Concise Atlas of International Geneva 2019/2020 - Developments of international Geneva in maps - Konrad ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Concise Atlas of
International Geneva
2019/2020
Developments of international
Geneva in maps 8 Global Health The Corona pandemic has brought Geneva to the fore as the world’s
central location for global health – and not least as the headquarters of
the World Health Organisation (WHO). Chapter 1 will provide you with
an overview of a few important initiatives taken by the WHO in the fight
against the pandemic.
16 Humanitarian Aid
Geneva is considered the capital of humanitarian aid. Even prior to the
Corona pandemic, 2020 was predicted to be the year of the worst huma-
nitarian crisis since the Second World War. What steps have been taken
by the UN organisations in order to mitigate the humanitarian impact of
the COVID-19 outbreak? Learn more about this in Chapter 2.
22 Global Trade
The World Trade Organisation (WTO) deals with the regulation of trade
and economic relations, the elimination of barriers to trade and conflict
resolution. Since December 2019 it has been in the grip of a serious cri-
sis, while also playing an important role in fighting the Corona pandemic.
More in Chapter 3.
34 Digitalisation
Chapter 4 describes the complex ecosystem underpinning multilateral
and non-state organisations that deal with digital matters in Geneva.
What’s more, emphasis will be placed on the most important topics in
connection with the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the
global digital divide and investments in digital technologies.
42 Human Rights
The promotion and protection of human rights is one of the main
objectives of the United Nations. Geneva plays a critical role here as the
seat for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the
Human Rights Council. Key developments and decisions from recent
years can be found in Chapter 5.
With the seat of the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) and the Interna-
70 Flight and Migration tional Organisation for Migration (IOM), flight and migration constitute
one of the main issues in international Geneva. Chapter 6 provides
insights into important trends and developments in flight, while also
highlighting the most important donors in a global comparison.
In light of an increasingly conflict-ridden global political climate, repea-
86 Alliance for ted efforts have been made by individual country coalitions to support
rules-based global cooperation over recent years. Such an initiative is
Multilateralism the Alliance for Multilateralism, more about this in Chapter 7.Concise Atlas of
International Geneva
2019/2020
Olaf Wientzek
Sarah Ultes
Developments of international
Geneva in mapsForeword
Geneva and the over 45 international organisations located
here do not always receive the attention they deserve. Many
current developments in international politics and multilatera-
lism are reflected in «international Geneva», with future global
trends often being foreseen here at an early stage.
The «Concise Atlas of International Geneva 2019/2020»
aims to illustrate some of these trends in the areas of global
health, human rights, trade, digitalisation, humanitarian aid as
importance of Geneva
well as flight and migration using maps, with each one referring
Underestimated
to the work of Geneva-based organisations, and thus to contri-
bute towards clarifying often complex issues. For instance, there
will be a portrayal of voting behaviour among member states,
their willingness to provide political or financial support to mul-
tilateral committees or initiatives, but also key findings from
reports presented in Geneva-based organisations. Some maps, in
turn, illustrate the key findings of detailed reports from Geneva-
based organisations which merit greater attention.
Due in no small part to the myriad of organisations
located in Geneva, this type of study can only highlight the
situation to a limited extent. Not to mention the fact that it
is impossible to cover the entire spectrum of developments
in Geneva-based committees. The selection of processes and
organisations presented here is certainly debatable. Having
developments
said that, we hope that the «Concise Atlas of International
Key
Geneva 2019/2020» can help make some important trends in
multilateral cooperation more visible.
We hope you enjoy reading it!
Dr Olaf Wientzek, Director and
Sarah Ultes, Research Associate
Multilateral Dialogue
Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung GenevaIntroduction human rights or social protection. If nothing else, the pan-
demic-induced transfer of communication and trade to the
virtual world has once again more clearly revealed a «digital
divide» between different countries.
4. In spite of many worrying developments and the often-
observed trends towards protectionism and national navel-
When attempting to portray a few general developments in the gazing during the pandemic, the past 2 years have also borne
multilateral order and particularly the work of Geneva-based witness to rays of hope. For example, groups of member
organisations over the past 2 years, four broad trends can be states in various organisations have launched initiatives
identified: to resolve blockings or to create bridging mechanisms. The
«Alliance for Multilateralism» as launched by France and
1. An increasing (geo)politicisation of multilateral organisations Germany in 2019, can also be seen as an attempt to provi-
in Geneva, not least due to the growing rivalry between de fresh impetus for multilateral cooperation in various
China and the US. Some of the Genevan committees have in- policy areas. Equally encouraging is that there are evidently
creasingly become a stage for growing geopolitical tensions. still countries not only advocating a rules-based, but also a
Rays of hope
One example was the repeated mistrust voiced by the US Ad- values-based multilateralism, and denouncing human rights
Geopolitical
ministration towards the World Health Organisation (WHO), violations – be it through resolutions in the Human Rights
tensions
as well as their blocking of the World Trade Organisationʼs Council or through public statements. Finally, this Atlas also
dispute settlement function. However, the fact remains that illustrates a few examples of global solidarity, whether it be
even under the Trump Administration, the US continued to in the humanitarian sphere, or through broad support for
be a key player in many Geneva-based organisations despi- the COVAX facility, whose aim is to enable global access to
te their withdrawal from some forums and their blocking of vaccines against COVID-19 as of 2021. Yet, both these initiati-
others (see for example the financial support for the UN ves, too, show that willingness to raise political and financial
Refugee Agency (UNHCR)). capital for multilateral solutions and global goods was un-
2. The doubt sometimes cast by the Trump Administration on equally distributed throughout the community of states, and
multilateral forums has been accompanied by increasingly limited on the whole.
brash behaviour on the part of authoritarian states, especi-
ally China. This is reflected in the greater financial and per- The extent to which a Biden Administration sympathetic towards
Autocratic states
sonnel commitment in many – albeit not all – Geneva-based international Geneva will lead to a sustained reversal of trends
gain ground
organisations. That growing self-confidence is also becoming that have been emerging for many years, remains to be seen.
more obvious in the area of human rights. Here, authoritarian If we turn our gaze towards the next few years, besides exis-
states have made repeated attempts to not only stifle un- ting challenges surrounding the medium- to longterm repercus-
desirable resolutions, but also to actively change the human sions of the pandemic, digital policy issues will also continue to
rights narrative for their own ends. gain in importance across all Geneva-based organisations.
