Mental Distress and Human Rights Violations During COVID-19: A Rapid Review of the Evidence Informing Rights, Mental Health Needs, and Public Policy Around Vulnerable Populations.

Do Canada and the United States Differ in Prevalence of Depression and Utilization of Services?

The situation in Palestine has influenced the deployment of international human rights law and international humanitarian law. The impact of longterm Israeli occupation and the rule of the Palestinian Authority in the Occupied Territory is multifaceted. Despite the various research on Palestine, human rights, and the rule of law, few studies have been conducted on the enforcement mechanisms of human rights in Palestine. This study examines the applicability of international human rights and humanitarian laws as well as domestic laws to assess the contribution of these directives in protecting the fundamental human rights of Palestinians in the Occupied Territory. It conducts an in-depth case study of three basic rights: the right to movement, the right to property, and the right to equality and non-discrimination in the Occupied Territory. The study further examines the role of the Palestinian High Court of Justice and the Israeli Supreme Court in implementing domestic and international laws. In this regard, the study examines the major laws which are invoked, in certain circumstances, to limit the ability of Palestinians to confiscate, expropriate, and destruct their private property, and to implement discriminatory practices against them. The study further examines whether the available international and domestic mechanisms are effective, and if not, it suggests modifications upon which a functional national and international system could be built. The findings of the research demonstrate that international human rights treaties and international humanitarian law conventions are de facto and de jure applicable in the Occupied Territory. As a result of the aforementioned in-depth study cases, it can be concluded that human rights violations against Palestinians in the Occupied Territory are committed by the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli government. In addition, the Palestinian and the Israeli judiciaries have failed to grant Palestinians reasonable protection or a just remedy, and they are dysfunctional and politically driven. The study concludes with a proposal for new mechanisms for Palestinians to redress human rights violations. The further outcomes of this study argue that neither international human rights nor humanitarian law guarantee full protection for Palestinians. Hence, the implication of the findings indicates that the regulations of international human rights and humanitarian laws, which were made by the powers of the nineteenth century with their colonial provisions, might not fit to the present complications of the current challenges to international law in Palestine. The goal is to promote a re-thinking approach to the employment of human rights to serve all people in an efficient and well-organized system. The scope of this study is not meant to grant Palestinians favorable treatment in the multilateral international system, but to achieve just and successful remedies for victims of human rights violations.

The adoption of the United Nations (UN) Charter in 1945 marked the legalization of international human rights. Despite the legalized status of human rights, their violation by states is not uncommon. This article questions why a state might violate international human rights. Analyzing this issue from an economic perspective, this article advances regulatory arbitrage theory to rationalize a state’s violation of human rights. It discusses regulatory arbitrage-type behaviors among state actors that derogate from the obligations to respect, protect, and fulfill human rights. Defending state sovereignty, minimizing regulatory or compliance costs, and prioritizing economic achievement are identified as rational arbitrage actions that circumvent international human rights. We call for competent and credible governance mechanisms that can increase the cost of arbitrage, to disincentivize state violation of international human rights.

Purpose – This paper studies the experiences of asylum seekers in Australia. The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between mental wellbeing, living conditions, and Australia’s detention policies in light of human rights. Design/methodology/approach – Using grounded theory, data were collected via observations, semi-structured interviews, key-informant interviews, and document analysis. Participants included seven asylum seekers and three professionals working with them. Findings – In light of a human rights framework, this paper reports on the mental distress suffered by asylum seekers in detention, the environments of constraint in which they live, and aspects of detention centre policy that contribute to these environments. The findings highlight a discrepancy between asylum seekers’ experiences under immigration detention policy and Australia’s human rights obligations. Research limitations/implications – This research indicates human rights violations for asylum seekers in detention in Australia. This research project involved a small number of participants and recommends systemic review of the policy and practices that affect asylum seekers’ mental health including larger numbers of participants. Consideration is made of alternatives to detention as well as improving detention centre conditions. The World Health Organization’s Quality Rights Tool Kit might provide the basis for a framework to review Australia’s immigration detention system with particular focus on the poor mental wellbeing of asylum seekers in detention. Originality/value – This study links international human rights law and Australian immigration detention policies and practices with daily life experiences of suffering mental distress within environments of constraint and isolation. It identifies asylum seekers as a vulnerable population with respect to human rights and mental wellbeing. Of particular value is the inclusion of asylum seekers themselves in interviews.

