One NHRI or Many? How Many Institutions Does It Take to Protect Human Rights? - Lessons from the European Experience

Abstract

The question of whether to establish a single national human rights institution (NHRI) with a broad mandate or multiple specialized institutions is a pressing one in several European countries, yet has been largely neglected in the academic literature. Many states have gradually acquired specialized institutions, addressing particular grounds of discrimination or the rights of different vulnerable groups. Often for reasons of cost, the wisdom of having many institutions is being questioned, and several countries – the United Kingdom (UK), Sweden, Croatia, for example – have merged multiple institutions or are considering such a step. International and European human rights standards provide little guidance on the choice between single and multiple institutions, meaning that the decision is essentially a pragmatic one. On several grounds a single NHRI is likely to prove more able to protect and promote the rights of vulnerable groups. It will provide a unified legal framework, be cost-effective, be readily accessible to those who need to use it, and present a clear profile to the public and to the authorities. Advocates of multiple institutions correctly point to the need for human rights bodies that are sensitive to the particular needs of different vulnerable groups and politically and culturally accessible. Yet the reality is that not all vulnerable groups can benefit from such separate institutions and the economies provided by a single institution with a broad mandate will provide the best service, provided that they come with inbuilt guarantees of attention to the interests of all groups.