scholarly journals The effect of two-round presidential elections on human rights

PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (12) ◽  
pp. e0243094
Author(s):  
Joshua Holzer
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Presidential Elections ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Plurality Rule ◽  
Costs And Benefits ◽  
High Government ◽  
Presidential Democracies

Recent research suggests that democratic presidential elections held using a runoff rule produce presidents that are more likely to protect human rights, in comparison to those elected under plurality rule; with this follow-up article, I seek to highlight the importance of advancing to a runoff round for those elections held using a runoff rule. I find that for presidential democracies that already have a runoff rule in place, country-years where the president has been elected after a runoff round are more likely to be associated with high government respect for human rights, in comparison to country-years where the president has been elected after only one round (that could have advanced to a runoff round, but did not). This article provides decision-makers with more information regarding the human rights consequences of runoff rounds, so that the costs and benefits of adopting (or retaining) variations of a runoff rule can be better weighed.

scholarly journals Human rights in presidential democracies : does a runoff rule reduce repression?

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Joshua Holzer
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Large Distance ◽  
Presidential Elections ◽  
Median Voter ◽  
Ideological Position ◽  
Negatively Associated ◽  
High Government ◽  
Presidential Democracies

I argue that within a democratic context the presence of a presidential runoff rule leads to the following outcomes: a reduced distance between the ideological position of the president and the median voter, a reduced percent of the cabinet in the same party as the president, and a reduced likelihood that the president is elected without a majority. Additionally, I argue that a large distance between the ideological position of the president and the median voter, cabinets comprised of a high percent of members in the same party as the president, and presidents elected without a majority are all negatively associated with high government respect for human rights. Since the presence of a runoff rule reduces determinants that are in turn negatively associated with high government respect for human rights, the presence of a runoff rule is likely positively associated with high government respect for human rights. Ultimately, I find that democratic presidential elections held using a runoff rule produce presidents that are less likely to be associated with lower government respect for human rights, and more likely to be associated with greater government respect for human rights. In order to promote government respect for human rights, I suggest that constitutional designers embrace the idea of instituting a presidential runoff rule. Simply put: a relatively easy way to reduce repression is to add the possibility of a runoff round to all democratic presidential elections.

scholarly journals The perils of plurality rule and the major(itarian) effect of cabinet composition on human rights in presidential democracies

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 205316801879475 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua Holzer
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Majority Rule ◽  
Plurality Rule ◽  
Absolute Majority ◽  
Original Dataset ◽  
Presidential Democracies

I argue that when presidents are able (or forced) to cobble together broad-based coalitions to win an absolute majority, their administrations are less likely (and less able) to violate human rights, in comparison to presidential administrations whose victories are the result of a narrow plurality. Consistent with this argument, I find cabinets comprised of a higher percentage of individuals from parties other than that of the president to be associated with greater government respect for human rights. Additionally, I find that in the years after a presidential election won by an absolute majority, states are more likely to experience an increase in government respect for human rights, in comparison to the years after a presidential election won by a mere plurality. Utilizing an original dataset of cabinet composition for 35 presidential democracies spanning from 2001 to 2011, this study concludes that it may prudent for non-majoritarian systems to consider adopting a mandatory majority rule so to encourage the types of conciliatory alliances that appear to promote high human rights respect.

NGOs

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Mutzenberg
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Cultural Rights ◽  
National Implementation ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Oral Information

This chapter evaluates the role played by NGOs before the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Human Rights Committee. Even if NGO participation was not originally foreseen in the Covenants, clear proceedings have subsequently been established to ensure their involvement in the Committees’ work. This chapter’s main focus is on the reporting procedure: it assesses how NGOs can submit written and oral information to strengthen this process. It also briefly addresses the NGO role in other areas of the Committees’ work, in particular the drafting of General Comments and the individual communications mechanisms. However, NGO participation is not limited to the work carried out in Geneva, and the chapter highlights recent NGO initiatives to ensure proper national implementation of the Committees’ recommendations. Such engagement is also possible in the context of the follow-up procedures, albeit to different extents depending on the practices of the respective Committee.

