Over the last seven decades, there has been a global proliferation of international and regional human rights tribunals. But with no coercive power to enforce their judgments, these international tribunals rely either on the good faith of the State parties or on the political process for the implementation of their remedial orders. This nonjudicial approach to enforcement has showed its limits, as most State parties are noncompliant with international judgments to the detriment of human rights victims. This article recommends a new approach involving the judicialization of the post-adjudicative stage of international proceedings as an avenue to increase the enforceability of international judgments. The article argues that empowering domestic courts to have jurisdiction over States’ noncompliance with international judgments may be a plausible solution to facilitate enforcement of the international tribunals’ decisions. To this end, the article concludes with a suggestion of legal reforms for both continental and domestic laws.
From Commitment to Compliance: Enforceability of Remedial Orders of African Human Rights Bodies,
41 Brook. J. Int'l L.
Available at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bjil/vol41/iss1/2
Civil Procedure Commons, Courts Commons, Criminal Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, Human Rights Law Commons, International Law Commons, Judges Commons, Law and Politics Commons, Litigation Commons