Par Engstrom
I'm Associate Professor in Human Rights at the Institute of the Americas, University College London. During 2017/18 I am a faculty member at the Paris School of International Affairs, at Sciences-Po. I have also been a Visiting Professor at the University of São Paulo, Brazil. I hold a DPhil in International Relations from Oxford University, I studied Latin American politics and development (MSc) at the Institute of Latin American Studies, University of London; and Philosophy and Economics (BA) at University College London. I am the academic coordinator of an International Network on the Inter-American Human Rights System funded by the Leverhulme Trust (2014-16), and the co-chair of the London Transitional Justice Network.
Previously, I held academic positions at the Human Rights Consortium (University of London), Oxford Brookes University, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), Warwick University, and at various Oxford colleges. I have worked with a range of human rights organizations and as a consultant for the Association for the Prevention of Torture and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Prior to entering academia, I worked at the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in Geneva.
I have broad research interests in international relations, comparative politics, and human rights, with a geographical focus on Latin America. I have expertise in the Inter-American Human Rights System, transitional justice, civil society mobilization, strategic litigation, and torture prevention. Further research interests include the relationship between human rights and democracy; judicialization of politics; the international relations of the Americas; human rights foreign policy; theories of international relations, particularly relating to international law and institutions; and interdisciplinary approaches to the study of human rights. To date, my country-specific research has focused primarily on Argentina, Brazil, and Chile. In addition, I am currently involved in human rights research related to Colombia and Mexico.
Previously, I held academic positions at the Human Rights Consortium (University of London), Oxford Brookes University, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), Warwick University, and at various Oxford colleges. I have worked with a range of human rights organizations and as a consultant for the Association for the Prevention of Torture and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Prior to entering academia, I worked at the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in Geneva.
I have broad research interests in international relations, comparative politics, and human rights, with a geographical focus on Latin America. I have expertise in the Inter-American Human Rights System, transitional justice, civil society mobilization, strategic litigation, and torture prevention. Further research interests include the relationship between human rights and democracy; judicialization of politics; the international relations of the Americas; human rights foreign policy; theories of international relations, particularly relating to international law and institutions; and interdisciplinary approaches to the study of human rights. To date, my country-specific research has focused primarily on Argentina, Brazil, and Chile. In addition, I am currently involved in human rights research related to Colombia and Mexico.
less
Related Authors
InterestsView All (43)
Uploads
Books by Par Engstrom
The book is divided into two parts. Part 1, comprised of five chapters, examines the significant gaps that exist between the formal commitments of Latin American states to the eradication of torture and the practice of torture in the region. Over four chapters in Part 2, human rights experts highlight the potential for political and institutional innovation in the fight against torture.
Throughout the book, it is recognised that the fight against torture in Latin America presents challenges that require multidimensional responses, but also socio-political will and feasibility. The text highlights that while advocating for the adoption of robust legal protections is important, safeguards alone are insufficient to reduce the incidence of torture.
The authors of this book recognise that the production and dissemination of legal, academic and scientific resources on torture have taken place primarily in English to-date. Therefore, to ensure accessibility to Spanish speakers, this book is available in Spanish. An Executive Summary is available in English.
The book is divided into two parts. Part 1, comprised of five chapters, examines the significant gaps that exist between the formal commitments of Latin American states to the eradication of torture and the practice of torture in the region. Over four chapters in Part 2, human rights experts highlight the potential for political and institutional innovation in the fight against torture.
Throughout the book, it is recognised that the fight against torture in Latin America presents challenges that require multidimensional responses, but also socio-political will and feasibility. The text highlights that while advocating for the adoption of robust legal protections is important, safeguards alone are insufficient to reduce the incidence of torture.
The authors of this book recognise that the production and dissemination of legal, academic and scientific resources on torture have taken place primarily in English to-date. Therefore, to ensure accessibility to Spanish speakers, this book is available in Spanish. An Executive Summary is available in English.
