The Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was adopted in 1948, can be considered to be

the foundation of international human rights law. The UDHR has inspired many international
human rights treaties and is also an inspiration to everyone when we address injustices and
conflicts. It represents the universal recognition that basic rights and fundamental freedoms are
inherent to all humans and equally applicable to everyone, and that every one of us is born free
and equal in dignity and rights, whatever our nationality, place of residence, gender, national or
ethnic origin, color, religion, language, or any other status is. Over the years, the commitment has
been translated into law, whether in the forms of treaties, customary international law, general
principles, regional agreements and domestic law, through which human rights are expressed and
guaranteed. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, focuses on such issues as
the right to life, freedom of speech, religion, and voting and the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights entered into force, focuses on such issues as food, education,
health, and shelter. These two Covenants have developed most of the rights already protected in
the UDHR and make them effectively binding on States that have ratified them. They set rights
such as the right to life, freedom of expression, the right to work, social security and education.
Over time, international human rights treaties have become more focused and specialized
regarding both, the issue addressed and the social groups that require protection. International
human rights law continues to grow, develop and elaborate the fundamental rights and freedoms
contained in the International Bill of Human Rights, addressing concerns such as racial
discrimination, torture, disabilities, and the rights of women, children, migrants and minorities. I
would like to point out that from my point of view one of the the most important development in
human rights law was when president Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which
prohibited voter discrimination on the basis of race. Also when president Carter signed
the Refugee Act of 1980 which regulated US asylum policy for refugees. And in 2007 when
Members of the UN signed the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, some of the
main features of the convention were requiring an adequate standard of living and social
protection and eliminating discriminations dealing with marriage, family, and personal relations.

International humanitarian law and international human rights law both protect the life,
health and dignity of individuals. International humanitarian law applies in armed conflict
whether international or non-international and binds all actors to an armed conflict as it lays
down rules that are applicable to both state and non-state actors, while human rights law applies
at all times, in peace and in war. International humanitarian law is a set of international rules,
established by treaty or custom, which are intended to solve humanitarian problems coming from
international or non-international armed conflicts. It imposes obligations on individuals and also
provides that persons may be held individually criminally responsible, aims to protect persons
who do not, or are no longer taking part in hostilities. International human rights law is a set of
international rules, established by treaty or custom, on the basis of which individuals and groups
can expect and claim certain behavior or benefits from governments. It lays down rules binding
governments in their relations with individuals. IHRL does not impose specific duties on
individuals but provides for individual criminal responsibility for violations that may include
international crimes. The main difference in their application is that international human rights
law allows a state to suspend a number of human rights if it faces a situation of emergency.
International humanitarian law cannot be suspended. Compliance with international
humanitarian law requires a state to introduce national legislation to implement its obligations.
Human rights law also contains provisions requiring a state to take legislative and other
appropriate measures to implement its rules and punish violations. International humanitarian
law is based on the Geneva and Hague Conventions, additional protocols and a series of treaties
governing means and methods of waging war as well as customary law. International human
rights law is more complex and unlike international humanitarian law includes regional treaties.

There are different mechanisms of protecting human rights, like the Office of the UN
High Commissioner for Human Rights, which has lead responsibility in the UN system for the
promotion and protection of human rights. The office supports the human rights components of
peacekeeping missions in several countries, and has many country and regional offices and
centers. The High Commissioner for Human Rights regularly comments on human rights
situations in the world and has the authority to investigate situations and issue reports on
them. Also the Human Rights Council, as the key independent UN intergovernmental body is
responsible for human rights and the human rights treaty bodies are committees of independent
experts that monitor implementation of the core international human rights treaties. The special
procedures of the Human Rights Council are independent experts working on a voluntary basis,
who examine, monitor, publicly report and advise on human rights from a thematic or country-
specific perspective. The UN Development Group’s Human Rights Mainstreaming
Mechanism advances human rights mainstreaming efforts within the UN development
system. The Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide acts to raise awareness of the causes
and dynamics of genocide, to alert relevant actors where there is a risk of genocide, and to
advocate and mobilize for appropriate action. A very important legal instrument that helps the
UN protect human rights are The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was the first
legal document protecting universal human rights and democracy, based on the rule of law, to
achieve international peace and security, economic and social progress and development, and
respect for human rights. The UN Security Council, is also responsible for protecting human
rights and deals with human rights violations, often in conflict areas.  Security Council can
impose economic sanctions, arms embargos, financial penalties and restrictions, travel bans or
even collective military action. The General Assembly’s Third Committee examines a range of
issues, including human rights questions.  The Committee also discusses questions relating to the
advancement of women, the protection of children, indigenous issues, the treatment of refugees,
the promotion of fundamental freedoms through the elimination of racism and racial
discrimination, and the right to self-determination.  The Secretary-General appoints special
representatives, who advocate against major human rights violations: for children and armed
conflict, on sexual violence in conflict and on violence against children. Many United
Nations peacekeeping operations and political and peace building missions also include the
human rights-related mandates aimed at contributing to the protection and promotion of human
rights through both immediate and long-term action; empowering the population to assert and
claim their human rights and enabling State and other national institutions to implement their
human rights obligations and uphold the rule of law.

I want to discuss two cases, to explain the effectiveness of existing human rights
protection regimes. The first one is about the legal consequences of the construction of a wall in
the occupied Palestinian territory. This case dealt with the construction of a wall by Israel which
resulted in the destruction of and the de facto annexation of land from the occupied Palestinian
territory of the West Bank, including land used by individuals and communities for agriculture
and water resources. The key issues were: annexation, expropriation, freedom of movement and
residence, maintenance of livelihood, right to adequate housing, right to an adequate standard of
living, right to education, right to food, right to health and right to work. Legal questions
centered on the appropriateness of applying human rights treaty law by the International Court of
Justice as well as on whether annexation or destruction of land rises to violations of the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Court held that the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention of the Rights of the Child
(CRC) as well as international humanitarian law, is applicable both to territories over which a
State has sovereignty and to those over which it exercises jurisdiction outside sovereign territory,
such as in the case of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory. With respect to land, the Court
held that the construction of the wall and its associated regime impeded the exercise by the
persons concerned of their rights to freedom of movement guaranteed under the ICCPR and the
rights to work, health, education and to an adequate standard of living as guaranteed by the
ICESCR and the CRC, and contravened the requirements of the Hague Regulations and the
Fourth Geneva Convention. The Court thus held that Israel is under an obligation to return the
land seized from any person for purposes of construction of the all in the Occupied Palestinian
Territory, and if such restitution is not be possible, to compensate for the damage suffered. The
Court also considered that Israel is obliged to compensate all persons having suffered from
maternal damage as a result of the wall’s construction.

The second case dealt with government authorities taking possession of agricultural land
with the intent of expropriating it without compensation so the key issues were expropriation and
right to property. Legal questions dealt with the scope of peaceful enjoyment of possessions to the
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the
context of government expropriation of land. In particular, the legal question centered on how to
strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interest and the requirements of the
protection of the individual’s fundamental rights including the right to peaceful enjoyment of
possessions. The European Court recalled its broad view of what the term “possessions” entails,
including housing and real property such as land. Also, according to the Court’s Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 analysis, interference must be “for public purposes” and “as provided by law and
general principles of international law.” Even then, an interference with the peaceful enjoyment
of possessions must strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interests of the
community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights. Under
the Court’s existing jurisprudence, this analysis also must take into account that the concern to
achieve this balance is reflected in the structure of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as a whole and the
requisite balance will not be found if the person concerned has had to bear an individual and
excessive burden. In other words, there must be a reasonable relationship of proportionality
between the means employed and the aim sought to be realized. The Court found that the actions
of the government resulted in the applicant being unable to dispose of his land. It also found that
there was not remedy at the domestic level by which to challenge these actions. Consequently,
the Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention.

