Search

This article presents an empirical analysis of International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) Annual Surveys. In the process, the article reports findings from the book "Annual Survey of Violations of Trade Union Rights," by the ICFTU. In recent years, the subjects of freedom of association, trade unions, and labor rights have risen to fore of global attention. The ICFTU headquartered in Brussels and representing the major "peak" association of free trade unions federations or national centers in the world, outlines freedom of association rights. Beginning in 1995, ICFTU Annual Surveys began to provide a broad interpretative framework for classifying the conceptual dimensions of freedom of association violations. Specific listings in ICFTU Annual Surveys are grouped by country and by region, but not according to the categories or types of violations, and not in a statistically aggregated way covering more than three survey years. The article concludes that the results of this empirical analysis of ICFTU Annual Surveys point toward the prevalence of particular regional and national practices that interfere with the full enjoyment of freedom of association rights.

This article focuses on human rights and academic freedom as they relate to the Universities Academic Staff Union (UASU) since its inception in Kenya. Specifically, it examines the extent to which the functions of the UASU have been rendered nugatory as a result of lack of academic freedom and the subjugation of human rights in Kenya in general. For the purposes of this study the article is divided into three parts. It puts into proper conceptual perspective the meaning of human rights and academic freedom. The article also examines freedom of association in Kenya as provided for in Kenya's Constitution. This is examined within the context of civil society in general and the UASU in particular. Finally it examines the status of academic freedom in Kenya's public universities in relation to the union. The UASU believes that it has the intellectual capacity to put in place democratic academic institutions accountable to the students, lecturers, parents, and Kenyans in general.

The article offers a method for improving the U.S. constitutional freedom of association potential for human rights nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) at home and abroad. The laws in the U.S. are highly association protective, but its mere existence does not guarantee protection for human rights. U.S.-based human rights organizations must know how to employ the law for their own protection from overreaching governmental regulation. These NGOs should monitor and cultivate trends in the evolving standards in order to determine the degree of protection for mixed-purpose organizations. The constitutionality of conditions placed on the exercise of association rights, and the potential for an independent right of association also needs to be monitored. There is a need to ensure the abilities of human rights NGOs to engage in direct service on social and economic fronts. A byproduct of the ongoing process of patrolling freedom of association law in the U.S. is a solid understanding of U.S. association law premises, rules, strengths and shortcomings.

The article provides information on the 1986 hearing of the House Subcommittees on Human Rights and International Organizations and on Africa of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. The hearing aims to assess the recent developments in Liberia and respond to the problems concerning fraudulence in Liberian elections and violations of human rights. The Subcommittees held the final resolution which affirmed the U.S. commitment to Liberia and called for the disbursement of aid when the Liberian government would release all political prisoners, allow the freedom of the press and association, maintain independent judicial system, and achieve national reconciliation with all significant political groups in the country.

The article examines the limitation provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. It identifies the important features of the limitation provisions of Article 1(2) and 1(3) concerning non-citizens of states parties and Article 2(2), 2(1)(d), and Article 4 pertaining to the protection of all persons from racial discrimination. The article also investigates the ways on how the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the states parties interpret and apply these limitation provisions. The author stresses that the Committee and the states parties have some misconceptions regarding the provisions due to their high regard for freedom of expression and association.