International human education rights commitments in US courts

This study analyses US state court behaviours in citing international human rights treaties to advance human social rights. Employing case analysis and logistic regression, we find that US state court citation practices to human rights treaties provide support for human social rights depending upon the type of human rights treaty cited; whether the case opinion is a published decision; and, whether the judicial opinion is a criminal or civil case. These judicial citation practices provide US state judges with the institutional capacity to advance universal human social rights. Theoretical and empirical implications are presented in the concluding section.

Preface List of Contributors Introduction Progressive Nuances in International Human Rights Paradigm 1. The Historical Development of International Human Rights, Michelo Hansungule 1. Introduction 2. Some Historical Perspectives on Human Rights 3. Universal Rights 4. The European View 5. Human Rights as Moral Ideas in Diverse Societies, Religions, and Cultures 6. Africa 7. Middle East (Islamic World) 8. Asia 9. Post-War Developments 10. Conclusion 2. Civil and Political Rights, Joshua Castellino 1. Introduction 2. The Covenant 3. The Rights Package 4. Future Challenges 3. An Introduction to Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Overcoming the Constraints of Categorization through Implementation, Vinodh Jaichand 1. Introduction 2. Historical Development 3. Similarities and Differences in Content of ICCPR and ICESCR 4. The Norms and Enforcement 5. On Justiciability: An Example of the Protection of ESC Rights in a Region 6. On Justiciability: Domestic Enforcement 7. Conclusion 4. Women's Rights in International Law, Mmatsie Mooki, Rita Ozoemana, Michelo Hansungule 1. Introduction 2. Recognition of Women's Rights: United Nations Charter and the International Bill of Rights 3. Women's Rights in other United Nations Convention 4. Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women 5. United Nations Groundbreaking Conferences 6. Violence Against Women 7. Conclusion 5. Globalization and Human Rights, Heli Askola 1. Introduction 2. Globalization 3. Economic Globalization and Human Rights 4. Political, Social and Cultural Globalization and Human Rights 5. Conclusion 6. Role of the UN in the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, Elvira Dominguez-Redondo 1. Introduction 2. From Codification to Efficiency: The Different Phases of the Human Rights Discourse within the United Nations 3. Normative Development of the UN System of Protection and Promotion of Human Rights 4. Charter-based and Treaty-based Monitoring Mechanisms: Public Special Procedure and the Work of the Committees 7. Attributes of Successful Human Rights on-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) - Sixty Years After the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, George E. Edwards 1. Introduction 2. NGOs & Human Rights NGOs 3. Ten Characteristics of Successful Human Rights NGOs 4. NGO Self-Regulation Via Codes of Conduct and Ethics 5. Conclusion 8. Do States have an Obligation under International Law to Provide Human Rights Education?, Paula Gerber 1. Introduction 2. Human Rights Education (HRE) in International Law 3. Obstacles to the Realization of HRE 4. Conclusion 9. Application of International Standards of Human Rights Law at Domestic Level, Joshua Castellino 1. Introduction 2. The Codification of International Human Rights Standards as Law 3. Domestic Implementation of Rights: The 'Engine Room' of Universal Instruments of Human Rights 4. Conclusion 10. Role of Regional Human Rights Instruments in the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights, Azizur Rahman Chowdhury, V. Seshaiah Shasthri, Md. Jahid Hossain Bhuiyan 1. Introduction 2. European Human Rights Treaties and Their Implementation 3. The Inter-American Convention on Human Rights, 1969 4. The African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, 1981 5. Concluding Remarks Index

Human rights queryfalse are typically presented in terms of entitlements, correlative duties, claims, “trumps,” and remedies. 1 These framings, which draw principally on law and philosophy, emphasi...

The right to education is recognised in international human rights law, underpinned by guidance for human rights education to assure the goals of the UN Charter. While this vision for human rights education has been around since the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, recent developments at UN level have galvanised interdisciplinary scholarship, drawing pedagogical frameworks from education studies, sociology, development studies, psychology, and philosophy into the teaching of international human rights law generally situated within law schools in higher education. Yet scholarship on the pedagogy of human rights education is in its infancy. Recent trends point to the transformative potential of utilising radical and critical pedagogies in furtherance of human rights education. Adding to the toolkit, this article presents a conceptually oriented framework for application to human rights educational practice. It builds on critical human rights education scholarship, interrogating how human rights education can tackle structural injustice, elucidating ways to infuse classroom learning with horizontal human rights principles, and examining the psychosocial factors in this kind of learning. The application of critical pedagogies to human rights education will be of interest to human rights educators and students of human rights everywhere.

The article analyzes the provisions of international legal acts at the universal and regional levels (Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1966, Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers of 1990, Committee of Ministers Recommendation Rec (2004) 4 to member states on the European Convention on Human Rights in university education and professional training etc.) regarding education in the field of human rights for representatives of legal professions. It is noted that representatives of legal professions who are at the center of human rights protection should be able to obtain high-quality education in the field of human rights in order to effectively perform their human rights function and prevent human rights violations. Human rights education programs were described (the UN World Programme for Human Rights Education, Council of Europe Programme for Human Rights Education for Legal Professionals). It is indicated that the UN World Programme for Human Rights Education consists of a number of stages aimed at specific issues: the first stage (2005-2009) was aimed at including human rights in the educational program of primary and secondary schools; the second stage (2010-2014) was dedicated to education in the field of human rights in the higher education system and professional training programs for teachers, lecturers, civil servants, law enforcement officers and military personnel; the third stage (2015-2019) was aimed at employees of mass media, and the fourth stage (2020-2024) identified youth as the target group. It is noted that the Council of Europe Programme for Human Rights Education for Legal Professionals (HELP) consists in strengthening the potential of judges, lawyers and prosecutors, etc. on the application of European standards in the field of human rights through online courses that cover a range of topics in this field.

The UN Decade for Human Rights Education began in 1995, and since that time many nations have reported activities and programs in line with the decade (United Nations 1998; UNHCHR 2005). While 1995 was a pivotal year in the history of human rights education, the curricular movement neither began nor ended with the UN Decade. Human rights education has been developing for several decades, and efforts to introduce human rights into formal school curricula have included diverse and ongoing activities by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), and dedicated individuals throughout the world. Beyond advocating for human rights education in schools, the actors involved in promoting human rights education also have been involved in creating and developing a curricular movement. This article builds on previous comparative education research by analyzing the current discourse surrounding this emerging education model— human rights education. The first section provides a brief history of human rights education in formal education. The second section reviews research on international reforms, emphasizing analyses of processes in global diffusion and variation at national or local levels. Closely related, the third section discusses linkages and relational and associational processes that spread ideas and construct new models such as human rights education. The fourth section focuses on the current state of human rights education, ex-

Human rights education and training (HRE) has been gaining greater momentum since the 1990s, emerging as a human right and setting the framework for relevant state obligations through hard law and soft law instruments. As such, it has been clearly articulated in the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training (2011). In the GCC, where the project of modernizing education set off only in the 1950s, states have only recently started engaging with international human rights law in a more meaningful fashion. In this context, the development of human rights education has been facing a number of challenges. The paper explores the emergence of the right to human rights education in the GCC, outlining its origins and meaning in international human rights law. It also studies the implementation of the right in the six GCC states, examining their HRE obligations, as identified and articulated by treaty-based and Charter-based bodies through the monitoring process. To conclude, the paper argues that HRE requires greater engagement in the Gulf, not only as an international obligation, but, most importantly, as a reflection of a necessary transformation in the educational and human rights culture in the region, in line with a more sustainable, post-oil outlook.

Human rights have long been an area of concern and active research since the inception of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948. The World Programme for Human Rights Education (2005-2014) has also re-emphasized the need for integrating human rights in school education as well as in the professional training of teachers through

Social Rights in Refugee Law and Human Rights Law: The Non-discrimination Principle as a Harmonization Tool

Linguistic human rights are a concept remaining on the crossroads of several scientific disciplines, e.g. linguistics, anthropology, psychology and, last but not least, human rights law. Taking the latter as a lens, this study seeks to clarify the concept of linguistic human rights in education – presumably, the most linguistically sensitive sphere in the life of individuals and communities. The paper demonstrates that despite little mention of language in the UN treaties (ICESCR, CRC, CERD, CADE), its importance is reflected in the practice of the relevant treaty-based bodies. Moreover, increasing interest from scholars across a range of disciplines is contributing to the development of a linguistic human rights doctrine and is penetrating the UN human rights framework.

