UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL

Background Guide

AGENDA : COMBATING INSTITUTIONAL

DISCRIMINATION AND XENOPHOBIA
 LETTER FROM THE EXECUTIVE BOARD
DEAR PROSPECTIVE MEMBERS,
At the outset on behalf of the Executive Board, we extend a warm welcome to all of you and congratulate you
on being a part of “Caeser MUN 2025”.
The committee being simulated, would unlike most other simulations you must have heard of or been a part of;
focus on political intellect and analytical application of thoughts and strategic application of thoughts in
resolving impending politically sensitive bilateral issues. Kindly note, we are not looking for existing solutions,
that would be a copy paste of what the world leaders have already taken; instead we seek an out of the box
solution from you, while knowing and understanding your impending political and ideological limitations. This
Introductory guide would be as abstract as possible, and would just give you a basic perspective on what you
can expect from the committee and areas wherein which your research should be focused at this given point in
time. Given, the extremely volatile nature of this committee, your presence of mind and politico-analytical
aptitude is something which we at the executive board would be looking to test.
Kindly note, that unlike most conventional/unconventional committees you have attended, this committee shall
have “substantive” intervention by the Executive Board. The objective of this background guide is to provide
you with a ‘background’ of the issue at hand and therefore it might seem to some as not being comprehensive
enough. If you feel that the Guide does not cover all the issues and it could have been compiled in a better way
by giving more information or links or better arguments ‘for’ and ‘against’, we think that would be the
appropriate time to pat our backs for we successfully managed to compile a ‘Background Guide’ and not a
‘Study Guide’ which most of the Executive Board members fail to differentiate. We feel that ‘study guides’ are
detrimental to the individual growth of the delegate since they overlook a very important part of this activity,
which is- Research. We are sure however that this background guide gives you a perfect launching pad to start
with your
research.
Wishing you all a very warm good luck and hoping to see you all at this conference discussing imperative issues
of national trust.

Warm Regards,
Vedang Parashar (President)
FOLLOWING IS A SUGGESTED PATTERN FOR RESEARCHING
• Research on the allotted nation, understanding their thinking about the agenda.
• Comprehending the foreign policy of the allotted country. It includes understanding the
ideology and principles adopted by the nation on the agenda. It further includes studying past
actions taken by the nation on the agenda and other related issues – specifically analysing their
causes and consequences.
• Reading the background guide thoroughly.
• Researching further upon the agenda using sources such as academic papers, institutional
reports, national reports, news articles, blogs etc.
• Understanding policies adopted by different stakeholders involved in the agenda. Including
their position, ideology and adopted past actions.
• Characterizing the agenda into sub-topics and preparing speeches and statements on them. It
is the same as preparing topics for the moderated caucuses and their content.
• Preparing a list of possible solutions and actions that can be adopted on the issue as per your
country’s policies.
• Assemble proof/evidence for any important piece of information/allegation you are going to
use in committee
• Keeping your research updated using various news sources, especially news websites given
in the proof/evidence section.
• Lastly, we would request all the delegates to put sincere efforts in preparation and research
for the simulation and work hard to make it a fruitful learning experience for all. Feel free to
contact if you have any queries or doubts.
• A lot of members have doubts such as what they are supposed to write or how should
they should structure their speech. This is completely up to the member. The maximum
we can do is to tell you according to our experiences about how speeches are structured and
content chosen for them accordingly. These are:
 Premise – Analysis – Example
 Problem – Solution – Benefits
 Past – Present – Future Scenario
 What – So what – Now what
• There can be more structures. These are some of them which the members of the
• Reiterating, kindly do not limit your research only to these points and feel free to broaden
your horizons of the research. This is just a list of topics you should cover and is a reflection of
the direction in which we intend to see the flow of debate in the committee.
 MANDATE OF UN HUMAN RIGHTS
The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (UN Human Rights) is mandated by the UN General
Assembly to promote and protect the enjoyment and full realization, by all people, of all human rights. The
Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and international human rights laws
and treaties established those rights.

UN Human Rights was created by the General Assembly in 1993 through its resolution 48/141 which also
details its mandate.

UN Human Rights is mandated:

 Promote and protect all human rights for all

 Recommend that bodies of the UN system improve the promotion and protection of all human rights

 Promote and protect the right to development

 Provide technical assistance to States for human rights activities

 Coordinate UN human rights education and public information programmes

 Work actively to remove obstacles to the realization of human rights and to prevent the continuation of
human rights violations

 Engage in dialogue with Governments in order to secure respect for all human rights

 Enhance international cooperation for the promotion and protection of all human rights

 Coordinate human rights promotion and protection activities throughout the United Nations system

 Rationalize, adapt, strengthen and streamline the UN human rights machinery

The Human Rights Council is an inter-governmental body within the United Nations system responsible for
strengthening the promotion and protection of human rights around the globe and for addressing situations of
human rights violations and make recommendations on them. It has the ability to discuss all thematic human
rights issues and situations that require its attention throughout the year. It meets at the UN Office at Geneva.

The Council is made up of 47 United Nations Member States which are elected by the UN General Assembly.
The Human Rights Council replaced the former United Nations Commission on Human Rights.
 Combating institutional Discrimination and Xenophobia
Combating Institutional Discrimination and Xenophobia

Institutional discrimination and xenophobia continue to undermine equality and social harmony
across the world. Institutional discrimination arises when systems, policies, or practices within
public and private institutions perpetuate unequal treatment or exclusion, while xenophobia
reflects fear, hatred, or intolerance toward foreigners or those perceived as outsiders. Both
forms of discrimination restrict access to education, employment, healthcare, and justice, and
threaten peace and development. The United Nations has emphasized that combating such
systemic and social biases requires not only legislative reforms but also inclusive governance,
equitable policies, and awareness campaigns. Through mechanisms such as the Universal
Periodic Review, the International Organization for Migration (IOM), the UN Refugee Agency
(UNHCR), and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), the UN
promotes the protection of migrants, minorities, and vulnerable groups. Initiatives like the
Together Campaign and the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration further
aim to foster intercultural understanding and eliminate structural barriers that sustain
intolerance. By strengthening accountability, education, and community engagement, the UN
continues to advocate for just, inclusive, and discrimination-free institutions worldwide.
Active UNHRC Activities
 Supports the Special Rapporteur on Contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia
and related intolerance. The Special Rapporteur, who is an independent expert, publishes annual reports
on racism, transmits urgent appeals and communications to States concerning cases of racism, racial
discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and undertakes fact-finding country visits.
 Assists the Independent Expert on Minority Issues. Acknowledging that minorities in all regions of the
world continue to face serious discrimination and racism, the Independent Expert works with other UN
bodies and mechanisms such as the Minority Forum to address human rights violations suffered by
minorities.
 Supports the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, which elaborates short, medium
and long term proposals for the elimination of racial discrimination against People of African descent.
 Through the Anti-Discrimination Unit, furthers the struggle against racism and intolerance. The unit
builds national capacity to eliminate racism through advisory services, conducts research and analysis
on racism, services intergovernmental and expert mechanisms addressing the situation of victim groups,
and engages with the wider community forging partnerships, raising awareness and mobilizing support
for anti-discrimination measures, such as legislation, policies and programmes.
 DEFINITION OF IMPORTANT TERMS

Discrimination

In all its possible forms and expressions – is one of the most common forms of human
rights violations and abuse. It affects millions of people every day and it is one of
the most difficult to recognize. Discrimination and intolerance are closely related
concepts.

Intolerance

Intolerance is a lack of respect for practices or beliefs other than one's own. It also
involves the rejection of people whom we perceive as different, for example
members of a social or ethnic group other than ours, or people who are different in
political or sexual orientation. Intolerance can manifest itself in a wide range of
actions from avoidance through hate speech to physical injury or even murder.

Discrimination occurs when people are treated less favourably than others who are
in a comparable situation only because they belong or are perceived to belong to a
certain group or category of people. People may be discriminated against because of
their age, disability, ethnicity, origin, political belief, race, religion, sex or gender,
sexual orientation, language, culture and on many other grounds.

Discrimination, which is often the result of prejudices people hold, makes people
powerless, impedes them from becoming active citizens, restricts them from
developing their skills and, in many situations, from accessing work, health
services, education or accommodation. Discrimination has direct consequences on
those people and groups being discriminate against, but it has also indirect and
deep consequences on society as a whole. A society where discrimination is
allowed or tolerated is a society where people are deprived of freely exercising
their full potential for themselves and thatsociety.

Xenophobia

The Oxford English Dictionary defines xenophobia as "a morbid fear of foreigners
or foreign countries". In other words, it means an irrational aversion to strangers or
foreigners; it is irrational because it is not necessarily based on any direct concrete
experiences of threat posed by foreigners. Xenophobia is a prejudice related to the
false notion that people from other countries, groups, cultures, or speaking other
languages are a threa. Xenophobiaiscloselyrelatedtoracism: themore"different"
the other is perceived, the stronger the fears and negative feelings tend to be.
Xenophobia is one of the most common forms of and grounds for discrimination
and it is for this that it is a challenge to human rights. Slavery, particularly the
Transatlantic slave trade was the worst manifestation of racism, xenophobia, and
intolerance throughout human history. It is a stain on the human race. More
recently racism, xenophobia, and intolerance have manifested themselves via
colonialism.
Racism
Some prejudices may transform into ideologies and feed hatred. One such ideology
is racism. Racism involves discriminatory or abusive behaviour towards people
because of their imagined "inferiority". There has been widespread belief that
there are human races within the human species, distinguishable on the basis of
physicaldifferences. Scientificresearchshows, however, that "human populations
are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups", and that
race is an imagined entity or social construct. All humans belong to the same species
and, therefore, it makes no sense to talk of "races". The impact of racist ideologies
has been devastating to humanity; it has justified slavery, colonialism, apartheid,
forced sterilizations and annihilations of peoples. It has been the basis of the Nazi
ideologies and the programs to exterminate Jews and other "inferior peoples".
Unfortunately, racismcontinues to be present in contemporary European societies
and politics. Although race is no longer accepted as a biological category and only
few people believe now in "superior races" with an inherent right to exercise power
over those considered "inferior", the impact of racism lingers on and takes on
different forms, such as cultural racism or ethnocentrism, the belief that some
cultures, usually their own, are superior or that other cultures, traditions, customs
and histories are incompatible with theirs.

Racism and Racial Discrimination

The concept of racism dates back to the 18th century, where scientists, biologists
and philosophers attempted to categorize human populations into different groups
based on their abilities and characteristics. These scientists and political
philosophers subscribed to the belief that these racial groups can be placed in a
hierarchal order and that one race can be superior or inferior to another race. The
position of a racial group in the hierarchal order can then used to determine the
distribution of rights and freedoms accorded to the people belonging to a particular
racial group. But let's trace our steps back and decide for ourselves if racism is
real or not? Most biologists argue that till date there is little evidence in human
genome research that indicates that race can be defined in a manner that would be
useful in determining a genetic classification of humans. On the other hand,
modern sociologists consider racism to be a social and political construct. This
means that although concepts of race and racism might be based on observable
biological characteristics, inferences on race on the basis of those observations are
influenced by political and cultural ideologies.
This racist construct then tends to manifest itself in our societies across different
aspects of life such as socio- cultural practices, political processes, judicial
mechanisms etc. This social construct gets reinforced in our minds time and again
through a continuous loop of implicit biases and prejudices thus fueling racial
discrimination. Therefore, it is important to understand that the concept of racism
is a social construct that leads to subconscious biases and prejudices that result in
racial discrimination. Though the United Nations does not define the term racism,
the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial
Discrimination offers a formal and acceptable definition of racial discrimination.
Under article 1, racial discrimination is defined as: “distinction, exclusion,
restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin
that has the purpose or effect of annulling or impairing the recognition, enjoyment
or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the
political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.”
The Preamble of the Convention concludes that the doctrine of supremacism
based on racial discrimination is scientifically false, is morally condemnable,
socially unjust and dangerous and that there is no justification for racial
discrimination. Furthermore, it is important to note that the definition of racial
discriminate subscribed to by the UN fails to make a distinction between
discrimination based on race or ethnic origin in accordance to the definition.
Therefore, for all purposes of this committee simulation, references to racial
discrimination also include discrimination basedonone’s descent, national or ethnic
origin.

Individual Racism vs Institutional Racism

Discrimination refers to differential and often unequal treatment of a person or a
group of persons based on membership to a group or possession of traits such as
ethnic origin, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, language caste or some
other status. In regards to racism, racial discrimination can manifest in the form
of personal biases and the regular functioning of institutions. Sometimes such
racist attitudes can become so deep-seated in our mindset that racial
discrimination becomes a part of the normal functioning of societies and
institutions. This is called institutional racism or institutional racial
discrimination. Individual racism refers to isolated cases of racial discrimination
that one person might face. In cases of individual racism, a person discriminates
against another person on the basis of race, ethnic or national origin.

