Question

can we say China is rather selective to integrate itself into the international rules and norms in the area of human rights?

write 500 words

Answer 1

The Rise of China and International Human Rights Law

Abstract: This study focuses on the Universal Periodic Review of the United Nations Human Rights Council in order to investigate the impact of China’s official human rights position on international human rights discourses. China’s Review, including its National Report, the Chinese Government’s reactions to statements and recommendations on its domestic human rights situation as well as its statements and recommendations on other states under review are investigated in order to find out whether China is able to project successfully its official human rights view on the international arena.

Introduction

This study takes the People’s Republic of China (‘PRC’) as an example of a new’ player in international relations and investigates the impact of China’s rise on international human rights law. Though the PRC is not new to the international community, it has taken on a new role due to its economical rise and gaining in international power. During the past decade, China’s participation in international regimes has increased significantly. The accession to the WTO in 2001 marked the beginning of a continuous engagement in the field of international trade China is now a member of 25 human rights treaties, including six core human rights instruments it participates in the international human rights regime by submitting reports, drafting new instruments and engaging in various bilateral human rights dialogues.There is no consensus in international relations studies on the future role of China in the international community. Whereas it is generally believed that an increasingly integrated and Institutionalized international order can socialize norm-violating states, China’s behavior towards the international human rights system has been described in terms of ‘tactical learning’ rather than socialization into international standards. Other author’s emphasized the Chinese Government’s ability to impede international human rights scrutiny. It is argued that China resists the normative influence of the international human rights regime by attempting to diminish international human rights pressure or by only erratically making concessions. Moreover, China is regarded as applying economic and political leverage to reshape international human rights institutions in order to make them suit its own interests.

A recent study has analyzed China’s statements on human rights at the United Nations in order to find out whether and how a powerful People’s Republic challenges international human rights norms. It is found that the Chinese Government manages a consistent counter-discourse on international human rights that focuses on contesting implications of human rights rather than challenging the rights themselves. Though China’s official statements are regarded as being dominated by a self-defensive approach, it is argued that firm and repeated opposition to important implications of human rights will lead to a gradual erosion and dilution of core concepts of international human rights. This study focuses on the Universal Periodic Review (‘UPR’) of the United Nations Human Rights Council (‘HRC’) in order to investigate the impact of China’s official human rights position on international human rights discourses. China’s Review, including its National Report, the Chinese Government’s reactions to statements and recommendations on its domestic human rights situation as well as its statements and recommendations on other states under review may reveal whether China is able to project successfully its official human rights view on the international arena by articulating its preferential interpretation of international human rights. The investigation may also discover whether other states support Chinese human rights approaches.

Against the background of doctrinal and sociologically informed models of China’s interaction with international law, the UPR is introduced and its significance for measuring China’s impact on international human rights discussed. Then the study turns to the legal relevance of the UPR and analyses the National Report, statements and recommendations of the PRC Government as well as other activities of China with regard to the development of international human rights.

Models of China’s Interaction with International Law

China’s normative engagement in international human rights law is closely interlinked with the processes of international law reception, in particular the application of international treaties in municipal law. The PRC Government’s motivation to challenge the liberal human rights order originates primarily in domestic resistance to assimilation of local practices and institutions.

Universal Periodic Review as an Indicator of China’s Impact on International Human Rights

The Human Rights Council replaced the Human Rights Commission in 2006, after it had been criticized for politicization and selectivity with which it allegedly monitored human rights.

The periodic review mechanism, which evaluates regularly the human rights performance of all states, is the most significant change that was introduced to the mandate of the Human Rights Council. The UPR is a peer-based assessment of human rights performance that aims at improving adherence to shared norms, where states give policy recommendations to each other. The Resolution authorizing the establishment of the UPR points out that the review should ensure equal treatment with respect to all states and should be conducted in a co-operative, constructive, non-confrontational and non-politicized manner.

The benchmarks that are used as a basis of the review are a combination of universal and country-specific standards. They include the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, human rights instruments to which the relevant state is a party, voluntary commitments made by states; international humanitarian law, as far as it is applicable, will be taken into account. The first step in the process of the UPR is the interactive dialogue in the Working Group, during which the state under review presents its national human rights report, replies to questions raised by other states and offers concluding remarks. Before the Working Group session, the national report of the state under review is issued together with a compilation of information contained in the reports of treaty bodies, special procedures and other UN official documents and a summary of other reliable information provided by relevant stakeholders such as NGOs and national human rights institutions. The Working Group adopts a report that is factual and based on the proceedings, reflecting the recommendations of the delegations during the interactive dialogue. States under review will communicate to the Council whether they accept or reject a recommendation. The report of the Working Group is then adopted at the plenary session of the Council.

Legal Relevance of Universal Periodic Review

As long as China is not in a position to translate its human rights preferences into customary international law or treaty law, it can only continue using international fora to voice its dissenting human rights views. What are possible legal effects of China’s official statements in the UPR framework that challenge the established interpretation of international human rights? The UPR as a non-confrontational mechanism appears to be purely political in nature and it is not clear what legal effects the review can produce. It is argued that when a state accepts a recommendation under the UPR, the relevant state agrees to be assessed on the implementation of the accepted recommendation. On the other hand it is feared that states would undermine their international human rights obligations when they reject recommendations. However, the rejection of a recommendation in the UPR mechanism cannot be interpreted as a withdrawal from the obligation of an international treaty. The rejection of a recommendation only constitutes the objection to the monitoring of a certain obligation under the UPR mechanism.

Conclusion

With regard to legal effects of China’s participation in the UPR it is found that rejections of recommendations do not affect the PRC’s legal obligations under human rights treaties. The great majority of rejections concerned areas where the PRC has not yet undertaken treaty obligations such as recommendations to reduce the number of crimes for which the death penalty can be imposed or to establish a moratorium on the death penalty. Yet it is interesting to note that China also accepted recommendations in such areas as the death penalty. This has the effect that in the next review cycle the progress on this accepted recommendation will be assessed.