Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T08:18:00.314Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - National Parliaments: Obstacles or Aid to the Impact of International Human Rights Bodies?

from Part II

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 June 2018

By
Jasper Krommendijk
Edited by
Marlene Wind
Marlene Wind
Affiliation:
University of Copenhagen
Get access

Summary

This chapter argues that parliaments are an important actor facilitating the realisation of human rights. It shows that some recommendations of UN human rights treaty bodies (COs) have been effective and resulted in change as a result of the efforts of Members of Parliament (MPs) in the Netherlands, New Zealand and Finland. Nonetheless, parliaments can also pose an obstacle to the implementation of international human rights and COs. A wide parliamentary consensus on a certain practice is sometimes used as a simple excuse (by the government) for not acting upon the recommendations put forward in the COs. At the same time, MPs can be self-righteous and critical about the quality of UN human rights treaty bodies and hence argue against the implementation of COs. The last part of this chapter presents a tentative list of domestic variables conditioning the (difference) in the engagement of parliaments with COs.

Type
Chapter
Information
International Courts and Domestic Politics , pp. 227 - 261
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acar, F. (2007). Thoughts on the Committee’s Past, Hopes for Its Future. In Flinterman, C. & Schöpp-Schilling, B., eds., The Circle of Empowerment: Twenty-five Years of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, New York: The Feminist Press at the City University of New York, pp. 340–5.Google Scholar
Alston, P. & Crawford, J., eds. (2000). The Future of UN Human Rights Treaty Monitoring, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Alter, K.J. (2011). Tipping the Balance: International Courts and the Construction of International and Domestic Politics. Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, 13, 1–21.Google Scholar
Anagnostou, D. (2010). Does European Human Rights Law Matter? Implementation and Domestic Impact of Strasbourg Court Judgments on Minority-related Policies. The International Journal of Human Rights, 14(5), 721–43.Google Scholar
Anagnostou, D. & Pippidi, M., A. (2014). Domestic Implementation of Human Rights Judgments in Europe: Legal Infrastructure and Government Effectiveness Matter. The European Journal of International Law, 25(1), 205–27.Google Scholar
Baluarte, D. C. & De Vos, C. M. (2010). From Judgment to Justice. Implementing International and Regional Human Rights Decisions, New York: Open Society Foundations.Google Scholar
Bates, E. (2014). Analysing the Prisoner Voting Saga and the British Challenge to Strasbourg. Human Rights Law Review, 14(3), 503–40.Google Scholar
Brownlee, G. (2005). UN assumptions biased presumptions, 25 November 2005: www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0511/S00387.htm.Google Scholar
Brussels Declaration. (2015). High-level Conference on the ‘Implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights, our Shared Responsibility’, 27 March 2015, http://justice.belgium.be/fr/binaries/Declaration_EN_tcm421-265137.pdf.Google Scholar
Butler, A. & Butler, P. (2005). The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act: A Commentary, Wellington: LexisNexis NZ.Google Scholar
Butler, P. (2011). It takes two to tango. Have they learned their steps? Social Science Research Network.Google Scholar
Byrnes, A. (2000). Uses and Abuses of the Treaty Reporting Procedure: Hong Kong between Two Systems. In Alston, P. & Crawford, J., eds., The Future of UN Human Rights Treaty Monitoring, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 287–315.Google Scholar
Çali, B. & Wyss, A. (2009). Why Do Democracies Comply with Human Rights Judgments? A Comparative Analysis of the UK, Ireland and Germany. Social Science Research Network.Google Scholar
CEDAW (2001). Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women: The Netherlands. UN Doc. A/56/38.Google Scholar
CEDAW (2008). Summary Records: Finland. UN Doc. CECAW/C/SR.841.Google Scholar
CEDAW (2010). Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women: The Netherlands. UN Doc. CEDAW/C/NLD/CO/5.Google Scholar
Claes, M. & Leenknecht, G. J. (2011). The Netherlands. A Case Of Constitutional Leapfrog. Fundamental Rights Protection under the Constitution, the ECHR and the EU Charter in the Netherlands. In Popelier, P., Van de Heyning, C. & Van Nuffel, P., eds., Human Rights Protection in the European Legal Order: The Interaction between the European and the National Courts, Cambridge: Intersentia, pp. 287–307.Google Scholar
Cohn, C. (1991). The Early Harvest: Domestic Legal Changes Related to the Human Rights Committee and the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Human Rights Quarterly, 13(3), 295–321.Google Scholar
