REVIEWOFLITERATUREONNATIONALHUMANRIGHTSINSTITUTIONS

Authors:StéphanieLagoutte,Seniorresearcher,AnnaliKristiansen,SenioradviserandLisbethA.N.Thonbo,externalconsultantDanishInstituteforHumanRights,2016Financedby:TheDanish-ArabPartnershipProgramme

©2016TheDanishInstituteforHumanRightsDenmark’sNationalHumanRightsInstitutionWildersPlads8KDK-1403CopenhagenKPhone+4532698888www.humanrights.dkAtDIHRweaimtomakeourpublicationsasaccessibleaspossible.Weuselargefontsize,short(hyphen-free)lines,left-alignedtextandstrongcontrastformaximumlegibility.Weareseekingtoincreasethenumberofaccessiblepdfsonourwebsite.Forfurtherinformationaboutaccessibilitypleaseclickwww.humanrights.dk/accessibility

1. BACKGROUND 12.GENERALOVERVIEWOFTHELITERATURE 13.GEOGRAPHICALCOVERAGEOFTHELITERATURE 34.KEYISSUESCOVEREDINNHRILITERATURE 64.1.THEUNITEDNATIONSANDTHETREATYBODIES 64.2.THEPARISPRINCIPLESANDTHEINTERNATIONALCOORDINATION

COMMITTEE 84.3.COMPLAINTSHANDLING 94.4.EFFECTIVENESS,IMPACTANDPERFORMANCE 94.5.NHRISANDCIVILSOCIETY 104.6.GLOBALHUMANRIGHTSGOVERNANCE 105.COMMENTEDBIBLIOGRAPHY 115.1.BOOKS 115.2.ARTICLES(INCLUDINGWORKINGPAPERSBYSCHOLARS) 135.3.OTHERPUBLICATIONS(WORKINGPAPERS,GUIDELINESAND

PUBLICATIONSBYUN,ICC,NHRISANDNGOS) 19ANNEXES

BIBLIOGRAPHYONNATIONALHUMANRIGHTSINSTITUTIONS 231.BOOKS 232.ARTICLES(INCLUDINGWORKINGPAPERSBYSCHOLARS) 233.OTHERPUBLICATIONS(WORKINGPAPERS,GUIDELINESAND

PUBLICATIONSBYUN,ICC,NHRISANDNGOS) 26

CONTENT

1

1. BACKGROUNDA lot of academic literature on national human rights institutions (NHRIs) hasbeen published in English the past decade.1 This literature supplements othersources such as official documents, reports fromNHRIs or other actorswithinnational,regional,andinternationalhumanrightsprotectionsystems.ThepurposeofthisreviewistoprovideanoverviewoftheavailableliteratureonNHRIs and to disseminate the main issues and discussions raised in thatliterature.Theideahereistodrawaroadmapthatwillallowinterestedreaderstonavigateinthewealthofinformation,sourcesandapproaches.The review renders an overall account of the theoretical dimension of thepublications on NHRIs as well as of the empirical material and analysis to befoundinthatliterature.Themainresearchquestionsandconclusionshavebeenmappedout.Acompletebibliographyisannexedtothisreview.

2.GENERALOVERVIEWOFTHELITERATURETheliteratureillustratesthelackofconsensusthatthereisonadefinitionofanNHRI.Consequently,thevariationinthenumbersofNHRIsthatexistaroundtheworld, put forward by scholars is puzzling. For instance, Sonia Cardenas talksabout“300to500”2,KooandRamirez“178”NHRIs,3andColeandRamirezwrite“By 2004, nearly 180 NHRIs”4. In comparison, the numbers announced by theInternational Coordination Committee (ICC) of the National Human RightsInstitutionsareveryclear:at themomentofwriting, the ICChasaccredited71

1ThisliteraturereviewfocusesonbooksandarticlespublishedinEnglishuntil2015.2Cardenas,S.:EmergingGlobalActors:TheUnitedNationsandNationalHumanRightsInstitutions,GlobalGovernance,Vol.9,2003,23-42.3Koo,J.W.;Ramirez,F.O.:NationalIncorporationofGlobalHumanRights:WorldwideExpansionofNationalHumanRightsInstitutions:1966-2004,SocialForces,Vol.87(3),2009,1321-1354.4Cole,W.M.;Ramirez,F.O.:ConditionalDecoupling:AssessingtheImpactofNationalHumanRightsInstitutions,1981to2004,AmericanSociologicalReview,Vol.78(4),2013,702-725.

2

memberswithA-status,25withB-statusand10withC-status.5However,manyofthearticlesthatdiscussthedefinitionofanNHRIaddressthis issuewhich islinkedtothenon-legalbindingstatusoftheParisPrinciples6andthefactthatnotallNHRIsseektheaccreditationoftheICC.AlargemajorityoftheauthorswhowriteaboutNHRIshavealegalbackground.However, new scholarship from international relations, global governance,political sciences or sociology has been emerging along the side of moretraditionallegalstudiesofNHRIs.7There is a rather sceptical approach to NHRIs in the research that has beenpublished so far. Some of the main questions addressed by scholars revolvearound the following:Doweneedall theseNHRIs, are they/can they at all beindependent, are they at all efficient and do they have any impact on humanrights?Thereislittleindicationaboutpossibilityorsuggestionsforimprovingthesituation.NHRIs in different countries operate under very different and sometimes verydifficult circumstances. Any NHRI has its own list of priorities in terms ofproblemstobesolvedinitsparticularcontext.TheliteratureonNHRIsidentifies

5See:http://nhri.ohchr.org/EN/AboutUs/ICCAccreditation/Pages/default.aspx.ThesenumbersmaychangeafterthenextsessionoftheSub-CommitteeonAccreditationscheduledforMay9to13,2016.6SeetheUNGeneralAssemblyresolution48/134endorsingtheParisPrinciples.ThisresolutionhasbeenfollowedbyaseveralHRCresolutions(ofwhichthelatestisA/HRC/RES/27/18),anumberofGAresolutionsontheroleoftheOmbudsman,mediatorandothernationalhumanrightsinstitutionsinthepromotionandprotectionofhumanrights,ofwhichthelatestareA/RES/69/168andA/RES/70/163.7See,forinstance,booksandarticlesSoniaCardenasandTomPegram:Goodman,R.;Pegram,T.(eds.):HumanRights,StateCompliance,andSocialChange:AssessingNationalHumanRightsInstitutions,CambridgeUniversityPress,2012;Cardenas,Sonia:AdaptiveStates:TheProliferationofNationalHumanRightsInstitutions,CentreforHumanRightsPolicy,WorkingPaperT-01-04,2004;Cardenas,S.:EmergingGlobalActors:TheUnitedNationsandNationalHumanRightsInstitutions,GlobalGovernance,Vol.9,2003,23-42.Seealsothearticlesco-authoredbyFranciscoRamirez,whichfollowasociologicalapproach:Koo,J.W.;Ramirez,F.O.:NationalIncorporationofGlobalHumanRights:WorldwideExpansionofNationalHumanRightsInstitutions:1966-2004,SocialForces,Vol.87(3),2009,1321-1354;Cole,W.M.;Ramirez,O.:ConditionalDecoupling:AssessingtheImpactofNationalHumanRightsInstitutions,1981to2004,AmericanSociologicalReview,Vol.78(4),2013,702-725.