Individual racial discrimination is in most cases a result of personal biases or

prejudices a person might posses due to personal experiences, social norms,
cultural conditioning or some other reasons. On the other hand, Institutional
racism refers to discrimination against a person or a group of persons that has
been incorporated in the structures, policies, procedures and practices of social
institutions – such as governmental organizations, public schools and hospitals,
judicial bodies and courts etc. This form of discrimination is either borne out of
prejudice or because of failure to take into account the particular needs of
different social identities. One historic example of institutional racism is the
exclusion of African-American students from attending certain public schools and
separate schools for African-American children. This ended up limiting the
educational opportunities of African-American children and precluded them from
achieving status equal to that of others. Other examples of institutional racism in
the education sector include less funding of public schools in colour dominated
communities as compared to schools in caucasian dominated communities in the
US. Similar institutional racism exists in the hiring processes of job applicants. It
has been seen that job applicants with acaucasiansoundingnamehada 50% greater
chance of getting a call back after circulating their resume as compared to a person
with a colour sounding name. Such cases of Institutionalized racism and racial
discrimination are rife in other aspects of one’s life such as through access to courts
and other legal remedies, judicial decisions of juries in the prosecution of people,
incarceration rates in case of drug addicts. It can be argued that racism andracial
discrimination can exist with access to public facilities.
 Incarceration of Japanese-Americans post WW2

Ten weeks after the Japanese military attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii in 1941, the
U.S. government authorized the removal of over 110,000 Japanese American men,
women, and children from their homes in Western parts of the country to incarceration
camps in desolate areas of the U.S.

History and racial trauma are inextricably linked. Given the complicated multicultural
and racial nature of contemporary society, associate understanding of the history of
racism and its impacts on communities of colour is crucial. analysis of specific
historical and race-based traumas can give insights into these impacts and their long-
range consequences. the current paper describes World War II (WWII) Japanese
Americanincarceration, acaseexampleofracial trauma that occurred over seventy-five
years ago, to provide a perspective on the scope of racial trauma and healing over a
broad arc of time and across ever-changing social contexts.

Japanese Americans carried psychological burdens and an undeserved stigma from the
unjust imprisonment long after the war’s end. The incarceration remained “the
mournful reference point from which these Americans describe changes in their
communities, theirpersonal lives, their aspirations” 1. Its powerful impacts reflect four
important forms of trauma: individual, race-based, historical, and cultural. Individual
and race-based traumas occurred at the time of incarceration, while the historical and
cultural traumas emerged after the war ended at an intergenerational level. At the
individual level, the suspicions of disloyalty from non-Japanese and their government,
sudden uprooting and imprisonment without wrongdoing, and uncertainty about their
future shattered Japanese Americans’ assumptive world, sense of self, and well-being2.
It is important that the incarceration also represented a powerful race-based trauma3.

Japanese Americans were deliberately targeted for discriminatory treatment motivated by

racial stereotypes, while German and Italian Americans were not. Decades of anti-Asian
racism driven by perceptions of Japanese as untrustworthy and unassimilable foreigners
preceded the war and resulted in laws restricting immigration, miscegenation, rights to
citizenship, and land ownership 4. This exclusion of Japanese Americans from mainstream
society paved the way for a swift response following Pearl Harbor, with little objection
from others. Poll data from the spring of 1942 showed that a majority of
Americans favoured removal. Chinese Americans, who supported the incarceration
given the history of conflict between China and Japan, helped spread the belief that
Japanese Americans were untrustworthy and wore “I am Chinese” buttons 5. At the
same time, nearly all Black and Jewish community organizations and civil liberties
groups remained silent 6.

Two additional forms of trauma, historical and cultural, surfaced after the
incarceration ended and are associated with long-term intergenerational impacts.
Historical trauma has been defined as a trauma that is shared by a group of people
and has impacts that span across multiple generations7. Consistent with this, evidence
points to extended incarceration impacts that affected subsequent generations of Japanese
Americans8. Cultural trauma can be seen as a more specific manifestation of historical
trauma.

While historical trauma concerns intergenerational impacts broadly, cultural trauma

focuses on how a shared traumatic event impacts group consciousness and identity.
It is defined as occurring "When members of a collectivity feel they have been
subjected to a traumatic event that leaves indelible marks upon their group
consciousness, marking memories forever and changing their future identity”.
 Discrimination & Racism in Europe
Government and community responses to racism have varied considerably. In some
countries particularly Germany and Switzerland—it is difficult for immigrants to
obtain naturalisation, and even children born to immigrant parents do not
automatically become citizens. Permanent resident status is also hard to get in certain
countries. In such cases, community conflicts are exacerbated by immigrants' weak
legal status and their insecurity about whether they can remain in the country.
Moreover, anti-discrimination laws cannot be introduced or enforced where the state
itself discriminates, for instance by giving preference in employment and social
security to its citizens and other European Community nationals. In eastern and
south-eastern Europe, the collapse of communist states have led to explosive ethnic
conflicts based partly on long-suppressed historical disputes and partly on new
problems arising from the economic and politicalcrisis.

The current struggles in the ruins of the former Yugoslavia are too well-known to
need rehearsing here. The extreme racism of 'ethnic cleansing' has evoked widespread
horror. The failure of European countries and supranational bodies like the European
Community and the United Nations to stop the fighting appears as a major setback to
attempts to create a new global order after the Cold War. The response to the new
refugee emergency has also been far from adequate, and the suspicion exists that some
countries, such as Britain, have put restrictive immigration policies before
humanitarian considerations. The conflicts in Bosnia, Croatia and other parts of
former Yugoslavia show vividly that racism can present a major threat to democratic
states and the international community.
 Racial Segregation in the United States

Immediately following the Civil War and adoption of the 13th Amendment, moststates
of the former Confederacy adopted Black Codes, laws modelled on former slave laws.
These laws were intended to limit the new freedom of emancipated African Americans
by restricting their movement and by forcing them into a labour economy based on low
wages and debt.

Vagrancy Laws allowed blacks to be arrested for minor infractions. A system of

penal labour known as convict leasing was established at this time. Black men
convicted for vagrancy would be used as unpaid labourers, and thus effectively re-
enslaved. This would set precedent for Black Codes & Jim CrowLaws.

● Jim Crow laws were laws created by white southerners to enforce racial
segregation
across the South from the 1870s through the 1960s.
● Under the Jim Crow system, “whites only” and "coloured" signs proliferated across
the South at water fountains, restrooms, bus waiting areas, movie theatres,
swimming pools, and public schools. African Americans who dared to challenge
segregation faced arrest or violent reprisal.
● In 1896, the Supreme Court declared Jim Crow segregation legal in the Plessy v.
Ferguson decision. The Court ruled that “separate but equal” accommodations
African Americans were permitted under the Constitution.

