A state is a political entity that has a permanent population, territory, government and sovereignty. A national government consists of the institutions authorized to make and enforce decisions on the state's behalf.

How states shape rights and justice

States have the main responsibility for putting rights into practice. Governments pass laws, fund public services and regulate employers. They also administer courts and provide remedies when rights are violated. At the international level, they negotiate treaties and decide whether to incorporate those obligations into domestic law.

Yet this concentration of authority can also put rights at risk. Police, armed forces, border agencies and courts hold coercive power. Governments may restrict participation, discriminate between groups or avoid accountability. A state's claim to sovereignty can therefore clash with international demands for rights protection.

Rights policy can shape legitimacy too. A government may gain acceptance when people see its institutions as fair and protective. Formal legality, however, doesn't guarantee justice: a law may be valid within a state while still treating groups unequally.

Examples

In Brazil in 2023, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's government declared a public-health emergency affecting the Yanomami and launched operations against illegal mining in their territory. This response demonstrated the state's capacity to protect Indigenous rights. At the same time, it exposed how earlier failures of enforcement had allowed environmental destruction and serious harm to continue.

In India in 2024, the national government brought the Citizenship (Amendment) Act into operation through new rules. The government described the measure as protection for specified persecuted minorities from neighbouring states. Opponents argued that its religion-based distinctions undermined legal equality and India's secular constitutional identity.

Contested perspectives

Liberals generally see constitutional government, independent courts and international obligations as restraints that can direct state power towards protecting individual rights. Realists stress that governments usually put security, territorial control and political survival before external criticism.

Constructivists examine how changing norms reshape what governments regard as legitimate conduct. Postcolonial perspectives ask whether state institutions and citizenship rules reproduce boundaries and hierarchies inherited from colonial rule. Feminist analysis considers whose experiences are overlooked when apparently neutral laws are designed and enforced.

The state's role connects rights and justice to peace and conflict, since coercive institutions can protect communities or produce violence. It also creates a link with development and sustainability. Access to health, education, land and a safe environment depends heavily on public policy and state capacity.

An intergovernmental organization (IGO) is an institution created by states through an international agreement, with continuing responsibilities or authority. In rights and justice, IGOs protect people, set standards, investigate conduct, settle legal disputes or pursue individual criminal responsibility.

Different institutions, different mandates

These institutions aren't a single world government. They draw influence from legal commitments, expertise, publicity and cooperation. International authority therefore remains interdependent with state power.

Examples

In South Africa v Israel, filed at the ICJ in 2023, South Africa alleged violations of the Genocide Convention in Gaza. The Court issued provisional measures in 2024 but did not make a final ruling on the merits. The case showed that the ICJ can apply international law during an ongoing conflict, while still depending on states for implementation.

In 2023, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Russian President Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova over the alleged unlawful deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children. These warrants showed that holding senior office does not automatically prevent international criminal allegations. Russia's refusal to cooperate, however, exposed the Court's enforcement problem.

Following protests and allegations of serious violations, the UNHRC created an independent fact-finding mission on Iran in 2022 and renewed its mandate in 2024. The mechanism collected and preserved evidence. At the same time, disagreement among states over the mandate showed that monitoring cannot be separated from international politics.

In Bangladesh in 2024, UNHCR and partner organizations continued to coordinate the response for Rohingya refugees through a joint response plan. It provided protection and essential assistance, but funding pressures remained. The absence of safe conditions for return also showed that humanitarian agencies cannot deliver a political solution on their own.

Contested perspectives

Liberal institutionalists argue that IGOs reduce impunity by creating stable rules and specialist monitoring, as well as forums where even less powerful states can make claims. Realists respond that these bodies still depend on state consent. They are least effective when enforcement clashes with the interests of powerful governments.

Constructivists focus on how reports, judgments and investigations may reshape global expectations, even when enforcement is not immediate. Postcolonial critics argue that international institutions may apply justice selectively or allow powerful states unequal influence. Feminist scholars examine whether institutions recognize gender-based violence and include survivors in decisions.

These institutions link rights and justice to peacebuilding, refugee protection and accountability after conflict. Their work also shows interdependence: courts, humanitarian agencies, governments and civil society each have capabilities that the others lack.

A regional human rights tribunal is a court established by states in a geographical organization to interpret and apply their shared human rights commitments. These regional systems can make international justice easier to access and more responsive to local contexts. However, their jurisdiction and enforcement powers differ.

How regional tribunals operate

The European Court of Human Rights, Inter-American Court of Human Rights and African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights decide whether participating states have violated regional treaties. Who can bring a case depends on the system: individuals, civil society organizations, regional commissions or states may have access.

Tribunals may order compensation, investigation, legal reform or another remedy. National governments are usually responsible for implementation, and rules on admissibility and access may stop some affected people from reaching a court directly.

Examples

In Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz v Switzerland in 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Switzerland had failed to meet its positive obligations concerning climate change. By connecting environmental harm with human rights, the case showed that an association of older women could challenge national climate policy at regional level.

In 2022, the African Court ordered reparations in the Ogiek case against Kenya. It had earlier found that evicting the Ogiek from the Mau Forest violated protected rights. The reparations judgment recognized both material and cultural harms, though implementation still depended on Kenyan political and administrative action.

In the La Oroya v Peru judgment delivered in 2023 and notified in 2024, the Inter-American Court held Peru responsible for rights violations linked to severe industrial pollution. The Court required measures dealing with health, environmental monitoring and remedy. The judgment demonstrated how a regional court can connect corporate activity with a state's duty to regulate and protect.

Contested perspectives

Liberal legalists view regional courts as checks on sovereign power. They also offer another route to justice when domestic remedies fail. Realists argue that judgments have little practical force when governments resist compliance or states have withheld jurisdiction.

For constructivists, regional judgments create norms that may shape later legislation and activism beyond the parties involved in a case. Postcolonial scholars ask whether rural, Indigenous and poor communities have equal access to legal procedures. Feminist analysis raises a related question: is formal equality enough when resources and exposure to harm remain unevenly distributed?

Regional tribunals connect rights with ecological justice, development and peacebuilding. A judgment alone doesn't determine their effectiveness. Domestic courts, public administration, pressure from civil society and the participation of affected communities also shape the result.

A civil society organization (CSO) is a voluntary organization that works outside the state and mainly outside the commercial market in pursuit of shared public interests. Advocacy refers to organized action aimed at influencing decisions, institutions, public opinion or behaviour.

Sources of civil society power

Groups such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and child-rights networks don’t normally have access to the coercive power of states. Instead, they rely on research, survivor testimony, public campaigns, strategic litigation and direct engagement with governments, courts, IGOs and companies.

Their influence may involve:

• documenting violations and preserving evidence
• bringing neglected issues onto political agendas
• representing or supporting affected communities
• lobbying for changes in law and policy
• checking whether authorities carry out their commitments

CSOs can make political processes more transparent and participatory. However, their funding, access and legitimacy vary greatly. International organizations may find it easier to attract attention than local groups, even when they have less contextual knowledge or are less accountable to the people affected.

Examples

During the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar, Amnesty International and other rights organizations called on FIFA and its commercial partners to fund remedies for migrant workers who had experienced abuses. Their campaign kept compensation and corporate responsibility on the international agenda. Advocacy alone, though, could not force FIFA or employers to provide every remedy requested.

In Colombia in 2022, the Causa Justa movement united women’s rights organizations and lawyers through litigation and public advocacy on abortion law. The Constitutional Court decriminalized abortion up to 24 weeks. This case shows how coordinated civil society action can bring together legal argument, social mobilization and the experiences of affected women.

Contested perspectives

Liberal pluralists view civil society as a means of spreading political power beyond government, allowing citizens to hold institutions accountable. Constructivists focus on advocacy’s ability to change the language used to understand an issue, so that conduct once accepted comes to be recognized as an injustice.

Realists are more sceptical when advocacy clashes with state security or powerful economic interests. Postcolonial critics warn that well-funded international organizations may set priorities for communities in the Global South. Feminist perspectives value survivor-centred organization, but question whether movements include women who face intersecting economic, racial or migration-based disadvantages.

Civil society connects rights and justice with non-violent political action, development and peacebuilding. Advocacy has the strongest legitimacy when it is based on evidence and affected people help set its aims, rather than appearing only as the subjects of a campaign.

Marginalized groups are communities pushed to the edges of political participation, the economy or social life. Vulnerable groups have less capacity to protect their interests or face a greater risk of harm. most affected groups and individuals experience the effects of a policy, conflict or rights violation directly.

These categories often overlap. However, belonging to one doesn’t mean that a person lacks agency. Migrants, refugees, children and other affected people may document abuse, organize together or bring legal claims. Through testimony, they can also shape public understanding.

Participation and barriers

People with direct experience bring knowledge that governments and external organizations may not have. Their involvement can make a decision more legitimate because those who will bear its consequences have a voice.

Several barriers can restrict participation, including a lack of citizenship, money or legal representation. People may also lack physical safety or access to decision-makers. Children are sometimes excluded because adults claim to speak on their behalf. Refugees may depend on the very states that control their legal status and movement.

Examples

During the United Kingdom's Rwanda litigation in 2023, asylum seekers facing removal challenged the government's policy in court. The UK Supreme Court concluded that Rwanda was not then a safe destination because people risked being returned to persecution. The case shows how vulnerable individuals can exercise legal agency, even when they rely on lawyers and institutional access.

In South Korea in 2024, the Constitutional Court ruled on climate cases brought partly by children and young people. It found that the existing framework failed to provide adequate protection for the period after 2030. By turning their exposure to future environmental harm into a rights claim, the young claimants linked children's participation to ecological justice and intergenerational equality.

Contested perspectives

A liberal rights approach stresses equal legal standing and access to effective remedies. Feminist and intersectional perspectives respond that formal equality may hide the ways age, gender, disability, poverty and migration status combine to restrict real power.

Postcolonial analysis asks whether affected communities can define justice for themselves, rather than having states and international organizations speak for them. Constructivists focus on how testimony can change public norms by bringing previously hidden harms into political view.

The position of affected groups links rights and justice to conflict, displacement, poverty and environmental sustainability. Participation can shift agenda-setting power towards them, but only if institutions listen to their claims and offer meaningful ways to influence outcomes.

A private company is an organization owned outside the state. It produces goods or services and may wield substantial economic and political influence. A trade union is an organization formed by workers to defend and advance their shared interests through representation, negotiation and collective action.

Power in the workplace and supply chain

Through decisions about wages, working conditions, hiring, surveillance, environmental practices and global supply chains, companies affect rights. Transnational corporations may operate across several jurisdictions, so production decisions made in one state can affect workers and communities in another.

Unions seek to balance the employer's control over capital and employment. They use collective bargaining, strikes, legal action and cross-border agreements. However, workers may face dismissal or intimidation, as well as restrictive labour laws or fragmented subcontracting.

Governments remain central: they establish labour law, inspect workplaces and enforce remedies. Consumers, investors and civil society can add pressure. This shows the interdependence between state regulation, corporate conduct and worker organization.

Examples

The International Accord for Health and Safety in the Textile and Garment Industry, agreed in 2021, brought global clothing brands and trade unions into a legally binding framework. It continued safety work associated with Bangladesh and later expanded through a Pakistan programme in 2022. The accord showed that unions can negotiate across borders, but also revealed workers' dependence on purchasing decisions made by corporations based elsewhere.

At an Amazon warehouse in Staten Island, United States, in 2022, workers voted to form the Amazon Labor Union. Their victory demonstrated workers' ability to organize within a powerful transnational company. Subsequent legal disputes and difficulties in securing a first contract, though, exposed the resource imbalance between a new union and a major corporation.

Contested perspectives

Liberal pluralists see companies and unions as competing interests that can reach legitimate compromises through law and collective bargaining. Critical and Marxist perspectives argue that this bargaining takes place within a structural inequality because companies control investment, employment and the organization of production.

Feminist analysis draws attention to the gendered distribution of insecure and poorly paid work, especially in export manufacturing and care-related sectors. From a postcolonial perspective, global supply chains can move dangerous or underpaid labour to states with less regulatory power while profits remain concentrated elsewhere.

Workers' rights connect justice with development. Employment may support livelihoods while still reproducing inequality or unsafe conditions. These rights also connect with non-violent conflict, since strikes and boycotts turn workplace grievances into organized struggles over power and legitimacy.