Challenging State-centricity and legalism: promoting the role of social institutions in the domestic implementation of international human rights law

Abstract

ABSTRACTDespite the proliferation of human rights in the last 70 years, they continue to be poorly implemented and violated around the world, revealing the gap between law and practice. This article considers the implementation measures a State can take domestically to realise rights. While much scholarship focuses on legal measures of implementation, this article focuses on ‘other measures’ and the role of non-state actors and norms therein. Due to the legalism predominant in human rights, other, non-legislative measures of implementation have been under-explored in theory and under-exploited in practice. As a corollary, given the State-centricity of international law, the role of non-state actors and norms like social institutions in the domestic implementation of human rights has also been neglected. However, there are limitations to such a reliance upon formal State institutions to implement rights, and benefits to employing informal social institutions. These benefits include enhancing the local and cultural legitimacy and resonance of rights, as well as expanding the domestic constituents for rights. As such, this article advocates the need for the domestic implementation of human rights to go beyond State-centric legalism and to include social institutions.