Examples of Jim Crow Laws Across Various States:

“It shall be unlawful for a negro and white person to play together or in company with
each other in any game of cards or dice, dominoes or checkers.”
—Birmingham, Alabama, 1930

“Marriages are void when one party is a white person and the other is possessed of one-
eighth or more negro, Japanese, or Chinese blood.”
—Nebraska, 1911
“Separate free schools shall be established for the education of children of African
descent, and it shall be unlawful for any coloured child to attend any white school, or
any white child to attend a colouredschool.”
—Missouri, 1929

“All railroads carrying passengers in the state (other than street railroads) shall
provide equal but separate accommodations for the white and coloured races, by
providing two or more passenger cars for each passenger train, or by dividing the cars
by a partition, to secure separate accommodations.”
—Tennessee, 1891.
 Institutional Discrimination: The Gender Pay Gap in the Workplace

Institutional discrimination is often embedded within the structures and systems

that govern societies, resulting in persistent inequality even without overt intent.
One of the most globally recognized examples of institutional discrimination is the
gender pay gap — the systemic disparity between men’s and women’s earnings for
work of equal value. While individual bias plays a role, the gap is primarily
perpetuated by institutional norms, employment practices, and socio-economic
systems that undervalue women’s labor.
According to the International Labour Organization (ILO), women worldwide earn
on average 20% less than men. This disparity persists even after accounting for
education, experience, and job type, pointing toward structural inequalities within
organizations and labor markets. Discriminatory recruitment practices, lack of
access to leadership positions, and insufficient maternity protections contribute to
maintaining this inequality. Furthermore, women are often concentrated in lower-
paying industries and informal work sectors, which are undervalued by both
markets and policy frameworks.
The United Nations has consistently highlighted gender-based pay inequality as a
major form of institutional discrimination. The Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)obliges States to take
measures ensuring equal pay for work of equal value, while SDG 5 of the 2030
Agenda calls for gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls.
Initiatives such as the Equal Pay International Coalition (EPIC)—a joint effort
by the ILO, UN Women, and the OECD—have been launched to accelerate global
action toward closing the gender pay gap.
However, despite progress, deep-rooted social and institutional biases continue to
hinder full equality. In countries like the United States, the pay gap stands at around
82 cents to every dollar earned by men, with even larger disparities for women of
color. In developing countries, women’s participation in the formal economy
remains limited by structural barriers such as limited access to education, unequal
inheritance laws, and unpaid domestic responsibilities. Reforming these systems
requires not only policy change but also transformation of workplace culture,
improved transparency in pay structures, and greater accountability for employers.
Institutional discrimination in pay is not only a matter of fairness but also of
economic efficiency. According to the World Bank, eliminating gender inequality
in labor markets could increase global GDP by up to 26%. Addressing institutional
discrimination, therefore, is not simply a social issue—it is an essential step toward
sustainable and inclusive economic development.
Xenophobia: The European Migrant Crisis and Rising Anti-Immigrant Sentiment
Xenophobia, defined as fear, hatred, or prejudice against foreigners or those
perceived as outsiders, has emerged as one of the most pressing global human
rights challenges of the 21st century. A striking example of this phenomenon can be
found in the context of the European Migrant Crisis (2015–present), which has
triggered both humanitarian responses and intense xenophobic backlash across the
continent.
The crisis began when millions of refugees and migrants, primarily from Syria,
Afghanistan, Iraq, and parts of Africa, fled war, persecution, and poverty in
search of safety in Europe. By 2015, over 1 million people had crossed the
Mediterranean Sea, according to the UNHCR. While countries like Germany and
Sweden adopted relatively open-door policies, others—including Hungary, Poland,
and Italy—implemented strict border controls, detentions, and deportations.
Political rhetoric in many nations increasingly linked migration to terrorism,
unemployment, and social instability, fueling xenophobic narratives.
Far-right movements and parties across Europe—such as the Alternative für
Deutschland (AfD) in Germany, Lega Nord in Italy, and National Rally in
France—capitalized on public fear to gain political power, promoting “national
identity” over multiculturalism. Hate crimes, discrimination in employment and
housing, and online harassment against migrants and refugees rose sharply.
According to FRA (EU Agency for Fundamental Rights) reports, over 30% of
migrants in the EU have experienced discrimination due to their ethnicity or
migration background.
In response, the United Nations and the European Union have launched initiatives
to combat xenophobia and promote inclusion. The UN’s Together Campaign aims
to foster mutual understanding between refugees and host communities, while the
Global Compact for Migration (2018) establishes principles for safe, orderly, and
regular migration. Educational campaigns, intercultural dialogue programs, and
community integration projects have been implemented in several countries to
counter stereotypes and misinformation about migrants.
Despite these efforts, xenophobia continues to threaten international cooperation
and social cohesion. The misuse of migration narratives for political gain and the
spread of anti-immigrant sentiment on social media platforms remain major
challenges. As the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has stated,
combating xenophobia requires more than tolerance—it demands active solidarity,
fair migration policies, and global responsibility-sharing to uphold the principles of
equality and human dignity for all.
institutional Discrimination: Structural Inequality Across Systems and
Sectors
Institutional discrimination, sometimes referred to as systemic discrimination, occurs when established laws, policies, or
practices within institutions result in unequal treatment or outcomes for certain groups. Unlike overt acts of individual
prejudice, institutional discrimination operates subtly and persistently through systems that appear neutral but in effect
perpetuate inequality. It is embedded within the structures of governments, corporations, schools, and judicial systems,
making it one of the most enduring and complex forms of injustice in modern society.

Nature and Scope of Institutional Discrimination

Institutional discrimination manifests in multiple sectors — employment, education, healthcare, housing, and justice —
and often intersects with race, gender, class, disability, and nationality. It is perpetuated not only by discriminatory
policies but also by social norms, biased algorithms, and power imbalances that shape institutional behavior. For example,
unequal access to quality education in marginalized communities leads to reduced employment opportunities, creating a
cycle of exclusion that spans generations. Similarly, discriminatory credit scoring systems, biased recruitment processes,
or underrepresentation in policymaking institutions ensure that disadvantaged groups remain marginalized within formal
structures.

The United Nations defines institutional discrimination as a violation of the principles of equality and non-discrimination
enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (1966). These instruments obligate States to remove systemic barriers that prevent individuals from
enjoying equal protection of the law and access to public services.

Economic and Gender-Based Institutional Discrimination

A primary and visible example of institutional discrimination lies in the gender pay gap and the economic
marginalization of women. The International Labour Organization (ILO) estimates that women globally earn around
20% less than men, despite having increased participation in the workforce and higher education attainment. The gap
widens for women of color, migrants, and those employed in informal sectors. Institutional practices such as unequal
parental leave, undervaluation of feminized work (like caregiving or teaching), and lack of pay transparency perpetuate
these disparities.

