Authored By: Laura Edijala
Coventry University
Introduction
International law is essential for safeguarding human rights by establishing state standards and accountability mechanisms. Following World War II, the international community developed treaties, institutions, and judicial bodies to safeguard fundamental rights and freedoms. This article will analyse international law and the progress it has made in articulating and enforcing human rights. It will also examine its effectiveness and the challenges posed by structural weaknesses in the enforcement of laws, particularly regarding state sovereignty.
Foundations of International Human Rights Law
The Modern system of International Human Rights Law can be traced to the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948. The UDHR was created as a response to the widespread atrocities committed during the Second World War. The UDHR is formally non-binding on states, however, it has had a very strong effect on norms. Many of its provisions are now widely seen as reflecting customary international law, which has affected both how states act and how treaties are made in the future. There are also binding obligations that were later established through treaties like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). These together form the core of the international human rights framework. With the UDHR, these instruments form the international Bill of Rights. States parties agree not just to respect rights, but also to protect and fulfil them, subject to international supervision. The International Court of Justice has confirmed that human rights treaties generate responsibilities erga omnes partes, underlining their collective nature within the international legal order.
Enforcement Mechanisms in International Law
In spite of expanding substantive rights, enforcing those rights remains the central weakness of international human rights law. In domestic legal systems, there is a centralised enforcement entity whose job is to compel compliance, however, with international law, this does not generally exist. Treaty entities such as the Human Rights Committee monitor state compliance by reporting procedures and, if allowed, individual communications. Although this promotes dialogue and norms, its recommendations are still not legally binding, and this limits its practical impact.
These limitations have been acknowledged by the international court. In Barcelona Traction, the International Court of Justice recognised that certain obligations, including basic human rights, are owed to the international community as a whole. However, the Court’s lack of compulsory jurisdiction and dependency on se consent greatly constrain its potential to deliver meaningful remedies for individual rights abuses.
Regional Systems and Judicial Protection
Regional human rights systems demonstrate a more developed model of judicial enforcement. The European Convention on Human Rights empowers people to bring claims directly against states before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). This individual right of petition is a fundamental change from traditional international law, which historically recognised only states as subjects. In cases such as Osman v United Kingdom, the ECtHR has clarified the scope of positive obligations on states to protect life under Article 2 of the Convention.
The Court has also reinforced human rights protection through the idea of the ‘living instrument’, interpreting Convention rights in light of present-day situations. In Tyrer v United Kingdom, the ECtHR held that judicial corporal punishment violated Article 3, illustrating the dynamic and evolutive interpretation of human rights norms. Enforcements depend on state compliance, but the court’s jurisprudence has exerted a major effect on domestic legal systems and legislative transformation across Europe.
State Sovereignty and Human Rights
The growth of international human rights law has unavoidably caused friction with the notion of state sovereignty. Traditionally, sovereignty denoted freedom from foreign interference in internal matters. However, by ratifying human rights treaties, states freely accept constraints on their autonomy. The ICJ has affirmed that human rights obligations are not matters of purely domestic concern, reflecting an evolving conception of sovereignty as conditioned by international responsibility.
There are still persistent concerns over selective enforcement, cultural relativism, and political influence. Critics argue that powerful states may evade scrutiny, undermining the legitimacy of international human rights institutions. These objections underline the structural restrictions of a system that ultimately relies on state participation, reaffirming the conclusion that international human rights law is both transformational and intrinsically unstable.
Conclusion
International law has played a transformational role in the protection of human rights, altering the relationship between states and individuals. Through treaties, judicial interpretation, and growing standards, it has constructed a framework that constrains governmental power and supports human dignity.
However, ongoing flaws in enforcement and the enduring significance of sovereignty restrict its effectiveness. A realistic assessment must therefore recognise both the normative success of international human rights law and the practical challenges that continue to shape its development.
Biblograohy
Legislation
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No 3: The Nature of States Parties’ Obligations (1990) UN Doc E/1991/23
Statute of the International Court of Justice
Cases
Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2) (2006) 42 EHRR 41
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America) (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 14, 135–136
Osman v United Kingdom (1998) 29 EHRR 245.
Tyrer v United Kingdom (1978) 2 EHRR 1 [31].
Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company Ltd (Belgium v Spain) (Second Phase) [1970] ICJ Rep 3, 32.
Books
Shaw M, International Law (8th edn, Cambridge University Press 2017)
Journal article
Buergenthal T, ‘The Normative and Institutional Evolution of International Human Rights’ (1997) 19(4) Human Rights Quarterly 703
Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 (Advisory Opinion) [2019] ICJ Rep 95
Bibliography
Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966.
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966.
Malcolm Shaw, International Law (8th edn, CUP 2017).