This comprehensive volume explores the institutional changes and transformations that the IAHRS has undergone since its creation, offering contributions and insights from a variety of disciplines including history, law, and political science. The book shows how institutional change has affected and been affected by the System’s normative leanings, rules of procedure and institutional design, as well as by the position of the IAHRS within the broader landscape of the Americas. The authors examine institutional change from a variety of angles, including the process of change in historical context, normative and legal developments, and the dynamic relationship between the IAHRS and other regional and international human rights institutions.
This book was originally published as a special issue of The International Journal of Human Rights.
Em seu conjunto, os artigos selecionados têm como fio condutor o registro dos acertos e equívocos da PEB no período em análise. Essa constatação e o reconhecimento da relevância da coletânea para uma exegese do período pós-2008 evidenciam sua utilidade como fonte de reflexão, de forma coerente com o propósito de contribuir para o aprimoramento das políticas públicas.
Os autores dos capítulos foram convidados de acordo com sua especialidade e trajetória de pesquisa, tendo presente o objetivo de fornecer ao leitor uma visão diversificada da realidade. O esforço coletivo permitiu reunir em uma única obra diferenciadas lentes analíticas sobre eixos fundamentais da inserção internacional do Brasil, partindo de questões complexas e com um marco cronológico comum, sobre o qual, até por sua atualidade, há poucos trabalhos.
Assim, os capítulos caracterizam o modo como a política externa brasileira visualizou, respondeu, propôs e agiu em relação a questões centrais da agenda internacional. A análise empreendida em cada um dos capítulos, mesmo que de uma perspectiva da política externa brasileira, é também uma contribuição relevante para o entendimento das próprias características do cenário internacional e das agendas de negociação.
Articles by Par Engstrom
This article examines the relationship between Argentina and the Inter-American Human Rights System (IAHRS) as it has developed over time. It proceeds in two main parts. The first unpacks the ways in which Argentina’s relationship has been shaped by domestic political changes, i.e. democratization. Three overlapping, yet distinct, human rights arenas, are examined: civil society mobilisation, constitutional and judicial politics, and state institutions. The second part reverses the analytical focus and highlights what the specific case of Argentina can tell us about the development of the IAHRS, and, in particular, emphasises the extent to which Argentina has found itself at the vanguard of human rights struggles within and around the IAHRS. Yet, as this article demonstrates, Argentina’s relationship with the IAHRS has become increasingly strained in recent years, which demonstrates once more that human rights progress tends to be uneven and prone to reversals."
Chapters by Par Engstrom
The book is divided into two parts. Part 1, comprised of five chapters, examines the significant gaps that exist between the formal commitments of Latin American states to the eradication of torture and the practice of torture in the region. Over four chapters in Part 2, human rights experts highlight the potential for political and institutional innovation in the fight against torture.
Throughout the book, it is recognised that the fight against torture in Latin America presents challenges that require multidimensional responses, but also socio-political will and feasibility. The text highlights that while advocating for the adoption of robust legal protections is important, safeguards alone are insufficient to reduce the incidence of torture.
The authors of this book recognise that the production and dissemination of legal, academic and scientific resources on torture have taken place primarily in English to-date. Therefore, to ensure accessibility to Spanish speakers, this book is available in Spanish. An Executive Summary is available in English.
The book is divided into two parts. Part 1, comprised of five chapters, examines the significant gaps that exist between the formal commitments of Latin American states to the eradication of torture and the practice of torture in the region. Over four chapters in Part 2, human rights experts highlight the potential for political and institutional innovation in the fight against torture.
Throughout the book, it is recognised that the fight against torture in Latin America presents challenges that require multidimensional responses, but also socio-political will and feasibility. The text highlights that while advocating for the adoption of robust legal protections is important, safeguards alone are insufficient to reduce the incidence of torture.
The authors of this book recognise that the production and dissemination of legal, academic and scientific resources on torture have taken place primarily in English to-date. Therefore, to ensure accessibility to Spanish speakers, this book is available in Spanish. An Executive Summary is available in English.
This comprehensive volume explores the institutional changes and transformations that the IAHRS has undergone since its creation, offering contributions and insights from a variety of disciplines including history, law, and political science. The book shows how institutional change has affected and been affected by the System’s normative leanings, rules of procedure and institutional design, as well as by the position of the IAHRS within the broader landscape of the Americas. The authors examine institutional change from a variety of angles, including the process of change in historical context, normative and legal developments, and the dynamic relationship between the IAHRS and other regional and international human rights institutions.
