Browsing by Author "Huotari, Suvi"

All the ten core UN human rights treaties have a treaty body. The treaty bodies are committees of independents experts and set up by the governing treaty (with one exception). They perform different functions of which the main one is the examination of the state parties’ reports on implementation of the treaty. These reports are examined in a constructive dialogue with the state representatives. In addition to that they can issue general comments on the treaty obligations, initiate inquiries and examine state complaints. Eights of the treaty bodies can also receive petitions from individuals. This thesis analyses the legal status of the treaty bodies. The purpose is to find out their real status under international law. The treaty bodies have differing functions and their nature varies from court-like examination of cases to administrative and even legislative activities. This has raised questions about the real status of the treaty bodies. The scope of the action of the treaty bodies has widened slowly and sometimes deliberately as the treaty bodies have claimed the power to perform also action not expressed in the founding documents. The states have not always agreed on the treaty bodies’ views on the extent of their powers. This highlights the tension between the traditional state-centered thinking of international law and human rights that have challenged sovereignty. International law has changed from the times when the treaties were adopted. What are the treaty bodies then, today? The sources of international law, as listed in the article 38 of the statute of the International Court of Justice cannot point to a single clear answer. Comparison to existing status categories (court, lawmaker, organization etc.) does not help either, because the treaty bodies have characteristics of many of these but do not fall under any completely. Therefore the answers they give are contradictory and norm hierarchy cannot solve the conflict, as international law is not hierarchical in the same sense as national law. The inability to find a single definition and a clear answer is due to the nature of international law. It is indeterminate and inherently political. In order for it to work, it must be able to accommodate differing and even opposing views. This uncertainty does not mean that the treaty bodies are left empty-handed. Compliance does not require certain status, it requires legitimacy. The recent development including individual complaints mechanisms’ the entry into force and the finally reached agreement on how to enhance the treaty body system reflect the states’ commitment to human rights protection, and it is certain that we would not see it if the treaty bodies’ action was not perceived legitimate. After all, compliance is all that matters, especially in the context of the human rights treaty bodies because they were created to ensure and help implementation of the treaty rights. Bearing this in mind could lead to the realisation that, in fact, there is a clear definition for the human rights treaty bodies. It is enough to define that their status under international law is treaty body.