ABSTRACT

In order to better safeguard and promote human rights, certain countries’ laws have been significantly revised as a direct consequence of regional international human rights agreements. This chapter examines three important human rights documents: the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights from 1981, the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights from 1969, and the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms from 1950. To do this, it examines (a) the historical backdrop that led to the establishment of regional mechanisms for the enforcement of human rights, (b) the nature and extent of rights and guarantees, and (c) the safeguarding processes that are outlined in the relevant instruments. It examines the techniques of enforcement to see whether or not they are consistent with the sovereignty of the state and whether or not they are enhancing the promotion of fundamental human rights and freedoms over the course of time.

The African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights, the promotion and preservation of human rights, and regional human rights treaties are some of the terminology that will be utilised during the course of this article.

INTRODUCTION

Unique to regional government is its focus on a larger geographical area than a single country. As used in this context, the term “region” refers to a geographic area composed of two or more nations that are politically and economically intertwined and whose boundaries are established by the parties participating in establishing regional institutions. In fact, the concept of region was pushed to the sidelines of the academic debate on governance in the second half of the twentieth century as globalisation and global issues drove the search for answers and concepts, but it has been revitalised in the last twenty years as geography and territory become a reference for the debate on governance.[1]

State and non-state entities as well as several centres of power are all part of the process that is regional governance. The significance of the notion in the formation of institutions, rhetoric, and practise demonstrates its importance to the structuring of political reality. Regional cooperation on the international level has occurred in a variety of areas, including economic policy coordination, peace processes, peace operations, the fight against terrorism and transnational crime, the establishment of trust, weapons control, and disarmament. Intergovernmental regional organisations provide a focus for analysis because they are frequently the hub of regional interaction leading to the generation of rules, despite the fact that governance can be generated by a wide range of actors such as nongovernmental organisations (NGOs), transnational social movements, networks, coalitions, and epistemic communities. Several methods of regional governance including states, non-state entities, and intergovernmental organisations have emerged as a result of regionalization processes. Regional actors, guided by the principle of subsidiarity (i.e., working at the lowest level to achieve results), believe that certain issues are better handled on a regional rather than a global scale. This may be due to the region’s greater homogeneity, its greater awareness of collective problems, or even its stronger sense of regional identity. As a result, it could be simpler to rally support or settle on a shared agenda for particular problems.

Inequality in regional governance permeates the international system. There is a wide range of institutionalisation, public-private participation, focal areas, and organisational structures. Regional governance in the Asia-Pacific area is a relatively new phenomenon and is less institutionalised than in Europe, where institutions are extremely complex, well-funded, and resilient. Such an example is the Association of Southeast Asian States (ASEAN), which was founded in 1967 with a security purpose but has now shifted its focus to new forms of regional economic administration in Asia.[2]

In the context of the Cold War, the United States’ foreign policy was highly affected by regional organisations such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), both of which are instances of regional alliances. Other regional organisations include the European Union (EU) and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) (SEATO). When hostilities between the great powers subsided, several of them shifted their focus away from placing a high importance on strategic rivalry in distant regions. This change in the regional dynamics, which previously were exclusively driven by the global dynamics, prepared the way for interactions within the regional domain that are more resilient and self-sufficient. Additionally, the decolonization process, which began in the late 1940s and accelerated in the 1960s, laid the groundwork for regionalization by putting into motion one-of-a-kind dynamics in the diplomatic ties between newly independent states in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. This process began in the late 1940s and accelerated in the 1960s. It persisted after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the ensuing changes in the physical geography of Asia and Eastern Europe.

Examining the United Nations’ interaction with various regional organisations throughout the course of time enables one to have a more in-depth comprehension of the link that exists between regional and global governance. The United Nations Charter contains reference to regions in Chapter VIII, and ideas concerning cooperation between the United Nations and regional organisations have been a prominent aspect of post-Cold War discussions about how to modernise the United Nations system. The strategy for regional and international cooperation was the product of a summit meeting that was called for by the secretary-general of the United Nations and attended by the heads of state from regional organisations with a role in security operations. When we take a look at the past, we can see that the League of Nations Covenant and the United Nations Charter both make reference to regional understandings as a kind of homage to the Monroe Doctrine (Article 21 and Chapter VIII, respectively). In addition, the five regional economic and social commissions of the United Nations, the major objective of which is development, have typically utilised regions as a point of reference in their work.

