Amidst growing tensions, President Javier Milei’s government in Argentina plans to withdraw from the United Nations Human Rights Council. This decision stems from the Council’s failure to label Hamas as a terrorist organisation. Interestingly, Argentina is opting not to seek re-election, mirroring the United States’ decision to abstain from seeking another term in 2026. This alignment suggests a shift towards closer ties with Washington.
The term ‘terrorist’ lacks a universally accepted definition in international law, complicating its application within the UN Human Rights Council framework. Efforts to formalise a global standard have stumbled, as the European Union once abandoned a similar initiative. Moreover, ‘terrorism’ does not feature in the crimes recognised by the International Criminal Court (ICC) or the International Court of Justice, leaving a void in legal consensus.
The classification of groups like Hamas remains contentious in global media. The BBC has opted for neutrality, while other outlets like El País and the New York Times have faced criticism for their varying depictions. Agencies such as AFP refuse to use ‘terrorist’ to describe these groups and emphasise factual reporting instead, listing acts of violence without labelling them.
Countries are entitled to define ‘terrorism’ through their legislation, but a coherent international standard is still lacking. The UN has, however, created various protocols addressing specific terrorist actions, governed by a Special Rapporteur. Argentina recently updated its Penal Code to intensify penalties for terrorism-related crimes and align with international definitions, all while protecting constitutional rights.
Argentina’s anticipated exit from the UN Human Rights Council has sparked debates, especially regarding perceived biases in condemning human rights violations. Israel has faced more resolutions compared to nations like Venezuela and Nicaragua, highlighting a disproportionate focus on the Global South. Historical investigations by the UN into the Middle East have predominantly centred on Israeli actions but aim to advocate for Palestinian rights.
Resolutions referencing Israel are not merely condemnations but are defenders of Palestinian human rights. The UN recognises violations by both sides and appoints independent experts to respond to human rights abuses. Such experts operate without salary, travelling for genuine advocacy and presenting reports that aim to enhance public freedoms.
Argentina, under President Javier Milei, plans to withdraw from the UN Human Rights Council due to its failure to classify Hamas as a terrorist organisation. This decision aligns with a broader U.S. strategy. The absence of a universal definition for ‘terrorism’ complicates international law. The debate over Hamas’s classification influences media narratives significantly, while Argentina tightens its own anti-terrorism legislation, raising questions about its future in the Council amidst disproportionate scrutiny over human rights abuses.
In conclusion, Argentina’s potential withdrawal from the UN Human Rights Council represents a significant shift in diplomatic alignment, particularly towards the US. The ambiguous definitions of ‘terrorism’ and selective resolutions against countries like Israel challenge the credibility of international human rights mechanisms. As Argentina reinforces its legal framework against terrorism, it grapples with international scrutiny and historical biases in human rights enforcement, epitomising the complex interplay of global politics and ethics.
Original Source: www.batimes.com.ar
