Regulatory arbitrage in relation to international human rights

Human rights queryfalse are typically presented in terms of entitlements, correlative duties, claims, “trumps,” and remedies. 1 These framings, which draw principally on law and philosophy, emphasi...

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.

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.

Background: COVID-19 prevention and mitigation efforts were abrupt and challenging for most countries with the protracted lockdown straining socioeconomic activities. Marginalized groups and individuals are particularly vulnerable to adverse effects of the pandemic such as human rights abuses and violations which can lead to psychological distress. In this review, we focus on mental distress and disturbances that have emanated due to human rights restrictions and violations amidst the pandemic. We underscore how mental health is both directly impacted by the force of pandemic and by prevention and mitigation structures put in place to combat the disease.Methods: We conducted a review of relevant studies examining human rights violations in COVID-19 response, with a focus on vulnerable populations, and its association with mental health and psychological well-being. We searched PubMed and Embase databases for studies between December 2019 to July 2020. Three reviewers evaluated the eligibility criteria and extracted data.Results: Twenty-four studies were included in the systematic inquiry reporting on distress due to human rights violations. Unanimously, the studies found vulnerable populations to be at a high risk for mental distress. Limited mobility rights disproportionately harmed psychiatric patients, low-income individuals, and minorities who were at higher risk for self-harm and worsening mental health. Healthcare workers suffered negative mental health consequences due to stigma and lack of personal protective equipment and stigma. Other vulnerable groups such as the elderly, children, and refugees also experienced negative consequences.Conclusions: This review emphasizes the need to uphold human rights and address long term mental health needs of populations that have suffered disproportionately during the pandemic. Countries can embed a proactive psychosocial response to medical management as well as in existing prevention strategies. International human rights guidelines are useful in this direction but an emphasis should be placed on strengthening rights informed psychosocial response with specific strategies to enhance mental health in the long-term. We underscore that various fundamental human rights are interdependent and therefore undermining one leads to a poor impact on the others. We strongly recommend global efforts toward focusing both on minimizing fatalities, protecting human rights, and promoting long term mental well-being.

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.

‘Where are the good old days when everyone knew that human rights violations can only be committed by states against individuals?’1 Gone, replaced by a complex reality in which an exclusive focus on states as duty-bearers under international human rights law (IHRL) no longer provides an adequate model to address numerous human rights violations by non-state armed groups. Instead, states in United Nations (UN) organs or intergovernmental fora, as well as human rights experts, increasingly address demands to respect IHRL directly to armed groups. In order to conceptualize this development, this book raised three main arguments: (1) Contrary to the ‘received wisdom’, human rights may not only apply to the authority–individual relationship. Conceptually, they can also be understood as applying to the horizontal relationships between private actors. (2) While under IHRL treaty law it is primarily upon states to protect individuals against human rights violations by private actors, this obligation is limited if the state loses control over parts of its territory, or is otherwise unable to fulfil its obligations. In order to avoid a protection gap, IHRL obligations should be directly assigned to armed groups. (3) Contemporary international practice suggests that this requires a differentiated approach, taking account of the different nature and capacity of non-state armed groups. Assigning IHRL obligations to armed groups needs to complement and not substitute state obligations under the traditional state-centred human rights protection system....

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.

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.