According to the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report 2024, it will take over 130 years at the current
rate to achieve global pay equality. Countries such as Iceland, Norway, and Finland have enacted strong pay
transparency and equality laws, demonstrating that institutional reform can yield measurable progress. However, across
much of the world, women continue to encounter “glass ceilings” in corporate and political leadership.

In developing economies, the situation is compounded by structural barriers to property and inheritance rights. For
instance, women in South Asia own less than 10% of land, limiting access to capital and credit, while in Sub-Saharan
Africa, women contribute nearly 50% of agricultural labor yet control less than 20% of resources. These inequities
persist due to discriminatory institutional frameworks that fail to recognize unpaid or informal labor as economically
valuable.

Institutional Discrimination in Education and Healthcare

Educational systems often mirror and reinforce institutional discrimination. In many countries, children from
marginalized communities — whether due to caste, ethnicity, disability, or migration status — have disproportionately
lower access to quality schooling. In India, the persistence of caste-based exclusion affects Dalit and Adivasi students,
while in the United States, historically Black and Latino neighborhoods continue to experience underfunded public
schools. According to UNESCO, over 258 million children globally remain out of school, with marginalized groups
making up the majority.

Institutional Discrimination in the Criminal Justice System

The justice system, which ideally guarantees equality before the law, often perpetuates institutional bias through policing,
sentencing, and incarceration practices. In the United States, for instance, African Americans represent approximately
13% of the population but account for nearly 40% of the prison population. According to the NAACP, Black
defendants receive longer sentences for similar crimes compared to white defendants, while minority communities are
disproportionately targeted by “stop-and-frisk” and surveillance programs. This pattern of systemic bias is not limited to
one country — in Brazil, Afro-Brazilians are three times more likely to be killed by law enforcement, and in South
Africa, apartheid-era spatial and policing structures continue to disadvantage Black citizens economically and judicially.

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), in collaboration with OHCHR, has called for
comprehensive reforms to address discrimination in the justice system through the Nelson Mandela Rules (2015), which
emphasize humane treatment of prisoners and equitable judicial processes. The UN also supports independent oversight
mechanisms and human rights impact assessments to monitor and correct institutional bias in law enforcement and
correctional systems.

The Role of Technology and Algorithmic Bias

In the 21st century, institutional discrimination has also taken on new digital forms. Algorithmic bias in artificial
intelligence and data-driven decision-making reproduces and amplifies existing inequalities. From hiring algorithms that
favor male candidates to predictive policing tools that disproportionately target minority neighborhoods, technological
systems increasingly shape institutional outcomes. A 2022 study by MIT Media Lab found that facial recognition
software misidentified darker-skinned women 35% more often than white men, raising concerns about racial profiling
and automated discrimination.

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has issued guidelines urging
governments and private entities to implement AI ethics frameworks that prioritize fairness, transparency, and
accountability. The goal is to prevent technology from reinforcing structural inequalities rather than eliminating them.

Global and UN-Level Actions

The UN has taken a leading role in combating institutional discrimination through international conventions, data
collection, and monitoring mechanisms. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and the
Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) regularly review national policies to
ensure compliance with equality obligations. The Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (2001), initially
focused on racial discrimination, also called for dismantling institutional structures that perpetuate exclusion.

In recent years, UN Women, the ILO, and the World Bank have collaborated under the Equal Pay International
Coalition (EPIC) and UN Partnership for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNPRPD) to promote systemic
reforms. These include introducing gender-responsive budgets, inclusive workplace audits, and diversity benchmarks for
public and private institutions.

Regional and National Reforms

Numerous countries have undertaken reforms inspired by international frameworks.

 Iceland became the first country to legally mandate proof of equal pay in 2018, requiring companies to obtain
certification for compliance.

 Rwanda, which has one of the highest rates of female parliamentary representation in the world (over 60%), has
restructured national laws to ensure gender inclusivity across governance and economic sectors.

 South Africa’s Employment Equity Act (1998) targets the legacy of apartheid by mandating diversity quotas in
workplaces and creating opportunities for historically marginalized racial groups.

 The European Union’s Racial Equality Directive (2000/43/EC) requires member states to combat
discrimination in employment, education, and access to goods and services through national equality bodies.

These examples demonstrate that institutional discrimination can be dismantled through deliberate and sustained political
commitment, legal reform, and social accountability.
 The Way Forward

Despite progress, institutional discrimination continues to evolve in complex ways. It cannot be

eradicated through isolated legal measures alone; it requires a cultural transformation within
institutions themselves. Governments must promote data transparency, ensure independent
equality commissions, and embed human rights education in administrative training. The
private sector must likewise embrace diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) frameworks that
go beyond token representation and address pay equity, leadership access, and workplace
culture.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) emphasizes that
combating institutional discrimination is central to achieving the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development. Goals such as SDG 5 (Gender Equality), SDG 8 (Decent Work and
Economic Growth), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and
Strong Institutions) are deeply interconnected in this mission.

Institutional discrimination, in all its forms — economic, racial, gender-based, or algorithmic

— weakens democracy, limits economic growth, and undermines human dignity. Eliminating it
requires dismantling not just unjust laws but unjust structures, and rebuilding institutions on
principles of fairness, inclusivity, and accountability. Only then can societies move toward true
equality, ensuring that rights are not merely guaranteed in law but realized in practice.

While apartheid was officially dismantled in 1994, the legacy of institutional discrimination
continues to affect South African society in the form of economic disparity, unequal access to
education, housing segregation, and unemployment among the Black population. To counter
these persistent inequalities, a multi-dimensional approach is essential.

Firstly, education and skill development must be prioritized to bridge the gap between
previously advantaged and disadvantaged groups. Government programs such as the National
Development Plan (NDP) 2030 should emphasize inclusive education, particularly in rural
areas, ensuring that every citizen has access to quality learning and vocational training.

Secondly, economic empowerment initiatives like the Black Economic Empowerment (BEE)
policy need to be strengthened and made more transparent. Instead of benefitting a select elite,
such programs should focus on grassroots-level entrepreneurship, microfinance for small
businesses, and fair employment opportunities in both public and private sectors.

Thirdly, institutional reforms within law enforcement and the judiciary are critical to rebuild
trust among citizens. Addressing systemic biases, promoting accountability, and increasing
diversity within these institutions would ensure fair treatment and representation of all
communities.

Furthermore, land redistribution and housing reforms should be implemented in a sustainable

and equitable manner. Access to land and affordable housing is not just an economic necessity
but a step toward restoring dignity and reversing decades of spatial and social exclusion.

On a social level, awareness and reconciliation programs must continue to dismantle

ingrained prejudices. Platforms like the Truth and Reconciliation Commission have laid
groundwork, but ongoing public dialogues, inclusive policy-making, and representation in
media and culture can further reduce racial divides.

Lastly, global cooperation and advocacy remain vital. International organizations such as the
United Nations and African Union can support South Africa through investment in inclusive
development, youth programs, and regional partnerships that promote equality and institutional
transparency.

In conclusion, the end of apartheid was not the end of institutional discrimination. The true
transformation lies in sustained efforts toward equal opportunity, representation, and justice —
ensuring that no citizen remains a victim of the institutions meant to serve them.
 Institutional Discrimination against Muslims

Given that Muslims are not considered to be a group defined by race, the perception
is that they cannot experience racism. A by-product then of the “measured response”
claim is the suggestion that it is somehow acceptable to be Islamophobic on the basis
that the fear of religion is genuine, logical and non-racial. This not only deflects
accusations of racism but also situates Islamophobes in a more favourable position.

Anti-Muslim racism is a particular type of discrimination against all those perceived to

be Muslim, which is itself determined by ideas about physical appearance (wearing of
the hijab or burqa), religious custom (prayer or observation of Ramadan), and biological
features (brown skin), which result in a sense of post-colonial superiority over all those
considered to be Muslim. The term “anti-Muslim racism” emphasizes that racism is not
exclusively biologically determined, but that it is something which is a socio-politically
produced experience.

Along with ideas about failed multiculturalism, a lack of community cohesion, and
the need for tighter border controls and national security (prevention of terrorist
activity), nations have used “a narrative which connects race with culture with
multiculturalism with national identity with community cohesion with wider social
relations'' around crime and security. This "logic" has resulted in attempts to further
control brown bodies at every possible level, including the wearing of clothing often
associated with Muslims. For instance, in 2011, France banned the wearing of the
Islamic veil in public places. Punishable with fines of up to 150 Euros, the 2011 ban
added to the 2004 ban on hijabs in France’s state schools. Later, in 2016, manyFrench
towns banned the wearing of a “burkini” (the term used in the media to refer to a
swimsuit that covers most of the body and which is mostly worn by Muslim women).
Reasons for the ban cited health concerns, security issues, assimilation agendas, as
well as gender equality issues. Unsurprisingly, there has been a rise in the number of
reported racist attacks, which have specifically used visual markers of Muslim- ness
as a focus of hate, for example, bearded men being attacked and (women especially)
having clothing forcibly removed or torn off. More recently, in March 2017, the
European Court of Justice ruled that companies could ban its staff from wearing
visible religious symbols whilst at work. Although the ruling covered the wearing of
symbols of any religion, it was openly welcomed by those of the right of
the political spectrum who had been preoccupied with women wearing Islamic
headscarves in the workplace.

Counter-terror measures have been criticized for excessively focusing on Muslims,

and for their simplistic, generic and one-dimensional notions. This has presented the
view that extremism and radicalisation are inherent within Muslim culture. This
logic presents all Muslims as extremists, rather than criticizing the extremist mindset
of individuals themselves. Anti-Muslim racism has seen the state and its allied
services construct Muslims through a language of disobedience, deviance, and
criminality, which is itself considered to be built on anti-Western hostility and a
history of Orientalism. Rooted in these anxieties is the idea that Muslims are uncivil,
inferior and inhumane. This logic not only helps to justify their unequal treatment in
society but also helps to ensure that accusations of abuse and torture by the state are
viewed with relatively little sympathy.
 Propagation of Islamophobia

In a study of media coverage of terrorism in the U.S. identified a clear pattern of media
coverage of Islam feeding Orientalism and fear of Islam, or us versus them mentality,
though in this study, the “us” was U.S. citizens with international ties.
Mediated images of terrorism continue to serve an “essentializing” function
intimately connecting terrorism with Islam and Muslims. Those U.S. citizens with
no international ties were in some way “excused” for their behaviour due to mental
illness and access to guns, or in cases of hate crimes, seen as fueled by irrational anger;
whereas Muslims committing terrorist acts were connected with a larger network of
terrorist groups with thegoalof attacking America. Once a terrorist event occurred, the
perpetrator was first labelled Muslim or non-Muslim before the reason for the act was
investigated. If the perpetrator was not Muslim, they were frequently described as an
angry loner with mental illness who was part of the gun violence culture in the
U.S. If the perpetrator is Muslim, connections to international Islamic terror groups
are investigated and the war of Islam on the U.S. is furthered, widening the East/West
divide promoting Islamic terror and Muslims as the “other”.

Figure 1. Model of media coverage of terrorist events in the U.S.

Ironically, since terrorist acts depend on the media to spread fear, the media coverage of
acts of terror in this way is aiding Islamic terrorists in their goal of creating fear. While
it can be argued that terrorism is a communication act with various audiences:
victims, the U.S. government, and the larger population. Media coverage of terrorist
acts helps achieve the final goal by inciting fear.

As media frames grow and become accepted, they can impact the political response,
such as when President Obama addressed the nation about efforts to combat
terrorism after the San Bernardino event, given ties to international terrorist groups.
The media frame becomes an exigence requiring a political response to assure the
public that actions are being taken to keep them safe. 9

In the terrorist acts from 2011–2016, because of the extended focus on terrorists who
were Muslim and U.S. citizens, the threat from Islam is even greater because
terrorists are living among us. For acts of domestic terrorism with no international
ties, the news coverage of the event was brief, whereas acts carried out by Muslims
with “international” ties prolonged the coverage. There were 237 news articles for
the six incidents of terrorism with no international connection, compared with 645
articles for the five incidents by Muslims with international connections.
Approximately three times as much coverage of Muslim terrorist acts heightens fear
and not only keeps Orientalism alive, but intensifies the resulting fear of Islam.

This media framing fuels anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S., as Bail (2012) 10 found
that anti-Muslim organizations that were formerly fringe organizations were now in the
mainstream in terms of contributing to media framework coverage. This media
framing also has the potential to impact political decision making and global relations
between the U.S. and Islamic countries. Saleem et al. (2017) 11 found that those
consuming anti-Muslim coverage were more likely to support restricting civil liberties
of Muslims and military actionsin Muslimcountries. This can be seen in the differences
of how Obama paused before using the term “terrorist” and would not use “Islamic” and
“extremism” together, whereas, Trump seems to have adopted the us versus them
terrorist frame, which has impacted his policies, including travel bans on individuals
from Muslimcountries.

