Search

espanolUna pareja homosexual basada en la Opinion Consultiva OC-24/17, busca contraer matrimonio civil. La peticion es negada en virtud de varias razones, por lo que se interpone una accion de proteccion. En primera instancia se acepta la demanda, mientras que en el superior se declara sin lugar a la misma. Es aqui que se debe considerar si se vulnera o no el derecho a la igualdad y no discriminacion y no unicamente de los peticionarios, sino, en general, de las personas con una distinta orientacion sexual, categoria protegida por la actual Constitucion ecuatoriana, ademas de determinar si el mencionado instrumento internacional forma parte del bloque de constitucionalidad, ya que de ser afirmativo seria parte del ordenamiento vigente y, por lo tanto, de obligatorio cumplimiento.Adicionalmente, se realiza un analisis si en realidad se esta cumpliendo el principio de igualdad y no discriminacion en razon de la orientacion sexual. EnglishA homosexual couple based on Advisory Opinion OC-24/17, want to celebrate between them civil marriage. Petition denied due to several reasons, as such, they present a protection action. In first instance the demand is accepted, while the superior judge not accept the petition. This is where we must consider whether or not the right to equality and non-discrimination is violated and not only of the petitioners but in general to people with a different sexual orientation, a category protected by the current Ecuadorian Constitution. In addition to determining if the aforementioned international instrument is part of the constitutionality block since, if it were affirmative, it would be part of the current legislation and, therefore, of mandatory compliance.Doing an analysis if in reality the right of equality and non discrimination is being fullfilled in reason of sexual orientation.

A renewed focus on equity is being driven by the Human Rights to Water and Sanitation framework and Sustainable Development Goal 6.2, which emphasise the importance of adequate and equitable sanitation for all. However, as raised in Part 1 of this issue on equality and non-discrimination (EQND), there is evidence that CLTS processes for achieving community-wide outcomes are not always systematic, adequate, sustained, or sufficient to meet the needs of disadvantaged groups. A compilation of 50 CLTS and rural sanitation programmes around the world that significantly used support mechanisms was gathered to inform this issue. Our rapid review of the programmes found that although numerous trials existed, few had been taken to scale, few were located outside of Asia, and many did not have disaggregated monitoring and evaluation information that is publicly shared or collected at all. This issue therefore emphasises the importance of monitoring, evaluating and knowledge sharing processes in building an evidence base for facilitating equitable rural sanitation outcomes.

The World Bank estimates that over one billion people currently lack official identity documents. To tackle this crucial issue, the United Nations included the aim to provide legal identity for all by 2030 among the Sustainable Development Goals. Technology can be a powerful tool to reach this target. In the digital age, new technologies increasingly mediate identity verification and identification of individuals. Currently, State-led and public–private initiatives use technology to provide official identification, to control and secure external borders, and to distribute humanitarian aid to populations in need. All of these initiatives have profound implications for the protection of human rights of those affected by them. Digital identity technologies may render individuals without legal documentation more visible and therefore less vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. However, they also present risks for the protection of individuals' human rights. As they build on personal data for identification and identity verification, data protection and privacy rights are most clearly affected. The prohibition of discrimination in the digital space is also of concern as these technological advances' societal impact is not yet fully understood. Accordingly, the article argues that emerging digital identity platforms will only contribute to the protection of human rights if the providers adequately mitigate any risks of potential discrimination and promote high standards of privacy and data protection.

While economists overwhelmingly favor free trade, even unilateral free trade, because of the gains realizable from specialization and the exploitation of comparative advantage, in fact international trading relations are structured by a complex body of multilateral and preferential trade agreements. The article outlines the case for multilateral trade agreements and the non-discrimination principle that they embody, in the form of both the Most Favored Nation principle and the National Treatment principle, where non-discrimination has been widely advocated as supporting both geopolitical goals (reducing economic factionalism) and economic goals (ensuring the full play of theories of comparative advantage undistorted by discriminatory trade treatment). Despite the virtues of multilateral trade agreements, preferential trade agreements (PTAs), authorized from the outset under GATT, have proliferated in recent years, even though they are inherently discriminatory between members and non-members, provoking vigorous debates as to whether (a) PTAs are trade-creating or trade-diverting; (b) whether they increase transaction costs in international trade; and (c) whether they undermine the future course of multilateral trade liberalization. A further and similarly contentious derogation from the principle of non-discrimination under the multilateral system is Special and Differential Treatment for developing countries, where since the mid-1950s developing countries have been given much greater latitude than developed countries to engage in trade protectionism on the import side in order to promote infant industries, and since the mid-1960s on the export side have benefited from non-reciprocal trade concessions by developed countries on products of actual or potential export interest to developing countries. Beyond debates over the strengths and weaknesses of multilateral trade agreements and the two major derogations therefrom, further debates surround the appropriate scope of trade agreements, and in particular the expansion of their scope in recent decades to address divergences or incompatibilities across a wide range of domestic regulatory and related policies that arguably create frictions in cross-border trade and investment and hence constitute an impediment to it. The article goes on to consider contemporary fair trade versus free trade debates, including concerns over trade deficits, currency manipulation, export subsidies, misappropriation of intellectual property rights, and lax labor or environmental standards. The article concludes with a consideration of the case for a larger scope for plurilateral trade agreements internationally, and for a larger scope for active labor market policies domestically to mitigate transition costs from trade.

•Airbnb's new non-discrimination policy disadvantages hosts•Airbnb hosts' overlooked narratives on moving beyond photos•Key concepts identified by Airbnb hosts are visualized by Gephi•Call for attention to non-discrimination policy and digital discrimination

The paper characterizes the selected theories of the labor market, starting from the classical theories, through the Keyenesian, neoclassical and neo-Keynesian theories and ending with the concepts that point at the possibility of unemployment in the conditions of equilibrium on the labor market, in the context of the essential principle of the EU economic policy related to equal chances. The principle, in accordance with which no person or social group may be discriminated against, may have positive impact on the efficiency of the market mechanism in the aspect related to employment.

The article essays to answer the question of what the nature of prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation is in the universal system of human rights protection. In order to determine this, a comparative analysis of selected documents of universal human rights protection system was carried out, which – in the case law and doctrine – have been recognized as the key issue in the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, along with reaching out to the provisions of some national constitutions.

Analysing two reproductive rights claims brought before the High Court of Namibia and the European Court of Human Rights, this article argues that human dignity is not reducible to a recognized warrant (a right) to demand a particular set of goods, services, or treatments. Rather, dignity in the contexts in which women experience sterilization abuse would be better characterized as an existential protest against degradation, a protest that takes concrete form in legal demands for equal citizenship. Equality is conceived here as necessitating the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women in public and private life. The dignity as non-discrimination framework developed in the article thus integrates two of the leading interpretations of dignity in contemporary political philosophy – the existentialist approach that attends to the inward cry against degradation and the view of dignity as the equal, public status of democratic citizenship.

The Cameron government has recently negotiated a deal with the EU which permits the UK (temporarily) to restrict access to in-work benefits for recent EU migrants in the first four years of residence. Withdrawing access to in-work benefits will lead to significant inequalities in pay between British workers and their EU equivalents working at the same job, in the same general situation. The proposal has been widely decried as discriminatory. Is it? I do not, in this article, ask the legal question: Does it violate anti-discrimination norms implicit in the treaties (or wider human rights law)? Rather, I will ask the moral question underlying the legal one: Would, say, Polish citizens denied in-work benefits that British citizens receive be victims of wrongful discrimination? This question deserves consideration not simply because it will help us to evaluate some of the central concerns at stake in the Brexit debates but also because it will allow us to explore the role of norms against discrimination according to nationality within the EU, to address the nature of the European commitment to freedom of movement, and, in the reverse direction, to better understand our own moral commitment to anti-discrimination norms.

With Directive 1999/70 on Fixed-Term Work – and more generally through European Directives on flexible work – the European legislator tried to strike a balance between the demands for flexibility coming from employers and the needs to safeguard the rights of flexible workers. This balance has been carried out through various provisions of the Directive, as the Court of Justice of the EU explained over the years: by placing side-by-side ‘hard’ rules, considered by the European judges as directly effective (like the principle of equal treatment between fixed-term workers and comparable permanent workers), and ‘softer’ provisions (like the ones directed to prevent abuse of successive fixed-term contracts) which leave a significant margin of appreciation to the Member States about how to implement them, provided that they do not compromise the objective and the practical effect of the Directive. Fifteen years after the adoption of Directive 1999/70, the present study aims to start from its purposes, in order to identify the basic components of a possible ‘European model’ for Fixed-Term Work by following the CJEU's case law, which has established, ‘in the name’ of the principle of effectiveness, some important restrictions to Member States' discretion in implementing the Directive: a model that may prove useful for evaluating the European consistency of the relevant national laws.

