Human rights course - first study summary, part one

I've been working my way through an introductory course on human rights by "MOOC  Chile", who are a part of the Universidad Diego Portales. It's an excellent course - it has a couple of errors (there was no indigenous treaty in Australia, and their definition of "queer" is completely different to anything I've ever come across), but I would recommend it for the breadth and reasonably comprehensive approach it takes.

I started this blog to cover "random musings as I work my way through some free material on political science ... and live": well, human rights is a major part of why I am studying, and the blog is about sharing, so hopefully these notes may inspire someone to view or study the course, which is free online via YouTube, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iN_S8xcGefo&list=PLQ-vn9R272FjsmryxhlYOMhuwlXNp724L (the certificate, via the paid Udemy course, is no longer available). The summary won't make much sense as it is: it is a summary for someone who has listened to the online lectures, not an instructional. If you want to know more, so to the YouTube link provided above.

I'm also working on a much better tabulation of this summary, and will publish that when it is done.

(Part two relates to specific applications of human rights - e.g., right of women, the child, indigenous people, etc. Sumaries of those will come in due course as well)

Incidentally, I'd love for someone to combine together major publications on human rights - like this course, which provides a great framework,   the depth, incisiveness, and sometimes bitter of Geoffrey  Robertson's “Crimes Against Humanity: The Struggle for Global Justice” (4th Ed., Pub. The New Press (www.thenewpress.com), New York, 2013, ISBN 978-1-59558-8609; originally published Allen Lane, Great Britain, 1999, subsequently published by the Penguin Group, Great Britain, in 2000, 2002, 2006, and 2012),   the specialised insights of Samantha  Power's "A Problem from Hell" (pub. Basic Books ["a member of the Perseus Books Group"], New York, 2013, ISBN 978-0-465-06151-8; previously published HarperCollins in 2003 and 2007)   and   Dan  Plesch's "Human Rights  After Hitler" - which is about the United War Crimes Commission, the investigations of which in the second half of World War (part) Two enabled many of the trials for crimes against humanity etc (they were also preparing the legal case against Hitler) before the idiotic and, frankly, criminally irresponsible USA hid its work (pub. Georgetown University Press, 2017, ISBN 978-1-62616-431-4 ),   and  - before they go off the rails (see also reviews here and here) twisting data and denigrating some nations in order to "prove" their theory about the extent of the Paris Pact (that it enabled some of the charges at the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials is sufficient, in my view) - “The  Internationalists” by Oona A. Hathaway and Scott J. Shapiro (Pub. Simon and Schuster, New York, 2017, ISBN 978-1-5011-0986-7), which has an excellent overview of international law at the start.

Enough waffle, on to the summary. As usual, Blogger and Word don't like talking to each other, so the formatting has become distorted (e.g., font sizes are reversed): my apologies, but I don't have the time to recreate it all properly, just an attempt at a quick fix. (The italicised text at the end of each section refers to the course lessons.)

*****

Basic concepts 

Norms are, narrowly, “the rules of the game”, or, less narrowly, “how the game is played”, or even more broadly “the demands of the players to modify or improve the rules in light of experience”. There is a disconnect between norms and reality (e.g., ban on stealing doesn’t mean stealing does not occur [human fallibility], just as the fact that stealing occurs does not mean it ought to be legal; also, law covers “what ought to be”, not physical reality like science).

Norms are based on a hierarchy of values (general at top, specific below, and with “cusp” values). Morals (and moral judgments) are prescriptive norms based on what is considered right or wrong. Ethics is the study of morals. Analogy: moral expert is a lawmaker who makes or a judge who applies norms, whereas an ethical expert is like a jurist. (In practice, words morals and ethics used interchangeably.)

Legal systems (body of laws and, more broadly, the institutions and mechanisms for laws, including alternative such politics and social activism for times of rapid change, when institutions don’t work [e.g., under dictatorships], etc) are based on norms, but are backed by the State’s monopoly on force.

Norms adjust to spheres (business, family, etc) – in politics: monopoly of force, need for support of people and political apparatus. Shortcomings of norms (laws and morals) are difficulty covering rare events (e.g., lifeboat cannot support all passengers) / extreme emergencies (e.g., threat to survival of species). Political lives of nations may need norms for foundation, normal existence, crisis, and reconstruction /re-foundation.

