Human rights abuses in the wake of the collapse of the United Nations-designated 'safe area' of Srebrenica and the international community

1996 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-72
Author(s):  
Ivan Lupis
2020 ◽  
Vol 64 (4) ◽  
pp. 906-918
Author(s):  
Lora DiBlasi

Abstract Researchers have identified naming and shaming as a strategy used by the international community to reprimand state leaders for their repressive actions. Previous research indicates that there is variation in the success of this tactic. One reason for the heterogeneity in success is that leaders with an interest in repressing opposition but avoiding international condemnation have adapted their behavior, at least partially, to avoid naming and shaming. For instance, some states choose to create and utilize alternative security apparatuses, such as pro-government militias (PGMs), to carry out these repressive acts. Creating or aligning with PGMs allows leaders to distance themselves from the execution of violence while reaping the rewards of repression. This analysis explores this dynamic. In particular, I examine how naming and shaming by Amnesty International and the United Nations Commission on Human Rights influences the creation of PGMs to skirt future international condemnation by the offending state for all states from 1986 to 2000. I find that countries are more likely to create PGMs, especially informal PGMs, after their human rights abuses have been put in the spotlight by the international community.


2002 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 265-289 ◽  
Author(s):  

Abstract‘NGOs and, more generally, organizations of the civil society, no longer simply have a consumer relationship with the United Nations. They have increasingly assumed the role of promoters of new ideas, they alerted the international community to emerging issues, and they have developed expertise and talent which, in an increasing number of areas, have become vital to the work of the United Nations, both at the policy and operational levels.’


2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eyassu Gayim

The international regime of human rights is concerned with the kinds of freedoms, liberties, benefits, autonomy and protection which we are entitled to, and the corresponding obligations that flow from these. The sources, foundation and justifications for these rights and who we are by nature to deserve them have always been controversial, not least because we live in social context which require meeting the requirements of political order, stability, and the general welfare. This paper re-visits some of the contentious positions surrounding the discourse on human rights. The goal is to reveal how the international community navigated when shaping the contours of the regime of human rights. In this regard efforts will be made to cast light on some of the contentious positions that have been endorsed, rejected or avoided by the United Nations. This may make one wonder whether the international regime of human rights follows a clear political ideology.


2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 196-198
Author(s):  
Theophilus Kwek

In February 2017, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) released a damning report of human rights abuses perpetrated against the Rohingya. The report was based on interviews with Rohingya fleeing from Myanmar since 9 October 2016, with research continuing up to January 2017. Many recounted personal experiences of violence and physical, life-threatening harm. The report received some attention among humanitarian agencies (many of which have been banned from accessing Rakhine state) but was largely ignored by the international press. Headlines that week focused on the Trump administration’s attempts to defend its travel ban. This poem contains fragments and modifications of the report. It is not an attempt to supplant the voices of those at the heart of the report, but—by stripping down its language—an attempt to make (and mend) our ways of reading (and hearing) their stories.


2021 ◽  
pp. 77
Author(s):  
Susan Page

It is easy for Americans to think that the world’s most egregious human rights abuses happen in other countries. In reality, our history is plagued by injustices, and our present reality is still stained by racism and inequality. While the Michigan Journal of International Law usually publishes only pieces with a global focus, we felt it prudent in these critically important times not to shy away from the problems facing our own country. We must understand our own history before we can strive to form a better union, whether the union be the United States or the United Nations. Ambassador Susan Page is an American diplomat who has faced human rights crises both at home and abroad. We found her following call to action inspiring. We hope you do too.


Author(s):  
Sarah Louise Nash

This chapter looks at a silence that is surprising because it is well established in elite policy making of the United Nations and the international community broadly, backed up with legal documents, norms and accepted parlance, but which prior to and indeed during the Paris Conference of the Parties (COP) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) remained on the margins of the policy-making discourse: human rights. Climate change and human rights are not unusual bedfellows, with academics drawing on the utility of human rights as an analytical approach to the societal effects of climate change, and the link also featuring frequently and prominently within UN fora. Against this background, it is notable that human rights does not have a more prominent position in the policy-making discourse on migration and climate change. For this analysis, it is important to stress that human rights is a relative silence in the policy-making discourse on the migration and climate change nexus. It is described as such because human rights do actually feature in the discourse and have been very much present in broader debates surrounding the nexus.


