Human Rights
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

75374
(FIVE YEARS 38706)

H-INDEX

114
(FIVE YEARS 31)

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 83-107
Author(s):  
Christian Olaf Christiansen

This article is a history of postwar discourse on an unequal world. This discourse was profoundly shaped by new influences: quantitative data and an expanding inequality research infrastructure, the “birth of development,” decolonization, human rights, the global Cold War, and theories of the world as one integrated global system. Examining academic journal articles written in English, this article traces the emergence of global inequality in the aftermath of the World Food Crisis of 1972–1975. Originally, global inequality was as much about power as about income differentials, mainly referring to multiple inequalities between the so-called Third World and the First. However, even as the late 1960s and the 1970s saw an increased politicization of the discourse on an unequal world, global inequality did not become a key concept in the 1970s.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Witte, Jr.

Leading legal scholar John Witte, Jr. explores the role religion played in the development of rights in the Western legal tradition and traces the complex interplay between human rights and religious freedom norms in modern domestic and international law. He examines how US courts are moving towards greater religious freedom, while recent decisions of the pan-European courts in Strasbourg and Luxembourg have harmed new religious minorities and threatened old religious traditions in Europe. Witte argues that the robust promotion and protection of religious freedom is the best way to protect many other fundamental rights today, even though religious freedom and other fundamental rights sometimes clash and need judicious balancing. He also responds to various modern critics who see human rights as a betrayal of Christianity and religious freedom as a betrayal of human rights.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Stephen Thomson ◽  
Eric C. Ip ◽  
Shing Fung Lee

Abstract International comparisons of the effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) based on national case and mortality data are fraught with underestimated complexity. This article calls for stronger attention to just how extensive is the multifactorial nature of national case and mortality data, and argues that, unless a globally consistent benchmark of measurement can be devised, such comparisons are facile, if not misleading. This can lead to policy decisions and public support for the adoption of potentially harmful NPIs that are ineffective in combating the COVID-19 pandemic and damaging to mental health, social cohesion, human rights and economic development. The unscientific use of international comparisons of case and mortality data in public discourse, media reporting and policymaking on NPI effectiveness should be subject to greater scrutiny.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-2
Author(s):  
Basma Hajir ◽  
William McInerney
Keyword(s):  

Media Iuris ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 289
Author(s):  
Adam Muhshi ◽  
Radian Salman

AbstractThis paper will examine the restrictions imposed by the Indonesian government on religious activities carried out together in places of worship during the covid-19 pandemic. These restrictions in recent times have even reached the level of closing places of worship. This restriction was carried out by the government with the aim of preventing the spread of the corona virus. However, in practice, the level of citizen compliance with these restrictions is still relatively low. The question that then arises is whether restrictions on religious activities carried out together in places of worship during a pandemic (health emergency) can be justified juridically. Departing from this problem, this article will try to analyze whether or not restrictions on religious activities are correct from the point of view of human rights and Islam. The answer to this question shows that the limitation of religious activities carried out jointly in places of worship in a health emergency finds its justification both in the perspective of human rights and in the perspective of Islamic law.Keywords: Restrictions on Religious Freedom; Corona Virus; health emergency; Human rights; Islam.AbstrakPaper ini akan mengkaji pembatasan yang dilakukan pemerintah Indonesia terhadap kegiatan keagamaan yang dilaksanakan secara bersama-sama di tempat ibadah pada masa pandemi covid-19. Pembatasan tersebut dalam beberapa waktu terakhir bahkan sampai pada level penutupan tempat ibadah. Pembatasan tersebut dilakukan oleh Pemerintah dengan tujuan untuk mencegah semakin meluasnya penularan virus korona. Namun dalam prakteknya, tingkat kepatuhan warga terhadap pembatasan tersebut masih relatif rendah. Pertanyaan yang kemudian muncul adalah apakah pembatasan terhadap kegiatan kegamaan yang dilakukan secara bersama-sama di tempat ibadah pada masa pandemi (darurat kesehatan) dapat dibenarkan secara yuridis. Berangkat dari persoalan tersebut, artikel ini akan mencoba untuk menganalisis tentang benar tidaknya pembatasan terhadap kegiatan keagamaan dalam sudut pandang HAM dan Islam. Jawaban terhadap persoalan tersebut menunjukkan bahwa pembatasan kegiatan kegamaan yang dilakukan secara bersama-sama di tempat ibadah dalam kondisi darurat kesehatan menemukan justifikasinya baik dalam perspektif HAM maupun dalam perspektif hukum Islam.Kata Kunci: Pembatasan Kebebasan Beragama; Virus Korona; Darurat Kesehatan; HAM; Islam.


2021 ◽  
pp. 7-20
Author(s):  
Adam Szymacha

The aim of the article: The presented study concerns the problem of violations of fundamental rights caused by the law regulation contained in art. 27c of the Corporate Income Tax Act in Poland. This regulation provides obligation to publish information about introduced tax strategies. Yet, it may endanger many human rights and this article focuses on two of them – the right to remain silent, and the right of privacy. The aim of this article is to make an analysis of the standards presented by the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights. Additionally, the standard presented by the Polish Constitutional Court is presented. Methodology: To decode these standards the comparative law method is used. Especially the case laws of these courts are presented and additionally, they are completed by the comparison of the acts that concern similar law institutions but come from different lawmakers. Results of the research: The results of the study do not provide a clear answer. However, they do allow for an approximation of the issue of possible violations of fundamental rights by the analyzed regulation. It is very likely that the analyzed regulation violates the right to remain silent and it is even close to certainty that the analyzed laws violate the right to privacy. The problem is not only the interference in these rights, but in its character as well. Under certain circumstances, interference with fundamental rights is acceptable but must be proportionate. Examined laws are only explained in terms of budgetary balance and the academic world points out that the purpose of this type of regulation is mainly of administrative convenience. This is far too little to consider this interference with fundamental rights imperative.


2021 ◽  
pp. 232200582110510
Author(s):  
Omar Madhloom ◽  
Irene Antonopoulos

This article explores the theoretical foundations for a social justice–centric global law clinic movement. Our starting position is that law clinics, a type of clinical legal education (CLE), are in a unique position to engage in, and potentially promote, social justice issues outside their immediate communities and jurisdictions. To achieve this aim, it is necessary for law clinics to adopt a universal pro forma underpinned by the key concepts of CLE, namely social justice education and promoting access to justice through law reform. We argue that the main features of CLE are aligned with those of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) on issues such as human dignity and social justice. Incorporating UDHR values into CLE serves three purposes. First, it acts as a universal pro forma, which facilitates communication between clinics across jurisdictions, irrespective of their cultural or legal background. Second, it allows clinics to identify sources of global injustices and to share resources and expertise to collectively address injustices. Third, the theoretical approach advocated in this article argues that clinics have a Kantian moral right to engage in transnational law reform.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document