The paper argues that the multilingualism of the EU legal order should be viewed from the point of view of the right of individuals to acquaint themselves with the their rights and duties under EU law in the official language of their Member State. In case of discrepancies of equally authentic versions, individuals should have the possibility to rely on an ‘authentic version’ defence, especially in tax, customs and criminal law relationships.

This is an accepted manuscript of the article published with the title 'Against Integration, for human rights.' The attached manuscript contains the original working title 'On Weakening Minority Protection: 'Integration' in International Human Rights Fora.'

This article discusses recent significant moves in disability policy in two Scandinavian countries, Norway and Sweden. The aim is to outline the Scandinavian twist on ongoing international developments. The analyses are limited to two major reforms: (i) the shift towards community living and full deinstitutionalisation in the 1990s, and (ii) the introduction of social regulation as part of the disability policy system in the first decade after 2000, particularly legislation on non-discrimination and accessibility. Changes during the reform years and beyond are discussed, and current challenges regarding the two significant moves are outlined.

In the United Kingdom, unmarried cohabiting relationships are still not provided formal legal recognition. Cohabiting partners are provided certain legal rights through a patchwork of legislation. ...

Indonesia is bound by TRIMs agreements in terms of investment policies regarding goods trade and GATS regarding services trade. TRIMs and GATS as annexes of WTO agreements adhere to the non-discrimination principle namely MFN and NT. The difference in the percentage of the amount of capital that allowed to be owned in several business fields for a foreign investor to the investor from ASEAN and Non-ASEAN member countries is found in President Regulation No. 44/2016. Different treatment of non-ASEAN countries in the said Presidential Regulation whether it is a breach of the non-discrimination principle. It is deemed important to be investigated to know whether the investment regulations in Indonesia for the investors from ASEAN and Non-ASEAN countries have implemented the non-discrimination principle. Statutory and analytical of conceptual approach type in normative legal research were used in this writing. Indonesia as a developing country shall be included in the exemption by the WTO to make regulations which in this case give special treatment to ASEAN member countries as stipulated in Article 4 of the TRIMs and flexibility in implementing the non-discrimination principle referred to in Article 4 and 5 of GATS.

Non-discrimination is a fundamental principle of human rights law and is embraced in Article 2 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This chapter focusses on two key issues: the grounds of discrimination applicable to children and young people under Article 2 and the nature of the obligation placed on States Parties. It begins by exploring the grounds identified by the drafters and those that generated most debate in the course of their deliberations. Using textual analysis and the work of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child and other bodies, it then probes the content of the obligations on States Parties and the extent to which their responsibility for ensuring non-discrimination has evolved into a positive obligation to promote equality. It concludes by identifying the prevalence and manifestations of discrimination perpetrated against children and young people around the world today.

This section is about Article 2 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights dealing with Non-Discrimination.

This paper examines the extent of the use and content of unwritten general principles of EU law in EU antitrust law. In particular, three unwritten general principles will be explored in more detail: effectiveness, proportionality and non-discrimination. The contribution will start by examining the explicit use of the general principle of effectiveness in antitrust law proceedings and rules related to its enforcement. The second part will explore the role of proportionality, both within the EU antitrust procedural law and the substantive assessment of an antitrust case. Finally, it will focus on the role of non-discrimination within the substantive assessment of EU antitrust cases. The paper shows that these principles are affirmed, expressly or implicitly, not only in procedural but equally in substantive antitrust law. Yet, their role and actual use varies significantly between antitrust procedure and the substantive assessment of a case. While these principles have a more explicit role in antitrust procedure, their role is less pronounced in the substantive assessment of antitrust cases. The assessment of these principles in the substantive case might also be different as the principles can be applied in a way that is open to economic reasoning and the EU Courts afford a high margin of discretion to the Commission in making complex economic assessments.