3. Across the board, multilateral organisations have been hija-
cked by the COVID-19 pandemic and its ramifications. Some
Polypandemic
observers refer to a polypandemic, and quite rightly emp-
hasise that the pandemic has more openly exposed funda-
mental weaknesses in many policy areas: whether that be
weaknesses inherent in national health systems, deficits inTable of contents 64 Human Rights Situation in Belarus Following Presidential Elections ― Vote 2020
66 China’s Policy in Xinjiang and Hong Kong ― Critics and Supporters
68 Reprisals for Cooperation with the UN in the field of Human Rights
70 Flight and Migration
8 Global Health 72 Forced Displacement 2018 ― Host Countries and Coutries of Origin
10 WHA Resolution for the Fight Against COVID-19 ― Supporters 74 Forced Displacement 2019 ― Host Countries and Coutries of Origin
12 COVAX Initiative ― Supporters 76 Contributions to the UN Refugee Agency 2019 in USD
78 Per Capita Contributions to the UN Refugee Agency 2019 in USD
16
80 UNHCR Refugees ― per 1000 Inhabitants in the EU 2019
Humanitarian Aid 82 Global Compact on Refugees ― Vote Result 2018
18 Global Humanitarian Response Plan ― State Donors/Target Countries
86 Multilateralism
22 Global Trade 88 Alliance for Multilateralism ― Participants Launch Event 2019
24 Members of the World Trade Organisation 90 Humanitarian Call for Action ― Signatories
26 Interim solution for WTO dispute resolution 92 Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace ― Signatories
28 Initiative on E-Commerce ― WTO Members 94 International Partnership on Information and Democracy ― Participants
30 Preservation of open and predictable food supply chains 96 Climate and Security Initiative ― Signatories
98 Gender at the Centre Initiative ― Signatories
34
100 11 Principles on Lethal Autonomous Weapons ― Signatories
Digitalisation 102 Cooperation in the Fight Against COVID-19 ― Participants
36 ITU Council of 2019 to 2022 ― Composition
38 Global Innovation Index. Who will finance innovation?
42 Human Rights
44 UN Human Rights Council 2020 ― Composition
46 UN Human Rights Council 2021 ― Composition
48 Voting Behaviour in line with China ― UN Human Rights Council 2019
50 Voting Behaviour in line with the EU ― UN Human Rights Council 2019
52 Voting Behaviour in line with Germany ― UN Human Rights Council 2020
54 Voting Behaviour Against Germany ― UN Human Rights Council 2020
56 Resolution of China on the Role of Human Rights ― Vote 2018
58 Resolution of China on the Role of Human Rights ― Vote 2020
60 Group of Eminent Experts on Yemen ― Vote 2019
62 Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Venezuela ― Vote 2019
Global Health tribution of COVID-19 vaccines, treatments, and tests, to bring
about an end to the acute phase of the pandemic by late 2021. It
was launched in April 2020 by the WHO with the support of the
coordinator
European Commission, among others.
WHO as
One of the three pillars of the ACT Accelerator is the
COVAX Facility, in place since June 2020, whose participating
With political actors such as the World Health Organisation countries are presented in map 12. COVAX is jointly run by Gavi,
(WHO), Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance and the Global Fund to Fight the Vaccine Alliance, the WHO, and the Coalition for Epidemic
AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, Geneva represents the un- Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). The objective is to organise
official «capital» of global health. It was precisely the WHO the development and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines on
global health
Geneva and
that became a particular focus of public attention during the a global scale, so as to vaccinate as many people as possible
COVID-19 pandemic. Significant shifts in its programme prio- worldwide. 2 billion doses are thus to be distributed by the clo-
rities between 2019 and 2020 illustrate the major impact that se of 2021. That would mean that at least 20% of populations
the pandemic has had on the WHOʼs programme of work. across all countries can be vaccinated including those working
One of its plethora of roles in combating the pandemic in the health sector and risk groups, in particular. 188 countries
COVAX Facility
is as a platform for its member states: representatives of all are participating in total: lower-income states which benefit
members states meet once a year as part of the World Health from funding, and high-income ones that finance themselves,
platform for dialogue
Assembly (WHA), the supreme body of the WHO. Here, politi- but also benefit from guaranteed access. It is worth noting that
cal goals and strategies are formulated, which are then imple- the US and Russia were the only G20 members (as of December
mented by the Secretariat, the WHO headquarters. During the 2020) not to participate until early 2021. Having said that, joi-
WHO as a
virtual WHA held in 2020, priority was given to developments ning the COVAX Initiative is still possible at a later point in time.
and measures for fighting COVID-19. This saw 139 countries On 14 January, the US announced its return to the WHO and
supporting a ground-breaking resolution, one which highlights also its participation in the COVAX Initiative. The participation
the WHOʼs leadership role in the crisis and identifies vaccines of the US is highly significant for financing this key instrument
and treatments as global public goods (map 10). Emphasis is for global solidarity. The vacuum left behind by the US in the
placed on the need for an inclusive, cross-sector cooperation WHO in 2020 had to be both politically and financially offset by
Multilateral
between state and private actors, to prevent anyone from other actors. Above all, Germany and the EU attempted to fill
being left behind, as well as sharing knowledge gained about the gap left here.
hope
COVID-19. Hence, this resolution initiated by the EU primarily Despite all those nations which go it alone as observed
sends an important political signal towards global solidarity. during the crisis, both maps show at least two rays of hope for
In the end, the US distanced themselves from the resolution the global community’s willingness for solidarity and multilate-
because its wording regarding sexual and reproductive rights, ral solutions.
and the global development of vaccines was too far-reaching.
They did not block its adoption, however.
Besides its numerous other functions, the WHO’s role
as coordinator was also crucial during the pandemic. One exam-
ple was its leadership role in the ACT Accelerator. This initiative
creates a framework of cross-sector cooperation for govern-
ments, health organisations, scientists, and companies, with
the aim of accelerating the worldwide development and dis-WHA Resolution 2020 for the Fight In May 2020, the World Health Assembly (WHA) adopted a
resolution on the fight against COVID-19. Introduced under the
Against COVID-19 SUPPORTERS leadership of the EU and supported by 139 member states, it
was adopted without a vote. It calls for fair access to vaccines
and the fight against misinformation.
10 Global Health
194 member states
The US
distance them-
selves from the
resolution with
a statement.
EU EU
Luxembourg Luxembourg
Monaco
Monaco
San San
Marino Marino
Malta Malta Cyprus
Cyprus
Cabo Qatar Qatar
Cabo
Verde Verde
Jamaica Bahrain Bahrain
Jamaica
MarshallMicronesia
Islands Marshall Islands
Micronesia Marshall Islands El Salvador Micronesia
El Salvador Singapore
Singapore
Seychelles Nauru Nauru Kiribati
Nauru Kiribati Seychelles Maldives
Maldives
São Tomé & Príncipe São Tomé & Príncipe
Comoros Comoros
AU AU Fiji
Fiji Cook Fiji Cook
Tonga Tonga
Tonga Islands Mauritius Mauritius Islands
Lesotho Lesotho
139
supporters
139 supportersCOVAX Facility The COVAX Facility aims to speed up the development and pro-
duction of COVID-19 vaccines and ensure fair access around the
PARTICIPATING STATES world. It is open to participation of further states. COVAX is led
by the WHO, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance and the Coalition for
Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI).
