CYIL vol. 12 (2021)

jana petrková – zuzana trávníčková CYIL 12 (2021) In practice, the overdue and late reports still represent the dark side of state reporting as a compliance tool. In academic works, the issue of late and non-reporting is addressed permanently and continuously since the 1980s, usually as one flow within a broader range of problems related to the effectiveness of human rights regimes. In 1987, independent expert Philip Alston elaborated on a report for the Commission on Human Rights on enhancing the long-term effectiveness of the United Nations human rights treaty system (E/CN.4/1997/74). Three years later, his findings and recommendations were published – in cooperation with James Crawford – in “ The future of UN human rights treaty monitoring. ” 15 In 1997, Anne Bayefsky prepared the International Law Association Report on the Treaty System 16 , and in 2001 she published “ United Nations human rights treaty system: universality at the crossroads ”. 17 Recent efforts of the OHCHR to strengthen the compliance of states with human rights obligations were analyzed by Jan Lhotský in 2017 in “ Human Rights Treaty Body Review 2020: Towards an Integrated Treaty Body System ”. 18 Directly on human rights reporting procedure, issues and results focus, e.g., Walter Kalin in 2021, 19 Rosa Aloisi in 2017, 20 or Valentina Carraro in 2019. 21 Whereas the center of current academic discussions is occupied by ideas and drafts on more effective organization and contribution of treaty bodies and the Human Rights Council, 22 the quantitative analysis and research of causes and consequences of late reporting and non-reporting attracts less attention. Self-reporting issues are accepted as a fact, as a part of a human rights protection reality. 15 ALSTON, Ph., CRAWFORD, J., eds. The future of UN human rights treaty monitoring . Cambridge University Press, 2000. 16 First Report of the International Law Association’s Committee on International Human Rights Law and Practice, submitted to the Helsinki Conference, 11–17 August 1996. (online) 17 BAYEFSKY, A. F., ed. United Nations human rights treaty system: universality at the crossroads . Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2001. 18 LHOTSKÝ, J. Human rights treaty body review 2020: towards an integrated treaty body system ( Global Campus Europe (EMA) Awarded Theses, 2017) accessed 30 May 2021. 19 KÄLIN, W. “Examination of state reports” in KELLER, H. and ULFSTEIN, G. UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies. Law and Legitimacy . Vol. 1. Cambridge University Press, 2012. 20 ALOISI, R. “The Space Between Ratification and Compliance: Implementation of International Human Rights Agreements.” International relations and Diplomacy 5.3 (2017): 121-133. 21 CARRARO, V. “Promoting Compliance with Human Rights: The Performance of the United Nations’ Universal Periodic Review and Treaty Bodies”. International Studies Quarterly , Volume 63, Issue 4, December 2019, pp. 1079–1093. 22 SARKIN, J. “The 2020 United Nations human rights treaty body review process: prioritizing resources, independence and the domestic state reporting process over rationalizing and streamlining treaty bodies,” The International Journal of Human Rights , (2020) DOI: 10.1080/13642987.2020.1822337. LHOTSKÝ, J. Revize lidskoprávních smluvních orgánů 2020: Jak zlepšit monitorování a kontrolu dodržování celosvětových standardů lidských práv? ( Policy Paper, Ústav mezinárodních vztahů , 16 October 2020) accessed 20 April 2021; LHOTSKÝ, J., Human Rights Treaty Body Review 2020 – Introducing the Integrated Treaty Body System as a More Ambitious Alternative ( Opinio Juris , 15 May 2020) accessed 22 May 2021.


Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs