Cultural Context of Human Rights Violations Against Children in Asian Countries

Author(s):  
Kavitha Balakrishnan

Asian countries have a culture that is diametrically opposite to European Culture. In India, China, Thailand, etc., mothers are more attached to their children than husbands. There are certain religious practices that amount to human rights violations. Chinese children are deprived of enjoyment to the fullest. Trafficking, disparities, problems in Tibet, etc. are causing serious threats to the lives of children in China. This chapter analyses human violation against children in some of the Asian countries. It is not easy to cover all the countries, so some countries that have representative character are included for a detailed study. This chapter analyses various cultural contexts that aggregate child victimization and also suggests measures to stop it.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Cara Gledhill

<p>This thesis explores the criminalisation of same sex relations in a global context, using a framework which centres the state as criminal. It argues that criminalising laws serve as hegemonic dictates, which condone and encourage violence perpetrated by state officials, as well as private individuals. The form of these laws, the punishments they mandate and the harms that lesbian and gay individuals suffer due to the existence of criminalisation is critically examined. The thesis shows that international legal progress in the area of 'sexual rights' has been painstakingly slow and that civil society organisations (CSOs) have been the driving force behind much of the change that has occurred. States have also been able to deny, minimise and neutralise challenges by the UN concerning criminalisation. Jamaica, a state which criminalises consensual sex between men, is provided as a case study in order to examine the ways in which criminalisation laws emerge, and the contemporary social and cultural context which supports their continued existence. Despite the climate of heterosexism in Jamaica, the continued work of CSOs means that information about human rights violations can be dispersed through a number of networks, allowing challenges to take place in the international arena. The thesis concludes by arguing that, while the work of CSOs offers great potential for change in the area, international pressure to repeal criminalising laws and address related human rights violations must continue.</p>


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Cara Gledhill

<p>This thesis explores the criminalisation of same sex relations in a global context, using a framework which centres the state as criminal. It argues that criminalising laws serve as hegemonic dictates, which condone and encourage violence perpetrated by state officials, as well as private individuals. The form of these laws, the punishments they mandate and the harms that lesbian and gay individuals suffer due to the existence of criminalisation is critically examined. The thesis shows that international legal progress in the area of 'sexual rights' has been painstakingly slow and that civil society organisations (CSOs) have been the driving force behind much of the change that has occurred. States have also been able to deny, minimise and neutralise challenges by the UN concerning criminalisation. Jamaica, a state which criminalises consensual sex between men, is provided as a case study in order to examine the ways in which criminalisation laws emerge, and the contemporary social and cultural context which supports their continued existence. Despite the climate of heterosexism in Jamaica, the continued work of CSOs means that information about human rights violations can be dispersed through a number of networks, allowing challenges to take place in the international arena. The thesis concludes by arguing that, while the work of CSOs offers great potential for change in the area, international pressure to repeal criminalising laws and address related human rights violations must continue.</p>


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