Examining Extrajudicial Killings: Discriminant Analyses of Human Rights Violations

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Udi Sommer ◽  
Victor Asal
Author(s):  
Idayat Hassan

The departure in 1999 of the military regime in Nigeria restored hope for human rights that was grossly abused by successive military regimes. Regrettably, after eighteen years, it is not yet uhuru for Nigerians. Human rights violations remain rife. Particularly worrying is the government security operatives’ abuse of rights with the resultant casualties. Security agencies have been repeatedly accused of extensive human rights abuses and extrajudicial killings. The number of incidents of human rights violations in Nigeria’s democracy has become a major concern. More disconcerting is that the justice sector has not effectively addressed the issue, largely due to the disregard of lawful processes and orders by the Nigerian state and its machinery. This chapter sets out to analyze and highlight the patent issues of human rights.


2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 206
Author(s):  
Bama Andika Putra

The counterterrorism policies of Indonesia have led the community to perceive the government as both protectors of human rights, but fear possible oppressions at the same time. The recorded figures of human rights violations, including extrajudicial killings, torture, and the dismissal of legal rights for individuals suspected as terrorists, have led to the construction of fear and insecurity among the Indonesian people of the state’s approach to counterterrorism. Employing the concept of ‘Domestic Security Dilemma’ developed by Field in 2016, this article argues that; (1) Detachment 88’s coercive methods in counterterrorism have led to human rights oppression and the construction of fear and insecurity among Indonesian citizens, and (2) the emergence of a ‘Domestic Security Dilemma’ due to the growing discourse of Detachment 88’s dismissal initiated by individuals and Islamic community organization in Indonesia.


2001 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 89-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alain Clémence ◽  
Thierry Devos ◽  
Willem Doise

Social representations of human rights violations were investigated in a questionnaire study conducted in five countries (Costa Rica, France, Italy, Romania, and Switzerland) (N = 1239 young people). We were able to show that respondents organize their understanding of human rights violations in similar ways across nations. At the same time, systematic variations characterized opinions about human rights violations, and the structure of these variations was similar across national contexts. Differences in definitions of human rights violations were identified by a cluster analysis. A broader definition was related to critical attitudes toward governmental and institutional abuses of power, whereas a more restricted definition was rooted in a fatalistic conception of social reality, approval of social regulations, and greater tolerance for institutional infringements of privacy. An atypical definition was anchored either in a strong rejection of social regulations or in a strong condemnation of immoral individual actions linked with a high tolerance for governmental interference. These findings support the idea that contrasting definitions of human rights coexist and that these definitions are underpinned by a set of beliefs regarding the relationships between individuals and institutions.


2008 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 653 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Horlick ◽  
Joe Cyr ◽  
Scott Reynolds ◽  
Andrew Behrman

Under the United States Alien Tort Statute, which permits non-U.S. citizens to bring lawsuits in U.S. courts for human rights violations that are violations of the law of nations, plaintiffs have filed claims against multinational oil and gas corporations for the direct or complicit commission of such violations carried out by the government of the country in which the corporation operated. In addition to exercising jurisdiction over U.S. corporations, U.S. courts have exercised jurisdiction in cases involving non-U.S. defendants for alleged wrongful conduct against non-U.S. plaintiffs committed outside the U.S.The exercise of jurisdiction by U.S. courts over non-U.S. defendants for alleged wrongful conduct against non-U.S. plaintiffs committed outside of the U.S. raises serious questions as to the jurisdictional foundation on which the power of U.S. courts to adjudicate them rests. Defences that foreign defendants can raise against the exercise of jurisdiction by the U.S. courts are an objection to the extraterritorial assertion of jurisdiction, the act of state doctrine, the political question doctrine, forum non conveniens, and the principle of comity. These defences are bolstered by the support of the defendant’s home government and other governments.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document