In my opinion, the major challenges to the enjoyment of human rights in the 21st century
are: poverty and global inequities, discrimination, armed conflict and violence, impunity,
democracy deficits and weak institutions.

The poor in many societies cannot enjoy their rights to education, health, housing and
food simply because these essential services are not made available to them at affordable rates or
at no cost. As discrimination leads to economic deprivation, poverty increases discrimination and
exclusion. In many countries, the legal system or even tradition still accept discrimination,
particularly based on gender and race or ethnicity. Human rights law prohibits discrimination on
the basis of a wide range of prohibited grounds. The UDHR, the ICCPR, and the ICESCR prohibit
discrimination on the grounds of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion,
national or social origin, property, birth or other status. The ICCPR and ICESCR include further
an undertaking to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all rights in their
respective covenants. Children are to be protected against discrimination on the basis of the
status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child’s parents, legal guardians, or family
members. Human rights law also protects against discrimination on the basis of gender identity,
family status, health status or homelessness. The relationship between discrimination and poverty
is overwhelmingly evident in developed as well as in developing countries. For example, in
Bangladesh discriminatory family laws on marriage, separation, and divorce push some women
further into poverty and in the US, as the UN Committee on Racial Discrimination has
recognized, “racial, ethnic, and national minorities, especially Latino and African American
persons, are disproportionately concentrated in poor residential areas characterised by sub-
standard housing conditions, limited employment opportunities, inadequate access to health care
facilities, under-resourced schools, and high exposure to crime and violence.” The relationship
between discrimination, inequality, and poverty can also be seen, for instance, in Burma.
Discrimination against certain ethnic minorities is widespread in Burma and addressing this
discrimination should be a key element of poverty reduction strategies. The Rohingya, a Muslim
minority group, are among the most marginalized in Burma. The Burmese government has long
denied Rohingya the right to obtain citizenship in Burma, which has facilitated human rights
abuses against them and rendered them stateless, posing a serious obstacle to achieving a durable
solution to the sectarian violence in Arakan State and resolving the situation of Rohingya
refugees. The Rohingya face restrictions on movement, employment and access to opportunity,
education, marriage, and on other aspects of their everyday lives.

International human rights law protects the lives and dignity of individuals, prohibiting
torture or cruel treatment, prescribing rights for persons subject to a criminal justice procedure,
prohibiting discrimination and setting out provisions for the protection of women and children.  
Whether resulting from armed conflict, criminal activity, civil unrest or denial of basic economic
and social rights, situations of conflict, violence and insecurity are invariably preceded by clearly
identifiable patterns of human rights abuses and discrimination. In situations of international or
non-international armed conflict, entire populations or particular sectors of the population are
often subject to serious human rights violations, such as extra-judicial killings, torture and ill-
treatment, starvation, disappearances, sexual violence and arbitrary detention. International
human rights standards, whether established by treaty or custom, are applicable at all times in
these contexts and both government forces and non-State actors engaged in a conflict can be held
responsible for serious violations of human rights. The report of the Secretary-General’s Internal
Review Panel on United Nations Action in Sri Lanka demonstrated that when responses to
situations of conflict, violence and insecurity fail to take into consideration human rights
concerns, the protection of the affected people cannot be adequately ensured. The role of the UN
system and the international community in preventing human rights violations and protecting
human rights in those contexts cannot be overemphasized.

