Abstract
Scholarly writings on internationally constituted commissions of inquiry (COIs), as outlined in the introduction to this symposium, give inadequate attention to the effects that they might have on local disputes that these bodies are often created to address. The United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict (2009), popularly known as the Goldstone Commission, had unintended and unforeseen consequences at the domestic level. Specifically, the Commission caused a severe backlash against human rights organizations in Israel (IsHROs). This article analyses the backlash against the Commission and the effect of that backlash on human rights organizations and human rights advocacy in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory in the first few years after the release of the Goldstone report. This case study reveals how a government can use a COI intervention in an ongoing conflict to deflect criticism against it and to delegitimize local human rights organizations and, as a result, to intensify enemy–friend dynamics within a conflict. The findings of this case study thus challenge the assumption of much of the socio-legal literature that the interaction of international human rights institutions with domestic actors leads to positive human rights change. But the case study also adds a new dimension to the academic and policy literature that has been critical of the international human rights enterprise in recent years. Despite delegitimization campaigns, international funding has increased for many IsHROs, and, eventually, some groups have become even more visible and have enjoyed, internationally, a higher reputation and greater credibility. The Commission’s experience thus demonstrates that the establishment of COIs in deeply divided conflict societies can have negative, as well as positive, implications on human rights.
Governmental human rights focal points in federal contexts: The implementation of the Istanbul convention in Switzerland as a case study