COURSE MANUAL

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW & THEORY

L-CL-0001

Fall 2025
(AY 2025-26)

Instructors
Prof. Thibault Weigelt (course convenor)
Prof. Pinki Mathur Anurag
Prof. Shruti Pandey
Prof. Arushi Singh
Prof. Ish Maini
Prof. Nandini Rajesh
Prof. Pragya Rakshita
Prof. Sharmistha Sharma
Prof. Shivangi Singh
Prof. Shubham Shandilya
Prof. Utkarshinee Verma
Prof. Varsha Mohan
Prof. Aman Gupta
Prof. Pauline Forje
Prof. Anny Ochoa
Prof. Natasha Chiswa
CONTENTS

Table of Contents
CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................................................. 2
PART I ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3
PART II...................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Course Description................................................................................................................................................ 4
Course Aims .......................................................................................................................................................... 4
Course Texts .......................................................................................................................................................... 4
Course intended learning outcomes ...................................................................................................................... 5
Grading of Student Achievement ........................................................................................................................... 6
PART III .................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Keyword Syllabus .................................................................................................................................................. 8
Course /Class Policies........................................................................................................................................... 8
Class Participation and Materials ...................................................................................................................... 10
Course Communication ....................................................................................................................................... 10
Assessments (Internal and External) ................................................................................................................... 11
PART IV .................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Module Outline .................................................................................................................................................... 11
PART A: FOUNDATIONS ..................................................................................................................................... 13
Module 1: Introduction to the Human Rights Theory, Concept of Human Rights, and Historicising Rights..... 13
Module 2 and 3: United Nations Sponsored Treaty Framework and Charter Based Mechanisms .................... 14
Module 4: Regional human rights protection ..................................................................................................... 15
Module 5: Nature of human rights obligations ................................................................................................... 16
Module 6: Limitations and Derogations ............................................................................................................. 17
PART B: SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS............................................................................................................................... 18
Module 7: Equality and Non-discrimination....................................................................................................... 18
Module 8: Freedom of Religion or Belief (FoRB) .............................................................................................. 19
Module 9: Freedom of Expression (FoE)............................................................................................................ 21
Module 10: Prohibition Against Torture............................................................................................................. 21
Module 11: Gender and Human Rights .............................................................................................................. 24
Module 12: Economic and Social Rights ............................................................................................................ 26
Module 13: Climate Change and Human Rights ................................................................................................ 27
Module 14: Critiques of Human Rights Law....................................................................................................... 29
Module 15: Review .............................................................................................................................................. 30
FURTHER READINGS .......................................................................................................................................... 31
PART I

General Information

General information on International Human Rights Law & Theory, offered by Jindal
Global Law School of the AY 2024-25:

The information provided in this course manual is by the IHRLT Fall 2025 Cohort through Course
Coordinator Prof. Thibault Weigelt. The following information contains the official record of the
details of the course.

This information shall form part of the University database and may be uploaded to the
KOHA Library system and catalogued and may be distributed amongst Law students for
B.A. (Hons) in Legal Studies; B.A.LL.B./B.B.A.LL.B.; LL.B.; LL.M. courses if necessary.

Course Title: International Human Rights Law & Theory

Course Code: L-CL-0001
Course Duration: One Semester
Number of Credit Units: 4
Level: LLB and BA-LLB
Medium of Instruction: English
Pre-requisites: Public International Law
Pre-cursors: Nil
Equivalent courses: Nil
Exclusive courses: Nil
PART II

Course Ideator
Severyna Magill, Srinjoy Sarkar, Thibault Weigelt, Rashmi Raman, Vinitika Vij.

Course Description
This is a compulsory course that integrates the law and theory of international human rights, from
multidisciplinary and critical perspectives. The course material includes the study of comparative
regional and international human rights law jurisprudence and historical, contemporary and
critical challenges to mainstream human rights theory.

Course Aims
The aim of this course is to provide students with an understanding of the nature, scope and
practical application and enforcement of modern international human rights law and some of its
theoretical foundations and components.

Course Texts
There is no compulsory core text for this course. This is partly as the course combines both theory
and practical implementation of human rights law. If students would like a more in-depth
resource for international human rights, or theory, please see some recommendations below.
All of the core course readings will be available for download on OneDrive – the hyperlink
will be shared with students separately.
International Law generally:
• Crawford, James, ‘Brownlie's Principles of Public International Law’ 9th ed. (OUP 2019)

International Human Rights Law specifically:

• Eds: Joseph, S. McBeth, A. Research Handbook on International Human Rights Law.
Edward Elgar, Cheltenham UK, Northampton MA, USA (2011)
• Fredman, S. Discrimination Law. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK. OUP (2010)
• Alston, P. Goodman, R. International Human Rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford
(2012)
• Moeckli, D. Shah, S. Sivakumaran, S. (eds) International Human Rights Law. Oxford
University Press, Third Edition, Oxford, New York (2018) (There is new edition, 4 th
Edition published in 2022. However, we will be referring to the Third Edition
throughout the course)
• Oette, L. Bantekas, I. International Human Rights Law. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, Sao Paulo, Delhi,
Mexico City (2013)
Human Rights Theory:
• Hunt, L. Inventing Human Rights: A History. W. W. Norton & Company, (2008)
• Hoffmann, S-L. Human Rights in the Twentieth Century: Human Rights in History.
Cambridge University Press, New York (2011)
• Moyn, S. The Last Utopia: Human Rights in History. First Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press, USA (2010)
• Twining, W. (ed) Human Rights: Southern Voices. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, Sao Paulo, Delhi
(2009)

Bare Act (for End Term Examination and in General):

• Blackstone's International Human Rights Documents (Blackstone's Statute Series), 11th
Edition, 26th July 2018
• Blackstone's International Human Rights Documents (Blackstone's Statute Series), 12th
Edition, 23rd July 2020

Course intended learning outcomes

Course Intended Learning Weightage Teaching and Assessment

Outcomes Learning Activities Tasks/
Activities

By the end of the course, students

should be able to: TBD by
course
instructors.
Demonstrate a good understanding Reading, comparison
of the theoretical foundations of and analysis of key
human rights and the beginnings of international human
the concept of human rights and the rights law treaties,
human rights system, as we know it jurisprudence and
today. academic works.
Students will be
Display a good understanding of assessed upon their
the nature and scope of ability to read and
international human rights law and critically evaluate the
the UN Charter and Treaty based essential readings set
human rights machinery. out in this manual.
 Demonstrate a good understanding All students must
of the practical application of attend the lectures and
international human rights law to participate in the
specific human rights problems. discussion seminar.
Students must come to
class ready to discuss
and critically evaluate
Students will demonstrate in class
the readings.
and in the examination their ability
to analyse complex human rights
problems and apply relevant
provisions of international human
rights law to a hypothetical
situation/case study and a
theoretical knowledge of the
underpinnings of the international
human rights system, its operation
and issues associated with its
implementation.

Grading of Student Achievement

To pass this course, students must obtain University mandated passing grades in the final
assessment. Coursework for this purpose means those ways in which students are assessed
otherwise than by the end of session examination. These could include reaction papers, class
participation, tutorial presentations, group work and a final research paper.

The details of the grades as well as the criteria for awarding such grades are provided below.

PERCENTAGE GRADE
GRADE GRADE DESCRIPTION
OF MARKS VALUE
Outstanding – Exceptional knowledge
of the subject matter, thorough
understanding of issues; ability to
80 and above O 8
synthesize ideas, rules and principles and
extraordinary critical and analytical
ability
Excellent - Sound knowledge of the
75 – 79 A+ 7.5 subject matter, thorough understanding
of issues; ability to synthesize ideas, rules
PERCENTAGE GRADE
GRADE GRADE DESCRIPTION
OF MARKS VALUE
and principles and critical and analytical
ability
Very Good - Sound knowledge of the
subject matter, excellent organizational
capacity, ability to synthesize ideas, rules
70 – 74 A 7
and principles, critically analyze existing
materials and originality in thinking and
presentation
Good - Good understanding of the
subject matter, ability to identify issues
65 – 69 A- 6 and provide balanced solutions to
problems and good critical and analytical
skills
Fair – Average understanding of the
subject matter, limited ability to identify
60 – 64 B+ 5 issues and provide solutions to problems
and reasonable critical and analytical
skills
Acceptable - Adequate knowledge of the
subject matter to go to the next level of
55 – 59 B 4
study and reasonable critical and
analytical skills.
Marginal - Limited knowledge of the
subject matter and irrelevant use of
50 – 54 B- 3
materials and, poor critical and analytical
skills
Pass 1 – Pass with basic understanding of
45 – 49 P1 2
the subject matter
Pass 2 – Pass with rudimentary
40 – 44 P2 1
understanding of the subject matter
Fail - Poor comprehension of the subject
matter; poor critical and analytical skills
Below 40 F 0 and marginal use of the relevant
materials. Will require repeating the
course
 PERCENTAGE GRADE
GRADE GRADE DESCRIPTION
OF MARKS VALUE
Absent - “Extenuating circumstances”
preventing the student from taking the
end- semester, or re-sit, examination as
the case may be; the Vice Dean
(Examinations) at their discretion assign
Absent Ab 0 the “Ab” grade. If an "Ab" grade is
assigned, the student would appear for the
end-semester, or re-sit examination, as
the case may be, as and when the
subsequent opportunity is provided by the
University.

PART III

Keyword Syllabus

International law, human rights, equality, non-discrimination, critique of human rights, United
Nations human rights bodies, Charter bodies, treaty bodies, Universal Periodic Review,
exceptions. Limitations, derogations, regional mechanisms, generations of human rights, crisis
of human rights.

Course /Class Policies

A Word of Caution on Online Readings

Online sources can be classified as reliable, unreliable and outright bogus. The internet is an open
domain in which all and sundry can create web pages and indulge in propaganda, falsification or
misrepresentation of events. The few sources that can help you with basic information and which
are fairly unbiased are: websites of established newspapers, magazines and journals. Students
should always consult with the instructors about the veracity and authenticity of a particular
website and its suitability for researching topics covered in this syllabus.

Academic Integrity and Plagiarism

Learning and knowledge production of any kind is a collaborative process. Collaboration

demands an ethical responsibility to acknowledge who we have learnt from, what we have
learned, and how reading and learning from others have helped us shape our own ideas. Even our
own ideas demand an acknowledgement of the sources and processes through which those ideas
have emerged. Thus, all ideas must be supported by citations. All ideas borrowed from articles,
books, journals, magazines, case laws, statutes, photographs, films, paintings, etc., in print or
online, must be credited with the original source. If the source or inspiration of your idea is a
friend, a casual chat, something that you overheard, or heard being discussed at a conference or
in class, even they must be duly credited. If you paraphrase or directly quote from a web source
in the examination, presentation or essays, the source must be acknowledged. The university has
a framework to deal with cases of plagiarism. All form of plagiarism will be taken seriously by
the University and prescribed sanctions will be imposed on those who commit plagiarism.

Disability Support and Accommodation Requirements

JGU endeavours to make all its courses inclusive and accessible to students with different
abilities. In accordance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (2016), the JGU
Disability Support Committee (DSC) has identified conditions that could hinder a student’s
overall well-being. These include physical and mobility related difficulties, visual and hearing
impairment, mental health conditions and intellectual/learning difficulties e.g., dyslexia,
dyscalculia. Students with any known disability needing academic and other support are required
to register with the Disability Support Committee (DSC) by following the procedure specified at
https://jgu.edu.in/disability-support-committee/
Students who need support may register before the deadline for registration ends, as
communicated by the DSC via email each semester. Those students who wish to continue
receiving support from the previous semester, must re-register every semester prior to the
deadline for re-registration as communicated by the DSC via email. Last minute registrations and
support are discouraged and might not be possible as sufficient time is required to make the
arrangements for support.
The DSC maintains strict confidentiality about the identity of the student and the nature of their
disability and the same is requested from faculty members and staff as well. The DSC takes a
strong stance against in-class and out-of-class references made about a student’s disability
without their consent and disrespectful comments referring to a student’s disability. With due
respect for confidentiality, faculty and students are encouraged to have honest conversations
about the needs of students with disabilities and to discuss how a course may be better tailored
to cater to a student with disability.
All general queries are to be addressed to [email protected]

Safe Space Pledge

This course may discuss a range of issues and events that might result in distress for some
students. Discussions in the course might also provoke strong emotional responses. To make sure
that all students collectively benefit from the course, and do not feel disturbed due to either the
content of the course or the conduct of the discussions. Therefore, it is incumbent upon all within
the classroom to pledge to maintain respect towards our peers. This does not mean that you need
to feel restrained about what you feel and what you want to say. Conversely, this is about creating
a safe space where everyone can speak and learn without inhibitions and fear. This responsibility
lies not only with students, but also with the instructor.
The course instructor, as part of introducing the course manual, will discuss the scope of the Safe
Space Pledge with the class.

Method of Conducting Class

The class format will combine lectures and discussion. This is an interdisciplinary course, where
we will read not only about the legal methods to approach difficult situations, but also
importantly, we will engage with history, anthropology, social science, popular culture, art,
music, drama and politics when it is indicated by our discussion subject. The structure therefore
depends on students participating enthusiastically and raising relevant questions and comments
that will take the conversation forward.

Class Participation and Materials

To enable participation in class and improve access to reading materials, we have meticulously
curated and created content for each Module of the course and uploaded all the reading to a shared
folder which will be made available to students in the course. In addition, clearly defined
Modulely content and discussion questions form part of this updated and revised course manual.

Students are expected to prepare for and participate in class discussion on a regular basis.
Students are expected to review Modulely materials well in advance of each class and prepare
their own notes on it: they shall then be responsible for leading the class through comments and
observations based on their understanding of the given study material for that Module. The
instructors of the course may initiate discussion based on a reported event or a reported case
decision in the context of the subject matter taught in the class.

Please note: Other than for cases of serious emergencies, extensions will not be granted. Thus,
having multiple work assignments due around the same time, employment responsibilities, or
being out of town, do not constitute valid reasons for extensions. Extensions are very rarely
granted; if requesting one, documentation of your reason (i.e. doctor’s full information and
detailed hospital records) must be provided to the Examinations Office.

Course Communication

We are happy to meet with students during our office hours, which will be set in the first Module
of the course. We are available to discuss issues relating to the course, as well as your academic
career more generally. Office hours will be held physically on campus. Please write to us to
schedule meetings ; please address emails to the course instructor(s) for your class only.

If getting in touch by email, please note that we will try to respond within two business days.
Students should check the course Dropbox on a regular basis, as items such as the following may
be posted throughout the year: additional tutorial readings, grading rubrics for essays, further
instructions for assignments, notifications of any changes in lecture or tutorial schedules, etc.
Assessments (Internal and External)

Internal assessments will be carried out subject to the discretion of each faculty. Internals will be
for a maximum of 50 marks, with a minimum of two components and maximum of three
components to be assigned by the respective faculty.

External assessments or end-term examination will be carried out in the form of a common paper
for all the batches. It will be a closed book examination, with Blackstone’s text on International
Human Rights Law Documents allowed to be carried to the examination hall. The examination
will be for a maximum of 50 marks. The format of the paper will be discussed by the faculty to
their class in due time.

Part IV

Module Outline

PART A: FOUNDATIONS

Module 1 Introduction to the Human Rights Theory, Concept of Human Rights,

& Historicising Rights

Module 2 The United Nations Human Rights System

Module 3 Regional human rights protection

Module 4 Nature of human rights obligations

Module 5 Limitations and derogations

PART B: CONTEXTS

Module 6 Equality and Non-discrimination

Module 7 Freedom of Religion or Belief

Module 8 Freedom of Expression

Module 9 Prohibition of torture

Module 10 Gender and Human Rights

Module 11 Economic and Social Rights

Module 12 Climate change and Human Rights

Module 13 Critique of Human Rights

Module 14 Revision
PART A: FOUNDATIONS

Module 1: Introduction to the Human Rights Theory, Concept of Human

Rights, and Critique of Human Rights (2 Classes)

What do we mean by human rights? In this module we will understand how the idea of human
rights was perceived at different periods of history. We will also examine some of the critiques
associated with human rights.

Essential Readings:
• Wheatley, S., “What We Mean When We Talk about ‘Human Rights”, Chapter 1, ‘Idea of
International Human Rights Law’, (OUP 2019) p. 17-34
• Mutua, M., The Complexity of Universalism in Human Rights, Chapter 2, Sajo, A.,
‘Human Rights with Modesty: The Problem of Universalism’ (Springer 2004)

Audio/Visual resources and Newspaper sources:

• “What are the universal human rights? -– Benedetta Berti”, TED-ED, 15 October 2015.
• “Cyrus Cylinder: How a Persian monarch inspired Jefferson”, BBC News, 11 March
2013.

Discussion Questions:
1. What are rights? Are they the same as human rights?
2. Were human rights applicable to everyone equally? Who did they protect and from who?
3. Why was an exclusion made? What is an example of this and how?
4. Name two Conventions and two Declarations that have been instituted by the UN since 1980.
How are they different?
5. Identify the role of Optional Protocols. What do they establish?
6. Why is the Enlightenment era important? Why is the history of rights important to
understand?
7. How is the death of Jean Calas and the subsequent action important for a reading on Western
thought of the era? How similar are these concepts, articulations and interpretations and
implementation of rights similar to the notion of human rights today?
8. How many similarities are there between the UDHR and the English, French and American
human rights documents? How should we then consider the UDHR’s claim to be universal?
Module 2: United Nations Sponsored Treaty Framework and Charter Based
Mechanisms (2 Classes)

The aim of this module is to transition the history and theory of human rights to its translation
into law. The module will deal with numerous international legal instruments and institutions,
introducing the students to the international system for the protection of human rights. Students
will be introduced to treaty bodies, commissions, councils, rapporteurs, and courts. Further, the
aim is to examine the UN HRC’s newest procedure – the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). The
UPR was established in 2006 to avoid the politicization that plagued the former UN Human
Rights Commission. The UPR provides a means for the periodic examination of every UN
member state’s human rights record, regardless of the treaty ratifications of a particular state.

Essential Readings:
• What Are Treaty Bodies? https://www.ohchr.org/en/treaty-bodies
• Jane Connors, ‘19. United Nations’ in Daniel Moeckli and others (eds), Jane Connors,
International Human Rights Law (Oxford University Press 2017) pp.6-9 and 21-36
• Watch “What is the UPR?”

International Human Rights Instruments:

• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
• International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)
• UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)
• UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women
(CEDAW)
• Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD)
• Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)
• Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers (CRMW)
• International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance
(CPED)

Cases, Reports, and Materials for class:

• India’s National Report for the Fourth Cycle
• Compilation of UN Information
• Summary of Stake Holders
• Questions in Advance
• Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review
• Views on conclusions and/or recommendations, voluntary commitments and replies
presented by the State under review
• Periodic Reports Submitted by India to CERD in 1996 and 2006
• Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in
1996 and 2007
• Mahali Dawas & Yousef Shava v. Denmark, CERD Communication No. 46/2009, Doc
No. CERD-C- 80-D-46-2009
Discussion Questions
1. How did the international human rights framework develop?
2. What are the different enforcement mechanisms under the International Human Rights
framework?
3. What is the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) mechanism? How does it work?
4. How was it established?
5. What is the value, if any, of the UPR?
6. What are the benefits and drawbacks of states examining the human rights records of other
states?
7. What role do NGOs play in the UPR?
8. What do you think about India’s National Report as submitted to the UPR? Do you think it
adequately reflects the human rights situation in the country? Compare and contrast the State
Report of India with Stakeholders summary.
9. What do you think of the Decision on the Outcome of India? Do you think it is realistic? What
do you think the chances are for implementation at the domestic level?
10. How effective is the UPR process?

Module 3: Regional human rights protection (2 Classes)

This Module we will survey the regional human rights protection systems. We will identify
regional instruments and the differences they contain that support or detract from the full
implementation of international human rights globally.

Essential Readings:
• Huneeus, A and Madsen, M. Between universalism and regional law and politics: A
comparative history of the American, European, and African human rights systems,
International Journal of Constitutional Law, 16 (1) 2018

Regional Protection Framework:

• European Convention on Human Rights (1953)
• The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (1986)
• The Inter-American Convention on Human Rights (1978)
• The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (1990)
• The Arab Charter of Human Rights (2004)
• ASEAN Declaration on Human Rights (2012)

Discussion Questions

1. What are the different regional mechanisms for the enforcement of human rights?
2. What are the differences between the regional and United Nations mechanisms?
Module 4: Nature of human rights obligations (2 Classes)
In this module, we examine how to identify international human rights law. We will identify the
special sources in IHRL, and how they interact with the traditional sources of law. We will also
examine what makes human rights obligations ‘special’ compared to other obligations under
international law. It is recommended that students skim through their material on the Sources of
International Law from their Public International Law classes to better appreciate this material
covered this Module.

Essential Readings:
• UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment, No. 31: The Nature of the General
Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant. Adopted 29th March 2004.
pp. 1-3
• UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 3: The
Nature of States Parties’ Obligations. Adopted 14th December 1990. pp. 1-5
• CCPR General Comment No. 24: 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 adopted 4 November 1994. pp.1-7
• Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, articles 19 – 23.

Cases:
• Belilos v Switzerland, ECHR
• Rawle Kennedy v Trinidad and Tobago, Communication No. 845,
CCPR/C/67/D/845/1999
• Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide, International Court of Justice, 1951

Discussion Questions:
1. What is a “source” of international law and why do human rights lawyers and advocates
need to have a good understanding of these sources?
2. What is customary international law?
3. What is treaty law?
4. What is soft law? Give examples of both international human rights law treaties and soft
law instruments.
5. Can a norm be a norm both of treaty law and customary international law? If so, how? How
do you think this works?
6. Which human rights norms qualify as peremptory norms of international law? How, if at
all, does peremptory status (jus cogens norms) contribute to better protection of human
rights?
7. What are erga omnes obligations? How important are they in human rights law?
8. How is a treaty drafted? How does it come into force? How are domestic legal obligations
established?
9. Are all states bound under the complaints hearing mechanism? Does this differ between
treaties?
10. What is the role of General Comments/Recommendations?
 11. What is the legal status of a General Comment/Recommendation? How effective are both
the decisions of treaty body complaints hearing mechanisms and general
comments/recommendations in securing change?

Module 5: Limitations and Derogations (2 Classes)

Human Rights are not absolute in nature. States may, after fulfilling certain legal criteria, limit
(restrict) the enjoyment of these rights or temporarily suspend them. During this module, we will
explore the legal framework that allows states to either limit or derogate certain substantive rights.

Essential Readings:
• UN Human Rights Committee General Comment 29, States of Emergency (2001).
• The Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights UN Doc. No. E/CN.4/1985/4, Annex (1985)
Available here: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/siracusaprinciples.html ;
https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/terrorism/module-7/key-issues/derogation-during-public-
emergency.html (overview)

Cases and Comments

• Lawless v. Ireland, 1 ECtHR. 15 (1961)
• Lucia Sala de Touron v. Uruguay, Communication No. 32/1978, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP/1
at 61 (1984)
• The Greek Case, 1969 Y.B. Eur. Conv. on H.R. 71-72, Eur. Comm’n on H.R.
• Brannigan and McBride v.UK, ECHR Application No. 14553/89 (1993)
• Seven Individuals v. Sweden, ECHR
Discussion Questions:
1. When, how and for what reasons can states justifiably limit rights? What procedure must
be followed?
2. What is “derogation”? What is “limitation”?
3. What rights are contained in Articles 6, 9, 18, 19, and 21 of the ICCPR? Are these
derogable or non-derogable? If they are non-derogable what can states still do?
4. Are there any rights that can never be subject to limitation?
5. Under what circumstances may a state derogate from international human rights law?
6. Consider the case law discussed this Module and discuss how public emergency has been
defined by the European Court of Human Rights.
7. What is the procedure for states wishing to derogate from the ICCPR?
8. Can a state derogate from the ICESCR?
PART B: Substantive Rights

Module 6: Equality and Non-discrimination (2 Classes)

This Module, we will examine how the concepts of equality and non-discrimination have evolved
since the UN Charter and UDHR to move beyond formal equality to now push towards a more
transformative and participative model. We will identify cases that highlight the historical
shortfalls in equality law interpretation and application and how state obligations have evolved
as a corrective action against formal equality. We will also examine positive action/positive
discrimination. There will be a particular focus on equality and non-discrimination from the
Indian perspective – caste-based discrimination.

This Module, we will examine how the concepts of equality and non-discrimination have evolved
since the UN Charter and UDHR to move beyond formal equality to now push towards a more
transformative and participative model. We will identify cases that highlight the historical
shortfalls in equality law interpretation and application and how state obligations have evolved
as a corrective action against formal equality. We will also examine positive action/positive
discrimination.

Essential Readings
• Fredman, S., “Substantive Equality Revisited”.

Cases and Comments:

• Briefly, as discussed in class:
o Plessy v Ferguson 163 US 537 (1896)
o Brown v Board of Education 349 U.S. 294 (1955)
• A.T. v Hungary A/60/38 (part 1 Annex 3) Communication 2/2003, CEDAW Committee,
decision 26-Jan-2005
• "The Belgian Linguistic case (No. 2) (1968) 1 EHRR 252 Relating to Certain Aspects of
the Laws on the Use of Languages in Education in Belgium" V. Belgium (Merits) 1 EHRR
252 (1968)
• D.H. & Othrs. Czech Republic ECHR Grand Chamber 2007
• CERD General Comment 29
• Concluding Observations of the Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination –
India, CERD/C/304/Add.13 (17.09.1996)
• CERD General Recommendation 32, 75th Session: The Meaning and Scope of Special
Measures in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms Racial
Discrimination (2009)

Discussion Questions:
1. Describe the notions of Formal and Substantive Equality and point out the key differences
between the two.
2. What elements have been identified to constitute indirect discrimination in the
jurisprudence of human rights bodies and courts?
 3. What are some of the limitations of formal equality?
4. What does finding a ‘comparator’ mean? When would this be necessary and when would
it be difficult?
5. In what case will the differentiation in treatment of individuals be considered justified?
6. What tests are generally employed by international human rights bodies to determine direct
discrimination?
7. What does Megret mean by a “tripartite” obligation of implementation of international
human rights law?
8. How do the different categories of implementation under the tripartite system differ?
9. Link together the cases with the nature of state obligations and how states (i) defined
whether discrimination had taken place and (ii) how this treatment related with a state
obligation to respect/protect/fulfil human rights.
10. What does CERD aim to achieve? Have the contents of CERD and its emphasis changed
over time?
11. Does the CERD have a complaints hearing mechanism? Does it need an Optional Protocol
to hear cases? If yes/no is this different to other international human rights law treaties?
12. What do General Recommendations 32 and 35 tell us about the pursuit of eliminating racial
discrimination?

Module 7: Freedom of Religion or Belief (FoRB) (2 Classes)

This module explores the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion under Article 18 of
the ICCPR. We will examine the legal foundations of these rights and engage with contemporary
debates on secularism, tolerance, and value pluralism. By analyzing key cases, students will gain
insight into the complex relationship between state authority and individual religious freedoms,
and how these dynamics are addressed in different legal systems. The goal is to develop a nuanced
understanding of religious freedoms in international law and their impact on global human rights.

Essential Readings:
• Article 18 ICCPR, article 9 ECHR.
• General Comment 22 on Article 18 ICCPR

Cases and comments:

• Leyla Sahin v Turkey ECHR 2005 ECHR 819 / (2007) 44 EHRR 5
• SAS v France ECHR
• Sonia Yaker v. France
• Lautsi v Italy (2011)
• Bikramjit Singh v France CCPR/C/106/D/1852/2008 (4 February 2013)
• Hudoyberganova v Uzbekistan CCPR/C/82/D/931/2000 (5 November 2004)

Discussion Questions:
1. Are the rights to religion, and expression derogable according to Article 4 of the ICCPR.
Under what circumstances may states derogate from articles 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the
ICCPR?
2. Under what circumstances can states limit/derogate from articles 18, 19 and 21 of the
ICCPR? What test must they meet in order to ensure that any limitations are in accordance
with international human rights law?
3. The separation of the state from religion and a secular approach to policy and law is often
seen as progressive and as respectful and tolerant of difference. Is there a singular definition
of what secularism means?
4. Is there a coherent notion of religious freedom in international legal theory? If not, why?
5. Different complaint hearing mechanisms have given different opinions on whether a
restriction on wearing religious clothing constitutes discrimination. Compare and contrast
the work of these mechanisms.
6. How could principles of direct and/or indirect discrimination be relevant to the cases?
7. Which state obligation (from respect, protect, or fulfil) would be most relevant to advance
human rights centred arguments to allow the wearing of religiously motivated
clothing/symbols.
Module 8: Freedom of Expression (FoE) (2 Classes)
This module focuses on the essential civil and political freedom of expression as outlined in
Articles 19 and 20 of the ICCPR. We will explore the boundaries of this right, particularly when
it intersects with freedom of religion. The concept of hate speech, which is not protected under
freedom of expression, will be critically examined to understand how speech can be lawfully
restricted. Through key legal texts and landmark cases, students will analyze how freedom of
expression and religion can both complement and limit each other, gaining a nuanced
understanding of their application in international law.

Essential Readings:
• Joseph, S. and Castan, M., Chapter 18, “Freedom of Expression - Articles 19 and 20”, in
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Cases, Materials, and
Commentary, 3rd ed., (2013) pp.1-35

Cases and comments:

• Handyside v. United Kingdom, ECHR, 7 December 1976
• Otto Preminger Institut v Austria, ECHR.
• Faurisson v. France, Communication No. 550/1993, U.N. Doc.
CCPR/C/58/D/550/1993(1996)
• TBB-Turkish Union in Berlin v Germany, CERD Communication No. 48/2010, Doc No.
CERD-C-82- D-48-2010 and the dissenting opinion by Mr. Carlos Manuel Vazquez
• CERD General Recommendation 35, 83rd Session: Combating Racist Hate Speech (2013)

Discussion Questions:
1. What is protected by article 19 ICCPR?
2. What is the relationship between freedom of thought, expression, association and
religion?
3. Are the rights to religion, and expression derogable according to Article 4 of the ICCPR.
Under what circumstances may states derogate from articles 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the
ICCPR?
4. Under what circumstances can states limit/derogate from articles 18, 19 and 21 of the
ICCPR? What test must they meet in order to ensure that any limitations are in accordance
with international human rights law?
5. What is hate speech? How can we define it?

Module 9: Prohibition Against Torture (2 Classes)

During this session we examine the right to freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading
treatment and punishment which is a core and non-derogable human right that protects the
integrity of the human person.

Essential Readings:
 • Articles 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 17 of the ICCPR
• UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment
• Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment
• Manfred Nowak, What Practices Constitute Torture: US and UN Standards, 28(4) Human
Rights Quarterly 809

See also:
• Amnesty International, “Denied: Failures in Accountability for Human Rights Violations
by Security Force Personnel in Jammu and Kashmir,” 2019
• Koh, H. “A world without torture”, Columbia Journal (lecture notes)
• Documentary: For Sama Trailer (2019)
• Documentary: Taxi to the Dark Side
• Documentary: Kashmir’s Torture Trail

Presentation and Cases:

• Ireland v. United Kingdom, 25 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) 25 (1978);
• Harminder Singh Khalsa et Al v Switzerland, 2011
• Public Committee Against Torture in Israel v. The State of Israel (H.C. 5100/94)
• Gäfgen v Germany, ECHR
• Chahal v UK (1997)
• Guengueng et al. v. Senegal, CAT/C/36/D/181/2001

Discussion Questions:

1. Within the essential readings a moral absolutist perspective is presented promoting the
absolute abolition of torture, largely for moral reasons. How strong are these arguments?
When do you think this argument was most influential, do you feel the argument still has
the same level of support that it had then?
2. International prohibition is a customary international law. It has also been codified in
international treaties. Despite this there is wide recognition that many states torture.
Relying on the readings and class discussions substantiate this claim. What is the cause of
this gap?
3. Give some examples of acts that amount to a) torture b) cruel, inhumane and degrading
treatment or punishment.
4. Are state obligations to prevent torture, cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment or
punishment positive or negative or both? Provide examples for both.
5. What does the right to life actually protect? Is every killing a violation of the right to life?
If not, why not?
6. What is a disappearance? What human rights are potentially violated when a person is
subject to an enforced disappearance?
7. How do we understand the idea of shifting standards for torture? Is this flexibility desirable
in a Human Rights Regime?
8. The ‘ticking-bomb’ theory has often been used as a potential justification for torture, on
what basis is this argument convincing, if it is?
9. Optional: Why do you think the USA has not ratified the UNCAT but has ratified the Inter-
American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture?
Module 10: Gender and Human Rights (2 Classes)

This Module we will analyse gender and human rights with an emphasis on Indian and other
Asian geographies and how they differ from international cases. We will identify where to find
international human rights laws that, in Gable’s model, refer to either reproductive rights (RRs),
or right to health (R2H), and which collectively form the right to reproductive health (R2RH).
The implementation of these laws will then be analysed from a patient-centric, gender-sensitive
perspective.

