Search

The most well-known and widely cited literature in the multidisciplinary field of childhood studies has been undertaken by scholars based in the Global North, who have produced theoretical frameworks and conceptualisations about childhood frequently deployed by Northern and Southern scholars alike. These are often based on priorities developed in Northern academic institutions, sometimes in response to funding calls by grant-making agencies also based in the North. As a result, when Southern scholars contribute to the dominant childhood studies literature, a field of study in which the majority of well-known articles tend to be published in Northern-based Anglophone journals, their contributions stand mainly as empirical variations of mainstream Northern theories whose scholarship foregrounds theoretical and methodological frameworks designed with particular childhoods in mind. The resulting outcome is that Global South childhoods – in their plurality and diversity – do not contribute epistemically to the construction of a transnational childhood scientific discourse. This ultimately limits the quality of global childhood studies and hinders the development of more conceptually sophisticated, eventually divergent, theoretical frameworks that can account for multiplicity and diversity in childhoods. Therefore, this volume sought to explore locally driven perspectives of childhoods in diverse contexts in the South for the purpose of gaining insights into the knowledge that can be produced about Southern childhoods when research is driven by priorities, demands, and needs of locales in the Global South. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the role played by Chinese children in the class struggle and national liberation struggles against foreign imperialism during the cultural revolution in China from 1966-1976. Chinese publications during that period normalized and even hailed the actions of combative, murderous youth as models for others to follow. The extensive militarization of children's education took place under the leadership of revolutionary Mao Zedong.

The article presents a response note to a review essay, authored by Dr. Robbie Sabel, published in the "Israel Law Review." It negates Sabel's representation of the thesis that occupation is legal it is less than a year. It notes that the review neglects to mention that the prohibition on settlements is absolute and that the construction of the wall between Hague and Jerusalem is illegal.

The comment focuses on the construction of time in the normative regime of occupation. Beginning (in section 2) with a critique of the ICJ's reading of Article 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention concerning the scope of applicability ratione temporis of the Convention in cases where the duration of an occupation lasts longer than one year, the comment proceeds (in section 3) to argue (a) that the gap between the working assumption informing Article 6 (of relatively short-term occupations) and reality (of prolonged occupations) defines a problem which the Court erroneously construed as a solution; (b) that the problem of prolonged occupation has allowed for the substitution of an indefinite for a temporary duration of an occupation, a move which defies the basic tenets of the normative regime of occupation; and (c) that a proper solution involves the construction of the notion of "reasonable time" into the Fourth Geneva Convention. The comment includes (in section 4) a proposal designed to minimize the temporary/indefinite blurring of boundaries in situations where an occupation has not ended within one year. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Are human rights norms applicable to occupied territories in general, and to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in particular? The article examines the controversy that had arisen between Israel and the UN treaty monitoring bodies in relation to this question and critically analyzes Israel's three objections to such applicability: 1) the mutual exclusivity of humanitarian regime and human rights regime in occupied territories, the former being thus the only applicable law; 2) a restrictive interpretation of the jurisdictional provisions treaties; and 3) the lack of effective control in some of the territories. The article posits that the universal object and purpose of human rights treaties, which inform the proper interpretation of their jurisdictional clauses, require their applicability in all territories subject to the effective control of the state parties, as well as to other extra-territorial exercises of government power directly affecting individuals. Consequently, international human rights law and international humanitarian law apply in occupied territories in parallel and not to the exclusion of one another. This position is confirmed by extensive practice of the international human rights monitoring bodies, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and by some decisions of the Israeli Supreme Court. In conclusion, the paper posits that Israel's refusal to apply the six principal human rights treaties to which it is party to the Occupied Territories is incompatible with its international law obligations and proceeds to propose modalities for the co-application of both human rights and humanitarian law in occupied territories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]