Does International Human Rights Law Make a Difference?
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/671
Does International Human Rights Law Make a Difference by Cassel_.pdf
Notes
- Development of international human rights norms has made domestic discussions and policies change to adapt as well
“The European system, he (Professor Goldsmith) explains, merely “provided the monitoring, information, and focal points that assisted domestic governments and groups already committed to human rights protections but unable to provide these rights through domestic institutions.”
- International Human Rights Law includes
- General Human Rights protection treaties
- International Humanitarian Law: to protect human rights during war times
- Author thinks of Human Rights Law as accumilative, every peice matter and they all strengthen Human Rights
“attributes-commonality of terms, near universality of formal acceptance, legitimacy of adoption, perceived reflection of international will, relative normative precision, increased expectations of compliance, susceptibility to domestic legal enforcement, potential and uncertainty of international enforcement, the additional stigma of violation, and moral clarity” are what make IHR better
- These are the strands which reinforce one another when used all together
What are the direct impacts of IHR?
- Most impacted is Europe: The European Human Rights
- European Convention on Human Rights adopted in 1950, into foce in 1953
- It Started getting important and busy in 1970s, and became powerful in enforcing constitutional rights in the 50 states
- It focused very much on the ability of individuals to complain of wrongdoings from the EU bodies on human rights judgments
- It’s effectiveness is as good as a developed democratic nation’s consittution
- Other than Europe United Nations Human Rights Law is relatively successful and strengthens the rope of IHR
“Beyond a few of its contribution to the fall of apartheid in South Africa; human rights components of peacekeeping missions in countries ranging from El Salvador to East Timor; ad hoc international or partly international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone; and occasionally successful interventions in individual cases by rapporteurs and treaty committees — the UN’s direct impact on rights protection has been exceedingly modest.”
- “In terms of real operation, the Inter-American human rights legal system is thus little more than a decade old.
- But it has become consolidated-all Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking nations in Latin America (except Cuba) now accept the binding, contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court.
- Its output is growing, as is the degree of state compliance.
- Although its direct impact remains far short of that of the European Court, the Inter-American system can claim solid achievements and shows promise.
“The African regional system remains at an earlier and less effective stage of development. The African Convention of Human and People’s Rights came into force only in 1986. It created an African Commission which has limited powers and did not begin to function until the 1990s, when it began reporting cases with little or no impact on the real world.”
Question
- Why are there human rights law systems in regional organizations like Latin-America and Africa, but they don’t actually work?
- What is the connection between theoretical effectiveness of IHR vs the practical use of IHR institutions?
- Importance of IHR shouldn’t be about if it achieve its goal
- It should be about if its useful and adding to the utility belt of groups and bodies that can use it. If its valuable or not. If it didn’t exist would it be worse?
- Development of IHR is still in its infancy. It will show its effectiveness at maturity.
- At this point it already has shown remarkable change in the world.
- Context matters: IHR shouldn’t be expected to work in all places at all times. Dictatorships and Powerful states don’t relent to international pressure and sanctions from abuse of IHR.