The role of comparative analysis in evaluating state compliance with international human rights law: between legal theory and political reality

Written by Leah Rea and edited by Alessia Calarese

In undertaking the assessment of human rights standards, the adoption of critical analysis is essential to understand the status of the accessibility and enjoyment of human rights. This approach can be utilised in a comparative context, whereby the compliance of states with their obligations under international human rights law may be evaluated through the assessment of the realisation of international human rights norms within state jurisdictions. While states may present positive reports of human rights standards within their submissions to international monitoring structures, such as the UN Treaty monitoring system, these reports may not provide an accurate reflection of the reality of the recognition and advancement of human rights (Oette, 2018). To fully understand – and critically engage with – state reports, and to realise the potential for human rights progression within the monitoring process (De Burca, 2017), the comparison of the aspirational standards outlined in international law and the state’s corresponding record of (non)compliance should be examined.

The adoption of a comparative approach in legal scholarship has enjoyed a ”second wave” following a canopy of criticism during the 1990s which decried an apparent lack of theoretical direction (Ewald, 1995). This ‘fresh start’ (Foster, 2006) was heralded as a means of improving academic knowledge and understanding of law in an increasingly globalised world through an international perspective (Twinning, 2000). As outlined by Freeman (2002), the rise of globalisation has occurred alongside the ‘New Age’ of human rights progression post-WWII, driven by the UN’s human rights ‘regime’ that affirmshuman rights protection through a network of international treaties. Arguably, this network of international human rights standards provides ample opportunity for comparative analysis, and thus an increased understanding of different standards between jurisdictions, particularly when evaluating state compliance with international obligations.

This article shall contribute to the discussion on the use of a comparative approach by positing two key arguments for its adoption in the context of human rights analysis, namely: i) to monitor the progression and/or hindrance of human rights standards in states; and ii) to observe the compliance of states with the recommendations provided by international treaty monitoring bodies. These arguments shall be assessed by considering two case studies: firstly, examining the developments in abortion law in Northern Ireland (“NI”) and the previous discrepancies in accessing abortion healthcare compared to the frameworks in Britain; and secondly, reviewing the relationship between international Treaty monitoring bodies and the laws governing the practice of corporal punishment in the UK and the Republic of Ireland (“ROI”) respectively. The article will conclude by affirming the usefulness of a comparative approach in the context of human rights, particularlyvhow it enables: an understanding of states’ compliance with international human rights standards; the provision of practical insights into the attitudes a state may display in respecting its international obligations and implementing recommendations issued by international treaty monitoring bodies; and how state governments interpret their responsibilities.

Methodological overview

This article examines the effectiveness of using a critical comparative analysis in the context of human rights as a monitoring and observatory mechanism. It further outlines the implications arising from gaining an understanding of how state governments may hold different interpretations of human rights standards, including when compared to the positions of monitoring Committees within the UN Treaty system. In so doing, this article aims to highlight the relationship between the state’s own interpretation of its status of compliance with international human rights law, vis-á-vis the presence of progression – or indeed, non-progression – of the access and enjoyment of human rights within its jurisdiction.

International human rights standards were the focus of research due to the network of UN Committees active in reviewing states’ compliance with international Treaties, which is not available at the European level. The selection of the case study of the abortion laws operating within the UK, focusing on the devolved context, enabled the use of political and legal methodologies to assess the UK Government’s performance regarding its compliance with its international human rights obligations. This is relevant given the centralised governance structure of the UK, and the operation of devolved jurisdictions across the UK, which provides scope for the advancement of human rights within specific jurisdictions – or equally, the marked disparity of protection and promotion of human rights. Moreover, as noted by Fredman (2019) comparative approaches in the context of human rights are traditionally confined to examinations between jurisdictions, not within. Examination of the case study of the laws governing corporal punishment in the UK and the ROI derives from the opportunity to adopt historical and political methodologies in assessing how different interpretative approaches are taken by state governments when seeking to implement international human rights standards into domestic law, including in the categorisation of human rights and the influence of specific Treaties. Finally, this examination and critical evaluation could facilitate future research of the effectiveness of the UN Treaty monitoring system in ensuring human rights recognition and protection among state signatories. This is especially relevant in the context of understanding the differing interpretations of obligations and compliance with same across states, and how this influences their engagement with recommendations provided by the monitoring Committees within the UN Treaty system.

In undertaking this assessment of the use of a critical comparative analysis, this article adopts the conceptual definition of a comparative approach as a means of enhancing not only the knowledge of differing legal frameworks and their contextualisation in light of international legal obligations, but also enhancing critical understanding. Eberle defines a comparative approach in law as “the act of comparing law” between countries, comparing “a foreign law” to its equivalent in one’s “home” law (2009, p. 452). This is conducted in order to better understand foreign law, and consequently, one’s home law and legal culture. Therefore, a comparative approach in the context of human rights is the mechanism by which human rights standards, and the extent by which they are afforded legal recognition and protection, may be compared across states to better understand the situations at home and abroad. Moreover, the use of such an approach has the potential to invoke practical redress. It has been argued a comparative approach may play an important role in resolving public policy issues (Eberle, 2009, p. 454). Additionally, given the identified relationship between globalisation and human rights (Tay, 2000), and the network of international human rights standards, a comparative approach in this context may provide resolution to human rights violations and/or assist in ensuring the progression of human rights, as shall be discussed.  

1. Reproductive healthcare: comparing the laws within the UK

A comparative approach within the context of human rights may be utilised in a monitoring capacity: to monitor the progression and/or hindrance of human rights standards within states in accordance with the obligations outlined within international treaties to which they are signatories. This can yield insight into the development of human rights standards within a domestic framework in the states, particularly pertinent in the instance of a devolved governance framework, as is evident in the UK. Comparative analysis of human rights standards tends to examine between jurisdictions, with the result that federal or devolved governance frameworks within states may be overlooked with the presumption that a federal or central law is the sole existent legal framework (Simpson, 1998), or overlooking laws which predate human rights standards (McNeilly et al., 2018). How a comparative approach can be used to undertake a monitoring analysis shall be demonstrated within the first case study: examining the laws governing abortion within the UK and their compliance with international human rights standards.  

Domestic framework

Following significant legal reform introduced on 31 March 2020, abortion is legally accessible throughout the UK. Prior to this, the recognition of healthcare rights by the access of abortion services was confined to Britain only. The Abortion Act 1967, at section 1(1) legalised accessing termination in Britain up to 24 weeks’ gestation; the law however did not extend to NI, and resulted in an obvious disparity in healthcare rights recognition and protection between Britain and NI, particularly as abortion was previously treated as a criminal justice matter, not a healthcare matter. Prior to the implementation of the new law in 2020, abortion in NI was previously governed per sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 which stipulated abortion was only legal to protect the mother’s life, or cases where her mental and/or physical health was seriously at risk. As such, abortion services could not be accessed outside of these grounds: abortions were not performed in cases of fatal foetal abnormality (FFA), rape, and incest. The 1861 Act provided maximum sentences of life imprisonment for offences committed. The restrictive reality of the former law forced women to travel: the BBC News (2019) reported that in 2018 alone, 1,053 women travelled to England and Wales, as only eight legal abortions were provided in NI (Department of Health, 2020). Moreover, women historically had faced the additional barrier of having to travel at their own expense: it was not until 2017 that the UK Government confirmed NI women could access abortion services through the NHS in Britain (The Guardian, 2017). Enforcement of the former law produced high-profile prosecution cases, including a woman given a suspended prison sentence in April 2016. The woman had been unable to afford to travel to England, self-induced her abortion, and her flatmates subsequently contacted the police. The disparity of reproductive rights recognition and protection across the UK was the proverbial golden thread in her case: her defence counsel believed she “would not have found herself before the courts” had she lived elsewhere in the UK, as otherwise she could have been able to legally access abortion services (BBC News, 2016).

