On June 12, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States decided that persons detained by the US in Guantánamo Bay had the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus. The recognition that all detainees are entitled to this basic right, irrespective of their nationality, designation as ‘enemy combatants’, or offshore location, was hailed as a victory for the rule of law. Jubilation was somewhat tempered by the fact that it took six years to decide that detainees were entitled to a protection that would normally guarantee judicial access within hours, days, or maybe weeks.

Whether you see the Boumediene judgment as a historic victory for justice or a reminder of its woeful failure, it tells a story. It provides a graphic illustration of how far executive violations of human rights have gone in the name of security, but also of the nature of the judicial response: deferential and perhaps faltering at first, gradually ceding to a more invigorated role as a matter of last resort. This judgment is only one part of a burgeoning mass of litigation worldwide, each component of which tells its own story. Cases vary vastly in their nature and goals – ranging from challenging unlawful practices and preventing wrongs to gaining access to information and securing reparation or judicial oversight itself, for example – as they do in their processes and outcomes. They occur in and reflect the vastly different political and cultural contexts as well as the diverse legal and constitutional systems from which they emerge. This chapter will present a necessarily brief survey of some of this diverse body of practice of human rights litigation to date on the national, regional and international level.