3

someofthekeyissuesandchallengesfacedbyNHRIs.Theyinclude,butarenotlimitedto,thefollowing:

• What are the rules governing NHRIs, i.e. the status, interpretation andusefulnessoftheParisPrinciples?

• WhatdoNHRIsactuallydo,whatroledotheyplay?• HowcantheindependenceofNHRIsbesecuredinorderforthemtobe

the prominent actor of the national human rights system that they aresupposedtobe?

• Whatistheeffectiveness/efficiencyandimpactofNHRIsonhumanrightscompliance?AndhowdoNHRIs improve the implementationofhumanrightsontheground?

• WhatistherelationshipbetweenNHRIsandotheractorsofthenationalhuman rights system: governmental actors, parliament, courts, police,civilsociety,businesscommunity,academia,etc.?

• DoNHRIsworkequallywithhumanrights?Whatistheirroleintermsofenforceabilityofeconomic,socialandculturalrights?

Thereviewofliteratureisstructuredasfollows:

• Geographicalcoverageoftheliterature• KeyissuescoveredinNHRIliterature• Commentedbibliography• Annexe:bibliography

3. GEOGRAPHICALCOVERAGEOFTHELITERATUREIn termsof geographical scope,not all partsof theworld are coveredequally.Following early publications by practitioners on the role of NHRIs,8 books and

8Lindsnæs,B.;Lindholt,L.andYigen,K.(eds.),NationalHumanRightsInstitutions.ArticlesandWorkingPapers:InputintotheDiscussionsontheEstablishmentandDevelopmentoftheFunctionsofNationalHumanRightsInstitutions,TheDanishCentreofHumanRights,2000.SeealsoapublicationfromtheInternationalCouncilonHumanRightsPolicywhichpresentsawealthofinformationconcerningoperationalperformanceandpubliclegitimacy,includingonaccessibility,onlinkswithotherinstitutions–thejudiciary,media,NGOsandinternationallinks-andthreedetailedcasestudiesfromGhana,IndonesiaandMexico.Experienceandexamplesaredrawnfromallovertheworld:SouthAfrica,Nigeria,Latvia,NewZealand,Australia,Canada,Guatemala,India,thePhilippines,Spain,Togo,NorthernIrelandandMalawi(International

4

articleshavefocusedmainlyonEurope.AfewstudiesontheAsia-Pacificregionaretobefound,whereasNHRIsinAfrica,LatinAmericaandtheMiddleEastandNorthAfricaare lessstudied.Morerecently, thecontributionspublished intheanthologyeditedbyPegramandGoodmancoversabroadgeographical scope:Africa,Asia-Pacific,CentralandEasternEuropeandLatinAmerica.9Reif’sarticle,which presents a historical review of NHRIs in their different variations, alsobuildsonaconsiderablenumberofcountrycasesfromAfrica,EuropeandLatinAmerica.10Anthologies by Mertus and by Meuwissen andWouters present a number ofcase studies concerning the role of NHRIs in various European countries.11 DeBecoandCarverhavelookedintoEuropeanNHRIsinarticleswheretheydiscussmodelsofNHRIs12 aswell as topical issues suchasnetworkinganddevelopingbestpracticesamongthem.13Burdekin’sbookpresentsextensive informationonNHRIs from theAsia-Pacificregion,includingarichannexuree.g.therelevantlegislationfrom12countries:Australia, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nepal,New Zealand, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand. It covers issues such asmandates, powers and functions, the relationswith the Executive, Parliament,the Judiciary and other institutions and cooperation among NHRIs as well asregional andUN cooperation.14 Two articles focus onNHRIs in the Asia-Pacificregion.Cardenasraisesanumberofquestionsconcerningthereasonforcreating

CouncilonHumanRightsPolicy,Performance&Legitimacy:NationalHumanRightsInstitutions,Geneva,2004).9Goodman,R.;Pegram,T.(eds.):HumanRights,StateCompliance,andSocialChange:AssessingNationalHumanRightsInstitutions,CambridgeUniversityPress,2012.10Reif,L.:BuildingDemocraticInstitutions:TheRoleofNationalHumanRightsInstitutionsinGoodGovernanceandHumanRightsProtection,Harv.Hum.RightsJ.,Vol.13,2000,1-69.11Mertus,J.A.:HumanRightsMatters:LocalPoliticsandNationalHumanRightsInstitutions,StanfordUniversityPress,2009.Meuwissen,K.;Wouters,J.(eds.):NationalHumanRightsInstitutionsinEurope:Comparative,EuropeanandInternationalPerspectives,Intersentia,2013.12deBeco,G.:NationalHumanRightsInstitutionsinEurope,HumanRightsLawReview,Vol.7(2),2007,331-370;Carver,R.:OneNHRIorMany?HowManyInstitutionsDoesItTaketoProtectHumanRights?–LessonsfromtheEuropeanExperience,HumanJournalofHumanRightsPractice,Vol.3(1),2011,1-24.13deBeco,G.:NetworksofEuropeanNationalHumanRightsInstitutions,EuropeanLawJournal,Vol.14(6),2008,860-877.14Burdekin,B.:NationalHumanRightsInstitutionsintheAsia-PacificRegion,Leiden/Boston:MartinusNijhoffPublishers,2007.

5

NHRIs in theAsia-Pacific region, through lookingat cases from thePhilippines,India and Indonesia and examples from Nepal, Malaysia, Bangladesh and SriLanka.15 Renshawwrites about the role of civil society in the establishment ofNHRIsintheAsia-Pacificregion,theregion’sconstructivenetworksofNHRIsandcivil society, and finally the potential for civil society to benefit fromdevelopmentsintheICC.16Finally,apublicationontheMiddleEastandNorthAfricadescribeshowNHRIscan contribute to reformprocesses, to constitutional reformand topromotinghuman rights education reform. It also gives a detailed presentation of anintegratedapproachtohumanrightsdialogue.17As farascountrycasesareconcerned,theNHRIofDenmark isstudied inmostanthologies concerningEuropeanNHRIs.18Theseanthologiesalso look into thecasesofBelgium,Bosnia,CzechRepublic,Germany, theNetherlands,NorthernIreland, Poland and Sweden. Brodie’s article on ICC accreditation ofmembersandthedualroleoftheICCasrepresentativeandregulatorofitsmemberslooksmore closely at the case of Sweden as a case describing the difficulties inobtainingaccreditation.19Concerningotherpartsof theworld,Cardenaswroteabout Canada’s international technical assistance to national human rights

15Cardenas,S.:AdaptiveStates:TheProliferationofNationalHumanRightsInstitutions,CentreforHumanRightsPolicy,WorkingPaperT-01-04,2004.16Renshaw,C.S.:NationalHumanRightsInstitutionsandCivilSocietyOrganizations:NewDynamicsofEngagementatDomestic,Regional,andInternationalLevels,GlobalGovernance,Vol.18,2012,299-316.17Dalton,P.;Mehyar,M.(eds.),TheroleofNHRIsincountriesintransitionintheArabWorld,TheDanishInstituteforHumanRights,2012.ThispublicationisoneoftheresultsoftheArab-EuropeanHumanRightsDialogue.ContributorsoriginatefromtheArabandtheEuropeanregion.ThecontentisinEnglishandArab.18Meuwissen,K.;Wouters,J.(eds.):NationalHumanRightsInstitutionsinEurope:Comparative,EuropeanandInternationalPerspectives,Intersentia,2013.Mertus,J.A.:HumanRightsMatters:LocalPoliticsandNationalHumanRightsInstitutions,StanfordUniversityPress,2009;Mertus,J.A.:HumanRightsMatters:LocalPoliticsandNationalHumanRightsInstitutions,StanfordUniversityPress,2009.19Brodie,M.:ProgressingNormSocialisation:WhyMembershipMatters.TheImpactoftheAccreditationProcessoftheInternationalCoordinatingCommitteeofNationalInstitutionsforthePromotionandProtectionofHumanRights,NordicJournalofInternationalLaw,Vol.80,2011,143-192.

6

commissions20 and Cole and Ramirez looked into the protection of physicalintegrityrightsandcivilandpoliticalrightsinIndonesiaandArgentina.21

4.KEYISSUESCOVEREDINNHRILITERATUREA number of key issues have been identified to help the reader navigateaccordingtohis/herspecificneedsandinterests.Thislistofissuesalsogivesanoverview of the vast number of challenges facing NHRIs in their individualcapacity, when cooperating through the ICC network, in relation to theproceduresoftheUNandtreatybodies,inrelationtocivilsociety,etc.

4.1.THEUNITEDNATIONSANDTHETREATYBODIESFollowingCardenasin2003,anumberofauthorslookintotheroleoftheUnitedNations in relation to NHRIs. Cardenas questioned the role of the UN in theproliferationofNHRIs. Shepresented the “perverse implications [ofNHRIs] forglobal governance” and argued that “national institutions could have negativeeffects”.22Inanewarticle,TomPegramlooksintotheroleoftheUnitedNations,andmorespecificallytheOfficeoftheHighCommissionerforHumanRights, inusing NHRIs to target state compliance. The article builds on the concept oforchestration and looks into wider implications for global human rightsgovernance.23Two UN human rights treaties include a monitoring mechanism whereinstitutionsbasedontheParisPrinciples (notnecessarilyNHRI’s)playacentralrole: the Convention against Torture, in its optional protocol (OPCAT) and the

20Cardenas,S.:Trans-governmentalActivism:Canada’sRoleinPromotingNationalHumanRightsCommissions,HumanRightsQuarterly,Vol.25,2003,775-790.21Cole,W.M.;RamirezF.O.:ConditionalDecoupling:AssessingtheImpactofNationalHumanRightsInstitutions,1981to2004,AmericanSociologicalReview,Vol.78(4),2013,702-725.22Cardenas,S.:EmergingGlobalActors:TheUnitedNationsandNationalHumanRightsInstitutions,GlobalGovernance,Vol.9,2003,23-42.PohjolainenalsowroteaPhDdissertationontheroleoftheUnitedNationsintheevolutionofNHRIs.AshortpublicationwaspublishedbyDIHRin2006(Pohjolainen,A.E.:TheEvolutionofNationalHumanRightsInstitutions-TheRoleoftheUnitedNations,DanishInstituteforHumanRights,2006).23Pegram,T.:Globalhumanrightsgovernanceandorchestration:Nationalhumanrightsinstitutionsasintermediaries,EuropeanJournalofInternationalRelations,2015,595-620.

7

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). A number ofpublicationsaddressthisnewsituation.The article by Steinerte and Murray discusses the challenges faced whenchoosing whether an ombudsman or a human rights commission should beappointednationalpreventivemechanism(NPM)undertheOPCAT.Anumberofthesechallengesare illustratedby theexampleofDenmark.ThearticlearguesthattheNPMiscentraltothesuccessfulimplementationofOPCAT.24Inlinewithhis previous theoretical work on global human rights governance, Pegramreflectsonthetheoryoforchestration inanarticleof2015,usingOPCATasanexample.25DeBecohaswrittentwopublicationsontheroleofNHRIsinrelationtotheUNConventionontheRightsofPersonswithDisabilities(CRPD). Inhisarticlefrom2011, he discusses the suitability of NHRIs as implementation andmonitoringmechanismsoftheCRPD.ThenationalobligationtoimplementhumanrightsisstressedtogetherwiththefactthattheCRPDdoesnotpromoteNHRIsbutrathertheParisPrinciples.Severalmodelsfordesignatingtheindependentmechanisminaccordancewitharticle33arepresented.26Twoyearslater,hisbookfocuseson this new role forNHRIs. A theoretical part is followed by six country casesfromDenmark,UK,Italy,Slovenia,AustriaandSpain.27Finally,MüllerandSeidenstickerhavemadeahandbookwhichcoverstheroleofNHRIs in relation to all the UN human rights treaty bodies. The handbookcontains an explanation of the UN human rights treaties and theirmonitoringmechanisms and the NHRIs’ role in the UN treaty body system. It draws onexamplesfrommanycountriesandlooksintotheexistingcooperationbetween

24Steinerte,E.;Murray,R.:SamebutDifferent.NationalHumanRightsCommissionsandOmbudsmanInstitutionsasnationalpreventivemechanismsundertheOptionalProtocoltotheUNConventionAgainstTorture,EssexHumanRightsLawReview,SpecialIssue,2009,54-72.25Pegram,T.:GoverningRelationships:TheNewArchitectureinGlobalHumanRightsGovernance,Millennium:JournalofInternationalStudies,Vol.43(2),2015,618-639.26DeBeco,G.:Article33(2)oftheUNConventionontheRightsofPersonswithDisabilities:AnotherRoleforNationalHumanRightsInstitutions?NetherlandsQuarterlyofHumanRights,Vol.29(1),2011,84-106.27DeBeco,G.(ed.):Article33oftheUNConventionontheRightsofPersonswithDisabilities:NationalStructuresfortheImplementationandMonitoringoftheConvention,Leiden/Boston:MartinusNijhoffPublishers,2013.