Connors, J. (2000). An Analysis and Evaluation of the System of State Reporting. In Bayefsky, A. F., ed., The UN Human Rights System in the 21st Century, The Hague: Kluwer, pp.3–21.Google Scholar
CRC (1999). Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: The Netherlands. UN Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.114.Google Scholar
CRC (2003). Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: New Zealand. UN Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.216.Google Scholar
Dai, X. (2013). The ‘Compliance Gap’ and the Efficacy of International Human Rights Institutions. In Risse, T., Ropp, S. C. & Sikkink, K., eds., The Persistent Power of Human Rights. From Commitment to Compliance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 85–102.Google Scholar
Dimitrijevic, V. (2001). State Reports. In Alfredsson, G. et al., eds., International Human Rights Monitoring Mechanisms. Essays in Honour of Jakob Th. Möller, The Hague: Kluwer, pp. 185–200.Google Scholar
Donald, A. & Leach, P. (2015). The role of Parliaments Following Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. In Hunt, M., Hooper, H. & Yowell, P., eds., Parliaments and Human Rights: Redressing the Democratic Deficit, Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 59–92.Google Scholar
Donald, A. & Leach, P. (2016). Parliaments and the European Court of Human Rights, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
EK 2009/10, 31994, nr. B.Google Scholar
EK 2008/09, 31436, nr. D.Google Scholar
EK 2010/11, 32211, nr. B8.Google Scholar
Franck, T. M. (1990). The Power of Legitimacy and Institutions, New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geddis, A. (2011). Prisoner Voting and Rights Deliberation: How New Zealand’s Parliament Failed. New Zealand Law Review, 443–74.Google Scholar
Gerards, J. (2015). The Netherlands. In Popelier, P. & Lambrechts, S., eds., Shifting the Convention System – Counter-Dynamics at the National Level, Antwerp: Intersentia, pp. 327–60.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. L. & Caldeira, G. A. (1995). The Legitimacy of Transnational Legal Institutions: Compliance, Support, and the European Court of Justice. American Journal of Political Science, 39(2), 459–89.Google Scholar
Hafner-Burton, E. M. (2013). Making Human Rights a Reality, Princeton; Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, D. & Jacoby, W. (2010). Partial Compliance: A Comparison of the European and Inter-American Courts of Human Rights. Journal of International Law and International Relations, 6(1), 35–85.Google Scholar
Helfer, L. R. & Slaughter, A. M. (1997). Toward a Theory of Effective Supranational Adjudication. Yale Law Journal, 107(2), 273–391.Google Scholar
Heyns, C. & Viljoen, F. (2001). The Impact of the United Nations Human Rights Treaties on the Domestic Level. Human Rights Quarterly, 23, 483–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiebert, J. (2006). Parliament and the Human Rights Act: Can the JCHR Help Facilitate a Culture of Rights? International Journal of Constitutional Law, 4, 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiebert, J. & Kelly, J. B. (2015). Parliamentary Bills of Rights. The Experiences of New Zealand and the United Kingdom, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hillebrecht, C. (2012). Implementing International Human Rights Law at Home: Domestic Politics and the European Court of Human Rights. Human Rights Review, 13(3), 279–301.Google Scholar
Hillebrecht, C. (2014). Domestic Politics and International Human Rights Tribunals. The Problem of Compliance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hopkins, J. (2011). New Zealand. In Shelton, D., ed., International Law and Domestic Legal Systems. Incorporation, Transformation, and Persuasion, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 429–47.Google Scholar
HRC (2001). Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: The Netherlands, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/72/NET.Google Scholar
Hunt, M., Hooper, H. & Yowell, P. (2012). Parliaments and Human Rights. Redressing the Democratic Deficit. Arts & Humanities Research Council. AHRC Public Policy Series No. 5. www.ahrc.ac.uk/documents/project-reports-and-reviews/ahrc-public-policy-series/parliaments-and-human-rights-redressing-the-democratic-deficit/.Google Scholar
Hurd, I. (1999). Legitimacy and Authority in International Politics. International Organization, 53(2), 379–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Husa, J. (2010). Nordic Constitutionalism and European Human Rights. Mixing Oil and Water? Scandinavian Studies in Law, 55, 101–24.Google Scholar
Husa, J. (2011). The Constitution of Finland. A Contextual Analysis, Portland, OR: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
