Monika Heupel

With power comes responsibility: Human rights protection in United Nations sanctions policy

The ability to violate and the duty to protect human rights have traditionally been ascribed to states. Yet, since international organizations increasingly take decisions that directly affect individuals, it has been alleged that they, too, have human rights obligations. Against this background, we can witness a trend among international organizations establishing provisions to prevent human rights violations and to enable individuals to hold them accountable for such violations. This can be seen as a specific manifestation of a more general trend that has been described as the spread of good governance standards to, or the constitutionalization of, international organizations. The purpose of this article is to reveal the mechanisms that can account for the introduction of human rights protection provisions in international organizations. The empirical basis of the article forms a case study on the evolution of such provisions in United Nations sanctions policy. I first develop a conceptual framework that draws on diffusion mechanisms that have been used to explain the spread of norms and institutional design among states and to trace reform processes in international organizations. The empirical analysis suggests that shaming, defiance, litigation and instances of learning can account for the advancement of human rights protection provisions in United Nations sanctions policy: the Security Council was exposed to and responded to various forms of pressure from a variety of different actors. At the same time, it was approached with arguments concerning why it should institute reforms and advice in terms of how such reforms should look and engaged in a learning process.

Introduction: The Rule of Law in an Era of Multi-level Governance and Global Legal Pluralism

Reinold and Heupel’s introductory chapter articulates the volume’s overarching research question, surveys relevant International Relations and International Law scholarship, proposes a conceptual framework for answering the volume’s question, and presents the structure of the book. The guiding question is whether the coexistence of (partially) overlapping and sometimes competing layers of authority, which characterizes today’s global order, undermines or rather strengthens efforts to promote the rule of law on a global scale. Summarizing the volume’s findings, Reinold and Heupel argue that whether multi-level governance and global legal pluralism have beneficial or detrimental effects on the international rule of law depend on specific scope conditions. Among these are the mobilization of powerful states and courts, and the fit between soft law and hard arrangements.

Human Rights Protection in International Organizations in the Era of Multi-level Governance and Legal Pluralism

Heupel’s chapter explores the emergence of human rights protection provisions in international organizations (IOs). It shows that such provisions can emerge via different pathways, namely hegemonic and judicial lawmaking. It suggests that multi-level governance and legal pluralism have detrimental and beneficial effects for the rule of law, depending on specific scope conditions. States at first exploited the opportunities provided by these phenomena and delegated competences to IOs without attaching effective human rights safeguards. Over time, however, powerful actors, benefitting from established routines and the presence of domestic/international scripts, exploited the access points provided by the multi-level nature of the underlying governance arrangements and their embeddedness in different legal orders and successfully made the World Bank and the European Union to commit to human rights safeguards.

Von großen und kleinen Kriegen

Unsere Vorstellung dessen, was Krieg ist, hat sich in der Geschichte immer wieder gewandelt. Lange war unsere Bild vom Krieg ein eurozentrisches, denn Krieg wurde mit gewaltsamen Auseinandersetzungen zwischen Staaten gleichgesetzt. Nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg, dem paradigmatischen zwischenstaatlichen Krieg, hat sich das Bild vom Krieg ausdifferenziert.