The relationship between national and sub-national human rights institutions in federal states

Abstract

The rapid spread of national human rights institutions represents one of the most important developments in the human rights movement in recent years. Many federal states have joined this global trend by creating national human rights institutions, state human rights institutions, or both. This article presents an empirical comparison of how such states have addressed the federal division of power and responsibility concerns that have arisen in such an enterprise. So far, no single strategy has emerged to address federalism concerns. Some countries have established unitary but deconcentrated national human rights institutions, while others have multiple sub-national human rights institutions but no internationally recognised national human rights institution. The most common response has been the establishment of both a national human rights institution and a network of sub-national human rights institutions. Strict forms of dual federalism are rarely embraced however, and the relationship between national and sub-national institutions, where both exist, has been characterised by both episodic cooperation and significant tensions.