Egypt’s revolution did not end on February 11, 2011. Despite the removal of Hosni Mubarak from the presidency, the former Mubarak regime remains entrenched in Egypt’s economic and political system. This is evident from the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces’ (SCAF) June 2012 power grab of legislative authority after dissolving parliament – a move many consider to have been a virtual military coup d’etat. Skeptics argue SCAF is merely a Mubarak holdover until the old regime can reinvent itself under a new guise. Former Prime Minister and Mubarak confidant Ahmed Shafiq’s near win against the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohammed Morsi in the presidential elections may be proof of this. A Shafiq presidency would have instantly nullified gains made through the last eighteen months of protests, sacrifices, and deaths by millions of Egyptians. Although the current political landscape differs from the days preceding the January 25 revolution, Egypt appears to suffer from a familiar syndrome: for every step taken towards meaningful reform, it falls back two steps due to entrenched counter-revolutionary forces. This began the moment the military took control of the executive branch on February 11, 2011 only to unilaterally replace the 1971 constitution with its own interim Constitutional Declaration on March 30, 2011. This dubious document unilaterally imposed by SCAF barely holds Egypt together as the country faces one legal crisis after another.This essay argues Egypt is still in the midst of a revolution and has yet to enter the post-revolutionary phase of nation-building. The essay starts by providing a brief summary of the political context of the post-Mubarak transition. Central to understanding the context is identifying the key political actors and their roles in the ongoing struggle to reshape Egypt’s political landscape. Finally, this essay highlights the importance of the rule of law to steer Egypt through an inevitably turbulent phase at this historic juncture. In many ways, the heated contestation for power is a healthy indicator of Egyptians’ investment in their nation in stark contrast to the pre-revolution sense of hopeless complacency. But such contestations can be politically debilitating if they are not constrained by laws that ensure a fair and level playing field among the various political actors, allow the citizenry to hold elected officials accountable for failing to improve the economy, and guarantee no one – not even a President, as evidenced by the recent criminal trial of Mubarak – is above the law. Without rule of law, however, the citizenry will again disengage from the political system as it discovers its votes and voices are irrelevant to the broader power struggle between the military and Muslim Brotherhood.In perspective, Egypt’s experience could have turned out much worse compared to other nations undergoing revolutions (see: Syria). However, that alone does not curtail Egyptians’ well-grounded demands of a government at the se
{"title":"Egypt's Protracted Revolution","authors":"Sahar F. Aziz","doi":"10.7282/T3280C6Q","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7282/T3280C6Q","url":null,"abstract":"Egypt’s revolution did not end on February 11, 2011. Despite the removal of Hosni Mubarak from the presidency, the former Mubarak regime remains entrenched in Egypt’s economic and political system. This is evident from the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces’ (SCAF) June 2012 power grab of legislative authority after dissolving parliament – a move many consider to have been a virtual military coup d’etat. Skeptics argue SCAF is merely a Mubarak holdover until the old regime can reinvent itself under a new guise. Former Prime Minister and Mubarak confidant Ahmed Shafiq’s near win against the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohammed Morsi in the presidential elections may be proof of this. A Shafiq presidency would have instantly nullified gains made through the last eighteen months of protests, sacrifices, and deaths by millions of Egyptians. Although the current political landscape differs from the days preceding the January 25 revolution, Egypt appears to suffer from a familiar syndrome: for every step taken towards meaningful reform, it falls back two steps due to entrenched counter-revolutionary forces. This began the moment the military took control of the executive branch on February 11, 2011 only to unilaterally replace the 1971 constitution with its own interim Constitutional Declaration on March 30, 2011. This dubious document unilaterally imposed by SCAF barely holds Egypt together as the country faces one legal crisis after another.This essay argues Egypt is still in the midst of a revolution and has yet to enter the post-revolutionary phase of nation-building. The essay starts by providing a brief summary of the political context of the post-Mubarak transition. Central to understanding the context is identifying the key political actors and their roles in the ongoing struggle to reshape Egypt’s political landscape. Finally, this essay highlights the importance of the rule of law to steer Egypt through an inevitably turbulent phase at this historic juncture. In many ways, the heated contestation for power is a healthy indicator of Egyptians’ investment in their nation in stark contrast to the pre-revolution sense of hopeless complacency. But such contestations