scholarly journals Evaluating Competing “Democratic” Discourses: The Impact on Human Rights Protection in Southeast Asia

2014 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 49-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Gomez ◽  
Robin Ramcharan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Southeast Asia ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Cultural Dimension ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Complex Interactions ◽  
Human Rights Regime ◽  
Global And Local ◽  
The Impact

This paper evaluates the impact of competing “democratic” discourses on human rights protection in Southeast Asia. The authors identify three key discourses emanating from a set of national governmental policies, advocacy positions promoted by both global and local civil society and international standards and procedures adopted by members of inter-governmental organisations. These discourses, the authors argue, are collectively shaping the emerging ASEAN inter-governmental human rights regime. The political impact of these competing “democratic” discourses and their complex interactions bring a cultural dimension to regional human rights. The authors argue that observers seeking to understand the emergence of norms, the establishment of institutions and their capacity to collectively protect regional human rights, need to understand these competing discourses.

scholarly journals Constructing an Inadequate Human Rights Regime: Indonesia and the Deliberate Weakening of the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights Authority

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Darwis
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Southeast Asia ◽  
Stability Theory ◽  
Political Will ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Human Rights Regime ◽  
Human Rights Norms ◽  
Hegemonic Stability

The establishment of the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights in 2019 provided hopes for the advancement of human rights in Southeast Asia. As a region that puts forward the notions of consensus and non-sovereignty, concluding regional human rights norms is seen as a first step in solidifying human rights protection in the region. Unfortunately, since its establishment, the commission has failed to fulfill the expectations to implement protection-based regional norms in Southeast Asia, measured by their failure to effectively respond to systemic human rights abuses in the region. This article employs the Neoliberal Institutionalist’s view of Hegemonic Stability Theory (specifically to Robert Keohane) in analyzing how regional hegemons such as Indonesia, have deliberately directed the establishment of a weak human rights regime, in the form of the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights, which is proven by; (1) The Commission’s deficiencies in human rights protection, and (2) Indonesia’s lack of political will in solidifying human rights regimes in Southeast Asia.

scholarly journals Constructing an Inadequate Human Rights Regime: Indonesia and the Deliberate Weakening of the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights Authority

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Darwis
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Southeast Asia ◽  
Stability Theory ◽  
Political Will ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Human Rights Regime ◽  
Human Rights Norms ◽  
Hegemonic Stability

The establishment of the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights in 2019 provided hopes for the advancement of human rights in Southeast Asia. As a region that puts forward the notions of consensus and non-sovereignty, concluding regional human rights norms is seen as a first step in solidifying human rights protection in the region. Unfortunately, since its establishment, the commission has failed to fulfill the expectations to implement protection-based regional norms in Southeast Asia, measured by their failure to effectively respond to systemic human rights abuses in the region. This article employs the Neoliberal Institutionalist’s view of Hegemonic Stability Theory (specifically to Robert Keohane) in analyzing how regional hegemons such as Indonesia, have deliberately directed the establishment of a weak human rights regime, in the form of the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights, which is proven by; (1) The Commission’s deficiencies in human rights protection, and (2) Indonesia’s lack of political will in solidifying human rights regimes in Southeast Asia.

La desaparición forzada de los normalistas de Ayotzinapa. Una tragedia para reflexionar desde la óptica del sistema interamericano de protección de los derechos humanos

2018 ◽  
pp. 97
Author(s):  
Pietro Sferrazza Taibi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Rural Teachers ◽  
Teachers College ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Derechos Humanos ◽  
Mexican State ◽  
The Creation ◽  
Precautionary Measures