The failure to investigate seriously persons for human rights violations encourages further
abuse. National laws that call for the punishment of crimes against humanity and war crimes,
must be enforced. In international human rights law, impunity refers to the failure to bring
perpetrators of human rights violations to justice and, as such, itself constitutes a denial of the
victims' right to justice and redress.  Around the world, but particularly in countries where there
have been mass crimes against civilians by the state or armed forces of a country, many human
rights defenders work against impunity and for the rights of victims.  The lack of accountability
for attacks on HRDs is one of the biggest challenges facing the international human rights
movement. Impunity for human rights violations was one of the major long-term challenges
facing the Central African Republic (CAR). Despite reports of improvement in the area, children
continue to be recruited by armed groups. Sexual violence against women is widespread and
although female genital mutilation is prohibited by law in CAR, it is still carried out. Also there is
the impunity for human rights violations such as summary executions, enforced disappearances,
illegal arrests and detention that have been attributed to State law enforcement officials and
armed forces. According to the High Commissioner, all governments should act firmly to halt
crimes such as these, and those responsible should be prosecuted and, if found guilty, should
receive appropriate punishment, irrespective of who they are.

Democracy is the only political model where all human rights can be respected,
promoted, and enjoyed by all. Weak institutions, resulting from bad governance, greatly endanger
this guarantee. In order to better address these challenges, OHCHR has identified five priority
areas that need re-enforcement: increased presence in countries; strengthened leadership role of
the High Commissioner; closer partnerships with United Nations agencies and with civil society;
strengthening the relation between OHCHR and UN human rights bodies; strengthening
OHCHR’s internal capacity. For example, Uganda has ratified various international conventions
on human rights and social security, and attempts have been made to domesticate the conventions
by developing national laws and policies. However, the limitations of the institutions currently
responsible for social security services delivery, and the high incidence of poverty and corruption
pose a variety of challenges for the existing social security arrangements, which are highly
inadequate.

Strengths of International law are that it cares for a stable and orderly society, it’s flexible,
easier for states to interact and enhances international relations. Without it, there could be chaos.
International law sets up a framework based on States as the principal actors in the international
legal system, and it defines their legal responsibilities in their conduct with each other, and,
within State boundaries, with their treatment of individuals. It includes human rights,
disarmament, international crime, refugees, migration, problems of nationality, the treatment of
prisoners, the use of force, and the conduct of war, among others. It also regulates the global
commons, such as the environment, sustainable development, international waters, outer space,
global communications and world trade. International law does work, at times invisibly and yet
successfully. World trade and the global economy depend on it, as it regulates the activities
required to conduct business across borders, such as financial transactions and transportation of
goods. There are treaties for roads, highways, railroads, civil aviation, bodies of water and access
to shipping for States that are landlocked. And as new needs arise, whether to prevent or punish
terrorist acts or to regulate e-commerce, new treaties are being developed. An obvious example is
terrorism. No state can effectively fight terrorism in isolation. Terrorist organizations evade
national control by sending their money, people and weapons across state borders. Only by
working together can states effectively combat this transnational threat. There are budding efforts
to do just that at the United Nations–spearheaded by the United States. In the weeks immediately
following 9/11, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1373 requiring states to take measures to
prevent and suppress the financing of terrorists by criminalizing terrorist funding, freezing
terrorist assets, suppressing recruitment of terrorist agents and prosecuting accused terrorists.
Resolution 1373 and follow-up resolutions have proven to be some of our most effective tools in
combating terrorism. So far, most of the efforts to combat terrorism through international law
have been centered on the Security Council, where only a few states have a voice in creating the
rules. A more broad-based approach–building, for example, on the multilateral International
Convention for the Suppression of Financing of Terrorism–could achieve far more than the
current regime.