In December 2014, the NI Human Rights Commission commenced judicial review proceedings against the Department of Justice in NI under the Human Rights Act 1998 on the basis that the existing law violated Articles 3, 8 and 14 ECHR of women and girls by criminalising abortion access for FFA, rape and incest. The UK Supreme Court delivered judgment in 2018 and, despite holding that the NI Human Rights Commission did not have the required standing as a direct victim of the law to take the case, a majority of the Court determined the former lawwas incompatible with Article 8 ECHR in respect of not providing access to women and girls in cases of FFA, rape and incest. This judgment prompted fresh discussion at the UK Parliament regarding human rights violations in NI, the differing legal landscape governing abortion access across the UK, and the prospect of direct legislative intervention from the UK Parliament to rectify the NI legal framework to ensure rights-compliance. It was a discussion that was not accepted by the UK Government, which asserted any legislative reform should be introduced by the – then not sitting – NI Assembly. Following the legal and political outcome, Sarah Ewart, a direct victim of the law who had previously spoken publicly about her experiences of seeking an abortion outside of NI, sought to directly challenge the law on the grounds that her Article 8 ECHR right to a private and family life had been violated by her experience (BBC News, 2019). In 2019, Keegan J delivered the High Court’s response to Ewart’s legal challenge, and held the former law was incompatible with human rights (see In the Matter of An Application by Sarah Jane Ewart for Judicial Review [2019] NIQB 88).

International standards

In considering the practical reality of the operation of the former law in NI as regards reproductive healthcare rights, it is important to compare the (non)compliance of the UK Government as the state signatory to international human rights Treaties (and thus responsible for the realisation of Treaty standards across the UK), with the findings of UN Treaty monitoring bodies.

UN Committees, including the UN Committee for the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (“UN ICSECR Committee”; 14 July 2016), frequently subjected the former NI law to scrutiny and criticism, positing its operation breached the human rights of women and girls in NI. Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (“UN CEDAW”) is the international standard tackled by the former law and indeed most relevant for the discussion. Article 12 requires state parties to undertake measures to eliminate discrimination against women in healthcare services and access to same, particularly in relation to family planning. Due to the restrictive nature of the former law, which criminalised the medical procedure, access to abortion services was greatly curtailed, and did not permit exceptions on the grounds of rape, incest, or FFA. As such, the operation of the former law violated Art 12 CEDAW – an opinion also articulated by the UN CEDAW Committee.

In March 2018, the UN CEDAW Committee determined women and girls in NI were subjected to ;grave and systemic violations of rights; due to being forced to either travel for an abortion, or carry the pregnancy to term (2018). The inquiry commenced following allegations that the UK, as a state signatory, committed violations of rights arising from the restrictive access to abortion under the existing law. In its report, the Committee delivered a scathing assessment, finding the then law:

The Committee concluded the UK was in violation of Article 12, with the UK Government demonstrating a ‘deliberate intention’ to not undertake legislative reform to rectify the issue, including by not legislating to decriminalise abortion or to widen access for legal abortion (2018, para 82). It recommended that the UK Government ‘urgently’ repeal sections 58 and 59 of the 1861 Act and introduce legislation to provide for legal abortion on the grounds of FFA, rape, and incest in NI (2018, para 85).

However, the UK Government subsequently rejected the determination, implicitly dismissing its obligations as a state signatory to CEDAW. It argued abortion was subject to devolution, and therefore a matter for the NI Assembly. Furthermore, it contended that the Committee’s findings could not be addressed given the ongoing absence of the NI Assembly.