This book was originally published as a special issue of The International Journal of Human Rights.
Em seu conjunto, os artigos selecionados têm como fio condutor o registro dos acertos e equívocos da PEB no período em análise. Essa constatação e o reconhecimento da relevância da coletânea para uma exegese do período pós-2008 evidenciam sua utilidade como fonte de reflexão, de forma coerente com o propósito de contribuir para o aprimoramento das políticas públicas.
Os autores dos capítulos foram convidados de acordo com sua especialidade e trajetória de pesquisa, tendo presente o objetivo de fornecer ao leitor uma visão diversificada da realidade. O esforço coletivo permitiu reunir em uma única obra diferenciadas lentes analíticas sobre eixos fundamentais da inserção internacional do Brasil, partindo de questões complexas e com um marco cronológico comum, sobre o qual, até por sua atualidade, há poucos trabalhos.
Assim, os capítulos caracterizam o modo como a política externa brasileira visualizou, respondeu, propôs e agiu em relação a questões centrais da agenda internacional. A análise empreendida em cada um dos capítulos, mesmo que de uma perspectiva da política externa brasileira, é também uma contribuição relevante para o entendimento das próprias características do cenário internacional e das agendas de negociação.
This article examines the relationship between Argentina and the Inter-American Human Rights System (IAHRS) as it has developed over time. It proceeds in two main parts. The first unpacks the ways in which Argentina’s relationship has been shaped by domestic political changes, i.e. democratization. Three overlapping, yet distinct, human rights arenas, are examined: civil society mobilisation, constitutional and judicial politics, and state institutions. The second part reverses the analytical focus and highlights what the specific case of Argentina can tell us about the development of the IAHRS, and, in particular, emphasises the extent to which Argentina has found itself at the vanguard of human rights struggles within and around the IAHRS. Yet, as this article demonstrates, Argentina’s relationship with the IAHRS has become increasingly strained in recent years, which demonstrates once more that human rights progress tends to be uneven and prone to reversals."
It is precisely in relation to these overlapping political, socio-economic and intellectual challenges that I hope to offer in this chapter a partial corrective to the disparate gloomy assessments of the present state and possible future trajectories of international human rights. I will do so through a series of reflections on the contributions of the Inter-American Human Rights System (IAHRS) to the theory and practice of global human rights governance. More specifically, the chapter highlights three areas of contributions. First, by adopting a historical perspective on the institutional development of the IAHRS, we are reminded of the global and interconnected character of the evolution of the modern international human rights regime. Far from a straightforward narrative of the international human rights as a result of Western imposition, the origins and early developments of the IAHRS demonstrate the central protagonism of the Global South in the emergence and consolidation of global human rights governance. Second, the IAHRS has played a central role in the normative construction and evolving interpretations of international human rights standards. Third, the IAHRS has made important contributions to the theory and practice of human rights governance as an exemplar of how international law and institutions can advance the realisation of rights even in the absence of robust enforcement mechanisms and in often inhospitable political conditions.
O capítulo encontra-se dividido em cinco seções, senda esta introdução a primeira delas. Nas seções seguintes, examinam-se as mudanças e continuidades da política externa brasileira em áreas-chave para o regime internacional de direitos humanos. Dessa forma, a segunda seção discute o papel do Brasil como um promotor de reformas da governança global, enquanto a terceira avalia o comportamento brasileiro quanto ao enforcement coercitivo dos direitos humanos. A quarta seção examina a política externa brasileira no campo dos direitos humanos no contexto regional da América Latina. A quinta e última seção contêm a parte substantiva final. Ela destaca as tendências gerais identificadas e delineia algumas implicações-chave da análise desenvolvida no capítulo para a política externa brasileira no campo dos direitos humanos, para a política externa de forma mais geral, bem como para o presente e o futuro do regime internacional de direitos humanos.
These continuities can in part be explained by the legacies of dictatorship and the political bargains of the transitional period. In the context of the transitional justice policies adopted by successive Chilean governments, torture has been a neglected area of human rights policy. In the absence of political leadership and mobilisation, combined with the persistence of authoritarian attitudes and institutional enclaves in Chilean society, torture has been of limited political salience. As a result, successive democratic governments have not prioritized prosecution and punishment of torture, and the criminal justice system lacks adequate legal instruments to deal with torture offences.
Yet, in the absence of leadership at the higher levels of Chile’s political system, progress can be seen in recent years at within state institutions and in the judicial system, particularly following the reform of the criminal justice system in 2000. Moreover, legal reforms in the last decade have strengthened the legal protection of detainees. This indicates that changes in law and institutions can be important in bringing about improvements in the incidence of torture. This is particularly important when considering the impact that institutional and legal reforms may have on key actors within institutions. In addition, there are indications that Chilean societal attitudes are also changing, as evidenced in the form of a more confrontational politics such as large scale student protests and youth mobilisation, as well as an increasing willingness of parts of state institutions to challenge abusive institutional practices. The creation of the National Institute of Human Rights (NIHR) in 2010 might be particularly important in this regard.
This chapter seeks to map changes and continuities in torture, and assess the effectiveness of a range of torture prevention mechanisms in Chile. Section I provides a brief overview of the political and social contexts in which torture has historically occurred and continue to be observed in contemporary Chile. The following section examines the changes and continuities of torture practices over the course of the period studied in this chapter. Section III assesses the main institutional, legal, and policy mechanisms relating to the law and practice of detention, prosecution and monitoring, respectively.
Yet, the institutional development of the IAHRS needs to be understood in terms of the broader historical and geopolitical context of US-Latin America relations, which continues to shape the functioning of the system. Indeed, many view the IAHRS as an extension of US foreign policy and argue that while the means of US foreign policy may have changed over the years, the hegemonic presumption of US policymakers has essentially remained constant. Others would point to the continuity of US expansionist ideology, historically embodied in the idea of ‘manifest destiny’ that justifies US interventionist policies in Latin America. These perceptions are enduring and continue to shape the legitimacy and effectiveness of the IAHRS, as seen in controversies over the human rights record of Venezuela in recent years.
However, the IAHRS has never been an unambiguous, foreign policy tool for the US to wield. First, this would be to underplay the important role that Latin American lawyers and diplomats played in the early development of the international human rights regime, both at the United Nations and regionally in the Americas. From their insistence on a full range of rights, including socio-economic rights, to their lobbying for intrusive mandates for human rights institutions to intervene in the domestic affairs of states, the positions of Latin American government representatives have not necessarily reflected US policy preferences. Second, and crucially, the IAHRS has developed over the years from a ‘classical’ intergovernmental regime into a transnational political space with a far-reaching mandate to regulate domestic political norms and practices of regional states. The system has emerged, from its roots as a government-run diplomatic entity with an ill-defined mandate to promote respect for human rights in the region, as a legal regime formally empowering citizens to bring suit to challenge the domestic activities of their own governments. An independent court and commission are invested with the mandate to respond to individual claims by judging whether the application of domestic rules or legislation violates international commitments. The access of individuals to the human rights regime has strengthened over time as the system has evolved into a judicial regime with a procedural focus on the force of legal argumentation and the generation of regional human rights jurisprudence. The gradual erosion of state control in general, and US influence in particular, over the IAHRS is clearly uneven and patchy, as the continuing reliance of the IAHRS on US funding unequivocally illustrates. Still, there have been fundamental changes over the last few decades in particular, and Latin American human rights actors, both non-governmental and governmental, have played leading roles in these institutional changes.
