UNGA81: Civil society calls for improved quality, accessibility and effectiveness of Third Committee's human rights work

Thank you for the opportunity to engage with States ahead of the 81st session of the Third Committee.

As civil society organisations, we greatly value this opportunity for exchange. As States continue discussions on the working methods of the Third Committee, we would like to highlight a number of practical issues concerning the accessibility, inclusiveness and effectiveness of the Committee’s work, as well as the need to ensure that efforts to manage workload do not come at the expense of substantive human rights engagement.

First, we encourage States and the Secretariat to ensure that civil society has meaningful access to the Committee’s formal meetings and interactive dialogues. This includes timely and accessible information about the Committee’s programme of work, meetings and changes to the schedule. For example, draft schedules for the interactive dialogues with Special Procedures could be shared with civil society in advance, even where they remain provisional and subject to change. This would enable NGOs, human rights defenders and other stakeholders, particularly those travelling to New York to participate in the work of the Committee or those following remotely from different time zones, to better plan their engagement with the Committee.

Second, we encourage greater civil society access to informal negotiations on resolutions. Civil society brings technical expertise, evidence and perspectives from those directly affected by the issues under consideration, which can contribute to the quality and implementation of Third Committee resolutions. We encourage facilitators to invite NGOs to participate in informal negotiations as observers, building on the practice already followed by some delegations. This would be a practical step towards more meaningful and consistent civil society participation in the Committee’s work.

More broadly, we encourage States to begin a conversation about how civil society might participate more directly in the work of the Third Committee. Unlike at the Human Rights Council and in some other UN bodies, including other General Assembly committees, civil society has no opportunity to address the Committee directly. Providing appropriate opportunities for NGOs to make statements, including during general debates and interactive dialogues, would enable States to hear directly from human rights defenders, victims, affected communities and civil society organisations with expertise on the issues under consideration. We recognise that this would require further discussion, but believe it is an important longer-term, achievable objective for a Committee whose work is fundamentally concerned with human rights.

Beyond questions of civil society participation, we would also encourage greater consistency in efforts to rationalise the Committee’s workload. Some delegations and core groups have voluntarily moved resolutions from annual to biennial or triennial consideration, while others continue to introduce resolutions annually. This risks creating disparities between issues and resolutions, including in the frequency with which they receive the Committee’s attention. We encourage States to consider a more coherent and transparent approach, taking into account the substance and context of individual resolutions and ensuring that efforts to manage workload do not inadvertently diminish the visibility or consideration of particular human rights issues.

We are similarly concerned that efforts to reduce the workload of the Committee should not come at the expense of the Committee’s substantive engagement with independent human rights experts and mechanisms. Changes adopted during the last three Human Rights Council sessions will result in 17 fewer Special Procedures reports being presented across the 81st to 83rd sessions of the General Assembly—already exceeding the indicative range contemplated in discussions on the Third Committee’s working methods.

Any further changes to Special Procedures reporting should therefore be considered carefully on a case-by-case basis, in consultation with mandate holders and affected communities, rather than through automatic or permanent reductions in reporting. Where reporting is reduced, meaningful opportunities for engagement with mandate holders should be preserved, and any efficiencies should support their substantive work.

Ultimately, efforts to improve the Third Committee’s working methods should be guided not only by efficiency, but by the quality, accessibility and effectiveness of its human rights work. This means ensuring meaningful access and participation for civil society, greater consistency and fairness in approaches to workload management, and continued substantive engagement with the UN’s independent human rights mechanisms.

Signatories:

1. Access Now
2. Amnesty International
3. Article 19
4. Baha’i International Community
5. Center for Reproductive Rights
6. Fòs Feminista
7. Front Line Defenders
8. Human Rights Watch
9. Impact Iran
10. International Center for Not-for-Profit Law 
11. International Disability Alliance
12. International Planned Parenthood Federation 
13. International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
14. International Service for Human Rights
15. Jubilee Campaign
16. Outright International
17. Together 2030 Stakeholder Group