The conventional wisdom in Egypt examines the issue of intellectual property solely as a question of policing and enforcement. The high levels of protection indicated by the WTO Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights are unquestioningly assumed to be desirable. Policy debates - and all too often academic ones as well - focus only on the questions of how to more efficiently tighten IP protection and crack down on piracy. Yet a more critical examination is urgently needed, whereby IP law, policy, and practice are viewed from a development perspective, rather than from an enforcement perspective. This volume takes on this endeavor. It offers the first examination of IP issues in Egypt adopting a multidisciplinary bottom-up approach that aims at maximizing access and contribution to knowledge, and in turn, promoting development. Bringing rigorous empirical research to bear on unquestioned ideologies, the collaborating authors question the conventional wisdom that more IP protection is necessarily better for innovation and development.
{"title":"Access to Knowledge in Brazil: New Research on Intellectual Property, Innovation and Development","authors":"Lea Shaver","doi":"10.5040/9781849660785","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5040/9781849660785","url":null,"abstract":"The conventional wisdom in Egypt examines the issue of intellectual property solely as a question of policing and enforcement. The high levels of protection indicated by the WTO Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights are unquestioningly assumed to be desirable. Policy debates - and all too often academic ones as well - focus only on the questions of how to more efficiently tighten IP protection and crack down on piracy. Yet a more critical examination is urgently needed, whereby IP law, policy, and practice are viewed from a development perspective, rather than from an enforcement perspective. This volume takes on this endeavor. It offers the first examination of IP issues in Egypt adopting a multidisciplinary bottom-up approach that aims at maximizing access and contribution to knowledge, and in turn, promoting development. Bringing rigorous empirical research to bear on unquestioned ideologies, the collaborating authors question the conventional wisdom that more IP protection is necessarily better for innovation and development.","PeriodicalId":106035,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights & the Global Economy eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121010830","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
With the American economy seemingly stalling, the global economy thereby imperiled, and another electoral campaign season well underway in the U.S., the "outsourcing" of jobs from the developed to the developing world is again on the public agenda. Latest figures indicate not only that layoffs and claims for joblessness benefits are up in the U.S., but also that the rate of American job-exportation has more than doubled since the last electoral cycle. This year's American political candidates have been quick to take note. In consequence, more than at any time since the early 1990s, continued American, and with it other developed economies', participation in the World Trade Organization and processes of global economic integration more generally appear to be up for grabs. It is not clear, on reflection, how to regard these developments from a normative point of view. On the one hand, there seems no gainsaying the claim that the gradual removal of transnational trade and investment barriers have resulted in more rapid economic growth worldwide. And that growth appears to be lifting many once desperately poor persons out of their erstwhile penury. Yet on the other hand, there also would seem no denying that global trade and investment liberalization are wreaking losses at least as conspicuous as the gains. For many if not most of the victims of globalization are those who till recently occupied positions much like those that are coming to be occupied by globalization's more sympathetic beneficiaries, and who climbed out of them via precisely such legislated standards as offshoring firms now evade. Might we pay Peter without robbing Paul? This Article proposes an ethically and intuitively attractive answer to that question rooted in financial engineering. The key is to channel a portion of the globalization-wrought gains reaped by outsourcing firms to the outsourced employees themselves. This way the latter are directly benefited by the very processes that currently harm them. The method proposed is to adapt the familiar Employee Stock Ownership Plan, or "ESOP," to spread firm-shares not simply to current labor, but to outsourced and otherwise harmed "shadow" labor as well. The Article also proposes means of diversifying the portfolio risk that will face "OutsourceSOP" participants, and maps the supporting role apt to be played by such globalization-constitutive financial institutions as the IMF and the World Bank. In the long run, the Article urges, we have here the makings of a grander ambition that all the world's inhabitants can jointly support - a "Global Shareholder Society."
{"title":"For a Global Shareholder Society","authors":"R. Hockett","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1266230","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1266230","url":null,"abstract":"With the American economy seemingly stalling, the global economy thereby imperiled, and another electoral campaign season well underway in the U.S., the \"outsourcing\" of jobs from the developed to the developing world is again on the public agenda. Latest figures indicate not only that layoffs and claims for joblessness benefits are up in the U.S., but also that the rate of American job-exportation has more than doubled since the last electoral cycle. This year's American political candidates have been quick to take note. In consequence, more than at any time since the early 1990s, continued American, and with it other developed economies', participation in the World Trade Organization and processes of global economic integration more generally appear to be up for grabs. It is not clear, on reflection, how to regard these developments from a normative point of view. On the one hand, there seems no gainsaying the claim that the gradual removal of transnational trade and investment barriers have resulted in more rapid economic growth worldwide. And that growth appears to be lifting many once desperately poor persons out of their erstwhile penury. Yet on the other hand, there also would seem no denying that global trade and investment liberalization are wreaking losses at least as conspicuous as the gains. For many if not most of the victims of globalization are those who till recently occupied positions much like those that are coming to be occupied by globalization's more sympathetic beneficiaries, and who climbed out of them via precisely such legislated standards as offshoring firms now evade. Might we pay Peter without robbing Paul? This Article proposes an ethically and intuitively attractive answer to that question rooted in financial engineering. The key is to channel a portion of the globalization-wrought gains reaped by outsourcing firms to the outsourced employees themselves. This way the latter are directly benefited by the very processes that currently harm them. The method proposed is to adapt the familiar Employee Stock Ownership Plan, or \"ESOP,\" to spread firm-shares not simply to current labor, but to outsourced and otherwise harmed \"shadow\" labor as well. The Article also proposes means of diversifying the portfolio risk that will face \"OutsourceSOP\" participants, and maps the supporting role apt to be played by such globalization-constitutive financial institutions as the IMF and the World Bank. In the long run, the Article urges, we have here the makings of a grander ambition that all the world's inhabitants can jointly support - a \"Global Shareholder Society.\"","PeriodicalId":106035,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights & the Global Economy eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124569508","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2008-08-22DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9337.2008.00393.x
G. Beck
A special legal status is accorded to human rights within Western liberal democracies: They enjoy a priority over other human goods and are not subjected to the majoritarian principle. The underlying assumptionthe idea that there are some human values that deserve special protectionimplies the need for both a normative and a conceptual justification. This paper claims that neither can be provided. The normative justification is needed to support the priority of human rights over other human goods and to rank and balance conflicting human rights, but it can't be provided because of the fact of pervasive value pluralism, the fact that human values are many, incompatible and incommensurable. The conceptual justification is needed to avoid arbitrariness in the interpretation of human rights at the adjudication stage. Such a justification is impossible, however, as the concept of human rights, and the concepts used to justify them and to solve their conflicts are essentially contested concepts. The paper concludes that, provided that the interpretation of human rights presupposes value judgements and political choices, the special legal status accorded to human rights is not justified.
{"title":"The Mythology of Human Rights","authors":"G. Beck","doi":"10.1111/j.1467-9337.2008.00393.x","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9337.2008.00393.x","url":null,"abstract":"A special legal status is accorded to human rights within Western liberal democracies: They enjoy a priority over other human goods and are not subjected to the majoritarian principle. The underlying assumptionthe idea that there are some human values that deserve special protectionimplies the need for both a normative and a conceptual justification. This paper claims that neither can be provided. The normative justification is needed to support the priority of human rights over other human goods and to rank and balance conflicting human rights, but it can't be provided because of the fact of pervasive value pluralism, the fact that human values are many, incompatible and incommensurable. The conceptual justification is needed to avoid arbitrariness in the interpretation of human rights at the adjudication stage. Such a justification is impossible, however, as the concept of human rights, and the concepts used to justify them and to solve their conflicts are essentially contested concepts. The paper concludes that, provided that the interpretation of human rights presupposes value judgements and political choices, the special legal status accorded to human rights is not justified.","PeriodicalId":106035,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights & the Global Economy eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117099376","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Universal Declaration on Human Rights was pivotal in popularizing the use of ‘dignity’ or ‘human dignity’ in human rights discourse. This article argues that the use of ‘dignity’, beyond a basic minimum core, does not provide a universalistic, principled basis for judicial decision-making in the human rights context, in the sense that there is little common understanding of what dignity requires substantively within or across jurisdictions. The meaning of dignity is therefore context-specific, varying significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and (often) over time within particular jurisdictions. Indeed, instead of providing a basis for principled decision-making, dignity seems open to significant judicial manipulation, increasing rather than decreasing judicial discretion. That is one of its significant attractions to both judges and litigators alike. Dignity provides a convenient language for the adoption of substantive interpretations of human rights guarantees which appear to be intentionally, not just coincidentally, highly contingent on local circumstances. Despite that, however, I argue that the concept of ‘human dignity’ plays an important role in the development of human rights adjudication, not in providing an agreed content to human rights but in contributing to particular methods of human rights interpretation and adjudication.
