scholarly journals Hollow Avowals of Human Rights Protection - Time for an Australian Federal Bill of Rights?

2008 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 131
Author(s):  
Julie Cassidy

<p>Unlike the constitutions of many nations, such as the United States of America and the Republic of South Africa, the constitutions of the Australian States and Territories and the Commonwealth Constitution Act 1901 (UK) contain no bill of rights. Australia is the only western democracy without a federal bill of rights. The debate regarding the need for a bill of rights necessitates an understanding of what human rights the people of Australia already enjoy. If sufficient protection can be found in existing sources, does Australia really need a federal bill of rights? Opponents of a bill of rights state that we have sufficient protection from arbitrary government intervention in our personal affairs and thus a bill of rights is<br />unnecessary. There are a number of potential sources of human rights in Australia that might provide the suggested existing protection, including the common law, specific domestic legislation, international law and constitutional law. Each of these sources of human rights has, however,<br />important limitations. The focus of this article is on the inadequacy of the Australian constitutions as a source of purported protection. This in turn suggests that an alternative source of rights is needed – a federal bill of rights? In the course of this analysis the author makes suggestions for<br />reform; specifically how a federal bill of rights may address the paucity of constitutional protection.</p>

Author(s):  
D. V. Teplyakova

The presented article is devoted to the analysis of the basic principles of development, formation and activity of the institute of rhe Commissioner for Human Rights in the Republic of Peru. This Latin American state only 65 years ago took the democratic pass. Thirteen various constitutions were accepted in the meantime, and only the last constitution of 1993 could proclaim really democtratic principles of a state regime. The constitution recognizes a wide range of personal, socio-economic and political rights and freedoms of individuals. One of the guarantees of their implementation in practice is establishment of the institute of the Commissioner for Human Rights (in the Peruvian legislation referred to "The defender of the people" [Defensor del pueblo (spanish)], which is regulated by chapter 11 of the Political Constitution of 1993, and also by the Organic Act on the Human Rights Protection Agency № 26520 of August 4, 1995. The represented article analyzes the role and the significance of the institute of Human Rights Commissioner in the Republic of Peru on the basis of Peruvian organic legislation. The research paper investigates the procedure for forming this institution, demonstrates the process of electing the Commissioner for Human Rights as well as the appointment of his two deputies. Particular emphasis is laid upon the scope of the Ombudsman's responsibility and his cooperation with other state authorities in the Republic of Peru, including National Congress, along with the value of annual and emergency reports of Human Rights Commissioner to the State's legislative Authority. Special attention is paid to the procedure of consideration of citizen' complaints by the Human Rights Protection Agency. Annually the Commissioner for Human Rights submits the report on activities over the expired year to the Members of Congress, published in the official publication "El Peruano", which contains the report on the number and type of the received complaints, the results of the investigations as well as taken measures and sanctions.


2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 175-203
Author(s):  
Patricia GOEDDE

AbstractThis article asks how legal mechanisms are employed outside of North Korea to achieve human rights diffusion in the country; to what extent these result in human rights diffusion in North Korea; and whether measures beyond accountability can be pursued in tandem for more productive engagement. Specifically, it examines how the North Korean government has interacted with the globalized legal regime of human rights vis-à-vis the UN and details the legal processes and implications of the UN Commission of Inquiry report, including domestic legislation, and evidence collection. While transnational legal mobilization has gathered momentum on the accountability side, it is significantly weaker in terms of achieving human rights protection within North Korea given the government’s perception of current human rights discourse as part of an externally produced war repertoire. Thus, efforts to engage the North Korean population and government require concurrent reframing of human rights discourse into more localized and relatable contexts.


2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 248
Author(s):  
Mohammad Ibrahim

Many legal scholars contend that Australia does not have a charter of rights in its Constitution. The legal scholar Rosalind Dixon, however, suggests that the Constitution does include some provisions that could be viewed as resembling a (partial) bill of rights. This constitutional framework might cause one to ponder whether human rights are adequately protected in the Australian constitutional system. This paper attempts to consider this question. It is argued that the protection of human rights under the Constitution, federal and state laws is not fully capable of responding to at least three human rights crises presented. Accordingly, the paper suggests that Australia should consider the idea of amending the Constitution in order to better human rights protection in the country. It offers suggestion that the Canadian model protection of human rights could be considered as one of the primary sources for reforms in the future.