12 Global Health
7 higher-income
states that intend
to participate
92 high 89
er
-in Germany
(including EU countries)
c
188
ome states
joined the COAX facility
states
partcipating
via the EU and is part of
states
the Team Europe. G20
e
om
in
c Russia is the only member of the G20
low-
that has not participated as yet. Turkey
and South Africa intend to participate,
7 while India and Indonesia, also G20
members, are to receive vaccines via
the COVAX facility.
have concluded an agreement
89 higher-income states that
The US
participates in the COVAX
Initiative and is joining
the WHO again. These Luxembourg Luxembourg
changes were made pos- Monaco Monaco
sible with the inauguration Andorra Andorra
of Joe Biden as President
Malta
of the United States on Malta
Cyprus Cyprus
14/01/2021. Bahamas Bahamas
St. Kitts & Nevis
St. Kitts & Nevis
Haiti
Antigua & Barbuda Antigua & Barbuda Cabo Kuwait
Haiti Cabo Kuwait
Dominica Dominica Qatar
Verde Qatar
Belize
St. Lucia St.Verde
Lucia Bahrain
Belize Jamaica Jamaica Barbados Bahrain
Barbados Lebanon Lebanon
St. Vincent & the Grenadines Westbank Palau Marshall Islands
Palau Micronesia Marshall Islands El Salvador
St. Vincent & the Grenadines
Grenada Westbank
& Gaza Palau Micronesia MarshallMicronesia
Islands
El Salvador Grenada & Gaza Singapore
Trinidad & Tobago Israel Israel Singapore
Trinidad & Tobago
Brunei Darussalam Brunei Darussalam
ussalam Nauru
Nauru Kiribati Maldives Nauru Kiribati
Maldives Tuvalu Samoa
Tuvalu Samoa São Tomé & Príncipe São Tomé & Príncipe Tuvalu Samoa
Solomon
Solomon Comoros Comoros Solomon
COVAX Facility provides access to vaccines
Timor-Leste
Islands Islands
-Leste Islands Timor-Leste Fiji
Fiji Fiji
Tonga Tonga
Tonga Mauritius Mauritius
Vanuatu Vanuatu
Vanuatu
92 low-income states to which the
8 additional
economies
also participated who are not
UN Member States (including
Taiwan).
COVAX stands for COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access and aims to ensure equal
and fair access to COVID-19 vaccines around the world. as of 14 January 2021WHO WHO
10 biggest contributors (organisations and countries) 5 most important programmes
3.1%
European 3%
Various Programme
Commission Polio eradication: 26.5% 2018 –
budget
2018 – 2019 2019
3.2% Increase access to essential health
World Bank and nutrition services: 12.1%
3.6% Vaccine-Preventable
Rotary
international 15.2% Diseases: 8.9%
US
Establish effective coordination
4.8% 65% and cooperation support: 6.1%
OCHA of the WHO budget
is funded by the Prevent and control
following contributors. 10.8% outbreaks: 6%
Bill and Melinda
Gates Foundation
5.5%
Germany Acute health emergencies: 45.9% 2020 –
2021
Improved access to quality
7.9% 8.1% essential health services: 13.6%
Gavi, the United
Vaccine Alliance Kingdom Polio eradication: 13.5%
Epidemics and pandemics
Programme prevention: 4.4%
budget
2020 – 2021 Proven prevention strategies for priority
pandemic-/epidemic-prone diseases: 3.5%
2.5%
OCHA 2.4%
Various
2.8%
World Bank 11.8%
Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance
Bill and Melinda Record level of pledges
3% Gates Foundation
COVID-19 Pledged contributions for 2021 – 2025 in contributions that will help
Solidarity Funds vaccinate further 300 children in
the poorest countries worldwide
against diseases such as measles,
15%
6.3% polio, and diphtheria by the end
Gavi, the 61.3% Foundations,
of 2025.
of the WHO budget organisations and
Vaccine Alliance
is funded by the
11.8% companies
Germany (1.8 billion USD)
following contributors.
6.7%
United
Kingdom
of which: 14% 85%
Total Donor governments
Bill and Melinda Gates
6.8% Foundation (1.7 billion USD) 12.2 billion and the European
European 7.3% USD
Commission (10.4
Commission US billion USD)
Humanitarian Aid rity. Depending on the country, a dramatic increase in gender-
based violence by 60 to 70% has also been recorded. A number
of organisations are thus warning against «hunger pandemics»,
social unrest, conflicts, and a rise in a variety of illnesses. In
short, development gains achieved over several decades are
soon likely to be at stake. That is why the situation urgently
International Geneva is of great importance especially in the needs to be considered at the security policy level, according to
to polypandemic
area of humanitarian aid. Several international as well as non- the heads of several authorities. The latter pointed towards an
From COVID-19
governmental organisations have their headquarters here, exponential increase in costs if repercussions emanating from
most notably the International Committee of the Red Cross the pandemic were not mitigated soon. Yet only around 40% of
(ICRC), or the United Nations Office for the Coordination of the required funds had arrived by December 2020. The Global
Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). In 2019, the city celebrated its Humanitarian Response Plan for COVID-19 has been transfer-
Geneva, world capital
of humanitarian aid
70th anniversary of signing the Geneva Conventions, which, red to the OCHA’s Global Humanitarian Overview 2021. This re-
with their additional protocols, continue to remain a milestone vealed a new record high: within only one year, the number of
in international humanitarian law. They are intended to guaran- those in need rose by 40% to a total of 235 million. The situation
tee the protection of civilians and civilian institutions in armed in Yemen is proving to be particularly dramatic, where 24.3 mil-
conflicts but are themselves increasingly coming under fire. lion people and thus approx. 80% of the population depends
Owing to the increase in scope and duration of huma- on life-saving aid. But the situation in Ethiopia, the DR Congo,
nitarian crises, complex conflicts and natural catastrophes, glo- Afghanistan, Sudan, and Syria also continues to be tense.
bal humanitarian needs have dramatically increased in recent For that reason, UN Secretary-General Guterres called
years. Even prior to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, for a global «humanitarian ceasefire» already at the outset of
2020 was predicted to be the year of the worst humanitarian the pandemic. Besides the conflicting parties themselves, he
crisis since the Second World War. With the pandemic having appealed above all to influential external actors to substantia-
also hit many regions that were already in an extremely preca- te his call with robust diplomatic efforts and to validate it in
rious situation, in March 2020, several UN organisations combi- this way. However, many parties failed to heed his call for many
ned forces and presented the Global Humanitarian Response months. Even though 180 states, regional partners, non-state,
developments
Plan (GHRP) for combating COVID-19 in the most vulnerable and religious actors had endorsed it by mid-2020, fighting actu-
Humanitarian
General
low- and middle-income countries (map 18). ally intensified in many conflict regions.
ceasefire
In a matter of months, financial needs had to be increa- The international community has thus far failed to pro-
sed from 2 billion to 6.7 billion USD and finally to 9.5 billion vide a decisive response to the worst humanitarian crisis in half
USD. A further nine countries joined, bringing the plan to a a century.
total of 63 countries. Extreme poverty is now on the rise again for
the first time since 1990 mainly due to measures for containing
the virus. Within only a few months, we observed the sharpest
decline in per capita income since 1870. What’s more, acute
food insecurity has almost doubled within the space of one
year. The number of children under 5 years of age with severe
malnourishment alone is estimated to increase by 15 to 25%.
Women were hit particularly hard: around 70% are employed
in the informal sector and have hardly any access to social secu-Global Humanitarian Response Plan In March 2020, various UN organisations launched a Global
Humanitarian Response Plan that supports 63 countries in the
COVID-19 STATE DONORS / TARGET COUNTRIES fight against the humanitarian, health, economic and social
impacts of COVID-19.
18 Humanitarian Aid
9 additional
target countries
9 additional countries
were included within a very short
time. Overall demand rose from
2 billion to 9.5 billion USD.
> 100 54 original target
EU EU
countries
Luxembourg Luxembourg
Liechtenstein Liechtenstein
Monaco Monaco
Holy See Holy See
Malta Malta
Haiti Haiti Kuwait
Kuwait
Qatar Qatar
10 – 100
Aruba Curaçao Lebanon
Aruba Curaçao Lebanon
Trinidad & Tobago Trinidad & Tobago Palestinian
Palestinian
territories territories
Largest donor
is currently the US followed by
Germany, the United Kingdom
1 – 10
and Japan.
< 1 million USD
State donors
8 humanitarian
response hubs
as of 14 December 2020Global Humanitarian
10 of the largest state donors
Response Plan COVID-19
64.7% > 100 million USD
as of: 12.2020 State Contributors
donors US 24.5% US
DE 11.5% 424 904
is with 904 million
15.7% GB 6.5% 240
USD currently the
JP 5.2% 194
Intergovernmental
DK 2.4% 89 largest donor.
organisations
Received CA 1.7% 63
donations
3.6% SA 1.7% 63
Private orgs 3.7 billion AE 1.5% 54
KW 1.1% 39
3.7 billion USD Foundations
USD CH 1.0% 38 million USD
Donations received
2.4%
UN-organisations
39%
12.4%
1.2% Additional
NGOs
11 trillion USD
Overall demand
are estimated to constitute the 0.8%
9.5 billion domestic stimulus packages for
90 billion USD
USD Grant recipients COVID-19 of the G20 and the OECD 10%
76% countries combined. in other words, 0.8% would suffice
UN-organisations to protect 10% of the world's poorest
people from the worst impacts of
5.8 billion USD 0.4%
the virus.
Red Cross / Red Crescent
not covered
Movement
61%
0.3% Distributed
Global Humanitarian
Private organisations Ceasefire
funds 30 March
Foundations 29 March support from
3.7 billion Support from 53 UN member states
0.03% USD Pope Francis including 24 European
Governments
20.8% 2020
NGOs
11 March 23 March
0.02% 2.3% WHO characterized urgent appeal by UN
Intergovernmental Further COVID-19 as Secretary-General for an
a pandemic immediate global ceasefire
organisations
111
1 July Days
Resolution of UN
Security Council 2532
(2020)
Since 1990
2 July Only 111 days after the WHO
first increase in global poverty and decline characterized COVID-19 as a
180 UN member states
in global human development. pandemic, and only 3 months
support the appeal, and 20
armed groups and over 800 after the appeal made by the
civil society organisations UN Secretary-General.
approx. 40%
2021
Women of the world’s 58'000
are hit particularly hard, around 70% population 22 September People By late 2020,
are employed in the informal sector, UN Secretary-General Since the adoption of 16 unilateral,
has no opportunity to Guterres repeated call Resolution 2532, 58,000 6 bi/multilateral
with hardly any access to social
wash their hands with for a global ceasefire people had been killed in ceasefires and
security or safety nets.
soap and water at home. conflict regions by late 2020. 20 updates
Global Trade At the same time, the WTO serves as a platform for its mem-
bers to move forward in certain areas being part of different
«coalitions of the willing». One example is the «joint statement»
Negotiations
on e-commerce, to which 86 countries (as of: November 2020)
have now signed up (map 28). The goal is to agree on common
rules for this area of increasing importance. It is worth noting
2019 and 2020 were difficult years for the World Trade Orga- that the US and the EU as well as China are on board with this
nisation (WTO), but they did also provide some rays of hope. initiative. The biggest sceptics constitute India and South Africa
Since December 2019, the WTO’s dispute resolution function – as well as most African countries. However, a few countries on
one of its founding pillars – has been undermined, with the US the African continent have recently joined the initiative, too.
having blocked the appointment of new members to the Ap- Discussions on common rules in this pioneering field have slow-
pellate Body for many years. Washington was increasingly dis- ly limped along, but have advanced a bit more quickly in 2021.
satisfied with some of the body’s decisions, as well as with how The WTO also played a crucial role during the COVID- 19
Blocked dispute
it exercised its mandate. The blocking also serves the US as a pandemic, such as by detecting what are often hidden protectio-
lever for reinforcing their calls to drastically reform the WTO. nist measures on the part of its member states. Simultaneously,
resolution
Many WTO rules are considered obsolete and, for example, it also served as a central platform for members’ initiatives to
pandemic
COVID-19
inadequate for finding a response to China’s state-capitalist counter the spiral of protectionism that threatened, especially
practices. Even for those member states (all members can at the pandemic’s outset. One such initiative was the announce-
be found in map 24) who share the criticism of the US, blo- ment of a group of countries to not unduly thwart food supply
cking the Appellate Body was a step too far. The reason for chains through protectionist measures (map 30).
this is that the WTO’s two-tiered dispute resolution system is Since May 2020, the WTO has been hijacked by a
considered a key instrument in preventing the escalation of discussion on who will succeed the resigned Director-General,
trade conflicts. Accordingly, in 2019, like-minded WTO mem- Roberto Azevêdo. There was still no solution at the close of the
bers (such as the EU and Norway) considered creating a pro- year since the Trump Administration had refused to support the
visional interim solution. Nigerian female candidate Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala. Finally, in
Contrary to many sceptical predictions, the EU and 18 February 2021, the Biden Administration paved the way for the
Challenges
additional WTO members successfully agreed upon an interim first woman and first WTO Director-General from the African
appeal arbitration procedure on 30 April 2020. Participating continent. She is now confronted with a number of challenges.
states (map 26) also include those that are often involved in Whether the new leadership will also give rise to a new dynamic
trade disputes. This solution represents more than just di- in the WTO, will become apparent, among other things, at the
Appellate Body
plomatic symbolism, even though the baptism of fire when WTO's Twelfth Ministerial Conference scheduled for December
Provisional
dealing with specific dispute cases will not occur until 2021. 2021.
Having said that, the absence of the US shows that it can only
be a temporary measure. Comprehensive rounds of negotia-
tion at the WTO are currently unrealistic, and even discussions
on sectoral agreements (e.g. fishing subsidies) have proven to
be extremely difficult in 2020.World Trade Organisation MEMBERS The World Trade Organisation (WTO) in Geneva sets rules for global
trade. It has 164 members and 25 observers, who also wish to
become members. Members do not necessarily have to be indepen-
dent, recognised states regarding their external trade relations.
24 Global Trade
25 observers
EU EU
Luxembourg Luxembourg
Liechtenstein Liechtenstein
Andorra
Andorra
Holy See Holy See
Malta Malta
Cyprus Cyprus
Bahamas Bahamas
St. Kitts & Nevis St. Kitts & Nevis
Haiti
Antigua & Barbuda Antigua & Barbuda Cabo
Haiti Cabo Kuwait Kuwait
Dominica Dominica Verde Qatar Hong Kong
St.Verde
Lucia Qatar Hong Kong
Belize
St. Lucia
Jamaica Bahrain Bahrain
Belize Jamaica Barbados Lebanon Macau
Barbados Curaçao Lebanon Macau
Curaçao St. Vincent & the Grenadines Israel
St. Vincent & the Grenadines Israel
El Salvador Grenada Grenada
El Salvador
Trinidad & Tobago Singapore Singapore
Trinidad & Tobago
Brunei Darussalam Brunei Darussalam
russalam Seychelles
Seychelles Maldives
Maldives Samoa
Samoa São Tomé & Príncipe São Tomé & Príncipe Samoa
Solomon
Comoros Comoros Solomon
Solomon Timor-Leste Islands
Islands Timor-Leste Islands
or-Leste Fiji Fiji
Fiji Tonga
Tonga Mauritius Tonga
Mauritius
Vanuatu Vanuatu
Vanuatu
Turkmenistan
is designated as an observer.
164 members
However, unlike other observer states,
no accession negotiations have taken
place to date.Interim solution for In April 2020, 19 WTO members (including the EU) agreed to a
multi-party interim appeal arrangement (MPIA). It is founded on
WTO dispute resolution PARTICIPATING STATES existing WTO rules, and is only intended to apply until the Appellate
Body is operational again. This step has already been announced
in January.
26 Global Trade
EU EU
Luxembourg Luxembourg
Malta Malta
Cyprus Cyprus
Hong Kong Hong Kong
Singapore Singapore
19 participating WTO membersInitiative on In 2020, 76 WTO members declared their willingness to strengthen
e-commerce, which is increasing worldwide. Since then, 10 further
E-Commerce WTO MEMBERS countries have joined the initiative. Despite the growing importance
of e-commerce, there have not yet been any specific WTO rules in
this area.
28 Global Trade
Luxembourg Luxembourg
Liechtenstein Liechtenstein
Malta Malta
Cyprus Cyprus
Kuwait Kuwait
Qatar Hong Kong Hong Kong
Qatar
Bahrain Bahrain
Israel Israel
El Salvador El Salvador
Singapore Singapore
Brunei Darussalam Brunei Darussalam
m
86 countries
are currently participating in the
initiative and together cover over
90% of global trade.
86 WTO members
as of 4 November 2020Preservation of open and predictable At the initiative of Canada, in April 2020 during the COVID-19 crisis,
1/3 of WTO members signed an agreement to waive export
food supply chains SUPPORTERS restrictions on food products.
30 Global Trade
EU EU
Luxembourg Luxembourg
Malta Malta
Cyprus Cyprus
Qatar Hong Kong Hong Kong
Qatar
Singapore Singapore
Supporters of the initiativeNotifications of measures WTO forecasts of the development of
concerning trade to the WTO world trade between 2020 and 2021
as of: 1.2.2021 as of: 31.03.2021
Exports
The WTO
ensures transparent commu-
7 CIS
Export restrictions +4.4%
nication of measures, which -3.9%
members implement during 12
the pandemic to facilitate
10 Agriculture
Europe
Further measures
and impede trade.
18 +7.7% +8.3% Asia
Market access for goods -8.5% -8%
North +0.3% +8.4%
America +12.4%
59 -8.2%
Quantitative restrictions
128 Middle
Technical +8.1%
East
trade barriers -8.1%
+3.2%
-4.5% Africa
86 South- and
Sanitary and Central America
phytosanitary measures
estimated
-5.3% development 2021
decrease in world trade development 2020
10 major importers and exporters of medical products, of goods in 2020.
which are important in the fight against COVID-19
27.4%
China: 28.9%
Imports
Worldwide CIS
Ireland: 2.2% exports +5.7%
17% Malaysia: 2.3%
France: 2.8% 2020 -4.7%
increase in China’s share
Belgium: 3% US: 12.3% Europe
of exports from 12% in 2019
to 28.9% in 2020 Japan: 3.1%
Mexico: 3.3% +11.4% +8.4%
Netherlands: 5.7% Germany: 9% -6.1% Asia
North -7.6%
America +5.7%
+7.2%
-1.3%
US: 18.9% -11.3%
38.7% +5.5%
Middle
+8.1% -8.8%
East
-9.3%
Worldwide Germany: 8.7% Africa
South- and
exports Central America
2020 China: 6.2%
France: 5.3%
8%
Belgium: 2.8%
Growth forecast for
Canada: 2.9% Japan: 5.2% 2021, subject to a new
Italy: 3.1% estimated
Netherlands: 4.5% COVID-19 outbreak.
United development 2021
Kingdom: 3.7% development 2020
Digitalisation Another key player in international Geneva is the World Intel-
lectual Property Organisation (WIPO), which discusses the re-
lationship between international intellectual property protec-
tion and digital technologies (especially artificial intelligence).
