Strengthening the effective functioning of the Human Rights Treaty Body System: a joint NGO contribution

Strengthening the effective functioning of the Human Rights Treaty Body System: a joint NGO contribution

In 2009, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights initiated the “Dublin Process” to encourage all stakeholders in the treaty monitoring process to provide suggestions for strengthening of the treaty body system.

In November 2011, following a serious of national, regional and international consultations, a group of treaty body experts and other stakeholders convened to elaborate an outcome document, known as the Dublin II Statement (available below).

The International Commission of Jurists has endorsed a 15-point summary of Dublin II outcome document, prepared by Amnesty International (available below). The High Commissioner for Human Rights will in June 2012 publish a report compiling the various proposals made during the Dublin process.

Building on the Dublin Process, the General Assembly adopted resolution 66/254 in February 2012, through which an open-ended intergovernmental process has been initiated to conduct open, transparent and inclusive negotiations on how to strengthen and enhance the effective functioning of the treaty body system.

A group on non-governmental organizations that regularly contribute to the work of the treaty bodies, including the ICJ, have identified a list of seven issues and corresponding recommendations that in their view should be addressed in the inter-governmental process (available below)

Effective functioning system-position paper-2012 (full text in English, PDF)

Dublin II outcome document-publication-2012 (full text in English, PDF)

Dublin II document 15 points-publication-2012 (full text in English, PDF)

Bilateral investment treaties and international human rights law: harmonization through interpretation

Bilateral investment treaties and international human rights law: harmonization through interpretation

This Report explores the relationship between bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and international human rights law.

It argues that there is a significant and growing potential for conflict between these bodies of law, and that international investment tribunals can and should interpret BITs in a manner that mitigates these conflicts.

treaties law interpretation-thematic report-2012 (full text in English, PDF)

Translate »