{"title":"Human Dignity and Judicial Interpretation of Human Rights","authors":"C. McCrudden","doi":"10.1093/EJIL/CHN043","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/EJIL/CHN043","url":null,"abstract":"The Universal Declaration on Human Rights was pivotal in popularizing the use of ‘dignity’ or ‘human dignity’ in human rights discourse. This article argues that the use of ‘dignity’, beyond a basic minimum core, does not provide a universalistic, principled basis for judicial decision-making in the human rights context, in the sense that there is little common understanding of what dignity requires substantively within or across jurisdictions. The meaning of dignity is therefore context-specific, varying significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and (often) over time within particular jurisdictions. Indeed, instead of providing a basis for principled decision-making, dignity seems open to significant judicial manipulation, increasing rather than decreasing judicial discretion. That is one of its significant attractions to both judges and litigators alike. Dignity provides a convenient language for the adoption of substantive interpretations of human rights guarantees which appear to be intentionally, not just coincidentally, highly contingent on local circumstances. Despite that, however, I argue that the concept of ‘human dignity’ plays an important role in the development of human rights adjudication, not in providing an agreed content to human rights but in contributing to particular methods of human rights interpretation and adjudication.","PeriodicalId":106035,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights & the Global Economy eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131465223","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper discusses the right to health recognised in the Brazilian Constitution of 1988 and the growing judicialization of health in Brazil that followed, i.e. the growing number of court orders requiring the state to provide to individual claimants health products and services not included in the state health policy. We claim that the conception of health adopted in the constitution is wider than simply healthcare, including the so-called social determinants of health such as basic sanitation, education, housing conditions, income etc. As a consequence, the guarantee of the right to health depends on social and economic comprehensive policies that go way beyond the mere provision of healthcare. We then discuss the principles of equality and universality of access adopted in the constitution and claim that, given the fact of resource scarcity, equity must be the fundamental principle to guide the formulation of health policies and allocation of these resources. In that context, we argue that the Brazilian courts interpretation of the right to health as an individual and absolute right to any health care needed by the claimant, irrespective of its costs and without any regard to the comprehensive health policy and resource allocation made by the state, harms the principle of equality and universality established in the constitution. This is because the resources diverted from the health budget to comply with the judicial orders go to a necessarily restricted group (those who go to the courts, often the middle classes) and comes out of the pot that serves the population who uses the public health system, mostly the poor. Given the widespread scepticism in the legal professions in Brazil about resource scarcity, often perceived as an excuse of the state not to invest more in health, we present a simulation of the costs that this interpretation of the right to health would require to fund the universal treatment of two diseases (chronic viral hepatitis C and rheumatoid arthritis) affecting a meagre 1.9% of the population with the best treatment available in the market. The result shows that the health budget would have to be more than doubled simply to cover these two treatments.
{"title":"The Right to Health, Public Policies and Inequalities in Brazil: Equity as the Fundamental Principle (Direito à Saúde, Políticas Públicas e Desigualdades Sociais no Brasil: Eqüidade como Princípio Fundamental)","authors":"Octávio Luiz Motta Ferraz, F. S. Vieira","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1137872","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1137872","url":null,"abstract":"This paper discusses the right to health recognised in the Brazilian Constitution of 1988 and the growing judicialization of health in Brazil that followed, i.e. the growing number of court orders requiring the state to provide to individual claimants health products and services not included in the state health policy. We claim that the conception of health adopted in the constitution is wider than simply healthcare, including the so-called social determinants of health such as basic sanitation, education, housing conditions, income etc. As a consequence, the guarantee of the right to health depends on social and economic comprehensive policies that go way beyond the mere provision of healthcare. We then discuss the principles of equality and universality of access adopted in the constitution and claim that, given the fact of resource scarcity, equity must be the fundamental principle to guide the formulation of health policies and allocation of these resources. In that context, we argue that the Brazilian courts interpretation of the right to health as an individual and absolute right to any health care needed by the claimant, irrespective of its costs and without any regard to the comprehensive health policy and resource allocation made by the state, harms the principle of equality and universality established in the constitution. This is because the resources diverted from the health budget to comply with the judicial orders go to a necessarily restricted group (those who go to the courts, often the middle classes) and comes out of the pot that serves the population who uses the public health system, mostly the poor. Given the widespread scepticism in the legal professions in Brazil about resource scarcity, often perceived as an excuse of the state not to invest more in health, we present a simulation of the costs that this interpretation of the right to health would require to fund the universal treatment of two diseases (chronic viral hepatitis C and rheumatoid arthritis) affecting a meagre 1.9% of the population with the best treatment available in the market. The result shows that the health budget would have to be more than doubled simply to cover these two treatments.","PeriodicalId":106035,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights & the Global Economy eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127250426","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This study attempts to assess the Nepalese laws related to rights of the child, particularly Children's Act 1992 in respect to international laws particularly focused on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989. After close exploration of CRC Children's Act 1992, Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal 1992 and very recently, Interim Constitution of Nepal 2007, the reality we do have, it is revealed that legal framework is necessary but not the sufficient condition for the children and their concern. To support the legal framework, the second condition of socio-economic framework must be aligned which is not done in parallel in Nepalese context therefore the implementation is a fatal problem. Children are majority in statistics but minority on social status in real world. Nepal has ratified most of the human right conventions and optional protocols but respective domestic initiation in that respect is poor. Role of society and non-government organizations are inevitable for effective implementation of the rights of the children and their concern.
{"title":"Child Rights in Nepal","authors":"Dinesh Gajurel","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1106619","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1106619","url":null,"abstract":"This study attempts to assess the Nepalese laws related to rights of the child, particularly Children's Act 1992 in respect to international laws particularly focused on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989. After close exploration of CRC Children's Act 1992, Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal 1992 and very recently, Interim Constitution of Nepal 2007, the reality we do have, it is revealed that legal framework is necessary but not the sufficient condition for the children and their concern. To support the legal framework, the second condition of socio-economic framework must be aligned which is not done in parallel in Nepalese context therefore the implementation is a fatal problem. Children are majority in statistics but minority on social status in real world. Nepal has ratified most of the human right conventions and optional protocols but respective domestic initiation in that respect is poor. Role of society and non-government organizations are inevitable for effective implementation of the rights of the children and their concern.","PeriodicalId":106035,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights & the Global Economy eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132810258","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper looks into the legal framework of the United Kingdom in relation to access to information and describes the role of the relevant institutions, their structure, their functioning, their level of accountability and their review mechanisms. Furthermore, this paper analyses the practical implementation of the legal standards in the UK and illustrates a few cases that identify the major problems and challenges as well as the major areas of concern in relation to access to information. Finally, this paper takes a look at the the role played civil society in the UK in the adoption of a Freedom of Information Act and in monitoring its effective implementation.
