The relationship between international human rights law and international humanitarian law is controversial among scholars of international law. This debate is part of a wider debate on the fragmentation of international law.  While pluralist scholars delineate international human rights law as an international humanitarian law, proponents of the constitutional approach see it as a subset of the former.  In short, those who prefer separate, closed plans point to differences in applicability; international humanitarian law applies only in times of armed conflict. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as other international human rights instruments, are sometimes referred to as an international bill. International human rights instruments are identified by the Office of the High Commissioner and most are referred to the Office of the High Commissioner`s website. There are seven human rights bodies that monitor the implementation of key international human rights treaties: the main UN human rights conventions establish committees to monitor compliance with their rules. They provide for a mandatory reporting procedure, in which states that have ratified the conventions submit reports to the relevant committee on how they have complied with their human rights obligations. The committee reviews the reports and makes recommendations. Over time, international human rights treaties have focused and focused more on the subject and on social groups considered vulnerable. The International Human Rights Act increases, expands and deepens the fundamental rights and freedoms contained in the International Convention on Human Rights, which address issues such as racial discrimination, torture, enforced disappearances, disabilities and the rights of women, children, migrants, minorities and indigenous peoples.
The Organization of American States (OAS) is an international organization based in Washington, D.C. Its members are The 35 independent nation-states of America. This contract came into effect in 2003. It protects the rights of migrant workers and establishes a strong link between human rights and migration. Its aim is not to create new rights, but to ensure that migrants receive equal treatment and the same working conditions as nationals. To achieve these goals, the Commission is responsible for « gathering documents, conducting studies and research on African human and peoples` rights issues, organising seminars, symposia and conferences, disseminating information, promoting national and local institutions dealing with human and peoples` rights and, in this case, giving their opinion or making recommendations to governments. »  The Paris Principles were defined at the first international workshop on national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights, held in Paris from 7 to 9 October 1991, and were adopted by UN Human Rights Commission Resolution 1992/54 in 1992 and Resolution 48/134 of the 1993 General Assembly. The Paris principles have a number of responsibilities for national human rights institutions.  International human rights can be complex. The world is far from realizing all human rights in their form. Navigating these rights and laws that protect them is even complicated. There are fundamental human rights treaties, also known as « instruments, » that can help protect and demystify rights.
Most are divided into two categories: declarations and conventions. The declarations are not legally binding, but they have a lot of authority. The most famous declaration of human rights is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1948.