A core function of the United Nations over the past six decades has been the promotion and protection of human rights. In pursuit of this goal, the UN General Assembly has adopted numerous human rights treaties covering a vast array of rights. Because it has the highest number of ratifications, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC), is often lauded as the most successful of all the human rights treaties. Although the breadth and depth of human rights treaties is impressive, the amount of research into their effectiveness is not. Very little scholarship has been undertaken to evaluate the extent to which human rights treaties are being complied with by countries that have ratified them and whether ratification of a human rights treaty has a positive impact on the human rights situation within a State Party’s jurisdiction. The research that has been undertaken has been largely quantitative and limited to studies of compliance with civil and political rights. This thesis builds on this limited scholarship by qualitatively analysing the ‘compliance’ levels of two States, Australia and the United States, with the norm in Article 29(1) of CROC relating to human rights education (HRE). Although the United States has not ratified CROC, it was selected as one of the case studies for this research in order to enable comparison to be made between HRE in a State that has ratified CROC, and a State that has not, thereby shedding light on whether ratification of a human rights treaty makes a difference.

<p>Previous research has analyzed a range of domestic stakeholders that make national governments’ commitments to international human rights treaties credible, including independent judiciary, legislative veto players, political opposition groups, and non-governmental organizations. But how does the power dynamics within the government affect state compliance with human rights treaties? In this study, I focus on the effect of the central-local governmental structure. My focus on the central-local governmental relations builds on the basic understanding that international human rights norms need to pass through domestic political and administrative processes before they can be implemented on the ground. I argue that a decentralized state in which local authorities enjoy more discretion in local matters is less likely to comply with human rights treaties because decentralization (1) hinders the top-down diffusion of human rights norms between different governmental tiers, (2) creates a great number of local agents that are not subject to pressure from the international society, and (3) enables the central government to deflect international criticism by shifting blame for human rights abuses to local officials. To test my theoretical expectation, I use a mixed methods approach to analyze variation at both the national and subnational levels. I first conduct cross-national analyses of the impact of governmental decentralization on state compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the United Nations Convention Against Torture. I then use qualitative and quantitative methods to conduct subnational analyses of China and US compliance with international human rights treaties. Complementary streams of quantitative and qualitative evidence from cross-national and within-country analyses suggest that higher levels of decentralization reduce state compliance with international human rights treaties. A practical implication of my research is that failing to hold local authorities accountable creates a mismatch between promoting political accountability and advancing human rights.</p>

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:23:30Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Ricardo Rodrigo Marino Tozo.pdf: 536926 bytes, checksum: f1be3f5291bf1c1496e198eed7ee4638 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015-02-26 / The present study aims to delineate the trajectory and the construction of Human Rights for the consequent need to materialize them in International Human Rights Treaties. From an international legal perspective solidified in the Treaties, the work seeks to evaluate the theories of reception and jurisdictionalization the Brazilian legal system, from the viewpoint of the principle of human dignity / O estudo em apreço visa delinear a trajetória e a construção dos direitos humanos para a consequente necessidade de materializá-los em tratados internacionais de direitos humanos. A partir de um plano jurídico internacional solidificado em tratados, o trabalho busca avaliar as teorias de recepção e a jurisdicionalização no ordenamento jurídico brasileiro sob a ótica do princípio da dignidade da pessoa humana

Submitted by Maike Costa (maiksebas@gmail.com) on 2016-08-09T13:46:00Z No. of bitstreams: 1 arquivo totral.pdf: 872708 bytes, checksum: 820c8c5c7d98ab7b6b36024f30b2d91e (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-08-09T13:46:00Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 arquivo totral.pdf: 872708 bytes, checksum: 820c8c5c7d98ab7b6b36024f30b2d91e (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-02-15 / The present work has as study object the federalization of crimes against human rights and judicial implementation of international human rights treaties to which the Federative Republic of Brazil is a signatory. To this end, it has as main objective to analyze the competence shift incident as a preventive institute of international accountability, focusing on the effective state response against impunity and the achievement of social justice of the decision rendered by the Judiciary. Analyzed the incident Competence Shift a protective human rights instrument from the case Manoel Mattos and the effects of judicial precedents and jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in order to contribute to the importance of preventing international accountability which governs the Brazilian State. The duty to investigate and prosecute criminals agents in cases of serious violations of human rights arises from the conduct of obligation assumed by the State in the International Covenants on Human Rights. The State willful failure to not punish those responsible, constitutes a real affront to human rights, subject to international condemnation. To evade the International Responsibility for the inertia of the Brazilian states, the EC No. 45/2004 authorized the federalization of crimes against human rights in the cases of Article 109, Paragraph 5 of CF / 88, thus allowing the Superior Court Justice shift the responsibility of the police investigations or ongoing claims in state court to federal court, by application of the Attorney General. Within the Competence Shift incidents judged by the Supreme Court, there was considerable speed in the progress of cases, however, the little amount of proposed incidents is not yet able, by itself, to reflect on the effectiveness of this procedural instrument. It used inductive method of approach therefore departed from the case Manoel Mattos, seeking to discuss the federalization as a preventive mechanism of international accountability. The prime research technique was the literature, with the analysis of laws, judicial decisions of international nature, especially the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and specialized doctrine. / O presente trabalho tem como objeto de estudo a federalização dos crimes contra os direitos humanos como garantia judicial ao cumprimento dos tratados internacionais de direitos humanos ao qual a República Federativa do Brasil é signatária. Para tanto, tem-se como objetivo geral analisar o incidente de deslocamento de competência como instituto preventivo de responsabilização internacional, tendo como foco a resposta estatal efetiva contra a impunidade e a realização da justiça social da decisão exarada pelo Poder Judiciário. Analisou-se o Incidente de Deslocamento de Competência como instrumento protetor dos direitos humanos a partir do caso Manoel Mattos, bem como os efeitos dos precedentes judiciais e a Jurisprudência da Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos a fim de contribuir com a importância da prevenção da responsabilização internacional a que está sujeito o Estado brasileiro. O dever de investigar e de processar os agentes criminosos nas hipóteses de grave violações dos direitos humanos decorre da obrigação de conduta assumida pelo Estado nas Convenções Internacionais de Direitos Humanos. A omissão dolosa Estatal em não punir os responsáveis, constitui-se em verdadeira afronta aos direitos do homem, passível de reprovação internacional. Para eximir-se da Responsabilidade Internacional pela inércia dos Estados da Federação, a EC nº 45/2004 autorizou a federalização dos crimes contra os Direitos Humanos, nas hipóteses do artigo 109, §5º da CF/88, permitindo, assim, ao Superior Tribunal de Justiça deslocar a competência dos inquéritos policiais ou de processos em andamento na Justiça Estadual para a Justiça Federal, por petição do Procurador Geral da República. Dentro os Incidentes de Deslocamento de Competência julgados pelo STJ, observou-se considerável celeridade no andamento dos processos, todavia, a pouca quantidade de incidentes propostos ainda não é capaz, por si só, de refletir sobre a eficácia do presente instrumento processual. Utilizou-se do método de abordagem indutivo, pois, partiu-se do caso Manoel Mattos, buscando-se problematizar a federalização como mecanismo preventivo de responsabilização internacional. A técnica de pesquisa privilegiada foi a bibliográfica, com a análise de leis, decisões judiciais de cunho internacional, principalmente a jurisprudência da Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos e doutrina especializada.