scholarly journals Arguments to Apply Constitutional Guarantees in the Private Sector

Lentera Hukum ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 175
Author(s):  
Md. Toriqul Islam
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Public ◽  
Organic Growth ◽  
The Us ◽  
Library Resources ◽  
Us Constitution ◽  
Points Of View

Constitutional guarantees are such a body of interests or basic human rights which are inevitable for each human being. These rights are principally inherent, inalienable, and universal, and therefore, irrespective of race, sex, caste, color, or religion, everyone can enjoy them. Constitutional guarantees are distinct from all other rights and privileges because of at least two unique characteristics, such as intrinsic in nature, and inalienability. These guarantees are crucial in the state-individual relations, and recognized by major laws of the civilized nations, and often enshrined in the national constitutions. For instance, the US Constitution signifies the essence of these rights through the expression of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nonetheless, very often, many citizens across the globe are deprived of these rights on numerous pretends and grounds, and mostly, on the public-private dichotomy. This study examined contemporary legal and philosophical discourses as to whether the constitutional guarantees of human rights apply in the private sectors in Malaysia, India, and the United States. This study used doctrinal legal research methodology with a qualitative approach based on library resources. The findings of this study showed that constitutional guarantees, primarily human rights, are presumed to have been neither created nor made but originated like organic growth. Accordingly, no authority can take them away. By examining various logics from theological to socio-historical points of view and the theory of international law, this study concluded that constitutional guarantees, particularly the equal protection of the law, should apply horizontally to cover both public and private sectors. KEYWORDS: Constitutional Guarantees, Human Rights, Public-Private Sectors.

Public Funding of Private Religious Schools

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven K. Green
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Religious Education ◽  
Public Funding ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
History Of ◽  
Us Constitution

The public funding of private religious education has been one of the more contentious issues in the history of American education and in US constitutional law. Unlike the situation in many Western democracies, the United States does not have a tradition of equal funding of public and private schools. This is based in large part on interpretations of the US Constitution and the historical development of public education in the United States. This article discusses the evolution of the “no-funding rule” from the early nineteenth century through the latest interpretations of that rule by the US Supreme Court. It demonstrates that neither the rule nor its application has remained static over time.

A Lack of Language – Waging War or Combatting Crime? The Blurred Rule of International Law in the Face of the Attacks of September 11, 2001

2001 ◽  
Vol 2 (17) ◽  
Author(s):  
Claus Binder
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
September 11 ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Public ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
The Face ◽  
The United Nations

After the terrorists' attacks of September 11, 2001, a lot of war rhetoric came out of the public and private sphere within the United States of America. On October 7, 2001, however, the rhetoric turned into reality as President George W. Bush countered the terrorist attacks and the threat of future terrorism with military means. While waging that new war U.S. governmental officials constantly make one important point, and that is that the United States are just exercising their right of self-defense. Moreover, on the day after the attacks, the Security Council of the United Nations unanimously reaffirmed the inherent right of self-defense as recognized by the Charter of the United Nations. Does that mean that international law is just that clear?

scholarly journals When US Scholars Speak of ‘Sovereignty’, what do they Mean?

2007 ◽  
Vol 55 (2) ◽  
pp. 318-340 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adriana Sinclair ◽  
Michael Byers
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
Totalitarian Regime ◽  
Political Independence ◽  
The Us ◽  
American Academic

The term ‘sovereignty’ figures prominently in international affairs and academic analysis. But does ‘sovereignty’ mean the same thing in different countries and political cultures? In this article, we examine conceptions of sovereignty as they appear in the writings of US scholars of international law and those international relations scholars who deal with international law, in order to obtain a clearer picture of what ‘sovereignty’ means in American academic discourse. At first glance, the US literature is dominated by two distinct conceptions of sovereignty: (1) a statist conception that privileges the territorial integrity and political independence of governments regardless of their democratic or undemocratic character; (2) a popular conception that privileges the rights of peoples rather than governments, especially when widespread human rights violations are committed by a totalitarian regime. On closer examination, what seem to be two conceptions are in fact different manifestations of a single, uniquely American conception of sovereignty which elevates the United States above other countries and protects it against outside influences while concurrently maximising its ability to intervene overseas.