1988 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Michael A. Kelley

The emergence of human rights as a public concern during the Carter administration was a recrudescence of the long tradition of moralism in American foreign policy. Confident that the republic is the pinnacle of political, social, and human development, Americans have believed since 1776 that the “United States must be a beacon of human rights to an unregenerate world” (Schlesinger, 1978: 505). Yet, while to the founding fathers America’s avoidance of Europe’s evils of class, hierarchy, and power politics was to be its greatest glory it is quite clear that they intended the U.S. to illuminate the path to a better world by example not by action. John Quincy Adam’s famous July 4 speech explained his perception of America’s mission to the world.


Author(s):  
Jeremy R. Ricketts

At its founding, the United States did not have a long history nor an official state religion to draw from to construct a national identity, so Americans turned to the creation of sacred geographies built around nature and, as time passed, the founding myths of the republic. These natural and human-built sacred places now span the United States and correspond to a civil religion that appeals to tourists. The United States even has sacred documents like the Declaration of Independence that tourists view with reverence. Sacred tourist destinations are often overtly constructed and they imbue a nation with identity, elicit something akin to religious awe, and create a place wherein public rituals and modern pilgrimages are enacted. They also underscore the diverse nature of sacred tourism in America. Religion and tourism both exist in space and use space to construct meaning. The motivations of those religious adherents who travel to sacred places are buttressed by an undercurrent of belief. Tourists, on the other hand, are not always believers, and they have diverse rationales for traveling to sacred places: some are on a quest for genuine spiritual engagement, others are seeking authenticity to offset the manufactured nature of modernity, and still others simply have an attraction to the cultural lore connected to a place. Tourists to religious sites thus arrive at a place that has been specifically designated sacred and therefore set apart, but while the place may be fixed geographically, its meanings commonly are not. Classifying a space brings it into existence as place, and this classification is regularly driven by the forces of commodification linked to tourism; it is also often contested between religious adherents and less spiritually inclined tourists and at times even within different tourist constituencies. Since human intervention is a precondition in any construction of place, sacred tourist destinations are based on mutually reinforcing relationships, and the tourists and pilgrims that seek sacred sites each play significant roles in creating, maintaining, or contesting a place’s identity. “Religious-based tourism,” “tourism to sacred places,” and “religious or spiritual tourism” each carry different connotations. While religious and spiritual tourism indicate tours undertaken solely or mainly for faith-based reasons, “religious-based tourism” acknowledges that tourists are not homogenous; those tourists whose main aim is recreational can still be religious adherents, nonreligious tourists are still usually visiting a sacred place because of its purported numinous qualities, and those whose primary goal is religious can still evince behavior typically associated with tourism. “Tourism to sacred places” or “sacred tourism” allows the flexibility to include hallowed places that are either formally religious or not. Indeed, sites of secular pilgrimage continue to proliferate wherein “pilgrim” is used indistinguishably from “tourist” because of the mixture of secular and sacred at the site itself as well as the diverse motivations of the people who journey there. A spatial examination of tourism to sacred sites must thus consider the spatial dynamics of the motivations and actions of people within a commodified and contested place that draws tourists, pilgrims, and the many who are both.


Author(s):  
Alasdair Roberts

This chapter focuses on the third dilemma in the design of governance strategies: When leaders devise governance strategies, they must decide whether borders will emphasize separation or connection with the rest of the world. Such a decision is not easy, and different considerations—national security, economic growth, internal cohesion, human rights—may pull in opposite directions. In the early years of the republic, American leaders often emphasized separation from the rest of the world. In the twenty-first century, there are good reasons why American leaders must look beyond their borders. Some dangers—climate change, nuclear proliferation, terrorism, economic instability—can be addressed properly only by building international institutions that promote cooperation among states. The challenge for leaders is to build these institutions without appearing to betray people back home. The doctrine of universal human rights, consolidated over the last seventy years, complicates strategy-making even further, because it sometimes demands that foreigners be given treatment comparable to that of citizens. However, this doctrine might not be well understood or generally accepted by many people within the United States.


1954 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-82 ◽  
Author(s):  
George A. Finch

“The treaty-making power is an extraordinary power liable to abuse. Treaties make international law and also they make domestic law. Under our Constitution treaties become the supreme law of the land. They are indeed more supreme than ordinary laws, for congressional laws are invalid if they do not conform to the Constitution, whereas treaty law can override the Constitution. Treaties, for example, can take powers away from the Congress and give them to the President; they can take powers from the States and give them to the Federal Government or to some international body, and they can cut across the rights given the people by their constitutional Bill of Rights.”


1958 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 340-355 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth Scott Latourette

The Great Seal of the United States, designed in the early days of the Republic, has on it symbolism whose significance is often overlooked. On one side is an eagle which grasps with one talon a branch and with the other a sheaf of arrows. Above its head are “E Pluribus Unum” and thirteen stars for the original states bound together in one nation. The other side has on it an unfinished pyramid. The foundation bears the number MDCCLXXVI. Above the pyramid is the eye of God flanked by the words “Annuit Coeptis,” namely, “He smiles on the undertakings.” Underneath is the phrase “Novus Ordo Seculorum,” meaning “New Order of the Ages.” Here succinctly is the vision which inspired the founding fathers of the new nation. The thirteen colonies had become one, prepared to face together the exigencies of the future, whether for preservation in self-defense or for cooperation in the arts of peace. Here was an attempt at building something novel in the history of mankind—a new and ordered structure. That structure, as yet incomplete, was based upon the Declaration of Independence, with its best-remembered phrases: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Here is “the American dream.” As “four score and seven years” later Abraham Lincoln even more briefly described it, the new nation was “conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal” and its success or failure was a test whether “government of the people, by the people, for the people” could “long endure.” To that dream faith in God, in His creative activity, and in His sovereignty was basic.


Author(s):  
Felix Dube

The failure of the post-apartheid government to deliver on some of the promises of the South African Bill of Rights, coupled with the appropriation of the Bill of Rights by the international human rights movement, create the impression that the Bill of Rights is a neo-liberal instrument which is irrelevant to the needs of South Africans and the realities of their circumstances. If the people of South Africa are convinced that the Bill of Rights embraces a Western agenda more than it expresses their collective aspirations, it will lose its legitimacy. While acknowledging that the conception of the Bill of Rights is contested between the international human rights movement and some South Africans, this article shows that the Bill of Rights was neither adopted nor borrowed from the international human rights movement. South Africans did not assimilate the International Bill of Rights but conceived their own Bill of Rights in the early decades of the 20th Century. The conception of the South African Bill of Rights was a response to colonialism and apartheid and was not a consequence of tutelage by the international human rights movement.


AN-NISA ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 372-383
Author(s):  
Ismail Aris

This article shows that the constitution or the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia can not be regarded as children's constitution which adopts the principles of child protection under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It also shows that Indonesia is not serious about the theme of child protection discourse such as Ecuador, Egypt, Finland and South Africa in protecting, fulfilling and respecting and explicitly specifying the rights of children in its constitution. Based on the argument above, it is very urgent for Indonesia to do constitutionalism the rights of the child. Based on the principles that adopted by the convention on the right of the child as a solution as an effort to save and protect the rights of the child from negligence and neglect of the State to protect and fulfill the human rights and constitutional rights of the child. The effort of constitutionalism is also considered as a strengthening effort in the formation of legislation in the future as well as the basis or test stone of the Constitutional Court in handling the future judicial review of the Law which violates the norm on the protection of children's rights under the Constitution. In addition, it is urgent for constitutionalism and incorporates the idea of constitutional complaints in the Constitutional Court through the Constitution. Thus, as a basis for constitutional protection of the child if the State has neglect to protect the human rights and constitutional rights of the child by conducting constitutional complaint in the Constitutional Court, in order for the State to fulfill its constitutional obligations which have been regulated under the constitution.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document