Search

You searched for: Content Type Journal Article Remove constraint Content Type: Journal Article Political Geography Global Focus Remove constraint Political Geography: Global Focus Publication Year within 5 Years Remove constraint Publication Year: within 5 Years Topic Human Rights Remove constraint Topic: Human Rights
Number of results to display per page

Search Results

  • Author: Alan McPherson
  • Publication Date: 01-2021
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: Strategic Visions
  • Institution: Center for the Study of Force and Diplomacy, Temple University
  • Abstract: Contents News from the Director Fall 2020 Lecture Series ……………2 Fall 2020 Prizes …………………….3 Funding and the Immerman Fund ….3 Note from the Davis Fellow …………4 Temple Community Interviews Dr. Joel Blaxland …………………5 Dr. Kaete O’Connell ……………….6 Jared Pentz ………………………….7 Brian McNamara …………………8 Keith Riley …………………………9 Book Reviews Kissinger and Latin America: Intervention, Human Rights, and Diplomacy Review by Graydon Dennison …10 America’s Middlemen: Power at the Edge of Empire Review by Ryan Langton ……13 Anthropology, Colonial Policy and the Decline of French Empire in Africa Review by Grace Anne Parker ...16 Latin America and the Global Cold War Review by Casey VanSise ……19
  • Topic: Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Human Rights, Military Intervention, Empire
  • Political Geography: United States, France, Latin America, Global Focus
  • Author: David Crow, James Ron
  • Publication Date: 03-2020
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: Political Science Quarterly
  • Institution: Academy of Political Science
  • Abstract: David Crow and James Ron look at how global publics view the relationship between human rights organizations and the U.S. government. They argue that ordinary people across various world regions do not perceive human rights groups as “handmaidens” of U.S. foreign policy.
  • Topic: Foreign Policy, Government, Human Rights, Non-Governmental Organization, Public Opinion
  • Political Geography: Global Focus, United States of America
  • Author: Sushant Naidu, Mahmood Monshipouri, Jodie G. Roure, David T. Johnson, Randolph B. Persaud, Jackson Yoder, Debra L. DeLaet, Nicholas McMurry, Kathleen Mahoney, Morten Koch Andersen
  • Publication Date: 08-2020
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: The Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations
  • Institution: School of Diplomacy and International Relations, Seton Hall University
  • Abstract: For centuries, protests have been used to mobilize citizenry in efforts to bring about sweeping change in different parts of the world. Protestors have protested to convey their discontent, to demand a moral response, and to speak truth to power. In 2010, antigovernment protests in Egypt inspired similar uprisings in other Arab countries, which became known as the Arab Spring. This year, the killings of Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, and George Floyd have led people in the US and across the world to march against racism and police brutality. Despite a global pandemic, thousands have taken to the streets to demand justice for Black lives, demonstrating that the principle of equality, a common moral good, is worth risking both health and life. “Human Rights: An Uprising,” the second issue of our twenty-first volume, sheds light not only on the right to protest itself, but the human rights that have inspired them. Mahmood Monshipouri explores the variations and similarities in contemporary protest while discussing the Black Lives Matter movement. Joudie Roure addresses gender-based violence and LGBTQI rights in Puerto Rico, especially the murder of trans women. Debra DeLaet explains the importance of soft law approaches in making progress toward the realization of gender-based human rights and LGBTQI rights. Randolph Persaud and Jackson Yoder apply the concept of homo sacer to examine differential rights within two key areas: migrants/refugees/asylum seekers in Europe and the effects of COVID-19 on African Americans in the US. Nicholas McMurry argues that the right to be heard is developing in human rights law as expounded in the practice of the UN treaty bodies. Kathleen Mahoney discusses Indigenous rights in Canada. Morten Andersen argues that an investigation of the relationship between corruption and human rights is best viewed as a framework of socially constructed norms, political power, and the complex interrelation of political, legal, economic, and social systems. Finally, David Johnson writes about the origins, causes, and contemporary implications of extrajudicial killings in the Philippines. This issue sheds light on the strata of protests and human rights. It further affirms the growing political salience of human rights and the power of social movements to overcome the tyranny of exclusion, greed, and special interests which have always undermined them.
  • Topic: Corruption, Gender Issues, Human Rights, Migration, Natural Disasters, Women, Protests, Violence, LGBT+, Crisis Management, Indigenous, COVID-19, Biopolitics
  • Political Geography: Philippines, Asia-Pacific, Global Focus
  • Author: Marie Davoise
  • Publication Date: 07-2020
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: The Goettingen Journal of International Law
  • Institution: The Goettingen Journal of International Law
  • Abstract: In July 2019, the International Law Commission (ILC) provisionally adopted, on first reading, a series of draft principles on the protection of the environment in relation to armed conflict (the Draft Principles). The role of businesses in armed conflict is addressed in Draft Principle 10 and Draft Principle 11. The latter, in particular, requires States to implement appropriate measures to ensure that corporations operating in or from their territories can be held accountable for environmental harm in the context of armed conflict. The inclusion of those two Draft Principles reflects increasingly vocal calls for corporate accountability, which has been the focus of the growing field of Business and Human Rights (BHR), an umbrella term encompassing a variety of legal regimes from tort law to criminal law. This contribution will look at the link between businesses, the environment, and armed conflict. Using the newly adopted Draft Principle 11 as a starting point, it explores three major liability regimes through which businesses could be held accountable for damage to the environment in armed conflict: State responsibility, international criminal law, and transnational tort litigation. Using case studies, the article discusses some of the challenges associated with each of those regimes, before concluding that the cross-fertilization phenomenon observed in this article (between public/private law, domestic/international level, and across various jurisdictions) is making BHR an increasingly salient discipline and useful tool in the fight against impunity for corporate environmental harm in armed conflict.
  • Topic: Human Rights, International Law, Business , Conflict
  • Political Geography: Global Focus
  • Author: Karen Hulme
  • Publication Date: 07-2020
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: The Goettingen Journal of International Law
  • Institution: The Goettingen Journal of International Law
  • Abstract: Environmental protection is not specifically included in treaty law relating to State obligations during situations of occupation. While clearly not of the same scale as damage caused to the environment during armed conflict, damage caused during occupation is often similar in nature – largely due to those who seek to exploit any governance vacuum and a failure to restore damaged environments. What can human rights offer in helping to protect the environment during occupations? What protection can be offered by an analysis of environmental human rights law?
  • Topic: Environment, Human Rights, Governance, Conflict
  • Political Geography: Global Focus
  • Author: Muhammad Usman Saeed, Mian Hanan Ahmad, Noshina Saleem
  • Publication Date: 07-2020
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: Journal of Political Studies
  • Institution: Department of Political Science, University of the Punjab
  • Abstract: In the context of modern information and communication systems, present study was designed to examine the information and communication imbalances among the developed and under developed countries in tweets of international news agencies during 2010-16. Theoretically, the study takes roots from world system theory and structural imperialism theory. Methodologically, the triangulation of method is used. Firstly, the content analysis was performed on purposively selected tweets of four international news agencies; AFP, AP, Reuters and Xinhua about the 15 sample countries for the period of 7 year from 2010-2016. Further, the social network analysis technique was used to examine the network structures of international news determinants and world countries. This study revealed that core and semi-periphery countries are shared more and framed positively, while periphery countries are shared less and portrayal negatively not only by the international news agencies but also by their followers. Further, it was also found that Reuters’ tweets agenda about core, periphery and semi-periphery countries is different from other news agencies specifically from Xinhua. Moreover, study also found that in the tweets of international news agencies the core and semi-periphery countries are covered and shared in context of foreign relations, trade, economy, entertainment, and human interest, while periphery countries are covered and shared with reference to conflicts, disasters, and human rights violations.
  • Topic: Development, Human Rights, Communications, Media, Social Media, Conflict
  • Political Geography: Global Focus
  • Author: Thiago Rodrigues, Tadeu Maciel, Joao Paulo Duarte
  • Publication Date: 05-2020
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: Contexto Internacional
  • Institution: Institute of International Relations, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro
  • Abstract: The 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in December 2018 created a need to problematise its precepts and their political consequences in contempo- rary times. Drawing on Michel Foucault’s genealogical approach to power, this article analyses the normative inscription of the UDHR as the emergence of a juridical-political device that produces new modulations of biopolitics. As such, it is not based on peace, as is commonly argued, but on the permanent reinscription of war, sometimes in dimensions that go beyond the boundaries of sovereignty.
