Search

The article is devoted to the analysis of the constitutional and legal foundations of the right to peace, consideration of the practice of its application, and also to the identification of problems in legal regulation and implementation mechanisms. The article notes that the right to peace should include the following components: the right to advocate peace; peaceful coexistence and peaceful cooperation; prohibition of the threat and use of force; the right to development, which is an exclusive condition for peace; the right to human rights education; mechanisms for maintaining peace and security; remedies for violations of the right to peace; and the right to resist colonial foreign occupation and dictato rship. Despite the fact that the right to peace is enshrined in international standards, its implementation is constantly subject to negative impact. International instruments are usually declarative and do not have effective mechanisms to enforce their provisions by signatories. Of course, this is primarily due to the peculiarity of the subject composition of international law, as its main participants are states. They cannot be subject to the same methods of coercion as individual s or legal entities. Another, and currently the most obvious problem, is the imperfection of international institutions such as the United Nations (UN). Despite its broad powers, the UN faces difficulties in taking collective action due to political differences between member states. Thus, the veto of the permanent members of the Security Council often paralyses decision-making in crisis situations, making it difficult to respond to conflicts and ensure peace. The main problems that hinder the realisation of the right to peace include: insufficient effectiveness of international law; the political will of individual states to create a threat to global security through their own domestic national interests; the weak role of international organisations in maintaining global order; the inability to apply sanctions to a state that violates international law that will ensure respect for rights in the future; failure of states to comply with international court decisions aimed at restoring violated rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The way in which international actors formulate proposals for reforming or establishing public social policies not only varies between different organisations but is also dependent on the policy field in question. This article compares the positions of two international organisations (IOs), the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) and the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), on the two related social policy fields of health and long-term care in Latin America. We apply qualitative document analysis to reports and strategy articles published by ECLAC and PAHO between 2000 and 2015. The analysis finds that despite some similar proposals by both organisations, there are also clear differences between their positions depending on the policy areas. While both organisations see the need to establish healthcare and long-term care as a human right, they have different ideas on targeted and universal approaches. Moreover, with long-term care as a new and emerging policy field, there is still much more variation in how the IOs address the topic, while proposals on healthcare are shaped by previous debates at international and regional levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article describes the institutional mechanism for ensuring the right to development at the international universal level. The functions and mandate of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Working Group on the Right to Development, the High-level Task Force on the Implementation of the Right to Development, the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Development, the Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development, etc. are described. It is noted that the right to development is the only human right specifically mentioned in resolution 48/141 of the UN General Assembly, by which it established the position of High Commissioner and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. It is highlighted the functions of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in ensuring the right to development. It is described the mandate of the Working Group on the Right to Development, which includes: monitoring and analysis of progress made in the promotion and implementation of the right to development at the national and international levels, making recommendations and further analysis of obstacles to its full implementation; review of reports and any other information submitted by States, UN agencies, other relevant international organisations and nongovernmental organisations on the relationship between their activities and the right to development, etc. It is noted that the High-level Task Force on the Implementation of the Right to Development was established within the framework of the Working Group on the Right to Development to assist it in fulfilling its mandate. It is stated that the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Development contributes to the realisation of the right to development by developing practical guidance to implement the right and to integrate it within development policies and programmes at local, national, regional and international levels. The functions and mandate of the Special Rapporteur are highlighted. It is described the activities of the Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development, which provides the Human Rights Council with thematic expertise on the right to development in searching for, identifying and sharing best practices with Member States and promotes the implementation of the right to development worldwide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Public Law / Zeitschrift für Öffentliches Recht is the property of Verlag Oesterreich GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