Nonetheless, many of the challenges facing the IAHRS remain deeply embedded in the shifting trends of US-Latin American relations. Indeed, the IAHRS is far from decoupled from the broader relationship between the US and Latin America. This chapter seeks to unpack this relationship and examine what a focus on the Inter-American Human Rights System reveals about the character of US-Latin American relations. The first part of the chapter highlights four key features of regional inter-state relations that continue to shape institutional developments: (i) traditionally state-based and elite-driven process of regional institutionalisation on the basis of ambitious objectives; (ii) the combination of interdependence and inequality that characterises the relationship between the US and Latin America and the Caribbean; (iii) enduring tensions between principles of sovereignty and norms and practices of intervention; and (iv) the multifaceted gaps between promotion of human rights abroad and deeply problematic human rights record at home on the one hand, and, on the other, declaratory commitment to abstract human rights principles on paper and violating practices at home. The second part traces the changes and continuities in inter-state dynamics that have shaped the operation of the IAHRS and its capacity to induce human rights change since the period of the Cold War through to the period of institutional rejuvenation of the 1990s. The final part highlights some of the many challenges facing the IAHRS and how the character of contemporary US-Latin American relations continues to shape the system’s capacity to address these challenges.
Human Rights Network, held in Mexico City in October 2014.2 The workshop discussions suggest that
while impact is shaped by a number of factors, the Inter-American Human Rights System (IAHRS) is likely to be
most effective where its various mechanisms are employed in a coordinated fashion; where its decisions attract
widespread media attention; and where domestic actors utilise its rulings and precedents to further their own
efforts to bring about national-level policy change. In seeking to expand its impact in the future, the IAHRS will
need to overcome challenges related to its financing and authority, address shortcomings in the collection of
data on its activities, and effectively manage the potentially divergent interests of litigants and victims within
the system.
Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, realizada en la Ciudad de México en octubre de 2014.2
Las discusiones
del taller sugieren que mientras el impacto está conformado por una serie de factores, el Sistema
Interamericano de Derechos Humanos (SIDH) es más efectivo cuando sus diversos mecanismos son empleados
de manera coordinada; cuando sus decisiones atraen ampliamente la atención de los medios de comunicación;
y cuando los actores nacionales utilizan sus resoluciones y precedentes para promover sus propios esfuerzos
con el fin de lograr cambios de políticas al nivel nacional. En la búsqueda de ampliar su impacto, el SIDH deberá
superar desafíos relacionados con su financiamiento y autoridad, abordar las deficiencias en la recopilación de
datos en sus actividades, y gestionar con eficacia las potenciales divergencias de intereses de los litigantes y
las víctimas inmersas en el sistema.
Executive summary
After successive past attempts to reach peace agreements there are important reasons to be optimistic that the current talks between the government of Juan Manuel Santos and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-Peoples’ Army (FARC-EP) may lead to a political solution of the armed conflict in Colombia. A close examination of the ongoing peace talks suggests that a confluence of factors provides a window of opportunity for negotiations, including a positive international context, on-going structural reforms in Colombia, and the willingness of the parties to focus on a limited negotiating agenda. There are nonetheless two key issues of concern that may derail the incipient peace process: first, is the Santos administration able to ensure the support of influential regional elites in Colombia? Such support will be central for the provision of political guarantees and security of demobilised FARC members. Second, will the FARC leadership be able to prevent the splintering of the organisation? The fragmentation of FARC could potentially increase violence, which could not only transform the armed conflict, but also directly affect the process of ensuring the political participation of FARC following the signing of a peace agreement.
Mina kommentarer kommer att beröra i första hand konsekvenserna av de olika former av våld som kännetecknar de flesta latinamerikanska samhällen. Detta är på många sätt, konventionell MR-politik och praxis. Med andra ord, hur man ska hantera övergrepp mot de mänskliga rättigheterna efter att de har inträffat (inverkan på offer för våld, frågor om vem som bär ansvar, skadestånd etc). Men det finns också ett intresse här för drivkrafterna bakom det samhälliga och politiska våldet och hur en politik med mänskliga rättigheter i fokus kan förhindra att övergrepp sker. Detta är inte något som har varit en central fokus för konventionell MR-forskning eller för praktisk MR-politik.
Fokus för mina kommentarer i dag är därför på de möjligheter som det interamerikanska MR-systemet erbjuder, samt dess begränsningar, för att gripa sig an det samhälliga och politiska våld som karaktäriserar dagens latinamerikanska samhällen.