Conquest, Tyranny, and Ethnocide against the Oromo:A Historical Assessment of Human Rights Conditions in Ethiopia, ca. 1880s–2002 Mohammed Hassen This article attempts to assess the human rights conditions of the Oromo people under four Ethiopian regimes. Beginning with the conquest and incorporation of Oromia into the Ethiopian empire, it provides an overview of the brutality and depredations that Oromos suffered at the hands of Ethiopian soldiers and administrators under Menelik (r. 1880s–1913) and the concerted attacks on the Oromo cultural heritage, language, and national identity during the six decades when Haile Sellassie dominated the Ethiopian political landscape (1916–74). Then it examines the violence against the Oromo national identity and the attempt to alter the demographic makeup of Oromia by the Ethiopian military-socialist regime (1974–91) and the massive human rights violations perpetrated against the Oromo since 1992 in the name of democracy and federalism. In all, the article shows that for more than a century, the Oromo have endured unrelenting attacks on their individual rights, their national identity and cultural institutions, and their independent organizations. Ethiopia has yet to produce a government that respects Oromo human rights. Before I proceed, a few caveats are in order. First, the definition of human rights varies depending on cultural, historical, political, economic, and ideological considerations. In this article, I will follow the definition of Mahmood Monshipuri: [End Page 15] The concept of human rights . . . refers to . . . civil and political rights; rights to life, privacy, a fair trial, humane treatment, prohibition of torture and slavery, freedom of movement and residence; the right not to be arbitrarily arrested or detained; freedom of association, political participation, and equal protection under the law.2 Second, "Historians, in general, are most at home when dealing with events that have been allowed to settle over time."3 It is easier to discuss Oromo human rights conditions before 1991, an era that belongs to history, than in the period since 1991, a highly contested period of history in the making. As I have noted elsewhere, "the present is an emotionally charged psychological moment."4 While it is possible to present a relatively objective picture of Oromo human rights conditions based on the record produced by both Ethiopian and foreign writers,5 one cannot escape being accused of exaggerating the Oromo people's plight and indulging in anti–Tigrayan People's Liberation Front (TPLF) propaganda. My purpose is nevertheless to document the human rights conditions of the Oromo as a scholar loyal to the canons and standard practices of my discipline. If this article encourages others to write about human rights conditions in Ethiopia, its purpose will have been served. Third, the Oromo do not have influential friends in positions of power among Western governments and the Western media. Diaspora Oromos do not have the numerical strength and resources necessary to capture the attention of either the governments or the media. Consequently, the sufferings of the Oromo have received little international attention. The apparent Western indifference to the misery of the Oromos has encouraged the TPLF authorities to continue their Oromo human rights violations with impunity. I believe my duty to the victims of human rights violations is "to record their plight so that they are not forgotten by history, and that history is not rewritten to conceal or distort embarrassing facts."6 This article is an attempt to contribute in a small way to the effort of recording the past in its totality so that future generations will not have to relive their tortured past. Space does not permit me to provide a thorough account of human rights conditions in Ethiopia between the 1880s and 2002. Instead of a detailed discussion, I will outline the salient features of the human rights conditions experienced by the Oromo people [End Page 16] during the century after Menelik's conquests in the 1880s, and I will focus especially on the period after 1991. Conquest, Exploitation, and Deculturation: The Imperial Period, 1880s–1974 During the second half of the nineteenth century, the steady flow of European warfare technology into Abyssinia and its virtual absence from Oromia facilitated and increased Abyssinian raids for slave and cattle into Oromo territory. This...

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

The Crisis of International Human Rights Law in the Global Market Economy

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.

The task of this paper is to study the role of international human rights organizations in response to the conflict taking place in eastern Ukraine. The study is based on recent reports from the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the OSCE on Ukraine. The relevance of the stated topic is determined by the situation with human rights violations in the armed conflict in Ukraine and the significant role of international human rights organizations, making active efforts to resolve it. The purpose of this study is to determine the main aspects of the role that international organizations play in resolving this range of issues. This will help to identify potential opportunities to tackle the problem with human rights violations in the Ukrainian territories. The study combines quantitative and qualitative research of the entire spectrum of issues brought into the subject. The main results obtained are: analysis of the role and place of international human rights organizations in assessing the situation with the conflict in the Ukrainian territories and obtaining statistical information on the current status of human rights violations in these territories. The value of this paper lies in obtaining practical recommendations for finding ways to peacefully resolve the conflict in the East of Ukraine and implementing comprehensive measures to create conditions for the protection of human rights in this region

As is well known, different countries may have a different attitude toward the formal rank of international human rights law in domestic legal order. In those countries that qualify the ratified international human rights law merely as statute, the formal rank of international human rights law is often used as an argument against the binding force of international human rights law on domestic constitutional law. Through a comparative analysis between Germany and Taiwan, though, this paper shows that, despite similar determinations on the formal rank of international (human rights) law, the German and the Taiwanese Constitutional Courts have developed quite different views on the normative significance of international human rights law to their domestic constitutional orders. The different constitutional practices in Germany and Taiwan thus not only reflect Taiwan’s unique international status, but also indicate that the formal rank of international human rights law does not have much to do with its normative binding force on domestic constitutional law. Those who use formal rank as an argument against the binding force of international human rights law on constitutional law presuppose the absolute dichotomy of international and domestic law and thereby overlook the potential compatibility between international human rights law and constitutional law. From a human rights perspective, I argue that international human rights law should not be regarded as an “external” law, but rather as a framework order which delegates domestic constitutional orders to concretize international human rights law according to their own needs or interests so as to fulfill their international task of human rights protection on national level. Viewed this way, the determination on the formal rank of international human rights law in domestic legal order matters only because it has to do with the determination of a certain constitutional order on the way in which it concretizes international human rights law.