International Human Right Law

Introduction to IHRL

International human rights law (IHRL) refers to the body of international laws designed to promote human rights around the world. At its core, IHRL aims to protect the inherent dignity and equal worth of all human beings.

IHRL is founded on the principle that all people should enjoy basic rights and fundamental freedoms regardless of their nationality, gender, race, ethnicity, language, or other status. It recognizes that human rights are universal - meaning they apply to every single person equally.

Some key features of the IHRL system:

• IHRL is primarily made up of treaties, customary international law, and other international legal instruments. Major treaties include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
• There are global and regional systems of IHRL. Globally, the United Nations plays a leading role in establishing standards and monitoring compliance. Regionally, systems exist in the Americas, Europe, Africa, and the Middle East.
• IHRL places obligations on states to respect, protect, and fulfill human rights. This means states must refrain from violating rights, prevent violations by third parties, and take positive steps to facilitate the enjoyment of rights.
• Implementation and enforcement of IHRL occurs at national, regional, and international levels. Monitoring bodies review states’ compliance with their obligations.

The ultimate purpose of IHRL is to promote universal respect for and observance of human rights and freedoms. By codifying rights into binding treaties and principles, IHRL seeks to hold states accountable for protecting the dignity of all people.

History and Development of IHRL

The establishment of international human rights law (IHRL) as a core part of the international system of law only took place in the period following the Second World War and the formation of the United Nations. The creation of the United Nations system itself represented a response to the horrors of the war and an attempt to build a new global order based on collaboration and shared values.

A key part of this was enshrining respect for human rights and dignity as a foundational principle of the new world order. This was reflected in the UN Charter, signed in 1945. The preamble to the Charter affirmed the determination of the UN’s members to “reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person.” The Charter’s Article 1 identified promoting and encouraging “respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction” as one of the new organization’s core purposes.

To fulfill this mandate, one of the first actions of the newly formed UN was to establish a Human Rights Commission in 1946. This was the first intergovernmental body devoted to promoting human rights globally. The Commission was tasked with drafting an International Bill of Rights. The result was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 1948. The UDHR laid out a comprehensive set of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights that all human beings around the world should enjoy. It proclaimed these to be a “common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations.”

The UDHR was not initially binding on states, but served as the foundation for subsequent legally binding United Nations human rights treaties. These included the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, both adopted in 1966. These landmark treaties, along with the UDHR, form the International Bill of Rights and represent the core of modern international human rights law.

Relevance of IHRL to International Relations

International human rights law plays a central role in international relations in setting standards for how states should treat individuals, constraining state sovereignty, and addressing the rise of non-state actors.

IHRL pronounces common standards for the treatment of individuals by all states. This raises questions of whether states have a duty to act when another state fails to maintain these standards. IHRL can be seen as a way of constraining state sovereignty, by placing limits on how states can treat their citizens.

Given the rise of influential non-state actors in international relations, such as multinational corporations, some question whether the state-focused nature of IHRL is still relevant. However, states remain the sole parties to IHRL treaties and the primary entities responsible for protecting human rights. The challenge is ensuring states better regulate non-state entities to prevent human rights abuses.

Overall, IHRL continues to have relevance in international relations by setting standards of conduct, requiring states to respect human rights within their borders, and adapting to new actors, even as state sovereignty remains a cornerstone principle. Adherence to IHRL treaties and principles remains an important measure of a state’s standing within the international community.

IHRL and Intervention in the Internal Affairs of Other States

One key issue in international relations is whether states have a right or even a duty to intervene when another state violates human rights norms. This tension arises from the prohibition on slavery as a jus cogens norm in international law, as well as the concept of third party interest and complaints against states in human rights treaties.

The prohibition of slavery is considered a peremptory norm that all states must uphold. Any state that engages in slavery could potentially face consequences for breaching this fundamental principle of international law. Human rights norms like prohibition of slavery are also considered erga omnes - creating obligations toward all states. This suggests that states have an interest in ensuring the prohibition of slavery is respected globally.

