Renana Keydar, Vera Shikhelman, Tomer Broude, Jonathan Elkobi
Building on an independent database of 180,000 UN recommendations and a novel computational method, we present the most comprehensive study of human rights (HR) debates to date. We develop a unique empirical model that measures topical density of discourse. This innovative instrument measures the discursive activity of UN HR bodies through a machine-learning textual analysis of their outputs, offering a dynamic map of evolving trends in human rights, both over time (diachronically) and across different mechanisms (synchronically) within the UN HR ecosystem. Leveraging this comprehensive dataset and sophisticated computational methodologies, we identify which protected groups are central to different mechanisms’ attention and highlight the major human rights issues that have witnessed significant changes in attention. Our research presents significant findings on the density of UN HR discourse and its implications for two major debates in the field of HR law—HR proliferation and the structural critique of UN HR bodies.
{"title":"The Discursive Evolution of Human Rights Law: Empirical Insights from a Computational Analysis of 180,000 UN Recommendations","authors":"Renana Keydar, Vera Shikhelman, Tomer Broude, Jonathan Elkobi","doi":"10.1093/hrlr/ngae021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngae021","url":null,"abstract":"Building on an independent database of 180,000 UN recommendations and a novel computational method, we present the most comprehensive study of human rights (HR) debates to date. We develop a unique empirical model that measures topical density of discourse. This innovative instrument measures the discursive activity of UN HR bodies through a machine-learning textual analysis of their outputs, offering a dynamic map of evolving trends in human rights, both over time (diachronically) and across different mechanisms (synchronically) within the UN HR ecosystem. Leveraging this comprehensive dataset and sophisticated computational methodologies, we identify which protected groups are central to different mechanisms’ attention and highlight the major human rights issues that have witnessed significant changes in attention. Our research presents significant findings on the density of UN HR discourse and its implications for two major debates in the field of HR law—HR proliferation and the structural critique of UN HR bodies.","PeriodicalId":46556,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights Law Review","volume":"147 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2024-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142206068","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article explores the scope of the positive obligation deriving from the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) to criminalise forms of domestic psychological violence. This is primarily done by examining the implications of Volodina v Russia (No. 1), Volodina v Russia (No. 2) and Tunikova and Others v Russia regarding the obligation in question. Additionally, this article addresses different legislative approaches towards the criminalisation of domestic violence that have been distinguished by the ECtHR and discusses whether they adequately criminalise domestic psychological violence. Some approaches appear ill-suited as they concern national offences that focus on serious incidents. Domestic psychological violence, on the other hand, can involve a course of conduct consisting of seemingly minor incidents. It is concluded that State Parties should review to what extent such forms of psychological violence are criminalised under their national criminal laws.
{"title":"The ECHR and the Positive Obligation to Criminalise Domestic Psychological Violence","authors":"Niels Hedlund","doi":"10.1093/hrlr/ngae019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngae019","url":null,"abstract":"This article explores the scope of the positive obligation deriving from the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) to criminalise forms of domestic psychological violence. This is primarily done by examining the implications of Volodina v Russia (No. 1), Volodina v Russia (No. 2) and Tunikova and Others v Russia regarding the obligation in question. Additionally, this article addresses different legislative approaches towards the criminalisation of domestic violence that have been distinguished by the ECtHR and discusses whether they adequately criminalise domestic psychological violence. Some approaches appear ill-suited as they concern national offences that focus on serious incidents. Domestic psychological violence, on the other hand, can involve a course of conduct consisting of seemingly minor incidents. It is concluded that State Parties should review to what extent such forms of psychological violence are criminalised under their national criminal laws.","PeriodicalId":46556,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights Law Review","volume":"22 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2024-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141865894","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article examines the European Court of Human Rights’ approach towards restrictions on expression glorifying terrorist violence. This is done by situating the Court’s case law against two objections to respective criminal offences: their inherent overbreadth and their incompatibility with the restraining demands of the ‘harm principle’. In doing so, the article discusses how the ‘harm principle’ relates to the proportionality test and how the Court’s categorisation of expression glorifying violence responds to the objection of overbreadth. In arguing that the tool of categorisation has not been determinative in driving the outcomes in relevant decisions, the article suggests that engaging the existence of a competing public interest and reviewing the admissibility of reasons for such restrictions would appropriately elevate the Convention standard. Finally, the article argues that inconsistencies across decisions are best explained by the Court’s deference-giving practices, particularly in cases involving claims about the recency of terrorist violence.