  • Topic: Human Rights, United Nations, War, Intellectual History, Conflict, Peace
  • Political Geography: Global Focus
  • Author: Fatma Akkan Güngör, Zehra Aksu
  • Publication Date: 09-2020
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: Novus Orbis: Journal of Politics & International Relations
  • Institution: Department of International Relations, Karadeniz Technical University
  • Abstract: The 20th century has been regulated with a conservative principle due to the fact that states could not be able to solve their national and international problems on their own, and therefore should embrace the concept of global cooperation. That is the reason why state sovereignty has been the subject of many discussions until today. When peace emerged as a human right in the form of solidarity, it was taken into consideration in the literature together with the concept of humanitarian intervention. Furthermore, after that, its validity was discussed in the context of state sovereignty. While all these discussions are taking place, many philosophers/academics, who focus on the problematic of state right or human right and whose ideas evolve to peace studies over the inevitability of wars and reach a stalemate between the subject or state over the right of intervention, bring the old concepts back to the agenda and produce new ideas for the new order. Based on the question of whether peace should be in the system or within the nation, the main problematic in this era is whether a society that includes the entire universe or a system in which the sovereignty principles of states will continue and whether a system, in which wars are also possible, will be accepted as "right" by the subject. | 20. yüzyıl devletler için ulusal ve uluslararası sorunlarını tek başlarına çözemeyecekleri ve bu nedenle küresel işbirliğine yanaşmaları düzleminde muhafazakar ilkeyle düzenlenmiş ve günümüze kadar geçen sürede devlet egemenliği birçok tartışmaya konu olmuştur. Barış, dayanışma türünde bir insan hakkı olarak ortaya çıktığında literatürde insani müdahale kavramı ile birlikte ele alınmış ve sonrasında devlet egemenliği bağlamında geçerliliği tartışılmıştır. Tüm bu tartışmalar yaşanırken devlet hakkı mı insan hakkı mı sorunsalına odaklanan ve savaşların kaçınılmazlığı üzerinden barış çalışmalarına evrilen ve müdahale hakkı üzerine özne mi devlet mi çıkmazında kalan birçok düşünür, eski kavramları yeniden gündeme taşımakta ve yeni düzene yeni düşünceler üretmektedir. Barışın sistemde mi ulusta mı olması gerektiği sorusu üzerinden hareketle ana sorunsal, bu çağda tüm evreni içine alacak bir toplumun mu yoksa devletlerin egemenlik ilkelerinin devam edeceği ve savaşların da olası olduğu bir sistemin mi özne tarafından doğru kabul edileceğidir.
  • Topic: Human Rights, International Cooperation, Sovereignty, Self Determination, Humanitarian Intervention, Peace
  • Political Geography: Global Focus
  • Author: Eric Cox
  • Publication Date: 01-2020
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace
  • Institution: Center for Foreign Policy and Peace Research
  • Abstract: This paper analyzes recommendations made to states under the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) Universal Periodic Review (UPR) in order to determine whether or not the UPR is making meaningful recommendations to states under review. The UPR reviews the human rights of all UN Member States every four years. During the review, each state receives a number of recommendations from other UN member states. This paper uses data from UPR Info to determine if states with better human rights performance as measured by the CIRI human rights data project receive fewer recommendations than states with worse performance. It finds that, even when controlling for other factors, states with worse records on civil and political rights generally receive more recommendations than states with better records. States with lower scores from CIRI on women's economic and political rights receive more recommendations regarding women's issues than states with higher scores. These findings hold regardless of region, suggesting that, at a minimum, the UPR process is identifying violators of human rights.
  • Topic: Human Rights, United Nations, Governance
  • Political Geography: Global Focus
  • Author: Julia Bialek
  • Publication Date: 12-2019
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: The Goettingen Journal of International Law
  • Institution: The Goettingen Journal of International Law
  • Abstract: Infringements of human rights through the actions of transnational corporations are common in our globalizing world. While the international community has undertaken numerous attempts to hold private corporations responsible for their actions, only soft law instruments govern this area of public international law. Only recently, a first draft was released for a Legally Binding Instrument to Regulate, in International Human Rights Law, the Activities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises, also known as the Zero Draft. This article argues that the Zero Draft, while based on contemporary international law, represents a positive first step in the treaty-making process, but it still needs specification and clarification in order to close the gap in human rights protection effectively. First outlining the need for a closure of the gap in human rights protection, this article then closely examines the content of the Zero Draft. To that end, an in-depth analysis of the core provisions of the Draft is offered, especially focusing on the rights of victims, the prevention of human rights infringements, and corporate liability. Furthermore, this article analyzes current State practice and the expectations of the international community towards a legally binding instrument on the topic of business and human rights. Significantly, this article also compares the Zero Draft to existing soft law and previous recommendations on how to close the gap in a binding manner. Finally, the article concludes that, by indirectly holding companies accountable without depriving States of their sovereign power over their companies, the Zero Draft has the potential to be implemented as a future Treaty on Business and Human Rights.