2020 ◽  
Vol 76 (2) ◽  
pp. 185-206
Author(s):  
Ashwath Komath

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) has been a promising instrument in the hands of the United Nations Human Rights Council. With more emphasis on constructive criticism than an adversarial approach, it was thought that this method would help states to improve their human rights records. This article takes the case of India’s last review through this process and derives various trends and patterns of interaction with other states. It starts by outlining the process of the UPR itself and how it works procedurally, after which it highlights India’s presentation of its human rights record, and subsequently how the international community reacted to it. One of the core arguments of this article is that when it comes to human rights, it is important to analyse its politics through a regional lens since geographical continuities determine an overall outlook towards human rights and priorities that states highlight when they consider human rights records on the whole. This is further substantiated by looking at instances when bilateralism has not succeeded in its goals. It also makes certain statistical inferences after close examination of the recommendations posed by states, as well as India’s response (or lack thereof) to those recommendations. The article also highlights certain cases from India’s domestic developments to see how it plays out in the international community and their perception of India’s human rights record.


Author(s):  
Marcia Waldron

SummaryThe United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women provided an important occasion for the international community to assess and to develop its political commitment to the protection of the human rights of women. The author discusses the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action that resulted from the conference and considers whether international machineries for the enforcement of rights will be adequate to deal with rights that traditionally have been marginalized. Recognizing the past and current limitations of international mechanisms, the author argues that working within mainstream institutions as well as developing independent special procedures are necessary measures to ensure that the international system reflects the needs of women.


1986 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 225-237
Author(s):  
Shanti Sadiq Ali

The principle of the elimination of racism and racial discrimination, of which apartheid is an institutionalised form, has become one of the cornerstones of the international community's concerns. As the community's watchdog, the United Nations has accorded, a high priority to this principle. Article 56 of the United Nations Charter stipulates thatbn ‘all members pledge themselves to take joint action in cooperation with the Organisation for the achievement of the purposes set forth in Article 55’, which includes ‘universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.’ Equally, the concern of the international community has been evident in the progressive evolution of the General Assembly's recommendations, resolutions and decisions, of the relevant international instruments, of its policy of sanctions, albeit by no means satisfactory, and the prominence this principle receives in various UN organs and activities, in particular the programmes undertaken under the Decade for Action to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination. However, the supportive role of the United Nations in the struggle being waged against apartheid within South Africa and Namibia, highly commendable though it is, has unfortunately been considerably weakened by the lack of consensus in dealing with systematic violations of international norms by the Pretoria regime for the maintenance of apartheid, as well as over the strategies to be adopted to resist this unjust and oppressive system. In the specific context of the present structure of the United Nations, particularly the powers given to the Security Council, these divergencies are found to be major constraints as they have the inevitable impact of impeding enforcement measures. As a consequence today, the continuing gulf between international law and reality threatens the very credibility of the world organisation especially as far as its human rights policies with regard to South Africa are concerned. The struggle within the United Nations system against apartheid, inevitably slow moving, nonetheless continues as can be seen from the evolution of measures taken. It will also be seen that the world body, undeterred by persistent disagreements over principle, its interpretation and enforcement, continues to explore possible options in shaping policies to be able to deal more effectively with the scourge of apartheid and thereby strengthen the ethical foundations of the international community and a civilised system of peaceful coexistence. The situation, therefore, though highly complicated, is not entirely hopeless. On the contrary there is room for optimism that meaningful consequences will emerge from these efforts of the United Nations to eliminate apartheid as well as to bring about a qualitative change in and protection of a whole range of human rights.


2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 86-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin C. Chang

The United Nations’ mandate in a peace operation can be multi-dimensional, ranging from ceasefire monitoring to investigating human rights abuses to post-conflict stabilisation and recovery. The exercise of wide-ranging powers comes with risks of failure and unintended consequences. Like any organisation, the un is subject to flaws in decision-making that may result in harmful impact to the local population. Until recent times, international lawyers have paid scant attention to the un’s potential to inflict harm in the pursuit of its noble aims. The expansion of the un’s role over the decades has given rise to greater awareness of its accountability gap under international and municipal laws. The organisation’s response to recent claims from third parties illustrates the challenges that lie before victims in attaining accountability in a manner consistent with international human rights standards. This article examines the multifarious questions of accountability of the un toward third parties in peace operations. It argues that greater accountability is most practically achieved not through attempts to close gaps in international law, but through giving effect to existing mechanisms by applying a balancing approach to immunity and strengthening internal oversight and redress mechanisms.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document