Could you answer these questions (please find the questions in the attached file below) after reading chapter 4?

Could you answer these questions (please find the questions in the attached file below) after reading chapter 4?
Could you answer these questions (please find the questions in the attached file below) after reading chapter 4?
Chapter 6  Individual Study Questions 1. What is the process followed for a state wishing to be bound to the provisions of a treaty? 2. What are the benefits of listing human rights in treaties? 3. What is the effect of a reservation on a state’s legal obligations under a treaty? Can you find examples of reservations that seek to defeat the object and purpose of the treaty? 4. What is meant by interdependent and indivisible rights? Can you give some examples of this interdependence? 5. Why are the principal UN human rights treaties monitored through committees rather than courts? What benefits does such a system bring? 6. Research your state’s ratification record, regional, and national human rights arrangements. What treaties have been ratified? Are there significant reservations or declarations? Can you directly action infringements of international human rights in national courts?  Group Discussion Questions  To what extent should the enforceability of treaties be prioritized over securing a high number of ratifications?  Should human rights be aspirational standards of achievement for states to strive for, or should they be clearly articulated and enforceable against each and every state under national and/or international law? Examine news reports over a set period of time. Identify human rights stories. Are the human rights issues correctly identified and appropriately explored?
Could you answer these questions (please find the questions in the attached file below) after reading chapter 4?
4 Human R‹òhtsin International Lavv RhonaK. M. smith Chapter contents .1ntroduction 61 . 1EVB1UtionoflnternationalHum‰NnRi8htsLaw 64 . SBurces oflrAternauonalHuman Righ6 Law . M EtBrin aw1dEnforcir1‹{lnternationalHumanRight5 W . condusion 75 Readˆø’S Guide tBf hurnan d hU.1tcomplement5the prece in‹{ Chatersbyout11ningthepw‰NCtical(rŠŽ¬erthantheoretica)rame ,ht5and thedrain‹{an p ,§A tlaw,1nternationa1§Aum‰Nnr¥ht5WOUI UndBubted1ƒÁ be a lesS •§n‹{ible, measur‰N e, Introduction Internadonal Aurnan dghŒÂ are now an itlte†ral part Of publiC ‰¾ternadona11aw lndeed, there is a stron† ar‹{UmentŒŒrhumand–1‘Ðbeit13re‹{ardedasadiSŒŒCt branchofi11terna‡Uona11aw; asrespect‰ÁrhumatldJA1‘Ð is noTprimarilya charactedsticofŒŒterEstate obligad011S, butrather a reaection of ‘sle state’S ‹©dertakit1‹{$ i11reE Spectofitspopuladon.Acceptarlceofhumand8hTsisa matlifestŠŽ‡Uonofastate’s ad{110wledgementofthepreE etŒŒlenceoftheruleoflawTMschapterŒŒhoducesthe ŒŒterna“ùona11e–¼alcontextofhumatldghts. A11 States pr0ŠéSs to re5Pect certaŒŒ internauonal human dghts, many of wMch ate explored irl deta‡U elsewhere in t11is book These rights are norma‡Uy tabulated in a lega11y birldin†ŒŒrmat as a treaty and are dlus easily ascertahlable. W11ile tbeir existence (in •§ngible lega1‘ñrm)is beyond quesTion,their content rema‹uIshoTlydisputed. Everystate daitnstopromote respect ˜ar key human dghts and fundamental ‹ueedoms widlirlits terdtoryi but not a‡U StaTes accept š¬1“mletaAulated d–¼hts and‹ueedoms, civenthatthere ŒÌeh”@dNdsofmstrument$ofvarym‹{legalforcethat 69 Human Ráehtsin lnternational Law Purporttoenumeratehumanri8hts,tMsisnotenTitely Surpdsin† Fromalegalperspective,themosten•§rceE able human dahtS ŠŽƒÑe expressed in treaties, pdmadly multilateral treaties (i.e, internationaltreaties with Several states patticipatinŒ¶. Nevertheless, thete ate many examples of human d†hts that predate suchmultilater‰N1 “meaties-these too can be enforceable a‹{ainststates, Moreover.manyofthesedghtsaTenowContained irltreaties. Thischapterstar6bye’@10rin8ŒŒeodg‡UIsofhumarl d8hts law, consideTjn‹{ the implicadons mheTent i11 Creati11‰ƒ international human d¡hŒÆ law The seismic SM‹utNsre‰NeC”@(andcaused)m theconceptualization Ofitlternationa11awM‡U be N†hli–¼hted. Tragicevents around the world have ‰Nequently proved to be the Prompt for ar“fCulatin’ê i11ternauonal human ri‹{hts. Such a matlifestation of poliuca1ƒ}‚ñ‡Uis a crudalfactor ‹ulensUŒŒŠŽthesuccess ofhumand8hts: withoutconE Se11SUS, notreawcanbecome ‘1aw’,be embeddedirlto notmalstŽƒepractice, orbei11ternationa11y monitoredOtenŒŒrced. F0‡UOwin8 t11is overview of the evolution of ŒŒ–çrnationalhumand–¼htslaw.theempbasiswi‡Umove [email protected] 1″thet›¤n“õAŽsrstcentury, enaaŽOin‹{fU11ƒÁWith in”Ümatiorlal h marlriŒË’161awdemarldSå–¤U$eofonline souNe5. A1‚ädrnary 50urC‰¿ arE ureeNˆólailable online iƒ® 5ever‰N11‰Nn‘¦v‚«Œ¾6. once •§miiarityW–Zh the priocipalwebS–Ze5 i5 acNeŽ°d,iƒqis poS5ible to –Zh arAy a5P6–St of basic human rights. space con5traiƒ®U Stridthi5 ŽOUideto the ofndeluN portŒÈ1: Pƒ]/WWW.ohchr:or‹{ .’¹˜F‚«in–bS“fe i5th½ofthe uN ofnce ofthe §iah ‘ o missloner•§r Human Ri‹{h61n•§nƒJƒˆtion can befbund r0 Œ¾h a‡Zrietyofroute5EE¨Iuicklinks ontheri‘n’1t ƒgƒgand sideof e home pa8eta1”܃ÁOu diredNto rw‹Œny relevantS–«es, rom he home P’¢e, n0”ÜŒŒef011‹¨Ving lin—ªfromthe P b n ec I Ff BNG IN ER A ONA 61 U AN GHT$ AVYœN N Our human r‹òhts I t01 “‰r”•’ù0‰{1‘¼W,à’ƒÇich intum has a linkto The cae mo humon rl’h6 insrruments, ahypeŠ01”Üd li“óofthe Ofa1”ähe pr’ncipal uN hum‰Nu1 riŽOht5t‘Éatie5. e codes, and ‹{Uideline5. Aquick linktoHUIMn r‹¨’1q ˆó isals0 ‚«milable atthƒÃ riaMAharld sideofthe home –¤. 1n toth–¤•·mepa‹{e. nisi5themainprirnary50urce W‡V require. PublicationS ’‚nd resources Thislinksto publicotioosthŒÈt‹{ive ŒÈCcesstoa‡Zriety ofuseful electmnic publkauons on human ri‹{hts,induding —ãCtshee‚¨ŠŽn $peciolisSƒÇ’_ PŒÈPer5. Countries 111isli0‘ÙthroUŽOh Hufr‹¥n r1‹{ht5in“ùleMor‘Îtoam’@ arld al’1 “cPhabEbAZ11i$tofrnember‰¾tes. For ead’1COUð‚¯ƒÁ.)OLlcaj’1 dŒŒin in•§rmauon01’1Corftractl”gstatus(rat–È•íion5,‹©Ser‡[U0‹© ’ˆ’dder‚Ä’R‚¬tims)U›¤11‰¿r‡erltspedalnŒûCedure5‘ÉP0Sƒˆnd Concludir1†ob5eMtior60ftr”•Wmoni”@ri”8bodie$ Hum‚«n rights bodies nislinŠ×to a porta˜Àˆø a11the uN C–mlart“c a”d t‰’q monâJorin“† bodies.