Ruminating cultural legitimacy, contemplating internal obedience: proposing a more innovative approach to enforcing international human rights law
The apparent inability of the human rights system to function effectively is in many ways closely related to the conceptual framework upon which it was built to operate. The international model which forms the foundation from which human rights law is expected to operate is highly statist in natu...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Conference or Workshop Item |
| Language: | English English |
| Published: |
2013
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://irep.iium.edu.my/47926/ http://irep.iium.edu.my/47926/1/ACPEL_OSAKA_Full_Paper.pdf http://irep.iium.edu.my/47926/4/47926.pdf |
| Summary: | The apparent inability of the human rights system to function effectively is in
many ways closely related to the conceptual framework upon which it was built to
operate. The international model which forms the foundation from which human
rights law is expected to operate is highly statist in nature, and focuses on the
sovereign states as the key law enforcement agencies. It heavily relies upon the
premise that governments will faithfully implement international human rights
standards within their own domestic systems. In fact, based on the doctrine of
“consent” and principles of “state sovereignty” and “non-intervention”, states
are deemed independent and free agents. Accordingly they could only be bound
by law in the form of “contractual obligations” based on their own consent, i.e.
states could only be obliged to comply with international legal rules if they had
first agreed to be so obliged through acts of ratifying an international human
rights treaty or convention. This leads to the conclusion that the best possible way
of fostering compliance among states with human rights law, is to instill internal
obedience in states as opposed to stimulating compliance via external dynamics.
Using qualitative method of analysis, this paper shall extrapolate the reasons
behind state’s compliance (or non-compliance) with international law in general,
and analyze whether the same reasons could also be deployed to motivate states
to comply international human rights law. In doing so, it shall comparatively
examine both the rationalist and the constructivist theories of states’ compliance
and subsequently emphasize on the applicability of any or both of the theories in
the implementation and enforcement of international human rights law.
Hypothesizing that the constructivist theory is more fitting, the paper proceeds to
cogitate the relevance of cultural legitimacy as a crucial factor that may bolster
internal obedience in states to comply with human rights law. In its final
supposition, the paper invites proponents of human rights and the like to explore
multiculturalism as a possible innovative approach that could improve the
effectiveness of international human rights law enforcement. |
|---|