Global Human Rights Institutions: Between Remedy and Ritual

by Gerd Oberleitner

The range of global human rights institutions which have been created over the past half century is a remarkable achievement. Yet, their establishment and proliferation raises important questions. Why do states create such institutions and what do they want them to achieve? Does this differ from what the institutions themselves seek to accomplish? Are global human rights institutions effective remedies for violations of human dignity or temples for the performance of stale bureaucratic rituals? What happens to human rights when they are being framed in global institutions? This book is an introduction to global human rights institutions and to the challenges and paradoxes of institutionalizing human rights. Drawing on international legal scholarship and international relations literature, it examines UN institutions with a human rights mandate, the process of mainstreaming human rights, international courts which adjudicate human rights, and non-governmental human rights organizations.
In mapping the ever more complex network of global human rights institutions it asks what these institutions are and what they are for. It critically assesses and appraises the ways in which global institutions bureaucratize human rights, and reflects on how this process is changing our perception of human rights.

244 pages, Paperback

First published October 1, 2007

Reviews

[DoctorM · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very useful guide to the institutional and treaty mechanisms for recognising and enforcing international human rights. While it is technical, and often a dry and acronym-laden discussion of institutional arrangements, this book functions as a good introduction to the procedures and mechanics of international human rights obligations as conceived and (sometimes) enforced via UN agencies. Oberleitner also raises pertinent issues: is a "law"-based approach to human rights the best one? Doesn't that risk trapping victims in rigid procedures? Why do "technical" institutions like the IMF or FAO shy away from human rights issues? Does requiring UN agencies to "mainstream" human rights in their mission statements simply dilute any real and concrete consideration of such rights? Is it such a bad thing that human rights agencies are "politicised"? How does the international community keep states that are clear violators of human rights from serving on or chairing human rights agencies?

Oberleitner's subtitle--- "Between Remedy and Ritual" ---captures his concern for whether procedures and bureaucratic structures can become so rigid and self-referential as to prevent any real remedy of abuses. Oberleitner himself is...cautiously cynical about institutional dynamics, and the book is a clear starting place for discussing the sociology and politics of human rights agencies.

Again--- a bit dry and technical (1235 v. 1503 procedures, anyone?), but an excellent introductory guide both to organisations and to some of the underlying questions about human rights enforcement.