Skip to main content Accessibility help

The Evolving International Human Rights System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017


Few, if any, branches of international law have undergone such dramatic growth and evolution as international human rights in the one hundred years since the founding of the American Society of International Law. This branch of international law did not really come into its own until after World War II. Before then, what today we would broadly characterize as human rights law consisted of diffuse or unrelated legal principles and institutional arrangements that were in one way or another designed to protect certain categories or groups of human beings. Included in this mix prior to World War I were state responsibility for injuries to aliens, international humanitarian law (as we know it today), the protection of minorities, and humanitarian intervention.

Centennial Essays
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.


1 see Philip Marshall, Brown, The Individual and International Law, 18 AJIL 532 (1924)Google Scholar; Andre, N. Mandelstam, La protection Internationale des droits de I’homme, 38 Recueie Des Cours 125 (1931 IV).Google Scholar

2 The authoritative French text is reproduced in 2 Annuaire de L’institut de. Droit International 298 (1929), and reprinted in part in lames Brown, Scott, Editorial Comment: Nationality, 24 AJIL 556, 560 (1930).Google Scholar An unofficial English translation can be found in George, A. Finch, The International Rights of Man, 35 AJIL 662, 663–64 (1941)Google Scholar [hereinafter Declaration]. In that Editorial Comment, Finch claims that President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1941 “Four Freedoms” speech was influenced by the Declaration.

3 Declaration, supra note 2, pmbl., & Arts. I, II.

4 Philip Marshall, Brown, The New York Session of the Institut de Droit International, 24 AJIL 126, 127 (1930).Google Scholar

5 Id.

6 Id.

7 1 L. Oppenheim, International Law: A Treatise 509 n.4 (Hersch, Lauterpacht ed., 5th ed. 1937).Google Scholar

8 Humanitarian intervention was applicable in principle only to those human rights violations that shocked the conscience of mankind, i.e., large-scale violations. See generally Ellery, C. Stowell, Humanitarian Intervention, 33 AJIL 733 (1939).Google Scholar

9 These institutions were treated extensively in the Journal. For example, Quincy Wright published a number of articles on the League’s mandates system, including Status of the Inhabitants of Mandated Territory, 18 AJIL 306 (1924) Treaties Conferring Rights in Mandated Territories, 18 AJIL 786 Some Recent Cases on the Status of Mandated Areas,20 AJIL768 (1926) The minorities system was dealt with, inter alia, by Helmer, Rosting, Protection of Minorities by the League of Nations, 17 AJIL 641 (1923)Google Scholar; Joseph, S. Roucek, Procedure in Minorities Complaints, 23 AJIL 538 (1929)Google Scholar; and Julius, Stone, Procedure Under the Minorities Treaties, 26 AJIL 502 (1932).Google Scholar

10 See, e.g., Minority Schools in Albania, Advisory Opinion, 1935 PCIJ (ser. A/B) No. 64 (Apr. 6); Questions Relating to Settlers of German Origin in Poland, Advisory Opinion, 1923 PCIJ (ser. B) No. 6 (Sept. 10). See also the fascinating advisory opinion Consistency of Certain Danzig Legislative Decrees with the Constitution of the Free City, 1935 PCIJ (ser. A/B) No. 65 (Dec. 4). See generally Pablo De, Azcaráte, League of Nations and National Minorities (1945)Google Scholar; Tennent, H. Bagley, International Protection of National Minorities (1950).Google Scholar

11 On the mandates system in general, see Quincy, Wright, Mandates Under the League of Nations (1930)Google Scholar. See also H. Duncan, Hall, Mandates, Dependencies and Trusteeships (1948).Google Scholar

12 The refusal of South Africa after World War II to relinquish control over the former Southwest Africa Mandate, today’s Namibia, generated a series of advisory and contentious proceedings before the International Court of Justice that culminated in 1971 with the advisory opinion Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), 1971 Icj Rep. 16 (June 21), wherein the Court confirmed the power of the Security Council to put an end to the mandate.

