Search

Simple Summary: Existing cross-cultural research on animal welfare often overlooks the way that policy and law are not the exclusive domain of central government. This can result in an over-simplification or misrepresentation of the true situation. The political culture and institutional arrangements for governing the modern state are more complex than a "one-size-fits-all" approach. It is argued that cross-cultural research needs to give greater attention to differences within as well as between unitary states. Specifically, it needs to examine developments in constituent nations and territories. Here we illustrate this by drawing on new research in the United Kingdom, and examine how 'devolution'—or decentralized government for Wales and Scotland—is providing contrasting opportunities for NGOs, campaigners, and the public to lobby to improve animal welfare policy based on local practices, beliefs, and demands (collectively known as the "political culture"). Our findings show how this is important because it results in contrasting animal welfare policies and laws in the constituent nations of the UK. It is argued that extant cross-cultural research on animal welfare often overlooks or gives insufficient attention to new governance theory, civil society, politics, and the realities of devolved or (quasi-)federal, multi-level governance in the modern state. This paper synthesizes relevant social theory and draws on new empirical findings of civil society accounts of campaigning on animal welfare policies and law in the United Kingdom. It is presented as a corrective to arguably reductive, earlier unitary state-based analyses. Our core, evidence-based argument is that cognizance of civil society activism and the contrasting institutional governance structures and political cultures of constituent nations in unitary states—such as the UK—are providing opportunities for the territorialization of legally grounded animal welfare regimes, and culturally distinctive practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This pan-regional analysis of non-governmental organisations' (NGO) perspectives on the contemporary factors which constrain or repress civil society in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is based on United Nations' Universal Periodic Review (UPR) data. It shows that, paradoxically, whilst the majority of ASEAN states have ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) that upholds civil society's political role in promoting rights and democracy, this is inimical to the region's political elites who regard civil society's primary function as non-political delivery of social welfare and development. This disjuncture results in repression, performativity, and legitimation. The UPR data reveal an ever-shrinking civil space. Civil society, including human rights defenders (HRD s), faces a raft of rights pathologies, including threats, violence and murder—as well as increasing state restrictions on freedom of association and expression. This is compounded by impunity for offenders, corruption, and government inaction following earlier UPR recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This first pan-regional analysis of civil society organizations' perspectives on the contemporary situation of human rights defenders (HRDs) in the Commonwealth of Independent States uses United Nations' Universal Periodic Review (UPR) data and reveals a shrinking civil space as HRDs face a raft of rights pathologies, including threats, violence and murder. Their work is curtailed by increasing state restrictions on freedom of association and expression. The analysis reveals how women HRDs are particularly subject to discrimination and gender-based oppression. The malaise is compounded by impunity for offenders, corruption and government inaction following earlier UPR recommendations. The findings are theorized with reference to Weissbrodt's causal typology and Hollyer and Rosendorf's model of authoritarian government treaty accession. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using a systems approach, this paper explores the impact of devolution on additional learning needs (ALN) policy in compulsory phase education. Focus is placed on ALN/SEN Codes of Practice, the schools curriculum, teacher training, and the work of education inspectorates and tribunals. Analysis reveals that the move to quasi-federalism in the UK has led to a raft of territorially specific policies and resulted in contrasting legal rights for pupils and parents. The prevailing policy discourse is one of equality, inclusion and informed choice. Against this background, and with a number of reforms ongoing, there is evidence of progress in embedding measures to address ALN in the respective education systems. Notwithstanding this, analysis of the first decade of devolved policy and practice also reveals a number of shortcomings and challenges, including limitations in data-gathering and staff training--as well as questions about the level of cohesion between the three elements of education provision identified by systems analysis.