Due to the vast nature of mass media and the power of framing, "Muslims are mediated
beings in ways beyond their control in reductive and monolithic ways". With the
majority of media coverage of terrorist acts focusing on those by Muslim Americans
(though that is only five of the 11 terrorist acts in the last six years), this media framing
poses a particular challenge: "As Muslim-Americans work to carve out a hybrid identity,
a key part of their struggle will be challenging the dominant media discourse that insists
on the incompatibility of the two parts of that hyphenated identity". It calls into question
the primary identity and allegiance of Muslim Americans in a media frame of Islam
versus the U.S., thus perpetuating questions of identity and being a "real American.”
Media framing of Muslims as terrorists has been fairly consistent since 9/11 and has an
impact within the U.S. on Muslim Americans and how others see them. This study argues
that terrorists who are Muslim are framed differently than those who are not Muslim,
adding to a fear of the “other” that intensifies with each terrorist event. The dominance
of the U.S. media globally adds to the power of this frame to impact global relations with
Islamiccountries.

The negative portrayal of Muslims in the Western media is globalized and if allowed to
continue may eventuate into some kind of clash of civilizations with horrendous
consequences for human civilization on the planet.
International Legal Instruments and Prior action of the UN

There exist multiple regional and international legal instruments that prohibit racism
and racial discrimination but the foremost legal instrument on combatting racism,
xenophobia and all forms of intolerance are the International Convention on
Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination. In the 1960s, United Nations acted
upon calls from numerous member states to address issues of rising anti-Semitism
across the globe and adopted a resolution condemning “all manifestations and
practices of racial, religious and national hatred” as breaches of the UN Charter and the
principles embedded in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Later in 1963,
the United Nations adopted the Declaration on the Elimination of all forms of Racial
Discrimination. The Declaration became the foundation for further UN action on the
issue and is considered a precursor to the International Convention on Elimination of
all forms of Racial Discrimination . The Convention offers a formal definition of racial
discrimination and sets out international standards for the eliminating all forms of
racial discrimination. The main provisions of the convention are summarized in
simpler terms asfollows:
● State parties condemn racial discrimination and commit to the elimination of
all forms of racial discrimination through state guarantees to not engage in
the act of or practice racial discrimination or sponsor racial discrimination
● States parties condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to
prohibit and eradicate all such practices in its territories.
● It criminalizes the act of dissemination of propaganda relating to ideas or
theories about the supremacy of one race to another.
● It criminalizes acts of violence or acts inciting violence against a person or
group of persons from another colour or ethnicorigin.

● State parties to the ICERD ensure that all people in its jurisdiction get
effective protection and remedies through access to competent national
tribunals and other State institutions against acts of racial discrimination.
● State parties agree to undertake effective measures to combat prejudices that
lead to discrimination and promote understanding and tolerance and
friendship among nations through education, culture and dissemination of
information.

One of the most contentious and deliberated upon issues of the convention is the
article relating to prohibition on the incitement of racism and hate crimes based on
race. The article condemns and propaganda and organizations that attempt to endorse
racial discrimination and criminalizes hate speech, hate crime, financing of racist
activities and membership in organizations that promote and incite racial
discrimination. The point of contention is that several parties interpret this article
and the measures as infringement on the freedom of speech and expression,
association and assembly. On the other hand, the Committee on Eliminationof Racial
Discrimination feels that this article is indispensable to combatting racism and racial
discrimination. It regards the obligation as consistent with the freedoms of opinion and
expression affirmed in the UNDHR and ICCPR and further notes that the latter in
particular prohibits inciting racial discrimination and hated. In spite of this, some
member parties have expressed their reservations on this article. The Convention
also establishes a “dispute resolution mechanism” among the parties to ensure the
implementation and enforcement of the Convention. Under this mechanism, if one
party to the Convention feels that the other is not acting in accordance to its
obligations under the Convention, then it can register a complaint to the Committee
on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The Committee passes on the complaint
to the concerned parties for a response and if the dispute remains unresolved, it
establishes an ad-hoc conciliation commission to consider the matter and submit
recommendations to Chairman of the Commission to find an amicable solution to
the satisfaction of both parties to the dispute. The entire procedure for the registration
of complaints and dispute resolution is detailed from article 11 to article 13 of the
Convention.

One of the main reasons for the effectual implementation of this agreement apart
from the dispute resolution is the “Individual complaint mechanism” as detailed under
Article 14 of the Convention. Under this mechanism, if a member state recognizes
the competence of the Committee to listen to individual or group cases on issues of
racial discrimination, then the committee can extend its jurisdiction and offer
appropriate recommendations.
 Committee on Elimination of Racial Discrimination
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) is composed
of 18 independent experts that monitor implementation of the Convention on the
Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination. The State parties to the
convention are obligated to submit regular reports to the Committee on the
implementation of the convention. Under the current reporting procedures, a State
acceding to the Convention must submit a report in the 1st Year called the Initial
Reports and then submit Periodic Reports every 2 years. The Committee examines
each report and addresses its concerns and recommendations to the state parties in the
form of “concludingobservations”.

The Committee on Elimination of Racial Discrimination is often considered the

custodian of International Convention of Elimination of all forms of racial
discrimination (ICERD), it is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the
Convention. The Committee does so through 3 mechanisms:

• Early warning procedure of the Committee

• Dispute Resolution mechanism on Inter-state complaints

• Individual Complaints mechanism

The "Dispute Resolution mechanism" and "Individual complaints mechanism" has

been explained in depth in the preceding section of the Background Guide. The
Committee also publishes its interpretation of the content of human rights provisions
in the form of known as general recommendations and organizes discussions on
thematic issues relating to racism and racial discrimination. The success of an
international legal instrument can be measured in terms of its adoption and its
implementation. It can be argued that the International Convention of Eliminationof
Racial Discrimination has become an international standard and has gained
acceptance across the globe. The other measure of success is its implementation.

The agreement has had a strong bearing on national legislations, resulting in

numerous state parties banning racism and racial discrimination in all aspects of life.
Some examples include the Civil Rights act of 1964 in the United States, the Race
Relations act of 1971 of New Zealand, Race Relations act of 1976 in the UK and the
Canadian Human Rights act of 1977. But there exist numerous challenges to the
implementation and reporting standards. Some state parties still need to report their
progress to the Committee. It has been noted that, as of 23 November 2015, 92 state
parties have not submitted their initial or periodic reports on time. For instance, Sierra
Leone has failed to report its progress since 1976. Liberia and Saint Lucia also haven’t
fulfilled reportingrequirements under the Convention. The Committee hasalsonoted thatthe
number of state parties accepting the "Individual complaints mechanism" among African
and Asian countries remains especially low. Only 3 Asia-pacific state parties have made the
declaration under Article 14 of the Convention to recognize the Individual complaints
mechanism.

