Comparison of Regional Human Rights Instruments

This article compares the regional human rights instruments of Inter-America and European Union. It also discusses the creative and positive interpretation of Convention by EctHR and responsible sovereignty.

Running head: INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS
International Human Rights
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS
Comparison of Regional Human Rights Instruments
Contrasts between European Union and Inter-America
The objective of regional human rights bodies is to promote, monitor and safeguard
human rights in several regions across the world. In Europe, America and Africa, the regional
human rights systems is significant in safeguarding the human rights amongst their Member
States by determining the responsibilities to be carried out by such States against any violations
alleged and submitted by any individuals (Smith 2018).
However, there are certain differences in the role played by Inter-America and
European Union with respect to their respective Regional Human Rights Instruments. Firstly,
the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is entitled to determine the complaints or
petitions that are submitted against all the 35 Member States of the Organization of American
States (OAS). On the other hand, the European Court of Human Rights has the jurisdiction to
determine complaints or petitions that are submitted against all the 47 Council of Europe
Member States.
Secondly, the parties submitting petitions may include Non-governmental organizations,
group of individuals, individuals and States who may submit applications related to alleged
contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights. In case of the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights, petitions are submitted against contravention of the American
Convention on Human Rights or of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of
Man. However, such allegations must be related to one of the 23 States that are the signatories to
the Convention.

2
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS
Thirdly, the other essential functions that are performed by the Inter-American
Commissions include issuing of emergency protection requests or precautionary measures,
publishing of reports regarding human rights conditions, conducting country visits, conducting
public hearings on thematic questions and on case as well as monitoring of important topics
through (Hathaway 2017). On the other hand, the European Court of Human Rights perform
the functions of issuing emergency protection orders that are also known as interim measures at
the time provided the applicant submitting such petitions is likely to be jeopardized if such order
is not issued and may sustain irreparable injury as well (Forsythe 2017).
In regards to the monitoring compliance, the European Committee of Social Rights
ensure such compliance with the European Social Charter amongst the 43 Council of Europe
Member States that are signatory to the original Social Charter of 1961 or to the Revised
Charter of 1996. With reference to the periodic reports, states submit their respective reports on
the implementation of the provisions set out in the charter. Fourthly, the Inter-American Court
of Human Rights may only assess controversial cases against the States that have ratified the
American Convention and have identified the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court, which
includes 20 States at present. In order to determine such cases, primarily the Commission before
such case is referred either by the state party involved or by the Commission itself.
On the other hand, the European Court of Human Rights may also determine
complaints against those states that have decided to adopt collective complaints procedures,
which includes 15 States at present. Complaints before the European Court of Human Rights
may be submitted only when such petitions are approved by trade union, employer’s
organization, certain non-governmental organizations and trade unions.

3
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS
Creative and Positive interpretation of Convention by EctHR
The EctHR has adopted a creative role under circumstances that have not been predicted
by the drafters of the European Convention in 1940s where such circumstances are the
consequence of the unavoidable development of societies and their varying standards (Mowbray
2005). The Court has been responding to all the modern day demands and is striving to strike a
balance between the respect for the role of the Member States and judicial creativity, thus, acting
as the essential policy-makers in deciding the scope of rights assured by such Convention.
Despite being the most effective system in ensuring individual protection of political and
civil rights, the Convention also faces several problems. One such significant issue is the excess
of pending cases. In order to deal with such issue, Protocol 14 was introduced that brought about
significant changes to the Convention. The Protocol 14 introduced single judge system and the
second significant changes introduced expansion of powers of the three-judge committees. This
particular change enabled the court to enhance its efficacy while dealing with issue of case
overload (Wildhaber 2007).
In the Convention, there are certain provisions that have not been drafted precisely but
even if it was drafted precisely, the judges would have to construe and define law under the
existing circumstances apart from applying it (Badescu 2016). Since the Convention is a
multilateral international treaty, it must be interpreted under the governance of the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 [VCLT] as it forms a part of the customary law. The
fundamental rule and the basic rule for interpreting the Convention is set out under Article 31 of
the VCLT which stipulates that every treaty shall be construed in good faith and as per its
original meaning in their context considering the purpose and objective of the Treaty.

4
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS
Responsible Sovereignty
This concept refers to the principle that necessitates states to not only safeguard their own
people but to work together across the borders for safeguarding global resource as well as
addressing transnational threats. The concept of international responsibility may be construed as
a medium between sovereignty of state from the internal perspective and the ultimate objective
of implementing the principles of international law (Harris et al. 2014). The European States acts
as an active and passive subject of great importance while formulating international legal
standard to carry out its international responsibilities.
The primary objective of the EU Convention is to safeguard individuals against violations
of their civil and political rights. It promotes the concept of responsible sovereignty where it
determines petitions submitted by aggrieved persons across the world with impartiality and
upholds its principle of fair trial and justice. The concept of responsible sovereignty is crucial to
the Convention as it serves is purpose to establish public percept that justice is impartial and it
strengthens the confidence of the citizens in heir judicial system (Lafont 2015).

5
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS
References
Badescu, C.G., 2016. The Responsibility to Protect: embracing sovereignty and human rights.
In Negotiating Sovereignty and Human Rights (pp. 93-110). Routledge.
Forsythe, D.P., 2017. Human rights in international relations. Cambridge University Press.
Harris, D., O'Boyle, M., Bates, E. and Buckley, C., 2014. Harris, O'Boyle & Warbrick: Law of
the European convention on human rights. Oxford University Press, USA.
Hathaway, O.A., 2017. Do human rights treaties make a difference?. In International Law and
Society (pp. 3-110). Routledge.
Lafont, C., 2015. Human rights, Sovereignty and the responsibility to
protect. Constellations, 22(1), pp.68-78.
Mowbray, A. (2005). The Creativity of the European Court of Human Rights. Human Rights
Law Review, 5(1), pp.57-79.
Smith, R., 2018. International Human Rights Law. Oxford University Press.
Wildhaber, L. (2007). The European Convention on Human Rights and International Law.
International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 56(02), pp.217-231.

6
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS