1. UN structure and monitoring bodies
Human Rights (2)
UN structure and monitoring bodies

2. Review:
Treaties that cover human rights create duties and responsibilities for a government to protect, promote and fulfill the human rights of its people.
The United Nations (UN), a multilateral decision-making organization comprised of 191 member nations, is the key international body responsible for safeguarding human rights worldwide.
There are six major human rights treaties negotiated by the UN member states that expand upon rights first guaranteed in the landmark 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights

3. Since 1948 …the human rights treaty system encompasses the following treaties
the International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (in force 4 January 1969)
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) (in force 23 March 1976)
the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (in force 23 March 1976)
the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (in force 3 September 1981)
the Convention Against Torture (in force 26 June 1987)
the Convention on the Rights of the Child (in force 2 September 1990).

4. UN Human Rights Commission – (this replaced by Human Rights Council)
Functions:
Setting human rights standards ( did it implement them?)
Holding an annual public debate on human rights violation ( who sat on the Commission – how often did they meet)
Appointing special rapporteurs, special representatives, experts and working groups to study themes or country situations. Today 16 countriesand more than20 thematic procedures are in place
Criticism:
Some of the world's most abusive regimes ….won seats on the Human Rights Commission and used them to insulate themselves from criticism."

5. Human Rights Council
T he Commission's members were pre-selected behind closed doors and then "elected" by acclamation. By contrast, the new members of the Council had to compete for seats, and successful candidates needed to win the support of a majority of all member states, in a secret ballot.
importance of ending double-standards, a problem which plagued the past Commission

6. Human Rights Council
A new universal periodic review mechanism will offer the Council - and the world - the opportunity to examine the records of all 191 member states of the United Nations. This is a dramatic development with the potential to improve human rights throughout the world.
the Council will meet throughout the year -three times for a total of 10 weeks
Council seats have been allocated on a regional basis as follows: Latin America 8; Western Europe 7; Eastern Europe 6; Africa 13; Asia 13.
all of these changes will amount to very little unless the members of the new Council are prepared to look beyond their immediate political interests and embrace the cause of human rights victims worldwide. That will require principled leadership from every one of them.

7. LATIN AMERICAN & CARIBBEAN STATES
Membership of the Human Rights Council by regional groups
AFRICAN STATES
LATIN AMERICAN & CARIBBEAN STATES
Algeria 2007 Cameroon Djibouti 2009 Gabon Ghana Mali 2008 Mauritius Morocco Nigeria Senegal South Africa 2007 Tunisia Zambia 2008
Argentina Brazil Cuba 2009 Ecuador Guatemala 2008 Mexico 2009 Peru 2008 Uruguay 2009
ASIAN STATES
WESTERN EUROPE & OTHER STATES
Bahrain Bangladesh China India Indonesia Japan Jordan Malaysia Pakistan 2008 Philippines Republic of Korea 2008 Saudi Arabia Sri Lanka 2008
Canada Finland France Germany Netherlands Switzerland United Kingdom 2008
EASTERN EUROPEAN STATES
Azerbaijan Czech Republic 2007 Poland Romania Russian Federation Ukraine 2008

8. International Court of Justice (1946)
Functions:
To settle in accordance with international law the legal disputes submitted
to it by states
To give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by international
agencies

9. Tripartite Mechanism for ILO Convention for Protection of Worker’s Rights
Governments, employers and trade unions

10. International Criminal Court (agreement to set it up 1998)
Proposed Functions:
Bring cases against individuals for war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity
Increasing state responsibility for infringement of human rights
Contributing to an international order that demands respect for human rights

11. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (1993) High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mr. Sergio Vieira de Mello (2002 – died tragically in Iraq, 19 August 2003 as Special Representative of the Secretary General)
Functions:
Providing states with advisory service and technical assistance on request
Enhancing international cooperation in human rights
Engaging in dialogues with governments aimed at securing respect for all human rights
Promoting effective implementation of human rights standards
AgendaProvisional agenda
1. Election of officers. 2. Adoption of the agenda. 3. Organization of the work of the session. 4. Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and follow-up to the World Conference on Human Rights. 5. The right of peoples to self-determination and its application to peoples under colonial or alien domination or foreign occupation. 6. Racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and all forms of discrimination. 7. The right to development. 8. Question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine. 9. Question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any part of the world, including: (a) Question of human rights in Cyprus; (b) Procedure established in accordance with Economic and Social Council resolutions 1503 (XLVIII) and 2000/ Economic, social and cultural rights. 11. Civil and political rights, including the questions of: (a) Torture and detention; (b) Disappearances and summary executions; (c) Freedom of expression; (d) Independence of the judiciary, administration of justice, impunity; (e) Religious intolerance; (f) States of emergency; (g) Conscientious objection to military service. 12. Integration of the human rights of women and the gender perspective: (a) Violence against women. 13. Rights of the child. 14. Specific groups and individuals: (a) Migrant workers; (b) Minorities; (c) Mass exoduses and displaced persons; (d) Other vulnerable groups and individuals. 15. Indigenous issues. 16. Report of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights: (a) Report and draft decisions; (b) Election of members. 17. Promotion and protection of human rights: (a) Status of the International Covenants on Human Rights; (b) Human rights defenders; (c) Information and education; (d) Science and environment. 18. Effective functioning of human rights mechanisms: (a) Treaty bodies; (b) National institutions and regional arrangements; (c) Adaptation and strengthening of the United Nations machinery for human rights. 19. Advisory services and technical cooperation in the field of human rights. 20. Rationalization of the work of the Commission. 21. Comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. 22. (a) Draft provisional agenda for the sixtieth session of the Commission; (b) Report to the Economic and Social Council on the fifty-ninth session of the Commission.
New U.N. Human Rights Chief Urged to Speak Out Brazilian veteran of U.N. aid agencies (Geneva, September 12, 2002) - The new United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights must stand up publicly to governments seeking to undermine the United Nations' human rights system, Human Rights Watch said as Sergio Vieira de Mello takes up his post today in Geneva. Human Rights Watch warned that the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, the world's highest human rights body, has reached a crisis point, with proceedings curtailed by budget cuts and dominated by abusive governments intent on blocking international scrutiny and criticism. Human Rights Watch welcomed Mr. Vieira de Mello's appointment and urged him to make it his top priority to defend the United Nations' ability to monitor and publicly censure human rights abuses around the world.
60th Session of the Commission on Human Rights: 6 week session opened 20 Jan, 15 March – 23 April 2004, Geneva

12. Acting High Commissioner,
Bertrand Ramcharan,

13. The High Commissioner
Ms. Louise Arbour was appointed High Commissioner in July 2004; Ms. Kyung-wha Kang joined the Office as its Deputy High Commissioner in January 2007.
heads the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).
The post of High Commissioner was established in December 1993 by a General Assembly resolution, in accordance with a recommendation contained in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action.
The resolution specifies that the High Commissioner is the principal United Nations official responsible for United Nations human rights activities, and that the High Commissioner performs his/her duties under the direction and authority of the Secretary-General. The resolution gives the High Commissioner the broad mandate to promote and protect all human rights: civil, political, economic, social and cultural.

14. Mary Robinson, UNHCHR 1997 - 2002 José Ayala-Lasso
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (5 April March 1997)
                                              
