“The implementation of human rights is regarded as a matter of changing the conduct of States.” Comment. (2016, 15 Marks)
International human rights law is addressed to states. They ratify the treaties, submit the reports and face review. The statement captures the working logic of the post-1945 regime: implementation means altering what governments do. The core is sound, but the view is too narrow once non-state power and great-power defiance are counted.
Why the State Is the Target
- The state is at once the primary duty-bearer and the primary violator. Its obligations are to respect (refrain from abuse), protect (restrain third parties) and fulfil (provide).
- The Responsibility to Protect, endorsed at the 2005 World Summit, redefined sovereignty as responsibility rather than privilege. A state that fails its people invites collective action through the Security Council.
How State Conduct Is Changed
- Monitoring. Treaty bodies examine reports, the Universal Periodic Review (since 2008) puts every state before its peers, and Special Rapporteurs investigate. Regional courts go further: the European Court of Human Rights issues judgments that bind states.
- Transnational pressure. Margaret E. Keck and Kathryn Sikkink (Activists beyond Borders, 1998) described the boomerang pattern. Activists blocked at home enlist foreign networks, which then press their government from outside.
- Socialisation. Thomas Risse, Stephen C. Ropp and Sikkink (The Power of Human Rights, 1999) proposed a spiral model. States move from repression and denial to tactical concessions, then accept the norm and finally comply as a matter of routine.
- Domestic mobilisation. Beth A. Simmons (Mobilizing for Human Rights, 2009) found that ratified treaties improve practice mainly in transitional states. There, citizens use treaties to set agendas, litigate and mobilise.
Limits of a State-Centric View
- Non-state actors. Corporations, armed groups and online platforms now inflict much of the harm. The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (2011) assign firms a responsibility to respect rights, but they are voluntary, and a binding treaty remains under negotiation.
- Commitment without compliance. Oona A. Hathaway (2002) found that treaty ratification is often unrelated to practice, and sometimes goes with worse practice.
- Power and selectivity. Coercion follows power. NATO stretched the Libya mandate into regime change in 2011. The United States withdrew from the Human Rights Council in February 2025 and did not appear for its Universal Periodic Review in November 2025.
- Society as violator. Caste, patriarchy and communal violence require changes in social conduct, which state reform alone cannot achieve.
Indian Illustration
India signed the Convention against Torture in 1997 but has not ratified it. In 2025 the accreditation body of GANHRI recommended downgrading the National Human Rights Commission from A to B status, citing police-staffed investigations and opaque appointments; the final decision was deferred to November 2026. Change has come more through courts. In Vishaka (1997) the Supreme Court read CEDAW into the fundamental rights.
Conclusion
The statement correctly identifies the lever. States remain the only actors with the authority to legislate, police and remedy. Implementation, however, succeeds when international norms are taken up by domestic courts, institutions and movements. Changing state conduct is the end in view; changing societies and holding private power accountable are the means.