The Role of State Actors Within the National Human Rights System

ABSTRACT

Given the revival of entrusting domestic state actors with a mandate to both promote and implement human rights, this article revisits the role of state actors within the national human rights system (NHRS). The article sheds light on the coordination of the actions of state actors at the domestic level, their interplay with non-state actors and their interactions with international human rights mechanisms. A systems approach to the role of state actors in human rights protection and promotion allows us to capture the political and institutional complexity of domestic human rights implementation. Such an approach values coordination of the state human rights action (horizontal dimension) and its interaction with supra national human rights mechanisms (vertical dimension). This holistic NHRS approach may also offer guidance to states, donors and organisations implementing human rights work on the ground. The article also reflects on new avenues for human rights research that would allow for bridging the ideal type concept and construct that the NHRS is and the complexity and shortfalls of the real-life functioning of human rights state actors and their actual interactions among themselves in context as well as with non-state actors and international human rights mechanisms.

KEYWORDS:

• National human rights system
• state actors
• system approach
• United Nations
• reporting

Notes

1 Bertrand G Ramcharan, ‘The National Responsibility to Protect Human Rights’ (2009) 39(2) Hong Kong Law Journal 364.

2 Werner Ulrich and Martin Reynolds, ‘Critical Systems Heuristics’ in Martin Reynolds and Sue Holwell (eds), Systems Approaches to Managing Change: A Practical Guide (Springer 2010) 251.

3 Strengthening of the United Nations: An Agenda For Further Change, Report of the Secretary-General to the fifty-seventh session of the United Nations General Assembly, 9 September 2002, UN Doc. A/57/387.

4 See below the conceptual framework of the NHRS proposed in this article.

5 Aside from an article by Bertrand Ramcharan (n 1), no literature is readily found on the UN model of national human rights protection system.

6 See references listed in this issue in the article by Claire O’Brien and Jolyon Ford.

7 Thomas Risse, Stephen C Ropp and Kathryn Sikkink (eds), The Persistent Power of Human Rights: From Commitment To Compliance (Cambridge University Press 2013); Emily M Hafner-Burton, Making Human Rights A Reality (Princeton University Press 2013); Beth Simmons, Mobilizing Human Rights: International Law in Domestic Politics (Cambridge University Press 2009).

8 Thomas Pegram, ‘Global Human Rights Governance and Orchestration: National Human Rights Institutions as Intermediaries’ 2014 (21) 3 European Journal of International Relations 595; Wade M Cole and Francisco O Ramirez, ‘Conditional Decoupling: Assessing the Impact of National Human Rights Institutions, 1981–2004’ (2013) 78(4) American Sociological Review 702.

9 There is an extensive academic literature on NHRIs; for an overview see Steven LB Jensen, ‘Lessons from Research on National Human Rights Institutions’ (2018) DIHR Working Paper, The Danish Institute for Human Rights <www.humanrights.dk/publications/lessons-research-national-human-rights-institutions> accessed 6 November 2019; Stéphanie Lagoutte, Annali Kristiansen and Lisbeth AN Thonbo, ‘Review of Literature on National Human Rights Institutions’ (2016) Danish Institute for Human Rights <www.humanrights.dk/publications/review-literature-national-human-rights-institutions> accessed 6 November 2019; The Asia-Pacific Forum has also published an extensive bibliography on NHRIs <www.asiapacificforum.net/resources/nhri-bibliography/> accessed 6 November 2019.

10 Respectively adopted in 2002 and 2006.

11 See Sébastien Lorion's article in this volume on the contributions to and the interpretations of the CRPD and their implications on the designing of domestic human rights institutions in this volume as well as section 5 of this article on the interactions of the NHRS with international and regional human rights mechanisms.

12 See overview and analysis of this resurgence of empirical studies in international legal scholarship in Gregory Schaffer and Tom Ginsburg, ‘The Empirical Turn in International Legal Scholarship’ (2012) 106(1) American Journal of International Law 46.

13 Ibid.

14 Thomas Risse and Stephen C Ropp, ‘Introduction and Overview’ in Risse, Ropp and Sikkink, The Persistent Power of Human Rights (n 7).

15 Oona Hathaway, ‘Do Human Rights Treaties make a Difference?’ (2002) 3 Yale Law Journal 1935.

16 Hafner-Burton (n 7).

17 Simmons (n 7). See also Risse, Ropp and Sikkink (n 7) and Hafner-Burton (n 7).

18 Risse and Ropp (n 14) 15; Abdullahi A An-Na’im, ‘The Legal Protection of Human Rights in Africa: How to Do More with Less’ in Austin Sarat and Thomas R Kearns, Human Rights: Concepts, Contests, Contingencies (The University of Michigan Press 2004); Christof Heyns and Frans Viljoen, ‘The Impact of the United Nations Human Rights Treaties on the Domestic Level’ (2001) 23 Human Rights Quarterly 483.

