INTERNATIONAL LEGAL STANDARDS OF HUMAN RIGHTS: TOWARDS THE OBJECTIVITY OF THE ISSUE OF CODIFICATION WORKS

The article examines exclusively the legal basis of international legal standards of human rights.Different approaches to the interpretation of the concept of international legal standards of human rights are analyzed. After all, in the modern world, when the problem of human rights has gone far beyond the boundaries of an individual state, there has been a need to create universal international standards, which are also defined as basic human rights. The main features of international legal human rights standards are highlighted, which are reflected in the following definition of the concept of these standards: international human rights standards are fixed in international acts and documents, textually unified and functionally universal principles and norms, which through the mediation of very abstract, mostly evaluative, the term-concept captures the minimally necessary or desired content and scope of human rights, conditioned by the achieved level of social development and its dynamics, and also establishes the positive obligations of states regarding their provision, protection and protection, and provides for sanctions of a politico-legal or political nature for their violation.The peculiarities of international legal standards of human rights and their classification are revealed.The issue of ensuring the rights and freedoms of a person and a citizen in accordance with international standards established in international legal documents was considered. A legal analysis was carried out in relation to international legal acts, which contain relevant standards in the field of observing human and citizen rights.It was concluded that international legal standards of human rights are important and have a significant impact on the domestic legislation of both Ukraine and other states. Each state must provide a mechanism for the protection of the rights and freedoms of its citizens, because this is an integral part of a democratic state.

The article examines the role of international human rights legal standards in shaping the legal status of a person and citizen. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of human rights norms that shape and consolidate the legal status of a person and citizen at the international legal level, determining its formation at the level of the legislation of the national member states of the international community. The essential and decisive role of international legal standards in the processes of formation of the legal status of human and citizen rights occurring at the international legal (universal and regional) and national levels is stated. It is argued that the problem of the formation of the legal status of human and citizen rights and freedoms remains relevant, because it serves as a kind of calling card of each state, but it is objectified and complicated by contradictory tendencies in the development of the modern state regarding the limitation of its sovereignty and the need for existential participation in collective councils. maintaining international peace and security. It is stated that such processes continue to the present day and are systematically complicated because they are, on the one hand, influenced by the processes of legal globalization that promote standardization, typing and unification of international norm-making in the field of human rights, and on the other - the peculiarities of formation, operation and implementation of guidelines democratic legal statehood in each of the Member States of the international community.

У статті розглядається вплив міжнародних стандартів у сфері захисту прав людини на діяльність Національної поліції України. Розкрито сутність «Десяти основних стандартів прав людини для правоохоронних органів», якими повинні керуватися у своїх діяльності працівники Національної поліції України, а також звернено увагу на найбільш поширені порушення прав людини з боку окремих працівників Національної поліції. Згідно з результатами дослідження Національна поліція України повинна неухильно дотримуватися стандартів у сфері захисту прав людини під час реалізації своїх функцій. Саме значне зростання рівня транснаціональної організованої злочинності, стрімка міграція населення у світі, відмінності у підготовці поліцейських кадрів у різних країнах призвели до необхідності впровадження єдиних міжнародних стандартів у діяльність Національної поліції України. Визначено, що у грудня 1998 року у Лондоні «Міжнародною Амністією» спільно з посадовими особами поліції та експертами з різних країн було розроблено «10 основних стандартів прав людини для правоохоронних органів».Дані 10 стандартів були розроблені для використання їх органами поліції як вихідної точки для розробки детальних положень щодо навчальних тренувань та моніторингу поведінки працівників поліції. Встановлено, що, непоодинокими є випадки перевищення працівниками Національної поліції України своїх повноважень, що призводить до порушення прав і свобод людини і громадянина.Імовірними причинами порушень є відсутність ефективного механізму контролю за дотриманням працівниками Національної поліції міжнародних стандартів прав людини, неефективність застосування норм права щодо притягнення працівників поліції до кримінальної відповідальності за порушення прав людини, що вимагає розроблення пропозицій, щодо удосконалення механізму контролю за дотриманням працівниками національної поліції України міжнародних стандартів прав людини.

