Center for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam)
1
Follow-Up and Review of the
Post-2015 Development Agenda
Introduction
An essential measure of success of the post-2015 development agenda must be
its ability to achieve results working within many different national contexts and
circumstances, not in spite of them. The follow-up and review framework for the
post-2015 development agenda must respect the sovereign prerogative of each
country and its peoples to determine their own path to development in conformity
with their national laws, culture, religion, and other national circumstances.1
The agenda, after all, will be a commitment of the governments of sovereign
States, it will not be a commitment of an undefined and politically unaccountable
“international community.” Only respect for sovereignty will guarantee the
political legitimacy of the actions taken by governments to fulfill the Sustainable
Development Goals, as well as the international framework built to support their
realization.
Therefore, the follow-up and review process for the post-2015 development agenda
must be designed keeping in mind that governments are ultimately accountable
to their own people, not to an undefined and eclectic “international community”
composed of artificial entities, international organizations, non-governmental
organizations, many of which are funded by and accountable to wealthy
governments and philanthropists, as opposed to having natural constituencies.
1. Follow-up and Review
Only a ground-up approach to realizing the Sustainable Development Goals
can guarantee political legitimacy for the post-2015 development agenda, and
ultimately its success.
Voluntary National Presentations
Review of progress on the post-2015 development agenda must be based and
Center for Family and Human Rights
May 12, 2015
C-Fam Analysis
The follow-up and review
framework for the post-
2015 development agenda
must respect the sovereign
prerogative of each country
and its peoples to determine
their own path to development.
2
centered on voluntary national presentations on progress towards achieving the
Sustainable Development Goals during the High Level Political Forum. At all
levels, the follow-up and review must be a state-led process where governments
can draw on the assistance of the international community for technical
capacity building, especially for data collection. It should not be a process
whereby international actors compel, incentivize, or otherwise pressure national
governments and institutions to adopt pre-packaged legal and policy frameworks
that may or may not be applicable in different national situations and contexts
through a peer review mechanism.
The follow-up and review of the post-2015 development agenda should not
become a mechanism used to promote the harmonization of domestic laws and
policies. The review and follow-up should not be used to compel, incentivize,
or pressure countries to change their laws and policies at all. Any such pressure
or undue influence to change national laws can only harm efforts to realize
the Sustainable Development Goals, and erode the political legitimacy of the
international efforts to realize the post-2015 development agenda.
While donor countries may have their reasons to offer incentives together with
their generous assistance, and even encourage certain policies and approaches to
development, they should not seek to build these incentives and policy preferences
for participation in the overall international follow-up and review framework for
the post-2015 development agenda within the United Nations System. The United
Nations system should not be used as a tool to impose certain policy preferences.
The United Nations system can only suffer from such an approach. Any
compulsion, undue influence and pressure will undermine the international
framework to support the realization of the post-2015 agenda, which should be at
the service of sovereign States, and should not try to lord over them.
Peer Review?
The review of national and regional progress towards the realization of the
Sustainable Development Goals must not be an opportunity for powerful
governments, United Nations agencies, and the United Nations system more
broadly, nor special interest groups and well funded non-governmental
organizations, to promote a “one-size fits all” strategy for sustainable development,
or pressure countries into compliance with such policies.2
In this regard, a peer review framework is not helpful. Peer review mechanisms
are prone to politicization and may be manipulated by powerful countries with the
financial means and geo-political influence to drive the agenda of international
organizations and non-governmental organizations. Because of this imbalance,
some countries are able to dictate the agenda and multiply their voices during the
course of the peer review process, such as the Universal Periodic Review at the
Human Rights Council in Geneva. 3
Acrimony and politics are not an option in the context of development. When
we talk about development, we are talking about the livelihoods and very lives of
people. It would be unconscionable to turn development into a zero sum game to
Any compulsion, undue influence
and pressure will undermine
the international framework to
support the realization of the
post-2015 agenda, which should
be at the service of sovereign
States, and should not try to
lord over them.
3
promote any particular development model or ideology.
2. National Follow-up and Review
Politically accountable governments must be the heart of the post-2015
development agenda in order to guarantee the legitimacy of the project. For this to
happen, they must be able to lead the review and appraisal of progress on the post-
2015 development agenda. And the General Assembly where all member states are
equally represented must continue to exercise oversight over the United Nations
system’s work on sustainable development.
National Institutions and Mechanisms
It is essential that the follow-up and review of the commitments of member states
respects the political and sovereign prerogative of member states to design and
implement policies that work for their people as well as the national structures that
are best suited to those goals. As the General Assembly has repeatedly stated, there
is no one-size fits all approach to development.4
Governments have to contend
with different material conditions, in terms of governance structures, human
resources, and financial means, as well as many other particular situations, not
limited but including culture, religion, and tradition.