  Public international law has the following weaknesses: it lacks an effective executive
authority to enforce its rules; lacks of effective legislative machinery since the international laws
are based on international treaties and conventions. Therefore these are interpreted by the states
according to their self interest. The international court of justice lacks compulsory jurisdiction,
the international court of justice is not authorized to take cases of all states. The cases can be filed
in this court with the mutual consent of concerned states. Due to lack of effective sanctions, rules
of international law are frequently violated. There is no sense or fear of sanction in the
international law with the results the laws are violated frequently by the States. Lack in right to
intervene in internal affairs, international law cannot interfere in the domestic matters. It is not
certain as the law of states. In addition to this it has not been able to maintain international peace
and order. It has no power to get the decisions implemented. The main course of weakness of
International Law is the lack of social solidarity among highly civilized states. International law
does influence state behavior on issues of relatively minor importance. When it comes to the most
pressing issues of international politics involving the great powers, security and war and peace,
international law gives way to power and national interests. As an example to the weaknesses of
international law, I want to discuss a case of Queen v/s Keyn – 1876: The case involved a collision
resulting in a fatality in the English Channel, two miles from the Kent coast.  The prosecution of
the master of a German ship for manslaughter relied on customary international law, which
allegedly gave all nations the right to exercise criminal jurisdiction within three nautical miles of
their shores.  On appeal a bare majority of judges ruled that English law could not be applied to an
incident that had occurred aboard a foreign ship on the open sea.  This ruling was made despite
precedents as far back as 1737 which had held that customary international law could be viewed
as an integral part of English common law, so long as it does not conflict with acts of Parliament
or other binding common law precedents.   The difficulty for the majority of judges in Keyn was
in demonstrating the content of customary international law, so there is no such institution or
body which can enact laws for sovereign states and there is no court also which can enforce its
decision and to bind the states.

States have agreed to regulate their mutual relations by international law , because all
states in the contemporary world, including great powers, justify their behavior according to legal
rules and accepted norms. Countries interact with each other through international laws, rules,
and regulations, as well as special treaties and agreements. This creates a global network of
binding treaties and agreements that can be regulated for the better for all.  International laws
promote peace, justice, common interests, and trade. For example, the South China Sea and the
Arctic Sea are hotly disputed areas where maritime law comes into play to regulate who gets to
access these bodies of water.  Among the greatest achievements of the United Nations is the
development of a body of international law, which is central to promoting economic and social
development, as well as to advancing international peace and security. Many of the treaties
brought about by the United Nations form the basis of the law that governs relations among
nations. International law has been enabling sovereign states to interact in a relatively limited
number of areas to a truly international order with profound and increasingly cooperative
requirements. International law provides a variety of methods for settling disputes peacefully,
none of which takes precedence over any other. Nonbinding mechanisms include direct
negotiations between the parties and the involvement of third parties through good offices,
mediation, inquiry, and conciliation. Contentious jurisdiction enables the court to hear cases
between states, provided that the states concerned have given their consent. The ICJ has issued
rulings in numerous important cases, ranging from the Corfu Channel case (1949), in which
Albania was ordered to pay compensation to Britain for the damage caused by Albania’s mining of
the channel, to the territorial dispute between Botswana and Namibia (1999), in which the ICJ
favored Botswana’s claim over Sedudu Island.

To improve the effectiveness of public international law is required the interpretation of

the law prohibiting the use of force in accordance with the reality of the twenty first century.
Addressing the challenges which international law faces today, there is a need for a greater
balancing acts in the citing and administration of international institutions; a more even coverage
of international law is required; it is necessary to make international law more visible to
developing countries, and make their contributions to international law more visible to the world.
On their own, developing countries must do more to popularize international law in their
academic curricula, expose their judges more greatly to international law, and afford international
lawyers from the developing countries more opportunity in the dissemination and practice of
international law.  International law is at its best when it works through inducements like the
WTO rather than coercion like UN sanctions. Inducements work best between like-minded
countries that see common ground in their national interests. So, perhaps the international system
should become bifurcated. The UN can continue to deal with the global issues at which it actually
does reasonably well, such as the WHO or UNICEF, and could remain as a global forum to
provide peacekeeping and prevent interstate war. Those countries interested in expanding the
scope and power of international law could set up their own organization, like the EU, WTO, or
NATO, in which sovereignty is curtailed to a greater degree and members gain serious benefits as
a payment for cooperation.