It is also important to note that regional government systems have an impact beyond the geographic region that they are intended to represent. The customs and arguments of one sector might have an impact on those of neighbouring sectors or perhaps the whole system. The European Union and its precursor, the European Community, had a substantial influence on following attempts at economic unification. These efforts were significantly influenced by the EU and the EC. Organizations such as the NATO and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) have established themselves as authoritative sources of information about the promotion of democratic institutions and security, respectively. The expansion of the roles played by regional bodies in global operations such as those being carried out by the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in Afghanistan is an additional trend.[3]

The most blatant manifestation of the connection between global governance and regional governance, as well as the example effect, is the socialisation of regional institutions that has been occurring since the 1990s. The rhetoric and practise that has come to be accepted and legitimated regional organisations’ function in an increasingly uniform fashion. This social process allows regional institutions to be socialised, including states, UN system agencies, and regional organisations. It is enabled by power dynamics, the learning from both successes and failures, and the internalisation of norms and conceptions. The economic and political roles of multi-dimensional regional organisations are “therefore generally comparable.

Regional Organizations and Human Rights and Humanitarian Action

Lack of protection for people and communities from humanitarian abuse, as well as the failure to ensure democracy and human rights, were seen by the UN Security Council as threats to peace and security after the end of the Cold War. There is an obvious uptick in efforts by liberal governments and international organisations to spread democracy. The tone for the new age was established by the publications issued by Secretary General Boutros-G halia at the beginning of the new period, and the discourse connecting democracy, sovereignty, peace, and development was expressed in those writings. The democratic peace hypothesis has generated a wealth of written material, and the idea that a democratic system would inevitably lead to a more stable and wealthy global order has moved to the forefront of diplomatic, foreign policy, and agenda-setting discussions throughout the world. One of the foundations of this process was the presence of a robust and institutionalised human rights system.

As a result, democratic institutions and the protection of human rights have emerged as new benchmarks by which governments are measured. The UN’s political justification has mostly centred on promoting democratic good governance.This pattern was set in large part by regional organisations like the OAS and OSCE. This was pioneered by the European Union’s approach of absorbing the member states of eastern Europe. Establishing one’s democratic credentials became a prerequisite for membership in a number of groups.

Regional organisations have been working towards a shared agenda and institutional architecture for the development of democratic governance since the 1990s, when it first emerged as a key connection between domestic and international government. They have developed normative tools, laid down procedures for public input into their operations and policymaking, designed support initiatives, and set a precedent for the evolution of representative government. The agenda for democratic governance is connected to the agendas for human rights and humanitarian crisis management. Similarly, regional groups have developed machinery to address this problem. The spectrum of these kinds of measures in many regional bodies is shown in the table below.[4]

From the prohibition of the death penalty (Article 2), eugenic practises (Article 3), torture (Article 4), and compulsory labour (Article 5), to freedom of the arts and sciences (Article 13), the right to education (Article 15), and the right to access preventive healthcare (Article 16), the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights is widely considered to be the most comprehensive document regarding individual and collective human rights adopted by a regional organisation (Article 35).

In 1961, the Council of Europe enacted the European Social Charter, which aimed to ensure people’s right to economic and social security. In 1996, the European Social Charter was revised and ratified by 47 nations, including Turkey and Russia, expanding its reach beyond the European Union’s member states. The European Social Charter is the Union’s equivalent to a Bill of Rights, including protections against torture, terrorism, and the trafficking of people in addition to the traditional social rights of housing, healthcare, and education. Although the ECHR and the Charter of Fundamental Rights are legally obligatory on all member states and their residents, the Council of Europe’s Social Charter does not have the same weight. According to Section 2 of the Social Charter, the document serves more as a statement of intent than as a legally enforceable commitment.In order to address issues of human rights, humanitarian relief, and humanitarian law, the various EU entities, such as the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the European Union Council, have created their own unique set of procedures, documents, and/or institutions. It’s worth noting that some of these organisations only handle European Union-related issues, while others focus on non-EU countries.[5]”