The Sustainable Development Goals themselves exclusively contain policies to
which governments are prepared to commit themselves. The post-2015 summit
outcome document should not create an entirely new set of policies to which
governments must commit. The goals and targets agreed by the GA Open Working
Group in 2014 have been thoroughly vetted and analyzed by governments. At this
stage in the negotiations it is not prudent to seek to negotiate new policies that are
extraneous to the General Assembly Open Working Group agreement, and that
governments will not have adequate time to discuss.5
Each country must be able to design a national monitoring and follow-up
framework for the post-2015 development agenda according to national capacities
and priorities. The post-2015 summit outcome document must not prescribe
specific national institutions and bodies to monitor and follow-up on the post-
2015 development agenda, since different countries have different capacities and
different governance structures. Each country must develop the institutions best
suited for this task.
International and Regional Capacity Building
Wherever appropriate, international and regional bodies may propose certain
policies, models, and best practices, but it is ultimately governments themselves
that must build institutions, and design and implement programs that will be
effective and accepted politically at the national level. Capacity building must take
into account this principle. Incentives for the creation of specific types of national
governance and accountability frameworks must be limited to the commitments
existing in the Open Working Group agreement, and should not create new
commitments that are extraneous to the Open Working Group document.
Regional efforts to fulfill the Sustainable Development Goals must also take into
It is essential that the follow-up
and review of the commitments
of member states respects
the political and sovereign
prerogative of member states to
design and implement policies
that work for their people as well
as the national structures that
are best suited to those goals.
4
account the principle of sovereignty. Regional international organizations must
define their own role within the post-2015 development agenda according to their
own charters and rules, in order to complement international and domestic efforts
towards the realization of the Sustainable Development Goals.
The assistance of United Nations agencies and bodies at the regional and national
level must be limited to facilitating the review of national policies, and develop
and implement national policies. Such assistance must not be used as a tool
to standardize government institutions, or for harmonizing national policies
according to a single model of development, but must conform to the needs and
priorities of countries, as governments understand them, in order to ensure that
the United Nations is a “neutral, objective and trusted partner.”6
The Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review by the General Assembly should
continue to ensure that all member states are able to exercise oversight on the
United Nations system’s activities in the area of sustainable development in the
post-2015 era.
3. Indicators
Governments should be encouraged to select nationally appropriate and relevant
indicators to monitor their progress on the Sustainable Development Goals. These
indicators may include indicators proposed internationally, if they are found to be
representative and applicable to specific country circumstances. The international
system must in turn provide assistance with technical capacity to select and
measure such relevant indicators through data collection and analysis.
Nationally Relevant Indicators
Member states should not be directed to report on an internationally predetermined
set of indicators. This would limit the Sustainable Development Goals
to a monolithic “one size fits all” project incapable of adaptation at the national
levels and in different contexts. Such indicators would not be responsive to the
different challenges and different emphases of national efforts to realize the
Sustainable Development Goals, and ultimately ineffective to deliver sustainable
development.
International indicators, as proposed by the United Nations Statistical
Commission, in particular, present a challenge to the political viability of the
Sustainable Development Goals at the national level, especially with regards to
social policy involving abortion and homosexuality.7
Some indicators are likely to be applicable to all countries, such as indicators for
target 3.1 on maternal health that measure maternal mortality. Such universally
applicable indicators are based on monitoring concrete outcomes and results. But
other indicators are not likely to be useful or representative for all countries, such
as indicators for target 5.6 on sexual and reproductive health and reproductive
rights or under Goal 10 on inclusive societies, which may include abortion laws,
as well as laws surrounding homosexuality and other sexual mores, which vary
greatly between countries. These indicators do not track concrete measurable
Member states should not
be directed to report on an
internationally pre-determined
set of indicators. This would limit
the Sustainable Development
Goals to a monolithic “one size
fits all” project incapable of
adaptation at the national levels
and in different contexts.
5
outcomes, and are fraught with political implications. They are designed to
monitor what laws and policies countries have in place, or the impact they have on
certain demographics, as measured subjectively.8
Internationally Proposed Indicators
Any internationally proposed indicators must track concrete measurable outcomes
in the lives of people, and not changes in law and policy. If model indicators are to
be selected internationally, the General Assembly’s role as guarantor of consensus
must not be discarded for the sake of reaching agreement more readily in a smaller
body such as the United Nations Statistical Commission.
While indicators are of a technical nature in principle, the selection of indicators
can be a politically charged process, since different indicators may spur different
actions and investments. Therefore, if any international indicators are to bolster
the realization of the post-2015 development agenda they must be agreed in the
context of the General Assembly, which has final oversight over United Nations
development activities, and not by a smaller United Nations body.
4. Human Rights and the Human Rights System
In order for the post-2015 development agenda to further enhance the enjoyment
of human rights for all people all over the world it must not become a forum
where human rights are politicized. For this to happen the definition of human
rights obligations for purpose of the follow-up and review of the post-2015
development agenda must not be delegated to the secretariat, the Office of the
High Commissioner for Human Rights, treaty bodies, special mandate holders, or
any other part of the United Nations system, as suggested by the United Nations
Statistical Commission earlier this year.9
UN Human Rights System Overreach
United Nations human rights entities have too often overstepped their mandates
and have made a mockery of the human rights treaties negotiated within the
United Nation General Assembly by succumbing to extravagant interpretations
of these treaties by powerful interest groups.10 To entrust these entites with an
essential definitional threshold question as to what obligations member states
have under international law would actually undermine the very foundations
of international human rights law, which is based on sovereign obligations
undertaken in binding international instruments that have taken decades to
negotiate.
Moreover, as a matter of international law, the human rights system does not
have the final say on the human rights obligations of member states. Under
international law the final authority to interpret a treaty belongs to state parties
to that treaty, unless it is delegated to a specific body or other dispute resolution
mechanism. Such is not the case with any of the United Nations human rights
treaty bodies or any part of the human rights system. Tying the development
agenda to the human rights system in such a way that will further enhance the
authority of the human rights system to define the human rights obligations of
To back the interpretation of
human rights currently in vogue
in the UN human rights system
with development assistance
could have devastating effects
on countries that value human
life and the family
member states will validate the many abuses of treaty bodies, special procedures,
and other United Nations officials and staff, that assert obligations to legalize
abortion and promote social acceptance of homosexuality even though no United
Nations treaty can be fairly interpreted to include such rights, as well as other
extravagant interpretations of international law.
The Essential and Irreplaceable Role of Sovereign States in Protecting Human Rights
The best means of protecting the human rights of every human being is for
sovereign states to have strong, responsive, and politically legitimate governments.
An essential aspect of this sovereign power is the capacity to contract international
obligations, as well as the power to interpret and to resolve disputes surrounding
the interpretation of treaty obligations. To ascribe this power to a politically
unaccountable human rights system, dependent on the donations of powerful
wealthy governments erodes this essential aspect of sovereignty and can only harm
authentic human rights.11
The Limited Mandate of UN Human Rights Officials, Mandate Holders, and Staff
Any consultation and coordination between the international review on progress
to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals and the human rights system
should take into account and not confuse the distinct and limited competencies
of special mandate holders, treaty bodies, the Office of the High Commissioner
for Human Rights, and other human rights bodies. In addition, and perhaps more
importantly, any consultation and coordination must not perpetuate abuses by the
secretariat, special mandate holders, and treaty bodies.
Treaty bodies in particular, should be recognized as having authority only within
the scope of the treaty mandate they received from the parties to their respective
treaties.12 In this regard, it would not be wise or correct to base the definition of
human rights for purposes of the implementation and review of the post-2015
development agenda on the opinion of treaty bodies.
The Mis-interpretation of UN Human Rights Treaties
Treaty body members and other actors within the United Nations human rights
system often use their independence from oversight of member states as a license
to re-write treaties that took decades to negotiate. One such example is the way in
which treaty bodies have engaged in a campaign to systematically introduce legal
abortion as an obligation under international law, when no United Nations human
rights treaty can be fairly implied to require any such thing and even the political
consensus of UN member states relegates abortion to national jurisdiction.13
Or, the attempt to introduce sexual orientation and gender identity as cognizable
categories of international law even though negotiating states never discussed
any obligations in that regard when negotiating any human rights treaty.14 There
are many documented abuses by human rights treaty bodies, which have not
slowed down despite the best efforts of the General Assembly to warn treaty body
members to conduct themselves with objectivity and impartiality.15
Special mandate holders are not immune to these abuses, because like UN treaty
bodies they heavily rely on the Office of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights, which services both the treaty bodies and special mandate holders.
The secretariat is accountable for many of the unsound legal theories and
interpretations that echo and are spread throughout the United Nations human
rights system.
The Disconcerting Example of the Universal Periodic “Peer” Review
The Universal Periodic Review also should not be a basis for defining the human
rights obligations of member states. Because of the unstructured nature of the
Universal Periodic Review, governments and non-governmental organizations,
some heavily funded by governments, are able to assert human rights obligations
that have never existed internationally.
The Universal Periodic Review is not based on the specific treaty obligations
of each country, but on the claims and assertions that certain human rights
obligations are binding on all member states equally. While many such obligations
exist, the Universal Periodic Review is frequently a forum for asserting human
rights obligations that have never existed and were never contemplated by the
framers of the Declaration on Human Rights or any of the binding international
treaties adopted within the context of the United Nations since. Legal abortion,
social acceptance of homosexuality, and the abolition of the death penalty, are only
three examples.16
Human rights should not be treated as a zero sum game. When powerful
governments and non-governmental organizations engage in coordinated efforts
to manipulate internationally binding treaties and the human rights system
through treaty bodies, or special mandate holders, or agencies they fund, they are
treating human rights as a zero sum game, where political influence and power
ultimately results in partisan gains. By doing this they undermine the treaties they
are seeking to manipulate, and the legitimacy of UN human rights framework
as a whole, which was set up not to serve the narrow interests of a few powerful
countries, but to uphold the dignity and worth of every human being.
Financing Abuse?
When it comes to development there is an important additional consideration that
must be borne in mind. Development involves government spending domestically
and through foreign assistance spending to the tune of billions of dollars—soon
to be trillions if the Sustainable Development Goals are to be realized. To back
the interpretation of human rights currently in vogue in the UN human rights
system with development assistance could have devastating effects on countries
that value human life and the family, and will further shape societies through nongovernmental
education, public spending for social programs, and any aspect of
the efforts to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.
Recommendations
1. Member states should ensure that the Review and Follow-up to the post-
2015 development agenda is a state driven voluntary process where national
governments are empowered to design and implement their own path to
development, without undue influence and pressure from the international
framework. In this regard, a Universal Peer Review mechanism is not well
suited for this purpose, as opposed to an interactive session of voluntary
presentations on national progress in the context of the High Level Political
Forum.
2. Member states must design and direct the implementation of the ambitious
agenda outlined in the 17 goals and 169 targets adopted by the General
Assembly. International assistance and the UN follow-up and review
framework should not be used to impose a “one size fits all” approach to
development that does not take into account the regional and national
differences of countries. Member states should continue to exercise
oversight over the work of the United Nations System through the General
Assembly’s Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review.
3. Member States must be able to count on the United Nations development
framework for assistance to select and monitor the indicators best suited
to track their own development priorities. Indicators that will be most
useful are those that measure concrete objectively measurable outcomes,
as opposed to non-quantifiable changes in social norms on sexuality, as for
example in regard to reproductive rights and homosexual rights.
4. The human rights system and the United Nations agencies and funds must
not receive an institutional role in defining the legal obligations of member
states in the post-2015 development agenda. The legal advice produced
within the secretariat, treaty bodies, special mandate holders, as well as
United Nations agencies and funds, is unsound in areas involving social
policy. Any such role would be interpreted as a validation of the many
instances in which these entites abuse their limited mandates by asserting
unfounded obligations on member states. Only state parties to a treaty have
the authority to define their obligations under such treaty.
(Endnotes)
1 Quadrennial comprehensive policy review of operational activities for development of the
United Nations system, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 21 December 2012,
UN Document A/Res/67/226, OP4
2 Ibid. OP4 and OP5
3 One such example is the Universal Periodic Review, and the way it has become a forum to
promote social acceptance of homosexuality, as well as conflicting visions of human rights.
Rebecca Oas, Positive Peer Pressure or Bullying? How wealthy developed countries use the
Universal Periodic Review pressure the global south to accept sexual orientation and gender
identity, Center for Family and Human Rights, May 2015, available at https://c-fam.org/
program/policy-studies.
4 Ibid. note 1, OP5
5 Report of the Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals established pursuant
to General Assembly resolution 66/288, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 10
September 2014, UN Document A/RES/68/309.
6 Ibid. note 1, OP6
7 Technical report by the Bureau of the United Nations Statistical Commission (UNSC)
on the process of the development of an indicator framework for the goals and targets of
the post-2015 development agenda, especially pp. 8, 27, and 40, detailing the decision of
experts to integrate human rights in the follow-up and review, as well as indicators for
non-discrimination, existence of national human rights institutions, available at https://
sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents; See also List of Proposed Provisional
Indicators and Background Information to the List of Proposed Provisional Indicators
circulated by the UN statistical division to the statistical offices of capitols on February 15,
2015, see especially indicators and background information for Goals 3, 5 and 10.
8 C-Fam Analysis, Getting the Focus Right in the Post-2015 Development Agenda, Center for
Family and Human Rights, March 19, 2015 (see attached document)
9 Ibid. note 7
10 Douglas A. Sylva and Susan Yoshihara, Rights By Stealth: The Role of UN Human Rights Treaty
Bodies in the Campaign for an International Right to Abortion, International Organizations
Research Group White Paper 8, available at: https://c-fam.org/white_paper; San Jose Articles,
available at http://www.sanjosearticles.com/
11 OHCHR Annual Report, available at http://www.ohchr.org/EN/AboutUs/Pages/
FundingBudget.aspx
12 Kloster, Andrew and Pedone, Joanne, Human Rights Treaty Body Reform: New Proposals (June
27, 2011). Journal of Transnational Law & Policy, Vol. 22, Spring 2013. Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1885758 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1885758
13 Ibid. note 10
14 Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Discriminatory Laws
and Practices and Acts of Violence against Individuals Based on their Sexual Orientation and
Gender Identity, United Nations 2011, United Nations Document A/HRC/19/41; UN Office
of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Born Free and Equal: Sexual Orientation and
Gender Identity in International Human Rights Law, United Nations 2012. United Nations
Document HR/PUB/12/06.