ResumenLa desaparición forzada de los estudiantes normalistas ocurrida en septiembre de 2014 en las cercanías de la localidad mexicana de Ayotzinapa es una tragedia que, además de captar la atención de la prensa internacional, ha activado el funcionamiento de algunos mecanismos del sistema interamericano de protección de los derechos humanos. Este trabajo pretende analizar de qué manera la creación del Grupo Interdisciplinario de Expertos Independientes (GIEI) puede incidir en la determinación de la responsabilidad internacional del Estado Mexicano por el incumplimiento de los estándares internacionales interamericanos sobre prevención, investigación y sanción de la desaparición forzada. En aquel sentido, este trabajo se dividirá en tres secciones. En la primera de ellas se describirán brevemente los hechos, a fin de demarcar el contexto fáctico a partir del cual se reflexionará. La segunda sección hará referencia a la creación del GIEI en el marco de las medidas cautelares adoptadas por la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (Comisión IDH) en este caso. En la tercera y última sección, se valorará si las obligaciones generales de respeto y garantía han sido vulneradas en este caso, centrando el foco de atención en los deberes específcos de prevención e investigación.Palabras clave: Ayotzinapa; Grupo Interdisciplinario de Expertos Independientes; Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos; desaparición forzada.ResumoO desaparecimento forçado de estudantes normalistas acontecida em setembro de 2014 perto da cidade mexicana de Ayotzinapa é uma tragédia que, além de capturar a atenção da imprensa internacional, permitiu o funcionamento de determinados mecanismos do sistema interamericano de proteção dos direitos humanos. Este trabalho pretende analisar de que forma a criação do Grupo Interdisciplinar de Peritos Independentes (GIEI) podem afetar na determinação da responsabilidade internacional do Estado Mexicano pelo incumprimento dos padrões internacionais interamericanos sobre a prevenção, investigação e punição de desaparecimento forçado. Nesse sentido, este trabalho será dividido em três seções. No primeiro deles, os fatos serão brevemente descritos, a fm de demarcar o contexto factual a partir do qual será refletido. A segunda seção referirá a criação do GIEI no marco das medidas cautelaresadotadas pela Comissão Interamericana de Direitos Humanos (Comissão IDH) no presente caso. Na terceira e última seção, vai ser valorado se as obrigações gerais de respeito e garantia foram vulneradas neste caso, centrando o foco de atenção nos deveres específcos de prevenção e investigação.Palavras-chave: Ayotzinapa; Grupo Interdisciplinar de Peritos Independentes; Comissão Interamericana de Direitos Humanos; desaparecimento forçado.AbstractThe forced disappearance of the students of the rural teachers’ college in September of 2014 in the surroundings of the Mexican town of Ayotzinapa is a tragedy that, besides capturing the attention of the international press, has activated the functioning of some mechanisms of the Inter-American Human Rights Protection System. This work aims to analyze in which ways the creation of the Interdisciplinary Group of Independent Experts (GIEI) can underscore the determination of the international responsibility of the Mexican State for the non-compliance of the Inter-American international standards on prevention, investigation and punishment of the enforced disappearance. In that sense, this paper will be divided in three sections. The frst one will briefly describe the facts, to demarcate the factual circumstances from which it will be reflected. The second section will address the creation of the GIEI within the framework of the precautionary measures adopted by the Inter-American Commissionof Human Rights (IACHR) in this matter. The third and last section will evaluate whether the general obligations to respect and ensure human rights have been violated in this case, focusing on the specifc duties of prevention and investigation.Keywords: Ayotzinapa, Interdisciplinary Group of Independent Experts, Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, forced disappearance.

Australian Bills of Rights and the ‘New Commonwealth Model of Constitutionalism’

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Evans ◽  
Julia Watson
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
High Court ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Key Features ◽  
The Uk ◽  
High Court Of Australia ◽  
The Impact

This chapter examines the influence of the new Commonwealth model of human rights protection (exemplified by the UK Human Rights Act 1998) on the form of the two Australian statutory Bills of Rights, and then considers the impact of Australia's distinctive legal culture and constitutional structure on the operation of these instruments. In particular, it examines the impact of culture and structure in the decision of the High Court of Australia in R. v Momcilovic [2011] HCA 34; (2011) 280 A.L.R. As a result of that case, key features of the Australian Bills of Rights now diverge from the dominant UK approach, a divergence so striking that it may no longer be possible to identify the Australian Bills of Rights as exemplars of the new Commonwealth model.

scholarly journals U.S. Multinationals and Human Rights: A Theoretical and Empirical Assessment of Extractive Versus Nonextractive Sectors

2020 ◽  
pp. 000765032092897
Author(s):  
Krishna Chaitanya Vadlamannati ◽  
Nicole Janz ◽  
Indra de Soysa
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Multinational Corporations ◽  
Status Quo Bias ◽  
Democratic Institutions ◽  
Host Countries ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Human Rights Abuse ◽  
Negative Impacts ◽  
The Impact

The consequences of foreign direct investment (FDI) for human rights protection are poorly understood. We propose that the impact of FDI varies across industries. In particular, extractive firms in the oil and mining industries go where the resources are located and are bound to such investment, which creates a status quo bias among them when it comes to supporting repressive rulers (“ location-bound effect”). The same is not true for nonextractive multinational corporations (MNCs) in manufacturing or services, which can, in comparison, exit problematic countries more easily. We also propose that strong democratic institutions can alleviate negative impacts of extractive FDI on human rights (“ democratic safeguard effect”). Using U.S. FDI broken up into extractive and nonextractive industries in 157 host countries (1999–2015), we find support for these propositions.1 Extractive FDI is associated with more human rights abuse, but nonextractive FDI is associated with less abuse, after controlling for other factors, including concerns about endogeneity. We find also that the negative human rights impact of extractive FDI vanishes in countries where democratic institutions are stronger. Our results are robust to a range of alternative estimation techniques.

The EU’s engagement with business on human rights

2020 ◽  
pp. 312-342
Author(s):  
Mary E Footer
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Turn Of The Millennium ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Business And Human Rights ◽  
Labour Standards ◽  
European Business ◽  
Corporate Social ◽  
The Impact

Since the turn of the millennium, the European Union (EU) has sought to advance its policies on business and human rights with the aim of achieving specific outcomes on human rights protection, core labour standards, and a better alignment of European and global approaches to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). At the heart of this endeavour lies the European Commission’s renewed strategy for CSR in its 2011 Communication. This chapter critically analyses the impact of the EU’s re-calibration of its CSR policy to allow for the fuller engagement of European business with human rights on the internal and external plane. The EU has sought to develop a ‘smart mix’ of voluntary policy measures and complementary regulatory initiatives to achieve its aims. Consequently, it has made considerable progress towards embedding business and human rights in European law and policy. However, it continues to face challenges due to its lack of competence along the whole spectrum of business-related human rights, and the transversal character of EU policy, which elicits a multidimensional response to implementation, involving a plethora of actors from government, business, and civil society.

Opinion 2/13 of the Court (C.J.E.U.)

2016 ◽  
Vol 55 (2) ◽  
pp. 267-306
Author(s):  
Daniel Halberstam
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Human Rights Regime ◽  
Gradual Process ◽  
Drawing Board

Opinion 2/13 of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) declared the draft agreement on European Union accession to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) incompatible with the Treaty on European Union. The Opinion comes toward the end of a long and gradual process of incorporating human and fundamental rights principles into the legal system of the European Community and its successor, the European Union. Opinion 2/13 sends the Commission back to the drawing board on what has long been seen as the capstone of that process—EU accession to the Strasbourg human rights regime as an external check on human rights protection within the European Union.

scholarly journals Incorporation of Human Rights in International Relations

2021 ◽  
Vol 69 (4. ksz.) ◽  
pp. 85-92
Author(s):  
Upal Aditya Oikya
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Major Change ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Governmental Organizations ◽  
Non Governmental Organizations ◽  
Human Rights Regime ◽  
Humanitarian Crises ◽  
Universal Human Rights

Human rights have been firmly enmeshed in both studies and practice of international relations. The prevailing theories of international relations describe the function of those rights in substantially dissimilar ways, and it is apparent that their key statements include compelling arguments, suggesting an inconvenient apposition of state sovereignty with ideas of universal moral order. The development of the universal human rights regime of the United Nations (UN), the growth of international non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and, eventually, human rights activists have made it possible for human rights to be more deeply incorporated into state diplomatic activities.  These trends, however, raise critical concerns about the practice of the state of human rights. Although there is some reversal of the norm, however, states continue to face humanitarian crises and show signs of human rights protection domestically and promotion internationally to varying degrees. In the same way, we are also seeing a major change in the principles and procedures of international enforcement of human rights. The goal of this paper is to address briefly certain variables relevant to the incorporation of human rights in international relations.

9. Africa

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rhona K. M. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
African Union ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Organization Of African Unity ◽  
Monitoring And Enforcement ◽  
The Impact

This chapter examines the role of the African Union, formerly the Organization of African Unity (OAU), in the development of African jurisprudence on human rights. It provides a brief historical background on the African Union and the Charter provisions. The chapter traces the development of human rights protection in Africa; describes the monitoring and enforcement of human rights law; highlights the impact of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights on human rights in Africa; and explains how States may be held accountable for infringements of rights and freedoms.

scholarly journals Fundamental Rights Seen Through the “Pluralistic Interpretive Box”

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 65-79
Author(s):  
Tanja Karakamisheva-Jovanovska
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Discretion ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Legal Interpretation ◽  
Scientific Interest ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Interpretive Method ◽  
The Impact

Interpretation, or the judicial understanding of the legal acts in the process of protection of the human rights, is becoming increasingly interesting and controversial, both from an aspect of the applied interpretation technique (which interpretation method is applied by the judge in a specific case and why), as well as from an aspect of the legal opportunism/legitimacy of the interpretation. It is a fact that so far, neither the European, nor the national legal theories and practice have offered coordinated systematic approach regarding the application of the legal interpretation methods, which often leads to different interpretation of the legal norms by the national and the European courts when applied in similar or identical legal situations for protection of the human rights. It is considered that the different interpretation of the legal documents by the judges endangers the protection of the human rights, but also the legal security of the citizens. Judicial discretion in choosing an interpretive method in a particular case by the national, or by the courts in Luxembourg and Strasbourg further complicates the already complex procedure of protection of human rights, which directly creates new problems instead of solving the existing ones. The "pluralistic interpretive box" is continuously filled with new and new cases from different approaches by different courts in the process of protection of human rights, which leads to increased scientific interest for a more detailed consideration of this issue. The growing scientific interest in the impact of the legal interpretation on the (non) equality of the human rights protection is the main reason for writing this paper, in which I will try to explain the connection between the three different, but still related issues encountered in the multilevel system of human rights protection in Europe. The first issue addressed in the paper concerns the most common methods of legal interpretation applied in the national and European court proceedings. The second issue concerns the search for a consistent answer to whether and how much legitimacy and legality the court decisions made by applying judicial discretion have when the interpretive method in judicial decision-making is chosen, and the third issue refers to finding an answer to the impact of such court decisions on the functionality and efficiency of the multi-level system of protection of human rights, that is, to what extent such court decisions have a positive or negative effect on the human rights protection. Given that each national court has its own instruments and techniques of interpretation by which the judges make their decisions, the need to study their causality and effectiveness is more than evident.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document