scholarly journals Gender, Gays and Gain: The Sexualised Politics of Donor Aid in Malawi

2013 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emmie Chanika ◽  
John L. Lwanda ◽  
Adamson S. Muula
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Gay Rights ◽  
Cultural Discourses ◽  
Binary Approach ◽  
The Government ◽  
Rights Issue ◽  
Further Development ◽  
Secular State

Many Malawian politicians have exploited religious and cultural discourses, encouraging the discourse of the “God-fearing Malawi nation” while also acknowledging the country as a secular state. This discourse -which most recently underwent further development in the early 1980s when Christians and Muslims, funded by donor money, accelerated their evangelical drives in the context of a one-party Malawi – resonates with a patriarchal, conservative political dispensation. This paper traces the evolution of the “God-fearing nation” discourse in Malawian politics. It posits that the government used the “gay rights issue” as a strategy to disorient human rights activists and donors. Gay rights were de-linked from other civil rights, forcing a binary approach toward gay rights, which were seen by government supporters as “anti-Christian”, “anti-Malawian” concepts. The debate with donors enabled the government to claim “sovereign autonomy” and galvanise the population into an anti-aid mentality (better no aid than aid that supports homosexuality).

Baka and the Magic of the State: Between Autochthony and Citizenship

2006 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
pp. 69-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alec Leonhardt
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Political Culture ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Working Group ◽  
The State ◽  
Policy Agenda ◽  
The Hierarchical Structure ◽  
Rights Issue ◽  
Existing Structure

Abstract:While Baka “Pygmies” are regarded as among Africa's most indigenous peoples, their autochthony seems lacking in features that would give them standing for special consideration by die state. Somehow, indigenousness does not equal autochthony. Other mobile indigenous peoples such as traders and pastoralists have also been seen as less than autochthonous. These groups lack “roots in the soil,” which makes them less subject to the authority of the state than farmers. Further, as an acephalous society, Baka political culture cannot be appropriately adjusted to interact with the hierarchical structure of the state and related institutions. For this reason the problematic autochthony of Baka is less an issue of rights within the existing structure of the state—of civil rights—than of human rights. Unfortunately, this human rights issue is not really on any policy agenda, not even that of the working group for the U.N. Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

scholarly journals Overview of Nigeria’s 2nd Universal Periodic Review National Report

2021 ◽  
Vol 04 (06) ◽  
Author(s):  
Uchenna Emelonye ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Periodic Review ◽  
Consultative Committee ◽  
Human Rights Council ◽  
National Report ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Consultative Process ◽  
The Government ◽  
Rights Issue ◽  
Fourth Session

With the creation of the Human Rights Council Universal Period Review, its Working Group established in accordance with Human Rights Council Resolution 5/1 of 18th June, 2007 held its fourth session from 2nd to 13th of February, 2009 to review the human rights record of countries including Nigeria.2 In preparation for the review, the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria had constituted a broad-based UPR National Consultative Committee tasked with the responsibility of compiling its first national report on the steps taken as well as the challenges faced in the fulfilment of its treaty obligations. The Committee which comprised representatives from diverse stakeholders working for the promotion and protection of human rights in Nigeria subsequently convened the National Consultative Forum (NCF) and after series of meetings, produced the country’s first UPR national report, through a consultative process that climaxed in a national validation conference. During the deliberation of the forum, every human rights issue was openly discussed and participants were able to express their views freely. The outcome of the NCF is faithfully reflected in the national report.

scholarly journals THE RHETORIC OF RIGHTS IN THE UK CHRISTIAN CHURCHES REGARDING NON-HETEROSEXUAL CITIZENSHIP

2010 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 183-200
Author(s):  
Stephen J.Hunt
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Gay Rights ◽  
Well Being ◽  
The Other ◽  
Faith Communities ◽  
Christian Churches ◽  
The One ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Religious Morality

One of the major deliberations, indeed source of conflict, within and between Christian churches across the globe is what might be termed the ‘gay debate’. This debate is not merely related to the legitimacy of civil marriages, gay clergy, alongside the broader issue of the citizenship and well-being of gay people within the churches, but has expanded to embrace other forms of non-heterosexuality, including bi-sexuality and transgenderism/sexuality and issues regarding their natures. The debate has also been impacted by matters of secular civil rights and the human rights upon which they are contingent. Christian churches, alongside additional faith communities, are now forced to confront legislation that increasingly sanctions matters of citizenship and equality for non-heterosexual people in the wider social context. This paper considers the major Christian debates in the UK and how both those sympathetic to the cause of gay rights and those opposed are forced to integrate the rhetoric of rights into their respective platforms. Analysis includes examination of the contestation between those advancing such rights on the one hand, and those who oppose them on the basis of religious morality and conscience, in short, religious rights, on the other.

Interview with Omar Shakir

2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 127-137
Author(s):  
Noura Erakat
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Committee Member ◽  
Editorial Committee ◽  
Rutgers University ◽  
Human Rights Advocacy ◽  
University Professor ◽  
The Government ◽  
Israeli Supreme Court

In late November 2019, the Israeli Supreme Court upheld the Ministry of Interior's order to deport Human Rights Watch (HRW) director for Israel and Palestine, Omar Shakir. The court based its decision on a 2017 amendment to Israel's 1952 Entry into Israel Law enabling the government to refuse entry to foreigners who allegedly advocate for the boycott of Israel. The same law was invoked to deny entry to U.S. congresswomen Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar in the summer of 2019. The campaign against Shakir began almost immediately after he was hired by HRW in 2016, and the court's decision marked the culmination of a multi-year battle against the deportation order. In this interview, JPS Editorial Committee member, Rutgers University professor, and author Noura Erakat discusses the details of his case with Shakir in an exchange that also examines the implications of the case for human rights advocacy, in general, and for Palestinians, in particular. The interview was edited for length and clarity.

A Call for Public Participation in the Treaty-making Process in South Africa: What can South Africa Learn from the Kingdom of Thailand?

2020 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Retselisitsoe Phooko
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Participation ◽  
International Treaty ◽  
Legal Implications ◽  
Future Situation ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Government ◽  
Personal Jurisdiction

On 2 August 2002 South Africa signed the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Protocol on Tribunal and the Rules of Procedure Thereof, thus effectively recognising and accepting the jurisdiction of the SADC Tribunal. Among the cases received by the SADC Tribunal was a complaint involving allegations of human rights violations by the government of Zimbabwe. It ruled that the government of Zimbabwe had violated human rights. Consequently, Zimbabwe mounted a politico-legal challenge against the existence of the Tribunal. This resulted in the review of the role and functions of the Tribunal in 2011 which resulted in the Tribunal being barred from receiving new cases or proceeding with the cases that were already before it. Furthermore, on 18 August 2014, the SADC Summit adopted and signed the 2014 Protocol on the Tribunal in the SADC which disturbingly limits personal jurisdiction by denying individual access to the envisaged Tribunal, thus reducing it to an inter-state judicial forum. This article critically looks at the decision of 18 August 2014, specifically the legal implications of the Republic of South Africa’s signing of the 2014 Protocol outside the permissible procedure contained in article 37 of the SADC Protocol on the Tribunal. It proposes that South Africa should correct this democratic deficit by introducing public participation in treaty-making processes in order to prevent a future situation where the executive unilaterally withdraws from an international treaty that is meant to protect human rights at a regional level. To achieve this, this article makes a comparative study between South Africa and the Kingdom of Thailand to learn of any best practices from the latter.

American and Canadian Civil Actions Alleging Human Rights Violations Abroad by Oil and Gas Companies

2008 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 653 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Horlick ◽  
Joe Cyr ◽  
Scott Reynolds ◽  
Andrew Behrman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
The United States ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Law Of Nations ◽  
Forum Non Conveniens ◽  
The Government ◽  
Oil And Gas Companies ◽  
Political Question ◽  
The U.S

