Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-6grmk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T01:54:23.458Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Azadeh Chalabi, National Human Rights Action Planning (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2018), ISBN 978-0-19-882284-4, 251 pp.

Review products

Azadeh Chalabi, National Human Rights Action Planning (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2018), ISBN 978-0-19-882284-4, 251 pp.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2020

Linda C. REIF Open the ORCID record for Linda C. REIF [Opens in a new window]
Linda C. REIF*
Affiliation:
CN Professor of International Trade, Faculty of Law, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Information

Type
Book Review
Information
Business and Human Rights Journal , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , July 2020 , pp. 303 - 305
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2020

National human rights action plans (NHRAPs) are important mechanisms for the effective implementation of and compliance with states’ international human rights law obligations. Nonetheless, they have not drawn the attention of many human rights scholars. One notable exception is Dr Azadeh Chalabi, who has focused her research on NHRAPs over the past seven years, culminating in the publication of this book.Footnote 1

The author initially provides an extensive discussion of theoretical perspectives on NHRAPs to serve as a foundation on which to base the subsequent chapters. After reviewing planning theories, the contextual theory of human rights planning and the human rights-based approach to development, the author develops her own NHRAP theoretical frameworks, establishing substantive, procedural and analytical theories.

This is followed by an exploration of the legal status of NHRAPs in international human rights law. There are few distinctive references to NHRAPs in international human rights treaties and conference declarations. Nonetheless, the author undertakes a careful survey of the soft law instruments issued by United Nations (UN) human rights treaty bodies. The exercise uncovers a trove of normative statements issued by the treaty bodies in their general comments/recommendations and concluding observations on state obligations to adopt NHRAPs covering the rights in the relevant human rights treaty. This evidence is used to support the conclusion that states have immediate treaty-based obligations to adopt and implement NHRAPs.

There are different types of human rights action plans: global NHRAPs covering all human rights, rights-specific or convention-specific action plans and thematic action plans, primarily national action plans (NAPs) on women, peace and security and NAPs on business and human rights. States, human rights treaty bodies and human rights experts have divergent views on whether global or convention-specific plans should be used by states. Based on her research the author contends that global NHRAPs are recommended, convention-specific plans are obligatory pursuant to the terms of each of the core UN human rights treaties and thematic plans, such as on business and human rights, are ‘strongly recommended’.Footnote 2 The book tries to reconcile these different positions by advocating for state use of a combination of plans: a global NHRAP and one or more convention- or rights-specific plans based on the most pressing rights concerns in the country. This could potentially include a NAP on business and human rights.

The book proceeds to analyse the diverse combinations of plans implemented by 53 countries to address problems associated with these plans during the various phases of their life cycle. This covers the ‘pre-phase’ (stage during which a decision on whether to create a plan is made), early stages, preparation of the plan, its development and implementation, and the assessment of the plan. It also identifies the reasons for deficiencies in plans, notably reliance on traditional planning methods, failure to inform and include a variety of stakeholders and, most importantly, lack of political will to adopt NHRAPs.

Practical issues associated with NHRAPs are addressed through proposals for a model of networked governance that includes states, international human rights actors, national human rights institutions, NGOs and human rights scholars, as well as businesses in the human rights and business context. These networks are connected to their associated accountability mechanisms. The author then links back to NHRAP life cycle phases and addresses the importance of a national human rights network, comprehensive baseline studies, a master plan to coordinate different types of NHRAPs, the contents of plans, their sustainability, comprehensive accountability mechanisms and continuous assessment of performance during the implementation of and evaluation periods for NHRAPs.

One value of this book lies in its thorough survey of international human rights instruments for normative discussion of NHRAPs and its strong empirical focus on the strengths and weaknesses of numerous plans. Another is its bridging of the scholarly and practice divide. The book is an important contribution to an under-researched area of international human rights law, providing a resource for international human rights scholars with theoretical, empirical and practical components. It will also be useful for governments, national human rights institutions, NGOs and other human rights practitioners who are involved in NHRAP processes.

As noted above, one type of thematic NHRAP is devoted to business and human rights. In contrast to the paucity of scholarship on general NHRAPs, there has been a flurry of published work on NAPs on business and human rights in recent years.Footnote 3 This is probably due to the importance placed by the UN Human Rights Council, UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights, European Union and Council of Europe on state drafting of NAPs on business and human rights as the initial step in the process of implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs).Footnote 4

The book does discuss issues surrounding NAPs on business and human rights, but it is light on details concerning their genesis, the calculus in determining whether to include a global NHRAP along with a NAP on business and human rights and other rights-specific plans, and the detailed guidance on these NAPs developed by the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights and the Danish Institute for Human Rights.Footnote 5 The book predominantly addresses global or general NHRAPs. However, it remains relevant for those actors working on NAPs on business and human rights for its overall theoretical, normative, empirical and practical insights.

In addition, the book’s empirical research discusses the numerous problems associated with the planning, drafting and implementation of NHRAPs that can be avoided through appropriate state and multi-stakeholder action. The examples provided from the 53 sample countries include a number of NAPs on business and human rights. These include examples of countries which have: not conducted full baseline studies during the NAP preparatory phase, used NAPs that do not cover all of the pillars and principles in the UNGPs (‘incomprehensiveness problem’), not identified a time frame in which the plan will be implemented, not been transparent during the development and implementation of their NAP, not included sufficient performance indicators to gauge government performance in implementing the NAP, and failed to include monitoring and evaluation mechanisms in their NAP. This level of detail assists those involved in developing NAPs on business and human rights to avoid substantive and procedural flaws in the life cycle of their NAP, and supports better human rights outcomes.

References

1 For earlier work see, e.g., Azadeh Chalabi, ‘Australia’s National Human Rights Action Plans in Practice: Traditional or Modern Model of Planning?’ (2016) 20:7 International Journal of Human Rights 993; Azadeh Chalabi, ‘The Problem-Oriented Approach to Improving National Human Rights Action Plans’ (2015) 7:2 Oxford Journal of Human Rights Practice 272; Azadeh Chalabi, ‘The Nature and Scope of States’ Obligation to Adopt a National Human Rights Action Plan’ (2014) 18:4-5 International Journal of Human Rights 391.

2 The author bases the latter conclusion with respect to NAPs on business and human rights on the recommendation of the UN Human Rights Council and the 2011 European Union request to its member states to create these NAPs, pp 91, 93.

3 See, e.g., Humberto Cantú Rivera, ‘National Action Plans on Business and Human Rights: Progress or Mirage?’ (2019) 4:2 Business and Human Rights Journal 213; Daniel Augenstein, Mark Dawson and Pierre Thielbörger, ‘The UNGPs in the European Union: The Open Coordination of Business and Human Rights?’ (2018) 3:1 Business and Human Rights Journal 1; Ryan Keefe, ‘The Value of National Action Plans for the Implementation of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights’ (2017) 44 Exeter Law Review 106; Claire Methven O’Brien et al, ‘National Action Plans: Current Status and Future Prospects for a New Business and Human Rights Governance Tool’ (2016) 1:1 Business and Human Rights Journal 117; Sara Blackwell and Nicole Vander Meulen, ‘Two Roads Converged: The Mutual Complementarity of a Binding Business and Human Rights Treaty and National Action Plans on Business and Human Rights’ (2016) 6 Notre Dame Journal of International and Comparative Law 51; Damiano de Felice and Andreas Graf, ‘The Potential of National Action Plans to Implement Human Rights Norms: An Early Assessment with Respect to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights’ (2015) 7:1 Journal of Human Rights Practice 40.

4 See Augenstein, ibid, 2–3; Methven O’Brien et al, ibid, 120; UN Human Rights Council, ‘Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations’ “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework’, A/HRC/17/31, Annex (21 March 2011).

5 UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights, Guidance on National Action Plans on Business and Human Rights (Geneva, November 2016); The Danish Institute for Human Rights (DIHR) and the International Corporate Accountability Roundtable (ICAR), National Action Plans on Business and Human Rights Toolkit (2017 edn). The DIHR is Denmark’s national human rights institution.