Search

The United Nations treaty bodies were established to monitor the implementation of human rights by states parties. Through ‘General Comments’ – legally non-binding clarifications of treaty obligations – they have also influenced the development of international human rights law – for example, on the right to life and climate impacts. We address this phenomenon by establishing a twofold argument. First, we argue that General Comments are used by the committees to informally shape international law. They deliberately act as human rights law-makers, knowing that international institutions, organizations and professionals in their network will subsequently refer to such instruments. Second, we argue that treaty bodies not only rely on their network once they have adopted their outcome, but the experts’ personal networks also shape the drafting process of General Comments. We develop and illustrate an analytical framework with two case studies of General Comments on the human right to water and the torture prohibition. The analysis demonstrates the need for external knowledge of both technical and legal aspects of the norms being interpreted. By addressing pressing human rights challenges, expert committees can shape the law in times of stagnation and resist contestation even from powerful states.

Scholars of world politics can readily list the global governors of our time, but why and how did these particular actors gain agency in the first place? While there is impressive scholarship on single global governors and their respective impact, there is little comparative work and systematic theorization on what agency in world politics is and how actors gain it. This forum brings together contributions that apply relational frameworks to the question, focusing on the dynamics of self-agentification, delegation, and recognition. Individual contributions detail different empirical cases, from individuals to the G20, and introduce concepts for meso-level theorizing. Taken together, the contributions call for a more dynamic research agenda that not only allows scholars to reconstruct how agency emerges but also pushes us toward an agency-focused reframing of global governance, which is needed to ensure the continued relevance of the paradigm., Los investigadores en materia de política mundial pueden enumerar fácilmente los gobernantes mundiales de nuestro tiempo, pero ¿por qué y cómo obtuvieron estos agentes en concreto la capacidad de agencia en primer lugar? Si bien hay estudios extraordinarios sobre gobernantes mundiales individuales y su respectivo impacto, hay pocos trabajos comparativos y poca teorización sistemática sobre lo que es la agencia en la política mundial y cómo la obtienen estos agentes. Este Foro reúne contribuciones que aplican marcos relacionales a la cuestión, centrándose en la dinámica de la agentificación propia, la delegación y el reconocimiento. Las contribuciones individuales detallan diferentes casos empíricos, desde individuos hasta el G20, e introducen conceptos para la teorización a nivel meso. En conjunto, las contribuciones abogan por una agenda de investigación más dinámica que no sólo permita a los investigadores reconstruir cómo surge la agencia, sino que también nos empuje hacia un replanteamiento de la gobernanza mundial centrado en la capacidad de decisión, lo que es necesario para garantizar la continua relevancia del paradigma., Les chercheur·euses en politique internationale sont en mesure de faire rapidement la liste des grandes figures de la gouvernance de notre temps. Mais sait-on pourquoi et comment les individus en question ont pu accéder ainsi au pouvoir ? Si une impressionnante quantité de publications portant sur une seule personnalité politique denvergure internationale et son impact ont vu le jour, on trouve peu de travaux comparatifs et defforts de théorisation systématique concernant lagentivité de la politique mondiale et l’émergence de ses acteurs. Ce forum réunit des contributions appliquant une approche relationnelle à la question, axée sur les mécanismes de revendication du statut dacteur, de délégation et de reconnaissance. Les différentes contributions analysent divers cas empiriques, allant dindividus spécifiques au G20, et proposent des concepts pour une théorisation au niveau méso. Prises dans leur ensemble, ces contributions en appellent à un programme de recherche plus dynamique, qui non seulement permette aux chercheur·euses didentifier les mécanismes grâce auxquels les acteurs émergent, mais également nous incite à une remise en perspective de notre vision de la gouvernance mondiale au moyen dune approche basée sur lagentivité, nécessaire pour garantir la pertinence durable de ce paradigme.

SARS CoV-2 antibody assays measure antibodies against the viral nucleoprotein (NP) or spike protein. The study examined if testing of antibodies against both antigens increases the diagnostic sensitivity. Sera (N=98) from infected individuals were tested with ELISAs based on the NP, receptor-binding domain (RBD), or both proteins. The AUROCs were 0.958 (NP), 0.991 (RBD), and 0.992 (NP/RBD). The RBD- and NP/RBD-based ELISAs showed better performance than the NP-based assay. Simultaneous testing for antibodies against NP and RBD increased the number of true and false positives. If maximum diagnostic sensitivity is required, the NP/RBD-based ELISA is preferable. Otherwise, the RBD-based ELISA is sufficient. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10096-021-04284-5.

The recent debate on administrative bodies in international organizations has brought forward multiple theoretical perspectives, analytical frameworks, and methodological approaches. Despite these efforts to advance knowledge on these actors, the research program on international public administrations (IPAs) has missed out on two important opportunities: reflection on scholarship in international relations (IR) and public administration and synergies between these disciplinary perspectives. Against this backdrop, the essay is a discussion of the literature on IPAs in IR and public administration. We found influence, authority, and autonomy of international bureaucracies have been widely addressed and helped to better understand the agency of such non-state actors in global policy-making. Less attention has been given to the crucial macro-level context of politics for administrative bodies, despite the importance in IR and public administration scholarship. We propose a focus on agency and politics as future avenues for a comprehensive, joint research agenda for international bureaucracies.

Transnational Lawmaking Coalitions is the first comprehensive analysis of the role and impact of informal collaborations in the UN human rights treaty bodies. Issues as central to international human rights as the right to water, abortion, torture, and hate speech are often only clarified through the instrument of treaty interpretations. This book dives beneath the surface of the formal access, procedures, and actors of the UN treaty body system to reveal how the experts and external collaborators play a key role in the development of human rights. Nina Reiners introduces the concept of 'Transnational Lawmaking Coalitions' within a novel theoretical framework and draws on a number of detailed case studies and original data. This study makes a significant contribution to the scholarship on human rights, transnational actors, and international organizations, and contributes to broader debates in international relations and international law.

SARS-CoV-2-specific IgM antibodies wane during the first three months after infection and IgG antibody levels decline. This may limit the ability of antibody tests to identify previous SARS CoV-2 infection at later time points. To examine if the sensitivity of antibody tests falls off, we compared the sensitivity of two nucleoprotein-based antibody tests, the Roche Elecsis II Anti-SARS-CoV-2 and the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay and three glycoprotein-based tests, the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant, Siemens Atellica IM COV2T and Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 assay with 56 sera obtained 6-8 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection. The sensitivity of the Roche, Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant and Siemens antibody assays was 94.6 % (95% confidence interval (CI) 85.1-98.9 %), 98.2 % (95% CI: 90.4-99.9 %) and 100 % (95% CI: 93.6-100 %). The sensitivity of the N-based Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG and the glycoprotein-based Euroimmun ELISA was 48.2 % (95% CI: 34.7-62.0 %) and 83.9 % (95% CI: 71.7-92.4 %). The nucleoprotein-based Roche and the glycoprotein-based Abbott RBD and Siemens tests were more sensitive than the N-based Abbott and the Euroimmun antibody tests (p=0.0001 to p=0.039). The N-based Abbott antibody test was less sensitive 6-8 months than 4-10 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 infection (p = 0.0002). The findings show that most SARS CoV-2 antibody assays correctly identified previous infection 6-8 months after infection. The sensitivity of pan-Ig antibody tests was not reduced at 6-8 months when IgM antibodies have usually disappeared. However, one of the nucleoprotein-based antibody tests significantly lost sensitivity over time.HighlightsMost antibody tests correctly identified SARS CoV-2 infection 6-8 months after infectionThe sensitivity of the antibody tests was 48.2-100 %The three tests with the highest sensitivity (94.6-100 %) were the N-based Roche and the RBD-based Abbott and Siemens assaysThe N-based Abbott IgG CMIA was significantly less sensitive 6-8 months than 4-10 weeks after infection (p = 0.0002)

The chapter comments on Tiyanjana Maluwa’s analysis of the contestation of value-based norms. It first, referring to the metaphor of the ‘eyes of the beholder’ and the song by Metallica with the same title, answers the question ‘Do I see what you see?’ Second, it is interested in coming closer to an intersubjective ‘truth’, that is a shared understanding for determining the alleged erosion of international law or the value-based legal norms of the United Nations (UN) Charter. By focusing on one of Maluwa’s case studies, it illustrates how conceptual choices may predetermine findings. In other words, they guide ‘into what you read’. Finally, it argues in favour of being more explicit about these choices to let others ‘see what I see’ and therefore to be transparent about the type and form of contestation one seeks to explain.

While some pronouncements of expert treaty bodies have been considered ‘key catalysts’ for the development of international human rights law, others are only selectively referred to in legal practice. This article argues that the varying normative impact is due to the informal character of pronouncements. In the absence of treaty provisions specifying their legal effect, practitioners tend to rely on different factors and arguments when either drawing on or rejecting certain pronouncements. Scholars in turn face difficulties when trying to identify explanatory patterns within this diverging practice as the informal character confronts both international lawyers and international relations scholars with their respective methodological ‘blind spots’. In light of these intradisciplinary challenges, this article explores the extent as to which an interdisciplinary approach helps to assess the reasons for the varying impact of pronouncements. After analysing the factors determining their legal significance on the basis of State practice and the academic debate, this article identifies the drafting process as a factor which promises to be particularly insightful when explored from an interdisciplinary perspective and sketches out a framework for future research., KFG Working Paper Series, 40

Highlights • The sensitivity of commercial SARS CoV-2 IgG antibody tests was 64.4–93.2 %. • Positivity rate was higher with sera obtained 4 weeks than 2−3 weeks after RNA testing. • Antibody tests based on nucleoprotein and glycoprotein showed similar sensitivity. • Nucleoprotein- and glycoprotein-based antibody tests reacted with different sera., The emergence of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS CoV-2) has been followed by the rapid development of antibody tests. To assess the utility of the tests for clinical use and seroepidemiologic studies, we examined the sensitivity of commercial antibody tests from Roche, Abbott, Novatec, Virotech Siemens, Euroimmun, and Mediagnost in a prospective diagnostic study. The tests were evaluated with 73 sera from SARS CoV-2 RNA positive individuals with mild to moderate disease or asymptomatic infection. Sera were obtained at 2−3 weeks (N = 25) or > 4 weeks (N = 48) after symptom onset and viral RNA test. The overall sensitivity of the tests ranged from 64.4–93.2%. The most sensitive assays recognized 95.8–100 % of the sera obtained after 4 weeks or later. Sera drawn at 2−3 weeks were recognized with lower sensitivity indicating that the optimal time point for serologic testing is later than 3 weeks after onset of the disease. Nucleoprotein- and glycoproteinbased assays had similar sensitivity indicating that tests with both antigens are suitable for serological diagnostics. Breakdown of the test results showed that nucleoprotein- and glycoprotein-based tests of comparable sensitivity reacted with different sets of sera. The observation indicates that a combination of nucleoprotein- and glycoprotein-based tests would increase the percentage of positive results.

Das UN-Menschenrechtssystem steht unter gewaltigem Druck. In den aktuellen Diskussionen um die Reform der Menschenrechtsvertragsorgane offenbart sich eine Kluft zwischen Staaten in der Generalversammlung und Ausschussmitgliedern mit zivilgesellschaftlichen Akteuren. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) initiated a development towards a legally binding human rights treaty system. Ratification of the nine human rights treaties is universal and continuing. Recently, the treaty-based system has come under a lot of pressure. States not only lack commitment to their reporting obligations under human rights law and their financial contributions to the system, but openly question the working methods of the treaty bodies and their cooperation with civil society actors. As a result, the current reform process, to be concluded in 2020, also presents an opportunity to reevaluate the role of civil society actors for the development of human rights law.

In der internationalen Menschenrechtspolitik spielen Nicht-staatliche Akteure (NSA) seit jeher eine zentrale Rolle. Dabei hat sich das Feld der NSA in diesem Bereich deutlich ausdifferenziert und fordert gangige Typologien und Annahmen uber diesen Akteurstyp heraus. Der Beitrag verdeutlicht, wie unterschiedliche NSA in allen Phasen des Politikzyklus den Schutz der Menschenrechte unterstutzen, aber auch herausfordern und welche Strategien sie dabei zur Einflussnahme anwenden.