Governmental human rights focal points in federal contexts: The implementation of the Istanbul Convention in Switzerland as a case study
| DOI | 10.1177/09240519211016947 |
| Date | 01 June 2021 |
| Author | Matthieu Niederhauser |
| Published date | 01 June 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Governmental human
rights focal points in
federal contexts: The
implementation of the
Istanbul Convention in Switzerland
as a case study
Matthieu Niederhauser
University of Lausanne, Institute for Political Studies, Lausanne, Switzerland
Abstract
The implementation of international human rights law in federal States is an underexplored
process. Subnational entities regularly enjoy a degree of sovereignty, which raises questions such
as whether they implement obligations of international law and how the federal level may ensure
that implementation takes place at the subnational level. This article aims to answer these ques-
tions, using the implementation of the Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against
Women and Domestic Violence (Convention) in Switzerland as a case study. To implement the
Convention at the cantonal level, federal actors decided to use networks of civil servants in charge
of domestic violence issues, who act as governmental human rights focal points (GHRFPs). This
article is based on original empirical data, on 25 interviews with State officials who participate in
this implementation. The findings show how complex GHRFPs networks work in practice to
implement the Convention and highlight the role played by numerous non-legal State actors in this
process. As a result, the article argues that international human rights law implementation
becomes more diversified both within and across federal States.
Keywords
Governmental human rights focal points, human rights implementation, federal states, civil
servants, domestic violence, violence against women, Istanbul Convention, Switzerland
Corresponding author:
Matthieu Niederhauser, University of Lausanne, Institute for Political Studies (IEP), Lausanne, Switzerland.
E-mail: matthieu.niederhauser@unil.ch
Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights
2021, Vol. 39(2) 140–160
ªThe Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/09240519211016947
journals.sagepub.com/home/nqh
NQHR
NQHR
1. INTRODUCTION
This article is part of a Special Issue aimed at generating academic understanding of governmental
human rights focal points (GHRFPs)
1
and focuses on the need to consider the perspective of
federal states—from both a legal guidance and an empirical standpoint. The emergence of govern-
mental structures dedicated to human rights is rooted in trends aimed at bridging the gap between
human rights commitments and actual implementation through a strategy of domestic institutio-
nalisation. It complements the traditional focus on legal harmonisation and judicial protection, and
the more recent monitoring by independent institutions, with proactive dynamics focused on public
policies and implementation strategies by States’ executive actors.
2
While the first two implemen-
tation strategies have been analysed with regard to federal states,
3
this has not been the case with
regard to GHRFPs. The emerging international guidance on implementation of—and follow-up
to—international law by GHRFPs does not specifically address the situation of federal states,
4
despite the fact that the degree of sovereignty held by subnational entities raises critical challenges
for the implementation of international law.
This points to a fundamental area of enquiry linked to the specificities of GHRFPs’ organisation
and operations in federal contexts, particularly in regard to treaty implementation. This raises the
following questions: do subnational entities implement obligations of international human rights
law, how may the federal level ensure that implementation takes place at the subnational level, and
what role do GHRFPs play in such processes?
To answer these questions, this article takes the implementation of the 2011 Convention on
Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention
or Convention) in Switzerland as a case study. Several factors make this selection relevant. First,
the Istanbul Convention is one of the only human rights treaties to oblige State Parties to designate
a GHRFP.
5
Paragraph 1 of Article 10 requires States to appoint ‘one or more official bodies
responsible for the co-ordination, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies and
measures’. Second, Switzerland is one of four federal States that ratified the Convention, and
several obligations directly fall under the competencies of its subnational entities—the cantons.
Third, the Convention’s subject matter is a pressing issue in Switzerland, recognised as a political
priority.
6
In a context of deterioration of domestic violence and political mobilisation on the issue,
the entry into force of the convention in 2018 has captured attention, triggering discussion and
activity around its implementation at the federal level and in most cantons, as this article will
demonstrate.
1. Seethe Introduction to this Special Issue.
2. Steven LB Jensen, St´ephanie Lagoutte and S´ebastien Lorion, ‘The Domestic Institutionalisation of Human Rights: An
Introduction’ (2019) Nordic Journal of Human Rights 165, 166.
3. Judith Wyttenbach, Umsetzung von Menschenrechtsu¨bereinkommen in Bundesstaaten: Gleichzeitig ein Beitrag zur
grundrechtlichen Ordnung im Fo
¨deralismus (Dike 2017); Andrew Wolman, ‘The Relationship between National and
Sub-national Human Rights Institutions in Federal States’ (2013) 17 The International Journal of Human Rights 445.
4. OHCHR, National Mechanisms for Reporting and Follow-Up: A practical guide to effective engagement with inter-
national human rights mechanisms (New York and Geneva, 2016) UN Doc. HR/PUB/16/1 (OHCHR NMRF Guide). See
also the Introduction to this Special Issue.
5. Together with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. On the latter, see the article by Colin Caughey
in this Special Issue.
6. ATS, D´
elib´
erations au Conseil national (2018)
AffairId¼20170062> accessed 20 April 2021.
Niederhauser 141
To continue reading
Request your trial