Social Structures
Author: Iryna Tekuchova, PhD Researcher, Department of Law, Maynooth University.
“Being a human rights treaty body member is highly rewarding,” states the UN Handbook for Human Rights Treaty Body Members. It also mentions that the member of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (the Committee) is expected to have “high moral character” and “recognized competence and experience in the field”. However, this document is silent about the fact that beyond these qualities and merits, the candidates to the Committee often have to face a rocky electoral path, which turns to be difficult for many. Being an expert in a field covered by the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (the CRPD) and having “high moral character” is not enough to have a real chance to be elected.
In 2020, I had the unique opportunity to coordinate the election campaign of one of my former colleagues in the Ukrainian organization for people with disabilities “Fight For Right”, who stood as the Ukrainian candidate to the Committee in the seventh election cycle. Looking back at the nomination and election campaign paths, which we have done, I can identify some tendencies and systematic challenges of these processes relevant for the candidates and the countries. Even though each candidate’s experience is unique and varies from State to State, some points of concern, incidental for Ukraine, might resonate with other countries and, thus, be subject to further analyses. In this blogpost, I would like to highlight four issues that may directly or indirectly influence the efficiency of the whole election process to the Committee.
“Absence of the public consultation mechanism in the nomination of the candidate”
The CRPD is the only human rights instrument that requires States to consult with people with disabilities in the nomination process of candidates to the Committee (Art. 4.3 of the CRPD). This requirement arises from the most fundamental principle of the disability rights movement and the Convention itself – “nothing about us without us.” However, not all the States Parties have adopted a public consultation mechanism with the disability community as standard practice to identify suitable candidates to be nominated at the national level to participate in the election to the CRPD Committee. For instance, in Ukraine, the nomination process on the national level often follows the path of unilateral selection of the candidate by the Ministry of Social Policy of Ukraine and subsequent acceptance of the candidacy by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I do not consider herein some ad hoc meetings or private consultations held by these competent authorities as actions aimed at implementing the Art. 4.3 of the CRPD, since they do not represent an established procedure or a mechanism.
The lack of a public consultation mechanism is intertwined closely with another issue – the absence of procedures and policies, which would allow individuals to present themselves as candidates to the competent authority for consideration. This issue is rather recurrent, not typical of Ukraine, and is relevant for other treaty bodies. In 2012 the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, in its report “Strengthening the United Nations Human Rights Treaty Body System”, underlined the importance of a transparent national selection process, which would be open for every individual in order to ensure the Committee members are of “the highest calibre”. In Ukraine, for example, the options for an individual intending to present their candidacy for the nomination are pretty limited. Based on the candidates’ previous experiences, an individual can just wait until the competent authority invites them to be a candidate or try to use personal connections/networking to make the authority aware about his/her intention to stand for election for the CRPD Committee.
“Restricted time frame”
Time is the other challenge the candidate might face once nominated. The general rule is that States are invited by the Secretary-General to nominate a candidate at least four months before the election. Within the subsequent two months, the State has to submit the candidacy to the Secretariat. Once the list of candidates is published on the webpage, the States may start the election campaign. However, de facto, if the country starts its election campaign two months before the election, its chances of winning are close to zero. The election campaign is a complex and time-consuming process that requires active involvement from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the State, its Permanent Missions to the UN (in New York \ Geneva), and other partners. For example, for the elections 2020, Israel and Guatemala’s Permanent Missions started their election campaigns almost one year before the elections. It is common for States Parties to start election campaigns even two years in advance. During this period, the State and the candidate prepare electoral materials (flyers, videos, webpage, etc.), organize meetings with the representatives of the Permanent Missions of other countries, conduct public events supporting the candidate. Therefore, if the individual intends to be a candidate, it is highly recommended to start negotiations with the competent national authority in advance to increase the chances of a successful outcome.
“Voting for the State rather than a candidate”
As I mentioned above, the election campaign is run by the State and its diplomatic missions. That gives a geopolitical imprint on the whole election campaign. The diplomatic relations with other States, the capacities of its Permanent missions, the geopolitical role of the State in the international arena as well as its regional influence are essential prerequisites for the success of the election campaign. That leads to States often voting for a State rather than a candidate. In this case, the qualifications and merits of a candidate play a secondary role in the whole process.
Another consequence of promoting a candidate through the diplomatic instruments is geographical imbalance among elected members, which is a genuine concern of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. In April 2017, it adopted a Statement calling upon the States to be “mindful” and consider geographical representation of the candidates as well as gender while voting. The CRPD committee applies soft diplomacy in this issue, while, for example, the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, on the contrary, stabilized a geographical quota to keep the balance among its members.
“Restricted financial resources”
Last but not least, another issue is the financial side of the election process. There is no established rule on who bears the costs of the election campaign to the Committee. Often they are shared between the State, a candidate and/or other partners. However, it might become the challenge if the expenses fall solely on the candidate, for instance, as it was for the Ukrainian candidate. All costs for the election campaign – video production, flyers, webpage development, translation of the materials to various languages as well as transportation costs, and logging in New York during the Convention of the State Parties – had to be sustained by the Ukrainian candidate. The team of the civil society representatives, who coordinated the election campaign, managed to cover these costs by the fundraising activities only partially. However, not all candidates would be ready to invest financially in this process. For many qualified and experienced individuals, that might be a reason not to be a candidate at all.
These are significant challenges. However, should the person still be a candidate and go through this election path with all these obstacles and challenges? I would say, “Definitely, yes!”. It is about the voice of the disability community, its ability to unite for the promotion of human rights, its visibility on the international stage. Regardless of the elections’ outcome, I believe that each nomination brings positive change for the global and national disability communities.
This blog post has been written within the remit of the project ‘Protecting the Right to Culture of Persons with Disabilities and Enhancing Cultural Diversity through European Union Law: Exploring New Paths – DANCING’. This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (Grant Agreement No 864182).
