This introductory chapter illustrates why evidence in the individual communications procedure of the United Nations human rights treaty bodies (UNTB) is an issue requiring reflection and clarification. The chapter firstly contextualises this central topic of this book by broadly introducing the UNTBs’ mandates, composition and ways of working, as well as some general features of their individual communications procedures. Indications are given of how this legal, institutional and procedural setting interacts with the handling of evidence by the UNTBs, as well as some of the key questions it raises. The chapter further outlines some of the particular research challenges encountered in tackling the questions at the heart of this book, and how they have been addressed. It then goes on to introduce the four-part structure of the book and its ten chapters, including the final chapter, containing recommendations. Finally, this introduction discusses cross-cutting themes which emerge from the contributions.

The concept of ‘stereotypes’ refers to generalisations that are made about the behaviour adopted and/or the characteristics possessed by the members of a particular group. Involving presumptions about human actions and attributes, a stereotype provides ready-made narratives as to how and why some events unfold as they do. Thus, stereotypes, especially when they operate ‘undetected’, hamper an objective analysis of the factual situation. In the courtroom, they tend to have a polluting effect on the assessment of evidence, leading to relevant pieces of evidence being ignored, irrelevant circumstances being given weight, and higher standards of proof being imposed than would have been the case in their absence. This chapter focuses on the approach of the CEDAW Committee in examining the impact of gender stereotypes on the evaluation of evidence performed by domestic courts. It provides an in-depth analysis of the views adopted by the Committee in selected individual communications.

Before accessing the UN treaty bodies’ individual communications procedure, a complainant must have exhausted domestic remedies. This admissibility rule exists for good reasons, but it has limits. In particular, exemptions must be recognised in respect to domestic remedies which lack effectiveness, including accessibility. Regrettably, UNTBs are currently reverting to a formalistic and mechanical application of this admissibility rule. What justice requires, however, is the opposite: an expansive consideration of the plethora of barriers that prevent access to domestic justice, as well as a reflection about how each barrier can realistically be evidenced by a complainant. This can be achieved, this chapter argues, through an individual-centred, contextual approach, which achieves the aim of preventing the state from escaping international scrutiny, while highlighting the crucial role domestic justice should play in remedying human rights wrongs.

Human rights violations often form part of a pattern or practice of violations, rather than being purely isolated incidents. This context is not consistently taken into account by UNTBs during individual case consideration, however. This chapter explores several ways in which awareness of human rights violations’ embeddedness in wider contexts of violations should inform UNTB practice. In particular, the chapter considers the impact, or potential impact, of patterns and practices of violations on the manner in which UNTBs receive information, and the sorts of sources they recognize in their decisions; on UNTBs approaches to the exhaustion of domestic remedies and the burden of proof; on case structuring; and on findings, recommendations and follow-up procedures. The chapter ends by observing that UNTBs are not only receivers but also key disseminators of information, and suggests ways in which their findings as to the patterns and practices of violations may be more effectively disseminated.

This chapter addresses evidence-related recommendations for the consideration of the UN treaty bodies. Written by three practitioners from the civil society sector, with direct experience of the individual communication procedure before the UNTBs, it also benefited from input from all the contributors to the volume, which it concludes. Part I offers normative reflections. It deals with legal questions, including: What should the applicable standard be when determining human rights claims? How should this standard vary according to the type of claim and the stage of the proceedings? In what circumstances and under which conditions should the burden of proof be shifted from the complainant to the respondent state? Part II deals with organisational, and thus more mundane issues, but it highlights how proper identification and communication of the applicable evidentiary concepts and norms are essential to a transparent, accessible and fair system, therefore necessitating proper resourcing.

The research for this chapter was undertaken on the lands of the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin Nations. As is customary in the country in which I live and work, or so-called ‘Australia’ (see Watego, 2021), I acknowledge them as the traditional owners of country, as well as elders past and present. I acknowledge that sovereignty over these lands was never ceded, and that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples remain strong in their enduring connections to land, sky, water and culture.

This is the first of six chapters on Arendt’s contributions to international legal theory. In The Origins of Totalitarianism, Arendt called for “a new law on earth,” but she never explains its contents; these six chapters do so. The present chapter begins with the issue of statelessness, one of her central preoccupations. Arendt believed that human rights law offers no real protection to the stateless, because they lack “the right to have rights,” by which she means the legal right of membership in a political community that protects their human dignity. The chapter analyzes “the right to have rights” and Arendt’s relational conception of human dignity. It then unpacks her views on state sovereignty, arguing that they resemble contemporary theories of sovereignty as responsibility. It explains what Arendt means by the “idea of humanity” reflected in international law, and why that idea requires courts to pass judgment on crimes against humanity.

The day after launching a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, in a public speech addressed to multiple audiences, Putin called for the ‘overthrow’ of the Ukrainian government, which he labelled a ‘gang of narcomany (‘drug addicts’) and neo-Nazis’ (Roth, 2022). We will return to the significance of this speech later; here we would add to the picture that after Russia’s initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014, in all territories under Russian occupation, opioid agonist therapy (OAT) programmes were immediately shut down, reflecting their status as being also banned in Russia.

Chapter 9 explains how duties of international cooperation apply to the international community’s collective responsibility to safeguard international peace, security, and human rights. With the establishment of the United Nations, the Grotian paradigm of states deciding when to use force for themselves shifted to a collective stewardship model whereby states must cooperate with one another to avoid armed conflict, punish atrocity crimes, and combat global poverty, including through collective consultation, negotiation, and peaceful dispute resolution.

This chapter introduces you to tort law. One aim is to equip you with an overview of fundamental torts that will form an integral first step in your learning journey of tort law. In this chapter, we explain important theoretical frameworks that underpin tort law, such as corrective justice, economic efficiency theory, distributive justice and feminist critiques. We also explore the important connection between torts and human rights, along with tort law and the Stolen Generations litigation. Next, the chapter addresses important practical considerations such as litigating a tort claim. Finally, it outlines some key reforms in tort law that impact the law as it operates in modern society, along with statutory schemes that can supplement fault-based tort claims.

This chapter examines the European Parliament’s (EP) so-far overlooked role in the development of European law. It argues that the EP and its legal committee contributed to the development of a constitutional practice within the European Community (EC). Despite its weak legislative authority, the EP played an important role in legitimising the constitutional interpretation of European law by positioning itself as Europe’s democratic voice, through rhetorical strategies, performing as a parliament and by providing a public forum, in close conjunction with the other EC/EU institutions. The EP contributed at key moments. In the 1960s, it supported the ECJ constitutional interpretation of European law. In subsequent decades, the EP’s Legal Committee acted as a “norm entrepreneur”, cooperating with the Commission’s Legal Service and advocating for a federalist vision of integration. The chapter concludes that, while the EP lacked legislative power, its discursive strategies helped construct and legitimise the constitutional practice.

The framework of human rights has permeated international discourse and has evolved into standards that are replicated at international, regional, and domestic levels. This chapter utilises the human rights framework to explore the value it may offer in addressing the issue of abuse between medical practitioners. Beginning with a brief description of the overarching instruments from which the modern understanding of human rights stem, the chapter progresses to look at the specific human rights instruments at an international, regional, and domestic level. This analysis concludes the human rights framework offers little to an individual in terms of timely redress, however, the value of this approach lies in collective advocacy. Utilising a common language, global criteria, and data, human rights act as a point of agitation which can assist in exposing archaic notions around appropriate workplace behaviours and transforming rights into enshrined legislative materials with the full protection of the law. The human rights framework should be pursued alongside a more responsive methodology, such as though legal options and mechanisms, until such a time as neither are required.