Domestic Human Rights Adjudication in the Shadow of International Law: The Status of Human Rights Conventions in Israel

2017 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 331-388 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barak Medina
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Democratic Legitimacy ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Quarter Century ◽  
Human Rights Treaties ◽  
International Human ◽  
The Government

The quarter-century anniversary of Israel's ratification of the major United Nations (UN) human rights treaties is an opportunity to revisit the formal and informal interaction between domestic and international Bills of Rights in Israel. This study reveals that the human rights conventions lack almost entirely a formal domestic legal status. The study identifies a minor shift in the scope of the Israeli Supreme Court's reference to international law, as the Court now cites international human rights law to justify decisions that a state action is unlawful, and not only to support findings that an action is valid. This shift may be the result of other reasons, for instance, a ‘radiation’ of the Court's relatively extensive use of international humanitarian law in reviewing state actions taken in the Occupied Territories. However, it may also reflect a perception of enhanced legitimacy of referring to international human rights law as a point of reference in human rights adjudication following ratification of the treaties.At the same time, the Court continues to avoid acknowledging incompatibility between domestic law and international law. It refers to the latter only to support its interpretation of Israeli constitutional law, as it did before the ratification. This article critically evaluates this practice. While international human rights law should not be binding at the domestic level, because of its lack of sufficient democratic legitimacy in Israel, it should serve as an essential benchmark. The Court may legitimise a human rights infringement that is unjustified according to international law, but such incompatibility requires an explicit justification. The Court, together with the legislature and the government, are required to engage critically with the non-binding norms set by the ratified UN human rights treaties.

The Idea of International Human Rights Law

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Wheatley
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Moral Concept ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Human Rights Treaties ◽  
International Human ◽  
Fragmentation Of International Law

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.

Theory and Evidence Regarding the Effectiveness of Human Rights Treaties

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel W. Hill, Jr.
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Good Evidence ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Human Rights Treaties ◽  
Sources Of Variation ◽  
International Human

The adoption by the United Nations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 marked the beginning of the modern international human rights regime. Since then the number of international treaties that protect human rights, as well as the number of internationally recognized rights, has greatly increased. The increasing number and scope of international treaties attests to the fact that advocates for human rights view treaties, which are legally binding in principle, as useful tools for promoting respect for the various rights identified in international law. Only recently have scholars begun to collect and systematically examine evidence concerning the effectiveness of human rights treaties. This new body of research is motivated by a question that has obvious normative import and policy relevance: do we have good evidence that the widespread adoption of international human rights law has had any meaningful impact on the level of respect that states exhibit for the rights articulated in international law? To date, this literature suggests three sources of variation in the effectiveness of human rights treaties: (1) variation in the domestic political and legal institutions that facilitate enforcement and compliance, (2) variation in the nature of the rights protected by different treaties and the nature of violations, and (3) variation in the strength of governments’ commitments to the UN treaty regime. All three sources of variation point to opportunities to advance our understanding of the conditions under which international human rights law can achieve its goals.

scholarly journals Why Do National Court Judges Refer to Human Rights Treaties? A Comparative International Law Analysis of CEDAW

2015 ◽  
Vol 109 (3) ◽  
pp. 534-550 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher McCrudden
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
National Court ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Human Rights Treaties ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
International Human ◽  
Domestic Level

Comparative international law promises to bring fresh attention to the similarities and differences in how international law is understood and approached at the domestic level. Comparative international human rights law applies this focus to similarities and differences in the ways that international human rights law is, for example, interpreted at the domestic level by courts.

scholarly journals Human Rights Theory and Comparative International Law Scholarship

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher McCrudden
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Human Rights Treaties ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Domestic Use ◽  
International Human

An account of what we know about the use by domestic courts of international human rights law is identified, based on the findings in this volume and earlier work on the use of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). From that, three aspects of the domestic functions of international human rights treaties are tentatively identified as particularly significant: international human rights law is only partly internationally-directed; domestic courts very seldom appear to be acting as ‘agents’ of international human rights law; and ‘human dignity’ (sometimes by itself, sometimes alongside ‘autonomy’ and ‘equality’) acts as an important meta-principle in the domestic use of international human rights law. The implications these functions have for normative theorising about human rights, in particular practice-dependent theories of human rights, is considered, and a theory of human rights law consistent with this practice is identified.

