前联合国人权官员指控诺奖得主皮莱任内向中国交出异见者名单Former UN rights officer accuses Nobel laureate Pillay of handing dissident names to China during her tenure

2026年10月9日（周五），挪威诺贝尔委员会宣布，南非法官、前联合国人权事务高级专员纳维·皮莱（Navi Pillay）获得2026年诺贝尔和平奖，理由是“为促进和平与国际法所做的努力”。皮莱现年85岁，曾任卢旺达问题国际刑事法庭和国际刑事法院法官，2008年9月至2014年8月担任联合国人权事务高级专员。[3][4]

同日，联合国观察组织在日内瓦发表声明，公布了联合国人权办公室吹哨人艾玛·莱利（Emma Reilly）的公开指控。莱利是曾为皮莱工作的人权律师，她指控称，在皮莱担任联合国人权事务高级专员期间，该办公室无视关于危险的警告，把异见者名单交给了中国方面；她还指控皮莱对维吾尔族遭受的暴行负有责任。莱利表示，她早在2012年就首次向内部报告过这种做法，而直接参与传递名单的员工后来获得晋升，她自己则因坚持发声遭到报复，最终于2021年被解雇。[1][2]

关于指控的规模，莱利的说法是：皮莱任内“主持了向中国传递超过50名异见者名单的工作”。她声称，被递交名单者的家属曾在法庭上宣誓作证，称他们的家人遭到恐吓、任意拘留、酷刑、失踪，乃至死于集中营。此次获奖后，莱利还发布了她称为内部往来文件的材料，用以佐证她的说法。[1][2]

联合国观察组织执行主任希勒尔·诺伊尔（Hillel Neuer）同日谴责诺奖委员会的决定。他表示，诺贝尔委员会应当向“名字被交给中国的异见者”作出解释，并回顾了皮莱2010年拒绝出席授予被监禁中国异见人士刘晓波的诺贝尔和平奖颁奖仪式一事。UN Watch还重提了其2011年的一项研究，称皮莱在担任人权事务高级专员期间，对包括古巴、朝鲜、沙特等在内的多个“不自由”国家的人权侵害未置一词。[1]

维吾尔民主与人权中心主席多尔孔·艾沙（Dolkun Isa）也发表了声明。他称自己后来才得知，在皮莱领导联合国人权办公室期间，该办公室未经他同意就把他的参会信息以及其他人权捍卫者的信息分享给了中国政府。他表示这是“一个本应保护我们的机构对信任的严重背叛”，并要求“全面透明的彻查”：为什么要把人权捍卫者的信息分享给中国、是谁授权的、受托保护他们的人为什么失职。[2]

截至发稿，未见皮莱本人或联合国方面就这一轮（2026年10月9日）的新指控作出回应。需要说明的是，此前有媒体报道过Devex的一项调查：调查中，联合国方面的说法是，当事人已经公开披露了参会计划，且已采取保护措施。莱利则持续质疑这一做法。指控本身的真实性仍在核实中，本站将持续关注并记录各方回应。[1]

On Friday, October 9, 2026, the Norwegian Nobel Committee announced that South African jurist and former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay would receive the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize 'for her efforts to promote peace and international law.' Pillay, 85, previously served as a judge on the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Court, and led the UN human rights office from September 2008 to August 2014. [4][5]

On the same day, UN Watch issued a statement in Geneva publishing the public accusations of Emma Reilly. Reilly, a human-rights lawyer who worked under Pillay, alleged that during Pillay's tenure as High Commissioner, her office handed dissidents' names to Chinese authorities despite warnings about the danger, and held Pillay responsible for the abuses inflicted on Uyghurs. Reilly said she first reported the practice internally as early as 2012, that staff directly involved in handing over names were later promoted, and that she herself faced retaliation and was ultimately dismissed in 2021 for speaking out. [1][3]

On scale, Reilly alleged that 'Navi Pillay oversaw the communication of names of over 50 dissidents to China.' She claimed that relatives of the named dissidents testified under oath in court that their family members were intimidated, arbitrarily detained, tortured, disappeared, or killed in camps. Following the Nobel announcement, Reilly also published what she described as internal correspondence documenting disclosures made during Pillay's leadership. [1][3]

UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer condemned the Nobel Committee's decision the same day, saying the committee owed an explanation 'to the dissidents whose names were handed to China,' and recalled that Pillay declined to attend the 2010 Nobel ceremony honoring imprisoned Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo. UN Watch also restated its 2011 study finding that Pillay, as High Commissioner, voiced no concern about abuses in Cuba, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and other countries rated 'Not Free.' [1]

Dolkun Isa, president of the Uyghur Center for Democracy & Human Rights, also issued a statement. He said he later learned that the Pillay-led office had shared information about his participation, and that of other human rights defenders, with the Chinese government without their consent. He called it 'a profound betrayal of trust by an institution that should have protected us' and demanded a full and transparent accounting: why the information was shared, who authorized it, and why those entrusted with their protection failed. [2]

As of publication, neither Pillay nor the UN has responded to this new round of allegations (October 9, 2026). For context, past reporting on a Devex investigation noted the UN's position at the time: that the individuals had already publicly disclosed their plans to attend and that precautions had been taken to protect them — a position Reilly has continued to dispute. The truth of the allegations remains under verification, and this site will continue to record the responses of all parties. [1]