  • Topic: Globalization, Human Rights, Treaties and Agreements, transnationalism
  • Political Geography: Global Focus
  • Author: Haroon Rafique
  • Publication Date: 01-2019
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: Journal of Political Studies
  • Institution: Department of Political Science, University of the Punjab
  • Abstract: The landmark United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) introduced „unique‟ provision of the right to child participation in its Article 12. This Convention, ratified by most states including Pakistan, gives right of participation to children in making decisions on matters related to them and makes it binding for the states to implement it in letter and spirit. The state is responsible for creating enabling environment which includes creation of necessary institutions, enacting or where necessary amending laws, formulating policies and strategies, allocating sufficient budgets, making congenial environment for NGOs and public consultations. This paper argues that state in Pakistan has not been able to sufficiently develop the enabling environment to fulfill the obligations that resulted in the aftermath of ratification UNCRC.
  • Topic: Government, Human Rights, United Nations, Children
  • Political Geography: Pakistan, Global Focus
  • Author: Mazhar Ali Khan
  • Publication Date: 12-2019
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: Review of Human Rights
  • Institution: Society of Social Science Academics (SSSA)
  • Abstract: The question of ratification of the Rome Statute of International Criminal Court is one of the most debated questions in public international law. Because it involves strict commitment to human rights many states often see it as a hurdle to their national interests. Nevertheless a number of states have ratified the statute except a few. Pakistan is one of those states that have not ratified the Rome Statute even though it has been a party to various other treaties on human rights. This article focuses on the question why Pakistan did not ratify the statute? The article also provides recommendations how the ratification can be made possible.
  • Topic: Human Rights, International Law, Islamic State, International Community, International Criminal Court (ICC), Rome Statute, Universal Jurisdiction
  • Political Geography: Pakistan, South Asia, Global Focus
  • Author: Cecile Fabre
  • Publication Date: 09-2018
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Institution: Carnegie Council
  • Abstract: Most foreign policy is not implemented through war. Yet, with a few recent exceptions—like James Pattison’s 2018 monograph The Alternatives to War—political and moral philosophers have yet to explore all options between war and doing nothing.1 Here I consider one such option: subversive interference in a democracy’s nationwide elections. In that regard, the years 2016–2017 have proved rich in controversies. In France, Russian banks with close ties to the Kremlin provided cash loans to the National Front in the run-up to the 2017 presidential elections. In December 2017, the Australian premier announced a tightening of restrictions on foreign funding of political parties out of concern with alleged and undue Chinese influence on some Australian politicians. Last, but far from least, in the United States the Office of the Director of National Intelligence along with the CIA, FBI, and NSA all take the strong view, backed in part by social media data, that Russian authorities actively sought to undermine Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and to bolster Donald Trump’s.2 Interestingly, however, some of President Putin’s critics are vulnerable to the charge of hypocrisy. To give but two examples, the United States has a long history of interfering in the institutions and elections of its Latin American neighbors and, indeed, at the height of the Cold War, of its European allies. More recently, many believe that, absent U.S.-driven assistance, the Democratic Opposition of Serbia would have lost the 2000 Yugoslavian presidential election to Slobodan Milošević.3 Attempting to subvert the democratic elections of a putatively sovereign country is a time-honored way of bending the latter’s domestic and foreign policy to one’s will. However, it seems to elicit far more condemnation than war and, indeed, other forms of coercive diplomacy. Perhaps this is because, to many people, the rights of democratic participation have primacy over all other rights; or because most often electoral subversion takes place covertly. Either way, given how destructive those other modes of interference are, this is puzzling. I frame my inquiry as follows. I focus on the state-sponsored, nonviolent, nonkinetic subversion of nationwide elections (for short, subversion). Moreover, because I am interested in exploring whether there are any situations in which subversion may be justified, I consider cases in which subversion is used as a means to prevent or end large-scale human rights violations, though my argument also has implications for subversion as a tool of foreign policy in general. In addition, my aim is not to evaluate subversion as an alternative to war or, for that matter, to other measures, such as economic sanctions. Due to space constraints, I simply wish to show that, under certain conditions and subject to certain constraints, subversion is pro tanto justified. Whether it is justified all things considered—and, in particular, once one has taken into account other options—is another matter and one that I cannot settle here. Finally, although subversion affects election candidates, it above all undermines a citizen’s right to vote. Accordingly, in what follows I focus on the latter and not the former. Attempting to subvert the democratic elections of a putatively sovereign country is a time-honored way of bending the latter’s domestic and foreign policy to one’s will. However, it seems to elicit far more condemnation than war. Before I begin, let me outline the overall normative framework on which my arguments rely. I take it for granted that all individuals, wherever they reside in the world, have rights to the freedoms and the resources they need to lead a minimally flourishing life—in other words, human rights. Moreover, they hold those rights against all human beings and their respective governments. Put differently, on this cosmopolitan view, all of us, wherever we reside in the world, are under duties to all other individuals, wherever they reside, to respect their human rights. How precisely we discharge those duties partly depends on the institutional structures under which we live. Be that as it may, I am not under a stronger duty to respect my compatriots’ human rights—for example, not to be killed or to be given means of subsistence—than I am to respect those same rights of noncompatriots, and vice versa
  • Topic: Foreign Policy, Human Rights, Sovereignty, Elections, Election Interference
  • Political Geography: Global Focus
  • Author: Ş. İlgü Özler
  • Publication Date: 12-2018
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Institution: Carnegie Council
  • Abstract: On December 10, 1948, the United Nations General Assembly passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the most significant statement from the global community regarding what constitutes the ideal human life in any society and the rights to which all people are entitled. On the basis of the principles laid out in the UDHR, the international community has since negotiated a large number of human rights treaties and conventions and has developed plans of action in relation to all aspects of living a dignified life. The UDHR is arguably one of the most important documents in the history of human civilization; and to the extent that words on paper can change the world, the impact of the UDHR has been profound. However, despite providing a solid foundation for our collective understanding of the rights to which human beings are endowed, today we are still far from realizing these goals, and threats to the very principles enshrined in the UDHR continue to emerge. The declaration has now endured for seventy years, roughly the global average human life span. Thus, this occasion presents a good opportunity to take stock of what has been achieved, what has yet to be accomplished, and to consider the future longevity of this seminal declaration. As with any interpretation of something as complex as the impact of a document on the world, assessments of the UDHR and its ongoing role are mixed. Many in the field of human rights see a glass half full, characterizing the UDHR as a powerful tool that has dramatically shaped political and economic development throughout the world.1 Others focus on the space that remains empty, emphasizing the flaws that inhibit the realization of the document’s goals.2 Indeed, it must be admitted that, even given the indisputable progress that has been made over seven decades, there are today growing threats to human rights. These threats are the consequence of a number of global developments, including shifting geopolitical balances, extreme economic and social inequality, climate change, and a weakening of democratic institutions. These threats are very real, and it is important that human rights proponents monitor and respond to them. But here I argue that the threat to human rights is ever present. And thus, rather than focus on the advances and setbacks of this particular moment, this anniversary is an opportunity to consider the overall historical progression toward human rights as embodied in the UDHR and the obstacles that stand in the way of its full realization. Taking this broader view, there are two issues in particular that stand out as barriers to be overcome. The first is tied to the Westphalian state system, which has come to dominate human political organization. State sovereignty presents a fundamental challenge to any effort to establish universal norms. Implementing universal human rights will always be tremendously difficult in a system that affords final authority to state leaders who lack the necessary incentives. This is nothing new or surprising, of course, and it is not unique to human rights. But it nonetheless requires a careful consideration of how international declarations make their way from ideas on paper to practice. A declaration is only significant to the extent to which it is adhered. As a document with universal endorsement, the UDHR does indeed have power, and it can shape the behavior of actors who otherwise risk appearing to stand against history and human civilization. It can also be used as a normative weapon, both by citizens and by the international community, to shame hypocrites who violate the principles to which they and every nation in the world have agreed. But it is, nonetheless, just a document, and without correspondingly strong global institutional mechanisms to ensure implementation and compliance, its impact is limited. The second major issue is the way in which human rights ideals have been segmented. The separation of rights into social/economic and civil/political has enabled states to focus on some rights to the neglect of others. Global power shifts, especially under the hegemony of the post–Cold War United States, have led to exaggerated selective emphasis on just some of the rights embedded in the UDHR, when in fact none can be fully realized without a comprehensive approach. Political rights cannot be effectively exercised by those lacking access to basic economic necessities. And those meeting their economic needs may find that their voices as citizens are meaningless in a system characterized by vast inequality or in which national institutions are infected by mechanisms that leave them politically marginalized. Rights must be recognized as interconnected and they must be advanced in tandem. Emphasis on some principles to the exclusion of others undermines the comprehensive advancement of human rights. Thus, the current state of affairs is a product of the collective failure to address human rights holistically and to implement real monitoring and accountability measures for states, which are directly charged with upholding them within their borders.
  • Topic: Human Rights, United Nations, Hegemony, State Formation
  • Political Geography: Global Focus
  • Author: Nikola Gjorshoski
  • Publication Date: 06-2018
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: Journal of Liberty and International Affairs
  • Institution: Institute for Research and European Studies (IRES)
  • Abstract: One of the essential postulates of political orientation and determination for the building of stable societies and a functioning political system in its content recognizes and imposes the need to examine the relation of relevant political actors to constitutionalism and human rights as concepts and preoccupations for any modern society. Also, constitutionalism and human rights and freedoms as its inseparable category manifest the political values and the corpus of essential and common political goals and commitments of a particular political community. Political Islam as an ideological political subject has its own sources and a valuable orientation framework through which prisms and perceptions can be interpreted or extracted by individual axiological determinants to certain issues. This paper analyzes exactly the relations of political Islam with constitutionalism and human rights, and similarly to the so-called framework it draws attention to the concepts of power, the mechanisms of control and compliance with the Sharia regulations. At the same time, the importance of human rights and freedoms in the Islamic narrative, their nature and scope, as well as the differences with the western established documents in this area are emphasized and analyzed.
  • Topic: Government, Human Rights, Islam, Constitution, Sharia
  • Political Geography: Middle East, North Africa, Global Focus
  • Author: Ryan J. Vogel
  • Publication Date: 07-2017
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: Fletcher Security Review
  • Institution: The Fletcher School, Tufts University
  • Abstract: President Donald Trump has made clear his intent to utilize wartime detention in the fight against al-Qaeda and ISIS. As former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Rule of Law and Detainee Policy, William Lietzau, and I have argued elsewhere, this could be a positive development in the United States’ evolving approach to the war against al-Qaeda, ISIS, and their associates, so long as it is coupled with a commitment to continuing key detention policies and humane treatment standards developed over the past fifteen years. In recent years, the United States has largely avoided adding to the detainee population at Guantanamo (GTMO) – mainly in reaction to some of the more infamous excesses from the first couple of years after the attacks on September 11, 2001. But failing to capture new enemy fighters has come with an operational and humanitarian cost. The United States should take the opportunity that comes with political transition to re-embrace the wartime detention mission.
  • Topic: Government, Human Rights, Law, Prisons/Penal Systems, Al Qaeda, Islamic State, War on Terror
  • Political Geography: Middle East, Global Focus, United States of America, Guantanamo
  • Author: Daniel Kanstroom
  • Publication Date: 01-2017
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: Journal on Migration and Human Security
  • Institution: Center for Migration Studies of New York
  • Abstract: This article considers the relationship between two human rights discourses (and two specific legal regimes): refugee and asylum protection and the evolving body of international law that regulates expulsions and deportations. Legal protections for refugees and asylum seekers are, of course, venerable, well-known, and in many respects still cherished, if challenged and perhaps a bit frail. Anti-deportation discourse is much newer, multifaceted, and evolving. It is in many respects a young work in progress. It has arisen in response to a rising tide of deportations, and the worrisome development of massive, harsh deportation machinery in the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Mexico, Australia, and South Africa, among others. This article’s main goal is to consider how these two discourses do and might relate to each other. More specifically, it suggests that the development of procedural and substantive rights against removal — as well as rights during and after removal — aids our understanding of the current state and possible future of the refugee protection regime. The article’s basic thesis is this: The global refugee regime, though challenged both theoretically and in practice, must be maintained and strengthened. Its historical focus on developing criteria for admission into safe states, on protections against expulsion (i.e., non-refoulement), and on regimes of temporary protection all remain critically important. However, a focus on other protections for all noncitizens facing deportation is equally important. Deportation has become a major international system that transcends the power of any single nation-state. Its methods have migrated from one regime to another; its size and scope are substantial and expanding; its costs are enormous; and its effects frequently constitute major human rights violations against millions who do not qualify as refugees. In recent years there has been increasing reliance by states on generally applicable deportation systems, led in large measure by the United States’ radical 25 year-plus experiment with large-scale deportation. Europe has also witnessed a rising tide of deportation, some of which has developed in reaction to European asylum practices. Deportation has been facilitated globally (e.g., in Australia) by well-funded, efficient (but relatively little known) intergovernmental idea sharing, training, and cooperation. This global expansion, standardization, and increasing intergovernmental cooperation on deportation has been met by powerful — if in some respects still nascent — human rights responses by activists, courts, some political actors, and scholars. It might seem counterintuitive to think that emerging ideas about deportation protections could help refugees and asylum seekers, as those people by definition often have greater rights protections both in admission and expulsion. However, the emerging anti-deportation discourses should be systematically studied by those interested in the global refugee regime for three basic reasons. First, what Matthew Gibney has described as “the deportation turn” has historically been deeply connected to anxiety about asylum seekers. Although we lack exact figures of the number of asylum seekers who have been subsequently expelled worldwide, there seems little doubt that it has been a significant phenomenon and will be an increasingly important challenge in the future. The two phenomena of refugee/asylum protections and deportation, in short, are now and have long been linked. What has sometimes been gained through the front door, so to speak, may be lost through the back door. Second, current deportation human rights discourses embody creative framing models that might aid constructive critique and reform of the existing refugee protection regime. They tend to be more functionally oriented, less definitional in terms of who warrants protection, and more fluid and transnational. Third, these discourses offer important specific rights protections that could strengthen the refugee and asylum regime, even as we continue to see weakening state support for the basic 1951/1967 protection regime. This is especially true in regard to the extraterritorial scope of the (deporting) state’s obligations post-deportation. This article particularly examines two initiatives in this emerging field: The International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on the Expulsion of Aliens and the draft Declaration on the Rights of Expelled and Deported Persons developed through the Boston College Post-Deportation Human Rights Project (of which the author is a co-director). It compares their provisions to the existing corpus of substantive and procedural protections for refugees relating to expulsion and removal. It concludes with consideration of how these discourses may strengthen protections for refugees while also helping to develop more capacious and protective systems in the future.
  • Topic: Human Rights, International Cooperation, Border Control, Refugees, Humanitarian Crisis
  • Political Geography: Africa, United States, Europe, France, South Africa, Germany, Australia, Mexico, Global Focus
  • Author: Shehzad Ali
  • Publication Date: 12-2017
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: Review of Human Rights
  • Institution: Society of Social Science Academics (SSSA)
  • Abstract: In April 2018, Alfie Evans, a 23-month-old child, died in the UK. He suffered from a degenerative neurological illness. His parents wanted to get further treatment for him outside the country, but the hospital authorities and courts denied permission. This article addresses three dimensions of the case: a) state intervention in individual’s health decision-making, b) potential violation of a human right, and c) the problematic nature of the state policy of socialized medicine. I engage René Girard anthropological theory of violence and mimesis to argue that this case highlights how states enact sacrificial violence upon the terminally ill as a part of maintaining coherent public order.
  • Topic: Human Rights, Ethics, Violence, Bioethics, Medicine
  • Political Geography: Global Focus
  • Author: Bistra Netkova
  • Publication Date: 01-2016
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: Journal of Liberty and International Affairs
  • Institution: Institute for Research and European Studies (IRES)
  • Abstract: Discrimination against women based on the fact that they are women is a deeply rooted practice in all societies. However, the level of discrimination varies greatly with the level of development of the given society and strongly influences and vice versa it is influenced by the status of women in a given society. Addressing this gender-based discrimination is a difficult task because it is closely linked to the concept of equality, and the state's action and inactions. The article establishes that the state parties' obligation is to ensure that there is no direct or indirect discrimination against women in their laws, sanctions, and other remedies, and those women are protected against discrimination in the public, as well as, in the private spheres.
  • Topic: Gender Issues, Human Rights, International Law, Discrimination, Affirmative Action
  • Political Geography: Global Focus