Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T22:26:27.912Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Human Rights Obligations of Non-state Actors. By Andrew Clapham. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. Pp. xxxiii, 613. Index. $110, £68, cloth; $49.95, £27.50, paper.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Hurst Hannum
Hurst Hannum*
Affiliation:
University of Hong Kong
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Recent Books on International Law
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 101 , Issue 2 , April 2007 , pp. 514 - 519
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See, e.g., Andrew, Clapham, Human Rights in the Private Sphere (1996).Google Scholar

2 Compare Human Rights Committee, Issues Relating to Reservations Made upon Ratification or Accession to the Covenant or the Optional Protocols Thereto, or in Relation to Declarations Under Article 41 of the Covenant, General Comment No. 24, UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.l/Add.6 (1994), with, e.g., US Observations on the General Comment, quoted in Harris, D. J., Cases and Materials on International Law 825 (2004)Google Scholar (The Human Rights Committee “asserts in a wholly conclusory fashion that a number or propositions are customary international law which, to speak plainly, are not.”).

3 Interim Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises, para. 59, UN Doc. /EN.4/2006/97 (2006) [hereinafter Interim Report].

4 Id., para. 68.

5 28 U.S.C. §1350(2000).

6 Interim Report, supra note 3, para. 62.

7 Clapham does note (p. 14 n.38) that a recent authoritative study on humanitarian law, Henckaerts, J.-M. & Doswald-Beck, L., Customary International Humanitarian Law, Vol. I: Rules (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, “mysteriously” rejects the argument that human rights law applies to insurgents.

8 Bankovićv. Belgium, App. No. 52207/99, Eur. Ct. H.R2001-XII, para. 75 (2001) (grand chamber).

9 The Court held that the bombing did not fall within the states’ jurisdiction, although it maintained its earlier jurisprudence that a state is responsible for extraterritorial violations of human rights when the territory in question is under that state’s “effective control.” See, e.g., Loizidouv. Turkey, App. No. 15381/89, Eur. Ct. H.R. 1996-VI (1996).