Recently the issues of prevention of human rights violations has been attracting the attention of the world community Comprehensive consideration of the basic parameters of the general international state obligations to prevent human rights violations by international human rights bodies, as well as inter-State discussions to develop the concept of the responsibility to prevent human rights violations indicate the formation of a new in contemporary international law principle: the principle of the responsibility to prevent human rights violations. The purpose of this article is to study the legal enshrining of the content and legal nature of the principle. In order to achieve the objective the article 1) identifies and analyses the main parameters of an international responsibility of a State to prevent violations of human rights and freedoms in the areas of international law such as international human rights law, international criminal law and international law of armed conflict; 2) through comparative-legal analysis of international treaties and the practice of international bodies justifies cross-sectoral nature of the emerging and universally recognized principle of international law; as well as 3) analyses the main controversial points held within international bodies discussions to develop the content of the concept of the responsibility to prevent violations of human rights and freedoms It is concluded that there is the need for codification of the rules on prevention of violations of human rights in contemporary international law, on the basis, inter alia, of generalization of the relevant international practice with sufficient uniformity for recognition of the emergence of a new intersectoral principle of contemporary international law: the principle of the responsibility to prevent human rights violations.

The issue of state accountability for human rights violations remains a central concern within contemporary international law. While the international legal framework has progressively evolved to recognize and protect fundamental human rights, enforcement mechanisms against sovereign states often remain fragmented and politically constrained. This paper critically examines the legal principles, institutional mechanisms, and practical challenges involved in holding states accountable for violations of internationally recognized human rights norms. The study explores the inherent tension between state sovereignty and international human rights obligations, emphasizing how traditional notions of non-intervention have been reshaped by emerging doctrines such as the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). It further analyzes the role of global and regional institutions, including the International Criminal Court and the United Nations Human Rights Council, in promoting accountability and ensuring compliance with international standards. Through doctrinal analysis and case studies—such as allegations of torture linked to the United States and the international response to the Rwandan Genocide—the paper highlights both the progress and limitations of international accountability mechanisms. It also evaluates the concept of state responsibility, the duty to prosecute, and the effectiveness of enforcement tools such as economic sanctions and international adjudication. The research concludes that while significant advancements have been made in codifying human rights norms and establishing accountability frameworks, substantial gaps remain in implementation due to political interests, lack of universal jurisdiction, and enforcement challenges. Strengthening international cooperation, enhancing institutional independence, and reinforcing legal obligations are essential to ensure that states are held accountable for human rights violations in a consistent and effective manner. Keywords: State Accountability; Human Rights Violations; International Law; State Responsibility; Duty to Prosecute; Sovereignty; Responsibility to Protect; International Justice; Genocide; Torture; Economic Sanctions; Universal Jurisdiction; Rule of Law; Global Governance; Human Rights Protection.

Human rights activists, litigators and scholars are actively seeking means to hold accountable those responsible for egregious human rights abuses. In the absence of effective international enforcement mechanisms, domestic courts play an important role in the effort to implement international human rights norms. In most of the world, domestic enforcement efforts focus on criminal prosecutions. Most dramatically, Chilean General Augusto Pinochet was arrested in England in 1998 and held for extradition to Spain to face criminal charges. By contrast, efforts in the United States have focused on civil human rights litigation. Had General Pinochet come to the United States instead of to England, he is far more likely to have been sued than arrested. Civil human rights litigation in the United States began in 1980 with the Second Circuit’s decision in Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1980), followed by a series of cases that have further developed U.S. civil remedies for international human rights violations. U.S. attorneys regularly ask why there have been no Filartiga lawsuits in other countries. The key to unraveling this puzzle is to recognize the impact of differences in legal procedure and legal culture. Several procedural and cultural characteristics of the U.S. legal system lead to civil lawsuits for human rights violations. Other legal systems offer instead a range of administrative and judicial remedies for wrongs that may be styled as human rights violations, torts or crimes; filed against both domestic and foreign defendants; for violations committed both at home and abroad. These varied legal mechanisms represent the “translation” into domestic legal systems of the international law principle of accountability for human rights violations. Each implements the international mandate to hold responsible perpetrators of human rights abuses, provide remedies for victims of those violations, and deter future abuses.Victims of human rights violations the world over face disheartening struggles for justice as they seek remedies for their injuries, punishment of those responsible, and assurance that future abuses will be deterred. They utilize a wide range of international and domestic mechanisms in that quest, including both criminal and civil actions. An understanding of the varied means by which common goals can be attained contributes to the development of these remedies and strengthens accountability principles.