13 On the role of NGOs at the San Francisco Conference, see William, Korey, NCOs and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “A Curious Grapevine” 29 (1998).Google Scholar

14 For the reasons motivating these powers, see Thomas, Buergenthal, The Normative and Institutional Evolution of International Human Rights, 19 Hum. Rts. Q. 703, 706–07 (1997).Google Scholar

15 In addition to these provisions, the Charter contains Articles 13(1), 62(2), and 68, which authorize the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council to initiate human rights studies and make recommendations in the human rights field. Note that, in this connection, Article 68 authorized ECOSOC to set up “commissions in economic and social fields and for the promotion of human rights.” This mandate was implemented as soon as the United Nations came into being, with the establishment of the UN Human Rights Commission.

16 Article 2(7) reads as follows:

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.

17 For a collection of early UN debates on this subject, see Louis, B. Sohn & Thomas, Buergenthal, International Protection of Human Rights 556691 (1973).Google Scholar See also Rosalyn, Higgins, The Development of International Law Through the Political Organs of the United Nations 58 (1963).Google Scholar

18 For an analysis of these arguments, see Thomas, Buergenthal, Domestic Jurisdiction, Intervention, and Human Rights: The International Law Perspective, in Human Rights and U.S. Foreign Policy: Principles and Applications 111 (Peter, Brown & Douglas, MacLean eds., 1977)Google Scholar; Felix, Ermacora, Human Rights and Domestic Jurisdiction (Article 7, para. 7 of the Charter), 124 Recueil des Cours 371 (1968 II)Google Scholar; Louis, Henkin, Domestic jurisdiction, in Human Rights, International Law and Domestic Jurisdiction 21 (Thomas, Buergenthal ed., 1977).Google Scholar

19 For the relevant UN practice under Articles 55(c) and 56, see 2 The charter of the United Nations: A Commentary 897943 (Bruno, Simma ed., 2002).Google Scholar See also La Chart’e Des Nations Unies 865–93 (Jean-Pierre, Cot & Alain, Pellet eds., 2d ed. 1991)Google Scholar; Hurst, Hannum, Human Rights, in United Nations Legal Order 319 (Oscar, Schachter & Christopher, C. Joyner eds., 1995).Google Scholar

20 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, GA Res. 217A (III), UN Doc. A/810, at 71 (1948); see John, Humphrey, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Its History, Impact and Juridical Character, in Human Rights: Thirty Years alter the Universal Declaration 21 (Bertrand, Ramcharan ed., 1979).Google Scholar

21 For the different theories that seek to explain the normative status of the Universal Declaration, see Louis, Henkin, The Age or Rights 19 (1990)Google ScholarPubMed; Thomas, Buergenthal, Dinah, Shelton, & David, Stewart, International Human Rights in a Nutshell 3943 (3d ed. 2002)Google Scholar; Bruno, Simma & Philip, Alston, The Sources of Human Rights Law: Custom, Jus Cogens, and General Principles, 1988–89 Austl. Y.B. Int’l L. 82 Google Scholar; Louis, B. Sohn, The New International Law: Protection of the Rights of Individuals Rather Than States, 32 Am. U. L. Rev. 1, 1617 (1982).Google Scholar

22 See GK Res. 60/251 (Mar. 15, 2006) (establishing the Council).

23 ECOSOC Res. 1235 (XLI1), para. 3 (June 6, 1967).

24 ECOSOC Res. 1503 (XLV1II), para. 1 (May 27, 1970).

25 See generally Buergenthal, Shelton, & Stewart, supra note 21, at 96-126; Nigel, Rodley, United Nations Non-Treaty Procedures for Dealing with Human Rights Violations, in Guide to International Human Rights Practice 70 (Hurst, Hannumed.,3d ed. 1999).Google Scholar see also Beate, Rudolf, Die Thematischen Berich’ierstatter und Arbeitsgruppen Der Un-Menschenrf.Chtskommission (2000).Google Scholar

26 See Howard, B. Tolley Jr., The U.N. Commission on Human Rights (1987)Google Scholar; Philip, Alston, The Commission on Human Rights, in The United Nations and Human Rights: A Critical Appraisal 126, 138 (Philip, Alston ed., 1992)Google Scholar [hereinafter A Critical Appraisal]; Asbjørn, Eide, The Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities , in id. at 211.Google Scholar

27 See the multivolume, periodically updated UN publication, Human Rights: A Compilation of International Instruments, UN Doc. ST/HR/l/Rev.6, UN Sales No. E.02.XIV.4 (2002).

