arguments about the need to afford it broad discretion in organizing its political system, given its history and social values. The Court’s ability and willingness to engage in this scrutiny may have been strengthened by the African Union’s recent concern with building African democratic institutions, but the Court also invoked decisions of the African Commission and judgments of the other regional courts to support its reasoning. As at January, 2016, the Court received 74 applications and finalized 25 cases.

The African Court is unique thus far among regional human rights courts in electing a majority of judges with prior domestic judicial experience, a factor that could have a positive impact on the procedures and the outcome of cases, as well as compliance over time, as these judges may be better equipped to decide issues of evidence, procedure, and case management. In addition, if domestic courts are held in high regard this could enhance the reputation of the regional court. The prior judicial experience of African judges could also facilitate their relations with other judges in the national systems and encourage incorporation and application of the regional norms and court decisions.

Further north, the political changes and conflicts that swept many countries in North Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean since 2010 have led the League of Arab States to take several new and stronger actions concerning human rights. On November 16, 2011, the League condemned the human rights violations of Syria’s government. The League gave Damascus three days to withdraw military forces from occupied cities, start talks between the government and opposition, and pave the way for an observer team of military peacekeepers and human rights experts. The government rejected the demand. Members then voted to suspend the State from participating in the League and overwhelmingly approved sanctions on November 28, 2011. The sanctions included freezing the assets of senior officials in the Syrian government, banning visits by those officials to other Arab nations, and ending transactions with the Syrian central bank.

The second major development was the decision of the League’s Council in 2014 to adopt a Statute for an Arab Court of Human Rights, providing for the first time an institution to hear claims of human rights violations.[17] The Statute confirms “that Arab Conventions on human rights to which relevant States are party, including the Arab Charter on Human Rights, constitute the legal framework for the human being in the Arab States to enjoy and practice his/her rights,” and that “the setting up of an Arab Court of Human Rights will help to achieve the purposes and objectives of the Arab Charter on Human Rights.” The Court is to have seven judges who will serve a four-year term renewable once. The Court’s jurisdiction extends to all “suits and conflicts” resulting from the implementation and interpretation of the Arab Charter of Human Rights, or any other Arab convention in the field of human rights involving a member State. There is no right of individual petition, however. Cases may be brought on the basis of diplomatic protection by the State of nationality of the victim of an alleged violation. In addition, State Parties can accept, when ratifying or acceding to the Statute or at any time later, that one or more NGOs that are accredited and working in the field of human rights in the State whose subject claims to be a victim of a human rights violation has access to the Court (Statute art. 19).

Several unique provisions are included in the Statute. First, the Court is required to hold public hearings in every case, unless the parties request or the Court decides it is in the interest of justice to do otherwise. Second, the Court has a mandatory 60 days in which to enter a judgment after the end of its deliberations. Third, article 27 of the Statute provides a lengthy list of grounds to ask the Court to reconsideration a decision. Finally, and most problematic for the independence of the Court, it may draft its Rules of Court, but the Rules must be submitted to the Assembly of States Parties for approval. The Statute will enter into force after seven of the Member States have ratified it and deposited the instruments of ratification; the Statute will then be operative one year after it has entered into force. The headquarters of the Court is in Bahrain, which has long promoted creation of the Court.

In Asia, on 18 November 2012, the Heads of State of ASEAN adopted the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration.[18] Its Preamble reaffirms adherence to the 2007 ASEAN Charter, in particular respect for and promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, ‘as well as in the principles of democracy, the rule of law and good governance,’ and a ‘commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Charter of the United Nations, the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, and other international human rights instruments to which ASEAN Member States are parties.’ A few add new dimensions to UDHR rights, including the reference to human trafficking in the Article 13 provision banning slavery and servitude, with specific mention of the problem of child labour in Article 27, which concerns the right to work. The Declaration also mentions the rights of the elderly, persons with disabilities, and migrant workers. Other new elements include explicit mention of the rights of those suffering from communicable diseases, including HIV/Aids, and the right to reproductive health within the provision on the right to health (Article 29). The right to an adequate standard of living includes the right to safe drinking water and sanitation (Article 28). Among the omissions, the ASEAN Declaration is notable in not mentioning freedom of association.

3. Set-backs and concerns

All human rights bodies report chronic shortages of personnel and financial resources, hindering their ability to monitor state compliance with their human rights obligations. Many of them are dependent on outside funding due to the lack of resources provided by states parties. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights reported in mid-2016 that it would be forced to cancel its remaining sessions for the year and lay off 40% of its legal staff if the situation were not addressed immediately. It may not be, because a weak monitoring body is less able to point to human rights violations and deficiencies in implementation. Some states, in particular, have reacted negatively to decisions of human rights bodies, withdrawing funding and representatives, even in rare instances denouncing a treaty. Pressure is exerted on courts to give greater deference to governmental decisions and find in favor of the state when cases are decided on the merits. In the European system, the failure of compliance with judgments has led to an unsustainable caseload, resulting not in political action against the non-complying states, but further restrictions on access to the European Court of Human Rights. At the global level, inaction in the face of gross and systematic violations in various countries is leading to a sense of disillusionment if not cynicism about the commitment of member states to the human rights agenda that has been so prominent in the history of the organization. While some see the glass half full and others see it as half empty, some see only broken pieces of an empty container. Domestic politics in member states undoubtedly influences foreign policy and the future of human rights law will depend heavily on developments within each state as well as within international organizations.