{"title":"Access to Information Country Study - United Kingdom","authors":"F. Fanucci","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2057609","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2057609","url":null,"abstract":"This paper looks into the legal framework of the United Kingdom in relation to access to information and describes the role of the relevant institutions, their structure, their functioning, their level of accountability and their review mechanisms. Furthermore, this paper analyses the practical implementation of the legal standards in the UK and illustrates a few cases that identify the major problems and challenges as well as the major areas of concern in relation to access to information. Finally, this paper takes a look at the the role played civil society in the UK in the adoption of a Freedom of Information Act and in monitoring its effective implementation.","PeriodicalId":106035,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights & the Global Economy eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131373501","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Human rights has become a global issue. This is due, in large part, to the increasing number of organizations around the globe focusing on this critical issue and the availability of technologies that are creating new pathways of communication and connectedness that are drawing attention to this issue. As a result, a new paradigm has emerged; global advocacy and knowledge networks are rapidly emerging and are spanning the globe generating and managing new and critical knowledge about human rights. This study is intended to examine this new global community by conducting an exploratory network analysis of international organizations involved in efforts to end gender based violence against women. Initially, the YearBook of International Organizations was used to identify International Non-governmental Organizations (INGOs) and their relations. The identified organizations and their relations were then used to create a one-mode undirected network of INGOs. The results of this analysis show the existence of a low density network in which the number of relations or ties relative the number of potential relations or ties is low. From a human rights perspective one could conclude that although these organizations are all working on a common goal, they are not maximizing their full potential in terms of shared goal attainment. The most significant conclusion is that INGOs should seek to increase their number of relationships to facilitate additional sharing and information dissemination which, in turn, may lead to a significant impact on human rights issues.
{"title":"The Global Human Rights Community: An Analysis of International Non-Governmental Organizations from a Network Perspective","authors":"C. Thill","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1104142","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1104142","url":null,"abstract":"Human rights has become a global issue. This is due, in large part, to the increasing number of organizations around the globe focusing on this critical issue and the availability of technologies that are creating new pathways of communication and connectedness that are drawing attention to this issue. As a result, a new paradigm has emerged; global advocacy and knowledge networks are rapidly emerging and are spanning the globe generating and managing new and critical knowledge about human rights. This study is intended to examine this new global community by conducting an exploratory network analysis of international organizations involved in efforts to end gender based violence against women. Initially, the YearBook of International Organizations was used to identify International Non-governmental Organizations (INGOs) and their relations. The identified organizations and their relations were then used to create a one-mode undirected network of INGOs. The results of this analysis show the existence of a low density network in which the number of relations or ties relative the number of potential relations or ties is low. From a human rights perspective one could conclude that although these organizations are all working on a common goal, they are not maximizing their full potential in terms of shared goal attainment. The most significant conclusion is that INGOs should seek to increase their number of relationships to facilitate additional sharing and information dissemination which, in turn, may lead to a significant impact on human rights issues.","PeriodicalId":106035,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights & the Global Economy eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130546942","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The importance of migrant workers in a globalized world cannot be over-emphasized. Sadly however, migrant workers have over the years fallen victim of different levels of degrading and inhuman treatments in their countries of vocation. It was in order to correct this situation that the United Nations in December 1990 adopted the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (MWC). Indeed, this Convention opened a new chapter in the history of efforts to establish the rights of migrant workers and to ensure that these rights are protected and respected.Despite the adoption of this treaty in 1990, global events continue to show that the inhuman treatments of the past have continued to make life unbearable for migrant workers in different countries of the world. Of great concern also is the fact that most developed countries of the world, especially Canada and the United States have refused to ratify this convention. In the light of this, it is doubtful whether this convention can achieve any form of effectiveness without their ratifications.This paper will take an in-depth look into the rights enshrined in this convention. It will engage in an analysis of some articles of the MWC with the aim of appraising the level of rights and protection offered to migrant workers under it. It examines the rights of migrant workers as aliens in general international human rights law as well as the specific efforts and measures of the International Labour Organization and the United Nations in affording them protection. The paper will draw out the weaknesses of the MWC while offering suggestions on how these weaknesses can be rectified. Most developed countries have cited these weaknesses as their reasons for refusing to ratify this convention. This paper will examine these claims while analyzing the appropriate steps to be taken if the United Nations intends to confer some effectiveness and acceptance on the MWC. Moreover, the paper will be lending its voice to the on-going global campaign for the ratification of this important treaty.
