Integrated Human Rights in Practice
Show Less

Integrated Human Rights in Practice

Rewriting Human Rights Decisions

Edited by Eva Brems and Ellen Desmet

This book aims to introduce concrete and innovative proposals for a holistic approach to supranational human rights justice through a hands-on legal exercise: the rewriting of decisions of supranational human rights monitoring bodies. The contributing scholars have thus redrafted crucial passages of landmark human rights judgments and decisions, ‘as if human rights law were really one’, borrowing or taking inspiration from developments and interpretations throughout the whole multi-layered human rights protection system. In addition to the rewriting exercise, the contributors have outlined the methodology and/or theoretical framework that guided their approaches and explain how human rights monitoring bodies may adopt an integrated approach to human rights law.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 16: Moving human rights jurisprudence to a higher gear: rewriting the case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v Ecuador (IACtHR)

Rewriting Human Rights Decisions

Lieselot Verdonck and Ellen Desmet


This chapter rewrites the judgment by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v Ecuador of 2012, concerning oil exploration activities in indigenous territories. A more sustained integrative approach to human rights is adopted in relation to seven themes, including innovative suggestions to move the human rights framework forward. To start, indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination should feature at the forefront of the Court’s analysis, instead of the right to property. Second, the Court should have further developed the norm of free, prior and informed consent, in line with (and beyond) earlier jurisprudence. Third, the analysis of some potential human rights violations was unjustifiably absorbed into the Court’s reasoning under article 21 ACHR. Fourth, children’s rights could have been more explicitly mainstreamed. Fifth, the right to live in a healthy environment should have been explicitly considered, at best as an independent right, at least included in the right to life. Sixth, the Court should have explicitly acknowledged that non-state actors bear human rights obligations. Finally, it is suggested that the Court should move towards not only an integrative approach to human rights norms, but to one of human rights holders as well.

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.