scholarly journals Development and preliminary evaluation of EMPOWER for surrogate decision-makers of critically ill patients

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Wendy G. Lichtenthal ◽  
Martin Viola ◽  
Madeline Rogers ◽  
Kailey E. Roberts ◽  
Lindsay Lief ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Critically Ill ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Experiential Avoidance ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Post Intervention ◽  
Prolonged Grief ◽  
Surrogate Decision Makers ◽  
Surrogate Decision ◽  
Peritraumatic Distress

Abstract Objective The objectives of this study were to develop and refine EMPOWER (Enhancing and Mobilizing the POtential for Wellness and Resilience), a brief manualized cognitive-behavioral, acceptance-based intervention for surrogate decision-makers of critically ill patients and to evaluate its preliminary feasibility, acceptability, and promise in improving surrogates’ mental health and patient outcomes. Method Part 1 involved obtaining qualitative stakeholder feedback from 5 bereaved surrogates and 10 critical care and mental health clinicians. Stakeholders were provided with the manual and prompted for feedback on its content, format, and language. Feedback was organized and incorporated into the manual, which was then re-circulated until consensus. In Part 2, surrogates of critically ill patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) reporting moderate anxiety or close attachment were enrolled in an open trial of EMPOWER. Surrogates completed six, 15–20 min modules, totaling 1.5–2 h. Surrogates were administered measures of peritraumatic distress, experiential avoidance, prolonged grief, distress tolerance, anxiety, and depression at pre-intervention, post-intervention, and at 1-month and 3-month follow-up assessments. Results Part 1 resulted in changes to the EMPOWER manual, including reducing jargon, improving navigability, making EMPOWER applicable for a range of illness scenarios, rearranging the modules, and adding further instructions and psychoeducation. Part 2 findings suggested that EMPOWER is feasible, with 100% of participants completing all modules. The acceptability of EMPOWER appeared strong, with high ratings of effectiveness and helpfulness (M = 8/10). Results showed immediate post-intervention improvements in anxiety (d = −0.41), peritraumatic distress (d = −0.24), and experiential avoidance (d = −0.23). At the 3-month follow-up assessments, surrogates exhibited improvements in prolonged grief symptoms (d = −0.94), depression (d = −0.23), anxiety (d = −0.29), and experiential avoidance (d = −0.30). Significance of results Preliminary data suggest that EMPOWER is feasible, acceptable, and associated with notable improvements in psychological symptoms among surrogates. Future research should examine EMPOWER with a larger sample in a randomized controlled trial.

Establishing a Corporate Responsibility Ombudsman: Enhancing remedy through state-based non-judicial mechanisms?

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 102-122
Author(s):  
Juho Saloranta
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Corporate Responsibility ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Sufficient Evidence ◽  
Export Credit ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Credit Financing ◽  
Human Rights Due Diligence

This article assesses the efficiency of non-judicial grievance mechanisms in providing victims of corporate human rights violations with improved access to remedy. As no such mechanism is currently available, this article formulates a proposal for a new mechanism in the form of a corporate responsibility ombudsman, which would offer a great deal of flexibility as well as being an inexpensive, expeditious and informal manner of dealing with such issues. The article argues in favour of utilizing states’ regulatory arsenal to improve victims’ access to remedy extraterritorially. Based on recent international developments, I elaborate approaches to human rights due diligence regulation and export credit financing by means of two corporate responsibility ombudsman proposals. In relation to these proposals, I divide the effectiveness criteria of Principle 31 of the United Nations Guiding Principles into three main categories: empowerment, investigation and enforcement. Since obtaining sufficient evidence is of paramount to those seeking remedies for violations of corporate responsibility, states should bestow quasi-judicial powers on corporate responsibility ombudsmen to achieve efficiency, which could also create legitimacy. This article provides decision-makers and scholars with insights into how access to remedy could be synchronized with the momentum of human rights due diligence legislation in the European Union and beyond.

Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions

2008 ◽  
Vol 24 (03) ◽  
pp. 244-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael F. Drummond ◽  
J. Sanford Schwartz ◽  
Bengt Jönsson ◽  
Bryan R. Luce ◽  
Peter J. Neumann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Resource Allocation ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Resource Allocation Decision ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Costs And Benefits ◽  
Allocation Decision ◽  
Health Technologies ◽  
System A ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Allocation Decisions

Health technology assessment (HTA) is a dynamic, rapidly evolving process, embracing different types of assessments that inform real-world decisions about the value (i.e., benefits, risks, and costs) of new and existing technologies. Historically, most HTA agencies have focused on producing high quality assessment reports that can be used by a range of decision makers. However, increasingly organizations are undertaking or commissioning HTAs to inform a particular resource allocation decision, such as listing a drug on a national or local formulary, defining the range of coverage under insurance plans, or issuing mandatory guidance on the use of health technologies in a particular healthcare system. A set of fifteen principles that can be used in assessing existing or establishing new HTA activities is proposed, providing examples from existing HTA programs. The principal focus is on those HTA activities that are linked to, or include, a particular resource allocation decision. In these HTAs, the consideration of both costs and benefits, in an economic evaluation, is critical. It is also important to consider the link between the HTA and the decision that will follow. The principles are organized into four sections: (i) “Structure” of HTA programs; (ii) “Methods” of HTA; (iii) “Processes for Conduct” of HTA; and (iv) “Use of HTAs in Decision Making.”

Identifying and Assessing the Implementation of Human Rights Decisions

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 125-148
Author(s):  
Alice Donald ◽  
Debra Long ◽  
Anne-Katrin Speck
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
Civil Society Organizations ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Sources Of Information ◽  
European Regions ◽  
The Status ◽  
Public Record

Abstract Assessing the extent to which states have implemented the decisions of supranational human rights bodies is a challenging task. It requires supranational bodies—be they judicial, quasi-judicial or political—to create an evidence-based public record of the status quo of implementation at any point in time and determine whether the measures taken do, in fact, satisfy the requirements of the decision. This, in turn, relies upon states engaging in good faith, victims having a voice, and civil society organizations seizing the opportunity to influence the follow-up process. Using empirical data from interviews in selected states in the African, Inter-American and European regions, and within regional and United Nations bodies, this article argues that in no human rights ‘system’ are all these expectations met, in part because follow-up work is inadequately resourced. It argues that supranational bodies should proactively seek out diverse sources of information and adopt more transparent and responsive working methods so as to enable ‘real time’ participation by all interested parties. The article concludes with recommendations for supranational bodies, and state and non-state actors.

3 The Approaches (1955)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pace John P
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Annual Reports ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Advisory Services ◽  
Implementation Processes ◽  
Shared Information ◽  
Paris Principles ◽  
Domestic Level ◽  
Fellowships And Scholarships

This chapter describes the various approaches adopted by the Commission on Human Rights—and later by the Human Rights Council—to support implementation processes, starting with the introduction of Advisory Services in 1955. These were to serve as a support for the Commission’s work in implementing its programme of work, notably the follow-up to its work on the International Bill of Human Rights. These services were to be provided at the request of Governments and to consist of: ‘(i) Advisory services of experts, (ii) Fellowships and scholarships, (iii) Seminars’. In 1956, the Commission opened up yet another approach. The Yearbook on Human Rights had introduced a system of ‘Annual Reports on human Rights’ whereby governments shared information on measures taken at the domestic level. The chapter traces the development of other approaches by the Commission including investigations, regional commissions, national institutions (including the Paris Principles) and voluntary funds. It also looks at the emergence of international (or hybrid) criminal tribunals, all of which included crimes against humanity (or human rights crimes) in their jurisdiction.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document