Israeli Physical Persecution in Occupied Jerusalem

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (Summer 2021) ◽  
pp. 27-38
Author(s):  
Ramy Abdou
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Structural Violence ◽  
Historical Review ◽  
Israeli Society ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Israeli Government ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Direct Violence

Israeli authorities have committed a wide range of human rights violations, including direct violence, land annexation and settlement building, home eviction and arbitrary arrest and detention. Such practices have been carried out with political cover from the Israeli government. In addition to the direct confiscation of Palestinian homes and other property, Israeli authorities and organizations such as settlement associations frequently use subterfuge or bribes to transfer ownership to Jewish residents and interests. Through historical review and analysis, this paper documents the most common types of direct and structural violence practiced by Israel, along with their effect on Palestinians, and highlights the roles of the various players in Israeli society.

Part A: Articles: A Non-Governmental Human Rights Strategy for Peacekeeping?

1996 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 127-145
Author(s):  
Reinhard Marx
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Moral Dilemma ◽  
International Community ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Neutral Position ◽  
New Model ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Human Rights Movement ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Domestic Jurisdiction

The human rights movement has never accepted that human rights belong to the domestic jurisdiction, but the new model of peacekeeping, which to some extent is based on a human rights component, causes severe problems for the movement, particularly because of its selectivity and its often biased implementation. This obstacle to an impartial combat against massive human rights violations and a wide range of other problems make it difficult for the movement to develop a consistent and plausible policy on peacekeeping. Although the international community may have good reasons to deploy soldiers in order to save lives and to bring an end to genocide, a supportive attitude by the human rights movement may jeopardise its principles of impartiality and non-violent campaigning and hence weaken the system of protection of human rights. But it has to be underscored that massive human rights violations will cause a moral dilemma for the movement if it cannot justify its neutral position on compelling grounds.

scholarly journals International Responses to Human Rights Violations in Myanmar: The Case of the Rohingya

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jatswan S. Sidhu ◽  
Syeeda Naushin Parnini
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Total Population ◽  
The United States ◽  
Humanitarian Assistance ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Military Government ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Regional Community ◽  
The Many

While Myanmar is a multi-ethnic and multi-religious country, the Bamar (Burmese) nonetheless comprise almost 70 percent of the country’s total population. Of the many ethnic groups in Myanmar, the Muslim Rohingya, are mainly centered in the Rakhine (Arakan) State, which borders Bangladesh. Although the position of these people as a distinct ethnic group was recognized by the U Nu government (1948-1962), the introduction of the 1982 Citizenship Act by the country’s military government, however, have rendered them stateless. Subject to a wide range of systematic human rights violations by the Myanmar authorities, the Rohingya have often sought refugee in Bangladesh as well as many other countries in the region and beyond. Whilst most like-minded states and international organizations have duly responded to the issue, especially by providing humanitarian assistance and criticizing the Myanmar junta for its treatment of the Rohingya, however, much remains to be done to find a permanent solution to the issue of statelessness of these people. The purpose of this article is therefore to analyze responses from some segments of the international community over the issue of human rights violations on the Rohingya and the resulting exodus of these people from Myanmar. As such, this article will examine responses from Bangladesh, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the regional community, the United States, the European Union (EU), the United Nations (UN) and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).  

Social representations of human rights violations: Further evidence

2001 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 89-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alain Clémence ◽  
Thierry Devos ◽  
Willem Doise
Keyword(s):  
Cluster Analysis ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Costa Rica ◽  
Young People ◽  
Social Representations ◽  
Social Reality ◽  
Questionnaire Study ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
High Tolerance ◽  
Individual Actions

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.

American and Canadian Civil Actions Alleging Human Rights Violations Abroad by Oil and Gas Companies

2008 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 653 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Horlick ◽  
Joe Cyr ◽  
Scott Reynolds ◽  
Andrew Behrman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
The United States ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Law Of Nations ◽  
Forum Non Conveniens ◽  
The Government ◽  
Oil And Gas Companies ◽  
Political Question ◽  
The U.S

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