Saving the International Justice Regime

International Courts ◽

While resistance to international courts is not new, what is new, or at least newly conceptualized, is the politics of backlash against these institutions. Saving the International Justice Regime: Beyond Backlash against International Courts is at the forefront of this new conceptualization of backlash politics. It brings together theories, concepts and methods from the fields of international law, international relations, human rights and political science and case studies from around the globe to pose - and answer - three questions related to backlash against international courts: What is backlash and what forms does it take? Why do states and elites engage in backlash against international human rights and criminal courts? What can stakeholders and supporters of international justice do to meet these contemporary challenges?

The Machinery of International Law and Democratic Backsliding: The Problem of Term Limits

Law & Ethics of Human Rights ◽

10.1515/lehr-2020-2012 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 14 (1) ◽

pp. 1-18

Author(s):

Tom Ginsburg

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

International Law ◽

Term Limits ◽

Term Limit ◽

International Courts ◽

International Human ◽

Human Rights Norms

AbstractOur era is one of democratic backsliding. International courts and institutions have provided some bulwark against this trend, but we are now witnessing leaders seeking to use international law to extend their power. Courts in several countries have relied on international human rights norms to facilitate term limit extensions by leaders seeking to retain power beyond what is constitutionally allowed. This Article documents these cases and calls for a more robust and substantive international law of democracy-protection.

International Judicial Legitimacy

10.5771/9783748908661 ◽

2020 ◽

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

International Law ◽

International Organizations ◽

Democratic Legitimacy ◽

Direct Reaction ◽

International Courts ◽

These texts on the legitimacy of international courts were framed as a direct reaction to arguments put forward in the book “In Whose Name?” by Armin von Bogdandy und Ingo Venzke. The subjects ranged from a comparison between international organizations and international courts and how they can contribute to democratize international law to assessing the democratic legitimacy of international human rights courts. Therefore the collection is dealing with both theoretical and practical questions regarding the legitimacy of international courts and how such problems relate to fundamental problems of our times.

Conceptions And Interpretations of Human Rights in Europe and Asia: Normative Aspects

E-Theologos Theological revue of Greek Catholic Theological Faculty ◽

10.2478/v10154-010-0011-9 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 1 (2) ◽

pp. 117-135

Author(s):

Bożena Drzewicka

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

International Law ◽

International Humanitarian Law ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

The West ◽

Human Rights Protection ◽

Rights Protection ◽

The World ◽

Conceptions And Interpretations of Human Rights in Europe and Asia: Normative AspectsThe issue of confronting values between civilizations has become very important. It influences not only the level of international politics but also the international normative activity. It is very interesting for the modern international law and its doctrine. The most important factor of causing huge changes in the system of international law is still the international human rights protection and the international humanitarian law which is related to it. It is very difficult to create one catalogue of executive instruments and procedures but it is possible to influence the attitude toward the basic paradigms. The frictions appear from time to time and move to other planes. The West and Asia are still antagonists in the dialogue on the future of the world. The article is a contribution to the intercivilizational dialogue.

The Review of Articles from Korea International Law Review (Vol. 1-49): International Human Rights Law

Korea International Law Review ◽

10.25197/kilr.2018.51.45 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 51 ◽

pp. 45-62

Author(s):

Buhm Suk Baek

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

International Law ◽

International Human Rights Law ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

Contemporary International Tribunals

10.1093/oso/9780190923846.003.0009 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Antônio Augusto ◽

Cançado Trindade

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

International Law ◽

Ad Hoc ◽

International Criminal ◽

International Criminal Tribunals ◽

International Human ◽

International Tribunals ◽

Cross Fertilization

More recently, jurisprudential cross-fertilization has kept on being pursued in particular by international human rights tribunals and international criminal tribunals. This is reassuring, as, despite their distinct jurisdictions, their work is complementary, in their common mission of imparting justice, in distinct domains of international law. Jurisprudential cross-fertilization fosters cohesion and the unity of law. Particularly attention is currently devoted to the preservation of the legacy of the ad hoc international criminal tribunals.

The Margin of Appreciation Revisited

10.1093/oso/9780198713258.003.0018 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

George Letsas

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

International Law ◽

Democratic Institutions ◽

Margin Of Appreciation ◽

The idea that states have discretion in complying with their human rights obligations, and the idea that human rights obligations should be compatible with a degree of diversity between states, are either trivial or misleading. In order to assess properly the doctrine of the Margin of Appreciation, one has to reconstruct it as a normative thesis about the conditions under which an international human rights court should place substantial weight on a decision by a domestic authority. Thus understood, however, the doctrine is problematic as it offends the values underlying human rights and the rule of international law. The chapter evaluates Andreas Follesdal’s particular defence of the Margin of Appreciation and argues that neither sovereignty nor democracy provides normative support for unqualified judicial deference. It argues further that the exceptions Follesdal wishes to place on deference to democratic institutions end up covering the whole of the scope of human rights obligations, making the idea of deference redundant.

