One of the most significant obstacles to overcome in the effort to define domestic violence as a human rights violation was the traditional view that international law is applicable only to governments and their representatives, but not to private actors as in the case of intimate partner assault. In fact, even before the United Nations and other institutions explicitly named domestic violence as a human rights violation, there was significant authority that states have a duty to protect individuals from offenses by private actors. When the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was drafted, it was contemplated that governments had a duty to protect individuals from violations by private citizens. The Human Rights Committee of the United Nations, the European Commission of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights have concurred with this view. From Andrew Byrnes, Women, Feminism and International Human Rights Law—Methodological Myopia, Fundamental Flaws or Meaningful Marginalisation?, 12 Austl. Y.B. Int'l Law 205 (1992).

Case law interpreting international and regional human rights law also supported this position. In the Velasquez Rodriguez Case, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Ser. C, No. 4, Judgment of 29 July 1988, 1989 28 ILM 291, for example, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights held that Honduras was required to "take reasonable steps to prevent human rights violations and to use the means at its disposal to carry out a serious investigation of violations committed within [its] jurisdiction, to identify those responses, to impose the appropriate punishment and to ensure the victim adequate compensation." Other cases supporting this position include the Case of Plattform Arzte fuer das Leben v. Austria, Judgment of 21 June 1988, Ser. A, No. 139, 32, 13 EHRR 204; and X and Y v. Netherlands, Judgment of 26 March 1985, Ser. A, No. 91, 23, 8 EHRR 235, 81 ILR 103.

This human rights law dictates that, although one act of domestic violence may not invoke the protections of international law, a state's institutionalized inaction in the face of a pervasive domestic violence problem violates its international obligations. From Kenneth Roth, Domestic Violence as an International Human Rights Issue, in Human Rights of Women 326 (Rebecca Cook ed.,1994); Dorothy Q. Thomas & Michele E. Beasley, Domestic Violence as a Human Rights Issue, Hum. Rts. Q. 15 (1993). In addition, a state may violate its international legal obligations if it applies its laws in a discriminatory fashion, giving more attention and resources to crimes other than domestic violence. However, Joan Fitzpatrick, in her article, The Use of International Human Rights Norms to Combat Violence Against Women, in Human Rights of Women 532, 539 (Rebecca Cook ed., 1994), makes the important point that an equal treatment approach for battered women leaves important issues unaddressed. She emphasizes that domestic violence survivors "operate under pressures not felt by other crime victims." They may not be able to sever ties to their assailants in a way that accommodates the application of general criminal laws. Instead, domestic violence survivors may require additional services to truly achieve equal treatment.