اندیشه‌های حقوق عمومی

The application of double standards in dealing with human rights violations refers to a selective and differential approach by states towards similar cases, primarily aimed at securing political interests, supporting allied countries, and confronting non-aligned governments. This phenomenon poses a fundamental challenge to the international human rights system and undermines its credibility, justice, and legitimacy. The importance of this issue lies in the fact that impartiality and balance in addressing violations form the foundation of trust in international institutions. This article, using a descriptive-analytical approach, examines the performance of the United Nations Human Rights Council and the impact of political and geopolitical considerations on its decision-making. It first explores the institutional developments from the Human Rights Commission to the formation of the Human Rights Council and the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) mechanism. Then, by analyzing four case studies on Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar, and Iraq, examples of the Council's imbalanced approaches are examined. The findings indicate that the predominance of political considerations over the principle of impartiality has reduced the Council's effectiveness and made structural reform, strengthening independent oversight and increased transparency necessary.