Can Nations exploit the UNHRC to violate its Mandate? The Sri Lanka Precedent

 

 

Sri Lanka is the only UN member state targeted for successive UNHRC resolutions after successfully ending a 30-year terrorist conflict. Instead of recognition for defeating terrorism-a feat no other nation has achieved, Sri Lanka’s National Army has faced repeated allegations of war crimes. Even after 16 years, UNHRC and affiliated reports have failed to substantiate the presumed 40,000 civilian deaths – the basis for war crimes allegations and calls for accountability.

 

Sri Lanka poses three fundamental questions:

 

1. Mandate Limits:

Does the UNHRC mandate permit quasi-judicial mechanisms?

 

2. Political Exploitation:

Can a handful of politically motivated nations draft and pass resolutions that violate the UNHRC’s mandate, with successive OHCHR Heads acquiescing?

 

3. Systemic Oversight:

What is the UN Secretary-General and the UN internal oversight system doing to address these blatant mandate overreach and procedural flaws, which create a dangerous precedent potentially targeting other nations in the future?

 

Sri Lanka defeated terrorists and terrorism in 2009. LTTE was an internationally proscribed terrorist movement responsible for decades of mass killings, suicide bombings, child soldier recruitment and premeditated civilian killings.

 

None of these crimes saw resolutions against the LTTE.

 

Yet, a handful of politically motivated member states, some historically linked to LTTE lobbying, have used the UNHRC forum to draft resolutions that effectively transform an advisory body into a quasi-judicial instrument, targeting Sri Lanka’s military leaders, judiciary, and domestic legal frameworks and even calling to completely remove counter-terrorism laws and amend the nation’s Constitution.

These resolutions disproportionately target the National Army, alleging war crimes and demanding international retribution despite the absence of verified evidence. They rely on hidden ‘witnesses,’ scores of well-funded reports, smear campaigns, and legal luminaries retained by pro-LTTE lobbies.

This raises critical questions:

 

How can select nations manipulate UN bodies to exceed their mandate?

 

What is the UN system doing to prevent this overreach?

 

UNHRC Mandate: Powers and Limits

Established: UNGA Resolution 60/251 (2006).

Permitted Functions:

• Promotion and protection of human rights globally.
• Advisory and consultative functions.
• Making recommendations and engaging in dialogue with states.

Prohibited Functions:

• Judicial or prosecutorial authority.
• Imposing sanctions, repealing domestic laws, or mandating constitutional reforms.
• Enforcing compliance without the consent of a sovereign state.

 

Given these mandate limits, any resolution or action exceeding them (especially when UNHRC resolutions are non-binding) raises serious questions of legality and accountability.

 

Legal Implication:

Resolutions creating external investigations, tribunals, or binding directives exceed the UNHRC’s authority and constitute overreach.

 

Despite these clear mandate limits, why have the UNHRC and OHCHR continued this 16-year overreach and more importantly the UN internal systems have turned a blind eye?

 

Member States exploiting UNHRC for Political Ends

 

Certain countries with historical LTTE connections or lobbying influence sponsored and drafted successive resolutions against Sri Lanka:

 

• A/HRC/19/2 (2012) & 22/1 (2013):Initiated external scrutiny without verified evidence.
• A/HRC/25/1 (2014):Authorized OHCHR Investigation on Sri Lanka (OISL) to collect evidence without state consent.
• A/HRC/30/1 (2015) onward:Introduced hybrid courts, foreign judges, and the “Sri Lanka Accountability Project” (SLAP), bypassing domestic judiciary.
• A/HRC/46/1 (2021) & 51/1 (2022):Mandated collection and preservation of evidence for potential trials abroad, ignoring UNHRC advisory-only limits.

 

High Commissioner Statements:

• Publicly ridiculed the Sri Lankan judiciary.
• Pressured repeal of counterterrorism laws.
• Called for constitutional changes that undermine national sovereignty.

