Back-
Second revised edition of Prof. Linda C. Reif's book on ombuds institutions published
Professor Linda C. Reif, Associate Dean at the Faculty of Law at the University of Alberta, has recently published the revised second edition of her book Ombuds Institutions, Good Governance and the International Human Rights System.
Please see below a summary by Prof. Reif of her recent publication:
My research for the first edition of my book found that about 50 percent of the roughly 110 national-level ombuds institutions in 2003 had human rights mandates. The second edition demonstrates that by 2019 approximately 64% of the 136 national-level ombuds around the world had different types of human rights mandates, oftentimes accompanied by other responsibilities such as the traditional administrative justice role. Associated with this, about 78% of them have constitutional status. I call them human rights ombuds. This is a huge change in the raison d’être of ombuds, one that is still not widely recognized. Another under-appreciated development is the greater use by the remaining classic ombuds institutions of international and domestic human rights law in their work, even though they lack an explicit human rights mandate. My new book looks at these developments in detail, relying on international human rights law, constitutional law, and comparative law perspectives. While I survey national ombuds of all types to extract global-level conclusions on their legal structures, functions, and powers, I use case studies to look at selected ombuds, their human rights work, use of international and constitutional human rights law, and overall effectiveness. These include human rights ombuds in Finland, Spain, Poland, Ukraine, Ghana, Namibia, Guatemala, Peru, Jamaica, New Zealand, Timor-Leste, and Samoa, plus some classic-based ombuds.
I aim to illustrate the diversity of the work of national human rights ombuds. Their responsibilities include not only complaints-based and own-motion investigations, but also other human rights protection roles such as bringing constitutional and administrative court actions, intervening in litigation, providing other forms of legal assistance, and engaging in community mediation. An increasing number have also been given human rights promotion mandates, including proposing law reform, advising government on human rights matters, and engaging in human rights education and public awareness-raising.
Some human rights ombuds — especially in Europe and Latin America — have been designated as UN Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT) National Preventive Mechanisms (NPMs), Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) Article 33(2) implementing mechanisms, and children’s ombuds to implement the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Some ombuds in EU states serve as EU National Equality Bodies. I argue that the European Ombudsman was transformed into a supranational human rights ombuds when it became a member of the EU’s CRPD Article 33(2) mechanism. I also demonstrate how some ombuds are working, consciously or not, to apply the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and strengthen women’s rights.
Another aim is to demonstrate how some classic-based ombuds are taking a human rights approach to their work either formally (initiated by Northern Ireland’s Public Services Ombudsman) or informally, so that they apply not only their nation’s international human rights treaty obligations but also nonbinding international law e.g. “soft law” through their legality and extra-legal assessment standards.
Only national human rights ombuds can be classified as national human rights institutions (NHRIs) and many of them are accredited by the Global Alliance of NHRIs (GANHRI) based on the UN Paris Principles. The Paris Principles as interpreted by GANHRI call for NHRIs to have independence, sufficient resources, a pluralist composition, human rights promotion and protection mandates covering all human rights — with a heavy emphasis on promotional responsibilities — jurisdiction over the public and private sectors, and other attributes that enable the NHRI to interact with the international human rights system and civil society.
My book surveys GANHRI’s accreditation reports to determine what human rights ombuds need to do to move from B-status to A-status GANHRI accreditation, representing full compliance with the Paris Principles. Absent other serious flaws, I found that giving a national human rights ombuds institution a broad human rights promotion mandate is an effective way to improve their accreditation status. The COE’s Venice Principles on Ombuds Institutions also contain important standards for ombuds institutions, but they do require that all ombuds have dual mandates to fight maladministration and protect and promote human rights. Thus, the Venice Principles call for remaining classic-based ombuds to be transformed formally into human rights ombuds. The Venice Principles, however, are not fully aligned with the UN Paris Principles because they are almost silent on human rights promotion responsibilities. National human rights ombuds will have to give precedence to the Paris Principles and GANHRI interpretation if they wish to attain A-status accreditation.
Finally, I seek to illustrate that while robust legal architecture — including that which buttresses its independence — is essential, it is not enough to ensure that an ombuds institution is effective in practice. I present a series of interrelated extra-legal factors that affect the level of ombuds effectiveness over time. These include the financial resources given to the institution, the democratic environment in the country, the receptivity or resistance of the executive and legislative branches to the ombuds work, the character of the ombuds leadership, and the popular legitimacy of the institution. The democratic recession and rise of human rights unfriendly governments around the world highlight how ombuds effectiveness may be negatively impacted. In these cases, a strong legal framework, courageous ombudspersons with astute operating practices, strong popular legitimacy garnered through effective prior work and good relations with civil society, and the support of the international community may counteract these attacks on ombuds effectiveness.
Linda C. Reif, Ombuds Institutions, Good Governance and the International Human Rights System, Second Revised Edition (Brill/Nijhoff International Studies in Human Rights, 2020)
Please note: There is a possibility for ombuds offices and researchers in lower income countries to purchase the book at a lower price. Fur more information on the Global Online Access to Legal Information (GOALI) initiative, which Brill, the publisher of this book, has joined, please visit the GOALI website or the Research4Life website.
Source: Prof. Linda C. Reif, LLB (Windsor), LLM (Cambridge)
