{"id":28823,"date":"2026-03-03T15:11:14","date_gmt":"2026-03-03T15:11:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wpcms.chambers.com\/?post_type=topics&p=28823"},"modified":"2026-03-03T15:53:12","modified_gmt":"2026-03-03T15:53:12","slug":"international-human-rights-law-diplomacy","status":"publish","type":"topics","link":"https:\/\/wpcms.chambers.com\/topics\/international-human-rights-law-diplomacy\/","title":{"rendered":"Navigating uncertainty in international human rights law"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Despite challenges, lawyers across the world are sustaining momentum through relentless casework and commitment to international human rights law. <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n

It is no secret that the multilateralism that has long underpinned post-Second World War international law and diplomacy is under pressure<\/a>. A shifting geopolitical landscape has seen challenges to the legitimacy of some of the treaties and institutions which have long represented the infrastructure of international human rights law.  <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n

For practitioners interviewed for our international human rights law<\/a> coverage, a shift to unilateralism and growing politicisation of the law heralds something of a crisis in the practice area. One respondent described it as \u201ca very difficult time for the system of international human rights law and the concept, which has been relatively recent in human history, of having a rule-based order on an international scale.\u201d<\/em> Going against the grain of global powers, they said, \u201cthe problem is that you feel somewhat insignificant.<\/em>\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n

International human rights lawyer, UK <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n

What does this mean for international human rights law practice going forward? For one lawyer interviewed for our research, the growing politicisation of the law means that the best practitioners will be those who can demonstrate geopolitical nous, diplomatic acumen and effective relationship building. <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n

Partner. UK Law Firm<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In other words, a more diverse skill set may be necessary to deliver successful outcomes. When this was put to another respondent, however, they were reluctant to endorse what they saw as a further conflation of law and politics: \u201cI would resist an urge among human rights practitioners to try to merge their role between law and policy; it would dilute the clarity of the message which is that we have laws, we have internationally agreed sets of standards and people have to be treated with those standards.<\/em>\u201d1<\/sup> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

These differing views highlight the dilemmas posed between the universalism that is meant to underpin international human rights law, and the possible need for realism in achieving practical results.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n

Other interviewees were keen to emphasise that being more attuned to the varied interests of different states did not mean that lawyers need to stop lawyering. On the other hand, a mixed legal practice will become essential, because although some governments will have little time for human rights law, all <\/em>governments will have some<\/em> area of international law that is of interest to them.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Lawyer, UK law firm<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Being able to come to issues from different legal angles will increase the possibility of finding some kind of common ground. <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n

Similar points were raised by other respondents about the need to think more strategically about venues and partners. As one source put it: \u201cChanges in the geopolitical situation means that claimants will be thinking creatively about which international dispute bodies they can use to try and advance the arguments that they want to pursue.<\/em>\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another suggested that as \u201cthe practical influence of international courts and tribunals may diminish<\/em>\u201d as key states refuse to recognise their jurisdiction, there may be <\/em>\u201cgreater emphasis on domestic courts as the primary forum for resolving politically sensitive disputes<\/em>\u201d. <\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

For yet another interviewee, it was still possible to think multilaterally, but with a greater focus on building limited coalitions of like-minded states around discrete issues, rather than attempting to operate through global-level forums such as the UN.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The priority, they argued, is to \u201cmove the needle in the right direction where you can with those who will partner on that particular issue<\/em>\u201d and continue to develop the relevant legal infrastructure, citing the fifty-one state  Media Freedom Coalition<\/a> as an example. <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n

Overall, a key shared message from our research was that respondents remained passionate about the importance of international human rights law \u2013 whether as a vehicle for protecting the world\u2019s most vulnerable people, or as part of the framework for tackling interconnected transnational issues such as migration, climate change and global living standards.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

For many, the important thing to do in the present time was to keep building up successful casework wherever possible: \u201cwhat we can do is to keep litigating, keep using international human rights law, keep using the language of it [\u2026] you use it to advocate for it<\/em>\u201d.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Persistence was a key theme: as one respondent said of the recent release of Egyptian activist Alaa Abd el-Fatteh<\/a>, who had long been regarded as a \u2018hopeless case\u2019: \u201cIt\u2019s easy to say there is no role for international lawyers, that it\u2019s all politics, but we saw how there really is a role for international human rights law<\/em>\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n