International organisations have increasingly developed interest in the human rights dimensions of their development work. Some organisations have relatively more advanced engagement in rights issues, while others have considered human rights to be irrelevant to their mandate. Inter-organisational collaboration in common areas of work presents a peculiar site of human rights mainstreaming. The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations and the World Bank have collaborated in investment in agriculture and related sectors for over half a century, in thousands of projects in hundreds of countries. Separately, the two organisations lie more or less on opposite ends of the spectrum of human rights integration in development work. They both have environmental and social policies, but with significantly differing attention to rights. Their collaborative engagement presents an interesting example of how human rights mainstreaming can be better articulated and implemented. A cursory look at the collaboration shows that the source of project funding, incentive and administrative structures and the knowledge and perceptions of technical staff add to the absence of clear rules on whose policies apply in what context, resulting in inconsistent practices that underserve the benefits of a human rights-based approach to investment in agriculture and related sectors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The normative output of international organisations is rarely legally binding as such. Yet, agendas and operational policies of international organisations have implications for both states and individuals. The current special issue explores the variety through which international organisations engage with human rights. The contributions of the special issue all approach this question from the perspective of the mandate and work of individual organisations. While on the one hand the engagement of organisations with human rights is defined by the institutional law of the organisation, it is also determined by administrative processes, normative frames and professional culture. In exploring the variety by which human rights become part of the work of organisations, the contributions raise questions ranging from conceptual endorsement of a rights-based approach, to performing organisation-specific functions and practical implementation, to staff emancipation. All of these aspects, the special issue shows, can be crucial for understanding the human rights endorsement (or lack of it) of international organisations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of this paper is to promote a better understanding of the link between normative climate justice claims—originating in Political Theory and Philosophy—and concrete social practices of the climate justice movement active at the international climate negotiations. We argue that the climate justice movement can be understood as a community of practice. Empirically, we zoom into this community of practice and comparatively analyse three case studies on human rights networks, faith-based groups and gender justice advocates. Methodologically, our analysis is based on a review of primary and secondary documents, participatory observations and expert interviews at the climate negotiations in Warsaw (2013), Bonn (2014), and Paris (2015) and via skype/phone (2013–2016). Our analysis reveals that each network within the community of practice—even those with more radical objectives—minimise the demands formulated at the outset in order to successfully cooperate with state negotiators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article proposes re-thinking the history of refugee protection in the Southeast Asia region, focusing on the post-World War Two period (1945–1979). It fills a gap in the literature on this period, drawing on archival material. It disrupts a narrative of "human rights exceptionalism" in Southeast Asia. First, it examines the small but powerful role of Southeast Asian states during the drafting of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. These states challenged colonial powers and asserted human rights. Second, it considers the role of key refugee-hosting states in Southeast Asia in developing—with other post-colonial states—regional standards to protect refugees under the auspices of the Asian-African Legal Consultative Committee, the Aliens Principles of 1961 and Bangkok Principles of 1966. Third, it places international and regional action in the domestic context by drawing on the example of Thailand's protection of Vietnamese refugees. It concludes that the approach in the post-WWII years points to an extended history of protecting refugees in Southeast Asia, and valuable lessons from the Global South for the region and beyond. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Public Law / Zeitschrift für Öffentliches Recht is the property of Verlag Oesterreich GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The international responsibility of international organisations concerning sanitary crises is a relatively new and very complex subject. In the context of epidemics and pandemics, it is especially difficult to assess the two preconditions for the international responsibility of international organisations: attribution of conduct to the organisation and that the conduct constitutes the breach of an obligation under international law. As the World Health Organization is criticised for allegedly failing to comply with its mandate/obligations with regards to its response to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, this paper revisits a high-profile profile precedent where the role of an international organisation in spreading (or failing to prevent the spread of) an infectious disease was raised – that of the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH), a peacekeeping operation that became associated with having introduced cholera in Haiti in October 2010. The vastly debated and well-documented role of the United Nations in the 2010s cholera outbreak in Haiti offers a good case-study on the international responsibility of international organisations for non-compliance with their obligations, including with regards to preventing and mitigating the spread of communicable diseases.

