Human Rights Council (HRC) - Topics
- Innovative measures to improve the social and political status of the stateless people
- Situation of Mexican National Human Rights Commission
Topic A
Innovative measures to improve the social and political status of the stateless people
Article 15 of the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights states that everyone has the right to a nationality. Formaly, citizenship is the legal instrument by which an individual is recognised as a state national. Citizenship is granted by states through birth or naturalization, on the basis of two principles, depending on the national legislation: either on the basis of descent (jus sanguini), when the child acquires the citizenship(s) of the parent(s), or through birth on a state’s territory (jus soli).
Statelessness refers to the condition of an individual who is not considered as a national by any State under its domestic law. Article 1 of the Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (1954) states that “the term « stateless » person means a person who is not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law”. There are various ways by which a person can become stateless: birth (a chils is born from stateless parents, on the territory of a state that grants citizenship on the basis of descent), renunciation of one’s citizenship (without having acquired another one), conflict of laws (usually negative conflicts between the two principles abovementioned), arbitrary deprivation of nationality or denationalization of groups or individuals by the State, discriminatory practices etc. This condition leads to a series of inconveniences for the stateless persons, namely that they may be unable to go to school, work legally, own property, get married, or travel; also, they may find it difficult to enter a hospital, and impossible to open a bank account or receive a pension.
Although nationality is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a fundamental right, there are two specific convention on the matter os statelessness, both under the auspices of the UN. The Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons was adopted in 1954 (currently ratified by 64 states) and the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, adopted in 1961 and ratified by 34 states are the most inportant international instruments focusing directly on the issue at hand.
Currently, although some countries have already taken measures to reduce statelessness ( e.g.: in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and above all in Nepal where 2.6 million people were issued citizenship certificates in just four months of 2007), the issue remains of high importance, yet ignored. An interesting aspect is brought into the discussion by the recurrent topic of climate change; concretely, there are island states which are threteaned to sink due to the increase of the sea level, whose citizens will have an uncertain fate. Following these considerations, the delegates are expected to bring their contributions into the Council and together find innovative measures that would prevent statelessness from occurring in the first place, put forward ideas and alternatives for the peoples of the endangered territories, as well as possible solutions for the refugees (who are often stateless).
Good luck with your research!
Topic B
Situation of Mexican National Human Rights Commission
The National Human Rights Commission (Comision Nacional de los Derechos Humanos,CNDH), Mexico’s official human rights organ, is failing to live up to its promise, according to the Human Rights Watch. The CNDH has made some valuable contributions to human rights promotion in Mexico over the years, providing detailed and authoritative information on specific human rights cases and usefully documenting some systemic obstacles to human rights progress. But when it comes to actually securing remedies and promoting reforms to improve Mexico’s dismal human rights record, the CNDH’s performance has been disappointing.
The CNDH’s principal objective is to ensure that the Mexican state remedies human rights abuses and reforms the laws, policies, and practices that give rise to them. Given the pervasive and chronic failure of state institutions to do either, the CNDH is often the only meaningful recourse available to victims seeking redress for past abuses. It is also, potentially, the most important catalyst for the changes that are urgently needed in Mexico to prevent future human rights violations.
According to the Human Rights Watch, the CNDH has routinely failed to:
- press state institutions to hold accountable individuals responsible for abuses;
- promote legal reforms needed to prevent abuses;
- challenge abusive laws, policies, and practices that contradict international human rights standards;
- disclose and disseminate information it has collected on human rights problems with maximum transparency; and
- engage constructively with other state officials and rights advocates who are seeking to promote human rights progress in Mexico’
On March 12, 2008, the National Human Rights Commission (CNDH) responded to Human Rights Watch’s report, “Mexico’s National Human Rights Commission: A Critical Assessment.” Top CNDH officials had already publicly denounced the HRW report when it was released in February, claiming that it contained “45 lies” or “more than 45 errors.” The commission’s written response, which was approved by its advisory council, purports to substantiate these claims by detailing “48 errors” in the report.
“The commission can distort its critics’ views, but those criticisms aren’t going away,” said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch. “Eventually the commission will have to take them more seriously if it’s at all interested in having a more meaningful impact on human rights in Mexico.”
It is up to nation delegates to discuss this matter within the Human Rights Council and after understanding the true, factual nature of what has occurred and what is being done now, propose changes that could be made to improve and enforce the tools available that give Mexican citizens (if they do not already receive this) the human rights they deserve.
