Parliament in gross human rights violations: the case of Darfur

Abstract

Based on a study of three European parliaments, the article analyses parliamentary oversight on government policy towards gross human rights violations in third countries using the case of Darfur in Sudan (2003-2005). We find that parliaments with greater constitutional rights in foreign policy are more active in the scrutiny of executive action. Scrutiny is stronger in parliaments with developed and strong foreign affairs committees. Media and public awareness correlate with greater oversight activities in all the three chambers considered. In their oversight, MPs do not deter governments to consider the use of armed forces. Rather than revealing party differences, conflicts involving gross human rights violations such as Darfur are venues for the manifestation of division between the executive and legislature.

Parliaments as Human Rights Actors: The Potential for International Principles on Parliamentary Human Rights Committees

“…93 Pegan and Vermeulen found that in the context of foreign affairs committees, scrutiny was improved where there were 'developed and strong' committees. 94 The IPU's research has identified a number of risks for ineffective parliamentary committees including a weak mandate subject to political whims, lack of sufficient expertise, partisanship, compartmentalisation of human rights and reduced political influence where human rights are not prioritised by the parliament. 95 This last element is an important one, as even when a committee is effective in its own operations, it will need to have the ability to influence the parliament.…”