A/HRC/27/51 policy trends, including negative impacts of fiscal consolidation and adjustment measures; and calling on States to expand social protection for crisis recovery, inclusive development and social justice. The report notes that more than 70 per cent of the world population lacks proper social protection. 48. The United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) in Geneva conducts ongoing projects on a variety of subjects, including transparency and accountability in nuclear disarmament, concerning which it is endeavouring to develop a set of practical proposals based on the arms control experience of Russia and the United States to facilitate universal transparency and accountability in nuclear disarmament.68 F. The Human Rights Council and its universal periodic review mechanism 49. The Human Rights Council is an appropriate forum in which to examine the human rights commitments of States as reflected in their budgetary priorities. If a State is truly committed to the larger concept of human security, which rests on the promotion and protection of human rights, it will allocate the budget accordingly, devoting not just a minimum of resources to education, health care, housing, infrastructure and the administration of justice,69 but a progressively larger proportion thereof. If, however, a State practises a “military-first” policy and subordinates social services to a perceived “national security” need, then the Human Rights Council can make sensible recommendations on how to shift priorities so as to promote and protect human rights more effectively. Thus, a systematic examination of the level of military expenditures by States and a comparison with national expenditures in the social sector would be instructive. The two following examples from the nineteenth session of the universal periodic review illustrate contrasting approaches. 50. The draft report of the Working Group of the Universal Periodic Review on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea takes note of the Government’s report and its explanation with regard to its “military-first” policy (Songun), namely that “safeguarding national sovereignty provided a guarantee for the enjoyment by people of their human rights.70 The right to life was the foremost issue in guaranteeing human rights and of great importance to the people of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, who had been exposed, for more than half a century, to persistent military threats by hostile forces. Military-first politics served to safeguard national sovereignty and had prevented the outbreak of war, making it possible to attain tangible achievements in the economic front.”71 By contrast, the universal periodic review compilation of United Nations information on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea quotes the Special Rapporteur on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea as expressing concern over the allocation of the country’s resources for the elite and its “military-first” policy, to the detriment of the 68 69 70 71 The researcher in charge is Pavel Podvig. See www.unidir.org/programmes/weapons-of-massdestruction/transparency-and-accountability-in-nuclear-disarmament. Article 26 of the Draft International Bill of Rights provides for increased funding to strengthen the rule of law, recognizing that “the rule of law and rights herein benefit the citizens and businesses of all countries … each country shall annually contribute one percent of its gross national product into an international fund for the use and support of educational, healthcare and judicial facilities and salaries internationally, including the Courts described in articles 27–34.” See internationalbillofrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/IBORv9.pdf. A/HRC/WG.6/19/PRK/1. A/HRC/WG.6/19/L.8, para. 58. 17