Human Rights up Front

An Overview

“Human Rights up Front offers us a once-in-a-generation opportunity to help

ensure the United Nations meets the aspirations of the Charter.”
Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary-General

I. ORIGIN AND OBJECTIVES

The Secretary-General’s 2012 Internal Review Panel (IRP)1 on UN action at the end of the war in Sri
Lanka concluded there had been a “systemic failure” in meeting UN responsibilities to prevent and
respond to serious violations of human rights and humanitarian law and to protect people at risk.

The Secretary-General called for action to address The IRP report found that
the lessons of the past, and to ensure the UN fully The UN system as a whole:
meets its prevention responsibilities in all countries.  did not react effectively to early warning;
This led to the development of the Human Rights  lacked a shared understanding of the
up Front (HRuF) Action Plan2. HRuF seeks three situation and a common sense of UN
types of change: responsibilities;
 did not engage with national authorities
 A cultural change through which HRuF: asks and Member States in a way that built
all staff to recognize human rights and political support necessary for prevention;
protection of civilians as a core responsibility;  did not act in accordance with the
principles and mandates defined in the
asks staff to be principled and act with moral Charter and Member State resolutions.
courage; ensures UNHQ backing for those who  UNHQ saw duplication and gaps,
do; and, demands greater accountability for UN inadequate coordination and insufficient
action. support to the field.

 An operational change, in the field and at Headquarters, through which HRuF: requires the
UN System to stay attuned to human rights violations that can signal worse to come; supports
better early warning, shared analysis, and strategies; and ensures better coordination and better
adapted capacity to respond.

 A change to UN political engagement, through which HRuF: encourages more proactive

engagement with Member States to generate political support for early and preventive action.

HRuF is led by the Secretary-General, and its implementation is overseen by the Deputy Secretary-
General. HRuF directly concerns the UN’s human rights, development, humanitarian and political
work, in all countries. All UN entities and staff (in HQ and the field) have a role in implementing it.

1 Web link: The Internal Review Panel report on Sri Lanka

2 Web link: Human Rights up Front Action Plan
1
In November 2013, the Secretary-General “It is irrefutable that serious human rights violations are
issued a statement3 to all UN staff renewing, the best early warning of impending atrocities.[…] If we
on behalf of all staff, the Organization’s fail to act early, then the human, political and economic
commitment to uphold the responsibilities costs are significantly greater. This calls for a more
assigned by the Charter and Member States flexible and better coordinated UN System, both on the
whenever there is a threat of serious and ground and at Headquarters. This is what the Rights up
large scale violations of human rights or Front initiative aims to accomplish.”
humanitarian law. Jan Eliasson, Deputy UN Secretary-General

In April 2015, the Secretary-General wrote to the Principals of every entity in the UN System
reissuing his statement and stating that HRuF offers a once-in-a-generation opportunity to help
ensure that the UN meets the aspirations of the Charter, and asking for their full support in taking
steps to internalize and implement it within their respective entities.

II. HRUF IN PRACTICE

HRuF applies in all places, to different extents depending on a situation’s complexity. HRuF is light,
concise, and does not add layers to UN action. It enables the UN to better meet its responsibilities.

Country situation: All situations Evolving Complex

Response mechanism: Country level Regional Quarterly Review Senior Action Group
together with country level together with country level

1. Country level response

The senior UN official – the Special Representative of the Secretary-General (SRSG) in missions, or
the Resident Coordinator (RC) in other settings4 (or UNHQ if no country presence) - has lead
country level responsibility for implementing HRuF and will be held accountable through existing
performance assessment tools for fulfilling this responsibility.

 Common country-level analysis: In every country, the UN should use periodic analysis of risk
factors to stay attuned to the human rights situation and the risk of serious violations. UN peace
operations usually have analysis tools, while UNCTs may need to supplement existing practice,
supported by OHCHR’s country analysis5 and the HRBA analysis tool.
 Adjust programming and advocacy: Where analysis identifies concerns, the UN presence, led
by RCs (or RC/HCs) or SRSGs, should address them through discussions among UNCT
members and mission components, and changes to advocacy, activities, and programming (e.g.
UNDAFs, Strategic Response Plans, protection of civilians strategies or Integrated Strategic
Frameworks). Concerns should be raised with national authorities and other relevant parties, and
decisions made on which UN entity will deliver messages (informed by political sensitivities,
mandates and security), and on consistency between UN entities.

3
Web link: SG commitment letter to all staff
4
See Annex-1 for guidance to senior officials
5 The HRuF Action Plan calls on OHCHR to regularly share with all UNCTs a summary analysis of principal human

rights concerns and risks of serious violations.

2
 Development of country-level strategy: When risks require a different UN response (beyond
edits to existing programming), then HRuF calls for the UN presence to develop a brief strategy:
missions can fine-tune existing strategies or take additional measures; in non-mission settings,
the RC should lead development of a strategy with the UNCT. The strategy should not duplicate
existing strategies, such as human rights mainstreaming or protection of civilians strategies.
Instead it should: reflect an understanding of the overall country situation; identify human rights
concerns affecting the UN’s core goals; identify priorities; and align the UN’s various entities
accordingly.