Mary Robinson, UNHCHR

15. Treaty Monitoring Bodies: CERD (est 1969) CCPR/HRC (1976)
CESCR (est 1985)
CEDAW (est. 1982)
28th Session Jan, 03.
CAT (est1987)
CRC (1991)
International Convention on Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (1969)
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) ( 1976)
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ( 1976)
Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (1981)
Convention Against Torture ( 1987)
Convention on the Rights of the Child (1990).
The treaty bodies are composed of members who are elected by the states parties to each treaty (or through the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) in the case of CESCR). In principle, treaty members are elected as experts who are to perform their functions in an independent capacity.
Monitoring Bodies: monitor governmental compliance with each of six major UN human rights treaties. While the committees are not judicial bodies, they influence governments by issuing specific observations about states' progress and compliance with human rights obligations. Ultimately, however, committees must rely on the good faith of a government to carry out the committees' recommendations. Committees meet two or three times a year at the UN offices in New York or Geneva
reviewing individual country reports. Once a committee has received the written country report, it schedules a committee session with the country's representatives. Following their examination of the report at the committee session, the committee issues "concluding observations," which are an official statement about the state's compliance with its obligations, with specific recommendations for improvement.
States report to the committee every two to four years, depending on the treaty (for specific information, see the following sections on each individual committee). States are given advance notice of their review by the committees.
If a state fails to submit a report, committees are often limited to making note of the breach of duty. Some committees, however, have adopted more aggressive measures. The Human Rights Committee (HRC) will review a country even if it fails to submit a report or show up for its scheduled review.1 Many countries delay or combine their periodic reports due to resource constraints.
A state that has signed but not ratified a treaty is not required to submit a report to the committee that oversees that treaty.
The Optional Protocol to CEDAW, entered into force in 2001, allows the CEDAW Committee to accept individual complaints and to investigate grave or systematic violations of women's rights protected by CEDAW.3
CESCR, which in its current form was established in 1985 by the United Nations (UN) Economic and Social Council, monitors compliance with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Covenant). 1
CERD, established in 1969, monitors state compliance with the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Convention against Racial Discrimination
CRC, established in 1991, monitors compliance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child (Children's Rights Convention
HRC, established in 1976, monitors compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Civil and Political Rights Covenant)1 and its two optional protocols
Countries Reporting The Committee will have before it the reports of the following States parties: [Reports are available in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, Spanish]
The combined initial and second periodic reports of Albania          CEDAW/C/ALB/1-2   [ A C E F R S ] The fifth periodic report of Canada
The combined initial, second, third, fourth and fifth periodic           reports of Republic of Congo   The combined third and fourth, and the fifth periodic reports           of El Salvador The combined third and fourth periodic reports of Kenya          CEDAW/C/KEN/3-4   [ A C E F R S ] The fourth periodic report of Luxembourg The fifth and sixth periodic reports of Norway         The combined initial and second periodic reports of Switzerland       

16. Treaty monitoring bodies
Each committee employs two primary methods to ensure that states observe their human rights treaty obligations.
Issue General Comments or Recommendations
Review State Protection of Human Rights
Some of the committees have an additional mandate pursuant to the relevant treaty to utilize the following two methods to hold governments accountable to human rights violations.
Examine Individual Complaints
Investigate Mass Violations
The general comments are designed to help governments fulfill their reporting obligations by specifying the intent, meaning and content of treaty provisions. The general comments or recommendations provide a working interpretation of the rights in the treaty and apply to all states parties to that treaty.
General comments also allow committees to draw attention to persistent inadequacies in a large number of country reports. For example, a general comment can highlight that states often fail in their reporting duties when they neglect to disaggregate data by gender; or in implementing their treaty obligations when they fail to expand social services to rural areas.
After reviewing the country report, the committee publicizes its concluding observations and recommendations. These observations generally list areas of success and specific issues of concern; they also acknowledge the obstacles to implementation that governments may face and make recommendations for better compliance
Some committees, such as the Committee against Torture, have the power to initiate and conduct investigations into situations of possible grave human rights violations.6 Other committees require a declaration by the state party that recognizes the committee's power to initiate and conduct such investigations. The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee), for example, only investigates mass violations in states that have ratified the Optional Protocol to CEDAW7 that allows these investigations.

17. Summary record of the 1846th meeting : Ireland. 19/07/2000.
Distr. GENERAL
CCPR/C/SR July 2000
Summary record of the 1846th meeting : Ireland. 19/07/2000.
CCPR/C/SR (Summary Record) Convention Abbreviation: CCPR
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE
Sixty-ninth session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE 1846th MEETING
Held at the Palais Wilson, Geneva, on Thursday, 13 July 2000, at 3 p.m. CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 40 OF THE COVENANT (continued)
Second periodic report of Ireland
The meeting was called to order at 3.05 p.m.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 40 OF THE COVENANT (agenda item 4) (continued)
Second periodic report of Ireland (CCPR/C/IRL/98/2; CCPR/C/69/L/IRL)
1. At the invitation of the Chairperson, Mr. McDowell, Ms. Anderson, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Flahive, Mr. Ingoldsby, Mr. Rowan, Ms. McSweeney, Mr. Hanrahan and Mr. MacAodha (Ireland) took places at the Committee table.

18. HRC : Ireland, some examples
In 1993, before the paramilitary cease-fires, the UN Human Rights Committee said there was no justification for the continued use of the non-jury Special Criminal Court and criticised emergency legislation here.
Mary Robinson: Recent report of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights gave no grounds for complacency in Ireland. It found that the relevant UN Covenant had not been fully incorporated in domestic legislation, and was rarely, if ever. invoked before the courts. (May 1999)
State may be forced into limiting defamation awards (july 2000)
Ireland may be forced by the European Court of Human Rights to limit excessive defamation awards, the Attorney General, Mr Michael McDowell, admitted to the UN Human Rights Committee
The Government will send an interim report on the Offences Against the State Act to the UN Human Rights Committee later this week (July 2001)
The Government is forwarding the report in response to a finding of the UN Human Rights Committee that one aspect of the Act, where the DPP can refer a case to the Special Criminal Court on the basis of a certificate, violated the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

19. CRC UN committee recommends ombudsman for children (Jan 1998)
An ombudsman for children and a national child-care authority for Ireland have been recommended by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. Its report is highly critical of Ireland's record on child care. In a report issued yesterday, following its hearings on the situation in the Republic, the committee also called for a ban on slapping children
Result:The Ombudsman for Children Act, which sets out the role and powers of this Office, was agreed by the Dail and the Seanad in 2002 In November 2003 the job for Ombudsman for Children was advertised; Emily Logan became Ireland’s first Ombudsman for Children in March 2004.
there is no comprehensive national policy on child care; that there is too little co-ordination between the agencies whose task is to protect children; and that the voluntary sector is given too little say in the area of childcare
The grilling that the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Ms Liz O'Donnell, got went on for six hours. The members of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child were extremely well briefed by the NGOs - questions ranged from the outcome of the C case to the problems of traveller children, to the reunification of refugee Vietnamese families in Ireland.

20. CRC: China
The report alleges that thousands of children are being allowed to die every year from medical neglect and starvation in China's state run orphanages, with the tacit approval of senior political leaders," the statement went on.
UNICEF quoted its executive director, Ms Carol Bellamy, saying that such actions would clearly contravene the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which China has ratified.

21. First Generation Rights
These encompass political and civil rights
Early statements on ‘human rights’ focused on rights like
freedom of speech and assembly and the rights to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives
concept of human rights is rooted in philosophical developments in Western Europe

22. Second Generation rights
These relate to economic, social and cultural rights and featured in the Declaration (Art. 22)
Some argue, these are not rights, they are merely unenforceable individual or group entitlements
they are not justiciable
They are aspirational, abstract; they cannot be the subject of either affirmative state obligation or of immediate realization and enforcement
‘for a human being to be considered whole, they must be able to enjoy both civil and political rights, as well as economic, social and cultural rights… human rights … become the bedrock of a wholesome and integrated approach to sustainable human development’
1993 Vienna Declaration: explicitly reaffirms the indivisibility, inerdependence and interrelatedness of the two categories of human rights (

