The domestic impact and effectiveness of the process of state reporting under UN human rights treaties in the Netherlands, New Zealand and Finland: paper-pushing or policy prompting?
Gespeichert in:
| Beteilige Person: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Hochschulschrift/Dissertation Buch |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Cambridge
Intersentia
[2014]
|
| Schriftenreihe: | School of Human Rights Research series
volume 63 |
| Schlagwörter: | |
| Links: | http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=027839039&sequence=000002&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |
| Umfang: | 461 S. |
| ISBN: | 9781780682440 1780682441 |
Internformat
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nam a2200000 cb4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | BV042403398 | ||
| 003 | DE-604 | ||
| 005 | 20160606 | ||
| 007 | t| | ||
| 008 | 150312s2014 xx m||| 00||| eng d | ||
| 010 | |a 2014497324 | ||
| 020 | |a 9781780682440 |9 978-1-78068-244-0 | ||
| 020 | |a 1780682441 |9 1-78068-244-1 | ||
| 035 | |a (OCoLC)1031440189 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)GBV791040267 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-604 |b ger |e rda | ||
| 041 | 0 | |a eng | |
| 049 | |a DE-12 |a DE-29 |a DE-188 | ||
| 084 | |a PR 2213 |0 (DE-625)139532: |2 rvk | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Krommendijk, Jasper |d 1985- |e Verfasser |0 (DE-588)1054233489 |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a The domestic impact and effectiveness of the process of state reporting under UN human rights treaties in the Netherlands, New Zealand and Finland |b paper-pushing or policy prompting? |c Jasper Krommendijk |
| 264 | 1 | |a Cambridge |b Intersentia |c [2014] | |
| 264 | 4 | |c © 2014 | |
| 300 | |a 461 S. | ||
| 336 | |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 490 | 1 | |a School of Human Rights Research series |v volume 63 | |
| 502 | |b Dissertation |c Maastricht University |d 2014 | ||
| 520 | 1 | |a The number of international human rights treaties and monitoring mechanisms has grown considerably over the past decades. States are increasingly confronted with criticism as to their domestic human rights record. What is the effect of all these treaties, monitoring and criticism? Do they lead to changes and improvements? This book addresses such questions. More in particular, it investigates the domestic impact and effectiveness of the process of state reporting under the six main UN human rights treaties in the Netherlands, New Zealand and Finland. The focus is on the effectiveness of the recommendations of the treaty bodies and the extent to which policy or legislation is changed as a result of these recommendations. This question has hardly been addressed before.0This book fills this empirical gap and provides insights into the factors at both the national and international level which contribute to the effectiveness of the treaty bodies recommendations. The book is original and thorough in its approach because it is based on an extensive analysis of a wide variety of documents as well as 175 interviews with various domestic human rights stakeholders in the three countries. This includes government officials, NGO representatives, members of parliament, lawyers and judges, representatives from human rights and Ombudsman institutions and academics. The book discusses a large number of concrete examples of effective recommendations of the treaty bodies to illustrate the major conclusions | |
| 655 | 7 | |0 (DE-588)4113937-9 |a Hochschulschrift |2 gnd-content | |
| 830 | 0 | |a School of Human Rights Research series |v volume 63 |w (DE-604)BV012740005 |9 63 | |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m HBZ Datenaustausch |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=027839039&sequence=000002&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| 940 | 1 | |n oe | |
| 943 | 1 | |a oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-027839039 | |
Datensatz im Suchindex
| _version_ | 1819300353823211520 |
|---|---|
| adam_text | Titel: The domestic impact and effectiveness of the process of state reporting under UN human rights treati
Autor: Krommendijk, Jasper
Jahr: 2014
Contents
Acknowledgments..................................................vii
List of Abbreviations............................................... xix
List of Figures and Tables......................................... xxiii
Chapter I
Introduction........................................................ 1
1. Brief overview of the process of state reporting and the legal status of
COs..........................................................2
1.1. The process of state reporting.................................2
1.2. Objectives of reporting......................................5
1.3. The legal status of COs......................................7
2. Overview of the deficiencies of the treaty body system..................9
2.1. The treaty body reform discussion............................ 10
2.2. The weaknesses in the treaty body system, the dialogue and the COs.. 11
2.3. Recent improvements...................................... 19
3. Overview of contemporary research on the effectiveness of COs......... 20
4. Main research questions and definitions............................. 24
4.1. Broader influence of the process..............................25
4.2. Impact..................................................25
4.3. Effectiveness.............................................26
5. Research objectives and contributions..............................27
6. Valorisation: societal relevance of this research.......................28
7. Structure of the book............................................29
Part A
Theoretical and Methodological Framework........................... 31
Chapter II
Theoretical Framework.............................................. 33
1. Logic of consequences: instrumentalist or rationalist models............35
1.1. External or international incentives models.....................35
1.2. Domestic politics, institutions and mobilisation..................37
2. Logic of appropriateness: ideational norm-centred approaches...........41
2.1 The managerial model......................................42
2.2. Legitimacy and persuasion..................................43
3. Combining the two logics: transnational human rights advocacy.........44
4. Theoretical implications for this research............................47
Chapter III
Methodological Framework.......................................... 49
1. Country selection.............................................. 49
1.1. Western liberal democracies as most likely cases................. 49
1.2. The Netherlands as the main case............................. 52
1.3. Two additional most similar countries: New Zealand and Finland ... 53
2. Methodology.................................................. 56
2.1. The broader influence...................................... 57
2.2. Domestic impact and domestic mobilisation.................... 58
2.3. The effectiveness of COs.................................... 60
2.4. Limitations to the measuring of effectiveness................... 63
2.5. Explaining the (ineffectiveness of COs........................ 65
2.6. Interviews............................................... 66
PartB
The Netherlands.................................................. 69
Chapter IV
The Role and Place of Human Rights and State Reporting in the Netherlands... 71
1. Background to the Dutch legal and political system................... 71
2. The role of human rights in the Dutch legal order..................... 73
2.1. Government.............................................. 74
2.2. Parliament............................................... 76
2.3. National courts and legal practice............................. 77
2.4. The legal (human rights) culture.............................. 79
2.5. Concluding remarks and recent developments................... 80
3. The broader influence of the reporting process....................... 82
3.1. The organisation of the process of state reporting................ 83
3.2. The attitude of government officials towards the process of state
reporting................................................ 85
3.2.1. The value of reporting............................... 85
3.2.2. The importance given to reporting in practice............. 87
4. The views of government officials about the quality of treaty bodies
and the COs................................................... 90
4.1. The irrelevance of the dialogue............................... 91
4.2. The superficiality of the dialogue............................. 93
4.3. The absence of a constructive dialogue........................ 95
4.4. The limited quality and specificity of COs...................... 96
5. Conclusion.................................................... 98
Chapter V
ICERD..........................................................99
1. Domestic impact and domestic mobilisation.........................99
1.1. Governmental attention.....................................99
1.2. Parliamentary scrutiny.................................... 101
1.3. Courts and legal practice................................... 102
1.4. NGOs.................................................. 103
1.5. Media coverage.......................................... 105
1.6. Conclusion.............................................. 105
2. Assessing the effectiveness of COs................................ 106
2.1. COs that have been rejected................................ 108
2.2. Standing policy measures in line with the COs................. 110
2.3. (Partly) effective COs..................................... 110
3. Treaty specific reasons for the (ineffectiveness of COs................ 114
3.1. Factors related to the domestic context........................ 114
3.2. The (perceived) quality of the CERD......................... 117
4. Conclusion................................................... 121
Chapter VI
ICCPR.......................................................... 123
1. Domestic impact and domestic mobilisation........................ 124
1.1. Governmental attention.................................... 125
1.2. Parliamentary scrutiny.................................... 126
1.3. Courts and legal practice................................... 127
1.4. NGOs.................................................. 128
1.5. Media coverage.......................................... 130
1.6. Conclusion.............................................. 130
2. Assessing the effectiveness of COs................................ 131
2.1. COs that have been rejected................................ 131
2.2. Standing policy and legislative measures in line with the COs..... 133
2.3. (Partly) effective COs..................................... 134
3. Treaty specific reasons for the (ineffectiveness of COs................ 136
3.1. Factors related to the domestic context........................ 136
3.2. The (perceived) quality of the HRC.......................... 139
4. Conclusion................................................... 141
Chapter VII
ICESCR......................................................... 143
1. Domestic impact and domestic mobilisation........................ 143
1.1. Governmental attention.................................... 143
1.2. Parliamentary scrutiny.................................... 144
1.3. Courts and legal practice................................... 146
1.4. NGOs.................................................. 147
1.5. Media coverage.......................................... 148
1.6. Conclusion.............................................. 149
2. Assessing the effectiveness of COs................................ 150
2.1. COs that have been rejected................................ 151
2.2. Standing policy and legislative measures in line with the COs..... 153
3. Treaty specific reasons for the (ineffectiveness of COs................ 154
3.1. Factors related to the domestic context........................ 154
3.2. The (perceived) quality of the CESCR........................ 158
4. Conclusion................................................... 163
Chapter VIII
CEDAW......................................................... 165
1. Domestic impact and domestic mobilisation........................ 165
1.1. Governmental attention.................................... 167
1.2. Parliamentary scrutiny.................................... 168
1.3. Courts and legal practice................................... 171
1.4. NGOs.................................................. 172
1.5. Media coverage.......................................... 175
1.6. Conclusion.............................................. 176
2. Assessing the effectiveness of COs................................ 177
2.1. COs that have been rejected................................ 178
2.2. Standing policy and legislative measures in line with the COs..... 181
2.3. (Partly) effective COs..................................... 183
2.3.1. The SGP case..................................... 184
2.3.2. Law on Names.................................... 185
2.3.3. Reinstatement of maternity benefits for self-employed
women........................................... 187
2.3.4. More attention to the gender aspects of domestic violence .. 188
2.3.5. Evaluation gender dimension asylum policy............. 190
2.3.6. Uninterrupted long school day........................ 191
2.3.7. Training and education for prostitutes leaving their
profession........................................ 191
3. Treaty specific reasons for the (ineffectiveness of COs................ 192
3.1. Factors related to the domestic context........................ 192
3.2. The (perceived) quality of the CEDAW Committee.............. 195
4. Conclusion................................................... 198
Chapter IX
CAT............................................................ 199
1. Domestic impact and domestic mobilisation........................ 200
1.1. Government informing parliament........................... 200
1.2. Parliamentary scrutiny.................................... 200
1.3. Courts and legal practice................................... 201
1.4. NGOs.................................................. 201
1.5. Media coverage.......................................... 203
1.6. Conclusion.............................................. 203
2. Assessing the effectiveness of COs................................ 203
2.1. Standing policy and legislative measures in line with the COs..... 204
2.2. (Partly) effective COs..................................... 206
3. Treaty specific reasons for the (in)effectiveness of COs................ 207
3.1. Factors related to the domestic context........................ 207
3.2. The (perceived) quality of the CAT Committee................. 211
4. Conclusion................................................... 212
Chapter X
CRC............................................................ 213
1. Domestic impact and domestic mobilisation........................ 213
1.1. Government attention..................................... 213
1.2. Parliamentary scrutiny.................................... 217
1.3. Courts and legal practice................................... 221
1.4. NGOs.................................................. 223
1.5. Media coverage.......................................... 226
1.6. The broader influence of the reporting process under the CRC..... 227
2. Assessing the effectiveness of COs................................ 230
2.1. COs that have been rejected................................ 231
2.2. Standing policy and legislative measures in line with the COs..... 232
2.3. (Partly) effective COs..................................... 233
2.3.1. The establishment of a Children s Ombudsman.......... 234
2.3.2. The separate housing of juvenile offenders.............. 235
2.3.3. Increased dissemination and raising awareness about the
CRC............................................ 236
2.3.4. Improvements in the asylum procedure for children....... 237
