Is Treaty-Body Talk Binding?

By Contributor | May 2, 2011

Two documents recently issued by the UN secretariat confirm the speculations of international observers that the recommendations of treaty monitoring bodies are increasingly being referenced by the UN system as obligatory on member states.

The report of the UN Secretary General on Population Programs from April’s Commission on Population and Development stated:

“International conferences in the 1990s and their follow-up events advanced understanding of sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights, clearing the way for stronger implementation. During the last decade, international human rights law and United Nations treaty monitoring bodies, which are legally binding on Governments, have increasingly recognized sexual and reproductive health, particularly in the areas of adolescents’ rights, maternal health and family planning” (E/CN.9/2011/4, Para 31).

More specifically referencing the treaty bodies, a recent UNFPA document on Sexual and Reproductive Health stated:

“In the past decade, international human rights law and UN treaty monitoring bodies have increasingly recognized sexual and reproductive health, particularly the areas of adolescent’s rights, maternal health, and family planning. Unlike the international agreements of the 1990’s, these treaty monitoring bodies are legally binding on governments.” (Sexual and Reproductive Health for All, p. 28)

It is troubling that the UN secretariat considers these treaty-monitoring bodies to be legally binding on governments when, in reality, no such relationship between the comments of treaty bodies and legal obligations exists. The recommendations issued by treaty monitoring bodies cannot produce obligations in international law, since the monitoring bodies are not representative of international governments, but are composed of select experts that are accountable to no one in particular. Their statements and conclusions, then, can hardly be considered representative of international consensus on human rights.

Claiming that legal obligations arise from the conclusions of these treaty bodies can actually destroy the legal credibility that human rights norms already have, and challenge the legitimacy of the treaties themselves. For a more thorough (and much more erudite) discussion of this issue, see “Rights by Stealth.”

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter