Investigating the extraterritorial application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Cultural Rights ◽

Human Rights Treaties ◽

The Subject ◽

Civil And Political Rights

The territorial scope of the application of human rights treaties has been a core discussion when dealing with the enforcement of human rights obligations imposed by human rights treaties on State Parties. In particular, this is because the conduct of a State may affect the human rights of people situated outside the State's territorial borders. Accordingly, to afford protection to the affected States, most international human rights instruments contain the so-called jurisdictional clause which aims to identify the range of people to whom States owe their human rights obligations under a treaty. However, the term "jurisdiction" has not achieved an undoubted definition as yet and remains a continued area of contention. The subject matter of this article is the extraterritorial application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). It concerns therefore, the applicability of these human rights treaties to the conduct of a State which affects the rights of people outside its territorial borders and results in the lack of the full enjoyment of the human rights recognised in the Covenants, and which would be qualified as a violation of human rights treaty had it been undertaken on the State Party's own territory. Although most of the literature on this topic relates specifically to armed conflict and military occupation, the author applies the tests established for the determination of the exterritoriality of the treaties in circumstances inclusive of and beyond armed conflict and military occupation.

International Human Rights Law and the Response to the covid-19 Pandemic

Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies ◽

10.1163/18781527-bja10004 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 11 (2) ◽

pp. 249-269

Author(s):

Sarah Joseph

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

International Human Rights Law ◽

Political Rights ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

Cultural Rights ◽

Human Rights Treaties ◽

International Human ◽

Do So

Abstract States have duties under Article 12(2)(c) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to prevent, control and treat covid-19. Implementation of these three obligations is analysed, taking account of countervailing human rights considerations. Regarding prevention, lockdowns designed to stop the spread of the virus are examined. Control measures are then discussed, namely transparency measures, quarantine, testing and tracing. The human rights compatibility of treatment measures, namely the provision of adequate medical and hospital care (or the failure to do so), are then examined. Finally, derogations from human rights treaties in times of pubic emergency are discussed.

Application of Human Rights Treaties Extraterritorially in Times of Armed Conflict and Military Occupation

The American Journal of International Law ◽

10.2307/3246094 ◽

2005 ◽

Vol 99 (1) ◽

pp. 119-141 ◽

Cited By ~ 57

Author(s):

Michael J. Dennis

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Armed Conflict ◽

Military Occupation ◽

Advisory Opinion ◽

Political Rights ◽

Cultural Rights ◽

Rights Of The Child ◽

International Court ◽

Human Rights Treaties ◽

Occupied Territories

Are obligations assumed by states under international human rights treaties applicable extraterritorially during periods of armed conflict and military occupation? This was one of the issues addressed by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in its advisory opinion Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The Court indicated that the obligations assumed by Israel under the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESC), and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC) applied in the occupied territories and that the construction of the security barrier constituted “breaches” by Israel of various of its obligations under these instruments.

An Undemocratic Guardian of Democracy - International Human Rights Complaint Procedures

Victoria University of Wellington Law Review ◽

10.26686/vuwlr.v38i2.5520 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 38 (2) ◽

pp. 199

Author(s):

Shotaro Hamamoto

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Political Rights ◽

Narrow View ◽

Human Rights Treaties ◽

International Human ◽

The Individual

This paper discusses the individual complaints procedures established pursuant to international human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It discusses the bases on which these systems have been criticised as undemocratic. After considering how these democratic failings could be ameliorated through greater involvement of domestic parliaments, it questions this narrow view of democracy that looks only to parliamentary involvement, suggesting instead that apparently undemocratic individual complaints procedures can actually have a beneficial "democratising" effect.

Conflict over Conflict: The Right to Strike in International Law

Global Labour Journal ◽

10.15173/glj.v8i1.2649 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 8 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Diane F Frey

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

International Law ◽

International Human Rights Law ◽

Political Rights ◽

International Labour Organisation ◽

Cultural Rights ◽

Human Rights Treaties ◽

International Human ◽

The Right

<p>The existence of a right to strike under international law has been challenged by the International Organization of Employers since the late 1980s. The employer group claims that no such right exists under international law and has been moving to undermine recognition of the right at the International Labour Organisation (ILO). This article examines the right to strike in international human rights law. It considers specifically the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and finds that the right to strike exists in both of these treaties. Further, the article demonstrates that while the ILO employers group may challenge the existence of the right to strike, its government members have overwhelmingly ratified international human rights treaties contradicting the employer group's position that there is no such right.</p>

BRIDGING THE INTERNATIONAL GAP: THE ROLE OF NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTIONS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES IN AFRICA

Obiter ◽

10.17159/obiter.v39i3.11330 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 39 (3) ◽

Author(s):

Aliyu Ibrahim

Keyword(s):

South Africa ◽

Human Rights ◽

Political Rights ◽

Cultural Rights ◽

National Human ◽

Human Rights Treaties ◽

National Human Rights Institutions ◽

Domestic Level

While most of the United Nations (UN) treaties have committees to monitor the implementation of their provisions among their States parties, one of the major challenges they encounter is their inability to independently verify the information provided by the States parties, on the level of fulfilling their obligations to the treaties. However, the establishment of National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) by the majority of UN member states was meant to not only promote and protect human rights within the territories of States parties, but also to monitor the implementation of the provisions of treaties at the domestic level. This resulted in treaty bodies to encourage NHRIs, in monitoring and providing it with information on the level of implementation of the provisions of these treaties within the territories of respective States parties. This article examines whether these institutions in Africa have been able to discharge their mandates concerning the implementation of two treaties, namely, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which is monitored by the Human Rights Committee (HRC) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) which is overseen by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR). The NHRIs of South Africa, Morocco and Nigeria have been selected to test the effectiveness of these institutions. The study ultimately shows that the majority of these institutions are still far off from achieving their potential.

Human Rights

The Oxford Handbook of International Law in Asia and the Pacific ◽

10.1093/law/9780198793854.003.0006 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 123-141

Author(s):

Hurst Hannum

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Great Majority ◽

Political Rights ◽

Regional Organizations ◽

Cultural Rights ◽

The Pacific ◽

Human Rights Treaties ◽

Western Values ◽

Human Rights Norms

This chapter focuses on human rights in Asia and the Pacific. On the level of purely legal commitments, the great majority of Asian and Pacific states have ratified both of the two major UN human rights treaties, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is the most developed of the sub-regional organizations with respect to human rights, although that development has been fairly recent and, to date, relatively minimal. However, attempts to characterize or distinguish different approaches to human rights in Asia frequently include reference to a number of arguments put forward to justify Asian exceptionalism in this field. Perhaps the most widely asserted argument contends that ‘Asian values’ are different from the Western values that animate today’s international human rights norms.

Mind the Gap: State Capacity and the Implementation of Human Rights Treaties

International Organization ◽

10.1017/s002081831400040x ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 69 (2) ◽

pp. 405-441 ◽

Cited By ~ 43

Author(s):

Wade M. Cole

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Regression Models ◽

State Capacity ◽

One Dimension ◽

Political Rights ◽

Two Stage ◽

Human Rights Treaties ◽

International Human ◽

Civil And Political Rights

AbstractAccording to recent studies, international human rights treaties are ineffective, counterproductive, or else beneficial for only those countries that tend to respect human rights regardless of treaty membership. Analysts often attribute gaps between human rights principles and practices to willful disobedience, self-interested defection, and ineffective enforcement. Using two-stage regression models to analyze compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, I examine whether countries' inability (as opposed to unwillingness) to implement treaty terms is also responsible for the gap between commitment and compliance. I find that one dimension of state capacity in particular—bureaucratic efficacy—enhances levels of compliance with civil, political, and physical integrity rights provisions. These findings lend credence to an important aspect of the managerial approach—that noncompliance is often inadvertent and conditioned by a state's ability to implement treaty terms.

Norm Making and Supervision in International Human Rights: Reflections on Institutional Order

The American Journal of International Law ◽

10.2307/2201552 ◽

1982 ◽

Vol 76 (4) ◽

pp. 754-778 ◽

Cited By ~ 8

Author(s):

Theodor Meron

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

United Nations ◽

International Organizations ◽

Universal Declaration ◽

Political Rights ◽

Cultural Rights ◽

International Human ◽

The United Nations

One of the characteristic phenomena of contemporary international life is the proliferation of human rights instruments and systems of supervision. In addition to the Charter of the United Nations and comprehensive global conventions such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Economic Covenant) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Political Covenant), instruments have been adopted within the United Nations or the specialized agencies to govern particular aspects of human rights (e.g., racial discrimination, rights of women) and within regional organizations (e.g., the Council of Europe, the Organization of American States) to govern both general and particular aspects of human rights. In the United Nations, the general practice has been for each normative instrument to create its own system of supervision whenever such systems have been established. Typically, each organ of supervision applies only the norms adopted in the specific “founding” instrument, rather than the entire corpus juris of international human rights or even all of the instruments comprising the International Bill of Human Rights, i.e., the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Universal Declaration), the Economic Covenant, the Political Covenant, and the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This proliferation of normative instruments and systems of supervision, which is similar to the proliferation that has given rise to difficult questions of coordination within and between international organizations in the fields of budget, programming, and administration, has led to overlapping jurisdiction and even to conflicts between the legislative and supervisory competence, or claims of competence, of various international bodies. The object of this article is not to compile or map out all the possible conflict areas or to undertake a detailed analysis of the conflicts, whether real or imaginary. Its more modest purpose is to present a broad panorama of the problems, directions, and policy. These matters merit attention, even though political and institutional reasons may make major reforms impossible for the time being. The questions to be discussed are relevant to three major fields of international law: treaties, human rights, and international organizations. While substantive problems of “legislation” or norm making are closely related to problems of supervision or implementation, normative problems will be focused upon first, and problems of supervision second.

Reservations to Treaties and Human Rights Committee General Comment No. 24(52)

International and Comparative Law Quarterly ◽

10.1017/s0020589300060486 ◽

1997 ◽

Vol 46 (2) ◽

pp. 390-412 ◽

Cited By ~ 8

Author(s):

Catherine J. Redgwell

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Subject Matter ◽

Political Rights ◽

Effective Implementation ◽

Rights Of The Child ◽

Human Rights Treaties ◽

The Subject ◽

Made In

On 2 November 1994 the Human Rights Committee adopted General Comment No.24(52) relating to reservations made on ratification or accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It is addressed to States party to the Covenant and indicates the manner in which reservations to Covenant guarantees will be treated. The fact that the Committee has issued a general comment on the topic of reservations is clear expression of the Committee's concerns regarding the number and scope of reservations which have been made. In its view these threaten to undermine the effective implementation of the Covenant as well as impair the performance of the Committee in respect of the subject matter to which the reservations apply. Though not as seriously afflicted by reservations as some other human rights treaties, most notably the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Covenant has nonetheless been the object of some sweeping reservations to which few objections have been made. There is the concern that the integrity of the Covenant may have been sacrificed in order to ensure widespread participation. “Indeed”, suggests Higgins, “one might almost say that there is a collusion to allow penetrating and disturbing reservations to go unchallenged.”

Non-Application of Civil and Political Rights Treaties Extraterritorially During Times of International Armed Conflict

Israel Law Review ◽

10.1017/s0021223700013406 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 40 (2) ◽

pp. 453-502 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Michael J. Dennis

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Armed Conflict ◽

Armed Forces ◽

Military Occupation ◽

Law Of War ◽

Human Rights Treaties ◽

International Human ◽

The Law ◽

The Government

Do the protections provided by the core international human rights treaties apply extraterritorially, outside the government-governed relationship, during periods of armed conflict and military occupation? The traditional view has been that human rights are essentially applicable in peacetime while humanitarian law (i.e. the law of war) governs situations of armed conflict and military occupation. More recently, a conflicting school of thought, reflected in decisions of the ICJ and the UN treaty bodies, has concluded that the law of war no longer automatically excludes the law of peace. But, while these views are entitled to respect, the international human rights instruments (unlike the regional human rights instruments) do not grant the treaty bodies or any other entity the authority to issue legally binding views on the nature of state obligations under the treaties. Applying the standard rules for treaty interpretation leads to the conclusion that the international human rights treaties apply in the context of armed conflict only with respect to acts of a state's armed forces executed within its own territory.