Durban Declaration and Durban Programme of action

The Durban Declaration and Programme of action together represent the second
most important document on the issue of racial discrimination after the ICERD. In
2001, the General assembly, according to Ga resolution 52/111 authorized a
conference to be held in Durban against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia
and related Intolerance. The outcome of the conference resulted in the Durban
Declaration and Programme of action a comprehensive action-oriented document
that proposes concrete solutions to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia
and related intolerance. The Durban Declaration and Programme of action embodies
the firm commitment of the international community to plug the loopholes in the
ICERD but it comes at the expense of losing its enforcement abilities in part because
the declaration is not binding in nature, meaning that state parties can the
recommendations contained in the document. The Durban Declaration and
Programme of action is a 60-page document. Asit is not possible for delegates to read
the full document, I shall, for the purposes of ease, reiterate its main features here.
To summarize, the Durban Declaration and Programme of action:

• Calls for the Universal ratification of the International Convention on

Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination.
• Delegates the obligation to combat racism, racial discrimination,
xenophobia, and related intolerance to States parties to the Convention and
calls upon international organizations, national humanrights institutions
increase their engagement;
• Highlights the need to incorporate a gender dimension in the fight against
racism and racial discrimination and attributes a much greater role for
females in the drafting of programmes to combat racism, racial
 discrimination and related intolerance;
• Calls for the drafting of “National action plans” to eradicate racial
discrimination, xenophobia and relatedintolerance;
• Calls for reinforcement of National Human Rights bodies to formulate
concrete recommendations in the area’s of national legislation and
administrative justice
Outlines measures to address discrimination in the fields of education, healthcare, job
opportunities and policing;
• Calls upon state parties to adopt policies and programmes to counter
incitement to racial hate crimes and hate speeches in the media, including
the Internet.
• Urges state parties to adopt "affirmative-action" to create equal
opportunities for victims of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and
related intolerance in the political, economic, social and cultural decision-
making spheres.
The Durban Declaration and Programme of action contains important issues relating
to the agenda and these areas must be examined. But at the same time, it is important
to use a broader understanding of racism and racial discrimination in regards to social,
economic and legal spheres of life. Therefore the recommendations and suggestions
contained in the Durban Declaration and Durban Programme of action can serve as
a strong basis for committee debate.
 Key Issues

Legal Equality

Equality of all individuals under the law would seem almost universal at this point,
having been espoused by the UN Charter and the ICERD. Discrimination based purely
on race is illegal in most cases—the Gulf States being a potential exception that we will
address in a moment.

However, even if racism has been somewhat purged from legal codes, xenophobia
has not. In many cases, it is still legal and common for discrimination to take place
explicitlybased on country of origin. Significantly, ICERD allows states to ―make
distinctions, exclusions, restrictions or preferences between citizens and non-
citizensǁas long as all non-citizens are treated equally. This means that citizenship
can become a tool of discrimination, especially against foreigners. The United Arab
Emirates, for instance, has exploited this distinction for years. Out of a population
of 9.2 million people, 7.8 million are expatriates, with the vast majority being
migrant workers from South Asia. While the 1.4 million Emirati citizens enjoy great
prosperity, the migrant workers suffer under the Kafala system, in which employers
take workers’ passports and essentially force them to work below international
labour standards.

Another easily exploited legal distinction is that which separates legal and illegal
immigrants. Most countries do not (explicitly at least) guarantee all economic and
political rights to illegal immigrants. However, the committee must determine which
of these rights only belong to legal immigrants and which belong to all. Public
education, for instance, presents one such conundrum. Educationis ahuman right, but
public education is taxpayer-funded; should illegal immigrants have the right to such
an education?
Economic Inequality

The true contentiousness begins after equality under the law has been established.
Under one perspective, which might be described as conservative or perhaps neoliberal,
the establishment and enforcement of legal codes are sufficient. All individuals enjoy
equal protection under the law, and with it, equal opportunity for economic gain.
Conservatives in the United States commonly hold this view: underprivileged
minorities, particularly blacks and Hispanics/Latinos, have enjoyed equal rights since
the civil rights movement of the 1960s.

Affirmative action policies that explicitly target those minorities are therefore
unnecessary. The other, more left-wing side of that argument would support
affirmative action policies in education and elsewhere becausethese programs would
simply be adjusting for previously created inequities. Under this perspective, legal
equality is not sufficient; there should also be programs that explicitly target the
economic divide between racial or ethnic groups. This perspective stems from the
belief that past racist and xenophobic social structures directly caused economic
challenges for these minority groups. The interplay between these two sides will
significantly influence the policy directions taken in committee. For what it is worth,
the Durban Declaration explicitly endorses affirmative action programs in education,
the workplace, and other areas. It is unclear how many countries, especially poor and
ethnically homogeneous ones, will be willing to do the same.

Terrorism and Xenophobia

Xenophobia has become a relevant international topic in part because of Islamophobia

in the United States and Western Europe, the byproduct of a rise in Islamic terrorism
since the turn of the century. While events like 9/11 and Charlie Hebdo have left these
countries traumatized, the fact remains that their populations are still comprised of many
peaceful Muslims; 7.5% of France's population was Muslim as of 2010. In committee,
delegates will essentially have to decide whether or not national security and minority
rights are mutually exclusive or go hand in hand. It might be necessary, for instance, to
subject certain individuals from minority groups to extra security atairports in the name
of national security. On the other hand, effective cultural and economic integration of
Muslim and other immigrants might reduce the chances of homegrown
 extremism.

Important Issues to Consider

This section consists of issues or questions that the Executive Board feels can be debatedupon.
But remember that this list is not exhaustive – meaning that delegates should feel free to explore
other sub-topics apart from these issues.

Issue 1: Does Institutional racism exist in one’s access to public facilities such as access to
education, healthcare, sanitation, courts and other legal remedies, job opportunities? Please
research some case studies or examples if possible.

Issue 2: Policies and measures members can adopt to ensure faster integration of racial and
ethnic minorities.

Issue 3: Does the criminalization of hate speech constitute an infringement on the fr eedom of
speech and expression?

Issue 4: Has the International Convention the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination
(ICERD) been successful in combatting racism and racial discrimination?

Issue 5: Is the "Dispute resolution mechanism" effective in implementing and enforcing the clauses
of the International Convention the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD)?

Issue 6: Please suggest some recommendations or solutions combat racism, racial

discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.

Issue 7: What is the role of the UN Special Rapporteur on Contemporary forms of racism, racial
discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance?

Important Questions for Research

This section consists of important issues or questions regarding a delegate’s portfolio. It is

expected that a delegate is researched on these questions.

Issue 1: Does your country have a documented historical past of engaging in institutional
racism, ethnic discrimination or xenophobia?

Issue 2: What policies or measures has the Government implemented to combat racism, racial
discrimination or xenophobia?
 Issue 3: Has the Government been submitting periodicreports to the
Committee on Elimination of Racial Discrimination on its progress?

Issue 4: Has the Government accepted the recommendations contained in the Durban
Programme of action? If not, then the reason for the same