Mina kommentarer består av två delar. För det första så har IAm MR-systemet varit centralt för utvecklingen av en rad normer, regler, och praxis för vad stater och samhällen bör göra när det gäller det statliga våld som har begåtts av tidigare politiska regimer. Jag kommer därför kortfattat redogöra för hur IAm MR-systemet har gett form åt så kallad övergångsrättvisa, transitional justice (TJ), i regionen.
I andra delen av mina kommentarer kommer jag att vända mig till hur dessa TJ principer har under de senaste decennierna blivit alltmer tillämpade inte bara i anslutning till statligt våld från det förflutna, utan också på olika former av samtida våld. Jag kommer även att hänvisa till det ansvar som stater har för privata våldsaktörer. Jag kan bara ge en överblick - inte detaljerade fallstudier - men jag diskuterar gärna specifika fall om det finns intresse.
There two main parts to my remarks. First, the IAHRS has been central to the development of a range of standards, rules on what states/societies need to do with regards to past state violence. I will therefore briefly outline the ways in which the IAHRS has shaped transitional justice approaches in the region.
In the second part of my remarks, I will turn to how these principles of TJ have in recent decades been increasingly applied not to state violence of the past, but to the multiple forms of contemporary violence, and the scope of responsibilities that states have, including for private violence actors.
The paper is divided into three main sections. The first section accounts for the development of the IAHRS and demonstrates how the evolution of the system has been shaped by issues related to transitional justice. It locates the IAHRS in its relevant regional context and identifies the key features of the system’s institutional and normative development. The second section examines the IAHRS evolving approach to the appropriateness of amnesties. The third section provides an analytical framework for understanding the relative impact of the IAHRS and its capacity to shape debates surrounding “post-transitional justice”.
The IAHRS has become increasingly important in inserting itself into transitional justice debates in multiple ways, including as an opportunity structure for civil society activism, and in the increasingly authoritative jurisprudence available to domestic litigants and judges. Clearly a range of domestic factors explain the evolution of transitional justice over time in the region. This is particularly the case with the more recent moves in a number of countries towards the unravelling of political bargains (e.g. amnesties) struck in the earlier phases of democratization and the opening of trials for human rights abuses committed under previous regimes. Yet, this paper demonstrates that approaches to issues of accountability for past human rights abuses continue to vary. This raises a number of important questions with regards to the impact of the system on the one hand and whether and how these recent post-transitional justice trends in Latin American actually “matter” on the other.
The paper is divided into three main sections. The first section accounts for the development of the IAHRS and demonstrates how the evolution of the system has been shaped by issues related to transitional justice. It locates the IAHRS in its relevant regional context and identifies the key features of the system’s institutional and normative development. The second section provides an analytical framework for understanding the relative impact of the IAHRS and its capacity to shape debates surrounding “post-transitional justice”. The third section provides illustrations of recent trends in Argentina, Brazil, and Chile.
The paper is particularly concerned with current processes of post-transitional justice in Brazil. By this I mean the “prospects for the revision of [the] transition-era human rights settlement” in Brazil.
More specifically, the paper emphasises what types of transitional justice policies may be required from Brazil in light of the Gomes Lund ruling by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights from November 2010. It also draws out some key implications of what the ruling, and the Brazilian government’s response to it, tell us about the prospects for and limitations on Brazilian post-transitional justice, and arguably, Brazilian democracy more broadly.
London Institute of the Americas, discussed Brazil’s process of transitional
justice.
Farcs många nederlag på senare tid har på vissa håll tolkats som ett tecken på den latinamerikanska vänsterns dödskamp. Che Guevaras gerillastrategier må och bör förbli ett minne blott, men den demokratiska väns tern i Latinamerika är här för att stanna.
Men när man blickar tillbaka på valåret i Latinamerika framträder ett antal frågetecken som kastar tvivel över djupet och bredden av denna vänstervåg. Det finns markanta skillnader mellan de olika vänsterregimerna i fråga om styrelsesätt och ideologiska rötter. Dessutom tycks betydelsefulla länder i regionen förbli orörda av vänstervågen. Och även i de länder där vänsterledare blev valda och omvalda har dessa ledares förmåga att föra en vänsterpolitik ifrågasatts. Den politiska verklighet som ligger till grund för intrycket att en vänstervåg har svept över regionen är, med andra ord, mycket mer komplex än vad den dominerande mediebilden vill göra gällande.