This chapter discusses the right to education and human rights education in international human rights law. It covers access to education, the nature of education, academic freedom, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to education, achieving universal education on human rights, teaching non-discrimination, and the United Nations Decades of Human Rights Education. Education is identified as a key to unlocking development opportunities, breaking the cycle of poverty, and promoting empowerment and equality. For human rights education, obviously it is difficult for rights holders to claim their rights if they do not know what they are. Ensuring human rights education empowers rights holders and, indeed, can build capacity of duty bearers.

The purpose of this paper is to articulate the epistemological foundations of international human rights education (IHRE) from the perspective of a hermeneutical interpretive methodology. This methodology potentially alleviates the challenges that face the cross-cultural implementation of human rights education. While acknowledging the necessity of global human rights awareness, the authors maintain that local cultural conceptualization is imperative to the negotiated, local embrace of human rights. A critical, interpretive pedagogy emerges from grounding human rights education in a hermeneutic methodology. Index Terms - international human rights education, interpretive methodology, pedagogy science 1. A Challenge of Interpretive Methodology about IHRE

우리나라의 인구통계를 보면 외국인노동자와 결혼이민자 등 국내 체류외국인이 증가하면서, 대한민국 사회도 본격적인 다문화사회에 진입하고 있다. 다문화가족이 증가하면서, 이들 가정내의 다문화학생 수도 지속적으로 증가하고 있다. 그러나 다문화학생들의 기본인권인 교육권에 대한 보장은 현실적으로 법적 근거가 미약하여 그 한계가 노출되고 있다. 우리나라 해당 법률에서 정의하거나 범위를 정한 다문화학생의 범위 등에 대한 논란조차도 다문화학생들의 교육받을 권리침해에 해당될 수 있다. 다문화가족지원법 및 청소년복지지원법의 소관부처인 여성가족부는 다문화가족 구성원인 아동･청소년 및 이주배경 청소년을 다문화학생으로 정의하고 있고, 재한외국인처우기본법의 소관부처인 법무부는 결혼이민자 및 그 자녀를 다문화학생으로 간주하고 있다. 정부의 관계부처 합동 이주아동 사회차별 해소 추진계획에서는 포괄적으로 이주아동 전체를 다문화학생으로 보고 있다. 교육부와 지방교육청은 불법체류 외국인 가정의 자녀도 다문화학생으로 보고 있다. 교육을 행정부처인 교육부와 지방교육청의 논리를 적용하면 불법체류 외국인 가정의 미등록 아동 등은 다문화학생으로의 법적 근거가 없거나 희박하여 중요 기본 인권인 교육권 자체도무시될 처지에 놓이게 된다. 보다 심각한 것은 다문화가족의 다문화학생에 대한 교육권 보장의 개별법이 없는 상태에서 정부의 소관부처 법률에 따라 충돌하여 위헌논쟁까지 있다는 점이다.이에 본 연구는 다문화학생들의 교육받을 권리와 관련해서 현행 교육관련 법의 한계와 문제점을 고찰하고, 다문화학생들의 교육받을 권리, 즉 인간의 기본 권리로서 다문화학생들의 교육권 보장을 위한 법의 개선방향을 제시하는데 그 목적이 있다. 연구결과로서 첫째, 교육관련 법들이 명문화한 다문화학생의 교육권은 제한적이었다. 둘째, 다문화, 다문화가족, 다문화학생 정의와 범위가 확대되고 통일되도록 개정되어야 하며, 다문화학생들의 교육권 보장을 위한 법적 근거 마련이 시급하였다. 셋째, 다문화교육을 포괄하고, 다 문화학생의 교육을 위한 독립적인 교육법 마련이 요구되었다.According to the recent Korean census, the number of multicultural students has been increasing due to the increase of multicultural families. However, multicultural students education rights as their fundamental human rights have not been practically guaranteed because of lack of legal grounds. Even the issues concerning concepts and scope of multicultural students defined by the current related laws in Korea can be considered infringement of their education rights. Multicultural Families Support Act and Juvenile Welfare Support Act which fall under the jurisdiction of The Ministry of Gender Equality and Family define the multicultural students as children and youth from multicultural families, and Act on the Treatment of Foreigners in Korea which falls under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice defines multicultural students as married immigrants and their children. The affirmative action plan for immigrant children by the government s ministries and offices concerned consider all immigrant children as multicultural students. The Ministry of Education and the provincial educational offices include children from illegal immigrant families in the definition of multiclutural students. According to the Ministry of Education and the provincial educational offices which administer education in Korea, unregistered children of illegal immigrant families have little or no legal grounds and their educational human rights as their fundamental human rights might be in danger of being disregarded. A more serious issue is that multicultural students educational human rights might be argued whether they are against the constitution or not due to the conflicts among the governmental ministries and offices concerned since there are no individual laws regarding their education human rights. Thus, the objective of this study is to investigate the limitations and problems of the current laws on education concerning the multicultural students education rights and to provide meaningful insights into the proper direction of the reform of the laws on their education rights. The findings of the research are as follows: 1) multicultural students education human rights stated on the current related laws are limited; 2) the concepts and scope of multiculturalism, multicultural families, and multicultural students should be extended and unified, since the provision of legal grounds for the multicultural students education human rights is urgent; and 3) the need for the provision of independent educational laws for the multicultural students and the inclusion of multicultural education.