–Ä“cSo hasalinktothe materialon treatybody –·—Crm andthetreawbody strEn‹{thening process.ƒ‚ƒˆCh reaty monitorin‹{body ha5′ own pa‹{e fromà’Aich you carlacce“¬ the mlevanttu‚ðatM reportin‹{‹{UidelinŽN, coromi”äee inldmauoh’the ‘ÉPor60feac”“óæÆetothe cornmiƒq”Ü–¤,theconcludinŒ¾ Obser‡[tior60fthe commi”äeethereon (th‘ã)UŒ¾h–”Šsbns)Aand generalc01’nfnents ar’d recornrnendŒÜtlon50fth—W Cornmit–çe ,2 R. K.1VI. sm”äh tB e1‰NbBrak‡U1˜Cuhe PŒŒdpalsources of irlternatiKna hU”ƒlan dghts law; The vadous forms of expressi11˜C human righrs M‡U be considered before identifying the cBre internadonal human dghts itlstruments’ FB‡UBwing tMs brief teview of early ”Ùalnples K human dghts agreernen‘Ð, contemporary interna’ EBnalhuman dght5insttumentsM11bediscussed’ Individua11egalresponsibiliŽi, adses for ŒŒOse who fa‡U to respect the rights of combatanTs under dlese treaties. This W‘D evidenced in the T01’¬wO Tribunal and the Nuremberg Tdbuna1 ‹Ê)‡UOwin8 the second World war. Those defeated leaderS ŒŒUnd re5PonE Sible •§r mass violation50f hum—} dghts were tded and sentenced (usua‡Uy To dearh), F0110‰¿n–¼a spate of Spedalcourts and ad hoc tribunalS ŒŒCUS’lg on cdmiE naljustice, the lnternadonal cdnlitlal court (1CC) ^S establishedby a treaty-the Rome stat‡Ute on the International cd11ŒŒal court-h11998. The lcc has Competence to invesd–¼ate and cotlsidet war cdmesandviolauons ofhumatlitadanlawwhen thenational Cour6 are unable orunW’Hng to do so. violadons of Othethumandghts,ŒŒContrast,caŒŒotbepTosecU”äd ŒŒ the court(aswewi‡USee), NdloU–¼h dosely telated,11Umatli•§rian law and inE terna‘sonalhumanH8htshaveevolvedaS—RScreteareas Oflaw and policy HumatldÒhts apply genera11y: the State is required to respectthe dedared and accepted hŒûman d8hts of a‡U. Humarlitadan laws,ŒŒ Contrast, are eŒSentia11ymitlirnum d8htsthat mustbe respected dudƒ®˜CProdaimedemer‹{endesorcorlflicts(seechap ter 21). violations of i11ternational humatli•§daI11aw may resulti11 ŒŒ‰¿ƒËidual prosecuuons, wheteas violaE tions of–¼eneralhumanTi–¼htsM11not, asliabilityrests Mth the state. contemporary prosecutionS ŒŒdude: Radovan Karadzic beŒŒre the 1ƒ®ternaTional cdmhlal Tribunalfor the Former Yugoslavia; chatles Taylor’S ConviC‡Uonby Ždle specialcourt •§r sierra Leone;‹Qd KaŒŒ†Guek(Duch) Eav’sconvicdonby¬eExtraodiE naryckambers ofthecourtsofcambodia, Human Riahtsin lnternational Law themselvesina 1ƒÖeiä„’state dueto theredrawin‹{of Europe’s boundaries and/orthe reŽRSt“_Aution of t11eOverseasterritodes of the deŠéated countries.’š’he latE tersoU†httore†Ulatelabour, assisdngwithrebuildmg theeconomiesofcountdesdecima”ädbywar, andenE Suring fa’ÒWorkit1‹{Condidonsfota11. In the a‹uermath ofthe c0‡Uapse of the League of Nauotls and the second world war,the international Communityhad to Tet1ŒŒkitsapproachto the mainteE nance ofpeace,1aw, and order. NthoU’êh t11e lLo surE Vivedmtact ‰NomtNstumultuousperiodbetweenthe two world wars,its minodty protecdon system was discondnued; t11e newly established united Nauons eleC”äd to focus on uTliversal human dghTS, thereby Obviating (it was hoped) the need for speda11TŒŒorE iŽi, g‡Uarantees. Despite the change ŒŒ•§CUS,r11inodty groups(whet11er eŽdmic, religious,1itleuistic, or other) ate a11too 0‹uen irl a weaker posidon than majodty gToups in any –¼iven state, sti11, wirh the emphasis on equality in irlternauonalhuman d–¼hts, remedies may be available •§r such h)dividuab, eliminaŒŒ–Ú OppresE Sionatld discdr1ŒŒation. ContemponryhŒûmanrighwlawh•”earlyantecedE ents,traces of wMch suMve to the present day The ‰N)‡UOMng section wi‡U exar1ŒŒe the mecharlisms for establiS1ŒŒ–¼ bi11dit1‹{ obli’êadons on states to proTect human nghts; thetea‹uet the parameters of modern humand–1”@lawM11beout‡Utled. Minor–kƒÁand LabourRights nerearealsoMstodcrrŒŒodtypTotecnonâJ‹{imes- ŒŒr example,the 1878 Treaty of Berlin accorded speE dalstatusinlaw to sped6edre‡U˜Ciousgroups. pdorto t11is,’aliens'(“‡reigners)wereonlyaccordedmi11imum dahtsand‰Needoms,basedont11eideathatanirljuryto anindividualwaS •§n”Pmountto anhljury to TheindiE ‡Ydual’sstate of nationality Repa¼tions, orrernedie$ ‹u)r loss or damage sU˜Àered, could be soU–¼ht.1n the early twentietbcentŒûry,t11erewasa ŒŒCus onensudng the peace6.11 Coexistence of peoples Mthirl states i11 thewake ofthe FiTstworldWgˆêhencether1ŽR10dw 8Uaran”äe treaw te3imeS ŒŒStigated by the LeagŒûe ofNationS ”§d thecreation ofthelnterna“ùonalLabour Or”¤a11ization (1LO). The formersoughtto ensure reE Spect ŒŒr religious or ‡Unguistic minodties wh0 ŒŒUnd 63 ¨A P“c1’N S nerearƒ‚–¤aw1ƒÁ•Æ(ample50fin–çrnationŒÈ1ƒˆ‹{‘Éements on hum‚«wA”ŠŽ”å issue$. EfR)rtstoabolish a11—Crms ofslaFNtodaykKuson Proscribin‹{th05e practice5 ane1Ž°OU5t051‰NŠ•ˆÈ In–çrnŒÈti0ƒ®ŒÈlhum‚«r1Eƒˆdan 1“sandth—W 1VS ofwar hŠ„e ear1ƒÁ Ori‘¦n5.1e’Ñrma11Œä5Were negdiaŽ°d betweenthe ”•rrin‹{“óŠŽtes and g0‡[rrled hosti1”äiesA Tod‚Ì,,the5e 1ŠŽ•|ŒÈre •§Und inthe HŠŽ–`Ue arAd Gen–U‰NConŽÖntiorAs arld ŒÈ550dated ingtrument5,ŒÈnd apP1ƒÁto most con‘ÅiC6. Critical Thinkin‹{ Questions: Dothe ori‘¦nsofhunAao riˆó60utlined ab0îindicate a 810b‚«INorth or‚¢/egtern bias,—WSsome comrnentŒÈt0–å SU”Fesk?^’‹ŒteYidence i5there of humarl dght5in —WŒÈu1ƒÁ Buddhist, confuclarl, Hindu, or 151ƒˆunicwritin•S arldteachine5? Are huroan ri‹{htsrea1ˆóiUˆ¸—W’rƒÅor‰NIcod‚º“‡rthe fundionin‹{ OfsociŽl1 As wi11be apparent, even when a S•§te accepts a pa AbB1itiBn ofslavery ticularhumandbltstreaty,itcanS 11 ndernned,a11StateshaticularhumandbltS‰ºeaw’ Th eare i BW .versa11CBndernned,a11Statesha im act solnetimesconsiderably,on in outlawed iy.1ts pr011ibition is an K’–¼a ‘ 60na corrlrnU‰¾ to a –¼ŒŒ Un .u a d M‘¸‰Î” 0e d e p e d —R 0a n n .U h –¼š¬n o e E[O o b –¼ŒŒNmŽRa e a .n ha t d a t”äg H .”䉾’@Em ¡eSa .[ ŠŽ Sa ad W1 r e.v t ”@ a‘ï 0 Sƒ¬1 m ehtf0 S.ƒ® ‰¾ .U b t WH . t .1 t .[ ŒŒ a t‹{ ŠMƒ ‹rå f0 UŒŒ U , .m .