{"title":"Glorification of Terrorist Violence at the European Court of Human Rights","authors":"Ilya Sobol","doi":"10.1093/hrlr/ngae017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngae017","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the European Court of Human Rights’ approach towards restrictions on expression glorifying terrorist violence. This is done by situating the Court’s case law against two objections to respective criminal offences: their inherent overbreadth and their incompatibility with the restraining demands of the ‘harm principle’. In doing so, the article discusses how the ‘harm principle’ relates to the proportionality test and how the Court’s categorisation of expression glorifying violence responds to the objection of overbreadth. In arguing that the tool of categorisation has not been determinative in driving the outcomes in relevant decisions, the article suggests that engaging the existence of a competing public interest and reviewing the admissibility of reasons for such restrictions would appropriately elevate the Convention standard. Finally, the article argues that inconsistencies across decisions are best explained by the Court’s deference-giving practices, particularly in cases involving claims about the recency of terrorist violence.","PeriodicalId":46556,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights Law Review","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2024-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141546355","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
For the 1.8 billion people who menstruate every month globally, menstruation is not always just synonymous with blood loss. As such, many also experience premenstrual conditions such as dysmenorrhea (period pain), limited access to health care and/or menstrual stigma. Yet, so far, laws have mostly focused on menstrual hygiene management (MHM), particularly menstrual products provision. Despite MHM’s success, scholars have criticized its narrow focus on products at the expense of a more comprehensive definition of menstrual health, which recognises the menstrual cycle, and includes menarche and menopause. Meanwhile, global institutions have been shifting their focus from menstrual hygiene to menstrual health, and have framed the latter as a health and human rights issue. However, so far, the Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights and the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health have mostly remained silent on the topic of menstrual health. The article argues that these mechanisms should conceptualize a right to menstrual health, which promotes menstruators’ rights to health literacy, agency, participation, culture and increased scrutiny of the menstrual products industry.
{"title":"Who Manages Menstrual Health? The Untapped Potential of the Right to Health to Support a Comprehensive Right to Menstrual Health beyond Menstrual Hygiene Management","authors":"Céline Brassart Olsen","doi":"10.1093/hrlr/ngae010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngae010","url":null,"abstract":"For the 1.8 billion people who menstruate every month globally, menstruation is not always just synonymous with blood loss. As such, many also experience premenstrual conditions such as dysmenorrhea (period pain), limited access to health care and/or menstrual stigma. Yet, so far, laws have mostly focused on menstrual hygiene management (MHM), particularly menstrual products provision. Despite MHM’s success, scholars have criticized its narrow focus on products at the expense of a more comprehensive definition of menstrual health, which recognises the menstrual cycle, and includes menarche and menopause. Meanwhile, global institutions have been shifting their focus from menstrual hygiene to menstrual health, and have framed the latter as a health and human rights issue. However, so far, the Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights and the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health have mostly remained silent on the topic of menstrual health. The article argues that these mechanisms should conceptualize a right to menstrual health, which promotes menstruators’ rights to health literacy, agency, participation, culture and increased scrutiny of the menstrual products industry.","PeriodicalId":46556,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights Law Review","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2024-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140939289","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The potential of the principle of solidarity as an interpretative guide for the realisation of ESCR has, to date, been largely overlooked. Solidarity mediates between the individual and the community, and it has a collective dimension in relation to both burden- and benefitsharing. The recognition of ESCR creates not only positive legal obligations on the state but also civic responsibilities on individuals to contribute, within their means, to the progressive realisation of ESCR. While the state is ultimately accountable for making progress on ESCR, taking these rights seriously will have implications for individual rights and responsibilities. We argue in this article that the principle of solidarity within society underpins ESCR as a whole and is essential for achieving sustainable progress on ESCR. This is because their progressive realisation requires not only that states' legal obligations are fulfilled but also that individual and collective contributions are made for the common good.
{"title":"Solidarity as Foundation for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights","authors":"Koldo Casla, Marion Sandner","doi":"10.1093/hrlr/ngae011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngae011","url":null,"abstract":"The potential of the principle of solidarity as an interpretative guide for the realisation of ESCR has, to date, been largely overlooked. Solidarity mediates between the individual and the community, and it has a collective dimension in relation to both burden- and benefitsharing. The recognition of ESCR creates not only positive legal obligations on the state but also civic responsibilities on individuals to contribute, within their means, to the progressive realisation of ESCR. While the state is ultimately accountable for making progress on ESCR, taking these rights seriously will have implications for individual rights and responsibilities. We argue in this article that the principle of solidarity within society underpins ESCR as a whole and is essential for achieving sustainable progress on ESCR. This is because their progressive realisation requires not only that states' legal obligations are fulfilled but also that individual and collective contributions are made for the common good.","PeriodicalId":46556,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights Law Review","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2024-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140888239","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article problematises the current understanding of sex and gender in international human rights law, especially as it manifests itself in its treatment of the ‘women’ category. The problematic nature of the current state of international human rights law in this regard came recently to light in two cases: the majority judgment in the Y v France case of the European Court for Human Rights and the dissenting opinions in the Vicky Hernández case of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Arguments and statements emerging from these two authoritative recent sources coming from two arguably progressive jurisdictions exemplify continuing inadequacies of the dominant approach. Through a critical engagement with these arguments, supplemented by the discussion of the broader framework of international human rights law, the article not only points out the precise nature of the existing shortcomings but also formulates strategies for overcoming them.