The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, for instance, is housed under “the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice, and Home Affairs. Assisting with the implementation of community legislation or other activities, it offers advice and experience on human rights. Since the information it generates is utilised not just by the EU but also by other players participating in human rights initiatives, the agency is seen as an essential policy maker in concerns of human rights. To better defend basic rights on a local, regional, national, and global scale, the agency has created a set of tools to assist public officials and practitioners in coordinating such initiatives at all levels of government. As a result, the human rights sector as a whole benefits from the information generated and acquired by regional organisations.

The European Parliament has also been instrumental in establishing a Human Rights Subcommittee. This group holds hearings and holds debates on human rights problems such the death sentence, torture, and the struggle against impunity, and then writes reports and passes resolutions on those topics. Its annual Human Rights Report details the state of human rights across the globe and is used by governments and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to inform policy and inform action in places identified as vulnerable or problematic.

The European Commission’s European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights to promote democracy and human rights in non-EU Countries is a remarkable example of this dynamic of knowledge and practises being developed by one regional body and utilised by other players (other regional organisations, NGOs, etc.). The EU Election Observation Missions are supported by the Commission, and the Commission provides funding to finance initiatives proposed by civil society and/or international/intergovernmental organisations. Among the projects funded are those promoting transparency for human rights in Bangladesh; reviving peace processes in the South Caucasus through mediation and dialogue; bolstering civil society in states emerging from conflict; pursuing and sharing the truth in the Western Balkans; and resolving conflicts in Kashmir through dialogue.[6]”

The European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO), established in 1992 and formerly known as the Humanitarian Assistance Office, works to aid nations in the midst of humanitarian crises such as natural disasters and national wars. Now days, this group doesn’t only deal with crises as they happen; they also train for the next one. As a result, ECHO’s efforts have centred on the theme of resilience. This is a significant departure from the liberal internationalist paradigm prevalent in the 1990s, when the agency reacted after the fact to protect victims of violence. According to Chandler’s description, “the resilience paradigm clearly places the agency of the most in need of support at the centre, promoting a programme of empowerment and capacity-building.” This puts more of a focus on preventing problems from occurring, strengthening weaker groups, and assisting survivors. Thus, resilience is defined here as the ability to favourably or effectively adjust to external issues and dangers”.

As a result, the resilience paradigm is at the heart of many regional institutions, such as “ECHO, that creates programmes and initiatives to attempt to avoid humanitarian situations by meeting the needs of populations identified as vulnerable, particularly in non-EU countries. Through the South American Disaster Preparedness Program, ECHO assists vulnerable communities in nine South American countries (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, and Venezuela) in preparing for potential natural disasters (such as earthquakes, floods, and mudslides). The Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), United Nations (UN), and International Red Cross (ICRC) are all partners of ECHO’s on the ground. The Monitoring and Information Centre (MIC) is another ECHO-created body that works together to safeguard people during times of crisis. It is made up of 32 countries (all 27 EU Member States plus Croatia, Macedonia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway). There are a number of nations that receive food and nutrition aid, including Sudan and South Sudan, Somalia, Pakistan, Kenya, Ethiopia, and the Palestinian Territories.[7]

When it comes to multi-dimensional peace operations like those in Bosnia, Palestine, Georgia, Afghanistan, Congo, Uganda, and Kosovo, European Union agencies act not only in accordance with the resilience paradigm but also with the liberal internationalist one, following the distinction proposed by Chandler.

Since 2012, the organisation has also had a Special Representative for Human Rights, demonstrating the importance of the field under consideration here to the regional body as a whole. Stavros Lambrinidis is the first person to fill this function, and his job is to increase the EU’s human rights policy’s impact and profile. His role is wide and fluid, and he collaborates closely with the European External Action Service.