On changes to political lives of nations, during the Enlightenment, the basic unit changed from subject to citizen. In the 20^th Century, changed from Empires and States to superpowers and States, and citizens began exercising their power more directly. World Order has:

(1) political (UN, OAS, etc),

(2) commercial-financial (IMF, World Bank, GATT, WTP),

(3) military (NATO, etc),

(4) political alignments (West-East, North-South, etc), and

(5) humanitarian aspects.

Humanitarian aspect in turn has components:

(a) human rights (UDHR),

(b) IHL (including refugees, anti-terrorist, Geneva Conventions, etc), and (later)

(c) international criminal justice (ICC).

International law is language and normative system, but lacks the monopoly of force of national systems.

Public Ethics I
Public Ethics II
Democracy, Citizenry, International Order and Law

Rights, including history (1,027 words)

The struggle for human rights is old. (First generation) rights of liberty often dated to Magna Cartas (incl. 1188 in Spain) and 1689 Bill of Rights in Britain, which changed the “obligor” from monarch to Nation-State. Rational justifications for human rights in the 17^th Century on the basis of human dignity, and liberal revolutions in late 18^th Century translated rights into law (“positivisation”), and recognised for them all people through the 19^th Century – which also saw recognition of need for second generation (economic, social and cultural) rights – the State was now expected to deliver, not just keep its hand off. After the horrors of World War 2 showed humanity’s vulnerability, human rights were internationalised by the Universal Declaration Human Rights (the obligor could be the  international community as well). From 1970s on, identification and consideration of third generation rights (aspirational – in Declarations, not legally binding), collective rights (to peace, sustainable environment, etc), developed, as did international criminal law (and the obligor could now also be a private entity).

Civil (individual immunities giving freedom to act and obliging bestowed monopoly of force be used to enforce the law, protect basic rights, and promote the common good) and political (exercise of popular sovereignty by taking part in public affairs) rights stem from the philosophical and political liberal tradition (some call them “Western rights”), but have attained universal recognition (even despots try to improve their image on this), partly by identification with household expression “human rights”, which has great legitimacy.

These individual rights (second generation social, economic, and cultural rights are collective rights) include the rights to:

·         life;

·         prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment;

·         prohibition of slavery;

·         liberty and security of the person;

·         equality before the law and the prohibition of discrimination;

·         access to justice and to a due process of law;

·         privacy;

·         freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and expression; and

·         to vote and to run for public office.

(Right to property not recognised because of Communist East in Cold War.)

Civil and political rights defend values relating to protection of individual as is, and in relations with others and the State, which leads to five sub-categories:

Inviolabilities (protection of the immediate sphere of personal security, privacy, identity of the person [and goods related to these], and thus rights to life and to personal integrity, personal liberty and security, prohibition of slavery, a name, sexual self-determination, and intimacy and privacy of the family and of the correspondence, and freedom of conscience [but civil liberty of proselytising may be limited] – all of which apply even if person utterly passive);

Civil Liberties (based on interactions with others [recluse has, but to exercise must interact, which is regulated much as traffic needs traffic lights]- liberty of action in the political, social, and economic spheres, including freedoms of expression, seeking and receiving information, assembly, association, movement, and residence);

Political Rights (as member of political community  States must not only refrain from impeding but actively enable [provide electoral rolls, election agencies, etc]);

Equalities (equality is freedom from arbitrary discrimination [racism, sexism, etc], including in restrictions – thus “formal” [applied in accordance with rules] rather than substantive [practical effect], but no less important for that); and

Legal Status, Acknowledgement, and Protection (rights are useless unless someone has [“is assigned”] them, and need a legal tool to uphold them [usually courts]).

