Pub Date : 2022-09-22DOI: 10.1163/18757413_02501009
Gerd Oberleitner
The creation of the United Nations (UN) in 1945 and the adoption of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 coincide but the relationship between the UN and international humanitarian law (IHL) remains uneasy. While the UN initially refrained from engaging with international humanitarian law, it contributed to making international humanitarian law more humanitarian through the development of human rights standards and their influence on international humanitarian law. The UN’s peacekeeping operations continue to face challenges in applying IHL while preserving the impartial nature of peacekeeping, while the Security Council (primarily through its Protection of Civilians agenda) as well as UN human rights bodies have over the past decades become tools for monitoring and ensuring respect for international humanitarian law and investigating violations of it. The article examines how the UN has over the past 75 years developed, affirmed, investigated, respected, monitored, enforced, and adjudicated international humanitarian law, and analyses the challenges the UN has encountered in doing so.
{"title":"The United Nations and International Humanitarian Law: The Past 75 Years","authors":"Gerd Oberleitner","doi":"10.1163/18757413_02501009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18757413_02501009","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The creation of the United Nations (UN) in 1945 and the adoption of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 coincide but the relationship between the UN and international humanitarian law (IHL) remains uneasy. While the UN initially refrained from engaging with international humanitarian law, it contributed to making international humanitarian law more humanitarian through the development of human rights standards and their influence on international humanitarian law. The UN’s peacekeeping operations continue to face challenges in applying IHL while preserving the impartial nature of peacekeeping, while the Security Council (primarily through its Protection of Civilians agenda) as well as UN human rights bodies have over the past decades become tools for monitoring and ensuring respect for international humanitarian law and investigating violations of it. The article examines how the UN has over the past 75 years developed, affirmed, investigated, respected, monitored, enforced, and adjudicated international humanitarian law, and analyses the challenges the UN has encountered in doing so.","PeriodicalId":167092,"journal":{"name":"Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125835079","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-22DOI: 10.1163/18757413_02501008
M. Fremuth, Konstantina Stavrou
The United Nations (UN) Security Council (UNSC) is endowed with the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security under Art. 24 (1) of the Charter of the United Nations (UNC). The establishment of the ad hoc criminal tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda in the 1990s under Chapter VII of the UNC has shown that individual criminal accountability for international core crimes belongs to the instruments to address threats to or breaches of peace (Art. 39 of the UNC). With the International Criminal Court (ICC) a permanent institution has been established to sanction the commission of international core crimes. Acting under Chapter VII, the UNSC is entitled to refer a situation to the ICC according to Art. 13 (b) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute), as well as to defer proceedings (Art. 16 of the Rome Statute). By using their veto power each of the five permanent members of the UNSC might block both types of resolutions. While a veto against an ICC referral resolution might hinder the Court from fulfilling its mandate (destructive veto), blocking a deferral resolution might enable the Court to continue its fight against impunity (constructive veto). This article discusses whether obligations stemming from the UNC and other sources of public international law, in particular human rights, might impact the decisions of the UNSC and the veto exercise in particular in both cases. It intends to contribute to the ongoing discussion by several reflections on the veto powers, and concludes that, even though the veto powers might be influenced by these legal sources, it will be difficult to guide the conduct of the five UNSC Permanent Members (P5) with regard to the ICC.
{"title":"The Future We Want?","authors":"M. Fremuth, Konstantina Stavrou","doi":"10.1163/18757413_02501008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18757413_02501008","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The United Nations (UN) Security Council (UNSC) is endowed with the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security under Art. 24 (1) of the Charter of the United Nations (UNC). The establishment of the ad hoc criminal tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda in the 1990s under Chapter VII of the UNC has shown that individual criminal accountability for international core crimes belongs to the instruments to address threats to or breaches of peace (Art. 39 of the UNC). With the International Criminal Court (ICC) a permanent institution has been established to sanction the commission of international core crimes. Acting under Chapter VII, the UNSC is entitled to refer a situation to the ICC according to Art. 13 (b) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute), as well as to defer proceedings (Art. 16 of the Rome Statute). By using their veto power each of the five permanent members of the UNSC might block both types of resolutions. While a veto against an ICC referral resolution might hinder the Court from fulfilling its mandate (destructive veto), blocking a deferral resolution might enable the Court to continue its fight against impunity (constructive veto). This article discusses whether obligations stemming from the UNC and other sources of public international law, in particular human rights, might impact the decisions of the UNSC and the veto exercise in particular in both cases. It intends to contribute to the ongoing discussion by several reflections on the veto powers, and concludes that, even though the veto powers might be influenced by these legal sources, it will be difficult to guide the conduct of the five UNSC Permanent Members (P5) with regard to the ICC.","PeriodicalId":167092,"journal":{"name":"Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online","volume":"30 15","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"120820957","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-22DOI: 10.1163/18757413_02501010
E. Petersmann
The 2030 United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Agenda defines its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG s) in terms of human rights and multilevel governance of related public goods. The global health pandemics, environmental crises, and geopolitical trade wars reveal governance failures and related ‘constitutional failures’ to protect human and constitutional rights effectively by democratic legislation, administrative and judicial remedies of citizens, and transnational rule of law. The SDG s require stronger, multilevel legal restraints on ‘market failures’ (like environmental pollution), ‘governance failures’ (like insufficient remedies against abuses of executive powers) and ‘constitutional failures’ (like neglect for transnational rule of law and the ‘Anthropocene’). Democratic legislation and citizen-driven, administrative, and judicial remedies must strengthen accountability of governments for decarbonizing economies and protecting human rights (e.g., environmental and public health protection). Worldwide protection of the SDG s requires reforming multilevel governance beyond Europe’s multilevel constitutionalism in order to prevent policy conflicts through transnational rule of law and ‘constitutional embedding’ of UN/World Trade Organization (WTO) governance.
{"title":"The UN Sustainable Development Agenda and Rule of Law: Global Governance Failures Require Democratic and Judicial Restraints","authors":"E. Petersmann","doi":"10.1163/18757413_02501010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18757413_02501010","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The 2030 United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Agenda defines its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG s) in terms of human rights and multilevel governance of related public goods. The global health pandemics, environmental crises, and geopolitical trade wars reveal governance failures and related ‘constitutional failures’ to protect human and constitutional rights effectively by democratic legislation, administrative and judicial remedies of citizens, and transnational rule of law. The SDG s require stronger, multilevel legal restraints on ‘market failures’ (like environmental pollution), ‘governance failures’ (like insufficient remedies against abuses of executive powers) and ‘constitutional failures’ (like neglect for transnational rule of law and the ‘Anthropocene’). Democratic legislation and citizen-driven, administrative, and judicial remedies must strengthen accountability of governments for decarbonizing economies and protecting human rights (e.g., environmental and public health protection). Worldwide protection of the SDG s requires reforming multilevel governance beyond Europe’s multilevel constitutionalism in order to prevent policy conflicts through transnational rule of law and ‘constitutional embedding’ of UN/World Trade Organization (WTO) governance.","PeriodicalId":167092,"journal":{"name":"Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131000683","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-22DOI: 10.1163/18757413_02501011
Rainer Grote
The Human Rights Council is the principal forum for the discussion of human rights issues in the United Nations (UN) system. It has replaced the Human Rights Commission which had been highly successful in the codification of human rights norms and standards, but less so in monitoring their effective implementation. This failure was due in part to the Commission’s design as a body representing Member State governments and the lack of transparent criteria for membership selection. The reforms which led to the replacement of the Commission by the Human Rights Council in 2006 were intended to address these shortcomings but turned out to be compromise solutions which have produced only limited change in the outlook and in the working methods of the Council in comparison to its predecessor. As ideological and political divisions within the international community and the Council have intensified, this has increased the risk of partisanship undermining the credibility of the latter’s work, thus calling into question the Council’s role as an effective instrument for human rights promotion and protection.
