A Comparative Analysis of Competing Jurisprudential Approaches in International Human Rights Law

Abstract

This article conducts a comparative analysis of divergent jurisprudential approaches in international human rights law, focusing specifically on the interactions between the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and regional human rights instruments. Utilizing a qualitative methodological framework, the research examines case law from various international courts to illuminate the complexities and tensions inherent in the application of these legal frameworks. The findings reveal that while there are significant overlaps, profound differences in interpretation persist, leading to varied outcomes in the protection of human rights across jurisdictions. This study underscores the need for a cohesive approach to harmonize these competing frameworks to ensure effective human rights protection. The implications for policymakers and legal practitioners are profound, shaping the future discourse in international human rights law.