course material

1. M200PLPPEGC Law Policy And Practice
Answers:
Introduction
It is the duty of States to promote and preserve human rights (HR) at the national level in
accordance with international HRs accords. When a nation ratifies, accedes to, or succeeds
in a treaty, it takes on the legal responsibility of enforcing the rights stipulated therein. A
formal declaration of rights sometimes doesn't ensure that they will be respected in reality.
This is merely the beginning. Everyone within a state's jurisdiction should be able to enjoy
the rights granted by the treaty, and this was acknowledged while the first treaty was
enacted. States parties would need encouragement and support to fulfil their international
commitments to this end. Each treaty, therefore, establishes an international committee of
independent specialists to oversee the execution of its provisions in different ways.
In order to keep tabs on how well the treaties are indeed being put into action, the treaty
organisations have a variety of duties. In all treaty bodies save for the Subcommittee on
Prevention of Torture, the period following from States Parties outlining how they are
implementing the treaty provisions nationwide are required to be received and taken into
consideration. In order to help States in the development of their reports, the treaty bodies
offer guidelines, write general remarks interpreting the treaties, as well as arrange
discussions on treaty-related topics. Not all treaty organisations also carry out a variety of
other tasks to help their state parties better execute the treaties. It is possible for a State to
be held accountable for a violation of an individual's right if it has chosen to participate in a
treaty body's complaint process. Some may even look at interstate concerns and undertake
investigations.
Development Of UN Treaties
In spite of the fact that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the IBHR
(the Universal Declaration as well as the two Covenants) were drafted more than 60 years
ago and that the IBHR was accomplished in 1966, the IBHRs treaties have continued to
expand. It has been a struggle for the international community to ensure that the many
parts of the growing system operate together successfully, but the wide range of
instruments and bodies ensures better promotion and protection of HRs in a variety of

2. specialised areas of concern.
The Expansion Of The HRs Treaty System And The Need For Development
Nearly four new treaty bodies including three new optional procedures for individual
complaints have were established during 2004 and are now part of the HRs treaty body
system. Due to the additions made starting in early 2010, as well as those made in January
2011, to both the Committee on Migrant Workers' Rights and its Subcommittee on
Preventing Torture, there are now 172 members on these treaty bodies' various
committees (up from 125 at the end of 2009). The length of meetings has also increased.
Since the coming into effect on December 23, 2010, the International Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of Enforced Disappearances has been a major breakthrough in
human rights. As a good side effect of increased universal periodic review (UPR), the
number of countries ratifying and reporting on international HRs treaties has risen
significantly. More than 130 countries were reviewed, and over 100 individual complaints
were considered by the nine human rights treaty authorities with a reporting system in
2010. All stakeholders are asked to consider the future of treaty bodies as well as come up
with novel and creative solutions for strengthening the system as a result of this expansion.
The treaty organisations have succeeded in carrying out their missions, in part via engaging
States in open and transparent dialogue about the challenges of HRs realisation via the
reporting process. In spite of the fact that many of their tasks overlap, each treaty body has
traditionally approached its job in a way that was distinct from the others. Even while there
are many parallels across the committees, they have developed their own processes and
practises, which have resulted in a lack of coherence between them. The inter-committee
meetings have been a part of the treaty organisations' efforts to streamline and harmonise
their working procedures and practices for many years. At the same time, it is
acknowledged that certain deviations from the applicable treaty may be warranted, or even
necessary.
In order to promote and preserve HRs across the globe, international treaties are used.
States ratify the treaties in order to signify their agreement to these criteria and to apply
them at the state level. States are encouraged and supported in their efforts by the treaty
organisations. However, it is evident that HRs are most important at the national level since
they should be available to all citizens, regardless of gender or ethnicity, for each country. A
significant role is played by the treaty organisations in aiding national efforts to increase
HRs protections. A crucial aspect of developing a national system of HRs protection,
however, is reporting to the treaty organisations. Treaty organisations (including those
mandated by the Subcommittee for the Prevention of Torture in Conflict) give States
practical guidance and support on how to implement the treaties.
Criticism
The HR Law Is Too Ambiguous