{"title":"The Human Rights Council at 15: How (Not) to Promote Human Rights in Times of Growing Political Polarization","authors":"Rainer Grote","doi":"10.1163/18757413_02501011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18757413_02501011","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The Human Rights Council is the principal forum for the discussion of human rights issues in the United Nations (UN) system. It has replaced the Human Rights Commission which had been highly successful in the codification of human rights norms and standards, but less so in monitoring their effective implementation. This failure was due in part to the Commission’s design as a body representing Member State governments and the lack of transparent criteria for membership selection. The reforms which led to the replacement of the Commission by the Human Rights Council in 2006 were intended to address these shortcomings but turned out to be compromise solutions which have produced only limited change in the outlook and in the working methods of the Council in comparison to its predecessor. As ideological and political divisions within the international community and the Council have intensified, this has increased the risk of partisanship undermining the credibility of the latter’s work, thus calling into question the Council’s role as an effective instrument for human rights promotion and protection.","PeriodicalId":167092,"journal":{"name":"Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131647499","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-22DOI: 10.1163/18757413_02501007
F. Francioni
The safeguarding of cultural heritage and the protection of human rights constitute separate branches of international law, with different origins and different historical development. However, the far-reaching development of international cultural heritage law in the past half century has progressively infiltrated the field of human rights, developing what we may call ‘the human dimension of cultural heritage’. This article reconstructs the process of mutual influence of these two branches of international law by way of an analysis of the most representative sectors on international cultural heritage law, including protection of cultural property in war time, restitution and return of stolen and illegally exported cultural objects, the protection of cultural heritage of outstanding universal value (‘world heritage’), and the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage and of cultural diversity. At a time when armed bands and terrorists deliberately destroy cultural property of great importance for humanity and angry crowds demolish monuments memorializing controversial figures of the past, connecting human rights and cultural heritage becomes an ever more necessary condition for a dialogue among the peoples and, in the end, the foundation for international peace and security.
{"title":"Cultural Heritage and Human Rights","authors":"F. Francioni","doi":"10.1163/18757413_02501007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18757413_02501007","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The safeguarding of cultural heritage and the protection of human rights constitute separate branches of international law, with different origins and different historical development. However, the far-reaching development of international cultural heritage law in the past half century has progressively infiltrated the field of human rights, developing what we may call ‘the human dimension of cultural heritage’. This article reconstructs the process of mutual influence of these two branches of international law by way of an analysis of the most representative sectors on international cultural heritage law, including protection of cultural property in war time, restitution and return of stolen and illegally exported cultural objects, the protection of cultural heritage of outstanding universal value (‘world heritage’), and the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage and of cultural diversity. At a time when armed bands and terrorists deliberately destroy cultural property of great importance for humanity and angry crowds demolish monuments memorializing controversial figures of the past, connecting human rights and cultural heritage becomes an ever more necessary condition for a dialogue among the peoples and, in the end, the foundation for international peace and security.","PeriodicalId":167092,"journal":{"name":"Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128716742","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-22DOI: 10.1163/18757413_02501015
W. Schabas
Histories of the early development of human rights within the United Nations emphasise standard-setting, largely the work of Western intellectuals. Examination of the first session of the General Assembly, in 1946, shows that it was countries of the Global South that pushed the human rights agenda, principally with regard to issues concerning racial discrimination. Three resolutions are featured, dealing with South Africa’s racist treatment of the Indian minority, discrimination and prejudice more generally, and recognition of the crime of genocide. Western countries had been confident that the domestic jurisdiction clause in the Charter of the United Nations would insulate them from examination of their own records. India successfully led the battle to limit the role of this clause. The first human rights petitions were presented to the United Nations, an initiative of African-American organisations directed against Jim Crow and lynching in the United States.
{"title":"Race, Human Rights and the Global South at the First Session of the UN General Assembly","authors":"W. Schabas","doi":"10.1163/18757413_02501015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18757413_02501015","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Histories of the early development of human rights within the United Nations emphasise standard-setting, largely the work of Western intellectuals. Examination of the first session of the General Assembly, in 1946, shows that it was countries of the Global South that pushed the human rights agenda, principally with regard to issues concerning racial discrimination. Three resolutions are featured, dealing with South Africa’s racist treatment of the Indian minority, discrimination and prejudice more generally, and recognition of the crime of genocide. Western countries had been confident that the domestic jurisdiction clause in the Charter of the United Nations would insulate them from examination of their own records. India successfully led the battle to limit the role of this clause. The first human rights petitions were presented to the United Nations, an initiative of African-American organisations directed against Jim Crow and lynching in the United States.","PeriodicalId":167092,"journal":{"name":"Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114779039","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-22DOI: 10.1163/18757413_02501013
Dinah L. Shelton
This article examines some of the major contributions of and the challenges UN treaty bodies have encountered since the creation of the first such institution, the Committee on Racial Discrimination, in 1969. It looks at the roles played by treaty bodies in interpretating and monitoring compliance with UN human rights treaties, including questions about the effectiveness of procedures, inclusive of individual petitions and the remedies they may afford. It questions whether new procedures like inquiry and investigation may prove more beneficial to victims of abuse than the earlier and less-intrusive measures states were willing to accept. The dearth of reliable evidence on implementation and state enforcement of international human rights treaties makes overall conclusions about the value added by treaty bodies more anecdotal or impressionistic than reliable.
