Special Procedures

The links between climate change and human rights are more widely accepted than ever before. The Human Rights Council has adopted a series of resolutions calling attention to the effects of climate change on the full enjoyment of human rights, and the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC has also recognised that ‘the adverse effects of climate change have a range of direct and indirect implications for the effective enjoyment of human rights.’ While climate change impacts have implications for the human rights of individuals in all parts of the world, it is well established that the rights of those in already vulnerable situations are at particular risk. As sea levels rise and extreme weather events increase in frequency and magnitude, more and more people in such situations are expected to be displaced by disasters, some of them across international borders.

And yet, despite a growing recognition of the human rights implications of climate change, including in the context of human displacement, and despite an understanding that adherence to international human rights commitments and principles can help to strengthen policymaking in response to global warming, relatively few concrete steps have been taken to bring a human rights perspective to climate negotiations. Likewise, beyond expressing concern about a possible human rights protection gap for the increasing number of people who are expected to be displaced across borders in the context of climate change, the international community has not done enough to consider how to fill that gap. This Policy Report is an important step towards clarifying what UN bodies can and should do to begin to safeguard human rights against the effects of climate change, including in the context of human displacement.

The context for the reform of the UN's human rights machinery that resulted in the creation of the Human Rights Council (HRC) remains an important backdrop against which to study the outcome of this process. The first part of the article begins by pointing to the coordinates of this process in order to set the context for the analysis of the impact of the reform on the work of the public special procedures. The paper overviews the reforms introduced with emphasis on the newly approved Code of Conduct. The paper ends with a reflection on the meaning of the institutional reform from two perspectives. On one hand, one of the most significant differences between the former Commission on Human Rights and the HRC lies in their institutional positioning within the UN. Instead of being a subsidiary organ of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the HRC has been created as a subsidiary organ of the UN General Assembly. While this upgrade may be positive in terms of the importance given to the HRC, it may also signal new dangers for the future development of UN human rights activities. From the perspective of the public special procedures it remains difficult to gauge the kind of authority likely to be exercised by the General Assembly upon their work, nor is it easy to determine how decisive the actuation of the plenary organ of the UN will be for their operational work. A second perspective reflected upon is that this institutional change has terminated the last clear institutional link within the UN between its human rights mechanisms and its main body charged with development, i.e. ECOSOC. Disconnecting the work of special procedures from ECOSOC contradicts the supposed intention of the UN reform of closing the gap between security, human rights and development, as called for by the UN Secretary General. In addition the lack of competence attributed to the HRC, including the specific instance of not being able to raise recommendations to the Security Council, is likely to act as a further brake on the synchronisation of the three pillars of the UN agenda. In terms of special procedures this is likely to adversely affect the advance on the gains made in these mandates where security and development have been effectively linked in the human rights realm

In this paper, I will limit myself to a number of comments and proposals relating to the issue which was dealt with in Working Group 1 during the Vienna+20 Conference, that is, the strengthening of the (international) rule of law and the right of victims to an effective remedy. I will focus on issues relating to the strengthening of the international “system” for the protection of human rights.
I will first address a selected number of more or less “technical” issues, with proposals that could be taken up and implemented on a short or mid- term basis. Then I will look at some policy issues regarding the “system” as a whole, as well as the relations between its parts. Finally, I will try to sketch prospects for reform on the basis of these considerations.

W doktrynie prawa karnego procesowego od przeszło 30 lat toczy się dyskusja na temat zakresu obowiązywania zakazu reformationis in peius w postępowaniu zainicjowanym wniesieniem sprzeciwu od wyroku nakazowego. Sprowadza się ona nie tylko do kwestii interpretacji przepisów wyrażających stosunek ustawodawcy do tego zagadnienia, ale dotyka również oceny zgodności poszczególnych uregulowań ustawowych z normami wyższego rzędu. Dyskusja ta odnosi się także do obszaru celowości uregulowania tej problematyki w taki czy inny sposób, wiążąc się z wyrażaniem przez poszczególnych przedstawicieli piśmiennictwa przeróżnych wniosków de lege ferenda. W niniejszej pracy zajęto się obecnym stanem nauki i orzecznictwa w odniesieniu do omawianego zagadnienia, a także zaprezentowano w tym względzie własne stanowisko.

A comprehensive analysis of the geo-political co-ordinates that allowed the creation of special procedures, and explains its current position within the UN system. The book explores in detail the evolution of their methods of work, the legal nature of their activities and the challenges faced by what was described by the UN Secretary General as the ‘jewels of the crown’ of the UN system of promotion and protection of human rights.