Rhona Smith
British legal academic
Rhona K. M. Smith is a British legal academic. She is professor of international human rights and former head of Newcastle Law School at Newcastle University and was the United Nations special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Cambodia.
Career
Smith joined Newcastle University in August 2016 as Professor of International Human Rights. She was Head of School from 2016 through to 2020.
Smith served two three-year terms as UN special rapporteur for Cambodia, completing her service in March 2021, at which time she was succeeded in that office by Thai scholar Vitit Muntarbhorn. She was criticised by the Cambodian government for behaving like a "teacher in a classroom". Smith had questioned the 2018 elections where Cambodian People's Party had taken all 125 seats. She noted that 118 politicians had been arrested and the courts had dissolved an opposition party, ignoring the constitution which expected a multi-party state. In March 2021, Smith joined three other UN special rapporteurs in criticising lengthy jail terms given to Cambodian opposition leaders living in exile for seeking to return to Cambodia and foment popular opposition to the continued rule of Prime Minister Hun Sen.
Selected publications
Smith, Rhona K. M. (2018).
The public source identifies “Rhona Smith” as british legal academic. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Rhona, Smith and British.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Rhona Smith”, the useful work is to connect “british legal academic” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Apr 5, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q62620111. VIAF identifies the subject as 167040210. The Library of Congress control number is nb2002082150. 1 of 5 selected statements include explicit references; 0 carry qualifiers and 0 use preferred rank. The first chronological checks are 2016, 2020, 2021 and 2018.
Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Rhona Smith”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Rhona Smith primary sources, Rhona Smith archive and Rhona research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Rhona Smith”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Rhona Smith” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.