اندیشه‌های حقوق عمومی

The use of double standards in addressing human rights violations by governments remains one of the core challenges facing the international human rights system. This article adopts a descriptive-analytical approach to critically examine the performance of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), emphasizing the impact of political and geopolitical considerations on its decisions. It first explores the institutional evolution from the former Commission on Human Rights to the establishment of the Human Rights Council, along with mechanisms such as the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). It then analyzes four case studies—Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar, and Iraq—to highlight examples of selective and unbalanced responses by the Council to similar human rights violations. The findings reveal that political considerations often prevail over the principle of impartiality, thereby weakening the effectiveness and credibility of the Council and related bodies. Accordingly, structural reforms, reduced political interference, stronger independent monitoring, and enhanced transparency and accountability are essential to restoring justice and legitimacy within the international human rights system.