human rights laws and institutions knowledge flashcards

Human rights are protected in 4 key ways …

1. The activity of NGOs

2. International humanitarian laws

3. Humanitarian intervention

4. International courts

1. The activity of NGOs: (i)

NGOs expose abuses, encourage states to improve protection of HRs and rectify abuses. They’ve helped win basic political rights in authoritarian states, including a halt on torture and imprisonment of those expressing political or religious beliefs. They’ve contributed to a HR culture through …

advocacy and using media coverage to influence global actors such as governments and transnational corporations eg. Nike and ‘sweatshop’ labour.  Amnesty International has achieved a reputation of impartiality and rigour. It places emphasis on ‘prisoners of conscience’ and their campaigns include rights in China, refugees and asylum, arms control, women's rights and criticism of US presidents Bush and Trump. Human Rights Watch often takes a more regional or national focus, highlighting the use of cluster bombs on civilians in Sudan and treatment of women in Afghanistan. 

1. The activity of NGOs: (ii)

NGOs serve as a bridge between global or regional organisations and seek to promote human rights. They’ve played a role in framing resolutions, such as the 1975 declaration on torture, the 1990 convention of rights of the child and the 1997 land mine treaty.  The role of NGOs can be vital in …

 highlighting the abuse of human rights and prompting states to act. However, NGOs are subject to limitations as they can’t force the government to rectify abuses, as proven by China, Burma, North Korea and Russia, who seem to be impervious to international pressure. For economic powers like China and Russia, diplomatic efforts to improve rights records have been weakened by a fear of damaging economic relations.

1. The activity of NGOs: (iii)

The impact of NGOs on the UNSC is minimal - yet it is there that the UN enforces decisions. Furthermore, NGOs are criticised for jumping on media led bandwagons in hope of enhancing their profile; AI for its link to Cage Prisoners, who campaign for muslim detainees held in ‘war on terror’, such as at …

Guantanamo Bay, whose chief proponent Moazzam Begg's hard line islamist views are at odds with wider human rights issues such as women's rights. Salamna Rushdie asserted ‘Amnesty has done is reputation incalculable damage … has lost the ability to distinguish right from wrong’

2. International Humanitarian Laws: (i)

The 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights clearly sets out universalist human rights norms regarding behaviour by governments towards their citizens and foreigners, proclaiming ‘all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights’. It includes rights to freedom of assembly, expression,  and to participate in government. It also proclaims social and economic rights are indispensable. The international community has attempted to define a …

comprehensive code for the internal government of its members, which has given rise to a new norm of ‘universal domestic standards’. The UDHR largely serves this purpose, with states no longer able to violate human rights without risk that their actions would come onto the agenda of the principal organ of the UN.

2. International Humanitarian Laws: (ii)

Other key pieces of HR legislation include a de facto ‘international bill of human rights’ , achieved in 1966, with the adoption of 2 covenants: the international covenant on civil and political rights and the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. The lexicon of international human rights documents has had other …

 additions such as the genocide convention 1951 and the convention against torture 1984. Other non-UN, non-European pieces of legislation include the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in Latin America and the African HR commission, each with their own regional legislation, such as the Arab League Charter on HR and the EU commissioner for HR. 

2. International Humanitarian Laws: (iii)

How are they enforced?

The international community has come up with many ways to improve the application of rights, namely international courts (ICC, ICJ) for state versus state disputes, regional courts (ECtHR, OAS court, AU court), humanitarian interventions and advocacy through NGOs. 

To what extent are they followed?

All states are compelled to justify their behaviour according to accepted norms and laws. Historically, international obligations were founded by the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia to acknowledge the sovereignty of European states and the 1945 UN Charter, which has become the international framework for which norms of sovereignty and non-intervention were enshrined. The internationalisation of the world via globalisation has provided the opportunity for international law to reach across the globe.  

2. International Humanitarian Laws: (iv)

States have been mostly been compelled to justify their behaviour according to such rules. Even though the UN Charter does not permit violating sovereignty through the use of aggression, the extent to which states follow their international obligations varies. In Louis Henkin’s ‘How Nations Behave’ he writes “Almost all nations observe almost all principles of international law and almost all of their obligations almost all the time”. This has led states into a pattern of …

obedience and predictable behaviour, in which conflict only arises when countries fail to comply. States attempt to manage the friction with ongoing compliance through adherence to agreements. Compliance varies from state to state.

2. International Humanitarian Laws: (v)

A study by Tanja Börzel illustrates the distinction of varying compliance between EU members, finding that members’ non-compliance with European law varies between and within member states, despite the fact that all members have to comply with exactly the same legal requirements. For example, the UK and Italy are similar in population and economy yet, findings suggest Italy has a 3-fold non-compliance record compared to the UK. Similarly in Africa, …

Whitaker completed a study on the extent to which Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda complied with anti-terrorism programmes. These countries are all East African former British colonies, allies of the USA and rely on development aid. Despite these similarities, Whitaker found that all 3 governments cooperated constructively, but some were more active than others.

2. International Humanitarian Laws: (vi)

This is explained in many ways ….

• Realism is sceptical that treaties can influence state behaviour. Mearsheimer suggests that if states comply with the standard of an international treaty, it’s  because it’s in their interest regardless of the treaty. Hence, during the 400 years of its existence, international law has in most cases been rigorously observed.  Jean-Jacques Rousseau suggested international law as an ineffective restraint on international competition. 

• Liberals agree with realists that state interest is central. However, they believe that institutions can help states enforce agreements. Compliance depends largely on whether or not the state is a liberal democracy with a representative government that supports civil and political rights, and a legal system respecting the rule of law. Generally, ratification by democracies correlates with greater compliance.

• Constructivists like Wendt and Finnemore believe shared understandings are highly valued by states, such that states comply because they respect norms greater than the actual treaties. The utility of force hinges on legitimacy - states calculate their interests according to what is considered acceptable.

2. International Humanitarian Laws: (vii)

The structure of a treaty may also affect compliance. Chayes and Chayes explain noncompliance as stemming from the ambiguity in the language of the treaty and actual fairness of the treaty. Deliberate ambiguity in international agreements has been used to settle disagreements.Often international agreements are written to allow a range of interpretations. Furthermore, the asymmetry of wealth, power, capacity etc. leads sovereign states to act differently against a common treaty. For example, …

161 states have ratified the Ottawa Treaty banning landmines. However, obvious omissions result from the three largest arms manufacturers—the US, Russia, and China, who have not ratified the treaty, as the treaty adversely affects these states significantly more than other states, whilst a country such as New Zealand has virtually no use for significant arms manufacturing. Therefore, the fairness of the treaty affects the US disproportionately than it does New Zealand.

