How do Council resolutions differ from the actions of treaty bodies?

The correct assertion is that Council resolutions are typically non-binding. This characteristic is crucial in understanding how they function within the international human rights framework. Council resolutions, such as those adopted by the United Nations Human Rights Council, often express collective positions, recommendations, or requests but do not impose legally binding obligations on states. This allows for greater flexibility in addressing human rights issues while still encouraging states to adhere to international norms and promote human rights.

In contrast, treaty bodies typically operate under binding treaties, which establish legal obligations for the states that ratify them. These bodies oversee the implementation of these treaties, ensuring that the states uphold their commitments. This distinction highlights the varying degrees of legal authority between council resolutions and the actions of treaty bodies.

The other choices do not accurately capture the fundamental difference between the two entities. There are instances where Council resolutions can hold some weight in shaping international norms, and they do not focus exclusively on economic rights; rather, they address a wide range of human rights issues, including civil, political, social, and economic rights. Additionally, while Council resolutions involve state votes in their adoption, they are designed to represent a collective effort rather than operate independently from state involvement.