This case study explored the process of incorporating human rights into the operation of an international commercial organisation. Constructing a dialogue to bridge the gap between human rights discourse and commercial realities, this case study identified the unique roles required to develop dialogue and created a model as a diagnostic and educational tool. The roles specific to human rights consulting, of interpreter, Champoin and Enabler afforded effective penetration into the participating industry partner's operational levels. These roles emerged from the process of constructing a human rights discourse and tensions therein where the existing theory of organisational change and consulting was found to be inadequate for human rights intervention. Based on the data of industry partner's existing practices and human rights concerns and on the process of collecting and analysing this data, the model for education and implementation was constructed. It is a flexible tool for examining human rights practices from bottom up as well as top down of an organisation. This research showed that having a comprehensive picture of the complexities involved sas an effective method of exploration and making sense of human rights education and implementation in a multinational industrial setting. The construction of the roles and of the model relied on the central premise of willingness of a multinational corporation to examine its practices and take an autonomous position of corporate citizenship and responsibility. This was consistent with the participatory research design of the study. Theretically this research challenges the appropriateness of traditional organisational change concepts when dealing with human rights; provides a diagnostic and educational tool for human rights consulting; and points to further research in this area.

"Whereas victims of ordinary crimes such as theft, robbery, assault or murder find it easier to obtain redress, victims of the most serious violatons such as war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity receive less attention insofar as their redress is concerned. Apart from some exceptional cases where victims of serious human rights abuses had their right to redress vindicated, there has not been an effective and comprehensive way of redressing victims of gross human rights violations. In Africa for instance, victims' redress in post-Apartheid South Africa and post-genocide Rwanda have been problematic. Thus, it is meaningful investigating how effectively the victims' right to reparation can be implemented in case of gross and systematic human rights violations. Preliminary to the above interrogation are questions such as: what are gross and systematic human rights violations? What are international standards regarding redress for the victims of such abuses? The case studies of Sierra Leone and the DRC will be closely analysed as an empirical foundation for these questions. ... This study consists of five chapters. Chapter one draws the context in which the study emerges. It provides the foundation and the structure of the dissertation. Chapter two outlines the legal framework that is relevant for answering the questions raised by this study. It explores international human rights standards regarding reparation of vicitms of gross and systematic violations. Chapter three analyses the implementation of victims' reparation in the context of Sierra Leone. It confronts Sierra Leonean responses to war victims with international standards on victims' reparation. Chapter four analyses victims' situation in the post-conflict Democratic Republic of Congo and draws lessons from the Sierra Leonean experience. Chapter five sums up findings of the study." -- Introduction. / Prepared under the supervision of Professor Alejandro Lorite Escorihuela at the Department of Law, American University in Cairo, Egypt / Thesis (LLM (Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa)) -- University of Pretoria, 2006. / http://www.chr.up.ac.za/academic_pro/llm1/dissertations.html / Centre for Human Rights / LLM

No abstract available / Philosophy / D. Litt. et Phil. (Philosophy)

This paper assesses U.S. national security policies in surveillance, detention, interrogation and torture, and targeted killing to determine whether they comport with international human rights law and international humanitarian law. The U.S. is responsible for adhering to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Geneva Conventions. These human rights law documents can be understood through court decisions, congressional statutes, and widely accepted interpretations from organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, and the UN Human Rights Council. Further, this paper offers prescriptions on how international human rights law and international humanitarian law can be updated to better deal with the current war on terror. / text

This thesis assesses the UK Terrorism Act 2000’s stop and search and pre-charge detention powers against liberty and security rights. It proposes that criminalizing ‘terrorism’, and legitimacy of counter-terrorism laws, depends on moral and legal norms defining legitimate sovereign power. External norms of territorial sovereignty and non-intervention define and legitimize external defensive actions by the state to protect nation state security. Individual liberty and security rights, specifically pursuant to article 9, ICCPR and article 5 ECHR, have a special moral and legal status externally, but are not universally determinative of sovereign legitimacy. The thesis argues that these external norms accommodate contrasting paradigms of internal legitimacy, the ‘security state’ and the ‘liberal state’. Conceptually, sovereign legitimacy in the former is grounded on heteronymous collective or ideological values, grounding fundamental obligations legitimizing ‘balancing’ of individual liberty and security against security of those ultimate norms. The ‘balancing metaphor’ and exceptionalist theories are conceptually located within the security state paradigm. Conversely, political and individual autonomy (liberty and security of the person) circumscribe legitimacy of liberal state action, grounding fundamental obligations to prevent and punish harms, and to refrain from violating individual autonomy unless justified by those obligations. Liberal rule of law standards, including due process rights, are legitimized by the instrumental role of law as the primary source of justification in the liberal state. Evaluating the policy justifications, enactment, and scope of the TA provisions against those norms, the thesis concludes they contradict liberal norms, violate international norms and individual legal rights to liberty and security, and undermine the rule of law and due process rights. The pre-emptive counter-terrorism policy, balancing national security against individual liberty, and degradation of due process rights, belies a security state approach.

Comparison of the Control Mechanisms of the International Protection of Human Rights This Diploma Thesis deals with the Control Mechanisms in the field of International Protection of Human Rights. In this Diploma Thesis are introduced universal and regional control mechanisms and they are analysed with respect to their functioning. The aim of this Thesis is the comparison of the control mechanisms in the several aspects, especially in the terms of their efficiency, and their evaluation based on the undertaken comparison. Another purpose is to answer the question whether or not we have in the contemporary International Law functional control mechanisms of the protection of human rights and which of them can be seen as the most effective. The comparison in this Thesis emphasis on the possibility of the individual complaints. The comparison includes the formal aspects of monitoring bodies, their regulation in the relevant treaties and analysis of their functions and their efficiency. In Thesis are included and evaluated also available statistical data concerning e.g. the number of ratifications or the number of individual complaints which were lodged before the monitoring body. With respect to the topic, the Thesis is divided into the three chapters. The first chapter deals with the brief introduction...