2. International Humanitarian Laws: (viii)

Wealthy nations like Japan, which are “pro-whaling”, have been accused by some of “vote buying” from poor member states. The International Whaling Commission was forced to improve transparency, as, if the allegations were true, an incentive could exist for states to comply with a law for immoral reasons. Landlocked Switzerland is able to vote on whaling issues for which it has little to no authority on such an issue. Essentially, the principle of each sovereign state receiving one vote is …

not necessarily democratic. For example, Nye calculated that a citizen of Nauru, a UN member, would have 10,000 times more voting power than a citizen of China. Ultimately, the structure of a treaty can motivate states for a number of reasons.

2. International Humanitarian Laws: (xi)

This said, conforming and not obeying does not necessarily mean states aren’t committed. States may lack the capability to carry out their obligations. In weak states, new norms may not have the ability to be implemented by domestic institutions. Whitaker found that poor domestic institutions hampered the ability of weak African states, …

leading to poor anti-terrorism compliance. Even powerful states can lack the capacity if domestic institutions hamper compliance e.g. US Congress was diametrically opposed to the Kyoto Protocol, and therefore this ‘landmark’ agreement was not accepted by US law.

3. Humanitarian Interventions: (i)

Underlying human rights is a conflict with state sovereignty. The philosophy of universal human rights means a state cannot commit significant abuses on its own people = else the international community intervenes. Some states buy into the universality of human rights, meaning HR becomes so ingrained in political culture, it would be very difficult to …

go against. For example in western liberal democracies, compared to states with rampant human rights abuses such as Myanmar, where state sovereignty usually overshadows rights.

3. Humanitarian Interventions: (ii)

Humanitarian intervention can be defined as a state's use of military force against another state primarily through the purpose of ending the violation of human rights rather than for strategic or national interest gain (eg. WW2 wasn't to end the Holocaust, but this was a bonus). It may consist of UN peacekeeping missions of unilateral/ multilateral actions taken by states eg. UK and Sierra Leone.

The term however is controversial for a number of reasons: some people argue interventions should be deemed ‘humanitarian’ only based on outcome, not intention. Others dismiss the idea as a tool of western neo-imperialism. A significant criticism is that HI is applied sporadically - abuses by powerful countries or allies of the West like Saudi Arabia, are ignored. The term is deliberately misused: HI as a term has been ‘adopted’ by states to disguise their openly self-seeking policies eg. Putin argued Russian intervention in Syria was HI - when in fact it was simply protecting its ally Assad. 

3. Humanitarian Interventions: (iii)

HI was born in the post-cold war period of the 1990s, when the dream of a more ethical world system seemed possible. Early efforts in Somalia (1992) failed, although a no-fly zone in North Iraq 1991 and restoring stability in Haiti 1994 were more positive. However the international community's darkest hour was Rwanda 1994, whilst Bosnia (1992-5) was also a key failure.

The failure inspired later more successful interventions in Kosovo 1999, East Timor 1999 and Sierra Leone 2000. However the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, even though these were not HI, rather put people off foreign conflict. The 2011 western intervention in Libya was justified on HI grounds … but the long term results were hardly positive. 

3. Humanitarian Interventions: (iv)

Iraq: More successful was the 2014-2021 operation Inherent Resolve (OIH). This was a US led 30 nation multinational military mission against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. The aim was to ‘degrade and destroy’ ISIS. The mission mainly consisted of air strikes, although some ground forces were deployed. 75% to 80% of airstrikes came from the US forces. Other contributors included the …

UK, France, Denmark and Saudi Arabia. By the end of 2017 OIR stated that its airstrikes had killed over 80,000 ISIS fighters. The coalition also provided $3.5 billion in military equipment to the Iraqi Armed forces, billions more to the Peshmerga Kurdish forces, and trained 189,000 Iraqi soldiers and police.

3. Humanitarian Interventions: (v)

Why an increase in the 1990s/2000s:

• End of cold war rivalry led to easier consensus building and opportunity to focus on HR

• Genuine hope of liberal ‘new world order’ world system? Blair and Clinton seemed genuine …

• Public pressure on governments to act - due to global news coverage and shame of failures in Bosnia and Rwanda

• Higher expectations of standards of ethical conduct for governments towards their own citizens

• Humanitarian concerns overlapped with national interest eg. arguably oil interests in Iraq and Libya. 

3. Humanitarian Interventions: (vi)

Conditions for HI:

Just war theory: A Just War is one which has to be thought of and is conducted within key principles (in part laid down by Thomas Aquinas) 1225-74. The conditions of a just war include: Fought by a legally recognised authority with a just cause, fought with the intention to establish good or end evil with a reasonable chance of success. War must be the last resort (diplomacy has failed) and only using sufficient force ie. civilians must not be involved. Some wars appear to meet these conditions such as Britain in WW2 (although Germans were bombed). The theory can therefore be applied to HI.

Responsibility to Protect: The UN adopted R2P in 2005. Its 2 main criteria are … (i) large scale loss of life / ethnic cleansing (ii) the state it is occurring in is unwilling or unable to stop it. In such cases, it is the UNSC that has authority to decide whether R2P is applicable. 

HI case study - Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia (1978):

The Khmer Rouge had taken over in Cambodia in a civil war in 1975. They proved to be one of the most genocidal regimes in human history. Aiming to return the country to ‘Year Zero’, they executed any intellectuals (including anyone who’d gone to secondary school or wore glasses), wiped out ethnic minorities and emptied the cities to create giant rural communes. As a result of the conditions people were forced to work in, around …

 1.5-3m people died - a quarter of the country's population. Cambodia and Vietnam have a long history of animosity over border disputes etc.  After a build up of tensions, rival claims over borders  and small military clashes 1975-78, Vietnam invaded.

HI case study - Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia (1978):

Who intervened? Vietnam invaded and removed the Khmer Rouge from power.  They installed a friendly communist regime - which was condemned by much of the rest of the world (The Khmer Rouge had also been Communist).

UN sanctioned? No - unilateral action

Overall … SUCCESS - although only fits HI category by ‘happy accident’.

HI case study - Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia (1978):

Successes:

• Saved potentially millions of lives

• Although the new government was hardly good with human rights - it was a lot better!

Failures / Criticism

• Vietnam’s motivation was more military and strategic than humanitarian - the humanitarian angle was more a ‘bonus’.

• Provoked a brief war with China in 1979 - China fearful of Vietnam’s growing regional influence & friend’s with the Maoist Khmer Rouge.

• Despite the less idealist intentions of the Vietnamese, this was surely an intervention that could be justified on HR grounds.

HI case study - Iraq Operation Provide Comfort (1991):

The Gulf War conflict originated from the Iraq-Iraq war in 1988, following the invasion of Kuwait in 1990 by Saddam Hussein. The intervention lasted in March 1991, and ended in 1996. The intervention involved the USA, UK, Germany, France, Australia, Netherlands, Turkey, Italy, Spain, Portugal Against Iraq and Belarus etc. 

UN sanctioned? Yes - The UN authorised the no-fly zone to protect the Kurds

Overall … SUCCESS - in the short term they must've saved a lot of people but long term was not planned properly

HI case study - Iraq Operation Provide Comfort (1991):

Successes:

• Stopped Saddam Hussein dropping chemical weapons on the Kurdish people providing autonomy due to the implementation of the no fly-zone.

• Thousands of Kurds remained around the border dying of lack of food, water, clothing, blankets, shelter and medical supplies. The UN set up multiple sites to provide supplies

Failures / Criticism

• Failed to address long-term security, leading to continued threats from Saddam Hussein's regime. The operation's primary limitation was its lack of a durable, long-term political solution, forcing the establishment of prolonged no-fly zones that lasted until 1996.

• Kurdish people still felt under threat from Saddam Hussein.

HI case study - Somalia United Task Force (1992):

During the 1980s, the Somali Rebellion intensified and broke into a full-scale civil war in 1991 which led to the collapse of the Somali Democratic Republic and the overthrow of the president. The following year a famine emerged which was driven by both a major drought and the serious fighting in food producing areas. 

Who intervened? US-led coalition involving 24 countries including Italy, France, Belgium Pakistan, Canada and Australia

UN sanctioned? Yes 

Overall … FAILURE - whilst some people were saved the country ultimately fell into disarray and is now considered a ‘failed state’ 

HI case study - Somalia United Task Force (1992):

Successes:

• Saved an estimated 10,000-25,000 lives by securing major relief centers and reversing the peak of the famine. 

• The operation secured major ports, airports and aid routes in Southern Somalia allowing aid agencies to deliver relief.

• The military presence while it lasted deterred militia righting and forced temporary breaks in hostilities from local factions in certain zones. 

Failures / Criticism

• Despite intervention the crisis still resulted in an estimated 200,000-300,000 deaths.

• Mission creep shifted from securing food aid to disarming warlords and nation building, which was seen as overreaching and lacking clear mandate.

• Intervention forces, including UN soldiers, were criticised for killing noncombatant Somalis and engaging in indiscriminate violence.

• Despite bringing food aid, the military intervention failed to stabilise the political situation.

• The intervention was unevenly focused on the capital, ignoring the wider country’s need and fuelling localised violence

HI case study - Haiti Operation Uphold Democracy (1994):

In September 1991, a military coup under Lieutenant General Raoul Cedras overthrew the government of Jean-Bertrand Aristide ( first popular elected president in Haiti). Following this coup the humanitarian situation in Haiti deteriorated and a ‘reign of terror’ followed with the killing and taping of civilians and of Aristides supporters. US President Bill Clinton allowed the first US troops in Haiti on September 19.

Who intervened? UN led multilateral force led by US, and involving, the caricom nations, argentina, netherlands, belgium, bangladesh and guatemala. US the majority of forces. 

UN sanctioned? Yes 

Overall … SUCCESS - achieved mission

HI case study - Haiti Operation Uphold Democracy (1994):

Successes:

• The Haitian leadership capitulated in time to avoid bloodshed (only 1 US soldier killed) 

• Successful as the primary goal of restoring ousted president Jean Bertrand Aristide to power and forcing the military junta to resign. National elections were successfully held in 1996. 

• Peaceful transition which promoted democracy and avoided large scale conflict as Jimmy Carter negotiated the settlement.

• The UN mission helped vet and train a new civilian police force, increasing it from 2,500 to 15,000 members. 

• First time the UN authorised forced specifically to restore democratic government - major precedent in HI

• Halted human rights abuses: killed, raped…

HI case study - Haiti Operation Uphold Democracy (1994):

Failures / Criticism

• Dependent on the threat of overwhelming US force: “ Haiti was a short lived success ... things take. A long time -they don’t transform a society overnight” - Dobbins. This was illustrated by the US led intervention ten years later when the Aristide government was overthrown again.

• The American support for Aristides return was contingent on him signing to structural adjustment programmes with the IMF and the world bank, which meant Haiti and to import most of its food.

• After intervention, Haiti became dependent on international financial organisations for its funding, its budget  and were now at the mercy of what the international community was willing to give. 

HI case study - Rwanda UNAMIR (1994):

Ethnic Tutsis had been seen as the ruling class - Hutu hatred toward this ‘elitist’ minority. In 1959 , the Hutu revolution in which the Tutsi were overthrown saw the Hutus rise to dominate the government, but feared Tutsis would overthrow them, especially as a rebel Tutsi group was founded (the RPF). The genocide was sparked by the death of the Hutu Rwandan President Habyarimana, when his plane was shot down above Kigali airport.  In reality however it had long before been planned. Within hours a (pre-planned by those in power) campaign of genocide spread throughout the country, and did not subside until three months later.
Who intervened? The international community did not prevent the genocide, nor did it stop the killing once it had begun.

UN sanctioned? 2500 peacekeepers were withdrawn after the killings of 10 Belgian soldiers; UN soldiers did not return until June; The UN did not authorise its peacekeepers to use force.

Overall … FAILURE

HI case study - Rwanda UNAMIR (1994):

• Global community did not publicly use the word genocide until May 25 and even then diluted its impact by saying "acts of genocide".  This is because they feared this word would generate public pressure which would demand some sort of action.

• Ineffective protection of human rights. Are acts of genocide not enough?

• The killings ended in July 1994 only when the Tutsi-led RPF rebel movement invaded from Uganda to stop the genocide.

