Pub Date : 2022-11-29DOI: 10.1080/14754835.2022.2122785
Yuanxia Zhou, G. Kiyani, C. Crabtree
Abstract To what extent does naming and shaming influence state respect for human rights? Although many countries and international human rights organizations strategically name and shame states with the hope of deterring human rights abuses, prior empirical work on these strategies has disagreed about their effectiveness. In this article, we reinvestigate this theoretically important question. We take a new approach to examining how naming and shaming influences state human rights practices. First, we apply automatic text analysis to a corpus of human rights reports and develop two new cross-national human rights naming and shaming measures. One measure focuses on Amnesty International’s (AI’s) naming and shaming efforts, and the other focuses on the US government. Second, we assess the construct validity of these measures, finding evidence that they capture the relevant latent dimension. Third, we examine the extent to which these measures are correlated with human rights practices. Our results show that whereas AI’s naming and shaming activities do not seem to influence regime practices, the US State Department’s are associated with improved rights performance. Our measures and results contribute to the growing literature on human rights, international organizations, and foreign policy.
{"title":"New evidence that naming and shaming influences state human rights practices","authors":"Yuanxia Zhou, G. Kiyani, C. Crabtree","doi":"10.1080/14754835.2022.2122785","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2022.2122785","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract To what extent does naming and shaming influence state respect for human rights? Although many countries and international human rights organizations strategically name and shame states with the hope of deterring human rights abuses, prior empirical work on these strategies has disagreed about their effectiveness. In this article, we reinvestigate this theoretically important question. We take a new approach to examining how naming and shaming influences state human rights practices. First, we apply automatic text analysis to a corpus of human rights reports and develop two new cross-national human rights naming and shaming measures. One measure focuses on Amnesty International’s (AI’s) naming and shaming efforts, and the other focuses on the US government. Second, we assess the construct validity of these measures, finding evidence that they capture the relevant latent dimension. Third, we examine the extent to which these measures are correlated with human rights practices. Our results show that whereas AI’s naming and shaming activities do not seem to influence regime practices, the US State Department’s are associated with improved rights performance. Our measures and results contribute to the growing literature on human rights, international organizations, and foreign policy.","PeriodicalId":51734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights","volume":"22 1","pages":"451 - 468"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2022-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43689567","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}
Pub Date : 2022-11-17DOI: 10.1080/14754835.2022.2127311
Demet Yalcin Mousseau, M. Mousseau
Abstract Studies have observed a correlation of wealth with democracy, yet it remains unclear how wealth can cause or stabilize democracy. Recent research has shown how the causal mechanism may lie in the economic norm of contracting, as democracy becomes valued as the best means for sustaining a nonpredatory government that enforces contracts with impartiality. We extend this research to investigate if norms of economic contracting in societies give rise to, and strengthen, the democratic civil liberties of free speech and association. Drawing on the World Bank’s Financial Structure Database and data on civil liberties from the Varieties of Democracy dataset, analyses of most countries from 1961 to 2019 show that the economic norms of contracting have significant positive effects on the civil liberties of free speech and association and press freedom. With instrumental variable regression, we statistically isolate the causation from contracting to these civil liberties. This study pinpoints that contracting economic activities may strengthen the foundation of civil liberties in countries.