The issue of compliance with national standards ensuring an individual’s right to protection in accordance with international standards has been considered. It is noted that one of the primary tasks of modern international law is to ensure international protection of human rights and establish norms regulating relations between states and other subjects of international law. These norms aim to guarantee the rights and freedoms of individuals as provided by international agreements. Emphasizing that the process of establishing international legal standards for human rights protection is inevitably linked to the creation and adoption of universal international documents, many human rights have been normalized through corresponding forms and mechanisms. Recent history of interstate relations has seen the systematization of international agreements defining human rights protection standards through a series of normative acts known as the International Bill of Human Rights. This bill includes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. The International Bill of Human Rights serves as the normative foundation for human rights protection standards at the international level. It is argued that a fundamental component of general international human rights standards is the right of the accused to defense. The right to defense in criminal proceedings is one of the most important institutions and serves as a guarantee for other rights and freedoms of individuals. Its stability and viability characterize the level of development of the rule of law, democracy, and societal culture. Thus, the accused’s right to defense is an integral part of general international human rights standards and is considered a necessary condition for the realization of the right to a fair trial. The right to defense is among the universally recognized principles of international law, as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the European Convention on Human Rights. The provisions of these international legal acts are implemented in national legislation. At the national level, ensuring the accused’s right to defense is enshrined in the Constitution of Ukraine, the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as CPC) of Ukraine, and the Law of Ukraine “On Free Legal Aid,” among others. It is noted that ensuring the right to defense is a fundamental principle of national justice systems. These principles are authoritative requirements addressed to participants in criminal proceedings, obliging (or allowing) them to act in a certain way. For individuals involved in criminal proceedings, compliance with these requirements is their legal duty. It is established that the main international human rights treaties have been recognized by Ukraine, forming part of its national legislation and ensuring judicial protection. The right to defense is classified by national legislation as one of the fundamental principles of justice, which entails that authorized officials empowered to conduct criminal proceedings must guarantee the procedural rights of suspects, accused persons, convicted individuals, and acquitted individuals as provided by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. Furthermore, these officials, while exercising their rights, should have the opportunity to defend against accusations.

The intersection of International Human Rights Law and Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) highlights a critical dimension of globalization that affects global business practices and human rights protections. As multinational corporations expand their operations across borders, the impact of their activities on human rights becomes increasingly significant. Ensuring that FDI respects and upholds international human rights standards is crucial for fostering ethical and sustainable development. Economic globalization refers to the increasing integration and interdependence of national economies through the cross-border exchange of goods, services, information, and capital. FDI plays a central role in this process as a critical mechanism for international capital flow. FDI occurs when a firm from one country establishes or expands business operations in another, influencing the host country's economic development, trade, and employment. FDI fosters economic growth by enhancing technology transfer, improving management practices, and increasing competition. However, it also raises concerns over potential labor exploitation, environmental degradation, and erosion of local industries. The relationship between FDI and globalization highlights the opportunities and challenges countries face as they become more interconnected in the global economy. Policymakers aim to balance attracting FDI while protecting domestic interests and promoting sustainable and inclusive growth. This paper examines the intersection of Foreign Direct Investment FDI and international human rights law, focusing on developing economies. It highlights the benefits of FDI in fostering economic growth, technology transfer, and employment while addressing concerns over labor exploitation and environmental degradation. The study explores how international legal frameworks, such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, can help mitigate these risks, offering strategies for aligning FDI with human rights standards in developing countries. This study is significant as it provides insight into how developing countries can benefit from FDI without compromising their commitment to human rights protections, a critical balance in the era of economic globalization. This study will examine these problems with specific reference to the developing countries. 1) The influx of FDI either improves human rights standards or exacerbates human rights violations in developing economies. 2) International human rights standards legally bind MNCs, who are held accountable when violations occur in host countries. 3) Economic globalization has facilitated stronger human rights protections but also created challenges for enforcement in developing countries. 4) Institutions like the IMF and World Bank ensure that their policies promote FDI while respecting human rights standards, and these measures are adequate to varying degrees. 5) Developing countries can adopt specific strategies or legal frameworks to ensure that FDI aligns with human rights obligations. 6) Current international legal instruments, such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, are adequate in addressing human rights violations linked to FDI.

