Search

Over the past few years, some parents and clinicians in the UK have argued about decisions on the fate of critically-ill children, with the cases ending in protracted and emotionally-sapping legal disputes. The long-running legal conflicts have played out in the public eye, eliciting conflicting opinions. At the core of the disputes is whether parents or clinicians should determine the appropriate course of action. In the event of the disagreements, the domestic court intervenes guided by the 'best interests' principle. A corpus of scholarship, falling on either side of the debate, has captured the contradictions. Until recently, the discourse had focused on the common recourses to domestic courts and the European Court of Human Rights. However, in the recent case of incapacitated 12-year-old Archie Battersbee, his parents sought redress from the international human rights system through the Committee on the Rights of People with Disabilities to stop termination of his life support. The courts barred the involvement of the Committee on the basis that the UK had not incorporated the treaty which birthed the Committee. The case brought into sharp focus the relationship between international law and domestic law. First, this paper asserts that the weight (not) given to international law by the domestic courts was inconsistent with its treatment of international obligations in other cases. Secondly, the position that unincorporated treaties do not have legal effect in domestic proceedings is ambiguous. Finally, the treaty body appeared ill-suited to handle a case of a critically-ill child in the face of the impatient demands of local justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Child marriages, often attributed to culture and gender inequality, are prevalent across Africa. Several countries have moved to criminalise the practice. At the core of the criminalisation debate are the fundamental tensions between statutory (state) law on the one hand, and religious and customary law on the other. The growing momentum towards punishment, targeted almost invariably at male offenders, is meant to address the conflict between cultural practices that lead to child marriage and the protection of children's rights. However, some countries have not criminalised child marriage. Thus, the outlawry of child marriages is not universal on the continent. The agitation towards criminalisation—I describe this as 'popular punitvism' ‐ as a panacea, is animated by Western penological justifications, principally, deterrence. However, Western criminological and penological theories may not fully account for a phenomenon in other social and geographical spaces. The paper argues for decolonising and decriminalising child marriages in Africa but not legalising it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pandemics are associated with exponential mortality rates, creating heavy burdens on communities. The high death rates affect how societies traditionally conduct funerary practices as governments impose regulations on the preparation of bodies and the conduct of the funerals to stem the transmission of the virus. In societies associated with deeply entrenched customary funerary practices, such limitative measures attract defiance. The tensions between public health objectives and funerary traditions have played out in a number of societies resulting in litigation. At the core of the disputes is whether the right to manifest religion or belief can be upheld, and relatedly, whether the dead have rights to dignified burials irrespective of pandemics. During the COVID-19 pandemic, some courts had to grapple with these difficult questions. In this paper, I take a jurisprudential excursion on some disputes in Kenya, India and Sri Lanka to assess the adjudication of conflicts which arose from COVID-19 pandemic deaths. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the outbreak of the war in Syria, some Western women and girls have travelled to the warzone to join the group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and marry some of the group's fighters. However, since the collapse of the 'caliphate' some of the women and girls have been stranded amid reluctance to accept them back to countries of origin. The women and girls have been the subject of various descriptions and labels. This is a conceptual and theoretical study which examines the ideological construction of females who travelled from Europe and West to join ISIS. The paper uses discourse analysis to examine the use of particular labels in the Western media, drawing primarily from the British press, on the ISIS-associated females seeking return to the West. The paper finds that a naturalized and dominant discourse has developed in the ideological construction of the females. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the Syrian conflict broke out, a significant number of Western citizens travelled to the warzone to join the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). By common definitions, some of the persons travelled as 'children'. However, since the defeat of ISIS, Western countries are facing a conundrum on how to treat these young former fighters. The status of these children has been contentious. Among the Western countries, there does not seem to be a clear position or consistent approach on how such children should be treated. It would appear that the approaches towards the dilemma on these young persons have, predominantly, been dictated by the political whims of individual states. Generally, the children have been regarded as young 'terrorists' likely to pose danger to Western societies if repatriated back. However, the perceptions and actions towards these minors seem to depart from the normative approaches to children associated with armed conflict. The widely reported case of British teenager Shamima Begum shone the spotlight on the predicaments of children formerly associated with ISIS. This article makes a case for the treatment of ISIS-associated children to be considered as child soldiers. When analysed closely, these children deserve protections accorded to all children recruited for purposes of warfare. Recent case law seems to imply that such protection does not cease even after the age of 18 years. All