3. Despite the fact that most governments have signed virtually all of the major HRs treaties,
human rights breaches continue to occur. It's not only China and Russia that suffer from
political persecution. Extrajudicial measures, like torture, are often used by police to get
confessions in several underdeveloped nations because of the poor functioning of the
CJS. There is a surprising amount of commonality in old-fashioned evils like child labour, the
oppression of women, religious persecution, as well as slavery. Terrorist suspects have been
tortured, police violence is widespread, and guilty offenders are often sentenced to heavy
penalties in the United States.
Many feel that strengthening HRs legislation is the answer to these issues. We need
additional treaties, with greater commitments and stronger international institutions, they
believe. However, my opinion is rather the reverse. States are overwhelmed with
responsibilities they can't possibly meet under HRs legislation, and there is no way of
determining whether governments are acting properly or not. There is nothing the law can
do for us, therefore we should accept it and go on. However, this does not imply that we
should not be concerned when governments mistreat their own people. Instead of using
force or shame, a more targeted and pragmatic approach, which relies significantly on
foreign assistance for Economic Growth is preferable.
Negating HR Laws Is Wrong
Human rights legislation should not be abolished because human rights breaches continue
to occur, as well as the criminal code should not be abolished since crimes continue to be
committed. Hypocrisy cops may be pleased, but public safety is unlikely to increase as a
consequence. HRs violations by governments are nothing new. Powerful people have the
tendency to discriminate towards minorities, order torture in the guise of battling
terrorists, or suppress an outspoken opponent for achieving their goals. Using HRs
conventions may assist explain why these violations are unacceptable. They may not always
give final solutions, but they establish a broadly accepted set of concepts from which the
discussion might begin. What if instead of arguing whether or not individuals should be
tried in court, we had to first debate whether or not they should be given a fair trial?
When Eric claims that the HRs movement's response to transgressions is "more treaties,"
he's using a straw man. Certainly, throughout the years, additional treaties were established
to clarify the law, like clarifying that the ban of indiscriminate warfare does not include
antipersonnel landmines as well as cluster bombs, which are anti-personnel landmines or
cluster munitions. However, the bulk of the HRs movement's efforts is focused on enforcing
already-existing rights instead of advancing new ones. "Utopian" pronouncements of too
high aspirations that can't be achieved are not what government officials are saying about
treaties. Their appeal isn't to avoid responsibility for their actions, but instead, "I did not kill
those demonstrators or jail her for criticising me," or "I am not incarcerating her." They
often recognise the legitimacy of the right at issue and argue that they are complying with it.

4. Whenever this is not the case, the concrete realities on the ground are used to contrast the
assertion of the government with the official line.
Autocrats will be delighted to hear the argument that one should instead depend on foreign
subsidies for economic growth. For decades, proponents of China's leadership have
contended that as the country's economy grows, so would the respect for human rights. The
alternative is a government that is unaccountable and rife with corruption. Building
societies that respect human rights cannot be accomplished in a single method. When it
comes to living under an oppressive government, I'd rather have one that paid lip respect to
the rights treaties this had signed than one that was simply bound by its own aspirations.
Adherence to international HR treaties is too expensive
Although I empathise with the Chinese leadership, I don't believe China needs development
assistance. I'm sorry. More than 600 million Chinese citizens have been lifted out of abject
poverty and into a middle-class lifestyle since China's economic reforms began in 1981. This
is among the most significant acts of humanitarianism in history. Moreover, the Authorities
did not disguise the fact that its people were denied political rights. Many people in China
dreaded civil conflict and social upheaval, which had decimated their population and left
them exposed to foreign exploitation as well as military invasion during much of China's
20th-century history.
Not that the Chinese model is appropriate for us or any other nation. People in the West, on
the other hand, have an easy time arguing that China should really have implemented
economic reforms and democratic principles such as religious freedom, free speech, as well
as fair trials. How much do we know about China's political and social climate? Despite the
fact that Chinese government officials may repress political liberties in order to preserve
their position, the West has no way of knowing whether — or how much — and for how
long the implementation of political freedoms would help or harm the Chinese.
Many other nations, particularly the poorest nations, can't even afford much of the rights in
the HRs accords, and this is true for China as well as many other countries. In the eyes of the
American public, rights are only a question of the government doing what it's supposed to.
Incorrect. If you want to have a fair trial, for instance, you need a well-staffed, well-paid,
well-trained judiciary that understands the law, morals and social contexts and is well-
versed in the complexities of the legal system and society. Bureaucracies or courts are often
corrupt, sluggish, and ineffective in poor nations. Most governments can't afford to raise
pay, educate employees, or enact anti-corruption legislation in order to clean them up.
Privileges are costly, both politically and financially; various sorts of rights were easier to
uphold in different nations; and, thus, the proper course of action for each government vary
drastically. The HRs accords do not reflect these realities. Many HRs academics believe that
people should only require that governments respect some "basic" rights that everybody

5. can afford, but it turns out that such fundamental rights are hard to define, that is why the
HRs treaties protect hundreds of rights instead of just a handful.
The publication of the Senate commission reports on C.I.A. torture would serve as a
reminder of how tough it is to uphold rights even in a wealthy nation with a long history of
liberalism. Despite the fact that torture is illegal in this nation, it was carried out on a vast
scale. Foreign nations may justifiably ask: How could we stop public officials from being
used torture if they despise it and can't stop them from using it?
Forcing Governments To Do The Right Thing
Institutions that safeguard human rights need funding, of course. That's fine, but why do we
need to jettison HRs treaties? People in underdeveloped nations should not be entitled to
the same rights as those in wealthier ones. In spite of the abuses committed by their rulers,
should they abandon their efforts to invest in the required institutions?
Of course, as the C.I.A.'s use of torture demonstrates, wealthy nations are no exception to
human rights abuses. However, this does not imply that one should renounce all HRs
accords; rather, they should step their enforcement efforts. Millions of Chinese were killed
by "political disturbance" in the twentieth century, according to Eric. However, millions of
people died as a result of a lack of political rights during the Great Leap Forward as well as
the Cultural Revolution, which were started by the unaccountable Chinese Communist
Party, which is still in power today. The government's unchecked authority was to blame for
the discontent and bloodshed, as it has been in so many other nations.
Despite China's economic progress, the Chinese people should nevertheless put up with
land grabs, intolerable pollution, vast corruption, and sometimes even arrests if they
protest. This is because the leadership in China has no responsibility. Governments who
don't safeguard the rights of their citizens have a problem. It is possible that some
unaccountable leaders govern with wisdom, but many rules to retain power and increase
their own fortunes by any means necessary.
People who have been repressed have no voice in Eric's view of HRs, which he uses only to
cast doubt on other regimes. To me, human rights are primarily a weapon individuals may
use to hold authorities accountable for their actions. People who were arrested by China
because they wanted to be on the U.N. HRs Council's review of China's HRs record died in
prison, says Cao Shunli, who saw this. Also, Nobel Prize winner Liu Xiaobo, who is in a
Chinese prison for 11 years because he wanted to promote democracy.
It also seems that the Chinese government somehow doesn't agree with Eric's stance on the
importance of HRs. Many HRs accords have been signed by the country — not that it is a fan
of these constraints on its authority, but because it has to seem respectable to its people in
order to regain their trust. However, the rising number of individuals in China perceives this

6. duplicity as a chance to urge their authorities to shift from lip service to truth. Eric
considers this as a justification to pull-up rights accords.
Even China's ruling party has been subjected to this kind of pressure. Since then, it has
reduced the death sentence, eliminated forced labour re-education, liberalised the one-child
policy, and begun attempts to minimise the use of torture seeking confessions. Even if China
is still a long way from fulfilling its human rights obligations, why should humans? If the
Chinese government isn't, why should people?
With Or Without HR Treaties, Change Is Happening Now
In accordance with the Convention Against Torture, it is prohibited and torturers must be
prosecuted. In fact, the United States isn't the only country to flout these standards. Torture
is still used by governments from over 150 nations (out of around 193 U.N. members),
much as it was when the treaty entered into effect in 1987.
Political involvement and freedom from arbitrary law administration tactics are two of the
rights outlined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 168 nations have
signed up to the agreement, which has been in place since 1976. Despite this, the number of
"free" nations has been steadily decreasing during the last eight years, as per Freedom
House. Recent years have seen a decrease in political freedom in Russia, Turkey, even
Indonesia. Both North Korea and Uzbekistan, two of the world's most autocratic nations,
have signed the pact.
188 nations have accepted the Convention on the Eradication of All Forms of Discrimination
Against Women. Despite this, laws and norms subjugate women in practically every country
outside of the West. Some notable countries that signed the pact included Saudi Arabia,
wherein women are not allowed to drive, and Egypt (where 97 per cent of married women
have been found to undergo genital cutting in 2000).
There have been 162 nations that have signed the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights, which protects workers' rights to a decent wage and access to
health care. The concept of guaranteeing these rights is a mystery to most people. As a
result, Spain's rate of unemployment is 24 per cent, which is mostly due to legislation that
protects workers' wages and benefits. Is Spain violating or safeguarding the rights of its
citizens to work?
No need to depict a depressing picture of the future. Thanks to the fall of communism, there
are many more democracies now than there were forty years ago. Global poverty has
decreased dramatically as a result of women's advancements. However, there is no
indication that the accords have had a direct impact on this. It is impossible for
governments to use the treaties as a guide since they require more than these countries are
able to supply. The guest worker programmes in Gulf nations like Qatar and the UAE are

7. good examples. Guest workers are denied fundamental rights, and many live in appalling
circumstances, according to HRs Watch, a group founded by Ken. To help people who live in
poverty, guest worker programmes may help them get paid five or even more times what
they could earn at home. They then send money to their families in the form of remittances.
It's safe to say that Gulf nations contribute more than any other nation (measured in terms
of GDP per capita). These guest worker programmes are a need for Gulf nations because
they need inexpensive labour. As a result, the number of employees who benefit from
Human Rights Watch's suggested improvements would be reduced. Is it really possible that
people will be better off?
The Impact Of International HR Treaties
There were about 80,000 rapes and nearly 14,000 murders in the United States, yet no one
has suggested eliminating the criminal prohibitions on murder and rape. As a result, Eric
would abolish human rights accords, which he sees as a necessary evil. The understanding
of his reasoning remains a mystery.
He argues that treaties are too ambiguous and demanding to affect policy, yet I've found the
contrary to be true time and time again. Antipersonnel landmines and cluster bombs saw a
sharp decline in usage when international treaties banned their use. Human rights treaties
were utilised by Chile and Argentina to overturn military amnesties for mass crimes, and
hundreds of individuals were imprisoned as a result. Due to international treaty obligations,
Brazil has increased the penalties for domestic abuse and allowed frequent visits to
detainees as a kind of deterrent to torture.
To ensure that women have equitable access to inheritance, Kenya invoked the Women's
Rights Convention. Britain, Ireland, and France have all decriminalised gay conduct as a
result of the European Union's HRs treaty. Domestic workers in Asia and Africa have seen a
rise in the minimum pay, social security benefits, and paid time off as a result of a new
labour convention. Hundreds of thousands of lives were saved when the South African
Constitutional Court declared that the right to health compels those living with HIV to have
access to anti-retroviral medications. A lot more could be said here.
When the courts are ineffective, treaties may nevertheless be useful because they codify the
public's opinions on how the government should act. A government's treaty obligations may
be compared against any actions that fall short by local human rights organisations working
with international partners like HRs Watch to build pressure to uphold these treaties.
Embarrassment is a potent motivator for transformation.
Using CIA torture as an example, Eric argues that the treaty forbidding it is ineffective.
However, the CIA falsely maintains that it did not torture anybody, as if torturing people is
somehow acceptable. Aside from that, President Obama might declare that he did his job if
the treaty hadn't been in place by putting an end to Bush administration torture. When it

8. comes to the treaty's mandate that torturers be prosecuted, he is forced to oppose the urge
to do so. Former Chadian tyrant Hissène Habré, whom Senegal had long housed in exile, was
recently brought to justice after Senegal felt obligated to do so.
In addition, the United States alters its behaviour in order to uphold its duties under
international treaties. Due to a treaty prohibiting the employment of young soldiers, the
Pentagon no longer deploys 17-year-olds. Treaty used by Supreme Court in a decision to
abolish death sentence for juvenile offenders. It is Eric's contention that implementing
labour rights may raise expenses if people lose their employment. As he points out, the
Persian Gulf nations that rely on migrant labour and deploy retrogressive policies to keep
migrants in check don't face much of this issue. In order to maximise employment, we
should tolerate the lower cost of slaves or bound labourers, or the deaths of employees
compelled to work in unsafe circumstances since safe conditions would be too expensive,
according to his reasoning. HRs organisations in these nations demand comprehensive
implementation of the fundamental labour rights guaranteed by international treaties
rather than acquiescing in this race to the bottom.
Conclusion
HR treaties have a positive effect on the protection of human rights. According to our
quantitative research, the response is more complicated than an enter or no response. On
the one hand, acceptance of HRs treaties typically makes little impact and may even make
matters worse when civil society and/or pure autocracies are absent. Although not
conclusive, it does give some support for Hathaway's (2002) claim that such nations may
leverage the "expressive function" of treaty ratification without even any improvement. The
more democratic a nation is, the more advantageous ratification of HRs treaties seems to be.
In particular, researchers show proof that ratification is far more advantageous when a
country's civilized society is larger, that is when more of its people join in international
NGOs. That liberal ideas and the notion of international HRs networks may be supported by
this data. Only a few instances of treaty ratification having a positive impact on HRs were
uncovered by the research. There must be circumstances in most situations for domestic
organisations, parties, people, and civil society to convince, compel, and maybe coerce
governments into turning the formal promises of enhanced HRs protection into practical
reality. However, it is the relationship between treaty ratification with civil society power
that typically counts. Research in this area might benefit greatly by examining the factors
that lead countries to ratify international HRs treaties, as well as how ratification affects
HRs effectiveness. Treaties, on the other hand, compel governments to participate in an HRs
process that is impossible to quantify. According to the quantitative and empirical evidence,
the adoption of human rights treaties may lead to an increase in human rights respect, but
only if the country is democratic and has a strong civil society.
Bibliography

