scholarly journals The International Human Rights System and the Subject of Lawfare

Author(s):  
Ivonne Liliana Tellez ◽  
Sebastián Yerovi Proaño

The legalization of global affairs has been considered positive, in contrast to the conditions preceding the Second World War. No longer could individual interests be imposed against the common interest, no longer was there coercion and repression, no longer was decision making dominated by power politics. It would be expected that the recognition of a Human Rights legal system would serve as a guarantee for the fulfillment of the rights within States. The main objective of this legal system in its generality, which is to improve the well-being of the population, has not been reached in its entirety, nor has it reached all countries and all people as it is posed. Hence, this article examines two factors that could confirm this assertion. The first is the system's possible ambiguity through the weakness of the instruments and their institutions. The second is the concept of legitimacy associated with lawfare, which would allow the use of International Human Rights Law as a power strategy. In this order of ideas, this article is organized as follows: first, we carry out a categorical division that begins with a general review of the international human rights system and the relationships of transnational actors, and we then present various examples of the primary instruments and their associated institutions. The second category discusses the concept of legitimacy associated with the idea of lawfare, in light of International Law and the main theories of International Cooperation. Based on these theoretical ideas, we conducted an analysis of the cases of torture in the United States since the year 2000. Finally, we present various conclusions and recommendations regarding the system's structure and application in the international context.

Author(s):  
Ronald C. Slye

Domestic courts play an important role in the adjudication of international law, including international human rights law. The relationship between international and domestic law has often been characterized as a continuum between monism and dualism. In a monist system, international law is automatically a part of domestic law, and a conflict between the two is resolved in favor of international law. In a dualist system, domestic law is superior to international law within the domestic legal system, while international law is superior to domestic law within the international legal system. A conflict between domestic law and international law is thus not always resolved in the same way in both systems. In addition, one of the areas with the most active use of international law in a domestic legal system is under a theory of universal jurisdiction. Universal jurisdiction most often involves both the incorporation of international law into a domestic legal system and the assertion outward (extraterritorially) of domestic judicial system. Universal jurisdiction arose initially in the context of criminal prosecutions, but is also found to some extent in civil litigation, particularly in the United States. Under the principle of universal jurisdiction, a state may assert jurisdiction over an offender regardless of the nationality of the offender or victim, the place of commission of the wrongful act, or any other link to the state asserting jurisdiction.


This volume explores the principle and history of international human rights law. It addresses questions regarding the sources of human rights, its historical and cultural origins and its universality. It evaluates the effectiveness of procedures and international institutions in enforcing and ensuring compliance with human rights. This volume investigates the underlying structural principles that bind together the internationally-guaranteed rights and provide criteria for the emergence of new rights. It also evaluates whether the international human rights project has made a difference in the lives and well-being of individuals and groups around the world.


2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 215-238
Author(s):  
Matthew Dale Kim

AbstractPast studies suggest that domestic public support for compliance with international human rights law can constrain governments to comply with human rights law. But the question remains: Why does the public care about compliance? Using a series of survey experiments in South Korea and the United States, this study finds that constituents are concerned about compliance in one issue area—such as human rights—because they believe it will affect the country's reputation in other domains of international law. Cross-national survey experiments demonstrate that past noncompliance negatively affects the South Korean public's second-order beliefs about the likelihood of future compliance across different issue areas. However, past noncompliance has a limited impact on the US public's first-order beliefs across different domains.


2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 298-333
Author(s):  
M.Y. Aiyub KADIR ◽  
Alexander MURRAY

AbstractThis paper examines resource nationalism in the legal system of Indonesia under the interpretation of Articles 33(2), 33(3), and 18B(2) of the 1945 Constitution. It will describe the evolution of the meaning of resource nationalism since independence to the present day, in the context of foreign investment, to investigate the extent to which resource nationalism has benefited indigenous peoples. This paper argues that resource nationalism in the legal system of Indonesia has been driven by state-centric goals and has strayed far away from considerations of the benefits to the indigenous people (Masyarakat Hukum Adat/MHA), so as to dominantly benefit the elites of government and foreign investors. This paper will introduce a new conceptual framework in order to develop an effective argument about resource nationalism using International Human Rights Law.


Author(s):  
Martin S. Flaherty

This chapter considers a phenomenon that has consistently been among the most contentious of modern legal controversies—the application by American courts of international human rights. Recent years have witnessed high-profile conflicts over international human rights law. One major battle involves whether, when, and how U.S. courts should recognize rights set out in the nation's treaty obligations. Another heated area of contention has arisen under an act of Congress, the Alien Tort Statute. Perhaps most heated of all have been debates over the use of foreign legal materials, including customary international law, to interpret the Constitution of the United States. In these areas as well, the Supreme Court, and the judiciary generally, has wavered. Yet once more, a fresh appreciation of the principles the Founders entrenched, the subsequent custom that on balance confirms that original vision, and the consequences of the way nations interact in a globalized age—all these imperatives point away from the path that the judiciary appears more and more to be considering, and back to the course first established.


2020 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
pp. 108-123
Author(s):  
Katre Luhamaa

Estonia’s legal system is generally regarded as very accepting of international (human-rights) law, with treaties in this domain and associated supervisory practice being implemented directly by national courts. The article analyses whether this extends to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the recommendations of the CRC Committee on ways to improve the Estonian national child-protection system. The main question examined is whether the CRC Committee’s ‘Concluding Observations’ have had an impact and been effective with regard to the Estonian child-protection system. The article lays out and further develops the framework proposed by Krommendijk for analysing the impact and effectiveness of international human-rights work with respect to national legal systems. The author begins by situating this theoretical framework in the context of the CRC and the Estonian legal system and then providing a brief description of Estonia's reporting process. The bulk of the paper is concerned with research presenting the development of the following elements of the child-protection system in aims of analysing the effectiveness of the CRC Committee's recommendations: general principles with relevance for the child-protection system, the institutional set-up, issues related to the implementation of the child's right to be free from any form of violence (along with any relevant procedural rights), and the placement of a child within the child-protection system.


AJIL Unbound ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 113 ◽  
pp. 157-162 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elena Chachko

The United States has employed targeted sanctions—economic and travel restrictions imposed directly on natural and legal persons—in a wide range of policy areas in the past two decades. This includes counterterrorism, nonproliferation, and cyber, as well as sanctions regimes aimed at changing the behavior of various governments. A substantial literature has considered the compatibility with international human rights law of the targeted sanctions practices of other actors, particularly the UN Security Council and the European Union. But relatively few scholars have examined U.S. targeted sanctions practices from that perspective. This essay argues that in principle, current U.S. designation practices can be reconciled with international standards. However, a more robust conclusion about the practices’ compatibility with international human rights law would require more information on the application of designation procedures in individual cases.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document