But, the EU is hardly the only regional institution in Europe working to improve conditions for those living in poverty and protect human rights. Several of these norms have really been pioneered by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). More specifically, the minority promises in the Copenhagen Agreement are still seen as more progressive than minority provisions made by the United Nations and the Council of Europe. The basic right of people to choose whether or not to identify as members of a minority is protected by the Copenhagen Document, along with precise requirements on the use of the mother language, educational services, freedom of association among them and across borders, and so on. To monitor and put pressure on other member states that violate human and minority rights, the OSCE has established an institutional structure. In keeping with this concept, the Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), which was initially set up to keep tabs on elections, has been given the green light to offer data on human rights implementation concerns as part of the yearly assessment of human dimension pledges.It also aids the member states in safeguarding the rights of victims of trafficking and other marginalised communities. The Office for the Development of International Human Rights (ODIHR) is also responsible for keeping tabs on how its member countries use the death penalty. This is done in an effort to increase openness surrounding the use of capital punishment in countries that have not yet abolished it.

The Western Hemisphere was a forerunner in the area of human rights protection, but now the European continent has the most comprehensive institutional environment focused towards the protection of human rights and towards humanitarian concerns. Even before the United Nations General Assembly ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in May 1948 and again in December 1948, the American Declaration of Rights and Responsibilities of Man (also from 1948) established the inter-American human rights system. Moreover, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) was established in 1959. States, individuals, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) harmed by a violation may file petitions with the Commission. The United States approved its Convention on Human Rights in 1969, and it has been in effect since 1978. After a year of operation, 22 nations of the Organization of American States (OAS) had acknowledged the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ authority, which had been founded in San Jose, Costa Rica. The court has produced judgements that establish norms for things like kidnapping, unlawful imprisonment, torture, and extrajudicial killings; the obligation of nations to defend their people’ human rights; and the need of prosecuting those accountable for human rights breaches. In order to keep tabs on progress, 16 countries have signed the Protocol of San Salvador from 1999, which includes a system of national reporting.”

In addition to establishing norms and jurisprudence addressing the connection between “human rights, democracy, and the freedom of speech, the IACHR and the Court have played an important role in the development of the Inter-American Democratic Paradigm. The Court established a special rapporteur for freedom of speech in 1997, leading to the collection of useful data on this facet of the democratic agenda.

The Inter-American Democratic Charter, which institutionalised the democratic paradigm, was ratified in 2001, and since then the OAS has been actively engaged in the process of stabilising representative democracies. Under the Charter, the inter-American human rights regime is explicitly linked to the elimination of poverty, the advancement of development, the elimination of prejudice, and the maintenance of a system of representative democracy.

The group has played a pivotal role in fostering the development of a regional standard for the preservation of democratic regimes and institutions. Also, it has been involved in crisis management and institution development. Throughout the 1990s, the international environment in the area was defined by the OAS’s increased emphasis on defending democracies. Democracy is included in the OAS’s founding statement and has played a role in inter-American relations for the last sixty years. Yet, the need of representative democracy as a prerequisite for membership in the inter-American system did not emerge until the 1990s. Domestic support for democracy became inextricably bound up with regional support for democracy as a norm. Assistance for and legitimization of elections, discussions, educational activities, information distribution on democratic government, and collective involvement in times of crises are all part of a range of practises that have evolved.[8]

The Organization of American States (OAS) also promotes humanitarian initiatives, the most notable of which being the demining of Latin American nations that have undergone civil strife in the previous several decades, including Central American states and Colombia. Since 1991, Central America has been participating in this initiative. The Organization of American States (OAS) began supporting Colombia’s humanitarian mining measures in 2003. As a result, the programme comprises educating residents of landmine-affected regions on how to reduce their risk, rehabilitating, training, and reintegrating landmine survivors into society, and educating government deminers and supervisors on how to do the same. In accordance with the multidimensional concept of security published in 2003, the OAS also addresses natural catastrophes as security challenges. The Inter-American Commission for Disaster Reduction was therefore founded by the OAS General Assembly in 1999. (IACNDR). The main purpose of IACNDR, which involves eight different OAS bodies’, “is to act as the principal forum of the Inter-American System for analysing issues related to natural and other disasters, including the prevention and mitigation of their effects, in coordination with the governments of member states; competent national, regional, and international organisations; and non-governmental organisations.”

