109international human rights law, adopted hy the UN or by other international organisationsor conferences. Other treaties containing very broad sets of obligations are applicable tolimited groups of states, most notably, the European Convention on Human Rights, whichentered into force in 1953, and the American Convention on Human Rights, whichentered into force in 1978. A treaty, however, creates obligations for states only when it isin force, which means a certain number of nations have deposited their ratifications for it.A nation cannot be faulted for not acting in accordance with a multilateral treaty if it hasnot ratified it; signature alone in the absence of subsequent ratification does not normallylegally bind the nation to the obligations of the treaty. Furthermore, it also needs to beseen whether a nation has ratified a treaty with reservations or without them.International customary law is another source of international human rights law.Customary law is equivalent to binding norms emerging from the standards set forth bythe Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These -standards, initially only declaratoryand non-binding, become binding customary laws through wide acceptance and recitation by nations, and apply even to the nations that may not have ratified certain conventionsand treaties and accepted certain UN declarations.Today, there is a developed and recognised body of international law, institutions, procedures and precedents for the promotion of human rights international human rightslaw is not developed, coherent, and extensive as law in certain other areas and the UNinstruments for the protection and promotion of human rights are frequently invoked inconnection with human rights issue.While the international human rights obligations bind states rather than individuals, theresponsibility to provide security to the individual - security from outside aggression andinside repression -- rests with states. And understandably so, since the state is by far the most importantlocus of political power in the world. But while a commitment to international covenantsassumes that the state ought to enhance the rights of individual within its jurisdiction, it{Iocs not ensure that it will do so. Rather, history has demonstrated that the governmentshave themselves become the greatest violators of human rights of their citi/cns. While, itis common to see rights to freedom of expression or political rights being curtailed bystates, not unfortunately, even the right to life gets violated - the instruments of state- power, which are supposed to protect human rights, often become the most dangerousweapons against humanity's well-being.Thus, an effort to promote respect for human rights in specific states has not been simple.More often than not, government have shied away from international obligations for reason arising from the complexities of their own societal or political systems. •Submitting to outside international pressure to improve human rights record,governments have often been blamed by their opponents for compromising the country'ssovereignty. In addition, the process can lead to cynicism when governments with a poor
Leave a Comment