Recognition of economic (rights to work, of labour, and to social security), social (rights to adequate standard of living, food, housing, clothing, health, education, and water and sanitation), and cultural rights grew during the 20^th Century, including some national recognition (Mexico, 1917, Weimar Republic, 1919, Latin American constitutions) and “international landmarks” (ILO, 1919, attempted to show capitalism and ESCR compatible, FDR called for an economic Bill of Rights in 1944, inclusion in UDHR), but in the Cold War the US-led “West” split ESCR from civil and political rights when the Twin Covenants were formulated (but they are interdependent – have “intergrality”), and other documents since on this. Definition of ESCR by UN Committee on ESCR (18 independent experts) through its General Comments on particular issues and Concluding Observations about specific nation’s reports on ESCR. Case law at national level shows ESCR are enforceable, and national social protection schemes are important, but inadequate provision in legal systems and tend to be regarded as secondary by HR organisations. This is not helped by:

·         the myth of ESCR being costly whereas civil and political rights aren’t (all rights have a cost if done properly);

·         calls for democratic debate and political choices rather than courts (true, but must ensure and respect ESCR as per international treaty obligations);

·         the myth that civil and political rights lead to ESCR (50 million US residents in poverty [this is like thinking individual rights lead to minority rights]);

·         the noise over individual versus collective rights (all rights are exercised by individuals, but useless unless broader context exists – e.g., no point being able to vote if no system for elections [arguable in case of inviolabilities]);

·         arguments over extent that developed nations should help the developing nations achieve ESCR; and

·         obligations around transnational corporations.

A particularly important right is freedom of expression which also includes the right to information, and thus is crucial to democracy (allows criticism of government, discussion of public interest) and is guaranteed in human rights instruments, including international; treaties, and case law – which also includes harmful expression (which allows testing in debate, and is essential for human development, anti-corruption, and free market), but there are restrictions to protect others’ rights (e.g., privacy [such as medical information, sexuality]), national security /public order, authority / impartiality of judiciary, and social values (e.g., public health / morals), including prohibition of hate speech and war propaganda, and may be suspended or derogated in emergencies threatening survival of the State but must be lawful, necessary, proportionate and in consonance with the requirements of a democratic society – censorship only in narrow cases (e.g., serious and irreversible damage to an important public interest) and with legal authorisation. Where harm is caused to reputation / honour, general principle is the limitation of that speech, and the imposition of some type of sanctions or remedies unless information serves the public interest.

The Historical Evolution of Human Rights
Civil and Political Rights I
Civil and Political Rights II
Civil and Political Rights III
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Freedom of Expression

Aspects of rights 

There are relativism challenges in human rights arena – cultural and ideological (claims subordinate to second generation right).

Cultural relativity debate has changed over time – East vs. West, North vs. South, West vs. Islam, based on equating West with expansion and dominance. However, that is a “genetic fallacy” (misuse of reasoning based solely on the origin of something), which also says West could not have adopted gunpowder, etc – origin does not preclude universal validity.

Also, principles and values (such as human dignity) are shared globally, and respect for life, personal liberty, bans on discrimination and slavery are norms, some of which have ius cogens status (don’t need universal compliance for that, as with ban on theft).

Universal (applicable everywhere) does not mean are absolute (no restrictions) or sacred.

Cultural relativity has danger of enabling tyranny and oppression (e.g., stoning to death).

Note also that first and second generation rights are indivisible (no hierarchy) and interdependent (need one set of rights to realise the other).

Equality and non-discrimination are two sides of the same coin – need both.
Equality is of opportunity, not treatment or outcome.

Discrimination is prohibited (this is the core of human rights law) - on specific grounds (race [this and apartheid are ius cogens], religion, and sex or gender, or other – which allows an “evolutive reading” – and Inter-American Court determined prohibition of discrimination is itself ius cogens), which means, after making a prima facie case that distinction between a person who displays any of these characteristics and another one who does not was made by the law, state organs, public officials, or private actors (if not, may still be arbitrariness, illegality, or injustice, but not discrimination), the burden of proof turns to the State or the private actor to show that the distinction was legitimate, necessary, and proportionate, rather than arbitrary – and must be necessary (public health, national security, or the rights of others at risk) and proportionate (no more than absolutely necessary). Discrimination may be direct (different treatment is solely on one or more of the prohibited grounds and other reasons are not sufficient to pass the test on necessity and proportionality), or indirect (a general rule for everyone, but the effects that this rule has on some sectors of the population - due again to prohibited grounds - are more onerous or simply negative). Could also be multiple discrimination, and could be formal (if it arises from a norm), or structural - occurs due to a social and cultural sub-stratum or structure (often historical inequalities [e.g., children, indigenous, LGBTIQ], and disadvantaged group not necessarily a minority [e.g., women]), and can only be eradicated through measures of education, training, and changes in society at large as a result of transversal public policies (including legal or constitutional reforms if necessary) and, sometimes, affirmative action which is a temporary measure.

