Abstract
In the official declarations of the India-Brazil-South Africa Dialogue Forum (IBSA), the three states claim a shared understanding of human rights and a deep commitment to the international promotion and protection of these rights. This article considers these two propositions in light of the actions of the IBSA states on the United Nations Human Rights Council. After examining the positions of the IBSA states on seven controversial country-specific cases (Belarus, Darfur and Sudan, Iran, Israel, North Korea, Sri Lanka, and Syria) and four controversial thematic domains (economic rights, racism, freedom of expression, and sexual orientation), I conclude that the three states do not have the same views about human rights. Furthermore, I find that the IBSA states often do not support pro-human rights initiatives in the Council, although Brazil stands apart from India and South Africa for its greater willingness to support stronger human rights positions.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