8

NHRIsandtreatybodiesandtheauthorsdevelopanddiscuss ideasto improvethisinteraction.28

4.2.THEPARISPRINCIPLESANDTHEINTERNATIONALCOORDINATIONCOMMITTEEMost publications on NHRIs mention the Paris Principles. A few of them lookmore specifically into their content and implications. In 2015, de Beco andMurray published a thorough commentary on the Paris Principles, which is amust read for anybody who needs guidelines for the application of the ParisPrinciples. Furthermore, the book contains as an annex the ICC GeneralObservations as at May 2013, developed as an interpretive tool of the ParisPrinciples.29Alongthesame lines, theroleof the ICC isoftenmentioned inpublicationsonNHRIs,butonlyafewpublicationsdealspecificallywiththistopic.Brodiewrotean article on the history and evolution of the ICC, especially concerningaccreditation of members and the dual role of the ICC as representative andregulator of itsmembers.30 Analysing the role of the ICC is also an importantelementintheworkofPegram.31LookingattheorganisationofNHRIsatregional level, itmustbenotedthatdeBeco wrote an article on the networks of European National Human RightsInstitutionswherehelooksintotheadvantagesofnetworkingintermsofsharingbest practices among European institutions as well as the international

28Müller,A.;Seidensticker,F.:TheRoleofNationalHumanRightsInstitutionsintheUnitedNationsTreatyBodyProcess,GermanInstituteforHumanRights,2007.29DeBecoG.;Murray,R.:CommentaryontheParisPrinciplesonNationalHumanRightsInstitutions,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2015.30Brodie,M.:ProgressingNormSocialisation:WhyMembershipMatters.TheImpactoftheAccreditationProcessoftheInternationalCoordinatingCommitteeofNationalInstitutionsforthePromotionandProtectionofHumanRights,NordicJournalofInternationalLaw,Vol.80,2011,143-192.31Pegram,T.:Globalhumanrightsgovernanceandorchestration:Nationalhumanrightsinstitutionsasintermediaries,EuropeanJournalofInternationalRelations,2015,595-620.

9

cooperationwiththeUNsystemandregionallywiththeCouncilofEuropeandtheEU.32

4.3.COMPLAINTSHANDLINGComplaintshandlingisthekeycompetenceofsomeNHRIssuchashumanrightscommissions and ombudspersons. However, there is not much literature yetaboutthisissue.InanewarticleLinosandPegramlookintocomplainthandlingin a larger analysis of the importance of the design of NHRIs (form) and itsinfluence on the effectiveness of the NHRIs (function).33 Otherwise complaintmechanisms have been dealt with in earlier publications addressed topractitioners.34

4.4.EFFECTIVENESS,IMPACTANDPERFORMANCEA largepartofthe literatureonNHRIsdealswiththeperformanceofNHRIs. Intheiranthology,GoodmanandPegramcoverthecentralissueofassessingNHRIperformanceasanelementofthestatehumanrightscompliance.35Effectivenessandimpactarekeywords.Pegram’snewestarticlealsodealswithhowtodesigneffectiveNHRIs36,whileMurray’sarticleexamineshowusefultheParis Principles are in assessing theeffectivenessofNHRIs. She concludes thattheyarenotveryuseful,whilerecallingthattheParisPrincipleswerecreatedtomeasurecompliancewithcertain requirements related to theestablishmentof

32DeBeco,G.:NetworksofEuropeanNationalHumanRightsInstitutions,EuropeanLawJournal,Vol.14(6),2008,860-877.33Linos,K.;Pegram,T.:Interrogatingformandfunction:Designingeffectivenationalhumanrightsinstitutions,MattersofConcernHumanRightsResearchPaperSeries,No.2015/8,TheDanishInstituteforHumanRights,2015.34Lindsnæs,B.;Lindholt,L.;Yigen,K.(eds.),NationalHumanRightsInstitutions.ArticlesandWorkingPapers:InputintotheDiscussionsontheEstablishmentandDevelopmentoftheFunctionsofNationalHumanRightsInstitutions,TheDanishCentreofHumanRights,2000;InternationalCouncilonHumanRightsPolicy,Performance&Legitimacy:NationalHumanRightsInstitutions,Geneva,2004.35Goodman,R.;Pegram,T.(eds.):HumanRights,StateCompliance,andSocialChange:AssessingNationalHumanRightsInstitutions,CambridgeUniversityPress,2012.36Linos,K.;Pegram,T.:Interrogatingformandfunction:Designingeffectivenationalhumanrightsinstitutions,MattersofConcernHumanRightsResearchPaperSeries,No.2015/8,TheDanishInstituteforHumanRights,2015.

10

anNHRIbutnottotheiractivities/operation. Italsounderlinesthenecessityofstrategic planning in order to measure performance and impact.37 Cole andRamirezassesstheimpactofNHRIswhilefocusingoncivilandpoliticalrights.38Related toeffectiveness,onemaymentionSmith’sarticlewhich looks into theindependence and accountability ofNHRIs, through looking at the relationshipbetweengovernmentandNHRI,compositionofanNHRIandrelationshiptocivilsociety and NGOs. The author underlines the tensions created by the specificsituationofNHRIs,a.o.theirpublicfundingandtheriskthattheirindependencefromthegovernmentwillalwaysbeunderthreat.39

4.5.NHRISANDCIVILSOCIETYSomepublications look into the rolesofand relationsbetweenNHRIsandcivilsociety.Renshaw’sarticledealswiththeroleofcivilsocietyintheestablishmentof NHRIs in the Asia-Pacific region, the region’s networks of NHRIs and civilsociety,andfinallythepotentialforcivilsocietytobenefitfromdevelopmentsintheICC.40SmithlooksintotherelationshipbetweenNHRIsandcivilsocietyandNGOs,inordertohighlighttheuniquepositionofNHRIs.41

4.6.GLOBALHUMANRIGHTSGOVERNANCENHRIsareseenasacentralactorofglobalhumanrightsgovernance.Carverhaslooked into the increasing role they play in domesticating international law,describingNHRIsasthebridgebetweentheinternationalanddomesticsystems

37Murray,R.:NationalHumanRightsInstitutions:CriteriaandFactorsforAssessingtheirEffectiveness,NetherlandsQuarterlyofHumanRights,Vol.25(2),2007,189-220.38Cole,W.M.andRamirez,F.O.:ConditionalDecoupling:AssessingtheImpactofNationalHumanRightsInstitutions,1981to2004,AmericanSociologicalReview,Vol.78(4),2013,702-725.39Smith,A.:TheUniquePositionofNationalHumanRightsInstitutions:AMixedBlessing?HumanRightsQuarterly,Vol.28,2006,904-946.40Renshaw,C.S.:NationalHumanRightsInstitutionsandCivilSocietyOrganizations:NewDynamicsofEngagementatDomestic,Regional,andInternationalLevels,GlobalGovernance,Vol.18,2012,299-316.41Smith,Anne:TheUniquePositionofNationalHumanRightsInstitutions:AMixedBlessing?HumanRightsQuarterly,Vol.28,2006,904-946.

11

of human rights protection.42 Pegram has been carrying out larger theoreticalwork on compliance, global human rights governance and NHRIs culminatingwithtwoarticlesin2015.43

5. COMMENTEDBIBLIOGRAPHYBelow follows the entire list of material including various comments andobservations.A“clean”versionofthelistisalsoannexedforeaseofreference.

5.1.BOOKS1.1. de Beco G.; Murray, R.: Commentary on the Paris Principles on NationalHumanRightsInstitutions,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2015.

