ASEAN competence in the field of human rights

V.S. Kyrhizova
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24144/2788-6018.2023.06.117
2023-12-27
Analytical and Comparative Jurisprudence
Abstract:The article is devoted to consideration of the competence of ASEAN in the field of human rights. Human rights are universal values agreed by the countries of the world. The main pillars of the international system of promotion and protection of human rights are regional mechanisms for the protection of human rights. The most prominent subregional organization in the Asia-Pacific region in terms of recent human rights developments is ASEAN. ASEAN is an international intergovernmental subregional organization of countries located in Southeast Asia. The ASEAN Charter enshrined human rights as a fundamental principle of ASEAN and created a mechanism to promote and protect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of ASEAN citizens. Respect for fundamental freedoms, the promotion and protection of human rights, and the promotion of social justice are among the general principles binding on member states. To ensure the implementation of the provisions of the Charter in the aspect of human rights protection, the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights was established, which later adopted the ASEAN Declaration of Human Rights. But despite quite significant progress in the aspect of legal support of ASEAN's competence in the field of human rights, practical problems still exist today. In particular, one of the problematic issues that still exists within the Association is the provision of human rights in the region. After all, guided by the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of states, ASEAN does not pay attention to events related to the violation of human rights in the territories of its member states. In addition, ASEAN does not have judicial bodies to consider cases of human rights violations by member countries, as European countries do. The ASEAN Commission itself does not have the authority to make binding decisions, consider cases or conduct investigative visits. The absence of such functions and the absence of mandatory requirements regarding the independence and experience of AICHR members lead to debate. At the same time, the provision concerning the scope of powers to make decisions only by consensus is subject to the most criticism. After all, every state can reject any criticism of its human rights by way of veto.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?