National human rights institutions (NHRIs) are routinely described as a bridge between the international and domestic systems of human rights protection. But little attention has been paid to how NHRIs actually apply treaty standards at the national level. This article argues that recent innovations in human rights treaties—whereby national-level institutions are assigned an explicit role in treaty implementation—crystallise developments in the practice of NHRIs and treaty bodies over the past 15 years or so. NHRIs invoke international standards in their monitoring and case-handling, they audit legislation for compliance with international law and, after an initial period of unclarity, they have become increasingly involved in independent reporting to treaty monitoring bodies. An analysis of 69 founding statutes of NHRIs shows a growing trend to assign these institutions mandates derived from international standards. Despite some marginal differences in the practice of NHRIs in ‘monist’ and ‘dualist’ jurisdictions, traditional doctrinal distinctions in the incorporation of international law appear to have little impact on the role that these institutions play.
Richard Carver (Thu,) studied this question.