Children Claiming the Future of Human Rights

2021 ◽  
pp. 119-140
Author(s):  
Richard P. Hiskes
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Court Case ◽  
Transnational Advocacy ◽  
Public Agency ◽  
Transnational Advocacy Networks ◽  
Social Technologies ◽  
Environmental Human Rights ◽  
Definition Of

This chapter examines a number of child human rights leaders around the world and how they are utilizing existing activist networks and the courts to effect social change. In doing so, these “global kids” are also changing the nature of human rights activism by employing evolving social technologies and networking strategies for social movements. The chapter begins with a discussion of the Juliana v. US federal court case, in which the plaintiffs were twenty-one children suing for protection of their environmental human rights. The dissent by Judge Staton effectively establishes the legal standing of children in courts in the United States and, as a precedent, for similar cases abroad. The child activists’ reliance on and expansion of transnational advocacy networks expands the definition of “global civil society.” Both in their courtroom participation and in other forms of activism, children are proving effective as advocates for their own public agency.

Biden’s China Policy: Old Wine in New Bottles?

China Report ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 000944552110470
Author(s):  
Andrew J. Nathan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
China Policy ◽  
Military Presence ◽  
Global Power ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Alliance System ◽  
Power Position

The Biden Administration has accepted the Trump Administration’s definition of China as a ‘strategic competitor’, and has retained Trump’s tariffs, the ‘Quad’, and the upgrade in Taiwan’s protocol status. But Biden’s China policy is different from Trump’s in being truly strategic. The key elements of that strategy are focused on improving the United States’ competitiveness domestically and in international affairs; cooperation with allies and partners; an emphasis on human rights; partial decoupling of economic and technology relationships; and a search for some areas of cooperation with China. Success for the Biden strategy would consist neither of bottling up China in its current global power position nor in achieving a negotiated condominium in Asia. The Biden Administration would succeed if the United States can maintain its alliance system, keep a robust military presence in East Asia and prevent the forcible integration of Taiwan into China while avoiding major war. Several features of the China challenge make it reasonable to hope that such success is possible.

Transnational Human Rights Networks: Significance and Challenges

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans Peter Schmitz
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
Transnational Activism ◽  
Transnational Advocacy ◽  
Advocacy Networks ◽  
Amnesty International ◽  
Transnational Advocacy Networks ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
New Type ◽  
Global Affairs

Transnational human rights networks refer to a form of cross-border collective action that seeks to promote compliance with universally accepted norms. Principled transnational activism began to draw sustained scholarly attention after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 and the creation of a new type of information-driven and impartial transnational activism, embodied in organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Scholarship on transnational human rights networks emerged during the 1990s within the subfield of International Relations and as a challenge to the state-centric and materialist bias of the field. In their 1998 book Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics, Margaret Keck and Kathryn Sikkink describe the key role that transnational human rights groups play in global affairs. Focusing on rights-based activism, Keck and Sikkink show how transnational advocacy networks (TANs) can influence domestic politics. The concept of TANs is dominated by the purposeful activism of nongovernmental organizations and driven by shared principles, not professional standards. A number of studies have challenged the core assumptions about the effectiveness of principled human rights activism, arguing that international support plays no significant role compared to the autonomous efforts of domestic activists. One way to overcome these challenges and criticisms is for the transnational activist sector, as well as other types of non-state actors, to move beyond the principles/interests dichotomy and take a closer look at the internal dynamics of participant NGOs.

28 USC § 1782—looking for consensus

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 331-345
Author(s):  
David J Stute
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
The Other ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Definition Of

Abstract Since the 1948 enactment of 28 USC § 1782 in the United States, no consensus has emerged as to the availability of federal court discovery to parties in private foreign or international arbitral proceedings. This year, within months of one another, six federal courts have issued rulings that are widely inconsistent on the availability of section 1782 discovery. The courts have ruled that a proceeding before a private international arbitral tribunal is eligible for section 1782 discovery; that, categorically, no such discovery is available; that the definition of private arbitral tribunal applies to CIETAC; and that discovery is available by virtue of a party’s parallel pursuit of discovery through foreign civil proceedings. As these cases demonstrate, recent US court decisions have brought no predictability, let alone certainty, to the subject. Congress, on the other hand, could and should amend the statute so as to include private tribunals in the scope of section 1782. This article discusses the case law’s state of disarray; proposes a legislative solution; considers the proposed amendment’s merits; and advocates for Congress to act.

scholarly journals The "Super-Network": Fostering Interaction Between Human Rights and Climate Change Institutions

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 32
Author(s):  
Andrea Schapper
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Trade Unions ◽  
Transnational Advocacy ◽  
Climate Regime ◽  
Institutional Interaction ◽  
Youth Groups ◽  
Transnational Advocacy Networks ◽  
Human Rights Regime ◽  
Policy Fields ◽  
Paris Climate Agreement

This article contributes to understanding unique forms of actor constellations and their tactics in fostering institutional interaction. It explores interaction processes between the human rights and the climate regime, and more specifically, the incorporation of human rights in the 2015 Paris climate agreement. During the Paris negotiations, an inter-constituency alliance comprised of environmental movements, human rights organizations, gender activists, indigenous peoples’ representatives, trade unions, youth groups and faith-based organizations successfully lobbied for the incorporation of rights principles into the new climate instrument. I argue that this alliance can be grasped as a "super-network", a network above several individual transnational advocacy networks (TANs), that works across policy fields and uses information, symbols and stories, as well as accountability and leverage politics to foster interaction between a source institution (human rights regime) and a target institution (climate regime). By employing a package approach, which reiterates a core message of common principles individual networks have agreed on, the "super-network" changed the practices of governments in international negotiations and fostered inter-institutional interaction. Empirically, my research is mainly based on expert interviews and participatory observations at the strategic meetings of TANs at three different climate negotiations in Warsaw (2013), Paris (2015) and Bonn (2017), including follow-up skype interviews with key experts between 2013 and 2020.

The Many Faces of Federal Court Deference

Deference ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 13-72
Author(s):  
Gary Lawson ◽  
Guy I. Seidman
Keyword(s):  
Federal Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Raw Material ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Jury Verdicts ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation ◽  
Legal Contexts ◽  
The Many ◽  
Definition Of

US federal courts identify many of their doctrines and activities as acts of deference. This book uses those identifications as the raw material for its inductively derived definition of and framework for deference. Doctrines and practices identified as deference arise in connection with appellate review of findings of fact of legislative, executive, and judicial bodies (including juries); review of legal findings of those bodies; review of policymaking, or discretionary, judgments of those bodies; and review of (or refusals to review) actions of state courts. The scope of deference ranges from total (abstention or absence of review) or near-total (rational basis review of legislative action or jury verdicts) to minimal (so-called Skidmore deference, under which agency legal interpretations receive whatever weight they merit all things considered). Many of the same considerations noted by federal courts appear in legal contexts outside the United States, such as the margin of appreciation doctrine employed by some international tribunals and Wednesbury review in the United Kingdom. This chapter seeks to identify enough instances of deference to allow generalizations about the nature, scope, and reasons for deference that are developed in subsequent chapters.

Human Rights and Transnational Advocacy Networks

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda Murdie ◽  
Marc Polizzi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Transnational Advocacy ◽  
Local Data ◽  
Network Characteristics ◽  
Transnational Advocacy Networks ◽  
Advocacy Network ◽  
Political Networks ◽  
Human Rights Advocacy ◽  
Global And Local ◽  
Future Work

Human rights advocates have been argued to be working as part of a larger “network” of actors supporting the respect and security of individuals. However, until recently, much scholarship in this area has used “network” as a synonym for “connected actors” instead of examining the network characteristics of advocacy actors and the ways in which the nature of the advocacy network could influence human rights outcomes. This chapter examines the growing literature that focuses on human rights advocacy using network theory and methodologies. It outlines both global and local data collection efforts and the state of the literature and addresses how this literature has drawn on the larger political networks literature. It concludes with a call for future work on how the network characteristics of advocacy actors influences both which human rights issues receive international attention and whether this attention translates into improvements in human rights practices on the ground.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document