The Inter-American Strategic Plan for Policy on Vulnerability Reduction, Risk Management, and Disaster Response (IASP), which targets six vulnerable areas (agriculture, food security and nutrition; critical facilities; education; health; national disaster management systems; public awareness and information management), is also under the purview of the IACNDR.

To better provide financial protection against catastrophic loss, enhance disaster planning and response, and strengthen economic and social infrastructure for sustainable growth and hemispheric security are some of IASP’s primary objectives. The Organization of American States (OAS) wants to see its “member nations become more robust to the effects of natural hazard occurrences and less reliant on the international community for emergency assistance when such catastrophes do hit” by using such a mechanism. There is a renewed emphasis on the resilience strategy in the policy texts of regional organisations, with the overarching goal of reducing vulnerability and keeping risks under check.[9]

The adoption, development, or transformation of standards, regulations, procedures, and decision-making concerning human rights and humanitarian help also found a home on the African continent. Concerns were voiced, prior to the 2001 reorganisation of the Organization of African Unity into the African Union and the adoption of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), as to whether or not these changes will have any effect on human rights on the African continent. Moreover, the OAU has previously shown considerable interest in Human Rights matters. The right to self-determination, the end of colonialism, and the prosperity of the African people were all mentioned in the charter, which also reiterated the ideals of the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. On top of that, the racist governments in Rhodesia and South Africa were a major source of worry for the OAU, as did the continued colonialism in the former Portuguese possessions of Mozambique and Angola. This early interest in human rights was given a boost in 1986, when Banjul’s independent Commission for the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) went into effect. This organisation was recognised as Africa’s primary human rights watchdog. The African Union’s African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights has grown in stature and credibility as a human rights watchdog over the years.

With the creation of AU, the OAU’s absolute commitment to “non-interference in the internal affairs of States” was significantly modified by explicit promises to “promote and protect human and peoples’ rights in accordance with the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and other relevant human rights instruments”. Respect for democratic principles, human rights, the rule of law, and good governance are some of the founding values of the African Union, as are “condemnation and rejection of unconstitutional transitions of governments” and “the right of the Union to intervene in a Member State according to a resolution of the Assembly of Heads of State and Government under grave circumstances, notably war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity.”[10]

This notion may be strengthened by the presence of the African Court on Human and People’s Right. Since its inception in 2006, the Court has had the authority to hear and decide on all cases and disputes involving the interpretation and application of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the Protocol that established the Court (Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights). Article 5 of the Protocol states that the Court may accept complaints and/or petitions from the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, from States signatories to the Protocol, or from African Intergovernmental Organizations. Individuals from States that have made a Declaration acknowledging the Court’s jurisdiction and non-governmental organisations holding observer status before the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights are also eligible to bring matters directly before the Court.”

Although having several problems and limitations in the field of human rights, the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) is the most significant treaty or agreement signed by the African Union (AU). NEPAD is comprised of three primary components: the Peace and Security Initiative (which covers topics such as development and security, early warning and prevention, management, and settlement of conflicts), the Economic and Corporate Governance Initiative, and the Democracy and Political Governance Initiative. NEPAD is an acronym that stands for the New Partnership for Africa’s Development. The latter is what counts the most from a point of view related to human rights. Its goal is to make certain that all decisions made by the African Union (AU) in favour of democracy, good governance, peace, and security are rigorously adhered to, particularly the AU’s position on illegitimate changes of government. Moreover, it aspires to establish and strengthen trustworthy election administrations and oversight organisations in all of the nations that are participating. Protecting and advancing the rights of women, children, and other marginalised peoples, including the homeless and the stateless, is one of its primary goals. Other primary goals include reducing and preventing intrastate and international conflicts, promoting constitutional democracy and its values, such as free and fair elections, and reducing and preventing intrastate and international conflicts.

