Domestic Violence - A Micro-Level Terrorism? Empirical Findings of Significant Similarities between Two Human Rights Violations

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Gradinariu
2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 67-92
Author(s):  
N. K. Upadhyay

Bride Trafficking is a long-standing evil in society that can be classified as a crime against humanity because it violates the rights, dignity and the liberty of the victims involved. Bride Trafficking is so deep rooted in society that providing accurate figures is extremely difficult since it is often impossible to track down and trace individual incidents of Bride Trafficking. According to the author, who has conducted a case study with fifty women from the State of Haryana, inter-country trafficking for the purpose of marriage is widespread in India. Trafficked women are subjected to a slew of atrocities, including being raped in transit and then raped by their husbands and other male family members. Apart from that, they face domestic violence, are treated worse than slaves and are frequently trafficked multiple times. Poverty, female foeticide, female infanticide, illiteracy, dowry and other factors can all contribute to trafficking. In this paper, the author will discuss Bride Trafficking in general, the reasons for it, the human rights violations that these trafficked brides face and the potential solutions to this illicit trade.


2012 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 106-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bonita C. Meyersfeld

The Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (‘‘Convention’’) joins a small number of treaties imposing specific obligations on member states to prevent and address violence against women. The Convention is notable both for its encapsulation of best practices in combating violence against women and for its confirmation that all forms of violence against women, including domestic violence, are human rights violations for which states are responsible.


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