scholarly journals DEATH OF LOCUS STANDI AND THE REBIRTH OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN NIGERIA: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS (ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE) RULES 2009 IN FOCUS

2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Raheem Kolawole Salman ◽  
F.J Oniekoro
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Critical Examination ◽  
Public Interest Litigation ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
X Ray ◽  
The Past ◽  
Locus Standi ◽  
Phase Out

One of the various mechanisms put in place in order to address human rights abuses in Nigeria is the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 1979. However, the Rules were punctuated with different challenges and defects ranging from the problems of locus standi to unacceptability of public interest litigation. In an attempt to address this problem, the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009 was enacted. This article engages in a critical assessment of the 2009 Rules with a view to ascertaining the extent to which the Rules have come to cure the 1979 Rules. The article begins with a critical examination of defects inherent in the 1979 Rules. It goes further to x-ray the developments brought by the 2009 Rules. The article posits that the 2009 Rules have come as a leverage to problems which have, in the past, denied many litigants the opportunity to enforce their rights and claim compensation. It concludes that if properly implemented, the 2009 Rules will phase out the identified defects and strengthen public interest litigation in the areas of human rights enforcement.

Part VI Rights—Structure and Scope, Ch.37 Public Interest Litigation

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Divan Shyam
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Public Interest Litigation ◽  
The Public ◽  
Locus Standi ◽  
Legal Standing ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Character

This chapter examines public interest litigation (PIL) and its place in Indian constitutional law. The chapter begins with an overview of PIL as an instrument for dealing with public grievances such as flagrant human rights violations by the State, or for vindicating the public policies embodied in statutes or constitutional provisions. It then discusses the evolution of PIL in India and four distinct factors that contributed to its growth. It also explores how courts efficiently deploy judicial resources and decide genuine disputes of a legal character by recognising only those persons with locus standi, or legal standing. Finally, it describes a range of procedural innovations that distinguish PIL from conventional litigation and explains how the growth of PIL affected traditional notions of justiciability. It shows how the phenomenon of PIL has shaped both the nature of rights-based claims within Indian constitutional law as well as the role of the Supreme Court within Indian democracy.

Pushing for Political and Legal Change: Protecting the Cultural Identity of Travellers in the Netherlands

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 508-529 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonie M Huijbers ◽  
Claire M S Loven
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Media Coverage ◽  
Central Government ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Legal Change ◽  
Public Interest Litigation ◽  
The Government ◽  
Vantage Points ◽  
Phase Out

Abstract On 12 July 2018, the central government of the Netherlands changed its approach relating to traveller camps in the Netherlands. This change constitutes a huge political shift, as the government had previously adopted a ‘hands-off’ and ‘repressive-inclusion’ strategy, which was especially known for its infamous ‘phase-out policy’ or ‘extinction policy’ of traveller camps. This has now been replaced by a fundamental rights-proof approach that facilitates the travellers’ way of life. This article aims to uncover the various actions undertaken by international and national actors that seem to have contributed to the Dutch government’s changed stance. It looks particularly at the role played by four national actors: the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights, the National Ombudsman, the Public Interest Litigation Project, and activist Roma, Sinti and travellers and their various interest groups. The article concludes that these actors’ efforts to establish political and legal change were successful as they addressed the same issue from different vantage points and through different means. That is, they all focused on the issue of the incompatibility of the phase-out policy with fundamental rights standards and relied on a variety of means available to them (such as litigation, lobbying, reporting, raising international awareness, and ensuring media coverage). By drawing some general lessons from this case study, this article aims to contribute to the existing literature on mobilizing human rights. In particular, it focuses on the (legal) activities national actors can undertake to bring about political and legal change in order to enforce the compliance of national authorities with fundamental rights standards in both law and policy.

Pandemic and PILs: A Study on the Approach of the High Courts in India

2021 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-77
Author(s):  
Uday Shankar ◽  
Sourya Bandyopadhyay
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Regional Level ◽  
Public Interest Litigation ◽  
High Court ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
High Courts ◽  
The Supreme Court

Studies in Public interest Litigation (PIL) in India are predominantly about the Supreme Court's approach in meeting the ends of justice through indigenously evolved jurisdiction. The High Courts as important constitutional bodies are more often than not remain out of detailed discussion. As the High Courts enjoy concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Court with regard to PILs, this paper aims to study the pattern of invocation of the jurisdiction at the regional level. It surveys the variety of pleas and consequent action under PIL jurisdiction (or inaction, as the case may be) of different High Courts in India relating to covid crisis and consequential matters. To that end, it undertakes a survey of High Court orders or judgments from April to July, 2020. It seeks to lay bare the extent of demands that are made before the Courts through PIL. What kinds of action were expected from the High Courts during the pandemic? How did different Courts respond to such pleas? Were the directions and level of response homogenous or varied? The paper pursues these questions, and describes the pandemic though the lens of PIL in Indian High Courts. It goes on to argue that the High Courts in India need to take greater cognizance of their orders inter-se especially in PIL matters, as human rights protection through PIL cannot have contradictory voices.