Torture in US Jails and Prisons: An Analysis of Solitary Confinement Under International Law

ICL Journal ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Conley
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Severe Form ◽  
Solitary Confinement ◽  
Management Tool ◽  
Self Mutilation ◽  
The Us

AbstractOne of the most serious human rights violations today is occurring throughout the US. In US jails and prisons, individuals are held in solitary confinement for weeks, months and even years. Solitary confinement can cause significant psychological damage, including cognitive delays, increased suspicion and paranoia, increased anxiety, fear, ag­gression and hostility, heightened feelings of helplessness and depression, and increased thoughts and attempts at self-mutilation and suicide. Many prisoners held in this severe form of isolation are juveniles or individuals with serious mental illness, to whom it is par­ticularly damaging. Although solitary confinement is common in the rest of the world, no­where is it more prevalent as a long-term prisoner management tool than in the United States. US courts have found that solitary confinement is a violation of the Eighth Amend­ment to the US Constitution in certain situations, yet the practice persists.As a global movement against solitary confinement grows, the United Nations and re­gional human rights tribunals have spoken out against the practice. A robust body of inter­national case law has defined the contours of when solitary confinement is cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the instances in which it is torture. International bodies pro­hibit solitary confinement for juveniles, prisoners with mental illness, and prisoners on death row or with life sentences. International tribunals generally find solitary confinement for all prisoners contrary to applicable law where it constitutes incommunicado detention, where it is unnecessarily prolonged without justification, and where the totality of condi­tions of confinement cross a threshold into unacceptable cruelty.As international law prohibiting solitary confinement crystallizes, the practice in the United States may be curtailed through reliance on international law by US judges. Further, the US executive may take an increased interest in curbing solitary confinement to avoid repu­tational damage among the global community.

Accountability and Responsibility in the Public Sphere

2014 ◽  
pp. 237-243
Author(s):  
Alexandros Passiatas
Keyword(s):  
Public Sphere ◽  
Vice President ◽  
The United States ◽  
Complex Mechanism ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Us ◽  
Illegal Acts ◽  
Us Constitution ◽  
The Public Sphere ◽  
Initial Research

The impeachment process, which is constitutionally based, provides a legislative mechanism for investigating possible illegal acts from the President, the Vice President, and other civil officers of the United States. The impeachment process needs the intervention of the House of the Representatives and the Senate. The House has the responsibility to make the initial research and to determine the possibility of an official's impeachment. If the House decides that this is appropriate, the members of the House vote for the article or the articles of impeachment that explain the specific reasons upon which the impeachment is based. Then these facts and these reasons are presented to the Senate, which has the power to try all the impeachments. It is clear that the impeachment procedure is a very complex mechanism, and the US constitution gives only a skeletal guidance as to the nature of the proceedings letting the House and the Senate fill this void through their rules, procedures, and precedents. Impeachment is explored in this chapter.

Advocacy, Strategy and Tactics Used to Confront Corporate Power: The Nestlé Boycott and International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 568-578
Author(s):  
Douglas A. Johnson ◽  
Laura J. Duckett
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Executive Director ◽  
The United States ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Treatment Center ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Us ◽  
Transnational Companies ◽  
The Third World

Douglas A. Johnson began his career as a human rights activist while earning his undergraduate degree in philosophy (1975) at Macalester College in the United States. He lived at Gandhi’s ashram in India to study nonviolent organizing (1969 to 1970). He served as the director of the Third World Institute in Minneapolis, MN, USA (1973–1979), which functioned as the international social justice program of the Archdiocese of Minneapolis and St. Paul. Johnson’s work included creating and running a political collective; leading development study tours into villages in Guatemala and Honduras; and investigating how transnational companies (e.g., Nestlé) were penetrating the developing world. He was the co-founder of the Infant Formula Action Coalition (INFACT), elected national chairperson (1977–1985), and appointed as Executive Director (1978–1984). His role included representing INFACT before national and international organizations, the human milk substitute industry, the US Congress and Executive Branch, and the press. He initiated and coordinated the first international grass-roots consumer boycott (against Nestlé) in ten nations. He was also a co-founder of the International Nestlé Boycott Committee and the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN). He earned a Master’s in Public and Private Management at Yale University (1988). Then he became the first Executive Director of the Center for Victims of Torture, in Minneapolis (1988–2012), the first treatment center for torture victims in the US. Since 2013, he has been teaching human rights theory and practice, and sharing lessons he has learned, as a Lecturer in Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University (US). (This interview was conducted via Zoom and transcribed verbatim. It has been edited for ease of readability. DJ refers to Doug Johnson and LD refers to Laura Duckett.)

scholarly journals Private Political Authority and Public Responsibility: Transnational Politics, Transnational Firms, and Human Rights

2009 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 349-374 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen J. Kobrin
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Transnational Corporations ◽  
Political Authority ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Transnational Politics ◽  
Voluntary Agreements ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Responsibility

ABSTRACTTransnational corporations have become actors with significant political power and authority which should entail responsibility and liability, specifically direct liability for complicity in human rights violations. Holding TNCs liable for human rights violations is complicated by the discontinuity between the fragmented legal/political structure of the TNC and its integrated strategic reality and the international state system which privileges sovereignty and non-intervention over the protection of individual rights. However, the post-Westphalian transition—the emergence of multiple authorities, increasing ambiguity of borders and jurisdiction and blurring of the line between the public and private spheres—should facilitate imposing direct responsibility on transnational firms. Mechanisms for imposing direct responsibility on TNCs are considered including voluntary agreements and international law. However, I conclude that a hybrid public-private regime which relies on non-hierarchical compliance mechanisms is likely to be both more effective and consistent with the structure of the emerging transnational order.