considered, the denial of repatriation appears inimical to normative standards on children associated with armed conflict. Furthermore, the approaches of some of the Western countries could be vulnerable to criticism for violation of the rule of law. The arbitrary revocation of citizenship and barring of returns appear starkly in conflict with norms of natural justice. With this in mind, this article asserts that a consistent approach would require the Western approaches to treat ISIS-associated children as victims first and accord them protections recognised in international law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The outbreak of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in December 2019 precipitated public health control measures in many states across the world. The impact of COVID-19 was as unprecedented as were the measures introduced by states to control it. The outbreak provides an opportunity to analyse responses of states to pandemics. At the core of this article is the question whether civil liberties matter during pandemics. A rights-based approach is founded on human rights protected in international human rights treaties. In cases of massive disease outbreaks, states adopt and enforce typically radical measures to contain the spread of the infection. After the outbreak of COVID-19, a range of restrictions was imposed by the affected states. However, in the haste to contain a rapidly spreading pandemic, human rights are potentially vulnerable to violations. This article assesses the responses to the pandemic by states within the context of human rights. As the article seeks to illustrate, in times of pandemics, the law on management of pandemics does not favour human rights observance. Even states with deep-rooted democratic cultures resort to illiberal responses. The rhetoric of inalienability of rights becomes hollow as even traditional democratic states mimic authoritarian regimes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) 1989 has been celebrated for its universal acceptance. However, questions still arise around its provenance and representation. In particular, the Convention is deemed to enshrine Western notions of childhood upon which its rights were constructed. However, the legacy of the colonial contours of the new world order are often excluded within the context of children's rights. It has been suggested that the new imperialism brandished under the guise of "children's rights" serves as an effective tool to "beat" the Global South, deflecting from the continued Western dominance within the field of children's rights. This paper interrogates the power dynamics and colonial legacy upon which views of children are formed, centralising the multitude of issues in the arena of children's rights in the wake of what can be identified as Hokusai's wave. 1 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2019, the UK government issued an ambitious White Paper as a precursor to the regulation of 'online harms'. This article adopts a socio-cultural and legal approach to analysing the proposed law in the context of children. How childhood is conceptualized influences public policy and legal interventions, including on the digital space. This remains a contested terrain with different conclusion on the effects of the cyberspace. The biggest challenge with legal interventions on the digital realm is the need to achieve a balance between protection and participation rights of children. The dominant conception of childhood as a period of vulnerability has meant 'protection' often overrides participation rights. However, such focus is the subject of challenge, with some suggesting that regulation is the product of moral panic. A further strand is the potential of disproportionate punitive measures against Internet companies against the backdrop of human rights obligations. The UK proposition is discussed within this socio-cultural and legal contexts with the objective of highlighting challenges and legal pitfalls. This article argues that Internet governance ought to give serious consideration to the new sociology of childhood. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although a considerable body of scholarship on children and armed conflict has developed, little sociological, conceptual and historical analysis has been proffered to help our understanding of the dynamics of meaning-change to the current social conception of child soldiering. This article analyses the evolution of the prevailing 'social meaning' of child soldiering. To this end, it recognises the historical and current role of transnational agents in the mutation of the conception of child militarization and universalisation of its negative meaning. The article discusses how the meaning has influenced the legal construction of and regulation of such meaning through instruments in extant international and regional child law. The conviction and imprisonment of Democratic of Republic of Congo (DRC) rebel leader Thomas Lubanga by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2012 represented a concretization of the globalized opprobrious social perception of child soldiering through the penal process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, Africa has faced a new form of conflict arising from disputed elections. Incumbents have refused to vacate office after apparently losing elections, triggering violent conflict. Regional organisations have invested considerable political energy to manage these conflicts. Post-electoral conflict accords (PECAs) resulting in power-sharing have been the favoured modus vivendi with regional mediators. However, little attention has been paid to the crucial issue of justice in the management of these disputes. Like most conflicts, electoral conflict centres on perceived injustice in the electoral process. Therefore, in order to manage these conflicts in an effective way, justice must be acknowledged in both procedural and substantive content. This article focuses on management of electoral conflict in Zimbabwe. It argues that the protracted post-electoral conflict in Zimbabwe can be explained, to a large extent, through failure to acknowledge procedural, distributive and retributive justice concerns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]