Traditionally a state-centric regime, international human rights law (IHRL) has not quite caught up with the global trend whereby cities are increasingly engaging with international human rights norms. Normative gaps in IHRL prevail in conceptualizing the complementary roles of local governments in undertaking human rights obligations and the concurrent human rights responsibilities of non-state actors. This article contributes to addressing these normative gaps by outlining a research agenda in relation to the right to food that connects the currently siloed bodies of scholarship on IHRL and urban food governance (UFG). Proliferating in cities across the world over the last two decades, UFG initiatives aim at bringing together stakeholders across different sectors to tackle food-related problems. This article argues that their place-based nature and multi-actor governance model render UFG initiatives rich case studies for contextualizing and conceptualizing the nature and scope of local governments’ obligations and non-state actors’ responsibilities under IHRL. Importantly, the article proposes a research framework underpinned by a human rights localization perspective to foster interaction between IHRL and UFG scholarship to inform the normative development of the notions of complementary obligations and concurrent responsibilities under IHRL in a way that responds to empirical realities in urban governance.

Recent scholarship in international relations has shown that nonstate actors’ access to international institutions has expanded, including for victims of human rights abuse. Yet, although children are protected by the Convention on the Rights of the Child and are considered ideal victims, they face significant barriers to justice. In 2011, children gained direct access to submit petitions to the Committee on the Rights of the Child. Who are these children, and what do they petition about? We introduce novel data on children’s petitions, including country targets, topics, ages, legal representation, and decisions. We find that migration is a dominant topic of petitions and that young children are unlikely to be the authors of petitions. In contrast to scholarship for other treaty bodies, we also find that children are overwhelmingly accompanied by lawyers and family members in the Committee on the Rights of the Child. This article centers children themselves as active participants in international governance and provides meaningful insights into both academic and policy debates over children’s agency and nonstate access to international institutions.

The adoption of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights has marked a global shift toward holding corporations accountable for human rights violations. Yet, in Southeast Asia, the regional implementation of these norms remains limited. Despite ASEAN’s rhetorical support for human rights, its economic integration agenda led by the ASEAN Economic Community has largely excluded binding human rights obligations. This gap raises a central question: Why has ASEAN failed to embed business and human rights norms into its regional economic governance? This article argues that ASEAN’s fragmented approach is driven by the political economy of its member states, in which economic growth and market liberalization are prioritized over human rights enforcement. Institutional commitments to sovereignty, noninterference, and consensus further entrench this dynamic by shielding powerful business sectors from scrutiny. Drawing on a structural analysis of ASEAN’s institutional design and member state interests, the study explains the region’s persistent accountability gaps. It contributes to debates on regional human rights governance by showing how economic imperatives and elite interests continue to undermine efforts to institutionalize the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights in Southeast Asia.

This article interrogates the concept of extraterritorial ecocide as a form of epistemic injustice, arguing that transboundary environmental harm not only devastates ecosystems but also annihilates the knowledge systems of the communities that depend on them. It introduces the notion of environmental sovereignty, the collective right of communities to sustain the ecological and epistemic conditions necessary for self-determination, and defines epistemicide as the systematic destruction of community-based knowledge systems through ecological disruption. By bridging doctrines of international environmental law, human rights, and decolonial epistemology, the article advances a framework for recognizing epistemic harm as a distinct category of injury under international law. Drawing on jurisprudence from Teitiota v. New Zealand, Saramaka, Endorois, and Sarayaku, it demonstrates that violations of free, prior, and informed consent often entail epistemic destruction, including the loss of ecological indicators, rituals, and linguistic taxonomies. The article proposes two complementary mechanisms to address these harms: a global tribunal for environmental sovereignty and epistemic justice and the integration of epistemic impact assessments (EIA[E]) into existing loss and damage frameworks. These mechanisms extend accountability beyond state-centric liability toward a pluralistic model that values both ecological and epistemic restoration. By foregrounding the right to environmental sovereignty, the study offers an actionable path to operationalize epistemic justice within international law and to restore the cognitive foundations that enable communities to live with dignity amid environmental collapse.

Climate-induced migration challenges existing legal and moral frameworks by exposing the limitations of state-centered responsibility in addressing global human rights harms. This article examines the concept of responsibility through the integration of Shue’s triple-pronged theory and Fineman’s vulnerability theory, to propose a conceptual framework for shared responsibility between states, multinational corporations, and global institutions. By analyzing the shifting role of states in a globalized context and the growing influence of multinationals, the article critiques the legal vacuum surrounding climate displacement and calls for a structural transformation of international human rights obligations. It argues for a holistic ecosystem that reflects the interdependence of global actors, in which both state and nonstate entities are accountable for preventing harm, protecting vulnerable populations, and ensuring access to remedy. The article concludes that this reconceptualization advances the discourse on climate justice and offers a rights-based foundation for addressing climate-induced migration in the Anthropocene.