本文对当前国际人权法中对性和性别的理解，尤其是对 "妇女 "类别的理解提出了质疑。国际人权法在这方面的现状问题最近在两个案件中暴露出来：欧洲人权法院 Y 诉法国案的多数判决和美洲人权法院 Vicky Hernández 案的反对意见。来自这两个可以说是进步的司法管辖区的这两个权威性的最新资料来源中出现的论点和声明体现了主流方法的持续不足。通过对这些论点的批判性讨论，并辅之以对更广泛的国际人权法框架的讨论，文章不仅指出了现有缺陷的确切性质，还制定了克服这些缺陷的战略。
{"title":"Sex and Gender in International Human Rights Law through the Prism of the ‘Women’ Category in Recent Case Law","authors":"Ekaterina Yahyaoui Krivenko","doi":"10.1093/hrlr/ngae012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngae012","url":null,"abstract":"This article problematises the current understanding of sex and gender in international human rights law, especially as it manifests itself in its treatment of the ‘women’ category. The problematic nature of the current state of international human rights law in this regard came recently to light in two cases: the majority judgment in the Y v France case of the European Court for Human Rights and the dissenting opinions in the Vicky Hernández case of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Arguments and statements emerging from these two authoritative recent sources coming from two arguably progressive jurisdictions exemplify continuing inadequacies of the dominant approach. Through a critical engagement with these arguments, supplemented by the discussion of the broader framework of international human rights law, the article not only points out the precise nature of the existing shortcomings but also formulates strategies for overcoming them.","PeriodicalId":46556,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights Law Review","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2024-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140889761","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article reconstructs a Received View of the right to marry in the European Convention on Human Rights and provides its philosophical interpretation. According to the Received View, the right to marry is a right to a legal institution of marriage. Recent case law from the European Court of Human Rights is analysed, with a focus on the protection and recognition of personal relationships under the law. According to the Fedotova case, the rights pertaining to the protection of conjugal relationships stem from the right to family life. The problem of non-distinctiveness of the right to marry is being discussed. If substantial rights protecting conjugal couples stem from the right to family life, then the right to marry does not offer any additional protection for the couple. The Received View addresses this issue. However, it is politically and morally unjust.
{"title":"The Received View about the Right to Marry: A Critique","authors":"Bartosz Biskup","doi":"10.1093/hrlr/ngae003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngae003","url":null,"abstract":"This article reconstructs a Received View of the right to marry in the European Convention on Human Rights and provides its philosophical interpretation. According to the Received View, the right to marry is a right to a legal institution of marriage. Recent case law from the European Court of Human Rights is analysed, with a focus on the protection and recognition of personal relationships under the law. According to the Fedotova case, the rights pertaining to the protection of conjugal relationships stem from the right to family life. The problem of non-distinctiveness of the right to marry is being discussed. If substantial rights protecting conjugal couples stem from the right to family life, then the right to marry does not offer any additional protection for the couple. The Received View addresses this issue. However, it is politically and morally unjust.","PeriodicalId":46556,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights Law Review","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2024-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140630404","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
States owe duties under human rights law to protect individuals from climate harm by mitigating climate change individually and collectively, in order to secure the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C goal. It is, however, unclear what human rights law requires of states generally in terms of emissions reduction trajectories. This article elucidates that question, by looking at what reduction obligations can be deduced from scholarship and the work of human rights enforcement mandates. It argues that it is not possible to deduce individualized reduction obligations or methods to calculate such obligations from the current body of human rights law. The article then explores three different pathways to achieve such concretization: law-making, litigation, and monitoring bodies. The analysis provides a platform for human rights law to realize its potential in advancing state ambition on mitigating climate change at the norm-level by assessing the promise of the different pathways to concretization.