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.

Everything about human right is inalienable void of violation from the human race. It is therefore that responsibility of the international community in ensuring the effective preservation and respect of these rights without any threat of violations. In ensuring its recognition and implementation, international standards have been established where there is the need of States parties to these international human right treaties in ensuring its incorporation in its various domestic legislations. The content and specific features of the introduction of international human rights standards into national legislation have been analyzed in the article. The methodological basis of research is a set of general scientific and special methods, in particular, dialectical, historical-legal, epistemological, comparative-legal. International standards for the protection of human rights have been defined as principles and norms enshrined in international regulatory legal acts that define fundamental human rights and freedoms, the obligation of the State to respect them, to assist in their realization, preservation and protection against unlawful encroachments, and to establish liability for their violations and methods of protection. It has been clarified that the procedure of implementation of international human rights standards into national legislation includes the following stages: (i) recognition of human rights by the State and their enshrinement in national legislation; (ii) institutionalization of the standard of human rights protection; (iii) bringing the current legislation in line with the international human rights standard and interpreting the latter; (iv) establishment of measures and means of protection and defense of human rights; (v) determining the procedure for the realization of the enshrined right; (vi) control over the observance of the international human rights standard.

It is substantiated that at the current stage of the formation of Ukraine as an independent, democratic, legal, social state, the issue of guaranteeing the rights and freedoms of a person and a citizen has become particularly relevant. In the context of European integration, relevant experience in guaranteeing human rights accumulated in developed, primarily European, states is important for Ukraine. The purpose of the article is to summarize scientific positions on the definition of the concept of «guarantees of human and citizen rights and freedoms» and to systematize the types of guarantees by classification. It has been established that an effective system of domestic guarantees of the rights and freedoms of a person and a citizen is enshrined in Ukraine and in foreign countries at the legislative, primarily constitutional, level. It covers the following types of guarantees: general and special; legal, economic, political and organizational; material, procedural and organizational-legal (institutional) (it was found that the ombudsman institute plays a special role among them); judicial and extrajudicial. A special place among these guarantees is that the order, grounds and limits of the restriction of human rights and freedoms are established. It is proved that the classification of guarantees based on domestic constitutional and legal science is consistent with the classification developed in European law. It has been established that special attention in national and European law is focused on judicial protection as a human right and at the same time a guarantee of other human rights. It was established that domestic guarantees are complemented by international legal guarantees of human rights and freedoms. Among them, it is possible to single out international acts that directly enshrine human rights, as well as international bodies, organizations and institutions designed to ensure and contribute to the protection of these rights. It has been confirmed that the content of human rights guarantees provided for by Ukrainian legislation is based on international and European human rights standards. The definition of guarantees of human rights in democratic states is formulated as a whole set of legal and institutional means of domestic and international legal nature, judicial and extrajudicial, actually constitutional guarantees.

This review examines recent scholarship on the rise of international human rights law and proposes that social movements have played critical roles both in elevating the standards of human rights in international law and in leveraging these standards into better local practices. Institutionalization of universal human rights principles began in the immediate post–World War II period, in which civil society actors worked with powerful states to establish human rights as a key guiding principle of the international community and to ensure the actors' continuing participation in international human rights institutions. The subsequent decades saw various hurdles arise in international politics, but civil society actors skillfully used the small openings that they had gained to continue to advance the cause of human rights. They held powerful governments accountable to their lofty promises about human rights and worked with sympathetic governments in the UN system to continuously upgrade the standards of international human rights. They also leveraged human rights laws toward better local practices, taking advantage of new political opportunities created by human rights laws, using expanding international channels to increase flows of human and material resources, embracing globally legitimated vocabularies of human rights to frame their movements, and integrating the broad cultural effects of human rights laws to construct new social movement identity and actorhood. The review then points out some potential pitfalls of international human rights laws: professionalization of movement actors, which can undermine the impact of social movements and lead to less ambitious and transformative goals; privileging of some causes over others, which can lead to demobilization around certain issues; and overextending movement goals, which can give rise to strong backlash against human rights principles.

Human rights policies and practices in the People's Republic of China have repeatedly been criticized for falling short of international standards. Although China has signed the international covenant on civil and political rights, so far it has ratified only the international covenant on economic, social, and cultural rights, despite repeated urgings by the international community. China's performance even under the agreements to which it is bound remains a subject of frequent criticism.1 While China's compliance with international human rights standards seems highly problematic, its human rights record can be explained at least in part by reference to China's divergent interpretations of these standards based on factors of local legal culture. The paradigm of explains much about the ways in which international legal standards are interpreted and applied in light of local legal cultural norms in China.2 As well, China's compliance with its international human rights commitments may be understood by reference to factors of institutional performance. The paradigm of institutional capacity explains the ways that conditions of perspective, identity, and organization affect the performance of governance institutions. As an alternative to normative analysis of human rights violations, the cultural and structural dimensions of selective adaptation and institutional capacity explain much about China's human rights policies and practice.LEGAL CULTURE AND SELECTIVE ADAPTATIONLegal culture analysis permits appreciation of the tensions between the globalized systems of liberal legal norms, from which many international human rights standards derive, and deeply embedded systems of local norms and values. China's legal reform project represents in significant part an effort to adapt selectively foreign models of law and governance drawn largely from the liberal tradition.3 This involves questions about the potential for normative community between Chinese legal culture and the foreign models China is seeking to apply to its development project. Proceeding from tenets about human equality and natural law, liberal political and legal norms stand generally for the proposition that government should be an agency of popular will.4 Such agency requires accountability, from political leaders through democratic elections and from administrative agencies acting within the limits of lawfully delegated authority. Responsible agency is thus a typology by which regulators and their political superiors are accountable to the subjects of regulation, and as a result are expected to exercise regulatory authority broadly in accordance with norms of transparency and the rule of law. Thus, the accountability of political and administrative agents may be described in terms of their responsibility to society. In contrast, norms of governance in China suggest a typology of patrimonial sovereignty, by which regulators are accountable primarily to their bureaucratic and political superiors, and as a result have few obligations to heed the subjects of rule in the process or substance of regulation. Under the dynamic of patrimonial sovereignty, political leaders and administrative agencies have responsibility for society but are not responsible to it. This helps to set an ideological context by which protection of individual human rights is relegated to secondary status, behind the primacy of the state.Tensions between responsible agency and patrimonial sovereignty affect compliance with international human rights standards through the dynamic of selective adaptation, by which non-local institutional practices and organizational forms are mediated by local norms. While parties to international human rights treaties accept compliance obligations upon ratification, as a practical matter interpretation and application of specific international human rights standards will depend on a degree of commonality between the sodocultural norms underlying these standards and local norms. …