Human rights as a strategic system, David Barnhizer human rights priorities and responsibilities for citizens, Noam Chomsky torture in the United States - connecting international human rights standards to abuse in American prisons, Bonnie Kerness tactical innovations for human rights, Douglas A. Johnson and Kate Kelsch the Bureau des Advocats Internationaux - a victim-centred approach, Brian Concannon Jr toward a more responsive sovereignty - confronting human rights violations through national reconstruction, Jennifer Moore protecting civilians in conflict and post-conflict, Kate Robertson babe politics and the victim subject - negotiating agency in women's human rights, Ratna Kapur human rights and the future of international politics - realism and global humanism, Robert Charlick a different look at sovereignty, Anthony D'Amato international jurisdiction and prosecutorial crimes, Richard J. Goldstone coping with chaos while acting justly - lessons from Rwanda, David Rawson the United States approach to international human rights law, David Weissbrodt prosecuting violations of human rights in US courts - a primer for the Justice Department on the Convention against Torture, William J. Aceves why the International Criminal Court should have jurisdiction over contemporary forms of slavery, James G. Wilson will history repeat itself? - case studies of systemic constraints on defence counsel in historic international war crimes trials and the need for resource parity, Richard J. Wilson the (al)lure of the genocide trial - justice, reconciliation and the reconstruction in Rwanda, Mark Drumbl the rights of indigenous peoples to a healthy environment and use of natural resources under international human rights law, Bradford C. Mank civil remedies for gross human rights violations, Michael Ratner holding multinational corporations accountable for human and environmental rights abuses, Richard Herz.

This paper focused on the analysis of enforcement of state responsibility for breaches of some international obligations of an essential nature. These obligations relate to non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the fight against international terrorism, and the protection of fundamental human rights. Ali such obligations are considered to be essential and relate to new security challenges; there are, however, certain differences among them when considering the structure of primary obligations and legal consequences of their breach. Treaties on disarmament and non-proliferation of weapons, by their nature, encompass obligations erga omnes partes which are interlinked. A breach by one state changes the position of the other State Parties (all-or-nothing obligations). Although classic legal responsibility consequences of unlawful conduct may, due to their erga omnes partes nature, apply only with limitations, the respective regimes established by the treaties rely on special control mechanisms. Erga omnes partes obligations of an integral nature apply primarily in the area of human rights. Such obligations were adopted to protect collective interests. Unlike obligations resulting from disarmament treaties, they represent a different type of obligation. A state may not stop observing human rights due to another state’s violation (i.e. not use symmetric countermeasures). Other parties to such an obligation may, on the other hand, require the responsible state to cease unlawful conduct. This mostly applies only within control mechanisms of a judicial or other nature established by treaties. Obligations arising out of responsibility can be of an erga omnes nature only in the case of violation of human rights obligations created by peremptory norms of general international law. Where multilateral treaties on terrorism are at issue, obligations have a partly bilateral, partly integral obligation character (resembling human rights treaties in this respect). Should a breach occur this gives rise primarily to responsibility of a state inter partes. However, the respective treaties do not provide for a special institutionalised control regime, and in this they differ from the two above-mentioned groups. The gap has recently been filled by resolutions of the UN Security Council establishing obligations erga omnes the breach of which may give rise to responsibility under general international law of a similar nature. Enforcement of obligations relating to the prohibition and non-proliferation of WMD and the fight against terrorism does not require new individual coercive means. First, states may use countermeasures without the use of farce. Second, collective coercive measures may be sometimes used instead of individual means upon the recommendation or decision of a body of the respective international organisation. Third, the use of farce may serve as an extreme means of coercion if it has been so decided by the UN Security Council according to Chapter VII of the Charter. Fourth, should a serious and imminent threat occur states may not be deprived of the right to individua] or collective self-defence. The situation seems to be much more complicated in the case of extremely serious violations of erga omnes obligations to protect human rights. However, individual or collective countermeasures free from force may not be excluded although their efficiency is usually disputable. The Security Council has proven that such cases can be designated as a threat to peace under Chapter VII of the Charter. Its permission is required for states to intervene using force. However, the right to self-defence may not be invoked due to the substance of the issue. If force were used for humanitarian reasons to stop genocide or mass violation of basic human rights, or to enforce responsibility erga omnes, the existing international law does not permit the use of individua) armed countermeasures. Considering the issue from the point of view of international legal rules de lege lata, humanitarian intervention cannot yet be regarded as legal no matter what criteria for its legitimacy may exist. Instead, it is necessary to seek a strengthening of collective coercive mechanisms. Therefore the latest proposals of institutional reform of the UN, which result, among other things, from a newly defined responsibility to protect, could be very important.

International human rights law is a complex multilayered reality that can be analysed in terms of legal pluralism. The paper submits that it is highly relevant for scholars of human rights law to study human rights law as an integrated whole: looking amongst others at issues of consistency and alignment as well as divergence, at gaps in the overall protection system, and at all kinds of cross-cutting or isolated dynamics.One such inconsistency in international human rights law concerns the attitude towards the recognition of legal pluralism, in the sense of an official legal system making room for a system of ‘traditional law’, a term which I intend to cover indigenous law, customary law as well as religious law. There is one field of international human rights law (the global regime concerning the rights of indigenous peoples, as laid down in ILO Convention 169 (1989) concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries and in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007)) that considers such a recognition as mandatory, and non-recognition as a violation of human rights. And there is another field of international human rights law (ECtHR case law) that considers such a recognition as a violation of human rights. The paper details each of these positions before examining whether their co-existence within international human rights law is sustainable or not.

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. involves an action under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). The case was brought in the United States, Southern District of New York, by the widow of Dr. Barinem Kiobel, a Nigerian activist and member of the Ogoni tribe, and others for human rights violations committed in the Niger River Delta. Defendants include Royal Dutch Petroleum, Shell Transport and Trading Co., and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria. Although the human rights violations including murder and torture were allegedly committed by the Nigerian military government, it is claimed that the Royal Dutch Petroleum defendants aided and abetted the Nigerian military in the human rights violations. The plaintiffs had engaged in protests about the environmental damage caused by the Royal Dutch Petroleum defendants in the area of the Niger Delta and the plight of the Ogoni people in Ogoniland. At the trial level, the court decided that certain claims involving violations of the Law of Nations could be heard by the court. However, the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which decided that there is a presumption against extraterritoriality in the application of the ATS, and that “mere presence” of a defendant corporation in the United States is insufficient for a court to assume jurisdiction. However, the question remains: What corporate presence would serve as a sufficient basis for a court to assume jurisdiction under the ATS? Given the possibility that corporations could, and perhaps in the future will, be found liable for human rights violations occurring in foreign locales even after Kiobel, prudent risk management behooves corporations and their counsel to monitor whether human rights violations are occurring in connection with their operations, even when those human rights violations are committed by foreign governments or their agents.

The law on human rights court has brought the new hopes for certain people have suffered because of the human rights violation happened in the past government (before the law enacted in the years of 2000). The demand of justice has been made by victims, the families of victims and other sympathetic parties by bringing those who have violated human rights in the past. The demand for justice does not only focus on human rights violations, which occurred in the past but also similar human rights violations that will occur in the future. The existence of a permanent Human Rights Court seems to imply that human rights will be upheld and protected. The resolution of past human rights violations via a conflict approach is preferable for the national reconciliation. The resolution of past human rights violations through extra-judicial organizations is an advanced step towards resolving the case, whereas a conflict approach can be used to settle the case. The existence of the Human Rights Law provides a new frontier in implementing the principle of restorative justice in the approach of case settlement. It is hoped that such restorative justice can create a political balance between the past and the future.