2.3.5. The prohibition of corporal punishment................ 240
2.3.6. Improved interaction between NGOs and the government.. 241
2.3.7. Initiatives in the context of human rights education....... 242
2.3.8. The abolition of life imprisonment for minors............ 243
2.3.9. Renewed consultations about foster care................ 244
2.3.10. The promotion of breastfeeding....................... 245
3. Treaty specific reasons for the (ineffectiveness of COs................ 245
3.1. Factors related to state level................................ 245
3.2. The (perceived) quality of the CRC Committee................. 249
4. Conclusion................................................... 252
Chapter XI
Comparison of the findings for the Netherlands..........................253
1. The broader influence of the reporting process......................253
1.1. Reporting as an opportunity for reflection?....................253
1.2. Increased understanding or awareness?.......................255
2. The domestic impact of the reporting process and the COs.............255
2.1. The impact of COs........................................255
2.2. Recent developments which might strengthen the impact of the COs . 259
3. Effectiveness of the COs........................................ 261
4. Factors obstructing the effectiveness of COs........................265
5. Factors contributing to the effectiveness of COs.....................267
PartC
New Zealand and Finland.........................................271
Chapter XII
New Zealand.....................................................273
1. Background: the New Zealand legal and political system.............. 274
2. The broader influence of the reporting process......................276
2.1. The organisation of the process of state reporting............... 276
2.2. The attitude of government officials towards the process of state
reporting............................................... 280
2.3. Increased understanding or awareness?....................... 283
3. Domestic impact and domestic mobilisation........................ 284
3.1. Governmental attention....................................284
3.2. Parliamentary scrutiny....................................287
3.3. Courts and legal practice...................................290
3.4. Human Rights Commission and Office of the Children s
Commissioner........................................... 291
3.5. NGOs..................................................293
3.6. Media coverage..........................................295
4. Assessing the effectiveness of COs................................296
4.1. Prohibition of corporal punishment through the repeal of section 59.. 299
4.2. Avoiding age mixing in prison.............................. 301
4.3. The repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004............... 302
4.4. Education for unlawfully present children..................... 303
4.5. Withdrawal of the reservation to CEDAW: women in armed forces . 304
4.6. The independence of the Police Conduct Authority.............. 306
4.7. The strengthening of the Children s Commissioner.............. 306
4.8. The incorporation of the prohibition of non-refoulement.......... 307
4.9. Conclusion.............................................. 308
5. Explaining the (ineffectiveness of COs............................ 310
5.1. Factors facilitating the effectiveness of COs.................... 310
5.2. Factors obstructing the effectiveness of COs................... 311
6. Conclusion................................................... 316
Chapter XIII
Finland......................................................... 317
1. Background: the Finnish legal and political system................... 317
2. The broader influence of the reporting process...................... 321
2.1. The organisation of the process of state reporting............... 321
2.2. Attitude of government officials towards the process of state
reporting............................................... 325
2.3. Increased understanding or awareness?....................... 326
3. Domestic impact and domestic mobilisation........................ 327
3.1. Governmental attention.................................... 328
3.2. Parliamentary scrutiny.................................... 330
3.3. Courts and legal practice................................... 332
3.4. Ombudsmen and Human Rights Centre....................... 334
3.5. NGOs.................................................. 336
3.6. Media coverage.......................................... 340
4. Assessing the effectiveness of COs................................ 341
4.1. The establishment of an assistant Parliamentary Ombudsman and
an Ombudsman for Children................................ 345
4.2. Sami land rights and the ratification of ILO Convention 169....... 346
4.3. The criminalisation of torture............................... 348
4.4. Violence against women in the 1990s......................... 350
4.5. The establishment of the Ombudsman for Minorities............ 351
4.6. Consolidation of equality legislation.......................... 351
4.7. The reduction of the length of the alternative service for
conscientious objectors.................................... 352
4.8. The CRC in school curricula................................ 354
4.9. Conclusion.............................................. 354
5. Explaining the (ineffectiveness of COs............................ 357
5.1. Factors facilitating the effectiveness of COs.................... 357
5.2. Factors obstructing the effectiveness of COs................... 361
6. Conclusion................................................... 362
Part D
Conclusion......................................................365
Chapter XIV
Conclusion: Main Findings and Reflections............................. 367
1. The broader influence of the reporting process......................368
2. The domestic impact of the reporting process and the COs.............369
3. Effectiveness of the COs........................................372
4. Factors contributing to the (ineffectiveness of COs.................. 376
4.1. Factors contributing to ineffectiveness of COs.................. 376
4.2. The subject matter and specificity of COs..................... 378
4.3. Domestic factors contributing to the effectiveness of COs......... 379
4.3.1. Domestic mobilisation.............................. 381
4.3.2. Structure: the organisation of the reporting process and
follow-up to COs................................... 383
4.3.3. Commitment: views and outlook of decision makers...... 385
4.3.4. Cultural, political and legal factors.................... 387
5. Reflections and discussion...................................... 388
6. Policy recommendations........................................ 390
6.1. Suggestions for the treaty bodies: less is more.................. 391
6.2. Suggestions for domestic stakeholders: COs as practical props.....394
Nederlandse samenvatting [Summary in Dutch]......................... 395
Appendix 1. List of persons interviewed by the author.................... 405
Appendix 2.Databases and search terms used........................... 417
Appendix 3. Interview Checklist...................................... 427
Bibliography..................................................... 429
Index........................................................... 451
|
| any_adam_object | 1 |
| author | Krommendijk, Jasper 1985- |
| author_GND | (DE-588)1054233489 |
| author_facet | Krommendijk, Jasper 1985- |
| author_role | aut |
| author_sort | Krommendijk, Jasper 1985- |
| author_variant | j k jk |
| building | Verbundindex |
| bvnumber | BV042403398 |
| classification_rvk | PR 2213 |
| ctrlnum | (OCoLC)1031440189 (DE-599)GBV791040267 |
| discipline | Rechtswissenschaft |
| format | Thesis Book |
| fullrecord | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>03108nam a2200385 cb4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">BV042403398</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-604</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20160606 </controlfield><controlfield tag="007">t|</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">150312s2014 xx m||| 00||| eng d</controlfield><datafield tag="010" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">2014497324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">9781780682440</subfield><subfield code="9">978-1-78068-244-0</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">1780682441</subfield><subfield code="9">1-78068-244-1</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(OCoLC)1031440189</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)GBV791040267</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-604</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="e">rda</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="049" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-12</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-29</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-188</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">PR 2213</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-625)139532:</subfield><subfield code="2">rvk</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Krommendijk, Jasper</subfield><subfield code="d">1985-</subfield><subfield code="e">Verfasser</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)1054233489</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">The domestic impact and effectiveness of the process of state reporting under UN human rights treaties in the Netherlands, New Zealand and Finland</subfield><subfield code="b">paper-pushing or policy prompting?</subfield><subfield code="c">Jasper Krommendijk</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Cambridge</subfield><subfield code="b">Intersentia</subfield><subfield code="c">[2014]</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="c">© 2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">461 S.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="490" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">School of Human Rights Research series</subfield><subfield code="v">volume 63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="502" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">Dissertation</subfield><subfield code="c">Maastricht University</subfield><subfield code="d">2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">The number of international human rights treaties and monitoring mechanisms has grown considerably over the past decades. States are increasingly confronted with criticism as to their domestic human rights record. What is the effect of all these treaties, monitoring and criticism? Do they lead to changes and improvements? This book addresses such questions. More in particular, it investigates the domestic impact and effectiveness of the process of state reporting under the six main UN human rights treaties in the Netherlands, New Zealand and Finland. The focus is on the effectiveness of the recommendations of the treaty bodies and the extent to which policy or legislation is changed as a result of these recommendations. This question has hardly been addressed before.0This book fills this empirical gap and provides insights into the factors at both the national and international level which contribute to the effectiveness of the treaty bodies recommendations. The book is original and thorough in its approach because it is based on an extensive analysis of a wide variety of documents as well as 175 interviews with various domestic human rights stakeholders in the three countries. This includes government officials, NGO representatives, members of parliament, lawyers and judges, representatives from human rights and Ombudsman institutions and academics. The book discusses a large number of concrete examples of effective recommendations of the treaty bodies to illustrate the major conclusions</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="655" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4113937-9</subfield><subfield code="a">Hochschulschrift</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd-content</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="830" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">School of Human Rights Research series</subfield><subfield code="v">volume 63</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-604)BV012740005</subfield><subfield code="9">63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">HBZ Datenaustausch</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=027839039&sequence=000002&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Inhaltsverzeichnis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="940" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="n">oe</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="943" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-027839039</subfield></datafield></record></collection> |
| genre | (DE-588)4113937-9 Hochschulschrift gnd-content |
| genre_facet | Hochschulschrift |
| id | DE-604.BV042403398 |
| illustrated | Not Illustrated |
| indexdate | 2024-12-20T17:10:12Z |
| institution | BVB |
| isbn | 9781780682440 1780682441 |
| language | English |
| lccn | 2014497324 |
| oai_aleph_id | oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-027839039 |
| oclc_num | 1031440189 |
| open_access_boolean | |
| owner | DE-12 DE-29 DE-188 |
| owner_facet | DE-12 DE-29 DE-188 |
| physical | 461 S. |
| publishDate | 2014 |
| publishDateSearch | 2014 |
| publishDateSort | 2014 |
| publisher | Intersentia |
| record_format | marc |
| series | School of Human Rights Research series |
| series2 | School of Human Rights Research series |
| spellingShingle | Krommendijk, Jasper 1985- The domestic impact and effectiveness of the process of state reporting under UN human rights treaties in the Netherlands, New Zealand and Finland paper-pushing or policy prompting? School of Human Rights Research series |
| subject_GND | (DE-588)4113937-9 |
| title | The domestic impact and effectiveness of the process of state reporting under UN human rights treaties in the Netherlands, New Zealand and Finland paper-pushing or policy prompting? |
| title_auth | The domestic impact and effectiveness of the process of state reporting under UN human rights treaties in the Netherlands, New Zealand and Finland paper-pushing or policy prompting? |
| title_exact_search | The domestic impact and effectiveness of the process of state reporting under UN human rights treaties in the Netherlands, New Zealand and Finland paper-pushing or policy prompting? |
| title_full | The domestic impact and effectiveness of the process of state reporting under UN human rights treaties in the Netherlands, New Zealand and Finland paper-pushing or policy prompting? Jasper Krommendijk |
| title_fullStr | The domestic impact and effectiveness of the process of state reporting under UN human rights treaties in the Netherlands, New Zealand and Finland paper-pushing or policy prompting? Jasper Krommendijk |
| title_full_unstemmed | The domestic impact and effectiveness of the process of state reporting under UN human rights treaties in the Netherlands, New Zealand and Finland paper-pushing or policy prompting? Jasper Krommendijk |
| title_short | The domestic impact and effectiveness of the process of state reporting under UN human rights treaties in the Netherlands, New Zealand and Finland |
| title_sort | the domestic impact and effectiveness of the process of state reporting under un human rights treaties in the netherlands new zealand and finland paper pushing or policy prompting |
| title_sub | paper-pushing or policy prompting? |
| topic_facet | Hochschulschrift |
| url | http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=027839039&sequence=000002&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |
| volume_link | (DE-604)BV012740005 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT krommendijkjasper thedomesticimpactandeffectivenessoftheprocessofstatereportingunderunhumanrightstreatiesinthenetherlandsnewzealandandfinlandpaperpushingorpolicyprompting |