28 ECOSOC Res. 17 (May 28, 1985); see Philip, Alston, The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in A Critical Appraisal, supra note 26, at 473 Google Scholar; see generally The UN Human Rights Treaty System in the 21st Century (Anne, F. Bayefsky ed., 2000).Google Scholar

29 The vastness of this law, as evidenced by the practice of one treaty body, is reflected in Manfred Nowak, U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR commentary (2d rev. ed. 2005).

30 See, e.g., Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, 2004 1CJ REP. 136 (July 9); Pratt & Morgan v. Attorney Gen. for Jam., [1994] 2 App. Cas. (P.C. 1993) (appeal taken from Ct. App. Jam.).

31 As of September 19, 2006: the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 138 parries; the International Convention on the Prevention of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 170 parties; the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 154 parties; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 157 parties; the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 184 parties; the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 141 parties; and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 192 parties. Figures on ratifications and accession to these and other treaties are available at <

32 See generally Louis, B. Sohn, Rights in Conflict: the United Nations & South Africa (1994).Google Scholar

33 For a thorough analysis of the subject, see Theodor, Meron, The humanization of Human Rights 510–17 (2006).Google Scholar See also Mariano, Aznar-Gómez, A Decade of Human Rights Protection by the Security Council: A Sketch of Deregulation? 13 Eur. J. Int’l L. 223 (2002)Google Scholar; Christopher Le, Mon & Rachel, Taylor, Security Council Action in the Name of Human Rights: From Rhodesia to the Congo, 10 U.C. Davis J. Int’l L. & Pol.’y 198 (2004).Google Scholar

34 See Hillel, C. Neuer, So Far, a Profound Disappointment; UN Human Rights Council, Int’l Herald Trib., Sept. 8, 2006, at 8.Google Scholar

35 For the political reasons prompting this action by the Council of Europe, see Arthur, H. Robertson & John, G. Merrills, Human Rights in Europe: A Study of the European Convention on Human Rights (4th ed. 2001).Google Scholar

36 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, pmbl., Nov. 4,1950, 213 UNTS 221 [hereinafter European Convention].

37 Various categories of economic and social rights are protected in a separate Council of Europe treaty, the European Social Charter, which entered into force in 1964. See generally David, Harris & John, Darcy, The European Social Charter (2d ed. 2001).Google Scholar

38 See generally Jochen Abr., Frowein & Wolfgang, Peukert, Europaische Menschenrechtskonvention: Emrk-Kommentar (2d ed. 1996)Google Scholar; Fundamental Rights in Europe: The European Convention on Human Rights and its Member States, 1950–2000 (Robert, Blackburn & Jörg, Polakiewicz eds., 2001)Google Scholar; Harris, D. J., O’Boyle, M., Warbrick, C., & Bates, E., Law of the European Convention on Human Rights (2d ed. 2005)Google Scholar; Jacobs and White, The European Convention on Human Rights (Clare, Ovey & Robin, White eds., 4th ed. 2006).Google Scholar

39 Under Article 24 of the Convention, the Commission had automatic jurisdiction to deal with any case referred to it by one state party against another state party. But Article 25 authorized individuals to bring cases to the Commission against a state party only if the state had filed a declaration with the Commission recognizing the right of private petition to do so.

40 For the Court to have jurisdiction to hear any case referred to it by either the Commission or a state party required a prior declaration by the state party accepting the Court’s jurisdiction under the Article 46 that was then in force.

41 Protocol No. 11 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Restructuring the Control Machinery Established Thereby, May 11, 1994, 33 ILM 943 (1994); see Andrew, Z. Drzemczewski, The European Human Rights Convention: Protocol No. 11—Entry into Force and First Year of Operation, 21 Hum. Rts. L.J. 1 (2000).Google Scholar

42 European Convention, supra note 36, as amended, Art. 30, available at <

43 Id., Art. 43.

44 See Christian, Walter, Die Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention als KonstitutionalisierungsprozeJß, 59 Heidelberg J. Int’l L. 961 (1999).Google Scholar

45 Jörg, Polakiewicz & Valerie, Jacob-Foltzer, The European Human Rights Convention in Domestic Law: The Impact of Strasbourg Case-Law in States where Direct Effect Is Given to the Convention, 12 Hum. Rts. L.J. 65, 125 (1991).Google Scholar

