UNHRC: The Harmony of Opposite Stances in

Reaching Migrants’ Human Rights Violation

Resolution

UNHRC delegates delivering their speech

The second day of committee sessions started at 8.16 AM on April 9, 2019, with the total presence of 27 delegates in the chamber of United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). Continuing yesterday’s discussions, the delegates speak up their thoughts towards yesterday’s progress in the general speaker list session. The speakers were Canada, Qatar, United States, Thailand, Turkey, Japan, China, Ecuador, Syria, and United Arab Emirates (UAE).
 

Every country had their own respective opinion on reacting to the solutions proposed by others. This led to the first motion which was the introduction to the working paper 1.1 contrived by the US and its ally, China.
 

The US and its ally asserted the importance of creating a new investigative body in the Committee on Migrant Workers. The benefit of doing so was to prevent more migrant workers’ human rights being violated.
 

Subsequent to the first working paper, the working paper 1.2 was presented by the UK and Thailand. Different from US’s proposal, the UK and its allies stated that it was best to utilize more the old UNHRC body: Special Rapporteurs. Extending more Special Rapporteurs’ mandate was believed to be more efficient instead of creating a new entity.
 

The last working paper, working paper 1.3, was presented by Russia and Canada. The highlights of their proposal were to protect migrant workers’ fundamental rights and create an international support network. To support these proposals, Russia and its allies introduced a collaborative funding system, Cost-Sharing Incentive.
 

The session continued after the break at 11 AM and the council immediately conducted an un-moderated caucus for the total of duration approximately an hour. The discussion resulted in two possible draft resolutions and the delegates decided to vote if it was possible to emerge both resolutions. But in the end, the result was not possible.
 

The two final draft resolutions had been submitted when the council finally conducted the motion to introduce the draft resolution 1.1 that was sponsored by the UK, Cambodia, and the Russian Federation. The draft resolution consisted of clauses which were previously mentioned in working paper 1.2 (UK and Cambodia) and 1.3 (Russian Federation), as the draft resolution was an emergence of both working papers.
 

The second draft resolution, draft resolution 1.2, was sponsored by the US and China. Both countries stated that their resolution was the only one applicable among two drafts. They were still persistent with their solutions as they put out the same points from their working paper and the draft resolution.
 

By the time reached 2.30 PM, the last committee session of UNHRC finally reached the voting procedure. The draft resolution 1.1 passed as there were 23 countries in favor of it. The US, as a clear rival of UK, was not in favor of draft resolution 1.1. The US stated its disappointment but also congratulated the council for finally reaching the final resolution. (NewsArt/Raina Chrisamanda)

Supported by:

Sponsored by:

Media Partners: