scholarly journals Prisoners' rights implementation in Japan: breaking the shackles with suspects

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Silvia Croydon
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Case Analysis ◽  
The Political ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Global Standards ◽  
Prison Policy ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Meiji Era ◽  
Draft Version

Abstract Several decades have passed since the first call was made toward political scientists, among other social scientists, to devote attention to human rights and enrich, through empirical investigations, our understanding of how human rights implementation works. Today, the political science discipline is finally beginning to respond to this appeal, with an increasing number of scholars making it their goal to isolate variables that obstruct or facilitate human rights implementation. The current paper joins this burgeoning body of literature by offering a within-case analysis of Japanese prison policy-making. In particular, I compare the 2005 bill updating the Prison Law (Kangoku hō) that had been in force in Japan since the Meiji era with an earlier draft version of that bill which appeared in parliament on three occasions since the early 1980s. On the basis of the convergence of these bills in terms of seeking to align Japan with the evolved new global standards for convicted prisoners' treatment, I argue that a three-decade delay occurred in the implementation of prisoners' rights in Japan. To account then for this delay, I point to a provision pertaining to the criminal procedure (i.e., pre-conviction) which was incorporated in the law in question in 1908 merely for pragmatic reasons, and with regard to which the modern-time stakeholders of the bar and the police could not find agreement. Ultimately, the message that this case deals to the political science of human rights is that institutional–infrastructural factors, such as ties of legal nature, matter to human rights implementation.

scholarly journals Causal Interaction and Effect Modification: Same Model, Different Concepts

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luke Keele ◽  
Randolph T. Stevenson
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
Regression Models ◽  
Interaction Analysis ◽  
Effect Modification ◽  
The Political ◽  
Science Literature ◽  
Causal Interaction ◽  
Single Treatment ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
The Difference

Social scientists use the concept of interactions to study effect dependency. Such analyses can be conducted using standard regression models. However, an interaction analysis may represent either a causal interaction or effect modification. Under causal interaction, the analyst is interested in whether two treatments have differing effects when both are administered. Under effect modification, the analysts investigates whether the effect of a single treatment varies across levels of a baseline covariate. Importantly, the identification assumptions for these two types of analysis are very different. In this paper, we clarify the difference between these two types of interaction analysis. We demonstrate that this distinction is mostly ignored in the political science literature. We conclude with a review of several applications.

scholarly journals Justifying New Rights: Affectedness, Vulnerability, and the Rights of Peasants

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 702-720
Author(s):  
Corina Heri
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
The Political ◽  
Science Concept ◽  
Legal Recognition ◽  
Theoretical Account ◽  
Ethical Concept ◽  
Heuristic Device ◽  
Implicit Condition

AbstractOver the last decades, various groups seeking international legal recognition of new human rights claims have succeeded in their endeavors. Some movements have crafted such convincing demands that their participation has even become an implicit condition of the legitimacy of the resulting human rights documents. But what are the bases of claims for new human rights, and how do they help to confront the argument that human rights’ expansion also entails their dilution? This Article explores narratives based on two different concepts, namely the political-science concept of affectedness and the legal-ethical concept of vulnerability. It does so by drawing on the process for the recognition of peasant human rights at the United Nations. The Article explores what it understands as the peasant critique of existing human rights by looking at the differences and interrelations between affectedness and vulnerability-based argumentation. It argues that an approach premised purely on affectedness, and thus focused on participation, is less empowering than one that includes a regard for vulnerability, which serves as a heuristic device for identifying and challenging inequalities, demands substantive outcomes, and can serve to craft a convincing theoretical account of human rights protections.

Politics and Power

Philosophy ◽  
1963 ◽  
Vol 38 (144) ◽  
pp. 117-135
Author(s):  
P. H. Partridge
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
Social Life ◽  
Political Activity ◽  
The Political ◽  
Political Scientist ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Political Field ◽  
Proper Definition ◽  
Definition Of

In recent years, political scientists have talked a great deal about the proper definition of their subject, and of how the ‘field’ of the political scientist is best distinguished from that of other social scientists. One proposal that is frequently made is that political science might quite properly be defined as the study of power, its forms, its sources, its distribution, its modes of exercise, its effects. The general justification for this proposal is, of course, that political activity itself appears to be connected very intimately with power: it is often said that political activity is a struggle for power; that constitutions and other political institutions are methods of defining and regularising the distribution and the exercise of power, and so on. Since there seems to be some sense in which one can say that, within the wider area of social life, the political field is that which has some special connection with power, it may seem plausible then to suggest that the study of politics focusses upon the study of power.

scholarly journals S. S. Alexeyev on Law and Human Rights in the Era of Drastic Changes

2019 ◽  
pp. 216-223
Author(s):  
Oleg Shipitsyn
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
The Political ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
Historical Method ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Legitimate Interests ◽  
Legal Position ◽  
Soviet Russia ◽  
The Individual

The author reviews S. S. Alexeyev’s scholarly views concerning the relations between the individual and the Soviet state from the power and submission perspective, and also assurance of individual’s and citizen’s rights and legitimate interests. Taking into account that the state’s key functions are exercise of power and governance in the society, i.e. making an impact on the society in a certain way to achieve specific results, the purpose of the intended research is identifying the relation between the legal impact made by the state and the individual’s legal position in such a state and a society, as well as assessing the actual assurance of human rights and freedoms. To achieve the established goal, systemic and historical method of legal research were applied. The research findings demonstrate that the political and legal regime implemented in the Soviet Russia did not achieve the originally declared goals, while the actual legal conditions under which Soviet citizens had to exist only suppressed and infringed upon the individual, whose rights and freedom had no actual assurance. It is argued that transformations of political and legal nature in the last decade of the 20th century are a legitimate consequence of the preceding events, since it is the law that makes human freedom real and assured.

The Meaning and Legacy of the Magna Carta

2010 ◽  
Vol 43 (03) ◽  
pp. 451-456 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kent Worcester
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Cultural Icon ◽  
Modern Politics ◽  
Magna Carta ◽  
Science Classes

The six essays of this symposium address different aspects of the meaning and legacy of the Magna Carta—“the Great Charter” in Latin. Although social scientists and legal scholars routinely describe the Magna Carta as foundational for concepts of justice and liberty, the charter itself is rarely assigned in political science classes or scrutinized by political theorists. The aim of the symposium is twofold: first, to affirm the document's historical rootedness and intellectual richness, and, second, to explore the ways in which the Magna Carta's text and reputation have informed the development of common law and modern politics. The Magna Carta was the product of times very different from our own, yet it continues to be cited by jurists and human rights activists around the globe. This symposium makes the case for why political scientists should take an interest in the Magna Carta, not just as a cultural icon, but as a durable political text.

American Political Science and African Politics

1969 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 495-511
Author(s):  
William G. Fleming
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
East Africa ◽  
Political History ◽  
The Political ◽  
African Politics ◽  
Social Environments ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
The Past ◽  
New States ◽  
American Political Science

Within the past few years military coups have ended civil rule in ten African nations. These events, and similar earlier upheavals in the Sudan and East Africa, indicate the intense strain which their politics are enduring. Should social scientists remain mute while this process continues throughout the continent? Are there no general principles of political science and comparative political history which can be utilised to assist the new states to adjust, to control their social environments, and to avoid the abyss of authoritarianism? A potential alliance of military and bureaucratic élites in guiding the political destiny of much of Africa must now be viewed as probable.

scholarly journals International Attention and the Treatment of Political Prisoners

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jamie J Gruffydd-Jones
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Political Prisoners ◽  
The Political ◽  
Science Literature ◽  
Transnational Activism ◽  
Fine Grained ◽  
Derechos Humanos ◽  
International Attention ◽  
International Audience

Abstract Does international attention to political prisoners make them more likely to be released? The political science literature provides theoretical reasons to believe that widely publicizing a case may make regimes both more and less likely to free their prisoners, but to date there has been no systematic examination of this issue. An analysis of political prisoners in China from 1994 to 2017 shows that international publicity of a political prisoner's case will make regimes 70 percent more likely to release them early before sentencing, but has no effect once the prisoner has been sentenced—and may even be counterproductive. This “resistance” to international efforts appears to be more closely related with demonstrating the regime's strength to an international audience rather than to a domestic one. The study shows how fine-grained data on individuals can illuminate the domestic mechanisms behind why states comply with or resist transnational activism and human rights diplomacy. ¿La atención internacional a los presos políticos hace que su liberación sea más probable? En ciencias políticas, la literatura ofrece razones teóricas para creer que la amplia difusión de un caso puede hacer que los regímenes tengan más y menos probabilidades de liberar a sus presos, pero hasta la fecha, esa cuestión no se ha evaluado sistemáticamente. Un análisis del caso de los presos políticos en China entre 1994 y 2017 demuestra que la publicidad internacional hace que los regímenes sean un 70 percent más propensos a liberarlos antes de la sentencia, pero no tiene ningún efecto una vez que el preso ha sido condenado, e incluso puede ser contraproducente. Esta “resistencia” a los esfuerzos internacionales parece tener mayor relación con la demostración de la fuerza del régimen ante un público internacional que ante uno nacional. El estudio muestra de qué manera los datos detallados sobre las personas pueden echar luz sobre los mecanismos internos que explican las razones por las que los Estados cumplen con el activismo transnacional y la diplomacia de los derechos humanos o se resisten a hacerlo. L'attention internationale accordée aux prisonniers politiques les rend-t-elle davantage susceptibles d’être libérés? La littérature consacrée aux sciences politiques offre des raisons théoriques de croire qu'une grande sensibilisation du public à un cas spécifique peut rendre les régimes à la fois plus et moins susceptibles de libérer leurs prisonniers, mais jusqu'ici, ce sujet n'a pas encore fait l'objet d'un examen systématique. Une analyse portant sur les prisonniers politiques de Chine entre 1994 et 2017 montre que la sensibilisation internationale du public au cas des prisonniers politiques rend les régimes 70 percent plus susceptibles de les libérer rapidement avant leur condamnation, mais que cela n'a aucun effet une fois que le prisonnier a été condamné et que cela peut même être contreproductif. Cette « résistance » aux efforts internationaux semble davantage étroitement liée à la volonté du régime de montrer sa force au public international plutôt qu'au public national. Cette étude illustre la manière dont des données détaillées sur les individus peuvent apporter un éclairage sur les mécanismes nationaux qui expliquent pourquoi les États se conforment ou résistent à l'activisme transnational et à la diplomatie des droits de l'Homme.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document