Fadel Abdulghany
The international human rights system, which took shape in the aftermath of the Second World War, is facing a series of unprecedented challenges that threaten its founding principles and practical effectiveness; this coincides with profound shifts in the global balance of power and the emergence of qualitative threats in the twenty-first century.
The future course of the international human rights system will be determined by the ability of its institutional mechanisms to adapt to changing geopolitical realities, while maintaining their normative commitments to protect human rights globally.
It is well known that the contemporary human rights architecture is based on multiple levels of governance, ranging from the Human Rights Council and treaty bodies at the international level, to regional systems in Europe, the Americas, and Africa.
These mechanisms were designed in a state context linked to the conditions of the Cold War and ideological conflicts, but they now face structural pressures resulting from competition among major powers, the formation of authoritarian axes, and the rise of non-state actors acting with quasi-sovereign capabilities and influence.
The intensity of the US-China rivalry, Russia’s challenge to the liberal order, and the democratic backsliding in a number of established democracies have changed the political landscape in which human rights institutions operate; a change that raises existential questions about the usefulness of global human rights institutions in an international system that is moving towards more authoritarianism and the rise of right-wing forces.
Nevertheless, the future of human rights protection will be determined by the ability of the international community to enact in-depth reforms that address structural weaknesses and political obstacles; otherwise, the system will slide towards disintegration.
Institutional Mechanisms and Structural Constraints
The contemporary institutional framework for human rights embodies significant achievements in terms of global standards and oversight of rights and freedoms, but it also suffers from constraints that hinder its effectiveness.
The UN Human Rights Council – established in 2006 to replace the Commission on Human Rights, whose credibility had been eroded – provides a clear example of this duality; despite its expanded mandate and greater involvement of civil society within it, it still suffers from politicization that undermines its image as a neutral forum.
The Universal Periodic Review mechanism, which reviews each country’s record, has achieved comprehensive coverage of all 193 member states, providing unprecedented opportunities for review and accountability; however, voting patterns within the Council consistently demonstrate diplomatic biases at the expense of substantive human rights considerations, while the continued inclusion of countries with poor human rights records in its system undermines its moral authority.
The treaty body system, composed of ten committees that monitor compliance with core international treaties, faces systemic challenges that limit its enforcement capacity. Chronic funding shortages lead to a large backlog of cases and delays in reporting, while weak support from the Secretariat restricts the pace of review of State reports and individual communications.
Most importantly, states often neglect to implement recommendations, revealing the inadequacy of follow-up mechanisms. Furthermore, the fragmentation among different committees leads to overlapping jurisdictions and conflicting directives, undermining the rule of law and the consistency of standards.
Regional human rights systems exhibit significant disparities in effectiveness. While the European system boasts binding provisions and robust enforcement mechanisms, other regions suffer from limited resources and implementation shortcomings. The European Court of Human Rights has developed innovative jurisprudence in emerging issues, but it faces growing resistance from populist movements that portray European human rights commitments as a threat to national sovereignty.
The American system, despite its pioneering role in collective rights and transitional justice approaches, is now under conservative political pressure and experiencing a decline in its funding. The African system, in the field of collective rights and development approaches, makes a significant contribution to strengthening the human rights discourse, but limited resources and weak cooperation among states constrain its operational capacity.
These regional differences illustrate that the effectiveness of institutions depends not only on formal mechanisms, but also on broader political culture, legal traditions, and the availability of resources.
The gap between international standards and the local implementation of human rights standards stems from multiple sources: concerns about sovereignty that drive states to resist external interference, capacity constraints in developing countries, conflicting domestic legal traditions, and political instability that hinders the continuity of protection.
To date, human rights accountability mechanisms have largely relied on voluntary cooperation rather than compulsory enforcement, with few deterrent tools and sanctions against non-compliant states.
The Rise of Populism
The waves of democratic backsliding and the rise of populism within established democracies have generated internal challenges that exacerbate external authoritarian pressures. Adherence to international human rights standards is portrayed as a threat to national security and the right to democratic self-determination, which reinforces public distrust of international institutions and weakens the willingness to engage in multilateralism.
These internal political pressures push democratic countries to adopt selective approaches to international human rights law, eroding their credibility as champions of rights and diminishing their ability to support international mechanisms.
The convergence of authoritarian resistance and democratic hesitation undermines rights and weakens the legal system that was formed in the post-World War II era.
This is not limited to states; it also includes technology companies and other corporate entities that wield quasi-sovereign power over human rights. Platform governance decisions and their focus on content moderation directly impact freedom of expression globally, while data collection practices pose unprecedented challenges to the right to privacy.
Algorithmic decision-making systems also contribute to perpetuating discrimination and bias while remaining resistant to traditional accountability mechanisms. It is well known that the scope of these digital platforms extends beyond national jurisdictions.
Future Paths and System Transformations
An analysis of current trends reveals three main scenarios for the future of the human rights system over the next fifteen to twenty years, each with distinct implications for institutional structure and normative frameworks.
- The scenario of continued fragmentation, resulting from great power rivalry remaining a destabilizing factor for consensus, is exacerbated by the fact that authoritarian alliances continue to effectively resist human rights scrutiny and documentation. Under these circumstances, the UN Human Rights Council is becoming increasingly dysfunctional due to political polarization, and the status of treaty bodies is gradually declining as state participation wanes.
- The scenario of adaptation and institutional reform assumes that the major powers acknowledge their common interests in the effectiveness of human rights governance, thus opening the door to comprehensive reforms that address structural weaknesses.
This path involves reforming institutional mechanisms and enhancing their credibility through depoliticization measures, streamlining and better-resourced treaty bodies, improving inter-agency coordination, and maximizing civil society participation with strong safeguards. Despite the significant political obstacles it faces, this path offers the potential to protect global frameworks while enhancing their effectiveness and legitimacy.
- The system transformation scenario integrates human rights with climate governance, the economy, and security, adopting comprehensive approaches to upholding human dignity. It moves beyond direct engagement with government actors and traditional state-centric models, while technology-enabled monitoring and rapid response systems will revolutionize human rights enforcement capabilities.
This transformation requires institutional innovation and breakthroughs in international legal frameworks. Governing digital rights necessitates new standards for monitoring surveillance technologies and artificial intelligence systems, and for holding platforms accountable beyond traditional judicial boundaries. Climate change also intersects with most human rights through human displacement, resource scarcity, and intergenerational justice concerns, requiring the integration of climate considerations into all human rights mechanisms.
Conclusion
The future course of the human rights system will be determined by the choices made in the next decade regarding institutional reform, alliance-building strategies, and adaptation to emerging challenges.
Despite the likelihood of continued fragmentation in light of current trends, opportunities for adaptation, and perhaps transformation, remain possible when sufficient political will and innovative thinking are present among the key players.
Comprehensive institutional reform, innovation in enforcement tools, building cohesive democratic alliances, adapting to digital, climate and economic challenges, and integrating governance across levels are all practical pathways to enhance the system’s resilience and effectiveness.