Do Human Rights Treaties Protect Rights?

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-28
Author(s):  
Courtenay R. Conrad ◽  
Emily Hencken Ritter
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Common Belief ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Human Rights Treaties ◽  
International Human ◽  
The Government

Common belief is that international human rights treaties have little to no influence on human rights practices. Yet decisions to comply with rights obligations are directly tied to conflicts with civilians over policies; compliance with international human rights law is a function of contention. To know whether and when human rights treaties will effectively constrain government repression, we must understand the context of dissent faced by the government. Most scholars studying human rights treaties focus on the extent to which authorities have the opportunity to repress. Yet, as with any potential legal violation, opportunity without the motive to misbehave yields no crime. Popular challenges and the threat they represent to a government's hold on policies and power constitute the state's primary motive to repress. To determine whether international human rights treaties can meaningfully influence a government's human rights behaviors, we first consider the incentives that motivate leaders to repress.

International Human Rights Law

2021 ◽  
pp. 83-98
Author(s):  
David Kretzmer ◽  
Yaël Ronen
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Occupied Territory ◽  
Human Rights Treaties ◽  
Occupied Territories ◽  
International Human ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Relationship

The generally accepted position today is that international human rights treaties to which an occupying state is a party apply to that state’s actions in occupied territory. The Government of Israel rejects this position. This chapter examines the Court’s view on the issue. The Court often refers to provisions in human rights treaties in its decisions relating to Israel’s actions in the Occupied Territories, but it has never taken a firm position on the treaties’ formal applicability. The Court’s position on the relationship between international human rights law and other applicable bodies of law is also ambiguous. Thus the Court has left the applicable legal regime indeterminate.

The Fallacy of Effective Human Rights Protection under Relevant Treaty Law when Armed Groups Commit Violations

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tilman Rodenhäuser
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Armed Groups ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Human Rights Treaties ◽  
International Human

Chapter 5 adds to the contemporary discourse on human rights obligations of non-state armed groups by showing that in many situations, there is a clear legal need for these obligations. This chapter first engages in the debate on whether and to what extent certain human rights treaties address armed groups directly. Second, it shows that under the law of state responsibility, states are generally not responsible for human rights violations committed by non-state entities. Third, it recalls that under international human rights law, states have an obligation to protect human rights against violations committed by armed groups. However, it argues that because this cannot be a strict obligation but is one that depends on states’ capacities and the particular circumstances, often this framework cannot adequately protect individuals against human rights violations by armed groups. The result is a legal and practical need for human rights obligations of non-state armed groups.

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

2021 ◽  
pp. 092405192110169
Author(s):  
Matthieu Niederhauser
Keyword(s):  
Domestic Violence ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Focal Points ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Federal States ◽  
International Human

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.

Judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada of February 28, 2020, on Nevsun v. Araya: a “quiet revolution” in the assessment of the status of corporations under public international law?

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 25-39
Author(s):  
Vera Rusinova ◽  
Olga Ganina
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
International Human

The article analyses the Judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada on the Nevsun v. Araya case, which deals with the severe violations of human rights, including slavery and forced labor with respect of the workers of Eritrean mines owned by a Canadian company “Nevsun”. By a 5 to 4 majority, the court concluded that litigants can seek compensation for the violations of international customs committed by a company. This decision is underpinned by the tenets that international customs form a part of Canadian common law, companies can bear responsibility for violations of International Human Rights Law, and under ubi jus ibi remedium principle plaintiffs have a right to receive compensation under national law. Being a commentary to this judgment the article focuses its analysis on an issue that is of a key character for Public International Law, namely on the tenet that international customs impose obligations to respect human rights on companies and they can be called for responsibility for these violations. This conclusion is revolutionary in the part in which it shifts the perception of the companies’ legal status under International Law. The court’s approach is critically assessed against its well-groundness and correspondence to the current stage of International law. In particular, the authors discuss, whether the legal stance on the Supreme Court of Canada, under which companies can bear responsibility for violations of International Human Rights Law is a justified necessity or a head start.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document