46 The caseload is staggering. In 2005 Lord Henry Woolf reported that in 2004, 44,100 new applications were lodged and that the number of pending cases before the Court—82,100 in 2005—would rise to 250,000 by the year 2010. Lord, Woolf, Review of the Working Methods of the European Court of Human Rights, 26 Hum. Rts. L.J. 447 (2005).Google Scholar

47 Protocol No. 14 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Amending the Control System of the Convention, May 13, 2004, 26 HUM. RTS. L.J. 88 (2005), available at <

48 See Philip, Leach, Access to the European Court of Human Rights—From a Legal Entitlement to a Lottery? 27 Hum. Rts. L.J. 11 (2006).Google Scholar

49 Eaton, M. & Schokkernbroek, J., Reformingthe Human Rights Protection System Establishedby the European Convention on Human Rights, 26 Hum. Rts. L.J. 1 (2005).Google Scholar

50 On the inter-American human rights system in general, see Héctor, Faundez-Ledesma, El Sistema Interamericano De Protección De Los Derechos Humanos: Aspectos Institucionales Y Procesales (2d ed. 1999)Google Scholar; Thomas, Buergenthal & Dinah, Shelton, Protecting Human Rights in the Americas: Cases and Materials (4th ed. 1995).Google Scholar

51 See generally Buergenthal, Shelton, & Stewart, supra note 21, at 228–41.

52 OAS Charter, as amended, Arts. 51, 112 (1), now Arts. 53, 106(1), available at <; see generally Thomas, Buergenthal, The Revised OAS Charter and the Protection of Human Rights, 69 AJIL 828 (1975).Google Scholar

53 These first reports are reproduced in Oas Secretariat, the Organization of American States and human rights: 1960–1967, pt. III (1972).

54 See Robert, Norris, Observations in Loco:Practice and Procedure of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, 1979–1980, 18 Tex .Int’l L. J. 285 (1984).Google Scholar By 1993, the Commission had carried out more than fifty onsite visits. David, Padilla, The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States: A Case Study, 9 Am. U.J. Int’ll, & Poly 95, 104 (1993).Google Scholar These visits continue, although their number has substantially diminished with the growing democratization of the region and the resulting improvement in the human rights situation in most countries.

55 Inter-Am. Comm’n on Human Rights, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Argentina, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.49, doc. 19, corr. 1 (1980).

56 Economic, social, and cultural rights are dealt with in a parallel treaty of the Organization of American States, namely, the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights—the “Protocol of San Salvador”—which entered into force on November 16, 1999. For a review of the various inter-American instruments relating to these rights and the relevant practice under them, see Fabian, Salvioli, La protection de los derechos economicos, socialesy culturales en elsistema de derechos hurnanos, Revista IIDH, Jan.–June 2004, at 101.Google Scholar

57 American Convention on Human Rights, Art. 4(1), Nov. 22, 1969, 1144 UNTS 123 [hereinafter American Convention]; see also id., Art. 14 (Right of Reply), Art. 7(6) (Right to Personal Liberty). The latter provision proclaims a kind of anticipatory habeas corpus right.

58 The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is thus both an OAS Charter organ and a Convention organ.

59 American Convention, supra note 57, Art. 34. The Convention allows not only victims of a violation of the Convention or their representatives to bring a case to the Commission, but also “[a]ny person or group of persons, or any nongovernmental entity legally recognized in one or more member states” of the OAS. Id., Art. 44. This provision proved to be particularly useful during the time in the Americas when forced disappearances were widely practiced by governments, enabling NGOs to file petitions on behalf of the disappeared.

60 Inter-Am. Court of Human Rights, Rules of Procedure, Art. 23, Inter-Am. C.H.R. (ser. A) No. 17 (2003).

61 Dinah, Shelton, New Rules of Procedure for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, 22 Hum. Rts. L.J. 169 (2001)Google Scholar; see also Thomas, Buergenthal, Remembering the Early Years of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 37 N.Y.U. J. Int’l L. & Pol. 259, 269–73 (2005).Google Scholar

62 Inter-Am. Comm’n on Human Rights, Rules of Procedure, Art. 44, available at < These rules also give individuals an opportunity to be heard by the Commission on the question of referral of the case to the Court. Id., Art. 43.