{"title":"The economic origins of democratic civil liberties: A cross-country analysis","authors":"Demet Yalcin Mousseau, M. Mousseau","doi":"10.1080/14754835.2022.2127311","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2022.2127311","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Studies have observed a correlation of wealth with democracy, yet it remains unclear how wealth can cause or stabilize democracy. Recent research has shown how the causal mechanism may lie in the economic norm of contracting, as democracy becomes valued as the best means for sustaining a nonpredatory government that enforces contracts with impartiality. We extend this research to investigate if norms of economic contracting in societies give rise to, and strengthen, the democratic civil liberties of free speech and association. Drawing on the World Bank’s Financial Structure Database and data on civil liberties from the Varieties of Democracy dataset, analyses of most countries from 1961 to 2019 show that the economic norms of contracting have significant positive effects on the civil liberties of free speech and association and press freedom. With instrumental variable regression, we statistically isolate the causation from contracting to these civil liberties. This study pinpoints that contracting economic activities may strengthen the foundation of civil liberties in countries.","PeriodicalId":51734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights","volume":"22 1","pages":"487 - 505"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2022-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43558818","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}
Pub Date : 2022-11-08DOI: 10.1080/14754835.2022.2135369
Mathis Lohaus, S. Stapel
Abstract Over the past 50 years, regional international organizations have adopted several treaties on human rights. By ratifying them, member states can signal their commitment to the norms codified in the respective documents. Yet ratification patterns vary greatly across both states and treaties. Extant studies of commitment to human rights focus on the impacts of reputational benefits and sovereignty costs. These arguments, however, are largely based on studies of ratification behavior in Europe and the UN system. We extend this logic to treaties created in the Organization of American States (OAS) and the African Union (OAU/AU). Between them, the two organizations have adopted 15 human rights agreements, giving their member states ample choices about (non)ratification. We apply event-history analysis to newly collected data on treaty commitment. This reveals variation in line with regional differences in how treaties are elaborated. Benefits from commitment expected by democratic and democratizing states play an important role in the member-state driven process in the OAS, but this is not the case in the OAU/AU. In the expert-driven context of the OAU/AU, in contrast, concerns about sovereignty costs related to treaty design and the relative power of member states are more pronounced.
{"title":"Who commits to regional human rights treaties? Reputational benefits, sovereignty costs, and regional dynamics","authors":"Mathis Lohaus, S. Stapel","doi":"10.1080/14754835.2022.2135369","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2022.2135369","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Over the past 50 years, regional international organizations have adopted several treaties on human rights. By ratifying them, member states can signal their commitment to the norms codified in the respective documents. Yet ratification patterns vary greatly across both states and treaties. Extant studies of commitment to human rights focus on the impacts of reputational benefits and sovereignty costs. These arguments, however, are largely based on studies of ratification behavior in Europe and the UN system. We extend this logic to treaties created in the Organization of American States (OAS) and the African Union (OAU/AU). Between them, the two organizations have adopted 15 human rights agreements, giving their member states ample choices about (non)ratification. We apply event-history analysis to newly collected data on treaty commitment. This reveals variation in line with regional differences in how treaties are elaborated. Benefits from commitment expected by democratic and democratizing states play an important role in the member-state driven process in the OAS, but this is not the case in the OAU/AU. In the expert-driven context of the OAU/AU, in contrast, concerns about sovereignty costs related to treaty design and the relative power of member states are more pronounced.","PeriodicalId":51734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights","volume":"22 1","pages":"386 - 405"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2022-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46772073","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}
Pub Date : 2022-10-20DOI: 10.1080/14754835.2022.2104118
Magdalena Bexell
Abstract This article explores the increasing role of indicators and rankings in the case of business and human rights. It argues that indicators contribute to forming notions of companies’ responsibilities for human rights. The potentially formative power of indicators stems from their substantive content (human rights), from the authority of those who produce them (experts, governance bodies), and from the type of knowledge they convey (numbers offering a sense of precision and comparability). A case study of the Corporate Human Rights Benchmark shows that this indicator scheme shapes notions of business human rights responsibility as being equally centered on commitments, policies, and procedures as on human rights impact. In contrast to the rights-holding and duty-bearing subjects of international human rights law, indicators in the domain of business and human rights put a broad range of stakeholders on equal terms. Contestation has primarily concerned specific instances of highly ranked companies whose operations have negatively impacted human rights. The case shows that rankings can be contentious and are ultimately dependent on their credibility in broader perspective, subject to events that are not necessarily covered by indicators.