Submitted by Filipe dos Santos (fsantos@pucsp.br) on 2017-02-22T11:44:42Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Antonia Marcia Araujo Guerra Urquizo Valdivia.pdf: 2951009 bytes, checksum: 666b21a26f54a2ed9e98f0e0847e22e3 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-02-22T11:44:42Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Antonia Marcia Araujo Guerra Urquizo Valdivia.pdf: 2951009 bytes, checksum: 666b21a26f54a2ed9e98f0e0847e22e3 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-02-17 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - CAPES / This research brings the analysis of the dispute in the construction of human rights in Brazil from the reasons that led the president Dilma Rousseff to hold the First World Forum of Human Rights (WFDH) in 2013, as an attempt and a political response, through the correlations of forces established in the field of human rights, which made it possible for the government to take a political breath, especially in relation to the conservative groups they intended for non-implementation of the PNDH-3. In addition, the government achieved a new renegotiation with the social, dissatisfied, due to the non-performance of the actions established in the PNDH-3. The analysis that underlies this thesis is based on the core of historical and dialectical materialism, starting from the relationship of social classes, demanded by the social direction of concrete political action, on a tense terrain that forms the human rights. To do so, it is based on three dimensions of human rights: civil and political rights, economic, social and cultural rights, and the rights of solidarity or fraternity (diffuse and collective). The option was for the methodology of qualitative social research, which combined bibliographical research, documentary research and field research (interviews) with the subjects that work in the scope of human rights and collaborators in the construction of the I FMDH. The results of the research reveal that Brazil advanced in the political-juridical modernization after the Federal Constitution of 1988, but they also point out that conservatism is maintained, based on the strong cultural heritage of Brazil colony, fueling the dispute of political projects in an offensive conjuncture Neoliberal / Esta pesquisa traz a análise da disputa na construção dos direitos humanos no Brasil a partir das razões que levaram a presidente Dilma Rousseff a realizar o I Fórum Mundial de Direitos Humanos (FMDH) em 2013, como uma aposta e resposta política, mediante as correlações de forças estabelecidas no campo dos direitos humanos, o que possibilitou um fôlego político do governo, sobretudo em relação aos grupos conservadores que tencionavam, para a não implementação do PNDH-3. Além disso, o governo conseguiu uma nova repactuação com os segmentos sociais, insatisfeitos, devido a não realização das ações estabelecidas no PNDH-3. A análise que embasa esta tese fundamenta-se no cerne do materialismo histórico e dialético, a partir da relação de disputa das classes sociais, demandada pela direção social da ação política concreta, em um terreno tenso que forma os direitos humanos. Para tanto, se ampara em três dimensões de direitos humanos – os direitos civis e políticos, os direitos econômicos, sociais e culturais e os direitos da solidariedade ou da fraternidade (difusos e coletivos). A opção foi pela metodologia de pesquisa social qualitativa, que combinou a pesquisa bibliográfica, pesquisa documental e pesquisa de campo (entrevistas) com os sujeitos que atuam no âmbito dos direitos humanos e colaboradores da construção do I FMDH. Os resultados da pesquisa revelam que o Brasil avançou na modernização político-jurídica após a Constituição Federal de 1988, mas apontam também que se mantém o conservadorismo, alicerçado na forte herança cultural do Brasil colônia, alimentando a disputa de projetos políticos em uma conjuntura de ofensiva neoliberal

published_or_final_version / Sociology / Master / Master of Social Sciences

International law today is a discipline rife with dissensions. This is largely because international law has meant different things to different generations of scholars and nation-states. In 1996 a United States circuit court in Atlanta affirmed a civil judgment against an Ethiopian defendant in an action initiated by Ethiopian citizens for violations of that country’s law and international law. But about a decade earlier in 1984 another appeal court denied to enforce claims against Libyan and Palestinian defendants under international law because according to the court, international law is dedicated exclusively to the relationship between independent states and not their citizens. Although such different interpretations may appear startling, over the previous centuries, courts have eschewed one view while embracing the other. It is thus imperative to examine what constitutes international law or under what authority a U.S. court could challenge another state’s treatment of its own citizens, in its own land, under its own laws. The Judiciary Act of 1789 which created the Alien Tort Statute, a relatively obscure piece of legislation is at the center of these actions. But what was the original intent of the Alien Tort Statute? Is it possible to reconstruct the meaning of that statute? To answer these questions, this dissertation critically interrogated the meaning of international law and the law of nations as it existed at the time of the founding of the United States. What was called the law of nations and subsequently international law revealed multiple meanings. In unpacking the history of the Alien Tort Statute, this dissonance was reflected in the conflicts which assailed the discipline. This dissertation therefore reproduces the dissensions as it analyzes and reconstructs a hitherto unexplored front in this debacle: lawsuits filed by some Africans in the United States under the Alien Tort Statute against their leaders and corporations for egregious human rights violations in Africa. In the end therefore, the issue becomes, can justice and reparations be achieved in United States courts for human rights violations committed in Africa?

At the end of XX century, after the collapse of totalitarian regimes, Central and Eastern European states started a new development process related to essential constitutional reforms. It became necessary to ensure human rights and freedoms, their fulfilment and protection. Human rights and freedoms confirmed in the constitutions of Central and Eastern European countries make one of the most fundamental institutions of constitutional law. This master thesis analysis human rights and freedoms confirmed in the constitutions of Central and Eastern European countries as well as discloses in detail personal, political and social, economic and cultural rights according to the content of rights.