Human Rights Protection by State and Non-State Actors
(2014) JAMM04 20131Department of Law
- Abstract
- Can a more universal human rights protection be achieved through the concept of common heritage of mankind? Knowing that this concept is previously only known by its use with regard to the deep sea-bed or by the attempt the international community made for the application with reference to the moon and other celestial bodies, it might be hard to grasp that this unconventional theory can be applied to human rights as well. It will however not increase the universality of the human rights protection by non-state actors as such, because of the lack of universal institutionalization inherent to the concept.
The reduced focus on sovereignty that this concept sets forward accompanies the necessity of an ‘all-affected principle’ instead of a... (More) - Can a more universal human rights protection be achieved through the concept of common heritage of mankind? Knowing that this concept is previously only known by its use with regard to the deep sea-bed or by the attempt the international community made for the application with reference to the moon and other celestial bodies, it might be hard to grasp that this unconventional theory can be applied to human rights as well. It will however not increase the universality of the human rights protection by non-state actors as such, because of the lack of universal institutionalization inherent to the concept.
The reduced focus on sovereignty that this concept sets forward accompanies the necessity of an ‘all-affected principle’ instead of a territorial approach of human rights violations. This idea is strengthened by the effective control hypothesis. Once an actor, either state or non-state, has the effective control over an individual, it is the duty of this actor to comply with the human rights obligations in order to protect the individuals under his control. The concept of the common heritage of mankind furthermore stresses the importance of international cooperation. The sharing of burdens and benefits allows the individuals of developing areas to enjoy an equal protection of their human rights. It allows developing actors to comply with their human rights obligations in a more effective hence a more universal manner.
Naturally there are certain elements counteracting the application of the concept of common heritage of mankind to human rights. To begin with, this concept follows the general trend of international law, focusing on states as its primary subject of obligations. In addition, there is the necessity of an international regime that puts a constraint on the findings, since it is practically impossible to hear everyone’s voice, especially when the need arises to include all non-state actors as well.
In conclusion, the common heritage of mankind can be applied on human rights. It does however not have the potential to institutionalize them in a way that the protection of international human rights is more universal and more effective. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/4406489
- author
- Van Beurden, Marthe LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Is the concept of common heritage of mankind helpful to increase the universality of human rights protection?
- course
- JAMM04 20131
- year
- 2014
- type
- H2 - Master's Degree (Two Years)
- subject
- language
- English
- id
- 4406489
- date added to LUP
- 2014-06-11 13:35:27
- date last changed
- 2014-06-11 13:35:27
@misc{4406489,
abstract = {{Can a more universal human rights protection be achieved through the concept of common heritage of mankind? Knowing that this concept is previously only known by its use with regard to the deep sea-bed or by the attempt the international community made for the application with reference to the moon and other celestial bodies, it might be hard to grasp that this unconventional theory can be applied to human rights as well. It will however not increase the universality of the human rights protection by non-state actors as such, because of the lack of universal institutionalization inherent to the concept.
The reduced focus on sovereignty that this concept sets forward accompanies the necessity of an ‘all-affected principle’ instead of a territorial approach of human rights violations. This idea is strengthened by the effective control hypothesis. Once an actor, either state or non-state, has the effective control over an individual, it is the duty of this actor to comply with the human rights obligations in order to protect the individuals under his control. The concept of the common heritage of mankind furthermore stresses the importance of international cooperation. The sharing of burdens and benefits allows the individuals of developing areas to enjoy an equal protection of their human rights. It allows developing actors to comply with their human rights obligations in a more effective hence a more universal manner.
Naturally there are certain elements counteracting the application of the concept of common heritage of mankind to human rights. To begin with, this concept follows the general trend of international law, focusing on states as its primary subject of obligations. In addition, there is the necessity of an international regime that puts a constraint on the findings, since it is practically impossible to hear everyone’s voice, especially when the need arises to include all non-state actors as well.
In conclusion, the common heritage of mankind can be applied on human rights. It does however not have the potential to institutionalize them in a way that the protection of international human rights is more universal and more effective.}},
author = {{Van Beurden, Marthe}},
language = {{eng}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Human Rights Protection by State and Non-State Actors}},
year = {{2014}},
}