[ e d a .’ù S.[ .[ d 64 R. K. M. sm”äh Oflnternational Human Sources Ri‹{hts Law ‘XœAAE G LLEN NG SSUHP R ‘H S S: Fi Ure 4.1 Creating aueŒÈty^imP1Ž§ed outline. Additionalstate($) may electTo accede to the yrcaty ’‚‹ueT ele i”§Ualtound of Siä„amte5 and ŽMt’ÇC‰Ntions tNs stage, the state is a siä„atory to the tNaty Most humand’êhtstreauescanhavealarge numbeTofstate Pardes. kdde 180f ŒŒe vieŒŒa convendon on the Law of Treaues sdpulates that5tates should actin acE Cordance with the tetms of a trea‚Äy dUŒŒg tkeperiod between si‘¦ature ƒd taU6Ca‘son. Thatis not, howE ever,the endofthematter. Genera11y, astate cot16rms its consentby rati6Cation or acceptance of the treaw. Thisusua11yŒŒ110wsstateEsped6Cnauonalprocedures. 111e irlstrument of rati6Cauon should be deposited Withthesped6edbodyusUŠŽ‡UytheuNsecreŽnryGenE eral’S 0ŠÊCe,ŒŒr commurlication to other contncthlg States.TNaties usua‡Uysped61’aI1ŒŒ‹unumnumberof ra’ca“ùonsnecessaty!brthetreatytoenterint0ŒŒrce. k commen•§torslike Baye‹àky (2001) note, some States may rati61′ a treaw as a political act, to enhance dleirNPU•§don orplacate cd“ùCS, Mdlout havi11ganyŒŒE tendon of complyit1’ê‰N1‡Uy The use of teserva‡Uons(as We sha‡USee)ŽƒŽRƒÑ11is. Hadla’@y(2007, P.592)idend6ŒS t11epotenua1ˆòrdomeS“ùCleä„lelforcementoftheterms Of ‘sle Zeaw atld Ždle posidve c011at‰üalpoli6CalconseE quences of Ždle dedsion to rad6, as kW ŒŒCenuveS ŒŒr StatestocomTrlittoi11ternadonalhumƒdJ1Š›tteades. Treaw enTer5 ŽRyo fbrceandilbhldErlgon ŠŽ‡U 5tate¶, oncet11e ’@Cd6ed ƒ®‡UmMrof3tƒ†tc$ raU6,211d “fle $peci6edPedod(ifany) hase1’@‘õd Human Ri“†hts in lnternatiorlal Law TreawisoNned “‡r3i‘¦ƒˆNre RŽH“ù6CayionofttC¡ƒÑy byCootnct‡U1ŽOPart1”ÈS Terln50ftreƒ†’qŽ©r¡ ne‹qOTiltedand a8recd by The ir¡telnAi0ƒ®ŽH1OrŒSn’Ž©Uon/ƒ†‹{roup ofS–Pte rcprƒÇ‘õntatlves Us a 65 Other parties t0 ŒŒe treaty.1n eŽeect,Ždley provide a mecha11ism ŒŒƒÑ a state to opt out of the pr0‡YSion in quesdon, eitber pardy orŒŒ Whole. A sitnple resetvaE tion may exdude liabiliw for a sped6C artide of the treaty More controvetsial are tbose that seek to perE Vade the entire treaw-for example, saudi Arabia’SStatemenT on taTi6Cation of the convention on the ElinŒŒŠŽtion of a‡U Forms of DiscTimmation A†aitlst Women (CEDAW)that,itlthe event ofa conaict beE ‘¥een the c0ƒ®Ž¶ndon atld lslamic law,the Kin–¼dom Would not be obliged t0 ŒŒ‡UOw the convention. NE though objected to by a number of European states,‘sle saudireservation temaitlsitlforce. Internationa11aw treaTs reseNatiotls that are mE Compauble with the 0‰Âectandpurposeofthetreaty as void (ØleHecdve). T11is view is dedved ‹uom the Opitlions of tbe lntetnadonal court ofJustice (1CJ Or ³Vorld court)ŒŒ the Genodde C•”e (1951,1CJ RepS15)andof“fleHuman Nahts comtnitteea994) W11ile the argumentthatstates should not be able to Opt out of 61ndamentalhuman dghts has medt, fot Statesthe pfocess can be more complica”äd. Thusthe USAs reservauon transmitted on raTi6Cation of the ICCPR:’That ardde 20 does not audlorize orrequire Ie­islaTion or other action by the uTlited states that Would restdctthe riJ’1tof ‹uee speech and assodation Protected by the consdt‡U‘son and laws of the utliTed S•§tes.’ T1S re‘õrvation is poTenda‡Uy ptoblematic as Artide 20 provides that any propaganda for warshaa beprohibitedbylau, andany advocacyofnadonal,raE dal, orteli‡ious hatred that consdtuteS ŒŒCitementto Reservatlons and Declaratio”s after Rati6Cation Even if a state does elect to raU6, a human dghts tTeaw,“flere are a numbet of le8al ways hl wNch a Sta–ç Can avoid respon$ib‡UiW –½rikSTetms. S‹wtes mayenter reservanons and dedarauons either on rati6CaE Uon ot at any time therea‹uerA These are statements Of intent entered by “ùle state and commU11icated to .ƒÇ a ‰DŽn .m ho˜C,n .–k aS[[W d n.[ “ñmy b t s e d t .n †,‘Ð eb ‚º .a .•ï 0d0t m N1 rŒŒ ŒŒ .m e .m .‡W,•À W R FBrŒÈ r”§t many •‰Ntesr‰NUfiCärion hasbecorne arlend in itse , a meanstBeasyaccdad‰š˜aueƒÎIP“õ,ge5ture5E The pmblem asn i,‰NdbecauseofŒÈdelibera–çemphaslson ratŠŒûUorl’ 11’eprimaryŽOK tr’øti.neŽRderMr¥ beliefistmtonceuniŽÖrsa1‚Ïir1œtio015r–¤ƒˆ1ized,¬e irnplement–~tlontec niqLles be5tlEngthened’Knce CBmm’rdtB parMciNtlon, stæÆeswi11ƒ®nd ”ädiVCU”äto pU11KJ d E11find¬emsENe5ˆóSnaredlnan–UenbPaodin‹{ne‘¥K Bfintermuona1ŠMƒÇPeMsioo and accoun–çbiliwE Inåemeanume,r‚«t•zCation byhumarl”ah“iƒˆd‘Æusariesi5 Ur‚Äh•ced at ‹} Price, n—Wme1ƒÁ. diminished obli‹{ŒÈtions,1ax M IBnAƒˆu1d ‘¼JƒÕ‘TM–yConsequeoC‰¿fTVlnorA’compliarlce’ The cB5t Bf–Zlembership Aas been deliberately rninimize ‘ ŽM0‘,1996) ]Aeernpha5isupon prorndin‹{ UniŽÖr˜_lrŽHtŽ§Cmion ls an essentlalBne in ordert05trenŽOthen ar’d con50lid”§ethe niŽÖrŽ²listloundŒÈt;ons ofthe un’Òed Nationshuman dahU S RE E ES MeasutesjuS‡Uˆó’lgder0—eadonmustbe of‰N”ämpo tary and exceptiorlalnature. Genera11y the emer8ency mustpose agenuifle Žd1–·att0 ‘sle e“øStence orstab¬W OfŽdlestate atldthestate musthavelega‡Uyprodaitneda Stateofemer‹{encyTheuKhasan0‹wbleNstoryofenE teŒŒ–¼lengthyderogau011S,dairrŒŒgjusU6Cadononthe basis of the perceived dŸat ‰Nom terrodsts m lrelatld and Northern lreland i11the latterpart oflast century 111epowertod”br0†ateshouldbelimitedtoextreme Situations.1t is not a way for states to avoid human dghts obli–¼ations. Moteover, even ŒŒ emerŠâency situE ations, huma11 dghts remam cruda11y irnportant and hlternadonal humani•§dan law sd11 applies.1n titnes Ofwarandotheremeraendes, humandghtsaremore Iikely to be thteatened and Te5Pect for them should thereŒŒreberegardedas more, noTless, hnportant. Towards an lnternational,1nterdependent, and IndiviSŽRle system of Human Ri‹{hts Havirlg outli11ed ¬e process of becomŒŒ‹{ bound by a treaty, it 6 now appropdate to idenufy the le–¼“c . D‰¿ itethefeŒÈrsofsomeaiti6,the qU‰š[•§runwe–å‚« r ti’ùbiBn need nokh‘ne 3nynegati‘Æ Consequeoces Kr e tr“c’qNJrne ‚«S aÞ’10le. (nˆô1.1997. pomgŒûP1123) Th re i5 Cleau–Uidence … t–mlaƒq—‹{“‰S with stmn‹{dome5tlc . st”äUkiB,5 and BBr humŒÈn r–甲uEcords are1˜YSli1Ž°lytojKin A rmrƒÇ d –mr6tr¼U•|t–mˆó“ó‰Nte5Wit–mƒÇ^1Š¤r domesuc E 5t’ÒUtiBn5¬•xthale5ifn11ar rEC0œS.T–m¡t istrA1e eŽ¶ot KU‹{ d ˜À1BdacieS Ua›«E10le–whi¬ r“clizefnolEdome5UCCK ate benefyt5from rnember5hiptharloonEdemocraci‰¿E Mcause n$tiŽRend“@fŠ„Ourin‹{11Umar’ dgh6tr¼tiestend‰Ábe Stm erA_arE rnoreli1”bN”@join humarA”Œ¾ht5tr“cti‰¿E Mor–¤‘¤ec i5W—BWikh¬e prediC‡Uonth”§C011”§eralince—Bi^ area B^r Em‰š.