Social Power and the Politics of Reservations and Objections in Human Rights Treaties

Author(s):  
Cody D Eldredge ◽  
Megan Shannon

Abstract States often file reservations to human rights treaties with the goal of reducing their legal commitments under the treaty. Other states within the treaty have the right to declare objections in response to states making reservations. This is a potentially powerful tool for objecting states, and has numerous consequences for relations within and outside the human rights institution. So why do only some states lodge formal objections, while others do not? We argue that states consider the degree of social power they wield over a reserving state when formulating the decision to lodge an objection, because higher levels of social power amplify the effects of an objection. To evaluate our expectation, we gather data on all states’ reserving and objecting behaviors within the Convention against Torture. Controlling for a number of factors, we find that the measure of social power significantly increases the likelihood that a state will object to another state's reservation. This research calls attention to the power of objections as a legal tool, and suggests areas of future research for the effects of objections on the legality of human rights agreements.

2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 565
Author(s):  
Rommy Patra

Upaya mencegah dan menghapus praktik penyiksaan di Indonesia bukanlah persoalan yang mudah. Meski sudah meratifikasi Konvensi Menentang Penyiksaan dan mengakui hak untuk bebas dari penyiksaan sebagai HAM dan hak konstitusional, namun praktik penyiksaan di Indonesia masih juga berlangsung secara massif. Permasalahan dalam penelitian ini, pertama, faktor-faktor apa saja yang menyebabkan praktik penyiksaan masih terjadi di Indonesia? Kedua, upaya apa yang harus dilakukan untuk mencegah dan menghapus praktik penyiksaan dalam memperkuat perlindungan HAM dan hak konstitusional untuk bebas dari penyiksaan di Indonesia? Pendekatan yang digunakan dalam kajian ini adalah pendekatan perundang-undangan, pendekatan kasus dan pendekatan konseptual. Hasil kajian memperlihatkan bahwa, pertama, sejumlah faktor yang menyebabkan masih terjadinya praktik penyiksaan di Indonesia: (1) tidak adanya aturan hukum yang tegas dan memberikan sanksi yang berat kepada pelaku penyiksaan; (2) terinstitusionalisasinya praktik kekerasan dan penyiksaan di jajaran penegak hukum serta permisifnya masyarakat terhadap praktik tersebut; (3) mekanisme perlindungan dan pemberian kompensasi terhadap korban penyiksaan masih belum memadai. Kedua, perbaikan yang harus dilakukan mencakup: (1) adanya komitmen yang kuat dari pemerintah dengan membuat kebijakan penghapusan tindakan penyiksaan, seperti membuat Undang-Undang khusus menentang penyiksaan; (2) penataan institusi Kepolisian, Kejaksaan, TNI, Lembaga Pemasyarakatan serta lembaga-lembaga lainnya dengan meningkatkan pengawasan, memberikan sanksi yang tegas dan dilakukannya proses hukum jika masih terdapat praktik penyiksaan yang dilakukan. Selain itu perlu diberikan pendidikan HAM bagi personil institusi-institusi tersebut; (3) meningkatkan partisipasi masyarakat agar memiliki kesadaran untuk melawan setiap praktik kekerasan dan penyiksaan; (4) mengoptimalkan peranan lembaga seperti Komnas HAM dan LPSK untuk memberikan perlindungan dan pendampingan terhadap korban. (5) harus adanya pemenuhan terhadap hak-hak korban yang menjadi korban dari praktik penyiksaan.Efforts to prevent and eliminate the practice of torture in Indonesia are not easy. Although it has ratified the Convention Against Torture and recognizes the right for freedom from torture as human rights and constitutional rights, the practice of torture in Indonesia is still massive. The problem is, what factors cause the practice of torture to still occur in Indonesia? Then what efforts should be made to prevent and eliminate the practice of torture in strengthening human rights protection and constitutional rights for freedom from torture in Indonesia? The approach used in this study is the statute approach, case approach and conceptual approach. The results of the study show a number of factors that leads to the practice of torture in Indonesia: (1) the absence of strict legal rules and severe sanctions for perpetrators of torture; (2) institutionalization of the practice of violence and torture in the ranks of law enforcement as well as the permissiveness of the community towards the practice; (3) the mechanism for protecting and providing compensation to victims of torture is still inadequate. The improvements that must be made include: (1) a strong commitment from the government by making a policy of abolishing acts of torture, such as making a special law against torture; (2) structuring of the Police, Prosecutor's Office, TNI, Correctional Institutions and other institutions by increasing supervision, providing strict sanctions and carrying out legal proceedings if there are still practices of torture carried out. In addition, it needs education of human rights for personnel of these institutions; (3) increasing community participation in order to have awareness to fight every practice of violence and torture; (4) optimizing the role of institutions such as Komnas HAM and LPSK to provide protection and assistance to victims. (5) there must be rights fulfillment to the victims who become the victims of the practice of torture.


Author(s):  
Carla Ferstman

This chapter considers the consequences of breaches of human rights and international humanitarian law for the responsible international organizations. It concentrates on the obligations owed to injured individuals. The obligation to make reparation arises automatically from a finding of responsibility and is an obligation of result. I analyse who has this obligation, to whom it is owed, and what it entails. I also consider the right of individuals to procedures by which they may vindicate their right to a remedy and the right of access to a court that may be implied from certain human rights treaties. In tandem, I consider the relationship between those obligations and individuals’ rights under international law. An overarching issue is how the law of responsibility intersects with the specialized regimes of human rights and international humanitarian law and particularly, their application to individuals.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Romola Adeola ◽  
Frans Viljoen ◽  
Trésor Makunya Muhindo

Abstract In 2019, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights adopted General Comment No 5 on the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights: The Right to Freedom of Movement and Residence (Article 12(1)). In this general comment, the commission elaborated on the right to freedom of movement and residence within state borders. This issue, while explicit in international human rights law, is a challenge within various jurisdictions, including in Africa. This article provides a background to and commentary on General Comment No 5, leveraging on the insight of the authors, who participated in its drafting. Unlike the UN Human Rights Committee's earlier general comment, General Comment No 5 provides detailed guidance on the internal dimension of the right to free movement and residence. As “soft law”, its persuasive force depends on a number of factors, including its use at the domestic level, its visibility and its integration into regional human rights jurisprudence.


Author(s):  
Clooney Amal ◽  
Webb Philippa

This chapter focuses on the right to be presumed innocent, one of the most ancient and important principles of criminal justice, and a prerequisite for any system based on the rule of law. The right is absolute and non-derogable and, at its core, prohibits convictions that are predetermined or based on flimsy grounds. International human rights bodies have therefore found that where a conviction is based on non-existent, insufficient, or unreliable evidence, the presumption has been violated and a miscarriage of justice has occurred. More frequently, international human rights bodies have applied the presumption to require specific procedural protections during a trial. These include guarantees that the prosecution bears the burden of proving a defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and that the defendant should not be presented or described as a criminal before he has been proved to be one. The chapter concludes that the presumption is protected in similar terms in international human rights treaties, but also highlights divergences in international jurisprudence relating to the standard for finding that a court’s assessment of evidence violates the presumption, the permissibility of reversing the burden of proof, and the extent to which the presumption applies after a trial has been completed.


Author(s):  
Frans Viljoen

The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights is the newest of the three regional human rights courts. This brief analysis provides an overview of the most salient aspects of the Court’s 2018 case-law with respect to jurisdiction, provisional measures, admissibility, merits decisions, and reparations orders. Continuing its trajectory of increasing productivity, the Court in 2018 handed down the highest number of merits decisions in its brief history. As in previous years, most of these were fair-trial-related cases against Tanzania. The Court’s 2018 case-law contains a number of firsts. In Gombert v. Côte d’Ivoire, the Court for the first time ruled as inadmissible a case previously settled by an African subregional court, the Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States. In Anudo v. Tanzania, dealing with the right to nationality, the Court for the first time found a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, on the basis that the Declaration has attained the status of customary international law. In Makungu v. Tanzania, it for the first time ordered the applicant’s release as an appropriate remedy for serious fair trial violations. The Court’s most significant decision of 2018 is the Mali Marriage case, in which it held aspects of the 2011 Malian Family Code to be in violation not only of human rights treaties emanating from the African Union, but also the UN Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women.


