LCP4807
Assignment 1
Semester 2 2025
Due 20 August 2025
,LCP4807
Assignment 1
Semester 2 2025
Due 20 August 2025
Overview
International Human Rights Law (IHRL) is one of the most dynamic and expansive
regimes in Public International Law. It emerged not merely as a legal response to
atrocities, but as a reconfiguration of sovereignty itself—placing individual dignity at the
center of the international legal order. Unlike older legal traditions that exclusively
regulated inter-state relations, IHRL imposes direct obligations on states to uphold,
respect, and fulfill rights for persons under their jurisdiction, regardless of nationality or
location. Its development since 1945 has been characterized by legal innovation,
institutional evolution, and the gradual entrenchment of enforcement mechanisms that
challenge traditional notions of state immunity and discretion.
Exclusive and Factual Developments That Define IHRL’s Sophistication
1. Horizontal Expansion of Rights Frameworks
IHRL has moved from civil and political rights (first-generation) to include economic,
social, and cultural rights (second-generation), and now encompasses third-generation
“solidarity rights” such as the right to development, the right to a clean environment, and
digital rights. For example:
• The UN General Assembly Resolution 76/300 (2022) formally recognized the
right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment as a human right,
placing environmental protection squarely within the IHRL framework.
, • The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (1981) uniquely codifies
the right to development and group rights, predating similar trends in other
regions.
2. Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: Beyond Borders
One of the most complex legal evolutions has been the extraterritorial application of
IHRL. Courts increasingly recognize that human rights obligations extend beyond a
state’s own territory under certain conditions:
• In Al-Skeini and Others v. UK (2011), the European Court of Human Rights
(ECtHR) ruled that the UK had human rights obligations in Iraq due to its
effective control over individuals.
• The Human Rights Committee affirmed in Lopez Burgos v. Uruguay (1981) that
a state could be held responsible for violations committed by agents operating
abroad.
This undermines the conventional idea that state obligations end at the border and
holds extraterritorial military operations, surveillance, and detentions accountable under
human rights law.
3. Justiciability of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
While once considered aspirational, ESC rights are now increasingly recognized as
legally enforceable:
• The Optional Protocol to the ICESCR (2008) allows individuals to bring
complaints before the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
• In Mohamed Ben Djazia and Naouel Bellili v. Spain (2017), the Committee
found that evicting a family without adequate housing alternatives violated their
right to housing (Article 11 ICESCR).
This marks a significant shift from viewing socio-economic rights as non-justiciable to
seeing them as enforceable on equal footing with civil and political rights.
Assignment 1
Semester 2 2025
Due 20 August 2025
,LCP4807
Assignment 1
Semester 2 2025
Due 20 August 2025
Overview
International Human Rights Law (IHRL) is one of the most dynamic and expansive
regimes in Public International Law. It emerged not merely as a legal response to
atrocities, but as a reconfiguration of sovereignty itself—placing individual dignity at the
center of the international legal order. Unlike older legal traditions that exclusively
regulated inter-state relations, IHRL imposes direct obligations on states to uphold,
respect, and fulfill rights for persons under their jurisdiction, regardless of nationality or
location. Its development since 1945 has been characterized by legal innovation,
institutional evolution, and the gradual entrenchment of enforcement mechanisms that
challenge traditional notions of state immunity and discretion.
Exclusive and Factual Developments That Define IHRL’s Sophistication
1. Horizontal Expansion of Rights Frameworks
IHRL has moved from civil and political rights (first-generation) to include economic,
social, and cultural rights (second-generation), and now encompasses third-generation
“solidarity rights” such as the right to development, the right to a clean environment, and
digital rights. For example:
• The UN General Assembly Resolution 76/300 (2022) formally recognized the
right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment as a human right,
placing environmental protection squarely within the IHRL framework.
, • The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (1981) uniquely codifies
the right to development and group rights, predating similar trends in other
regions.
2. Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: Beyond Borders
One of the most complex legal evolutions has been the extraterritorial application of
IHRL. Courts increasingly recognize that human rights obligations extend beyond a
state’s own territory under certain conditions:
• In Al-Skeini and Others v. UK (2011), the European Court of Human Rights
(ECtHR) ruled that the UK had human rights obligations in Iraq due to its
effective control over individuals.
• The Human Rights Committee affirmed in Lopez Burgos v. Uruguay (1981) that
a state could be held responsible for violations committed by agents operating
abroad.
This undermines the conventional idea that state obligations end at the border and
holds extraterritorial military operations, surveillance, and detentions accountable under
human rights law.
3. Justiciability of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
While once considered aspirational, ESC rights are now increasingly recognized as
legally enforceable:
• The Optional Protocol to the ICESCR (2008) allows individuals to bring
complaints before the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
• In Mohamed Ben Djazia and Naouel Bellili v. Spain (2017), the Committee
found that evicting a family without adequate housing alternatives violated their
right to housing (Article 11 ICESCR).
This marks a significant shift from viewing socio-economic rights as non-justiciable to
seeing them as enforceable on equal footing with civil and political rights.