15 Strengthening and enhancing the effective functioning of the human rights treaty body system,
Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 9 April 2014, UN Document A/RES/68/268
16 Ibid. note 3.
805 3rd Avenue, Suite 1440
New York, New York 10022
(212) 754-5948
info@c-fam.org www.c-fam.org
Follow-Up and Review of the
Post-2015 Development Agenda
Introduction
An essential measure of success of the post-2015 development agenda must be
its ability to achieve results working within many different national contexts and
circumstances, not in spite of them. The follow-up and review framework for the
post-2015 development agenda must respect the sovereign prerogative of each
country and its peoples to determine their own path to development in conformity
with their national laws, culture, religion, and other national circumstances.1
The agenda, after all, will be a commitment of the governments of sovereign
States, it will not be a commitment of an undefined and politically unaccountable
“international community.” Only respect for sovereignty will guarantee the
political legitimacy of the actions taken by governments to fulfill the Sustainable
Development Goals, as well as the international framework built to support their
realization.
Therefore, the follow-up and review process for the post-2015 development agenda
must be designed keeping in mind that governments are ultimately accountable
to their own people, not to an undefined and eclectic “international community”
composed of artificial entities, international organizations, non-governmental
organizations, many of which are funded by and accountable to wealthy
governments and philanthropists, as opposed to having natural constituencies.
1. Follow-up and Review
Only a ground-up approach to realizing the Sustainable Development Goals
can guarantee political legitimacy for the post-2015 development agenda, and
ultimately its success.
Voluntary National Presentations
Review of progress on the post-2015 development agenda must be based and
Center for Family and Human Rights
May 12, 2015
C-Fam Analysis
The follow-up and review
framework for the post-
2015 development agenda
must respect the sovereign
prerogative of each country
and its peoples to determine
their own path to development.
2
centered on voluntary national presentations on progress towards achieving the
Sustainable Development Goals during the High Level Political Forum. At all
levels, the follow-up and review must be a state-led process where governments
can draw on the assistance of the international community for technical
capacity building, especially for data collection. It should not be a process
whereby international actors compel, incentivize, or otherwise pressure national
governments and institutions to adopt pre-packaged legal and policy frameworks
that may or may not be applicable in different national situations and contexts
through a peer review mechanism.
The follow-up and review of the post-2015 development agenda should not
become a mechanism used to promote the harmonization of domestic laws and
policies. The review and follow-up should not be used to compel, incentivize,
or pressure countries to change their laws and policies at all. Any such pressure
or undue influence to change national laws can only harm efforts to realize
the Sustainable Development Goals, and erode the political legitimacy of the
international efforts to realize the post-2015 development agenda.
While donor countries may have their reasons to offer incentives together with
their generous assistance, and even encourage certain policies and approaches to
development, they should not seek to build these incentives and policy preferences
for participation in the overall international follow-up and review framework for
the post-2015 development agenda within the United Nations System. The United
Nations system should not be used as a tool to impose certain policy preferences.
The United Nations system can only suffer from such an approach. Any
compulsion, undue influence and pressure will undermine the international
framework to support the realization of the post-2015 agenda, which should be at
the service of sovereign States, and should not try to lord over them.
Peer Review?
The review of national and regional progress towards the realization of the
Sustainable Development Goals must not be an opportunity for powerful
governments, United Nations agencies, and the United Nations system more
broadly, nor special interest groups and well funded non-governmental
organizations, to promote a “one-size fits all” strategy for sustainable development,
or pressure countries into compliance with such policies.2
In this regard, a peer review framework is not helpful. Peer review mechanisms
are prone to politicization and may be manipulated by powerful countries with the
financial means and geo-political influence to drive the agenda of international
organizations and non-governmental organizations. Because of this imbalance,
some countries are able to dictate the agenda and multiply their voices during the
course of the peer review process, such as the Universal Periodic Review at the
Human Rights Council in Geneva. 3
Acrimony and politics are not an option in the context of development. When
we talk about development, we are talking about the livelihoods and very lives of
people. It would be unconscionable to turn development into a zero sum game to
Any compulsion, undue influence
and pressure will undermine
the international framework to
support the realization of the
post-2015 agenda, which should
be at the service of sovereign
States, and should not try to
lord over them.
3
promote any particular development model or ideology.
2. National Follow-up and Review
Politically accountable governments must be the heart of the post-2015
development agenda in order to guarantee the legitimacy of the project. For this to
happen, they must be able to lead the review and appraisal of progress on the post-
2015 development agenda. And the General Assembly where all member states are
equally represented must continue to exercise oversight over the United Nations
system’s work on sustainable development.
National Institutions and Mechanisms
It is essential that the follow-up and review of the commitments of member states
respects the political and sovereign prerogative of member states to design and
implement policies that work for their people as well as the national structures that
are best suited to those goals. As the General Assembly has repeatedly stated, there
is no one-size fits all approach to development.4
Governments have to contend
with different material conditions, in terms of governance structures, human
resources, and financial means, as well as many other particular situations, not
limited but including culture, religion, and tradition.
