1

Based on empirical research conducted at the Human Rights Council (HRC) (direct observation of the 41st session of the HRC, informal discussions with actors, semi-structured interviews), I argue that the form of negotiations at the HRC contributes to the euphemizing of contestation and to its integration into the classic game of negotiations, allowing the game to unfold despite conflicts. The Geneva negotiation context differs from the New York one, which appears less predictable. Coupled with the relative openness of the HRC and the fluidity of actors, this configuration favors the expression of contestation through the voice strategy (Hirschman 1995). This does not interrupt negotiations, which continue even if they are strayed toward other issues and carried out in other places, including New York. By considering these processes within a broader structural context (Strauss 1978), I emphasize that what is being played out at the HRC is neither strictly Geneva-based nor even solely related to human rights. Actors in the HRC negotiations constantly renegotiate the “UN order” and its hierarchical, interstate, and liberal characteristics.