LCP4807: International Human Rights Law Assignment 1
LCP4807
International Human Rights Law
ASSIGNMENT 1
Student Name [Your Full Name]
Student Number [Your Student Number]
Submission Date 27 February 2026
Lecturer [Lecturer's Name]
Word Count [Approx. 2,500 words]
Essay Question:
"Critically examine the extent to which international human rights law
imposes binding obligations on non-state actors, with particular
reference to multinational corporations and armed groups."
1. Introduction
International human rights law (IHRL) has traditionally been conceptualised
as a framework governing the relationship between states and individuals
within their jurisdiction. The classical paradigm, rooted in the Westphalian
state-centric model, places states as the primary duty-bearers under
instruments such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Page 1 of 8
, LCP4807: International Human Rights Law Assignment 1
Rights (ICESCR). However, the proliferation of non-state actors (NSAs) —
particularly multinational corporations (MNCs) and organised armed groups
— in the post-Cold War era has fundamentally challenged this orthodoxy.
This essay critically examines the extent to which IHRL imposes binding
obligations on NSAs. It proceeds by first analysing the theoretical
foundations of state-centric IHRL, then considers the evolving normative
frameworks applicable to MNCs, and thereafter addresses the contested
application of IHRL obligations to armed groups. The essay concludes that
while direct binding obligations on NSAs under conventional IHRL remain
limited, a convergence of soft law, customary international law, and domestic
regulation is progressively closing the accountability gap.
2. The Classical State-Centric Framework
2.1 Foundational Principles
The foundational architecture of IHRL emerged from the atrocities of the
Second World War and the establishment of the United Nations in 1945. The
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948, while not a binding
treaty, proclaimed a common standard of achievement for all peoples and
nations. Its preamble addresses itself to "every individual and every organ of
society," which some scholars, including Clapham (2006), interpret as an
early intimation of NSA responsibility.
The subsequent binding treaty regime, however, predominantly addressed
states. Article 2(1) of the ICCPR obliges each State Party to "respect and to
ensure" the rights recognised therein to all individuals within its territory and
subject to its jurisdiction. The obligation to 'ensure' has been interpreted by
the Human Rights Committee (HRC) as encompassing both negative duties
Page 2 of 8
LCP4807
International Human Rights Law
ASSIGNMENT 1
Student Name [Your Full Name]
Student Number [Your Student Number]
Submission Date 27 February 2026
Lecturer [Lecturer's Name]
Word Count [Approx. 2,500 words]
Essay Question:
"Critically examine the extent to which international human rights law
imposes binding obligations on non-state actors, with particular
reference to multinational corporations and armed groups."
1. Introduction
International human rights law (IHRL) has traditionally been conceptualised
as a framework governing the relationship between states and individuals
within their jurisdiction. The classical paradigm, rooted in the Westphalian
state-centric model, places states as the primary duty-bearers under
instruments such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Page 1 of 8
, LCP4807: International Human Rights Law Assignment 1
Rights (ICESCR). However, the proliferation of non-state actors (NSAs) —
particularly multinational corporations (MNCs) and organised armed groups
— in the post-Cold War era has fundamentally challenged this orthodoxy.
This essay critically examines the extent to which IHRL imposes binding
obligations on NSAs. It proceeds by first analysing the theoretical
foundations of state-centric IHRL, then considers the evolving normative
frameworks applicable to MNCs, and thereafter addresses the contested
application of IHRL obligations to armed groups. The essay concludes that
while direct binding obligations on NSAs under conventional IHRL remain
limited, a convergence of soft law, customary international law, and domestic
regulation is progressively closing the accountability gap.
2. The Classical State-Centric Framework
2.1 Foundational Principles
The foundational architecture of IHRL emerged from the atrocities of the
Second World War and the establishment of the United Nations in 1945. The
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948, while not a binding
treaty, proclaimed a common standard of achievement for all peoples and
nations. Its preamble addresses itself to "every individual and every organ of
society," which some scholars, including Clapham (2006), interpret as an
early intimation of NSA responsibility.
The subsequent binding treaty regime, however, predominantly addressed
states. Article 2(1) of the ICCPR obliges each State Party to "respect and to
ensure" the rights recognised therein to all individuals within its territory and
subject to its jurisdiction. The obligation to 'ensure' has been interpreted by
the Human Rights Committee (HRC) as encompassing both negative duties
Page 2 of 8