19 Eric Neumayer, ‘Do International Treaties Improve respect for Human Rights?’ (2005) 49 Journal of Conflict Resolution 925; Hathaway (n 15); Linda Camp Keith, ‘Judicial Independence and Human Rights Protection around the World’ (2002) 85 Judicature 195; Heyns and Viljoen (n 18).

20 Simmons (n 7) 373. See also Risse and Ropp (n 14) 15.

21 Mark Goodale and Sally Engle Merry, The Practice of Human Rights: Tracking Law between the Global and the Local (Cambridge University Press 2007); Koen de Feyter, Stephan Parmentier, Christiane Timmerman and George Ulrich (eds), The Local Relevance of Human Rights (Cambridge University Press 2010).

22 Katarina Linos and Thomas Pegram, ‘Interrogating Form and Function: Designing Effective National Human Rights Institutions’ (2015) Matters of Concern Human Rights Research Paper Series, No 2015/8, The Danish Institute for Human Rights; Ryan Goodman and Thomas Pegram, Thomas (eds), Human Rights, State Compliance and Social Change: Assessing National Human Rights Institutions (Cambridge University Press 2012).

23 Kenneth Abbott, Philipp Genschel, Duncan Snidal and Bernhard Zangl ‘Orchestration: Global Governance Through Intermediaries’ in Kenneth Abbott and others, International Organizations as Orchestrators (Cambridge University Press 2015).

24 Thomas Pegram, ‘Global Human Rights Governance and Orchestration: National Human Rights Institutions As Intermediaries’ (2015) European Journal of International Relations 595.

25 Ibid. 616.

26 Strengthening of the United Nations (n 3). See also Ramcharan (n 1) .

27 Strengthening of the United Nations (n 3).

28 Manual for Embassies of EU Member States: Strengthening the National Human Rights Protection System, Human Rights Division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, Czech Presidency of the European Union, 2009.

29 For instance OHCHR Management Plan 2014–2017, Working for Your Rights, OHCHR, 2014 <digitallibrary.un.org/record/768573>. And more recently, OHCHR, Contribution of parliaments to the work of the Human Rights Council and its universal periodic review: Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 17 May 2018, UN Doc A/HRC/38/25, para 18. In addition, concluding observations of UN Treaty Bodies include often a section on the national human rights protection system which deals with the constitutional and legislative framework in the country, the role of its main state actors, the human rights mechanisms in place, access to justice and, to some extent, the role given to NGOs (e.g. CEDAW's Concluding observations on Tunisia in 2010 (CEDAW/C/TUN/CO/6), on Jordan in 2017 (CEDAW/C/JOR/CO/6)).

30 Speech by the former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour at the nineteenth session of the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights (ICC), 21 March 2007: ‘Their [NHRIs’] central role derives from the pivotal position that national institutions have as the keystone of a strong national human rights protection system.’

31 OHCHR Management Plan 2014–2017 (n 29).

32 Council of the European Union, EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy (2015–2019), European Union, 2015 <eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/eu_action_plan_on_human_rights_and_democracy_en_2.pdf> accessed 6 November 2019.

33 In the early 2000s, Bertrand Ramcharan was Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights and then Acting UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

34 Ramcharan (n 1).

35 Ibid. 362.

36 Ibid. 361 and more detailed explanation at 361–400.

37 Ibid.

38 See e.g. Martin Reynolds and Sue Holwell (eds), Systems Approaches to Managing Change: A Practical Guide (Springer 2010); Ida R Hoos, Systems Analysis in Public Policy: A Critique (University of California Press 1972); Brian Wilson, Systems: Concepts, Methodologies and Applications (John Wiley 1996); R Jervis, System Effects: Complexity in Political and Social Life (Princeton University Press 1997), as well as Fred Wulszyn and others, Adapting a Systems Approach to Child Protection: Key Concepts and Considerations (UNICEF 2010) 10–17, 46–47.

39 See e.g. Azadeh Chalabi, ‘Law as a System of Rights: A Critical Perspective’ (2014) 15 Human Rights Review 120; Wulszynand others (n 39) 10.

40 Wulszyn and others (n 39) 10.

41 Ibid. 11.

42 Chalabi (n 40) 121; Ulrich and Reynolds (n 2) 251; Robert Jervis, ‘Complexity and the Analysis of Political and Social Life’ (1998) 112(4) Political Science Quarterly 569.

43 This is particularly true in a context where human rights are seen as reflecting exogenous values which are perceived as incompatible with the religious and cultural tradition of the population in all or parts of a country.

44 A recent example is Tunisia, where a number of scholars, NGOs and public actors have studied closely public/state actors and non-state actors of the NHRS: see Stéphanie Lagoutte, Annali Kristiansen and others, Study of State Actors in the Tunisian Human Rights System (Danish Institute for Human Rights and Faculty of legal, political and social sciences of Tunis, Carthage University, 2018); Souheil Kaddour, La gouvernance des droits de l’homme en Tunisie post-révolutionnaire: état des lieux, difficultés et opportunités (2014) 6 La Revue des droits de l’homme <journals.openedition.org/revdh/913> accessed & November 2019; Wahid Ferchichi and Monia Ammar, Structures publiques des droits de l’homme en Tunisie (2013) Al-Kawakibi Democracy Transition Centre. In other countries, the mapping of state actors’ mandates and roles is more incomplete or outdated due to recent changes in the country. See for instance a mapping on state actors in Burkina Faso: Centre pour la Gouvernance Démocratique: Rapport d’étude sur le rôle des acteurs des droits humains au Burkina Faso, Centre pour la Gouvernance Démocratique (CGD) Burkina Faso, 2013.

45 Danish Institute for Human Rights, The Constitutional Protection of Human Rights (2012) Danish Institute for Human Rights.

46 Law No 553 on the Danish Institute for Human Rights – the National Human Rights Institution of Denmark, adopted on the 18 June 2012, para 12. See the contributions of the DIHR to legislative hearing procedures <https://menneskeret.dk/monitorering/hoeringssvar> (in Danish).

47 Lagoutte, Kristiansen and others (n 45) introduction and 17–62.

48 See the article by Kirsten Roberts Lyer in this volume on Parliaments as human rights actors.

49 Case study on Burkina Faso in Sébastien Lorion's Ph.D. thesis, The institutional turn of international human rights law and its reception by state administration in developing countries (forthcoming in 2020).

50 Inter-Parliamentary Union and OHCHR, Human Rights. Handbook for Parliamentarians n˚26 (Inter-Parliamentary Union, 2016); National Democratic Institute, Parliamentary Human Rights Committees (National Democratic Institute 2005) <www.accessdemocracy.org/library/1905_gov_parlhrscommittees_080105.pdf> accessed 6 November 2019.

51 Five independent constitutional authorities have been established in 2014. They deal with elections, information, human rights, corruption and ‘ …  sustainable development and rights for future generations’ (arts 125–130 of the new Tunisian Constitution, 26 January 2014).

52 There are many independent administrative authorities that exist in France, as for instance the national human rights commission, which is also the NHRI of France. Many others deal with areas closely related to human rights, such as: access to information and public documents, ethics, media, places of detention, etc.

53 See the article by Tomer Broude and Natan Milikowsky in this issue, which looks into how some NHRI functions can be placed within the mandate of others actors of the NHRS.

54 The French national human rights institution, the Commission nationale consultative des droits de l’homme, has presented several official opinions to the French Parliament to contribute to its work on balancing freedom of religion and the French principle of secularism and separation of State and Church (laïcité), for instance in 2015 (laïcité), 2013 (laïcité), 2008 (blasphemy), etc.

55 The Universal Periodic Reporting Process: A Guide for National Human Rights Institutions at: <www.upr-info.org/sites/default/files/general-document/pdf/nihrc_an_nhri_approach_to_the_upr_process.pdf> accessed 6 November 2019; Universal Periodic Review – First Cycle. Reporting methodologies from the position of the state, civil society and National Human Rights Institutions (Danish Institute for Human Rights, 2011).

56 See the UPR-SDGs data explorer tool: <www.humanrights.dk/sdg-human-rights-data-explorer> accessed 6 November 2019.

57 See section 5 below.

58 Strengthening of the United Nations (n 3) paras 134–41.

59 Ibid. paras 142–47. See UN Guiding principles on Business and Human Rights, 2011, UN Doc. A/HRC/17/31. For an analysis of the interplay between the multi-level governance that characterised the field of human rights and business and the NHRS approach, see the article by Claire O’Brien and Jolyon Ford in this issue.

60 See Sébastien Lorion's article on the CRPD in this issue.

61 Article 18 stipulates that the States Parties shall guarantee the functional independence of the national preventive mechanisms as well as the independence of their personnel (art 18.1). In doing so, they shall give due consideration to the Principles relating to the status of national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights (art 18.4).

62 See e.g. Hathaway (n 15); Heyns and Viljoen (n 18); Linda Camp Keith, ‘The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Does it Make A Difference In Human Rights Behavior?’ (1999) 36(1) Journal of Peace Research 95.