• The international community failed.  Troops were withdrawn when they were most needed.  800,000 estimated slaughtered

HI case study - East Timor - UNTAET (1999):

East Timor was placed on the UNs list of Non-self governing territories in1960 whilst under Portuguese rule: In 1974, Portugal attempted to prepare it for self-determination, but civil war broke out, leading to invasion by Indonesia in 1975 after annexing the territory in 1976 (the act was not recognised by the UN). From 1982, the UN facilitated talks between Portugal and Indonesia. In 1999 the UN led an agreement  for a referendum in which East Timorese people voted by 79% to become independent. Following the referendum, violence erupted, driven by Indonesian militia. The UN evacuated staff and Indonesia accepted an Australian-led force to assist. 

Who intervened? INTERFET, a UN force that included Australia who supplied largest amount of troops, (New Zealand, Thailand)  tasked with restoring peace and security before UNTAET was established (transitional government) 
UN sanctioned? Yes, multilateral UN force

Overall … SUCCESS

HI case study - East Timor - UNTAET (1999):

Failures / Criticism

• Cost $478.8 million 

• Accused of western domination early on and exclusion of Timorese leaders in the peace process.

Successes:

• East Timor became independent (May 2002) seeing UNTAET succeeded by UNMISET, a supporting mission established by the SC to assist in establishing political stability. 

• Arrival of troops caused majority of militia to flee the border.

• Only 17 fatalities of 9150 military and 1640 civilian police. Over 200,000 refugees have since returned

• Establishment of a civic education programme involving 100,000+, registration of ¾ million people and creating a defence force with 600 trained soldiers, a police force and civil service recruiting over 12,000.

• Creation of the first ever Gender Affairs Unit in a peacekeeping mission - 24% of legislative assembly seats held by women

HI case study - Kosovo (1999):

Ethnic cleansing of the Kosovo Albanian people, motivated by Balkan nationalism,  by Serbian forces under Slobodan Milošević. Serbian police, military and paramilitary forces engaged in a campaign to remove the ethnic Albanian population from Kosovo. Diplomacy failed to stop the violence, leaving humanitarian intervention as the last resort. However, the Račak massacre in Jan 1999, which left 45 civilians dead, was seen as a major catalyst. -Up to 2000 Albanians were killed before intervention, around 9000 by the end. 

Who intervened? NATO - launched a 78-day air war. Hundreds of thousands of Kosovan refugees fled to Albania. The decision of Slobodan Milosevic to cease military operations in Kosovo led to NATO peacekeepers occupying the region and the repatriation of many of the Kosovan refugees to the area. The NATO peacekeepers (KFOR) jointly keep the peace with the UN peacekeeping force (UNMІК)
UN sanctioned? No, critics say it set a precedent for bypassing the UN when acting unilaterally

Overall … SUCCESS

HI case study - Kosovo (1999):

Successes:

• Pressured Slobodan to withdraw from Kosovo, effectively stopped large-scale massacres and expulsions of Kosovar Albanians.

• Allowed thousands of Kosovar Albanians to return home safely 

• Demonstrated NATO’s military capability 

• Ended the immediate war in Kosovo, preventing wider regional conflict in the Balkans.

Failures / Criticism

• The intervention led to a protracted dispute between Kosovan Muslims and Kosovan Serbs with recriminations on both sides. 

• The attempt by Kosovo to claim full statehood has also not been universally accepted. 

• The NATO airstrikes caused unintended civilian death and infrastructure destruction, like bridges, hospitals and factories. Estimates say hundreds died. 

• Didn’t stop later conflicts.

HI case study - Sierra Leone (UK) 2000:

Decade long civil war- rebel forces (Revolutionary United Force)  known for their brutality e.g. hacking off people's limbs. People in Freetown (capital)  were just waiting to be attacked + the President was looking to leave. 

Who intervened? Britain sent troops to evacuate Britons/EU citizens, then leave. However, the chief decided to go beyond the formal mandate of evacuation. Troops held back rebel forces - Britain would supply arms and resources.

UN sanctioned? No - unilateral

Overall … SUCCESS - rebels were thwarted and the population was largely saved preventing war and destruction.

HI case study - Sierra Leone (UK) 2000:

Successes:

• The people of Sierra Leone saw the British troops as their saviours - only 800 paratroopers

• Quickly moved across the country and defeated the rebel forces.

• The British then oversaw training of Sierra Leone forces to be UN peacekeepers.

• Restored democracy.

Failures / Criticism

• The mission wasn’t initially focused on military intervention in the civil war, just to remove British nationals - resistance from the Ministry of Defence. 

HI case study - Darfur, Sudan (2008-2021):

The Darfur crisis began in 2003 in the western region, rooted in longstanding political, economic and ethnic tensions. rebel grounds notably the SLA and JEM launched an insurgency against the Sudanese government, accusing it of marginalising Darfur and discriminating against non-Arab populations. The government, led by Omar Al-Bashir, responded with counterinsurgency campaigns.

The government armed and supported militia groups known as janjaweed, who carried out mass killings, village burnings and systemic rape, targeting specific ethnic groups eg. Masaltit and Fir. by the mid 20001 around 300k had been killed, 2.5 million displaced and can be described as a genocide. 

HI case study - Darfur, Sudan (2008-2021):

Who intervened? The intervention was limited, delayed and largely offensive. The AU deployed AMIS in 2004 to monitor the ceasefire, but with limited civilian protection. In 2007 a joint UN-AU mission was launched (UNAMID) with a mandate to protect civilians, facilitate aid and support peace agreements.  However, it was limited by the Sudanese government's lack of cooperation. 

UN sanctioned? Yes - UNSC passed multiple resolution and refereed the situation to the ICC in 2005, where Omar al-Bashir was charged with genocide, war crimes etc. however, sudan refused to cooperate and bashir remained in power until 2019.

Overall … FAILURE - didn’t prevent/stop mass atrocities in early years, did do some good, but long term didn’t resolve the conflict

HI case study - Darfur, Sudan (2008-2021):

Successes:

• Humanitarian aid delivered at a large scale to prevent further loss of life, millions received food, shelter and medical care.

• Reduced violence (by 2010s large scale atrocities decreased)

• ICC indictment was historically significant and reinforced global norms.

• Bashir was overthrown in 2019, partly due to broader unrest.

Failures / Criticism

• Slow and weak response, international community failed to act quickly at time of genocide.

