Alejandro Anaya-Muñoz, Patricia Cruz-Marín, James Cavallaro
Mexico faces a severe crisis of violations of physical integrity rights. In the past fifteen years, hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, over one hundred thousand have disappeared, and torture continues to be widespread. Observers emphasize the role of impunity as a critical causal factor. Negligence and lack of capacity have been considered as causes of impunity. This article elaborates the role of ‘active impunity’, understood as the deliberate efforts by investigative authorities to undermine criminal investigations on cases of human rights violations. Observing 12 cases of violations of physical integrity rights in Mexico, occurring between 2008 and 2021 in seven states of the country, the article shows that active impunity takes place and identifies some of the mechanism through which it is produced.
{"title":"More than Lack of Capacity: Active Impunity in Mexico","authors":"Alejandro Anaya-Muñoz, Patricia Cruz-Marín, James Cavallaro","doi":"10.1093/jhuman/huad034","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huad034","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Mexico faces a severe crisis of violations of physical integrity rights. In the past fifteen years, hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, over one hundred thousand have disappeared, and torture continues to be widespread. Observers emphasize the role of impunity as a critical causal factor. Negligence and lack of capacity have been considered as causes of impunity. This article elaborates the role of ‘active impunity’, understood as the deliberate efforts by investigative authorities to undermine criminal investigations on cases of human rights violations. Observing 12 cases of violations of physical integrity rights in Mexico, occurring between 2008 and 2021 in seven states of the country, the article shows that active impunity takes place and identifies some of the mechanism through which it is produced.","PeriodicalId":45407,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48893848","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 article focuses on child sexual abuse in organizational settings, with a particular emphasis on ‘grooming’. While grooming is often associated with online behaviour, its origins predate the digital age. Consequently, this article challenges the misconception of solely linking grooming to online platforms and highlights its broader recognition. The article aims to explore how international human rights law addresses grooming and how the framework can be enhanced to effectively combat grooming and protect children from sexual abuse in organizational settings. First, the article discusses sexual grooming, including in organizational contexts, drawing from scientific and theoretical literature, case reviews, and government inquiries. It then analyses international and regional human rights laws, along with guidance from treaty-based human rights mechanisms, to outline existing standards on child sexual abuse and grooming. The article examines examples of domestic legislation and proposes an expanded role for international human rights law. By situating the issue within human rights discourse and emphasizing children as having rights and agency, the article challenges prevailing paradigms of child safeguarding research and practice that prioritize risk aversion and compliance (Powell et al. 2020). The article urges practitioners to advocate for more comprehensive approaches at local and global levels. The human rights system provides additional avenues for advocates to drive change, fostering greater State and organizational accountability and ensuring every child’s right to be free from sexual abuse.
这篇文章的重点是组织环境中的儿童性虐待，特别强调“修饰”。虽然打扮通常与网络行为联系在一起，但它的起源要早于数字时代。因此，本文挑战了将美容与在线平台单独联系起来的误解，并强调了其更广泛的认同度。本文旨在探讨国际人权法如何处理打扮问题，以及如何加强该框架，以有效打击打扮问题，并保护儿童免受组织环境中的性虐待。首先，本文讨论了性修饰，包括在组织背景下，从科学和理论文献、案例回顾和政府调查中得出结论。然后分析国际和区域人权法，以及基于条约的人权机制的指导，概述关于儿童性虐待和培养的现有标准。这篇文章审查了国内立法的例子，并建议扩大国际人权法的作用。通过将这一问题置于人权话语中，并强调儿童拥有权利和能动性，文章挑战了优先考虑风险规避和合规的儿童保护研究和实践的主流范式(Powell et al. 2020)。这篇文章敦促从业者在地方和全球层面倡导更全面的方法。人权系统为倡导者推动变革、加强国家和组织问责以及确保每个儿童免于性虐待的权利提供了额外的途径。
{"title":"Grooming and Child Sexual Abuse in Organizational Settings—an Expanded Role for International Human Rights Law","authors":"Afrooz Kaviani Johnson","doi":"10.1093/jhuman/huad039","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huad039","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article focuses on child sexual abuse in organizational settings, with a particular emphasis on ‘grooming’. While grooming is often associated with online behaviour, its origins predate the digital age. Consequently, this article challenges the misconception of solely linking grooming to online platforms and highlights its broader recognition. The article aims to explore how international human rights law addresses grooming and how the framework can be enhanced to effectively combat grooming and protect children from sexual abuse in organizational settings. First, the article discusses sexual grooming, including in organizational contexts, drawing from scientific and theoretical literature, case reviews, and government inquiries. It then analyses international and regional human rights laws, along with guidance from treaty-based human rights mechanisms, to outline existing standards on child sexual abuse and grooming. The article examines examples of domestic legislation and proposes an expanded role for international human rights law. By situating the issue within human rights discourse and emphasizing children as having rights and agency, the article challenges prevailing paradigms of child safeguarding research and practice that prioritize risk aversion and compliance (Powell et al. 2020). The article urges practitioners to advocate for more comprehensive approaches at local and global levels. The human rights system provides additional avenues for advocates to drive change, fostering greater State and organizational accountability and ensuring every child’s right to be free from sexual abuse.","PeriodicalId":45407,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48526516","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}
Audiovisual digital media and tools are critical elements in contemporary human rights documentation and advocacy. Generative AI, deepfakes and synthetic media compound questions of what to trust in an existing situation of government suppression, difficulty proving witness accounts and broader societal challenges to trust. There is a need to ‘fortify the truth’ by fostering resilient witnessing practices that can ensure trustworthy videos and strengthen narratives of vulnerable communities. The author identifies and speculates on actions at tactical, strategic, tools, technology, and policy levels, drawing upon human rights organization WITNESS’s work on proactive preparation for emerging technologies and technical infrastructures. Practical steps occur across a trajectory of using images and video in human rights advocacy and activism including filming, storytelling, watching, analysing, sharing, advocacy, and preservation. Guidance on filming must evolve to address deepfakes and opportunities and challenges in ‘authenticity infrastructure’. Narrative video advocacy and formal legal and policy processes must adapt to new technologies including text-to-image and text-to-video, new disinformation threats such as ‘floods of falsehood’ and new presentation opportunities. The evolution of watching, scrutinizing, and sharing videos accountability amid increasing volume and normalized image manipulation includes positive dimensions of the ‘media forensic turn’, including collaborative ‘open-source intelligence’ verification, and negative aspects involving excessive scrutiny. Finally, preserving audiovisual media is critical, and emerging socio-technical infrastructure should be shaped for community control. Underlying principles for ‘fortifying the truth’ include taking a proactive approach, centring voices and needs of people facing human rights abuses, and working with and challenging technologists and technology companies.
{"title":"Fortify the Truth: How to Defend Human Rights in an Age of Deepfakes and Generative AI","authors":"Sam Gregory","doi":"10.1093/jhuman/huad035","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huad035","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Audiovisual digital media and tools are critical elements in contemporary human rights documentation and advocacy. Generative AI, deepfakes and synthetic media compound questions of what to trust in an existing situation of government suppression, difficulty proving witness accounts and broader societal challenges to trust. There is a need to ‘fortify the truth’ by fostering resilient witnessing practices that can ensure trustworthy videos and strengthen narratives of vulnerable communities. The author identifies and speculates on actions at tactical, strategic, tools, technology, and policy levels, drawing upon human rights organization WITNESS’s work on proactive preparation for emerging technologies and technical infrastructures. Practical steps occur across a trajectory of using images and video in human rights advocacy and activism including filming, storytelling, watching, analysing, sharing, advocacy, and preservation. Guidance on filming must evolve to address deepfakes and opportunities and challenges in ‘authenticity infrastructure’. Narrative video advocacy and formal legal and policy processes must adapt to new technologies including text-to-image and text-to-video, new disinformation threats such as ‘floods of falsehood’ and new presentation opportunities. The evolution of watching, scrutinizing, and sharing videos accountability amid increasing volume and normalized image manipulation includes positive dimensions of the ‘media forensic turn’, including collaborative ‘open-source intelligence’ verification, and negative aspects involving excessive scrutiny. Finally, preserving audiovisual media is critical, and emerging socio-technical infrastructure should be shaped for community control. Underlying principles for ‘fortifying the truth’ include taking a proactive approach, centring voices and needs of people facing human rights abuses, and working with and challenging technologists and technology companies.","PeriodicalId":45407,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41606789","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}
In recent decades, the role of human rights in peacebuilding has been the object of scholarly and practitioner debate. Some commentators criticize human rights for being inflexibly legalist and for lacking pragmatism regarding the domestic implementation of international law. Other scholars support the inclusion of human rights provisions in peace agreements, as central to sustainable peace. Which account—the legalist or the pragmatist—is indeed more accurate in the context of the language of peace agreements? This research draws on the scholarship on peacebuilding and human rights to offer a qualitative content analysis of human rights provisions in 357 peace agreements signed from 1990 to 2020. The analysis finds that, in peace agreements, some human rights provisions can serve a wider range of peace-related purposes that go far beyond a legalist purpose while still advancing the importance of alignment with international law. The findings are important, suggesting that our quest for the causes of human rights implementation failures might have to move past a critique of the language of human rights and look elsewhere for factors explaining non-compliance with international human rights.
{"title":"Balancing Legalism and Pragmatism: A Qualitative Content Analysis of Human Rights Language in Peace Agreements","authors":"Corina Lacatus","doi":"10.1093/jhuman/huad038","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huad038","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In recent decades, the role of human rights in peacebuilding has been the object of scholarly and practitioner debate. Some commentators criticize human rights for being inflexibly legalist and for lacking pragmatism regarding the domestic implementation of international law. Other scholars support the inclusion of human rights provisions in peace agreements, as central to sustainable peace. Which account—the legalist or the pragmatist—is indeed more accurate in the context of the language of peace agreements? This research draws on the scholarship on peacebuilding and human rights to offer a qualitative content analysis of human rights provisions in 357 peace agreements signed from 1990 to 2020. The analysis finds that, in peace agreements, some human rights provisions can serve a wider range of peace-related purposes that go far beyond a legalist purpose while still advancing the importance of alignment with international law. The findings are important, suggesting that our quest for the causes of human rights implementation failures might have to move past a critique of the language of human rights and look elsewhere for factors explaining non-compliance with international human rights.","PeriodicalId":45407,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47145742","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 last decades have witnessed a conceptual opening of human rights practices, hitherto prerogative of a chosen few legal experts, towards a multiplicity of subjectivities. This afforded human rights scholarship to address subaltern histories and reckon with past exclusions. Conversely, critical deconstruction and empirical diversification have aggravated the seemingly basic, yet thorny quest for defining human rights activism and identifying human rights defenders. This not only poses a challenge to research but, foremost, opens human rights concepts to abuse and undermines protection regimes. In this contribution to the Journal of Human Rights Practice’s Anniversary Issue, I trace the definition dilemma as it emerges from emancipatory developments in human rights practice scholarship. I am not pretending to solve this dilemma; rather, I offer ‘metaphorical dislocations’ changing the terms of discussion to elicit new avenues of thought. Taking common allusions to the economy of human rights as my point of departure, I pursue Marx’s critique of political economy as a metaphor to describe human rights activism as a labour practice that a) produces discursive value qua rendering violence legible and b) transforms activist cultures socio-politically. Hence, I encounter the subjectivity of human rights defenders in the tensions between the co-dependent dimensions of practice and its political representation. The aspiration of this think piece is to emphasize the importance of co-constructing common foundations in the research on human rights activism, and to provoke responses leading us out of the all-too-well known trenches of debate.
{"title":"Who is a Human Rights Defender? An Appraisal of Labour Practices in the Human Rights Economy","authors":"F. Georgi","doi":"10.1093/jhuman/huad033","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huad033","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The last decades have witnessed a conceptual opening of human rights practices, hitherto prerogative of a chosen few legal experts, towards a multiplicity of subjectivities. This afforded human rights scholarship to address subaltern histories and reckon with past exclusions. Conversely, critical deconstruction and empirical diversification have aggravated the seemingly basic, yet thorny quest for defining human rights activism and identifying human rights defenders. This not only poses a challenge to research but, foremost, opens human rights concepts to abuse and undermines protection regimes. In this contribution to the Journal of Human Rights Practice’s Anniversary Issue, I trace the definition dilemma as it emerges from emancipatory developments in human rights practice scholarship. I am not pretending to solve this dilemma; rather, I offer ‘metaphorical dislocations’ changing the terms of discussion to elicit new avenues of thought. Taking common allusions to the economy of human rights as my point of departure, I pursue Marx’s critique of political economy as a metaphor to describe human rights activism as a labour practice that a) produces discursive value qua rendering violence legible and b) transforms activist cultures socio-politically. Hence, I encounter the subjectivity of human rights defenders in the tensions between the co-dependent dimensions of practice and its political representation. The aspiration of this think piece is to emphasize the importance of co-constructing common foundations in the research on human rights activism, and to provoke responses leading us out of the all-too-well known trenches of debate.","PeriodicalId":45407,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47566468","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}
Climate litigation is anticipated to continue expanding, especially related to the interface with the human rights of vulnerable populations and the adequacy of states’ efforts to adopt and implement climate laws. While the possibility of climate-related litigation is envisaged before the African Human Rights System (AHRS), there is no pioneering case on climate change at that level yet. Essential rights that may be relevant in climate change litigation in the AHRS are not yet tested and often have claw-back clauses that have limits imposed by national legislation. Also, climate change commitments that may link to human rights are under a regime outside the AHRS. These developments may generate conceptual divergences regarding a state’s sovereign right and climate justice in future climate litigation within the AHRS. This article explores the potential application of claw-back clauses and divergent views on states’ sovereign rights and climate justice in climate change instruments that may feature in individual communications at the AHRS.
{"title":"Framing Climate Litigation in Individual Communications of the African Human Rights System: Claw-Backs and Substantive Divergences","authors":"A. O. Jegede","doi":"10.1093/jhuman/huad018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huad018","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Climate litigation is anticipated to continue expanding, especially related to the interface with the human rights of vulnerable populations and the adequacy of states’ efforts to adopt and implement climate laws. While the possibility of climate-related litigation is envisaged before the African Human Rights System (AHRS), there is no pioneering case on climate change at that level yet. Essential rights that may be relevant in climate change litigation in the AHRS are not yet tested and often have claw-back clauses that have limits imposed by national legislation. Also, climate change commitments that may link to human rights are under a regime outside the AHRS. These developments may generate conceptual divergences regarding a state’s sovereign right and climate justice in future climate litigation within the AHRS. This article explores the potential application of claw-back clauses and divergent views on states’ sovereign rights and climate justice in climate change instruments that may feature in individual communications at the AHRS.","PeriodicalId":45407,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46455799","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}
Abstract Since 2016 a series of unexpected developments such as Brexit and the shock election of Donald Trump have drawn attention to the rise of populism as one of the most significant phenomena in today’s political world. This populist ‘explosion’ is widely regarded as a significant threat to democracy and human rights, particularly the rights of minorities. So how should the human rights movement best respond? Speaking to the special issue theme on the meaning of and challenges to human rights, this article advances an argument for human rights claims-makers to learn the ‘lessons from populism’ in terms of its emotional appeal. Part 1 reviews the scholarly literature on human rights and the phenomenon of radical right populism to date, including the co-option of rights language by the far right. Part 2 builds on this literature to identify weaknesses in the legalistic way that (political) rights claims are advanced and argues that constructivist perspectives on rights may help ‘speak rights to’ populism. The final part argues that further research into emotions as the ‘language of values’ may help put empirical and conceptual flesh on the bones of a more ‘constructivist’ view of human rights.
