The Strength of Our Commitments: the Effectiveness of National Human Rights Institutions in Europe and Beyond

Support for human rights has been at the core of democratic governance since the end of World War II. Yet over the past decade, we have witnessed growing contestation over normative and institutional commitments to promoting these rights. In Europe, the region where rights promotion has been at the centre of democratic governance since the end of World War Two, far-right parties are gaining momentum. Governments with Euro-sceptic illiberal agendas, like the ones in Hungary and Poland, have launched virulent attacks on liberal institutions in their countries, threatening to weaken human rights commissions and ombudsmen, and to silence human rights activists. These are signs that the commitment for human rights might be shrinking. At the same time, parties with pro-immigration platforms and an awareness for climate change have garnered more votes than ever in the 2019 election for the European Parliament. In the face of such social pressures, how strong are domestic institutions charged with human rights promotions and protection? How well-equipped are human rights commissions or ombudsmen to weather political changes and continue holding national governments accountable on rights violations? This paper draws on some of the findings of my forthcoming book which delivers an innovative set of answers to this question. It argues that national human rights institutions can remain strong and effective even in increasingly hostile contexts, but this does not happen for the reasons most commentators would expect. Despite a decrease in support for human rights around the world, the independent national bodies mandated to promote and protect human rights have grown stronger in the past two decades. These national regulatory bodies are particularly interesting cases to explore, as they are unique in the broader architecture of liberal democratic institutions. They operate as go-betweens international organisations and national governments. As such, their mandates allow them to act as sole independent mediators between domestic governments and international institutions, such as the United Nations and European Union, overseeing and supporting governments’ domestic implementation of international human rights law. It is precisely this duality of mandate that makes them uniquely equipped to withstand external pressures. While they can be seen as national representatives of international organisations and thus a limiting force on national governments, they can also be considered symbols of national sovereignty. This book explores this ‘chameleonic’ nature of NHRIs, through an analysis of the different dimensions of the relationship between institutional mandated strength and their resilience as liberal domestic bodies. More specifically, the paper takes a closer look at the strength and effectiveness in NHRIs in Europe and based on fieldwork in eight countries, seeking to illustrate the resilience of these institutions as well as their adaptation (for better or worse) to changing political conditions in the countries where they are located.