The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, hereafter the ‘ICESCR’, binds State Parties to take steps to achieve the rights recognized within the treaty. Involved are both core obligations, which are to be realized immediately, and duties to be achieved progressively, through the use of maximum available resources. Once attained, measures are to be taken to ensure those rights are not diminished. Should regression occur, full justification is required. This legal brief will critically analyse the situations in Mythica in order to identify any potential duties assigned in the ICESCR that may have been breached. Following that, it will expound upon which of those prospective violations could be brought before the Optional Protocol, hereafter the ‘OP’, for a remedy.
II. BROAD CASE ANALYSIS OVERVIEW
The ICESCR treaty body, the Committee on Economic, Cultural and Social Rights, hereafter the ‘Committee’, has identified minimum core obligations. In its General Comment 3, hereafter the ‘GC3’, it clarifies that there are basic ‘essential levels’ of all ICESCR rights. These create the minimum core obligations that are to be implemented expeditiously.
The obligation to respect requires States abstain from interfering with the ICESCR rights. The duty to protect calls for States to shield rights-holders from third party violations. The responsibility to fulfil involves States taking action to reach the total realisation of the rights. If any of these are not satisfied, a violation has occurred. Violations can be committed through both action and inaction.
It is the State’s burden to show that it has made every effort to exhaust its resources to satisfy its minimum duties. In addition, it must prov...
... middle of paper ...
...emiss in its State Reports, where it should indicate if it is experiencing difficulties which keep it from fulfiling its obligations. It will also not have met its responsibility to ask for international assistance and cooperation from the State Parties that have donated.
IV. CONCLUSION: SUBMITTING CASES BEFORE THE PROTOCOL
All domestic remedies must be exhausted prior to being submitted to the Committee. It ought to be mentioned that some of the potential violations occurred recently, and the likelihood that all domestic remedies having been exhausted is not probable. Should a decision be made to file a communication it must be done within one year after that exhaustion, unless there is proof that it was not possible. In these matters, to the victim’s and potential future victims who may be spared based upon outcomes from the OP, time is of the essence.
You have been asked by the state representative to analyze and write a report on a very important piece of legislation. You have kept track of this legislation, but been having a...
European convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950- This is the European file connecting to human rights; in European Union this is signed by every government as well as the UK. This has been made to protect the human rights and how it’s made is that it helps for the important freedoms in the European countries.
The United Nations General Assembly 36-103 focused on topics of hostile relations between states and justification for international interventions. Specifically mentioned at the UNGA was the right of a state to perform an intervention on the basis of “solving outstanding international issues” and contributing to the removal of global “conflicts and interference". (Resolution 36/103, e). My paper will examine the merits of these rights, what the GA was arguing for and against, and explore relevant global events that can suggest the importance of this discussion and what it has achieved or materialized.
...). Therefore, if liberty rights and rights to goods and services are violated in various states, then how can Nussbaum expect to see the central capabilities guaranteed in such states? Another negative aspect about placing obligations or establishing guarantees from states is that some may lack the power to fulfill those obligations (O’Neill 435) For example, underdeveloped states or the deemed failed states lack the economic resources and political stability to do so. Others don’t necessarily need to be in a similar situation for failing as duty-bearers. States regarded as being strong in the international community may encounter enforcement problems. Even so when they cannot guarantee liberty rights to their constituents as do many authoritarian regimes. As a result, O’Neill suggests reconsidering whether all second-order obligations should be assigned to states.
Zacher, Mark W. “The Territorial Integrity Norm: International Boundaries and the Use of Force.” International Organization. Vol. 55, No. 2 (Spring 2001), 215-250.
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights, as amended) (ECHR), Art 5(1)(e)
The first element of international law is state practice. There are certain behaviors that are regarded as customs once they are practiced by a substantial amount of states over a prolonged period of time. However, it is important to note that this stand...
456). Also, as stated by Besson, a State needs jurisdiction in order to apply human rights treaties, meaning that “it conditions the applicability of those rights and duties on political and legal circumstances where a certain relationship exists between right-holders and state parties” (Besson, p. 860).