63 Amrei Müller and Frauke Seidensticker, The Role of National Human Rights Institutions in the United Nations Treaty Body Process (German Institute for Human Rights, 2007); International Coordinating Committee of NHRIs (ICC), National Human Rights Institutions and Universal Periodic Review Follow-Up, 20150 <http://nhri.ohchr.org/EN/IHRS/UPR/Documents/FINAL%20ICC%20paper%20on%20NHRIs%20UPR%20follow%20up.pdf> accessed 6 November 2019.

64 Pammela Quinn Saunders, ‘The Integrated Enforcement of Human Rights’ (2012) 45(1) New York University Journal of International Law & Politics 97 at 108.

65 Ibid. 100.

66 On the role of Academia in the NHRS, see Stéphanie Lagoutte and Danielle Soskin, ‘The Role of Academia in Human Rights Protection and Promotion’ (Matters of Concern 2018/2 – Human Rights Research Papers, Danish Institute for Human Rights, 2018) 23–27 <www.humanrights.dk/publications/academia-human-rights> accessed 6 November 2019.

67 Felipe Gómez Isa, ‘Freedom From Want Revisited from a Local Perspective: Evolution and Challenges Ahead’ in de Feyter and others, The Local Relevance of Human Rights (n 21) 40.

68 Simmons (n 7).

69 Ryan Goodman and Derek Jinks, Socializing States: Promoting Human Rights through International Law (Oxford University Press 2013).

70 Principles relating to the Status of National Institutions (The Paris Principles), adopted by the UN General Assembly resolution 48/134 of 20 December 1993.

71 Information Note: National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) interaction with the UN Treaty Body System (OHCHR, 5 April 2011).

72 OHCHR Information Note for National Human Rights Institutions on the 2nd Cycle of the Universal Periodic Review <www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/UPR/InfoNoteNHRIUPR2ndCycle.pdf> accessed 6 November 2019; OHCHR, Universal Periodic Review (Third Cycle): Information and guidelines for relevant stakeholders’ written submissions <www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/NgosNhris.aspx> accessed 6 November 2019.

73 Universal Periodic Review – First Cycle. Reporting methodologies from the position of the state, civil society and National Human Rights Institutions (Danish Institute for Human Rights, 2011).

74 See examples from Denmark, Panama or Norway: ibid. 14, 17.

75 Ibid. 23–27. See also UPR Denmark 2016. List of Selected Recommendations – revised version (Danish Institute for Human Rights, 2016).

76 Goodale and Engle Merry (n 21); de Feyter and others (n 21).

77 Howard Erlanger and others, ‘Is It Time for a New Legal Realism?’ (2005) 2 Wisconsin Law Review 335.

78 Victoria Nourse and Gregory Shaffer, ‘Varieties of New Legal Realism: Can a New World Order Prompt a New Legal Theory?’ (2009) 95 Cornell Law Review 62; Thomas J Mile and Cass R Sunstein, ‘The New Legal Realism’ (2008) 75 University of Chicago Law Review 831; Erlanger and others (n 78). And more recently Elisabeth Mertz, Stewart Macaulay, Thomas W Mitchell, The New Legal Realism: Translating Law-and-Society for Today's Legal Practice, Volume 1 (Cambridge University Press 2016); Heinz Klug and Sally Engle Merry, The New Legal Realism: Studying Law Globally, Volume 2 (Cambridge University Press 2016).

79 In Tunisia for instance, a whole state human rights infrastructure has been existing for years without working in any meaningful way. The new infrastructure put in place during the transition and since the entry into force of the 2014 Constitution has yet to find adequate human and financial resources to play the ambitious role designed for it: Lagoutte, Kristiansen and others (n 45).

80 For instance, concerning Africa: An-Na’im (n 18); Heyns and Viljoen (n 18).

81 Tomas Max Martin, ‘The Local Importation of Human Rights in Ugandan Prisons’ (2014) 212 Prison Service Journal 45; Thomas Bierschenk and Jean-Pierre Olivier de Sardan (eds), States at Work: The Dynamics of African Bureaucracies (Brill 2014).

82 Luka Glušac, ‘Local Public Libraries as Human Rights Intermediaries’ (2018) 36(2) Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 133; Hans-Otto Sano and Tomas Max Martin, ‘Inside the Organization. Methods of Researching Human Rights and Organizational Dynamics’ in Bård A Andreassen, Hans-Otto Sano and Siobhán McInerney-Lankford, Research Methods in Human Rights: A Handbook (Edward Elgar 2017) 273; Goodman and Pegram (n 22).