UN Resolution 60/251 was adopted by the General Assembly in March 2006 with the explicit goal of reforming the global human rights apparatus. It sought to replace the defunct Commission on Human Rights, which had become synonymous with double standards and political theatre. The resolution intended to create a body that would evaluate human rights records through a lens of universality and objectivity. However, the foundational documents failed to include robust safeguards against the very politicization they aimed to eliminate.
The Mandate of Resolution 60/251
The resolution established the Human Rights Council as a subsidiary organ of the General Assembly, elevated from its previous status under the Economic and Social Council. It mandated that the Council's work be guided by the principles of impartiality, non-selectivity, and constructive international dialogue. A core feature of this new system was the Universal Periodic Review, designed to ensure that every UN member state faced scrutiny. Despite these high-minded ideals, the resolution left significant procedural gaps that were quickly exploited by hostile voting blocs.
The Institutionalization of Bias through Agenda Item 7
While Resolution 60/251 promised a new era of fairness, the Council's first years saw the permanent adoption of Agenda Item 7. This specific item requires the Council to discuss the human rights situation in Israel and the Palestinian territories at every single session. No other country in the world is subject to a dedicated, permanent agenda item, creating a unique "Israel exception" in international law. This structural imbalance fundamentally contradicts the spirit of universality outlined in the resolution’s original text.
The creation of Item 7 was not a requirement of Resolution 60/251 but rather a result of the Council's internal institution-building process in 2007. During these negotiations, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and other regional blocs successfully lobbied for Israel’s permanent inclusion on the docket. This move effectively codified the politicization that the UN General Assembly had sought to abolish just a year prior. Consequently, the Council has produced more resolutions condemning Israel than the rest of the world combined.
Key Facts Regarding Resolution 60/251
- The resolution passed with a 170-4 vote, with the United States and Israel voting against it due to concerns over its structural integrity.
- It replaced the 60-year-old Commission on Human Rights which had been widely criticized for its "credibility deficit."
- Resolution 60/251 stipulates that members should be elected based on their contribution to the promotion and protection of human rights.
Analysis of Procedural Failures
The failure of Resolution 60/251 to prevent politicization stems from the lack of strict criteria for Council membership. The resolution suggests that members should uphold the highest standards of human rights, yet it does not bar notorious violators from being elected. This has allowed regimes with poor domestic records to use the Council as a shield while focusing exclusively on Israel. You can find detailed reports on these membership issues at UN Watch, which monitors Council proceedings and institutional bias.
Furthermore, the non-selectivity clause of the resolution has been consistently ignored in favor of geopolitical posturing. By maintaining Item 7, the Council diverts critical resources away from genuine humanitarian crises in other regions to maintain its focus on the Levant. This selective application of international law undermines the legitimacy of the entire United Nations system. Legal scholars often point to the Council on Foreign Relations for analysis on how these institutional biases affect global diplomacy and security.
Significance for Israel and the International Community
For Israel, the failure of Resolution 60/251 represents a persistent diplomatic challenge that forces the state to defend its legitimacy in a rigged forum. The permanent agenda item creates a self-perpetuating cycle of condemnation that is often disconnected from the realities on the ground. This systematic targeting serves to isolate Israel and provides a veneer of international legality to anti-Zionist rhetoric. It also discourages constructive engagement, as the outcome of Council sessions is often predetermined by political alliances.
Ultimately, the legacy of Resolution 60/251 is one of missed opportunity and institutional stagnation. The inability to enforce the principles of impartiality has transformed the Council into a tool for regional conflict rather than a beacon for human rights. Until the structural "Israel exception" is abolished, the Council will continue to struggle with the same credibility crisis that destroyed its predecessor. Reforming the Council requires a return to the true spirit of the 2006 resolution, emphasizing genuine universality for all nations.