For many around the world, the UN’s role in protecting and preserving human rights is one of the most significant and valuable things it does. Others view the UN’s work in this area with suspicion or downright hostility and are determined to limit or distract it as much as possible. Despite the rhetoric, however, the net impact of the UN on human rights has been largely determined by the relatively limited financial resources member states have allocated over the years to the primary UN human rights institutions for guiding and supporting it and building a sustained capacity.
Even with shifting political priorities, the United States has generally made human rights an important pillar of its foreign policy. In so doing, Washington has often turned to multilateral human rights institutions, notably those at the UN. A multilateral approach can add legitimacy and credibility to U.S. concerns and multiply pressure on abusers through broad-based condemnation or even sanctions. The United States favored the inclusion of general human rights language in the UN Charter but opposed more specific language creating enforceable legal obligations. Likewise, the United States pressed for the adoption of the UDHR but saw it only as a statement of aspirations.
How the UN was meant to protect and advance human rights was not initially defined or even considered when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948. Over the years, however, the UN has organically developed a comprehensive framework of international human rights treaties, institutions, and mechanisms to promote and protect human rights. The organizations and institutions that emerged to carry out that work were slowly and cautiously developed, with carefully constrained capabilities and resources.
Although human rights are one of the three pillars of the United Nations, as stated in the Charter, the pillar accounts for only a little under 5% of the UN’s assessed, regular budget. As of November 30, 2023, UN Human Rights received $251.2 million in voluntary funding from 84 donors, mostly nations but also private firms and civil society organizations. While the donor base has grown in recent years, the top six funders, including the European Commission, the U.S., and several European nations provided 60% of the budget outlays. Twenty-two non-state donors in 2023, comprising other UN and multilateral institutions, private firms, philanthropy, subnational governments, and faith-based organizations, demonstrated a diverse base while accounting for a little under 10% of total funding.
The primary organization in the UN system for highlighting human rights failures and advancing a shared agenda of standards and benchmarks has been the Human Rights Council, working in collaboration with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). The Human Rights Council is fully funded by the regular budget of the UN. The OHCHR, with an overall budget of $144.3 million for 2023, by contrast, counts on the UN regular budget for only a third of its overall spending, relying on voluntary contributions for the rest. A large proportion of those voluntary contributions are earmarked by donors, reaching a high of 63% in 2021. Moreover, much of the voluntary funding arrives on donors’ timetables rather than when and how OHCHR may need it. Combined with late promised payments, the net result is an inability to plan and some degree of distortion of priorities toward the goals of donors.
Despite being a regular champion of human rights, unexpected and at times seemingly arbitrary funding practices by the U.S. have contributed to the confusion and given some other states permission to follow suit. Most notably, of course, was the 2017 decision by the Trump administration to withdraw from the Human Rights Council, due in large part to perceived bias against Israel. This move did not affect the HRC budget or the U.S. share as it is drawn from assessed contributions on all UN member states, not just those on the HRC. Futile Congressional attempts to condition U.S. funding to multilateral human rights instruments were, instead, expressed during the Trump Administration by withholding a small portion of U.S. funding to the UN in protest. Since 2021, the Biden administration has sought to make up the difference, but Congress has been reluctant to fully offset the arrears.
What is Needed
United Nations member countries need to overhaul the budgetary approval process for UN human rights work. The current system, overseen by the General Assembly’s Fifth Committee, is overly politicized and leads to excessive reliance on voluntary – often earmarked – contributions. The system also unnecessarily leaves UN human rights mechanisms – teams of independent experts established to investigate serious international crimes – vulnerable to attempts by hostile governments to curtail their resources or defund them. The United States can lead the way by matching the current political support it accords to the UN human rights mechanisms with a credible commitment to pay its assessed budget obligations on time and in full.
Funding the Third Pillar: Financing Human Rights at the UN
By Andrew Hyde
Diplomacy & Dialogue
For many around the world, the UN’s role in protecting and preserving human rights is one of the most significant and valuable things it does. Others view the UN’s work in this area with suspicion or downright hostility and are determined to limit or distract it as much as possible. Despite the rhetoric, however, the net impact of the UN on human rights has been largely determined by the relatively limited financial resources member states have allocated over the years to the primary UN human rights institutions for guiding and supporting it and building a sustained capacity.
Even with shifting political priorities, the United States has generally made human rights an important pillar of its foreign policy. In so doing, Washington has often turned to multilateral human rights institutions, notably those at the UN. A multilateral approach can add legitimacy and credibility to U.S. concerns and multiply pressure on abusers through broad-based condemnation or even sanctions. The United States favored the inclusion of general human rights language in the UN Charter but opposed more specific language creating enforceable legal obligations. Likewise, the United States pressed for the adoption of the UDHR but saw it only as a statement of aspirations.
How the UN was meant to protect and advance human rights was not initially defined or even considered when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948. Over the years, however, the UN has organically developed a comprehensive framework of international human rights treaties, institutions, and mechanisms to promote and protect human rights. The organizations and institutions that emerged to carry out that work were slowly and cautiously developed, with carefully constrained capabilities and resources.
Although human rights are one of the three pillars of the United Nations, as stated in the Charter, the pillar accounts for only a little under 5% of the UN’s assessed, regular budget. As of November 30, 2023, UN Human Rights received $251.2 million in voluntary funding from 84 donors, mostly nations but also private firms and civil society organizations. While the donor base has grown in recent years, the top six funders, including the European Commission, the U.S., and several European nations provided 60% of the budget outlays. Twenty-two non-state donors in 2023, comprising other UN and multilateral institutions, private firms, philanthropy, subnational governments, and faith-based organizations, demonstrated a diverse base while accounting for a little under 10% of total funding.
The primary organization in the UN system for highlighting human rights failures and advancing a shared agenda of standards and benchmarks has been the Human Rights Council, working in collaboration with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). The Human Rights Council is fully funded by the regular budget of the UN. The OHCHR, with an overall budget of $144.3 million for 2023, by contrast, counts on the UN regular budget for only a third of its overall spending, relying on voluntary contributions for the rest. A large proportion of those voluntary contributions are earmarked by donors, reaching a high of 63% in 2021. Moreover, much of the voluntary funding arrives on donors’ timetables rather than when and how OHCHR may need it. Combined with late promised payments, the net result is an inability to plan and some degree of distortion of priorities toward the goals of donors.
Despite being a regular champion of human rights, unexpected and at times seemingly arbitrary funding practices by the U.S. have contributed to the confusion and given some other states permission to follow suit. Most notably, of course, was the 2017 decision by the Trump administration to withdraw from the Human Rights Council, due in large part to perceived bias against Israel. This move did not affect the HRC budget or the U.S. share as it is drawn from assessed contributions on all UN member states, not just those on the HRC. Futile Congressional attempts to condition U.S. funding to multilateral human rights instruments were, instead, expressed during the Trump Administration by withholding a small portion of U.S. funding to the UN in protest. Since 2021, the Biden administration has sought to make up the difference, but Congress has been reluctant to fully offset the arrears.
What is Needed
United Nations member countries need to overhaul the budgetary approval process for UN human rights work. The current system, overseen by the General Assembly’s Fifth Committee, is overly politicized and leads to excessive reliance on voluntary – often earmarked – contributions. The system also unnecessarily leaves UN human rights mechanisms – teams of independent experts established to investigate serious international crimes – vulnerable to attempts by hostile governments to curtail their resources or defund them. The United States can lead the way by matching the current political support it accords to the UN human rights mechanisms with a credible commitment to pay its assessed budget obligations on time and in full.
Recent & Related