23. Third Generation Rights
These build on the collective dimension and concern the rights of ‘peoples’
Banjul Charter ( 1981) entered into force1986
Peoples have the right to ‘freely dispose of their wealth and natural resources’ ( art. 21(1)); the individual has a duty ‘to serve his natural community by placing his physical and intellectual abilities at its service’ and ‘to preserve and strengthen positive African cultural values inhis relations with other members of the society…’ (Art 29 (2) & (7) )
This instrument lays the foundation for a human rights system in Africa, relying on African documents and traditions rather than UN declarations and covenants
All the subscribers to the African Charter[85] are developing countries. Sometimes referred to as the Banjul Charter, it came into force in October This instrument lays the foundation for a human rights system in Africa. It relies upon African documents and traditions, rather than United Nations declarations and covenants.
The African Charter may be of limited value in protecting expression since the right to express and disseminate opinions is subject to the priorities of national governments Where a state's constitution does not guarantee access to information or where national legislation is lacking or deficient, the provisions of Article 9 of the African Charter,
do not constitute independently an individual right which can be disputed in the national courts
The African Charter does establish a Commission to oversee the protection of enumerated rights. It also imposes a duty on states to enact legislation to give effect to the Charter. This implies that states are bound to respect these rights. The Charter thus appears to be an instrument which is binding on states party.[89] In these aspects it is similar to the earlier regional conventions.
In fact, however, there are critical differences between the African Charter and the European and American Conventions. The African Charter embodies quite a different concept of duty. It imposes certain obligations on individuals:
The sixth clause of the Preamble provides that "the enjoyment of rights and freedoms also implies the performance of duties on the part of everyone." In other regional human rights instruments, the concept of "duties" refers only to the obligation of a State towards its citizens or toward citizens of another State coming within its jurisdiction.[90] Indeed, the most fundamental difference in approach appears to be the subjection of rights to limitations created by national law:
In this respect, the Charter is incapable of supplying even a scintilla of external restraint upon a government's power to create laws contrary to the spirit of the rights granted. Even the African Commission's ability to provide some external restraint in situations where the governmental activity contravenes a national law is highly questionable.[91] Consequently, the phrase "within the law" in Article 9 of the African Charter means that a state can claim to be acting quite legally even if it legislates for access to information procedures that, for example, include stringent censorship and strict press control.
The link between openness in government, freedom of the press, and access to information has already been discussed. Furthermore, the right of access to information must be balanced against the integrity and security of the state.
In the next chapter we look at some of these issues in considering the current state of access in certain developing countries.
Need for an African Court of Human Rights:
Domestic judicial institutions are not enough to guarantee the human rights enshrined in national constitutions, domestic legislation, and international law. Additional mechanisms are clearly needed for effective response.
In 1981, the OAU finally adopted the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Banjul Charter),[75] a milestone in the evolution of human rights protection at the regional level in Africa. The Banjul Charter, seen by some as “[t]he newest, the least developed or effective, the most distinctive and the most controversial of the regional human rights regimes,”[76] was the first major African contribution to the global human rights discourse. It represents an attempt to defeat the “efforts by votaries of sovereignty and the domain reserve to shield abuse of human rights by state officials through the argument that how a state treats its nationals was its exclusive business.”[77] While an important step forward, the attempt was not entirely successful, as several provisions were maintained to shield states from full accountability for violating the human rights of those in their jurisdictions

24. Banjul Charter - what makes it different
it is different from the European and Inter-American human rights systems in several respects:
the Charter recognizes duties as well as rights;
it codifies peoples’ as well as individual rights;
and protects economic, social, and cultural rights in addition to civil and political rights.[79

25. Banjul Charter: some criticism
“claw-back” clauses
permit the routine breach of Charter obligations for reasons of public utility or national security and confine many of the Charter’s protections to rights as they are defined and limited by domestic legislation.
lack of effective enforcement mechanisms; weak institutional structure
…it has not functioned in practice to guarantee or protect their rights…
the opportunities for discretionary abuse under the Charter’s “claw-back clauses” are broad and well-used.

