HUMAN RIGHTS | Defending human dignity
25 March 2008
International Monitoring, Implementation Practices for Human Rights
Incentives created for states to improve human rights practices
(The following article is taken from the U.S. Department of State publication, Human Rights in Brief.)
International Monitoring and Implementation Mechanisms
At least theoretically, states are increasingly accountable to the international community for their human rights practices. More than three-fourths of the countries of the world have ratified the International Human Rights Covenants.
The United Nation’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights established a supervisory committee of independent experts—the Human Rights Committee—the principal function of which is to review periodic reports submitted by states. Similar committees have been created by international human rights treaties on racial discrimination, women’s rights, torture, and the rights of the child, as well as new treaties on the rights of the handicapped and migrant workers.
Incentives for Improvement
Monitoring and reporting cannot force states to alter their practices. There are, however, other incentives for states seeking to improve or safeguard their human rights records. The process of preparing a report may uncover areas where improvement may be needed. This can be a reminder to officials of their international legal obligations.
The European Commission on Human Rights, which existed within the Council of Europe, had a stronger complaint system. And its successor body, the European Court of Human Rights, has made legally binding decisions in hundreds of cases dealing with a variety of issues, including sensitive questions such as public emergencies. In the European system there has been a partial transfer of authority for implementing human rights from states to a larger, regional political community.
Regional arrangements in the Americas and Africa have had less success in this regard. The Arab world and Asia do not yet have regional human rights commissions, although the Asia Pacific Forum was created in 1996 with a mission to support regional cooperation in the “establishment and development of national institutions in order to protect and promote the human rights of the peoples of the region.” There are also plans for a new ASEAN human rights commission and a new African Court of Human Rights. The strength and scope of international monitoring procedures rests on the willingness of states to use and participate in them. This situation remains a serious and persistent problem.
Investigative Reporting and Advocacy
Another set of multilateral human rights monitoring mechanisms involves investigative reporting and advocacy. The pioneer in this area is the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Its reports on Chile in the 1970s and 1980s were an important element in exposing human rights abuses of the Pinochet government, and its 1978 report on Nicaragua appears to have contributed significantly to the end of the Somoza government.
Over the past two decades, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights has devoted considerable effort to country studies, including such politically prominent countries as Guatemala, Iran, and Burma. Typically, the commission worked through a so-called “special rapporteur”— an independent expert and investigator. The special rapporteur, in addition to reporting formally to the commission, typically attempts to maintain a continuing dialogue with the government in question in order to establish a sustained presence and channel for influence. The U.N. Commission on Human Rights also created rapporteurs or working groups to investigate disappearances, arbitrary executions, arbitrary detentions, religious intolerance, human rights violations by mercenaries, and racism.
In 2006, the Human Rights Commission was abolished in favor of a smaller Human Rights Council. The new Council has had a difficult start. It has been criticized for abolishing special rapporteurs for countries such as Belarus and Cuba without apparent reason. In addition, the Human Rights Council has perpetuated the discriminatory practice of having a permanent agenda item for only one country, namely, Israel, in relation to the Palestinian situation. The new human rights machinery in Geneva also has diminished the role of NGOs in the Council’s formal sessions, and continues to exclude Israel from membership in any of the regional groups that organize the work in Geneva. There is some hope that so-called “universal periodic review” can serve as an incentive for Council members to improve their own human rights practices. Clearly, the moral standing of any rights body has to rest largely on its impartiality.