2. Regional Quarterly Review

The Regional Quarterly Review (RQR) is a mechanism through which representatives of UN system
regional divisions at UNHQ scan all countries in their region every three months for early warning
signs (developmental, political, humanitarian, or explicitly human rights) and then discuss in more
detail those situations that are “evolving” and can presage the risk of serious violations and crisis.
Where there is a UN country presence, the senior UN official is consulted by the RQR co-chairs
(DPA and Regional UNDG) on the situation. The focus of the RQR is primarily on UNCT only
presences; although mission settings may also benefit from a review if this does not duplicate other
processes, such as ITFs. The RQRs are used by both UNHQ and country level senior leaders for:
early warning; to ensure UN system-wide analysis of a changing situation; to align and coordinate
UNHQ entities with each other and with the field; to support RCs or SRSGs by bringing a situation
that, due to its complexity (e.g. regional, political, security or other) requires the attention of the
whole of UNHQ; to identify operational support needs in the field; to solicit advocacy support from
the most senior UNHQ officials.

3. Senior Action Group

For the most serious, urgent or complex situations, the Deputy Secretary-General convenes the
Senior Action Group (SAG) – comprised of the Principals of UN entities. SRSGs and RCs are
consulted via their reporting lines. The SAG decides on common analysis, priorities and strategy.
The SAG outcomes help reposition the UN - analytically, politically and operationally to address a
situation. Both country and UNHQ leadership have found SAGs extremely useful in rapidly aligning
the whole UN System around a clear strategy in fast changing and deteriorating situations. SAGs
have: helped resolve internal differences of analysis and potentially competing objectives within the
UN System; led to changed messaging and fast
engagement by the Secretary-General with the “I want UN staff to know that when they stick their
Security Council in support of an RC; led to re- necks out; when they give those early warning signals;
tasking of field presences; ensured more direct when they show courage; they should always be recognized,
even rewarded, and we will back them up fully. This is an
responsibility of UN Principals for UN action. assurance that the Secretary-General and I give.”
Support to implement HRuF Jan Eliasson, Deputy Secretary-General

In brief, the first step to implement HRuF is to analyse and understand a given situation. Depending
on the outcome of the analysis, UN staff can then apply HRuF at the country level only, or through
the RQR or the SAG. There is simple guidance for analysis, strategy and the outcomes of RQR and
SAG meetings. Existing tools also support HRuF implementation in the field. For instance, fast
access to the Secretary-General’s advocacy; temporary or longer-term deployments of Peace and
Development Advisers, Human Rights Advisers, Protection Officers, and experts in mediation and
conflict prevention (see Annex-2 and Annex-3 for more information on support available).

3
III. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT HRUF

How is HRuF different from human rights mainstreaming? HRuF is not a human rights mainstreaming
tool or a human rights mechanism. Instead, HRuF is a tool to bring the UN system together around a
common understanding of risks and UN responsibilities, and a strategy for action.
Where and when does HRuF apply? HRuF is an approach that the UN should apply in all countries and
contexts. Its initial focus is on prevention, long before serious violations occur. And if situations deteriorate,
it provides a guide and a standard for UN action.
How can the HRuF approach be used in traditional development settings? Certain human rights
violations – including economic, social and cultural rights – can be a clear indicator of a wider pattern of
serious violations. Marginalization and exclusion are often the first warning signs of worse to come. By
staying attuned to these issues in all settings, a UNCT can identify concerns at an earlier stage and use HRuF
to get early support from the wider UN system to address the situation effectively.
How can HRuF help the UN be better coordinated and operate as One UN? Through HRuF, an RC
or SRSG can quickly seek coordinated support from UNHQ toward common analysis and decisions to build
greater political support and operational capacity. HRuF ensures that UN field presences can share the
responsibility for action with UNHQ, and that UNHQ is ultimately accountable in the most complex
situations. It also ensures each UN entity implements its mandate with an awareness of, and support for, the
overall actions needed to address serious violations. By activating the entire system in a coordinated manner,
HRuF positions the UN to respond early and more effectively.
Will staff be backed when taking a principled stance? Through a combination of reframing UN
understanding of its responsibilities, common analysis of situations, and accountability of staff at all levels,
HRuF is creating an environment in which staff are encouraged and supported to take positions that are
consistent with the UN Charter and human rights and protection responsibilities. The Secretary-General, the
Deputy Secretary-General and other UN Principals have underlined that they will back UN staff who take
principled actions, whether in the most serious situations or in much earlier work for prevention.
How does HRuF impact the UN’s engagement with national actors? HRuF requires the UN to raise
concerns on which the Organization cannot remain silent. However, the end goal is to strengthen
engagement and consultation with national actors and to support them in addressing these concerns. HRuF
helps the UN to effectively manage action on politically sensitive issues, while ensuring that the issues are not
dropped and that the UN continues to support State actors.
How is HRuF addressing the issue of staff security? In keeping with findings of the IRP (see
recommendations F and C6, as well as p. 48-53), HRuF requires that the safety and security context affecting
staff in the field be fully understood, in the light of the situation and UN responsibilities. It calls for steps to
ensure the protection of national and international staff, while still ensuring an effective UN response,
including through the Programme Criticality Framework6.

Next steps: The Secretary-General has asked all “The success of Human Rights up Front
Principals to translate HRuF into action for their staff at HQ will depend on all staff members making its
and country levels. As of 2015, all senior UN officials will be objectives their own. They should apply the
assessed through their annual performance appraisal system initiative in a spirit that goes beyond the
on their HRuF responsibilities. All UNCT, UN mission or interests of their individual units and
UN department, agency, fund or programme should start departments, to embrace the interests of the
applying the HRuF approach to their work and can request a United Nations as a whole.”
discussion with the HRuF team in the Executive Office of
the Secretary-General ([email protected]). Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary-General

6 Web link: Programme Criticality Framework

4