Africa and the Global Human Rights Agenda: The African Group at the UN Human Rights Council

This policy briefing by the South African Institute of International Affairs analyzes the behavior and voting patterns of African states within the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) between July 2010 and July 2014. It highlights a tension between the African Group's organized coordination and its diverse, often inconsistent, responses to human rights violations both within Africa and globally.

• The African Group is one of the most represented and organized blocs in the UN Human Rights Council, holding 13 of the 47 seats. Its diplomats coordinate positions through almost daily meetings in Geneva, giving the group the power to either secure or block a majority in the council.
• The African Group generally operates under three core principles: requiring the consent of the country concerned for resolutions (often allowing the state to draft its own resolution), maintaining that leadership on African situations should remain exclusively within the African Group, and prioritizing technical assistance over monitoring or investigation.
• The application of these principles has led to inconsistent responses to crises in Africa. While the HRC took strong action regarding Côte d’Ivoire, Mali, and the Central African Republic, it provided weak engagement for the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, and South Sudan.
• Eritrea represents a notable exception to the African Group's standard principles, as a small group of African states—Somalia, Djibouti, and Nigeria—successfully pushed for a special rapporteur and commission of inquiry despite the Eritrean government's strong objections.
• Voting patterns reveal significant diversity within the African Group regarding country-specific resolutions outside Africa. Botswana and Mauritius are the most consistent supporters, while others like South Africa, Namibia, and Ethiopia systematically abstain. Almost all African Group members uniformly support resolutions concerning Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
• Regional trends within the African Group show that West African states, along with Botswana and Mauritius, are the most supportive of country-specific engagement, whereas East African states exhibit greater resistance.

APA

Dam, P. (2014). Africa and the Global Human Rights Agenda: The African Group at the UN Human Rights Council. South African Institute of International Affairs. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Policy-Briefing-108.pdf

Chicago

Dam, Philippe. Africa and the Global Human Rights Agenda: The African Group at the UN Human Rights Council. South African Institute of International Affairs, 2014. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Policy-Briefing-108.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Dam |first1=Philippe |title=Africa and the Global Human Rights Agenda: The African Group at the UN Human Rights Council |publisher=South African Institute of International Affairs |date=October 2014 |url=https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Policy-Briefing-108.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{dam2014africa, author = {Dam, Philippe}, title = {{Africa and the Global Human Rights Agenda: The African Group at the UN Human Rights Council}}, institution = {South African Institute of International Affairs}, year = {2014}, month = oct, url = {https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Policy-Briefing-108.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }