Chains of Justice: The Global Rise of State Institutions for Human Rights by Sonia Cardenas (review)

Chains of Justice is an impressive piece of scholarship. It documents the emergence of National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) around the world. It is, quite simply, the most comprehensive study currently available on the origins and global diffusion of human rights legislation. This book is an essential reference text for any scholar or practitioner in the field of human rights law.

The proliferation of NHRIs is the most tangible manifestation of how human rights have become a global language for reform and redress. Western Europe and North America pioneered the creation of human rights commissions, albeit there were barely a dozen in the world by 1980. After a surge of human rights legislation in the 1990s and 2000s, however, it is now the case that most countries in the world have (or are in the process of creating) some type of NHRI. Such an astonishing spread of comparable institutions across regions, cultures, and legal systems is a testament to the profound impact that human rights has had on domestic law in a generation.

Sonia Cardenas attempts to capture the essence of this remarkable phenomenon. She begins with defining NHRIs, and then proceeds to discuss the pioneers. The core of the book, however, is five chapters (divided by region) that document the origins of every NHRI in the world. The book ends with a discussion on how to properly assess the potential impact or influence of an NHRI. One of the central themes in this study is that, in recent years, it has become common for states to create weak NHRIs that only offer the veneer of protecting human rights (in some cases, though, they evolve into a genuine accountability mechanism). Another key theme is that the earliest NHRIs were the product of domestic pressure, whereas the more recent proliferation of NHRIs is the product of international pressure or regulatory moments when authoritarian states become more democratic. It is not uncommon in the latter situations for international agencies or foreign governments to provide the funding for NHRIs.

Cardenas offers a broad definition of an NHRI based on the Paris Principles: administrative agencies that promote and protect human rights domestically. They take the form of human rights commissions, ombudsman offices, or public advocates (about half are commissions that focus on public and private rights violations or discrimination). They are inextricably tied to the modern state. NHRIs protect citizens against state abuses and facilitate a dialogue between the state and society. In North America, Western Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, most NHRIs focus on discrimination. In other parts of the world, especially where the rule of law is tenuous, NHRIs are preoccupied with state violence against citizens or promoting democratization. [The United States, despite its rhetorical commitment to human rights, continues to resist creating its own NHRI.] The functions and powers of NHRIs, however, differ dramatically. Most have a regulatory (investigations, holding governments accountable) or constitutive (socializing, education) role. But whereas some have extensive powers to initiate and investigate complaints, as well as to impose remedies (e.g., India or Canada), others have a limited mandate for research and education (e.g., Germany or Norway).

Cardenas’ major contribution lays not so much in documenting varieties of NHRIs—although the book is impressive in this regard alone—but in using her extensive survey to explain the conditions that facilitate the emergence of NHRIs. There are, according to the author, four primary factors: (1) the level of human rights violations in a particular nation, which might lead the government to create an NHRI to appease critics; (2) regional diffusion (rather than global diffusion, which the author argues is not a significant factor); (3) regulatory moments, most notably democratization or the creation of a new constitution, when a country’s basic organizing principles are open to change; and (4) a state’s treaty obligations when combined with a strong rule of law. Whether or not...