It is NEPAD’s proclamation that the struggle against poverty in Africa involves not only smart economic policies but also respect to principles of good governance and human rights that constitute NEPAD’s most important contribution to the diffusion of fresh techniques. NEPAD, on the other hand, does not integrate this knowledge into its development plan nor does it suggest the modifications that would be required to arrive to the desired destination. The Organization of African Unity’s (OAU) Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management, and Resolution in 1999 was superseded by the African Union’s (AU) Peace and Security Council (PSC), which was established in 2003 in Addis Ababa after a summit of AU heads of state. The Permanent Security Council (PSC) recognises that democratic institutions and the respect for human rights are essential assets towards the goal of promoting stability, security, and peace throughout the continent.

One of its declared purposes is the promotion of peace, security, and stability in Africa in order to secure the protection and preservation of life, as well as the anticipation and avoidance of conflicts. In the event that hostilities commence, it will be the responsibility of the Peace and Security Council to intervene and assist in the restoration of confidence between the contending parties. As part of its efforts to prevent conflicts, it also works to “promote and encourage democratic practises, good governance, and the rule of law, protect human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for the sanctity of human life, and international humanitarian law.”

The PSC goes farther than the OAU’s previous Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management, and Resolution by recognising the Union’s power to interfere “in respect of severe circumstances, notably war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity,” as well as “the right of Member States to seek intervention from the Union in order to restore peace and security.”

The fact that African leaders have made a commitment, at the very least in principle, to advance democratic development and protect human rights throughout the continent is one of the most noteworthy characteristics of the Union of African States (UA) and the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). At the very least in principle, the treaties, bodies, and documents of the UA cast doubt on the ideas of sovereignty and non-intervention that were considered to be sacred during the years that the OAU was in existence; these values were advocated primarily by Muammar Kadafi. In addition, since 2003, the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) has welcomed membership from a total of 33 African states. This is a crucial mechanism that assures governments are following to a range of human rights agreements, both local and international. These accords can be found in both the United States and internationally. While Western countries such as Canada and the United Kingdom offer major financing and support for the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), it is not always enthusiastically received by African governments. This is especially true when the peer review system involves matters pertaining to human rights.

CONCLUSIONS

By describing their work, regional organisations in the human rights and humanitarian sphere lend credence to the idea that they have a common governing machinery and a common language.

The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms was approved by the Council of Europe in 1953; it is only one example of the work done by regional organisations during the 1950s to advance human rights. As was previously said, the OAS and the OSCE also had a significant part in developing this tendency.

Humanitarian assistance and the establishment of organisations and systems to react to natural and manmade disasters are relatively new developments. In 1992, the European Community and European Union established the European Commission for Humanitarian Aid (ECHO) as the first regional organisation to establish a dedicated entity for humanitarian assistance. Although NATO adopted this language in the late 1990s, ECOWAS and the Organization of American States (OAS) didn’t start using it until the early 2000s. More individuals have been impacted by natural catastrophes like the 2004 tsunami and the Katrina tragedy, and the debate on climate change has gained traction in the last decade, all of which have contributed to this trend’s rapid growth.

Currently, 11 regional organisations have included human rights language in their “official documents. These include the African Union, the Arab League, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the East African Community, the Council of Europe, the European Union, the Organization of American States, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation. Human rights monitoring methods have been developed by the European Union, the Organization of American States, the Organization of the Francophonie, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and Mercosul. Human rights tribunals may be found within the structures of the African Union (African Court on Human and Peoples Rights), the Council of Europe (European Court of Human Rights), the European Union (EU), and the Organization of American States (OAS). Another organisation with plans to establish a court is the Arab League (Pan-Arab Court of Human Rights). While the political and social realities on the ground are affected differently by each of these groups, the laws on regional government mentioned here are beautifully expressed here. When it comes to responding to emergencies and disasters, we have seen that organisations like the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, ASEAN, CIS, ECOWAS, EU, NATO, OAS, OSCE, and SADC have all emerged to fill this role. Regional organisations’ perspectives on regional governance now include the obvious recognition of the necessity to coordinate actions in this sector and complement the work done by governments. And most regional organisations have integrated resilience thinking into their language and practices.”