Under the United States Alien Tort Statute, which permits non-U.S. citizens to bring lawsuits in U.S. courts for human rights violations that are violations of the law of nations, plaintiffs have filed claims against multinational oil and gas corporations for the direct or complicit commission of such violations carried out by the government of the country in which the corporation operated. In addition to exercising jurisdiction over U.S. corporations, U.S. courts have exercised jurisdiction in cases involving non-U.S. defendants for alleged wrongful conduct against non-U.S. plaintiffs committed outside the U.S.The exercise of jurisdiction by U.S. courts over non-U.S. defendants for alleged wrongful conduct against non-U.S. plaintiffs committed outside of the U.S. raises serious questions as to the jurisdictional foundation on which the power of U.S. courts to adjudicate them rests. Defences that foreign defendants can raise against the exercise of jurisdiction by the U.S. courts are an objection to the extraterritorial assertion of jurisdiction, the act of state doctrine, the political question doctrine, forum non conveniens, and the principle of comity. These defences are bolstered by the support of the defendant’s home government and other governments.

Human Rights Activities as a Function of the Prosecutor’s Office

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 88-93
Author(s):  
K.N. Golikov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
The State ◽  
Main Function ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law

The subject of this article is the problems of the nature, essence and purpose of prosecutorial activity. The purpose of the article is to study and justify the role of the human rights function in prosecutorial activities in the concept of a modern legal state. At the heart of prosecutorial activity is the implementation of the main function of the Prosecutor’s office – its rights and freedoms, their protection. This means that any type (branch) of Prosecutor's supervision is permeated with human rights content in relation to a citizen, society, or the state. This is confirmed by the fact that the Federal law “On the Prosecutor's office of the Russian Federation” establishes an independent type of Prosecutor's supervision-supervision over the observance of human and civil rights and freedoms. It is argued that the legislation enshrines the human rights activities of the Prosecutor's office as its most important function. It is proposed to add this to the Law “On the Prosecutor's office of the Russian Federation”.

Lawyers as Activists

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael C. Dorf ◽  
Michael S. Chu
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Social Media ◽  
Social Change ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Court Action ◽  
The Government ◽  
Trump Administration

Lawyers played a key role in challenging the Trump administration’s Travel Ban on entry into the United States of nationals from various majority-Muslim nations. Responding to calls from nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), which were amplified by social media, lawyers responded to the Travel Ban’s chaotic rollout by providing assistance to foreign travelers at airports. Their efforts led to initial court victories, which in turn led the government to soften the Ban somewhat in two superseding executive actions. The lawyers’ work also contributed to the broader resistance to the Trump administration by dramatizing its bigotry, callousness, cruelty, and lawlessness. The efficacy of the lawyers’ resistance to the Travel Ban shows that, contrary to strong claims about the limits of court action, litigation can promote social change. General lessons about lawyer activism in ordinary times are difficult to draw, however, because of the extraordinary threat Trump poses to civil rights and the rule of law.

Contributory Fault under International Law: A Gateway for Human Rights in ISDS?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Farouk El-Hosseny ◽  
Patrick Devine
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Multinational Enterprises ◽  
Indigenous Rights ◽  
Business And Human Rights ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
The Government ◽  
Bear Creek ◽  
Shed Light

Abstract The intersection between foreign investment and human rights is gaining attention, as is evident from an increasing number of investment treaty awards analysing legal issues relating to human rights. In the recent International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) arbitration of Bear Creek v Peru, Philippe Sands QC posited, in a dissenting opinion, that the investor’s contribution to events—ie protests against its allegedly adverse environmental impact and disregard of indigenous rights, namely resulting from its ‘inability to obtain a “social licence”’—which led to the unlawful expropriation of its investment, was ‘significant and material’. He further noted that the investor’s ‘responsibilities are no less than those of the government’ and found that damages should thus be reduced. Last year, the Netherlands adopted a new model bilateral investment treaty (BIT), which allows tribunals to ‘take into account non-compliance by the investor with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises’ when assessing damages. These recent developments shed light on how states and tribunals, as part of their decision-making process, can take into account human rights in practice, and crucially in respect of damages analyses. By first dissecting the concept of contributory fault, then shedding light on the intersection of investment treaty law and human rights, as elucidated in recent jurisprudence, this article questions whether there now exists a gateway for human rights obligations (soft or hard) in the investment treaty arbitration realm through the concept of contributory fault.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document