{"title":"Migrant Workers: Where Lies Their Haven under the United Nations' Migrant Workers' Convention?","authors":"D. Okeowo","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1043682","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1043682","url":null,"abstract":"The importance of migrant workers in a globalized world cannot be over-emphasized. Sadly however, migrant workers have over the years fallen victim of different levels of degrading and inhuman treatments in their countries of vocation. It was in order to correct this situation that the United Nations in December 1990 adopted the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (MWC). Indeed, this Convention opened a new chapter in the history of efforts to establish the rights of migrant workers and to ensure that these rights are protected and respected.Despite the adoption of this treaty in 1990, global events continue to show that the inhuman treatments of the past have continued to make life unbearable for migrant workers in different countries of the world. Of great concern also is the fact that most developed countries of the world, especially Canada and the United States have refused to ratify this convention. In the light of this, it is doubtful whether this convention can achieve any form of effectiveness without their ratifications.This paper will take an in-depth look into the rights enshrined in this convention. It will engage in an analysis of some articles of the MWC with the aim of appraising the level of rights and protection offered to migrant workers under it. It examines the rights of migrant workers as aliens in general international human rights law as well as the specific efforts and measures of the International Labour Organization and the United Nations in affording them protection. The paper will draw out the weaknesses of the MWC while offering suggestions on how these weaknesses can be rectified. Most developed countries have cited these weaknesses as their reasons for refusing to ratify this convention. This paper will examine these claims while analyzing the appropriate steps to be taken if the United Nations intends to confer some effectiveness and acceptance on the MWC. Moreover, the paper will be lending its voice to the on-going global campaign for the ratification of this important treaty.","PeriodicalId":106035,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights & the Global Economy eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2007-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122528808","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Justifications for the welfare state in general, and for social protection in particular, have come from three sources: market failures, specifically the inability of commercial and community-based insurance mechanisms to provide cover against all forms of risk; doctrines of human rights, specifically economic and social rights; and needs-based doctrines which stress both the practical and the moral importance for poor and non-poor alike of eliminating (or at least alleviating) poverty. Perhaps because the three arise largely from distinct intellectual traditions, the three discourses tend to run in parallel, with remarkably few intersection points. In public policy debates, moreover, these three discourses tend to come into and fall out of fashion, only to come back again. Given these dynamics, those who support social protection and the goals of poverty reduction would do well to understand each of the three discourses, including the areas where they are mutually supportive and those where they are mutually contradictory. This paper explores those areas of mutual support and contradiction.
{"title":"Risks, Rights, and Needs: Compatible or Contradictory Bases for Social Protection?","authors":"L. Munro","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1204842","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1204842","url":null,"abstract":"Justifications for the welfare state in general, and for social protection in particular, have come from three sources: market failures, specifically the inability of commercial and community-based insurance mechanisms to provide cover against all forms of risk; doctrines of human rights, specifically economic and social rights; and needs-based doctrines which stress both the practical and the moral importance for poor and non-poor alike of eliminating (or at least alleviating) poverty. Perhaps because the three arise largely from distinct intellectual traditions, the three discourses tend to run in parallel, with remarkably few intersection points. In public policy debates, moreover, these three discourses tend to come into and fall out of fashion, only to come back again. Given these dynamics, those who support social protection and the goals of poverty reduction would do well to understand each of the three discourses, including the areas where they are mutually supportive and those where they are mutually contradictory. This paper explores those areas of mutual support and contradiction.","PeriodicalId":106035,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights & the Global Economy eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2007-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126635506","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：