{"title":"Speaking Rights to Populism? Using Emotion as the Language of Values","authors":"Claire Hamilton","doi":"10.1093/jhuman/huad022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huad022","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Since 2016 a series of unexpected developments such as Brexit and the shock election of Donald Trump have drawn attention to the rise of populism as one of the most significant phenomena in today’s political world. This populist ‘explosion’ is widely regarded as a significant threat to democracy and human rights, particularly the rights of minorities. So how should the human rights movement best respond? Speaking to the special issue theme on the meaning of and challenges to human rights, this article advances an argument for human rights claims-makers to learn the ‘lessons from populism’ in terms of its emotional appeal. Part 1 reviews the scholarly literature on human rights and the phenomenon of radical right populism to date, including the co-option of rights language by the far right. Part 2 builds on this literature to identify weaknesses in the legalistic way that (political) rights claims are advanced and argues that constructivist perspectives on rights may help ‘speak rights to’ populism. The final part argues that further research into emotions as the ‘language of values’ may help put empirical and conceptual flesh on the bones of a more ‘constructivist’ view of human rights.","PeriodicalId":45407,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights Practice","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135214379","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}
Abstract We propose a more nuanced examination of the powerful forces that play a role in shaping the view shared by many international humanitarians that religions have a predominantly negative influence. First, we examine the role of secularist underpinnings of humanitarian discourse in shaping secular-religious dynamics in the humanitarian sphere, and the intersection of this with other forces of power. We argue that analyses of secular-religious dynamics are essential to understanding the roles of and attitudes towards faith actors in humanitarian norms compliance as well as the actions and reactions of faith and humanitarian actors. Theoretically, we ground the article in an analysis of secular perspectives towards impartiality and neutrality, the observation of which is meant to secure humanitarian space. Interrogating secular perspectives on humanitarian action helps demonstrate how impartiality and neutrality can be used as reasons to avoid engagement with faith actors. A secular approach to humanitarian action tolerates religion with boundary-creation around what is permitted from faith actors, applying a reductive ‘good’/‘bad’ binary. We then examine the experiences of local faith actors (LFAs) in South Sudan in interaction with international humanitarians with respect to humanitarian principles. These examples demonstrate how LFAs comply with humanitarian principles and view this as part and parcel of their commitment to the values of their faith tradition. They also show how LFAs create space for humanitarian norms compliance of other actors through their peacebuilding work and have been relied upon to access parts of the country that are inaccessible to international humanitarians due to safety concerns.
{"title":"Secular-Religious Dynamics and their Effect on Humanitarian Norms Compliance","authors":"Olivia Wilkinson, Emma Tomalin","doi":"10.1093/jhuman/huad013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huad013","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract We propose a more nuanced examination of the powerful forces that play a role in shaping the view shared by many international humanitarians that religions have a predominantly negative influence. First, we examine the role of secularist underpinnings of humanitarian discourse in shaping secular-religious dynamics in the humanitarian sphere, and the intersection of this with other forces of power. We argue that analyses of secular-religious dynamics are essential to understanding the roles of and attitudes towards faith actors in humanitarian norms compliance as well as the actions and reactions of faith and humanitarian actors. Theoretically, we ground the article in an analysis of secular perspectives towards impartiality and neutrality, the observation of which is meant to secure humanitarian space. Interrogating secular perspectives on humanitarian action helps demonstrate how impartiality and neutrality can be used as reasons to avoid engagement with faith actors. A secular approach to humanitarian action tolerates religion with boundary-creation around what is permitted from faith actors, applying a reductive ‘good’/‘bad’ binary. We then examine the experiences of local faith actors (LFAs) in South Sudan in interaction with international humanitarians with respect to humanitarian principles. These examples demonstrate how LFAs comply with humanitarian principles and view this as part and parcel of their commitment to the values of their faith tradition. They also show how LFAs create space for humanitarian norms compliance of other actors through their peacebuilding work and have been relied upon to access parts of the country that are inaccessible to international humanitarians due to safety concerns.","PeriodicalId":45407,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights Practice","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135214380","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}
Emerging strategic litigation in Latin America, in particular, and the Global South more broadly, brings visibility to marginalized groups and allows novel approaches to promote climate action. Rights-based claims have taken centre stage in Global South climate litigation, strengthening the links between human rights and the environment. However, the gendered impacts of the climate crisis are not broadly discussed within the climate litigation movement. This article focuses on how gender has impacted marginalized groups’ participation in knowledge production regarding climate change and litigation. This article draws on feminist epistemology theories to problematize epistemic injustices that fail to acknowledge socially situated knowledge of marginalized groups as relevant and vital. Knowledge production regarding climate change tends to reproduce power dynamics that exclude local and marginalized groups’ knowledge. It also recreates epistemic injustices through objectification and exploitation of the epistemic agent. Moreover, knowledge production in climate litigation fails to recognize marginalized groups’ agency. Drawing from the emerging body of climate cases in Latin America, this article assesses how gender is portrayed and understood by scholars, petitioners and judges working in the region and how this understanding, or the lack of it, impacts knowledge production and power dynamics that intersect with other forms of discrimination.
{"title":"Gender in Climate Litigation in Latin America: Epistemic Justice Through a Feminist Lens","authors":"Natalia Urzola Gutiérrez","doi":"10.1093/jhuman/huad030","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huad030","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Emerging strategic litigation in Latin America, in particular, and the Global South more broadly, brings visibility to marginalized groups and allows novel approaches to promote climate action. Rights-based claims have taken centre stage in Global South climate litigation, strengthening the links between human rights and the environment. However, the gendered impacts of the climate crisis are not broadly discussed within the climate litigation movement. This article focuses on how gender has impacted marginalized groups’ participation in knowledge production regarding climate change and litigation. This article draws on feminist epistemology theories to problematize epistemic injustices that fail to acknowledge socially situated knowledge of marginalized groups as relevant and vital. Knowledge production regarding climate change tends to reproduce power dynamics that exclude local and marginalized groups’ knowledge. It also recreates epistemic injustices through objectification and exploitation of the epistemic agent. Moreover, knowledge production in climate litigation fails to recognize marginalized groups’ agency. Drawing from the emerging body of climate cases in Latin America, this article assesses how gender is portrayed and understood by scholars, petitioners and judges working in the region and how this understanding, or the lack of it, impacts knowledge production and power dynamics that intersect with other forms of discrimination.","PeriodicalId":45407,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41522446","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}
In many jurisdictions, procedural rules and arrangements that govern litigation are not necessarily well-suited to the protection of collective interests, such as the environment. This idea has been flagged for a while by scholars and practitioners from different jurisdictions and was part of the reason for promoting specific regulations on access to justice in environmental matters. The protection of the climate adds a new layer of complexity, as it is increasingly clear that, even in jurisdictions where a strong rule of law is presumed to exist, barriers to access to justice remain. We depart from the idea of a mismatch between procedural rules and climate protection through courts to explore the interface between two convergent phenomena in the Latin American region: the Escazú Agreement’s implementation and climate litigation. Based on data gathered through interviews with 11 legal practitioners involved in climate cases in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador and Mexico, this article identifies procedural barriers that plaintiffs face in the courtroom and discusses if and how the implementation of the Escazú Agreement could overcome them for the improvement of access to justice in climate matters in the region. In doing that, it highlights relevant experiences in Latin America that could be of interest to those seeking to overcome procedural hurdles in other regions.
{"title":"The Escazú Agreement Contribution to Environmental Justice in Latin America: An Exploratory Empirical Inquiry through the Lens of Climate Litigation","authors":"Gastón Medici-Colombo, Thays Ricarte","doi":"10.1093/jhuman/huad029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huad029","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In many jurisdictions, procedural rules and arrangements that govern litigation are not necessarily well-suited to the protection of collective interests, such as the environment. This idea has been flagged for a while by scholars and practitioners from different jurisdictions and was part of the reason for promoting specific regulations on access to justice in environmental matters. The protection of the climate adds a new layer of complexity, as it is increasingly clear that, even in jurisdictions where a strong rule of law is presumed to exist, barriers to access to justice remain. We depart from the idea of a mismatch between procedural rules and climate protection through courts to explore the interface between two convergent phenomena in the Latin American region: the Escazú Agreement’s implementation and climate litigation. Based on data gathered through interviews with 11 legal practitioners involved in climate cases in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador and Mexico, this article identifies procedural barriers that plaintiffs face in the courtroom and discusses if and how the implementation of the Escazú Agreement could overcome them for the improvement of access to justice in climate matters in the region. In doing that, it highlights relevant experiences in Latin America that could be of interest to those seeking to overcome procedural hurdles in other regions.","PeriodicalId":45407,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41549114","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：