{"title":"What’s in a Right? Concretizing States’ Climate Change Mitigation Obligations under Human Rights Law","authors":"Linnéa Nordlander","doi":"10.1093/hrlr/ngae001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngae001","url":null,"abstract":"States owe duties under human rights law to protect individuals from climate harm by mitigating climate change individually and collectively, in order to secure the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C goal. It is, however, unclear what human rights law requires of states generally in terms of emissions reduction trajectories. This article elucidates that question, by looking at what reduction obligations can be deduced from scholarship and the work of human rights enforcement mandates. It argues that it is not possible to deduce individualized reduction obligations or methods to calculate such obligations from the current body of human rights law. The article then explores three different pathways to achieve such concretization: law-making, litigation, and monitoring bodies. The analysis provides a platform for human rights law to realize its potential in advancing state ambition on mitigating climate change at the norm-level by assessing the promise of the different pathways to concretization.","PeriodicalId":46556,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights Law Review","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2024-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139658705","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Focusing on evidentiary approaches, this article examines the burdens and standards of proof applied at United Nations quasi-judicial international human rights bodies. These bodies have dual-faceted mandates, combining legal and human rights traditions and imperatives. However, they diverge in their approach to evidence. This article argues that the prima facie approach developed over the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention's 30 years of jurisprudence provides an appropriately flexible and conceptually coherent means of accommodating combined human rights and the judicial mandates. Nonetheless, this approach requires lexiconic and taxonomical tightening, and clarification of its standard of proof. Comparing the approaches taken by other quasi-judicial bodies, this article builds the impetus towards inter-institutional consistency. It reviews proposals such as wholesale reversal of the burden of proof onto Governments. It highlights the drawbacks of that unilateral type of burden and the risks that it would introduce further uncertainty for parties to proceedings, may cause onerous difficulties for claimants, and would potentially flood the human rights institutions with unsubstantiated claims.
{"title":"Reconciling the Dual-Faceted Mandates of Quasi-Judicial Human Rights Bodies: The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention’s Prima Facie Approach to Evidence","authors":"Matthew Gillett, Yutaka Karukaya, Mia Marzotto","doi":"10.1093/hrlr/ngad045","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngad045","url":null,"abstract":"Focusing on evidentiary approaches, this article examines the burdens and standards of proof applied at United Nations quasi-judicial international human rights bodies. These bodies have dual-faceted mandates, combining legal and human rights traditions and imperatives. However, they diverge in their approach to evidence. This article argues that the prima facie approach developed over the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention's 30 years of jurisprudence provides an appropriately flexible and conceptually coherent means of accommodating combined human rights and the judicial mandates. Nonetheless, this approach requires lexiconic and taxonomical tightening, and clarification of its standard of proof. Comparing the approaches taken by other quasi-judicial bodies, this article builds the impetus towards inter-institutional consistency. It reviews proposals such as wholesale reversal of the burden of proof onto Governments. It highlights the drawbacks of that unilateral type of burden and the risks that it would introduce further uncertainty for parties to proceedings, may cause onerous difficulties for claimants, and would potentially flood the human rights institutions with unsubstantiated claims.","PeriodicalId":46556,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights Law Review","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2024-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139588270","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Although climate change is among the main ecological crisis the world is grappling with today, relevant discourses on the subject often focus exclusively on the existential threats it presents ignoring other associated risks, including how it exacerbates modern slavery vulnerabilities. Despite already constituting a major human rights challenge, climate change promises to further exacerbate the modern slavery conundrum in Africa. Thus, in this paper, two interconnected questions are engaged with. Firstly, the climate crisis is interrogated vis-à-vis the way it induces modern slavery vulnerabilities in Africa and undermines human rights. The second aspect assesses the utility of the human rights framework in climate change action and its potential to protect modern slavery victims. While African countries are obligated to implement mitigation and adaptation strategies within their jurisdictions, to effectively address the modern slavery challenge, the paper suggests a stronger focus on global climate action via international cooperation and debt-for-nature swap.
{"title":"Climate Change and the Modern Slavery Conundrum in Africa: Reimagining the Relevance of Human Rights Law","authors":"Daniel Ogunniyi","doi":"10.1093/hrlr/ngad043","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngad043","url":null,"abstract":"Although climate change is among the main ecological crisis the world is grappling with today, relevant discourses on the subject often focus exclusively on the existential threats it presents ignoring other associated risks, including how it exacerbates modern slavery vulnerabilities. Despite already constituting a major human rights challenge, climate change promises to further exacerbate the modern slavery conundrum in Africa. Thus, in this paper, two interconnected questions are engaged with. Firstly, the climate crisis is interrogated vis-à-vis the way it induces modern slavery vulnerabilities in Africa and undermines human rights. The second aspect assesses the utility of the human rights framework in climate change action and its potential to protect modern slavery victims. While African countries are obligated to implement mitigation and adaptation strategies within their jurisdictions, to effectively address the modern slavery challenge, the paper suggests a stronger focus on global climate action via international cooperation and debt-for-nature swap.","PeriodicalId":46556,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights Law Review","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2024-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139588293","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","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：