Abstract
In this article, the author inquires whose "voice" is the loudest and most persistent when it comes to international human rights law, questioning whether human rights is still an effective language for producing social change. In order to do so, the author scrutinizes the selectivity of the States Parties' non-enforcement of their binding obligations derived from the ICESCR and ICCPR. Furthermore, the author looks at how States' self-interest plays out in relation to the development of new standards under international law, including the right to protect, right to development and migrant workers' rights, as well as vis-à-vis multinational corporations. In conclusion, the author highlights that it is about time to revisit the notion of an international human rights court.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 34-42 |
| Number of pages | 9 |
| Journal | Sur |
| Volume | 11 |
| Issue number | 20 |
| Publication status | Published - 2014 |
| Externally published | Yes |
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 8 Decent Work and Economic Growth
-
SDG 10 Reduced Inequalities
-
SDG 16 Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
Keywords
- Corporations
- International human rights court
- Standard-setting
- States' obligations
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'After human rights standard setting, what's next?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver