In the past two decades, there has been a growing body of scholarship, and action by stakeholders at all levels, to better understand the factors, and actors, that influence the extent to which states implement human rights law. This burgeoning literature, from a range of disciplines, including law, politics and international relations seeking to explain why states implement, or fail to implement, obligations and decisions from the supranational level. They explore the role of various actors, whether at the domestic or international level, as well as the factors relevant to the particular cases which seek to understand states' responses. International relations scholars have developed theories, rationalist and constructivist, which range in their advocating for whether coercion, on the one hand, or softer more encouraging approaches on the other, are more likely to facilitate implementation. This chapter outlines the focus of the Handbook, provides an overview of this material, as well as the contribution of the authors in this Handbook to those debates.

T.S. Eliot was captivated by marine life forms, particularly creatures that cling. From the "ragged claws" of ancient crustaceans to the firm foothold of the "delicate algae and the sea anemone," Eliot's writing is full of creatures whose instinct is to "hold on tight" while the sea tosses them about. Eliot's marine imagery is bound up with his thinking about the enabling possibilities of attachment-an idea that runs counter to his longstanding critical reputation as a poet of detachment. From his early reading of biological texts to his late critical writing, Eliot's work demonstrates a recurrent interest in attachment that serves to complicate and enrich our understanding of his aesthetics.

Este artigo analisa o papel dos organismos supranacionais de direitos humanos na implementação de suas decisões e recomendações, em casos individuais. O estudo avalia o papel e o impacto dos mecanismos supranacionais no desencadeamento de processos de implementação, por meio da observação do trabalho dos Órgãos de Tratados de Direitos Humanos da Organização das Nações Unidas (ONU) e dos três sistemas regionais, através do estudo aprofundado de casos específicos e de entrevistas semiestruturadas com as partes interessadas. O artigo argumenta que os organismos supranacionais fazem mais do que somente monitorar a implementação de ordens e recomendações em casos individuais, apesar da escassez de recursos. Eles usam ferramentas diferentes, tanto persuasivas quanto coercitivas. Esse diálogo é central para a realização do trabalho, e, às vezes, é aberto a outros atores, como organizações da sociedade civil, instituições nacionais de direitos humanos e outros. No entanto, os organismos supranacionais poderiam fazer ainda mais para aprimorar o papel que desempenham na implementação pelos Estados de suas decisões e recomendações.

This article analyses the role of supranational human rights bodies in the implementation of their orders and recommendations in individual cases. It elicits the means, roles and impact of supranational mechanisms in triggering implementation processes by looking at the practice of UN treaty bodies and the three regional systems, through the in-depth study of specific cases and semi-structured interviews with relevant stakeholders. The article argues that supranational bodies are doing more than monitoring implementation of orders and recommendations in individual cases despite the scarcity of resources. They use different tools, both persuasive and coercive. Dialogue is central to their work, a dialogue that at times is opened to other actors such as civil society organizations, national human rights institutions and others. However, supranational bodies could do more to enhance the role they have promoting implementation by states of their orders and recommendations.

It is the state to whom the supranational body directs its decision on a human rights violation, and it is the state who is found in violation and must provide the appropriate remedies. The state, however, is not a single entity: it is composed of the executive (and a web of different ministries and departments), the legislature, and the judiciary, including administrative bodies and tribunals. Depending on the type of reparations ordered, one, several, or all of these actors may be implicated. By tracking the mechanics of what happens in practical terms at the national level after decisions from UN treaty bodies and the regional human rights commissions and courts are adopted, findings from a three-year research project underscore that implementation is a multi-faceted process and whether implementation and ultimately compliance occurs can be explained, in part at least, by the regulatory, practical and technical processes in place to respond to those supranational decisions. By examining the role of these state actors and the procedures by which reparations are implemented and complied with at the national level, this article attempts to dissect the concept of 'political will'. We conclude by providing some further thoughts on how litigators, states and supranational bodies themselves can adjust their methods accordingly.

A recurrent statement when implementation of international orders or recommendations in individual cases is considered is the belief that greater specificity of the measures helps compliance. Our research project examined a number of decisions adopted by some of the UN treaty bodies, and the regional human rights commissions and courts, in Africa, the Americas and Europe, and attempted to trace the extent to which the reparations ordered by the supranational bodies were implemented by the state authorities. This article focuses primarily on the reparations ordered by the Inter-American, African and UN systems and attempts to define specificity, emphasizing that it refers to a constant process of refining and clarifying the meaning of different forms of reparation. Specificity is then 'unpacked' in terms of the content of the reparation, deadlines imposed, who is responsible and who is a victim, and how the decision is reasoned. In so doing, the article maintains that specificity must also be considered vis-a-vis the degree of discretion that is given (or not) to states to act on orders or recommendations given by supranational bodies in individual cases. We conclude that a more nuanced approach to specificity versus ambiguity is needed, tailored to each reparation, each state and each case.

There has been increasing attention to the implementation of decisions of human rights bodies by scholars and by supranational institutions, states, litigants, and civil society. A project funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) tracked the implementation by nine states of decisions adopted by human rights courts and commissions in the European, African and Inter-American systems and by select UN treaty bodies. This article summarizes the methodology and findings of the Project and in so doing forms an introduction to a series of articles and practice notes published in this special issue. A range of factors are identified from the research which influence implementation and stress the importance of a multifaceted, multidimensional approach to the issues. Implementation is not automatic and requires mechanisms, processes, and the involvement of actors (national and supranational) for states to comply with the reparations ordered in the decision. A caseby-case, state-by-state, context-specific approach is needed, tailored to the circumstances. This has implications for the manner in which litigants present their submissions, engage with state and supranational bodies and for the latter in terms of their roles and relationships with the various actors.

This section is about Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights dealing with Right to Receive Information and Freedom of Expression.

Abstract This section is about Articles 45 and 46 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights dealing with Mandate and Procedure of the African Commission.

Abstract This section is about Articles 63–68 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights dealing with Signature, Ratification and Adherence, Reservations and Protocols.

This section is about Articles 30–40 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights dealing with The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

This section is about Article 62 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights dealing with State Reporting.

Abstract This section is about Article 12 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights dealing with Freedom of Movement.

Abstract This section is about Article 15 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights dealing with Right to Work.

This section is about Article 2 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights dealing with Non-Discrimination.

This section is about Article 18 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights dealing with Protection of the Family, Rights of Women, Older Persons and Persons with Disabilities.

This section is about Article 1 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights dealing with Obligations of Member States.