Essential Readings:

• MacKinnon, C., “Are Women Human?” in ‘Are Women Human? And Other
International Dialogues’, pp. 41-43, (2007).
• Charlesworth, H., “The Hidden Gender of International Law”, 16 TEMP. INT’L &
COMP. L.J. 93 (2002)
• Gable, L., “Reproductive Health as a Human Right” 60 CaseWResLRev 957 (2010), pp.
985-994

See also:
• Film (Trailer): Wadjida
• Documentary (Trailer): How to Survive a Plague.
• Documentary (Trailer): Disclosure
• Film (Trailer): A Fantastic Woman
• Documentary (Excerpt): Girl-Hearted
• CESCR General Comment No. 22 (2016) on the Right to sexual and reproductive health
• CEDAW General Recommendation 24 on the Right to Health (1999)

Cases:

Access to Abortion International Comparative Perspectives and conception of life:

• Mellet v Ireland, Human Rights Committee, Doc No: CCPR/C/116/D/2324/2013, 31
March 2016
• Maria de Lourdes da Silva Pimentel (Alyne) v Brazil, Communication No. 17/2008
decision 30 Nov 2007 Doc. No. CEDAW/C/49/D/17/2008
• Tyasic v Poland
• Devika Biswas v. Union of India, (2016) 10 SCC 726

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

• Toonen v. Australia, Communication No. 488/1992, U.N. Doc CCPR/C/50/D/488/1992
(1994)
• Case of Dudgeon v UK, 1981 (ECHR) 5
• G v Australia, 2017
• Uttam Mondal v Sweden, 2011, CAT (deportation of a gay man to Bangladesh)
 • Vladimir Ivanov v Russian Federation, HRC, 2021 (Unjustified restrictions to the right of
peaceful assembly; discrimination against LGBT people; pride event in the Crimea
prohibited by Russian authorities under ‘anti-propaganda’ law)

Discussion Questions:
1. How, and where, are rights (such as the right to life, the right to the highest attainable
standard of health) articulated regarding reproductive rights?
2. How present are men and women’s reproductive needs articulated within IHRL?
3. Why do women have a disproportionate need for reproductive health rights? How can
support for women only services be justified using an equality-based framework?
4. How, according to Gable, may the ICCPR be used to develop a right to reproductive rights?
5. How, according to Gable, may the ICESCR be used to develop a right to reproductive
health?
6. Has a right to reproductive health been recognised in IHRL and/or by courts? Demonstrate
with reference to a source of law/judgment. Has Gable’s conception been expanded by
complaint hearing mechanisms?
7. Compare and contrast the articulations of health between the ICESCR and CEDAW.
8. How do you feel courts should interpret the right to equality between men and women with
regard to reproductive health services?
Module 11: Economic and Social Rights (2 Classes)
What are economic and social rights? Are they justiciable in courts? This Module, we will focus
on economic and social rights. We will first analyse the difference between positive obligations
and negative obligations. We will then move on to familiarize ourselves with the normative
content within these rights, specifically the right to adequate housing and education.
Essential Readings:
• CESCR General Comment 3: The Nature of States Parties’ Obligations (1990)
• CESCR General Comment 20: Non-discrimination in economic, social and cultural
rights. (2009)
• Fredman, S. Human Rights Transformed: Positive Rights and Positive Duties (Oxford
University Press 2008). Chapter 8: Socio-economic rights.
• ICESCR Article 6, 9, 13 & 14
• CRC Articles 28 and 29
• CEDAW Article 10
• CRPD Article 24

Cases and comments:

• CESCR General Comment 3: The Nature of States Parties’ Obligations (1990)
• Unni Krishnan, J.P. & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. AIR (1993) SC 2178 33
• Olga Tellis & Othrs. v Bombay Municipal Corporation & Othrs. AIR (1986) SC 180.
• Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others vs. Grootboom, 2001 (1) SA 46
(CC), 2000 (11) BCLR 1169 (CC).
• Minister of Health v. Treatment Action Campaign, Constitutional Court of South Africa,
Case CCT 8/02, 5 July 2002 in as far as it deals with progressive realisation.
• IDG v Spain, CESCR
• CESCR General Comment 3: The Nature of States Parties’ Obligations (1990)

Discussion Questions:
1. What is the scope of the right to education? Does it mean there should be state funded
free education for all children and adults?
2. What has the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child said about the quality of education?
3. How does the right to education intersect with other human rights, including the right to
life, religion, expression and the prohibition of non-discrimination?
4. What practical challenges do states face when attempting to implement the right to
education at the domestic level?
5. What do ‘multiplier’ and ‘cornerstone’ refer to with reference to socio-economic rights?
6. How does Fredman draw distinctions between legal and policy (distributive) obligations?
How does this claim affect socio-economic rights’ justiciability?
7. What is the significance of the Unni Krishnan case?
8. Does a “progressive realization” standard apply for implementation of all ICESCR Rights?
Module 12: Climate Change and Human Rights (2 Classes)

Climate change is believed to be the largest human rights issue in the 21st century. Still, there is
a shortage of both soft and hard laws to protect human rights affected by climate change. In the
last 5 years, there have been references to climate change under 'right to life' Article 6, Comment
Number 36; Committee on Rights of Children, in the context of inter-generational equity, and
the Committee on Economic and Social Rights. We utilize this Module to understand the
developments in the linkage between climate change issues and human rights.

Essential Readings:

• Lavanya Rajamani, Climate change, as in Moeckli, D. et al. (eds.) International Human

Rights Law
• Hall, Margaux Janine and Weiss, David C., Avoiding Adaptation Apartheid: Climate
Change Adaptation and Human Rights Law (June 16, 2012). 37 Yale Journal of
International Law 309 (2012), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2087790

Cases and Comments:

• Ioane Teitiota v. New Zealand (advance unedited version), CCPR/C/127/D/2728/2016, UN
Human Rights Committee (HRC), 7 January 2020.
• Daniel Billy v Australia, CCPR/C/135/D/3624/2019
• Greta Thunberg et al. v. Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany & Turkey, Communication to
the Committee of the Rights of the Child, (Sep. 23, 2019),
• Human Rights Council, 48/14. Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and
protection of human rights in the context of climate change
• Human Rights Council, 35/20. Human rights and climate change
• Verein Klimaseniorinnen Scweiz and Others v Switzerland [Grand Chamber, ECtHR,
April 9, 2024]

Discussion questions:
1. How does climate change impact the right to life as articulated in Article 6 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)? In what ways have recent
legal interpretations expanded this understanding?
2. In the context of inter-generational equity, how has the Committee on the Rights of the
Child addressed the impact of climate change on future generations? What legal arguments
support the recognition of climate change as a human rights issue for children?
3. Analyze the case of Ioane Teitiota v. New Zealand. How did the Human Rights Committee
approach the issue of climate-induced displacement and its implications for the right to
life?
4. Discuss the concept of "Adaptation Apartheid" as presented by Hall and Weiss. How does
climate change adaptation intersect with human rights law, and what are the risks of
unequal adaptation measures?
5. In what ways do the cases of Daniel Billy v. Australia and Verein Klimaseniorinnen
Schweiz v. Switzerland illustrate the challenges and opportunities for advancing human
rights protections in the context of climate change?
6. Evaluate the role of the Human Rights Council in addressing climate change as a human
rights issue. How effective are the mandates and resolutions (e.g., 48/14 and 35/20) in
promoting and protecting human rights in the face of climate change?
7. How does the case of Greta Thunberg et al. v. Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany &
Turkey challenge traditional notions of state responsibility in the context of climate
change? What implications could this case have for future climate litigation?
8. What are the limitations of existing international human rights frameworks in addressing
climate change? How can both soft and hard law be strengthened to better protect human
rights in the face of global environmental changes?
Module 13: Critiques of Human Rights Law (2 Classes)

This Module, we will explore literature that addresses the inherent contradictions in the Human
Rights Narrative.

Essential Readings:
• Dembour, M. (2022). 3. Critiques. In Oxford University Press eBooks (pp. 43–62).
https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198860112.003.0003
• Mutua, M. “Savages, Victims and Saviours: The Metaphor of Human Rights” Harv. Int'l
L. J. 201 (2001)

See also:

• César Rodríguez-Garavito, Against Reductionist Views of Human Rights, Open

Democracy, July 30, 2013
• Salil Shetty, “Decolonising Human Rights”, 22 May 2018
• Video: Invisible Children, KONY 2012

Optional Media:
• Battle of Algiers
• Lumumba
• Ratna Kapur’s lecture (initial 15-20 minutes) https://youtu.be/gOlJg1xwXhA

Discussion Questions:
1. Countries like the UK, France and Belgium had conflicting political interests. What were
these and what emerged as a consequence of these?
2. The UK and other states lobbied for certain IHRL provisions to not be codified. What were
these and why were they against the UK’s political interests?
3. Independence movements in colonised states often relied on the principle of self-
determination to assert a legal right to independence. Where was the mention of the right to
self-determination found? Who were parties to the document? What was the intended
applicability of the principle and was the understanding of potentially broader application
common to both state leaders or did they have different interpretations?
4. How does Mutua construct the idea of a good or bad state? What would a state’s voluntary
re-structuring of its internal laws to be compatible with IHRL provisions more closely align
with?
5. How does Mutua define the concept of a victim within IHRL?
6. How does Mutua refer to the Christian crusades? What relevance might this have for IHRL
today?
7. Do you feel the current international human rights structure to blame for inequality today or
are there other more influencing factors?
Module 14: Review (2 Classes)

Last Module is dedicated for revision of class materials.

FURTHER READINGS

Module 1: Introduction to the Human Rights Theory, Concept of Human Rights, &
Historicising Rights
• Samuel Moyn: “Human Rights in the Neoliberal Maelstrom” at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkDzcrzG4TA&t=3750s
• Victims, Marks, S. & Clapham, A., “International Human Rights Law Lexicon”, (OUP
2018)
• Sen, A., “Elements of a Theory of Human Rights”, Philosophy and Public Affairs, (2004)
• Moyn, S., “The Last Utopia: Human Rights in History” First Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press, USA (2010) pp. prologue and Chapter 1 (pp.1-43) especially section
covering 1770-1945
• Donnelly, J., “Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice”, Cornell University Press,
Ithaca (2013) pp. ‘Humans and Society in Hindu South Asia’ p. 147-156
• Beitz, C., “The Idea of Human Rights”, (OUP 2019)
• ‘Rights’ as entered on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (revised 2-7-2011).

Module 2: Introduction to United Nations Sponsored Treaty Framework and Charter Based
Mechanisms

• UN GA Res.60/251: Establishing the Human Rights Council.

• International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
(CERD), (1965).
o Individual and group complaint mechanism
o CERD’s Early warning and Urgent Action Mechanism
• INDIVIDUAL COMMUNICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 14 OF THE ICERD by Em.
Prof. Dr. Marc BOSSUYT (Antwerp) Member of the CERD:
https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Elaborationstandards/Session
7/MarcBossuyt.pdf
• Hilary Charlesworth, 'Rituals and Ritualism in the International Human Rights System' In
Nehal Buta et al (eds) The Struggle for Human Rights (OUP 2021).
• Benvenisti, E., Margin of Appreciation, Consensus, and Universal Standards, 31 NYU
Journal of International Law and Politics 843 (1999).
• State Behaviour at the Universal Periodic Review: An Examination of India’s Third
Review at the United Nations Human Rights Council, A Komath
• India’s Third ‘National Report’ submitted to the HRC. Doc NO: A/HRC/WG.6/27/IND/1
dated 23.02.2017.
• Alston and Goodman, “Conflict in Culture, Tradition and Practices: Challenges to
Universalism” in International Human Rights, 517-530, (1st Ed 2012)
• What do Treaty Bodies do? https://www.ohchr.org/en/treaty-bodies/what-treaty-bodies-do
• Complaining about Human Rights Violations: https://www.ohchr.org/en/treaty-
bodies/complaints-about-human-rights-violations
• Milewicz, K. and Goodin, R., Deliberative Capacity Building through International
Organisations: A case of the Universal Periodic Review, B.J.Pol S. 48, (2016)
 • NLU Delhi’s India’s UPR 2017.
• Basic Facts about the UPR.
• For a non-governmental perspective on the UPR.
• http://w/ before the UPR.
• African Women Millennium Initiative on Poverty & Human Rights (Zambia), Working
with the Universal Periodic Review of the United Nations Human Rights Council: A
Handbook for Civil Society Organizations(2010)
• India’s first and second cycle reports and all other documentation

Module 3: Regional Human Rights Protection

Module 4: Nature of obligations

• Thirlway, H., Specialities: Jus Cogens, Obligations Erga Omnes, Soft Law, in The Sources
• of International Law (2nd ed 2019)
• Koh, H., “Why Do Nations Obey International Law?”, Yale Law Journal 106 (1997): 2599
• Baxi, U. From Human Rights the Right to be Human: Some Heresies, India International
• Centre Quarterly, 13 (3/4) 1986• Goodman, R., Human Rights Treaties, Invalid
Reservations, and State Consent, The
• American Journal of International Law, vol. pp.531-560 (2002)
• Bantekas, I. Oette, L., “Sources”, Chapter 2, International Human Rights Law: The
• Normative Framework in International human Rights Law and Practice, pp.53-71,
• (Cambridge University Press 2013)
• Charlesworth & Chinkin, The Boundaries of International Law: A Feminist Analysis,
• Chapter 4 pp.96-123 (2000)
• Raz, J., Human Rights in the Emerging World Order 1 Transnational Legal Theory 31
• (2010)
• Boyle, A. & Chinkin, C., “The Making of International Law”, (2007)
• Goodman, R. Alston P., “International Human Rights, The Successor to International
• Human Rights in Context: Law, Politics, and Morals”, pp. 1080-1116, (OUP 2013)

Module 5: Limitations and Derogations

• Adina Ponta, Human Rights Law in the Time of the Coronavirus, 5 (24) (2020)
• UNHCR, Emergency Measures and COVID-19: Guidance (2020)
• Derogations in Time of Emergency, ECHR
• McKibben, H., & Western, S. (2020). ‘Reserved Ratification’: An Analysis of States’ Entry
of Reservations Upon Ratification of Human Rights Treaties. British Journal of Political
Science, 50(2), 687-712. doi:10.1017/S0007123417000631
• Gross, O., Once More unto the Breach: The Systemic Failure of Applying the European
Convention on Human Rights to Entrenched Emergencies, 23 Yale Journal of International
Law 437 (1998)
• Nuemayer, E., Qualified Ratification: Explaining Reservations to International Human
Rights Treaties, Journal of Legal Studies 36, 397, (2007)
 • Schabas, W., Invalid Reservations to ICCPR: Is United States Still a Party?, Brook Journal
of International Law 21 (1996).
• Cook, R., Reservations to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
against Women, Virginia Journal Of International Law 30 (1990)
• Redgwell, C., Reservation to Treaties and Human Rights Committee General Comment
No.24, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 46, Issue. 02, pp 390-412,
(1997).
• Lijnzaad, L., Reservations to UN-Human Rights Treaties, Ratify and Ruin?, 131-149,
(Martinus Nijhoff, 1995)
• Parisi, F.; Sevcenko, C., Treaty Reservations and the Economics of Article 21 (1) of the
Vienna Convention, Berkeley Journal of International Law, Vol. 21, No. 1, 1-26, (2003)
• Keller, L., The Impact of States Parties' Reservations to the Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Michigan State Law Review, Rev. 309,
309- 326, (2014)
• Moloney, R., Incompatible Reservations to Human Rights Treaties: Severability and The
Problem of State Consent, Melbourne Journal of International Law, Vol. 5 (2004)
• Baylis, E., General Comment 24: Confronting the Problem of Reservations to Human
Rights Treaties, Berkeley Journal of International Law, Vol.17, Issue 2, 277-329, (1999).
• Simma, B., Hernandez, G., Legal Consequences of an impermissible Reservation to a
Human Rights Treaty: Where do we stand? in Law of Treaties beyond the Vienna
Convention (2011), or
• Goodman, Ryan. “Human Rights Treaties, Invalid Reservations, and State Consent.” The
American Journal of International Law 96, no. 3 (2002): 531–60.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3062161.
• UN Human Rights Committee General Comment 24, General comment on 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 (1994).

Module 6: Equality and Non-discrimination

• Bob, C., “Dalit Rights are Human Rights: Caste Discrimination, International Activism
and the Construction of a New Human Rights Issue.”, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 29,
No.1, 167-193, (2007)
• Khaitan, T., “Affirmative Action”, Chapter 8, *A Theory of Discrimination Law* (OUP
2015)
• Ambedkar, B.R., *The Annihilation of Caste*, Columbia CNTML, available
[here](http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/mmt/ambedkar/web/index.html), PDF pages
10-13; 16-21, 23, 27-34; 36-40.
• Mahali Dawas & Yousef Shava v. Denmark, CERD Communication No. 46/2009, Doc
No. CERD-C-80-D-46-2009
• CERD General Recommendation 31, 65th Session: On the Prevention of Racial
Discrimination in the Administration and Functioning of the Criminal Justice System
(2005)
• Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women
• Stephen Hagan v. Australia, CERD Communication No.26/2002
 • Information on the murder of Stephen Lawrence in London, UK, Chapter 1 and the
subsequent MacPherson Report, Chapters 6 & 8.
• Fredman, S., “Discrimination Law”. Chapter 1, 2nd Ed., (OUP 2010) (especially pp.8-33)
• Gillot v France, HRC Communication No. 932/2000, UN Doc. A/57/40 at 270 (2002)
• Milanovic, M., “Norm conflict in international law: whither human rights?” *Duke Journal
of Comparative & International Law*, 20(1), 69-131, (2009).
• Hathaway, O.A., “Do Human Rights Treaties Make a Difference?” *Yale Law Journal*,
111 (2002)
• Oloka-Onyango, J; Tamale, S. "The Personal Is Political," or Why Women's Rights Are
Indeed Human Rights: An African Perspective on International Feminism” *Human Rights
Quarterly*, Vol. 17, No. 4, 691-731, (1995)
• Westen, P., “The Empty Idea of Equality” *Harvard Law Review*, vol. 95 (1981-1982)
537
• Singh, D., “Evaluating the Magnitude of Female Foeticide Problem of Punjab and Haryana
– A Regional Analysis,” *IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science (IOSR-JHSS)*,
Vol. 19 (10) Ver. VII, 69-78, (Oct. 2014)
• Patel, V., “A Long Battle for the Girl Child”, *Economic & Political Modulely*, Vol XLVI
No. 21 (2011).
• Branch, T., *King Years: Historic Moments in the Civil Rights Movement*, (2013),
Chapter 1, 2, 17 & Epilogue
• Pankhurst, E. S., *The Suffragette; The History of the Women's Militant Suffrage
Movement*, 1905-1910 (1911) (selected chapters)
• Media coverage of the Michael Brown and Eric Gardner killings and the Charlestown
shooting (2015) in USA.
• Bob, C., “Dalit Rights are Human Rights: Caste Discrimination, International Activism
and the Construction of a New Human Rights Issue.” *Human Rights Quarterly*, Vol. 29,
No.1, 167-193, (2007)
• Osman v UK (2000) 29 EHRR 245
• K. Ahmad v. Denmark
• Koptova v. the Slovak Republic
• Ato del Avellanal v. Peru
• Pauger v. Austria
• S W M. Broeks v. the Netherlands
• K. Singh Bhinder v. Canada
• Länsman et al v. Finland (discrimination on the basis of culture)

Module 7: Religion and Belief

• Danchin, P., “Suspect Symbols: Value Pluralism as a Theory of Religious Freedom in
International Law,”, Yale Journal of International Law Vol 33, No.1, 1-66 (2008)
• Shrimati Resham v State of Karnataka: https://www.scobserver.in/wp-
content/uploads/2022/02/karnataka-high-court-412148.pdf
• Ahmed, L., “The discourse of the veil”, Chapter 8, in ‘Women and Gender in Islam:
Historical Roots of a Modern Debate, Yale University Press, (1992).
• McGoldrick, D., “Religious symbols and State Regulation”, in Religion and Human
Rights, 12 (2017).
 • Deng, F, Chapter 2, Human Rights Southern Voices, Twinning, W (eds) (CUP 2009)
• Atrey, S., “Understanding Direct Discrimination Suffered ‘As a Female Muslim” in
‘Achbita’ 31 March 2017
• Kapur, R., “Un-Veiling Equality: Disciplining the ‘Other’ Woman Through Human Rights
Discourse” as in ‘Islamic Law and International Human Rights Law: Searching for
Common Ground?’ Emon, A.M. Ellis, M.S. Glahn, B. (eds). (OUP 2012).
• Danchin, P. G., “Who Is the “Human” in Human Rights? The Claims of Culture and
Religion”, 29-4- 2009
• Chaib, S. O., ‘Mann Singh wins turban case in Geneva after losing in Strasbourg’ 19-11-
2013
• Dellatorre, M. & Ferschtman, M. “Case Watch: A New Perspective on France’s Ban on
Religious Headcoverings in Schools” 15-05-2013
• Memorandum to the Turkish Government on Human Rights Watch’s Concerns with
Regard to Academic Freedom in Higher Education, and Access to Higher Education for
Women who Wear the Headscarf Human Rights Watch Briefing Paper June 29, 2004
• The Leyla Sahin v. Turkey Case Before the European Court of Human Rights, Hoope, T.
Chinese Journal of International Law (2006), Vol. 5, No. 3, 719–722
• Balgangadhara, S.N., “The Heathen in his Blindness: Asia, the West, and the Dynamic of
Religion”, 2nd ed. New Delhi: Manohar 2005, (1994).
• Beyer, P. “De-Centering Religious Singularity: The Globalization of Christianity as a Case
in Point” Numen, Vol.50, No.4, 357-386, (2003)
• Freeman, M. “The Problem of Secularism in Human Rights Theory.” Human Rights
Quarterly, vol.26, no.2, 375-400, (2004)
• Henkin, L. “Religion, Religions, and Human Rights” The Journal of Religious Ethics,
vol.26, No.2, 229-239, (1998)
• Music Video: Hijabi (Wrap my Hijab)
• CNN Newsclip, Heba Ahmed and Mona ElTahawy Debate
• Simon Cottee, Flemming Rose: The Reluctant Fundamentalist (2016)
• HRW, Attack on Charlie Hebdo Office (2015)

Module 8: Expression
• Bhatia, G., “Hate Speech”, Chapter 6, in ‘Offend, Shock, or Disturb: Free Speech under
the Indian Constitution’, (2016).
• Bielefeldt, H., Ghanea, N., Weiner, M., “Freedom of Expression including Questions
Related to Religious Conflicts, Religious Intolerance, and Extremism”, in ‘Freedom of
Religion or Belief: An International Law Commentary’