What explains NATO's decision to admit new members even when they fall short of the organisational expectations of democracy and adherence to human rights? After the end of the Cold War NATO put in place an elaborate scheme of democratic conditionality; however, recent waves of enlargement since 2004 have proven increasingly incompatible with these criteria. This paper argues that this policy results from gradual erosion in the prominence of democratic discourse within the organisation, normalising deviations from previous optimistic expectations that became increasingly unsustainable, inducing within-organisation socialisation. This process is paralleled by an increasingly hostile Russian foreign policy, that served as a catalyst for the cognitive normalisation process. To support the argument, the author conducts interviews with key NATO officials previously or presently involved in the enlargement process, building on unique institutional accessibility, performs content analysis of North Atlantic Council discussions (ministerial/heads of state level) and NATO Summit Declarations in 1995‒2019, diving into Albania's accession in 2009 as a case study. The results suggest that NATO decision-making over expansion was subject to significant politicisation that increased over time, normalising the deviations, reducing the democratic discourse in periods that preceded the integration of states that did not meet the criteria for democracy (most notably, Albania in 2009, Montenegro in 2017, and North Macedonia in 2020). The results emphasise the place of cognitive processes in IO decision-making on enlargement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Self-determination campaigns remain a critical cause of ethno-linguistic conflicts and resultant humanitarian crises in many countries in Africa and other parts of the world. While the United Nations (UN), its agencies, and the international community at large are ever ready to intervene in humanitarian crises arising from self-determination conflicts, it has remained difficult to adopt criteria and procedures to proactively decide and resolve self-determination campaigns in a way that encourages non-violent approaches, and to nip violent approaches to self-determination agitation in the bud. This article argues that the role of the UN in the maintenance of international peace and security should include adopting certain criteria for implementing its declarations relating to the right to self-determination. The article avers that such measures would better enhance peace and nation-building in Africa than the current approach of non-action, which consists of waiting to intervene in ethno-linguistic conflicts and the consequent humanitarian crises. The article is based on the use of documentary data and desk research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article addresses the institutional role of the EU in the Council of Europe, with particular emphasis on EU participation in Council of Europe treaties and EU accession to the ECHR. While recognising the joint effort to achieve greater unity in the region of Europe through respect for the shared core values of pluralist democracy, human rights and the rule of law, the concerns raised by non-Member States of the EU about the impact of EU law and policies on the Council of Europe's standards are examined. It is argued that the Council of Europe and the EU have a shared responsibility for upholding the effectiveness of their respective frameworks and ensuring that any overlapping competences do not create conflict. This is particularly evident when it comes to the European system for the protection of fundamental rights, which is characterised by overlapping standards and procedures. The existing cooperation between the Council of Europe and the EU should be strengthened through a more rational, rules-based approach. In particular, it is suggested that the two systems should jointly agree on a series of basic principles on the treaty-making process, providing for horizontal application by the introduction of specific rules on, for example, voting and speaking rights of the EU, the sharing of reporting obligations between the EU and its Member States under Council of Europe monitoring mechanisms, and financial arrangements. The EU's participation and financial contribution to monitoring follow-up should always be considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the specificities of each mechanism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper discusses the system of minority protection of the League of Nations. Minority protection occupied a prominent place on the League's agenda, which developed a significant expertise in the field. The League's system of minority protection is often regarded as an experiment. With regard to both material and procedural aspects this assessment is certainly correct. In particular, minority protection based upon legally binding treaties and declarations gave rise to the question of how individual and group rights should be treated within the frame of an international political organization. The paper further examines whether at least some of the elements of the League's minority protection system still persist in the context of contemporary international human rights law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article traces recent changes of the practices and justifications of the use of force in intervention, in the context of African security governance, highlighting how these changes interact with norm transformations at the scale of the global order. In doing so, it conveys how a long-standing pattern of norm contestation between international and African actors over external intervention vs sovereignty, has started to give way to a mutually accepted division of labour. After 9/11, the paradigm of liberal interventionism has been incrementally replaced by the framework of stabilisation, with a re-prioritisation of sovereigntist agendas. This has increased collaboration between international and African actors, specifically prompting the United Nations and the African Union to divide tasks of mandating and enforcement, thereby increasing inter-institutional 'order'. This consensus, however, far from signifying wider compliance with 'liberal ordering' principles, rather indicates the need to revisit central assumptions of the International Relations norm diffusion literature. While the latter emphasises the diffusion of 'good' international norms, especially pertaining to human rights and democratisation, the growing consensus on 'intervention as stabilisation' instead exposes how post-9/11 justifications of practices that carry the potential to downsize the scope of such norms, are starting to resonate across international, regional and national sites of policy and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Public Law / Zeitschrift für Öffentliches Recht is the property of Verlag Oesterreich GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article examines the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Jam v International Finance Corp. to discuss the context of organisational accountability and immunity and its implications for United Nations (UN) Human Rights liability. Also cited are whether domestic civil (tort) law and international law can be used by national courts to determine the liability of the UN for alleged human rights abuses, and the primary and secondary rules of international law.

