Each time a resolution on China was put forward at the Commission on Human Rights (eight times since 1990), a "no action motion" was proposed by China or one of its allies. The Rules of Procedure of the Functional Commissions of the Economic and Social Council (of which CHR is one) foresee a possibility of taking a vote on a motion to take no decision on a proposal submitted to the Commission. Such a vote is typically appropriate when more than one proposal is submitted on the same issue or when amendments are added to an existing text. In the last several years, however, this procedure has been repeatedly used to prevent the Commission from voting on a resolution examining the human rights situation in one particular country: China.

The decision not to hold a vote on a country resolution (or any other resolution, for that matter) has the effect of preventing the Commission from debating the resolution's subject matter. As such, it stands in violation of several important principles the Commission has repeatedly stood by and defended so far, such as non-selectivity, impartiality and freedom of expression.

The no action motion, as applied to the China resolution, has the effect of a gag order on any discussion of the subject matter of the resolution, i.e. the human rights situation in a powerful country with serious human rights problems.

Thus, this use of the no action motion not only violates the principle of the freedom of expression but it also promotes selectivity. It is simply wrong for the Commission to tolerate a situation in which a country that is powerful enough to generate sufficient number of votes or abstentions can block the Commission from holding a debate on an important issue or situation.

The practice of no action motion as applied here has serious consequences for the Commission as the world's highest political body dealing exclusively with human rights: it erodes its integrity and effectiveness and it damages its credibility.

Governments that are concerned about the integrity and effectiveness of the United Nations human rights system should vote "no" on the no action motion.