From the perspective of the World Health Organisation (WHO),
possibilities for digitalisation in the health sector could play a
The importance of Geneva as a central location for discussions critical role on the way to achieving Goal 3 of Agenda 2030 for
Geneva as a location
on the digital policy is often overlooked. However, the topic is Sustainable Development (ensuring a healthy life for all people
for digital issues
present on the agenda of all organisations based here. of all ages). Digitalisation also has an important impact on the
future of work, which falls within the mandate of in the Inter-
The development of common rules for e-commerce, which national Labour Organisation (ILO).
is reflected in the WTO plurilateral initiative supported by 86
countries, represents a project of major importance to econo- Moreover, a network of non-governmental organisations with
Non-governmental organisations
mic and trade policy (map 28). a focus on digital issues is progressively developing in interna-
tional Geneva, such as Geneva Internet Platform, ICANN, or the
Geneva is also home to several UN organisations, where tech- Internet Society.
nical and political aspects of digital technologies are discussed. The private sector, is less represented (except for US corporati-
and private sector
The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has three ons such as Microsoft or Facebook). Still, experts from the private
main areas of responsibility: managing the global radio spec- sector regularly participate in working groups of standardisa-
trum, connecting the global population to communication tion organisations located in Geneva such as the International
networks, and developing ICT standards. The highly active pre- Organisation for Standardisation (ISO), the International Tele-
sence of actors from China in the ITU, both in the management, communication Union (ITU) and the International Electrotech-
as the organisation is led by Houlin Zhao since 2015, as well as nical Commission (IEC). Worth noting is the fact that Facebook
in the technical working groups, is worth noting. Recently, sta- has chosen Geneva as the headquarters of its project for deve-
Standardisation
keholders from China have been leading a campaign to develop loping global digital payment system. The Libra Association was
standards for new digital technologies (for example on facial founded in Geneva in 2019 and has now been renamed as the
recognition or internet protocols, the so-called «new IP»), which Diem Association.
could have an important impact not only on European compa-
nies, but also on broader human rights. The importance of modern digital infrastructure becomes espe-
Digital divide
cially visible during the pandemic. However, ITU data demon-
Germany is one of 48 countries represented on the ITU gover- strates, that there continues to be a major digital divide across
ning body – the ITU Council (map 36), and one of the largest the world (see dashboard 40/41). This is interesting to com-
donors for the ITU budget after Japan and the US. EU Member pare with the Global Innovation Index published by the World
States finance approx. 27% of ITU’s budget. Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) together with INSEAD
and Cornell, which shows the level of investments in innovative
technologies worldwide (map 38).ITU Council from 2019 to 2022 The Council is the governing body of the ITU. It is composed of 48
member states, who are elected every 4 years at the ITU Plenipo-
COMPOSITION tentiary Conference. The 14 largest financial contributors to the
ITU budget are also indicated on the map (the bars show the level
of contribution measured in units).
36 Digitalisation
North Asia
5 Eastern
Europe/
8 Western Europe
9 Americas
Bahamas Bahamas
Kuwait Kuwait
El Salvador El Salvador
13 Africa
30
from Asia and Australasia
China
13 member states
15
Houlin Zhao from China is the
Secretary-General of the ITU
since 2015.
5
1 unit = CHF 318'000Global Innovation Index. The Global Innovation Index illustrates the level of investment in
innovative technologies in various states and assigns a value from
Who will finance innovation? 0 to 100 (lowest to highest possible level of investment). The
COVID-19 pandemic harbours the risk of further widening the
digital divide.
38 Digitalisation
90 – 100
80 – 90
70 – 80
Luxembourg Luxembourg
60 – 70
Malta Malta
Cyprus Cyprus
Cabo Cabo
Verde Kuwait Kuwait Hong Kong Hong Kong
Verde Qatar
Jamaica Qatar
Jamaica Bahrain
Trinidad & Tobago Bahrain
Trinidad & Tobago Lebanon
Lebanon
50 – 60
El Salvador El Salvador
Israel Israel Singapore
Singapore
Brunei Darussalam Brunei Darussalam
am
40 – 50
Mauritius Mauritius
0 – 30 30 – 40
available
No dataPercentage of individuals Percentage of households with internet access
who use the internet in urban and rural areas
2019
69% of young people 37% 25%
World 51% of the total population Countryside Countryside
48% of women
55% of men 72% 63%
World City World City
51% of the global access to access to
internet computers
population
uses the internet.
40%
Africa 29%
20%
37%
Arab 67%
States 55% In Africa
47%
61% only 28% of urban house-
70% holds and 6% of rural
Asia and households are connected
Pacific 45%
41% to global digital networks.
48%
84%
CIS
73% 38% 6%
72%
74% Countryside Countryside
Europe
94% 74% 28%
83% City City
80% Arab Africa
85% States
90%
North- and
South America 77%
77%
76%
36% 66%
Countryside Countryside
70% 81%
City City
98% Asia and CIS
Industrial
Pacific
countries 87%
86%
88%
Developing 66%
countries 44%
40% 78% 50%
49% Countryside Countryside
The least 38%
developed 19% 88% 74%
countries 15% City City
28% Europe Americas
40%
Landlocked
developing 27%
countries 21%
33%
67%
Small Island
52%
Developing
53%
States 52%
CIS - Commonwealth of Independent States
Human Rights Rights Council in 2019, in which China and the EU states usu-
ally voted differently, shows which countries were more in line
with the Western understanding or that of Beijing (maps 48 and
50). A comparison of the voting behaviour of Council members
with that of Germany, which was elected to the body for 2020
until 2022, paints a similar picture (maps 52 and 54).
Geneva is one of the most important locations worldwide in the An exemplary selection of individual votes enables an even
Human rights
area of human rights. In addition to the headquarters of the clearer view: which countries voted against the appointment or
and Geneva
Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), extension of independent commissions for examining human
the UN Human Rights Council as an intergovernmental body is rights violations in Yemen and Venezuela (maps 60 and 62)?
the main focus of attention. Which levelled criticism against the human rights situation in
Individual votes
Its 47 members are directly elected by the UN General Belarus in the context of the presidential election 2020 (map
Assembly for a period of 3 years with the objective of ensuring 64)? Despite the range of resolutions, some individual states,
the worldwide protection, promotion, and advancement of above all Saudi Arabia, Egypt, or China were able to successfully
human rights. The regional principle underpinning the UN is resist public criticism. Hence, the situation in Hong Kong and the
decisive for its composition. The Council consists of 13 states situation of the Uyghur people in Xinjiang have so far only been
from Africa and Asia Pacific in each case, 8 from Latin America addressed by statements signed by various countries as oppo-
and the Caribbean, 6 from Eastern Europe and 7 from Western sed to resolutions (map 66).
