South Africa’s peaceful transition to democracy in 1994 and its related efforts to be a champion for human rights promotion and protection are well documented. Since the advent of democracy, it has signed and ratified seven of the nine core international human rights treaties. Having overcome a history of racism and human rights violations in a peaceful manner, it assumed the status of a leading state actor in the fields of human rights and democracy. This study reveals that state compliance is complicated and that many states including South Africa grapple with reporting obligations. This thesis contributes to the understanding that non-compliance with reporting obligations is not intentional, nor necessarily is it a result of state unwillingness to comply. It reveals that compliance gaps may arise from various factors, including state capacity and institutional effectiveness. This thesis reflects on South Africa’s compliance and reporting performance under three selected United Nations (UN) human rights treaties, namely, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The three treaties were chosen owing to the critical role they can play in deepening the understanding of human rights in the country from economic, social, civil and political, and elimination of racism perspectives. They largely mirror the Constitution of South Africa and the country’s challenges, as it continues to grapple with the legacy of racism, poverty, inequality and underdevelopment. Their combined meaning and significance in South Africa needs to be better understood and explored. Compliance with UN human rights treaties is considered a global standard of good global citizenship. State reporting is, therefore, an important avenue to demonstrate South Africa’s compliance with its reporting obligations and commitment to human rights promotion and protection. / Thesis (PhD (International Relations))--University of Pretoria, 2021. / DIRCO / Political Sciences / PhD (International Relations) / Unrestricted

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of California, San Diego, 2007. / Title from first page of PDF file (viewed May 22, 2007). Available via ProQuest Digital Dissertations. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (p. 233-252).

Repression is the expected response to anti-government protest; however, leaders can also accommodate demonstrators. Committing to human rights treaties is considered in this environment, where treaty commitments are conceptualized as a policy concession that leaders can grant dissenters. Past research has shown that top-down domestic pressures, such as new democratic regimes, can influence treaty commitments. This article extends this line of research by considering the influence of bottom-up domestic pressure, arguing that nonviolent, pro-democracy movements can pressure leaders into concessions, as these movements are risky to repress but threatening to ignore. Leaders are expected to seek ‘cheap’ accommodations, and commitments to human rights treaties provide a relatively low-cost concession that also addresses demonstrators’ pro-democracy demands. Using commitments to the nine core UN human rights treaties, results are generally supportive. Governments experiencing a nonviolent, pro-democracy movement are consistently likely to sign human rights treaties. Ratification is also likely but in more limited contexts, and is more closely related to movement success. This suggests that bottom-up pressures can influence commitment to human rights treaties, but there may be little substance behind those concessions. The status quo and cost-averse preferences of leaders lead them to grant accommodations that result in minimal change and cost.

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.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Miami University, Dept. of Political Science, 2003. / Title from second page of PDF document. Includes bibliographical references (p. 184-206).

<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

This article seeks to determine whether international anticorruption conventions can be considered human rights treaties. The conclusion the author arrives to in the present article involves a new approach to understand the effects of the implementation of the aforementioned conventions in Peru.To answer the question whether these conventions are human rights treaties, the author explains the aim and the purpose of these conventions, and addresses its role on democracy and its relation with Human Rights. Finally, the author wonders if it is possible to recognize a fundamental right to a non-corrupt government. / El presente artículo busca determinar si las convenciones internacionales de lucha contra la corrupción pueden ser consideradas como tratados de Derechos Humanos. La conclusión a la que llega la autora implica una nueva forma de pensar los efectos en la aplicación de dichas convenciones en nuestro país. Para llegar a una respuesta, la autora explica el objeto y finalidad de estas convenciones, y aborda su rol en la democracia y su relación con los Derechos Humanos. Finalmente, la autora se pregunta si es posible el reconocimiento del derecho a un gobierno no corrupto.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:20:27Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Jaceguara Dantas da Silva Passos.pdf: 1477090 bytes, checksum: a9e36828ecf51c8bcbfbcf0ddc0d983a (MD5) Previous issue date: 2011-10-03 / The purpose of this study was to discuss the adherence of the Brazilian State to Human Rights treaties, the ensuing Criminalization Legal Precepts, and the corresponding legal consequences. As a signatory of a Human Rights Treaty, the Brazilian State is ruled through a legal system in line with the dictates of the Federal Constitution of 1988, whether or not said dictates are endorsed by the procedure laid out in Article 5, Section 3, of the Federal Constitution. By establishing provisions for the protection of new fundamental rights, treaties also constitute a parameter for the selection and protection of individual or collective legally protected values a form of protection regulated by Criminal Law, regardless of rule origin or hierarchy. This stems from the fact that by addressing the issue of Human Rights, the treaty should serve as a parameter for the protection of core values by Criminal Law, since the highest goal is the defense of human dignity a perspective in which any strictly formal, procedural hurdles must be overcome in order to achieve the highest good and interest of society and ensure the protection of said dignity, which constitutes the very core that informs and structures a Democratic State that abides by the Rule of Law. In order to guarantee the defense and protection of the human rights involved, Criminalization Legal Precepts are addressed, especially those related to Slavery, Child Labor, and Discrimination against Sexual Orientation, so as to impose limits to ordinary legislators in the definition of core values protected by Criminal Law, as well as to impose on the Brazilian State the obligation to criminalize conducts deemed offensive to certain legally protected values through the imposition of legal sanctions / O presente trabalho se propõe a discutir a adesão do Estado brasileiro aos tratados de Direitos Humanos, os decorrentes Mandados de Criminalização bem como as correspondentes consequências jurídicas. Defende-se a ideia de que, em sendo o Estado Brasileiro signatário de um tratado de Direitos Humanos, este se insere no ordenamento jurídico, em consonância com os ditames da Constituição Federal de 1988, aprovados ou não pelo procedimento previsto no artigo 5º, § 3º, da Constituição Federal. Dessa forma, ao prever a defesa de novos direitos fundamentais, os tratados também servem de parâmetro para a eleição e proteção de um bem jurídico individual ou coletivo, mediante a tutela proporcional do Direito Penal, independentemente da origem da norma e de sua hierarquia. E tal ocorre em razão de que, ao versar o tratado sobre a temática de Direitos Humanos, este deve servir de parâmetro para a tutela penal, já que o fim maior é a defesa da dignidade da pessoa humana e, nesse norte, devem ser superadas barreiras meramente formais, procedimentais, para se alcançar o bem maior e o interesse da sociedade e garantir a proteção da aludida dignidade, a qual se configura núcleo essencial que informa e estrutura o Estado Democrático de Direito. Com o fim de garantir a defesa e proteção dos direitos humanos envolvidos, discorre-se sobre Mandados de Criminalização, em especial aqueles relacionados à Discriminação pela Orientação Sexual, Trabalho Escravo e Trabalho Infantil, com o objetivo de impor ao legislador ordinário limites na escolha dos bens jurídicos penais e ao Estado, no caso, o Brasil, a obrigação de criminalizar certas condutas ofensivas a determinados bens jurídicos com a imposição de sanção

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.