Accountability for Human Rights Abuse

Who is responsible for upholding human rights standards? One major policy question in the area of human rights centers
on accountability. Which actors, and what kind of actors, are bound by international human rights laws and normative
standards? As political philosophers commonly observe, the notion that some actors hold rights implies that others
have duties. Within a universal and global human rights framework, individual human beings are the assumed rights
holders. Who are the duty bearers?
In the immediate post-WWII years of human rights standard-setting, human rights norms and treaties were presumed to
apply only to nation states. As the dominant actors in global politics, states were the presumed duty bearers, with primary
responsibility for protecting and fulfilling international human rights norms. The term human rights violation, likewise,
was reserved to describe abuses committed by states.

Over time, human rights practitioners began to question the exclusive focus on government agents and actions directly
attributed to them. While governments incontestably bear responsibility for their own violations of human rights, how are
we to think about other kinds of actors who from positions of state-like authority commit the same or similar abuse? By the
1970s, human rights practitioners commonly observed that states were not the only actors who dirtied their hands in torture,
disappearance, assassination, and enslavement. Where did paramilitary groups, rebel forces, terrorist groups, and
multinational corporations fit into the human rights paradigm and how should they be held accountable? In short, to what
extent are non-state actors accountable for upholding international human rights standards?

On a somewhat separate track, questions arose about the responsibility of governments to ensure protection from abuse by
private citizens and other agents under their jurisdiction. When an individual acting in his or her private capacity commits a
human rights abuse, what responsibility does the state bear to prosecute and punish the wrongdoing?

This section of our website explores these questions and recounts the debates about accountability as they developed and
evolved within the human rights movement. The webpages linked below develop the arguments that, over time, have
contributed to a broader understanding of the responsibility of both states and non-state actors to uphold international human
rights standards.

GOVERNMENT OBLIGATIONS
ARMED INSURGENT GROUPS AND OTHER NON-STATE ACTORS
INDIVIDUAL CRIMINAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
ACCOUNTABILITY OF CORPORATIONS
THE DUE DILIGENCE STANDARD: PRIVATE ACTORS AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE