United Nations, Wars And Human Rights Violations

Identifying potential abuses of human rights through imagery is a novel and challenging task in the field of computer vision, that will enable to expose human rights violations over large-scale data that may otherwise be impossible. While standard databases for object and scene categorisation contain hundreds of different classes, the largest available dataset of human rights violations contains only 4 classes. Here, we introduce the ‘Human Rights Archive Database’ (HRA), a verified-by-experts repository of 3050 human rights violations photographs, labelled with human rights semantic categories, comprising a list of the types of human rights abuses encountered at present. With the HRA dataset and a two-phase transfer learning scheme, we fine-tuned the state-of-the-art deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) to provide human rights violations classification CNNs (HRA-CNNs). We also present extensive experiments refined to evaluate how well object-centric and scene-centric CNN features can be combined for the task of recognising human rights abuses. With this, we show that HRA database poses a challenge at a higher level for the well studied representation learning methods, and provide a benchmark in the task of human rights violations recognition in visual context. We expect this dataset can help to open up new horizons on creating systems able of recognising rich information about human rights violations.

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.

There is no doubt that the World Wars I & II fought between 1914 to 1918 and 1939 to 1945 prompted the establishment of international institutions such as the League of Nations created after World War I and the subsequent United Nations formed in 1945 which laid the groundwork for global cooperation to address violations of human rights. Despite the efforts made to maintain global peace over the past years, there have been gross violations of human rights as the world continues to witness a series of wars. The recent conflicts in Syria, the war between Russia and Ukraine, and the Gaza war between Hamas and the Israeli Forces have led to widespread human rights violations, which highlights the urgency or need to address human rights violations beyond state sovereignty. This research explores the conflict between state sovereignty and enforcing human rights globally. It examines legal frameworks of international organizations, and alternative tools like sanctions, alongside the role of civil society against human rights violations. While International law offers mechanisms such as the United Nations human rights system, their effectiveness is limited by politics. The study acknowledges the growing influence of "soft law" through public pressure from NGOs and the media. Beyond legal avenues, the research explores the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) framework, allowing intervention in extreme human rights violations despite sovereignty concerns. It emphasizes the need for cultural sensitivity to avoid neo-colonial approaches. The research also proposes several approach that prioritizes human rights while acknowledging the complexities of the international landscape which includes economic pressure through targeted sanctions and diplomatic actions. As a recommendation, it highlights the power of civil society and grassroots movements in challenging state impunity even as it advocates for a shift towards a more holistic approach involving diverse actors to bridge the gap between theory and practice in global human rights enforcement. Keywords: State Sovereignty, Human Rights Enforcement, Responsibility to Protect (R2p), International Law, Civil Society

It is no news that Nigeria, which is arguably the giant of Africa, is known for human rights violations. From its years of military authoritarianism which witnessed the killing of several human rights activists, and since the return to democratic rule, the country’s human rights narrative has not changed. Government authorities and law enforcement agents (the police) frequently engage in various human rights violations, notably unlawful killings, torture, ill-treatment of no crime suspects, forced evictions, interference with the rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of association, and violence against women and children are widespread across the country. This has created worrisome threats to lives and government seems to be grappling with the situation, hence there is some measure of friction between the activities of security agencies and human right in Nigeria. It is against this backdrop that pertinent questions are asked on how well security agencies could be operated without infringement on fundamental human rights and what are the probable mechanisms that could be adopted by security agencies without abuse of human rights in Nigeria. Answers to these questions instigated this research work. This study exemplified the extent of human rights abuses in Nigerian democratic governance. It equally highlighted causes and the effects of human rights abuses in Nigeria and made recommendations on how to prevent its occurrences in the future. Secondary sources of data thus become the hub of its methodology. The study adopted system theory by Gabriel Almond as its theoretical framework.

Claiming reparations for human rights violation by states or by any governmental agencies, have been a vital challenge at local and international levels. Although, there has been few developments in theory and in reality of reparations for human rights violations by states in some parts of the world as will be seen later in this article, many of the violations committed in Africa, in places like South Africa, Uganda, Nigeria and elsewhere, during colonial times either remained unresolved, partly reparated or reparations denied completely. As a result of what has been said, issues concerning responsibility for gross human rights abuses have never been considered favorably in Africa. In some African states for example, the way states deal with past human rights abuses is often dependent on the way in which political change has occurred and the way the state deals with the tensions between justice, truth and reconciliation. Beyond the foregoing, irrespective of the legal requirement to afford reparation which in itself makes reparation a vital component of the underlying need to respect victims’ rights to justice and to underscore the role of law in society, reparation serves a number of purposes. One of such purposes include but not limited to victims’ right to recover and/or receive compensation or reparation for past violations; helping to restore the disequilibrium between those whose rights have been violated and society which typically underpins human rights violations. More 6so, assisting in victims’ rehabilitation and taking measures to prevent recurrence of violations will help victims overcome trauma, restore confidence in the legitimacy of the justice system and the affirmation of the rule of law.

The protection of human rights is a cornerstone of international law, with states bearing primary responsibility for ensuring the rights and freedoms of individuals within their jurisdiction. This study provides an in-depth analysis of state responsibility in safeguarding human rights from an international legal perspective. Beginning with an exploration of the foundational principles enshrined in international human rights instruments and customary international law, the study examines the legal obligations incumbent upon states in upholding human rights standards. Key components of state responsibility in protecting human rights are delineated, including the duty to respect, protect, and fulfill human rights, as well as the obligation to prevent and remedy human rights violations. Through a comprehensive review of relevant case law, treaties, and legal scholarship, the study elucidates the evolving nature of state responsibility and the mechanisms available for holding states accountable for human rights abuses. Furthermore, the study explores the role of international institutions, such as regional human rights bodies and the International Criminal Court, in adjudicating human rights violations and enforcing state compliance with international legal standards. Special attention is given to the intersection of state sovereignty and human rights protection, examining the balance between state autonomy and international intervention in cases of egregious human rights violations. In conclusion, the study underscores the indispensable role of states in fulfilling their duty to protect human rights, emphasizing the importance of effective domestic legislation, institutional mechanisms, and accountability measures. By elucidating the legal framework governing state responsibility in human rights protection, this analysis aims to contribute to the advancement of human rights norms and the promotion of global justice and dignity for all individuals.

INTRODUCTION Industrial and export processing zones are considered magnets for direct foreign investment and attractive for foreign enterprises and subsidiaries of transnational corporations in Vietnam. Despite fuelling domestic economic growth by industrial development and job creation, industrial zones’ performance has caused a series of actual and potential human rights violations within workplaces and in surrounding communities. Working conditions in industrial zones in Vietnam revealed a breadth of human rights abuses such as low wages, excessive overtime, temporary contracts, deteriorated working conditions, and environmental pollution which affected not only workers and their families but also people living in the surrounding areas. The 2011 United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (the Guiding Principles) provide a practical guidance to identify and address human rights impacts, emphasising the state duty to protect against human rights abuses, the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, and the need for greater access to victims to effective remedy. Despite numerous endorsements, the Guiding Principles face some scepticism regarding their practicability, which depends on the context of specific countries, and an inherent voluntarism on part of the enterprises’ adherence to the principles. Surya Deva argues that ‘[e] ven if the Guiding Principles are implemented by states and embraced by the business community, they might not make a significant difference in preventing and remedying corporate human rights abuses, especially in situations where there are governance gaps or companies are reluctant to be guided by the Guiding Principles’. In fact, in developing countries whose aim is to attract foreign investment for development, governments are often unwilling to intervene in companies’ activities for fear of impairing their competitiveness. Weak states lacking the requisite governance capacity are also less able to control effectively the activities of foreign enterprises. Likewise, in authoritarian or undemocratic states where rampant corruption is common place, enterprises often lobby ruling elites to ignore their wrongdoings and disrupt the legal enforcement of human rights. At the same time, for enterprises, for the sake of profit maximisation and in the absence of a legally binding regulatory framework, corporate social responsibility (CSR) is often regarded as an added cost. This in turn undermines enterprises’ propensity to voluntarily incorporate CSR.

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 article analyses the understanding of the pain of others and scrutinizes human rights violations committed against colonial subjects and vulnerable groups by colonial and nation-state actors. It employs an interdisciplinary perspective analyzing journalistic writings, films, documentaries and photography that cover human rights abuses committed against oppressed people. It elaborates on some human rights abuses rooted in the colonialism of European expansionism and other imperial policies that have destroyed the cultural distinctiveness of indigenous people. Exploitation, violence, exclusion are the main elements of colonialism and they are deeply connected with imperialism, the nation-state and the free market. Human rights abuses are discussed here in the context of critiques of colonialism and violence in the works of scholars such as Aime Cesaire, Hannah Arendt, Frantz Fanon and Michael Taussig. This article shows that films, documentaries, journalistic writings and photography are significant genres that can expose crimes committed against colonized subjects by colonial powers and vulnerable society by modern nation-states. It also indicates that instead of whitewashing the oppressors these genres can challenge and prevent further crimes and human rights abuses by inviting the spectator to face past crimes; form solidarity with victims; be vigilant about state crimes; take action against injustice.

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.

In spite of being signatories to the United Nations Charter and the African Charter on Rights, human rights abuses are rife in African countries. The democratic wave that swept across Africa in the early 1990s and witnessed the demise of many authoritarian regimes only minimised the practice of human rights violations; it did not abate it. There are still reports of opposition activists being jailed without trial for daring to seek level playing fields in politics; journalists being detained or sometimes forced into exile for daring to expose corruption in high places; academics being threatened with arrests for daring to write about mis-governance; workers being dismissed for attempting to unionise or to ask for better remuneration in the face of currency devaluations and inflation. There are countless instances of gross human right abuses, which cannot be recounted here because of time constraints. In some instances, the state has completely failed to promote peace, welfare and private property. Perhaps it is appropriate to describe these states as “failed states.” They are failed states because in spite of maintaining law and order, they are unable to perform their traditional functions, including the protection of human rights.

Papua's Special Autonomy provides a legal basis for addressing conflicts and human rights violations through non-judicial mechanisms that are more inclusive and in accordance with the sociocultural context of the local community.  In its fourth report covering the period April 2013 to December 2014, the International Coalition for Papua (1CP) documented 653 arrests resulting from 46 separate incidents. The human rights situation in Papua is worsening, as human rights violations and abuses continue to occur. Many organisations advocate for the protection of human rights in Papua; however, these efforts to defend and promote human rights are often unrecognised or poorly received. The research method used in this research is normative legal research method, using statutory approach, conceptual approach, and comparative approach.This study discusses the ratio legis of the Papua Special Autonomy Law regarding the establishment of a TRC (Truth and Reconciliation Commission) based on several main reasons: first, the TRC allows for a more comprehensive and fair settlement compared to formal legal channels; second, the TRC respects local wisdom in the reconciliation process; third, this institution plays an important role in rebuilding trust between the Papuan people and the central government; and fourth, the TRC is expected to prevent the recurrence of human rights violations in the future and support long-term peace in Papua. In addition, the TRC is an important step towards respecting the rights of the Papuan people, improving relations between conflicting parties, and strengthening the implementation of a fair and inclusive Special Autonomy. The problems of resolving human rights violations in Papua from the perspective of Special Autonomy reflect complex challenges that require comprehensive attention. Although the Papua Special Autonomy Law provides a legal basis for dealing with human rights violations in an inclusive and peaceful manner, its implementation is far from optimal. This is due to several factors, such as slow implementation, overlapping authority between the central and local governments, and counterproductive militaristic approaches. The Papuan people's lack of trust in the government, both central and local, as well as victims' limited access to justice and redress, exacerbate this problem. Keywords: TRC, special autonomy, Human Rights

Human rights can be understood as formal norms related to existing legislations as well as the result of public reasoning, when claims of validity coming from the bottom up are politically juridified. Yet, where does the “significance” of human rights come from? Does the “feeling” toward the violation of human dignity rise only from the mobilization of radical spheres in the public space, or does it have origin in other places, like in the intimacy of the household? In order to understand ex negativo the genealogy of the “sense” of the violation of human rights as a counter-factual allegation that immanently refers to daily life experiences, this article considers the interaction between sentiment of fear and pretense of human rights, comparing images and imaginaries of modern political theory with the stories of traditional folk/fairy tales. Namely, philosophical representations of terror and literary narratives of monsters have a common “private” genealogy, as it shines through the hidden relationship existing between imagination, imaginary, and fantasy. Therefore, the character of the “wolf,” as politically conceptualized by Thomas Hobbes and fictionally represented in fairy tales, will be taken as a conceptual and figurative medium, able to underline the semantics of violence. My thesis is that fantastic narratives implicitly evoke forms of violation of human rights that political philosophy has denied for centuries because of the incapacity to conceptualize unspeakable offenses. Fairy tales tell the truth, albeit under camouflaged “bodies”: they are a disguised reminder of the perdurance of domestic violence in the household, seamlessly perpetuated against women and children over centuries. Any criticism toward the abuse of human rights should not forget the heuristic significance of fairy tales and the place where they seem to be peacefully narrated to children: within the domestic space of the family.

The impact of economic sanctions on civilians has frequently been studied by public health specialists and specialized agencies of the United Nations (UN). This commentary explores some of the difficulties of the claim that sanctions constitute violations of human rights. The deprivation suffered by civilian populations under sanctions regimes often are violations of economic, social, and cultural human rights; however, the attribution of responsibility for those violations to the "senders" of sanctions (the UN Security Council or the US government, for example) is difficult to sustain, particularly in light of the efforts made by these entities to provide for humanitarian exemptions and humanitarian aid. A more productive approach to avoiding civilian harm is to prefer, as a matter of policy, arms embargoes, severing of communications, and international criminal prosecutions over trade embargoes. Promising recommendations have been formulated regarding "smart sanctions," which target regimes rather than people, and "positive sanctions" in the form of incentives. Health and human rights professionals have specific and important tasks in implementing such a restructured approach to sanctions.

In Africa, the confluence of environmental preservation and human rights abuses, especially in relation to extractive industries, is a critical problem that impacts many communities. To demonstrate the intricacies and difficulties encountered by local populations in resource-rich regions, the Gunjur community provides a relevant case study. The Gunjur community has been greatly impacted by extractive industries like sand mining and fishing, despite being situated in an area rich in natural resources. Many people believe that these sectors are essential to economic growth, yet they also regularly cause serious environmental damage and violations of human rights. The experiences of the community serve as a reminder of the "resource curse," a larger pattern in which nations with abundant natural resources frequently experience more poverty, violent conflicts, and environmental damage as opposed to prosperity. The human rights-based approach focuses particularly on the requirement for 'meaningful participation’ and how a rights-based approach can provide a means to reconcile environmental protection, social development, and economic activities. The study's objective is to identify the relationship between human rights violations and the environment. Gambia is a signatory to major environmental agreements, including UNFCCC, UNBD, UNCCD, World Heritage Convention, and Kyoto Protocol, committing to sustainable environmental management and promoting biodiversity. The ACE Impact Project (2019) in The Gambia prioritizes environmental protection in sustainable development policies, adhering to political, legal, and regulatory frameworks for Gambian environmental management. The Gambia is experiencing a significant increase in environmental protection and human rights violations, which are crucial for the protection and enjoyment of human rights. Human rights and the environment are inseparable. The local ecology has been ruined by Gunjur's sand miners. Due to the sea's high tide, the area where sand is mined is submerged in water. Crocodiles and other aquatic creatures use the area as a breeding habitat. The study utilized an exploratory research design, collecting primary data through an interview guide with 20 respondents, including local Gunjur residents, sand miners, and Chinese fishmeal staff, and analyzing the results. The study shows the destruction of vegetation and women's gardens, encroaching sand miners in ecotourism areas, and a Chinese fishmeal factory affecting Gunjur's living standards. Waste products are dumped into the sea, causing a foul odor, and exporting fish products to China and other countries, violating UN Sustainable Development Goals.