UNESCO, ICRC, UNICEF, CEDAW, ICPR, etc. What do all of these international human rights treaties have in common? They are viewed to be failing in many of the countries in which they are ratified due to one of the biggest obstacles facing international human rights bodies: enforcement. Two main obstacles arise after ratification of treaties, lack of effective enforcement and the treaty reservation system. Through the treaty reservation system member states can make reservations to international law if the country is not able to incorporate fully every part of the treaty. Often this situation creates much controversy over the legitimacy of International Human Rights Law. Several countries have ratified legislation such as the International Convention for the Rights of the Child (CRC), and then have consequently made reservations that inevitably change the meaning and reasoning behind the initial convention. States such as Pakistan use religion and ‘traditional thinking’ as justification for not adhering to certain human rights legislations (Sudduth, 2009). It is the state that ratifies international human rights law, however it is also the state that fails to provide the human rights that they promised their citizens. Thus, begs the question that many scholars have been trying to answer, how do we enforce International Human Rights Law?

Question

The most common form of enforcement that comes from UN bodies and the international community is what Fredrick Kirgis calls “mobilization of shame” and the application of pressure. Many international human rights treaties, such as CRC, require parties that ratify the treaty to hold themselves accountable by reporting on their compliance with the treaty. “State parties are often told to send a representative to appear before treaty-monitoring bodies to explain how they have complied or why they have not” (Kirgis, 1996). From literature regarding enforcement of international human rights law, it is evident that the enforcement will most likely not come from the top, so it must start from the bottom. The bottom, in this sense, means grassroots movements in education that are working to implement an ethos of human rights into K-12 education. This leads to the central hypothesis of this paper: education, namely human rights education (HRE), is the biggest problem as well as the solution to the lack of enforcement of International Human Rights Law. HRE can be briefly described as an educational pedagogy aiming to use an ethos of human rights to can serve as a framework in which to teach. By looking at the problem of enforcement itself then exploring current human rights education initiatives and the theories behind them, one can begin to piece together a framework of what is and is not needed to successfully implement a human rights education initiative that mainstreams human rights and thus enforces international human rights treaties.

Question: Why are many of the international human rights treaties viewed as failing?

Answer 1

Many international human rights treaties are viewed as failing primarily due to two significant obstacles: lack of effective enforcement and the treaty reservation system.

1. Lack of Effective Enforcement: After ratifying human rights treaties, states are often not held accountable for compliance. While these treaties may require countries to report on their adherence and to explain any non-compliance, the mechanisms for enforcing these obligations are generally weak. Many countries may not face substantial repercussions for failing to uphold their commitments, which undermines the effectiveness of international human rights law. This leads to a situation where even ratified treaties do not translate into actual protection or improvement of human rights for individuals within those states.

2. Treaty Reservation System: The ability for states to make reservations when ratifying treaties can alter the original intent and meaning of the commitments. Countries may use these reservations to exempt themselves from certain obligations based on cultural, religious, or other traditional justifications. This process can lead to inconsistencies between international standards and domestic laws, resulting in a significant gap between what is promised and what is practiced. For example, some states, like Pakistan, may invoke religious or traditional reasoning to justify their non-compliance with specific human rights obligations.

These factors collectively create a scenario where even well-intentioned international treaties fail to achieve their desired goals, ultimately leading to a perceived failure of the international human rights framework. The situation calls for innovative approaches, such as grassroots movements and human rights education, to foster a culture of compliance and accountability at the local level.

Answer 2

1-2 sentences

Answer 3

Many international human rights treaties are viewed as failing due to a lack of effective enforcement mechanisms and the treaty reservation system, which allows states to exempt themselves from certain obligations. This results in significant gaps between international standards and domestic practices, undermining the treaties' intended impact on human rights protection.