|
|
|
When land is taken away: States obligations under international human rights law concerning large-scale projects
impacting local communities.
Yu Kanosue.
Vol. 15, No. 4 (2015)
En: Human Rights Law Review
|
|
|
|
Resumen:
On
land disputes, the United Nations human rights treaty bodies have
consistently articulated that affected communities be effectively
consulted (the
effective consultation requirement). Recently, they have further
required the 'free, prior and informed consent' of affected communities.
Nevertheless, tension remains as to what this 'free and informed
consent requirement' means. Rather than examining 'consent',
this article focuses on the 'free' and 'informed' components of the
principle.
|
|
|
|
|
Austerity and the limits of policy-induced suffering: What role for the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment?
Lutz Oette.
Vol. 15, No. 4 (2015)
En: Human Rights Law Review
|
|
|
|
Resumen:
Austerity
measures have raised multiple human rights concerns. However, limited
attention has been paid to their conformity with civil and political
rights, particularly the absolute prohibition of torture and other
ill-treatment. In the United Kingdom, a punitive approach has
characterized many welfare reforms, particularly a system of
conditionality for claimants followed by sanctions in case of
non-compliance.
This has resulted in adverse consequences, including anxiety, financial
hardship, health problems and suicides.
|
|
|
|
The European Court of Human Rights' margin of appreciation and the processes of national parliaments.
Matthew Saul.
Vol. 15, No. 4 (2015)
En: Human Rights Law Review
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Resumen:
This
article addresses how the processes of national parliaments feature in
the ECtHR's practice of affording states a margin of appreciation. The
analysis
is centred on a collection of recent case law, including prominent
cases such as Animal Defenders International v. United Kingdom and
S.A.S. v. France, which have been associated with a deepening of the
court's concept of subsidiarity.
|
|
|
|
Offensive expression: The limits of neutral balancing tests and the need to take sides.
Yossi Nehushtan.
Vol. 16, No. 1 (2016)
En: Human Rights Law Review
|
|
|
|
Resumen:
This
article discusses the issue of offensive expressions, that is,
expressions which cause harm or offence to the sensitivities and values
of others.
When the authorities are asked to approve an offensive expression or to
protect the offensive speaker, they usually apply various types of
balancing tests. At this point, the inevitable question would be which
considerations should be balanced to decide whether
to permit the expression or to protect the speaker, and accordingly
which considerations should be excluded from the balance of reasons.
|
|
|
|
The case for political candidacy as a fundamental human right.
Alecia Johns.
Vol. 16, No. 1 (2016)
En: Human Rights Law Review
|
|
|
|
Resumen:
While
the right to vote enjoys widespread recognition and enforcement, the
same may not be said of the closely related right to stand for election,
otherwise referred to as the right to candidacy. Even though the right
to candidacy is recognized in numerous regional and international human
rights treaties, it is not included in most domestic bills of rights.
Furthermore, the view remains in some academic
quarters that political candidacy should not be properly considered a
fundamental right.
|
|
|
|
Refining the protect, respect and remedy framework for business and human rights and its guiding principles.
Daria Davitti.
Vol. 16, No. 1 (2016)
En: Human Rights Law Review
|
|
|
|
Resumen:
At
a time of intense debate on the feasibility of an international treaty
on business and human rights, the current relevance of the United
Nations
Framework and Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights has been
called into question. In order to test their significance and
applicability, this article analyses their content and highlights their
perceived weaknesses. In so doing, the article addresses
two questions, which still remain crucial to any discussion on business
and human rights.
|
|
|
|
Treaty clauses and fragmentation of international law: Applying the more favourable protection clause in human
rights treaties.
Adamantia Rachovitsa.
Vol. 16, No. 1 (2016)
En: Human Rights Law Review
|
|
|
|
Resumen:
This
article argues that despite the growing interest in the so-called
fragmentation of international law, little, if any, attention has been
paid to
the role of the more favourable protection clause in addressing certain
aspects of the interaction between treaties on human rights. It shows
that both the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the European
Court of Human Rights do not employ the clause,
found in their respective constitutive instruments, to fulfil its
initial aim and design. The article compares the practices of the two
courts and explores the underlying reasons for not using, or
misapplying, the clause.
|
|
|
|
Strasbourg jurisprudence, law reform and comparative law: A tale of the right to custodial legal assistance in
five countries.
Dimitrios Giannoulopoulos.
Vol. 16, No. 1 (2016)
En: Human Rights Law Review
|
|
|
|
Resumen:
This
article traces the path from the decision of the European Court of
Human Rights (ECtHR) in Salduz v. Turkey to custodial legal assistance
reforms
in France, Scotland, Belgium and the Netherlands, and to the recent
decision of the Irish Supreme Court in DPP v. Gormley. The article
attempts to flush out the central role of the ECtHR in effecting
national criminal justice reform, while paying attention
to considerable variations in national responses. It discusses the
thesis that when the ECtHR articulates its rules clearly, as it has
arguably done in the Salduz line of cases, it can lead contracting
parties to accept its position, even where this might
require a significant readjustment of national law and practice.
|
|
|
|
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario