Abstract
Domestic courts are often quoting foreign case law on human rights. The conversation pursued
through cross-referencing across jurisdictions has added to the globalization of international
human rights standards. As the practice is gaining ground and becoming a more permanent
feature of domestic judgments, its relevance needs to be examined. A closer look at the practice
will bring forth a more realistic understanding of the approaches of domestic courts and the
advantages which they offer to the institution. This paper raises few questions on the value and
influence of cross-referencing in the area of human rights. Questions in this regard can be posed
as to (a) whether cross-referencing is reflective of an emerging consensus on the subject
matter? (b) Is it strategic for domestic courts to quote foreign case law? (c) Is the practice of
cross-referencing simply a trend or an urge to belong to a community of courts? (d) Is the
practice of relevance towards the implementation and advancement of international human
rights standards?
The topic can shed light on broader themes including the universality of human rights,
contestations/disagreements over human rights standards, and the measure of acceptability of
international human rights standards within domestic settings. This paper discusses the
practice, its role and influence in relation to international human rights standards. Three
judgments [of the courts of Nepal, India and Singapore] addressing the human rights and
homosexuality agenda have been illustrated for discussion.