Adopting a human rights-based approach, this paper scrutinizes the treatment of illicit trafficking in cultural property as a human rights issue. The study focuses on the Iraqi contribution to the international agenda, revealing that Iraq co-sponsored at least 13 UN resolutions on the restitution of illegally expropriated cultural property, actively contributing to the negotiation of others, along with submitting its legal opinions on the drafts of relevant international documents, starting from as early as 1936 to culminate with the calls to stop cultural plunder feeding Western markets since the 1990s. Centering the Iraqi voices and adopting a critical decolonial rights-based perspective, the study showcases how illicit trade in cultural property clearly emerges as a violation of a state’s permanent sovereignty over its wealth and resources, negatively impacting its ability to guarantee the right to pursue economic, social, and cultural development for its people, as well as to freely dispose of their resources, the key components of the right to self-determination.

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a human rights mechanism under which all UN members are subject to human rights reviews by other states. Given that North Korea is among the worst human rights violators globally, human rights practitioners and academic research have paid much attention to North Korea as a State under Review (SUR). What is much less known and researched is that North Korea actively engages as a ‘reviewer’, regularly making human rights recommendations to other UN members. Using UPR data from 2008 to 2020, this study explores the political dynamics of North Korean human rights recommendations by identifying to whom North Korea makes recommendations and why. We theorize that North Korea utilizes the UPR as a political arena wherein it pats on the back of politically close states and tries to shame politically antagonistic states. Empirical analysis shows that political closeness with North Korea is the main driver influencing its back-patting and shaming efforts in the UPR. Specifically, politically distant states from North Korea, measured by the UN General Assembly voting affinity and presence of unilateral economic sanctions, receive more condemnations and fewer back-patting recommendations. We also demonstrate that North Korea has become much more active over time in their shaming efforts. These findings suggest that even an isolated country like North Korea can learn how to operate in an international institution and can utilize it strategically.

Escalating ground rents in long residential leases (rents that double or are adjusted by reference to an index at regular intervals) have been described as onerous and can prevent property sales. This article considers whether they are legally enforceable under consumer protection legislation. Although litigation would be needed both to clarify the application of key provisions in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 to ground rent terms, and to take account of the individual lease terms, the article concludes that escalating ground rent provisions may not be binding where the leaseholder is a consumer. Further, if the rent provisions are held to be unfair it would mean that the leaseholder does not have to pay and can recover sums already paid. This conclusion would therefore also weaken the human rights arguments made against the government’s plans to tackle problematic ground rents.

Does prosecuting perpetrators of repression under a dictatorship promote public support for human rights and the courts? We argue that convicting perpetrators in human rights trials reduces public acceptance of these violations. However, while convictions signal judicial efforts to end impunity, they may also call attention to the politicized process by which transitional justice begins. We estimate the effects of human rights trial verdicts on attitudes in Argentina, a country ruled by a military dictatorship from 1976–1983 that, twenty-five years later, initiated sweeping human rights trials for past repression. Using observational day-level opinion data from a survey fielded around the guilty verdict for one of the dictatorship’s top-ranking generals, we find the trial verdict increased the public’s rejection of torture and political killings. Yet belief in judicial fairness declined. These results suggest that trials solidify public commitments to human rights, but confidence in the judiciary is not a necessary condition for this effect.

Does shaming human rights violators shape attitudes at home? A growing literature studies the effect of shaming on public attitudes in the target state, but far less is known about its effect in countries initiating the criticism – that is the shamers. In this article, I theorize that when governments shame human rights violators they shape both government approval and human rights attitudes at home. Utilizing two US-based survey experiments, I demonstrate that by shaming foreign countries, governments can improve their image at home and virtue signal their dedication to human rights. At the same time, shaming can modestly shape tolerance towards certain domestic human rights violations. I consider the generalizability of my results through comprehensive supplementary analyses, where experimental insights are corroborated with cross-national observational data. Overall, my findings can provide valuable insight into governments’ incentives to engage in foreign criticism.

In the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, the treatment of cruise ships by coastal states was inconsistent, with some ships being allowed to dock while others were not. To that end, this Note focuses on the obligations that a coastal state owes to the individuals onboard the cruise ships in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, including the rights to life and health. It further considers whether and how such rights are to be balanced with other countervailing considerations of such states, such as the risk of transmission to the local communities. This author concludes with the view that individuals onboard the cruise ships can, and should, consider turning to international human rights law for guidance and recourse. After all, the human rights regime is most suited for and accustomed to governing the relationship between individuals and a state, as compared to between states.

Despite its contested scientific validity, polygraph interviewing is now an established yet opaque practice within criminal justice in England and Wales, with statute law covering polygraph use in the context of probation for released offenders. In this paper, we highlight non-statutory uses of the polygraph by police forces in England and Wales by presenting analysis of responses to freedom of information (FOI) requests. The boundaries around police polygraph use are undefined and potentially elastic. The policies disclosed state that polygraph interviewing is conducted with regard to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and the Human Rights Act 1998; yet it is denied that a polygraph examination is a criminal interview conducted under PACE. Furthermore, there is a significant risk that the common law may not satisfy the quality of law requirement insofar as it is insufficiently clear who will be subject to polygraph testing, why and in what circumstances. Therefore, we argue that the legal basis for the police’s use of the polygraph is inadequate and imprecise. Without openness and scrutiny regarding the extent of this use, it is difficult to see how the key human rights principle of foreseeability can protect citizens from the risk of arbitrariness.

Business and Human Rights (BHR) scholarship has long recognized the exercise of corporate power as resembling functional sovereignty, advocating for the extension of the rule of law to private actors, establishing accountability regimes, and providing remedies for victims. With the proliferation of binding BHR instruments, such as human rights due diligence legislation, the BHR project finds itself at a critical juncture, where calls for hard obligations are no longer sufficient. Our article, and the broader Symposium, seek to push the boundaries of the discourse by interrogating the legal foundations of private power. Drawing from Law and Political Economy scholarship, we challenge the prevailing notion of ‘governance gaps’ that often frames BHR debates. Rather, we argue that the legal infrastructure itself enables and facilitates the forms of exploitation and structural inequality embedded in the global political economy, leading to predictable patterns of human rights violations. By uncovering the institutional foundations of private power, we also show how efforts to leverage mechanisms of private governance, including human rights due diligence, risk naturalizing corporate power and limiting institutional imagination. However, a critique only focused on institutional design does not sufficiently account for the hardwiring of social relations of global production and the systemic constraints these impose on projects of legal reform. Acknowledging these limitations, we outline two modes of critique: an ‘internal’ critique, which seeks to reimagine institutional frameworks, and an ‘immanent’ critique, which emphasizes the role of collective action and social movements in transforming the underlying social relations of production.

As societies grapple with mitigating or adapting to climate change, law plays a prominent role in the social relations that constitute a response. In this essay, we briefly review of the many different perspectives on law and climate change offered by the authors in this special issue of Law and Society Review. From transnational human rights activism to constitutional litigation to local practices and all around the globe, both the powerful and the marginalized draw on legal institutions and actors in multiple arenas and at multiple scales to address the consequences of climate change. Together, these articles show that law is not confined to courtrooms or judicial systems or regulations; rather, law offers both limitations and opportunities in the ongoing struggle over climate change.