As well as rights, humans have duties to State (to obey laws, pay taxes, help defend, etc) and others, but these are not a restriction on the rights. Some rights (inviolabilities and right to equality) are absolute – i.e., cannot be restricted: they do not collide with others rights, but where such “collisions” (“the liberties and rights of others are the frontier which cannot be trespassed when exercising one’s rights”) do occur (e.g., civil liberties), as with traffic lights to regulate traffic, there are some reasonable and necessary restrictions – limitations, which are applicable at all times (for collective security or law enforcement [don’t associate with the enemy], and just requirements of the common good [e.g., public order / health [quarantine, etc] / morals [ban on child abuse imagery], and don’t falsely shout “fire” in a crowded theatre]), and derogations or suspensions, which may apply in times of certain grave emergencies specifically mentioned by the law and which must:

·         be limited (in nature, time, degree, and extension);

·         not conflict with international obligations;

·         not entail arbitrary discrimination (based on race, colour, sex, language, religion, or social origin); and

·         not impact on absolute rights (to legal personality, personal integrity [no torture], prohibition of slavery, right to have a name, of the child, the principle of legality in criminal law, freedom of conscience and of religion, protection of the family, and political rights).

Right to life cannot be derogated or suspended, but is subject to limitations (legitimate self-defence, war).

Civil and Political Rights II
Equality and Non-Discrimination
Restrictions on Rights

Violations 

“Transgression (or violation) of the obligations international human rights law imposes on States” to:

(a)    respect the value being protected, so State agents must not (i.e., this is a negative obligation) kill, torture, arbitrarily imprison, censor, arbitrarily discriminate, etc; and

(b)   ensure actions (laws, training, administrative measures, investigating and bringing to justice) are taken (i.e., this is a positive obligation demanding a behaviour, not a result) to safeguard the values that human rights law intends to protect;

and are referred to as “human rights violation”.

Obligations also include:

·         progressive accomplishment of ESCR;

·         promotion of values (e.g., to overcome sexist stereotypes);

·         cooperation with intergovernmental organisations.

Is simplistic to view all civil and political rights as negative and all ESCR as positive rights –need to take actions such as forming a police force/judicial system to protect civil rights.

Transgressors can be:

·         States (post the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, and includes State agents; people seen as objects of protection); and,

·         post-WW2, NGOs (have an accountability charter, and subject to law);

·         transnational corporations (can have major impact on labour / child / indigenous peoples’ / environmental rights, so some attempts at regulating);

·         armed groups (often accused of HR abuses - note: humanitarian law not same as human rights law);

·         transnational criminal and terrorist organisations; and

·         individuals (including head of household who may be responsible for domestic violence, neglect, discrimination).

Human rights address what ought to be (norms – like laws), but
violations are what actually is (study of these is like criminology), and
the experts are human rights organisations (not academics).

Violations may be:

·         clear cut (distinct act); or

·         complex (sets of acts – e.g., genocide, forced disappearances, ethic cleanings).

ESCR violations are clear cut when principle of non-arbitrary discrimination is transgressed, but where progressive fulfilment applies, is more difficult.

Aspects of violations include:

·         repressive policies / sporadic or unsystematic repression;

·         centralised (often by Head of State) or decentralised (by agencies or groups);

·         scale (range from individual to massive –and may be indiscriminate [e.g., shooting into a crowd]);

·         context (such as democracy / dictatorship, peace / armed conflict, weakened government, polarisation);

·         motivation (generally to acquire political power, hold on to it, and suppress dissent, but may be political / religious / racial); and

·         there may be “accompanying measures” (attempts to make seem legal [e.g., declare state of emergency for long period], pass laws punishing rights, amnesties for crimes committed by State agents, interfere with judiciary [e.g., military courts], cover-ups [possibly involving corrupt media]).