UN Human Rights Council
Europe and other states. The regional groups are crucial when In the wake of the pandemic, we have witnessed increa-
it comes to nominating their candidates, but often do not allow sed attacks on human rights, for example through the misuse of
Composition of
for a selection. Accordingly, states with a dubious human rights emergency powers or the intimidation of people who sought to
record are also members of the Council. What has been the com- cooperate with the UN in the field of human rights (map 68). The
position of the Human Rights Council in 2020 and 2021? Which UN Special Rapporteurs, also referred to as the «eyes and ears»
central challenge
states were able to win a seat, and which were denied the neces- of the Human Rights Council, were outdoing each other when
COVID-19 as a
sary majority (maps 44 and 46)? With the return of the US to the it came to issuing warnings and recommendations. UN High
Human Rights Council, in 2021, all permanent members of the Commissioner Michelle Bachelet compared the pandemic with a
UN Security Council will be represented again for the first time heat-seeking device that exposes, and is fuelled by, systemic fai-
after a long absence. For October 2021, the US also announced lures to uphold human rights. Accordingly, human rights based
their decision to run for full membership in the Council again. approaches are crucial for the end of and subsequent recovery
The withdrawal of the US in 2018 had left a vacuum from the pandemic.
in recent years, making the Human Rights Council the setting
for a tug of war over the future direction of international hu-
man rights law. Autocratic states in particular have thrown
their weight around far more often than was the case even a
developments
few years ago. This is reflected, among other things, in China’s
Trends and
persistent attempts to reinterpret human rights and under-
mine existing standards, for instance through the successful
introduction of resolutions on «mutually beneficial coopera-
tion» in the fields of human rights (maps 56 and 58). A look at
the voting behaviour on contentious resolutions in the HumanUN Human Rights Council 2020 In October 2019, the UN General Assembly elected 14 new members
from 5 regional groups for 3 years to the 47-member strong UN
COMPOSITION Human Rights Council. One of a few controversial issues is the inclu-
sion of Venezuela, with China, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Cuba having
withdrawn. The Netherlands and Germany have been included.
44 Human Rights
pean and other States
Number
uro
of votes
rn E
ste
We
of
up
Non-elected
165
o
Gr n S ta t e s
u ropea
rn E
of
Ea
ste
candidates
Already
a member
p
ou
Gr
were Iraq, the Republic of Moldova
and Costa Rica. There was no com-
petition among candidates foreseen
in the Group of African States and
the Group of Western European and
other States, a so-called «clean slate».
and other Sta
ean te
rop s
Eu
r n
te
es
W
of
p
ou
Gr
172 172
Newly elected 174 124 174 124
members of the 5 regional groups: 103 103
– Namibia, Sudan, Mauretania, Libya 144 144
– Indonesia, South Korea, Marshall Islands
121 165 165
165
121 165
165 – Armenia, Poland
Gr Bahamas 168
– Venezuela Bahamas ou
p 168
of Qatar Qatar
– Germany, Netherlands La
ti 172
172
175
Bahrain Bahrain
n
175
Re-elected
Am
Marshall Islands
1
Marshall Islands
er
Marshall Islands 1 123 123
105
ica
96 105 96
123
na
n
174
Venezuela
dC
G 174
Rwanda Rwanda ro
ari
up
of
bbean States
153 As
faced competition from Costa 153 ia-
Pac Fiji Fiji
Fiji i fi c S
Rica approx. 1 month prior to tates
the election, which announced 175
175
Withdrawn New
ou
G
r
p
its candidacy as a direct challenge of
Af
ric
(against Venezuela), but nar- an S
tates
rowly failed to win a seat.
Gr
ou
of
es
p
W
es at
ter St
n Eu er
oth
rop ean and
elected
NotUN Human Rights Council 2021 In October 2020, 15 new members were elected to the UN Human
Rights Council for a period of 3 years. Only the Asia Pacific regio-
COMPOSITION nal group had a selection: China obtained the lowest ever level of
support and Saudi Arabia did not make it into the Council. However,
Russia and Cuba are represented again.
46 Human Rights
uro pean and other States
Number
rn E
of votes
ste
We
of
up
China
165
o
Gr
n E u r o p e a n S ta t e
fE aster s
po
ou
Gr obtained 41 less votes than
Already
a member
was even the case in 2016,
the fewest since the Council's
Newly elected founding as well as the fewest
among the newly elected
members of the 5 regional groups: members for 2021.
– Senegal, Côte d'Ivoire, Malawi, Gabon
– Uzbekistan, China
and other State
– Ukraine, Russian Federation rop
ean s
Eu
– Mexico, Bolivia, Cuba er
n
t
– France, United Kingdom es
W
of
p
ou
Gr
158 158
165 165
166 166
167 167
169 169
139
1 1
139
Gr Bahamas 169 150
Re-elected
Bahamas ou 169 150
p 90
175 of 90
175 La Qatar
170 ti Qatar
170 Bahrain
Bahrain
n
188 188
Am
Marshall Islands Marshall Islands
er
Marshall Islands
ica
182 182
na
n
176
dC
176 G
ro
ari
up
180 of
bbean States
180 As
ia- Fiji Fiji
Pac
Fiji i fi c S
172 tates
172
Gr
up
o
of
Af
ric
New
an
States
Saudi Arabia
Withdrawn
did not make it into the Council
with only 90 votes in the Asia
Gr
ou
Pacific regional group. of
es
p
W
es at
ter St
n Eu er
oth
rop ean and
elected
NotVoting Behaviour in line with China In 2019, 82 resolutions were adopted, 35 of which by vote.
Especially Cuba, the Philippines, Eritrea and Egypt voted in line
UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL 2019 with China; whereas the EU countries (except Hungary), Australia,
Iceland and Ukraine never did so. A few African countries often
did not vote for either of these positions.
48 Human Rights
90 – 100%
Hungary
is the only EU country to vote
80 – 90%
in line with China when there
is broad consensus among
EU countries on controversial Voting Against
decisions.
China
60 – 80%
are the EU countries
(except Hungary), Australia,
Iceland and Ukraine
45 – 60%
30 – 45%
Bahamas Bahamas
Qatar
Qatar
Bahrain Bahrain
1 – 15% 15 – 30%
Rwanda Rwanda
Fiji Fiji
Fiji
Voting in line
with China
are mainly Cuba,
the Philippines,
Eritrea and Egypt.
0%Voting Behaviour in line with the EU In 2019, 82 resolutions were adopted, 35 of which by vote. Besides
the EU Member States, especially Australia, Iceland, Ukraine, Japan,
UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL 2019 and a few Latin American countries voted in line with the EU. China
and Cameroon never did so. A few African countries often did not
vote for either of these positions.
