This chapter focuses on the identification of different kinds of literature related to the state responsibility. The international legal framework for human rights is a complex network designed to protect individuals from abuses and ensure a standard of dignity and justice worldwide. This framework is especially critical when addressing the actions of non-state actors, which may include businesses, armed groups, or individuals who are capable of infringing upon the rights of others. The significance of these frameworks lies in their ability to prescribe norms, impose duties, and provide remedies for violations of human rights.
Grab The Best Academic Assistance In Just One Click
2.2 The international legal frameworks and duties that states are bound by when it comes to non-state actors violating human rights
To ensure the protection of the individuals as well as to protect the fundamental rights against the "human rights" abusers the International legal framework and duties are essential to protect the non-state actor's "human rights". In addition, these legal frameworks focus on preventing and providing effective solutions for the committed "human rights" violations in the jurisdiction of the non-state actors. There are various rights and legal frameworks that provide effective support to the essential fundamentals of the "human rights" as well as also prevent the violations of "human rights" frameworks. The “Universal Declaration of "human rights"( UDHR)” is a foundational document that sets out the fundamental moral rights and freedoms to be widely defended. While not fairly binding, it has acquired customary international law status and provides the base for posterior "human rights" instruments. Article 2 of the UDHR emphasises that every state has a duty to admire and insure "human rights" without distinction as to race, coitus, language, or any other status.
States are needed to take applicable legislative, executive, and judicial measures to give effect to these rights. On the other hand, the “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ( ICCPR)” is a fairly binding convention that outlines the civil and political "human rights" that states must guarantee to individualities within their governance. Article 2 ( 1) of the ICCPR affirms that each state party undertakes to admire and ensure the "human rights" honoured in the Covenant to all individualities within its home and motive to its governance. States are obliged to cover individualities from "human rights" lawbreakings immured by non-state impersonators by taking operative measures. The Convention against Torture and Other “Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( CAT)” is an international convention that aims to help murder and other forms of ill-treatment. Article 2( 1) of the CAT requires countries to take operative legislative, executive, judicial, and other measures to help acts of murder within their governance.
States are obliged to probe, make, and discipline individualities or groups responsible for acts of murder, even if they're non-state impersonators. “The International Crime Court (ICC)” can make individualities, involving-state impersonators, for these crimes if public authorities are unintentional or unfit to do. States parties to the Rome Statute have an duty to cooperate with the ICC in its examinations and executions. The Guiding Principles on Business and "human rights" were developed by the United Nations to address the "human rights" responsibilities and liabilities of businesses. These principles punctuate that countries have a duty to cover against "human rights" abuses by business enterprises within their state and or governance. While companies are primarily responsible for esteeming "human rights", countries must ensure that applicable legal rules and regulations are in a position to hold companies responsible for any lawbreakings they commit.
The “United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and "human rights"( UNGPs)” gives a frame for countries and companies to help, address, and remedy "human rights" abuses incurred by corporations. The UNGPs clarify that countries have a duty to cover against "human rights" abuses by non-state actors, involving corporations. This duty includes ensuring that applicable ordinances and regulations are in position, promoting commercial responsibility, and furnishing access to operative remedies for fatalities. “The Geneva Conventions” correspond to a series of covenants that establish the norms of international humanitarian law, especially in fortified conflicts. While primarily fastening on the conduct of countries during fortified conflicts, the Geneva Conventions also manipulate the liabilities of non-state impersonators. For case, Common or Garden Composition 3 of the Geneva Conventions obliges both country and non-nation-state impersonators to treat all individuals who are not interested in taking portion in conflict with humanity and prohibits violence against them. Overall, individual non-state actors played a crucial role in the violation process of the "human rights".
Therefore, the international rights have initially focused on the natural states of the legal framework and duties to efficiently address the significant "human rights" violations conducted by the non-state actors . Therefore the following part has discussed the significant frameworks and duties of the non-state actors to analyze the initial "human rights" violations caused by the non-state actors by disturbing the international legal frameworks and duties. Countries are bound by different international legal frameworks when it comes to non-state impersonators violating mortal birthrights. These frameworks carry foundational documents like the UDHR, fairly shackling covenants similar as the ICCPR and ICESCR, special guidelines like the UNGPs, and IHL presiding fortified conflicts. These instruments establish countries' duties to cover individualities from "human rights" lawbreakings committed by state impersonators within their governance.
