When the General Assembly Speaks

International Relations

Despite all the turbulence of our times, right, when collectively upheld by the community of nations, can still prevail over might

By Vijay Makhan

The overwhelming renewal of Volker Türk as United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights is about far more than one individual or one office. It is a timely reminder that, despite mounting geopolitical fragmentation and growing pressures upon the multilateral system, the collective will of the international community can still prevail over the preferences of even the most powerful nations. For those inclined to believe that international affairs have become governed solely by the doctrine that might is right, the General Assembly has offered a salutary reminder that this need not always be so.

Volker Türk. Pic – Arab News

From time to time, events within the United Nations transcend the immediate issue under consideration and become a measure of the institution itself. The recent renewal of Volker Türk as United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights is one such occasion.

Much has already been written about the opposition voiced by the United States, Israel and Russia to Mr Türk’s reappointment. Equally noteworthy, however, was the overwhelming response of the United Nations General Assembly, which endorsed the nomination made by Secretary-General António Guterres by an emphatic majority. In doing so, the Assembly was not merely renewing the mandate of an individual. It was reaffirming the integrity of an institution and the principles upon which it rests.

For those of us — including this writer — who have, over recent years, repeatedly expressed concern in these columns and elsewhere over the gradual erosion of multilateralism and the weakening of the international rules-based order, this vote deserves careful reflection. In a succession of articles examining the retreat from multilateralism, the growing recourse to unilateralism and the resurgence of the doctrine that “might is right”, I argued that the international system was entering one of its most testing periods since the founding of the United Nations. If there was one abiding concern running through those reflections, it was whether multilateralism still possessed sufficient resilience to withstand the pressures of great-power politics.

The General Assembly’s overwhelming endorsement of the Secretary-General’s nominee offers a reassuring, if cautious, answer. It reminds us that the narrative is not exclusively one of institutional decline. It demonstrates that, notwithstanding the influence and pressures which major powers are capable of exerting, there remain domains within the United Nations where the collective judgement of the international community continues to carry decisive weight.

The significance of this vote lies precisely in that distinction. It was never simply about Volker Türk. It was about the ability of the wider membership of the United Nations to assert its collective will in defence of an institution whose independence many regard as indispensable.

Nor was this a simplistic contest between East and West, or between North and South. One of the more remarkable features of the vote was that China, India and Pakistan all supported Mr Türk’s reappointment. China’s vote came despite repeated criticism by the Office of the High Commissioner regarding the treatment of the Uyghur minority in Xinjiang. India and Pakistan, each of which has also been the subject of scrutiny by the international human rights machinery, likewise endorsed the Secretary-General’s nominee. Their convergence on this occasion demonstrates that governments may profoundly disagree with the observations or conclusions of an international institution while nevertheless recognising the importance of preserving its independence, credibility and legitimacy.

The significance of this convergence should not be underestimated. China, India and Pakistan seldom find themselves on the same side of issues touching upon international politics. Yet on this occasion they joined the overwhelming majority of the General Assembly in affirming the authority of the Secretary-General’s nomination and the independence of one of the United Nations’ principal human rights institutions. This broad consensus lends additional weight to the Assembly’s decision and underscores that this was less a vote about one individual than about the preservation of an institutional principle.

Institutional Independence

That lesson deserves careful reflection. International institutions are not established to comfort governments or shield them from criticism. They exist precisely to uphold principles which may, from time to time, prove inconvenient to those exercising power. If the occupants of such offices were to be judged solely on whether they pleased the governments they were expected to scrutinise, their independence would rapidly evaporate, and with it their credibility.

There is another constitutional dimension that should not escape attention. Volker Türk was the Secretary-General’s nominee. The General Assembly’s overwhelming endorsement therefore also represented an expression of confidence in the authority of the Secretary-General and in the integrity of the established procedures governing senior appointments within the United Nations. Had the Assembly yielded to political pressure from a handful of influential capitals, it would have weakened not merely one office, but the institutional balance painstakingly developed over decades.

The vote also serves as a reminder of something too often overlooked. While international attention is understandably focused upon the Security Council and the rivalries among its permanent members, the General Assembly remains the most representative organ of the international community. It is there that the sovereign equality of states finds its fullest expression. Each Member State, irrespective of its size, military capability or economic strength, speaks with one voice and exercises one vote.

Power of the UN General Assembly

History reminds us that this is by no means the first occasion on which the General Assembly has asserted its collective authority in the face of opposition from major powers. Mauritius knows this better than most. The overwhelming support accorded by the Assembly to the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Chagos Archipelago, and subsequently to the resolutions calling for the completion of the decolonisation of Mauritius, demonstrated that when the international community rallies around the principles of international law, justice and decolonisation, even the most entrenched geopolitical positions can, over time, be compelled to yield. The renewal of Volker Türk’s mandate is another illustration that the collective voice of nations continues to matter.

For small and vulnerable states, this principle is far from an abstract constitutional ideal. It is an indispensable strategic asset. Countries such as Mauritius have never depended upon military might to defend their national interests. Their greatest protection has always resided in international law, in the authority of multilateral institutions and in the legitimacy conferred by broad international consensus. Our own experience in the Chagos struggle bears eloquent testimony to the strength that can be derived from patient diplomacy, legal principle and the mobilisation of overwhelming support within the General Assembly.

This is why the outcome of this vote deserves to be welcomed beyond the immediate issue of human rights. It demonstrates that the United Nations, despite all its imperfections and notwithstanding the undeniable pressures to which it is subjected, continues to possess an institutional resilience which many had begun to question.

The Relevance of the National Human Rights Commission

The broader lesson extends well beyond the United Nations itself. Every democratic society requires institutions capable of safeguarding the rights and freedoms of its citizens, particularly at times when political passions run high or when public confidence in governance is being tested. A credible, independent and adequately empowered National Human Rights Commission is therefore not a luxury but an essential pillar of democratic governance. It provides citizens with confidence that grievances can be heard impartially and that the principles enshrined in our Constitution and in the international conventions to which Mauritius is a party are translated into meaningful protection.

In Mauritius today, as our democracy continues to evolve and as society grapples with increasingly complex social, economic and governance challenges, the relevance of such institutions has become even more pronounced. Their effectiveness depends not merely upon their statutory existence but upon the confidence they inspire through their independence, professionalism and moral authority. Institutions command respect not because they are created by law, but because they discharge their responsibilities without fear, favour or political influence.

The same principle applies internationally. Just as national human rights institutions derive their authority from their independence, so too does the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. To weaken that independence would be to weaken the confidence upon which the protection of human rights ultimately depends.

There will undoubtedly continue to be disagreements over the work of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Such disagreements are inevitable within an organisation composed of sovereign states with different political systems, histories and priorities. But that is precisely why the independence of the office must remain beyond the reach of political expediency. Institutions derive their legitimacy not from pleasing governments but from applying principles consistently, impartially and without fear or favour.

Might Is Not Always Right

If one broader lesson emerges from this episode, it is that power, however formidable, does not invariably prevail. For some time now I have cautioned against the growing perception that international relations had entered an era in which might had finally displaced right. The General Assembly has demonstrated that, while power remains an undeniable feature of world politics, it is not always determinative. Collective legitimacy, patiently forged among nations with widely differing political systems, strategic interests and ideological orientations, can still prevail over the preferences of even the strongest powers.

The multilateral system undoubtedly remains under severe strain. It continues to face challenges from unilateralism, geopolitical rivalry and a worrying erosion of confidence in international institutions. Yet this episode reminds us that the system is far from defeated. Beneath the turbulence of contemporary international politics, the institutions painstakingly constructed since 1945 continue to possess a resilience that should neither be underestimated nor taken for granted.

The General Assembly has spoken. In doing so, it has reminded the international community that the United Nations belongs not to its most powerful members, but equally to its smallest and most vulnerable. When the overwhelming majority of nations speak with one voice, even the strongest powers would do well to listen. For therein lies the enduring strength of multilateralism — and the enduring reminder that, despite all the turbulence of our times, right, when collectively upheld by the community of nations, can still prevail over might.

29 July 2026

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 31 July 2026