Arecentlypublished,thoroughcommentaryontheParisPrinciples;amustreadfor anybody who needs guidelines for the application of the Paris Principles.Furthermore,thebookcontainsasanannextheICCGeneralObservationsasatMay2013,developedasaninterpretivetooloftheParisPrinciples.1.2.deBeco,G. (ed.):Article33oftheUNConventionontheRightsofPersonswithDisabilities:National Structures for the ImplementationandMonitoringoftheConvention,Leiden/Boston:MartinusNijhoffPublishers,2013.

ThisbookfocusesonthenewroleforNHRIstoparticipateintheimplementationand the monitoring of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons withDisabilities.AtheoreticalpartisfollowedbysixcountrycasesfromDenmark,UK,Italy,Slovenia,AustriaandSpain.1.3.Burdekin,B.:NationalHumanRights Institutions in theAsia-PacificRegion,Leiden/Boston:MartinusNijhoffPublishers,2007.

42Carver,Richard:ANewAnswertoanOldQuestion:NationalHumanRightsInstitutionsandtheDomesticationofInternationalLaw,HumanRightsLawReview,Vol.10(1),2010,1-32.43Pegram,T.:GoverningRelationships:TheNewArchitectureinGlobalHumanRightsGovernance,Millennium:JournalofInternationalStudies,Vol.43(2),2015,618-639;Pegram,T.:Globalhumanrightsgovernanceandorchestration:Nationalhumanrightsinstitutionsasintermediaries,EuropeanJournalofInternationalRelations,2015,595-620.

12

ThisbookpresentsextensiveinformationonNHRIsfromtheAsia-Pacificregion,including a rich annexure e.g. the relevant legislation from 12 countries:Australia, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nepal,New Zealand, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand. Issues such as mandates,powersandfunctions,therelationswiththeExecutive,Parliament,theJudiciaryandotherinstitutionsandcooperationamongNHRIsaswellasregionalandUNcooperation.1.4.Goodman,R.;Pegram,T.(eds.):HumanRights,StateCompliance,andSocialChange: Assessing National Human Rights Institutions, Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress,2012.

This is an anthology containing 12 contributions by various scholars and anintroduction by the editors. Contributions are divided under the followingheadlines:NHRIs in theoryand reality,NHRIperformance:Global, regionalandnational domains, NHRIs and compliance: Beyond enforcement, and Finalreflections. Geographically, Central and Eastern Europe, Asia-Pacific, LatinAmericaandAfricaarecovered.1.5. Mertus, J. A.: Human Rights Matters: Local Politics and National HumanRightsInstitutions,RedwoodCity:StanfordUniversityPress,2009.

The authorpresents anumberof case stories concerningoperationalizationofhuman rights at the local level. The countries coveredare:Denmark,NorthernIreland,Bosnia-Herzegovina,theCzechRepublicandGermany.1.6. Meuwissen, K.; Wouters, J. (eds.): National Human Rights Institutions inEurope: Comparative, European and International Perspectives, Antwerp:Intersentia,2013.

This anthology contains contributions from almost 20 scholars including theeditors.ThesubjectisNHRIsinEuropeandtherearecasestudiesfromDenmark,Poland, Netherlands, and Belgium as well as considerations on a number ofsubjects, e.g. comparative European and international perspectives,NHRIs andtheEuropeanCourtofHumanRights,theEUandNHRIs,theICC,etc.

13

5.2. ARTICLES(INCLUDINGWORKINGPAPERSBYSCHOLARS)2.1.deBeco,G.:Article33(2)oftheUNConventionontheRightsofPersonswithDisabilities: Another Role for National Human Rights Institutions?NetherlandsQuarterlyofHumanRights,Vol.29(1),2011,84-106.

ThisarticlediscussesthesuitabilityofNHRIsasindependenttreatymechanisms.In this connection the content of article 33 is explained together with thefunctions of NHRIs. The national obligation for the implementation of humanrightsisstressedtogetherwiththefactthattheCRPDdoesnotpromoteNHRIsbut rather theParisPrinciples.Severalmodels fordesignating the independentmechanisminaccordancewitharticle33arepresented.2.2. de Beco, G.: Networks of European National Human Rights Institutions,EuropeanLawJournal,Vol.14(6),2008,860-877.

The article looks into the advantages of networking in terms of sharing bestpractices among the European institutions as well as the internationalcooperationwiththeUNsystemandregionallywiththeCouncilofEuropeandtheEU.2.3. de Beco, G.: National Human Rights Institutions in Europe,Human RightsLawReview,Vol.7(2),2007,331-370.

The article analyses three different models of composition and the principalcompetencies ofNHRIs in Europe. It includes a brief description of the historyandroleofNHRIsfrom1946to1991.2.4.Brodie,M.:ProgressingNormSocialisation:WhyMembershipMatters.TheImpactoftheAccreditationProcessoftheInternationalCoordinatingCommitteeof National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights,NordicJournalofInternationalLaw,Vol.80,2011,143-192.

14

The article presents a history and evolution of the International CoordinatingCommittee (ICC), especially concerning accreditationofmembers and thedualroleof the ICCas representativeand regulatorof itsmembers. Italso includesSwedenasacasedescribingthedifficultiesinobtainingaccreditation,andinthecaseofSweden,notbeingabletogetanA-statusforthetimebeing).2.5. Burdekin, B.: “National Human Rights Institutions” in G. Alfredsson et Al.(eds.), International Monitoring Mechanisms: Essays in Honour of Jacob Th.Möller,Brill,2009,659-663.

ThearticlemakesapresentationofNHRIsand theParisPrinciples. Itdescribesthedevelopmentsince the firstmentionof theconceptofNHRI in1946, the8NHRIsexistingin1991anduptodate(2009).Theauthorstressestheprocessofhumanrightsfromratificationoftreaties,cooperationwiththetreatybodiesandthe actual implementation, where only the former can be said to be up toexpected standard. He reminds us that it is the UN which adopted the ParisPrinciples,asaminimumstandardforestablishingNHRIs.2.6. Cardenas, S.:Adaptive States: The Proliferation of National Human RightsInstitutions,CentreforHumanRightsPolicy,WorkingPaperT-01-04,2004.

ThisarticleraisesanumberofquestionconcerningthereasonforcreatingNHRIsand why they are so similar (seemingly ignoring the existence of the ParisPrinciples).Thegeographical focus isontheAsia-Pacificregionwithcasesfromthe Philippines, India and Indonesia and examples from Nepal, Malaysia,BangladeshandSri Lanka. Theapproach is clearly thatofpolitical science, e.g.stating that “NHRIs are important precisely because they serve to politicizehuman rights issues…” Theremay bemore than one definition of politicizing,however, the strict requirement of independence of NHRIs is meant to keepNHRIsoutofpoliticsandoperatinginastrictlyfactual,professionalmanner.Thearticlealsocontainsaninterestingpresentationoftheparadoxthat“mostNHRIsremain tooweak to protect society from human rights violations at the sametimetheycreateandunprecedenteddemandforsuchprotection”.

15

2.6. Cardenas, S.: Trans-governmental Activism: Canada’s Role in PromotingNational Human Rights Commissions, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 25, 2003,775-790.

