Contested Multilateralism. The case of the United Nations Human Rights Council

This paper is a contribution to the debates around the notion of contested multilateralism initially developed by Morse and Keohane. It rests on the case study of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC). The analysis is based on empirical research conducted in this institution (direct observation of Human Rights Council sessions, informal discussions with actors, semi- directive interviews with others). I first identify the contestation practices coming from a variety of actors (states, UN staff, NGOs, whistle-blowers, etc.). I then develop the hypothesis that the UNHRC and more broadly the UN institutions work to integrate the contestation i.e. to shape it in speeches, procedures, ideas, ways of speaking and/or doing and/or behaving that are specific to the organisation or that do not destabilise the organisation. According to this perspective, the crisis of multilateral organisations is less the result of the multiplication of protests and/or the disinvestment of some actors than of the failure or lesser effectiveness of the processes of endogenization of contestation.