The United Nations is a worldwide organization devoted to promote international peace and security, economic and social growth, and human rights. From its founding in 1945, the UN has been involved in a number of disputes and violations of human rights, both as a mediator and as an active participant. This research investigates the UN's role in preventing wars and human rights violations all around the globe. Moreover, the UN has taken part in peacekeeping initiatives around the world, notably in Somalia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. These missions, which tried to re-establish security and stability in conflict-affected areas, have received praise in some instances but condemnation in others. This research paper examines how the United Nations responds to wars and breaches of human rights all across the world. It will specifically look at how the UN has intervened in numerous crises and peacekeeping operations, as well as how it has attempted to remedy human rights abuses by forging international laws and conventions. The essay will also look at instances where the UN's handling of conflicts and violations of human rights has come under fire and explore alternative avenues for the organization to increase its efficacy in advancing security, fairness, and human rights. The chapter on the United Nations, Wars, and Human Rights Violations has included several outlines that explore different aspects of the subject. First, an introduction of the book and its goals is presented, along with a short description of the United Nations and its efforts to date to address international conflicts and breaches of human rights. Second, The United Nations and Conflict Resolution Examines the UN's Authorization of Military Force and Peacekeeping Missions. The UN's abilities to avert violence, protect people, and promote stability during crises would be assessed. Third, The United Nations and Human Rights," and it looks at how the organization has responded to crises like the Rwandan genocide and the war in Yemen by enacting international treaties and conventions meant to defend human rights. The effectiveness of the United Nations in addressing human rights abuses, both in terms of preventing and reacting to mass crimes, would be evaluated. Forth, The UN's Response to Conflict and Human Rights Violations: A Critical Analysis is a chapter that examines the criticisms leveled against the United Nations for its response to conflicts and human rights violations, such as its inability to resolve ongoing conflicts and its inadequate response to genocide and other mass atrocities. The accountability procedures of the United Nations would be analysed to see how well they promote accountability and justice. Fifth, Case Studies Including the Rwandan genocide, the war in Syria, and the present situation in Myanmar, this chapter gives thorough case studies of various conflicts and human rights abuses in which the UN has been engaged. The UN's reaction to these crises and the lessons learnt from them would be the focus of this chapter. Sixth, "The Future of the UN," and it discusses the obstacles that the United Nations (UN) must overcome to fulfil its mission of promoting international peace, justice, and human rights. Addressing the causes of conflicts, promoting sustainable development, and forming partnerships with member states and other stakeholders are all possibilities that might increase the UN's efficiency in dealing with these issues. Seventh, Conclusion: An overview of the book's major arguments and conclusions, together with a discussion of their relevance to philosophy, policy, and practice. Every topic is structured in a way that provides a clear and concise overview of the topic, examines relevant research and literature, and offers insights and analysis into the key issues. The chapter would be intended for a broad audience, including students, scholars, policymakers, and anyone interested in the United Nations and its role in addressing global conflicts and human rights violations.

States perceived to be highly corrupt are at the same time those with a poor human rights record. International institutions have therefore assumed a negative feedback loop between both social harms. They deplore that corruption undermines the enjoyment of human rights and, concomitantly, employ human rights as a normative framework to denounce and combat corruption. But the human rights-based approach has been criticized as vague and over-reaching. Addressing this controversy, this article seeks to examine the legal quality of the assumed 'link' between corruption and human rights more closely. It specifically asks the dual question whether and under what conditions corrupt acts or omissions can technically be qualified as an actual violation of international human rights (doctrinal analysis of the positive law) and whether corruption should be conceptualized as a human rights violation (normative assessment). The answer is that such a reconceptualization is legally sound as a matter of positive analysis, although very difficult doctrinal problems arise. The normative assessment is ambivalent, but the practical benefits of the conceptualization seem to outweigh the risks of reinforcing the anti-Western scepticism towards the fight against corruption and of overblowing human rights. The framing of corruption not only as a human rights issue but even as a potential human rights violation can contribute to closing the implementation gap of the international anti-corruption instruments and can usefully complement the predominant criminal law-based approach.

Corruption as a Violation of International Human Rights