can be politically debilitating if they are not constrained by laws that ensure a fair and level playing field among the various political actors, allow the citizenry to hold elected officials accountable for failing to improve the economy, and guarantee no one – not even a President, as evidenced by the recent criminal trial of Mubarak – is above the law. Without rule of law, however, the citizenry will again disengage from the political system as it discovers its votes and voices are irrelevant to the broader power struggle between the military and Muslim Brotherhood.In perspective, Egypt’s experience could have turned out much worse compared to other nations undergoing revolutions (see: Syria). However, that alone does not curtail Egyptians’ well-grounded demands of a government at the se","PeriodicalId":236314,"journal":{"name":"THE HUMAN RIGHTS BRIEF","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127716112","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 General Assembly’s adoption of the text of the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons in November 2000, the international community achieved a degree of consensus on an issue that has been the subject of politically-charged and morally-loaded debate since it undertook to elaborate the draft in December 1998 – whether and how to incorporate a human rights approach into this new international legal instrument which would supplement the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime. Trafficking in persons is a complex phenomenon, encompassing such issues as gender discrimination, economic exploitation, and globalisation. As that complexity has been revealed, so has the international discourse on the issue become more sophisticated, acknowledging the great variety of configurations in which, and purposes for which, it occurs, as well as, in the words of the Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, “the continuum of women’s movement and migrations” within which trafficking exists. Another aspect of this complexity is the range of actors typically involved – from the “travel agents” and “employment recruiters” in countries of origin, to the corrupt law enforcement officials in transit countries, to the “bosses” who control the entire process. It is now well established that governments are not absolved of responsibility simply because acts violating human rights are committed by persons other than state officials. Further, such responsibility is not limited to cases where non-state actors are acting on behalf of the state. Human rights law imposes a duty on states to prevent and respond to violations committed by non-state actors, even when there is no connection between such actors and the state. The complexity of trafficking is also reflected in the finally agreed upon definition of trafficking in persons, which is broad enough to cover all actors and intermediaries and to respond to the realities faced by victims of trafficking. This definition has found immediate application in Kosovo, where the absence of law enforcement following the withdrawal of Serbian and Yugoslav forces in June 1999, coupled with the slow build-up of effective interim police services, enabled organized crime to flourish – and with it, the trade in human beings.This article sets forth an analysis of the legal responsibilities of states under human rights law for violations committed in a trafficking context, and demonstrates how Regulation 2001/4 of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) establishes the legislative foundation for fulfilling those responsibilities in Kosovo. Section I de-scribes the situation in Kosovo, highlighting the particular features of trafficking in persons in a post-conflict territory under United Nations administration. Section II examines the modes of state accountability that apply in a trafficking context, outlining the spectrum from pure state action to pure non
{"title":"The Human Rights Framework Applicable ToTrafficking in PersonsAnd Its Incorporation into UNMIK Regulation 2001/4","authors":"John P. Cerone","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1647216","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1647216","url":null,"abstract":"With the General Assembly’s adoption of the text of the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons in November 2000, the international community achieved a degree of consensus on an issue that has been the subject of politically-charged and morally-loaded debate since it undertook to elaborate the draft in December 1998 – whether and how to incorporate a human rights approach into this new international legal instrument which would supplement the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime. Trafficking in persons is a complex phenomenon, encompassing such issues as gender discrimination, economic exploitation, and globalisation. As that complexity has been revealed, so has the international discourse on the issue become more sophisticated, acknowledging the great variety of configurations in which, and purposes for which, it occurs, as well as, in the words of the Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, “the continuum of women’s movement and migrations” within which trafficking exists. Another aspect of this complexity is the range of actors typically involved – from the “travel agents” and “employment recruiters” in countries of origin, to the corrupt law enforcement officials in transit countries, to the “bosses” who control the entire process. It is now well established that governments are not absolved of responsibility simply because acts violating human rights are committed by persons other than state officials. Further, such responsibility is not limited to cases where non-state actors are acting on behalf of the state. Human rights law imposes a duty on states to prevent and respond to violations committed by non-state actors, even when there is no connection between such actors and the state. The complexity of trafficking is also reflected in the finally agreed upon definition of trafficking in persons, which is broad enough to cover all actors and intermediaries and to respond to the realities faced by victims of trafficking. This definition has found immediate application in Kosovo, where the absence of law enforcement following the withdrawal of Serbian and Yugoslav forces in June 1999, coupled with the slow build-up of effective interim police services, enabled organized crime to flourish – and with it, the trade in human beings.This article sets forth an analysis of the legal responsibilities of states under human rights law for violations committed in a trafficking context, and demonstrates how Regulation 2001/4 of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) establishes the legislative foundation for fulfilling those responsibilities in Kosovo. Section I de-scribes the situation in Kosovo, highlighting the particular features of trafficking in persons in a post-conflict territory under United Nations administration. Section II examines the modes of state accountability that apply in a trafficking context, outlining the spectrum from pure state action to pure non","PeriodicalId":236314,"journal":{"name":"THE HUMAN RIGHTS BRIEF","volume":"79 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125053008","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 : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.1163/2210-7975_hrd-9969-3007
Jorge E. Taiana
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Commission) of the Organization of American States (OAS) has had a central role in the development of the international law of human rights in these areas, and its work and influence is very much linked to the recent history of our region. In order to better understand the way forward when facing the Commission’s current challenges, it is worth considering the three phases that have defined its work throughout the last five decades, as well as its outstanding contribution to the protection of human rights through its recommendations to OAS Member States.
{"title":"The Legacy and Current Challenges of the Inter-AmericanCommission on Human Rights","authors":"Jorge E. Taiana","doi":"10.1163/2210-7975_hrd-9969-3007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/2210-7975_hrd-9969-3007","url":null,"abstract":"The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Commission) of the Organization of American States (OAS) has had a central role in the development of the international law of human rights in these areas, and its work and influence is very much linked to the recent history of our region. In order to better understand the way forward when facing the Commission’s current challenges, it is worth considering the three phases that have defined its work throughout the last five decades, as well as its outstanding contribution to the protection of human rights through its recommendations to OAS Member States.","PeriodicalId":236314,"journal":{"name":"THE HUMAN RIGHTS BRIEF","volume":"127 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122759952","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 : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.1163/2210-7975_hrd-9969-3008
Samantha Arnold
IntroductIon All human beings, regardless of their sexual orientation, have the right to the enjoyment and protection of the fundamental freedoms outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by virtue of their humanity.1 However, persons who identify as, or are perceived to be, sexual minorities —lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, or intersex persons—are regularly denied these rights through discriminatory laws or national practices. In 2010, the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA)2 organization reported that countries repeatedly breach the right to life, the right to be free from torture and inhuman treatment, and the right to non-discrimination.3 Although it is each state’s responsibility to protect its citizens and persons living within its territory in accordance with international norms, the rights of sexual minorities often come into conflict with the religious and cultural morals that govern society.4 For example, at least 76 countries continue to prosecute individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation.5 Thirty-eight countries in Africa alone have laws criminalizing homosexuality.6 The ILGA reported that in 2010, same-sex acts were punishable by death in at least five countries: Iran, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Yemen, as well as regions within Nigeria and Somalia.7 Sexual minority refugees often flee situations where states sanction discriminatory actions and policies toward sexual minorities, or where states fail to protect their citizens from persecution on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity.
{"title":"Identity and the Sexual Minority Refugee: A Discussion of Conceptions and Preconceptions in the United Kingdom and Ireland","authors":"Samantha Arnold","doi":"10.1163/2210-7975_hrd-9969-3008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/2210-7975_hrd-9969-3008","url":null,"abstract":"IntroductIon All human beings, regardless of their sexual orientation, have the right to the enjoyment and protection of the fundamental freedoms outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by virtue of their humanity.1 However, persons who identify as, or are perceived to be, sexual minorities —lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, or intersex persons—are regularly denied these rights through discriminatory laws or national practices. In 2010, the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA)2 organization reported that countries repeatedly breach the right to life, the right to be free from torture and inhuman treatment, and the right to non-discrimination.3 Although it is each state’s responsibility to protect its citizens and persons living within its territory in accordance with international norms, the rights of sexual minorities often come into conflict with the religious and cultural morals that govern society.4 For example, at least 76 countries continue to prosecute individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation.5 Thirty-eight countries in Africa alone have laws criminalizing homosexuality.6 The ILGA reported that in 2010, same-sex acts were punishable by death in at least five countries: Iran, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Yemen, as well as regions within Nigeria and Somalia.7 Sexual minority refugees often flee situations where states sanction discriminatory actions and policies toward sexual minorities, or where states fail to protect their citizens from persecution on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity.","PeriodicalId":236314,"journal":{"name":"THE HUMAN RIGHTS BRIEF","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128485387","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}
{"title":"The Need for Effective Protection of United Nations Peacekeepers: The Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel","authors":"","doi":"10.18356/7573576d-en","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18356/7573576d-en","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":236314,"journal":{"name":"THE HUMAN RIGHTS BRIEF","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130194722","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 : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.1525/california/9780520252493.003.0021
Brenda V. Smith
This article examines the complexity of prison sex and the challenges that it raises in the context of recently enacted United States legislation, specifically the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). It begins by identifying a range of prisoner interests in enhanced sexual expression. These interests are described below in an attempt to disentangle prisoners' rights in sexual expression from states' legitimate interests in regulating that expression. This article also directs policymakers and decision makers to mine international documents and human rights norms that recognize the necessity of punishment and at the same time outline a standard for the safety of individuals in custody, the protection of human dignity, and the acknowledgement of the right to sexual self-expression. Ultimately, many prisons do not have legitimate interests in prohibiting prisoner sexual expression and should use their scarce resources to protect prisoners from nonconsensual and coercive sex by staff or other inmates.
{"title":"Analyzing Prison Sex: Reconciling Self Expression with Safety","authors":"Brenda V. Smith","doi":"10.1525/california/9780520252493.003.0021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520252493.003.0021","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the complexity of prison sex and the challenges that it raises in the context of recently enacted United States legislation, specifically the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). It begins by identifying a range of prisoner interests in enhanced sexual expression. These interests are described below in an attempt to disentangle prisoners' rights in sexual expression from states' legitimate interests in regulating that expression. This article also directs policymakers and decision makers to mine international documents and human rights norms that recognize the necessity of punishment and at the same time outline a standard for the safety of individuals in custody, the protection of human dignity, and the acknowledgement of the right to sexual self-expression. Ultimately, many prisons do not have legitimate interests in prohibiting prisoner sexual expression and should use their scarce resources to protect prisoners from nonconsensual and coercive sex by staff or other inmates.","PeriodicalId":236314,"journal":{"name":"THE HUMAN RIGHTS BRIEF","volume":"74 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132626781","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}
It is estimated that there are more than 86 million migrant workers worldwide, the vast majority of whom suffer poor living and working conditions. In the United States, more than 3 million migrant farmworkers, including at least 100,000 children, are estimated to labor in fields every year, many of whom lack access to justice, earn sub-living wages, and exist in dehumanizing circumstances. Farmworkers are among the most exploited and vulnerable populations in the United States; yet, distressingly, they are also the least protected by U.S. law and law enforcement. Legal aid advocates in the United States attempt to raise awareness and educate this starkly poor, mobile, and isolated population about the legal protections and remedies available to them, only to have employers either outright deny access or prevent meaningful communication with farmworkers in the migrant labor camps where migrants and their families often reside during the course of their employment. One nonprofit law firm that provides such services, Maryland Legal Aid Bureau, spearheaded the submission of a joint legal aid complaint on the issue to the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights. The advocates, who reach out to and represent migrant farmworkers, argue that the lack of federal law mandating access to migrant labor camps, combined with discriminatory treatment of migrant farmworkers under U.S. labor laws and lackluster enforcement of those laws that would apply, violates a panoply of farmworkers’ human rights, including their right to access justice.The complaint, which is the basis for this Article, is notable because it is the first-ever joint effort among U.S. legal aid organizations to utilize the Special Procedures provided through the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner of Human Rights to shine an international spotlight on an entrenched local issue. It comes on the heels of a new partnership between Maryland Legal Aid, Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, and the Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law at the Washington College of Law (the “Center”) at American University. One of the the Center’s programs, the Local Human Rights Lawyering Project, aims to normalize human rights at the state and local level and help legal aid lawyers integrate human rights into their daily work. Such partnerships are part of a larger push among social justice advocates in the United States to galvanize a domestic human rights movement so as to bring human rights home, rather than only applying them oversees, as has thus far been more common. As described more fully below, the joint legal aid complaint submitted to the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights argues that the denial of access to migrant labor camps ostensibly equals an inability for the farmworkers to access justice, as well as other human rights, especially the right to health and the right to family and community. The complaint argues that the United States, as a State Party to v
据估计，全世界有8600多万移徙工人，其中绝大多数生活和工作条件恶劣。在美国，估计每年有300多万移民农场工人，包括至少10万名儿童，在田地里劳动，其中许多人缺乏诉诸司法的机会，收入低于生活水平，生活在非人的环境中。农场工人是美国最受剥削和最脆弱的人群之一;然而，令人沮丧的是，他们也是最不受美国法律和执法保护的群体。美国的法律援助倡导者试图提高对这些极度贫困、流动和孤立的人群的认识和教育，让他们了解他们可以获得的法律保护和补救措施，但雇主要么直接拒绝与移民劳改营中的农场工人接触，要么阻止与他们进行有意义的沟通，移民及其家人在就业期间经常住在那里。提供此类服务的非营利律师事务所马里兰州法律援助局(Maryland Legal Aid Bureau)率先向联合国极端贫困与人权问题特别报告员提交了一份关于该问题的联合法律援助申诉。这些与移民农场工人接触并代表他们的倡导者认为，缺乏联邦法律强制要求进入移民劳改营，加上美国劳动法对移民农场工人的歧视性待遇，以及这些法律的执行不力，侵犯了农场工人的一系列人权，包括他们诉诸司法的权利。这一申诉是本文的基础，值得注意的是，这是美国法律援助组织首次共同努力，利用联合国人权事务高级专员办事处提供的特别程序，使国际社会关注根深蒂固的地方问题。此前，马里兰法律援助、德克萨斯里奥格兰德法律援助和美利坚大学华盛顿法学院人权与人道主义法中心(以下简称“中心”)刚刚建立了新的合作伙伴关系。该中心的项目之一，地方人权律师项目，旨在使国家和地方层面的人权正常化，并帮助法律援助律师将人权融入他们的日常工作。这种伙伴关系是美国社会正义倡导者推动国内人权运动的一部分，目的是将人权带回国内，而不是像迄今为止更常见的那样，只在海外实施。如下文所述，向联合国赤贫与人权问题特别报告员提交的联合法律援助申诉认为，拒绝进入移徙劳工营地表面上等同于农场工人无法诉诸司法，以及其他人权，特别是健康权、家庭和社区权。诉状认为，美国作为各种人权条约的缔约国，有义务保护、尊重和实现包括移民在内的所有人的人权。美国政府以及州和地方政府拒绝维护农场工人获得司法救助的权利，违反了人权法，使数百万农场工人继续遭受不人道的待遇和人格尊严的侵犯。
{"title":"Human Rights in the United States: Legal Aid Alleges that Denying Access to Migrant Labor Camps is a Violation of the Human Right to Access Justice","authors":"Lauren E. Bartlett, R. K. Shah","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2201873","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2201873","url":null,"abstract":"It is estimated that there are more than 86 million migrant workers worldwide, the vast majority of whom suffer poor living and working conditions. In the United States, more than 3 million migrant farmworkers, including at least 100,000 children, are estimated to labor in fields every year, many of whom lack access to justice, earn sub-living wages, and exist in dehumanizing circumstances. Farmworkers are among the most exploited and vulnerable populations in the United States; yet, distressingly, they are also the least protected by U.S. law and law enforcement. Legal aid advocates in the United States attempt to raise awareness and educate this starkly poor, mobile, and isolated population about the legal protections and remedies available to them, only to have employers either outright deny access or prevent meaningful communication with farmworkers in the migrant labor camps where migrants and their families often reside during the course of their employment. One nonprofit law firm that provides such services, Maryland Legal Aid Bureau, spearheaded the submission of a joint legal aid complaint on the issue to the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights. The advocates, who reach out to and represent migrant farmworkers, argue that the lack of federal law mandating access to migrant labor camps, combined with discriminatory treatment of migrant farmworkers under