Human Rights Violations and Advocacy

States have several options to raise awareness of human rights violations on the global stage. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the United Nations was the initial step for the process of norms pertaining human rights in the international sphere. Several treaties that support human rights, which require signatures and ratification from participating states, have been established since the Declaration.

Canva Pro

By Melissa Martinez, University of Mary Washington

Published: 21 November 2023
Last updated: 16 October 2026

There are various international treaties and mechanisms aimed at upholding human rights.
Holding states accountable for human rights violations is often challenging due to a lack of political will and resources.
Local and international organizations are central to promoting human rights and pressuring states for compliance.
Protests, times of war, and the use of dehumanizing language are often contributing factors to human rights abuses.
Some people criticize international courts, especially the International Criminal Court, for being biased.

Subtopics

Learn more

Subtopic 1

International Commitments for Human Rights

Updated 6 October 2026 · United Nations Photo / Flickr

States have several options to raise awareness of human rights violations on the global stage. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the United Nations was the initial step for the process of norms pertaining human rights in the international sphere. Several treaties that support human rights

States have taken several steps on the global stage to claim their diplomatic support for human rights. There now exist a wide array of international mechanisms dedicated to upholding human rights worldwide, ranging from the establishment of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to the formation of the International Criminal Court. International treaties have promoted physical integrity rights, protection against torture and ill-treatment, protection against gender and racial discrimination, and support for economic, social, and cultural rights. When countries sign these treaties, they, in turn, make diplomatic promises to uphold these rights. However, this has often proved to be a challenge. States often lack political incentives, resources, or a combination of both to fully comply with these treaties. For this reason, local and international human rights organizations have emphasized states’ commitments to these rights as a way to pressure countries to change their repressive behavior. Human rights organizations and the individuals they advocate for continue to grapple with numerous obstacles in their quest for accountability.

The largest obstacle in the pursuit for international compliance for human rights has been the lack of accountability for past and present human rights violations. In some cases, this lack of action is due to the continued presence of political leaders and elites that continue to reside in powerful positions that allow them to block measures against impunity. For this reason, victims and human rights organizations have taken their cases to regional and international courts. However, only the most critical cases with extensive evidence make it to these courts for review. These courts have no power over the governments when they are found guilty. Instead, the judgements from these courts serve to support and provide legitimacy to the people seeking justice. States are often pressured to accept the facts and open investigations if found guilty by regional courts.

These international mechanisms that have been used to seek and promote human rights have faced criticism. Some critics argue that the courts are biased, particularly the International Criminal Court. This court has primarily focused on cases in the African region. For example, in 2016, Burundi and South Africa withdrew from the Rome Statute, the treaty used to accept and support the legitimacy of the International Criminal Court. Nevertheless, some scholars have argued that there has been an increasing promotion for human rights in the last few decades. Kathryn Sikkink has argued that we have recently experienced a ‘justice cascade’ where it is now more common to see cases against individuals for their participation in human rights violations.

The Creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Prior to the Universal Declaration of Human rights in 1948, advocacy for different types of human rights existed^[1] in different regions worldwide. However, the creation of this declaration within the United Nations marked the beginning of a unified understanding of human rights on an international scale. Contributors to the drafting process were from the West and Global South.^[2] Eleanor Roosevelt, first lady of the U.S. under Franklin D. Roosevelt’s presidency, John Humphrey, a Canadian legal scholar, and René Cassin, a French scholar were some of the authors from the West that played key roles in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Authors from the Global South were also paramount to the creation of the Declaration, including Charles Malik, a Lebanese academic and diplomat, Hernan Santa Cruz, a Chilean lawyer, and Hansa Mehta, a social activist and writer from India. Despite the diverse participation from different regions of the world, the creation of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights had its own challenges. Debate emerged^[3] over the rights and language that ought to be included. There were also many states that did not receive an opportunity to participate due to their lack of sovereignty at the time.

International Human Rights Treaties

The creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights led^[4] a path to the adoption of international treaties that supported human rights. Unlike the Declaration, these treaties required signatures and ratification from the participating states to show their commitment. Treaty signatures are recognition and support of the international law under consideration. However, the ratification process represents an initiative from the state to fully comply with the international law by implementing it in their own state. The ratification process is a higher stage of commitment since, in many cases, it requires approval from the state’s legislature. This meant that states led the decision to declare full support for these rights. The Geneva Conventions were some of the first international commitments that required ratification to support physical integrity rights^[5] of the person, including freedom from torture and extrajudicial killings. The Conventions were adopted in 1949 to protect wounded soldiers and innocent civilians during times of war.

Since the Geneva Conventions, the number of treaties declaring protections for human rights have increased^[6] over time. Each adversary supported^[7] its own treaty during the Cold War. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), created in 1966, commits states to respect the right to life, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and electoral rights, among others. This treaty was supported by the United States. Ratification of this Covenant increased to^[8] 172 as of December 2018. The Soviet Union supported^[9] the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), created in 1966. This Covenant supports the right to food, the right to adequate housing, and the right to water, sanitation, health, and social security. As of 2021, 169 countries have ratified^[10] the ICESCR. There are five additional conventions protecting human rights including^[11] the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

The Promotion of International Human Rights Treaties

The support for international treaties on human rights via signature and ratification does not guarantee^[12] that states will actively promote these rights. Nevertheless, the creation of international human rights law equips^[13] local activists and organizations with a framework to advocate for victims and pressure their governments to address impunity. Full compliance has remained^[14] challenging. Scholars critical of the efficacy of international law argue^[15] that without a powerful state exerting pressure on other governments, the potential for international law to create meaningful change in human rights norms is significantly curtailed.