Module 9: Prohibition against torture

• Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights vs. Union of India, Writ Petition Nos. (C) Nos.
5328/80, 9229-30/82 Civil Appeals Nos. 721/85, 722/85, 723/85, 724/85, 2173-76/91,
2551/91 and Writ Petitions (C) Nos. 13644-45/84, Judgement dated 27 November 1997
• Lokaneeta, J., “Defining an Absence: “Torture” Debate in India.”, Economic & Political
Modulely, Volume 49, No. 26/27, (June 28, 2014).
 • Alston, Goodman, “Norm Regression: The Norm Against Torture’ in International Human
Rights”, 1st Edition, 238-267, (2012)
• UN Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance
• UN CAT Committee Concluding Observations on the combined third to fifth periodic
reports of the USA. CAT/C/USA/CO/3-5 19th December 2014.
• National Human Rights Commission, “Need for the investigating agencies to keep the
complainants/victims informed of the progress of investigation” Measures to Improve
Police-Public Relationship and Confidence, 22 December 1999, p.75, Section II(c)(e)(f)
• CAT Shadow Report CCR, HRC and IHRLC Berkeley Law Nov. 2014: The United States’
Compliance with the United Nations Convention Against Torture with Respect to
Guantánamo Bay Detainees and the Cumulative Impact of Confinement, the Abuse of
Detainees Post Release, and the Right to Redress
• The United States’ Compliance with the Convention Against Torture with Respect to the
Classification of Information Regarding the Ill-Treatment of Detainees in Secret Detention,
James G. Connell, III, representative of Ammar al Baluchi, a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay
• Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: Committee Study of the Central Intelligence
Agency’s Detention and Interrogation Program. December 2014
• Redress: The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act 1958 in Manipur and other States of the
Northeast of India: Sanctioning repression in violation of India’s human rights obligations,
18 August 2011
• Report of the OHCHR 2014, The use of torture-tainted information and the exclusionary
rule, A/HRC/25/60
• Andrew Bellamy, No Pain No Gain, Torture and Ethics in the War on Terror
• National Human Rights Commission Report Torture and gang rape by police officers in
Tripura - Case No. 5/23/2003-2004-WC
• UN Committee Against Torture (CAT), UN Committee against Torture: Conclusions and
Recommendations, United States of America, 25 July 2006
• Rodley, N. & Pollard M., “The Treatment of Prisoners Under International Law”, (2009)
• Hood & Hoyle, The Death Penalty: A Worldwide Perspective (2008)
• Malala Yousufzahi “I am Malala” (2012)
• Inter-American Convention on to Prevent and Punish Torture (1985)

Module 11: Gender and Human Rights

• Charlesworth, H., “The Hidden Gender of International Law”, 16 TEMP. INT’L &
COMP. L.J. 93 (2002)
• EPW Engage, A Womb of One’s Own
• Ely Yamin, A. & Lander, F., “Implementing a Circle of Accountability: A Proposed
Framework for Judiciaries and Other Actors in Enforcing Health-Related Rights”,
Journal of Human Rights, Vol. 14, No. 3, 312-331, (2015).
• Philip M., Khan M.E., Sebastian, D., “Unintended Pregnancy and Abortion in India:
Country Profile Report with Focus on Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa” Population
Council, New Delhi, (2014)
• Magill, S., “Five Years Indian Woman denied Abortion…., The Wire
• J. Cook, R., “Human Rights and Maternal Health: Exploring the Effectiveness of the
Alyne Decision” 41(1) Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 103, (2013).
 • Kaur, J. “The role of litigation in ensuring women’s reproductive rights - an analysis of
the Shanti Devi judgement in India” Reproductive Health Matters, Vol. 20, No.39, 21-
30, (2012)
• Jain, D. & Rozario, N., “Voices from the Field: Women’s Access to Contraceptive
Services and Information in Haryana, India” by Centre for Health Law, Ethics and
Technology, O.P. Jindal Global University in Collaboration with Centre for Reproductive
Rights, New York, CHLET p.16-25.
• Female sterilization failure: Review over a decade and its clinic-pathological correlation,
SV, Rokade J, Mule V, Dandapannavar S. Int J Appl Basic Med Res. 2014 Jul;4(2):81-5.
• Unsafe abortions: Eight maternal deaths every hour, The Lancet, Volume 374, Issue 9698,
Page 1301, 17 October 2009
• Protocol to the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights on the Rights of Women
in Africa art 1, (f), (g), (j), (k); art 2; art 5; art 14
• CESCR General Comment 14: Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health (2000)
paras 8, 9, 12, 14
• Achyut Prasad Kharel v Nepal 2004 Writ No. 3352 of 2061 BS (2004 AD)
• Ngwena, C. ‘Introduction to the Symposium Issue: Reproductive and Sexual Health and
the African Women’s Protocol’ 16 Wash. & Lee J.C.R. & Soc. Just. 1 (2009)
• Beltran Y Puga, A., “Paradigmatic Changes in Gender Justice: The Advancement of
Reproductive Rights in International Human Rights Law” 3 Creighton Int'l & Comp. L.J.
158 (2012)
• Cook, R & Dickens B., “Human Rights Dynamics of Abortion Law Reform”, Human
Rights Quarterly 1, (2003)

Module 12: Economic and Social Rights

• M. Pasqualucci, J., “The Right to a Dignified Life (Vida Digna): The Integration of
Economic and Social Rights with Civil and Political Rights in the Inter-American Human
Rights System”, 31 Hastings ICLR, (2008)
• Moeckli, D. et al, Chapter 10, “International Human Rights Law”, 3rd edition, (OUP 2018).
• Beijer, M., “The Development of Positive Obligations under the European Convention on
Human Rights”, Chapter 3, ‘The Limits of Fundamental Rights Protection by the EU’,
(2017)
• Benoit Mayer, Human Rights in the Paris Agreement, Climate law 6 (2016) 109-117
• Chomsky, N., “Human Rights in the New Millenium”, LSE Notes, (2009)
• Moeckli, D. et al, Chapter 12, “International Human Rights Law”, 3rd edition, (OUP 2018).
• Report of the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an
adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context. 4th
August 2015 UN Doc. A/70/270
• Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education
• Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment 16 (2005): The
Equal Right of Men and Women to the Enjoyment of all Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights, 11th August 2005
• Report of the Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing as a Component of the Right to an
Adequate Standard of Living, Miloon Kothari, Commission on Human Rights Sixty-First
Session, E/CN.4/2005/48, 3rd March 2005
 • Women And the Right to Adequate Housing, UN Human Rights, New York And Geneva,
2012, HR/PUB/11/02.
• Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy ‘Right to Education and Minority Rights’ (2016)
• Ray, P., “Leaving Home, Leaving Rights” Journal of Indian Law and Society Vol.4 Winter
2013 p.81-106
• Panda, P., Agarwal, B., “Marital Violence, Human Development And Women’s Property
Status In India”, World Development Vol. 33, No. 5, pp. 823–850, (2005).
• CEDAW GR 29, Economic consequences of marriage, family relations and their
dissolution (2013)
• Otto, D., “Gender Comment: Why Does the UN Committee on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights Need a General Comment on Women?” 14 Can. J. Women & Law 1 (2002)
• Khosla, M., “Making Social Rights Conditional: Lessons from India”, International Journal
of Constitutional Law 8 (4) pp. 739-765, (2010)
• Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment no.1 (2001)

Module 13 : Climate Change and Human Rights

• Chhaya Bhardwaj, ‘Adaptation and human rights: a decision by the Human Rights
Committee Daniel Billy et al. v. Australia CCPR/C/135/D/3624/2019’ (2023) 25
Environmental Law Review 154.

Module 14: Critiques of Human Rights Law

• Mende, J., “Are Human Rights Western—And Why Does It Matter? A Perspective from
International Political Theory”, Journal of International Political Theory, 2-22, (2019)
• Klose, F. “Source of Embarrassment: Human Rights, State of Emergency and the Wars of
Decolonization” as in “Human Rights in the Twentieth Century: Human Rights in History,
Hoffman, S-L. Cambridge University Press, New York, 237-257, (2011).
• Alston and Goodman, “Conflict in Culture, Tradition and Practices: Challenges to
Universalism” in International Human Rights, 517-530, (1st Ed 2012)
• Chimni, B.S., “International Law and World Order: A Critique of Contemporary
Approaches” (1993) (selected chapters)
• Matz, N., “Civilization and the Mandate System under the League of Nations as Origin of
Trusteeship”, A. von Bogdandy and R. Wolfrum, (eds.), Max Planck Yearbook of United
Nations Law, Volume 9, 47-95, (2005)
• Rodley, N. S., “Integrity of the Person” as in Moeckli, D. et al. (eds.) International Human
Rights Law (2018)
• ‘Equality and Non-Discrimination’, as in Moeckli, D. et al. (eds.) International Human
Rights Law, 189-208, (2018).
• McMinn, T., “With Friends Like These’: Human Rights, Neo-conservatism and US Foreign
policy from Carter to Reagan.” University of Sydney Thesis. (2011)
• Kennedy, D., “The International Human Rights Movement: Part of the Problem?” 15
HARV. HUM. RTS. J. 99 (2002)