The international system, built at the end of two world wars, was designed with the aspiration of preserving global peace, promoting justice, and ensuring stability through a Rules-Based International Order. Institutions such as the United Nations, the UN Covenants on Human Rights and the United Nations Human Rights Council formed the backbone of this system. They served as crucial platforms for upholding human rights norms and international law. Despite its many imperfections, this system remains important for small countries like Sri Lanka, offering some measure of protection against the pressures of great power politics. However, this international order has not been free from criticism. The selective application of international norms, particularly by powerful Western states, has weakened its legitimacy over time.

The practice of double standards, with swift action in some conflicts like Ukraine but inaction in others like Palestine has created a credibility gap, particularly among non-Western countries. Nevertheless, the core ideals underpinning the UN system such as justice, equality, and peace remain worthy of striving towards, especially for countries like Sri Lanka seeking to consolidate national reconciliation and sustainable development. Sri Lanka’s post-war engagement with the UNHRC highlights the tensions between sovereignty and accountability. Following the end of its three-decade civil war in 2009, Sri Lanka faced multiple UNHRC resolutions calling for transitional justice, accountability for human rights abuses, and political reforms. In 2015, under Resolution 30/1, Sri Lanka co-sponsored a landmark commitment to implement a comprehensive transitional justice framework, including truth-seeking, reparations, and institutional reforms.

However, the implementation of these pledges has been slow and uneven. By 2019, Sri Lanka formally withdrew its support for UNHRC Resolution 30/1, citing concerns over sovereignty and external interference. This has led to a deepening cycle with more demanding UNHRC resolutions being passed at regular intervals, broadening the scope of international scrutiny to the satisfaction of the minority, while resistance to it grows in the majority community. The recent Resolution 51/1 of 2022 reflects this trend, with a wider range of recommendations including setting up of an external monitoring mechanism in Geneva. Sri Lanka today stands at a critical juncture. A new government, unburdened by direct involvement in past violations and committed to principles of equality and inclusive governance, now holds office. This provides an unprecedented opportunity to break free from the cycle of resolutions and negative international attention that have affected the country’s image.

Keeping GSP+
The NPP government has emphasised its commitment to treating all citizens equally, regardless of ethnicity, religion, or region. This commitment corresponds with the spirit of the UN system, which seeks not to punish but to promote positive change. It is therefore in Sri Lanka’s national interest to approach the UNHRC not as an adversary, but as a partner in a shared journey toward justice and reconciliation. Sri Lanka must also approach this engagement with an understanding of the shortcomings of the present international system. The West’s selective enforcement of human rights norms has bred distrust. Sri Lanka’s legitimate concerns about double standards are valid, particularly when one compares the Western response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine with the muted responses to the plight of Palestinians or interventions in Libya and Iraq.

However, pointing to hypocrisy does not absolve Sri Lanka from its own obligations. Indeed, the more credible and consistent Sri Lanka is in upholding human rights at home, the stronger its moral position becomes in calling for a fairer and more equitable international order. Engaging with the UN system from a position of integrity will also strengthen Sri Lanka’s international partnerships, preserve crucial economic benefits such as GSP Plus with the European Union, and promote much-needed foreign investment and tourism. The continuation of GSP Plus is contingent upon Sri Lanka’s adherence to 27 international conventions relating to human rights, labour rights, environmental standards, and good governance. The upcoming visit of an EU monitoring mission is a vital opportunity for Sri Lanka to demonstrate its commitment to these standards. It needs to be kept in mind that Sri Lanka lost GSP Plus in 2010 due to concerns over human rights violations. Although it was regained in 2017, doubts were raised again in 2021, when the European Parliament called for its reassessment, citing the continued existence and use of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and broader concerns about rule of law.

The government needs to treat the GSP Plus obligations with the same seriousness that it applies to its commitments to the International Monetary Fund. Prior to the elections, the NPP pledged to repeal the PTA if it came to power. There are some cases reported from the east where trespass of forest had been stated as offences and legal action filed under the PTA in courts which had been dragging for years, awaiting instructions from the Attorney General which do not come perhaps due to over-work. But the price paid by those detained under this draconian law is unbearably high. The repeal or substantial reform of the PTA is urgent, not only to meet human rights standards but also to reassure the EU of Sri Lanka’s sincerity. The government has set up a committee to prepare new legislation. The government needs to present the visiting EU delegation with a credible and transparent roadmap for reform, backed by concrete actions rather than promises. Demonstrating goodwill at this juncture will not only preserve GSP Plus but also strengthen Sri Lanka’s hand in future trade negotiations and diplomatic engagements.

International Partnership
The government’s recent emphasis on good governance, economic recovery, and anti-corruption is a positive foundation. But as experience shows, economic reform alone is insufficient. Political reforms, especially those that address the grievances of minority communities and uphold human rights, are equally critical to national stability and prosperity. There is a recent tendency of the state to ignore these in reality and announce that there is no minority or majority as all are citizens, but which is seen by the minorities as sweeping many issues under the carpet. Examples give are the appointment of large number of persons from the majority community to the council of Eastern University whose faculty is mainly from the minority communities or the failure to have minority representation in many high level state committees. Neglecting these dimensions risks perpetuating internal divisions and giving ammunition to external critics. The government’s political will needs to extend beyond economic management to genuine national reconciliation. Instead of being seen as a burden, meeting the EU’s GSP Plus obligations and those of UNHRC Resolution 51/1 can be viewed as providing a roadmap.

The task before the government is to select key areas where tangible progress can be made within the current political and institutional context, demonstrating good faith and building international confidence. Several recommendations within Resolution 51/1 can be realistically implemented without compromising national sovereignty. Advancing the search for truth and providing reparations to victims of the conflict, repealing the Prevention of Terrorism Act, revitalising devolution both by empowering the elected provincial councils, reducing the arbitrary powers of the governors as well as through holding long-delayed elections are all feasible and impactful measures. The return of occupied lands, compensation for victims, and the inclusion of minority communities in governance at all levels are also steps that are achievable within Sri Lanka’s constitutional framework and political reality. Crucially, while engaging with these UNHRC recommendations, the government needs to also articulate its own vision of reconciliation and justice. Rather than appearing as if it is merely responding to external pressure, the government should proactively frame its efforts as part of a homegrown agenda for national renewal. Doing so would preserve national dignity while demonstrating international responsibility.

The NPP government is unburdened by complicity in past abuses and propelled by a mandate for change. It has a rare window of opportunity. By moving decisively to implement assurances given in the past to the EU to safeguard GSP Plus and engaging sincerely with the UNHRC, Sri Lanka can finally extricate itself from the cycle of international censure and chart a new path based on reconciliation and international partnership. As the erosion of the international rules-based order continues and big power rivalries intensify, smaller states like Sri Lanka need to secure their positions through partnerships, and multilateral engagement. In a transactional world, in which nothing is given for free but everything is based on give and take, trust matters more than ever. By demonstrating its commitment to human rights, reconciliation, and inclusive governance, not only to satisfy the international community but also for better governance and to develop trust internally, Sri Lanka can strengthen its hand internationally and secure a more stable and prosperous future.