{"query_echo":{"q":"","filters":{"analysis_type":["voting record analysis"]},"warnings":[{"code":"facet_value_not_in_vocabulary","message":"Value 'voting record analysis' for facet 'analysis_type' is not in the controlled vocabulary."}]},"total":{"value":5,"relation":"eq"},"page":1,"page_size":20,"self":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/api/v1/search?analysis_type=voting+record+analysis","stability":"beta","ai_marking":{"digital_source_type":{"uri":"http://cv.iptc.org/newscodes/digitalsourcetype/trainedAlgorithmicMedia","name":"Created using Generative AI"},"notice":"Summary and key insights are generated using artificial intelligence."},"results":[{"id":"saiia-001997","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/saiia-001997","title":"African States on the UN Human Rights Council, 2006–2022","publisher":{"name":"South African Institute of International Affairs","organization":"south-african-institute-of-international-affairs"},"document_type":"report","language":"en","date_published":"2024-08","source_url":"https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/SAIIA_SR_AfricanVotingHRC.pdf","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights","geography_discussed","analysis_type"],"summary":{"text":"The report analyzes 450 votes and 5,850 voting decisions by African states at the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) between 2006 and 2022. It finds that the African Group generally opposes or is unwilling to defend civil and political rights, particularly regarding sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) and freedom of expression. The group frequently protects African states from international scrutiny through country-specific resolutions while remaining inconsistent or indifferent toward human rights violations in non-African countries. Despite a general decline in the domestic freedom scores of its members, the group's HRC voting patterns show a slight shift toward a more human rights-friendly direction after 2010, though it remains largely obstructive toward intrusive mandates for African nations.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"saiia-001997#summary","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},"key_insights":[{"text":"The African Group's overall record on civil and political rights indicates that African states are generally not defenders of these rights and are more likely to oppose or undermine them.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"saiia-001997#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"African states demonstrated strong opposition to human rights related to sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI), including support for the Egyptian-led 'Protection of the family' resolution which ignores diverse family forms.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"saiia-001997#insight-2","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"The African Group's record on freedom of expression is characterized as mildly against human rights, with strong opposition specifically regarding the mandate of the special rapporteur on free expression and resolutions on the defamation of religions.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"saiia-001997#insight-3","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Regarding women's rights, the African Group is classified as mildly against human rights, frequently supporting hostile amendments that oppose comprehensive sexuality education and the recognition of sexual and reproductive health as a human right.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"saiia-001997#insight-4","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"The African Group consistently protects African states from international scrutiny, showing a record that is mildly against human rights when dealing with country-specific resolutions on other African nations.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"saiia-001997#insight-5","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"The group's opposition to scrutiny is specific to African nations; its record on country-specific resolutions for non-African countries is characterized as an unwillingness to defend human rights, though it showed strong support for resolutions concerning Myanmar.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"saiia-001997#insight-6","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"The African Group is not a unified voting bloc on civil and political rights or country-specific resolutions, voting in total unison only 2.4% of the time across the studied votes.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"saiia-001997#insight-7","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"There is a high propensity for African states to abstain from voting on country-specific issues, abstaining 48.4% of the time for African countries and 63.5% of the time for the rest of the world.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"saiia-001997#insight-8","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"The African Group's record on the Democratic Republic of Congo and Ethiopia is classified as strongly opposing human rights, often resisting investigative mandates.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"saiia-001997#insight-9","date_modified":"2026-10-23"}],"climate_tags":[],"geography_discussed":["Burundi","Democratic Republic of the Congo","Ethiopia","Eritrea","South Sudan","Sudan","North Korea","Iran","Syria","Venezuela","Philippines","Yemen","Myanmar","Afghanistan","Ukraine","Russia"],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":["voting record analysis","policy evaluation"]},{"id":"reclfin-000710","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/reclfin-000710","title":"CLIMATE VOTES: THE GREAT DECEPTION","publisher":{"name":"Reclaim Finance","organization":"reclaim-finance"},"document_type":"report","language":"en","date_published":"2023-12","source_url":"https://reclaimfinance.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Reclaim-Finance_Climate-Votes-2023_VF-1.pdf","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights","climate_tags","geography_discussed","analysis_type"],"summary":{"text":"The report finds that asset managers largely fail to use their voting power to oppose fossil fuel expansion, often supporting the governance and strategies of climate-hostile companies. Despite public commitments to climate action, the analysis reveals that most asset managers' voting policies lack robust, action-oriented criteria and that their actual voting records show high support for the re-election of directors and remuneration of executives at companies pursuing expansion plans incompatible with a 1.5°C scenario.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"reclfin-000710#summary","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},"key_insights":[{"text":"Asset managers frequently approve inadequate climate plans through 'Say on Climate' resolutions. In 2023, only two of the 75 assessed fossil fuel developers submitted such plans; both were approved by over 80% of shareholders despite being incompatible with a 1.5°C pathway.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"reclfin-000710#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Climate-related shareholder resolutions are rare and seldom successful. In 2023, only 22 such resolutions were filed at 11 of the assessed companies, and only 9% (two resolutions) were approved.