In any kind of legal relations, subject always play an important role, and it is one of the signals to determine the relation that pertaining the adjustment of any legislation system. International law is a legislation system that is a set of thousands of documents from various sources. The research about the subjects is necessary since it helps to find out the source of law, which relation pertains the adjustment of law. The subjects of international law include sovereign states and analogous entities, intergovernmental organizations, the individuals, and multinational corporations.
On December 10th in 1948, the general assembly adopted a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This declaration, although not legally binding, created “a common standard of achievement of all people and all nations…to promote respect for those rights and freedoms” (Goodhart, 379). However, many cultures assert that the human rights policies outlined in the declaration undermine cultural beliefs and practices. This assertion makes the search for universal human rights very difficult to achieve. I would like to focus on articles 3, 14 and 25 to address how these articles could be modified to incorporate cultural differences, without completely undermining the search for human rights practices.
The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine is an emerging principle, developed after catastrophes such as the Rwandan genocide to ensure such a large-scale tragedy would never happen again. It presents the idea that sovereignty is not a right, and that states should allow international intervention during acts of genocide, ethnic cleansing and war crimes. Under the R2P, the international community has the right to defend other nations from these tragedies; however, many nations will not be obliged to be bound by an agreement, due to opposing and conflicting views and objectives. This has been demonstrated in various instances when nations are in disagreement with the planned course of action and abstained as a result. The doctrine serves as a pathway for the world’s leading powers to invade another state’s sovereignty, which could divide the members of the Security Council. Furthermore, if enacted regularly, the R2P would cause more harm than good, leading to destruction and exploitation Due to this, not all of the international community are in disagreement and thereby not obliged to act. Many states will not consider acting when a tragedy occurs, due to distrust and ongoing suspicions with these plans. This ultimately devalues the authenticity and objective of the R2P. Firstly, my paper will outline the definitions of the R2P doctrine. Secondly, the effectiveness of the R2P and its relationship with different UN members, followed by case studies. Lastly, short analysis will conclude the paper.
The OSCE was initially formed as the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe by Helsinki Final act in 1975. This act outlined the principles upon which the organization was to be based and the specific areas in which the members would work. The principles which guide the actions of states amongst themselves include: sovereign equality, respect for the rights inherent in sovereignty, territorial integrity of States, peaceful settlement of disputes, non-intervention in internal affairs, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, equal rights and self-determination of peoples, co-operation among States, and fulfillment in good faith of obligations under international law. The document goes on to lay out that the states shall work together in the fields of human rights, on politico-military affairs and on economic, scientific and environmental issues. The organization has been unique from its inception because of the geographic area with which it was associated and the range of participants. It encompasses an area from Vladivostock to Vancouver with member states including both the United States of America and Canada...
The rule of law requires compliance by the state with its obligations in International law.
The lives and prosperity of millions of people depend on peace and, in turn, peace depends on treaties - fragile documents that must do more than end wars. Negotiations and peace treaties may lead to decades of cooperation during which disputes between nations are resolved without military action and economic cost, or may prolong or even intensify the grievances which provoked conflict in the first place. In 1996, as Canada and the United States celebrated their mutual boundary as the longest undefended border in the world, Greece and Turkey nearly came to blows over a rocky island so small it scarcely had space for a flagpole.1 Both territorial questions had been raised as issues in peace treaties. The Treaty of Ghent in 1815 set the framework for the resolution of Canadian-American territorial questions. The Treaty of Sevres in 1920, between the Sultan and the victorious Allies of World War I, dismantled the remnants of the Ottoman Empire and distributed its territories. Examination of the terms and consequences of the two treaties clearly establishes that a successful treaty must provide more than the absence of war.
The reporting mechanism enables the Committee to engage in a constructive dialogue with State Parties which includes recommendations for improvement. However, the Committee, as a monitoring body, has no power to compel Parties to implement those recommendations. This has created an opportunity for State Parties to evade their responsibilities. It is an apparent frailty to the design, and this lack of explicit power has been a ...