ILA (2004). Final Report on the Impact of Findings of the United Nations Human Rights Treaty Bodies, Berlin: Committee on International Human Rights Law and Practice.Google Scholar
JCHR (2010). Enhancing Parliament’s Role in Relation to Human Rights Judgments. Fifteenth report of session 2009–10. HL paper 85. Hc 455.Google Scholar
Kälin, W. (2012). Examination of State Reports. In Keller, H. & Ulfstein, G., eds., UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies. Law and Legitimacy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 16–72.Google Scholar
Keck, M. E. & Sikkink, K. (1999). Transnational Advocacy Networks in International and Regional Politics. UNESCO, 89–101.Google Scholar
Keller, H. & Stone Sweet, A. (2008). A Europe of Rights. The Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Keller, H. & Ulfstein, G. (2012). Conclusions. In Keller, H. & Ulfstein, G., eds., UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies. Law and Legitimacy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 414–25.Google Scholar
Kelly, J. B. (2011). Judicial and Political Review as Limited Insurance: The Functioning of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in ‘Hard’ Cases. Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, 49 (3), 295–317.Google Scholar
Krommendijk, J. (2014). The Domestic Impact and Effectiveness of the Process of State Reporting under UN Human Rights Treaties in the Netherlands, New Zealand and Finland. Paper-Pushing or Policy Prompting? Antwerp: Intersentia.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krommendijk, J. (2015). The Domestic Effectiveness of International Human Rights Monitoring in Established Democracies. The Case of the UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies. Review of International Organisations, 10 (4), 489–512.Google Scholar
Lavapuro, J., Ojanen, T. & Scheinin, M. (2011). Rights-based Constitutionalism in Finland and the Development of Pluralist Constitutional Review, I-CON, 9 (2), 505–31.Google Scholar
Leblanc, L., Huibregtse, A. et al. (2010). Compliance with the Reporting Requirements of Human Rights Conventions. International Journal of Human Rights, 14(5), 789–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, K. (2012). Interview with the author on 3 July 2012, Auckland, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Logie, J. (2012). Email from Jan Logie of 14 June 2012.Google Scholar
Lupu, Y. (2015). Legislative Veto Players and the Effects of International Human Rights Agreements. American Journal of Political Science 59 (3), 578–94.Google Scholar
Maori Party (2007). Report to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CERD/Shared%20Documents/NZL/INT_CERD_NGO_NZL_71_9833_E.doc.Google Scholar
Martin, L. L. (2013). Against Compliance. In Dunoff, J. & Pollack, M., eds., Synthesizing Insights from International Law and International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 591–610.Google Scholar
McQuigg, R. J. A. (2007). The Responses of States to the Comments of the CEDAW Committee on Domestic Violence. The International Journal of Human Rights, 11(4), 461–79.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, A. (1995). Explaining International Human Rights Regimes: Liberal Theory and Western Europe. European Journal of International Relations, 1(2), 157–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MultiRights (2015). The International Human Rights Judiciary and National Parliaments, MultiRights Workshop, Oslo, 12–13 March 2015.Google Scholar
Nauclér, E. (2013). Speech to Finland’s UN Women on 22 April 2013.Google Scholar
Neumayer, E. (2005). Do International Human Rights Treaties Improve Respect for Human Rights? Journal of Conflict Resolution, 49(6), 925–53.Google Scholar
Niemi, H. (2003). National Implementation of Findings by United Nations Human Rights Treaty Bodies: A Comparative Study. Research Reports Åbo Akademi University, 20.Google Scholar
NZPD (2003). 14 October 2003. 612 NZPD 9158.Google Scholar
NZPD (2005a). 16 March 2005. 624 NZPD 19241.Google Scholar
NZPD (2005b). 12 May 2005. 625 NZPD 20555.Google Scholar
O’Flaherty, M. (2006). The Concluding Observations of United Nations Human Rights Treaty Bodies. Human Rights Law Review, 6 (1), 27–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OHCHR (2006). The Concept Paper on the High Commissioner’s Proposal for a Unified Standing Treaty Body, UN Doc. HRI/MC/2006/2.Google Scholar
Ojanen, T. (2012). The Europeanization of Finnish law. Observations on the Transformations of the Finnish Scene of Constitutionalism. In Nuotio, K., Melander, S. & Huomo-Kettunen, M., eds., Introduction to Finnish Law and Legal Culture, Helsinki: Forum Iuris, pp. 97–110.Google Scholar
Oomen, B. (2013). The Rights for Others: The Contested Homecoming of Human Rights in the Netherlands. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 31 (1), 41–73.Google Scholar
