Are cities and local levels better suited for human rights?

 
TLDR 
Morales and Chase argue that cities, rather than nation-states, are better suited to implement human rights due to states' retreat from their obligations. They highlight failures at the national level, such as harsh EU migration policies and anti-LGBTQI+ laws in the US, and advocate for city-level initiatives. With their economic wealth and social diversity, cities can create local laws, accountability frameworks, and participatory processes to advance human rights. This local approach roots human rights in everyday realities and challenges the state-centric international human rights governance model.
 
 
Morales and Chase firmly advocate for cities, rather than nation-states, to assume the primary responsibility for implementing human rights. They underscore the increasing withdrawal of nation-states from their human rights obligations and the potential for cities to step in and effectively advance human rights. This shift is deemed necessary in light of the disturbing trend of states, even those that profess to uphold human rights, failing to honor their commitments.
 
 
The authors cite numerous examples of state-level failures, including the European Union's harsh treatment of migrants and refugees, the passage of over 75 anti-LGBTQI+ bills in various US states, and the neglect of environmental defenders' disappearances in countries like Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico. These examples highlight a troubling pattern of human rights reduction, even among democracies. This state-led retreat has negatively impacted international organizations like the United Nations, where established human rights standards are increasingly contested.
 
 
Morales and Chase propose a bold, city-level approach to human rights in response to this decline. They argue that cities' economic wealth and social diversity are uniquely positioned to drive economic, political, and social equity efforts. By formally declaring themselves as Human Rights Cities (HRCs), cities can commit to integrating international human rights principles into local laws, institutions, policies, and processes. This local implementation can address structural discriminations that persist despite national and international human rights frameworks.
 
 
The authors identify three key domains where cities can effectively advance human rights:
 

• Cities can create laws and institutions to hold the powerful accountable. By developing local accountability frameworks, cities can ensure that human rights claims are not silenced or ignored.

• Cities can center the voices of historically marginalized groups through participatory, democratic decision-making processes. Examples include reallocating resources via human-rights budgeting and fostering meaningful dialogue between city officials and local communities.

• Cities can advance social, economic, and cultural rights often neglected nationally.

 
Campaigns like the US Cities for CEDAW, which promotes local adoption of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, illustrate the potential for city-level human rights initiatives.
 
 
The authors argue that this local approach is more than a defensive tactic; it represents a paradigm shift. Human rights should be rooted in people's everyday lived realities rather than abstract principles debated in distant international forums. By localizing human rights, cities can create tangible changes that directly impact their residents.
 
Moreover, this approach challenges the state-centric model of the international human rights regime, offering a way to reimagine human rights governance beyond the confines of the nation-state. In doing so, cities can play a crucial role in ensuring that human rights remain vital and relevant in a world where national governments are increasingly failing to uphold their obligations.

Thanks for reading. Please follow my blog and write your feedback.