63 For an overview of the Court’s practice, see Manuel, E. Ventura-Robles, La jurisprudencia de la Corte interamericana de derechos humanos en materia de derechos civilesypoliticos, Revista IIDH, July-Dec. 2005, at 37.Google Scholar See also Inter-am. ct. Hum. Rts., Corte interamericana de Derechos Humanos—Un Cuarto de Siglo: 1979–2004 (2005).

64 American Convention, supra note 57, Art. 64; see generally Jo M., Pasqualucci, The Practice and Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (2003).Google Scholar

65 For a collection of recent national court cases dealing with the decisions of the Inter-American Court, see Dialogo Jurisprudences, No. 1 (Cuellar, R. & Saavedra, P. eds., IIDH, 2006).Google Scholar

66 Id.

67 See generally Vincent O., Orlu Nmehielle, The African Human Rights System (2001)Google Scholar; Fatsah, Ouguergouz, The African Charter of Human and Peoples’ rights (2003).Google Scholar

68 See Christof, Heynes, Civil and Political Rights in the African Charter, in The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1986–2000, at 137 (Malcolm, D. Evans & Rachel, Murray eds., 2002)Google Scholar [hereinafter African Charter, 1986–2000].

69 See Chidi Anselm, Odinkalu, Implementing Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’Rights, in African Charter, 1986–2000, supra note 68, at 178.Google Scholar

70 See African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, pmbl., June 27, 1981, 21 ILM 58 (1982) [hereinafter African Charter]; see also Frans, Viljoen, The African Charter on Human and Peoples’Rights: The Travaux Préparatoires in the Light of Its Subsequent Practice, 25 Hum. Rts. L.J. 313, 319 (2004).Google Scholar

71 African Charter, supra note 70, Art. 30; see generally Rachel, Murray, The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (2000).Google Scholar

72 See Victor, Dankwa, The Promotional Role of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’Rights,in African Charter, 1986–2000, supra note 68, at 335.Google Scholar

73 See, e.g., Rachel, Murray, Report of the 1999 Session of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 22 Hum. Rts. L.J. 172 (2001).Google Scholar

74 African Charter, supra note 70, Art. 45.

75 Id, Art. 60.

76 Id., Art. 61.

77 For an analysis of this practice, see Viljoen, supra note 70, at 323-24.

78 African Charter, supra note 70, Art. 58(1). Note that this language is quite similar to the language of ECOSOC Resolution 1503, supra note 24.

79 For an analysis of some of this practice, see Buergenthal, Shelton, & Stewart, supra note 21, at 300–09; Frans, Viljoen, Admissibility Under the African Charter, in African Charter, 1986–2000, supra note 68, at 61 Google Scholar; Rachel, Murray, Evidence and Fact-Finding by the African Commission , in id. at 100.Google Scholar

80 See generally Julia, Harrington, The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, in African Charter, 1986–2000, supra note 68, at 305 Google Scholar; Fatsah, Ouguergouz, The Establishment of an African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights: A Judicial Première for the African Union, 2003 Afr. Y.B. Int’l L. 79 Google Scholar; Anne Pieter, van der Mei, The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights: Towards an Effective Human Rights Protective Mechanism for Africa? 18 Leiden J. Int’L L. 113 (2005).Google Scholar

81 Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Art. 2, June 10, 1998, available at < [hereinafter Protocol].

82 Id., Art. 3.

83 Id, Arts. 5, 34(6).

84 van der, Mei Anne Pieter, The Advisory Jurisdiction of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 5 Afr. Hum. Rts. L.J. 27 (2005).Google Scholar

85 Protocol, supra note 81, Art. 4(1).

86 Protocol of the Court of Justice of the African Union, July 11, 2003, available at <

87 For a comprehensive overview, see MERON, supra note 33.

88 Virginia, A. Leary, Lessons from the Experience of the International Labour Organisation, in A Critical Appraisal, supra note 26, at 580.Google Scholar

89 Fons, Coomans, UNESCO and Human Rights, in An Introduction to the International Protection of Human Rights: A Textbook 181 (Raija, Hanski & Markku, Suksi eds., 1999).Google Scholar

