The Critical Role of Human Rights Reporting in Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals

Guiding Policy and Aid in Alignment with SDG 16

According to Ellen Kennedy, Executive Director of World Without Genocide, comprehensive human rights reports are instrumental in advancing Sustainable Development Goal 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions. These reports provide the foundational data necessary for shaping international relations and ensuring accountability. Their primary functions include:

• Guiding national foreign policy decisions.
• Informing the implementation of international sanctions.
• Directing the allocation of foreign aid to support just and inclusive societies.
• Influencing microlevel outcomes that directly affect the lives and rights of individuals.

Foundational Principles for Upholding Universal Human Rights

Experts from organizations such as the Center for Victims of Torture and the Humphrey School emphasize that the effectiveness of these reports in supporting the SDGs hinges on their credibility and consistency. Simon Adams, President and CEO of the Center for Victims of Torture, notes a significant shift, underscoring the importance of impartial assessment. Key principles for authoritative reporting that aligns with the global goals include:

1. Impartiality: All countries, regardless of their status as allies or adversaries, must be evaluated with a discerning eye against universal human rights standards.
2. Consistency: As noted by Eric Schwartz, chair of the Humphrey School’s global policy area, reports must be consistent and serve as an exemplar for the principles of rule of law and political participation, which are central to SDG 16.
3. Authoritativeness: Reliable and authoritative data builds the trust necessary for effective global partnerships, a cornerstone of SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals.

Consequences of Diminished Credibility for SDG Progress

Undermining the credibility of human rights reporting creates a “conspiracy of silence” that directly threatens progress on the SDGs. Simon Adams warns that this silence is insidious, allowing repressive regimes to operate with impunity and isolating victims. The negative consequences for the SDG framework are severe:

• Endangering Human Rights Defenders: A credible report can act as a shield for activists on the ground. Weakening this mechanism puts them at greater risk, undermining efforts to build peaceful and just societies (SDG 16).
• Eroding Accountability: When powerful nations fail to acknowledge human rights abuses, it breaks down the international systems of accountability and justice that the SDGs aim to strengthen.
• Violating the “Leave No One Behind” Principle: Repressive regimes attempt to create a “profound silence” around suffering. Credible international reports break through this climate of denial and indifference, validating the experiences of victims and affirming that they are not alone, a core tenet of the entire 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  This is the most prominent SDG in the article. The text revolves around the importance of human rights reports in promoting “rule of law, of political participation, of democracy.” It discusses how these reports are used to hold repressive regimes accountable, break the “climate of silence, denial, indifference, impunity,” and act as a “shield for human rights defenders.” These themes are central to SDG 16, which aims to promote peaceful and inclusive societies, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.

• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

  The article highlights the role of human rights reports on a “macro, geopolitical level to guide our foreign policy, to guide sanctions, to guide where foreign aid may be sent.” This points to the use of international cooperation and policy coherence (partnerships) to achieve human rights objectives. The collaboration between government entities producing the reports and non-governmental organizations like “World Without Genocide” and the “Center for Victims of Torture” also exemplifies the multi-stakeholder partnerships central to SDG 17.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Targets under SDG 16:

  • Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all. The article directly mentions that credible reports have been an “exemplar for the principles of rule of law.” The discussion of breaking through “impunity” and holding countries accountable for human rights abuses directly relates to ensuring access to justice.
  • Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements. The reports themselves are a form of public information designed to break a “conspiracy of silence.” The article explicitly states that undermining the report’s credibility “endangers” “human rights defenders,” which connects directly to the protection of fundamental freedoms.
  • Target 16.a: Strengthen relevant national institutions, including through international cooperation, to build capacity at all levels… to prevent violence. The article explains that the reports are used to “guide our foreign policy, to guide sanctions, to guide where foreign aid may be sent.” This is a form of international cooperation aimed at influencing and strengthening institutions to uphold human rights and prevent violence.

• Targets under SDG 17:

  • Target 17.14: Enhance policy coherence for sustainable development. The use of a single, authoritative report to guide multiple aspects of foreign relations—policy, sanctions, and aid—is a direct example of attempting to create policy coherence around the principle of human rights.
  • Target 17.16: Enhance the global partnership for sustainable development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships. The article describes an ecosystem where a government report is analyzed and utilized by various non-governmental organizations (“World Without Genocide,” “Center for Victims of Torture”) to advance human rights, illustrating a multi-stakeholder partnership in action.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicators for SDG 16:

  • Implied Indicator for Target 16.10 (Indicator 16.10.1): The article’s concern that undermining the report’s credibility “endangers” “human rights defenders” implies the relevance of tracking the safety of these individuals. This aligns with Indicator 16.10.1, which measures the “Number of verified cases of killing, kidnapping, enforced disappearance, arbitrary detention and torture of journalists, associated media personnel, trade unionists and human rights advocates.”
  • Implied Indicator for Target 16.3 (Indicator 16.3.3): The fight against a “climate of silence, denial, indifference, impunity” implies a need for mechanisms to address grievances and ensure justice. The existence and credibility of human rights reports can be seen as a proxy measure for international accountability mechanisms, related to Indicator 16.3.3, which tracks access to dispute resolution mechanisms.

• Indicators for SDG 17:

  • Implied Indicator for Target 17.14 (Indicator 17.14.1): The article describes the human rights report as a tool to “guide our foreign policy, to guide sanctions, to guide where foreign aid may be sent.” This function serves as a mechanism for policy coherence. Progress could be measured by the extent to which these different policy areas are aligned based on the report’s findings, which relates to Indicator 17.14.1 (“Number of countries with mechanisms in place to enhance policy coherence of sustainable development”).

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: startribune.com