Regional human rights courts like the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), and the African Court of Human and People's Rights (ACtHPR) have become popular sites of mobilization for victims and activists who seek justice when justice fails at home. Besides being platforms for individual remedy, human rights courts increasingly shape social norms and state policy within countries, making them attractive avenues for rights advocates to develop new norms or to push domestic authorities to reform legislation. The judges of these courts can decide, for example, whether same-sex couples have a right to be married, if prisoners have the right to vote or receive HIV/AIDS treatment, or when a state can deport illegal immigrants to a country where they will likely be tortured. As these courts pass their judgments, they often find themselves in conflict with states that are violating human rights of marginalized groups on a large scale and are unwilling to implement international rulings. Although international human rights courts have become increasingly popular venues among victims and activists who seek justice when justice fails at home, we are only beginning to understand how activists play roles in shaping the development of regional human rights courts' case law—the body of judgments that shapes how judges will make their decisions in the future. We now have plenty of international relations and international legal research on the interactions between states and international courts: how judges in these courts wrestle between deferring to the interests of member state governments whose actions are on trial and sticking closely to the conventions' fundamental yet evolving principles (Alter et al., 2019; Helfer & Voeten, 2014). As some states begin to resist international courts' authority, scholars have begun to examine the dynamics of this backlash (Hillebrecht, 2022; Madsen et al., 2018; Sandholtz et al., 2018). Recent studies have also demonstrated that human rights advocates—whether NGOs or individual lawyers—have a significant impact on shaping the jurisprudence of international courts and the impact judgments have in concrete locations (Kahraman, 2018; Sundstrom, 2014; van der Vet, 2012; Kurban, 2020; Conant, 2018; Harms, 2021; Cichowski, 2016; Hodson, 2011; Haddad, 2018). Meanwhile, these advocates themselves have been subject to repression and stigmatization by governments as part of the backlash phenomenon. Without an adequate understanding of the factors shaping activists' engagement with international courts, we risk undervaluing their strategic impact on the expansion of case law, the human rights protection of marginalized groups who cannot find remedies at home, and the domestic implementation of these judgments in an age of state backlash. In this section, we summarize the three papers contained in this symposium and their original contributions to these themes. Over the last decade, dozens of countries have erected legal barriers or started vilifying campaigns to stymie the work of NGOs (Buyse, 2018; Chaudhry, 2022). One tactic in this toolkit is the enactment of burdensome regulation on NGOs that receive funds from foreign donors as they allegedly promote foreign agendas (Christensen & Weinstein, 2013; Dupuy et al., 2021). States that frequently abuse human rights are especially prone to target NGOs that engage in strategic litigation (Hillebrecht, 2019). Most NGOs depend on foreign funding, and NGOs that litigate international cases fall disproportionately in this category, but do funders affect the selection of cases? In “Foreign Agents or Agents of Justice? Private Foundations, NGO Backlash, and International Human Rights Litigation,” Heidi Haddad and Lisa Sundstrom examine the extent to which Western donors, particularly private foundations, have encouraged NGOs in Europe to litigate at the ECtHR as a human rights advocacy strategy. They examine overall patterns of donor funding and NGO litigation records, and look in more detail at the case of Russian NGOs' foreign funding and litigation records. The analysis is extremely timely, as the Russian government's criminalization of independent civil society actors, especially in the human rights field, and their accusation that foreign funding turns NGOs into “foreign agents” have been crucial elements of the Russian regime's autocratization. This claim has also provided fuel for Russia's disenchantment with the ECtHR in recent years, contributing to the assessment of many observers that Russia's full-scale attack on Ukraine was the last straw in an inevitable collision course leading to its exit from the Council of Europe. Haddad and Sundstrom debunk the idea that foreign donors are pushing NGOs toward strategies of human rights litigation. Instead, they argue, there is more evidence that NGOs themselves promoted the mechanism of international litigation as a strategy that donors later adopted. This article is a poignant reminder of the advocacy tools