Tom Zwart

Using Local Culture to Further the Implementation of International Human Rights: The Receptor Approach

States are free to choose their own means for implementing international human rights obligations. Western states usually rely on legal means, in particular legally enforceable individual rights. However, law does not enjoy a monopoly. The receptor approach assumes that, especially in Eastern and Southern states, international human rights obligations can be implemented more fully through local social institutions. It identifies domestic social institutions capable of meeting human rights standards and assumes that, where these social arrangements fall short of human rights obligations, they will have to be improved and reformed. This should be done as much as possible with the help of home-grown remedies to foster the cultural legitimacy of international human rights standards.

Safeguarding the Universal Acceptance of Human Rights Through the Receptor Approach

The receptor approach relies on ethnographic research to identify social institutions and cultural values that match international human rights obligations. Where these institutions and values fall short, home-grown remedies are used to amplify them. The receptor approach provides a practical tool to activists and states. In addition, it welcomes culture as a potential source of human rights rather than dismissing it as an impediment to their protection. Yvonne Donders and Vincent Vleugel’s position that it is “old wine in new bags” is therefore unfounded. The same is true for their argument that it pits “the West against the rest.” Research shows that regional values are still notably different. States are entitled to take these cultural differences into account when implementing their human rights obligations. Denying them their right to do so will force Southern states to disengage.

The Flotilla Case before the ICC : The Need to Do Justice While Keeping Heaven Intact

This article analyses the decision of the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber of 16 July 2015 in which it requested the Prosecutor to reconsider its decision not to initiate an investigation into the situation of the registered vessels of the Union of the Comoros, Greece and Cambodia. In 2010, the Israeli Defense Forces ( IDF ) had intercepted a humanitarian aid flotilla that was trying to breach one of its naval blockades. The Prosecutor deemed the case of insufficient gravity to initiate an investigation. By requesting the Prosecutor to reconsider its decision, the Pre-Trial Chamber created a precedent vis-a-vis the boundaries of prosecutorial discretion. This article addresses the test of Article 53(1) ICC Statute and inquires whether the Pre-Trial Chamber applied a correct standard of review. Whilst concluding that the Chamber erred in this standard, the authors introduce a standard of review that anticipates the interrelationship between prosecutorial discretion and judicial review.