26. ‘The Banjul Charter’
Human rights are guaranteed in the political constitutions of almost all independent African States; several aspects of he Charter provide evidence of a general acceptance of the normative standards enshrined in the international instruments
9non-discrimination, equality of all persons, fundamental freedoms and liberties)
Banjul Charter: ‘a paper tiger’
violence and human rights abuse has exploded in the African continent in the 1990s
Political persecution of critics, political opponents, journalists, and human rights activists is also a flagrant practice in many African states
Endemic state corruption also leads to systematic abuse of social, economic, cultural, and environmental rights of large majorities
Toward the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights: Better Late Than Never  
Nsongurua J. Udombana†
establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights is a landmark development in the field of international human rights law. On June 9, 1998, in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) adopted a Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (“Protocol”).[1] The Protocol, signed by thirty of the fifty-two Member States of the OAU on the same day,[2] establishes an African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights to supplement the existing protections afforded by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights.[3 With its adoption, Africa joins the ranks of the European and Inter-American regional human rights systems in providing judicial guarantees at the regional level for the protection of human rights in the continent
The Charter enshrines generous human rights guarantees, including the rights to life, integrity, human dignity, liberty, security, non-discrimination, and a fair trial. It also guarantees freedom of conscience, religion, association, assembly, and movement, as well as the rights to property, fair wages, health, education, family, a healthy environment, and economic, social and cultural development.[5] To guarantee these rights, the Charter provides for the establishment of an African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (“Commission”) to promote, protect, and interpret the human rights provisions enshrined in the Charter.[6] Conspicuously absent from the Charter, however, has been a Court.[7] Standing alone, the Commission has proved incapable of sustaining the legitimacy and relevance necessary to be an effective body for the protection of human rights in Africa. It is, and was created to be, a paper tiger.

27. The African Court of Human Rights
8 June 1998, members of the OAU meeting in Burkina Faso voted to initiate the process for the creation of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights
the protocol for the proposed court requires the ratification of fifteen OAU member States
African states, the commission, the OAU and African intergovernmental organizations will be able to submit cases to Court (Art. 5). Individuals and NGOs, however, may not file a petition with the court against any state that has not explicitly made a declaration under Article 36(6) of the protocol recognizing the competence of the Court to consider such petitions. Unfortunately, this protocol provision permits States to shield themselves from complaints by their own citizens and NGOs who allege human rights violations. Because governments will be reluctant to make such declarations, and because no state has ever filed a human rights complaint against another state before the commission, it is unlikely that the court will see much business
In April of 1999 the OAU held its first ever Ministerial Conference on Human Rights. At that conference, held at Grand Bay, Mauritius, OAU Secretary-General Salim called for the integration of human rights in school curricula and the strengthening of institutions responsible for promotion and respect for human rights. He emphasized that Africa "needs to inculcate in its people a culture of peace, tolerance and respect of human rights, to energetically fight poverty, illiteracy and intolerance, to strive to overcome the scourge of conflicts and ensure that human rights violations are not only condemned but also effectively opposed and eliminated".
Some African observers have high hopes for the court. They believe its existence will make African leaders more conscious of their human rights obligations. Others doubt that the court will do little to improve a grave human rights situation whose causes are primarily economic, demographic and political

28. Cultural Relativism
This is the argument about the extent to which ostensibly universal standards of human rights should be tempered by the local cultural situation that prevails in the distinct regions of the world
This tension is apparent in the text of the African Charter
‘Universalists’ versus ‘relativists
Universalists: Universal Declaration and the corpus of norms that have evolved around it constitute a truly universal ethos… relativists: all human rights statndards must be subjected to the local conditions specific to the country, the culture or the religion …
Culture is erected as a barrier to criticism /challenge to practices that clearly violate fundamental human rights
Universalists: transformed HR into an intellectual battering ram… this is insensitive to the reality of genuine cultural nuances that exist on the round, it also negates on of the most fundamental tenets of HR – inclusion and dialogue; pursuing politicized agenda of extending global hegemony under the rubric of human rights
Relativists: ‘women’ seek to retain the dominance of patriarchal structures of social ordering , resist to a diminution of traditionally exercised power and control within the family and its attendant implications at the community and the state level.; pursuing a political agenda designed to reatin their hegemony over local political space utilizing the veneer of culture
Must remember: HR instruments are rooted in Western liberal democracy; the UNDHR assumed the shape and character most familiar to Judeo-Christian concepteion of democratic governance and individual autonomy;
So, one must bear in mind the limitation of the universalist discourse and its dominance in the HR debate
e.g. denigration of economic and social rights and the debate about theeir alleged non=justiciability, the issue of the debt burden, the question of non-state actors ( TNC) and their relevance to the international respect for and enforceent of HR