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"reclfin-000710#insight-2","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Proxy voting policies for climate resolutions are generally weak, prioritizing disclosure over concrete action. Only 7 of the 30 asset managers expect companies to align with a 1.5°C scenario, and only 2 expect them to end fossil fuel expansion plans.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"reclfin-000710#insight-3","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Asset managers use routine management-proposed votes to endorse the governance of climate-hostile companies. On average, they supported 78% of resolutions for the re-election of directors at fossil fuel developers.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"reclfin-000710#insight-4","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"There is a significant lack of climate-related criteria in voting decisions regarding executive remuneration. Only one asset manager (abrdn) expects all companies to include climate-related criteria in variable remuneration for top management.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"reclfin-000710#insight-5","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Asset managers overwhelmingly approve financial statements that fail to integrate material climate-related risks, such as the risk of stranded assets. On average, they voted in favour of 88% of financial statements for fossil fuel developers.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"reclfin-000710#insight-6","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Asset managers rarely provide rationales for voting against management, and when they do, climate is seldom the primary reason. For director re-elections, only 8 asset managers disclosed at least one climate-related rationale.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"reclfin-000710#insight-7","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"The practice of 'split voting' is used by 11 of the assessed asset managers, allowing different votes for the same resolution, which the report suggests asset owners should use to enforce their own climate policies.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"reclfin-000710#insight-8","date_modified":"2026-10-23"}],"climate_tags":["1.5 degree Celsius climate target","stranded asset"],"geography_discussed":["World"],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":["policy assessment","voting record analysis"]},{"id":"saiia-002017","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/saiia-002017","title":"African States at the UN Human Rights Council in 2019","publisher":{"name":"South African Institute of International Affairs","organization":"south-african-institute-of-international-affairs"},"document_type":"report","language":"en","date_published":"2021-12","source_url":"https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Special-Report-AGDP-Jordaan.pdf","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights","geography_discussed","analysis_type"],"summary":{"text":"The report analyzes the 2019 HRC voting records of 13 African member states, finding a significant lack of unity within the African Group. While South Africa, Rwanda, and Burkina Faso emerged as the strongest supporters of international human rights, Egypt, Eritrea, and Cameroon were the most opposed. The analysis highlights a recurring contradiction where many African states strongly support resolutions condemning Israel while opposing or abstaining from resolutions targeting other rights-abusing regimes. Overall, the report suggests a general unwillingness among African states to defend international human rights, with a noted decline in support since 2017.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"saiia-002017#summary","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},"key_insights":[{"text":"African states exhibited a complete lack of unity in their voting on civil and political rights in 2019; for all 26 votes in this category, at least one state voted yes, one voted no, and one abstained.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"saiia-002017#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"South Africa, Rwanda, and Burkina Faso were identified as the strongest supporters of international human rights within the African Group during 2019, while Cameroon, Egypt, and Eritrea were the most opposed.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"saiia-002017#insight-2","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"There is a stark discrepancy between African states' support for resolutions concerning Israel and their support for other country-specific human rights resolutions; in 2019, African states voted in favor of Israel resolutions 72% of the time, but only 16% of the time for other pro-human rights country-specific resolutions.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"saiia-002017#insight-3","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"The African Group's overall support for international human rights has declined since 2017, with the percentage of individual votes supporting human rights dropping from 33% in 2017 to 14% in 2018, remaining similarly low in 2019.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"saiia-002017#insight-4","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"African states generally avoid sponsoring or co-sponsoring critical country-specific resolutions, except for those regarding Israel, often preferring 'technical assistance and capacity-building' resolutions that require the consent of the target state.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"saiia-002017#insight-5","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"The report finds that a state's domestic human rights record is an unreliable predictor of its HRC performance, citing Rwanda as an 'unfree' state that consistently supports human rights at the HRC.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"saiia-002017#insight-6","date_modified":"2026-10-23"}],"climate_tags":[],"geography_discussed":["South Africa","Rwanda","Burkina Faso","Cameroon","Egypt","Eritrea","Israel","Myanmar","Syria","Venezuela","Yemen","Burundi","Philippines","Nicaragua","Georgia","Ukraine","Belarus","Iran"],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":["voting record analysis","comparative ranking"]},{"id":"saiia-002021","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/saiia-002021","title":"African States at the UN Human Rights Council in 2018","publisher":{"name":"South African Institute of International Affairs","organization":"south-african-institute-of-international-affairs"},"document_type":"report","language":"en","date_published":"2020-08","source_url":"https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Special-Report-jordaan.pdf","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights","geography_discussed","analysis_type"],"summary":{"text":"The report analyzes the 2018 HRC records of 13 African states, finding a general unwillingness to defend international human rights and a significant lack of unity in voting. Tunisia, Côte d’Ivoire, and Rwanda showed the strongest commitment, while Burundi, Egypt, and Ethiopia were the most opposed. The analysis highlights a discrepancy between domestic freedom ratings and HRC performance, noting that domestic records are weak predictors of how states vote on the Council.