Violations also further highlight:

·         States’ obligations (respect, ensure and promote human rights, progressively fulfil ESCR, cooperate with international human rights protection organisations);

·         responsibility (accountability – criminally, of the natural person [State agent or private person], sometimes a corporation], civil – right to redress; State officials liable for breach of duty);

·         liability (legal or extra-legal [moral such as breach of mutual respect, political such as actions leading to a loss of legitimacy, or historical which is judgement of future generations], which don’t have legal consequence but may lead to social pressure to pass laws);

·         State responsibilities (occurs by acts of officials / agents unless contrary to official policy / instructions, can be domestic [from national law – most are from alleged violation of the obligations to respect and to ensure] or international [from obligations in international law]);

·         individual’s responsibilities (criminal [possibly pursued extra-territorially, also temporary or permanent international criminal courts]and civil);

however, to achieve social peace and reconciliation after times of deep crisis:

·         there may be clemencies (pardons [of punishments after convictions], amnesties [remove criminality of act for a period of time – but not for war crimes),

but

·         current opinion is against impunity for gross human rights violations (can mete out justice combined with measures of humanity and national reconciliation),

and

·         there is no statute of limitations on genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression.

Human Rights Violations I
Human Rights Violations II
Human Rights Violations III

Protection, including internationalisation 

To understand the world order today, need to understand the impact of World War 2 – the last all-encompassing armed struggle – as being as reality changing as, say, Europeans discovering Americas. The UN was formed to preserve peace, as a better version of the League of Nations, with its initial 49 members now 193:

·         The UN has a Charter which called for promotion of human rights, but those were not specified initially (as with US Constitution);

·         HR later formulated as the UDHR – a non-binding recommendation, which promotes the content (“in recognition of basic rights inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights” lists rights such as freedom, non-discrimination, equal dignity, the prohibition of slavery and of torture, freedom of conscience, the right to work, housing, education, among others) as a norm and leads to binding treaties/covenants – including:

o   Geneva Conventions of 1949 (replaced old, ineffective laws of war),

o   Refugees Convention (well-founded fear of being persecuted),

After World War 2, governments initially took action through the UN until the Cold War stopped progress – except for anti-colonial process in the 1950s.

The UN a key milestone in IHL and universal protection measures – particularly the core human rights treaties (on genocide, the twin covenants [civil & political, and ESCR; develops the rights in the UDHR {to life and liberty; to work, form trade unions and strike, social security, food, housing, health, education, and take part in the cultural life of the community}; split into two by the USA, but, with the UDHR, form an “International Bill of Rights”], racism, CEDAW, torture, child, migrant workers, the Rome Statute, disabilities, enforced disappearances), and “an array” of HR institutions including:

·         the UN treaty bodies (quasi-judicial wing):

o   one per core treaty, each with 12 – 18 independent experts (4 year terms):

-          publicly examine periodic reports (and any civil society counter reports) on implementation by each State party, leading up to “concluding observations” on good, “could do better”, and recommendations;

-          (where State has opted in) individual complaints: 1^st stage admissibility, 2^nd stage merits of complaints – recommendations on compensation and future prevention is admitted and has merit, but not courts so not binding, although do provide authoritative interpretations of the relevant treaties; and

·         the UN Human Rights Council (inter-governmental, political wing) – a political (and thus criticised – including for disproportionate focus on some nations/issues and lack thereof on nations/issues that need review) body with 47 members from the five regions serving three year terms (no more than two consecutively) that replaced the Commission on Human Rights:   members may be suspended (e.g., Libya, 2011);   meets three times a year for a total of 10 weeks (regular session agenda);   simple majority resolutions (can abstain) have political and moral value, but not legally binding;   one third vote for special sessions;   Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of every State member of UN over 4 ½ year rolling period;   can appoint “Special Rapporteur”, or “Working Group”. States care about what peers think of them, so is important.

International justice =   the resolution of disputes between States (mostly the International Court of Justice)   +   petitions of individuals against States for alleged violations of HR   +   international criminal law, which is measure of last resort for offences so egregious society applies the organised force of the State to suppress them, and possesses:

·         substantial dimensions (the value violated);

·         procedural dimension (due process of law); and

·         execution of penalty (penitentiary law).