90 Buergenthal, Shelton, & Stewart, supra note 21, at 205; Thomas, Buergenthal, The CSCE Human Rights System, 25 GEO. Wash. J. Int’l & Econ. L. 333 (1993)Google Scholar; see also John, Packer, The OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities: Pyrometer, Prophylactic, Pyrosvestis, in Minorities, Peoples and Self-Determination: Essays in Honour of Patrick Thornberry 249 (Nazila, Ghanea & Alexandra, Xanthaki eds., 2005).Google Scholar

91 See generally Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: A Textbook (Asbjørn, Eide, Catarina, Krause, & Allan, Rosas eds., 1995)Google Scholar; Asbjørn, Eide, Economic and Social Rights, in Human Rights: Concept and Standards 109 (Janusz, Symonidesed., 2000).Google Scholar See also Philip, Alston, No Need to Complain About Being Poor: The Need for an Optional Protocol to the Economic Rights Covenant, in The Future of Human Rights in a changing World: Fifty Years since the Four Freedoms Address: Essays in Honor of Torkel Opsahl 79 (Asbjørn, Eide & Jan, Helgesen eds., 1991)Google Scholar; Michael, J. Dennis & David, P. Stewart, Justiciability of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights: Should There Be an International Complaints Mechanism to Adjudicate the Rights to Food, Water, Housing, and Health? 98 AJIL 462 (2004).Google Scholar

92 These topics are dealt with in a number of essays appearing in Human Rights: Concept and Standards, supra note 91, at 231–341 . For further material, see The Rights of Minorities in Europe (Marc, Weller ed., 2005)Google Scholar; Human Rights Protection for Refugees, Asylum-Seekers, and Internally Displaced Persons: A Guide to International Mechanisms and Procedures (Joan, Fitzpatrick ed., 2001).Google Scholar

93 See Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, UN Doc. A/CONF. 157/24 (Part I) (1993), 32 ILM 1661 (1993).

94 See generally Guènaël Mettraux, International Crimes and the ad hoc Tribunals (2005).

95 The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary (Antonio, Cassese, Paola, Gaeta, & John, R. W. D.Jones eds., 2002).Google Scholar

96 For the relevant texts, see International Criminal Law: A Collection of International and European Instruments (Christine van den, Wyngaert ed., 2005).Google Scholar

97 Priscilla, B. Hayner, Unspeakable Truths: Facing the Challenges of Truth Commissions (2001).Google Scholar See also The three-volume Transitional Justice: How Emerging Democracies Reckon with Former Regimes (Neil, Kritz ed., 1995).Google Scholar

98 Thomas, Buergenthal, Truth Commissions: Functions and Due Process, in Völkerrecht Als Wertordn ung—Common Values in International Law: Essays in Honour of Christian Tomuschat 103 (Pierre-Marie, Dupuy et al. eds., 2006).Google Scholar

99 Jaime, Malamud-Goti, Punishing Human Rights Abuses in Fledgling Democracies: The Case of Argentina, in Impunity and Human Rights in International Law and Practice 160 (Naomi, Roht-Arriaza ed., 1995).Google Scholar

100 Alex, Boraine, The Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa, in Human Rights Commissions and Ombudsman Offices 89 (Kamal, Hossain et al. eds., 2000)Google Scholar; Albie, Sachs, South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, 34 Conn. L. Rev. 1037 (2002)Google Scholar; see also Martha, Minow, Between Vengeance and Forgiveness: South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, 14 Negotiation J. 319 (1998).Google Scholar

101 Christian, Tomuschat, Clarification Commission in Guatemala, 23 Hum. Rts. Q. 233 (2001).Google Scholar

102 Thomas, Buergenthal, The United Nations Truth Commission for El Salvador, 27 Vand. J. Transnat’l L. 497 (1994)Google Scholar; Douglass, Cassel, International Truth Commissions and Justice, 5 Aspen Inst. Q. 77 (1993).Google Scholar

103 See generally Henry, Steiner, Diverse Partners: Non-Governmental Organizations in the Human Rights Movement (1991)Google Scholar. For NGOs in general, see the centennial essay by Steve, Charnovitz, Non-governmental Organizations and International Law, 100 AJIL 348 (2006).Google Scholar

104 For an overview of the diverse activities human rights NGOs perform, see NGOS and Human Rights: Promise and Performance (Claude, Welch ed., 2000).Google Scholar See also Korey, supra note 13. Despite its limiting title, this book provides interesting insights into the diverse human rights activities of contemporary NGOs.

