Search

Begin New Search Topic Human Rights Political Geography Global Focus

51. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights at Seventy: Progress and Challenges

Author:
Ş. İlgü Özler
Publication Date:
12-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Institution:
Carnegie Council
Abstract:
On December 10, 1948, the United Nations General Assembly passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the most significant statement from the global community regarding what constitutes the ideal human life in any society and the rights to which all people are entitled. On the basis of the principles laid out in the UDHR, the international community has since negotiated a large number of human rights treaties and conventions and has developed plans of action in relation to all aspects of living a dignified life. The UDHR is arguably one of the most important documents in the history of human civilization; and to the extent that words on paper can change the world, the impact of the UDHR has been profound. However, despite providing a solid foundation for our collective understanding of the rights to which human beings are endowed, today we are still far from realizing these goals, and threats to the very principles enshrined in the UDHR continue to emerge. The declaration has now endured for seventy years, roughly the global average human life span. Thus, this occasion presents a good opportunity to take stock of what has been achieved, what has yet to be accomplished, and to consider the future longevity of this seminal declaration. As with any interpretation of something as complex as the impact of a document on the world, assessments of the UDHR and its ongoing role are mixed. Many in the field of human rights see a glass half full, characterizing the UDHR as a powerful tool that has dramatically shaped political and economic development throughout the world.1 Others focus on the space that remains empty, emphasizing the flaws that inhibit the realization of the document’s goals.2 Indeed, it must be admitted that, even given the indisputable progress that has been made over seven decades, there are today growing threats to human rights. These threats are the consequence of a number of global developments, including shifting geopolitical balances, extreme economic and social inequality, climate change, and a weakening of democratic institutions. These threats are very real, and it is important that human rights proponents monitor and respond to them. But here I argue that the threat to human rights is ever present. And thus, rather than focus on the advances and setbacks of this particular moment, this anniversary is an opportunity to consider the overall historical progression toward human rights as embodied in the UDHR and the obstacles that stand in the way of its full realization. Taking this broader view, there are two issues in particular that stand out as barriers to be overcome. The first is tied to the Westphalian state system, which has come to dominate human political organization. State sovereignty presents a fundamental challenge to any effort to establish universal norms. Implementing universal human rights will always be tremendously difficult in a system that affords final authority to state leaders who lack the necessary incentives. This is nothing new or surprising, of course, and it is not unique to human rights. But it nonetheless requires a careful consideration of how international declarations make their way from ideas on paper to practice. A declaration is only significant to the extent to which it is adhered. As a document with universal endorsement, the UDHR does indeed have power, and it can shape the behavior of actors who otherwise risk appearing to stand against history and human civilization. It can also be used as a normative weapon, both by citizens and by the international community, to shame hypocrites who violate the principles to which they and every nation in the world have agreed. But it is, nonetheless, just a document, and without correspondingly strong global institutional mechanisms to ensure implementation and compliance, its impact is limited. The second major issue is the way in which human rights ideals have been segmented. The separation of rights into social/economic and civil/political has enabled states to focus on some rights to the neglect of others. Global power shifts, especially under the hegemony of the post–Cold War United States, have led to exaggerated selective emphasis on just some of the rights embedded in the UDHR, when in fact none can be fully realized without a comprehensive approach. Political rights cannot be effectively exercised by those lacking access to basic economic necessities. And those meeting their economic needs may find that their voices as citizens are meaningless in a system characterized by vast inequality or in which national institutions are infected by mechanisms that leave them politically marginalized. Rights must be recognized as interconnected and they must be advanced in tandem. Emphasis on some principles to the exclusion of others undermines the comprehensive advancement of human rights. Thus, the current state of affairs is a product of the collective failure to address human rights holistically and to implement real monitoring and accountability measures for states, which are directly charged with upholding them within their borders.
Topic:
Human Rights, United Nations, Hegemony, and State Formation
Political Geography:
Global Focus

52. Our Voice Makes a Difference: A Civil Society Guide to Advocacy on Women, Peace and Security

Author:
Eleonore Veilet Chowdhury, Katrina Leclerc, and Kelly Yzique Zea
Publication Date:
01-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Global Network of Women Peacebuilders (GNWP)
Abstract:
This publication, “Our Voice Makes A Difference: Civil Society Advocacy Toolkit on Women, Peace and Security,” was developed by GNWP, with support from Cordaid, to aid women’s advocacy efforts during the CSW sessions. It provides women’s rights and peace activists with information and insights on how to navigate global policy spaces such as the CSW to effectively advocate on issues they care about
Topic:
Security, Gender Issues, Human Rights, Women, Peace, and Advocacy
Political Geography:
Global Focus