Developments

Arguably, the UK as a state failed to uphold international rights standards on reproductive healthcare by neglecting to reform the former law (Bloomer and Fegan, 2014). This failure was particularly acute during the period of political vacuum following the collapse of devolved governance in NI (2017-2020). Opposition MPs in the UK House of Commons submitted that, in order to meet its international human rights standards, the UK Government needed to intervene and legislate for reform. Despite repeated refusals from the UK Government to intervene and legislate to ensure human rights-compliant abortion law, legal reform was eventually introduced following an amendment moved by Labour politician Stella Creasy MP to the then NI (Executive Formation) Bill in July 2019. The amendment sought to create a legal duty, binding upon the Secretary of State for NI serving in the UK Government, to ensure compliance with the recommendations of the UN CEDAW Committee. Section 9(4) of the resulting NI (Executive Formation) Act 2019 required the Secretary of State for NI to introduce regulations implementing UN CEDAW recommendations and repealing sections 58 and 59 of the 1861 Act. Following a consultative period, the Northern Ireland Office introducedThe Abortion (NI) Regulations 2020 on  March 25, 2020, which came into legal force on March 31, 2020. Under this new legal framework, pregnancies may now be terminated for any reason up to 12 weeks gestation (section 3), increased to 24 weeks for grounds of risk to the physical and/or mental health of the mother ( section 4). Terminations may be carried out without limit if the risk to the health of the mother is grave and permanent, and for cases of severe FFA (section 7). Abortion law in NI is now more liberal than in Britain.

By comparing the former law to the findings of the UN CEDAW Committee, and monitoring the UK Government’s i) dismissive response, and ii) failure to directly intervene and instead relying on a combination of a rigid interpretation of the constitutional parameters arising from the devolution model, and action from backbench Opposition MPs to ensure rights progression- the hindrance to human rights progression in NI has been examined. Moreover, it has been outlined that such hindrance towards ensuring the protection of human rights in NI arose due to the failure of the UK Government to act in accordance with its Treaty responsibilities, and its reliance on the devolution framework to excuse such inaction. Moreover, the comparative approach has demonstrated the role of the UN Treaty monitoring system in evaluating state compliance, and how human rights progression within states can come by way of comparing the reality of the status of human rights in a state with the aspirational provisions of Treaties. Zampas and Gher have noted ‘striking expansion’ of international rights standards and jurisprudence supporting women’s right to abortion primarily through international Treaty monitoring bodies’ reports, believing they ‘played a large role; in advancing abortion rights (2008, p.251). As noted by De Burca (2017), the UN Treaty monitoring system, through its assessment and recommendation processes, presents a form of human rights experimentalism. Arguably this extends beyond the UN system, and into the domestic level, should domestic politicians wish to utilise Committee recommendations as a framework or basis for domestic legal reform. This case study appears to support both claims.

2. Corporal punishment: comparing the laws of the UK and the ROI

A comparative approach within the context of human rights can be utilised in an observatory capacity: to observe the compliance of states with the recommendations provided by international treaty monitoring bodies. In this instance, the approach not only compares the actions of a state in maintaining its Treaty obligations through examining domestic law and its compliance with Treaty provisions, it further assesses the actions, if any, undertaken by the state in between monitoring cycles conducted by treaty monitoring bodies. This exercise provides an interesting insight into how state signatories have varying interpretations of Treaty obligations, and consequently different approaches to the domestic implementation of these obligations (Creamer and Simmons, 2015). To illustrate how a comparative approach can be used to undertake an observatory analysis, this article now turns to examine the second case study of reviewing the laws governing the practice of corporal punishment in the UK and the ROI, and their compliance with international human rights standards.

Domestic framework

The legal landscape in relation to the law governing corporal punishment of children across the UK has become fragmented in recent years, resulting in an evident disparity in the upholding of children’s rights dependent on the jurisdiction. Previously, corporal punishment, i.e. smacking of children by parents for the purposes of maintaining discipline, was permitted as a defence to assault throughout the UK, in both common law and statue (according to different regions of the UK). Since 2019, however, devolved administrations have sought to interpret and apply international human rights law in a manner which is different to the approach adopted by the central UK Government. The result has been a notable divergence in children’s rights standards, with a greater focus on ensuring the progress of children’s rights in the devolved context compared to the central government. In Scotland, the Children (Equal Protection from Assault) (Scotland) Act 2019 abolished the defence of assault by repealing section 51 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003. Wales abolished its common law defence of ‘reasonable punishment’ in 2020, and introduced new legislation to give statutory effect to the repeal of this defence in the Children (Abolition of Defence of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Act 2020. Both instances demonstrate the adoption of an interesting interpretative approach in legislating to prohibit corporal punishment. Discourse presented within both devolved legislatures focused on the narrative of rights progression with the specific citing of the recognition and protection of children’s rights as a key motivational factor for legal reform. The framing of seeking reform to advance childrens’ rights was more prominent than addressing human rights standards in relation to torture and degrading treatment – and arguably, followed the approach adopted by the Council of Europe in 2006. The remaining jurisdictions in the UK have not followed this approach. In England, parents may continue to rely on the defence of ;reasonable punishment’, provided the defendant is charged only with common assault, regulated by section 58 of the Children Act 2004. In NI, a defence of ‘reasonable punishment’ continues to be permitted per The Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (NI) Order 2006. The continued operation of this defence in light of legal reform in Scotland and Wales has been criticised by the NI Human Rights Commission (2019) which continues to recommend the repeal of this defence (see its Annual Statement of 2019). The former The office of the Children’s Commissioner in Northern Ireland has long argued NI has ‘been left behind’ (Breslin, 2020) particularly due to the protracted absence of devolved government. A 2015 report commissioned by several Scottish charities reported smacking was more commonly used in the UK compared to European countries such as Sweden (Heilmann et al., 2015). The continued existence of this defence in the UK, due to the continued operation of English and NI law, renders the UK a minority in Europe: 34 of the 47 Council of Europe member states have achieved full prohibition of corporal punishment including at home.

In the ROI, before 2015, the state did not have any law specifically permitting corporal punishment within the home setting. The existing legal framework in place did not explicitly prohibit corporal punishment of children by parents, instead providing legal deterrents as to the use of excessive physical discipline, per section 246 of the Children Act 2001. Following a ruling from the European Committee of Social Rights in 2015, stating the ROI law violated Article 17 of the European Social Charter due to the lack of explicit prohibition, the Irish Government legislated to abolish the statutory and common law defence of reasonable chastisement (section 28 of the Children First Act 2015). This suggests that the ROI has sought to take action and introduce legal reform when it has become apparent that it is not complying with its obligations under international law, and particularly when compared to the UK context. In considering the practical reality of the legal landscape in the context of the UK and the ROI in regard to children’s rights, and to further understand the different approaches of both respective governments to monitoring report findings, it is important to compare the compliance of the UK Government and the Irish Government with the findings, and particularly the recommendations, of the relevant UN Treaty monitoring bodies.

International standards

UN Committees have long criticised the continued existence of the defence of reasonable punishment, arguing its use violated the rights of children. The most relevant international standards for this discussion are the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (“UN CRC”), per Article 37(a), and Article 1 of the UN Convention Against Torture (“UN CAT”).

UN CRC

Article 37(a) CRC requires state parties to ensure children are not subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Arguably the operation of a legal defence which allows for assault of a child, the act of which subjects children to degrading treatment as punishment, violates Article 37(a) – an opinion also held by the UN CRC Committee.

In July 2016, the UN CRC Committee expressed concern at the continued existence of ‘reasonable punishment; in the UK, and recommended the UK Government legislate to ensure the full abolition of corporal punishment of children in the UK (per para 41). It posited that the operation of the defence does not enable recognition of children’s ‘equal right to human dignity’, nor children’s ‘right to protection from all corporal punishment’ (per para 42). This position was not shared by successive UK Governments, which instead have traditionally adopted a conservative interpretation and application of the UN CRC Treaty in this context. Within its 2017 national report for the Universal Periodic Review, the UK Government indicated its belief in its compliance with Article 37(a) CRC, stating it “did not condone violence towards children” but parents “should not be criminalised” for a “mild smack” (HM Government, 2017, at para 78); a position it had articulated to the UN CRC Committee in 2015 (CRC/C/GBR/5, at para 86). Seemingly rejecting the Committee’s recommendations, the UK Government’s 2017 report further stated the UK “has clear laws to deal” with violence towards children (HM Government, 2017, at para 78); a statement that suggests it had no intentions to commit to undertake legal reform in the near future.

