Courts and Consociations:How human rights courts may destabilize power-sharing settlements

We consider the use of consociational arrangements to manage ethno-nationalist, ethno-linguistic, and ethno-religious conflicts, and their compatibility with non-discrimination and equality norms. Key questions include to what extent, if any, consociations conflict with the dictates of global justice and the liberal individualist preferences of international human rights institutions, and to what extent consociational power-sharing may be justified to preserve peace and the integrity of political settlements. In three critical cases, the European Court of Human Rights has considered equality challenges to important consociational practices, twice in Belgium and, most recently, in Sejdic and Finci, concerning the constitutional arrangements established for Bosnia Herzegovina under the Dayton Agreement. The Court’s recent decision in Sejdic and Finci has significantly altered the approach it previously took to judicial review of consociational arrangements in the Belgian cases. We seek to account for this change and assess its implications. We identify problematic aspects of the judgment and conclude that, although the Court’s decision indicates one possible trajectory of human rights courts’ reactions to consociations, this would be an unfortunate development because it leaves future negotiators in places riven by potential or manifest bloody ethnic conflicts with considerably less flexibility in reaching a settlement. That in turn may unintentionally contribute to sustaining such conflicts and make it more likely that advisors to negotiators will advise them to exclude regional and international courts from having standing in the management of political settlements.

Human Rights in Northern Ireland in 2011

This chapter surveys and comments on the developments in the legal protection of human rights in Northern Ireland during the year 2011.

Promoting Dignity for All: Human Rights Approaches in the Post-2015 Climate Change, Disaster Risk Reduction and Sustainable Development Frameworks

This article takes as its starting point the potentially negative human rights implications that the effects of climate change, disasters and development practices can have on individuals and communities. It argues that key international instruments, including the post-2015 successors to the Kyoto Protocol, Hyogo Framework for Action on disaster risk reduction and the Millennium Development Goals, appear to be moving towards an express acknowledgment of the relevance of international human rights law as an important mechanism to minimise potential harms that may arise. This raises the question as to the appropriate role of the UN human rights monitoring and accountability mechanisms in identifying the relevant rights-holders and duty-bearers. The article therefore provides an examination of the linkages between climate change and international human rights law, as well as discussion of the human rights considerations and accountability mechanisms for disasters and sustainable development. The article concludes by arguing that despite differential understandings between disciplines as to the meaning of key terms such as ‘vulnerability’ and ‘resilience’, international human rights law provides a comprehensive basis for promoting international and national accountability. It follows that a greater level of coordination and coherence between the human rights approaches of the various post-2015 legal and policy frameworks is warranted as a means of promoting the dignity of those most affected by climate change, disasters and developmental activities.

Human Rights in Northern Ireland 2009-10

This report surveys the legislative and judicial developments in human rights law within Northern Ireland in the years 2009 and 2010, highlighting the respects in which the law was or was not in compliance with international human rights standards, in particular those laid down in the European Convention on Human Rights.

Context, institution, or accountability? Exploring the factors that shape the performance of national human rights and equality bodies

The past two decades witnessed a global proliferation of national human rights and equality bodies. Yet the research literature remains critical of their performance, positing a series of explanations for the gap between the expectations of civil society and the contribution they make. Through a comparative analysis of six statutory human rights and equality bodies in the United Kingdom and Ireland, this article explores the range of factors that shape their performance.

Why do national court judges refer to human rights treaties?: A comparative international law analysis of CEDAW

An analysis was conducted of 325 national judicial decisions across 55 jurisdictions, in which CEDAW was referred to in the reported decision. Despite predictions to the contrary based on previous scholarship, significant variations between courts in their interpretation of CEDAW occurred relatively infrequently, courts referred relatively seldom to interpretations of CEDAW by other national courts, and there was little evidence of transnational dialogic approaches to judging. An analysis of these results suggests that domestic judges invoking CEDAW act primarily as domestic actors who use international law in order to advance domestic goals, rather than acting primarily as agents of the international community in applying CEDAW domestically, or contributing to the transnational shaping of international law to suit national interests. The Article suggests an understanding of the domestic implementation of a human rights treaty as not only law, but a unique kind of law that performs a particular function, in light of its quality as something akin to hard and soft law simultaneously.