UsingCanadaasanexample,thearticleanalysesinternationalsupportgiventonational human rights commissions. There are four major forms of technicalassistance: training, consultation, exchanges and networking. Three basicobstaclesaredefined:foreigngovernmentcommitment,resourceshortageandlackofevaluation.2.7. Cardenas, S.: Emerging Global Actors: The United Nations and NationalHumanRightsInstitutions,GlobalGovernance,Vol.9,2003,23-42.

TheauthorquestionstheroleoftheUN intheproliferationofNHRIs,presents“perverse implications [of NHRIs] for global governance” and argues that“national institutionscouldhavenegativeeffects”.AsNHRIsemanate fromtheUNsystem, its roleas supporterandpromoterofNHRIs seemsonlynatural. Itseems that applying the Paris Principles would to a large degree solve theseperversitiesandpreventanynegativeeffectsofNHRIs.2.8. Carver, R.: One NHRI or Many? How Many Institutions Does It Take toProtectHumanRights?–LessonsfromtheEuropeanExperience,HumanJournalofHumanRightsPractice,Vol.3(1),2011,1-24.

The article presents a discussionofwhether to have a singleNHRI ormultiplespecialized institutions. It includes examples from the UK, Sweden, Hungary,Lithuania, Croatia, Moldova and Georgia. An unequivocal conclusion is notreachedalthoughleaninginfavourofasingleinstitution.2.9. Carver, R.: A New Answer to an Old Question: National Human RightsInstitutions and the Domestication of International Law, Human Rights LawReview,Vol.10(1),2010,1-32.

ThearticlediscussestheincreasingroleofNHRIs indomesticatinginternationallaw, describing NHRIs as the bridge between the international and domesticsystemsofhumanrightsprotection.

16

2.10.Cole,W.M.;Ramirez,F.O.:ConditionalDecoupling:Assessingthe Impactof National Human Rights Institutions, 1981 to 2004, American SociologicalReview,Vol.78(4),2013,702-725.

Focusingontheprotectionofphysical integrityrights inparticularandcivilandpolitical rights, more generally, the article looks into the impact of NHRIs. ItcontainscasesfromIndonesiaandArgentina.2.11.Koo,J.W.;Ramirez,F.O.:NationalIncorporationofGlobalHumanRights:Worldwide Expansion ofNationalHumanRights Institutions: 1966-2004,SocialForces,Vol.87(3),2009,1321-1354.AnumberofhypothesisesconcerningthelikelihoodofcountriesadoptingNHRIsundervariouscircumstancesarediscussedwiththeresultthat“Whatwefindisthat thepolitical cultureof theworld is theonlyvariable that consistentlyandpositivelyinfluencesbothadoptionrates”.2.12. Kumar, C.R.: National Human Rights Institutions: Good GovernancePerspectives on Institutionalization of Human Rights, American UniversityInternationalLawReview,Vol.19(2),2003,259-300.

The article examines the historical circumstances that have resulted in thecreationofNHRIs.2.13.Linos,K.;Pegram,T.: Interrogating formand function:Designingeffectivenational human rights institutions,MattersofConcernHumanRightsResearchPaperSeries,No.2015/8,TheDanishInstituteforHumanRights,2015.

This theoretical article discusses “what institutional features make NHRIseffective?” The article goes “into depth on the causal linkage between formalrulesandtheireffectonactorbehaviourandpractice”.The importanceofandinfluence on effectiveness of the design of the institution are discussed. Theimportanceofaccessibilityisstressed.2.14. Murray, R.: National Human Rights Institutions: Criteria and Factors forAssessingtheirEffectiveness,NetherlandsQuarterlyofHumanRights,Vol.25(2),2007,189-220.

17

The article examines how useful the Paris Principles are in assessing theeffectiveness of NHRIs and concludes that they are not very useful. Itmay beuseful to keep inmind then that theParis Principleswere created tomeasurecompliance with certain requirements for their establishment and not theiractivities/operation.Thearticlealsodescribesthenecessityofstrategicplanninginordertomeasureperformanceandimpact.2.15. Pegram, T.: Governing Relationships: The New Architecture in GlobalHuman Rights Governance,Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol.43(2),2015,618-639.

In line with article 2.17, the author applies the concept of orchestration withOPCAT as an example. A development from global human rights governancetowardsorchestration in relation to theprocess fromestablishingstandards toanactualimplementationofhumanrights.2.16. Pegram, T.: Global human rights governance and orchestration: Nationalhuman rights institutions as intermediaries, European Journal of InternationalRelations,2015,595-620.

Thearticledwellsonthegapbetweenstandardsand implementation–theso-called compliance gap, making use of the concept of orchestration andidentifying NHRIs as intermediaries of this orchestration. It also looks into thewider implicationsof identifying sucha role forNHRIs, forglobalhuman rightsgovernance.2.17.Pegram,T.:Diffusionacrosspoliticalsystems:theglobalspreadofnationalhumanrightsinstitutions,HumanRightsQuarterly,Vol.32(3),2010,729-760.

This article presents the differences between ombudsmen, NHRIs and humanrightscommissionsandtheirhistoryanddiffusion. Itcontainsexamples fromanumberofcountries.2.18. Reif, L.: Building Democratic Institutions: The Role of National HumanRights Institutions in Good Governance and Human Rights Protection, Harv.Hum.RightsJ.,Vol.13,2000,1-69.

18

ThearticlepresentsahistoricalreviewofNHRIsintheirdifferentvariations,alsobuilds on a considerable number of country cases from Europe, Latin AmericaandAfrica.2.19. Renshaw, C. S.: National Human Rights Institutions and Civil SocietyOrganizations: New Dynamics of Engagement at Domestic, Regional, andInternationalLevels,GlobalGovernance,Vol.18,2012,299-316.

ThisarticledealswiththeroleofcivilsocietyintheestablishmentofNHRIsintheAsia-Pacificregion,theregion’sconstructivenetworksofNHRIsandcivilsociety,andfinallythepotentialforcivilsocietytobenefitfromdevelopmentsintheICC.

19

2.20. Smith, A.: The Unique Position of National Human Rights Institutions: AMixedBlessing?HumanRightsQuarterly,Vol.28,2006,904-946.

ThearticledealswiththeindependenceandtheaccountabilityofNHRIs,andtodo so, looks into the relationship between government and NHRI, theircomposition and their relationship to civil society and NGOs. In dealing withthesecore issues, theauthorpointsoutthepublic fundingofNHRIsasbeingasourceof“ongoingtensionwiththeneedforNHRIstomaintainindependence”.ThearticlealsocontainsinformationabouttheproblemsfacedbytheNorthernIreland Human Rights Commission, demonstrating that not only NHRIs indeveloping countries, countries in transition, etc. struggle to establish viableNHRIs.2.21. Steinerte, E.; Murray, R.: Same but Different. National Human RightsCommissions and Ombudsman Institutions as national preventivemechanismsundertheOptionalProtocoltotheUNConventionAgainstTorture,EssexHumanRightsLawReview,SpecialIssue,2009,54-72.