Pesonen, P. & Riihinen, O. (2002). Dynamic Finland. The Political System and the Welfare State, Tampere: Tammer-Paino Oy.Google Scholar
Pillay, N. (2012). Strengthening the United Nations human rights treaty body system. A report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/HRTD/docs/HCReportTBStrengthening.pdf.Google Scholar
Pourgourides, C. (2010). Implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. Parliamentary Assembly. AS/Jur (2010) 36.Google Scholar
Pownews (2013). Europa beticht Nederland van discriminatie. 15 oktober 2013. www.powned.tv/uitzendinggemist/2013/10/pownews_472.html.Google Scholar
Radio New Zealand (2012). The United Nations Has Criticised New Zealand’s Proposed Welfare Reforms for Breaching Human Rights, 22 May 2012: www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/106441/un-critical-of-nz-welfare-reforms.Google Scholar
Raustiala, K. (2000). Compliance and Effectiveness in International Regulatory Cooperation. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 32, 387–440.Google Scholar
Rieter, E. (2012). Het EHRM ontlasten: de rol van de nationale parlementen bij het toezicht op de naleving van het EVRM. In Gerards, J. & Terlouw, A., eds., Amici Curiae. Adviezen aan het Europees Hof voor de Rechten van de Mens, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, pp. 221–30.Google Scholar
Risse, T., Ropp, S. C. & Sikkink, K., eds. (1999). The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rosas, A. (2001). Finland. In Blackburn, R. & Polakiewicz, J., eds., Fundamental Rights in Europe. The European Convention on Human Rights and Its Member States, 1950–2000, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 289–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutte, M. (2010). Knok voor vrijheid. De staat moet de baas zijn, NRC Handelsblad, 31 May 2010, 6.Google Scholar
Saul, M. (2015). Should the International Human Rights Judiciary Promote the Quality of Domestic Parliamentary Processes? Paper presented at The International Human Rights Judiciary and National Parliaments, MultiRights Workshop, Oslo, 12–13 March 2015.Google Scholar
Schmidt, M. G., Bayefsky, A. F. & Rodley, N. (1997). Does the United Nations Human Rights Program Make a Difference? Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law), 461–75.Google Scholar
Semb, A. J. (2012). Why (Not) Commit? Norway, Sweden and Finland and the ILO Convention 169. Nordic Journal of Human Rights, 30(2), 122–47.Google Scholar
Simmons, B. (2009). Mobilizing for Human Rights. International Law in Domestic politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smits-Baauw, G. & Van Os, C. (2007). Geen Kind in de Cel. ‘Het voelt niet recht’. Tijdschrift voor de Rechten van het Kind, 17(4), 2–5.Google Scholar
Spekman, H. (2011). Email from Hans Spekman to author of 28 May 2011 and email from Barbara Oomen of 14 June 2011.Google Scholar
Squatrito, T. (2015). Domestic Legislatures and International Human Rights Law: Legislating on Religious Symbols in Europe. Paper presented at The International Human Rights Judiciary and National Parliaments, MultiRights Workshop, Oslo, 12–13 March 2015.Google Scholar
Steiner, H. J. (2000). Individual Claims in a World of Massive Violations: What Role for the Human Rights Committee. In Alston, P. & Crawford, J., eds., The Future of UN Human Rights Treaty Monitoring, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 15–53.Google Scholar
Sverdrup, U. (2004). Compliance and Conflict Management in the European Union: Nordic Exceptionalism. Scandinavian Political Studies, 27 (1), 23–43.Google Scholar
TK 2001/02a, 26691/22588, nr. 45.Google Scholar
TK 2001/02b, nr. 708.Google Scholar
TK 2001/02c, 28102, nr. 3.Google Scholar
TK 2003/04a, 26150, nr. 12.Google Scholar
TK 2005/06a, 29344, nr. 54.Google Scholar
TK 2003/04b, 19637, nr. 833 and 834.Google Scholar
TK 2003/04c, nr. 33, 1801–1812.Google Scholar
TK 2003/04d, nr. 91, 5847–5852.Google Scholar
TK 2005/06b 29344, nr. 54.Google Scholar
TK 2006/07, 19637, nr. 1085.Google Scholar
TK 2008/09, 31001, nr. 69.Google Scholar
TK 2009/10, 32123 VI, nr. 11.Google Scholar
Tuori, Kaarlo. (2012). Landesbericht Finnland, unpublished work.Google Scholar
Tushnet, M. (1999). Taking the Constitution Away from the Courts, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Waldron, J. (2005). Compared to What? Judicial Activism and New Zealand’s Parliament. New Zealand Law Journal, 441–5.Google Scholar
Wood, B., Hassall, I. et al. (2008). Unreasonable Force. New Zealand’s Journey towards Banning the Physical Punishment of Children, Wellington: Save the Children.Google Scholar
Zwingel, S. (2005). How Do International Women’s Rights Norms Become Effective in Domestic Contexts? An Analysis of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), https://d-nb.info/97814287X/34.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×