The Idea of International Human Rights Law

10.1093/oso/9780198749844.001.0001 ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

Steven Wheatley

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

International Law ◽

International Human Rights Law ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

Fragmentation Of International Law

Moral Concept ◽

Customary International Law ◽

Human Rights Treaties ◽

International Human ◽

International Human Rights Law has emerged as an academic subject in its own right, separate from, but still related to, International Law. This book explains the distinctive nature of the new discipline by examining the influence of the moral concept of human rights on general international law. Rather than make use of moral philosophy or political theory, the work explains the term ‘human rights’ by examining its usage in international law practice, on the understanding that words are given meaning through their use. Relying on complexity theory to make sense of the legal practice in the United Nations, the core human rights treaties, and customary international law, The Idea of International Human Rights Law shows how a moral concept of human rights emerged, and then influenced the international law doctrine and practice on human rights, a fact that explains the fragmentation of international law and the special nature of International Human Rights Law.

Germany

10.1093/oso/9780198786627.003.0006 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Valentin Aichele

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

International Law ◽

Direct Effect ◽

Federal Courts ◽

Persons With Disabilities ◽

Public International Law ◽

Monitoring Mechanism ◽

International Human ◽

Human Rights Norms

This chapter analyses the use and interpretation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in sixty-nine decisions of German federal courts between 2009 and mid-2016. German courts’ failure to be proactive in demonstrating ‘friendliness towards public international law’ when dealing with international human rights norms has been criticised. The National CRPD Monitoring Mechanism addressed problems in the application of the law. This chapter investigates the courts’ understanding of basic CRPD concepts, judicial techniques, interpretation methods and specific CRPD provisions. The importance of the concepts of self-executing provisions and direct effect is discussed. In quantitative terms, German courts have referred to the CRPD more often than any other UN international human rights instrument. Furthermore, in qualitative terms, federal courts have become more receptive towards the CRPD. However, it is clear that much of the potential for courts to use the CRPD in the realisation of the rights of persons with disabilities remains untapped.

Governmental human rights focal points in federal contexts: The implementation of the Istanbul convention in Switzerland as a case study

Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights ◽

10.1177/09240519211016947 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 092405192110169

Author(s):

Matthieu Niederhauser

Keyword(s):

Domestic Violence ◽

Human Rights ◽

International Law ◽

International Human Rights Law ◽

Focal Points ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

Federal States ◽

The implementation of international human rights law in federal States is an underexplored process. Subnational entities regularly enjoy a degree of sovereignty, which raises questions such as whether they implement obligations of international law and how the federal level may ensure that implementation takes place at the subnational level. This article aims to answer these questions, using the implementation of the Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Convention) in Switzerland as a case study. To implement the Convention at the cantonal level, federal actors decided to use networks of civil servants in charge of domestic violence issues, who act as governmental human rights focal points (GHRFPs). This article is based on original empirical data, on 25 interviews with State officials who participate in this implementation. The findings show how complex GHRFPs networks work in practice to implement the Convention and highlight the role played by numerous non-legal State actors in this process. As a result, the article argues that international human rights law implementation becomes more diversified both within and across federal States.

Testing for Negative Spillovers: Is Promoting Human Rights Really Part of the “Problem”?

International Organization ◽

10.1017/s0020818320000661 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 75 (1) ◽

pp. 71-102

Author(s):

Anton Strezhnev ◽

Judith G. Kelley ◽

Beth A. Simmons

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

International Law ◽

Instrumental Variable ◽

Burden Of Proof ◽

Negative Consequences ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

First Order ◽

Trade Offs ◽

AbstractThe international community often seeks to promote political reforms in recalcitrant states. Recently, some scholars have argued that, rather than helping, international law and advocacy create new problems because they have negative spillovers that increase rights violations. We review three mechanisms for such spillovers: backlash, trade-offs, and counteraction and concentrate on the last of these. Some researchers assert that governments sometimes “counteract” international human rights pressures by strategically substituting violations in adjacent areas that are either not targeted or are harder to monitor. However, most such research shows only that both outcomes correlate with an intervention—the targeted positively and the spillover negatively. The burden of proof, however, should be as rigorous as those for studies of first-order policy consequences. We show that these correlations by themselves are insufficient to demonstrate counteraction outside of the narrow case where the intervention is assumed to have no direct effect on the spillover, a situation akin to having a valid instrumental variable design. We revisit two prominent findings and show that the evidence for the counteraction claim is weak in both cases. The article contributes methodologically to the study of negative spillovers in general by proposing mediation and sensitivity analysis within an instrumental variables framework for assessing such arguments. It revisits important prior findings that claim negative consequences to human rights law and/or advocacy, and raises critical normative questions regarding how we empirically evaluate hypotheses about causal mechanisms.