This article discusses the challenges faced when choosing whether anombudsman or a human rights commission should be appointed nationalpreventive mechanism (NPM) under the OPCAT. It highlights the clear link inOPCAT and CRDP to the national obligation to implement. The NPM is thuscentral to the successful implementation of OPCAT. A number of thesechallengesareillustratedbytheexampleofDenmark.

5.3.OTHERPUBLICATIONS(WORKINGPAPERS,GUIDELINESANDPUBLICATIONSBYUN,ICC,NHRISANDNGOS)

3.1.Centre forHumanRights:NationalHumanRights Institutions:AHandbookon the Establishment and Strengthening of National Institutions for thePromotionandProtection ofHumanRights,Geneva: Centre forHumanRights,ProfessionalTrainingSeriesNo4,1995.

Thishandbookgivesa comprehensivehistoricoverviewof thedevelopmentofNHRIswhichisinterestinginitself.

20

3.2.Dalton,P.;Mehyar,M.(eds.):TheroleofNHRIsincountriesintransitionintheArabWorld,TheDanishInstituteforHumanRights,2012.

This publication is one of the results of the Arab-European Human RightsDialogue.PublishedinthewakeoftheArabSpring, itdescribese.g.howNHRIscan contribute to reformprocesses, to constitutional reformand topromotinghuman rights education reform. It also gives a detailed presentation of anintegratedapproach tohuman rightsdialogue.Contributorsoriginate from theArabandtheEuropeanregionandthecontentisinEnglishandArab.3.3. International Coordinating Committee of NHRIs (ICC): National HumanRights Institutions and Universal Periodic Review Follow-Up (available on thewebsiteoftheOHCHR).

AbriefpapertoParisPrinciplecompliantNHRIsontheirroleinUPRfollow-up.Itwas prepared prior to the second cycle of theUPR, i.e. the first time that thequestion about follow-up became relevant. Brief cases from Australia, SouthAfrica, KenyaandNorwayare includedas inspiration. Thepaperhighlights thecatalyst effect theUPRhas for the creationof newNHRIs, as oneof themostfrequentrecommendationsmadetostatesistheestablishmentorstrengtheningofNHRIs.3.4. International Council on Human Rights Policy and Office of the UnitedNations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Assessing the Effectiveness ofNational Human Rights Institutions, International Council on Human RightsPolicy,2015(draftedbyRichardCarver).

This report looks at the “issue of effectiveness and examines how nationalinstitutionsmight improve theirperformanceand impactbyusingbenchmarksand indicators to assess their work.” It gives useful advice on the use ofindicatorsandaplethoraofrecommendationsthroughoutthereport.3.5. International Council on Human Rights Policy: Performance & Legitimacy:NationalHumanRightsInstitutions,Geneva,2004.

This publication presents a wealth of information concerning operationalperformanceandpubliclegitimacy,includingonaccessibility,onlinkswithother

21

institutions – the judiciary, media, NGOs and international links - and threedetailed case studies from Ghana, Indonesia and Mexico. Experience andexamplesaredrawnfromallover theworld:SouthAfrica,Nigeria,Latvia,NewZealand, Australia, Canada, Guatemala, India, the Philippines, Spain, Togo,NorthernIrelandandMalawi.Thepublicationdatesbacktoyear2000butisstillworthwhile not least due to the case studies. The publication discusses whymoreor lessParis Principle compliant institution canbe completely ineffectivewhile others with little independence and inadequate funding have had apositiveimpactonhumanrightsintheircountry.Finally,thepublicationpresentsa number of useful recommendations, and stresses how economic, social andculturalrightsshouldtoptheagendaforNHRIsduringthenextdecade.

3.6. Lindsnæs, B.; Lindholt, L.; Yigen, K. (eds.), National Human RightsInstitutions. Articles and Working Papers: Input into the Discussions on theEstablishment and Development of the Functions of National Human RightsInstitutions,TheDanishCentreofHumanRights,2000.

An early publication covering standard-setting, effectiveness, independence,jurisdiction and quasi-judicial competence. In addition, seven contributionsdescribetheEuropean,theAsian,theAfricanandtheLatinAmericanperspectiverespectively.Finally,anumberofannexespresentsvariousillustrativedata.3.7.Müller,A.;Seidensticker,F.:TheRoleofNationalHumanRightsInstitutionsin theUnitedNationsTreatyBodyProcess,German Institute forHumanRights,2007.

This is a handbook covering the roleofNHRIs in relation to all theUNhumanrights treaty bodies. The authors see “enormous potential for improvedimplementationofinternationalhumanrightslaw”inthisareaandthusexaminethe existing cooperation and develop and discuss ideas to improve thisinteraction. The handbook contains an explanation of the UN human rightstreatiesandtheirmonitoringmechanismsandtheNHRIs’ role intheUNtreatybodysystem.

22

3.8. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR): NationalHumanRightsInstitutions:History,Principles,RolesandResponsibilities.Geneva:OfficeoftheUnitedNationsHighCommissionerforHumanRights,2011.

A very useful handbook onNHRIs, covering theUN system, ICC, human rightspromotion and protection, the Paris Principles, etc. It outlines four mainchallenges for NHRI: Institutional diversity, thematic diversity, minimumstandardsandcoreprotectionactivities.3.9.OfficeoftheHighCommissionerforHumanRights(OHCHR):ThematicStudyon theStructureandRoleofNationalMechanisms for the ImplementationandMonitoringoftheConventionontheRightsofPersonswithDisabilities.Geneva:OfficeoftheUnitedNationsHighCommissionerforHumanRights,2009.

The CRPD is the first treaty that contains specific requirements on its nationalimplementation,andthestudyprovidesabriefoverviewoftheconventionandits status, mechanisms and procedures for monitoring, and the nationalmechanismsfortheimplementationandmonitoringfocussingonart.33oftheconvention. Some examples are given of how States have given art. 33 effectdomestically.3.10. Pohjolainen, A. E.: The Evolution of National Human Rights Institutions -TheRoleoftheUnitedNations,DanishInstituteforHumanRights,2006.

Thestudyisbasedontheauthor’sPhDdissertationbuildingonresearchcarriedoutmainlybetweentheyears2000and2003.

23

BIBLIOGRAPHYONNATIONALHUMANRIGHTSINSTITUTIONS

1.BOOKSdeBecoG.;Murray,R.:CommentaryontheParisPrinciplesonNationalHumanRightsInstitutions,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2015.

deBeco,G.(ed.):Article33oftheUNConventionontheRightsofPersonswithDisabilities: National Structures for the Implementation andMonitoring of theConvention,Leiden/Boston:MartinusNijhoffPublishers,2013.

Burdekin, B.: National Human Rights Institutions in the Asia-Pacific Region,Leiden/Boston:MartinusNijhoffPublishers,2007.

Goodman, R.; Pegram, T. (eds.): Human Rights, State Compliance, and SocialChange: Assessing National Human Rights Institutions, Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress,2012.

