scholarly journals ‘Non-Religion’ as Part of the ‘Religion’ Category in International Human Rights

Religions ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 79
Author(s):  
Alan G. Nixon

‘Religion’ still occupies and maintains a position of formal and informal privilege in many current societies. It retains these privileges despite the increasing numbers of people who label themselves ‘non-religious’. There is also evidence that overtly non-religious people are being persecuted due to the continuation of these privileges. This paper will examine such treatment of the non-religious in the context of human rights instruments and laws. It lays out the international law case for the rights of the non-religious. It also discusses the extent to which state actors have or have not ignored human rights standards in their persecution or deprivileging of non-religious people. This paper will proceed through a three-step analysis. Step 1 is to examine the aspirational Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in relation to the non-religious. The relevant sections of the UDHR and interpretations that they have received will be discussed. Step 2 is to do the same with the binding International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Finally, Step 3 is to give examples of lower-level and local laws, where I shall examine the extent to which individual countries’ laws and practices toward non-religious people support or contradict the treaty commitments that those countries have made. The continuation in coercion/persecution cases suggests that something is amiss with human rights protections being provided to the non-religious. If we are to create social structures that are more inclusive of the non-religious and to advocate for non-religious rights, it is necessary to examine the societal power and privilege still held by ‘religion’. It is hoped that this article can inform and encourage further similar engagements among sociologists, religious studies scholars, activists and lay-people interested in the treatment of non-religious peoples.

Author(s):  
Yogesh Tyagi

The golden jubilee of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) coincides with the emergence of Asia as a centre of global attention. However, greater attention to Asia has been accompanied by some scepticism over its attitude towards human rights. The chapter provides an overall assessment of the impact of the ICCPR on the major Asian States, with an analysis of the factors affecting such influence. The chapter considers the involvement in, observance of, and compliance with the provisions of the ICCPR by these States. It further delves into the academic and judicial discourse on the ICCPR within these States, recording the domestic disposition towards judgments of foreign courts, the output of the Human Rights Committee, and the work of other international human rights bodies. It makes suggestions for developing mechanisms to improve the effectiveness of the ICCPR and for creating databases to perform further research in the area.


2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 249-269
Author(s):  
Sarah Joseph

Abstract States have duties under Article 12(2)(c) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to prevent, control and treat covid-19. Implementation of these three obligations is analysed, taking account of countervailing human rights considerations. Regarding prevention, lockdowns designed to stop the spread of the virus are examined. Control measures are then discussed, namely transparency measures, quarantine, testing and tracing. The human rights compatibility of treatment measures, namely the provision of adequate medical and hospital care (or the failure to do so), are then examined. Finally, derogations from human rights treaties in times of pubic emergency are discussed.


2007 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 199
Author(s):  
Shotaro Hamamoto

This paper discusses the individual complaints procedures established pursuant to international human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It discusses the bases on which these systems have been criticised as undemocratic. After considering how these democratic failings could be ameliorated through greater involvement of domestic parliaments, it questions this narrow view of democracy that looks only to parliamentary involvement, suggesting instead that apparently undemocratic individual complaints procedures can actually have a beneficial "democratising" effect.


2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Diane F Frey

<p>The existence of a right to strike under international law has been challenged by the International Organization of Employers since the late 1980s. The employer group claims that no such right exists under international law and has been moving to undermine recognition of the right at the International Labour Organisation (ILO). This article examines the right to strike in international human rights law. It considers specifically the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and finds that the right to strike exists in both of these treaties. Further, the article demonstrates that while the ILO employers group may challenge the existence of the right to strike, its government members have overwhelmingly ratified international human rights treaties contradicting the employer group's position that there is no such right.</p>


2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 78-86
Author(s):  
Muhammad Waqas Javed ◽  
◽  
Naila Kareem ◽  