53. The Narrative of Political Islam: Constitutionalism and Human Rights

Author:
Nikola Gjorshoski
Publication Date:
06-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Liberty and International Affairs
Institution:
Institute for Research and European Studies (IRES)
Abstract:
One of the essential postulates of political orientation and determination for the building of stable societies and a functioning political system in its content recognizes and imposes the need to examine the relation of relevant political actors to constitutionalism and human rights as concepts and preoccupations for any modern society. Also, constitutionalism and human rights and freedoms as its inseparable category manifest the political values and the corpus of essential and common political goals and commitments of a particular political community. Political Islam as an ideological political subject has its own sources and a valuable orientation framework through which prisms and perceptions can be interpreted or extracted by individual axiological determinants to certain issues. This paper analyzes exactly the relations of political Islam with constitutionalism and human rights, and similarly to the so-called framework it draws attention to the concepts of power, the mechanisms of control and compliance with the Sharia regulations. At the same time, the importance of human rights and freedoms in the Islamic narrative, their nature and scope, as well as the differences with the western established documents in this area are emphasized and analyzed.
Topic:
Government, Human Rights, Islam, Constitution, and Sharia
Political Geography:
Middle East, North Africa, and Global Focus

54. Committing to Justice for Serious Human Rights Violations: Lessons from Hybrid Tribunals

Author:
Elena Naughton
Publication Date:
12-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ)
Abstract:
Hybrid courts (or mixed tribunals combining international and national components) are no longer a novel approach to pursuing criminal accountability for egregious crimes of international concern (war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide). Created and implemented in diverse contexts around the globe for over a decade, they provide countries with an alternative to a fully domestic or international judicial process to hold perpetrators to account for mass atrocities. Over time, hybrid jurisdictions have proven themselves to be a viable model of justice in difficult circumstances. Although almost all have faced funding shortfalls at some time during their mandate and most have been met with strong opposition from those hostile to rigorous accountability efforts, each has investigated crimes and brought about justice where few if any other justice options existed. Their inherent strength rests, in part, on the flexibility they offer for responding to complex international crimes at the national level and on the opportunity they provide for promoting the exchange of information and expertise and for building capacity. There is no model hybrid tribunal. Rather, each hybrid court is established in response to the particular needs of the context and may be “internationalized” in varying ways and to different degrees. The degree of international involvement has almost always been negotiated to meet the needs of domestic authorities who were reluctant to cede sovereignty and to address the concerns of international actors who were uncertain about the adequacy of existing due process norms or wary of limitations in the state’s judicial, legal, and institutional capacity. As a result, a hybrid tribunal usually reflects the political compromises reached among the negotiating parties, most often the United Nations (UN) and the host state. The negotiation process itself can provide space for different factions to come together to build consensus around a common and sustainable approach to achieving accountability. They can also make accountability processes more responsive to the needs of victims and communities, including by giving victims the right to participate in the proceedings. Because of this process of give and take, hybrid tribunals offer the promise of independent justice within a mechanism that is capable of responding to complex international crimes at the domestic level.
Topic:
Human Rights, Humanitarian Intervention, Transitional Justice, and Humanitarian Crisis
Political Geography:
Global Focus

55. The Role of Victims in Criminal Proceedings

Author:
Howard Varney and Katarzyna Zdunczky
Publication Date:
05-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ)
Abstract:
This briefing paper focuses on the role of victims of human rights violations in criminal proceedings. This paper will provide examples of recent developments in the advancement of victim participation in criminal proceedings in international criminal law and domestic jurisdictions.
Topic:
Human Rights, International Law, Transitional Justice, Domestic Policy, and Human Rights Violations
Political Geography:
Global Focus

56. The “Right to Remain Here” as an Evolving Component of Global Refugee Protection: Current Initiatives and Critical Questions

Author:
Daniel Kanstroom
Publication Date:
01-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
This article considers the relationship between two human rights discourses (and two specific legal regimes): refugee and asylum protection and the evolving body of international law that regulates expulsions and deportations. Legal protections for refugees and asylum seekers are, of course, venerable, well-known, and in many respects still cherished, if challenged and perhaps a bit frail. Anti-deportation discourse is much newer, multifaceted, and evolving. It is in many respects a young work in progress. It has arisen in response to a rising tide of deportations, and the worrisome development of massive, harsh deportation machinery in the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Mexico, Australia, and South Africa, among others. This article’s main goal is to consider how these two discourses do and might relate to each other. More specifically, it suggests that the development of procedural and substantive rights against removal — as well as rights during and after removal — aids our understanding of the current state and possible future of the refugee protection regime. The article’s basic thesis is this: The global refugee regime, though challenged both theoretically and in practice, must be maintained and strengthened. Its historical focus on developing criteria for admission into safe states, on protections against expulsion (i.e., non-refoulement), and on regimes of temporary protection all remain critically important. However, a focus on other protections for all noncitizens facing deportation is equally important. Deportation has become a major international system that transcends the power of any single nation-state. Its methods have migrated from one regime to another; its size and scope are substantial and expanding; its costs are enormous; and its effects frequently constitute major human rights violations against millions who do not qualify as refugees. In recent years there has been increasing reliance by states on generally applicable deportation systems, led in large measure by the United States’ radical 25 year-plus experiment with large-scale deportation. Europe has also witnessed a rising tide of deportation, some of which has developed in reaction to European asylum practices. Deportation has been facilitated globally (e.g., in Australia) by well-funded, efficient (but relatively little known) intergovernmental idea sharing, training, and cooperation. This global expansion, standardization, and increasing intergovernmental cooperation on deportation has been met by powerful — if in some respects still nascent — human rights responses by activists, courts, some political actors, and scholars. It might seem counterintuitive to think that emerging ideas about deportation protections could help refugees and asylum seekers, as those people by definition often have greater rights protections both in admission and expulsion. However, the emerging anti-deportation discourses should be systematically studied by those interested in the global refugee regime for three basic reasons. First, what Matthew Gibney has described as “the deportation turn” has historically been deeply connected to anxiety about asylum seekers. Although we lack exact figures of the number of asylum seekers who have been subsequently expelled worldwide, there seems little doubt that it has been a significant phenomenon and will be an increasingly important challenge in the future. The two phenomena of refugee/asylum protections and deportation, in short, are now and have long been linked. What has sometimes been gained through the front door, so to speak, may be lost through the back door. Second, current deportation human rights discourses embody creative framing models that might aid constructive critique and reform of the existing refugee protection regime. They tend to be more functionally oriented, less definitional in terms of who warrants protection, and more fluid and transnational. Third, these discourses offer important specific rights protections that could strengthen the refugee and asylum regime, even as we continue to see weakening state support for the basic 1951/1967 protection regime. This is especially true in regard to the extraterritorial scope of the (deporting) state’s obligations post-deportation. This article particularly examines two initiatives in this emerging field: The International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on the Expulsion of Aliens and the draft Declaration on the Rights of Expelled and Deported Persons developed through the Boston College Post-Deportation Human Rights Project (of which the author is a co-director). It compares their provisions to the existing corpus of substantive and procedural protections for refugees relating to expulsion and removal. It concludes with consideration of how these discourses may strengthen protections for refugees while also helping to develop more capacious and protective systems in the future.
Topic:
Human Rights, International Cooperation, Border Control, Refugees, and Humanitarian Crisis
Political Geography:
Africa, United States, Europe, France, South Africa, Germany, Australia, Mexico, and Global Focus

57. Making Human Rights Campaigns Effective While Limiting Unintended Consequences: A Literature Review on Human Rights

Author:
Elizabeth Heger Boyle, Cosette Creamer, Amy Hill Cosimini, Yagmur Karakaya, Suzy McElrath, Florencia Montal, and Wahutu James Nicholas Siguru
Publication Date:
09-2017
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Institute of International Education
Abstract:
In 2016, USAID’s Center of Excellence on Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance launched its Learning Agenda—a set of research questions designed to address the issues that confront staff in USAID field offices working on the intersection of development and democracy, human rights, and governance. This literature review—produced by a team of political scientists, sociologists, and lawyers—synthesizes scholarship from diverse research traditions on the following Learning Agenda question: What are the consequences of human rights awareness campaigns? What makes a human rights awareness campaign successful? Why do many campaigns fail? What are the unintended negative consequences of both successful and failed campaigns? How do local norms and other cultural factors constrain or enable the translation of campaigns from one context to another? This report synthesizes scholarship bearing on these questions from diverse research traditions and assesses the interdisciplinary state of knowledge regarding the effects, both intended and unintended, of human rights awareness campaigns and the characteristics that make such awareness campaigns effective. This review is divided into five sections: A broad overview of the steps involved in designing an effective awareness campaign. A review of research on campaigns generally, drawn from a broad range of fields, such as marketing, communications, public health, and political science. An overview of human rights awareness campaigns specifically, building on the well-known precept that to be successful, human rights campaigns must be adapted to the local context. The authors identify the mechanisms that facilitate and the barriers that impede local adaption, particularly the use of frames. Drawing on framing theory, the report highlights four points in communication where framing is critical: contexts, communicators, targeted populations, and message design. A discussion of effective media strategies, including ways to approach both traditional and new media, with the most effective campaigns combining traditional print media strategies with new social media forms. A discussion of the unintended negative consequences of campaigns, including backlash, confusion, desensitization, and/or frustration among targeted audience. This section also identifies the typical causes of these outcomes and ways to avoid them.
Topic:
Development, Human Rights, Governance, Democracy, and USAID
Political Geography:
North America, Global Focus, and United States of America

