Traditionally, international law sees international.
disputes as a matter to be resolved between the.
adjudication is inexorably horizontal. Only states.
have interest in settling a dispute and individuals do.
not have a role in adjudication. Here an attempt has.
been made to discuss the adjudication part of the.
human rights instruments.
In international law, a nicety can be maintained.
between human rights instruments and non-human right.
instruments. This distinction has two dimensions.
First, non-human rights treaties generally do not have.
treaty bodies for adjudication of dispute. On the.
other hand, many human rights instruments create.
treaty bodies and entrust them with the functions of.
adjudication. Thought the effectiveness of such treaty.
bodies is sometimes questionable, there is at lest.
some forum to resolve humanitarian matters. Secondly,.
in case of non-human rights treaties there is a very.
good culture of compliance1. Apart form the two.
paradigm exceptions in the Nicaragua and Iran Hostage.
cases; state parties generally comply with their.
treaty obligations. However, the same is not true for.
human rights instruments. There are endless examples.
of human rights treaty violations. The question is.
why? Why is it harder to initiate and institute a.
culture of compliance in case of human rights treaties.
than non-human rights treaties?.
The reasons for the above difference in treatment.
between human rights instrument and non-human rights.
treaties are not flinty to detect. First, in case of.
non-human rights treaties; there is a motivation of.
reciprocity among the contracting parties. One party.
performs its obligation with a view to benefit form.
the performance by the other party. .
But, there is no motivation of reciprocity in case of.
human rights treaties. Here, thought the treaty was.
between states, the beneficiaries are the people.
Secondly, the traditional doctrine of sovereignty is a.
big hurdle. States treat human right as their own.