‘Past’ Violations under International Human Rights Law: The Indigenous ‘Stolen Generation’ in Australia

2005 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 243-272
Author(s):  
Maria O'Sullivan

This article examines the debate relating to reparations for ‘past’ human rights violations, with particular focus on the case of the indigenous ‘Stolen Generation’ in Australia. The ‘Stolen Generation’ is a term used to describe the government-sanctioned practice of forced removals of part-Aboriginal children from their indigenous parents and placement into non-indigenous institutions and homes, which occurred in Australia from approximately 1910–1970. The ‘Stolen Generation’ violations present a unique and difficult legal question for international human rights law because they straddle the divide between ‘historic’ violations and contemporary acts, that is, they were committed by Australia after Australia signed key agreements such as the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the Declaration on the Rights of the Child and the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, but prior to its ratification of international human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. This means that bringing a claim under international human rights law in relation to the violations raises a number of problems. The object of this article will be to explore whether Australia can be held responsible under international human rights law for the ‘Stolen Generation’ violations and possible avenues of redress. In this regard, the focus of the article will be on the possible claims victims could make to relevant treaty monitoring bodies and the types of obstacles they would face in doing so. These legal questions are also relevant to the wider debate that is taking place in relation to reparations, namely the extent to which a State can be held legally responsible to provide reparations for past violations.

Author(s):  
Gráinne de Búrca

This chapter uses the experimentalist framework to examine two processes of social change in Ireland in recent decades—children’s rights reform and reproductive rights reform—which included the engagement of domestic advocacy groups with international human rights law as a key element of those campaigns. In the case of child rights, a coalition of hitherto separate organizations and groups came together following Ireland’s ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and re-oriented their work and advocacy around the idea of children’s rights. By bringing issues before the Committee on the Rights of the Child, and requiring the government to engage repeatedly with the Committee and with the meaning and consequences in practice of the obligations taken on under the Convention, they injected fresh impetus into existing campaigns, opened a public conversation about children’s rights, and placed Ireland’s practices and attitudes towards children and the family in the context of international standards. In the case of abortion law reform which was a bitterly divisive and difficult issue in Ireland, domestic activists drew upon and engaged with a variety of international human rights institutions and laws over decades to keep pressure on the government and the state to introduce change, as well as to create public awareness of the suffering of specific women and to highlight existing and emerging international norms on reproductive rights. Both campaigns ultimately succeeded in pressing for the adoption of a range of important legislative and policy reforms.


2015 ◽  
Vol 84 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-88
Author(s):  
Ntina Tzouvala

The revelation of a series of child abuse incidents committed by Catholic priests and other members of religious orders has given rise to the question of establishing the responsibility of the Holy See for these acts under international human rights law. This article focuses on the report issued in 2014 by the Committee on the Rights of the Child, the monitoring body of the Convention of the Rights of the Child (crc). It is argued that in order to fulfil this task we need to take three steps: first, to establish the relationship between the Vatican City state and the Hole See, a distinct and peculiar international legal subject. To do so, a historical account of the Holy See and its position within the fabric of international law is considered necessary. Secondly, this article argues that the crc was ratified by the Holy See both in its capacity as the government of the Vatican City and as a non-territorial legal subject. Hence, the application of the crc is not confined within the limited territory of the Vatican City, but ‘follows’ the authority of the Holy See irrespective of state borders. Thirdly, it is argued that the vertical, hierarchical structure of the Holy See is homologous to that of the modern state and, therefore, attribution rules can be applied by analogy in this case. The final conclusion is that it is possible to hold the Holy See responsible under the crc for acts of child abuse that occurred under its authority around the globe.


Author(s):  
Rhona K. M. Smith

This chapter examines the scope and application of indigenous peoples’ rights and minority rights in international human rights law. It discusses the recognition of the need for minority protection in the drafting of the International Bill of Human Rights; analyses the provisions of Art 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and describes tests employed to determine minority status. The chapter also considers developments in the protection of minority rights in Europe. The rights of indigenous peoples are also examined.


2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 249-269
Author(s):  
Sarah Joseph

Abstract States have duties under Article 12(2)(c) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to prevent, control and treat covid-19. Implementation of these three obligations is analysed, taking account of countervailing human rights considerations. Regarding prevention, lockdowns designed to stop the spread of the virus are examined. Control measures are then discussed, namely transparency measures, quarantine, testing and tracing. The human rights compatibility of treatment measures, namely the provision of adequate medical and hospital care (or the failure to do so), are then examined. Finally, derogations from human rights treaties in times of pubic emergency are discussed.


1998 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 306-336 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johannes M. M. Chan

The Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance entered into force on 8 June 1991. Its purpose is to incorporate into the law of Hong Kong the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“the ICCPR”) as applied to Hong Kong. Being one of the first occasions where the ICCPR has been given direct legal force in a common law jurisdiction, the Hong Kong experience will provide an interesting case study on how an international human rights instrument is received and interpreted in domestic law. Indeed, shortly after the coming into operation of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, the late Professor Opsahl predicted that it would give the ICCPR, and by implication the Human Rights Committee, a potential impact on the Hong Kong domestic legal system which could hardly be expected in other countries. He even suggested that, in dealing with matters which the Human Rights Committee has not yet considered, the interpretation of the Hong Kong courts in applying the Bill of Rights may provide a useful supplement to international human rights law. The Bill of Rights Ordinance is now seven years old. This article will address two issues: first, the impact international and comparative jurisprudence has had on the interpretation of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights and, second, the contribution the Hong Kong jurisprudence on the Bill of Rights has or could have made to the development of international and comparative human rights law.


2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 48-66
Author(s):  
Farnaz Raees Kazemi ◽  
Moosa Akefi Ghaziani

George Floyd’s murder by the police in Minneapolis provoked widespread political agitation across the country. It once again highlighted the problematic racial dimension of policing and eggregious violation of human rights commitments on the part of the government. In this article we explore how the human rights law and racism in the United States interact with each other? We employ qualitative research based on descriptive-analytical method and divide the article in four parts: a brief introduction, a historical background of racism, a conceptual comprehension of racial discrimination and a brief survey of the international human rights instruments against racism, and the onground situation of racial discrimination in the country. We conclude that the process of negotiation between human rights law and racism in the United States is far from settled yet.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document