{"title":"Ranking for human rights? The formative power of indicators for business responsibility","authors":"Magdalena Bexell","doi":"10.1080/14754835.2022.2104118","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2022.2104118","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article explores the increasing role of indicators and rankings in the case of business and human rights. It argues that indicators contribute to forming notions of companies’ responsibilities for human rights. The potentially formative power of indicators stems from their substantive content (human rights), from the authority of those who produce them (experts, governance bodies), and from the type of knowledge they convey (numbers offering a sense of precision and comparability). A case study of the Corporate Human Rights Benchmark shows that this indicator scheme shapes notions of business human rights responsibility as being equally centered on commitments, policies, and procedures as on human rights impact. In contrast to the rights-holding and duty-bearing subjects of international human rights law, indicators in the domain of business and human rights put a broad range of stakeholders on equal terms. Contestation has primarily concerned specific instances of highly ranked companies whose operations have negatively impacted human rights. The case shows that rankings can be contentious and are ultimately dependent on their credibility in broader perspective, subject to events that are not necessarily covered by indicators.","PeriodicalId":51734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights","volume":"21 1","pages":"604 - 619"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2022-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44815741","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}
Pub Date : 2022-10-20DOI: 10.1080/14754835.2022.2104119
Janne Mende, Ann K. Hoff
Abstract The symposium “Governance Authority in Business and Human Rights” explores the authority of non-state actors in the global business and human rights (BHR) regime. Our point of departure is that the involvement of different public and private actors in the BHR regime rests on their authority as governance actors. This alludes most obviously to companies, but also includes other actors. In this framing paper, we investigate these actors’ governance authority in three steps, which provides insights into the different ways in which their power in the BHR regime is (or is not) legitimated. First, we outline how the multiplication of actors in the BHR regime raises questions and challenges regarding its governance. In the second step, we introduce a concept of governance authority that captures distinctive forms of power and legitimacy, and how they connect to human rights. Third, we discuss how the concept of governance authority can be used to study particular non-state actors in the BHR regime, and how the contributions to this symposium do so. In sum, we discuss avenues for research that disentangle the different types of governance power and legitimacy of multiple actors in the BHR regime to clarify their public and private roles as well as their relevance in BHR governance.
{"title":"The governance authority of non-state actors in the business and human rights regime","authors":"Janne Mende, Ann K. Hoff","doi":"10.1080/14754835.2022.2104119","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2022.2104119","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The symposium “Governance Authority in Business and Human Rights” explores the authority of non-state actors in the global business and human rights (BHR) regime. Our point of departure is that the involvement of different public and private actors in the BHR regime rests on their authority as governance actors. This alludes most obviously to companies, but also includes other actors. In this framing paper, we investigate these actors’ governance authority in three steps, which provides insights into the different ways in which their power in the BHR regime is (or is not) legitimated. First, we outline how the multiplication of actors in the BHR regime raises questions and challenges regarding its governance. In the second step, we introduce a concept of governance authority that captures distinctive forms of power and legitimacy, and how they connect to human rights. Third, we discuss how the concept of governance authority can be used to study particular non-state actors in the BHR regime, and how the contributions to this symposium do so. In sum, we discuss avenues for research that disentangle the different types of governance power and legitimacy of multiple actors in the BHR regime to clarify their public and private roles as well as their relevance in BHR governance.","PeriodicalId":51734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights","volume":"21 1","pages":"593 - 603"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2022-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41809520","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}
Pub Date : 2022-10-20DOI: 10.1080/14754835.2022.2105646
Marisa McVey
Abstract The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human (UNGPs) explicitly ask corporations to rely on “external expertise” for policy guidance, human rights due diligence (HRDD), and remedy. The broad conceptualization of expertise in the UNGPs signifies an amorphous, neutral, and largely unregulated community of consultants, human rights institutions, NGOs, impact assessors, and auditors (among other actors). I argue that external experts exert significant governance authority in the business and human rights space. Through empirical analysis of experts orbiting two multinational corporations, I identify experts as knowledge providers, diplomats, critics, and legitimizers in the corporate implementation of the UNGPs. In doing so, this work adds nuanced political dimensions to expert authority in business and human rights, offering evidence of its manifestations and limitations. Finally, I advance some considerations and suggestions for future research, particularly vital in the context of incoming mandatory HRDD legislation.
{"title":"Untangling the authority of external experts in the corporate implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights","authors":"Marisa McVey","doi":"10.1080/14754835.2022.2105646","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2022.2105646","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human (UNGPs) explicitly ask corporations to rely on “external expertise” for policy guidance, human rights due diligence (HRDD), and remedy. The broad conceptualization of expertise in the UNGPs signifies an amorphous, neutral, and largely unregulated community of consultants, human rights institutions, NGOs, impact assessors, and auditors (among other actors). I argue that external experts exert significant governance authority in the business and human rights space. Through empirical analysis of experts orbiting two multinational corporations, I identify experts as knowledge providers, diplomats, critics, and legitimizers in the corporate implementation of the UNGPs. In doing so, this work adds nuanced political dimensions to expert authority in business and human rights, offering evidence of its manifestations and limitations. Finally, I advance some considerations and suggestions for future research, particularly vital in the context of incoming mandatory HRDD legislation.","PeriodicalId":51734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights","volume":"21 1","pages":"620 - 638"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2022-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49182753","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}
Pub Date : 2022-10-20DOI: 10.1080/14754835.2022.2120765
J. Jos
Abstract Legal waivers in the business and human rights context are an agreement corporations use to provide compensation to victims in exchange for waiving their right to file future claims in a court of law in corporate human rights abuses. Corporations use legal waivers to further secure legal immunity from potential future claims for adverse human rights impact. In contrast, right-holders accept legal waivers as they provide quick resolution of grievances, mainly in the form of monetary compensation. This article investigates the inequality of bargaining power under which legal waivers operate. It advances the central claim that the use of legal waivers in private remedial processes reflects corporate attempts to renegotiate human rights standards by exercising authority. I use the Porgera case study to shed light on how power inequalities between corporations and right-holders distort the nature of business actors’ governance authority in business and human rights. I further argue that legal waivers strengthen the power of corporations while simultaneously not serving the public interest that corporations claim to uphold in facilitating a private remedial process for right-holders. I conclude that the power inequalities exacerbate the “power” element of authority without affecting the legitimacy of corporations but distorting the nature of their governance authority.
{"title":"Legal waivers in settlement agreements: Implications on access to remedies in business and human rights","authors":"J. Jos","doi":"10.1080/14754835.2022.2120765","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2022.2120765","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Legal waivers in the business and human rights context are an agreement corporations use to provide compensation to victims in exchange for waiving their right to file future claims in a court of law in corporate human rights abuses. Corporations use legal waivers to further secure legal immunity from potential future claims for adverse human rights impact. In contrast, right-holders accept legal waivers as they provide quick resolution of grievances, mainly in the form of monetary compensation. This article investigates the inequality of bargaining power under which legal waivers operate. It advances the central claim that the use of legal waivers in private remedial processes reflects corporate attempts to renegotiate human rights standards by exercising authority. I use the Porgera case study to shed light on how power inequalities between corporations and right-holders distort the nature of business actors’ governance authority in business and human rights. I further argue that legal waivers strengthen the power of corporations while simultaneously not serving the public interest that corporations claim to uphold in facilitating a private remedial process for right-holders. I conclude that the power inequalities exacerbate the “power” element of authority without affecting the legitimacy of corporations but distorting the nature of their governance authority.","PeriodicalId":51734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights","volume":"21 1","pages":"639 - 653"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2022-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49013069","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}
Pub Date : 2022-10-19DOI: 10.1080/14754835.2022.2127310
Elizabeth J. Kolbe
Abstract Labor migration and tourism development are two separate phenomena, both affecting local workers of tourism destinations. In the context of Phi Phi Island, Thailand, these two issues could not be separated during the study of the effects of labor migration on local workers, as this labor migration was in direct response to the expansion of the tourism industry and the labor gaps that followed. Phenomenology and an interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA) were used to understand the benefits and impacts to local workers due to the expansion of the labor market for tourism development and the immigrants, both Asian and Western, who came to fill occupations in the industry. Economical models and quantitative studies are insufficient for understanding these phenomenam and the voices of local workers can increase our understanding of how these phenomena impact the right to work of destination residents.