Allies or Subversives? Adjudication and Democracy

2018 ◽  
pp. 79-114
Author(s):  
Sandra Fredman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Democratic Accountability ◽  
Public Interest Litigation

This chapter addresses the argument that human rights should be not be the responsibility of courts, but of the legislature. Instead of regarding courts and the legislature as mutually exclusive, however, it asks whether we can create a role for justiciable human rights which reinforces democracy. Section II considers democratic objections to justiciable human rights, and canvasses potential responses. Section III examines three ways to reconcile the role of courts with democracy: representation-reinforcing, dialogic, and deliberative theories. It concludes that courts should enhance the democratic accountability of decision-makers by insisting on a deliberative justification for the interpretation or limitation of rights. Section IV turns to objections based on lack of judicial competence to address complex, polycentric issues raised by human rights. Using the example of India’s public interest litigation, it examines ways in which the court structure might be adapted to address these concerns. Section V considers remedies and implementation.

Transnational legal sites and democracy-building

2013 ◽  
Vol 39 (4-5) ◽  
pp. 471-486
Author(s):  
Seyla Benhabib
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Intellectual History ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Uniform System ◽  
The Past ◽  
European Court ◽  
Human Rights Regime ◽  
History Of ◽  
Democracy Building

Until recently the term ‘cosmopolitanism’ was a forgotten concept in the intellectual history of the 18th and 19th centuries. The last two decades have seen a remarkable revival of interest in cosmopolitanism across a wide variety of fields. This article contends that legal developments since the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights and the rise of an ‘international human rights regime’ are at the forefront of a new cosmopolitanism. Yet there is a great deal of skepticism toward such claims on the part of those who maintain that democracy and human rights are best furthered by the nation-state framework. Still others confuse legal cosmopolitanism with the spread of a uniform system of rights across different national jurisdictions. In several writings in the past, I developed the concept of ‘democratic iterations’ to argue against such skepticism as well as misunderstandings of legal cosmopolitanism. In this article, I show how democratic iterations unfold across transnational legal sites, which encompass various national jurisdictions and through which contentious dialogues on the application and interpretation of such fundamental rights as ‘freedom of religion’ in different jurisdictions can emerge. To document such processes I focus on the Leyla Sahin v. Turkey case which was adjudicated by the European Court of Human Rights in 2005.

The Past, Present and Future of the Ne Bis In Idem Dialogue between the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights: The Cases of Menci, Garlsson and Di Puma

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 55-84
Author(s):  
Max Vetzo
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Market Abuse ◽  
The Past ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem

The cases of Menci (C-524/15), Garlsson (C-537/16) and Di Puma (C-596/16 and C-597/16) deal with the duplication of criminal and punitive administrative proceedings for the same conduct in the area of VAT and market abuse. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held that this duplication of proceedings constitutes a limitation of the ne bis in idem principle of Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (Charter). This infringement is only justified if the requirements of the limitation clause of Article 52(1) of the Charter are met. The judgments were highly anticipated as they constitute the response of the CJEU to the judgment in A and B v Norway delivered by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), in which the ECtHR lowered the level of protection afforded by the ne bis in idem principle of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention of Human Rights (A4P7 ECHR). While there are differences between the approaches taken by both courts, it appears that the reasoning of the CJEU in the judgments largely mirrors that of the ECtHR in A and B v Norway. This article frames the judgments in terms of the dialogue between the CJEU and ECtHR on the ne bis in idem principle. It does so chronologically, by focusing on the past, present and future of the ne bis in idem dialogue between both European courts.

scholarly journals Contours of National Action Plans on Business and Human Rights in Central and Eastern Europe

2021 ◽  
pp. 174-186
Author(s):  
Jernej Letnar Černič
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Eastern Europe ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
Central And Eastern Europe ◽  
Action Plans ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
The Past ◽  
Business And Human Rights ◽  
Wide Range

Central and Eastern Europe has been often overseen in the debates on business and humanrights. Countries in the regions share a common history, experience and culture. Human rights andfundamental freedoms were in the past systematically and generally violated. Since democratisation,countries have suffered from a wide range of related human rights abuses. Corporations in theregions have often directly and indirectly interfered with the human rights of employees and thewider communities. Business and human rights has in the past lagged behind global developmentsalso in the light of the lack of capacity and general deficient human rights situation. This articledescribes and discusses contours of the National Action Plans on Business and Human Rights of theCzech Republic, Poland, Lithuania, Georgia, Ukraine and Slovenia by examining their strengths anddeficiencies. It argues that the field of business and human rights in Central and Eastern Europe hasmade a step forward in the last decade since the adoption of the United Nations Guiding Principleson Business and Human Rights. Nonetheless, human rights should be further translated into practiceto effectively protect human dignity of rights-holders.

scholarly journals Obtaining Damages for Corporate Human Rights Violations in Investment Arbitration Through a Procedural Lens

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yasmin S
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
The Past ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
Violent Acts ◽  
Public Scrutiny ◽  
Investment Law

Over the past decades, transnational corporations have come under increasing public scrutiny for their involvement in human rights abuses, particularly in developing countries. One may think of violent acts against local communities, slave labor, and grand scale environmental pollution. International investment law protects and safeguards the rights of foreign investors but falls short of holding them accountable to societies where they operate. Recently, a few arbitral tribunals have grappled with the question of whether corporations can be held accountable for illegalities that constitute human rights violations inflicted upon the host state or its people. This article discusses the arbitral treatment of corporate human rights violations by investment tribunals in three treaty-based cases: Copper Mesa v. Ecuador, Burlington v. Ecuador and Urbaser v. Argentina and draws on recent scholarly work on causation in investor-state arbitration to evaluate their approaches.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document