Regional Systems Compared
Chapter Sixty-One
Syllabus topic 3, "Role of Regional Organizations"
Pages 258 to 261 of 594
In one line
Europe, the Americas and Africa each have an instrument, a supervisory body and a court, and they differ on who may complain, whether the court is compulsory, what may be ordered, who supervises compliance, and what the instrument covers.
The table
| Europe | The Americas | Africa | ASEAN | Arab region | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisation | Council of Europe, 1949 | Organization of American States, 1948 | African Union, 2002, formerly OAU 1963 | ASEAN | League of Arab States, 1945 |
| Instrument | Convention, 1950, in force 1953 | Declaration April 1948; Convention 1969, in force 1978 | Charter 1981, in force 1986 | Declaration 2012, not a treaty | Charter 2004, in force 2008 |
| Body | Court, permanent since 1998 | Commission 1959 and Court | Commission and Court from 2004 | Intergovernmental Commission, 2009 | Committee on reports |
| Who may complain | any victim, direct to the Court | anyone, to the Commission | anyone, to the Commission | nobody | nobody |
| Court access for individuals | compulsory for all parties | never; only States and the Commission | only with an article 34(6) declaration | none | none |
| Outcome | binding judgment | binding judgment | Commission recommendations; Court binding judgments | none | comments on reports |
| Remedy | just satisfaction, mainly money | five categories including guarantees of non-repetition | orders including fair compensation or reparation | none | none |
| Compliance supervised by | Committee of Ministers | the Court itself, reporting to the General Assembly | Executive Council, reporting to the Assembly | none | none |
| Social and economic rights | separate Social Charter | article 26 and the Protocol of San Salvador | in the Charter itself, justiciable | in the Declaration, unenforceable | in the Charter, reporting only |
| Derogation | article 15, four protected | article 27, eleven protected plus judicial guarantees | none at all | paragraph 8 limits everything | not stated here |
The six comparisons
One: who may start a case
Europe requires a victim and gives direct access to the Court. The Americas require no victim but no individual may ever reach the Court. Africa requires no victim at the Commission and requires a declaration for the Court.
So no system gives both open standing and direct court access, and each has chosen a different half.
Two: is the court compulsory
Europe, yes, for every party since Protocol 11.
The Americas, no, because jurisdiction depends on a declaration under article 62.
Africa, no, for the individual, because of article 34(6).
This is the single sharpest difference in outcomes, because a court a State can avoid is a court most people never see.
Three: what can be ordered
Europe: just satisfaction where internal law affords only partial reparation, applied mainly as money and costs, with pilot judgments for systemic defects.
The Americas: the widest reparations practice anywhere, in five categories: restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition.
Africa: appropriate orders including fair compensation or reparation, drafted broadly and applied with far less consistency.
The rest of this chapter
Module one is free. The rest of LL.M. Human Rights Law Semester 1 is part of the bundle.
You are reading a chapter from a later module. Everything in module one of every subject stays free, and so does every question paper and the syllabus.
See the semester for ₹798 Already bought it? Sign in
Free either way: question papers, the syllabus, and module one of every subject.
The rest of this subject
These notes are cut from the University's printed syllabus. Open the syllabus itself, or the past papers, for the same subject.