In the instant study, we focus to point out Islamic perspective in relation to international human rights laws pertaining to death penalty in the context of Pakistan. We have discussed the perspective certain jurists who claim qisas is an alternative prayer, and it can be abolished. However, the study maintains that Islamic injunctions support, and recommend for capital punishment for certain offences, while diyatis an alternative penalty. Further, we have deliberated death penalty in the light of human rights conventions with special focus on Article 6 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1966. The debate also surrounds abolitionists or retentionists views with special reference to Pakistan. It concludes that immediate abolishment of death penalty may not be possible in Pakistan. Nevertheless, as a first step, it needs to re-interpret the phrase “most serious crimes” envisaged under Article 6 of ICCPR in its true letter and spirit, or to exercise de facto abolishment of it until its crippled criminal justice system ensures international fair trial standards. As internal peace and security situation improves in Pakistan, so it may enforce de-jure halt.


Author(s):  
Bielefeldt Heiner, Prof ◽  
Ghanea Nazila, Dr ◽  
Wiener Michael, Dr

This chapter emphasizes that the outer manifestations of freedom of religion or belief (forum externum) are not in any sense less important than the inner nucleus of a person’s religious or belief-related conviction (forum internum), even though only the latter is protected unconditionally under international human rights law. This chapter also discusses the largely overlapping elements of the right to manifest one’s religion or belief ‘in worship, observance, practice and teaching’. Furthermore, it analyses the implications of the religion-related reservations, declarations, and objections made by a number of States when signing, ratifying, or acceding to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.


2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 924-939
Author(s):  
Pierre Thielbörger

AbstractWhile the “essence” of EU fundamental rights has received much attention following the CJEU’s Schrems decision, the concept of “essence” remains much less examined in international human rights law. Nonetheless, a concept of “essence” for human rights can also be found in international law. This Article discusses different aspects of the “essence” concept in international human rights law, namely non-derogability, non-restrictability, and minimum core, in three steps. First, the Article looks at civil political rights and socioeconomic rights separately and identifies two different approaches to the concept of essence for each of the two categories: While for civil and political rights the concept of essence is mainly linked to the notions of non-derogability and non-restrictability, for socioeconomic rights, the concept refers mainly to the states’ obligation to guarantee an essential level of protection independent of their resource limitations. Second, the Article continues by reading the two approaches together and identifies certain elements of an overarching “essence” concept. Finally, the Article discusses the relationship between the CJEU’s “essence” jurisprudence and the related concepts in international law and concludes with two theses: First, international law deserves more attention when reflecting on the EU’s concept of essence. It equally employs concepts of “essence” and also informs the development and interpretation of EU law. Second, when engaging with the question of whether the EU law should draw lessons from its international counterpart on the notion of “essence,” one must contemplate drawbacks for EU law that the concept has presented for international law.


1986 ◽  
Vol 80 (3) ◽  
pp. 801-817 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rhoda E. Howard ◽  
Jack Donnelly

It is often argued that internationally recognized human rights are common to all cultural traditions and adaptable to a great variety of social structures and political regimes. Such arguments confuse human rights with human dignity. All societies possess conceptions of human dignity, but the conception of human dignity underlying international human rights standards requires a particular type of “liberal” regime. This conclusion is reached through a comparison of the social structures of ideal type liberal, minimal, traditional, communist, corporatist and developmental regimes and their impact on autonomy, equality, privacy, social conflict, and the definition of societal membership.


2015 ◽  
Vol 69 (2) ◽  
pp. 405-441 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wade M. Cole

AbstractAccording to recent studies, international human rights treaties are ineffective, counterproductive, or else beneficial for only those countries that tend to respect human rights regardless of treaty membership. Analysts often attribute gaps between human rights principles and practices to willful disobedience, self-interested defection, and ineffective enforcement. Using two-stage regression models to analyze compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, I examine whether countries' inability (as opposed to unwillingness) to implement treaty terms is also responsible for the gap between commitment and compliance. I find that one dimension of state capacity in particular—bureaucratic efficacy—enhances levels of compliance with civil, political, and physical integrity rights provisions. These findings lend credence to an important aspect of the managerial approach—that noncompliance is often inadvertent and conditioned by a state's ability to implement treaty terms.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document