2.3 Significant role of states to deal with stopping, dealing with, and making amends for non-state actors’ violations of the right to life
The roles that countries have in stopping, dealing with and timber amends for non-state impersonators' law breaks of the rights to life vary depending on the special portions and the legal frameworks in position therefore, some general places can be linked. States are responsible for ensuring the security of the human right to life for all individuals within their governance, regardless of whether the violators are country or non-state impersonators. This responsibility is deduced from international "human rights" law, involving covenants similar as the “Universal Declaration of "human rights" and the “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”. There are several steps and aspects states can implement for the persecution and investigation process as well as to prevent the violation of the "human rights" act as well . Furthermore, the significant collaboration and cooperation within the other states and other international legal organisations. On the other hand, the rehabilitation and victim support are also one of the effective ways to deal with the non-state actors' violations for the violation of "human rights".
There are also various international advocacy and diplomatic can be engaged with the non-state actor's violation to mitigate the disturbances of the "human rights". States have a duty to investigate any lawbreakings of the human right to life immured by non-state impersonators within their governance . This includes relating and arresting those responsible for the lawbreakings and ensuring they're held responsible through fair and unprejudiced judicial processes. States may establish technical units or mechanisms within their law enforcement agencies or judicial systems to effectively investigate and make similar cases. On the other hand, States have a duty to take preventative measures to cover individualities from implicit lawbreakings of the rights to life by non-state impersonators. This may carry enforcing legislation, programs, and programs levelled at inhibiting similar law breaks, as well as furnishing acceptable resources for law enforcement agencies to effectively respond to pitfalls or acts of violence .
Another effective measure states can implement is states should unite with other countries, international associations, and civil society impersonators to address and identify state impersonators from lawbreakings of the "human rights" to life that transcend public boundaries. This can involve participating in information, intelligence, and moxie, as well as conforming efforts in examinations, executions, and forestallment strategies. States have an duty to give brace and backing to fatalities of non-state impersonators ’ lawbreakings of the human right to life. This may carry medical care, cerebral brace, legit aid, indemnification for damages passed, and access to justice. Countries should take measures to decrease the recuperation and reintegration of fatalities into society . States can fascinate in political efforts to address non-state impersonators ’ lawbreakings of the human right to life at the international position. This can involve raising mindfulness, advocating stronger international morals and mechanisms to combat similar lawbreakings, and cooperating with other countries to develop common strategies and enterprises.
Overall, states need to implement effective measures to implement the rights properly as well as to maintain the every aspect of cultural rights as well as social and economic rights during the violation of "human rights" by the non-state actors.
2.4 Investigation of a range of case studies in diverse geopolitical contexts with difficulties in responding to non-state actors’ violations of "human rights"
There are various case studies representing the different aspects of the violations of "human rights" and the right to life by the non-state actors. Additionally, the “Kadic v. Karadzic” is one of the suitable case study can be used to analyse the violations of "human rights". The “Kadic v. Karadzic” case study includes a significant amount of challenges and violations encountered by the legal authorities while discussing the non-state actors and violation of "human rights". Furthermore, the achievement and evaluation of the “Kadic v. Karadzic” case study also provide efficient information regarding the violation of "human rights". The Kadicv. Karadzic case specifically dealt with "human rights" lawbreakings immured during the Bosnian War( 1992- 1995). Radovan Karadzic was a political line and chairman of the tone-placarded Republika Srpska's reality within Bosnia and Herzegovina during the war. He was indicted of being responsible for multitudinous war crimes and crimes against humanity, involving genocide . One of the crucial accomplishments of the Kadicv. Karadzic case established responsibility for non-state impersonators involved in "human rights" lawbreakings. The case study contributed to the evolution of international criminal law by feting that individuals can be held personally responsible for their conduct unless they weren't acting on behalf of a country.
“Kiobel v. Royal Dutch PetroleumCo.” was a landmark case that brought attention to the challenges faced in responding to non-state actors' violations of mortal rights in different geopolitical surrounds. The case involved allegations of mortal rights abuses committed by the oil company Royal Dutch Petroleum( Shell) in Nigeria, including conspiracy in extrajudicial killings, torture, and other abuses by the Nigerian government . The Nigerian government was indicted of collaborating with Shell in negotiating human rights abuses against the Ogoni people in the Niger Delta. The case was originally filed in the United States under the “Alien Tort Statute( ATS)”, a law that allows foreign subjects to seek requital for human rights lawbreakings immured everywhere. The Supreme Court eventually ruled that the ATS didn't apply extraterritorially unless there was a clear connection to the United States, leading to the dismissal of the case. This resolution had significant implications for addressing non-state impersonators ’ human rights lawbreakings encyclopedically. It limited the capability of foreign complainants to bring cases against corporations in U.S. courts for abuses immured everywhere. As a result, fatalities of human rights abuses face expostulations in accessing justice and holding corporations responsible for their conduct.
"Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain" was a corner case in international "human rights" law that managed the conclusion of non-state impersonators ’ lawbreakings of "human rights". In this case, the Supreme Court of the United States considered whether a foreign public could bring an action against another foreign public for lawbreakings of international law immured outside the United States.
The " Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain" case rolled around the hijacking and immurement of Dr Humberto Alvarez-Machain, a Mexican public, by instrumentalities of the “Drug Enforcement Administration( DEA)” in Mexico . The hijacking was a portion of an operation to bring him to the United States to sit trial for his alleged involvement in the murder and murder of an American medicine enforcement agent. Alvarez-Machain filed an action against the instrumentalities involved, avouching lawbreakings of international law. The Court recognised that certain obvious lawbreakings of international law, similar to murder and extrajudicial killings, can be fulfilled under the principle of adaptable governance. This principle allows countries to exercise governance over crimes immured by non-state impersonators outside their homes. The Court held that country instrumentalities who portray outside their sanctioned capacity can be held responsible for "human rights" lawbreakings immured everywhere.
This resolution corroborated the principle that individuals should be responsible for their conduct anyhow of their cooperation with a country. The holding transferred a strong communication that non-state impersonators involved in "human rights" abuses can be held responsible. This may have a truculent sequel on individualities and associations engaging in similar lawbreakings. The Court held that only a narrow order of international law violations, known as jus cogens morals, can give ascent to a cause of action under the “Alien Tort Statute( ATS)” . Jus cogens morals are abecedarian principles of international law that are considered non-discriminable and widely binding. This limited the implicit incommodity of non-state impersonators for other manners of "human rights" abuses. One of the other shortcomings is that the Court didn't give clear guidance on the remedies accessible to fatalities of non-state impersonators' human rights abuses.
The case of “Filártiga v. Peña-Irala” expressed several expostulations in addressing human rights lawbreakings immured by non-state impersonators. originally, it stressed the conclusion of jurisdictional obstacles when seeking justice for similar lawbreakings. Non-state impersonators frequently operate across boundaries or within countries with weak legal systems, making it difficult to hold them responsible. The case highlighted the part of civil action in holding non-state actors responsible for human rights lawbreakings. Traditional thoroughfares for responsibility, similar as criminal prosecutions, may be unapproachable or ineffective when dealing with non-state impersonators. Civil action provides an alternative medium for fatalities to seek justice and obtain compensation for their suffering. “Filártiga v. Peña-Irala” demonstrated that fatalities could seek requital in foreign courts when domestic thoroughfares for justice were unapproachable or inadequate . “Filártiga v. Peña-Irala” underlined the significance of transnational human rights norms in addressing non-state actor lawbreakings. The court’s resolution relied on international law principles, involving the interdiction of torture and the right to a remedy for fatalities of human rights abuses. The case demonstrated the eventuality of international human rights law to ground the gap in addressing non-state actor lawbreakings.
2.5 Discussion on national and international mechanisms for holding non-state actors accountable for their violations of the right to life and for imposing state responsibility
The right to life is an abecedarian human right recognized by different international and public legal authorities. While countries are primarily responsible for defending this right,non-state impersonators such as individuals, fortified groups, corporations, and insurrectionary associations can also offend it. Holding these state impersonators responsible for their conduct and assessing the country's responsibility requires the establishment of operative mechanisms in both public and international situations . This composition will explore the public and international mechanisms exercised to hold non-state impersonators responsible for lawbreakings of the right to life and put the country responsible. There are various national mechanisms and international mechanisms that can be implemented by the states to prevent the "human rights" violations of non-state actors.
National criminal justice systems play a pivotal part in holding non-state impersonators responsible for lawbreakings of the right to life. These systems probe crimes, make offenders and put applicable penalties. The operation of felonious law ensures that those who commit acts that result in loss of life are held responsible under domestic legitimate frameworks. Non-state impersonators can also be held responsible through civil action in public courts. Fatalities or their families may seek indemnification or requital for lawbreakings of the rights to life through civil suits. This medium allows individualities to hold on-state impersonators financially responsible for their conduct. Numerous nations have established "human rights" commissions or ombudsman institutions responsible for covering "human rights" lawbreakings, involving those related to the human right to life. These bodies probe complaints, conclude recommendations, and promote responsibility by ensuring that non-state impersonators are held responsible for their conduct .
