The Question of Domestic Jurisdiction and the Evolution of United Nations Law of Human Rights

One important area of UN activity, where innumerable claims to and denials of the applicability of domestic jurisdiction clause have been made, is the question of promotion and protection of human rights. The lack of a clear definition and the ambiguity of these ‘terms’ had a major impact on the functioning of the UN organs, especially with respect to promoting and protecting human rights. Whenever a state is accused of violating the human rights of its citizens, it generally resorts to Article 2(7) claiming that the matter was not subject to UN jurisdiction. Although both scholars and the government representatives in UN debates have differed on the question of primacy of international over domestic jurisdiction, the overwhelming opinion has shifted in favour of acknowledging the weight of international jurisdiction as evolved through the functioning of various legal instruments and regimes of the UN. This does not imply that the UN’s expanded jurisdiction has replaced state jurisdiction. Indeed, the incorporation of many principles/provisions in UN human rights treaties is aimed at protecting the sovereignty of states. The institutionalized monitoring process of international human rights norms shows that virtually all states at present are subject to some international legal obligations as regards the human rights of their citizens.