Modelling norm clarification: the intersectional practice of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women

States have a heightened duty of care owed to persons deprived of their liberty extending beyond the prohibition of torture and discrimination. Due to their complete reliance on the State, provision of adequate and quality nutrition in prison is a fundamental human right of those detained. Failure to meet the basic requirements of sustenance or deny/restrict food constitutes cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, or even torture. In order to examine global progress in protecting and upholding the rights of people living in prisons to adequate food and nutrition, we conducted a global socio-legal assessment of the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Treaty Bodies (Committee against Torture, Committee for the Rights of the Child, Human Rights Committee, Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women); and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) mission reporting on selected prisons since 2015. A comprehensive global search in English and French was conducted on the Council of Europe and the UN Human Rights Treaty databases. Following double screening, the final dataset of 237 reports spanning six continents (129 countries) was charted, tabularized against norms and standards (UN Nelson Mandela Rules, Bangkok Rules, the European Prison Rules) and analyzed thematically. Identified areas of concern and possible human rights violations documented by prison inspections centered on six key themes: geographies where the right to adequate food in prisons is of concern; inadequacy of food provision; poor food preparation practices, environmental health standards and disease; reliance on external support for food, corruption and exploitation; food as punishment and control measure; and vulnerability of special populations in prison. Despite international and regional human rights norms and assurances, prison inspections revealed that standards and adequacy of food and nutrition in prisons are often lacking due to resource scarcity, violence, punishment, inter-personal dynamics and corruption. UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies and CPT inspections must continue to thoroughly assess food standards and provision in prisons, ensure that the denial or restriction of food as punishment is prohibited, and include a focus on those with gender and age-related, religious and medical needs.

<p>The United Nations (UN) human rights treaty bodies play an important role in defining the scope and the nature of non-citizens’ rights. This article offers a critical overview of the UN human rights case law from 2008 to 2018 pertaining to non-citizens — notably undocumented migrants, refused asylum seekers, and permanent residents ordered deported — in Canada. It examines the jurisprudence of the three UN human rights treaty bodies recognized by Canada as having competence to receive and consider individual complaints — namely, the UN Human Rights Committee, the Committee against Torture, and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. The purpose of this examination is two-fold. First, it intends to foster a better understanding of the cases lodged by non-citizens before the UN human rights treaty bodies. The second aim is to explore the substantive issues that the UN committees’ jurisprudence on non-citizens reveals about Canada’s immigration decision-making and enforcement. It is argued that some groups of non-citizens in Canada are at risk of being deported to persecution or hardship in violation of the non- refoulement principle and Canada’s international human rights obligations. The article illuminates several loopholes identified by the UN treaty bodies in Canada’s immigration and refugee protection system that heighten the risk of refoulement.</p>

<p>The United Nations (UN) human rights treaty bodies play an important role in defining the scope and the nature of non-citizens’ rights. This article offers a critical overview of the UN human rights case law from 2008 to 2018 pertaining to non-citizens — notably undocumented migrants, refused asylum seekers, and permanent residents ordered deported — in Canada. It examines the jurisprudence of the three UN human rights treaty bodies recognized by Canada as having competence to receive and consider individual complaints — namely, the UN Human Rights Committee, the Committee against Torture, and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. The purpose of this examination is two-fold. First, it intends to foster a better understanding of the cases lodged by non-citizens before the UN human rights treaty bodies. The second aim is to explore the substantive issues that the UN committees’ jurisprudence on non-citizens reveals about Canada’s immigration decision-making and enforcement. It is argued that some groups of non-citizens in Canada are at risk of being deported to persecution or hardship in violation of the non- refoulement principle and Canada’s international human rights obligations. The article illuminates several loopholes identified by the UN treaty bodies in Canada’s immigration and refugee protection system that heighten the risk of refoulement.</p>

The United Nations (UN) human rights treaty bodies play an important role in defining the scope and the nature of non-citizens’ rights. This article offers a critical overview of the UN human rights case law from 2008 to 2018 pertaining to non-citizens — notably undocumented migrants, refused asylum seekers, and permanent residents ordered deported — in Canada. It examines the jurisprudence of the three UN human rights treaty bodies recognized by Canada as having competence to receive and consider individual complaints — namely, the UN Human Rights Committee, the Committee against Torture, and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. The purpose of this examination is two-fold. First, it intends to foster a better understanding of the cases lodged by non-citizens before the UN human rights treaty bodies. The second aim is to explore the substantive issues that the UN committees’ jurisprudence on non-citizens reveals about Canada’s immigration decision-making and enforcement. It is argued that some groups of non-citizens in Canada are at risk of being deported to persecution or hardship in violation of the non-refoulement principle and Canada’s international human rights obligations. The article illuminates several loopholes identified by the UN treaty bodies in Canada’s immigration and refugee protection system that heighten the risk of refoulement.

ABSTRACTUN Human Rights Treaty Bodies (TBs) are a central pillar of the international human rights system, essential in their independent, quasi-judicial monitoring of State Parties’ respect for and implementation of ratified UN human rights treaties. National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) function in a similarly independent and quasi-judicial manner and are today recognised as crucial components of a functioning National Human Rights System. The 2020 UN Human Rights TB Review presents an opportunity to analyse current challenges inherent to the domestic institutionalisation processes specific to NHRI engagement, considers variances amongst different TB procedures and develops innovative proposals and solutions. Although exploring the effectiveness of TB–NHRI engagement presents inherent difficulties, this article proposes such evaluation against the backdrop of a goal-based approach to organisational effectiveness. This approach may facilitate the development of a framework for understanding the relations between TBs and key stakeholders, such as NHRIs. In other words, by identifying the key generic goals of these two quasi-judicial bodies – monitoring norm-compliance, regime support, and legitimisation – this paper attempts to systematise the interaction between NHRIs and two specific TBs, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), in view of a possible harmonisation of procedures following the 2020 Review process.

UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies (TBs) are a central pillar of the international human rights system, essential in their independent, quasi-judicial monitoring of State Parties’ respect for and implementation of ratified UN human rights treaties. National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) function in a similarly independent and quasi-judicial manner and are today recognised as crucial components of a functioning National Human Rights System. The 2020 UN Human Rights TB Review presents an opportunity to analyse current challenges inherent to the domestic institutionalisation processes specific to NHRI engagement, considers variances amongst different TB procedures and develops innovative proposals and solutions. Although exploring the effectiveness of TB–NHRI engagement presents inherent difficulties, this article proposes such evaluation against the backdrop of a goal-based approach to organisational effectiveness. This approach may facilitate the development of a framework for understanding the relations between TBs and key stakeholders, such as NHRIs. In other words, by identifying the key generic goals of these two quasi-judicial bodies – monitoring norm-compliance, regime support, and legitimisation – this paper attempts to systematise the interaction between NHRIs and two specific TBs, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), in view of a possible harmonisation of procedures following the 2020 Review process.

ABSTRACT: The article examines the merit of UN treaty bodies' accumulated case law as a resource for domestic adjudicators, i.e., courts and quasi-judicial bodies (such as national human rights institutions) addressing human rights complaints at the national level. It has the objective of assessing the extent to which treaty bodies are "talking to" an audience beyond the parties in the case. Starting from a view that sees impact on national adjudicators as the key issue for treaty bodies' rulings on individual complaints, the article assesses to what extent the way that treaty bodies are exercising this role fits in this view. The study's focus is on two UN treaty bodies with a broadly similar output in quantitative terms, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CmERD) and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CmEDAW).

The United Nations human rights treaty bodies, such as the Human Rights Committee, the Committee Against Torture, and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, oversee national implementation of international human rights obligations. This chapter discusses the legitimacy of the human rights treaty bodies’ court-like function of deciding cases on individual complaints.

The United Nations (UN) human rights treaty bodies play a central role in the international framework for the supervision of implementation by states of their treaty obligations. The diplomatic aspect of treaty body work has been brought into new prominence by the extent to which treaty body findings play a role in the application of the Human Rights Council's (HRC) new procedure of universal periodic review (UPR). This chapter explores this dimension of treaty body work and reflects on how they might be strengthened in their important diplomatic function. Ten treaties are generally considered to comprise the core of the UN human rights treaty system. Treaty bodies play a distinct role in the promotion of human rights. Their specialised and detailed function is integral to the implementation of the treaty system. Keywords: diplomatic; human rights; Human Rights Council (HRC); treaty bodies; United Nations (UN); universal periodic review (UPR)

INTRODUCTION This chapter offers an overview of the role of the expert bodies set up under the core UN human rights treaties (see generally G. Alfredsson et al. (eds), International Human Rights Monitoring Mechanisms (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2001); P. Alston and J. Crawford (eds.), The Future of the UN Human Rights Treaty System (Cambridge University Press, 2000); P. Alston (ed.), The United Nations and Human Rights: a Critical Appraisal , second edn (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2004)). Seven such bodies are currently in operation. These are the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), which has been functioning since 1969, the Human Rights Committee (CCPR) (1976), the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) (1987), the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) (1981), the Committee Against Torture (CAT) (1987), the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (1990), and the Committee on Migrant Workers (CMW) (2003). All but one of these expert bodies have their role and composition defined in the respective treaties with which they supervise compliance. The exception is the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), which was established by Resolution 1985/17 of the Economic and Social Council (Ecosoc) and which was modelled on the Human Rights Committee created by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

The interaction of the ten United Nations human rights treaty bodies and national courts is a potentially powerful mechanism for the application and development of international human rights law. This paper, which is an initial part of a wider study, canvasses the engagement by final appellate courts in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom with the work of treaty bodies and identifies a broad range of positive and negative responses by those courts. The paper concludes by addressing the potential for enhanced dialogue between the two categories of institution.

International human rights bodies have repeatedly been confronted with situations of armed conflict and consequently also with the potential complementary application of human rights and international humanitarian law (IHL) in such situations. Within their human rights-related mandates, the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council and its special procedures, UN human rights treaty bodies, the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Commission and Court of Human Rights and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights have developed a limited practice in dealing with IHL. In any case, these bodies have displayed different attitudes towards IHL and have contributed in different ways to understanding the links between human rights and IHL. Their practice can be seen as a non-State perspective on IHL with the potential to inform the law’s further development. This chapter traces how, on what basis and with which consequences, international human rights bodies contribute to the development of IHL.

It is frequently said that the United States has a paradoxical human rights policy. This Article takes a closer look at this vision from the perspective of U.S. engagement with international human rights treaty bodies, the quasi-adjudicatory expert committees or commissions that exercise supervisory jurisdiction over the U.S. human rights record. Contrary to popular perception that the U.S. thumbs its nose at these bodies, the U.S. in fact engages quite actively with their human rights procedures. To untangle the associated issues, the Article proceeds in five parts. Part I begins by reviewing the current legal framework that structures U.S. human rights treaty body engagements at the national and international levels. Part II then examines the specific ways the U.S. in fact engages with the three principal supervisory competences exercised by UN, OAS, and ILO treaty body systems: periodic reporting, quasi-adjudication, and promotional activities. Part III considers the countervailing push-pull pressures that influence and shape U.S. engagement policy at the foreign-policy and domestic-policy levels, respectively, while Part IV identifies the three principal mediating techniques the U.S. employs to accommodate these competing pressures. These mediating techniques, which draw heavily, if selectively, on the formalized rules of international human rights law's subsidiarity principle allow the U.S. to pursue a framework policy toward treaty body engagement that at once permits active U.S. engagement with international procedures, appeases conservative critiques of such engagement (at both domestic and foreign-policy levels), and allows the U.S. to remain technically compliant with its externally-oriented treaty obligations. What it does not do, as currently pursued, is facilitate internal domestic reflection on the nation's treaty-based human rights commitments. Indeed, responsive to the dominant pressures exerted on U.S. policymakers from both within and without government (from institutionalists, realists, and insulationists), these mediating techniques draw on only half of subsidiary's blueprint. Part V discusses this conflict, the structural opportunities for addressing it, and the importance of giving the principle of subsidiarity its full and intended meaning in international human rights law. The piece concludes by looking at where U.S. policy can be expected to lead in coming years, as U.S. policymakers continue to chart a middle course through difficult and shifting pressures. This middle course is one that does not reject, but rather solidly embraces supervisory human rights treaty body processes, albeit under a vision of their jurisdiction as strictly subsidiary to domestic decision-making processes. The challenge for domestic advocates is to ensure that this subsidiarity principle is embraced in its full dimensionality, not only in its negative facets. An outline of how this might be institutionally pursued and structured in the United States, particularly through the establishment of an executive focal point on treaty implementation and a national human rights commission with a comprehensive monitoring mandate, is discussed in Part V.

INTRODUCTION. The paper considers the problem of the realisation of the core international human rights treaties at the national level from a perspective of the importance of conducting doctrinal research in this area. The authors provide the analysis of the content of the study project “The Impact of the United Nations Human Rights Treaties on the Domestic Level”, launched in 2018 in continuation of the study carried out almost 20 years ago initiated by Ch. Heyns and F. Viljoen, professors of the Center for Human Rights of the University of Pretoria (South Africa), with the support of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), to study the impact of the six existing at that time core international human rights treaties on the human rights situation in 20 States, including the Russian Federation. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The research was based on a variety of study materials, including international treaties, outcome documents of the international conferences, recommendations of the human rights treaty bodies, doctrinal studies, national legislation and the court practice of the Russian Federation. The authors applied historical legal and comparative legal methods when comparing the contents of the 1999 research and the 2018 study project, tracking the developments in the universal human rights system since 1999 till today, comparing the current tendencies in the realisation of the human rights treaties in Russia with the conclusions of the previous research on Russia. The method of legal forecasting was used to determine the perspectives of the present and possible future research on the impact of human rights treaties in States. RESEARCH RESULTS. Demonstrating the developments in the universal human rights system and the dynamics in the realisation of the human rights treaties in Russia taken place since 1999, the authors examined the tasks of the new research they need to conduct as the successors of professors Yu. Kolosov and Yu. Reshetov and identified the specifics of the approach of the new study comparing to the previous one. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. The authors demonstrate the potential of the study to determine the measures to enhance the effectiveness of the human rights treaty body system within the ongoing process on its strengthening, including the 2020 UN comprehensive review of the progress achieved in this field. The paper points out the importance of expanding the research to more than 20 countries, already covered by the research, with a view of forming a comprehensive picture of the way in which the international human rights treaty system influences the situation of rights holders at local level, just where it really matters.

The traditional scholarly narrative on the relationship between cultural diversity and universal respect for human rights suggests a tension which must, at best, be managed. There is, however, no consensus among scholars as to the best way to reconcile or manage this tension and so creating an intellectual gap between universalist and cultural relativist schools of thought which has come to inform important aspects of diplomatic practice. This article analyses an alternative approach to the management of this tension based on the practice of the United Nations human rights treaty bodies. The working methods of these supervisory bodies, especially the constructive dialogue on national periodic reports, suggest that they adopt a legal approach in which cultural diversity and universal respect for human rights complement and reinforce each other. At the same time, focusing on effective protection, the treaty bodies challenge specific cultural practices that they consider to be harmful or contrary to human rights guarantees. Although the treaty bodies’ approach to this subject is still evolving, it reveals interesting doctrinal lessons concerning the universality of human rights norms.