Search

Begin New Search Topic Human Rights Political Geography Global Focus

41. Terrorism and human rights: the perspective of international law

Author:
David Stewart
Publication Date:
05-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Middle East Institute (MEI)
Abstract:
This paper explores the relationship between terrorism and human rights from the international legal perspective. It first reviews the definitional content of “terrorism” and “human rights” and then discusses their doctrinal interactions—considering terrorism as both a cause and a product of human rights violations and addressing counter-terrorism efforts as a source of human rights violations that can themselves generate support for terrorism. It concludes with some observations about issues of international terrorism in the context of refugee law, criminal law and humanitarian law as well as some recommendations for future action.
Topic:
Crime, Human Rights, International Law, Terrorism, and Refugees
Political Geography:
Middle East and Global Focus

42. R2P Monitor, Issue 42, 15 November 2018

Author:
Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Publication Date:
11-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Abstract:
R2P Monitor is a bimonthly bulletin applying the Responsibility to Protect lens to populations at risk of mass atrocities around the world. Issue 42 looks at developments in Afghanistan, Myanmar (Burma), Syria, Yemen, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Burundi, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Nigeria, South Sudan and Venezuela.
Topic:
Human Rights, International Law, Responsibility to Protect (R2P), and Atrocities
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, Israel, Yemen, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Palestine, Syria, Venezuela, Nigeria, Burundi, Myanmar, South Sudan, Cameroon, Central African Republic, and Global Focus

43. 2019-2021 UN Human Rights Council Elections and the Responsibility to Protect

Author:
Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Publication Date:
10-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Abstract:
Today the UN General Assembly elected Argentina, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Czech Republic, Denmark, Eritrea, Fiji, India, Italy, Philippines, Somalia, Togo and Uruguay to the Human Rights Council (HRC) for the 2019-2021 term. With the elections of Argentina, Bangladesh, Czech Republic, Denmark, Italy and Uruguay, 20 of the 47 Council members during 2019 are also members of the Group of Friends of the Responsibility to Protect in Geneva.
Topic:
Human Rights, Elections, Responsibility to Protect (R2P), Atrocities, and UN Human Rights Council (HRC)
Political Geography:
United Nations and Global Focus

44. Returnees: who are they, why are they (not) coming back and how should we deal with them? Assessing policies on returning foreign terrorist fighters in Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands

Author:
Thomas Renard and Rik Coolsaet
Publication Date:
02-2018
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
EGMONT - The Royal Institute for International Relations
Abstract:
Some 5000 men, women and children have travelled from Europe to Syria and Iraq since 2012. An estimated 1500 of these foreign terrorist fighters (FTF) have returned so far. Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands represent a third of European FTF and returnees. This report looks into the evolution of policies on returning foreign fighters in these three countries, comparing responses with regard to fighters that are still in the conflict zone, policies to deal with returnees in prison and attitudes towards the children of foreign fighters. It is the very first systematic and in-depth study into national approaches and policies vis-à-vis returnees. Its added value lies in the wealth of data, including data that has not been published before, and in the comparative angle.
Topic:
Human Rights, International Affairs, and Refugees
Political Geography:
Global Focus

45. Human Rights and Election Standards A Plan of Action

Author:
The Carter Center
Publication Date:
12-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Carter Center
Abstract:
Through their joint initiative on Human Rights and Election Standards, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and The Carter Center have worked to bring the human rights and election communities closer and to foster stronger links and communication between them. This Plan of Action aims to advance human rights related to genuine democratic elections by charting a course of practical steps toward our shared goals. The draft plan was developed based on the recommendations formulated through consultations that took place between 2015 and 2017. Going forward, organizations and individuals may agree on an ad-hoc basis to disseminating and acting upon the recommendations in this Plan of Action. The OHCHR and The Carter Center acknowledge the many individuals and organizations that contributed to the Human Rights and Election Standards consultations
Topic:
Human Rights and International Affairs
Political Geography:
Global Focus

46. Global Magnitsky Sanctions: Raising the Human Rights and Anti-Corruption Bar

Author:
Samantha Sultoon
Publication Date:
12-2018
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
Economic sanctions have become a policy tool-of-choice for the US government. Yet sanctions and their potential pitfalls are often misunderstood. The Economic Sanctions Initiative (ESI) seeks to build a better understanding of the role sanctions can and cannot play in advancing policy objectives and of the impact of sanctions on the private sector, which bears many of the implementation costs.
Topic:
Human Rights, International Political Economy, and International Affairs
Political Geography:
Global Focus

47. Domesticating the Giant: The Global Governance of Migration

Author:
Patrycja Sasnal
Publication Date:
06-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Council on Foreign Relations
Abstract:
Migration is a natural and defining phenomenon of the globalized world. The challenge of governing migration lies in its inevitability, volume, and heterogeneity. As a portion of the global population, migrants represent around 3 percent, but their absolute number is rising. There were 170 million migrants in 2000; today there are roughly 260 million. Migration levels will certainly grow while hostilities continue in the most conflict-ridden regions of sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, the global wealth gap persists, climate change aggravates living conditions in many areas, and the poorer half of the globe becomes more populous. Moreover, migration is a complex heterogeneous process. Depending on the cause, duration, and legality, migration can be voluntary or forced (refugees and internally displaced persons, including survival migrants such as climate and disaster refugees), permanent or circular, regular or irregular. Politically, migration poses a twofold challenge: balancing security and freedom and harmonizing international obligations with domestic laws. Traditional discussion of migratory movements divided the world into the sending global south and the receiving global north. Interests of the former lay primarily in safeguarding the rights of their citizens regardless of immigration status and ensuring remittance flow. Interests of the latter lay in accommodating the “useful” migrants and restricting the rest. With the shifts in global wealth distribution, this division is losing tenacity. Countries that once were sending migrants are also receiving them today. For nations, migration affects the most rudimentary pillar of sovereignty (national borders), the core of democratic political systems (human rights), and atavistic social needs (national identity). Perceptions of migration affect political popularity: political parties are tempted to use selective, mostly negative, aspects of migration to rally the electorate around national identities. This in turn disproportionately, and often contrary to the objective needs of the host countries, vilifies migration generally. Political opposition to migration occurs despite a consensus that the economies of both sending and receiving countries benefit economically from migration. Even though the sending countries may experience labor and brain drain, they benefit from remittance flows from receiving countries; similarly, the receiving countries get a boost of human capital.
Topic:
Human Rights, Migration, United Nations, and Governance
Political Geography:
Global Focus

48. The Links Between Immigration, Migration and Human Trafficking

Author:
Joey White
Publication Date:
01-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center on Human Rights Education, University of Denver
Abstract:
Our sister organization, Human Trafficking Center (HTC) are the experts on the matter of human trafficking and use academic rigor, sound methodology, and reliable data to promote understanding of human trafficking and its causes, conditions, and cures. In a recent blog, HTC defines the connection between trafficking and migration: “Trafficking is migration gone terribly wrong.” – David Feingold. These words given by David Feingold in his piece Trafficking in Numbers: The Social Construction of Human Trafficking Data give a whole new insight into what human trafficking is, what realms human trafficking occurs within, and how human trafficking happens. Indeed, human trafficking and migration are inextricably linked. Human trafficking is heavily influenced by migration. Any policies regarding one have a tremendous effect on the other. This is why it is so vital to examine immigration policies and take into account what impacts they will have in the anti-trafficking sphere, particularly in today’s political climate.”
Topic:
Human Rights, Migration, Immigrants, and Human Trafficking
Political Geography:
Global Focus

49. The Connection Between Homelessness, Immigration, and Displacement

Author:
Cat Galley
Publication Date:
03-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center on Human Rights Education, University of Denver
Abstract:
This year, The Center on Human Rights Education chose the theme of DISPLACEMENT to investigate and research in the context of human rights. To begin under this theme, we began with homelessness and evolved into immigration. We focused on homelessness in the context of the Denver-metro area and the state of Colorado. Immigration held a national focus during the winter quarter. In the spring, COHRE will investigate into the topic of refugees and displacement. Throughout the Fall Quarter, the connections between displacement and homelessness came to be understood. On a more national scale, in 2013, there were approximately 610,042 homeless individuals. This number includes US citizens, immigrants, and refugees.
Topic:
Human Rights, Immigrants, Displacement, and Homelessness
Political Geography:
Global Focus

50. The Case for Foreign Electoral Subversion

Author:
Cecile Fabre
Publication Date:
09-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Institution:
Carnegie Council
Abstract:
Most foreign policy is not implemented through war. Yet, with a few recent exceptions—like James Pattison’s 2018 monograph The Alternatives to War—political and moral philosophers have yet to explore all options between war and doing nothing.1 Here I consider one such option: subversive interference in a democracy’s nationwide elections. In that regard, the years 2016–2017 have proved rich in controversies. In France, Russian banks with close ties to the Kremlin provided cash loans to the National Front in the run-up to the 2017 presidential elections. In December 2017, the Australian premier announced a tightening of restrictions on foreign funding of political parties out of concern with alleged and undue Chinese influence on some Australian politicians. Last, but far from least, in the United States the Office of the Director of National Intelligence along with the CIA, FBI, and NSA all take the strong view, backed in part by social media data, that Russian authorities actively sought to undermine Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and to bolster Donald Trump’s.2 Interestingly, however, some of President Putin’s critics are vulnerable to the charge of hypocrisy. To give but two examples, the United States has a long history of interfering in the institutions and elections of its Latin American neighbors and, indeed, at the height of the Cold War, of its European allies. More recently, many believe that, absent U.S.-driven assistance, the Democratic Opposition of Serbia would have lost the 2000 Yugoslavian presidential election to Slobodan Milošević.3 Attempting to subvert the democratic elections of a putatively sovereign country is a time-honored way of bending the latter’s domestic and foreign policy to one’s will. However, it seems to elicit far more condemnation than war and, indeed, other forms of coercive diplomacy. Perhaps this is because, to many people, the rights of democratic participation have primacy over all other rights; or because most often electoral subversion takes place covertly. Either way, given how destructive those other modes of interference are, this is puzzling. I frame my inquiry as follows. I focus on the state-sponsored, nonviolent, nonkinetic subversion of nationwide elections (for short, subversion). Moreover, because I am interested in exploring whether there are any situations in which subversion may be justified, I consider cases in which subversion is used as a means to prevent or end large-scale human rights violations, though my argument also has implications for subversion as a tool of foreign policy in general. In addition, my aim is not to evaluate subversion as an alternative to war or, for that matter, to other measures, such as economic sanctions. Due to space constraints, I simply wish to show that, under certain conditions and subject to certain constraints, subversion is pro tanto justified. Whether it is justified all things considered—and, in particular, once one has taken into account other options—is another matter and one that I cannot settle here. Finally, although subversion affects election candidates, it above all undermines a citizen’s right to vote. Accordingly, in what follows I focus on the latter and not the former. Attempting to subvert the democratic elections of a putatively sovereign country is a time-honored way of bending the latter’s domestic and foreign policy to one’s will. However, it seems to elicit far more condemnation than war. Before I begin, let me outline the overall normative framework on which my arguments rely. I take it for granted that all individuals, wherever they reside in the world, have rights to the freedoms and the resources they need to lead a minimally flourishing life—in other words, human rights. Moreover, they hold those rights against all human beings and their respective governments. Put differently, on this cosmopolitan view, all of us, wherever we reside in the world, are under duties to all other individuals, wherever they reside, to respect their human rights. How precisely we discharge those duties partly depends on the institutional structures under which we live. Be that as it may, I am not under a stronger duty to respect my compatriots’ human rights—for example, not to be killed or to be given means of subsistence—than I am to respect those same rights of noncompatriots, and vice versa
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Human Rights, Sovereignty, Elections, and Election Interference
Political Geography:
Global Focus