‡[EAidlswld”@‹{”unlar“órc011a–ç‚Ûb–U’1e r6 ffBmtrIymember5hip, h“–/ea hlgher11ƒŒElihood ofjowng h dhtstreaue5.Alsocon5istem‡[thth—WapprŒûƒÈh,5–E‘Ù5 iB N iBns with higher leYels ofhumarA riahtstr–¤ŒÈWcornrn’ enƒq arethernse1‡[S con$i5tentN roore liƒZE”tojoinå05etreŒÈUes’ 0Ÿ“ù’@’@ƒÁ,2007, P 613) FI Nr1—RN ‘ Human R¥htsin lntemational Law Obli8auons assumed by the states under the key iI1E teTnationalhumandghtstreatiesandto considerwhy theNareso many rreariesandotherinstNmen6 At present,there ‰Nre tlirle core mternationalhuman d8hts ilwtruments, conduded ƒder the auspices of the uTlited Nadons(see BO~ 4.4). The most Mdely acA Cepted treaw isThe convendon on the N8hts of ŒŒe CMld. EV‚±ry uN membersta”ä,save the usA, south Sud”@, and somalia, has rati6ed it (on the usA and nonErad6Cauon, see abo chapter 17). Most uN states havea‹qreed”@bele8ƒˆA11yboundby‘õŠ•ralofthesecore treaties,Theydlusa8ree”@respectt11esupulatedrights Of ŒŒdividuals, protectthose dghts h11awi and •§ke a11 necessarymeasurest0 ‹uIMlthe’Òtreaw’obligauons, Even i11‘sle era of the utlited Nadons, dra‰N‡Ulg mE ternauonal h”@laTld‹{htS ‡UIstNments proved itlida‡Uy tobe a tortuous process, W11ile agreementonpU11ishE ŒŒ8 ‹qenodde was rela“ùVely eaS‡UƒÁ reached as de•§‡US emerged of dle H010caustiTIEurope dUŒŒ1–¼ the seo Ondworldw’aT, a‹{reement onutliversalhumarlri8hts Proved more problemadc, The ˆòrmer comrSSion UN Nine core Human RMhts Treaties (note several haYe additiorlal opuonal Protocols containing further ri8hts and/or indiYidual communication or inYest–ç3tion regimes) 1.1rfterrlationar corlveotion on the “émination ofAtl Forms of R‰NCial DiKrirninatlon 1965 2. 1ƒ® rnationalcJ/enant on ci‡[ Md Œõ—Bical Ri‘nTtS 1966. 3.1—Bernationalcovenarrt on Economic, socialand cU–mtural ‘¤‹{h61966. 4. COu1Š•ntion on ¬e Elimi”æÆion ofA11 F0ƒS of Di5CriminŒÈtion ƒˆ‹{al’nstvvorrlen 1979. 5. COu1‡[mion ƒˆ‹{ƒˆinstTorture and othercNel,1nhumar’. or D‘Éuadin‹{Tr“ctmer!:or punishmeflt 1984. 6. COu1Š•ntion on the R1Œ¾bts 0Yhe child 1989. ƒt. 1u1terMtioml con‘Æmion on¬e prote–Stion oftAe RiŠŽ“fF of Alf Mi‹{rarrtwor‹—–å arld Member50fTheir F“cn‡VeS 1990 8, conŠ•ntion onthe Ri8hts ofper$0″s with DiS‚«bi1”äieS 2m6. 9. 1mernationalcon‘Æntion’Ñrthe pmtedon ofA11Per50n5 from Enlorced DisappearanC62‰K6. 67 5tandard –åinimum Rk11eS —CrtheTr¼‰Áentofprisoners (EC050‚Ì 1957. CodeofcondudˆòrLŒä E0ŒŒrcemerft0˜Àicia15 1979 (GenemlA5‹Lmb (GA) Resoluuon 34/169). Declar‚¬tion o0 ‰¾e Rightto DEvelopmˆót (GA Resoluuon 41 12›. Dedaratiorl on the Rights oflndiEenouS ”­OpleS 2m7 (GA Resolutio061n95) Other Key united Nations lnstruments Com —Bion Re‚Ïingt0ŒŒe st”§U50fRefuge—W5 1951(and 1967 Pmtoc01). The lnternational Labour or˜CŠŽnization’S E‹òht Fundamental Tre•ïties Cor‡W‰PIuon NO,290n —Crced 1‚«bour 1930. ConŠ•u1tlon NO.870n fNedom of“sOciatio0 ŒÈu1d Pmtedion ofthe ri‹{htto or•Lani–· 1948. COwƒmion o.980nthe ri‹{M”@or•”n1–·and c011ediŠ• b’ù‹{‰Áning 1949. (“ñor.Š•nuon NO.1‰Koo the issue ofeq”ˆlr‚ðmuneration 1951. COu1Vention NO.1050n the ab0”øbn of•§rced labour 1957. Cor1Š•rrtion N01110n di5Crimlnation (employmer’t ‚«nd Occupation) 1958. Cor1Š•nuon NO B80n mlnimuma‹{e 1973, Cor1‡[nuon NO.1820n^tltfbrms ofch11d labour 1999. n1 ‹uom A d r a –댌†e S.[ d ’° 0 .”@ S af0 .o h .˜F r e S.[ N ŒŒ ba 3 tä„.PO e h.–kmS M K d .U e .[ a .U 68 R. K. M. smith BO 4.5 CH LLE G A rnerl ht5moreimpodŒÈr–ZtMnotAer51Durln‹{t–mleco War. a deVUtating p01•cizauon ofattltudest^ŒÈrds humarl ri ht5 ernerged. comrnuni5t‹tates arld many neä‡lyindeper’dent and d–Uelopin‹{“°ates consider—Wd thatr18At5 Pertainingto ‰aHtence.5Uch a5 “‹{ht5to adequate “‡od,sh–¤”äeceducatiKn, and W1ƒRrkwere pre.eminentí’,ile manyolder (we5tern) demBcraci‰¾erophasi‹Ld cNiland p01–ÄicalriahtssU¬a5free 5Peech,the fi‚ªE1tt0•§irtrials, eLC.ne twotr–¤•xtie5areCha‚Ïterlzed by diffˆê‘Àot obliŽOatlon5. The lcESCR reŒûUires S•§te5tB r”bŒÈlizethe riŽOhts pr0‹{uessiveN.totheTrlaximum of their ŒPai1ŒŒle re50U–Zes (Article 2(1)), M’1ilethe lccpR dem‰Nrld5inst‚«nt respedfor–mB “Œ¾ht5and pr‰¾isionofnation rernediesfbr‡Yolauon5 (Arkicle 2)E G ASS TIONS, HIERARGHIES OF R HTSI BnHuman Nahtsrnade †reaE progtesS ’ldra‹uin–¼Ždle U11iversalDedaradonofHumanN8hts(UDHR)1948, an a5 irauona1 •§buladon of the alndamental dŽOhts nd‰NeedBms ofa‡U. NdloughŽdleutHtedNationshad Bn1 56memberstatesit11948,therewere 193 member Srates ir12015, a‡U of whom pr0–çSs adherence to the UDHR.1tistruly a ŽRliŠ•rsaldeclaration today The irlitialplan was for the ‘blueprirlt’ set outillthe Dedaration to be translaTed into treaty obli‹{adons bi11di11 0n sTates. utlfortunately,internationalpolirics inteNened and consensus could nor be teached (see BB~ 4.5), As a tesult of the tension, the dedsion was taken to pursue ‘¥O separate irlstruments: one focus’ Bn ecBn01ƒÑ‡UC, sodal, and culturaldghts,The 0Ždler Ondvilandpoliucaldghts. HBweŠ•r,irrespecuve of the desi‹{nauon accorded ƒGB any given ti¡ht, hŒûman HghŒS are, above a‡U,“ù1′ teTdependent, ir1—R‡YSible,—}d universalE one cannot exerdse dghts of poliucal parddpadon Mthoutben’ e6ŒŒ‹uBmtheeconomic,sodal,—}dculNralri8htto ducaTiBn,to fadli‹wte an ŒŒ•§rmed choiceE si‰Álarly the d‡Yld–¼htto H‘« isdevoldof mearlingifthereis no ‹u)Bd Br dean water. The ‘¥O covenants cotnbi11e to enuenchthebteadthofd–ltsand‰Needomsespoused ŒŒtheuDHR. Arguably, mostofThe 0Ždlertreatiesan ”åtrumentssimply elaborate theirappHcationE Criti•z arauethat âJ is incomP‚«tible ƒË‰½th¬e notion ofuniŽ°rŠJ human right5to A‚«Je r‹òhtswhich areacN–Ued proaressiŽÖN (xher5ŒŒ.