This session may yet seal historic precedents landmark genocide reports, sea-level resolutions, but as the world watches, the real test will be whether these declarations become law, protection, redress, not just echoes in Geneva’s halls. Because while the Council meets, people on the frontlines are already drowning, starving, silenced. And until their experience matches diplomatic resolutions, rights will continue to melt like icebergs; dramatic, visible, but inexorably vanishing unless anchored.
Dr. Arvind Kumar*
What is the value of “human rights” in a world where glaciers are melting faster than political courage? Can dignity survive when clean water is more fragile than fragile promises? These are not philosophical riddles but living contradictions that the 60th session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva (8 September–8 October 2025) continues to force upon us. As the session progresses, what emerges is not just a list of resolutions and reports, but a map of pressure points; places where law, climate, identity, violence, and morality clash.
This is a Council meeting shaped by crisis: climate injustice, reprisals, gender persecution, statelessness, and the erosion of democratic norms. Delegations speak of human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation, but water rights are juxtaposed with energy systems that pollute; they debate rising sea levels but coastal communities already watch their homes slip beneath the waves. States pledge climate finance; activists demand accountability.
This session may yet seal historic precedents landmark genocide reports, sea-level resolutions, but as the world watches, the real test will be whether these declarations become law, protection, redress, not just echoes in Geneva’s halls. Because while the Council meets, people on the frontlines are already drowning, starving, silenced. And until their experience matches diplomatic resolutions, rights will continue to melt like icebergs; dramatic, visible, but inexorably vanishing unless anchored.
A Triple Crisis, Grim Chapters, and Country Spotlights
It was fitting, perhaps inevitable, that the session opened with High Commissioner Volker Türk’s grim sermon: the world is sliding into an age where “the rules of war are being shredded with virtually no accountability.” Translation? Human rights today are as disposable as single-use plastic. And yet, even as war crimes multiplied, the Council tried to widen its gaze: Pedro Arrojo Agudo, the Special Rapporteur on water and sanitation, dared to connect the dots between water and energy, warning that both systems run not on justice but on profit margins. His plea for a “double-just transition” sounded less like policy jargon and more like an SOS for survival. Marcos Orellana, meanwhile, exposed the invisible violence of toxics, guidelines on justice that read like an indictment of global impunity. We celebrate “net zero” while quietly ignoring the rising toxicity in our bloodstreams. And as if irony were the session’s official language, a resolution on rising sea levels emerged from Malta, Cyprus, Cabo Verde, and the Dominican Republic: lofty, legalistic, and tragically detached from the reality of communities already watching their homes disappear beneath the waves. The law, after all, is precise; the ocean is not patient.
Country spotlights made the contradictions even sharper. Afghanistan has institutionalized gender apartheid, issuing over 100 decrees to erase women from public life while the Taliban shrugs at Geneva’s reports. Gaza, bleeding under systematic destruction, revealed a deeper truth: international law moves slower than bombs. China faced scrutiny over Uyghurs and Tibetans, with civil society documenting forced assimilation of Tibetan children in boarding schools predictably dismissed by Beijing as “politicized.” The déjà vu was painful: accusations, denials, file closed. And then there was India, playing by its own diplomatic script. To Switzerland’s critique on minority rights, New Delhi retorted: look to your own racism and xenophobia. To Pakistan’s recycled rhetoric, it offered sarcasm sharp enough to sting, calling its propaganda a “dump truck.” Yet on Gaza and Qatar, India struck a sober note, defending sovereignty with unusual restraint. Geneva may thrive on polite language, but India reminded the room that diplomacy can also be wielded with wit, sarcasm, and timing.
Civil Society and Financial Realities
Civil society’s presence, though trimmed by budget cuts, still punctured the session’s complacency. NGOs raised alarms on arbitrary detention, women defenders documented abuses, and intersex activists confronted long-ignored violence. The reprisals report confirmed the oldest pattern: those who engage with UN mechanisms often face threats and retaliation. Amid the squeeze, India Water Foundation stood out organizing a high-level policy dialogue on Northeast India’s transformation and delivering sharp interventions on climate justice. From Sikkim’s organic farming model to women-led water governance, the message was clear: resilience comes from communities, not boardrooms. I bluntly accused the Global North of historical pollution and called for climate action that is gender-responsive, adequately funded, and rooted in solidarity.
The same spirit of intersectional justice was echoed at a key side event jointly organized by the Permanent Mission of India in Geneva and UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Development, Prof. Surya Deva, in collaboration with the Permanent Missions of Kenya, Thailand, Mexico, and Belgium. Titled “Gender Equality and the Right to Development: Strengthening the Alliance,” the event featured dynamic, cross-cutting discussions on how the right to development and gender equality must reinforce one another in today’s fractured world. It was not an abstract conversation, but a deliberate attempt to position development as a rights-based pathway where women’s leadership and equity are central. In an environment where civil society participation itself is under financial and political strain, this dialogue underscored how multilateralism can still create spaces for solidarity-driven coalitions.
Way Forward:
The 60th session has already marked turning points but historic moments must now be translated into mechanisms that matter. The Council’s credibility will depend not on eloquent resolutions but on whether it can hardwire accountability, resource mobilization, and enforcement into its future work.
Three priorities stand out. First, environmental rights cannot remain aspirational. With sea levels rising and water-energy conflicts deepening, states must move from debates to binding commitments, integrating human rights into climate finance, adaptation, and just transition frameworks. Second, accountability mechanisms must be strengthened, or enforced disappearances, with sharper mandates and guaranteed funding so that investigations do not wither in Geneva’s archives. Third, civil society participation must be protected, not eroded. As reprisals rise and budgets shrink, safeguarding defenders and ensuring equitable access for voices from the Global South will be the true test of inclusivity.
Looking ahead, the UNHCR has the chance to re-position itself not merely as a forum for rhetoric, but as an anchor for rights in an age of planetary crisis. The task is urgent: unless declarations are paired with implementation, the Council risks becoming a theatre where states rehearse justice but never perform it. The path forward, then, is not about convening more sessions but about delivering on the promises already made.
*Editor, Focus Global Reporter