 

Violations of International Law and Mandate:

 

1. UN Charter (Article 2(7))– Interference in domestic jurisdiction.
2. UNHRC Mandate (GA 60/251)– Exceeded advisory/recommendatory powers by calling for external tribunals.
3. Due Process Violations– Reliance on unverified casualty figures (Darusman Report) without “beyond reasonable doubt” evidence.
4. Violation of Sri Lanka Constitution (Articles 3 & 4(c))– Mandates to repeal laws or restructure judiciary breach sovereignty.
5. Selective Scope and Bias– Focuses exclusively on post-war events while ignoring 30 years of LTTE terrorism, including mass killings, suicide bombings, and child soldier recruitment as well as indiscriminate attacks on unarmed civilians.

 

International Legal Precedents

 

• Prosecutor v. Taylor (Sierra Leone, 2003):

Confirmed external courts require state consent.

 

• Arrest Warrant Case (DRC v. Belgium, 2002):

Held that politically motivated universal jurisdiction is unlawful.

 

• Bosnia & Herzegovina v. Serbia (ICJ, 2007):

Highlighted that domestic accountability cannot be arbitrarily overridden.

 

• Prosecutor v. Tadić (ICTY, 1995):

Confirmed that jurisdiction must have proper legal basis and consent.

 

• Pinochet Case (UK, 1999):

Emphasized immunity and procedural fairness over political expediency.

 

Impact on Sri Lanka and to its National Army

 

Key violations and consequences:

 

• Universal Jurisdiction Threats:

Military leaders face politically motivated arrests abroad.

The pressure for Truth Commission in Sri Lanka is to bring the witch hunt against the military a ground reality on Sri Lankan soil with political interference.

 

• Targeted Sanctions:

Travel bans and freezing of overseas assets.

 

• International Defamation:

National army and government’s post-war victory narrative reframed as war crimes and not as a war victory

 

• Domestic Interference:

Calls to repeal counterterrorism laws, amend Constitution, and pressure judiciary will result in unprecedented breakdown of law & order in Sri Lanka.

• Selective Justice:

No UNHRC resolutions ever aimed to prevent LTTE atrocities during the 30-year conflict.

 

UN System Inaction

• UNGA, UNSG, and internal oversight mechanismshave not acted to restrain UNHRC overreach. They cannot have been ignorant of 16 years of overreach by UNHRC and successive High Commissioners.
• Political lobbying and inertia allow selective targeting of Sri Lanka.
• This sets a dangerous precedent: any nation defeating terrorism may face punitive measures instead of recognition.

 

Crucial Legal Question

A handful of member states are exploiting the UNHRC forum to act as judge, jury, and prosecutor over a sovereign nation.

Can this be allowed

Why is the UN system watching this injustice?

 

Questions to the UN System:

• How can the UN allow an advisory body to assume quasi-judicial powers?
• What mechanisms exist to prevent politically motivated overreach?
• Will the UN clarify the limits of UNHRC powers and restore impartiality?

 

Call for Accountability

• UNGA, UNSG, and ICJ must urgently clarify UNHRC’s limits.
• Member states must refrain from resolutions that violate the UN Charter, due process, or national sovereignty.
• The international community must ensure no sovereign state is punished for defeating terrorismand restoring peace.

 

Sri Lanka’s experience reveals a systematic abuse of the UNHRC forum by politically motivated member states. By exceeding the Council’s advisory mandate and targeting the those that defeated terrorism, the UNHRC undermines its own credibility, violates international law, and humiliates the national army that restored peace. It is time for the UN system to act decisively to restore mandate integrity, protect sovereignty, and prevent the weaponization of human rights for political ends.

 

The UN system already provides mechanisms for Member States to review and, where necessary, correct any body that persistently exceeds its mandate or acts in breach of the principles upon which it was created. In the face of continued overreach, Sri Lanka and its friends within the international community should consider activating such remedies — remedies that lie not in Geneva, but in the chambers where all nations SHOULD sit as equals

 

If left unchecked, the UNHRC’s abuse of mandate will remain a tool for political punishment rather than a platform for genuine human rights protection.

 

Today it is Sri Lanka — tomorrow it could be any nation.

 

 

 

Shenali D Waduge