•”leåatthese right5 (•§od, education,50ci“c‹LCurtw, ^rk)5houldnotnece5•·ri1ƒÁbe‡YEŸdaS“óatefundons”BNevecthe mi11ennium d–Uel0“|—Í–¤r1ƒq‹{oals(arldthe P‰¿tA2K 15 ŠŽ‹{endŒÜ) emph‰¿i‹Lthe nece55”äƒÁ ofcontinualN enMrlcin“†rBJisiBn Bfb“¬ic economicand 50ciaA”J1U(includina6ƒR0d 3nd heŒÈ–Äk—Wre). W’fthwtsuch ba5icneed5’1i’n’ÒSelfiS¬r“ctened’ ()thercr’Òi‘Ѓˆrg.1et–mlateconomiC3nd50ci‰Nld‹{htsare mKre n5~–¤•§r5t3–ç5torealize-consider;h^eŠ•CtheC‰¿tof e5.blishiBg afU11independent judicia15ƒÁStern. or oftTai”ina pK11Ce i, detentioo regU1‹Qion5 arld buildin˜C’@Propriate detemion –«Ci1‰¾eS ”@r use preA arld p05tEt”al.!tis cle“¢¬at Žçlarly “Ôht5 an freedBrn5 h—«e expliciƒq0r implicit c05LimpliCŽHtions fbr $tatesE Usua‡Uy agreed by most or a‡U States, their a–¼reement being sigli6ed by compliance ra“fler than written a teement. some aspects of human dghts ar‹{Uably ‰Nect customary irlternadona11aw. The proMbition Bn tBrtu[e and, more espeda‡Uy, the prohibition on Slavery are examples. Nlstates accept that slavery is CBntrary to internationa11aw, They are b0‹©d to prK’ Nbitslavery irrespective of whether or notthey have rad‹ued the antiAslavery treaties, More diŒÞCult is tor’ noT teC1111ica11y lega11y bmdin3 but do enshrine PŒŒldA Ples agreed by states. BreaC11in‹{ S0‹u law is not neces. Sadly Mthout con‘õquences, but these are wpica‡Uy P0‡Utical rather than le‹{al. As shelton (2000) note$, nonEbŒŒdingmeasures are an irlcreasin8Šéature on the internauonalstage. Examplesirldude the Dedaradon On the Ri8htTO Developmentand “ùle S•§ndard Rules for the TreatmenT of pdsoners. Frequendy,’S0‹u law’ instruments precede ‘hard’ 1aw-thus the utlivetsal Dedarauon wassub‘õquendy le‹{a11y ‰wPressedin the twmcoven”@ts,andtheDedarauonoftheEli111irla“ùon OfDiscdrnmariona•”ŒŒStwomen(196—ÍWasf0110wed by tbeconventiononthe Elitnirlauon ofg FOTms of DiscriƒÑ1ŒŒadonagamstwomen(CEDAW)in 1979. S0‹u law ir1ŒŒtnlsthe obligaTions of states but does not de6ne them. Forsythe (2006, P 13) notes the im. Portance of the 61‡U range of human dghts ‘S0‰N law’ ’lhelpingto realizenonE¡Ovetmnentalorgatlizations’ (NGO)andŒŒreignpoHcy objectiŠ•S. Othersources:customary InternationalLaw and ‘S0Y Law CustBmary i11terna“ù0ƒ®‹Q law isthe term applied to the bBdy of rules and t–¤˜CUlations that represent ac’ Cepted state practice, customary ir1ƒÑernadona11aw is Human Rightsin lntemational Law Monitoring and Enforcing International Human Rights Law Asystem of human dghtslaw, as previously outlirled, M‡UCle‰Nrlybeofbene6thldelmeagn“…tbeparameters Ofbumanrightsptotectionandenshdrlin†theentide. nlents ofŒŒdividuals(and occasiona‡Uygroups). HOWA ever, any bene6t of havin8 human rightsis sedously erodedifthosedŽOhtscannotbeenforced. Thissecrion Wi11thus exarTlitle the –ÊStin–¼ mecha11ismS ŒŒr moniA t0ŒŒleand enfordn8 humandgh”@. The mternational System wi‡U be outlitled 6rsr h1 Ždlis secuon,–½‡UOwed by re8ional and national systems.1nevi•§bly less re. Course is available forthe aggrievedindividualat’ltetA nationa11evelthan at nauona11evel. nent. Moreover, with most states now party to some Bf the mainjnternauonalhuman d–¼htstrea“ùes,there isless need to Nly on customaty h1”ätnationa11aw to PrBve aleä„10bligadonenforceable againstthe st‹QeE Inaddi‡Uont0Ždleforegoi11g, humand‹{htsmayabo be•§’‡din s0‹ulaw. S0‰Nlawisthetermusedto con’ trastMth’hard'(treaty/customary)1aw thatproduces Ie–¼a‡Uy bindirlgob‡U†ŠŽ‡Uons. S0‹ulaw illdudes a vadetyBfd”ðerentirlstruments condudedunderThe auspices Bf ŒŒternationalor†arlizations. These instruments are K YPE Treaties areth6 mostcomm0ƒ® 50ur‚Äe ofinternŒÈtionŒÈl hurnan rightS1•›. ThØJare concluded in’¬iti0˜C—Wrld 5tate5rnust {Cemtheir–çBS. St“[escan a›«id ce‹ÐintreaŽÙ, obli•”tion5through ‘É‘õNati0‹©, declar‰Ntions, and d—Wu0‹{ations. HoweY–¤ƒÅ rEseNauonsshould nd n–¤ŠŽatethe obled—Wnd purp0‰ of thetrea—Í,: Der0‹{ŒÈtionsshould only be uS‚ðd ›«’1en ‚«b”@Iute1ƒÁoece’wry. Customary internatiomi1Œä i5 a50urceofintern‚«tionŒÈ1 humarlr‹òhts: ri‹{h6 andfreedomsre8arded ŒÈSsowideN acceptedth•^rƒÁ‹Ste is bound bythem. ‘S0Y 1•›’ con•âJLlte5anotherimp0‚¯“¬tsourceof in–çrnationalhurnan ri‘n1U insofar a5 “freflectsthepradiceand opinionof‰¾tes.“fCan be influent‚Ï butis not 1‘Éa11ƒÁen•§–Z”•ble Human riŽOhŒÃare interdependentand iodM5ible. Most human ri•”1ŒÃarecoEdependenton othewhum”§”ehts. HumŒÈn riŽOhts thuSŒŒrm acoh“@iŽÖ‘Çb ofrig–mS‚«ndfreedorw“Õ’ ‰ºS . The lnternational(united Nations) System for Monitorin—e and Enfordng Human Ri‹{hts In t11issecuon,the uN or–¼ŠŽns andbodieswi‡U be con. Sidered 6rst, then the tNaty morlit0ŒŒ˜C bodies that Ove‘Deetheimplemen•§Uon ofthetŒŒecore human ˜j8hts treaties. other uN systemS •§r m011iƒÇodng human righ‘ Wi11then be oudiTled. FŒŒa‡UM a bdef review of a major ‹{rowth area of i11ternationalaC‡UVA iwˆê¨:riminalandtƒ~ansitionaljuS“ùCeˆê“Ó11Completethis secdon. The ulliTed Nadonsis deady the mostimportanT Sourceofhumand“…Atslaw;Mostofthemajortreades are adoptedunderthe auspices ofthe united Nations OrbyorŽOarŒŒadonS1ŒŒkedto theunitedNatiotls(such asuNEconomic,sdenti‹uCandculturalor†a11izauon (UNESCO),the world Healdlorganization (WHO), Or the lLO). More perti11endy, the U11ited Na“ùons sys. Tem has developed a system of monit0ŒŒ8 CompliA ance Mth human d8hts(see Fi‹{Ure 4.2). Every sm‹{le memberstate ofthe united Nauonsis motlitored by these systems, as W•Ó be ez’†lai’ùed. However, as TO. muschat (2003, P —Í notes,’ŒŒternational protection Ofhuman dÒhtsis a chapter oflegalMstorƒÁŒŒat has begun aT a relatively late stege i11tbe Nstory of hu. mankmd’. Moreover,it is a system that exemPŒíes Consensua1‰¿PlomacM with a‡U thatthat en•§ils. S‚Ëtes W‡U10nlyactively partiC’†atewhen theyfeelitbene6ts them(politica‡Uƒk econ0‰ÁCa‡Uy, ordiplomatica11y).1fa State Šéels vicumized by the system,itiS ‹uee to withA dTaHáY There iS “ùIus a p0‡Udcalbalance to be acNeved beNeen eŽeective monitoritla and not alienat‡Ulg any State ‰N’om theprocess.1ndusi‡Ytyisimportant. 69 Critical Thinking Questions: Doesthe “îiˆ¸erlce ofre5erVŒÈUons and derogations Underminethe universali’qofhumŒÈn right5, or i5 it simpl)’ a mdkalkytoensure stat‰šWi11agteetoKceptle‘n Obli‹{ŒÈtion5?A~’ould “¬y‰¾te curre”t1ƒÁC‚Ïmin8”@ be under thmatfrom termrisrrl bejU“óŠ‘ed in ‹Lekineto der08atefrom Š›atypr–Uislons?1f50, M’1ich rights/f‘Éedorn5 and‰DE1ƒÁ? Sn Žnd EŒÏ e ˜C t.[t b1 Ší rd .m a p h t1 Sa n.[tn WA Ve0 0 ƒÑ me “cS ”@ e e h e e td š¬ n A‡Y. e g e o . d G Pn . d .;Žl tS 1 C . n.[t t o .c d.àÙ.’ù M •”eMWNe r , yŒŒ W ‰ª‡Vr 1 t W WŒŒ’”ÜŒŒ h .‹rqŒŒˆ¸×b r a ad u f ‚Þ b f ”ä Nb 0 ‡V St W ’@ a”ŽR’ W a ‹{ a t n r eA ‹{ P c f s d St.[ t n mU dE n0 eht .[ .’ù 1n,eemr“f hpOrdnn tm‰Á—Y –kT t . m b P C¡1 a r t ”@ S er u cO h ct t a 70 R. K, M. smith FŽ°U1ƒ‚ 42 Un”äed Nation$ human ri‹{htssyJerr©ˆêa simP1Žsed Š•”°iKn’ UNGenetalA‘õembly ReceiŠ•5 Human Rightscouncil reports arldothethuman6ghts reporS HumanRi“…hUC0‡Uodkcei–ÄSrepot‘‹uomtreaw m011imHngbodi“@ and sptdalmedlar’sms(appomtsrapponeurs)EUndertakes uf’vcrsalpeHodic re‡Yew SP‚»d‚«IptocedUƒ~esR’‚PporteU6, wotkmg3r011PS,’Undspedal e‘¦erŒÆ Bfthe “,11611nentby each state ofits humatld‹{ ts KA t11edissoluuonofthenluchEdeddedcomtrlissiKnKn whenre‡Yewh1–¼061erstates.AsforŽdle nomicandsodalcoun'(see nce , urlitedNadBns0ŠÊCeoftheHi–¼hcomnlissi0ƒ® ter). The main cddcistrls a–¼aiflst Ždle cormrlissiKn Nhts oHCHR)compilesNlevantreports 1984;Boekle,1995;At‡Ulan,2002,2005)’ edibleand”ä’ableinformationpTovidedby’OTher ftheU11i”ädNadonsGeneralAssembly,toW11ich–k d.AdialB eŒŒ110WS,MŽd10Ždlerstates i11afairand equalmannef (GAResn 60/251at 2;see The HRc alsB has competence t0 âJCeive comA Mth powet to undertake a urliversalperio ‘ U”fwTldl P’wiodŸItviƒÇW qf’t4‘¨ Pr4CtiCƒÇ Sta”ä teport$ ro tTeawnlorlitorm‹{bodi‚»H”Vfld st“ûte Par’cipa60n it’WOykof’@edalmechå³dsn15 Treaty rn011i”@tin“…bodiesReceiŠ•andcomrnenton 5tateptdodic reporŽl Nliably attested violauons’ of human Hghts and ‹ueeE doms, This procedure draws heavily on its predecesE Sot(the “‡rmer commission’S 1253/15– Procedure). Human Nghts council Resoludon 5/1 0f 2007 ProE Videsin“‡rma‘sononthenewprocess,W11ichhasthree Sequentialstages: an mitial admissibŽRty review by a Workinggr0‡UP of’ldependentbPert5; C0ƒÑIsideration OfS–k‡UationsbyaworkŒŒ˜CŽOroupdrawn‹uomcouncil members; and review and/oractionby the HRC. NO information on the nature of the complaints or the SCussions ofthe coundW‡Ulbe madepublic(unless the sTate consents) Theworkofdle councilissupporTedbyaratlge of Spedal proced‡Utes (ƒÁ4Pr0ƒÎeur’)-pdvate mdividuals, SeNm–¼ŒŒ theit ŒŒ’vidualcapadty to morlitor comE Pliance Mth human ri–¼htsi11diHerent statesthrough 0ŒÞdal visits, conceptualize potential devdopments i11 human d†hts, consider daims of violadons of dJ1ts and ‹ueedoms, and articulate and address conE Cerns. These spedalprocedures may be appoi11ƒÑed to Consider a speci‹uC stˆ¼e (e.† Somalia; Myat”@ar) or a theme(eg.”§tremepovertyandhuman ri‹{hts; d–lts Of lndi8enous peoples;™`eedom of re’˜Cion or beE Het or dghrs of older persons). Their appointments, terms, and conduct are governed by various irlstruE mentS ŒŒdudirlea code ofconducT(HRC ReS5n on i11SUNtionalbui!din‹{and5/20n code ofconduct). The lLo and uNEsco both have distirlctsysTems ‹u)retlsUŒŒgtheprotecdonofdgh‘ÐProTecTedbytreaE des conduded under theit auspicesA UNEsco also Operates a system ŒŒr consideŒŒ–¼ Commurticatiotls Concerrlin–¼ dghts Mtš¬lits judsdicdon-pdrnatE ‡Uy,‚¹le H–¼h6 to educauon and to paTddpate ‹ueely i11Cdtura1‡UŠé as we‡U as dghts Nlated t0 ‰N’eedom of e’@ression and illfbrmauon. Dedsi0ƒ® 104, EX/33 by UNESCO (1978) exa1ƒÑŒŒesthe proceduNsthatshould bef0‡UOwed‹ultbeexaminationofcases andquesuons that mëht be subŒŒtted to uNEsco concer1ŒŒ8 the exercise of human d’êh‚±S hlthe ’@heres of its compeE tence, Theseptoceedings are genera11ycon‹udential.Arude 240fthe consuNdon ofthe lnternational Labour orŽOa1ŒŒation a110ws for complamts by itlE dust‹ualassodations of employets/workers who are Clahni11ŽO‘slat anyofthe membershasfailed to secure e˜Àective obsetvance of ‰Nny convention. TMs is part Ofthe lLo system ŒŒrmorlitodngcomplianceMdlits human (workers’)”ghts. Undoubtedly, thete are ŠéW femedies available to thehldividualunderthepdmatyinterna“ùonalmechaE š¬Sms. T11is is pethaps irlevitable in an oraanization Indi‡YdU•ï1 COIDTnutlications, ‚ºtreaw,perftliŒÆ—}dS•§–ÄŠŽCceP6 Hurnan R‹òhtsin lnternationa1 œW focused otlt11e obligationsthatstates owe each other. The con6dentialnature ofthe vadoussystemsis conE Sonant with respect for national sovereignty and a ƒ~eluctance to risk aljenatirlg states. A‡U States are enE Couta‹{ed to partidpate, with a ‘‡Ught touch’ enforceE mentsw’1ebein–¼ŒŒe inevitaA1e consequence. Secondary (Treaty) Bodies In addition to theŒŒregoitlg, each ofthe prirldpaltreaE deS ŒŒdudesa mechaTlismŒŒt moniTodngcompliance Wi‘slhuman rights. TMsis a secondary system asit –« basedon dlePŒŒdpaltreatiesandthus only applieS ”@ Those states that have rad6ed the tNaw i11 question, A‡U the treaw’ bodies are centred and seNiced ‘qI ceE neva, homeof“fle oHCHR.Thecomposidonofeach Com111ittee,–kS powets, and funcdons are sped6ed in the salient treaty (e.†ŒŒr comtNttee on the Righrs Ofthe C11ild, see the convention on the N–¼hts of the C11ild, AttideS 43-5), Egan (2011) provides a detailed analysis ofthesebodies. Each “ùeaty receives and considers selfevaluative State reports at hltervals sped6ed h1ƒÑhe televant treaty or by the com‰ÁtteeA condudit180bseNaE tionsissued in response to the state reports anddelibE eTauonsthereon detaileood pt‰NCdce and assess state ComP’ance with theiT obli“†ations. NonEcompliance tdggers n0 ×nction, Nltepotts are public and availE able on1ŒŒe, M”§y committees are competentto reE Ceive complaŒŒts of violau0ƒÑIs of human dghTS ‹uom Onestateagahlstanother. However,forobviousdiploE matic reasons (notleast ‘sle Šéar ofretdbuuon)these Procedures are not utŽRZed. some comttlittees may Undertake visits to states (e.