Should States Ratify Human Rights Conventions?

With regard to whether states should ratify human rights conventions, a central finding is that some of the main objections do not stand up to scrutiny. As regard the diagnoses of legitimacy deficits, we have found that several of the concerns voiced by media and scholars are caused not so much by the nature of the human rights bodies themselves as by the complex multi-level relationships among and between the human rights bodies and the states ultimately responsible for respecting human rights. Other challenges remain central for such human rights courts that are intended by the signatory states to try to correct such mishaps as may occur, even in well functioning democracies. At least three issues have emerged as central challenges for the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in particular, challenges that are likely to confront other human rights treaty organs also: a) how to filter incoming applications to avoid spending resources on unfounded appeals while providing swift, just and reasoned protection to claimants whose human rights have been violated; b) how the Court can best interact with states that have very different traditions and records as regard commitments to the rule of law, a functioning independent judiciary and a democratic culture; c) how the Court can interpret the treaty dynamically so that it continues to protect human rights in changing circumstances - without abusing its independence and discretion to create a rule of lawyers rather than the rule of law.

The project 'Should States ratify Human Rights Conventions' is a multi-disciplinary, basic research project at the Norwegian Centre for Advanced Study (CAS) 2009-2010. The proliferation of global and regional human rights conventions in recent decades rai ses important questions about their impact and legitimacy. The conventions restrict states' legislative, executive and judicial powers. The conventions also establish different supervisory mechanisms with committees and courts, and are 'living instruments ' in that these organs develop the interpretation of the conventions over time. The multidisciplinary research group brings together some of the best Norwegian and international legal scholars, social scientists, and normative political theorists. It will adress three central puzzles in the field of human rights conventions: (1) the motivations of states when they enter into the conventions, (2) the effects of these conventions on states, and, in the light of these findings, (3) whether such conventions a re normatively legitimate. The project will result in empirical findings and develop normative guidelines for assessing the ratification of human rights conventions. It will also provide new insight in the democratic challenges in a globalized world. The inter-disciplinary character of the project create special challenges. It has therefore been decided to arrange three workshops in advance to address key issues, such as effectiveness, legitimacy and the legal character of international supervisory organs . Four workshops are planned as part of this CAS project. The Norwegian Research Council is asked to fund two post-doc positions to adress particular aspects of this complex questions, one in law and one in one in philosophy/political science. During 2009 -2010, the post-docs will work as part of the CAS team. They will remain affiliated with the Norwegian Centre for Human Rights in the following period, each pursuing their own research within the project.