Concluding Observations Research Articles

Beyond Non-bindingness: States’ Implementation of UN Human Rights Treaties Bodies’ Concluding Observations

ABSTRACT Insufficient scholarly attention has been given to how UN human rights treaty bodies can induce states to implement concluding observations (COBs). This is because previous studies tend to underestimate the treaty bodies as weak, and instead focus on domestic factors. A case study of the Japanese implementation of treaty bodies’ COBs, however, reveals that domestic mobilization does not always succeed in changing government policies because of Japanese authorities’ inadequate understanding of international human rights law in areas such as gender equality and the prohibition of hate speech. Exploring treaty bodies’ role in inducing such states’ implementation of COBs is therefore crucial. To tackle this, this paper applies the theory of Goodman and Jinks, and reveals that the treaty bodies’ design is aimed primarily at persuading rather than acculturating states. If acculturation is incorporated into their design, it follows that treaty bodies should coordinate with the Human Rights Council, and that the Human Rights Council should follow up COBs in the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). Because ‘enforcement’ of COBs by the UPR could undermine treaty bodies’ work, this paper suggests a modest solution: that the UPR should cover the concerns expressed in COBs.

International Human Rights and Israel as Seen in the Work of the Treaty Bodies: Do They Walk the Talk?

The purpose of this article is to review the manner in which the human rights treaty bodies (HRTBs) treat Israel, focusing on the system of periodic reporting, with the aim of examining whether Israel is being accorded ‘special treatment’ or, put more simply, whether a bias against Israel can be ascertained in the work of the HRTBs. In analysing the concluding observations (COBs) issued in respect of six of Israel's recent periodic reports, we identified four distinct population groups within Israeli society, and studied the number and nature of the COBs targeting each of these groups. This we termed the ‘output’. We then looked into the amount of the alternative information provided to the Committees by civil society organisations, which we termed the ‘input’. An examination of the two reveals a clear correlation between the relatively greater weight accorded to the Palestinian population in the occupied territories in the input side of the exercise (the alternative reports) and the output side (the COBs). Thus, what might initially be perceived as proved bias in the treatment of Israel by the HRTBs in light of the seemingly disproportional weight they accord to the conflict, turns out to be at least partially influenced by the information and materials provided to the Committees.

Just ‘a little UN Committee’ or important policy driver? - The impact and effectiveness of the CEDAW Committee in New Zealand

This article examines the impact and effectiveness of the process of state reporting under CEDAW in New Zealand. The particular focus is on the effectiveness of the Concluding Observations (COs) of the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee). It concludes that the COs of the CEDAW Committee have not driven policy or legislative changes. This is attributed to the absence of domestic mobilisation in relation to the process of reporting and CEDAW in general, but also to the limited legitimacy and persuasiveness of the CEDAW Committee in the view of Government officials. The experience with several of the COs of the Children’s Rights Committee in New Zealand and some of the COs of the CEDAW Committee in the Netherlands, however, illustrates that COs can be useful. COs can provide additional legitimacy to the demands of domestic actors advocating for change and can, hence, push an issue forward by shifting the terms of the debate.

Just ‘a Little UN Committee’ or Important Policy Driver? The Impact and Effectiveness of the Cedaw Committee in New Zealand

This article examines the impact and effectiveness of the process of state reporting under CEDAW in New Zealand. The particular focus is on the effectiveness of the Concluding Observations (COs) of the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee). The conclusion is that the COs have had limited impact and were hardly effective in securing a change in policy or legislation. Not only will this article address the reasons for this, but it also will put the findings in wider perspective by scrutinising its generalisability to other UN human rights treaties and other countries, including the Netherlands.

Towards Integration of United Nations Human Rights Treaty-Body Recommendations – The Rights-Based Approach Model

In the Concluding Observations (COs) that the UN human rights treaty bodies issue following review of State party periodic reports, appear to make little or no reference to each other's findings concerning any one State. As a result, States must address multiple sets of recommendations, often concerning the same or closely related issues, and sometimes with different degrees of emphasis or even inconsistencies and contradictions. The practice has the effect of diminishing the impact of the work of the treaty bodies. It may also be perceived as inconsistent with the very nature of human rights as indivisible and inter-related. This article argues that the recommendation of all of the treaty bodies could, usefully, be integrated and that a model exist for this purpose: that of the “rights based approaches to development” (RBA). It examines the manner in which the application of RBA-related principles might render COs much more effective in promoting concrete human rights improvements at the country level. It also considers how the application of the model might also transform the process of the consideration of State reports.