Social networks serve as effective platforms in which users’ ideas can be spread in an easy and efficient manner. However, those ideas can be hateful and harmful, some of which may even amount to hate speech. YouTube, Facebook and Twitter have internal regulatory policies in relation to hate speech and have signed a Code of Conduct on the regulation of illegal hate speech with the European Commission. This paper looks at the issue of tackling hate speech on social networks and argues that, notwithstanding the weaknesses of internal policies and their implementation, their existence, as facilitated by the Code of Conduct, serves as a light at the end of the Internet hate tunnel where issues of multiple jurisdictions as well as technological realities, such as mirror sites and more, have resulted in the task of online regulation being more than a daunting one.

The purpose of this paper is to illustrate in a few words how the national treatment principle has been interpreted and applied by the Appellate Body in certain landmark cases. This paper is divided in two chapters. The first chapter aims to delineate the significance of the non – discrimination principle. The second chapter is focused entirely on Article III of the GATT, the national treatment provision. Particularly, this chapter aims to familiarize the reader with the context of Article III: 1, 2, 4 through the interpretation these provisions have received from certain landmark reports of the Appellate Body (hereinafter: ‘AB’) of the WTO.

The most favoured nation (MFN) clause has a very long history. It has been included quite conspicuously in almost all bilateral investment treaties. Controversies emerged over the last few years regarding the international investment law regime, in particular the right of States to regulate for public interest, investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) and the scope of MFN treatment. The result of these debates is the appearance of new formulations of provisions in Investment Chapters of free trade agreements (FTAs). The CETA’s MFN investment clause gives an example of this aim to reform international investment law. The MFN treatment formulation contained in Article 8.7 CETA is not innovative in itself. It resembles typical North American MFN formulations. The innovation rather derives from the exceptions that have been introduced by the EU and Canada. The CETA thus reflects an interesting evolution of the MFN treatment, showing an improvement of this important clause in international investment law rather than its deterioration.

This chapter argues that democratic-experimentalist forms of judicial review should not be confined to socioeconomic rights but can also be invoked with negative liberties and dignitarian personal rights. An apparent dilemma is this: on the one hand, modern, pluralist democracies are increasingly, and often irreconcilably, divided when it comes to fundamental choices which affect and express the self-understanding of a polity as a whole in matters such as, say, the right to religious freedom, free speech, the rights of transsexuals, and so forth. These matters have even become the subject of entrenched culture wars. And yet, on the other hand, there is an ever-accelerating reliance on courts and the judiciary for addressing those fundamental choices. The judiciary’s influence extends beyond settling disputes and seeps into all aspects of society, codifying the values of our times. But doesn’t this overstretch the resources of consensus-based legality? The concern is that judges are drawn into the crucible of pluralistic politics. By considering the jurisprudence of both the ECtHR and the CJEU, this chapter argues that even here courts can play a benign proceduralizing role, giving voice to the hitherto marginalized. The chapter addresses selected topical issues: the important example of freedom of conscience, which in Europe emerged after many centuries of religious persecution; the clash between free speech and personality rights; and personality rights in the context of (trans-) gender rights and same-sex marriage.

This chapter examines Article 5 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which sets out the concepts of equality and non-discrimination. It explores the myriad advances embodied in Article 5 and analyses the legal import of each paragraph. It also considers the potential challenges to implementing Article 5, including clashes between the CRPD Committee’s interpretation and that of states parties, and conflicts between equality rights, such as the right to abortion and arguments that non-discrimination under the CRPD requires bans on aborting disabled foetuses. What emerges is a picture of equality and non-discrimination born of ‘a three-dimensional view of the reality of life as a person with a disability’.

This chapter discusses Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which addresses discrimination. Article 14 is a ‘parasitic’ provision, i.e. it only applies to ‘rights and freedoms set forth’ in the Convention and its Protocols. In other words it only prohibits discrimination within the ambit of these rights and freedoms—contrast Protocol 12 to the Convention, which is also discussed in this chapter, which prohibits discrimination generally. The importance of Article 14 is evident in the growing number of cases over the past decade, including important judgments and decisions concerning discrimination based on sexual orientation and allegations of racial discrimination.