2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 269-305
Author(s):  
Amrei Müller

Abstract Recent literature and United Nations documents advocate that most armed non-state actors (ANSAs) should be bound by human rights law. This article takes a more critical stance on this issue. It argues that only a limited number of ANSAs should potentially become human rights duty-bearers: those that exercise de facto (human rights) jurisdiction and thus have considerable institutional and military capacities, as well as particular normative characteristics. It specifies these capacities and characteristics with an analysis of ANSAs’ practice that tentatively indicates that some of these entities may indeed exercise de facto jurisdiction. The argument is justified by highlighting the broader consequences that recognising ANSAs as human rights duty-bearers will entail. It will also endow them with privileges that will legitimise their authority over time. This is grounded in the normative logic of human rights law that emphasises the interrelationship between human rights, equality and democracy that also permeates the notion of jurisdiction and is further supported by a political understanding of the right to self-determination. The article closes with a brief sketch of two complementary ways to develop international law binding ANSAs to be further explored in future research: the so-called ‘responsibilities for human rights’ and an adapted law of occupation.


2021 ◽  
pp. 341-346
Author(s):  
William A. Schabas

Custom poses challenges for its identification but at the same time it offers a potential for dynamism that may often be superior to that of treaty law. Recent developments, most importantly the near-universal ratification of major human rights treaties and the Universal Periodic Review mechanism of the Human Rights Council, greatly facilitate the identification of customary law. It is clear that most of the rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are unquestionably part of customary international law. Doubts may persist about a few rights, such as the right to property. Customary law also extends to ‘solidarity rights’ or ‘peoples’ rights’, whose reflection in treaty law is not so universal. Recognition of rights does not ensure that there are effective mechanisms for their enforcement and implementation.


Author(s):  
d’Argent Pierre ◽  
de Ghellinck Isabelle

Principle 32 deals with the procedural aspect of the right to reparation, that is, the right for victims of human right violations to access remedial procedures. It addresses three issues: the right to access remedial procedures, procedural requirements of national reparation programmes, and regional and international procedures. While the obligation of states to provide effective remedies is enshrined in most of, if not all, the key international human rights treaties, Principle 32 provides for a right to all victims to access remedies. ‘Reparation’ and ‘remedies’ are both envisioned as victims’ rights, but the distinction between them is vague. After providing a contextual and historical background on Principle 32, this chapter discusses its theoretical framework and how the reparation procedure, judicial or administrative, dealing with gross violations of human rights at national or international level has been implemented.


2020 ◽  
Vol 70 (1) ◽  
pp. 251-265
Author(s):  
Alessandra Spadaro

AbstractThis article analyses the decisions of Belgian and Dutch courts concerning the repatriation of the family members of foreign fighters who are now detained in dire conditions in North-East Syria. The article shows that, under international law, these women and children have no individual right to be repatriated by their State of nationality, based on either consular assistance, the extraterritorial applicability of human rights treaties, or the right of return to one's own country. Nonetheless there are good reasons why States should exercise their prerogative to repatriate.


2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-58
Author(s):  
Beate Rudolf

AbstractThis paper discusses the protection of human rights in Germany through the interplay of constitutional law and international human rights law. It also explores the relationship between specialized human rights treaties on the rights of women, children, and persons with disabilities with “general” human rights treaties and their added value. It will highlight current human rights issues, such as the treatment of refugees, the protection against racist discrimination, and the right to privacy in the digital age.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document