58. Struggles from Below: Literature Review on Human Rights Struggles by Domestic Actors

Author:
Erica Chenoweth, Tricia Olsen, Kyleanne Hunter, Pauline Moore, Jonathan Pinckney, and Heidi Reynolds-Stenson
Publication Date:
02-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute of International Education
Abstract:
In 2016, USAID’s Center of Excellence on Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance launched its Learning Agenda—a set of research questions designed to address the issues that confront staff in USAID field offices working on the intersection of development and democracy, human rights, and governance. This literature review—produced by a multidisciplinary team of graduate students and professors—synthesizes scholarship from diverse research traditions on the following Learning Agenda question: What do we know about the role of citizens, social movements, and other domestic civic actors (as opposed to transnational actors or government officials) in advocating for particular human rights outcomes in their country? And what can we learn from the successes and failures of their activities? Much of the research on this topic has focused on North America and Europe, but do any of these findings have the potential to translate to other country contexts? Are there particular contextual or tactical variables in these country contexts that make it less likely that domestic civic actors can have an impact? Are there some kinds of rights that are easier to fight for than others? Key findings include: Context matters: democratic political systems allow grassroots human rights activists more opportunities and greater likelihood of success; extreme poverty makes grassroots mobilization harder. Rhetorical framing matters a lot, and is tricky: local activists can be more successful by framing their work as a human rights struggle and by positioning that struggle within broader international conceptualizations of human rights, as captured in founding international human rights documents. However, activists must take equal care to translate these concepts into frames that resonate locally and are culturally appropriate. Connections matter: activists are more successful if they build connections with each other—within a particular rights movement and across rights movements, within a country and across countries—and if they build connections to political and economic elites and to a broad constituency base. These vertical, horizontal, and transnational ties can be supported simply by bringing activists together, but also depend on framing, since framing is crucial to how activists see themselves and their peers, how they engage their base, and how they target elites. Organizational structure matters, but there is not an ideal type of organization that consistently is more successful in advocating for improved human rights; rather, organizational type, formality, and complexity depends on the right being fought for, the goals of the rights movement, and contextual factors such as regime type or level of repression. Tactics matter: activists must use tactics that are appropriate to their rights fight and to their context, and often use many different tactics at different times. However, confrontational and disruptive tactics—such as protests or boycotts—are often more effective.
Topic:
Human Rights, Social Movement, Democracy, and USAID
Political Geography:
Global Focus

59. Monitoring Security Services. A Guide for Ombuds Institutions

Author:
Nazli Yildirim Schierkolk
Publication Date:
12-2017
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Razumkov Centre
Abstract:
This Series of Monitoring Products is designed to facilitate the work of National Human Rights (Ombuds) Institutions on monitoring the security sector. The series provides guidance on relevant best practices and may also be used for relevant capacity development trainings. DCAF has also developed a number of products to assist Ombuds institutions on both broad and highly specific oversight and policy challenges, particularly in terms of gender equality and human rights monitoring within the armed forces.
Topic:
Security, Human Rights, Intelligence, and Institutions
Political Geography:
Georgia and Global Focus

60. Monitoring Law Enforcement Agencies: A Guide for Ombuds Institutions

Author:
Nazli Yildirim Schierkolk
Publication Date:
12-2017
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Razumkov Centre
Abstract:
This Series of Monitoring Products is designed to facilitate the work of National Human Rights (Ombuds) Institutions on monitoring the security sector. The series provides guidance on relevant best practices and may also be used for relevant capacity development trainings. DCAF has also developed a number of products to assist Ombuds institutions on both broad and highly specific oversight and policy challenges, particularly in terms of gender equality and human rights monitoring within the armed forces.
Topic:
Security, Gender Issues, Human Rights, Law Enforcement, and Inequality
Political Geography:
Global Focus