• UNAMID couldn’t fully protect civilians, criticised for lack of access and resources - more symbolic than decisive. 

• Lack of robust military action as seen in Libya as were reluctant to violate Sudanese sovereignty.

• Violence continued to persist - displacement remains widespread

• Limited accountability - ICC arrest warrants largely unenforced.

HI case study - Libya (2011):

Arose from the wider regional upheaval known as the Arab Spring. In February 2011 a protest erupted against Libyan Muammar Gaddafi, who had ruled since 1969. demonstrations quickly escalated into armed rebellion, with opposition forces forming in eastern Libya. Gaddafi's forces responded with heavy military repression including air power and artillery in civilian areas and threat to carry out mass violence. Gaddafi claimed he would show ‘no mercy’ to rebels, raising fears of imminent massacre. 100s to thousands were killed in early clashes, large-scale displacement and refugee flows began, and international organisations warned of mass atrocities. 

Who intervened? Intervention by a coalition of international actors, initially led by western states and later coordinate via NATO (included US, UK, France, Canada and some arab states eg. UAE). Intervention began in March 2011, airstrikes against Libyan government forces, no-fly zone enforcement to prevent Libyan aircraft operating, naval blockade to restrict arms and supplies. NATO formally took command under operation unified protector.
UN sanctioned? Yes - resolution 1973 for a no-fly zone and all necessary measures to protect civilians.

Overall …  Libya intervention is often viewed as ‘mixed’ success: failure to secure long term peace and stability, but rapid civilian protection and regime removal.

HI case study - Libya (2011):

Successes:

• Prevented the fall of the capital Benghazi and possible mass killings.

• Rebels captured Triplo in August, Gaddafi was killed in October, ending his regime.

• The National transitional council took over.

• Seen as a model case of R2P, demonstrated rapid international response to humanitarian disaster.

Failures / Criticism

• Critics argue the intervention shifted from civilian protection to regime change; no clear plan.

• Some civilian casualties caused by airstrikes, debate over whether NATO exceeded its UN mandate.

• No robust stabilisation or reconstruction strategy, power vacuum after Gaddafi's fall.

• Long term instability: militia rule, civil conflict, competing governments,

• Russia and China later cited Libya as a reason to oppose interventions eg. Syria, arguing the mandate had been abused.

HI case study - Côte d’Ivoire (2011):

The 2011 humanitarian intervention in Cote d’Ivoire emerged from a post-election political crisis following the November 2010 presidential election. Incumbent president Gbagbo refused to concede defeat to opposition leader Outattara, despite his recognition as winner. The dispute triggered a violent power struggle, escalating into renewed civil war between the pro-Gbagbo state militia and pro-Ouattara republican forces (former rebels). By early 2011, hundreds of civilians had been killed, often in ethnically motivated attacks. Widespread atrocities included shootings, burning and mob violence. 500,000 were internally displaced, with over 100,000 fleeing to neighbouring countries. up to 1 million fled Abidjan at the peak of violence. human rights organisations warned of an impending ‘human rights catastrophe’ as fighting intensified. 

Who intervened? R2P - the UN had already deployed a peacekeeping mission (UNOCI) prior to 2011. as violence escalated, UNSC resolution 1975 imposed sanctions on Gbagbo, reaffirmed Ouattara as president and authorised the use of force to protect civilians, providing a legal framework for intervention by UNOCI forces and French forces in operation licorne. Forces intervened militarily with the aim of protecting civilians. They targeted artillery, armoured vehicles and Gbagbo forces. The intervention escalated after direct attacks on UN personnel. 

UN sanctioned? Yes

Overall …  Largely a success

HI case study - Côte d’Ivoire (2011):

Successes:

• Gbagbo was captured in April 2011 and Ouattara assumed power; large scale fighting subsided, ending the immediate crisis. 

• Intervention was extremely fast.

• Arguably prevented further large-scale civilian massacres.

• Reinforced democracy following international norms.

Failures / Criticism

• Around 400,000 people remained displaced in camps after forces left.

• Continued insecurity and sporadic violence.

• Grossly undermined sovereignty.

• Debates over whether forces exceeded civilian protection mandates by targeting key infrastructure and weaponry.

Arguments for HI

Legal Arguments:  UN charter guarantees the peoples of the world their human rights will be respected.  International Law has many judgements and treaties arguing state’s need to act to protect. UN R2P 2005 (Responsibility to Protect)

Moral Arguments: Appeals to a common humanity, shared ethics, duty to protect the vulnerable, ‘be the change you want to see’ – Ghandi

Selfish Argument: Atrocities breed instability, migration , terrorism etc.

Economic Argument: Instability is very bad for economic development.  Poverty and conflict = cycle of poverty

In practice, coalition forces outmatch rebel forces:

Criticisms of HI

Western hypocrisy / Selected morality:

• R2P riddled with hypocrisy and self interest - humanitarian imperialism = intervene in some places but not when its allies.

• Whilst oil rich nations receive immediate intervention e.g. Libya, states like Uganda or Syria wait decades for help

• Eg. Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia 1978, Haiti 1994 (US support contingent on signing SAPs), East Timor 1999 (neo-imperialism), Libya, Iraq, Uganda, Syria etc.

Sovereignty: Problem with defining international law on human rights / sovereignty.

Poor peacebuilding: Failure to organise peace effectively and premature departures. For example, Iraq, Syria, Haiti and Rwanda, often leave a power vacuum that allows rebel groups to take power. 

Criticisms of HI

UNSC: Veto power of members who are more concerned with their own global power than protecting human rights. R2P criteria is vague eg. When have all diplomatic means been exhausted? - since it is only after this that force is being sued.

• Some international law experts argue when the UNSC is deadlocked eg. over syria, R2P provides a legal framework for the ‘international community’ to act independently of the UN to use military force as a last resort if there is clear evidence of ongoing atrocities.

Often lack of clear goal: Interventions are often poorly planned eg. Iraq, Somalia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone, leading to poor long term political solutions. 

High civilian casualties: Somalia 1992 roughly 2-300,000 died, Haiti 1994 an estimated 3-4000 civilians died from 1991-4, Rwanda 1994 failed to intervene in the deaths of 800,000, Kosovo saw 550 NATO deaths and Libya 2011 saw an estimated 500-700 civilians killed in just weeks by the government. 

4. International Courts (i)

*see table in notes

1. UN

2. Other global commitments

3. Regional bodies

4. Other agencies

4. International Courts (ii)

International Courts prosecute senior political and military leaders for ‘crimes against humanity’, ‘genocide’ etc. Their purpose is to clearly identify behaviour that is so beyond the acceptable range that international legal structures start to unravel the culture of impunity that allows …

appalling acts to go unchallenged.  In 1995, the conviction of a lowly camp guard Dusko Tadic at the tribunal for former Yugoslavia made it clear that criminal responsibility existed at all levels of the chain of command. Judgments serve as deterrents against future atrocities. 

4. International Courts (iii)

(i) The International Court of Justice (ICJ):

The ICJ was established in the Hague in 1946 to settle legal disputes between states. It hosts 15 judges, including 1 each from the 5 permanent SC members. UN members are mandated to comply with decisions made (in theory). Up to the end of 2021, 181 cases had been brought by states, largely only indirectly to do with HR ie. in settling state vs state disputes it hopefully prevents armed conflicts, and therefore indirectly protects civilians from the abuses war could bring. However …

in 2019 and 2023 two high profile cases (Gambia vs Myanmar over Rohingya genocide, South Africa vs Israel over Gaza) showed how this had started to change. Although not ICJ cases, the UN has been called in to potentially mediate on 2 other recent significant issues: 2015 tribunal to investigate Russian shooting down of Malaysia Flight 17 over Ukraine (vetoed by Russia on UNSC) and a 2016 tribunal which favoured the Philippines over sovereignty of the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea (but China boycotted the Tribunal and its findings).

4. International Courts (iii)

Positives:

• Drawn up many key principles e.g. on territorial waters, fishing rights etc.

• Settled specific disputes (eg. 1986 Burkina Faso -Mali border clash, 2001 Qatar-Bahrain maritime border, Cameroon-Nigeria border dispute 2002 over the oil rich 250 square mile Bakassi Peninsula)

• Rulings have established important international opinions e.g. declaring South Africa’s control of Namibia illegal in 1971 which helped in the long road to Namibia’s independence in 1989

• In 2010 the ICJ ruled Kosovo was legally able to declare independence from Serbia, paving the way for independence and international recognition despite rejection by Serbia and Russia. 

• Since the end of the Cold War the work of the court has increased significantly, the number of cases heard annually more than doubling.

• In 2019 Gambia took Myanmar to the ICJ for committing genocide against the Rohinga people in Mayanmar.  Later in 2023 7 other countries joined in to support Gambia’s case, including the UK. As of summer 2024 no decision has been reached.

• In 2023 South Africa took Israel to the ICJ accusing it of genocide in Gaza.  In two court rulings in 2024, the ICJ ordered Israel to ‘take all measures to prevent any acts contrary to the 1948 Genocide Convention’, to ensure the supply of food and to call off an attack on the city of Rafah on humanitarian grounds.  It did not call for Israel to end all its operations.

4. International Courts (iii)

Negatives:

• Its jurisdiction is limited to states – no role for NGOs, individuals, business etc.  Hence its role in monitoring HR  is strictly limited, leading to other institutions such as the War Crimes Tribunals and ICC being set up.

• Its judgements lack any compulsion. States can opt out entirely of the ICJ’s jurisdiction or can sign a clause saying they won’t be bound by its judgements!  (As of 2022 only 72 states of the 193 members had signed the clause agreeing to be bound by the ICJ’s judgements). 

• In theory the ICJ could appeal to the UNSC to enforce court decisions, but this has never happened.  Since the UNSC can only act when international peace & security are threatened, then it is unlikely to back military action to enforce an ICJ ruling.

• Developing world countries criticised its makeup as too Western leaning – although less so since the end of the Cold War

  
  

4. International Courts (iv)

Multiple states have refused to recognise ICJ rulings:

• 1980 Iran ignored over seizure of US embassy in Tehran

• 1984 USA rejected  judgement against it for planting sea mines in Nicaraguan harbours, arguing its actions supported its ally El Salvador

• 2004 Israel rejected ICJ’s ‘advisory’ ruling that the wall built along the West Bank border was illegal

• 2012 Colombia lost maritime border dispute with Nicaragua, therefore refused to recognise the ICJ’s jurisdiction

• 2014 Australia won a case vs Japan over whaling, but Japan carried on hunting anyway

• 2018 USA was ordered to lift sanctions on Iran (over the nuclear dispute) for certain items like humanitarian aid & civil aviation based on the agreements of the 1955 US-Iran Treaty of Amity.  Washington has said it will ignore the judgement

4. International Courts (v)

(ii) The International Criminal Court (ICC):

*The most important of all HR institutions. The cost  and inefficiency of adhoc tribunals (eg. took 2 years to start hearing cases and cost 10% of the UN budget of 2000 and over $1.6bn by 2009) led to calls to create a permanent HR court. In 1998, 160 countries signed the Rome Statute to form the permanent ICC, identifying 4 core international crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crime of aggression. It began work in 2002. Although established by the UN, it is an independent organisation (it reports to the UN and information is exchanged between the 2) of 124 states as of 2022. The US wanted the court to be overseen by the UNSC, but this was rejected as it …

might have given members veto powers over cases. Instead, the UNSC can delay prosecutions for 12 months if court cases would harm international security issues. As of 2022 45 people indicted; 8 convicted (but 5 for minor offences only), 14 acquitted, 12 are fugitives and 4 died before trial. It heavily depends on NGOs' help for information on crimes, locating victims/witnesses, and to promote and organise victim participation. It’s first guilty verdicts  constituted the first conviction of a former head of state before an international tribunal since the conviction of Karl Doenitz, president for 23 days after Hitlers suicide after Nurumberg. 

4. International Courts (v) - positives ICC

• The UNSC can refer matters to the Court that would not fall under its jurisdiction (eg. Darfur and Libya, which the Court could not otherwise have prosecuted as neither Sudan nor Libya are members of the ICC).

• As of 2021 the ICC has investigated 15 matters, 10 in Africa, 4 in Asia and 1 in Georgia. Other areas have been investigated but matters dropped.

•  The 3 high profile convictions were of DR Congo politicians and warlords Thomas Lubanga (freed 2020 after serving 14 years), Germain Katanga (freed 2016 after serving 11 years) and Jean-Pierre Bemba (freed on appeal 2018). Omar al-Bashir, former President of Sudan, is the most high profile current fugitive.

• The former President of Cote d’Ivoire Laurent Gbagbo and his wife Simone were accused of ‘orchestrating a campaign of violence’ to hang on to power in 2011 in a landmark case.  They were acquitted in 2018
  

4. International Courts (v) - positives ICC

The ICC has been praised for:

• Permanent, not ad hoc like Tribunals

• Establishing HR precedents in International Law; has codified norms accepted since the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials.

• Acting as a deterrent to world leaders

• Casting light on atrocities, making denial of war crimes more difficult

• Provide justice in cases where states can’t facilitate it themselves

4. International Courts (vi) - negatives ICC

• The ICC has to battle state self-interest.  Although 160 countries signed the Rome Statute, some then refused the ICC’s jurisdiction or withdrew. USA, China, Russia & India are non-members. 70% of the world's population lie outside the court's jurisdiction. Russia withdrew its signature after criticism over Crimea.

• African states say the ICC is biased,  ignoring crimes of powerful states (US) & focusing on Africa. Kenya unsuccessfully tried to get the 33 African states to withdraw after its president Kenyatta was indicted on charges of killing 1000 people following a disputed election in 2007. Eventually the case was dropped after Kenya refused to hand over evidence.

• In 2015-16 Namibia, Burundi, South Africa & Gambia announced their withdrawal from the ‘kangaroo court’ saying all 39 people indicted in the ICC’s history had been African. Only Burundi actually left. 

• The Philippines withdrew in 2019 after President Duterte was investigated. Although the UNSC could refer the case, it reflects a weakness where leaders can withdraw countries from the Court before they themselves are prosecuted.

• US criticism for the lack of checks/balances. The American Service Personnel Act (ASPA) authorises the US President to use all means including force “to release any U.S. personnel being detained by the ICC". The US  threatens to prosecute in US courts any ICC judges who investigate Americans

• The AU specifically ordered its 54 members not to cooperate with thepro-Western ICCs arrest warrant for the huge profits of Sudanese oil against concerted action. 

4. International Courts (vi) - negatives ICC

The Court has no coercive power - if states refuse to coop there’s little it can do. Cases need to be presented by states (or via UNSC) before it can investigate. Critics have argued:

• It undermines state sovereignty and their legitimacy to try cases in own countries

• Unhelpful obsession with individual culpability.  By prioritizing individual culpability and criminal prosecution over wider concerns, it damages prospects of peace eg. indictment of President Bashir of Sudan.

• It is slow, costly and inefficient. Only 5 sentences of significance passed (and one of those was overturned on appeal). Its first judgement was only made in 2012. 

• Research suggests that prosecutions of state leaders makes dictators less likely to peacefully step down – furthering conflict & abuses.

• NGOs have an “exaggerated sense of ownership” of ICC. Moulding the ICC to satisfy NGO interests risks undermining a sense of its impartiality.

4. International Courts (vii)

(iii) International Criminal Tribunals:

Tribunals were established after the end of the Cold War as part of the hoped for more collaborative approach to world affairs and in the wake of reports of atrocities. They aimed to bring to justice and punish those accused of HR abuses and establish the principle that the international community will no longer tolerate nation-states abusing their own citizens. They are seen as a major advance in the development of international law since the rulings would be on activities within states and could try heads of state. The ICTs set a precedent for the establishment of the ICC in 2002. However,

the tribunals have been accused of ‘victor's justice’. For example, in Serbia they focused on investigating Serb crimes and ignoring crimes perpetrated on them, whilst the acquittal of the Croat Ante Gotovina and Kosovan Ramush Haradinaj has been criticised by Russia and is said to have heightened existing ethnic tensions. In Rwanda only Hutus have been prosecuted & the rebel (now government) Tutsi Rwandan Patriotic Front’s atrocities ignored. Saddam Hussain was handed over by the USA to Iraqis for trial rather than a UN Tribunal, perhaps because they could deliver the death penalty. Arguably, the selective use of tribunals and international courts undermines international justice.

4. International Courts (viii)

Yugoslavia: The ICTY was set up 1993 to prosecute crimes against humanity, genocide & breaches of the laws of war. It was the first such international court since the Nuremberg trials of 1945-6. High profile leaders like Radovan Karadzic & Ratko Mladic were prosecuted. Slobodan Milosevic's (former leader of Yugoslavia) trial established the important precedent of a former head of state being prosecuted for his actions. The ICTY indicted 161 people, 90 of whom were imprisoned (for between 5 & 40 years), 13 acquitted. Over 4500 witnesses were called & over 10,000 court days were held. The tribunal was said to have brought justice for thousands of victims and uncovered vast amounts of evidence regarding the circumstances of notorious events like the 1995 Srebrenica Massacre. It is very unlikely the Balkan countries involved (Serbia, Bosnia & Croatia) would have been willing or able to prosecute those accused of HR abuses themselves. However …

Slobodan Milosevic, former leader of Yugoslavia, was arrested in 2001, but died whilst on trial still in 2006. Prosecutors were blamed for having been overly ambitious, bringing 66 charges covering three wars. Gathering evidence for the tribunal proved difficult with fugitives being hard to find and arrest.  States tended only to cooperate when put under pressure – the USA threatened to withhold back aid to Serbia unless Milosevic was handed over. Karadzic and Mladic were finally delivered, apparently as a condition for European Union candidacy. Critics of the process such as Samuel Huntingdon argued that the war crimes tribunal elongated the hatred between affected nations through the long drawn out legal processes. Unfortunately, 72 year old Bosnian Croat Slobodan Praljak committed suicide in court in 2017 after losing his appeal.

4. International Courts (xi)

Rwanda: Following the Rwandan genocide where at least 800,000 people were killed, a second court was convened by the UN – the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). It ran from 1997 to 2015, located in Tanzania. 61 people were sentenced and 14 acquitted, with over 3000 witness accounts given over 5800 days. It was the first international court to pass a judgement on genocide – on Jean-Paul Akayesu, a former Rwandan mayor.  It was also the first court to establish the precedent that rape could be used as an act of genocide. Former Rwandan Prime Minister Jean Kambanda became the first head of a government ever to be convicted of genocide by an international court.  Supporters argued this would …

provide a powerful deterrent to future world leaders. But, there’s been many criticisms over the lack of people prosecuted given the $2bn spent on the Tribunal. Given the scale of the genocide, it’s odd so few killers were caught and convicted.  8 key leaders of the genocide remain on the run – but the ICTR never had any mechanism of arrest. Jean Pierre Dusingizemungu from Ibuka, an umbrella group for genocide survivors, says the ICTR "delivered nothing for either the victims or the survivors".  The majority of prosecutions were done by local Rwandan community courts – not the ICTR.