The Sustainable Development Goals themselves exclusively contain policies to
which governments are prepared to commit themselves. The post-2015 summit
outcome document should not create an entirely new set of policies to which
governments must commit. The goals and targets agreed by the GA Open Working
Group in 2014 have been thoroughly vetted and analyzed by governments. At this
stage in the negotiations it is not prudent to seek to negotiate new policies that are
extraneous to the General Assembly Open Working Group agreement, and that
governments will not have adequate time to discuss.5
Each country must be able to design a national monitoring and follow-up
framework for the post-2015 development agenda according to national capacities
and priorities. The post-2015 summit outcome document must not prescribe
specific national institutions and bodies to monitor and follow-up on the post-
2015 development agenda, since different countries have different capacities and
different governance structures. Each country must develop the institutions best
suited for this task.
International and Regional Capacity Building
Wherever appropriate, international and regional bodies may propose certain
policies, models, and best practices, but it is ultimately governments themselves
that must build institutions, and design and implement programs that will be
effective and accepted politically at the national level. Capacity building must take
into account this principle. Incentives for the creation of specific types of national
governance and accountability frameworks must be limited to the commitments
existing in the Open Working Group agreement, and should not create new
commitments that are extraneous to the Open Working Group document.
Regional efforts to fulfill the Sustainable Development Goals must also take into
It is essential that the follow-up
and review of the commitments
of member states respects
the political and sovereign
prerogative of member states to
design and implement policies
that work for their people as well
as the national structures that
are best suited to those goals.
4
account the principle of sovereignty. Regional international organizations must
define their own role within the post-2015 development agenda according to their
own charters and rules, in order to complement international and domestic efforts
towards the realization of the Sustainable Development Goals.
The assistance of United Nations agencies and bodies at the regional and national
level must be limited to facilitating the review of national policies, and develop
and implement national policies. Such assistance must not be used as a tool
to standardize government institutions, or for harmonizing national policies
according to a single model of development, but must conform to the needs and
priorities of countries, as governments understand them, in order to ensure that
the United Nations is a “neutral, objective and trusted partner.”6
The Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review by the General Assembly should
continue to ensure that all member states are able to exercise oversight on the
United Nations system’s activities in the area of sustainable development in the
post-2015 era.
3. Indicators
Governments should be encouraged to select nationally appropriate and relevant
indicators to monitor their progress on the Sustainable Development Goals. These
indicators may include indicators proposed internationally, if they are found to be
representative and applicable to specific country circumstances. The international
system must in turn provide assistance with technical capacity to select and
measure such relevant indicators through data collection and analysis.
Nationally Relevant Indicators
Member states should not be directed to report on an internationally predetermined
set of indicators. This would limit the Sustainable Development Goals
to a monolithic “one size fits all” project incapable of adaptation at the national
levels and in different contexts. Such indicators would not be responsive to the
different challenges and different emphases of national efforts to realize the
Sustainable Development Goals, and ultimately ineffective to deliver sustainable
development.
International indicators, as proposed by the United Nations Statistical
Commission, in particular, present a challenge to the political viability of the
Sustainable Development Goals at the national level, especially with regards to
social policy involving abortion and homosexuality.7
Some indicators are likely to be applicable to all countries, such as indicators for
target 3.1 on maternal health that measure maternal mortality. Such universally
applicable indicators are based on monitoring concrete outcomes and results. But
other indicators are not likely to be useful or representative for all countries, such
as indicators for target 5.6 on sexual and reproductive health and reproductive
rights or under Goal 10 on inclusive societies, which may include abortion laws,
as well as laws surrounding homosexuality and other sexual mores, which vary
greatly between countries. These indicators do not track concrete measurable
Member states should not
be directed to report on an
internationally pre-determined
set of indicators. This would limit
the Sustainable Development
Goals to a monolithic “one size
fits all” project incapable of
adaptation at the national levels
and in different contexts.
5
outcomes, and are fraught with political implications. They are designed to
monitor what laws and policies countries have in place, or the impact they have on
certain demographics, as measured subjectively.8
Internationally Proposed Indicators
Any internationally proposed indicators must track concrete measurable outcomes
in the lives of people, and not changes in law and policy. If model indicators are to
be selected internationally, the General Assembly’s role as guarantor of consensus
must not be discarded for the sake of reaching agreement more readily in a smaller
body such as the United Nations Statistical Commission.
While indicators are of a technical nature in principle, the selection of indicators
can be a politically charged process, since different indicators may spur different
actions and investments. Therefore, if any international indicators are to bolster
the realization of the post-2015 development agenda they must be agreed in the
context of the General Assembly, which has final oversight over United Nations
development activities, and not by a smaller United Nations body.
4. Human Rights and the Human Rights System
In order for the post-2015 development agenda to further enhance the enjoyment
of human rights for all people all over the world it must not become a forum
where human rights are politicized. For this to happen the definition of human
rights obligations for purpose of the follow-up and review of the post-2015
development agenda must not be delegated to the secretariat, the Office of the
High Commissioner for Human Rights, treaty bodies, special mandate holders, or
any other part of the United Nations system, as suggested by the United Nations
Statistical Commission earlier this year.9
UN Human Rights System Overreach
United Nations human rights entities have too often overstepped their mandates
and have made a mockery of the human rights treaties negotiated within the
United Nation General Assembly by succumbing to extravagant interpretations
of these treaties by powerful interest groups.10 To entrust these entites with an
essential definitional threshold question as to what obligations member states
have under international law would actually undermine the very foundations
of international human rights law, which is based on sovereign obligations
undertaken in binding international instruments that have taken decades to
negotiate.
Moreover, as a matter of international law, the human rights system does not
have the final say on the human rights obligations of member states. Under
international law the final authority to interpret a treaty belongs to state parties
to that treaty, unless it is delegated to a specific body or other dispute resolution
mechanism. Such is not the case with any of the United Nations human rights
treaty bodies or any part of the human rights system. Tying the development
agenda to the human rights system in such a way that will further enhance the
authority of the human rights system to define the human rights obligations of
To back the interpretation of
human rights currently in vogue
in the UN human rights system
with development assistance
could have devastating effects
on countries that value human
life and the family
member states will validate the many abuses of treaty bodies, special procedures,
and other United Nations officials and staff, that assert obligations to legalize
abortion and promote social acceptance of homosexuality even though no United
Nations treaty can be fairly interpreted to include such rights, as well as other
extravagant interpretations of international law.
The Essential and Irreplaceable Role of Sovereign States in Protecting Human Rights
The best means of protecting the human rights of every human being is for
sovereign states to have strong, responsive, and politically legitimate governments.
An essential aspect of this sovereign power is the capacity to contract international
obligations, as well as the power to interpret and to resolve disputes surrounding
the interpretation of treaty obligations. To ascribe this power to a politically
unaccountable human rights system, dependent on the donations of powerful
wealthy governments erodes this essential aspect of sovereignty and can only harm
authentic human rights.11
The Limited Mandate of UN Human Rights Officials, Mandate Holders, and Staff
Any consultation and coordination between the international review on progress
to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals and the human rights system
should take into account and not confuse the distinct and limited competencies
of special mandate holders, treaty bodies, the Office of the High Commissioner
for Human Rights, and other human rights bodies. In addition, and perhaps more
importantly, any consultation and coordination must not perpetuate abuses by the
secretariat, special mandate holders, and treaty bodies.
Treaty bodies in particular, should be recognized as having authority only within
the scope of the treaty mandate they received from the parties to their respective
treaties.12 In this regard, it would not be wise or correct to base the definition of
human rights for purposes of the implementation and review of the post-2015
development agenda on the opinion of treaty bodies.
The Mis-interpretation of UN Human Rights Treaties
Treaty body members and other actors within the United Nations human rights
system often use their independence from oversight of member states as a license
to re-write treaties that took decades to negotiate. One such example is the way in
which treaty bodies have engaged in a campaign to systematically introduce legal
abortion as an obligation under international law, when no United Nations human
rights treaty can be fairly implied to require any such thing and even the political
consensus of UN member states relegates abortion to national jurisdiction.13
Or, the attempt to introduce sexual orientation and gender identity as cognizable
categories of international law even though negotiating states never discussed
any obligations in that regard when negotiating any human rights treaty.14 There
are many documented abuses by human rights treaty bodies, which have not
slowed down despite the best efforts of the General Assembly to warn treaty body
members to conduct themselves with objectivity and impartiality.15
Special mandate holders are not immune to these abuses, because like UN treaty
bodies they heavily rely on the Office of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights, which services both the treaty bodies and special mandate holders.
The secretariat is accountable for many of the unsound legal theories and
interpretations that echo and are spread throughout the United Nations human
rights system.
The Disconcerting Example of the Universal Periodic “Peer” Review
The Universal Periodic Review also should not be a basis for defining the human
rights obligations of member states. Because of the unstructured nature of the
Universal Periodic Review, governments and non-governmental organizations,
some heavily funded by governments, are able to assert human rights obligations
that have never existed internationally.
The Universal Periodic Review is not based on the specific treaty obligations
of each country, but on the claims and assertions that certain human rights
obligations are binding on all member states equally. While many such obligations
exist, the Universal Periodic Review is frequently a forum for asserting human
rights obligations that have never existed and were never contemplated by the
framers of the Declaration on Human Rights or any of the binding international
treaties adopted within the context of the United Nations since. Legal abortion,
social acceptance of homosexuality, and the abolition of the death penalty, are only
three examples.16
Human rights should not be treated as a zero sum game. When powerful
governments and non-governmental organizations engage in coordinated efforts
to manipulate internationally binding treaties and the human rights system
through treaty bodies, or special mandate holders, or agencies they fund, they are
treating human rights as a zero sum game, where political influence and power
ultimately results in partisan gains. By doing this they undermine the treaties they
are seeking to manipulate, and the legitimacy of UN human rights framework
as a whole, which was set up not to serve the narrow interests of a few powerful
countries, but to uphold the dignity and worth of every human being.
