Non-state Actors, State-Centrism and Human Rights Obligations

Abstract

Despite its not being an entirely new debate in international law and international relations, the nexus between human rights and non-state actors has become a highly relevant topic of scholarly research, as witnessed by the three works under review, published in 2005 and 2006. When Andrew Clapham published in 1993 Human Rights in the Private Sphere, in which he already questioned the public/private divide of human rights law, the book was then categorized as both ‘adventuresome and timely’. Some fifteen years later, an analysis of this topic can no longer be called ‘adventuresome’, but the timeliness remains beyond doubt.

State Responsibility as a Panacea to International Terrorism

“…A new breed of terrorism has since developed beginning with the commencement of the cold War as states fought other states for ideological, political and religious reasons through small non-governmental organisations. Terrorists and terrorist groups continued to advance in tactics as religious 21 [40][41][42][43] fundamentalist groups used terrorism as a means of making their demands met. Terrorism has now developed in its evils and manifestations to involve a lot of acts 26 .…”

“…A genuine reason for the inclusion of threat of violence in the definition of terrorism is that terrorism involves the use of fear to intimidate irrespective of the way it is done. If a threat of violence spreads panic among a civilian population it ultimately qualifies as an act 32 42 Lutz noted that the violence or threat of violence involves state or non state actors as the perpetrator, victim or both. However, the state is ultimately affected by any terrorist attack.…”

“…(2) Action falls within this subsection if it-(a) involves serious violence against a person, (b) involves serious damage to property, 42 45 . This is similar to the definition provided by the FBI as terrorism was defined as 'the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives' 46 .…”

Urban Politics of Human Rights

“…Still, most research on human rights cities focuses more on the legal and sociological phenomenon and the normative legal implications of human rights cities , and much less on the politics of how they come about in diverse urban contexts across and beyond the 'Global South' and the 'Global North'. Third, this volume also engages with analytical and normative debates beyond urban studies scholarship. Scholarship on human rights, especially research conceptualising human rights (only) as law, and a branch of international law in particular, has been criticised for its state-centricity (Alston 2005, De Feyter 2005, De Brabandere 2009, Clapham 2013, Gal-Or et al 2015, Fraser 2019. While the engagement of human rights scholarship with an international legal background with cities has brought about attention towards local governments as a relevant actor in human rights (Accardo et al 2012, Starl 2016, Hoffman 2019, the scholarship still focuses its attention on state actors at the local level, mostly disregarding different non-state actors and dynamics within the city.…”