This article critically considers the prominent “ending statelessness” framing within global statelessness work to expose potential risks around such dominant approaches—both for advocacy efficacy and discursively (primarily for those directly impacted by the issue: i.e., stateless individuals). In probing the focus on “eradication” framing, the article focuses on the IBelong campaign launched by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to end statelessness in a decade (2014–2024). Drawing comparatively from lessons learned from other global initiatives seeking to end a perceived global ill (specifically 2005’s Make Poverty History and the UN target to End AIDS by 2030), I question whether the eradication framing is, in fact, the most effective way to address statelessness, while considering the—sometimes negative—implications this can have for people with lived experience of statelessness. Reflection on the discursive implications of such framing should complement more programmatic considerations given to the IBelong campaign within existing evaluations. This analysis is timely given that, following the end of IBelong campaign’s implementation period, the next phase within the ending statelessness endeavor is already under way. Although ending statelessness is undoubtedly desirable for (most, if not all) people affected by it, alternative framing approaches more sensitive to, and privileging, the insights and experiences of such individuals may provide a basis to recalibrate ongoing efforts to address statelessness worldwide, and ultimately better serve their interests.

Repression against human rights defenders has escalated globally, becoming increasingly dangerous over the last decade. Their human rights advocacy work and the information they wield about abuses by those in power put these defenders at mortal risk. We review what research tells us about where and why defenders are targeted and killed, and discuss why better data can give us more nuanced insights about these assassinations. We describe our new dataset, which contains disaggregated and geocoded event data for each of the 2,877 reported targeted killings of human rights defenders globally from 2014 to 2023, as well as aggregated country-year data on the number of defenders killed, total and by issue type. We examine the data, revealing new insights about where, when, why, and by whom human rights defenders are killed. We also discuss the reliability and validity of the data; how the data enables more research in this crucial area; and how it provides a resource that may be useful beyond researchers, to advocates and policymakers in their work to accurately document, advocate for protections for, and reduce impunity for those who threaten the actors on the front lines of the defense of human rights.

Autocracies, like democracies, use reservations to adjust their treaty commitments. But autocracies receive far greater pressure to withdraw reservations. To what extent is this pressure effective? We show through statistical analyses and case illustrations that autocracies respond to international pressure differently than democracies. Autocracies are more likely to withdraw reservations when facing treaty body reviews and less likely to withdraw reservations in response to peer state objections. We propose explanations for this difference. Autocracies may be more responsive to periodic reviews because they are conducted by technical experts from diverse countries, regions, and political regimes, rather than by states’ political representatives. Periodic review is an iterative process that gives autocracies time to address domestic opposition to withdrawing reservations. Yet, autocracies may be less likely to withdraw reservations in response to state objections because they see objections, which primarily originate with Western democracies, as biased, hypocritical, and possibly even neocolonial. Objections are also only filed once and may not have the sustained impact necessary to prompt reservation withdrawal. Our research improves scholarly understanding of autocratic states’ engagement with international law and international organizations, and reveals the conditional effects of the international community’s efforts to change state behavior within treaty regimes.

Built for defense and later modernized for commerce and tourism, the Alaska Highway was considered an engineering marvel of the twentieth century. This research documents unintended consequences of the construction of this ambitious military project. The highway functioned not only as a conduit for transportation but also as an avenue for flagrant human rights abuses. During the construction phase, racially segregated African American service regiments were poorly equipped and sheltered in canvas tents during severe weather conditions. Indigenous communities in the project’s path were subjected to abrupt social and environmental upheavals. Communicable diseases decimated defenseless villages. Once the completed highway was opened to the public, religious missionaries built one school and expanded another along its route. These institutions sought to assimilate Indigenous minorities into Canadian society and served as havens for the systemic human rights abuses that were inflicted on defenseless children. After the schools closed, the highway provided convenient access to the Indigenous communities for Child Care Services in the Yukon and British Columbia to “scoop” Indigenous children to protect them from perceived neglect. Most never returned to their home villages. Far from being a marvel, to many, the Alaska Highway is another Highway of Tears.

We examine the intricate tradeoffs between human rights protections and security imperatives in Burkina Faso’s counterterrorism strategy, with a focus on the deployment of the Volontaires pour la Défense de la Patrie (VDPs). The research was guided by securitization theory and employed a qualitative design involving 50 participants from affected communities and security stakeholders. The study answered two key questions. First, how does deploying civilian forces in Burkina Faso’s counterterrorism strategy influence the balance between human rights protections and security imperatives? Second, what do these dynamics reveal about the legal, ethical, and practical gaps in their deployment? The data were analyzed thematically using Braun and Clarke’s structured approach. Findings reveal that, although VDPs were intended to support overstretched state forces, their operations have led to human rights violations, including ethnic profiling and extrajudicial actions. We argue that, these outcomes are rooted in legal ambiguity, weak accountability mechanisms, and operational inefficiencies, reflecting broader governance failures rather than isolated misconduct. We emphasize the urgency of strengthening legal frameworks, extending training duration, and establishing independent oversight bodies to realign VDP operations with human rights standards. The study contributes to a growing body of evidence challenging overly militarized approaches to counterterrorism in fragile contexts. The paper contributes to SDG 16 by analysing the human rights and security implications of civilian participation in counterterrorism in Burkina Fas.