On the other hand, the effective international mechanisms can be implemented such as “The International Criminal Court (ICC)” The ICC is an endless international bench established to make individualities responsible for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and truculence. It has governance over non-state impersonators when they commit similar serious crimes that hang the peace, screen, or well- being of the international community . The ICC ensures that non-state impersonators are held responsible for the international position. International "human rights" tribunals, similar as the “Inter-American Court of "human rights" and the European Court of "human rights", give a council for holding on-state impersonators responsible for lawbreakings of the right to life. These bars arbitrate cases involving contended "human rights" lawbreakings and conclusions binding opinions on countries to take applicable measures to ensure responsibility. The United Nations( UN) plays a significant part in holding non-state impersonators responsible for lawbreakings of the right to life. The UN Security Council can establish ad hoc bars, similar to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Tribunal for the other Yugoslavia, to make individualities responsible for serious crimes .
The UN "human rights" Council monitors "human rights" situations encyclopedically and can establish commissions of inquiry or special investigations to probe special cases. Regional associations have established "human rights" mechanisms to manipulate lawbreakings within their separate authorities. For illustration, the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights and the African Court on Human and People's Rights are cast to hold non-state impersonators responsible for "human rights" lawbreakings in Africa. These mechanisms give a thruway for fatalities to seek justice and hold non-state impersonators responsible. Some nations have specialized types or commissions that concentrate on special crimes of lawbreakings of the right to life immured by non-state impersonators.
For example, in Colombia, the Special Jurisdiction for Peace was established to investigate and make crimes immured during the fortified discordance by both country and non-state impersonators. These mechanisms give a council for fatalities to seek justice and hold perpetrators responsible. At the international position, mechanisms live to manipulate lawbreakings of the right to life immured by non-state impersonators when public systems are unfit or unintentional to do effectively. “The International Criminal Court( ICC)” has governance over individuals indicted of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and truculence. This includes situations where state impersonators are involved in similar crimes . The ICC investigates and prosecutes individuals responsible for these serious offences, icing responsibility at an international position. Similarly, international "human rights" bodies similar as the “United Nations "human rights" Council( UNHRC)” and indigenous "human rights" courts or commissions cover compliance with "human rights" norms, involving the right to live.
They can admit complaints, guide examinations, and conclusion recommendations or judgments against non-state impersonators and countries responsible for lawbreakings. These mechanisms contribute to the establishment of country responsibility for failing to help or manipulate lawbreakings of the right to life immured by non-state impersonators within their governance. Overall, the Public legal systems give mechanisms to hold non-state impersonators responsible for lawbreakings of the right to life,while international mechanisms similar to the ICC and "human rights" bodies play a pivotal part in addressing these lawbreakings when public systems are not sufficient enough. These mechanisms ensure that non-state impersonators are held responsible for their conduct and that countries fulfil their duty to cover the right to life.
2.6 Literature gap
Despite the considerable advancements in international human rights law, there is a significant literature gaps persist. In terms of understanding and delineating the responsibilities of non-state actors, it is also necessary to enhance the perspectives related to protection of human rights. While states are the primary subjects of international law, the rise of influential non-state entities like multinational corporations, armed groups, and international organizations necessitates a deeper exploration of their specific human rights obligations and accountability mechanisms. Furthermore, the evolving nature of human rights, spurred by technological advancements and global interconnectedness, introduces new challenges and areas of concern, such as digital privacy, that are not yet fully addressed in existing literature. There is also a pressing need for empirical studies focusing on the actual implementation and efficacy of human rights norms and strategies tailored to protect vulnerable populations affected by the actions of non-state actors.
2.7 Theoretical overview
The theoretical framework of international human rights law regarding non-state actors has been providing an adequate understanding of the universal and inalienable nature of human rights. Furthermore, it has also been including the perspectives of evolving recognition of the diverse entities that can impact these rights. Central to this framework is the principle of state responsibility states are obligated to protect, respect, and fulfill human rights. It has also been including taking appropriate measures against abuses by non-state actors. This has expanded to acknowledge the influential role of various non-state entities, such as corporations, armed groups, and international organizations, in both the protection and violation of human rights. The interdependency and indivisibility of rights highlight the complex and multifaceted impact of human rights violations, necessitating comprehensive and holistic protective measures. Ensuring accountability and access to remedies have also been providing importance to cornerstone of this framework. It has also been emphasizing the need for effective judicial and administrative mechanisms to address abuses. Additionally, the principle of international cooperation reflects the globalized nature of many non-state actors and underscores the importance of collaborative efforts to uphold human rights standards. As the international community continues to grapple with the challenges posed by non-state actors, the theoretical underpinnings of human rights law provide a flexible yet robust structure for navigating the protection of rights in an increasingly complex world.
