Informal human rights law-making: How treaty bodies use ‘General Comments’ to develop international law

IF 0.8 Q3 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Global Constitutionalism Pub Date : 2023-03-07 DOI:10.1017/s2045381723000023
M. Lesch, Nina Reiners
{"title":"Informal human rights law-making: How treaty bodies use ‘General Comments’ to develop international law","authors":"M. Lesch, Nina Reiners","doi":"10.1017/s2045381723000023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The United Nations treaty bodies were established to monitor the implementation of human rights by states parties. Through ‘General Comments’ – legally non-binding clarifications of treaty obligations – they have also influenced the development of international human rights law – for example, on the right to life and climate impacts. We address this phenomenon by establishing a twofold argument. First, we argue that General Comments are used by the committees to informally shape international law. They deliberately act as human rights law-makers, knowing that international institutions, organizations and professionals in their network will subsequently refer to such instruments. Second, we argue that treaty bodies not only rely on their network once they have adopted their outcome, but the experts’ personal networks also shape the drafting process of General Comments. We develop and illustrate an analytical framework with two case studies of General Comments on the human right to water and the torture prohibition. The analysis demonstrates the need for external knowledge of both technical and legal aspects of the norms being interpreted. By addressing pressing human rights challenges, expert committees can shape the law in times of stagnation and resist contestation even from powerful states.","PeriodicalId":37136,"journal":{"name":"Global Constitutionalism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Constitutionalism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s2045381723000023","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The United Nations treaty bodies were established to monitor the implementation of human rights by states parties. Through ‘General Comments’ – legally non-binding clarifications of treaty obligations – they have also influenced the development of international human rights law – for example, on the right to life and climate impacts. We address this phenomenon by establishing a twofold argument. First, we argue that General Comments are used by the committees to informally shape international law. They deliberately act as human rights law-makers, knowing that international institutions, organizations and professionals in their network will subsequently refer to such instruments. Second, we argue that treaty bodies not only rely on their network once they have adopted their outcome, but the experts’ personal networks also shape the drafting process of General Comments. We develop and illustrate an analytical framework with two case studies of General Comments on the human right to water and the torture prohibition. The analysis demonstrates the need for external knowledge of both technical and legal aspects of the norms being interpreted. By addressing pressing human rights challenges, expert committees can shape the law in times of stagnation and resist contestation even from powerful states.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
非正式人权立法:条约机构如何利用“一般性意见”发展国际法
设立联合国条约机构是为了监测缔约国落实人权的情况。通过“一般性意见”——对条约义务进行法律上不具约束力的澄清——它们也影响了国际人权法的发展,例如关于生命权和气候影响的法律。我们通过建立一个双重论证来解决这一现象。首先,我们认为,委员会利用一般性意见非正式地塑造国际法。他们知道其网络中的国际机构、组织和专业人员随后将引用这些文书,因而故意充当人权立法者的角色。其次,我们认为,条约机构不仅在通过其成果后依赖其网络,而且专家的个人网络也影响了一般性意见的起草过程。我们通过关于享有水的人权和禁止酷刑的一般性意见的两个案例研究,制定并说明了一个分析框架。分析表明需要对所解释的规范的技术和法律方面的外部知识。通过解决紧迫的人权挑战,专家委员会可以在停滞时期塑造法律,甚至可以抵制来自强国的争论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Global Constitutionalism
Global Constitutionalism Arts and Humanities-History
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
期刊最新文献
Liberal-democratic norms under contestation: Norm relations and their decoupling in the US Supreme Court’s decisions on abortion Comparative political process theory II Constitutionalizing dissent: The universe of opposition rules in African constitutions A theory of plural constituent power for federal systems A constitutional reflector? Assessing societal and digital constitutionalism in Meta’s Oversight Board
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1