4. International Courts (x)

Cambodia: The Khmer Rouge killed up to 2m people during its four year rule 1975-9. In 1997, the UN and Cambodian government set up a Tribunal - the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) - to try former Khmer Rouge leaders. Because of delays with the Cambodian government however, the court didn’t start operating until 2006. The ECCC received broad public support with 353,000 people observing/participating in the court's proceedings.  In a survey, 83% of the respondents agreed that the ECCC should be involved in responding to what happened during the Khmer Rouge regime. The court has been praised for …

giving Cambodians a better understanding of the genocide.  It has also helped give young Cambodian lawyers training and internships. However, only 3 people were prosecuted. One other defendant died whilst on trial, another was unfit to stand trial due to Alzheimer's. The ECCC faced delays and interference from the Cambodian government, which refused to arrest one former Khmer Rouge leader Meas Muth, prompting some international judges to resign. Overall, it cost over $200m by 2014 – roughly 3/4s of which was paid by the UN. By that stage it had only one conviction. 

4. International Courts (xi)

Sierra Leone: In 2002 the Special Court for Sierra Leone was set up jointly by Sierra Leone and the UN. It investigated serious HR abuses during the 10 year civil war in which 50,000 died. Former president of the neighbouring country of Liberia, Charles Taylor was the first head of state to be convicted of war crimes in 2012, where he was sentenced to 50 years in prison, sending a message to dictators across the world that they are not above the law. 15 others were also imprisoned. However, critics argued the court overly focused on Taylor as a ‘figurehead’ & should have shown more attention to less high profile but more significant figures. Some criticised the court as …

Western Liberal justice operating in a neo-imperialist way, whilst others said it showed a Western stereotype of Africa being unable to deliver justice itself (the trial of Taylor was held in The Hague) and up  to 2013, all ICC prosecutions had been Africans. By focusing on the role of leaders, the Tribunal neglected the wider issues of the conflict: corruption, a culture of violence, poverty, exploitation by the global North, colonial legacy etc., with the Sierra Leone RUF leader Foday Sankoh more culpable for the crimes than Taylor.

4. International Courts (xi)

Charles Taylor case study:

In April 2012 the former Liberian president (1997-2003), was convicted of 11 charges of war crimes against humanity during the 1991-2002 civil war by the special court for Sierra Leone. He was sentenced to 50 years. The court rejected the claim he had ordered atrocities, it found he supported the rebel RUF who grossly violated international hum laws, including rape, murder, slavery, child soldiers etc. in return for assiting the RUF he received a stream of ‘blood diamonds’. Taylor was the first head of state convicted for …

war crimes since Nuremberg and began a trend of favouring persecution of leaders. From 1990-2009 65 heads of state were persecuted including Chile’s Pinochet, Slobodan Milosevic of Yugoslavia and Saddam Hussein of Iraq. This aims to prove leaders are not above the law. 

4. International Courts (xii)

(iv) The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR):

Since the UNDHR was non-binding (until 1966/76 Covenants), the Council of Europe (formed in 1949 to promote Euro cooperation) developed the ECHR in 1950 and ECtHR in 1959. All 47 Council of Europe members are bound by its decisions, however it has nothing to do with the EU. Cases can be brought by states or individuals, but states lose around 83% of cases (serial offenders like Russia, Turkey and Hungary significantly increase this percentage). The UK has lost only around …

60% of cases (about 500 rulings since 1959). When a judgement is made, states cannot ignore it – but equally the Court has no enforcement mechanism!  Instead states need to act ‘as they consider appropriate’ to remedy the situation judged – although ‘appropriate’ wouldn’t mean doing nothing. No state has been removed from the Council of Europe for ignoring judgements despite e.g. abuses of Russia in Chechnya etc.

4. International Courts (xiii) ECtHR

successes:

• The compliance rate with ECtHR judgements is about 90% - making it the “nearest thing to human rights ‘hard’ law” – Heywood.  It possesses great moral authority & holds European states to account. 

• Around 45,000 cases are submitted to the court annually (90% cases judged inadmissible, 60% of heard cases deemed ‘unnecessary’). This said, the number of cases causes significant backlogs.

Significant cases that have helped include:

• Overturned UK injunction on Sunday Times on thalidomide scandal story (1979)

• Challenged the Ireland’s ban on homosexuality (1981)

• Ruled in favour of trans people in UK being allowed to change gender (1986)

• Condemned HR abuses by Russia in Chechnya (2005)

• Ruled against police storing of DNA & fingerprints of innocent people (2008) (I’m less sure about this one!)

• Ruled Bosnia’s constitution unlawfully discriminates against Jews & Roma (2009).

4. International Courts (xiii) ECtHR

• Critics including British Law Lord, Lord Hoffman & president of the Belgian Constitutional Court Marc Bossuyt argue the ECtHR interferes too much with the state sovereignty & tries to ‘aggrandise its jurisdiction’.

• After losing its final appeal in 2011 to a 2001 judgement on prisoner’s ‘inhumane’ lack of voting rights, PM David Cameron described the ruling as "completely unacceptable" & a distortion of the concept of HR.

• Former judge Loukis Loucaides criticised the Court for a "reluctance to find violations in sensitive matters” to states in respect to Cyprus

• Other countries have also restricted the binding nature of the ECtHR judgments e.g. in 2004 Germany declared rulings not automatically binding.

• Criticism from Russia is frequent. In 2014 Russia was ordered by ECtHR to pay $2 billion in damages to former shareholders of Yukos, which the court ruled was intentionally bankrupted by the government.  In 2015, Russia adopted a law allowing it to overrule judgements from the ECtHR.

• In many cases, countries have simply refused to put in practice the ECtHR judgments. Around 10,000 judgments of the ECtHR have not been put into effect - & states will ignore rulings which run contrary to national interest / public opinion.  The court has no coercive enforcement powers.

• Human Rights Watch & other NGOs criticised the Court and Council for Europe in 2021 for failures to take action over the Turkish government’s failure to implement two leading ECtHR judgments that ordered the immediate release of the human rights defender Osman Kavala and the Kurdish politician Selahattin Demirtaş.