A long time ago, the international community has taken some steps to prosecute war criminals and to establish a permanent criminal tribunal. However, a new era in the development of international criminal law and procedure, as well as international human rights and humanitarian law, began in the aftermath of World War II. Unfortunately, the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals focused mainly on the accused and their punishment. They ignored the role of the victim in the criminal proceedings. Thus, it was necessary to create a new international criminal tribunal that would not suffer from the shortcomings and would be in line with the emerging standards for the protection of human rights. Indeed, the Statutes and Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and for Rwanda (ICTR) was an attempt to be more fair and reflect international human rights standards. The milestone, however, was the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC), whose Statute mirror not only fundamental human rights standards and jurisprudence of human rights tribunals and organs but also elevates the status of victims. Furthermore, the ICC applies treaties and other sources of international law and it “must be consistent with internationally recognized human rights”. The article is a contribution to the discussion of the impact of international law on the development of international criminal proceedings through the lens of human rights standards. It also attempts to show whether the special features of international law have influenced international criminal proceedings and demonstrate the close but complex relationship between sub-branches of international law, such as international criminal law, international criminal procedure, international human rights and humanitarian law, as well as the ways of interferences of international human rights law in international criminal proceedings.

It is established that under modern conditions of Ukraine’s European integration and in view of our country’s aspiration for full membership in the European Union and other European structures, the issue of adapting national legislation to international legal standards in the field of human rights acquires particular importance. Requirements for compliance with human rights and freedoms are not only a political condition for cooperation with the EU and the Council of Europe, but also a determining criterion for democracy, stability and legitimacy of state power. Despite significant steps towards harmonizing national legislation with European norms, the process of implementing international standards remains complex and requires an effective legal mechanism capable of taking into account both general European principles and the national specifics of the Ukrainian legal system. Ensuring the real, rather than declarative, nature of human rights, which depends on the effectiveness of the judicial system, human rights institutions, and clear legislative regulation, is of particular relevance. Research into the legal mechanism for adapting legislation to European human rights standards is timely, important, and has significant practical potential for the further development of Ukraine’s legal system, taking into account ongoing reforms, the challenges of martial law, and the need for increased international support. In this context, the key role of international legal acts in the system of ensuring human rights is to establish clear general standards for the activities of states, guarantee their universal recognition and unified application. Ensuring human rights is not only a legal, but also a political, economic and social process that requires systematic interaction of internal and external mechanisms. Not only the quality of life of citizens, but also the international image and future of the democratic development of the state depend on the degree of implementation of rights and freedoms. International human rights standards and judicial practice form a solid basis for both inclusive and consultative procedures and for determining the substantive provisions of the constitution. In modern conditions, ensuring human rights remains a fundamental factor in the stability of democratic development, rule of law and international legitimacy of the state.

Multinational corporations are a potential force for human rights in the global workplace. Multinational corporations face considerable scrutiny of their business practices and vigorous debate on the role of business in promoting and protecting international human rights.(1) To date, business interests and human rights activists have often been seen as engaged in an intractable conflict. But for those who truly care about improving conditions for people living in the global economy, the real challenge is how to integrate business and human rights. A growing number of activists, businesspeople, and policymakers now recognize that the interests of business and human rights advocates are not always in conflict.(2) Collaboration between private companies and non-governmental organizations, for example, emerged as the most effective way to eliminate child labor in the production of soccer balls in Pakistan. (See Business and Human in this issue of FORUM.) By broadening their perspectives to take account of each other's concerns and constraints, the human rights and business communities are finding themselves better positioned to achieve their goals in a rapidly changing international landscape. The convergence of three trends - the globalization of international human rights standards, the globalization of international commerce, and the proliferation of international networks - has led to mounting pressures on multinational enterprises to be accountable for human rights conditions in the factories and countries where they operate. Today, the way a government treats its citizens has become a legitimate subject for international inquiry, discussion, and action. Moreover, the volume of trade and investment that crosses national and international borders increasingly links economic livelihoods to the global marketplace. Equally important, individuals and organizations can now gather and disseminate information in support of human rights and commerce with unprecedented ease and power. International Human Rights For centuries, how a government treated its citizens was not considered an appropriate subject of inquiry by other governments or the international community.(3) This doctrine of international law came under attack in the mid-20th century when a series of international agreements rejected the absolute supremacy of state sovereignty over individual rights. The United Nations Charter of 1945 called on member states to promote and protect human rights.(4) The Nuremberg tribunals following World War II established individual responsibility for specific international crimes, including crimes against humanity. In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights fundamentally broadened international law by recognizing that all individuals are entitled to certain rights. The second half of the 20th century has witnessed a proliferation of standards defining the basic freedoms and liberties that constitute human rights. The United Nations, as well as regional international organizations like the European Union, have codified human rights standards that address civil and political rights; economic, social, and cultural rights; and the extension of human rights to particular groups, including women, children, and minorities. The International Labour Organization, which was created in 1919 and became part of the United Nations system in 1945, has developed hundreds of standards for working conditions and worker rights, including international conventions on child and forced labor, freedom of association, and collective bargaining. Almost without exception, these standards obligate governments to protect, promote, and advance the rights of their citizens. As the number of standards has proliferated, so too have the size and scope of the international human rights community. From humble beginnings, an international network of activists, religious leaders, lawyers, trade unionists, politicians, and political dissidents has become a powerful worldwide movement. …