that Russian human rights activists and citizens have lost as a result of their government's departure from the Council of Europe, including ECtHR jurisdiction. Yet it also provides insight into the likely roles of foreign donors in other country cases where NGOs are using international court litigation as a human rights advocacy strategy, which is often a target of the ire of national governments, as explored in the next article in the symposium. When states attack human rights NGOs within their borders and/or international human rights courts themselves, how does this affect the willingness of those NGOs to take cases to international courts, and the ways in which they do so? De Silva and Plagis ask this question in their article about state backlash against NGOs in the case of Tanzania and the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights. A fascinating empirical question they pose is: does state backlash against NGOs increase NGO litigation at international courts (to contest state repression at those courts and use international mechanisms when domestic ones are not available), roughly in line with Keck and Sikkink's famous “boomerang pattern” (Keck & Sikkink, 1998), or decrease it due to heightened fear and restricted NGO capabilities that state repression creates? Employing a process-tracing analysis of NGOs' involvement in three cases before the African Court at different stages of the Tanzanian government's backlash against the Court, De Silva and Plagis find that “two-level backlash” by states can result in both phenomena, either promoting or deterring NGO legal mobilization at international human rights courts, depending on certain conditions. The three selected cases concerning the death penalty, the rights of persons with albinism, and the rights of pregnant schoolgirls and mothers, which took place at different time periods, demonstrate a number of patterns of state backlash interacting with NGO strategies. The authors find that domestic-level state backlash deterred domestic NGOs from partnering with international NGOs in litigation, but that such backlash, when it repressed domestic political and legal mobilization opportunities, actually encouraged both Tanzanian and international NGOs to turn to the African Court more frequently to seek remedies. International-level backlash in turn only deterred NGOs from international litigation when such backlash consisted of state efforts to restrict NGOs' ability to engage in litigation, and not when the international backlash was in the form of routine noncompliance with African Court rulings. Importantly, the authors find that NGO responses to state backlash were significantly shaped by their degree of legal consciousness and expertise with the rules, proceedings, and workings of the African Court. Those NGOs with less knowledge and experience were more likely to back away from engaging with the Court under the pressure of state backlash. De Silva and Plagis conclude that “NGOs' persistent human rights advocacy in the face of state backlash is a double-edged sword,” in the sense that they may not be deterred by state backlash initially, but there is a danger that their continued determination to engage in international litigation could prompt governments to engage in even more severe forms of backlash, with critical impacts on international courts and already vulnerable human rights defenders. Rights advocates have a growing menu of institutions and courts available to them. How do activists choose at which institution to lodge their cases in a world where legal remedies have diversified, or as some have argued, fragmented (Koskenniemi & Leino, 2002)? In “What Makes an International Institution Work for Labor Activists? Shaping International Law through Strategic Litigation,” Filiz Kahraman goes beyond the tendency of legal mobilization studies to only examine how activists interact with a single court or institution. Instead, Kahraman opens up how rights advocates imagine which institution is most receptive to their claims. Drawing on a comparative interview study of British and Turkish trade union activists and their legal mobilization campaigns at international courts and quasi-judicial institutions like the International Labor Organization (ILO), Kahraman examines how activists first probe and then strategically identify which court or international institution is most susceptible to their primary goals of influencing structural reforms and setting new norms. Through this probing process—or dynamic signaling game between courts and litigants—activists push a court's jurisprudence and case law into new issue areas. For instance, at the ECtHR, Turkish trade unionists challenged domestic courts' ruling that public sector workers did not have the right to establish unions, even though the ECtHR had no established case law on labor rights in 1990s. They won the case, with the ECtHR finding that Turkey violated the right of public sector workers to unionize. These cases not only had an impact within Turkey, but over the next decades, similar cases brought by British unionists would spin off the early precedent set by the Turkish legal mobilization efforts. Kahraman argues that they ultimately pushed the ECtHR to recognize the basic trade union rights as fundamental human rights. Kahraman sheds light on the often hidden strategies behind international litigation. Activists litigate not just for the immediate impact on the current case they work on, but how they envision that all the cases they work on may shape norms and domestic structural reforms further in the future. Whether an institution is perceptive of claims lies in the eye of the beholder. Kahraman finds that besides targeting institutions with high compliance rates, they also take cases to institutions with low rates of compliance, especially “if these institutions have extensive judicial authority to create new international norms.” So, it is not the de jure protection set by an international courts, but rather how activists perceive the juridical responsiveness and judicial authority of courts—or, how judges adopt either an activist approach or restraint in response to incoming cases and how willing states are to implement cases of a court, respectively—that determines why activists select certain courts or quasi-judicial institutions (like the ILO). Kahraman gives us new tools to interpret how activists perceive authority and receptiveness and respond to opportunities. Rather than static external legal remedies, courts and quasi-judicial institutions are opportunity structures that are malleable to the strategic vision of the activist or litigant. The articles in this symposium together reveal a number of key overlapping insights. At the broadest level, they demonstrate that activists' behaviors and strategies influence international courts' jurisprudence, politics within states, and the human rights outcomes of everyday citizens—and these influences have often been hidden in our existing canon of research on international courts. In addition, all of these articles show that, while activists may face challenges in their efforts, often including significant backlash from their home state governments, they also continue to retain significant agency through their creative efforts to develop legal strategies and circumvent state repression. Activists perennially innovate: sparking the ideas that inspire donors who fund them; calculating how to continue their litigation work when government actors threaten them; and taking risks in litigation to push courts to expand how they define human rights. However, along with these uplifting conclusions, there are worrying patterns that demand future research. States are increasingly pushing back against the powers of international courts to bind them to costly measures, and as this symposium has shown, national governments often point to activists as contributors to this “problem” of invasive international human rights standards. A growing body of research has tracked how human rights defenders of all kinds globally are under threat from actors like governments and corporations who disagree with their contentious actions. We need more studies that gather comprehensive data and systematically track these threats, specifically with regard to activists who engage in international human rights litigation. We suspect that such activists are likely disproportionately targeted due to the international visibility of their complaints. We also desperately need research into possible innovative responses to these threats to activists—responses from activists, funders, governments of countries that support human rights, and international courts themselves. Freek van der Vet is a University Researcher at the Erik Castrén Institute of International Law and Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of Helsinki and the principal investigator of the Toxic Crimes Project. Lisa McIntosh Sundstrom is Professor of Political Science at the University of British Columbia. She is the director of the ActinCourts network at UBC and conducts research on legal mobilization by Russian activists.

The purpose of this essay is to articulate and defend the epistemological foundations of international human rights education from the perspective of a hermeneutical interpretive methodology. Fuad Al‐Daraweesh and Dale Snauwaert argue here that this methodology potentially alleviates the challenges that face the cross‐cultural implementation of human rights education. While acknowledging the necessity of global human rights awareness, the authors maintain that local cultural conceptualization is imperative to the negotiated, local embrace of human rights. A critical, interpretive pedagogy emerges from grounding human rights education in a hermeneutic methodology. Thus, Al‐Daraweesh and Snauwaert advocate taking a hermeneutical approach in order to enlarge the scope and meaning of international human rights education.