Some human rights treaties like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention against Torture, and the European Convention on Human Rights allow for third party complaints against states for human rights violations. For example, several European states have brought cases against other states in the European Court of Human Rights system. However, states have rarely used third party complaints under UN human rights treaties, partly due to the principle of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of states being a cornerstone of the international system.

Thus, tensions remain between the universal nature of human rights norms, and the sovereignty and equality of states that necessitates non-intervention. States must balance their interest in upholding human rights globally with respecting the domestic authority of other nations.

IHRL and State Sovereignty

International human rights law aims to change the ways in which states exercise political power within their territories and over their populations. At the same time, it accepts and accommodates state sovereignty in several ways.

There are a number of mechanisms through which IHRL accommodates state sovereignty:

• States can temporarily derogate from some human rights treaties during officially proclaimed states of emergency. This gives states flexibility to deal with internal unrest or instability.
• IHRL treaties designate some rights as non-derogable - like the prohibition on torture. This establishes a hierarchy of rights with different levels of accommodation for sovereignty.
• For economic, social and cultural rights, IHRL applies the standard of “progressive realization”. This means states pledge to work toward guaranteeing these rights to the maximum extent possible over time, based on available resources. This provides flexibility for states.
• On issues like citizenship, refugees, and migrants, IHRL defers to state sovereignty and domestic law. States retain full control over determining who are their nationals and citizens.

At the same time, IHRL exists because states have voluntarily drafted, signed, and ratified international human rights treaties. States created this system of international law and participate in its institutions.

And while IHRL aims to change state behavior, it does so with the consent and cooperation of states themselves. Its authority over states derives from their acceptance and participation.

So in this way, IHRL represents states regulating their own exercise of internal sovereignty. By signing on to IHRL treaties and participating in their mechanisms, states agree to transform internal governance and political authority based on human rights norms. But they retain ultimate sovereignty over determining if, when and how these norms influence their domestic affairs.

Compliance with IHRL

Compliance with international human rights law refers to whether and how states adhere to their obligations under human rights treaties and norms. There are several factors that influence compliance:

• The domestic political preferences and priorities of the government in power. Regimes that value human rights are more likely to comply.
• The constitutional and legal character of the state. States with strong rule of law and independent judiciaries have better compliance records.
• The perceived authority and legitimacy of the external human rights institutions demanding compliance. Regional bodies like the European Court of Human Rights elicit higher compliance rates from member states.
• The existence of material incentives or coercive enforcement to compel compliance. The EU ties human rights to trade benefits and NATO membership, increasing compliance among aspirant states.

There is significant variation in compliance across different human rights regimes. Civil and political rights like the prohibition on torture have higher compliance rates globally compared to economic, social and cultural rights. Regional human rights courts like the ECHR generate greater compliance from member states than UN treaty bodies. Understanding the nuanced differences in compliance across regimes remains an important research agenda in international human rights law.

New Actors in IHRL

International human rights law has traditionally focused on states as the sole parties to human rights treaties and the primary actors responsible for protecting human rights. However, the rise of powerful non-state actors in recent decades has raised questions about their role and accountability within the human rights framework.

While non-state entities such as transnational corporations, the World Bank, IMF, WTO, and rebel groups wield significant economic and political power, they do not possess the law-making and law-enforcement capabilities of states. This limits the extent to which they can be directly bound by human rights treaties or subject to international human rights enforcement mechanisms. However, these actors may still be involved in serious human rights abuses or assist states in violating rights. Such actions can only be remedied through domestic courts under national law.

This reveals a gap in the international human rights law framework’s ability to ensure states adequately control the human rights impacts of non-state entity activities. Under existing norms, states bear responsibility not only for refraining from committing violations themselves but for protecting individuals from abuses by third parties. Hence, strengthening state capacity and willingness to regulate non-state actors remains critical.