Iran and International Law

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
The United States ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
The Us ◽  
Iranian Government

Geographically situated in the juxtaposition of East and West, peace among nations is the zeal of Iranian people. As a founding member of both the League of Nations and the United Nations, Iran was seen as a great supporter of multilateralism. Iran voted in favor of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 and hosted the first UN Human Rights Conference in its capital in 1968. Following the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the crisis of the US diplomatic and consular staff in Tehran, the United States put in place embargoes against the newly elected Iranian government and instituted proceedings against Iran before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Iran did not participate in the proceedings to defend itself and the court ruled that Iran has violated its international obligations. Since then, Iran has faced many challenges in its international relations especially with the Western powers. For example, neither Iraq’s aggression against Iran nor the use of chemical weapons against Iranian civilians was recognized by the UN Security Council; different types of unilateral, regional, and international sanctions have been imposed on Iran; and the human rights situation in Iran has been repeatedly criticized by individual Western states and the UN mechanisms. Furthermore, Iran’s nuclear program was considered by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, while the US officials have emphasized that military options against Iran remain “on the table.” Iranian academics and international lawyers have extensively discussed the last four decades of Iran’s presence on the international plane as a thought-provoking issue in the fields of international responsibility, diplomatic and consular law, state immunity, arbitration, judicial adjudication, human rights, humanitarian law, use of force, law of the sea, fight against terrorism, and nonproliferation, just to name a few. This long list, however, has created its own negative impact internally: doubts about the effectiveness and efficacy of relevant rules of international law which found more basis after the United States announced its withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and reimposed some further tough sanctions against Iran. Seeking to use international law as a tool to protect its national interests, the Iranian government has brought this case to the ICJ and is still making efforts to preserve the nuclear deal. This contribution introduces the different Iranian resources and institutions in the field and also deals with some of the above-mentioned topics as the most important subjects for Iran in the context of international law.

Palestine Unbound

2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 130-134
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Task Force ◽  
The United States ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Tel Aviv ◽  
The Us ◽  
Intention To Move ◽  
Arab Israeli Conflict ◽  
The U.S

This section, updated regularly on the blog Palestine Square, covers popular conversations related to the Palestinians and the Arab-Israeli conflict during the quarter 16 November 2017 to 15 February 2018: #JerusalemIstheCapitalofPalestine went viral after U.S. president Donald Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and announced his intention to move the U.S. embassy there from Tel Aviv. The arrest of Palestinian teenager Ahed Tamimi for slapping an Israeli soldier also prompted a viral campaign under the hashtag #FreeAhed. A smaller campaign protested the exclusion of Palestinian human rights from the agenda of the annual Creating Change conference organized by the US-based National LGBTQ Task Force in Washington. And, UNRWA publicized its emergency funding appeal, following the decision of the United States to slash funding to the organization, with the hashtag #DignityIsPriceless.

Interaction of Ukrainian Diaspora and the USA Government Regarding Celebration of Ukrainian Independence Day on January 22

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (47) ◽  
pp. 136-145
Author(s):  
Halyna Shchyhelska
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
The United States ◽  
100Th Anniversary ◽  
Totalitarian Regime ◽  
The Public ◽  
Us Congress ◽  
The Us ◽  
Public Consciousness ◽  
The Usa

2018 marks the 100th anniversary of the proclamation of Ukrainian independence. OnJanuary 22, 1918, the Ukrainian People’s Republic proclaimed its independence by adopting the IV Universal of the Ukrainian Central Rada, although this significant event was «wiped out» from the public consciousness on the territory of Ukraine during the years of the Soviet totalitarian regime. At the same time, January 22 was a crucial event for the Ukrainian diaspora in the USA. This article examines how American Ukrainians interacted with the USA Government institutions regarding the celebration and recognition of the Ukrainian Independence day on January 22. The attention is focused on the activities of ethnic Ukrainians in the United States, directed at the organization of the special celebration of the Ukrainian Independence anniversaries in the US Congress and cities. Drawing from the diaspora press and Congressional Records, this article argues that many members of Congress participated in the observed celebration and expressed kind feelings to the Ukrainian people, recognised their fight for freedom, during the House of Representatives and Senate sessions. Several Congressmen submitted the resolutions in the US Congress urging the President of United States to designate January 22 as «Ukrainian lndependence Day». January 22 was proclaimed Ukrainian Day by the governors of fifteen States and mayors of many cities. Keywords: January 22, Ukrainian independence day, Ukrainian diaspora, USA, interaction, Congress

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document