† Comr11ittee a8ahlst TortUâJ Visits detenuon fadŒÝties), The core treaties Can each now’ consider i11dividual complai11ts. HOWE ever, states musr 2gree expressly, eitber con”ämporaE neously Mth rad6Cation or subsequendy. to accept u11is competence and a110w the relevant committee to hear ŒŒdividualcomplainrs,1ndeed, some of these Procedures are con•§’Òled hl separate instruments (usua‡Uy protocols) e‚âliddy to emphasize a disthlcE tion‹u.om the scope ofnormaltreaty obli–¼adons.1n a Consciousattemptto renderthe complaintsystem acE Ceptable to states, nonE1e8alistic terms are deployed.Thus commutlicadons are transmitted to a comtH•ÀtE tee that considers the matedalsubt11itted to it and isE Suesan oPŒŒion thereon. considedn’ê the nurnberof assenting states, and espeda11y irl comparison to the regionalsystems(as we sha11See),there are very few Complairltsbyindividuals,YetS‡UrelynoonecarlaƒÑ‹{Ue 72 R. K. M. smith thatthisre‰Nects predomŒŒant–¼ood state ptactice and CBntentedmdividualsenjoyirlgthefU11ran‹{eofri“…hts andfreedomsto which theirstatehas acquiesced, The it1ƒÑernational system is 0‹uen regarded as ‘tBBthless’: there is a plethora of i11ternauonal bodA ies thattnorliTor cotnpliance by sta[es with accepred real mechanisms international human H811ts, but no ŒŒr fBrcitlg states to honour their treaty obli–¼ations fU11 MtMrltheirterdtory AttemP‘Ð are being made tB streamline Ždle system of reporŒŒŠŽ, renderinŒA it Iess oneTous on states (e.ŠŽ.‰N Core report with a‡U the eneralinformauon supported by treaw’sped6C ŒŒfBrmation where required, rathet ŒŒan repeaŒŒg ŒŒ•§rmation to diHerent commi”äees). coun”ädng CBmmon sTate c0”ƒIplaitlts should Nnder the m011i’ tBdng system moN eŠÊCient. Nston (199“, At1ƒ®an (2005), and HaŒŒaway (2007), among others, SU˜C˜Cest ŒŒat, Mth uTliversalrŠŽ“ù6Cauon of matly instruments a prBachin–¼,imptovmgthee”CecuvenessoftreaTyob’H atiBnsisthe nŠùt hurdle to secUŒŒ–¼human rightsE PB1itical M11 has been bPressed; the rhetodc must nowbecomearealiŒÄ Crimina11Ustlce Mechanisms Despite the idealisuc and uniform statements on se’ CudnginternadonalpeaceandsecudtyŽdlatcharacter’ Zed The ŒŒrmative years of the U11ited NaTiorls, dvil Wats and hlternaTional conaicts remairl a11too com’ mBn, and they entailthe violation of huma’ù dg11tsE AlthBU–¼h intetnadonal human dahts law imposes Bbli tions on states,it is usua11y individuals who acA tua11yin‹umged‹{htsand‹ueedoms.TMsismostappar’ ent when wat cdmes or crimes a3ai11ST humarliry are CBm‰Átted. can these irldividuals be held to account ‹u)rtheir actions? the tra†edies of Rwanda and Yuao’ F0‡UOwing 1990S, demand5 for asC˜jbin—¯ Cdminal Slavia in tbe respo”sibŽRW stTengrhened, Ad hoc international tribunals were established by resolutions of the Un–ked Nation5 Security councilto try those inA VB1Ved in the aŒûodties. similar, selfEfunded tribu’ nals and courts wefe created (e.g. sierta Leone, Cambodia, and lndonesia) with varyin–¼ degrees of invB1Vement of the united Nations. U‡Vmately, the international comTnunity established a permanent Internauonal criminalcoutt(see BO~ 4.6), withju’ risdicTion to prosecute individuals a11e–¼edly involved in violations of international crimina11aw (see cas’ STatute of Sesse,2003). The televanr treaty (Rome the lnternational cdmi”al couto only applies to BœX 46 DEGœ B JURIS ,1 11.1e lnternŒÈtional court0ƒÅUstice is 0‘ãen re‰÷rred‰Á•Üthe AVBrld cBurL ”ä ha5jU–å5dicuon cNer a11ioterna‡Uonaldisp{Ÿes ‘Éf•‹rrEdto it by5tates.1ndividŽR15 Car1ƒ®ot brin‹{ComplaintS”@ the cBurL The lcjCŽHn also iS5Ue adYi50ry opirlions on matkers OfinternauonŒÈƒ®‘nƒ]. Ie lnternauonalcrimir.1Courk hasjUŽsdidon on1ƒÁ Over interƒCA—Wtionalcrimina11•›ŽN01q10É WhichtaA”Ü P1ŒÈCe in 5tates Whlch h–Ue rat‰Jed¬e Rome st—tute’ andÞ’1ich h–U–¤ Bccurred ‰NYerthe 5t’Ute ha5 entered in”@‹u)rce •§rthat “óate.10dividualS –~11e˜C–¤d1ƒÁ˜PPon5ible R)r ÆroCYies are Pm5ecuted iothis court and,ifcoTlvided, car1”rwCustodia1Žjntences. MŒÈnycornmˆóbor5(e—W Nowak Buergenthal) P05–ÄtheCreatiBn ofa n^^Id hurr’‚«n “‹{–mrts courtwhich could he—Wr CBmP1ŒÈint5 broU˜Cš¬t”T,indi‡YdUFIs and aroLlps aŽOain5t“°ates CBncemin–” any hurrlarlri‘nAtstreŒÈtie5thatthe ‘Æle‡[ƒ®k gƒq’‚teha5ratŽ§ed.Thi5^UldŽ¶lrkW’Òh¬etreatybodi‰¿,Howevec ¬i$ omion is not popU1‚«rWâJh 5″tate5. TRU1œN TINGWƒÓRL œ@ RTS NationalHuman Ri‹{hts systemsfor Monitorln‹{and Enfordn‹{ Human Ri‹{hts StaTes, as siä„atodes of internauonal human “†hts treaties, have pdmary responsibility for ensUŒŒ‹{ dlose dgh—î and ‹ueedoms withm theirterdtory T Obli‹{ation to protect human dƒts thus fa11S dearly On tbe state, butenŒŒrcement ofhuman dghts atthe regional and hlternationa11evelrema’ÒIs open to cddE Cisrn. S”Ptes aN a11too 0‹uen reluC•§nt to accept the judsdicdon of internauonal and re–¼ional bodies to receive compla‰¾‘Ћuom individuals. However, some Succourrnaybegleaned ‹uom nationa11aws.1tisideal ifh1—RVidualsenjoysuccessfulrecoursetonationa11aw When human ri–¼hts are ‰Á‹u‰Á˜Ced asthe state can or Should be able to remedy the raised problem Ni‹uly 97.23.S, upheld K4ŠƒÇ41tda v. pr‰¾eC‡Utor,190ctober 2000, case lcTR 97.23,A). This cenTuty, the lcc issued an arrest warrant for the then president of Sudarl, omar al Bashir, in connection with events in Darfur. There are also charges a†ainst wi11iam Samoei Ruto, suspended Minister “‡r Higher Education, sdence and Techn010–¼y, and others in connection with the postEelection violence in Kenya (2007-8). thBse states that accept its jurisdictionE The Rome Statute details a11 Ctimes within the jurisdiction of the court-C11aptetS 20 (Genocide) and 15 (TorTure) in this book address No examples. cases can be referred to the lcc by the security council of the United Nations (e–¼. sudan), by states themselves When they are unable (or unM11in†) to prosecute (e.† U‹{anda, central African Republic), or by the0ŒÞCe of the prosecutor as a result of invesdgations (e.