BIBLIOGRAPHY

  • William Abresch. A Human Rights Law of Internal Armed Conflict: The European Court of Human Rights in Chechnya. European Journal of International Law, Vol 16, Issue 4, 2005. P. 742-743.
  • Yasumasa Komori, “Regional Governance in East Asia and the Asia Pacific,” East Asia, 26 (2009): 321 -341.
  • Heribert Dieter, “Changing patterns of regional governance: from security to political economy?”The Pacific Review 22 no. 1 (2009): 73–90.
  • Peter Katzenstein,A World of Regions: Asia and Europe in the American Imperium (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 2005).
  • Barry Buzan& Ole Waever,Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 10.
  • Michael Pugh & Waheguru Pal Singh Sidhu, The United Nation and Regional Security Europe and Beyond (Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner, 2003).
  • Ramesh Thakur &Luk Van Langenhove, “Enhancing Global Governance Through Regional Integration” in Regionalisation and Global Governance, Andrew Cooper, Christopher W. Hughes &Philipe de Lombaerde (London: Routledge, 2008).
  • Yves Berthelot, ed.,Unity and Diversity in Developmental Ideas: Perspectives from the UN Regional Commission (Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2004).
  • Burnell, Democracy Assistance: International Co-operation for Democratization (London: Routledge, 2000). On the UN see T. Weiss, D. Forsythe and R. Coate,The United Nations and Changing World Politics (Boulder Co: Westview Press, 1994).
  • B. Gali, Report An Agenda for Peace Preventive Diplomacy: Peacemaking and Peace-keeping (A/47/277 – S/24111), 17 June 1992 (New York: United Nations 1992); and B. B. Gali,An Agenda for Democratization (A/51/761), 20 December 1996 (New York: United Nations, 1996).
  • Doyle, Making War and Building Peace (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006) and P. K. Huth and T. L. Alle, the Democratic peace and Territorial Conflict in Twentieth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University press, 2002).
  • Risse, S. Ropp, and K. Sikking, the Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999); and J. Donnelly, Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice (New York: Cornell University Press, 2003).
  • Zanotti, “Governmentalizing the Post-Cold War International Regime: the UN Debate on Democratization and Good Governance” in Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, Vol. 30, No. 4, October 2005: 461-489; B.B. Gali, An Agenda for Democratization, 1996; and P. Burnell, Democracy Assistance: International Co-operation for Democratization, 2000.

[1] Yasumasa Komori, “Regional Governance in East Asia and the Asia Pacific,” East Asia, no. 26 (2009): 321 -341.

[2]Heribert Dieter, “Changing patterns of regional governance: from security to political economy?”The Pacific Review 22 no. 1 (2009): 73–90.

[3]“Peter Katzenstein,A World of Regions: Asia and Europe in the American Imperium (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 2005).”

[4]Barry Buzan & Ole Waever,Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 10

[5]“Michael Pugh & Waheguru Pal Singh Sidhu, The United Nation and Regional Security Europe and Beyond (Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner, 2003).”

[6]Yves Berthelot, ed.,Unity and Diversity in Developmental Ideas: Perspectives from the UN Regional Commission (Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2004).

[7] Fawcett, “Regionalism from an Historical Perspective”, 25.

[8]“B. B. Gali, Report An Agenda for Peace Preventive Diplomacy: Peacemaking and Peace-keeping (A/47/277 – S/24111), 17 June 1992 (New York: United Nations 1992); and B. B. Gali,An Agenda for Democratization (A/51/761), 20 December 1996 (New York: United Nations, 1996).”

[9]“T. Risse, S. Ropp, and K. Sikking, The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999); and J. Donnelly, Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice (New York: Cornell University Press, 2003).”

[10] L. Zanotti, “Governmentalizing the Post-Cold War International Regime: the UN Debate on Democratization and Good Governance” in Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, Vol. 30, No. 4, October 2005: 461-489; B.B. Gali, An Agenda for Democratization, 1996; and P. Burnell, Democracy Assistance: International Co-operation for Democratization, 2000.