Human Rights Quarterly最新文献

This article considers the context, development, and significance of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023. The Act was relatively unusual in aiming to increase the normative strength of freedom of speech. The central justification given for the Act was the need to respond to an increasing number of interferences with free speech and academic freedom occurring at universities. The growth of a "cancel culture" was having a "chilling effect" on students, staff, and visiting speakers. The article examines a range of high-profile cases and incidents that have attracted political and media attention. Many of these have concerned contemporary debates related to trans issues and identity politics. The issues discussed in the article are of wider international interest. Similar controversies have been experienced in universities in other states. The article makes comparative reference to developments in the field in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The article examines the perceived issues and evidential bases for the Act, reviews the legal duties, and analyzes the key legal concepts. It considers these in terms of compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights (1950). It concludes by addressing three thematic issues: (i) a Model Code; (ii) challenging university ideologies; and (iii) securing cultural change.

This article uses the case of Colombian migrants in the United States (U.S.) who are registered with the Colombian Unit for Victims to illustrate the tension that emerges when a home country commits to reparations for nationals in exile when violence in their home country has not ceased. Bridging studies on transitional justice, diasporas, and displacement, we show the disconnect between the Colombian state's original goal to assist with return as the primary form of reparation and displaced Colombians' goals for stability, particularly legal status, abroad. Through interviews with Colombian officials and U.S.-based migrants, our findings show the unique dynamics of transnational reparations and the specific issue facing migrants from war-torn countries when their country of origin engages in transitional justice interventions.

In the context of mass atrocities, the legitimacy of institutions for international justice—such as the International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice—is based on the assumption that they vindicate demands for accountability by the survivors of horrific human rights violations. Yet, notwithstanding advances in victim representation at these Hague-based courts, victim-centered justice remains elusive. This article contributes to centering the voices of survivors in their specific cultural contexts, against the backdrop of existing efforts that too often render invisible their perspectives. Through semi-structured interviews, conducted in late 2022, with 444 Rohingya survivors of genocide who have fled Myanmar to refugee camps in neighboring Bangladesh, we attempt to convey the priorities of these survivors situated within their cultural understanding of justice. We contextualize the empirical data gathered from the survey within Rohingyas' lived experiences of persecution in Myanmar, their cultural framings of communal justice, and their current reality of prolonged displacement in refugee camps in Bangladesh. The article concludes by describing the implications of this survey's findings on future engagement of the Rohingya in international justice processes, and a wider reflection on how grassroots perspectives can and should shape the global justice discourse.

The obligation to prevent human rights violations has received little attention in the international human rights community, including in academic commentary. This article considers the sources of the obligation to prevent violations in international human rights law and explores some of the content of the obligation. This leads to a recognition that this obligation may challenge the way we often approach human rights violations and what States need to do to comply. While much of the attention to human rights violations tend to be retrospective—after they have occurred, the obligation to prevent violations requires that action be taken before individuals and groups of individuals become victims.

International law has come a long way in outlawing chemical weapon usage during warfare. From the 1907 Hague Convention to the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention, there exists a comprehensive and mostly successful prohibition and verification regime for chemical weapons. However, the advent of modern warfare in recent conflicts in Syria and in Ukraine demonstrates compliance control is severely lacking for this form of weaponry. Consequently, there is no comprehensive accountability framework for international humanitarian law violations in the form of chemical weapon usage. Without explicit language criminalizing it, this heinous form of war crime ends up slipping under the radar. This article explores these jurisdictional gaps in both international and non-international armed conflicts and recommends ways the international community should cement its commitment to penalizing chemical weapon utilization.

The present article discusses the extent to which the Sharia and human rights are intermingled in the constitutional architecture of Gulf countries, focusing on two main questions: first, the extent to which the constitutional references to the Sharia in Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Constitutions coexist—or can coexist—harmoniously with constitutional liberties. Secondly, the extent to which the Sharia plays a role in the interpretation of human rights by judicial entities, and whether such interpretation is in line with international human rights standards. Drawing primarily on the jurisprudence of the Kuwaiti Constitutional Court (including the female Members of Parliament hijab case, the passport retention case, the Ramadan eating ban, and the more recent case on the prohibition of “imitating the opposite sex,” the article suggests that judicial entities in GCC states should strive to align themselves better with their obligations stemming from human rights treaties, especially in relation to the principle of non-discrimination. It further argues that the richness and flexibility of Islamic law can effectively advance the argument of universality and cultural legitimacy of human rights in a spirit of reconciliation, arguably paving the way for a functioning regional human rights body in the Arab region.

In this article I challenge the interpretation of refugees as passive beneficiaries of political decisions and make a case for their enfranchisement. Starting from literature regarding the boundary problem of democratic theory, I make a republican case for including refugees in the demos. My novel approach emphasizes that bestowing electoral rights upon refugees is a separate question from offering them full citizenship. Enfranchising the refugees is a separate, and temporary prior measure of ensuring that their freedom is protected and that their rights are not imperiled by arbitrarily imposed decisions, at least in a world which is operating under a regime of controlled, closed borders. This preoccupation with feasibility constraints also aims to separate this article from recent contributions that defended the enfranchisement of refugees.