Looking ahead, a key question is whether and how other international actors could also become more directly accountable for their negative human rights impacts under international law. The traditional state-centric orientation of human rights law may require evolution to address the complexities of a globalized world. Ultimately, the objective should remain to effectively protect individuals from harm, regardless of its source.

Key IHRL Principles

Several core principles shape the development and implementation of international human rights law:

Non-Intervention/Domestic Jurisdiction: The principle that states have no right to interfere in the internal affairs of other states is central to IHRL. Under Article 2(7) of the UN Charter, matters essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state are protected from outside intervention. However, the growth of international human rights law has challenged traditional notions of non-intervention, as the treatment of citizens within a state’s borders is no longer solely an internal issue.

Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies: This principle holds that before accepted international mechanisms can become involved, states must be permitted to solve their own internal human rights issues through domestic legal and constitutional procedures. The exhaustion of domestic remedies rule reinforces state sovereignty while encouraging the development of national human rights protections.

Prioritization of Rights: Certain non-derogable human rights are regarded as possessing a special status in the hierarchy of rights, such as the prohibitions on slavery, torture, and genocide. These rights are seen as foundational to human dignity and to the framework of international human rights law overall. However, prioritizing some rights over others remains controversial.

Case Studies

There are a few landmark cases that demonstrate the application of international human rights law in practice:

Velásquez Rodríguez Case (1988) - This case represented the first time the Inter-American Court of Human Rights found a government guilty of violating the right to life under the American Convention on Human Rights. It set a major precedent that governments must prevent, investigate and punish human rights violations committed by state actors.

Soering v. United Kingdom (1989) - This European Court of Human Rights case established that extradition to a country with the death penalty could violate the right to life and prohibition of torture under the European Convention, if there is a real risk of exposure to inhuman treatment. It demonstrated the extra-territorial application of human rights obligations.

Toonen v. Australia (1994) - This UN Human Rights Committee case found that laws criminalizing homosexuality in Tasmania violated rights to privacy and non-discrimination. It led many countries to repeal similar laws as incompatible with international standards.

Siliadin v. France (2005) - The European Court ruled that slavery and forced labor still exist in Europe and found France responsible for violating human rights obligations by failing to provide adequate criminal law protections against servitude.

Opuz v. Turkey (2009) - This landmark European Court case recognized domestic violence as a form of gender-based discrimination and established that states have a duty to exercise due diligence in responding to abuses. It set an influential standard for applying human rights to gender-based violence issues.

M.C. v. Bulgaria (2003) - The European Court held Bulgaria responsible for failing to effectively investigate and prosecute a rape complaint, establishing important due diligence principles. The case developed standards for applying human rights to sexual violence.

Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic (2012) - The Inter-American Court found the Dominican Republic responsible for a pattern of discrimination against Haitian migrant workers that violated multiple rights under the American Convention. It applied human rights standards to vulnerable migrant populations.

Conclusion

International human rights law (IHRL) has developed significantly over the past 70 years, starting with the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. IHRL aims to protect the rights and dignity of all individuals from state actions and negligence.

This article has provided an overview of the origins, growth, and key aspects of IHRL. We discussed the historical emergence of human rights in the UN system after World War II, as well as the expanding web of human rights treaties, conventions, and monitoring bodies that make up IHRL today.

Key topics covered include the complex relationship between IHRL and state sovereignty, intervention, and compliance. IHRL pronounces standards for state behavior, but has limited enforcement capabilities on its own. The article also touched on the rise of non-state actors in international relations, and whether IHRL should expand its scope beyond just state obligations in the future.

Overall, IHRL has made substantial progress in establishing universal human rights norms and scrutinizing state behavior. However, significant challenges remain when it comes to consistent compliance, balancing state sovereignty with intervention, and adapting to new global actors. As IHRL continues to evolve, focus areas for the future likely include increased accountability for non-state entities, strengthened implementation and enforcement mechanisms, and addressing complex new human rights issues arising from technology, climate change, migration, and more. With persistence and ingenuity, the international community can work to make IHRL an ever more effective force for protecting human dignity worldwide.