Search

This final chapter draws on data collected across all five states to analyse key factors that shape the risks that defenders face, namely, their dynamic political, legal, economic and social contexts; their relative (in)visibility; the acceptability, legitimacy and credibility of their human rights practice; and their social connectedness and embeddedness in protective networks. This chapter puts forward eight proposals for how the protection of defenders should be reimagined and practised, namely that protection actors should: broaden the focus from protecting human rights defenders to protecting the right to defend human rights; protect collectives along with individuals; protect families and loved ones; build inclusive human rights organisations, networks and movements with an intersectional perspective, addressing discrimination, violence and inequalities; develop diverse initiatives along the “protection continuum”; develop formal protection mechanisms based on meaningful collaboration between state and civil society actors, which complement informal and self-protection initiatives; recognise that the flow of protection resources changes the power relations between civil society protection actors and human rights defenders and last but not least, develop holistic understandings and practices of security for and with human rights defenders, including their wellbeing.

This chapter examines the global context for the defence of human rights, highlighting key developments that shape the risks that human rights defenders face. It discusses scholarly critiques of the effectiveness and relevance of human rights activism. It provides an overview of the protection regime for human rights defenders and examines key debates: the meaning of protection; the definition of human rights defenders; the acceptability of risk and risk-taking in activism; and conceptualisations of (in)security. It then introduces the “Navigating Risk, Managing Security and Receiving Support” research project upon which this book is based and provides an overview of subsequent chapters.

How do people engaged in risky forms of activism understand and manage their mental and emotional wellbeing? What factors shape these responses? How is this significant for the sustainability of activism and human rights movements around the world? Drawing on a study with 407 participants who experienced high risks in human rights practice in Colombia, Mexico, Egypt, Kenya, and Indonesia, this article argues that cultures of human rights practice shape the way that mental and emotional wellbeing is understood and practiced. Gendered ‘feeling rules’ that valorize bravery, commitment, sacrifice, and selflessness complicate conversations about mental and emotional wellbeing, triggering feelings of guilt and self-indulgence in relation to self-care. Discussions about mental and emotional wellbeing are sensitive, culturally mediated, and laden with social and political implications. Some leaders are concerned that revealing their fears and vulnerabilities will lead to movement demobilisation. Mental health issues are thus made invisible. Participants in this study tended to rely on private rather than collective coping strategies; relatively few human rights groups and organisations adopted wellbeing practices. Crucially, however, activists affirm that their human rights practice enables them to experience and attain individual and collective wellbeing. This article discusses the maintenance of practices for self- and collective care that can sustain people engaged in activism in the face of high risks.

In recent years, scholars have focused on the concept of Healthcare deservingness, observing that healthcare professionals, state authorities and the broader public make moral judgements about which migrants are deserving of health care and which are not. Such literature tends to focus on migrants with irregular status. This article examines how state calculations of healthcare deservingness have also been applied to authorised migrants. Focusing on Malaysia, we examine the ways in which state authorities construct migrants as ‘desirable’, ‘acceptable’ and ‘disposable’, differentiated through calculations of their biological and economic risks and potential contribution to ‘the nation’. Todo this, we analyse recent government and commercial policies, plans and practices to reflect on how such biopolitical orderings create the conditions for risk entrepreneurship – where public and private actors capitalise on profit-making opportunities that emerge from the construction of risky subjects and risky scenarios – while reinforcing hierarchies of healthcare deservingness that exacerbate health inequalities by privileging migrants with greater economic capital and legitimising the exclusion of poor migrants.

Since the United Nations General Assembly’s adoption of the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders in 1998, there has been considerable effort to recognise and protect the right of individuals, groups and communities to promote and protect their own rights and the rights of others. Over time, a multi-level, multi-actor international protection regime for the rights of human rights defenders has emerged, derived from the international human rights regime. Actors in this goal-driven regime adopt a human security approach, emphasising the importance of having a holistic, multidimensional understanding of ‘security’. In this article, we note positive developments in state commitment to the protection of defenders, as well as the debates, tensions and contestation that continue to exist. We emphasise the need for critical appraisal of the construction, function and evolution of this protection regime as well as its multi-scalar social and political effects, both intended and unintended. We highlight three specific areas where critical scholarship is needed to understand the nature of this protection regime, discussing the contributions of authors in this special issue: the definition and use of the term ‘human rights defender’; the effectiveness of protection mechanisms; and the complex relationship between repression, activism and risk. In conclusion, we identify key areas for further research related to human rights defenders, stressing the need for the development of theory and practice related to their ‘risk’, ‘security’ and ‘protection’.

Abstract Social theorists examining the impact of globalisation on state power argue that sovereignty is being respatialised and rescaled and that it is no longer adequate to understand state sovereignty as operating evenly on a national scale over a population within a bounded territory. Nevertheless, ASEAN states continue to adopt such a national framing of people and place, particularly in the construction of immigration control regimes. I argue that in order to understand the localised and spatialised exercise of graduated sovereignty and the selective introduction of neoliberal practices, it is necessary to recognise the significance of the immigration status of individuals and examine how the dividing practices of immigration control regimes permit the selective allocation of rights to non-citizens. This paper examines Malaysia’s approach to international labour migration, noting that it makes different biopolitical investments in different types of non-citizens on the basis of a calculation of their potential contribution to the ‘nation’. Malaysia creates a hierarchy of rights, giving greater rights to skilled workers, while restricting those of ‘unskilled’ workers. Malaysia punishes those who breach immigration laws severely. However, Malaysia’s modernist approach to immigration control fails to achieve intended results and I highlight a number of reasons why.

Research on transnational advocacy networks has tended to focus on how non-state actors from developed countries interact with those from developing countries to pressure states, often by drawing in liberal Western states. This article adds a different perspective, focusing on how local civil society actors in different locales interact with each other to persuade their own governments ‘from below’. It examines how these actors facilitate norm emergence amongst Asian states on issues with little domestic traction and for which there are well-developed international norms, standards and procedures. In studying the way local civil society actors conduct norm entrepreneurship, it is important to recognise the political, material and ideational conditions that constrain their work; their positionality and fragility in their own societies; and the way they relate to other actors working on the same issues. Focusing on the case of the Asia Pacific Refugee Rights Network, it is argued that working through a formalised network has changed the ways and the conditions under which local civil society actors engage in norm entrepreneurship on refugee protection. It has changed the attributes of actors, helping them develop visibility, capacity and connectedness through the formation of a ‘community of practice’; it has changed power relations between them and other actors – in particular, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; it has facilitated the development of ‘regional imagination’ and the practice of ‘scale shifting’, helping local actors move beyond domestic contexts to engage with state and non-state actors through regional and international fora. It has also introduced shifts in the dynamics of norm entrepreneurship by introducing a new actor – the network itself, which exercises agency through a Secretariat – and intra-network sensitivities, which need careful attention to prevent member disengagement.

This paper focuses on how indigeneity has been constructed, deployed and ruptured in postcolonial Malay(si)a. Prior to the independence of Malaya in 1957, British colonial administrators ...

In this paper, I demonstrate that the position of the postcolonial ‘Self’ in Malaysia is legitimized through inherited imperial mechanisms of power, both structural and ideological. The emergence of this ‘new-Self’ was situated in colonial discursive practices that positioned it as an ‘Other’ under British colonial rule. As such, this creates unexpected binds for the ‘new-Self’, particularly as it negotiates its relations with a number of ‘new-Others’. Up to the present, indigeneity has remained the main basis for legitimizing political power and the economic redistribution of wealth. However, this remains persuasive only when it is seen as primordial and timeless, essentially located in certain individuals in an unchallengeable manner. This basis of power, I argue, produces anxiety for the ‘Malay’ new-Self, for its claims to being essentially ‘indigenous’ come under questioning when Malay identity construction is set vis-a`-vis the Orang Asli (the ‘aborigines’ of the Malaysian Peninsula). I review the wa...