105 William, Pace & Mark, Thieroff, Participation of Non-governmental Organizations, in The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute—Issues, Negotiations, Results 391 (Roy, S. Leeed., 1999).Google Scholar

106 Thomas, Buergenthal, Modern Constitutions and Human Rights Treaties, in Politics, Values and Functions: International Law in the 21st Century: Essays in Honor of Professor Louis Henkin 197 (Jonathan, I. Charney, Donald, K. Anton, & Mary Ellen, O’Connell eds., 1997)Google Scholar, reprinted in 36 Colum. J. Transnat’ll. 211 (1997).

107 See generally Gennady, Danilenko, The New Russian Constitution and International Law, 88 AJIL 451 (1994)Google Scholar; Eric, Stein, International Law in Internal Law: Toward Internationalization of Central-Eastern European Constitutions? 88 AJIL 427.Google Scholar

108 Luis Ignacio, Sánchez Rodríguez, Los tratados internacionales comofuente del ordenamiento juridico español, in Cursos de Derecho Internacional de Vltoria-Gasteiz 139, 168–69 (1984)Google Scholar; see also Eduardo García, de Enterria, Valeur de la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de I’homme en droit espagnol, in Protecting Human Rights: The European Dimension, Studies in Honour of Gérard J. Wiarda 221, 224–30 (Franz, Matscher & Herbert, Petzold eds., 1989).Google Scholar

109 The Inter-American Court of Human Rights reached the same conclusion with regard to the American Declaration in its Advisory Opinion OC-10/89, Interpretation of the American Declaration ofthe Eights and Duties of Man Within the Framework of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) No. 10 (1989).

110 On Costa Rica’s treaty practice, see Thomas, Buergenthal, Self-Executing and Non-Self-Executing Treaties in National and International Law, 235 Recueil des Cours 303, 349–50 (1992 IV).Google Scholar

111 See Manfred, Nowak, Allgemeine Bemerkungen zur Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention aus völkerrechtlicher und innenstaatlicher Sicht, in Die Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention in der Rechtsprechung der Österreichischen Höchstgerichte 37, 4750 (Ermacora, F., Nowak, M., & Tretter, H. eds., 1983).Google Scholar

112 See The Execution of Strasbourg and Geneva Human Rights Decisions in the National Legal Order (Barkuysen, T., van Emmerik, M. L., & van Kempen, P. H. P. H. M. C. eds., 1999)Google Scholar; Enforcing International Human Rights in Domestic Courts (Benedetto, Conforti & Francesco, Francioni eds., 1997).Google Scholar

113 United Kingdom, Human Rights Act, 1998, c. 42.

114 The United States Senate, by contrast, has declared the provisions of all major human rights treaties ratified by the United States, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to be non-self-executing. As a result, American courts are denied the opportunity to apply international human rights treaties to which the United States is a party. This position of the United States, as we have seen, runs counter to the contemporary approach of many countries, among them some leading democratic countries. For an eloquent critique of the U.S. position toward human rights treaties by an eminent American scholar on the subject, see Louis, Henkin, U.S. Ratification of Human Rights Conventions: The Ghost of Senator Bricker, 89 AJIL 341 (1995).Google Scholar

115 See Mark, Schneider, A New Administration’s New Policy: The Rise to Power of Human Rights, in Human Rights and U.S. Foreign Policy: Principles and Applications 3 (Peter, G. Brown & Douglas, MacLean eds., 1979).Google Scholar

116 See, e.g., Buergenthal, Shelton, & Stewart, supra note 21, at 386–87.

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 73
Total number of PDF views: 170 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 27th February 2017 - 19th January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-76cb886bbf-rm8z7 Total loading time: 0.368 Render date: 2021-01-19T22:37:59.536Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure 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 sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ 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.

The Evolving International Human Rights System
Available formats

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and 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 <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

The Evolving International Human Rights System
Available formats

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and 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 <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

The Evolving International Human Rights System
Available formats

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *