Test Case for International and ‘Minority Rights’: Chechnya, World Order and the ‘Right to be Left Alone’

2000 ◽  
pp. 127-161
Keyword(s):  
World Order ◽  
Minority Rights ◽  
Test Case ◽  
The Right

The International Criminal Court's Provisional Authority to Coerce

2012 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Franceschet
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Civil Wars ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
World Order ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
The World ◽  
The Will ◽  
The Right

The United Nations ad hoc tribunals in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda had primacy over national judicial agents for crimes committed in these countries during the most notorious civil wars and genocide of the 1990s. The UN Charter granted the Security Council the right to establish a tribunal for Yugoslavia in the context of ongoing civil war and against the will of recalcitrant national agents. The Council used that same right to punish individuals responsible for a genocide that it failed earlier to prevent in Rwanda. In both cases the Council delegated a portion of its coercive title to independent tribunal agents, thereby overriding the default locus of punishment in the world order: sovereign states.

I. The Northern Ireland Peace Agreement, Minority Rights and Self-Determination

1998 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 943-950 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin Warbrick ◽  
Dominic McGoldrick ◽  
Geoff Gilbert
Keyword(s):  
Northern Ireland ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
Religious Affiliation ◽  
Holistic Approach ◽  
Minority Rights ◽  
The Other ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Peace Agreement ◽  
The Troubles ◽  
The Right

The Northern Ireland Peace Agreement1 was concluded following multi-party negotiations on Good Friday, 10 April 1998. It received 71 per cent approval in Northern Ireland and 95 per cent approval in the Republic of Ireland in the subsequent referenda held on Friday 22 May, the day after Ascension. To some, it must have seemed that the timing was singularly appropriate following 30 years of “The Troubles”, which were perceived as being between a “Catholic minority” and a “Protestant majority”. While there are some minority groups identified by their religious affiliation that do require rights relating only to their religion, such as the right to worship in community,2 to practise and profess their religion,3 to legal recognition as a church,4 to hold property5 and to determine its own membership,6 some minority groups identified by their religious affiliation are properly national or ethnic minorities–religion is merely one factor which distinguishes them from the other groups, including the majority, in the population. One example of the latter situation is to be seen in (Northern) Ireland where there is, in fact, untypically, a double minority: the Catholic-nationalist community is a minority in Northern Ireland, but the Protestant-unionist population is a minority in the island of Ireland as a whole.7 The territory of Northern Ireland is geographically separate from the rest of the United Kingdom. The recent peace agreement addresses a whole range of issues for Northern Ireland, but included are, on the one hand, rights for the populations based on their religious affiliation, their culture and their language and, on the other, rights with respect to their political participation up to the point of external self-determination. It is a holistic approach. Like any good minority rights agreement,8 it deals with both standards and their implementation and, like any good minority rights agreement, it is not a minority rights agreement but, rather, a peace settlement.

World Order after Caucasian War

2010 ◽  
pp. 11-17
Author(s):  
V. Sheinis
Keyword(s):  
World Order ◽  
Double Standard ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Policy Choice ◽  
International Policy ◽  
The World ◽  
The Right ◽  
Supranational Institutions ◽  
The U.S

The world order based on Yalta and Potsdam decisions as well as on two nuclear superpowers infighting has filed as a history. What is coming up to take its place? A correlation between power and law in international policy, national sovereignty and supranational institutions, territorial integrity of states and the right of nations to self-determination, bloc infighting atavisms, so called "double standard" and international interventions – these are critical debating points that the author develops his own approach to. The role of the U.S. in world policy, and the foreign policy choice of Russia are also examined.

Fundamental freedoms

2021 ◽  
pp. 191-262
Author(s):  
William A. Schabas
Keyword(s):  
Family Life ◽  
Trade Unions ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Minority Rights ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Political Democracy ◽  
Freedom Of Association ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Family Mobility ◽  
The Right

Fundamental freedoms is an allusion to Roosevelt’s ‘four freedoms’, although they now tend to be associated with those that fall under civil and political rights: freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of association. They have a degree of relativity, being subject to restrictions or limitations dictated by certain criteria including public morals and the rights of others. They have important links to political democracy, the rights of labour and trade unions, and minority rights. Other rights that may be labelled ‘fundamental freedoms’ are the right to private and family life, the right to marry and to found a family, mobility rights, nationality and the right to property.

The Place of the Niqab in the Courtroom

ICL Journal ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Vrinda Narain
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Minority Rights ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Freedom Of Religion ◽  
Reasonable Accommodation ◽  
Critical Multiculturalism ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Religious Reasons

AbstractThis paper analyzes the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R v NS, 2012 SCC 72 where the Court considered if a witness who wears a niqab for religious reasons can be required to remove it while testifying. The Court identified the two Charter rights engaged: the witness’ freedom of religion and the accused’s fair trial rights, including the right to make full answer and defense. This paper focuses on those aspects of the Supreme Court’s decision that relate to religious freedom, multiculturalism and reasonable accommodation. Analyzing the Court’s reasoning through the lens of critical multiculturalism, I consider the potential of the reasonable accommodation framework to forward minority rights. I suggest that had the Supreme Court applied an intersectional framework to adjudicating NS’s claim, it could have crafted a more contextual response based on her location along multiple axes of discrimination: gender, religion and racialised minority. This paper aims to contribute to a better understanding of mediating individual and group tensions, to move towards a more inclusive notion of citizenship than can foster a commitment to a shared multicultural future.

The Uncomfortable Balance between a Minority and a People: The Global/Local Disconnect

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 254-272
Author(s):  
Parvathi Menon
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Personal Characteristic ◽  
Minority Rights ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Minority Protection ◽  
Political Processes ◽  
Minority Identity ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Relationship

The legitimacy of secessionist movements has emerged as an important debate, while the protection of minorities within a democracy has become merely of peripheral interest to international law. My project suggests that the advent of universalized (minority) rights re-conceptualized the majority-minority relationship and its balance, reducing the possibilities of political processes to balance the relationship. What was construed as a redress for dichotomous relationships between the oppressor and the oppressed through (the right to) self-determination, became a discourse between minority (identity) rights and a democratic entitlement, post-colonially. These norms universalized a demand to rethink minority protection, no longer from the perspective of advantaged and disadvantaged; rather, to introduce perspectives of individuals polarized around a personal characteristic in their identity thus establishing/reinforcing the inferiority of their identity within the hierarchy.

What's Left of the Right: Nabeyama Sadachika and Anti-communism in Transwar Japan, 1930–1960

2019 ◽  
Vol 79 (2) ◽  
pp. 403-427
Author(s):  
Reto Hofmann
Keyword(s):  
Political Culture ◽  
World Order ◽  
Republic Of China ◽  
Japanese Politics ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
The Face ◽  
Emperor System ◽  
Political Traditions ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right

This article examines the thought and career of Nabeyama Sadachika (1901–79) from communist militant in 1920s Japan to his conversion to the emperor system in the 1930s and, finally, to his role in shaping the postwar anti-communist movement. Using Nabeyama's recently released private papers, the article shows how he brokered his anti-communist expertise to a range of postwar actors and institutions—the police, the Self-Defense Forces, business circles, politicians—as well as to foreign states, especially the Republic of China (Taiwan). These networks indicate that important sections of Japan's postwar establishment rallied behind anti-communism in the face of reforms that threatened their power at home and their vision for Japan in the world order after 1945. As a transwar history, this article adds to our understanding of Japan's transition from the age of empire to that of liberal democracy by qualifying narratives about the “progressive” nature of postwar Japanese politics. It argues that the vitality of anti-communism is symptomatic of the durability of particular political traditions, and reveals that, despite the significant reforms that Japan underwent after 1945, the Right was able to claim a space in the country's political culture that has been neglected by historians.

scholarly journals Ethics and international law: integrating the global justice project(s)

2013 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Ratner
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Global Justice ◽  
Interdisciplinary Approach ◽  
World Order ◽  
The Other ◽  
Just World ◽  
Missed Opportunities ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Cost

Academic discourse on global justice is at an all-time high. Within ethics and international law, scholars are undertaking new inquiries into age-old questions of building a just world order. Ethics – within political and moral philosophy – poses fundamental questions about responsibilities at the global level and produces a tightly reasoned set of frameworks regarding world order. International law, with its focus on legal norms and institutional arrangements, provides a path, as well as illuminates the obstacles, to implementing theories of the right or of the good. Yet despite the complementarity of these two projects, neither is drawing what it should from the other. The result is ethical scholarship that often avoids, or even misinterprets, the law; and law that marginalizes ethics even as it recognizes the importance of justice. The cost of this avoidance is a set of missed opportunities for both fields. This article seeks to help transform the limited dialogue between philosophers and international lawyers into a meaningful collaboration. Through a critical stocktaking of the contributions of the two disciplines, examining where they do and do not engage with the other, it offers an appraisal of the causes and costs of separation and an argument for an interdisciplinary approach.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document