U.S. labor laws and lackluster enforcement of those laws that would apply, violates a panoply of farmworkers’ human rights, including their right to access justice.The complaint, which is the basis for this Article, is notable because it is the first-ever joint effort among U.S. legal aid organizations to utilize the Special Procedures provided through the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner of Human Rights to shine an international spotlight on an entrenched local issue. It comes on the heels of a new partnership between Maryland Legal Aid, Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, and the Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law at the Washington College of Law (the “Center”) at American University. One of the the Center’s programs, the Local Human Rights Lawyering Project, aims to normalize human rights at the state and local level and help legal aid lawyers integrate human rights into their daily work. Such partnerships are part of a larger push among social justice advocates in the United States to galvanize a domestic human rights movement so as to bring human rights home, rather than only applying them oversees, as has thus far been more common. As described more fully below, the joint legal aid complaint submitted to the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights argues that the denial of access to migrant labor camps ostensibly equals an inability for the farmworkers to access justice, as well as other human rights, especially the right to health and the right to family and community. The complaint argues that the United States, as a State Party to v","PeriodicalId":236314,"journal":{"name":"THE HUMAN RIGHTS BRIEF","volume":"52 4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123704084","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 : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.5040/9781472565143.ch-035
F. McKay
{"title":"Victim Participation in Proceedings before the International Criminal Court","authors":"F. McKay","doi":"10.5040/9781472565143.ch-035","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5040/9781472565143.ch-035","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":236314,"journal":{"name":"THE HUMAN RIGHTS BRIEF","volume":"85 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116747698","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 : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.1163/2210-7975_hrd-9969-3011
C. Grandison, Seema Niki Kadaba, A. Woo
For more than a decade, the UNROW Human Rights Impact Litigation Clinic at the American University Washington College of Law (UNROW) has been part of a global effort to seek justice for the Chagossians, the indigenous inhabitants of the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean. The Chagossians’ plight is not wellknown, yet it repeats a familiar narrative from the history of colonialism. The most well-known and stark example is perhaps the Trail of Tears, when the U.S. government ordered the forced removal of the Native American nations residing in the southeastern parts of North America. The world stood by as the U.S. governement forcefully and violently expelled tens of thousands of Native Americans from their homes on a death march—to be resettled in lands west of the Mississippi and never to return. Less well-known is that merely a few decades ago, in 1967, history would repeat itself when the U.K. forcibly expelled thousands of indigenous people of the Chagos Archipelago from their homeland to make way for a U.S. military base.
{"title":"Stealing the Islands of Chagos: Another Forgotten Story of Colonial Injustice","authors":"C. Grandison, Seema Niki Kadaba, A. Woo","doi":"10.1163/2210-7975_hrd-9969-3011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/2210-7975_hrd-9969-3011","url":null,"abstract":"For more than a decade, the UNROW Human Rights Impact Litigation Clinic at the American University Washington College of Law (UNROW) has been part of a global effort to seek justice for the Chagossians, the indigenous inhabitants of the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean. The Chagossians’ plight is not wellknown, yet it repeats a familiar narrative from the history of colonialism. The most well-known and stark example is perhaps the Trail of Tears, when the U.S. government ordered the forced removal of the Native American nations residing in the southeastern parts of North America. The world stood by as the U.S. governement forcefully and violently expelled tens of thousands of Native Americans from their homes on a death march—to be resettled in lands west of the Mississippi and never to return. Less well-known is that merely a few decades ago, in 1967, history would repeat itself when the U.K. forcibly expelled thousands of indigenous people of the Chagos Archipelago from their homeland to make way for a U.S. military base.","PeriodicalId":236314,"journal":{"name":"THE HUMAN RIGHTS BRIEF","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123983099","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}
{"title":"Human Rights First","authors":"R. Dicker","doi":"10.2307/1149129","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/1149129","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":236314,"journal":{"name":"THE HUMAN RIGHTS BRIEF","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122243409","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：