{"title":"The right to work? For whom? Exploring international migration for tourism employment and its effects on local workers through phenomenology","authors":"Elizabeth J. Kolbe","doi":"10.1080/14754835.2022.2127310","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2022.2127310","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Labor migration and tourism development are two separate phenomena, both affecting local workers of tourism destinations. In the context of Phi Phi Island, Thailand, these two issues could not be separated during the study of the effects of labor migration on local workers, as this labor migration was in direct response to the expansion of the tourism industry and the labor gaps that followed. Phenomenology and an interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA) were used to understand the benefits and impacts to local workers due to the expansion of the labor market for tourism development and the immigrants, both Asian and Western, who came to fill occupations in the industry. Economical models and quantitative studies are insufficient for understanding these phenomenam and the voices of local workers can increase our understanding of how these phenomena impact the right to work of destination residents.","PeriodicalId":51734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights","volume":"22 1","pages":"563 - 579"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2022-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46952409","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}
Pub Date : 2022-10-04DOI: 10.1080/14754835.2022.2122786
M. Abouharb
Abstract War represents one of the gravest threats to the right to health. A range of international human rights covenants have enumerated the rights of both adults and children to lead full healthy lives, free from the dangers of war. Yet we know remarkably little about how war systematically affects children’s rights to health. We have limited knowledge about if different types of conflict—major interstate and major civil wars—have similar or different consequences for children’s health. This article examines the immediate and cumulative links of major interstate and major civil wars with infant mortality rates, a key measure of children’s health. The article employs generalized least squares regression with two-way fixed effects over the 1950–2007 period. The core results indicate that major civil and major interstate wars substantively violate children’s and infants’ rights to health. States that spent the most amount of time involved in major interstate wars were associated with the worst overall increases in infant mortality rates.
{"title":"War and infant mortality rates","authors":"M. Abouharb","doi":"10.1080/14754835.2022.2122786","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2022.2122786","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract War represents one of the gravest threats to the right to health. A range of international human rights covenants have enumerated the rights of both adults and children to lead full healthy lives, free from the dangers of war. Yet we know remarkably little about how war systematically affects children’s rights to health. We have limited knowledge about if different types of conflict—major interstate and major civil wars—have similar or different consequences for children’s health. This article examines the immediate and cumulative links of major interstate and major civil wars with infant mortality rates, a key measure of children’s health. The article employs generalized least squares regression with two-way fixed effects over the 1950–2007 period. The core results indicate that major civil and major interstate wars substantively violate children’s and infants’ rights to health. States that spent the most amount of time involved in major interstate wars were associated with the worst overall increases in infant mortality rates.","PeriodicalId":51734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights","volume":"22 1","pages":"135 - 157"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2022-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46536677","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}
Pub Date : 2022-09-22DOI: 10.1080/14754835.2022.2111658
Lisa S. Alfredson
Abstract Despite surging attention to child soldiers and modern slavery over the past decades, their links remain politicized and neglected. This study develops a human rights approach that deepens application of international slavery law; exposes child soldiering as a neglected slavery issue; and confronts underlying legal, political, and ethical challenges. It addresses challenges of using slavery law to identify contemporary cases, then analyzes global data on child soldiering specifically, revealing patterns and trends with robust equivalencies to slavery. Ethical challenges are addressed by confronting slavery myths that distort legal discussions and intersectional elements of child soldiering. These legal, empirical, and ethical arguments reveal international law on child soldiering as deeply insufficient and support a paradigmatic shift in thinking toward antislavery rights as appropriate legal, moral, and programmatic tools to end child soldiering. This, in turn, demonstrates how a rights-based approach helps fulfill the promise of anti-slavery law even in politicized cases.
{"title":"Child soldiers as contemporary slaves: A human rights approach","authors":"Lisa S. Alfredson","doi":"10.1080/14754835.2022.2111658","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2022.2111658","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Despite surging attention to child soldiers and modern slavery over the past decades, their links remain politicized and neglected. This study develops a human rights approach that deepens application of international slavery law; exposes child soldiering as a neglected slavery issue; and confronts underlying legal, political, and ethical challenges. It addresses challenges of using slavery law to identify contemporary cases, then analyzes global data on child soldiering specifically, revealing patterns and trends with robust equivalencies to slavery. Ethical challenges are addressed by confronting slavery myths that distort legal discussions and intersectional elements of child soldiering. These legal, empirical, and ethical arguments reveal international law on child soldiering as deeply insufficient and support a paradigmatic shift in thinking toward antislavery rights as appropriate legal, moral, and programmatic tools to end child soldiering. This, in turn, demonstrates how a rights-based approach helps fulfill the promise of anti-slavery law even in politicized cases.","PeriodicalId":51734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights","volume":"22 1","pages":"307 - 333"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2022-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43436357","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：