Copyright of Journal of Political Sciences is the property of Republic of Iraq Ministry of Higher Education & Scientific Research (MOHESR) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal of Public Law / Zeitschrift für Öffentliches Recht is the property of Verlag Oesterreich GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Human rights violations committed by international organisations (IOs) have raised demands that IOs should be held accountable for their decisions, policies, and actions. However, traditional forms of accountability have often failed in the context of global governance. This article introduces pluralist accountability as a form of accountability whereby third parties hold IOs and their implementing partners accountable for human rights violations. In pluralist accountability, third parties set the standards for IOs' actions in relation to human rights, review their behaviour and impose normative or material sanctions in case of misbehaviour. The article further reveals two conditions that foster the development of pluralist accountability, namely the competition among third parties and the degree of vulnerability of the implementing actors or the mandating authority with regard to human rights demands. This argument is illustrated with empirical insights from peace operations in Bosnia and Kosovo, which were accused of human trafficking and the violation of the rights of detainees. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Public Law / Zeitschrift für Öffentliches Recht is the property of Verlag Oesterreich GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

How China assumes its position of superpower is one of the most important questions regarding global order in the twenty-first century. While considerable and sustained attention has been paid to China’s growing economic and military might, work examining how China is attempting, if at all, to influence the ecosystem of global norms is in its earlier stages. In this article we examine China’s actions in an important venue for the development of global norms, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). Using a unique dataset that captures how other countries move into or out of alignment with China on UNGA resolutions that are repeated over time, we find statistical evidence that China used diplomatic and economic means in an attempt to subtly alter international norms. We further illustrate these findings by examining four states that made substantive moves toward China on resolutions concerning national sovereignty, democracy, international order, non-interference, and human rights. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Copyright of Journal of Public Law / Zeitschrift für Öffentliches Recht is the property of Verlag Oesterreich GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is an international organisation consisting of 57 member States of Muslim confession, also Palestina. This organisation is "the collective voice of the Muslim world" and works to "safeguard and protect the interests of the Muslim world in the spirit of promoting international peace and harmony". In 28 June 2011 during the 38th Council of Foreign Ministers meeting (CFM) in Astana (Kazakhstan) the organisation changed its name from Organisation of the Islamic Conference to its current name.The OIC also changed its logo at this time.The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has a permanent delegation of the United Nations and it’s the second largest international organisation outside the United Nations. In recent years it has been increasing its importance in the international society and it has played an important role in regional conflicts

Copyright of Journal of Public Law / Zeitschrift für Öffentliches Recht is the property of Verlag Oesterreich GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Security and human rights norms usually require a balancing act for their contemporaneous application but are often considered to conflict with one another. This is the case, especially when terrorism threats lead the executive branch to temporarily suspend or reduce its human rights obligations. Yet this presumption that these two norms inherently conflict is increasingly criticised. International terrorist sanctions regimes, such as that of the European Union and United Nations, are a prime example of this conflict because these organisations have been concurrently adopting counterterrorism measures, often through their executive branch and without any human rights protections. This article will use the 2008Kadicase of the European Court of Justice as a framework to provide a contextual analysis of the term ‘conflict’ and provide criticism for the use of the conflict label to describe the relationship between national security policies and human rights, when norms of security and human rights shouldallform the benchmark of counterterrorism. This article will examine the legal issues created by theKadicase and suggest that, despite the legal and normative uncertainties it raised, in practice, the case is an example of institutional conflict, or checks and balances that, in effect, actually enhances the fairness of sanctions regimes. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Copyright of Journal of Public Law / Zeitschrift für Öffentliches Recht is the property of Verlag Oesterreich GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Human rights law, based on the protection of the non-conditional human dignity, demands protection from non-state violations. The specialisedcorpus jurisof the protection of the rights of persons with disabilities, sharing that foundation, recognises this and permitsdirectinternational substantive and procedural protection against some non-state entities with competences and roles that are relevant for the enjoyment of those rights. Simultaneously, indirect protection from non-state violations attributable to other entities is demanded from both states and functional authorities. The fact that persons with disabilities can be frequently prevented from enjoying their human rights by non-state entities with which they interact demands and justifies this lawful and proportionate protection, that is not unique to the special protection of their rights. However, it is necessary to examine if more guarantees against non-state violations are required in order to fully and effectively protect human dignity. On the other hand, the positive contribution that non-state actors can provide to the protection of the rights of persons with disabilities is acknowledged and promoted by the norms that protect their human rights, and that contribution must be permitted. Ignoring this is as wrong as ignoring that non-state actors can violate human rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Medunarodni Problemi is the property of Institute of International Politics & Economics and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Environmental displacement is a global phenomenon affecting millions of people. Due to climate change and the corresponding sea-level rise, it is estimated that about eight million of indigenous people of Pacific Islands will be forced to settle elsewhere by 2050. This is one of many examples confirming the need to ascertain the legal status of environmental refugee in international law. The term ‘environmental refugee’ is controversially discussed and internationally not recognised. First, this article discusses the reasons for reluctance of international organisations to accept this term. Second, noting the cold reception of this term at the regional and state levels, a discussion on whether fears associated with this term are based on solid arguments becomes pertinent. Third, this article outlines the possibility of granting refugee status under international law, especially under human rights and environmental law. Fourth, academic discourses will be examined as they play a crucial role in the conceptual development of ‘environmental refugee’ and, to some academics, the existing refugee definition already encompasses ‘environmental refugees’. Taking into account the developments of the environmental and human rights regime, this article concludes that time is ripe for international law to provide refugee status to environmentally displaced people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article is based on UN Voices: The Struggle for Development and Social Justice (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2005), a volume of oral history interviews with 73 individuals who were key to the evolution of UN development thinking. This article has two purposes: to provide a flavour of the UN story that those 73 voices tell in the book; and to discuss its central conclusions about the role of international organisations as intellectual actors. Oral history as method and product provides insights in solving a key puzzle in contemporary affairs -- how ideas eventually become part of international discourse, policy, and action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]