The Validity of Interpretive Theories of International Human Rights Bodies from the Perspective of International Law

Interpretive theories are a set of theories developed by the United Nations treaty bodies that are responsible for overseeing the implementation of human rights treaties. Interpretive theories developed by human rights bodies have not yet gained their proper credibility and place in international law, but these theories can be a new model for reforming the performance of governments, creating international custom, developing human rights and enforcing countries. The present study uses descriptive-analytical method and library resources, and its findings show that the validity of interpretive theories of human rights bodies varies according to the importance of each body as well as the support of international and regional human rights organizations for their interpretations, and is to some extent influenced by international political issues. In addition, the degree of adherence of countries to interpretive theories is low, and is influenced by international and domestic political pressures as well as the power of countries in international interactions. However, given that the interpretive theories of treaty bodies are the most authoritative interpreters of human rights treaties, and despite the non-binding nature of interpretive theories, governments cannot disregard these interpretations. The use of current interpretive theories can lead to the reform of the behavior of countries in the world, because it is often impossible to oblige the countries to implement human rights rules, and the use of interpretive theories can encourage countries to adhere to human rights rules.