This Special Issue of the Journal of Human Rights Practice is dedicated to critical reflection on the protection of human rights defenders (HRDs). In this article we consider existing research and knowledge about the protection of HRDs, highlight the contributions of the policy and practice notes in this collection, and put forward current issues and questions on the protection of HRDs for further exploration. Specifically, we highlight eight areas for research: the definition and use of the term ‘human rights defender’; perceptions of risk, security and protection; culture, gender and diversity (with particular emphasis on protecting women human rights defenders); the use of legal and administrative mechanisms for repression; the effectiveness of protection mechanisms; strategies and tactics for protection; fostering enabling environments for the defence of human rights; and the impact of technology and digital security on HRDs. In the last section of this article, we highlight the importance of more collaboration between academics, practitioners and HRDs for the effective evolution of protection mechanisms and practices. We reflect on the merits and challenges of collaborative applied research, suggesting how this can be done effectively.

In Southeast Asia, the birth of postcolonial states in the aftermath of the Second World War marked a watershed in political relations between ethnic groups residing within emerging geo-political borders. Plurality and difference were defining characteristics of the social landscape in these nascent states. Colonial laws and policies that divided groups and territories for efficient control influenced the relations between linguistically and culturally distinct groups. The transfer of power to ‘natives’ during decolonization often resulted in indigenous minorities being sidelined politically and legally. Indigenous minorities in Southeast Asia continue to negotiate for more equitable inclusion in contemporary postcolonial states. In some cases, such as in Myanmar, Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines, these have escalated into separatist movements. Other indigenous minorities however, struggle for the recognition of their identity and rights through – rather than apart from – existing state mechanisms of power, for example by lobbying for changes in existing laws and bringing cases to court. The struggle for recognition of the legal rights of indigenous minorities began, however, before the process of decolonization; colonial powers contended with politically dominant indigenous majorities as they tried to exert influence over territories, and this had impacts on indigenous minorities. The British method of colonization, in particular, which sought to attain ‘indirect rule’ without using military conquest, required the identification and recognition of native structures of power. British administrators exerted influence through the ‘invitation’ of local rulers, which meant that domestic laws and administrative policies were developed as a result of negotiation rather than through direct imposition of English laws and policies. As a result, the legal structures put in place during decolonization meant that some recognition of indigenous customary practices was already incorporated, albeit for certain indigenous groups and not for others. In order to recognize and protect the ‘special rights’ of indigenous persons, it became vital to define the legal identity of individuals. It was necessary for British administrators to determine which groups were ‘indigenous’, what specific criteria were required for demonstrating membership of these groups, and when disputes occurred, to determine which individuals possessed a legitimate claim of belonging. They also had to decide if the rights and privileges were accorded on a group or individual basis. These decisions are neither ahistorical nor apolitical. In this paper, I examine the contemporary case of the Orang Asli, the minority indigenous peoples of the Malay Peninsula. I begin by providing an outline of political developments that have resulted in the legal recognition of three groups of people as having indigenous status. I also review the evolution of the Malaysian legal system in order to provide a context for subsequent discussion. I then look at how Orang Asli are recognized in the Federal Constitution and in statutes, with reference to case law, as the meaning and weight of these written laws were elaborated in court judgements. I then look at three court cases, reviewing the right to engage in commercial activities in aboriginal places as decided in the Koperasi Kijang Mas Bhd & Ors v. Kerajaan Negeri Perak & Ors (1991), hereafter referred to as the Koperasi Kijang Mas case; the recognition of native title and usufructuary rights as recognized in Adong Kuwau & Ors v. Kerajaan Negeri Johor & Anor (1997), hereafter referred to as the Adong Kuwau case, a judgement upheld in the Court of Appeal (Kerajaan Negeri Johor & Anor v. Adong Kuwau & Ors (1998) and the Federal Court;2 as well as proprietary rights in and to the land which were recognized in the Sagong Tasi & Ors v. Kerajaan Negeri Selangor & Ors (2002) ruling, hereafter referred to as the Sagong Tasi case, upheld in the Court of Appeal (see Kerajaan Negeri Selangor & Ors v. Sagong Bin Tasi & Ors (2005) but currently under appeal in the Federal Court. These cases demonstrate how Orang Asli have drawn on international legal frameworks to claim special privileges in ways not possible for other Malaysians, on the basis of their identity.