Examining the interpretation and application of the UN CRC in the ROI presents a contrasting case study. In 2006, the UN CRC Committee noted its concern that corporal punishment within the home was still not prohibited in ROI, and further urged the Irish Government to legislate for explicit prohibition (at paras 39-40). In its 2015 national report for the successive monitoring cycle, the Irish Government – unlike the UK Government – demonstrated its intention to implement its Treaty obligations and the Committee’s recommendations, explaining it would keep the issue of explicit prohibition within the home “under continuous review” (para 350). By 2016, the Irish Government had introduced and implemented the Children First Act 2015, abolishing the statutory and common law defence of reasonable chastisement and so meeting its Treaty obligations. In 2016, the Committee did not raise concerns and/or have any recommendations to make in respect of corporal punishment, indicating its satisfaction with the 2015 Act in meeting its 2006 recommendation.

UN CAT

In addition to its recognition as a specific children’s rights matter, corporal punishment of children has also been categorised as falling under the scope of the Article 1 UN CAT definition of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment by the UN CAT Committee, as shall be examined.

In 2013, the UN CAT Committee noted its concern that corporal punishment administered by parents was still legally permissible in the UK, and recommended that the UK Government take action to prohibit all corporal punishment within its jurisdiction (para 29). In its 2017 national report for the subsequent monitoring cycle, the UK Government however did not address the Committee’s recommendation. Instead it,merely stated that the UK does not condone violence towards children and emphasised its belief in the sufficiency of its domestic laws on the matter (para 248). This suggests that the UK Government was confident in its interpretation of and corresponding compliance with Article 1 CAT, as it did not believe that initiating legal reform was required, and so rejected the UN CAT Committee’s suggested reforms.

Again, this case can be contrasted with the developments in the ROI, indicating the divergence in interpretations and applications of international obligations. In 2011, the UN CAT Committee expressed its concern that the corporal punishment of children at home remained lawful in ROI, due to the defence of reasonable chastisement. It subsequently recommended the Irish Government act to prohibit ‘all corporal punishment of children in all settings’ (para 24). However, as noted previously, by the next monitoring cycle of ROI, the UN CAT Committee had no concerns or recommendations on the matter – and indeed welcomed the legal reform introduced by the Irish Government in the Children First Act 2015, indicating its belief ROI was compliant with Article 1 CAT in this matter.

By comparing the identified laws to the findings of the UN Committees, and monitoring the responses of each state, the failure of the UK Government to comply with its Treaty responsibilities and in taking recommended remedial action has been observed. Conversely, the same approach has demonstrated the direct and clear compliance of the Irish Government, both with its Treaty responsibilities, but most evidently in response to Committee recommendations. Moreover, this analysis has indicated the willingness of the Scottish and Welsh Governments to interpret Treaty provisions to implement human rights standards at a devolved level, adopting an interesting narrative approach towards legal reform by focusing on the promotion and progression of children’s rights vis-á-vis the promotion of the right not to be subjected to torture or degrading treatment. The adoption of a comparative approach in the context of human rights has further enabled the recognition of the apparent weakness of the aspirational nature of international human rights standards and of the international Treaty monitoring system: it is evident this system is reliant upon states to respect their obligations as signatories, and one wonders as to the effectiveness of the system in light of its non-binding nature. As noted by Creamer and Simmons (2015), the UN Treaty monitoring system has contributed to the interpretation of international human rights law within the domestic context, and the application of same by state governments. Moreover, the Committee monitoring system’s contribution to the development of interpreting international human rights law extends beyond one cycle, rather being a continuous process: as noted in the context of the ROI’s compliance with both UN CRC and UN CAT, subsequent monitoring cycles undertaken by these Treaties’ corresponding Committees also enabled the interpretation of Treaty law, by what was not said. As no further comments or recommendations were issued by both Committees, arguably each was satisfied as to both the action taken by the Irish Government, and its adopted interpretation of the relevant Treaty provisions.

Conclusion

This article examined the role of critical analysis in assisting with understanding of the practical reality of accessibility and enjoyment of human rights within states. In so doing, it illustrated how the use of a comparative analysis in the context of human rights can increase knowledge and understanding of the human rights context at the grassroots level. This can be achieved by determining a state’s compliance with the aspirational standards developed by the UN human rights system. This use of a comparative approach was examined through a specific focus on the merits of its use in monitoring progression and/or hindrance of human rights standards in states, and observing the compliance of states with the recommendations provided by international treaty monitoring bodies. These reasons were examined via two respective case studies: the developments in abortion law in NI and the previous discrepancies in accessing abortion healthcare vis-à-vis Britain, and the relationship between international Treaty monitoring bodies and laws governing the practice of corporal punishment in the UK and the ROI. The application of this approach to the case studies revealed: i) the particular tensions arising in the development of human rights standards within the context of a devolved government framework, and ii) how different interpretative approaches are taken by governments when seeking to implement international human rights standards into domestic law.

Ultimately, adopting a comparative approach in the context of human rights enabled a critical evaluation of the status and record of state compliance with its obligations under international human rights law. This has highlighted not only the progression or hindrance of human rights standards across states but also the attitudes displayed by states in this area and the impact upon the realisation of human rights. In particular, it demonstrates the interconnection between the state’s own interpretation of its compliance with international human rights law and the application of same within its borders, and the (non-)progression of the access and enjoyment of human rights. For further consideration then is the aspirational nature of international human rights standards and of the international Treaty monitoring system, and its reliance on states to respect their obligations as signatories.

___

Bibliography
Case law

In the Matter of an Application by Sarah Jane Ewart for Judicial Review [2019] NIQB 88.

In the Matter of an Application for Judicial Review by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission [2018] UKSC 27.

Government Papers

HM Government. (2007).‘Universal Periodic Review, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland National Report’.

European Council/Committees

European Committee of Social Rights. (17 June 2015). Association for the Protection of All Children (APPROACH) Ltd v. Ireland, Complaint No. 93/2013 Resolution CM/ResChS(2015)9.

UN Council/Committees

UN Committee on the Convention Against Torture. (2018). Sixth periodic report submitted by the  United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland under article 19 of the Convention pursuant  to the optional reporting procedure, due in 2017, CAT/C/GBR/6.

– (2017). Concluding observations on the second periodic report of Ireland, CAT/C/IRL/CO/2.

– (2013).Concluding observations on the fifth periodic report of the United Kingdom of Great  Britain and Northern Ireland, adopted by the Committee at its fiftieth session,  CAT/C/GBR/CO/5.

– (2011). Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 19 of the  Convention Concluding observations of the Committee against Torture: Ireland,  CAT/C/IRL/CO/1.

UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. (2018). Inquiry  concerning the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland under article 8 of the  Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against  Women: Observations of the United Kingdom CEDAW/C/OP.8/GBR/2.

– (2018). Inquiry concerning the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern  Ireland under article 8 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All  Forms of Discrimination against Women: Report of the Committee CEDAW/C/OP.8/GB/1.

UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. (2016). Concluding observations  on the sixth periodic report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland E/C.12/GBR/CO/6, UN Economic and Social Council.

UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2016). Concluding Observations on the Fifth Periodic  Report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, CRC/C/GBR/CO/5, UN CRC.

– (2016). Concluding observations on the combined third and fourth periodic reports of  Ireland, CRC/C/IRL/CO/3-4.

– (2015). Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 44 of the  Convention Combined third and fourth periodic reports of Ireland due in 2009: Ireland,  CRC/C/IRL/3-4.

– (2015). Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 44 of the  Convention Fifth periodic reports of States parties due in 2014: United Kingdom,  CRC/C/GBR/5.

– (2008). Concluding observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: United  Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, CRC/C/GBR/CO/4.

– (2006). Consideration of Reports Submitted By States Parties Under Article 44 of the  Convention Concluding Observations: Ireland CRC/C/IRL/CO/2.

