Advancing the Rule of Law and Human Rights Protection through United Nations Mandated Mechanisms

Yousuf Syed Khan, C. Majinge
{"title":"Advancing the Rule of Law and Human Rights Protection through United Nations Mandated Mechanisms","authors":"Yousuf Syed Khan, C. Majinge","doi":"10.1163/18757413_02401011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Over the past fifteen years, the international community has increasingly relied upon United Nations mandated mechanisms comprising commissions of inquiry, fact- finding missions, and investigations to help address gross violations of human rights and the often blatant disregard for the rule of law during periods of civil unrest, conflict, and post-conflict contexts. The primary reason for why this approach has been preferred centres upon the fact that achieving accountability through internationally mandated tribunals and prosecutions is not only difficult to realize but further complicated due to realpolitik permeating among relevant international decision- making structures. For example, to activate meaningful judicial accountability at the international level, agreement amongst the highest echelons of the United Nations vis- a- vis a Security Council resolution is required to mandate an accountability mechanism. Indeed, even a referral to the permanent International Criminal Court underpinned by the Rome Statute requires a Security Council referral for non- State parties. The complexity of activating these measures, however, has served to ensure the continuation of numerous protracted armed conflicts – characterized by the perpetration of atrocity crimes, violations of international humanitarian law, and violations and abuses of human rights – to the detriment of millions of civilians worldwide.\n This contribution finds that the Commissions of Inquiry on Syria and Libya have been able to advance the rule of law and the protection of human rights by investigating and reporting publicly on findings by all parties to these respective conflicts, in particular on atrocity crimes, violations of international humanitarian law, and violations and abuses of human rights perpetrated by non- State actors. Both Commissions have taken similar positions on the application of human rights to non- State actors, in that non- State actors that cannot formally become parties to international human rights treaties must nevertheless respect the fundamental human rights of persons in areas where such actors exercise de facto control.\n The contribution continues by exploring the roles of the Commissions of Inquiry for Syria and Libya in the general quest for prevention: i.e., can the establishment of these mechanisms deter belligerents from perpetrating abuses of human rights and disregarding the rule of law? The article argues that if UN- mandated mechanisms – including commissions of inquiry, fact- finding missions, and investigations – are well supported, especially when concerned States grant such bodies protected access on the ground, they can significantly act as a deterrent and contribute to the respect for human rights and the rule of law. This may be achieved particularly through their cooperation and sharing with accountability bodies and the documentation and preservation of evidence collected.","PeriodicalId":167092,"journal":{"name":"Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18757413_02401011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Over the past fifteen years, the international community has increasingly relied upon United Nations mandated mechanisms comprising commissions of inquiry, fact- finding missions, and investigations to help address gross violations of human rights and the often blatant disregard for the rule of law during periods of civil unrest, conflict, and post-conflict contexts. The primary reason for why this approach has been preferred centres upon the fact that achieving accountability through internationally mandated tribunals and prosecutions is not only difficult to realize but further complicated due to realpolitik permeating among relevant international decision- making structures. For example, to activate meaningful judicial accountability at the international level, agreement amongst the highest echelons of the United Nations vis- a- vis a Security Council resolution is required to mandate an accountability mechanism. Indeed, even a referral to the permanent International Criminal Court underpinned by the Rome Statute requires a Security Council referral for non- State parties. The complexity of activating these measures, however, has served to ensure the continuation of numerous protracted armed conflicts – characterized by the perpetration of atrocity crimes, violations of international humanitarian law, and violations and abuses of human rights – to the detriment of millions of civilians worldwide. This contribution finds that the Commissions of Inquiry on Syria and Libya have been able to advance the rule of law and the protection of human rights by investigating and reporting publicly on findings by all parties to these respective conflicts, in particular on atrocity crimes, violations of international humanitarian law, and violations and abuses of human rights perpetrated by non- State actors. Both Commissions have taken similar positions on the application of human rights to non- State actors, in that non- State actors that cannot formally become parties to international human rights treaties must nevertheless respect the fundamental human rights of persons in areas where such actors exercise de facto control. The contribution continues by exploring the roles of the Commissions of Inquiry for Syria and Libya in the general quest for prevention: i.e., can the establishment of these mechanisms deter belligerents from perpetrating abuses of human rights and disregarding the rule of law? The article argues that if UN- mandated mechanisms – including commissions of inquiry, fact- finding missions, and investigations – are well supported, especially when concerned States grant such bodies protected access on the ground, they can significantly act as a deterrent and contribute to the respect for human rights and the rule of law. This may be achieved particularly through their cooperation and sharing with accountability bodies and the documentation and preservation of evidence collected.
通过联合国授权机制推进法治和人权保护
在过去15年中,国际社会越来越依赖由调查委员会、事实调查团和调查组成的联合国授权机制,以帮助解决在内乱、冲突和冲突后环境中严重侵犯人权和经常公然无视法治的问题。这种办法之所以受到欢迎的主要原因是,通过国际授权的法庭和起诉来实现问责制不仅难以实现,而且由于有关国际决策结构中弥漫着现实政治因素而更加复杂。例如,为了在国际一级启动有意义的司法责任制,就需要联合国最高阶层就安全理事会的一项决议达成协议,授权建立一个责任制机制。事实上,即使是提交《罗马规约》所支持的常设国际刑事法院,也需要安全理事会对非缔约国进行移交。然而,由于采取这些措施的复杂性,确保了许多长期武装冲突的继续,其特点是犯下残暴罪行、违反国际人道主义法、侵犯和践踏人权,损害了全世界数百万平民的利益。本报告认为,叙利亚和利比亚调查委员会能够通过调查和公开报告冲突各方的调查结果,特别是关于暴行罪、违反国际人道主义法以及非国家行为者侵犯和践踏人权的行为,来推进法治和人权保护。两个委员会在将人权适用于非国家行为者的问题上采取了类似的立场,即不能正式成为国际人权条约缔约国的非国家行为者必须在这些行为者实际控制的领域尊重人的基本人权。本文继续探讨了叙利亚和利比亚调查委员会在总体预防方面的作用:即,建立这些机制能否阻止交战各方侵犯人权和无视法治?文章认为,如果联合国授权的机制——包括调查委员会、事实调查团和调查——得到很好的支持,特别是当有关国家给予这些机构实地访问的保护时,它们可以显著地起到威慑作用,并有助于尊重人权和法治。这可以特别通过它们与问责机构合作和分享以及记录和保存收集到的证据来实现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信