{"title":"The Development of Human Rights Law and Challenges Faced by UN Treaty Bodies 1969–2022","authors":"Dinah L. Shelton","doi":"10.1163/18757413_02501013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18757413_02501013","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article examines some of the major contributions of and the challenges UN treaty bodies have encountered since the creation of the first such institution, the Committee on Racial Discrimination, in 1969. It looks at the roles played by treaty bodies in interpretating and monitoring compliance with UN human rights treaties, including questions about the effectiveness of procedures, inclusive of individual petitions and the remedies they may afford. It questions whether new procedures like inquiry and investigation may prove more beneficial to victims of abuse than the earlier and less-intrusive measures states were willing to accept. The dearth of reliable evidence on implementation and state enforcement of international human rights treaties makes overall conclusions about the value added by treaty bodies more anecdotal or impressionistic than reliable.","PeriodicalId":167092,"journal":{"name":"Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129332675","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-22DOI: 10.1163/18757413_02501002
Anni Pues
This article analyses the role of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) as a security actor. With the creation of the ‘International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism to Assist in the Investigation and Prosecution of Persons Responsible for the Most Serious Crimes under International Law Committed in the Syrian Arab Republic since March 2011’ (IIIM), through UNGA Resolution 71/2481 in 2016, the General Assembly creatively used its powers to strengthen international criminal justice. Although investigative or fact-finding missions itself are nothing new to the UN system, Resolution 71/248 is qualitatively different to any other mission before it. The IIIM was established without Syrian consent, which is a historic first for the General Assembly. It is also the first time that such a body is tasked with investigations that fulfil prosecution standards, that serves as an evidence repository as well as a connecting hub between different justice actors. The UN General Assembly filled a void where the UN Security Council found itself in a stalemate over Syria. The IIIM has since served as a blueprint for a new generation of investigative mechanisms that emerged in the UN system. Looking beyond the appraisal of the IIIM, the article argues that the UN General Assembly practice in maintaining peace and security has significantly evolved over time. The early UN General Assembly practice through Uniting for Peace allowed it to assert its proactive role in parallel to the Security Council, yet it failed in its claim of authority to recommend forceful, collective measures. The practice subsequently evolved towards the diverse use of non-forceful measures, of which the IIIM provides a recent example. Creative boundary pushing in the UNGA through non-forcible measures will hopefully contribute to peace and security beyond war.
{"title":"The UN General Assembly as a Security Actor: Appraising the Investigative Mechanism for Syria","authors":"Anni Pues","doi":"10.1163/18757413_02501002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18757413_02501002","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article analyses the role of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) as a security actor. With the creation of the ‘International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism to Assist in the Investigation and Prosecution of Persons Responsible for the Most Serious Crimes under International Law Committed in the Syrian Arab Republic since March 2011’ (IIIM), through UNGA Resolution 71/2481 in 2016, the General Assembly creatively used its powers to strengthen international criminal justice. Although investigative or fact-finding missions itself are nothing new to the UN system, Resolution 71/248 is qualitatively different to any other mission before it. The IIIM was established without Syrian consent, which is a historic first for the General Assembly. It is also the first time that such a body is tasked with investigations that fulfil prosecution standards, that serves as an evidence repository as well as a connecting hub between different justice actors. The UN General Assembly filled a void where the UN Security Council found itself in a stalemate over Syria. The IIIM has since served as a blueprint for a new generation of investigative mechanisms that emerged in the UN system. Looking beyond the appraisal of the IIIM, the article argues that the UN General Assembly practice in maintaining peace and security has significantly evolved over time. The early UN General Assembly practice through Uniting for Peace allowed it to assert its proactive role in parallel to the Security Council, yet it failed in its claim of authority to recommend forceful, collective measures. The practice subsequently evolved towards the diverse use of non-forceful measures, of which the IIIM provides a recent example. Creative boundary pushing in the UNGA through non-forcible measures will hopefully contribute to peace and security beyond war.","PeriodicalId":167092,"journal":{"name":"Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123119795","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-22DOI: 10.1163/18757413_02501012
O. Sender, M. Wood
Contrary to what was predicted by some (and is sometimes still suggested), the International Law Commission’s achievements over the past quarter century have been many. To seek to divide its output into successes and failures, or to measure that output against the number of conventions concluded on its basis, is an oversimplification: all of the Commission’s work has contributed, to a greater or lesser degree, to the understanding and development of international law. In engaging with areas of considerable practical importance, the Commission has exerted significant influence on international law, served as a guardian of its systemic nature, and strengthened the rule of law in international affairs. If it remains attentive to the views of States, there is good reason to believe that this will continue in the future.
