scholarly journals Correction to: The Unrealized Potential of National Human Rights Institutions in Business and Human Rights Regulation: Conditions for Effective Engagement and Proposal for Reform

Author(s):  
René Wolfsteller
ICL Journal ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 289-325
Author(s):  
Nicola Jägers

AbstractIn 2014, the United Nations established a working group to elaborate an international treaty on business and human rights. In October 2018, negotiations on a first draft of the actually text took place. Besides this zero-draft, the working group released the draft text of an Optional Protocol containing several institutional arrangements. The Optional Protocol carves out a key role for national implementation mechanisms to promote compliance with, monitor and implement the treaty on business and human rights. With such an institutional arrangement, the future treaty would join the ranks of what can be called a new generation of human right treaties which institutionalize a top down with a bottom up approach aiming to address the disjuncture between rules and practice. The Optional Protocol indicates that this role of national implementation mechanism could be taken up by National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs). This follows an increased recognition of NHRIs as significant actors in the business and human rights domain. Yet, the role of NHRIs in human rights governance in general, and in the business and human rights field in particular, is not yet well understood and undertheorized. The aim of this article is to add insight into the role of NHRIs in business and human rights by, first, describing some of the current activities undertaken by NHRIs in this field in order to analyze whether the role ascribed to them is actually being taken up and what challenges NHRIs face. From this perspective, it will be discussed whether the role foreseen in the Optional Protocol of the future business and human rights treaty holds promise.


Author(s):  
Emilie M. Hafner-Burton

In the last six decades, one of the most striking developments in international law is the emergence of a massive body of legal norms and procedures aimed at protecting human rights. In many countries, though, there is little relationship between international law and the actual protection of human rights on the ground. This book takes a fresh look at why it's been so hard for international law to have much impact in parts of the world where human rights are most at risk. The book argues that more progress is possible if human rights promoters work strategically with the group of states that have dedicated resources to human rights protection. These human rights “stewards” can focus their resources on places where the tangible benefits to human rights are greatest. Success will require setting priorities as well as engaging local stakeholders such as nongovernmental organizations and national human rights institutions. To date, promoters of international human rights law have relied too heavily on setting universal goals and procedures and not enough on assessing what actually works and setting priorities. This book illustrates how, with a different strategy, human rights stewards can make international law more effective and also safeguard human rights for more of the world population.


Author(s):  
John Mubangizi

That National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) play an important role in the protection and promotion of human rights is a well-known fact. This has been widely acknowledged by the United Nations (UN). Also well-known is the fact that several African countries have enacted new constitutions during the last two to three decades. One of the most salient features of those new constitutions is that they establish NHRIs, among other things. Given their unique role and mandate, these NHRIs can and do play an important role in the realisation of the sustainable development goals contained in the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Adopting a case study approach, this article explores the role NHRIs have played in the promotion and protection of human rights in selected African countries and implications for sustainable development in those countries. The main argument is that there are several lessons African countries can learn from each other on how their NHRIs can more meaningfully play that role. Accordingly, best practice and comparative lessons are identified and it is recommended that NHRIs can contribute to sustainable development more meaningfully if they can make themselves more relevant, credible, legitimate, efficient and effective.


2017 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 385-404 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan M. Welch

Why do states give institutions the ability to legally punish them? While past research focuses on international pressure to delegate authority to third parties, I argue that domestic politics plays a key role. By viewing domestic politics through a principal–agent framework, I argue that the more accountable individual legislators remain to the public, the more likely it is that the legislature will delegate legal punishment authority. I focus on National Human Rights Institutions—domestic institutions tasked with protection and promotion of human rights—to build the argument. Electoral institutions that decrease monitoring of legislator agents, or institutional makeup that allows the executive to displace the public as the principal lead to National Human Rights Institutions without punishment power. Using Bayesian logistic analyses I test four hypotheses, all of which are in agreement with the argument.


2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Julia Kakoullis

AbstractIn its concluding observations for Cyprus, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) Committee stated that it ‘is concerned about the insufficiency of legal provisions and accessible mechanisms to detect, report, prevent and combat all forms of violence’.1This paper focuses on the independent monitoring obligation Article 16(3) CRPD places on states parties, and discusses the implications of the insufficient implementation of Article 16(3) as it affects adults with intellectual disabilities in Cyprus. It examines the existing monitoring frameworks, explains why they do not meet with Article 16(3) CRPD requirements and explores the relationship of the national human rights institutions (NHRIs) with Article 16(3). This paper enables understanding as to how, despite pre-existing monitoring frameworks in place, no independent monitoring action has been taken since the ratification of the CRPD. It argues that there is an immediate need for measures to achieve the implementation of Article 16(3) and makes recommendations for Cyprus and other states parties.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document