International law does not hold an exhaustive list of rights. There continue to be advocates promoting new rights and new language to existing rights. For example, the Human Rights Council, a body in the United Nations that promotes human rights around the world, began^[16] to add human rights language in the context of climate change in 2010. The Council argues that climate change ought to be considered a human rights crisis. This advocacy emerged due to an increasing concern about the effects that climate change has had on the livelihoods of people who are displaced due to climate change-related events.

Overall, human rights advocates continue to pressure states to support existing rights based on international law and also promote new rights based on new challenges that emerge around the world. Although there is no international enforcement mechanism to implement compliance, the frameworks used in these treaties are used by advocates and human rights organizations to remind states of their commitments.

Subtopic 2

Factors Leading to Abuse

Updated 6 October 2026 · Koshu Kunii / Unsplash

There are multiple causes for abuse. Much of the literature argues that protests and demonstrations, times of war, and dehumanizing language are some explanations for this. For example, during protests and demonstrations that challenge political leaders' authority, governments may resort to repressi

Protests and Demonstrations

Scholars from multiple disciplines argue^[17] that human rights abuses stem from various factors. One of these factors is protests and demonstrations. Protests and demonstrations offer a means to exert pressure^[18] on the government to address new demands. These protests can call for policy changes, such as wage increases, inflation reduction, and protection of citizens’ rights, among other things. In 2021, the George Floyd death in the U.S. sparked protests^[19] across the country and across the world. Protesters demanded police reform and respect for Black lives. However, governments may not always have the capacity or inclination to implement such changes. Consequently, when demonstrations take place, they can undermine^[20] the legitimacy and support for the government. In cases where governments lack the means and intent to grant protesters’ demands, they may resort^[21] to repressive behavior to stop dissent. For example, protestors in the city of Minneapolis, Minnesota, in the U.S., were injured^[22] with rubber bullets during the George Floyd protests. Repression is also used after protests to deter others from joining the protests and instill fear among those who have already participated. In 2021, Myanmar faced^[23] demonstrators requesting a return to democratic government after experiencing a military coup. The government responded by using lethal force against the demonstrators. Other scholars have argued^[24] that repression leads to dissent behavior. According to Walsh and Piazza, the use of torture and extrajudicial killings fuels terrorism because of the loss of the support of the population, particularly groups of the population that could provide intelligence about extremist organizations. However, this relationship between repression and dissent behavior can change when governments use preventive repression.^[25] Ritter and Conrad argue that when they account for groups who expect repression, there is no systematic trend in the dissent–repression cycle because, in such cases, some groups self-censor.

Times of War

A second contributing factor is the occurrence of war. Oftentimes, human rights violations occur^[26] during an international conflict, a civil war, and armed conflicts. During such periods, there is often less oversight, and norms surrounding the respect for life are often undermined. Additionally, due to a significant focus on eliminating adversaries, government institutions, such as the judiciary, may lack support from other governmental branches and can become politicized. As a result, independent institutions that examine and protect human rights may be absent within the government. During times of war, nongovernmental institutions that may denounce human rights violations face the risk of being targeted by the state.

Dehumanizing Language

A third factor^[27] is the use of dehumanizing language. When people are subjected to dehumanizing language, it can foster the perception that the targeted group is unworthy or undeserving of basic rights. For instance, in Rwanda,^[28] Hutu extremists used dehumanizing language to spread hate against the Tutsi minority.

Subtopic 3

The Promotion of Human Rights

Updated 6 October 2026 · Unseen Histories / Unsplash

International treaties aimed at promoting human rights facilitate collaboration between local and global human rights organizations. These organizations often use international law to pressure states to comply with their previous diplomatic commitments related to the protection of human rights. In a

The Role of International Organizations

The establishment of international treaties aimed at promoting human rights has fostered^[29] transnational collaboration between local human rights organizations and their global counterparts. The main duty of international organizations that support human rights is to promote these rights and condone impunity. There are intergovernmental organizations at the national level, like the United Nations, that promote human rights using international law. The main actors in these platforms are diplomats promoting their country’s policies and perspectives. This can often come with its own limitations (see the Accountability Section). Other international platforms that seek to promote human rights are nongovernmental international organizations like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and Human Rights First. These organizations provide a framework to support human rights across different parts of the world by criticizing states based on a cluster of violations of human rights international law rather than individual cases.

