Rising Powers and Human Rights: The India-Brazil-South Africa Dialogue Forum at the UN Human Rights Council

Abstract

In the official declarations of the India-Brazil-South Africa Dialogue Forum (IBSA), the three states claim a shared understanding of human rights and a deep commitment to the international promotion and protection of these rights. This article considers these two propositions in light of the actions of the IBSA states on the United Nations Human Rights Council. After examining the positions of the IBSA states on seven controversial country-specific cases (Belarus, Darfur and Sudan, Iran, Israel, North Korea, Sri Lanka, and Syria) and four controversial thematic domains (economic rights, racism, freedom of expression, and sexual orientation), I conclude that the three states do not have the same views about human rights. Furthermore, I find that the IBSA states often do not support pro-human rights initiatives in the Council, although Brazil stands apart from India and South Africa for its greater willingness to support stronger human rights positions.

Acknowledgements

I wrote the bulk of this article when I was a visiting fellow in the Programme for the Study of International Governance at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva. I would like to sincerely thank Prof. Thomas Biersteker and his colleagues for making my stay there a memorable and productive one.

Notes

1. The most extensive discussion can be found in Jenkins and Mawdsley (2013).

2. One example of selectivity concerns Iraq: In 1991, shortly after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the Commission established a mandate on human rights in Iraq, which was then ended in 2004, one year after the United States-led invasion of the country. In addition, the human rights problems in Afghanistan, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia merit Council scrutiny, but among Western states there is little appetite for addressing these matters (Interview, international civil servant, Geneva, March 25, 2013). The aforementioned cases have much to do with US foreign policy, but, as Smith (2010: 235) points out, EU states are also guilty of selectivity and double standards.

3. One example: On the Council, when a resolution comes to a vote, Cuba and the United States rarely agree, yet, in June 2011, the two countries voted the same way on the controversial Resolution 17/19 on sexual orientation.

4. Membership terms: Brazil, June 2006–June 2011 and January 2013–December 2015; India, June 2006–June 2010 and January 2012–December 2014; and South Africa, June 2006–June 2010.

5. One research project was on South Africa and the UNHRC, the other on the African Group and the UNHRC. The abovementioned interviews took place in Geneva in February 2012 and February–April 2013.

6. Sudan only agreed to a hybrid African Union-UN force in late 2007.

7. Indonesia had voted in support of Decision 2/115. See also Indonesia (2006a, 2006b).

8. In 2013, the HRC established a commission of inquiry on human rights in North Korea (UNHRC 2013b). The Security Council might use the commission's report to the bring those responsible for human rights abuses in the country brought before the International Criminal Court.

9. Sagar (2009) identifies four types: liberals, Hindu nationalists, “moralists” (which includes both Nehruvianism and Gandhism), and strategists/neorealists.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Eduard Jordaan

Eduard Jordaan is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Singapore Management University, where he teaches on democratic theory, international political economy, and global ethics. His current research interests are human rights at the United Nations, the foreign policies of developing countries, and philosophical questions of responsibility in international relations. His work has appeared in such journals as African Affairs, European Journal of Development Research, Global Governance, Human Rights Quarterly, and Review of International Studies.