This chapter outlines the quest for women’s equality, empowerment, and human rights through the United Nations from its founding to the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals in 2015. It considers the on-going dilemma in this work of whether, and when, to pursue women’s equality through separate entities and through gender mainstreaming. Describing the evolution of the major UN women-specific institutions, conferences, and standard-setting documents, and the critical role of civil society—especially women’s non-governmental organizations—the chapter argues that these have driven this agenda. Finally, it analyses the progress of gender integration and women’s advancement on UN agendas in the areas of development; health and sexual rights; human rights; and peace and security.

KEY POINTS On May 4, 2017, Bill S201, an act to prohibit and prevent genetic discrimination, received royal assent and became federal law. The Genetic Non-Discrimination Act (GNA) is critical for promoting the health of Canadians and ensuring Canada remains on the cutting edge of genomics research.

Treatment: Preliminary concepts The basic treatment symbols Derivation of arguments Normative positions Theorems General schema of assertions Compound positions. Objective Status: Revised factual positions Revised normative positions Revised compound positions. Subjective Merit: Final normative positions Final factual positions Final compound positions. General Forms of Argument: The traditional model The impact model The accommodation model The non-recognition model. Appendices: symbols and formulas Works cited Index of cases, names and topics.

O presente artigo tem como objetivo analisar o princípio da igualdade e não discriminação como uma norma imperativa, de caráter jus cogens. As normas jus cogens são imperativas e estão acima da vontade dos Estados, assim, tais normas se fundamentam em princípios éticos, em valores fundamentais da comunidade internacional como um todo e possuem como objetivo proteger valores humanos essenciais, a fim de garantir a integridade dos regimes jurídicos gerais. Para tanto, este princípio será estudado no âmbito do direito internacional dos direitos humanos tendo como fundamentação a análise de casos contenciosos da Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos que tratam do tema, bem como de sua opinião consultiva, n. 18/03. Quanto aos procedimentos técnicos na construção do artigo, sobre a abordagem do problema, a pesquisa é qualitativa e descritiva, e quanto aos objetivos, é explicativa e exploratória. Para a caracterização da pesquisa ou coleta de dados, é utilizada a pesquisa bibliográfica, dando ênfase à análise jurisprudencial internacional, aplicando-se, por fim, o método de abordagem dedutivo.

Setiap Negara wajib menjamin ketersediaan pekerjaan bagi warga negaranya sehingga prioritas pekerja lokal utamanya dilakukan. Meskipun demikian, dengan disahkannya Masyarakat Ekonomi ASEAN (AEC) di awal tahun 2016 in ASEAN, setiap Negara anggota terikat untuk membuka kesempatan bagi tenaga kerja asing untuk bekerja di seluruh Negara anggota ASEAN. Kesepakatan ini dapat saja membawa pada suatu benturan antara kebiajakan nasional yang harus mengutamakan tenaga kerja lokal dengan kewajiban arus bebeas tenaga kerja di ASEAN, khususnya pekerjaan yang diatur dalam Mutual Recognition Arrangements (MRAs). Tulisan ini bertujuan untuk mengkaji peraturan mengenai tenaga kerja asing dan implementasi prinsip non-diskriminasi berdasarkan kebangsaan di AEC. Penelitian ini tentunya berkaitan dengan peran Negara dalam menjamin stabilitas tenaga kerja asing dan kesuksesan dari AEC. Pada akhirnya, tulisan ini mendorong setiap Negara anggota ASEAN untuk melakukan harmonisasi guna membuat suatu standar baru bagi tenaga kerja asing berdasarkan MRAs. Kata kunci: Masyarakat Ekonomi ASEAN; Tenaga Kerja Asing; Kebangsaan; Prinsip Non-Diskriminasi, Every country has an obligation to ensure job vacancies for its people, so the priority of local workers is preferred to do. However, with the enactment of ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) in early 2016 in ASEAN, every country bound to open more opportunities for foreign workers to work in all ASEAN states. This agreement may bring into a contravention between national policies to accentuate local worker with obligation of free flow of workers in ASEAN, especially occupation regulated on Mutual Recognition Arrangements (MRAs). This article examines the regulation for foreign worker and the implementation of non-discrimination principle based on nationality in AEC. This is particularly pertinent considering a state’s role to ensure stability of foreign worker and fruitfulness of AEC. Ultimately, this Article argues all ASEAN states should embrace harmonization as the new standard for foreign worker under MRAs. Keywords: ASEAN Economic Community; Foreign Worker; Nationality; Principle of Non-Discrimination