Secondary sources

BBC News. (2019, June 13). Abortion: 1,053 women from NI travelled to England and Wales [online] available via: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-48626564.

BBC News.(2019, January 30). Abortion law: Sarah Ewart begins NI challenge [online] available via: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-47058629.

BBC News.(2016, April 4). Woman who bought drugs online to terminate pregnancy given suspended sentence [online] available via: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-35962134.

Bloomer, F., and Fegan, E. (2014). Critiquing Recent Abortion Law and Policy in NI.Critical Social Policy 34:109.

Breslin, J. (2020, January 29). Experts call on Assembly to pass ban on smacking .Belfast Telegraph [online] available via: https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/experts-call-on-assembly-to-pass-ban-on-smacking-38908364.html.

Council of Europe. (n.d.). Progress across Europe [online] available via: https://www.coe.int/en/web/children/corporal-punishment#%7B%2212441097%22:[3]%7D.

Council of Europe. (2006). Children and Corporal Punishment: “The Right Not to Be Hit, Also a Children’s Right” CommDH/IssuePaper [online] available via: https://rm.coe.int/children-and-corporal-punishment-the-right-not-to-be-hit-also-a-childr/16806da87b.

Creamer, C. and Simmons, B. (2015). Ratification, Reporting, and Rights: Quality of Participation in the Convention against Torture. 37 Hum. Rts. Q, 37, 579. 

De Burca, G. (2017). Human Rights Experimentalism. NYU School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 17-06.

Eberle, E. (2009). The Method and Role of Comparative Law, WUGSLR, 8, 451-486.

Elgot, J., and McDonald, H. (2017, June 29). Northern Irish women win access to free abortions as May averts rebellion. The Guardian [online] available via: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/29/rebel-tories-could-back-northern-ireland-abortion-amendment.

Ewald, W. (1995). Comparative Jurisprudence (I): What was it Like to Try a Rat?. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 143, 1889-2149.

Department of Health NI. (2020, January 22). Northern Ireland Termination of Pregnancy Statistics 2018-19 [online] available via: https://www.health-ni.gov.uk/news/northern-ireland-termination-pregnancy-statistics-201819.

Foster, N. (2006). A Fresh Start for Comparative Legal Studies? A Collective Review of Patrick Glenn’s Legal Traditions of the World, 2nd edition’. Journal of Comparative Law, 1(1), 100-199.

Fredman, S. (2019). Comparative Human Rights Law. OUP, Oxford.

Freeman, M. (2002), Human Rights. Polity Press, Cambridge.

Heilmann, A., Kelly, Y., and Watt,.(2015). Equally Protected? A review of the evidence on the physical punishment of children. (UCL, London).

Lee, E. (eds) (1998). Abortion Law and Politics Today. (Palgrave Macmillan, London).

McNeilly, K., Bloomer, F., and Pierson, C. (2018). Northern Ireland and Abortion Law Reform. (Ulster University) [online] available via: https://pureadmin.qub.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/161559696/GB_Briefing.pdf.

Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. (December 2019). 2019 Annual Statement. (NIHRC, Belfast).

Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. (2019, May 29). ‘Corporal Punishment of Children – United Call to Support Equal Protection for Children in Northern Ireland’. [online] available via: https://www.nihrc.org/index.php?/news/detail/corporal-punishment-of-children-united-call-to-support-equal-protection-for.

Oette, L. (2018). The UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies: Impact and Future. In: Oberleitner, Gerd, (ed.), International Human Rights Institutions, Tribunals and Courts. Singapore: Springer Nature, pp. 95-116. (International Human Rights).

Tay, A. E.S. (2000). The New Century, Globalisation and Human Rights.  Asia Pacific Law Review, 8(2), 139-152.

Twinning, W. (2000). Globalisation and Legal Theory. Butterworths, London.

Zampas, C., and Gher, J. (2008). Abortion as a Human Right – International and Regional Standards. Human Rights Law Review, 8(2), 249.