9. APT, 'United Nations Subcommittee On Prevention Of Torture | Association For The
Prevention Of Torture' (2021)
accessed 31 December 2021
Bantekas I, and Oette L, International Human Rights Law And Practice (Cambridge
University Press 2013)
Buckley C, 'Liu Xiaobo, Chinese Dissident Who Won Nobel While Jailed, Dies At 61' (2017)
accessed 31 December 2021
Economist, 'Towards The End Of Poverty' (The Economist, 2013)
accessed 31 December 2021
FBi, 'Crime In The U.S. 2013' (2021) https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-
the-u.s.-2013/violent-crime/murder-topic-page/murdermain_final
Forum Staff, 'An Interview With Kenneth Roth Of Human Rights Watch — THE FLETCHER
FORUM OF WORLD AFFAIRS' (2021) accessed 31 December 2021
France Diplomacy, 'Enforced Disappearance, Torture And Arbitrary Detention' (France
Diplomacy - Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs, 2021)
accessed 31 December 2021
HRW, 'Statement On Extrajudicial Killings In The Philippines' (2014)
accessed 31 December 2021
HRW, 'World Report 2014: Rights Trends In World Report 2014: Qatar' (Human Rights
Watch, 2021)
https://www.hrw.org/worldreport/2014/country-chapters/qatar
HRW, World Report 2015: Events Of 2014 (Bristol University Press 2015)
Huang-Chicago W, 'Are Human Rights Treaties Actually Working? - Futurity' (2015)
accessed 31 December 2021
Nebot E, Phraseology In Legal And Institutional Settings (Routledge 2017)

10. NewsWeek, 'Don't Mistake China's Three-Child Policy For Liberalization | Opinion'
(Newsweek, 2021)
https://www.newsweek.com/dont-mistake-chinas-three-child-policy-liberalization-
opinion-
1597295#:~:text=Fearing%20a%20population%20boom%2C%20Chinese,clinic%20for%
20a%20forced%20abortion
Nossiter A, 'Senegal Detains Ex-President Of Chad, Accused In The Deaths Of Opponents
(Published 2013)' (Nytimes.com, 2021)
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/01/world/africa/senegal-detains-ex-president-of-
chad.html
Posner E, and Weyl G, 'A Radical Solution To Global Income Inequality: Make The U.S. More
Like Qatar' (The New Republic, 2014) https://newrepublic.com/article/120179/how-
reduce-global-income-inequality-open-immigration-policies
Posner E, 'Human Rights Law Is Too Ambitious And Ambiguous' (2014)
accessed 31 December 2021
Posner E, 'Liberal Internationalism And The Populist Backlash' (HeinOnline, 2021)
accessed 31 December 2021
Posner E, The Twilight Of Human Rights Law (Oxford University Press 2014)
Roth K, 'The Dangerous Rise Of Populism: Global Attacks On Human Rights Values' [2017]
Journal of International Affairs
Spoehr T, 'The Looming National Security Crisis: Young Americans Unable To Serve In The
Military' (2018)
https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/the-looming-national-security-crisis-young-
americans-unable-serve-the-military
UNHR, 'Ratification Of 18 International Human Rights Treaties' (Indicators.ohchr.org, 2021)
https://indicators.ohchr.org
UNHR, 'The United Nations Human Rights Treaty System' (Ohchr.org, 2012)
https://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/factsheet30rev1.pdf