Search

This article analyses the normative powers conferred on and exercised by 69 Investigative Mechanisms, including UN Commissions of Inquiry, Fact-Finding Missions and Independent Investigative Mechanisms established between 1963 and 2020. Relying on a dataset collected by the author including all their mandates (78) and reports (121), the article introduces an analytical framework and uses it to (i) identify the specific normative powers conferred on Investigative Mechanisms, (ii) the evolution and main step changes in these powers between 1963 and 2020, and (iii) their specific expression in actual practice in matters such as the use of terminology (violations/abuses of human rights by non-State actors), the determination of the standard of proof, the characterization of primary norms, the development of integrated accountability strategies, and the internalization of functions usually entrusted to prosecutorial mechanisms.

In human rights practice, references to ‘dignity’ are as pervasive as they are difficult to pin down. ‘Dignity’ is used widely and often contradictorily. It underlies the privileged legal treatment afforded to states as a result of their sovereignty, but also the claims to strip states and state officials of the manifestations of such sovereignty, such as immunities. It also grounds the overriding character of human rights and social development, while at the same time adding legitimacy to the fight against ‘anthropocentrism’ and for the protection of nature for its own sake. From ‘sovereignty’, to ‘human dignity’, to ‘eco-centrism’, the concept of dignity underlies the normative claims of three competing circles. In this review essay, I rely on the distinction between these three circles of dignity to organize the survey and discussion of an extensive body of work that has helped to clarify the contours of the concept of ‘dignity’. The essay aims to empower practitioners not only to avoid the abuse of this concept but also the dilution that may result from casual and unconsidered reference to it. More fundamentally, it explores two conceptual battlefronts opened by the concept of human dignity. These battlefronts are interdependent because the very assertion of human dignity to protect the individual against the powers of the state may also lay the foundations for an over-exploitation of nature.