2.8 Summary
The international legal framework for human rights is an essential structure aimed at protecting individuals from abuses. It has also been focusing on the role and responsibilities of non-state actors. It has also been including a variety of entities from businesses to armed groups, all capable of infringing upon human rights. Central to this framework are foundational documents like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and binding treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention against Torture (CAT) which collectively set out rights and impose duties to protect individuals.
References
Bellal A, ‘What Are “Armed Non-State Actors”? A Legal and Semantic Approach’ [2019] International Humanitarian Law and Non-State Actors 21
Berman A, ‘Between Participation and Capture in International Rule-Making: The WHO Framework of Engagement with Non-State Actors’ (2021) 32 European Journal of International Law 227
Broeders D and Berg B van den, Governing Cyberspace: Behavior, Power and Diplomacy (Rowman & Littlefield 2020) <https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Governing_Cyberspace/F2vsDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0> accessed 23 December 2023
Daniel W.S. Challender and MacMillan DC, ‘Investigating the Influence of Non-State Actors on Amendments to the CITES Appendices’ (2019) 22 Journal of international wildlife law & policy 90
Darwich M, ‘Foreign Policy Analysis and Armed Non-State Actors in World Politics: Lessons from the Middle East’ (2021) 17 Foreign Policy Analysis
Eric De Brabandere and Larissa, ‘Non-State Actors and Human Rights Obligations’ [2021] Brill | Nijhoff eBooks 37
Furlan M, ‘Understanding Governance by Insurgent Non-State Actors: A Multi-Dimensional Typology’ [2020] Civil Wars 1
Guggisberg S, ‘The Roles of Nongovernmental Actors in Improving Compliance with Fisheries Regulations’ (2019) 28 Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law 314
Ilya Nuzov, ‘Post-Conflict Justice: Extending International Criminal Responsibility to Non-State Entities’ [2019] T.M.C. Asser Press eBooks 229
Janis MW, ‘The Role of International Judgments in U.S. Law’ [2019] SSRN Electronic Journal
Lindsey I, Chapman T and Dudfield O, ‘Configuring Relationships between State and Non-State Actors: A New Conceptual Approach for Sport and Development’ [2019] International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 1
LÓPEZ LATORRE AF, ‘In Defence of Direct Obligations for Businesses under International Human Rights Law’ (2020) 5 Business and Human Rights Journal 56
Mackenzie-Gray Scott R, ‘State Responsibility for Complicity in the Internationally Wrongful Acts of Non-State Armed Groups’ [2019] Journal of Conflict and Security Law
Mark Weston Janis, ‘United States of America’ [2019] Springer eBooks 589
Mende J and Hoff A, ‘The Governance Authority of Non-State Actors in the Business and Human Rights Regime’ (2022) 21 Journal of Human Rights 593
Moynihan H, ‘The Vital Role of International Law in the Framework for Responsible State Behaviour in Cyberspace’ [2020] Journal of Cyber Policy 1
O’Connell ME, Tams CJ and Tladi D, Self-Defence against Non-State Actors (Cambridge University Press 2019) <https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Self_Defence_against_Non_State_Actors/rzCdDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0> accessed 23 December 2023
‘OUP Accepted Manuscript’ [2020] Human Rights Law Review
Puig D and Bakhtiari F, ‘Determinants of Successful Delivery by Non-State Actors: An Exploratory Study’ [2020] International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics
Scott KN and others, Changing Actors in International Law (BRILL 2020) <https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Changing_Actors_in_International_Law/bTsHEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0> accessed 23 December 2023
Stasko S, ‘The Expectation Game: The Alien Tort Statute, Corporate Liability, and the International Law Forum after Nestle’ (papers.ssrn.com20 May 2022) <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4115075> accessed 23 December 2023
Streck C, ‘Strengthening the Paris Agreement by Holding Non-State Actors Accountable: Establishing Normative Links between Transnational Partnerships and Treaty Implementation’ [2021] Transnational Environmental Law 1
Tzimas T, ‘Self-Defense by Non-State Actors in States of Fragmented Authority’ (2019) 24 Journal of Conflict and Security Law 175 <https://academic.oup.com/jcsl/article/24/2/175/5427132> accessed 23 December 2023
Bertram D, ‘Transnational Experts Wanted: Nigerian Oil Spills before the Dutch Courts’ [2021] Journal of Environmental Law
Davidson N and others, ‘From Political Repression to Torturer Impunity: The Narrowing of Filártiga v. Peña-Irala’ 255