Financing Abuse?
When it comes to development there is an important additional consideration that
must be borne in mind. Development involves government spending domestically
and through foreign assistance spending to the tune of billions of dollars—soon
to be trillions if the Sustainable Development Goals are to be realized. To back
the interpretation of human rights currently in vogue in the UN human rights
system with development assistance could have devastating effects on countries
that value human life and the family, and will further shape societies through nongovernmental
education, public spending for social programs, and any aspect of
the efforts to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.
Recommendations
1. Member states should ensure that the Review and Follow-up to the post-
2015 development agenda is a state driven voluntary process where national
governments are empowered to design and implement their own path to
development, without undue influence and pressure from the international
framework. In this regard, a Universal Peer Review mechanism is not well
suited for this purpose, as opposed to an interactive session of voluntary
presentations on national progress in the context of the High Level Political
Forum.
2. Member states must design and direct the implementation of the ambitious
agenda outlined in the 17 goals and 169 targets adopted by the General
Assembly. International assistance and the UN follow-up and review
framework should not be used to impose a “one size fits all” approach to
development that does not take into account the regional and national
differences of countries. Member states should continue to exercise
oversight over the work of the United Nations System through the General
Assembly’s Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review.
3. Member States must be able to count on the United Nations development
framework for assistance to select and monitor the indicators best suited
to track their own development priorities. Indicators that will be most
useful are those that measure concrete objectively measurable outcomes,
as opposed to non-quantifiable changes in social norms on sexuality, as for
example in regard to reproductive rights and homosexual rights.
4. The human rights system and the United Nations agencies and funds must
not receive an institutional role in defining the legal obligations of member
states in the post-2015 development agenda. The legal advice produced
within the secretariat, treaty bodies, special mandate holders, as well as
United Nations agencies and funds, is unsound in areas involving social
policy. Any such role would be interpreted as a validation of the many
instances in which these entites abuse their limited mandates by asserting
unfounded obligations on member states. Only state parties to a treaty have
the authority to define their obligations under such treaty.
(Endnotes)
1 Quadrennial comprehensive policy review of operational activities for development of the
United Nations system, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 21 December 2012,
UN Document A/Res/67/226, OP4
2 Ibid. OP4 and OP5
3 One such example is the Universal Periodic Review, and the way it has become a forum to
promote social acceptance of homosexuality, as well as conflicting visions of human rights.
Rebecca Oas, Positive Peer Pressure or Bullying? How wealthy developed countries use the
Universal Periodic Review pressure the global south to accept sexual orientation and gender
identity, Center for Family and Human Rights, May 2015, available at https://c-fam.org/
program/policy-studies.
4 Ibid. note 1, OP5
5 Report of the Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals established pursuant
to General Assembly resolution 66/288, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 10
September 2014, UN Document A/RES/68/309.
6 Ibid. note 1, OP6
7 Technical report by the Bureau of the United Nations Statistical Commission (UNSC)
on the process of the development of an indicator framework for the goals and targets of
the post-2015 development agenda, especially pp. 8, 27, and 40, detailing the decision of
experts to integrate human rights in the follow-up and review, as well as indicators for
non-discrimination, existence of national human rights institutions, available at https://
sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents; See also List of Proposed Provisional
Indicators and Background Information to the List of Proposed Provisional Indicators
circulated by the UN statistical division to the statistical offices of capitols on February 15,
2015, see especially indicators and background information for Goals 3, 5 and 10.
8 C-Fam Analysis, Getting the Focus Right in the Post-2015 Development Agenda, Center for
Family and Human Rights, March 19, 2015 (see attached document)
9 Ibid. note 7
10 Douglas A. Sylva and Susan Yoshihara, Rights By Stealth: The Role of UN Human Rights Treaty
Bodies in the Campaign for an International Right to Abortion, International Organizations
Research Group White Paper 8, available at: https://c-fam.org/white_paper; San Jose Articles,
available at http://www.sanjosearticles.com/
11 OHCHR Annual Report, available at http://www.ohchr.org/EN/AboutUs/Pages/
FundingBudget.aspx
12 Kloster, Andrew and Pedone, Joanne, Human Rights Treaty Body Reform: New Proposals (June
27, 2011). Journal of Transnational Law & Policy, Vol. 22, Spring 2013. Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1885758 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1885758
13 Ibid. note 10
14 Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Discriminatory Laws
and Practices and Acts of Violence against Individuals Based on their Sexual Orientation and
Gender Identity, United Nations 2011, United Nations Document A/HRC/19/41; UN Office
of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Born Free and Equal: Sexual Orientation and
Gender Identity in International Human Rights Law, United Nations 2012. United Nations
Document HR/PUB/12/06.
15 Strengthening and enhancing the effective functioning of the human rights treaty body system,
Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 9 April 2014, UN Document A/RES/68/268
16 Ibid. note 3.
805 3rd Avenue, Suite 1440
New York, New York 10022
(212) 754-5948
info@c-fam.org www.c-fam.org