The Role of Local Organizations and Civil Society

However, it is local organizations and civil society that play a pivotal role in the adoption and advocacy of international human rights norms, serving as vital drivers for change^[30] on the global stage. These organizations collect information for individual cases and provide resources to victims to pursue accountability or receive the support via accompaniment. Local organizations encompass both intergovernmental entities, government departments focused on promoting human rights, and nongovernmental organizations, where the pursuit of rights falls outside the political sphere. Nongovernmental local human rights organizations often collaborate^[31] across borders with other organizations to strengthen the collective voice for human rights. These transnational networks work together to exchange tools, information, and support for human rights advocacy.

The Boomerang Effect: Pressure from External Actors

Nongovernmental and intergovernmental organizations, together with dedicated activists, engage^[32] in criticizing states for their human rights abuses. Oftentimes, local human rights organizations face numerous obstacles when attempting to persuade states to embrace fair trials, conduct thorough investigations, and execute positive changes in their behavior. For this reason, these organizations often reach out to international organizations and other states. They recognize the influence that external actors may have over a state’s sanctions. The leverage from international actors can manifest in various forms, including influencing international reputation, the implementation of sanctions, or other types of international repercussions. The use of states and organizations to pressure changes in state behavior is a phenomenon often referred to as the boomerang effect.^[33]

Subtopic 4

Challenges Faced by Human Rights Advocates

Updated 6 October 2026 · United Nations Photo / Flickr

While the number of human rights treaties and ratifications has increased, there remain various challenges. For example, some powerful states, like the United States, have yet to ratify certain important human rights treaties.Another challenge is holding perpetrators accountable for past human right

A Lack of Accountability

One significant challenge has been the slow progress towards holding perpetrators accountable for serious human rights abuses committed in the past. The International Criminal Court is the only international court that investigates and holds trials against individual perpetrators of the most heinous crimes, including war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. However, the ICC only holds jurisdiction in states that have ratified the Rome Statute and crimes committed after 2002. Not all cases are investigated in the International Criminal Court. In Colombia, human rights advocates sought an investigation^[34] into cases of human rights violations resulting from the prolonged armed violence in the country. In 2004, the ICC initiated a preliminary investigation into some of these cases. Following extensive legal and factual analyses, the ICC concluded in 2021 that the state of Colombia was not inactive, unwilling, or unable to genuinely investigate and prosecute crimes against international law, including war crimes. Nonetheless, advocates in Colombia faced delays in examining these cases due to the ongoing peace process.

Cases that reach the International Criminal Court (ICC) have also faced criticism.^[35] Many African leaders contend that the focus has predominantly been on prosecuting perpetrators in the African region, while accountability for perpetrators in the West remains limited. For instance, human rights organizations and advocacy groups accused the former U.S. President, George W. Bush, of war crimes^[36] related to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and his endorsement of interrogation methods that violated international human rights standards. However, no investigations were conducted following these investigations. Pursuing such investigations at the international level is challenging, particularly because the U.S. has not ratified the Rome Statute, which grants jurisdiction to the International Criminal Court.

Establishing the Facts: Regional Organizations and Courts

Even though there are many mechanisms through which to pursue accountability, cases involving extensive human rights violations rarely receive government support for an accountability process. As a result, victims and local human rights organizations often turn to^[37] regional organizations for oversight in such cases. Some of these regional entities have their own courts, which play a critical role in establishing the legitimacy of the facts and the plight of the victims. They exert pressure on governments to pursue a process of accountability. In Europe, the Council of Europe houses both the European Commission of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights. Similarly, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is responsible for referring cases to the Inter-American Court on Human Rights, which operates within the Organization of American States. These regional organizations and courts put pressure on states and provide guidance in the face of severe cases of human rights violations.

Before a case reaches a regional court, it undergoes examination by a Commission.^[38] The Commission assesses whether there is sufficient evidence to support the claim that regional international laws on human rights were broken. Despite the significant impact these courts have in terms of advancing cases of human rights violations, they lack the direct authority to investigate and prosecute perpetrators. Instead, they issue judgments that formally request action from the accused governments. These judgements pressure governments to address the violations and work towards a resolution. These requests take various forms, including calls for financial reparations, thorough and independent investigations and fair trials, and the establishment of memorials. For example, a significant case reviewed by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights involved the 1982 genocide in Guatemala.^[39] Despite the presence of evidence supporting the claim of genocide and continued pressure from multiple human rights organizations, the Guatemalan government failed to acknowledge the facts and take appropriate measures to investigate and address the severe human rights violations. For this reason, local human rights organizations took cases of genocide to the regional Commission, which accepted and forwarded the cases to the regional court. Upon reaching the court, the Inter-American Court evaluated the evidence and issued judgments to exert pressure on the state to pursue accountability against the perpetrators.

About the author: Melissa Martinez, University of Mary Washington

Melissa Martinez is an assistant professor for the Department of Political Science and International Affairs at the University of Mary Washington. She specializes in Human Rights and Latin American politics.

Positionality statement

Dr. Martinez examines whether international and local human rights NGOs influence change in human rights practices in Mexico and Central America. She also examines the obstacles that many of these organizations face when the state is supporting national security policies. She centers her research in examining how policies or political behavior affect physical integrity violations including torture, forced disappearances, and extrajudicial killings in the Latin American region.

Articles by Melissa Martinez, University of Mary Washington

All topics