Jurisdictions may be:

·         national (crimes in territory, extra-territorial jurisdiction from treaties [active personality – perpetrator is a national, passive personality – victim is a national], or universal jurisdiction [extended from 17^th Century bans on piracy in order to protect trade to war crimes]);

·         hybrid (national and international, e.g., special courts for East Timor in 2000, in Cambodia in 2001, and in Sierra Leone in 2002); or

·         international, which may be:

o   ad hoc (Nuremberg [1945] Tokyo [1946], re the former Yugoslavia [1993], and Rwanda [1994]); or

o   permanent – ICC, created by Rome Stature in 1998.

The ICC:

·          - has a Presidency, judicial division (pre-trial, trial and appeals chambers), Office of the Prosecutor, and Registry;
 - is competent to try:

o   genocide (acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, including killing, serious harm, conditions to bring about physical destruction, preventing birth within or forcibly transferring children),

o   crimes against humanity (widespread or systematic attack against civilians and knowledge of, including murder, extermination, imprisonment enslavement, torture, rape, persecution, enforced disappearances, and Apartheid),

o   war crimes (breaches of 1949 Geneva Conventions / IHL during conflict [international or not]), and

o   the crime of aggression (planning etc by a leader of an act of aggression that violates the UN Charter);

·         where the crimes have been committed by natural persons, after 1^st July, 2002, within the territory of a State member or by a national of that State member, in the territory of a State that has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court or by a national of such State, or in any other State of the world referred by the UN Security Council to the Court;

·         and may be filed by any State, the Prosecutor of the Court (supervised by Pre-Trial Division), or the UN Security Council;

·         but can only occur if the State competent to try the offense is unable or unwilling to conduct a serious and effective due process of law (principle of complementarity), which deference to State Sovereignty secures independence of States and encourages better criminal prosecution within them.

Regional protection mechanisms (courts, so legally binding and thus stronger, in some ways, than universal mechanisms) include the European Convention on Human Rights (the oldest) and European Court of Human Rights (hears cases) under the Council of Europe;   the American Declaration of the Human Rights and Duties of Man and the American Convention on Human Rights, and the Inter-American Court on Human Rights (hears cases) and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hears cases and reports on issues) under the Organisation of American States;   the African Charter of Human and People’s Rights, African Court of Human Rights, and African Commission on Human Rights, under the Organisation of African Unity;   and an Arab Convention on Human Rights under the Arab League   -   but nothing for Asia as yet.

Mechanisms for protecting human rights in a nation can be State (judiciary [habeas corpus, HR laws - e.g., US Alien Torts Claims Act, extra-territorial jurisdiction],   pluralistic and independent National Human Rights Institutions [promote human rights – e.g., reports, encourage ratification of international treaties, fight all forms of discrimination, etc] for either normal circumstances [e.g., Ombudsperson] or extraordinary [e.g., Truth Commissions during transitional justice],   prosecutorial organisation), or non-State (HROs - my abbreviation for these notes).

When nations are not free, above does not work: international denunciation and solidarity outside, and whatever courage and imagination suggest inside nation.

In the 1960s, human rights NGOs started with Amnesty International, and others later, including, in the 1970s, in dictatorships, and soon were present in most nations. As the human rights movement (HRM) grew, legitimacy of human rights became uncontested, although some tried to appropriate them, and distinctions were made between credible (not for profit, work for the rights of all, do not subordinate their concern for human rights to other agendas, and their work is conducted rigorously and professionally) and not-so-credible human rights organisations (HROs). Credible HROs have spurred UN and other organisations into action (treaties, etc), and is important to recall human rights are realised through the persistent demand of organised common people, and strengths and successes depends on the action of the HRM.

HROs can be:

·         international, regional or national (territorial scope varies);

·         membership-based, staff-driven, or connected to a profession;

·         tend to focus on civil and political rights, although some have added ESCR and a few IHL, and some are specific (e.g. indigenous, women, refugees, etc).

HROs work by:

·         documenting (sometimes in a format for a specific nation) individual / patterns of violations;

·         campaigns / urgent action networks;

·         observers;

·         promoting official hearings, etc;

·         assisting victims;

·         attempting to bring perpetrators to justice.

Most funding policies aimed at ensuring independence (no government / compromising sources, no conditional donations, no large single sources).

Universal and Regional Protection Mechanisms
Main Legal Documents
National Mechanisms of Protection
The Human Rights Movement
International Criminal Law