Mertus, J.A.:HumanRightsMatters: LocalPoliticsandNationalHumanRightsInstitutions,RedwoodCity:StanfordUniversityPress,2009.

Meuwissen,K.;Wouters,J.(eds.):NationalHumanRightsInstitutionsinEurope:Comparative, European and International Perspectives, Antwerp: Intersentia,2013.

2. ARTICLES(INCLUDINGWORKINGPAPERSBYSCHOLARS)deBeco,G.: Article 33(2) of theUNConventionon theRights of PersonswithDisabilities: Another Role for National Human Rights Institutions?NetherlandsQuarterlyofHumanRights,Vol.29(1),2011,84-106.

ANNEXES

24

deBeco,G.:NetworksofEuropeanNationalHumanRightsInstitutions,EuropeanLawJournal,Vol.14(6),2008,860-877.

de Beco, G.: National Human Rights Institutions in Europe,Human Rights LawReview,Vol.7(2),2007,331-370.Brodie, M.: Progressing Norm Socialisation: Why Membership Matters. TheImpactoftheAccreditationProcessoftheInternationalCoordinatingCommitteeof National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights,NordicJournalofInternationalLaw,Vol.80,2011,143-192.

Burdekin,B.:“NationalHumanRightsInstitutions”inAlfredsson,G.etal.(eds.),InternationalMonitoringMechanisms:EssaysinHonourofJacobTh.Möller,Brill,2009,659-663.

Cardenas, S.: Adaptive States: The Proliferation of National Human RightsInstitutions,CentreforHumanRightsPolicy,WorkingPaperT-01-04,2004.

Cardenas,S.:Trans-governmentalActivism:Canada’sRoleinPromotingNationalHumanRightsCommissions,HumanRightsQuarterly,Vol.25,2003,775-790.

Cardenas, S.: EmergingGlobalActors:TheUnitedNationsandNationalHumanRightsInstitutions,GlobalGovernance,Vol.9,2003,23-42.

Carver,R.:OneNHRIorMany?HowMany InstitutionsDoes It Take toProtectHuman Rights? – Lessons from the European Experience, Human Journal ofHumanRightsPractice,Vol.3(1),2011,1-24.

Carver,R.:ANewAnswertoanOldQuestion:NationalHumanRightsInstitutionsand the Domestication of International Law, Human Rights Law Review, Vol.10(1),2010,1-32.

Cole, W. M.; Ramirez, F. O.: Conditional Decoupling: Assessing the Impact ofNationalHumanRightsInstitutions,1981to2004,AmericanSociologicalReview,Vol.78(4),2013,702-725.

Koo, J. W.; Ramirez, F. O.: National Incorporation of Global Human Rights:Worldwide Expansion ofNationalHumanRights Institutions: 1966-2004,SocialForces,Vol.87(3),2009,1321-1354.

25

Kumar,C.R.:NationalHumanRightsInstitutions:GoodGovernancePerspectiveson Institutionalization of Human Rights,AmericanUniversity International LawReview,Vol.19(2),2003,259-300.

Linos, K.; Pegram, T.: Interrogating form and function: Designing effectivenational human rights institutions,MattersofConcernHumanRightsResearchPaperSeries,No.2015/8,TheDanishInstituteforHumanRights,2015.

Murray,R.:NationalHumanRightsInstitutions:CriteriaandFactorsforAssessingtheir Effectiveness, Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, Vol. 25(2), 2007,189-220.

Pegram, T.: Governing Relationships: The New Architecture in Global HumanRightsGovernance,Millennium:JournalofInternationalStudies,Vol.43(2),2015,618-639.

Pegram,T.:Globalhumanrightsgovernanceandorchestration:Nationalhumanrightsinstitutionsasintermediaries,EuropeanJournalofInternationalRelations,2015,595-620.

Pegram, T.: Diffusion across political systems: the global spread of nationalhumanrightsinstitutions,HumanRightsQuarterly,Vol.32(3),2010,729-760.

Reif, L.: Building Democratic Institutions: The Role of National Human RightsInstitutions in Good Governance and Human Rights Protection, Harv. Hum.RightsJ.,Vol.13,2000,1-69.

Renshaw, C. S.: National Human Rights Institutions and Civil SocietyOrganizations: New Dynamics of Engagement at Domestic, Regional, andInternationalLevels,GlobalGovernance,Vol.18,2012,299-316.

Smith, A.: TheUniquePositionofNationalHumanRights Institutions: AMixedBlessing?HumanRightsQuarterly,Vol.28,2006,904-946.

Steinerte, E.; Murray, R.: Same but Different. National Human RightsCommissions and Ombudsman Institutions as national preventivemechanismsundertheOptionalProtocoltotheUNConventionAgainstTorture,EssexHumanRightsLawReview,SpecialIssue,2009,54-72.

26

3.OTHERPUBLICATIONS(WORKINGPAPERS,GUIDELINESANDPUBLICATIONSBYUN,ICC,NHRISANDNGOS)

CentreforHumanRights:NationalHumanRightsInstitutions:AHandbookontheEstablishmentandStrengtheningofNational Institutions for thePromotionandProtection of Human Rights, Geneva: Centre for Human Rights, ProfessionalTrainingSeriesNo4,1995.

Dalton,P.;Mehyar,M. (eds.):TheroleofNHRIs incountries intransition intheArabWorld,TheDanishInstituteforHumanRights,2012.

International Coordinating Committee of NHRIs (ICC): National Human RightsInstitutionsandUniversalPeriodicReviewFollow-Up(availableonthewebsiteoftheOHCHR).International Council onHumanRights Policy andOfficeof theUnitedNationsHigh Commissioner for Human Rights, Assessing the Effectiveness of NationalHuman Rights Institutions, International Council onHuman Rights Policy, 2015(draftedbyRichardCarver).

International Council on Human Rights Policy: Performance & Legitimacy:NationalHumanRightsInstitutions,Geneva,2004.

Lindsnæs, B.; Lindholt, L.; Yigen, K. (eds.),National Human Rights Institutions.ArticlesandWorkingPapers:InputintotheDiscussionsontheEstablishmentandDevelopmentoftheFunctionsofNationalHumanRightsInstitutions,TheDanishCentreofHumanRights,2000.

Müller,A.;Seidensticker,F.:TheRoleofNationalHumanRightsInstitutionsintheUnitedNationsTreatyBodyProcess,GermanInstituteforHumanRights,2007.

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR):National HumanRights Institutions:History,Principles,RolesandResponsibilities.Geneva:OfficeoftheUnitedNationsHighCommissionerforHumanRights,2011.

OfficeoftheHighCommissionerforHumanRights(OHCHR):ThematicStudyonthe Structure and Role of National Mechanisms for the Implementation and

27

MonitoringoftheConventionontheRightsofPersonswithDisabilities.Geneva:OfficeoftheUnitedNationsHighCommissionerforHumanRights,2009.

Pohjolainen,A.E.:TheEvolutionofNationalHumanRightsInstitutions-TheRoleoftheUnitedNations,DanishInstituteforHumanRights,2006.

28