s political and economic participation and rights, combating violence against women, and strengthening women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights. We also give priority to promoting the inclusion of women on an equal basis in peace processes and conflict management, and their participation on equal terms in the efforts to combat climate change and environmental degradation, and prevent humanitarian crises.
3.4.1 The significance of the UN’s role in promoting women’s rights
Norway’s approach to gender equality has attracted the interest of developing countries and emerging economies for many years. Norwegian women’s participation in the labour market is much higher than the average for the developed countries in the OECD.
The UN has played a decisive role in the efforts to strengthen women’s rights and promote gender equality.
The Commission on the Status of Women. Norway attaches great importance to the normative work of the commission and will seek to ensure its continued relevance and significance. The annual meetings are also a good arena for contact and cooperation between the UN, member states and non-governmental organisations and networks. Norway considers it especially important that women’s organisations in the South are given the opportunity to participate and engage with the UN system and other influential actors. We will continue to support these efforts in the time ahead.
The Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). The Government considers that the recommendations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women in response to the reports submitted by Norway and the other states parties to the convention provide a good basis for the efforts to promote women's rights and gender equality in the various countries. Civil society organisations at country level draw up their own reports on the status of gender equality in their country. In Norway the Norwegian Forum for Women and Development, FOKUS, is responsible for such reports. We have been providing financial support for NGO reporting in developing countries and will continue to do so.
The international community has agreed on ambitious goals for promoting women's empowerment and rights in all areas of society, for example at the 1995 World Conference on Women in Beijing and the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo. NGOs played a significant role at both conferences and influenced the outcomes.
The UN has strongly influenced the member states’ development of their own policies for strengthening women’s rights, promoting gender equality and changing systematic discriminatory practices. This has reinforced the work of women’s organisations and institutions that promote gender equality in member states. Norway wishes to emphasise the Organisation’s relevance in this field and considers it important that women’s rights and gender equality are mainstreamed into UN activities.
3.4.2 UN Women
The theme of women’s rights and gender equality has been given a place in most UN organisations in line with the development of the UN system. However, efforts in this field have been fragmented, and there has been no single body to give the issue weight and visibility. The merging of four existing UN mechanisms to form UN Women (the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women) in July 2010 is therefore one of the most important results of the reform process in the last few years. Norway played a leading role in this reform.
UN Women’s three most important tasks are to support UN organisations in formulating policies and standards on gender equality; assist member states in introducing and complying with the standards, including forging partnerships with civil society; and coordinate and monitor the efforts of all parts of the UN system to mainstream the gender perspective.
Norway expects UN Women to hold the whole UN system accountable for delivering better results on women’s rights and gender equality. We will seek to ensure that UN Women plays a proactive role in promoting women’s rights both at country level and internationally, which is particularly important now that the global gender equality agenda is under pressure.
Norway gives high priority to cooperation with UN Women. We also wish to play a constructive role as partner by participating in the Executive Board and actively supporting the organisation’s mandate and role. We are one of the largest core contributors to the organisation, and a major supporter of programmes and projects at country level.
3.4.3 Pressure on the global gender equality agenda
The gender equality agenda is under increasing pressure, and it has proved to be difficult in some cases to ensure continuing support for established political and legal obligations intended to strengthen women’s rights and promote gender equality.
An example of this tendency is that for the first time it was impossible to reach agreement on an outcome document at the Commission on the Status of Women 2012. The reason for this was the broad campaign that was mounted by an alliance of conservative states, NGOs and religious communities to weaken the international women’s rights and gender equality agenda, norms and framework that had previously been agreed on. The campaign is being conducted in many forums and at many levels, and is a considerable challenge for Norway and other progressive countries that are seeking to empower women. The main target of attack by these conservative forces is women's sexual and reproductive health and rights. Norway will therefore give high priority to mobilising a broad alliance to work against the campaign. We do not intend to allow the international efforts to promote women’s rights and gender equality to be weakened.
Figure 3.5 Pregnant women in Bongouanou, Côte d’Ivoire, 2012.
Source Photo: UN Photo/Hien Macline
Textbox 3.7 Sexual and reproductive health and rights
Norway gives sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) special priority. Sexual and reproductive health refers to people’s right to a responsible, satisfactory and safe sexual life and to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children. This means that women, men and young people should have access to contraception and health services that deal with sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancy and delivery, and post-natal care. Norway believes that it also includes the right to safe, legal abortion. Sexual rights are human rights, and include the individual’s right to have access to sexual and reproductive health care services and sexuality education, their right to respect for bodily integrity, and the freedom to choose whether or not to be sexually active and to choose their partner. SRHR are decisive for ensuring the economic and political participation of women and girls.
Many SRHR-related issues are extremely controversial at the international level, and have come under strong pressure during negotiations in the UN, such as those in the Commission on the Status of Women and the International Conference on Population and Development. Maintaining previously established consensus and ensuring further progress in this policy area is an important goal for Norway’s work at the UN. The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the World Health Organization (WHO) and UN Women are key actors in these efforts.
Norway already plays a key role in promoting this agenda internationally, but we intend to intensify our efforts in the time to come. An important part of this work will be to mobilise and cooperate with like-minded countries and civil society actors, especially in the South, and we are currently developing an SRHR strategy for this purpose. Norwegian NGOs will be invited to participate in an SRHR network, and Norway will take the initiative to continue and intensify Nordic cooperation on SRHR. Another concrete measure will be to double our support for family planning to NOK 150 million in 2013, with the intention of continuing this support up to 2020, making a total of NOK 1.2 billion.
Men’s attitudes contribute to the deficit in women’s rights, and improving them is a crucial part of the work for women’s rights. UN organisations must therefore give high priority to boys as a target group in their work with young people, in order to counteract stereotyping and promote a culture of respect for girls’ and women’s rights.
Every UN organisation must do more to mainstream women’s rights into all its activities and translate normative policies into practical action that will make a difference. In economic recessions and crises there is always a risk that support for promoting women’s rights and gender equality will be reduced.
Norway is regarded as an advocate for women’s rights and gender equality at the international level. At home we have come farther than most countries, and our experience is often in demand in the UN and at the bilateral level. We will continue to campaign for women’s rights in the UN, and the Government will build alliances to promote gender equality policies in the UN system. The foreign service missions play an important role in this work, and will be used more systematically as listening posts and to set standards. The Government also intends to build alliances with countries in the South with a view to correcting their perception that gender equality is a Western idea and a Western agenda. We will continue seeking to ensure that civil society has a prominent place in UN gender equality activities and a real influence on policy-making. This will increase the relevance of the UN and set an example of the role civil society should play at country level. At the same time we will make it clear that the responsibility for meeting a country’s political and human rights obligations in the field of gender equality lies with the authorities themselves.
The Government will
seek to ensure that women’s rights and gender equality are given higher priority throughout the UN system, and that UN Women is a robust and effective organisation,
seek to build alliances and mobilise support for preventing the international commitments to women’s rights from being weakened,
work for the implementation of Security Council resolution 1325 on women, peace and security in all UN activities,
seek to ensure that women’s rights and gender equality are given a central place in the post-2015 agenda and other relevant processes,
intensify the work for women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights.