Matthew Saul
Matthew Saul is an international lawyer with particular expertise in general international law, international human rights law, and international adjudication. He is Associate Professor in Law at the Norwegian Centre for Human Rights, Faculty of Law, Oslo University.
Saul is the editor (with French and White) of International Law and Dispute Settlement: New Techniques and Problems (Hart 2010), (with Sweeney) of International Law and Post-Conflict Reconstruction Policy (Routledge 2015), and (with Follesdal and Ulfstein) of The International Human Rights Judiciary and National Parliaments: Europe and Beyond (forthcoming CUP 2017). His monograph Popular Governance of Post-Conflict Reconstruction: The Role of International Law was published by Cambridge University Press in 2014.
Saul is the editor (with French and White) of International Law and Dispute Settlement: New Techniques and Problems (Hart 2010), (with Sweeney) of International Law and Post-Conflict Reconstruction Policy (Routledge 2015), and (with Follesdal and Ulfstein) of The International Human Rights Judiciary and National Parliaments: Europe and Beyond (forthcoming CUP 2017). His monograph Popular Governance of Post-Conflict Reconstruction: The Role of International Law was published by Cambridge University Press in 2014.
less
InterestsView All (6)
Uploads
Papers by Matthew Saul
The chapter begins with a short overview of the main global and regional human rights treaties. This highlights key similarities and differences in the contents and infrastructure of human rights treaties. The next section considers key concepts that help to explain the nature of human rights-based obligations.
The main part of the chapter addresses three central topics from the methodological toolbox. First, interpretation of human rights treaties. Second, tests and thresholds for applying human rights provisions. Third, deference to non-judicial institutions in the adjudication of rights. These are all topics that any institution adjudicating rights will encounter.
The analysis in this chapter provides a reference point for subsequent chapters in this volume, which identify and examine the significance of the choices that Indonesian judges make in the application of human rights.
The chapter begins with a short overview of the main global and regional human rights treaties. This highlights key similarities and differences in the contents and infrastructure of human rights treaties. The next section considers key concepts that help to explain the nature of human rights-based obligations.
The main part of the chapter addresses three central topics from the methodological toolbox. First, interpretation of human rights treaties. Second, tests and thresholds for applying human rights provisions. Third, deference to non-judicial institutions in the adjudication of rights. These are all topics that any institution adjudicating rights will encounter.
The analysis in this chapter provides a reference point for subsequent chapters in this volume, which identify and examine the significance of the choices that Indonesian judges make in the application of human rights.
outcome of a research project at the Amsterdam Center for International Law. The
broader project has the title: ‘The emerging international constitutional order: the implications
of hierarchy in international law for the coherence and legitimacy of international
decision-making’. The debate on whether and in what manner the international
legal order should be conceptualised in constitutional terms is long running and includes
various theoretical perspectives. Hierarchy in International Law does not attempt
to add another strand of theory to this debate. Rather it seeks to contribute to the
debate by examining how international human rights law has been treated by judicial
bodies when it conflicts with other international law. The premise of the book is that if
international human rights law is treated by courts in a favourable manner when it
conflicts with other international law, this will provide evidence of legal superiority
and thereby support the idea that international human rights law has constitutional
status in international law.