How does U.N. Human Rights Council Item 7 work and which other countries have permanent agenda items?
Executive summary
Agenda Item 7 is the UN Human Rights Council’s standing agenda item entitled “Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories,” placed on the Council’s order of business at every regular session and generating reports, debates and periodic resolutions specific to the Occupied Palestinian Territory and related areas [1] [2]. It is unique: no other State is the subject of its own permanent agenda item, a fact that drives both sustained advocacy for its retention and sustained criticism that the Council is selectively targeting Israel [3] [4] [5].
1. What Item 7 actually does at each HRC session
Item 7 appears on the Council’s agenda at every session and routinely receives oral updates and written reports from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), produces country-specific reports (for example on the OPT and the occupied Golan), and is the locus for draft resolutions concerning Palestinian rights, settlements, accountability and humanitarian conditions which the Council may adopt—typically as non‑binding resolutions—during that session [6] [2] [7].
2. How Item 7 fits inside the Council’s formal agenda structure
The Human Rights Council follows a ten‑item order of business for each session, with Item 7 dedicated to the Human Rights Situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories while other country situations are generally addressed under Item 4 (“human rights situations that require the Council’s attention”) or, exceptionally, under Item 2 (the Council’s response and functioning) or Item 10 in specific circumstances; this structural placement makes Item 7 the only permanently country‑specific item on the standard agenda [1] [8].
3. Why some states and NGOs defend Item 7
Proponents argue that Item 7 is necessary because the prolonged occupation, settlement activity and alleged systemic rights violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory require a standing international platform—especially given repeated Security Council deadlocks, including US vetoes of OPT‑related measures—and that the HRC’s sustained attention fills a gap left by other UN mechanisms [9] [10].
4. Why many Western and some other states call for abolishing Item 7
Critics contend that singling out one State’s situation undermines the Council’s claimed non‑selectivity and impartiality and damages its credibility; successive Western statements and votes have framed Item 7 as a structural bias that leads democracies to boycott or vote against items under Item 7 while continuing to address Israel’s actions through other agenda items when they deem it necessary [3] [11] [12] [13].
5. The practical political consequences and patterns of participation
Because Item 7 is visible and recurring, it has produced a disproportionate number of resolutions, special sessions and condemnations relating to Israel compared with other countries, prompting some delegations (including Israel, the United States and several Western states at times) to withhold participation or oppose Item 7 texts as politicized theater; at the same time, NGOs and many UN missions continue to use Item 7 as a predictable forum to advance documentation and pressure [4] [5] [7].
6. The simple answer to “which other countries have permanent agenda items?”
No other country has a permanent, country‑specific standing agenda item comparable to Item 7; the HRC’s permanent items are otherwise generic in scope and apply Council procedures to multiple situations, meaning Israel/Palestine is uniquely singled out by the Council’s recurring Item 7 [3] [4] [1] [5].