Tom Pegram
I am a Senior Lecturer in Global Governance and Deputy Director of the Global Governance Institute at the Department of Political Science/School of Public Policy, UCL. Previously, I was an Assistant Professor in Political Science (International Relations) at Trinity College Dublin, Ireland. I have held research fellowships at New York University and Harvard University Law Schools and received a DPhil in Politics from the University of Oxford.
My research interests lie at the boundaries of global governance, international organizations, and the transnational politics of human rights implementation. I have a particular interest in questions of authority and control within international organizations and innovative modes of multi-level or global governance. Current research is focused on global governance architecture, with particular reference to the transnational human rights machinery and the role of third party intermediaries in the transmission and implementation of international standards.
I have particular expertise in the study of National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) and their ability to promote and protect human rights as well as enhance political accountability across variably stable political settings.
I have extensive practical experience working with human rights policy-makers and practitioners at the local and international level including the UN OHCHR and other agencies. For more information see my personal webpage: http://tompegram.com
Phone: (0044) (0)20 3108 9291
Address: 29/30 Tavistock Square
Department of Political Science
University College London
London WC1H 9QU
United Kingdom
My research interests lie at the boundaries of global governance, international organizations, and the transnational politics of human rights implementation. I have a particular interest in questions of authority and control within international organizations and innovative modes of multi-level or global governance. Current research is focused on global governance architecture, with particular reference to the transnational human rights machinery and the role of third party intermediaries in the transmission and implementation of international standards.
I have particular expertise in the study of National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) and their ability to promote and protect human rights as well as enhance political accountability across variably stable political settings.
I have extensive practical experience working with human rights policy-makers and practitioners at the local and international level including the UN OHCHR and other agencies. For more information see my personal webpage: http://tompegram.com
Phone: (0044) (0)20 3108 9291
Address: 29/30 Tavistock Square
Department of Political Science
University College London
London WC1H 9QU
United Kingdom
less
InterestsView All (18)
Uploads
This paper examines some of the key underlying norms that inform contemporary debate on RtoP. In the process, it also highlights some of the broader implications of a trend towards securitizing human rights. It begins by historically tracing the role of the UN Security Council (UNSC) and General Assembly (UNGA) in situating human rights within the framework of threats to international peace and security. Notwithstanding the primary responsibility of the Council in matters of international peace and security, this paper is intended to act as a corrective to a discussion which, with some notable exceptions, often underspecifies or neglects altogether the role of the UNGA in this arena.
Secondly, despite precedent within UN structures for framing massive violations of human rights as a threat to international peace and security, the more coercive dimensions of human rights enforcement has prompted significant pushback by certain groups of states previously willing to endorse the 2005 World Summit Outcome document. The paper proceeds to unpack some of these contentious dynamics by focusing on first order principles of legitimacy and jurisdiction within and outside UN structures.
Thirdly, current debate surrounding implementation has increasingly focused on RtoP as a doctrine of prevention as much as enforcement under the rubric of the ‘Three Pillar System’ devised by the UN Secretary General in his 2009 report to the UNGA: (1) the protection responsibilities of the State; (2) international assistance and capacity-building; and (3) timely and decisive response. This has raised questions regarding the relative emphasis between the pillars, particularly concerning the specific responsibilities that may be entailed for prevention and enforcement. This debate is being conducted in the context of contemporary developments that are testing the relevance of RtoP to diverse situational crises and the notable reluctance of the Security Council to apply RtoP to ongoing crisis situations. Observers, such as Nicholas Wheeler, criticized the 2005 World Summit Outcome document for failing to address two fundamental questions: what should happen if the UNSC is unable or unwilling to authorize the use of force to prevent or end a humanitarian tragedy? And second, how could better implementation of this norm save strangers in the future? Issues of legitimacy, authority, and implementation raised by these questions and explored in this paper remain of central concern. The UNSC and UNGA historical record of activity in the area of human rights enforcement provides valuable historical context to a fuller understanding of the contours of this contemporary debate.
At its most fundamental level this chapter seeks to understand the institutional development of the Defensoría in a country where democratic institutions have been tough to establish and even more difficult to sustain. To this end, the chapter builds upon the elaboration of a ‘primarily political’ causal mechanism by specifying the interplay and impact of formal and political dimensions of institutionalisation upon the Defensoría in Peru. Operating within one of the world’s most unstable electoral democracies, the experience of the Defensoría is also shown to reflect deeper ‘accountability gaps’ in Peru between democratic promise and the failure of the regime to meet pressing social needs and demands.
The chapter begins by with a contemporary review of the Peruvian Defensoría’s formal design features. This is followed by an evaluation of the office’s interaction with organised state and social actors. The third section analyses the Defensoría’s access to formal and informal accountability arenas within and outside state structures. The chapter concludes by reflecting on the implications of this study for understanding how accountability gaps shape institutional politics in Peru.
This paper examines some of the key underlying norms that inform contemporary debate on RtoP. In the process, it also highlights some of the broader implications of a trend towards securitizing human rights. It begins by historically tracing the role of the UN Security Council (UNSC) and General Assembly (UNGA) in situating human rights within the framework of threats to international peace and security. Notwithstanding the primary responsibility of the Council in matters of international peace and security, this paper is intended to act as a corrective to a discussion which, with some notable exceptions, often underspecifies or neglects altogether the role of the UNGA in this arena.
Secondly, despite precedent within UN structures for framing massive violations of human rights as a threat to international peace and security, the more coercive dimensions of human rights enforcement has prompted significant pushback by certain groups of states previously willing to endorse the 2005 World Summit Outcome document. The paper proceeds to unpack some of these contentious dynamics by focusing on first order principles of legitimacy and jurisdiction within and outside UN structures.
Thirdly, current debate surrounding implementation has increasingly focused on RtoP as a doctrine of prevention as much as enforcement under the rubric of the ‘Three Pillar System’ devised by the UN Secretary General in his 2009 report to the UNGA: (1) the protection responsibilities of the State; (2) international assistance and capacity-building; and (3) timely and decisive response. This has raised questions regarding the relative emphasis between the pillars, particularly concerning the specific responsibilities that may be entailed for prevention and enforcement. This debate is being conducted in the context of contemporary developments that are testing the relevance of RtoP to diverse situational crises and the notable reluctance of the Security Council to apply RtoP to ongoing crisis situations. Observers, such as Nicholas Wheeler, criticized the 2005 World Summit Outcome document for failing to address two fundamental questions: what should happen if the UNSC is unable or unwilling to authorize the use of force to prevent or end a humanitarian tragedy? And second, how could better implementation of this norm save strangers in the future? Issues of legitimacy, authority, and implementation raised by these questions and explored in this paper remain of central concern. The UNSC and UNGA historical record of activity in the area of human rights enforcement provides valuable historical context to a fuller understanding of the contours of this contemporary debate.
This paper examines some of the key underlying norms that inform contemporary debate on RtoP. In the process, it also highlights some of the broader implications of a trend towards securitizing human rights. It begins by historically tracing the role of the UN Security Council (UNSC) and General Assembly (UNGA) in situating human rights within the framework of threats to international peace and security. Notwithstanding the primary responsibility of the Council in matters of international peace and security, this paper is intended to act as a corrective to a discussion which, with some notable exceptions, often underspecifies or neglects altogether the role of the UNGA in this arena.
Secondly, despite precedent within UN structures for framing massive violations of human rights as a threat to international peace and security, the more coercive dimensions of human rights enforcement has prompted significant pushback by certain groups of states previously willing to endorse the 2005 World Summit Outcome document. The paper proceeds to unpack some of these contentious dynamics by focusing on first order principles of legitimacy and jurisdiction within and outside UN structures.
Thirdly, current debate surrounding implementation has increasingly focused on RtoP as a doctrine of prevention as much as enforcement under the rubric of the ‘Three Pillar System’ devised by the UN Secretary General in his 2009 report to the UNGA: (1) the protection responsibilities of the State; (2) international assistance and capacity-building; and (3) timely and decisive response. This has raised questions regarding the relative emphasis between the pillars, particularly concerning the specific responsibilities that may be entailed for prevention and enforcement. This debate is being conducted in the context of contemporary developments that are testing the relevance of RtoP to diverse situational crises and the notable reluctance of the Security Council to apply RtoP to ongoing crisis situations. Observers, such as Nicholas Wheeler, criticized the 2005 World Summit Outcome document for failing to address two fundamental questions: what should happen if the UNSC is unable or unwilling to authorize the use of force to prevent or end a humanitarian tragedy? And second, how could better implementation of this norm save strangers in the future? Issues of legitimacy, authority, and implementation raised by these questions and explored in this paper remain of central concern. The UNSC and UNGA historical record of activity in the area of human rights enforcement provides valuable historical context to a fuller understanding of the contours of this contemporary debate.
At its most fundamental level this chapter seeks to understand the institutional development of the Defensoría in a country where democratic institutions have been tough to establish and even more difficult to sustain. To this end, the chapter builds upon the elaboration of a ‘primarily political’ causal mechanism by specifying the interplay and impact of formal and political dimensions of institutionalisation upon the Defensoría in Peru. Operating within one of the world’s most unstable electoral democracies, the experience of the Defensoría is also shown to reflect deeper ‘accountability gaps’ in Peru between democratic promise and the failure of the regime to meet pressing social needs and demands.
The chapter begins by with a contemporary review of the Peruvian Defensoría’s formal design features. This is followed by an evaluation of the office’s interaction with organised state and social actors. The third section analyses the Defensoría’s access to formal and informal accountability arenas within and outside state structures. The chapter concludes by reflecting on the implications of this study for understanding how accountability gaps shape institutional politics in Peru.
This paper examines some of the key underlying norms that inform contemporary debate on RtoP. In the process, it also highlights some of the broader implications of a trend towards securitizing human rights. It begins by historically tracing the role of the UN Security Council (UNSC) and General Assembly (UNGA) in situating human rights within the framework of threats to international peace and security. Notwithstanding the primary responsibility of the Council in matters of international peace and security, this paper is intended to act as a corrective to a discussion which, with some notable exceptions, often underspecifies or neglects altogether the role of the UNGA in this arena.
Secondly, despite precedent within UN structures for framing massive violations of human rights as a threat to international peace and security, the more coercive dimensions of human rights enforcement has prompted significant pushback by certain groups of states previously willing to endorse the 2005 World Summit Outcome document. The paper proceeds to unpack some of these contentious dynamics by focusing on first order principles of legitimacy and jurisdiction within and outside UN structures.
Thirdly, current debate surrounding implementation has increasingly focused on RtoP as a doctrine of prevention as much as enforcement under the rubric of the ‘Three Pillar System’ devised by the UN Secretary General in his 2009 report to the UNGA: (1) the protection responsibilities of the State; (2) international assistance and capacity-building; and (3) timely and decisive response. This has raised questions regarding the relative emphasis between the pillars, particularly concerning the specific responsibilities that may be entailed for prevention and enforcement. This debate is being conducted in the context of contemporary developments that are testing the relevance of RtoP to diverse situational crises and the notable reluctance of the Security Council to apply RtoP to ongoing crisis situations. Observers, such as Nicholas Wheeler, criticized the 2005 World Summit Outcome document for failing to address two fundamental questions: what should happen if the UNSC is unable or unwilling to authorize the use of force to prevent or end a humanitarian tragedy? And second, how could better implementation of this norm save strangers in the future? Issues of legitimacy, authority, and implementation raised by these questions and explored in this paper remain of central concern. The UNSC and UNGA historical record of activity in the area of human rights enforcement provides valuable historical context to a fuller understanding of the contours of this contemporary debate.