Rarely are second editions so long awaited—if this is a second edition at all. By the editors’ own admission, it is approaching some 30 years since the first edition of this work appeared and, but for the title and some chapter headings, virtually everything is new. Indeed, so much has changed during the intervening years that it would hardly be possible for it to be otherwise. The intervening years have seen the establishment of the position and office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, the replacement of the Commission on Human Rights by the Human Rights Council and the doubling of the number of UN human rights conventions and associated treaty bodies. The level and nature of engagement with human rights questions by the organs of the UN has changed dramatically—and yet there remains a certain sense of ‘plus ça change, mais …’ about this. The volume records a huge amount of institutional activity, yet when it comes to the better protection of human rights—what has really, fundamentally, changed? Indeed, the opening sentence reminds us that ‘Recent years have seen immense challenges to the international human rights regime’ (p 1) which it proceeds to reflect upon—and rightly so.

In a sense, the magisterial editorial Introduction (which ought to be required reading for anyone interested in the international protection of human rights) seeks to ‘talk up’ the achievements by ‘talking down’ the expectations of what the UN can actually deliver, noting that there are ‘inevitable tensions between the principled nature of human rights as a project, and the sometimes arcane institutional structures of the UN’ (p 4). The detailed consideration of the work of the UN organs and treaty bodies examined underline the truth of this. Perhaps unconsciously, the work reveals another fundamental truth about the nature of the UN engagement with human rights as a result of its own structuring. The contents are structured into four parts. The first looks at the human rights mandates of the ‘principal’ UN organs—the Security Council, General Assembly, ECOSOC and the International Court of Justice. The second looks at four of the subsidiary human rights organs—the Human Rights Council, the Human Rights Advisory Committee, the Commission on the Status of Women and the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. The third part then looks at each of the ten treaty bodies in turn, concluding with a chapter concerning the reform of the treaty body system, whilst the fourth part concludes by looking at the ‘Governance of Human Rights’ by considering the work of the High Commissioner and human rights co-ordination within the UN system. The general ‘feel’ of the content of each of these sections is interesting.

It is difficult to avoid the overall impression that the work of the primary organs is somewhat detached from human rights, that of the subsidiary organs is somewhat disappointing and that the treaty bodies are somewhat despairing. Looking at the principal organs, Mégret wonders whether the Security Council adopting a higher profile ‘should be welcomed as an unmitigated blessing’ (p 97) despite its ‘tremendous potential to promote rights’ since ‘it remains a body deeply unsuited to the ordinary conduct of human rights affairs’ (p 98). Clapham, while noting the positive achievements of the General Assembly, comments that ‘these diplomats are labouring in an exalted state of disconnectedness’ (p 100) and that ‘few representatives ever really connect the violations taking place around the world with the need to take action at the General Assembly’ (p 128). Mégret is even more scathing about the ECOSOC, observing that ‘the Council has basically divested itself of any significant human rights role. This is probably no great loss’ (p 149). Perhaps more surprisingly, Simma displays considerable hesitation concerning the role of the International Court of Justice in relation to human rights, thinking it ‘an environment in which the Court ought to tread with utmost care’ (p 174). Even more surprisingly—perhaps rather shockingly—he links this, in part, to a concern that, given the consensual nature of the Court's jurisdiction, ‘a part of its clientele might be somewhat less than enthusiastic if the ICJ assumed more pronounced features of a human rights court’ (p 175). So much for that then.

The appraisal of the subsidiary organs is slightly different in tone, though there is a degree of ‘damning with faint praise’ when Freedman concludes that the Human Rights Council ‘commendably has steadily improved and increased its credibility and legitimacy’, whilst noting that ‘politicization … will always be present within an intergovernmental body tasked with the contentious and charged mandate’ (p 238). Similarly, the Human Rights Advisory Committee is ‘commended’ for having ‘gained a voice within the organisation’, but that voice needs strengthening (p 251). At this point, as the organs under consideration become progressively more specialised and ‘expert oriented’, the tone slightly shifts towards organs whose potential is either undervalued or under-supported (by which is meant under-resourced). Thus the achievements of the Commission on the Status of Women as ‘a key player in the promotion of women's rights’ is properly highlighted, as are ‘problems and obstacles … [which] curb its effectiveness and reach’ (p 281). Indeed, Arat notes that ‘[i]t was not intended as a strong mechanism initially and did not develop into one later’ (p 288). Heywood's presentation and assessment of the work of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues is rather more upbeat, and certainly shows what can be achieved, despite working from a low base. It is an interesting example of what might be described as a ‘quasi-treaty body’ working imaginatively within the strictures of the UN with ‘determined gradualism’ (p 306), which rather nicely sums up this section. But is this all that was to be expected of subsidiary organs set up expressly to further human rights expectations? They pass scrutiny only if the bar is set quite low.

Space in a book review precludes a chapter-by-chapter consideration of the ten human rights treaty bodies. Once again, however, there is something of a common ‘feel’ to them, which is that their work is fettered by the lack of adequate resourcing and institutional constraints. This, in turn, feeds into a general lack of knowledge concerning their work, as well as a lack of knowledge concerning the impact of their work (a benign construction) or, somewhat more likely, its lack of impact. Whereas the chapters on the primary organs sometimes question whether they ought to be ‘let loose’ on human rights, the general drift of these chapters on the treaty bodies is to lament their inability to pursue their mandates with the vigour they themselves might wish.

There is, however, another narrative which these chapters reveal: and this concerns the degree of disconnect between the treaty bodies themselves. Although routinely presented as a ‘system’, the chapters reveal little ‘systemic thinking’. The differing manner in which these bodies operate their largely similar, yet separate, mandates is recounted in each chapter, and even the keenest and closest of readers is still likely to be struck by the essential similarities rather than the subtle variations between them. And yet, as Egan rightly observes in her excellent chapter surveying the proposals for reforming (or strengthening) the system, fundamental structural reform is unlikely, even if the case may be compelling (p 664). The subtext concerns the enduring sense of ‘disconnect’ between the treaty bodies themselves—with Hennebel bluntly labelling the Human Rights Committee as ‘isolationist’ and concluding his analysis by observing that it would ‘gain in credibility at the UN if it took the UN human rights machinery seriously’ (p 391). Ouch!

Overall, these chapters are a repository of informed comment about the treaties they consider and will be points of reference for years to come. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses and readers will doubtless make their own assessments of them. This reviewer would limit himself to remarking on the particularly helpful chapters on the Committee on Enforced Disappearances (by de Frouville) and on the Convention on Migrant Workers (by Chetail), both rather overlooked instruments yet containing a wealth of innovation. Similarly, the main criticism this reviewer has of these chapters concerns the lamentable failure to devote a separate chapter to the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, which, unlike other Optional Protocols, establishes an entirely free-standing monitoring body, the SPT, which is in fact the largest of all the human rights treaty bodies and whose mandate is very different from those others. Yet it is relegated to four or five pages in the chapter devoted to the Convention against Torture, resulting in a missed opportunity to explore the most innovative of all the treaty bodies, whose work is increasingly influencing that of others. (A disclaimer: the author of this review is a former member and Chair of the SPT, so this omission is keenly felt.)

The final chapters, in Part IV, sympathetically explore the role of the High Commissioner, and the tensions between ‘speaking out’ and maintaining functioning field presences. The combination of tasks is unenviable—but that is human rights protection for you! The final chapter looks to better co-ordination across the UN system, but the general evidence of this book is, frankly, that this is an almost impossible dream—but that is human rights protection for you!

As this review is written, the challenge of addressing human rights through the UN is getting ever more acute. The work of the treaty bodies more or less ground to a halt during much of the COVID-19 pandemic and some fundamental assumptions concerning how they go about their work are now being questioned. At the same time, violations of fundamental human rights by States show no sign of abating, and every sign of increasing. For all that there is truth in the ‘low expectations’, ‘glasses half full or half empty’ and ‘gradualist’ approaches, one has to conclude by asking: if approaching 75 years after the UDHR this is ‘success’, what does ‘failure’ look like? Perhaps it depends on who asks (or answers) the question: the diplomat in Geneva or New York, or the victim in the gutter …? But then, no-one is actually saying that the system has been a ‘success’. Is the system good enough? Perhaps it just has to be.

What is clear is that this is a seminal book on a key issue of our times. It has been well worth the wait. We must just hope that if the next edition is nearly 30 years in the coming, it will have a somewhat happier story to tell.