† Kenya), The lcc is e˜Àectively a last resort for brin–¼in‹{ƒÑojusticeindividualswho commitsped6ed heinBus ctimes. The 6rsTtdals are onlyjust concludA in‹{, so it is too early to assess its eŽeectivenessE sti‡U, the c0Œûrt’s very existence tepresents a si‘li6Cant achievement and addition to internationalhumani’ tarian and human riahtslaws. The emphasis in t11e international courts and triA bunalsis onptosecutingthosehighefupthe chainof CBtnmand. slobodanM‡U0‘õViƒÇ(formerpresident of Yugoslavia) was on trialfor ŽOenodde and other war Crimes at the ad hoc lnternational C6minal TtibuA nalforthe former YU‹qOslavia when he died in 2006 (proseC1ƒÇtoy v. Mil0‘õ”`ƒÇ, ca5e lTE02-54, incomplete)E Pre‡YOusly,in Arusha, Tanzania the former ptime Ministet of Rwanda,Jean Kambanda, W•” the 6rst Senior0ŠÊdalconvictedon counts ofgenodde (pros’ eC1ƒÇƒÇor v. K4ˆälb41td4,4 SeP”ämber 1998, case lcTR Re‹{ional Human Rights systemsfor Monitorlng and Enforcement Non•”ideThe uNhuman rightssystem areanumber Of re–¼ional human d†hts systems,’šhese are hlterE nationalsystems, created by treaues and agreed by States. Even the d–¼hts and ‰N’eedoms contained itlthe regionaltreades bear stdMn† Similaddes to those arE Uculated i11the uDHR and subsequent i11Struments. Accorditlgto theirpyoponents,thete are many advanE tŠŽ–¼es to regional hulnan tights arrangements.’peer Pressure’is more likely to prompt a state To comply Mth 11Uman ri–¼hts obligauons Mthin a sma11er re, –¼ional setŒŒg (thoU8h some re3ionalsystems have Over‹Qy members, maNngthatanincreashlalymoot PoinT). Furthermore, the regional systems can enE ShŒŒe a system of rights and ‰N’eedoms that reaects regional charactedsdcs. Nevertheless, S’nilar dghts appear ln each i11Strument, although the A‰N’ican sysE tem ŽRliquely ŒŒdudes c011ective ‘peoples’ d‹{hts’ as We11. A‹u’ica, the Arrledcas, and Eutope have adopted numerous tNaties on hum‰Nn d‹qhts; the “‡‡UOwina bdef discussion merely Mghli–¼hts the key arranŽOeE ments of d’1e PŒŒdpalre‹{ionalsystems. The or–¼aniŒîation ofAmericanstates(OAS)is one Of the oldest regional or†arlizations.1ts Amedcan Convention on Human Rights was, however, only adopted in 1969. This establishes a court to adjudiE Cate dispU”äS and a‡UOws the preEe“ûisdng American Commission on Hum‰Nn Ri‹{hts to consider human ti–¼htS ‰¾‹uingemen‘D. The commission can also be ‘õized of complaints btouaht by individuals agaitlst StatesthathavenotTati6edtheconvention(e.ŠŽ.M41y b C41Aªy D4H11 V. U˜lited smte$ qf A”1ehC4 (2002), ReE Port 75/02). The coundl of E11rope was estaA1ished i11 1949, a‹uertheoAS,andadoptedits conventionŒŒrtheproE tection ofHumanRightsandFundamentalFNedoms in 1950. The treaty is restdcted to a narrow band of dvil and political n–¼hts, althoU–¼h the cound11atet .. Human Rightsin lnternational Law adopted a sodal charter ‡UStmg socialand economic ti‹{hts. Today, a European court of Human Ž¥†hts SiTs perm‰Nnendy, with competence to consider inE dividual complain”F broU8ht by itldividuals a’êa“fIst member states conceynin–¼ any of the righ‘Ð and freedoms in The European convention (not charter) and associated protocols.1t has heard N0 ŒŒterEstate Compla‰¾Ø(1‘Æm”d v uK (1979), sedes A, NO,25 and C)’†‰Á V Tìk‚è[2001], ECHR 33D and ovetloo,000 individualcomplalnts. The Eutopean court 0ŒÞda‡Uy Supervisesnationalconfortrlitywi“flhumantights(anE Other organ oversees observance of the court’sjud†E menTS).WNlenauonalcour’Ñand‹{OvernmentS‰§taŒŒ Primaryresponsibiliwforerlfordn‹{human dgb6,the jurisprudence ofthecourtiswidelycompliedMthby †Ovemmen‚ÄSandiS‡U1ŠŽ11endalworldwide. TheA‹uicancharteyonHumanandpeoples’ Nghts (198D, more than any of the otherre8ionalsystems, C12ims to reaect a distirlctive tegional set of values, givirle an A‹uican ‘spin’”@ PreEe“øStin† human d‹qhts. The charter irlitia‡Uy estab‡UShed ‰N Commission to moNtor compliance and had competence to receiŠ• i11dividual and †roup complaints. These powers are beingextended to a newcourtcreatedunderthe ausE Pices of dle A‰N’ican union (whiC11Succeeded the orE ga11izauon of A‰N’ican urliw). In the countdes of the LeagLle of Arab S‚Ëtes, a revised Arab chatter on Human N#1ts entered illto force ŒŒ 2008 WiŒŒ a committee receivi11‹{ reports on Progtessrnade towardstealizit18 human dghts. In south East Asia, the Association of south East Asian Nadons(ASEAN) hasadopted a buman dah‘ dedarationbutn0 •§rmalm011it0ŒŒ†mecharlism, 73 ƒÖU‹Áv0ƒÖ§§‚Å@•¯FŽ±‘¦L‹Z‚É139ã“Š0”lˆê‚«“c–R0‡VˆêŠMˆê—R•y™Õˆê‰zˆê–XƒR0 ~“Ï~1Õˆê.“ñˆê.ˆê‹ŠÜ0A ŽO”€.”bŠxˆêŒÜEOUAOESˆê09™ÑƒÖƒÃ‚Å•yØ“cˆêˆê¨ˆêƒ~ƒÑŽ˜EƒRƒG~ƒÖUmƒÖLƒÖƒqƒ‚Ži—¢’@E›°ƒÖ=‚ðˆê00.(˜”b.0.‘FŠwÄ’ˆê‹©H ‘0ˆêˆêˆÝ—ë0ˆêv—¢ˆêmƒRƒ³ƒÃŽO Ži–Sˆê’UOUƒÓE0ƒ}ƒ³ƒ³L‚àmmŽ±‘¦vƒÖ–R0’˜A0—WE-U’ƒÖ—Ûˆêƒ~‚¼Ž’UZŽOˆê‚¼‡VˆêMƒ‚A0“sˆêv“c›°–eƒ³‚¼‹uEOU—‚Ç‹§ .”ä0ƒÃˆêZŒ÷ƒRmƒ‚—Rƒ°ˆêƒÖƒRšFHƒ³‚Æ©.ŠÃ‚¬ŠRŒ§ A0 ƒ‚˜» EEEƒÂ‚­‹u’·”z‹”V”bOC‹E—µ‚´ˆêú¿‚ŃR’†6 .(¬¬¬ˆê)(’U.4 J.ŽÙˆêŽR‚ÅŠx.ƒ.‚É0Ší‚Å.Žå4 ~ƒ}”b0ŒÜ’~Šó§‚Ä¢e0šF—Ím‹©ƒ}U=–Ñ’@ŽÙˆê ‘q˜V8“sƒR‰ûˆê‰š’·‚ÄmŒNƒRƒGƒ³ƒÃƒÖL‚­,œ‚¬0ÞŽ±‘¦vŠxƒÃŽO‚Æ–Ñ‚¬ˆê.ƒ³EƒÃ0‚Å0‚ĘCˆê‹ô”b‚¬‚¼&‚¾˜‚±ƒÖmˆê1 ,–å ~šæ=‚«0ˆê•cEƒÖƒ[ˆêL0‚àm„ˆê“‰m0”lmLƒ³ŽÙmƒRƒÖˆê‘º§‚ÆŠñ‚ŋ㘧Cˆê„‘]ƒ³ˆê0‹øULœmƒÖ‚Åm“c‚ŃֈêŽlˆêŒÈ”l ‚¼•êˆêUƒÖ0‚ރÂňêƒR0ŠàLOUƒÃ™Õt§9唑Ãv0AˆêmƒÖE–§ˆê’MA0›°ƒ‚‹Ð‚ÅŠìˆêŽim0-%LˆêZµ“c0‰µ‚ƉšL‚±MEƒRƒÇ‚Å30‚Æ‹w.N (.m0ŒnˆêƒÖƒÃmˆê–Yˆê—ˆê‹ˆê‹{Aã˃}@˜C—§‚­’ƒÖGƒÖŽÙ‹ôˆê ‹w‹§)~‚¼0ˆêˆê6‹”bA0v˜CEŽO’·ˆê‚Æm‘ŽOvƒˆ–UL˜–YNˆêƒ‚0t0‚´“s”lŽj‚Æ0‘qŠÅ•êƒsœŠxƒ³ƒÃƒ}30’“ñmƒÖ’¤§’·0©.ˆê –¦–S0ˆê§‡V‚Â0–S0-“”=U”-00ƒREŒû ~‚¼ƒR0Uˆê‚«0|mmˆê‰µ’·ˆêLŒŽEƒRƒG ˆê‹Ð–S0ˆê•cEƒÖˆêmˆêA0¾ƒ³Eƒ³‹©C-LvC-C0ˆê˜h‘qULƒ‚ƒR‘Sè~¾0–Ñ•ø‚ŃւÅL0‚¼0ˆêˆê–R“c“sLˆêŠxU–]‚É‘¦›°‘ƒ³ƒÃE‚­’qƒÖŠâ”b m“c0“cŠó’“s”lŠâˆêƒÌ.‚¼“cE——Wvm‰š’·ƒÑd˜KƒR‚ƈêœÇƒÃˆê•â–SŽÙ•y.ˆê–R0ˆê‹©“cL.ƒ‚0‰zm0ˆÝU‘îˆêE.AƒÖˆêˆëL˜j’‹l1 .’@ ~åCTOEƒÖ•y’cƒÃƒˆå“c0ƒ} “ƒ³C‚´%–R~‚¼ƒR0Um‹©ƒÃLƒ³ƒÃ”b›°ƒ³ƒÖcEEOU’·ƒR9ƒÃŽÆ“CmOE“s=—WˆêŽ±‰šv‹EŽOZƒRˆê˜C-L0ƒÓƒÃ‡VvmŽåƒ’.áW ~UU–Ó‚Åm–L’qvƒÖˆêmˆê›°ˆêƒÃA0—YŒÜE‘ÃևVE9•Ç—ãƒR’Uè~‰µ’·ˆêLƒÖˆê0ˆêŽRˆê>ƒ‚mˆê‚ũ䊃ÖtŠx0ƒÖƒ‚”bmˆê6‘îŠíE”±ˆê‹•µ.¡ ~ŠóULˆêŒ€’A0—Ô09ƒR¢‚Å•yU‰š00ƒ³ƒÃŠâœ“c‚Å9″ƒÖ–•âƒÃ äŠ0ˆêˆê–Rƒ³ƒÓ‡VLA0—æ‚éEŠí‚Å ƒRcmŽiUƒ°ŠíLˆê‹©LƒÖ‚Åm“ñ‚¼0ˆêˆê—=00ˆê‹©•Tˆê‹w.ƒÖ§§“cm0m0ˆêˆê—eƒÖ¾mAOUƒÖƒqƒÖƒÖƒÃ—¤ŒÍ–R.m ~“sˆêˆê—Wˆêmˆê”’·ˆêv”©EŽO‹©mˆê§ˆê‚±0″ƒÖ‚ɃÖ0ƒ³ƒÃƒÖLœÇ•â’ƒ^,N ~˜b‘ºv0‚¼0ˆêåˆê6L¡ƒÃ0ˆê¡‚ɃR839Mmˆê‚Æœˆê•xˆê–”Lœ1ˆêˆê0A¾˜QƒÖƒÃ’wˆêE—ò.ˆê ŽRm0ˆêÞ‡VƒR0—߃ˆ˜¼ˆêჄˆê>ˆê‚Å‹æˆê Œûˆê0‚­ŽR””ŠÊH©””ƒRŽ~ ‚Ì©’Z–] Œ¾9ºÞŠxèˆêƒ‹UUŒûOUU-0•Þ˜œŠxŽÙŠx