{"title":"The Work of the International Law Commission between 1997 and 2022: A Positive Assessment","authors":"O. Sender, M. Wood","doi":"10.1163/18757413_02501012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18757413_02501012","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Contrary to what was predicted by some (and is sometimes still suggested), the International Law Commission’s achievements over the past quarter century have been many. To seek to divide its output into successes and failures, or to measure that output against the number of conventions concluded on its basis, is an oversimplification: all of the Commission’s work has contributed, to a greater or lesser degree, to the understanding and development of international law. In engaging with areas of considerable practical importance, the Commission has exerted significant influence on international law, served as a guardian of its systemic nature, and strengthened the rule of law in international affairs. If it remains attentive to the views of States, there is good reason to believe that this will continue in the future.","PeriodicalId":167092,"journal":{"name":"Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129128389","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-22DOI: 10.1163/18757413_02501005
Guilherme Canela, Namara Burki, Samrita Menon
Human rights, the rule of law and democracy are interlinked and mutually reinforcing. Within the framework of international human rights law, the right to freedom of expression particularly stands out, as it constitutes a pre-requisite for the fulfilment of other fundamental rights. In this regard, as ‘guardian of the rule of law’, the judiciary plays a particularly important role in guaranteeing the respect for the fundamental right to freedom of expression and its corollaries, access to information and the safety of journalists. To do so, however, judicial actors need to be well versed on freedom of expression challenges (both online and offline), and knowledgeable about the related international standards and regional jurisprudence. To share best practices and lessons learnt in this regard, this essay will be structured in two parts: first, it will discuss the crucial role of an independent judiciary in protecting the rights to freedom of expression and access to information, while falling under the obligation to act in full transparency itself. Second, it will present an in-depth analysis of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)’s Judges’ Initiative, presenting the concrete experience of a United Nations’ body engaging with its constituents. At the heart of this endeavor is the goal of enhancing the international human rights legal framework, by raising, in full cooperation with them, the knowledge and capacities of judicial actors from around the world on the need to protect and promote freedom of expression, access to information, and the safety of journalists to guarantee the respect for human rights, democracy, and the rule of law.
{"title":"UNESCO’s Judges’ Initiative","authors":"Guilherme Canela, Namara Burki, Samrita Menon","doi":"10.1163/18757413_02501005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18757413_02501005","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Human rights, the rule of law and democracy are interlinked and mutually reinforcing. Within the framework of international human rights law, the right to freedom of expression particularly stands out, as it constitutes a pre-requisite for the fulfilment of other fundamental rights. In this regard, as ‘guardian of the rule of law’, the judiciary plays a particularly important role in guaranteeing the respect for the fundamental right to freedom of expression and its corollaries, access to information and the safety of journalists. To do so, however, judicial actors need to be well versed on freedom of expression challenges (both online and offline), and knowledgeable about the related international standards and regional jurisprudence. To share best practices and lessons learnt in this regard, this essay will be structured in two parts: first, it will discuss the crucial role of an independent judiciary in protecting the rights to freedom of expression and access to information, while falling under the obligation to act in full transparency itself. Second, it will present an in-depth analysis of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)’s Judges’ Initiative, presenting the concrete experience of a United Nations’ body engaging with its constituents. At the heart of this endeavor is the goal of enhancing the international human rights legal framework, by raising, in full cooperation with them, the knowledge and capacities of judicial actors from around the world on the need to protect and promote freedom of expression, access to information, and the safety of journalists to guarantee the respect for human rights, democracy, and the rule of law.","PeriodicalId":167092,"journal":{"name":"Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online","volume":"33 5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129193657","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：