This article describes a voluntary Friends Scheme that sits alongside a temporary relocation scheme for Human Rights Defenders at the University of York, UK. Members of the Scheme, including the scheme’s co-ordinators, are all volunteers drawn from the local community with a remit to befriend the Defenders, help orient them to the city and UK lifestyles and offer the opportunity to experience day-to-day life outside of the university. With the erosion globally of the operational space for Human Rights Defenders’ work, many are in situations of serious risk to their health, well-being and even life, jeopardizing their long-term ability to conduct their work. This has in turn increased their protection needs with temporary relocation providing one mechanism for meeting these. The Protective Fellowship Scheme for Human Rights Defenders at Risk (PFS) at York offers an institutionalized programme and the Friends Scheme arose from the identified need for additional informal well-being support. In describing key aspects of its operation, their evolution over time, and its challenges and rewards, the article draws on feedback from both Defenders and Friends. It is brought up to date, outlining the impact of Covid-19. Experience to date suggests the use of a Friends Scheme can be a valuable part of temporary relocation programmes for Defenders, staff running such schemes, the volunteer Friends and the local community. The use of a systemic approach to its organization through having clear processes, regular communication from and between the co-ordinators and PFS, and providing individual and group support appears valuable.
{"title":"Using a Volunteer Friends Support Scheme in a Temporary Relocation Programme","authors":"M. Crawshaw, Sanna Eriksson, Margot Brown","doi":"10.1093/jhuman/huad016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huad016","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article describes a voluntary Friends Scheme that sits alongside a temporary relocation scheme for Human Rights Defenders at the University of York, UK. Members of the Scheme, including the scheme’s co-ordinators, are all volunteers drawn from the local community with a remit to befriend the Defenders, help orient them to the city and UK lifestyles and offer the opportunity to experience day-to-day life outside of the university.\u0000 With the erosion globally of the operational space for Human Rights Defenders’ work, many are in situations of serious risk to their health, well-being and even life, jeopardizing their long-term ability to conduct their work. This has in turn increased their protection needs with temporary relocation providing one mechanism for meeting these. The Protective Fellowship Scheme for Human Rights Defenders at Risk (PFS) at York offers an institutionalized programme and the Friends Scheme arose from the identified need for additional informal well-being support. In describing key aspects of its operation, their evolution over time, and its challenges and rewards, the article draws on feedback from both Defenders and Friends. It is brought up to date, outlining the impact of Covid-19.\u0000 Experience to date suggests the use of a Friends Scheme can be a valuable part of temporary relocation programmes for Defenders, staff running such schemes, the volunteer Friends and the local community. The use of a systemic approach to its organization through having clear processes, regular communication from and between the co-ordinators and PFS, and providing individual and group support appears valuable.","PeriodicalId":45407,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48260601","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 examines how the Beirut Declaration and its 18 Commitments on ‘Faith for Rights’ have been implemented in practice since 2017. It focuses on case studies from Afghanistan, Cyprus, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and hypothetical ‘cases to debate’ of the #Faith4Rights toolkit. The latter provides a peer-to-peer learning methodology to share the experiences of faith-based actors in dealing with tensions among human rights and in addressing armed conflicts across the globe. The 2017 Beirut Declaration, and the underlying 2012 Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of incitement to hatred, acknowledge the positive or negative roles of religious leaders and their responsibilities during armed conflict and beyond. These declarations have been considered soft law instruments since they are regularly referred to in reports by the United Nations Secretary-General, High Commissioner, Special Rapporteurs, Treaty Bodies, the European Union and the Council of Europe. Furthermore, social media companies and Meta’s Oversight Board use the Rabat threshold test when making content moderation decisions on Facebook and Instagram, including in situations of armed conflict or in regions that have a recent history of conflict. This article concludes that the #Faith4Rights toolkit provides a rights-based approach for bringing together the two worlds of faith and human rights. Its peer-to-peer learning methodology seeks to reflect and facilitate measurable changes rather than focusing only on inter-religious dialogue as such. It also provides concrete guidance to the—often daunting—task for facilitators of peer-to-peer learning events and for mediators in an armed conflict.
{"title":"‘Faith for Rights’ in Armed Conflict: Lessons from Practice","authors":"Ibrahim Salama, Michael Wiener","doi":"10.1093/jhuman/huad015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huad015","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article examines how the Beirut Declaration and its 18 Commitments on ‘Faith for Rights’ have been implemented in practice since 2017. It focuses on case studies from Afghanistan, Cyprus, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and hypothetical ‘cases to debate’ of the #Faith4Rights toolkit. The latter provides a peer-to-peer learning methodology to share the experiences of faith-based actors in dealing with tensions among human rights and in addressing armed conflicts across the globe.\u0000 The 2017 Beirut Declaration, and the underlying 2012 Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of incitement to hatred, acknowledge the positive or negative roles of religious leaders and their responsibilities during armed conflict and beyond. These declarations have been considered soft law instruments since they are regularly referred to in reports by the United Nations Secretary-General, High Commissioner, Special Rapporteurs, Treaty Bodies, the European Union and the Council of Europe. Furthermore, social media companies and Meta’s Oversight Board use the Rabat threshold test when making content moderation decisions on Facebook and Instagram, including in situations of armed conflict or in regions that have a recent history of conflict.\u0000 This article concludes that the #Faith4Rights toolkit provides a rights-based approach for bringing together the two worlds of faith and human rights. Its peer-to-peer learning methodology seeks to reflect and facilitate measurable changes rather than focusing only on inter-religious dialogue as such. It also provides concrete guidance to the—often daunting—task for facilitators of peer-to-peer learning events and for mediators in an armed conflict.","PeriodicalId":45407,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48568319","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}
Companies operating or seeking to invest in conflict-affected areas are expected to carry out a heightened human rights due diligence (HRDD) process to identify, address and mitigate their impact on human rights and the conflict. The heightened HRDD process put forward in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and clarified by the UN Working Group constitutes best practice but raises questions regarding implementation. This article explains what heightened HRDD in conflict means in practice. It examines how heightened HRDD expands the business responsibility from identifying and mitigating the impact of its operations on human rights to the impact on the conflict itself. This article draws on lessons from Myanmar, where a military coup in February 2021 caused prominent businesses to leave the country. Would a heightened HRDD process have identified additional risks and discouraged initial investment? Or would it have legitimized investment with a public rights-based, conflict sensitive HRDD process that included a clear exit strategy?
{"title":"Heightened Human Rights Due Diligence in Practice: Prohibiting or Facilitating Investment in Conflict Affected Areas?","authors":"Daniel Aguirre, Irene Pietropaoli","doi":"10.1093/jhuman/huad011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huad011","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Companies operating or seeking to invest in conflict-affected areas are expected to carry out a heightened human rights due diligence (HRDD) process to identify, address and mitigate their impact on human rights and the conflict. The heightened HRDD process put forward in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and clarified by the UN Working Group constitutes best practice but raises questions regarding implementation. This article explains what heightened HRDD in conflict means in practice. It examines how heightened HRDD expands the business responsibility from identifying and mitigating the impact of its operations on human rights to the impact on the conflict itself. This article draws on lessons from Myanmar, where a military coup in February 2021 caused prominent businesses to leave the country. Would a heightened HRDD process have identified additional risks and discouraged initial investment? Or would it have legitimized investment with a public rights-based, conflict sensitive HRDD process that included a clear exit strategy?","PeriodicalId":45407,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45133768","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}
Sanitation work in India is largely carried out by the historically marginalized Dalits, formerly known as untouchables, without proper devices or safety gear, as so-called ‘manual scavenging’. To counter manual scavenging, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have turned to courts and litigation as a form of resistance. This brought about some successes: manual scavenging was repeatedly outlawed, and several high-profile court cases have ordered local governments to take very explicit steps to eradicate it. However, manual scavenging persists rampantly, leading several authors to argue that litigation has failed in its purpose. We critically evaluate this claim by examining the underlying root question: what purpose do NGOs ascribe to litigation in their efforts to eradicate manual scavenging in the first place? Our analysis is based on a multi-method, qualitative research approach combining analysis of documents of, and interviews with, a total of 23 NGOs. Using the lens of active citizenship, we conclude that NGOs seek to shift responsibility to the government, of which it has absolved itself under neoliberalism, remind the government of its duty to serve its citizens, and overall participate politically. Specific features of courts, such as mandamus and a mediation-oriented approach, were mentioned as uniquely enabling petitioners to exercise active citizenship and force government officials to at least consider manual scavengers’ interests.
{"title":"Activating Citizenship through NGO-Led Litigation: Shaping the Neoliberal State to Eradicate Manual Scavenging in India","authors":"Alena Kahle, Ole Hammerslev","doi":"10.1093/jhuman/huad014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huad014","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Sanitation work in India is largely carried out by the historically marginalized Dalits, formerly known as untouchables, without proper devices or safety gear, as so-called ‘manual scavenging’. To counter manual scavenging, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have turned to courts and litigation as a form of resistance. This brought about some successes: manual scavenging was repeatedly outlawed, and several high-profile court cases have ordered local governments to take very explicit steps to eradicate it. However, manual scavenging persists rampantly, leading several authors to argue that litigation has failed in its purpose. We critically evaluate this claim by examining the underlying root question: what purpose do NGOs ascribe to litigation in their efforts to eradicate manual scavenging in the first place? Our analysis is based on a multi-method, qualitative research approach combining analysis of documents of, and interviews with, a total of 23 NGOs. Using the lens of active citizenship, we conclude that NGOs seek to shift responsibility to the government, of which it has absolved itself under neoliberalism, remind the government of its duty to serve its citizens, and overall participate politically. Specific features of courts, such as mandamus and a mediation-oriented approach, were mentioned as uniquely enabling petitioners to exercise active citizenship and force government officials to at least consider manual scavengers’ interests.","PeriodicalId":45407,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44448765","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}
Kirandeep Kaur, Ben Grama, Nairita Roy Chaudhuri, Maria Jose Recalde-Vela
This article investigates the risk of epistemic injustice in conducting sociolegal research in Global South contexts. Diving into the ethical imperatives of honouring knowledge, agency, and voice, we challenge extractive research practices and reframe participants as active, legitimate bearers of knowledge. Covert research is a highly controversial research practice which bypasses the right to informed consent of participants. Marieke Hopman’s article titled ‘Covert Qualitative Research as a Method to Study Human Rights Under Authoritarian Regimes’ advocates for covert research in the field of human rights, provided this covert research passes her proposed ‘ethical test’. We argue that this test permits and requires practices of knowledge-making which unjustly silence, undervalue, and exclude the capacity of systematically marginalised communities to produce knowledge claims. Hopman’s ethical test requires researchers to translate participants’ testimonies and situated knowledge into a doctrinal human rights framework, which comes with certain onto-epistemological assumptions which may not be shared by participants. Her approach frustrates research participants’ agency in choosing their own epistemic projects. Finally, her test exacerbates structural inequalities between the Global North and Global South by reinforcing unequal power relations. We advocate for a situated ethics approach to mitigate epistemic injustice in socio-legal research in the Global South. Cross-cultural ethical dialogue between western and non-hegemonic ethics on a non-hierarchical and equal basis can contribute to building ‘intercultural ethics’. Reflexivity – where researchers critically examine their worldviews and social position throughout the research process – can ensure greater accountability and integrity. Reciprocity – building mutual research relationships and producing research useful to the researched – can help shift the power imbalance between the researcher and researched.
{"title":"Ethics and Epistemic Injustice in the Global South: A Response to Hopman’s Human Rights Exceptionalism as Justification for Covert Research","authors":"Kirandeep Kaur, Ben Grama, Nairita Roy Chaudhuri, Maria Jose Recalde-Vela","doi":"10.1093/jhuman/huad008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huad008","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article investigates the risk of epistemic injustice in conducting sociolegal research in Global South contexts. Diving into the ethical imperatives of honouring knowledge, agency, and voice, we challenge extractive research practices and reframe participants as active, legitimate bearers of knowledge.\u0000 Covert research is a highly controversial research practice which bypasses the right to informed consent of participants. Marieke Hopman’s article titled ‘Covert Qualitative Research as a Method to Study Human Rights Under Authoritarian Regimes’ advocates for covert research in the field of human rights, provided this covert research passes her proposed ‘ethical test’. We argue that this test permits and requires practices of knowledge-making which unjustly silence, undervalue, and exclude the capacity of systematically marginalised communities to produce knowledge claims.\u0000 Hopman’s ethical test requires researchers to translate participants’ testimonies and situated knowledge into a doctrinal human rights framework, which comes with certain onto-epistemological assumptions which may not be shared by participants. Her approach frustrates research participants’ agency in choosing their own epistemic projects. Finally, her test exacerbates structural inequalities between the Global North and Global South by reinforcing unequal power relations.\u0000 We advocate for a situated ethics approach to mitigate epistemic injustice in socio-legal research in the Global South. Cross-cultural ethical dialogue between western and non-hegemonic ethics on a non-hierarchical and equal basis can contribute to building ‘intercultural ethics’. Reflexivity – where researchers critically examine their worldviews and social position throughout the research process – can ensure greater accountability and integrity. Reciprocity – building mutual research relationships and producing research useful to the researched – can help shift the power imbalance between the researcher and researched.","PeriodicalId":45407,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44209127","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 2016, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal issued a landmark ruling in First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada v. Canada finding that the government of Canada was racially and ethnically discriminating against First Nations children and their families in its funding and delivery of child welfare services to them. This ruling did not result from an isolated legal case; it was the result of litigation that was part of a broader social campaign with active supporters from all over the world. The litigation was driven by, and supported, a dynamic movement for sovereignty for First Nations Peoples around child welfare. This article examines the Caring Society case through the lens of movement lawyering—using the law to bring about transformative social change. Section 2 examines movement lawyering as an approach to lawyering. Movement lawyering involves a range of practices, advocacy and mobilizing that seek to dismantle architectures of subordination. Section 3 provides an overview of the Caring Society litigation and the social campaign within which the case was litigated. The I am a Witness campaign, a dynamic education and grassroots social campaign that engaged Indigenous and non-Indigenous children and sought to make the litigation accessible to the public, is examined in detail. Section 4 analyses Caring Society as a study of movement lawyering. It examines how three elements of movement lawyering; integrated advocacy; accountability to social movements; and willingness to address the root causes of structural oppression were at play in the litigation and related campaigns. In conclusion, the authors contend that Caring Society and the I am a Witness campaign constitute a successful example of movement lawyering as they properly recognize litigation, and the role of lawyers, as one piece of the mosaic of efforts needed to advance transformative social change.
{"title":"Movement Lawyering and the Caring Society Litigation","authors":"Julia Hernandez, Annette Levesque","doi":"10.1093/jhuman/huad009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huad009","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In 2016, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal issued a landmark ruling in First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada v. Canada finding that the government of Canada was racially and ethnically discriminating against First Nations children and their families in its funding and delivery of child welfare services to them. This ruling did not result from an isolated legal case; it was the result of litigation that was part of a broader social campaign with active supporters from all over the world. The litigation was driven by, and supported, a dynamic movement for sovereignty for First Nations Peoples around child welfare. This article examines the Caring Society case through the lens of movement lawyering—using the law to bring about transformative social change.\u0000 Section 2 examines movement lawyering as an approach to lawyering. Movement lawyering involves a range of practices, advocacy and mobilizing that seek to dismantle architectures of subordination. Section 3 provides an overview of the Caring Society litigation and the social campaign within which the case was litigated. The I am a Witness campaign, a dynamic education and grassroots social campaign that engaged Indigenous and non-Indigenous children and sought to make the litigation accessible to the public, is examined in detail. Section 4 analyses Caring Society as a study of movement lawyering. It examines how three elements of movement lawyering; integrated advocacy; accountability to social movements; and willingness to address the root causes of structural oppression were at play in the litigation and related campaigns.\u0000 In conclusion, the authors contend that Caring Society and the I am a Witness campaign constitute a successful example of movement lawyering as they properly recognize litigation, and the role of lawyers, as one piece of the mosaic of efforts needed to advance transformative social change.","PeriodicalId":45407,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42031298","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}
Most struggles for LGBTQI+ rights play out at the national level. However, the question of sexual and gender minorities’ rights periodically appears as a point of friction in international relations as well. This article analyses the question of international efforts to defend LGBTQI+ rights in countries of the Global South, with a particular focus on Western countries’ endeavours in Africa. Combining policy analysis, critique and recommendations, it asks how and when international actors should and should not intervene. It recognizes that motives for intervening can be problematic and the means often counterproductive, especially when exhibiting neo-imperialist tendencies and constituting ad hoc reactions to events in the media. Countering essentialist arguments about ‘authentic’ African culture and values, influenced by religious beliefs, is also a significant challenge. I argue that more fruitful efforts should instead be centred on local rights defenders’ perspectives and supporting their priorities and initiatives, based on concerted, long-term, principled strategies. International actors, however, are reluctant to adopt such approaches because of a desire for short-term visible action, even if less effective or not effective at all. This conundrum is a fundamental problem in the area of foreign aid writ large, as greater impact often requires less visibility on the part of international actors, but donor countries want domestic and international recognition of their efforts. The article distils key lessons learnt and principles for action that have emerged over the past 15 to 20 years, brought together in one place for the first time. It aims to stimulate discussions among practitioners and academics. It should be of particular interest to human rights practitioners, especially those who are involved or contemplating getting involved in defending the rights of sexual and gender minorities internationally.
{"title":"Visibility or Impact? International Efforts to Defend LGBTQI+ Rights in Africa","authors":"Stephen Brown","doi":"10.1093/jhuman/huad006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huad006","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Most struggles for LGBTQI+ rights play out at the national level. However, the question of sexual and gender minorities’ rights periodically appears as a point of friction in international relations as well. This article analyses the question of international efforts to defend LGBTQI+ rights in countries of the Global South, with a particular focus on Western countries’ endeavours in Africa. Combining policy analysis, critique and recommendations, it asks how and when international actors should and should not intervene. It recognizes that motives for intervening can be problematic and the means often counterproductive, especially when exhibiting neo-imperialist tendencies and constituting ad hoc reactions to events in the media. Countering essentialist arguments about ‘authentic’ African culture and values, influenced by religious beliefs, is also a significant challenge. I argue that more fruitful efforts should instead be centred on local rights defenders’ perspectives and supporting their priorities and initiatives, based on concerted, long-term, principled strategies. International actors, however, are reluctant to adopt such approaches because of a desire for short-term visible action, even if less effective or not effective at all. This conundrum is a fundamental problem in the area of foreign aid writ large, as greater impact often requires less visibility on the part of international actors, but donor countries want domestic and international recognition of their efforts. The article distils key lessons learnt and principles for action that have emerged over the past 15 to 20 years, brought together in one place for the first time. It aims to stimulate discussions among practitioners and academics. It should be of particular interest to human rights practitioners, especially those who are involved or contemplating getting involved in defending the rights of sexual and gender minorities internationally.","PeriodicalId":45407,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41568100","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 leadership of independent state-based bodies is critical to their independence and proper functioning. Where leadership ends, either within or outside of the term of office, legislation must ensure that the institution can continue to function. Transitional leadership provisions provide for the continuation of the powers of office in the event of the absence of the mandate holder. Through a textual analysis of the legislation of National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) and ombudspersons from 85 jurisdictions, this article identifies a lack of provision for transitional arrangements in enabling laws. It also discusses the problematic aspects of these legislative arrangements where they are present. It identifies the core requirements to ensure there is no leadership gap for an institution. The findings of the article are relevant for a broad range of state-based institutions including anti-corruption and data protection commissions, equality bodies and police oversight bodies, because all state mandated institutions risk their ability to function being undermined where legislation fails to account for a gap in leadership or does not include sufficient protections, such as immunity, for transitional office holders. This article calls for more robust focus on comprehensive transitional provisions in international standards on NHRIs and ombudspersons, and for the inclusion of such transitional provisions in the enabling laws of all legislatively mandated independent state-based institutions.
{"title":"Change at the Top: The Necessity of Transitional Leadership Provisions in the Laws of Independent State-Based Institutions","authors":"Kirsten Roberts Lyer","doi":"10.1093/jhuman/huad003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huad003","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The leadership of independent state-based bodies is critical to their independence and proper functioning. Where leadership ends, either within or outside of the term of office, legislation must ensure that the institution can continue to function. Transitional leadership provisions provide for the continuation of the powers of office in the event of the absence of the mandate holder. Through a textual analysis of the legislation of National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) and ombudspersons from 85 jurisdictions, this article identifies a lack of provision for transitional arrangements in enabling laws. It also discusses the problematic aspects of these legislative arrangements where they are present. It identifies the core requirements to ensure there is no leadership gap for an institution. The findings of the article are relevant for a broad range of state-based institutions including anti-corruption and data protection commissions, equality bodies and police oversight bodies, because all state mandated institutions risk their ability to function being undermined where legislation fails to account for a gap in leadership or does not include sufficient protections, such as immunity, for transitional office holders. This article calls for more robust focus on comprehensive transitional provisions in international standards on NHRIs and ombudspersons, and for the inclusion of such transitional provisions in the enabling laws of all legislatively mandated independent state-based institutions.","PeriodicalId":45407,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47104445","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 European Union’s international relations are organized into a series of practices that regulate its relationships with the third states, including with Russia. The primary practice is that of ‘criticizing’ the human rights record of Russia, and this represents a major part of the EU’s engagement with Russia. This article analyses the practice of EU criticism of Russia regarding its implementation of human rights norms and values as a case which helps define the role of human rights in EU-Russia relations. It proposes that the EU’s transformative power over Russia has been minimal. It further argues that the success of the practice of criticizing human rights records has been limited to the institutionalization of EU-Russia cooperation in this area.
{"title":"The EU’s international Relations in the Practice of Criticizing the Human Rights Record of Russia","authors":"Islam Jusufi","doi":"10.1093/jhuman/huad005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huad005","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The European Union’s international relations are organized into a series of practices that regulate its relationships with the third states, including with Russia. The primary practice is that of ‘criticizing’ the human rights record of Russia, and this represents a major part of the EU’s engagement with Russia. This article analyses the practice of EU criticism of Russia regarding its implementation of human rights norms and values as a case which helps define the role of human rights in EU-Russia relations. It proposes that the EU’s transformative power over Russia has been minimal. It further argues that the success of the practice of criticizing human rights records has been limited to the institutionalization of EU-Russia cooperation in this area.","PeriodicalId":45407,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44268242","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 review essay considers Jack Snyder’s Human Rights for Pragmatists: Social Power in Modern Times and explores the book’s key implications for human rights practitioners and their organizations.
{"title":"Getting Pragmatic about Human Rights Pragmatism","authors":"James A. Goldston","doi":"10.1093/jhuman/huad007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huad007","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This review essay considers Jack Snyder’s Human Rights for Pragmatists: Social Power in Modern Times and explores the book’s key implications for human rights practitioners and their organizations.","PeriodicalId":45407,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44018781","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：