CYIL vol. 14 (2023)

CYIL 14 (2023) STREAMLINING OR SURVIVAL? OUTCOMES OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS … review reflect the low level of willingness to support efficient functioning of the system. In other words, a number of the UN member states who are deciding on measures that would require additional resources are simply not willing to support the treaty body system. 80 This reflects the bigger picture as human rights are one of the three pillars of the United Nations 81 but at the same time the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights receives less than 4% of the UN regular budget for its activities. 82 This is regrettable given the fact that the treaty body system is the only mechanism in which independent experts monitor states’ compliance with their human rights obligations at the universal level, i.e. for the whole world. There is therefore a great need to make the system much more efficient than it is today. 5. The way forward for the treaty body system The lack of efficiency of the treaty body system has been much discussed over the last two decades at least. As one commentator aptly said, there has been a bit too much talking and too little action. 83 We need to improve the functioning of the system as much as possible, but at the same time it is necessary to be realistic. Any far-reaching measures such as merging all committees into one body are not possible due to the fact that the basic structure of the system is set in the legally binding treaties. These therefore represent a red line for any realistic proposals. Still, a number of functional and more ambitious measures can be implemented under the wording of the current treaties. In this sense, it will be crucial that the High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk, who took office in 2022, sees the treaty bodies as a priority and exerts constant pressure to improve their functioning. 84 5.1 Implementation of pending measures including the predictable calendar and setting a future review as a short-term solution It is not possible to talk about any success of a review process unless the two main functions of the system – reviewing state reports and considering individual communications – are significantly improved. Therefore, introducing the predictable calendar for reviews 85 and streamlining the process of communications are the very first necessary step. As for the reporting calendar, the strategy regarding how to go forward needs to be set when it is calculated how many additional resources would be needed. 86 Based on that, the OHCHR should ask the General Assembly for support, which should be approved from the UN regular budget. If this were not politically feasible, an unwelcome solution might be a combination 80 At the General Assembly there is a tendency to vote based on consensus of all states, which often downgrades the needed language of a resolution. This relates for example to the UNGA Res. 2022 (n 58). 81 These are peace and security, human rights, and development. 82 OHCHR’s Funding and budget, OHCHR accessed 26 February 2023. 83 GIEGLING, J., ‘A Little Less Conversation, a Little More Action Please – State Reporting and the Treaty Body Review 2020’ (2020) Opinio Juris accessed 26 February 2023. 84 See also PLOTON, V., ‘What does civil society want from the new UN rights commissioner?’ (2022) PassBlue accessed 26 February 2023. 85 In this respect, SHANY, Y. and CLEVELAND, S. H., submitted to the Geneva Academy their view on how the predictable schedule should operate, titled ‘Has the time come for adopting a Global Review Calendar?’ 86 Recent calculation predicts the need for increasing meeting time by 23%. See Secretary-General report 2022 (n 7) para. 73.

125