A/HRC/26/41 II. Some key challenges to international cooperation in the field of human rights 5. The challenges to international cooperation in the field of human rights are well known and therefore will not be discussed here in any depth. Yet, given the ways in which, too often, they can seriously set back progress towards the realization of human rights the world over, they deserve some measure of discussion in any study on the subject. As the Advisory Committee has noted (see A/HRC/19/74, paras. 23-25), the overall tone of the texts conferring a mandate on the Human Rights Council is one of constructive international dialogue and cooperation. However, such dialogue and cooperation towards the realization of human rights everywhere is unlikely to be constructive without mutual tolerance and respect (see Council resolution 13/23).2 This kind of cultural sensitivity should not of course imply cultural absolutism.3 As importantly, significant levels of selectivity can weaken moral authority and capacity to rapidly and robustly foster a culture of human rights in many parts of the world. It bears mentioning here that the decision to create and implement the universal periodic review process of the Human Rights Council was driven in part by this kind of realization (see General Assembly resolution 60/251, para. 4). As the Committee has also noted, international cooperation in the field of human rights is also harmed when it is reduced in any appreciable degree to a mere juxtaposition of national interests or the logic of power relations (A/HRC/19/74, para. 35) A constructive dialogue that drives and reflects meaningful international cooperation is far less likely to take place if it is not based on the idea that human rights knowledge ought to circulate in a multidirectional way among the world’s peoples. As importantly, there is a growing realization within and beyond the Human Rights Council of the seriousness of the negative impact of the inadequate resources available to assist certain countries with their participation in the universal periodic review process and in their the implementation of the recommendations that result therefrom (see Council resolutions 19/33 and 23/3). III. Deepening civil society involvement 6. The important roles played by civil society groups, especially non-governmental organizations, in the human rights field are widely appreciated and a detailed discussion of that subject need not detain us here. The critical task that is now before the United Nations in general and the Human Rights Council in particular is to find ways and means of optimally harnessing the potential of those groups to contribute to the human rights work of the United Nations. As the Advisory Committee has suggested (see A/HRC/19/74, para. 49), it is now time to go beyond the usual rhetoric and move towards practical institutional changes that will give effect to the apparent consensus in the Council on the need to deepen the involvement of civil society actors in international cooperation in the human rights area. 7. For one, as the Advisory Committee suggested in its first report on the present subject, the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations, a standing committee of the Economic and Social Council which is currently made up entirely of States, may need to be restructured to include in some, perhaps advisory, form the accredited and legitimate representatives of civil society organizations. In this connection, the tripartite model 2 3 4 D.A. Bell, “The East Asian challenge to human rights: reflections on an East West dialogue”, in Human Rights Quarterly vol. 18, No. 3 (August 1996), pp. 641-667; and J. Donnelly, “The relative universality of human rights” in Human Rights Quarterly, vol. 29, No. 2 (May 2007), pp. 281-306. C. Nyamu, “How should human rights and development respond to cultural legitimization of gender hierarchy in developing countries?” in Harvard International Law Journal, vol. 41, No. 2 (Spring 2000), p. 381.