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"saiia-002021#summary","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},"key_insights":[{"text":"African states on the HRC showed a significant lack of unity in 2018; out of 34 studied votes, there was not a single instance where African states voted in unison.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"saiia-002021#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"The overall trend among African HRC members is an unwillingness to defend international human rights, characterized more by frequent abstentions than by active opposition.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"saiia-002021#insight-2","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Tunisia, Côte d’Ivoire, and Rwanda were identified as having the strongest commitment to international human rights among the African members in 2018.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"saiia-002021#insight-3","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Burundi, Egypt, and Ethiopia were the African states that most strongly opposed human rights during the period studied.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"saiia-002021#insight-4","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Burundi had the worst overall record of all African HRC members in 2018, consistently voting for the most anti-human rights options across almost all categories except for resolutions on Israel.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"saiia-002021#insight-5","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"There is a notable disconnect between a country's domestic human rights status and its HRC voting behavior; for example, 'unfree' Rwanda performed better than 'free' South Africa.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"saiia-002021#insight-6","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"African states demonstrate a specific pattern of supporting resolutions on Israel while remaining reluctant to support other critical country-specific resolutions.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"saiia-002021#insight-7","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Tunisia emerged as the most supportive African state regarding political freedoms, being the only one categorized as 'strongly supportive' in that area.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"saiia-002021#insight-8","date_modified":"2026-10-23"}],"climate_tags":[],"geography_discussed":["Tunisia","Ivory Coast","Rwanda","Ethiopia","Egypt","Burundi","Angola","Democratic Republic of the Congo","Kenya","Nigeria","Senegal","South Africa","Togo","Syria","Myanmar","Venezuela","Yemen","Georgia","Israel"],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":["voting record analysis","comparative ranking"]},{"id":"saiia-002022","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/saiia-002022","title":"African States at the UN Human Rights Council in 2017","publisher":{"name":"South African Institute of International Affairs","organization":"south-african-institute-of-international-affairs"},"document_type":"report","language":"en","date_published":"2019-08","source_url":"https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Special-Report-jordaan_2017.pdf","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights","geography_discussed","analysis_type"],"summary":{"text":"The report examines the actions of 14 African countries at the UN Human Rights Council in 2017. It finds that the African Group is no longer a unified voting bloc, with significant divergence in how members approach human rights. Botswana, Ghana, and Rwanda are identified as the strongest defenders of international human rights among the group, while Burundi, Egypt, and Nigeria are characterized as the most antagonistic. The analysis highlights a recurring tension between the principle of national sovereignty and the universality of human rights, particularly regarding 'item 4' resolutions that mandate investigations into specific countries without their consent.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"saiia-002022#summary","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},"key_insights":[{"text":"The African Group's historical reputation for voting as a unified bloc is no longer accurate; in 2017, the group voted the same only 12% of the time across the studied votes.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"saiia-002022#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Botswana, Ghana, and Rwanda are ranked as the African HRC members with the highest commitment to international human rights based on their 2017 voting records.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"saiia-002022#insight-2","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Burundi is identified as the most opposed African member to the international advancement of human rights, often seeking membership to shield itself from criticism.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"saiia-002022#insight-3","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Egypt and Nigeria are characterized as having records that are highly antagonistic to civil and political rights, frequently supporting attempts to undermine them.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"saiia-002022#insight-4","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"There is a stark contrast between Rwanda's domestic record, described as one of the most repressive in Africa, and its progressive voting record at the HRC.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"saiia-002022#insight-5","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"South Africa's international human rights record is described as weak and inconsistent, often failing to defend rights that are central to democratic societies.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"saiia-002022#insight-6","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"The African Group demonstrates a strong collective hostility toward LGBT rights, specifically through the 'Protection of the family' resolution which denies the diversity of family forms.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"saiia-002022#insight-7","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"African states frequently prioritize national sovereignty over international scrutiny, particularly by favoring 'item 10' technical assistance resolutions over 'item 4' critical resolutions.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"saiia-002022#insight-8","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Togo's voting record is noted as highly unusual for an African state due to its opposition to all five HRC resolutions related to Israel in 2017.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"saiia-002022#insight-9","date_modified":"2026-10-23"}],"climate_tags":[],"geography_discussed":["Algeria","Benin","Botswana","Burundi","Ivory Coast","Egypt","Ethiopia","Ghana","Kenya","Morocco","Nigeria","Rwanda","South Africa","Togo","Syria","Israel","Iran","Belarus","Democratic Republic of the Congo","Cambodia","Georgia","Ukraine","Yemen"],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":["policy analysis","voting record analysis","comparative study"]}]}