This paper examines some of the key underlying norms that inform contemporary debate on RtoP. In the process, it also highlights some of the broader implications of a trend towards securitizing human rights. It begins by historically tracing the role of the UN Security Council (UNSC) and General Assembly (UNGA) in situating human rights within the framework of threats to international peace and security. Notwithstanding the primary responsibility of the Council in matters of international peace and security, this paper is intended to act as a corrective to a discussion which, with some notable exceptions, often underspecifies or neglects altogether the role of the UNGA in this arena.
Secondly, despite precedent within UN structures for framing massive violations of human rights as a threat to international peace and security, the more coercive dimensions of human rights enforcement has prompted significant pushback by certain groups of states previously willing to endorse the 2005 World Summit Outcome document. The paper proceeds to unpack some of these contentious dynamics by focusing on first order principles of legitimacy and jurisdiction within and outside UN structures.
Thirdly, current debate surrounding implementation has increasingly focused on RtoP as a doctrine of prevention as much as enforcement under the rubric of the ‘Three Pillar System’ devised by the UN Secretary General in his 2009 report to the UNGA: (1) the protection responsibilities of the State; (2) international assistance and capacity-building; and (3) timely and decisive response. This has raised questions regarding the relative emphasis between the pillars, particularly concerning the specific responsibilities that may be entailed for prevention and enforcement. This debate is being conducted in the context of contemporary developments that are testing the relevance of RtoP to diverse situational crises and the notable reluctance of the Security Council to apply RtoP to ongoing crisis situations. Observers, such as Nicholas Wheeler, criticized the 2005 World Summit Outcome document for failing to address two fundamental questions: what should happen if the UNSC is unable or unwilling to authorize the use of force to prevent or end a humanitarian tragedy? And second, how could better implementation of this norm save strangers in the future? Issues of legitimacy, authority, and implementation raised by these questions and explored in this paper remain of central concern. The UNSC and UNGA historical record of activity in the area of human rights enforcement provides valuable historical context to a fuller understanding of the contours of this contemporary debate.
This paper examines some of the key underlying norms that inform contemporary debate on RtoP. In the process, it also highlights some of the broader implications of a trend towards securitizing human rights. It begins by historically tracing the role of the UN Security Council (UNSC) and General Assembly (UNGA) in situating human rights within the framework of threats to international peace and security. Notwithstanding the primary responsibility of the Council in matters of international peace and security, this paper is intended to act as a corrective to a discussion which, with some notable exceptions, often underspecifies or neglects altogether the role of the UNGA in this arena.
Secondly, despite precedent within UN structures for framing massive violations of human rights as a threat to international peace and security, the more coercive dimensions of human rights enforcement has prompted significant pushback by certain groups of states previously willing to endorse the 2005 World Summit Outcome document. The paper proceeds to unpack some of these contentious dynamics by focusing on first order principles of legitimacy and jurisdiction within and outside UN structures.
Thirdly, current debate surrounding implementation has increasingly focused on RtoP as a doctrine of prevention as much as enforcement under the rubric of the ‘Three Pillar System’ devised by the UN Secretary General in his 2009 report to the UNGA: (1) the protection responsibilities of the State; (2) international assistance and capacity-building; and (3) timely and decisive response. This has raised questions regarding the relative emphasis between the pillars, particularly concerning the specific responsibilities that may be entailed for prevention and enforcement. This debate is being conducted in the context of contemporary developments that are testing the relevance of RtoP to diverse situational crises and the notable reluctance of the Security Council to apply RtoP to ongoing crisis situations. Observers, such as Nicholas Wheeler, criticized the 2005 World Summit Outcome document for failing to address two fundamental questions: what should happen if the UNSC is unable or unwilling to authorize the use of force to prevent or end a humanitarian tragedy? And second, how could better implementation of this norm save strangers in the future? Issues of legitimacy, authority, and implementation raised by these questions and explored in this paper remain of central concern. The UNSC and UNGA historical record of activity in the area of human rights enforcement provides valuable historical context to a fuller understanding of the contours of this contemporary debate.