1. DONNELLY, Jack, “The Relative Universality of Human Rights” (2007) 29 Human Rights Quarterly 281CrossRefGoogle Scholar

PEERENBOOM, Randall, “Beyond Universalism and Relativism: The Evolving Debates about ‘Values in Asia’” (2003) 14 Indiana International and Comparative Law Review 1Google Scholar

2. BINDER, Guyora, “Cultural Relativism and Cultural Imperialism in Human Rights Law” (1999) 5 Buffalo Human Rights Law Review 211 at 212Google Scholar

3. TAY, Alice Ehr-Soon, “‘Asian Values’ and the Rule of Law” in Pietro COSTA and Danilo ZOLO, eds., The Rule of Law: History, Theory, and Criticism (Dordrecht: Springer, 2007), 565 at 583Google Scholar

4. DONOHO, Douglas Lee, “Autonomy, Self-Governance, and the Margin of Appreciation: Developing a Jurisprudence of Diversity Within Universal Human Rights” (2001) 15 Emory International Law Review 391 at 412Google Scholar

5. LEE Manwoo, “North Korea and the Western Notion of Human Rights” in James C. HSIUNG, ed., Human Rights in an East Asian Perspective (New York: Paragon House, 1985), 129 at 131Google Scholar

6. REICHERT, Elisabeth, “Human Rights: Challenges and Promises” (2007) 2 Social Justice in Context 11 at 20Google Scholar

7. SLOANE, Robert D., “Outrelativizing Relativism: A Liberal Defense of the Universality of International Human Rights” (2001) 34 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 527 at 534Google Scholar

8. Donnelly, supra note 1 at 294Google Scholar

9. Donoho, supra note 4 at 405Google Scholar

10. Donnelly, supra note 1Google Scholar

11. Andrew J. NATHAN, “Universalism: A Particularistic Account” in Lynda S. BELL, Andrew J. NATHAN, and Ilan PELEG, eds., Negotiating Culture and Human Rights (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001), 349 at 363Google Scholar

12. WILSON, Richard A., “Introduction: Human Rights, Culture and Context” in Richard A. WILSON, ed., Human Rights, Culture and Context: Anthropological Perspectives (London: Pluto Press, 1997), 1 at 23Google Scholar

13. Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, UN Doc A/CONF.157/24 (Pt I) (1993).

14. TAY, Simon S.C. and Yen, GOH Chien, “Human Rights Revisited in the Asian Crisis” (1999) 3 Singapore Journal of International and Comparative Law 26 at 27Google Scholar

15. Peerenboom, supra note 1 at 5Google Scholar

16. This is not meant to imply that the human rights movement itself has been unsuccessful in Asia, but rather that efforts to develop localized or Asian human rights norms have not been particularly well received.

17. Peerenboom, supra note 1 at 56Google Scholar

Thomas RISSE and Kathryn SIKKINK, “The Socialization of International Human Rights Norms into Domestic Practices” in Thomas RISSE, Stephen ROPP, and Kathryn SIKKINK, eds., The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 1 at 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18. LEVITT, Peggy and MERRY, Sally, “Vernacularization on the Ground: Local Uses of Global Women's Rights in Peru, China, India, and the United States” (2009) 9 Global Networks 441 at 443−444CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19. Alastair Iain JOHNSTON, “Socialization in International Institutions: The ASEAN Way and International Relations” in John IKENBERRY and Michael MASTADUNO, eds., International Relations Theory and the Asia-Pacific (New York: Columbia University Press, 2003), 107 at 116−117Google Scholar

20. ACHARYA, Amitav, “How Ideas Spread: Whose Norms Matter? Norm Localization and Institutional Change in Asian Regionalism” (2004) 58 International Organization 239CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21. Ibid., at 245. Acharya sees a long history of localization in Southeast Asian history and literature.

22. Ibid., at 248−50.

23. ACHARYA, Amitav, Whose Ideas Matter? Agency and Power in Asian Regionalism (New York: Cornell University Press, 2009) at 15CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24. LEVITT, Peggy and MERRY, Sally Engle, “Making Women's Human Rights in the Vernacular: Navigating the Culture/Rights Divide” in Dorothy HODGSON, ed., Gender at the Limit of Rights (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2010), 81 at 88Google Scholar

25. Levitt and Merry, supra note 18 at 446Google Scholar

26. MERRY, Sally Engle, Human Rights and Gender Violence (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006)Google Scholar

27. MERRY, Sally Engle, “Human Rights and Transnational Culture: Regulating Gender Violence Through Global Law” (2006) 44 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 53 at 55Google Scholar

ZWINGEL, Susanne, “From Intergovernmental Negotiations to (Sub)national Change: A Transnational Perspective on the Impact of CEDAW” (2005) 7 International Feminist Journal of Politics 400 at 415CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Koen de FEYTER, “Localizing Human Rights”, University of Antwerp Institute of Development Policy and Management, Discussion Paper 2006/02, January 2006, at 23Google Scholar

Donoho, supra note 4 at 422Google Scholar

28. Merry, supra note 26 at 39Google Scholar

29. Ibid., at 42.

30. Noha SHAWKI, “Global Norms, Local Implementation-How are Global Norms Translated into Local Practice?” (2011) Globality Studies Journal, online: 〈http://globality.cc.stonybrook.edu/?p=221〉.

31. MERRY, Sally, “Transnational Human Rights and Local Activism: Mapping the Middle” (2006) 108 American Anthropologist 38 at 42CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32. Ibid., at 40.

33. Peerenboom, supra note 1 at 20−21Google Scholar

34. Seng, WONG Kan, “The Real World of Human Rights”, at the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna, 16 June 1993Google Scholar

35. Jung, KIM Dae, “Is Culture Destiny? The Myth of Asia's Anti-Democratic Values” Foreign Affairs, November/December 1994, 1Google Scholar

36. KYI, Aung San SUU, Freedom from Fear, rev. ed. (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1995) at 167Google Scholar

37. Peerenboom, supra note 1 at 51Google Scholar

Seung-Hwan, LEE, “‘Asian Values’ and Confucian Discourse” (2001) 41 Korea Journal 210 at 249Google Scholar

38. CHEN Jau-hwa, “Asia Values? Why Not, But How?” in Leena AVONIUS and Damien KINGSBURY, eds., Human Rights in Asia (Palgrave Macmillan: New York, 2008), 41 at 49Google Scholar

39. Peerenboom, supra note 1 at 5Google Scholar

40. HITCHCOCK, David, “Asian Values and the United States: How Much Conflict?” (Washington, DC: The Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1994)Google Scholar

41. Ibid., at 40.

42. Hong, XIAO, “Values Priority and Human Rights Policy: A Comparison Between China and Western Nations” (2005) 11 Journal of Human Values 87Google Scholar

43. BAUER, Joanne R. and BELL, Daniel A., eds., The East Asian Challenge for Human Rights (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999)Google Scholar

44. PLANTILLA, Jefferson R. and RAK, Sebasti L., eds., Human Rights in Asian Cultures: Continuity and Change (Hurights: Osaka, 1997)Google Scholar

45. Center, Asia-Pacific Human Rights Information, “Introduction” in Human Rights in Asian Cultures: Continuity and Change (Hurights: Osaka, 1997), at 31Google Scholar

46. Peerenboom, supra note 1 at 85Google Scholar

DONNELLY, Jack, Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989) at 120Google Scholar

47. There are certain exceptions, however. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), for example, has not been ratified by China, Malaysia, Myanmar, or Singapore, while the Convention Against Torture has not been ratified by India, Laos, Vietnam, Malaysia, or Singapore.

48. GO, Julian, “Modeling the State: Postcolonial Constitutions in Africa and Asia” (2002) 39 Southeast Asian Studies 557 at 575Google Scholar

49. BIRCHFIELD, Lauren and CORSI, Jessica, “Between Starvation and Globalization: Realizing the Right to Food in India” (2010) 31 Michigan Journal of International Law 691 at 717−718Google Scholar

MAY, James and DALY, Erin, “Vindicating Fundamental Environmental Rights Worldwide” (2009) 11 Oregon Review of International Law 365 at 399−400Google Scholar

50. WATERS, Melissa, “Creeping Monism: The Judicial Trend Toward Interpretative Incorporation of Human Rights Treaties” (2007) 107 Columbia Law Review 628 at 635Google Scholar

51. Yuji, IWASAWA, International Law, Human Rights, and Japanese Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998) at 292Google Scholar

52. Keun-Gwan, LEE, “From Monadic Sovereignty to Civitas Maxima: A Critical Perspective on the (Lack of) Interfaces Between International Human Rights Law and National Constitutions in East Asia” (2010) 5 National Taiwan University Law Review 155Google Scholar

53. Randall PEERENBOOM, “An Empirical Overview of Rights Performance in Asia, France, and the USA” in Randall PEERENBOOM, Carole J. PETERSEN, and Albert H.Y. CHEN, eds., Human Rights in Asia: A Comparative Legal Study of Twelve Asian Jurisdictions, France, and the USA (Oxford: Routledge, 2006), 1 at 30Google Scholar

54. Leng, ANG Hean, “Constitutional Rights Adjudication in Asian Societies” (2011) The Law Review 229 at 258−262Google Scholar

55. LEE, Jack Tsen-Ta, “Interpreting Bills of Rights: The Value of a Comparative Approach” (2007) 5 International Journal of Constitutional Law 122 at 129Google Scholar

56. Many human rights advocates have applauded the use of comparative law by domestic courts for just this reason. See e.g. ibid., at 149 (“Domestic bills of rights are best seen as incorporating universal or transcendent norms—they are, in this sense, specific applications of general principles. Given this is the case, comparative material enables such transcendent norms shared by different bills of rights to be sought and understood.”).

57. De Feyter, supra note 27 at 14−16Google Scholar

Levitt and Merry, supra note 18 at 449Google Scholar

Merry, supra note 27 at 58Google Scholar

58. Asian Human Rights Charter, declared in Kwangju, Korea, 17 May 1998, at Part I, para. 2(2).

59. Franz von BENDA-BECKMANN, “Human Rights, Cultural Relativism and Legal Pluralism: Towards a Two-Dimensional Debate” in Franz von BENDA-BECKMANN, Keebet von BENDA-BECKMANN, and Anne M.O. GRIFFITHS, eds., The Power of Law in a Transnational World (Oxford: Bergahn Books, 2009), 115 at 116Google Scholar

60. PEERENBOOM, Randall, “Human Rights and Asian Values: The Limits of Universalism” (2000) 7 China Review International 295 at 297CrossRefGoogle Scholar

61. Donoho, supra note 4 at 439Google Scholar

62. Mary K. MEYER, “Negotiating International Norms: The Inter-American Commission of Women and the Convention on Violence Against Women in Gender Politics in Global Governance” in Mary K. MEYER and Elisabeth PRUGL, eds., Gender Politics in Global Governance (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999), 58 at 58Google Scholar

63. BIRGANIE, Addis Barega, “An African Initiative for the Protection of the Rights of Internally Displaced People” (2010) 10 Human Rights Law Review 179CrossRefGoogle Scholar

64. GREER, Steven, “The Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights: Universal Principle or Margin of Appreciation” (2010) 3 UCL Human Rights Review 1Google Scholar

65. National representatives have been consulting with local groups over the content of the Declaration in recent months; in one such workshop, the Philippine AICHR representative agreed to include indigenous rights and provisions protective of the elderly and disabled in the Declaration in response to public demands. See Working Group for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism, Press Release, “Philippine AICHR Representative Dialogues with CSOs on the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration”, online: 〈http://www.aseanhrmech.org/news/phil-aichr-rep-dialogues-with-cso-of-aseanhrd.htm〉.

66. Anne GALLAGHER, “Making Human Rights Obligations a Reality: Working with New Actors and Partners” in Philip ALSTON and James CRAWFORD, eds., The Future of UN Human Rights Treaty Monitoring (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 201 at 202Google Scholar

Linda REIF, “The Shifting Boundaries of NHRI Definition in the International System” in Ryan GOODMAN and Thomas PEGRAM, eds., Human Rights, State Compliance, and Social Change (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012)Google Scholar

67. BURDEKIN, Brian, National Human Rights Institutions in the Asia-Pacific Region (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2006) at 22−23CrossRefGoogle Scholar

68. PEGRAM, Thomas, “Diffusion Across Political Systems: The Global Spread of National Human Rights Institutions” (2010) 32 Human Rights Quarterly 729 at 748CrossRefGoogle Scholar

69. Office of the High Commission of Human Rights, “Chart of the Status of National Institutions Accredited by the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights” (August 2011), online: 〈http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/NHRI/Chart_Status_NIs.pdf〉. This figure is likely to grow in coming years. As of September 2009, Iraq, Japan, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, and the Solomon Islands had drafted legislation to establish NHRIs, and Bahrain, Cambodia, Nauru, Samoa, and Yemen had committed before the UN Human Rights Council to create an NHRI. Kieren FITZPATRICK and Catherine RENSHAW, “NHRIs in the Asia-Pacific Region”, Paper Presented at Workshop Jointly Organized by Harvard Law School and NYU Law School, September 2009, at 4, online: 〈http://www.ahrcentre.org/APFproject.html〉. Myanmar created an NHRI in September 2011, but it has not yet been accredited by the International Coordinating Council.

70. The NHRIs from Afghanistan, Australia, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nepal, New Zealand, Palestine, the Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Thailand, and Timor Leste are Paris Principles compliant. Those from Bangladesh, the Maldives, and Sri Lanka are partially compliant, and the NHRIs from Hong Kong and Iran are classified as non-compliant. Office of the High Commission of Human Rights, supra note 69.

71. See Principles Relating to the Status and Functioning of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, adopted 20 December 1993, GA Res. 48/134, UN GAOR, 48th Sess., UN Doc. A/RES/48/141 (1993) [Paris Principles].

72. WHITING, Amanda, “Situating Suhakam: Human Rights Debates and Malaysia's National Human Rights Commission” (2003) 39 Stanford Journal of International Law 59 at 72Google Scholar

73. CARVER, Richard, “A New Answer to an Old Question: National Human Rights Institutions and the Domestication of International Law” (2010) 10 Human Rights Law Review 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar

EVANS, Carolyn, “Human Rights Commissions and Religious Conflict in the Asia Pacific” (2004) 53 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 713CrossRefGoogle Scholar

74. Carver, supra note 73Google Scholar

75. Ibid. This is the case with most, but not all, NHRIs in the Asia-Pacific region. Burdekin, supra note 67 at 19.

76. Sonia CARDENAS, “Adaptive States: The Proliferation of National Human Rights Institutions”, Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, Working Paper T-01-04, 2004, at 2.

77. Ryan GOODMAN and Thomas PEGRAM, “Introduction: National Human Rights Institutions, State Compliance and Social Change” in Ryan GOODMAN and Thomas PEGRAM, eds., Human Rights, State Compliance, and Social Change: Assessing National Human Rights Institutions (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 1 at 13−14Google Scholar

78. Merry, supra note 26 at 41Google Scholar

79. SMITH, Anne, “The Unique Position of National Human Rights Institutions: A Mixed Blessing?” (2006) 28 Human Rights Quarterly 904CrossRefGoogle Scholar

80. BYRNES, Andrew, DURBACH, Andrea, and RENSHAW, Catherine, “Joining the Club: The Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions, the Paris Principles, and the Advancement of Human Rights Protection in the Region” (2008) 14 Australian Journal of Human Rights 63CrossRefGoogle Scholar

81. De Feyter, supra note 27 at 5Google Scholar

82. National Human Rights Commission of Korea, NHRCK Annual Report 2010 (NHRCK: Seoul, 2011) at 147−154Google Scholar

83. See Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, Offices, online: 〈http://www.aihrc.org.af/en/offices〉.

84. See Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines: Regional Offices, online: 〈http://www.chr.gov.ph/MAIN%20PAGES/contact_us.htm〉.

85. Paris Principles, supra note 71 at art. 3(g) (NHRIs shall “[i]n view of the fundamental role played by the non-governmental organizations in expanding the work of the national institutions, develop relations with the non-governmental organizations devoted to promoting and protecting human rights, to economic and social development, to combating racism, to protecting particularly vulnerable groups (especially children, migrant workers, refugees, physically and mentally disabled persons) or to specialized areas.”).

86. Burdekin, supra note 67 at 61Google Scholar

87. Ibid., at 62 (citing the 1999 Kandy Declaration on NHRI-NGO co-operation).

88. See International Council on Human Rights Policy and Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, “Assessing the Effectiveness of National Human Rights Institutions” (2005) at 12 (“[i]ndependence is the attribute that most clearly underpins a national institution's legitimacy and credibility, and hence its effectiveness.”).

89. Paris Principles, supra note 71 at art. 1(2).

90. Ibid., at art. 1(3).

91. Burdekin, supra note 67 at 58−59Google Scholar

92. Ibid., at 56. For example, in Mongolia, Commissioners serve six-year terms (except for the Chief Commissioner, who serves a three-year term). In India, Indonesia, and Nepal, Commissioners serve five-year terms.

93. Paris Principles, supra note 71 at art. 1.

94. Ibid., at art. 1(b).

95. See Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act, No. 597, 1999 (Malaysia), art. 5(3) (“Members of the Commission shall be appointed from amongst prominent personalities including those from various religions and racial backgrounds.”).

96. See National Human Rights Commission Act, No 6481, 2001 (Korea), art. 5(5) (“Four or more of the commissioners shall be women”).

97. See Human Rights Commission Act, No. 21, 1996 (Sri Lanka), s. 2.3 (“In making recommendations … the Constitutional Council and the Prime Minister shall have regard to the necessity of the minorities being represented … [on] the Commission.”).

98. National Human Rights Commission Act, BE 2542, 1999 (Thailand), s. 6 (requiring that members be appointed from “persons having apparent knowledge or experiences in the protection of rights and liberties of the people, having regard also to the participation of men and women representatives from private organizations in the field of human rights.”).

99. Protection of Human Rights Act, No. 10, 1994 (India), art. 3(3), as amended by Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Act, No. 43, 2006.

100. There have, however, been complaints about lack of pluralism in certain Asian NHRIs, such as the Indian NHRC and Komnas Ham in Indonesia. International Council on Human Rights Policy, “Performance and Legitimacy: National Human Rights Institutions”, 2nd ed. (2004) at 77.

101. Merry, supra note 27 at 55Google Scholar

102. International Council on Human Rights Policy, supra note 100 at 109.

103. Paris Principles, supra note 71, art. 3(a)(iii).

104. Ibid., art. 3(d).

105. Ibid., art. 3(f).

106. Burdekin, supra note 67 at 117Google Scholar

107. Ibid., at 28. This is not necessarily the case in NHRIs outside the region.

108. Donoho, supra note 4 at 440Google Scholar

109. ANNAND, A.S., “The Protection Role of the Indian Human Rights Commission” in Bertrand RAMCHARAN, ed., The Protection Role of National Human Rights Institutions (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2005), 87 at 92Google Scholar

110. National Human Rights Commission of Korea, supra note 82 at 64.

111. MÉGRET, Frédéric, “The Human Rights of Older Persons: A Growing Challenge” (2011) 11 Human Rights Law Review 37 at 37CrossRefGoogle Scholar

112. Erdman PALMORE, “Human Rights of Older Persons” in Erdman PALMORE, Laurence BRANCH, and Diana HARRIS, eds., Encyclopedia of Ageism (Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press, 2005), 179 at 180Google Scholar

113. “The Necessity of a Human Rights Approach and Effective United Nations Mechanism for the Human Rights of the Older Person”, Working Paper prepared by Chinsung CHUNG, Member of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee, 4 December 2009, A/HRC/AC/4/CRP.1, at para 1.

114. Mégret, supra note 111 at 38Google Scholar

115. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 40 I.L.M. 266 (1999) (entered into force 7 December 2000), art. 25.

116. African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 21 I.L.M. 59 (1982) (entered into force 21 October 1986), art. 18(4).

117. Ibid., at art. 29.

118. European Social Charter (Revised), 36 I.L.M. 31 (1997) (entered into force 7 January 1999), art. 23.

119. PALLEY, Howard A., “Social Policy and the Elderly in South Korea: Confucianism, Modernization and Development” (1992) 32 Asian Survey 787 at 794CrossRefGoogle Scholar

MAGNO, Carlo, PROFUGO, Dyana, and MENDOZA, Sonia, “Developing Asian Values, Self-Construal, and Resiliency, Through Family Efficacy and Parental Closeness” (2009) 1 International Journal of Research and Review 1 at 6Google Scholar

BELL, Daniel, “The East Asian Challenge to Human Rights: Reflections on an East-West Dialogue” (1996) 18 Human Rights Quarterly 641CrossRefGoogle Scholar

120. Kyu-taik, SUNG, “Elder Respect Among Young Adults: A Cross-Cultural Study of Americans and Koreans” (2004) 18 Journal of Aging Studies 215Google Scholar

121. SUNG Kyu-taik, “Roots of Elder Respect: Ideals and Practices in East Asia” in SUNG Kyu-taik and KIM Han Sung, eds., Respect for the Elderly: Implications for Human Services Providers (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2001), 45 at 59Google Scholar

122. BELL, Daniel, Beyond Liberal Democracy: Political Thinking for an East Asian Context (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006) at 77CrossRefGoogle Scholar

123. Ibid.

124. Constitution of the Republic of Korea (1948), art. 34(4).

125. Kyu-taik, SUNG, “A New Look at Filial Piety: Ideals and Practices of Family-Centered Parent Care in Korea” (1990) 30 The Gerontologist 610Google Scholar

126. National Human Rights Commission of Korea, “Introduction”, online: 〈http://www.humanrights.go.kr/english/about_nhrck/introduction_01.jsp#c〉.

127. Ibid.

128. Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions, Press Release, “Professor Byung-Chul Hyun, National Human Rights Commission of Korea”, online: 〈http://www.asiapacificforum.net/news/professor-byung-chul-hyun-national-human-rights-commission-of-korea.html〉.

129. See National Human Rights Commission of Korea, Press Release, “NHRC Conducts Research Project on Human Rights of Senior” (6 February 2003), online: 〈http://www.humanrights.go.kr/english/activities/board_list.jsp?page=82&m_id1=114&m_name2=PressReleases&m_name1=MainActivities&m_link_url=activities/board_list.jsp&query=&m_id2=124〉.

130. National Human Rights Commission of Korea, Information Submission to Office of the High Commission on Human Rights, online: 〈http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/OlderPersons/Submissions/NationalHumanRightsCommissionRepublicKorea.pdf〉.

131. See National Human Rights Commission of Korea, Press Release, “NHRCK Delegation Visits Welfare Facilities for the Elderly” (28 September 2006); National Human Rights Commission of Korea, Press Release, “Standing Commissioner Kim Ho-Joon Visits Protective Facility for the Elderly” (15 November 2007), online: 〈http://www.humanrights.go.kr/english/main/index.jsp〉.

132. See NHRCK, Press Release, “The NHRCK Provides Counseling Services for Senior Citizens” (12 October 2009), online: 〈http://www.humanrights.go.kr/english/activities/board_list.jsp?page=18&m_id1=114&m_name2=PressReleases&m_name1=MainActivities&m_link_url=activities/board_list.jsp&query=&m_id2=124〉.

133. The National Human Rights Commission Act prohibits discriminatory treatment on nineteen specified grounds, including age. Art. 2(4) of the National Human Rights Commission Act, Law No. 6481, 24 May 2001, as amended as Law No. 8435, 17 May 2007.

134. See National Human Rights Commission of Korea, 2009 Report of Guardian of the Rights of the Elderly (Seoul: NHRCK, 2010); National Human Rights Commission of Korea, 2010 Report of Guardian of the Rights of the Elderly (Seoul: NHRCK, 2011).

135. National Human Rights Commission of Korea, Human Rights Counseling Casebook 09-10 (Seoul: NHRCK, 2010) at 82.

136. Ibid.

137. Ibid.

138. Ibid.

139. OH Young-jin, “Young Judge Held in Contempt for Talking Rudely to Elderly Man” Korea Times (4 February 2010), online: 〈http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2011/04/117_60308.html〉.

140. Ibid.

141. National Human Rights Commission of Korea, supra note 135 at 83.

142. Constitution of the Republic of Korea, supra note 124 at art. 10.

143. National Human Rights Commission of Korea, 2009 Report of Guardian of the Rights of the Elderly, supra note 134 at 24 (quoting Kim Dong Ho).

144. Ibid., at 90 (quoting Chun Maeng Sul).

145. BAUER, Joanne, “International Human Rights and Asian Commitment” (1995) Human Rights Dialogue 1 at 3Google Scholar