The Legitimacy of Interim Measures from the Perspective of a State: The Example of Canada

Forthcoming chapter in Eva Rieter & Karin Zwaan, eds, Urgency and Human Rights: Perspectives on the Legitimacy and Usefulness of Interim Measures in Human Rights Cases (The Hague: TMC Asser Press, 2020)

17 Pages Posted: 9 Mar 2020

See all articles by Joanna Harrington

Joanna Harrington

University of Alberta - Faculty of Law

Date Written: February 1, 2020

Abstract

In this contribution, I aim to unpack the illegitimacy critique that animates state refusals to abide by interim measures requests from the human rights bodies that states created by treaty. I use Canada as a case study given its long-standing support for the international human rights system and its acceptance of the right of individual petition before both the Human Rights Committee and the Committee Against Torture. Both Committees have also found Canada to be in breach of its treaty obligations for failing to respect an interim measures request, and Canada has made public its firm disagreement, with the Canadian courts having also considered the question of whether an interim measures request is legally binding. In light of this opposition from a state ordinarily viewed as supportive of the international legal protection of human rights, I also consider changes that could be made at that international level to improve how interim measures requests are made. I view procedural change as being one means to foster greater state confidence in both the legality and legitimacy of interim measures requests so as to ensure their continued availability to address urgent risks of irreparable harm. In brief, the argument that I make is that process matters, with greater transparency and an attention to rigour in how an international body reaches its decision to request interim measures being of particular importance in circumstances where the international body is tasked by the realities of the complaints process to query the findings already made by a national court. I accept that a committee’s final decision is not binding, but that alone does not bar an interim measures request from gaining legal force as a result of the procedural and regulatory role that it serves.

Keywords: international human rights, procedure, interim measures, urgency, legitimacy, transparency, Human Rights Committee, Committee Against Torture, Canada, national reception of international law

JEL Classification: K33, K37

Suggested Citation

Harrington, Joanna, The Legitimacy of Interim Measures from the Perspective of a State: The Example of Canada (February 1, 2020). Forthcoming chapter in Eva Rieter & Karin Zwaan, eds, Urgency and Human Rights: Perspectives on the Legitimacy and Usefulness of Interim Measures in Human Rights Cases (The Hague: TMC Asser Press, 2020), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3538385

Joanna Harrington (Contact Author)

University of Alberta - Faculty of Law ( email )

Law Centre (111 - 89 Ave)
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2H5
Canada

HOME PAGE: http://www.joannaharrington.com

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
13
Abstract Views
91
PlumX Metrics