In the case of Zimbabwe, is the notion of rule compliance too limiting a lens through which to analyse the normative effects of international human rights law?
The idea of compliance assumes that International Human Rights are existent, protected and are actively enforced in different states. Measuring compliance is an exercise in policing this enforcement but what this exercise will not show is the state of the human rights in each state. This paper explores the inadequacies of using compliance as a lens to consider the normative effects of international law using Zimbabwe as a case study. This study seeks to illustrate that there has to be a wider outlook which creates space for scrutiny of the state of human rights prior to producing tables and figures which shed no light on the media censorship or the rigging of elections.