50 Human Rights
90 – 100%
Voting in line with the EU
are most often Australia, Iceland,
Ukraine and Japan.
80 – 90%
60 – 80%
45 – 60%
30 – 45%
Bahamas Bahamas
Qatar Qatar
Bahrain Bahrain
15 – 30%
Rwanda Rwanda
Fiji Fiji
Fiji
Voting against the EU
are China and Cameroon if the
EU has a joint position.
1 – 15%
0%Voting Behaviour in line In 2020, 97 resolutions were adopted, 31 of which by vote. 19 of
which were accepted in favor of Germany. The EU states, Japan and
with Germany UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL 2020 South Korea most frequently voted in line with Germany; and
Venezuela and Cameroon the least frequently. A few African count-
ries often abstained from voting.
52 Human Rights
90 – 100%
Voting in line with Germany
most frequently are the EU states, Japan,
South Korea, Australia and Ukraine.
80 – 90%
60 – 80%
45 – 60%
30 – 45%
Bahamas Bahamas
Qatar Qatar
Bahrain Bahrain
Marshall Islands Marshall Islands
Marshall Islands
Fiji Fiji
Fiji
15 – 30%
1 – 15%
Voting Behaviour Against In 2020, 97 resolutions were adopted, 31 of which by vote. In 12
cases, Germany was outvoted. Venezuela, Eritrea, the Philippines
Germany UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL 2020 and Pakistan voted against Germany particularly often; the EU
countries, Ukraine, Japan, and South Korea never did so, and
Australia, Brazil, and Mexico only rarely.
54 Human Rights
> 60%
40 – 60%
The EU Members
30 – 40%
never voted against
the German position.
20 – 30%
Bahamas Bahamas
Qatar Qatar
10 – 20%
Bahrain Bahrain
Marshall Islands Marshall Islands
Marshall Islands
1 – 10%
Voting Against Fiji Fiji
Fiji
Germany
Venezuela in
most cases.
0%Resolution of China on the At the 37th Council China tabled its own resolution on «mutually
beneficial cooperation». It seeks to promote human rights through
Role of Human Rights VOTE 2018 voluntary exchange between states in lieu of through accountabi-
lity for human rights violations. Observers view this as an attempt
to undermine existing standards.
56 Human Rights
Supporting
Rejection
Qatar Qatar
Abstention
Rwanda Rwanda
Burundi Burundi
28 yes-votes
participation
1 no-vote (US)
17 abstentions
No
member
Not aResolution of China on the Role At the 43rd session of the Human Rights Council, China once again
introduced their own resolution on «mutually beneficial coopera-
of Human Rights VOTE 2020 tion». Observers see this as the next step towards further under-
mining existing human rights standards. Yet unlike in 2018, a
number of states expressed opposition to the resolution in 2020.
58 Human Rights
Supporting
Bahamas Bahamas
Qatar Qatar
Bahrain Bahrain
Marshall Islands Marshall Islands
Marshall Islands
Rejection
Fiji Fiji
Fiji
23 yes-votes
Abstention
16 no-votes (Including from all EU
Member States)
8 abstentions
member
Not aGroup of Eminent Experts Although the Group of Eminent Experts on Yemen was unanimously
agreed in 2017, its mandate extension has been subject to contro-
on Yemen VOTE 2019 versy ever since. It has shown that all parties committed violations
of international human rights law and international humanitarian
law and recommended to refer the situation to the International
60 Human Rights Criminal Court.
Supporting
In Yemen
a Group of Eminent Experts (GEE) has been investiga-
ting incidents since the outbreak of war in September
2014. For years, the country has been deemed to be
the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. 24 million peo-
ple, approx. 80% the population, are dependent on
life-saving aid, not least because the warring parties,
in addition to bombing civilian infrastructure, also
are using starvation as a weapon of war.
Bahamas Bahamas
Qatar Qatar
Rejection
Bahrain Bahrain
Rwanda Rwanda
Abstention
22 yes-votes Fiji Fiji
Fiji
12 no-votes
11 abstentions
participation
No
member
Not aIndependent International Fact- At the 42nd session in 2019, an independent international Fact-
Finding Mission (FFM) was established for investigating serious
Finding Mission on Venezuela VOTE 2019 human rights violations in Venezuela since 2014. In its first report
dated September 2020, the FFM already shed light on crimes
against humanity.
62 Human Rights
Supporting
For Venezuela
a Fact Finding Mission (FFM) was set up,
which has provided evidence of far-reaching,
systematic crimes against humanity. Accor-
ding to the FFM, these were coordinated
at the highest political levels. President
Maduro, too, was involved «either directly
or via the chain of command».
Rejection
Bahamas Bahamas
Qatar Qatar
Bahrain Bahrain
Rwanda Rwanda
Fiji Fiji
Fiji
19 yes-votes
7 no-votes
21 abstentions
Abstention
member
Not aHuman Rights Situation in Belarus Following an urgent debate at the 45th session, including oppo-
sition leader Tsikhanouskaya, Germany on behalf of the EU
Following Presidential Elections VOTE 2020 introduced a resolution on the human rights situation in Belarus
in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election and in its aftermath.
64 Human Rights
Supporting
23 yes-votes
2 no-votes
22 abstentions
17 proposed
amendments
are introduced by
Russia, all of which are
rejected.
Rejection
Bahamas Bahamas
Qatar Qatar
Bahrain Bahrain
Marshall Islands Marshall Islands
Marshall Islands
Fiji Fiji
Fiji
Abstention
member
Not aChina’s Policy in Xinjiang In 2020, the United Kingdom levelled criticism on behalf of 27 addi-
tional states against China’s approach in Xinjiang and Hong Kong at
and Hong Kong CRITICS AND SUPPORTERS the 44th Council. At the same time, Cuba launched a statement on
behalf of 53 states in support of China in Hong Kong. On 1 July, Bela-
rus supported China’s approach in Xinjiang on behalf of 46 states.
66 Human Rights
28 critics
Luxembourg Luxembourg
Liechtenstein Liechtenstein
Antigua & Barbuda Antigua & Barbuda
Dominica Dominica
Kuwait Kuwait
Belize
Belize
Bahrain Bahrain
Lebanon Palau
Marshall Islands Marshall Islands
Lebanon Palau
Marshall Islands
Palau
Palestinian Palestinian
territories territories
42 supporters Solomon
Comoros Comoros Solomon
Solomon of China’s approach in Islands Islands
Islands
Hong Kong and Xinjiang
China's approach
57 supporters of
53 supporters of 46 supporters of China’s
China’s approach in approach in Xinjiang
Hong KongYou can also read