It is indicated that the personal rights and freedoms of the individual, the key norms and principles of which are contained in international legal documents, are introduced by modern democratic states into their national legislation not as static and absolute templates, but as guidelines that should be consistently followed, taking into account their own historical, cultural and legal traditions and customs. In the process of practical implementation of international standards implemented in national legislation, innovative approaches to the legal regulation of human rights and freedoms are formed, which, of course, has an impact on the further development of international standards themselves. It is this dialectical interpenetration of international legal acts and national legislation that forms the foundation for the constant improvement of the legal regulation of human rights and freedoms during their protection and safeguarding by law enforcement agencies in general and police units in particular. The article examines certain aspects of international legal norms and principles regarding human rights to life and characterizes the current state of their implementation in national Ukrainian legislation on the activities of police bodies. Thanks to the comparative method, the provisions of international legal acts (the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the European Code of Police Ethics) were analyzed and compared with the legal prescriptions of the Law of Ukraine «On the National Police» and «Rules of Ethical Behavior of Police Officers» (order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine dated 09.11.2016 No. 1179) regarding compliance of the latter with international standards. On the basis of the comparison, specific proposals for improving the existing provisions in national legislative and other normative legal acts regarding the activities of police structures regarding the protection and protection of the basic natural human right to life in the sense of compliance with international standards are given.

В даній науковій статті автором розкрито міжнародні та європейські стандарти прав людини, зокрема виділено підходи до визначення поняття «стандарт прав людини» в юридичній літературі, критерії до класифікації міжнародних та європейських стандартів прав людини, а також виділено нормативні акти, які закріплюють відповідні стандарти. На підставі проведеного аналізу, автор робить висновок про те, що міжнародні стандарти прав людини – це мінімально можливий рівень забезпечення прав людини, їх захисту та дотримання в діяльності публічних суб’єктів, сукупність правових, організаційних та інституційних гарантій їх забезпечення та недопустимості свавільного обмеження, визначені документами універсальних міжнародних організацій, міжнародними договорами та міжнародними звичаями і виступають основою для регіональних та національних стандартів прав людини. Європейські стандарти прав людини – це стандарти прав людини, визначені документами Ради Європи, Європейського Союзу та Організації з безпеки та співробітництва в Європі, інших регіональних європейських міжнародних організацій, обов’язковість яких визнана державами-членами цих організацій через ратифікацію, затвердження, укладання відповідних документів або через фактичне визнання відповідних стандартів та їх застосування, сформовані відповідно до міжнародних стандартів прав людини і які є основою для вироблення національних стандартів держав-учасниць відповідних організацій. Національні стандарти прав людини є розвитком міжнародних та регіональних стандартів, їх імплементацію у національне законодавство, однак можуть ще більш повно визначати їх зміст та особливості гарантування та захисту; це стандарти прав людини, визначені національними джерелами права, передусім конституцією та конституційними законами. Також в науковій статті виділено види стандартів прав людини.