Abstract
AbstractThis article analyses the role of supranational human rights bodies in the implementation of their orders and recommendations in individual cases. It elicits the means, roles and impact of supranational mechanisms in triggering implementation processes by looking at the practice of UN treaty bodies and the three regional systems, through the in-depth study of specific cases and semi-structured interviews with relevant stakeholders. The article argues that supranational bodies are doing more than monitoring implementation of orders and recommendations in individual cases despite the scarcity of resources. They use different tools, both persuasive and coercive. Dialogue is central to their work, a dialogue that at times is opened to other actors such as civil society organizations, national human rights institutions and others. However, supranational bodies could do more to enhance the role they have promoting implementation by states of their orders and recommendations.
Highlights
Effective implementation of decisions of international human rights bodies remains a significant challenge, across the regional mechanisms and for UN treaty bodies (OSJI 2013: 15; Fox Principi 2017: 9)
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has pioneered a practice of holding joint hearings in relation to similar forms of reparation ordered against a particular state in different cases, and in Europe the Committee of Ministers has in recent years grouped similar cases together, an approach which has been broadly welcomed for helping to draw attention to the systemic nature of the problems
What are the most effective features of supranational human rights bodies which best foster or cajole implementation? They have a number of different tools at their disposal, depending on their mandate, and each of the supranational bodies has differed in the extent to which they have developed these tools into a coherent process as such
Summary
Effective implementation of decisions of international human rights bodies remains a significant challenge, across the regional mechanisms and for UN treaty bodies (OSJI 2013: 15; Fox Principi 2017: 9). While scrutiny of the role of international courts in international relations has taken place (Helfer and Slaughter 1997; Posner and Yoo 2005; Alter 2011), and Huneeus has identified the mobilization of ‘compliance constituencies’ as a means by which courts can exert ‘soft power’ (Huneeus 2014: 452), we make a further contribution to the literature by eliciting the means, roles and impact of supranational mechanisms in triggering and facilitating implementation processes This is the first article of its kind to provide a detailed analysis of the role played by the three regional systems in promoting implementation of their decisions, adding to existing research on specific institutions, the European system. The article concludes by suggesting ways in which their role could be strengthened in the future
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
