This thesis provides a historical study of the Canadian government's changing foreign policy toward the development of an international bill of rights at the United Nations from the 1940s to the 1970s. Canada was initially reluctant to support international human rights instruments because the concept of 'universal human rights' articulated at the UN challenged customary understandings of civil liberties in Canada, and federal policy makers felt an international bill of rights would have a negative impact on domestic policy. By the 1970s, however, the Canadian government was pushing for the ratification of the International Covenants on Human Rights and working to present Canada as an advocate for the UN's human rights regime. This study considers this change in policy by examining the domestic and global factors that influenced the government's approach to international human rights. Within Canada, rights activism led to increased public awareness of human rights issues, and transformed Canadian understandings of rights and of the role of government in promoting these rights. This led to pressure on the Canadian government to support human rights initiatives at the United Nations. In this same period, the geopolitics of the Cold War and the rise of anti-colonialism shaped debates at the UN over human rights. As global support for the UN's human rights instruments grew, Canada became the subject of criticism from other states. Concerned about the negative implications, at home and within the international community, of appearing to stand in opposition to the principles of human rights, Ottawa changed its policy. Despite the government’s new rhetoric of support for the international bill of rights, however, federal policy makers continued to question the benefit of these instruments for Canada. This lack of commitment accounts, at least in part, for Canada’s continued failure to fully implement its international human rights obligations. / Dissertation / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

The aim of this research is to explore education policies through Tibbitts’ human rights education (HRE) models and to explore the practices in teaching HRE through education policies (i.e., civic education curriculum - CEC) and Tibbitts’ three models of HRE. For the aim to be reached CEC was analyzed and three primary school teachers were interviewed. These led to conclusions that, in regard to the models Vales and Awareness Model seems to take the most space in teaching with some implications of Transformation Model. The CEC is used to a varying degree and its usage seems to depend on the subject. As such, compatibility of teachers’ practices with CEC varies. In developing their understanding, knowledge, and pedagogical tools teachers strongly rely on their personal values and self-study. Additionally, the school environment calls for some improvements for it to become truly rights-respecting.

Thesis advisor: David M. Rasmussen / Following the idea that human rights are anchored in many cultures and find their support in many traditions, the contemporary human rights corpus is a fruit of a long history whose roots can be traced back to different societies in addressing the universal questions of injustice. If one adopts such a historical evolution of human rights, their universality might be affirmed on the assumption that they are coexistent to every human society. This view is, however, challenged by scholars who claim that the current human rights regime does not owe anything to other cultures, since they are essentially Western. The consequence of such an understanding touches the heart of the human rights’ perennial question concerning their universality, and it is the source of the Third World’s critiques. Indeed, if conceptually, culturally and historically, human rights are Western, how do they become universal? This question was first raised by the American Anthropological Association in its now well-known 1947 statement, even before the existing human rights instruments were framed. Today, it has been taken up by some Third World critics. For them, human right movement is an imperialistic swirl of Western liberalism upon other societies under the banner of United States of America that has replaced the former European imperialistic powers such as France and United Kingdom. According to these critics, there is no other area where human rights are imperialistically used by the West than in the so-called humanitarian intervention. Usually evoked as an urgent need to protect human rights, humanitarian intervention is seen as another name for the neo-colonialism in the Third World, as it is carried out by Western Powers against states in the Third World. Two challenges arise from these views. On the one hand, because of their Western origin, human rights are decried as Western and, therefore, they should not be imposed on other cultures. On the other hand, their imperialistic use by the West is an acute difficulty stemming from the global political context after the fall of Communism as a competing ideology with liberalism in 1990s. These challenges affect the theoretical justification as well as the implementation of human rights. For, according to the critics, human rights are purposely framed in liberal terms because they have to pursue and advance the Western project of conquering the whole world. Therefore, they claim, the actual spread of Western liberalism under human rights label is neither incidental nor accidental; it is a continuation of the Western imperialism which started long ago with economic exploitation, slavery and colonization of the rest of the world. Human rights is only a neutral term to translate the same reality. To those who reply that the contemporary human rights regime, starting with Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is a fruit of an international group with a diverse background, the critics respond that all of them were trained in the Western culture. And if one presents the role of the local human rights activists in the non-Western world, the critics consider them as Western mercenaries in local colors. That is why, while it springs from the cultural critique, the imperialistic challenge to human rights is a serious one because it attacks the human rights regime in its purpose and in its practice. It does not reject human rights only because they are extrinsic to the non-Western culture –cultural relativism—; rather, human rights are rejected because they are channels of oppression and exploitation as was and has always been the Western imperialism. The question now is: what do human rights become in this case? Is it possible to rescue them from both the cultural critics and imperialistic crusaders? Such a project would aim at maintaining and affirming their historicity as Western, yet showing that they are open to the possibility of being practiced in other cultures and other contexts. That it is the goal of this dissertation whose thesis is that, by domesticating human rights we retrieve the purpose of human rights of protecting and enhancing human dignity and, at the same time, it becomes possible to satisfactorily address the cultural and imperialistic challenges. Indeed, instead of thinking that people adopt and use human rights discourse because they like their individualistic side, the domestication of human rights pays attention to the process through which human rights as moral norms are incorporated in local cultures. Relying on the anthropological works that focus on the way human rights norms are integrated in different cultural contexts, this project endeavors to build a normative account of human rights based on these local practices. Philosophically speaking, domestication of human rights takes up Beitz’s insight of human rights as an emerging practice, and brings it to the beneficiaries of human rights purpose, instead of remaining at the legal level where only states are accepted as credible interlocutors, while they are the most suspected violators of human rights. / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2016. / Submitted to: Boston College. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: Philosophy.

Please read the abstract in the 00front of this document / Thesis (LLD)--University of Pretoria, 2006. / Centre for Human Rights / LLD / Unrestricted

The purpose of this study is to analyse the effectiveness of the Uganda Human Rights Commission UHRC), which possesses judicial powers vis-à-vis the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice of Ghana (CHRAJ) and the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) which do not possess such powers. The difference notwithstanding, all the three have been rated as the best national institutions in Africa. Due to time and space constraints, one will focus specifically with the mandates of the three commissions and in particular, on the different or distinct mandates assigned to them, namely, that of CHRAJ to deal with corruption, that of SAHRC to deal with economic, cultural and social rights and UHRC of dealing with torture matters and generally of constituting a tribunal. This study was motivated by the fact that Lesotho will be setting up a national institution in 2008 and one would like to draw lessons from these institutions and pick up elements that could best suit Lesotho. / Thesis (LLM (Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa)) -- University of Pretoria, 2007. / Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Law University of Pretoria, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Masters of Law (LLM in Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa). Prepared under the supervision of Prof Kofi Quashigah of the Faculty of Law, University of Ghana, Legon / http://www.chr.up.ac.za/ / Centre for Human Rights / LLM

"Implementation of human rights instruments, and protection and promotion of human rights at the national level is a contemporary phenomenon that is still developing. The African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights and the Paris Principles provide for the creation of national institutions to carry out this task. This has led to national human rights institutions (NHRIs) becoming more prominent actors in the national, regional and international arena. However, NHRIs still face the problems of legitimacy, operational constraints, and ignorant population. These factors constrain the effective functioning of these institutions. It should be noted that the key constraint on the effective functioning of NHRIs is legitimacy. Such institutions usually find themselves not legitimate in the eyes of the people they are created to serve. The above brings to mind the question - what makes a NHRI effective? Generally, there is no consensus as to the effectiveness of NHRIs This study has therefore been triggered by widespread perceptions and reports within civil society that such institutions are left at the mercy of governments in power. Others have seen such institutions as a "double-edged sword" - in the best of circumstances, they strengthen democratic institutions but they can also be mere straw men, part of government's administrative machinery to scuttle international scrutiny. Another issue that has actuated this study is the misconception that people have about some NHRIs. This misconception originates not so much from the actual operation of human rights commissions but from the history of past ombudsman institutions that have purported to protect human rights." -- Chapter 1. / Prepared under the supervision of Professor Michelo Hansungule at the Faculty of Law, University of Pretoria, South Africa / Thesis (LLM (Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa)) -- University of Pretoria, 2002. / http://www.chr.up.ac.za/academic_pro/llm1/dissertations.html / Centre for Human Rights / LLM

Thesis (doctoral)--University of Utrecht, 2001. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 409-427) and index.

Em dezembro de 2011, a Assembleia Geral aprovou a Resolução 66/137 adotando a Declaração das Nações das Nações Unidas sobre a Educação e Formação em Direitos Humanos em sequencia ao processo educativo em direitos humanos - iniciado em 1948 com a Declaração dos Direitos Humanos - que vem em evolução constante, principalmente a partir da década de noventa. A Declaração é a reafirmação da comunidade internacional da necessidade de uma mudança de paradigma e valores que orientem a vida cotidiana dos indivíduos em todo o mundo e que é responsável pelo estado atual dos direitos humanos. Com a adoção deste novo documento internacional, começa o processo de difusão e disseminação do seu conteúdo visando a efetivação do direito humano à educação em direitos humanos - agora indubitavelmente positivado que, sem embargo, deverá superar diversos obstáculos estruturais para a aceitação dos princípios contidos na Declaração Universal dos Direitos Humanos, vale dizer, os valores e tradições nas sociedades baseadas no patriarcalismo e no capitalismo neoliberal. / In December, 2011, the UN General Assembly approved the Resolution 66/137 adopting the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training following the human rights education movement started in 1948 by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in an on-going evolution mainly as of the 90`s. The Declaration is the ratification by the international community of the need of changing paradigm and values which orient the life of individuals in daily basis worldwide and that is responsible for the current state of the human rights. With the adoption of this new international document the process of diffusion and dissemination of its content started aiming at the effectiveness of the right to human rights education. Yet, the Declaration must overcome many structural obstacles for the acceptance of its principles, in especial, the values and traditions of the societies based on the patriarchy and the neoliberal capitalism.

Em dezembro de 2011, a Assembleia Geral aprovou a Resolução 66/137 adotando a Declaração das Nações das Nações Unidas sobre a Educação e Formação em Direitos Humanos em sequencia ao processo educativo em direitos humanos - iniciado em 1948 com a Declaração dos Direitos Humanos - que vem em evolução constante, principalmente a partir da década de noventa. A Declaração é a reafirmação da comunidade internacional da necessidade de uma mudança de paradigma e valores que orientem a vida cotidiana dos indivíduos em todo o mundo e que é responsável pelo estado atual dos direitos humanos. Com a adoção deste novo documento internacional, começa o processo de difusão e disseminação do seu conteúdo visando a efetivação do direito humano à educação em direitos humanos - agora indubitavelmente positivado que, sem embargo, deverá superar diversos obstáculos estruturais para a aceitação dos princípios contidos na Declaração Universal dos Direitos Humanos, vale dizer, os valores e tradições nas sociedades baseadas no patriarcalismo e no capitalismo neoliberal. / In December, 2011, the UN General Assembly approved the Resolution 66/137 adopting the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training following the human rights education movement started in 1948 by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in an on-going evolution mainly as of the 90`s. The Declaration is the ratification by the international community of the need of changing paradigm and values which orient the life of individuals in daily basis worldwide and that is responsible for the current state of the human rights. With the adoption of this new international document the process of diffusion and dissemination of its content started aiming at the effectiveness of the right to human rights education. Yet, the Declaration must overcome many structural obstacles for the acceptance of its principles, in especial, the values and traditions of the societies based on the patriarchy and the neoliberal capitalism.

教育部積極推動九年一貫課程中「人權教育」的工作，也在民國90年成立「人權教育委員會」，讓人權教育概念落實於校園，為人權文化做好扎根的工作。本研究針對桃園地區國民中學教師對校園學生人權的實踐現況進行研究，以健康權、自由權、隱私權、平等權、表意權、受教權等六個指標進行探討，得到以下結論： 一、健康權：九成以上的受訪教師難以做到準時上下課以避免佔用學生的休息時間，超過五成的教師會利用早自習或午休的時間來進行補救教學或考試。對於身心理發育尚未成熟的國中學生來說，教師在用心良苦之餘，學生適當的休息時間是不應被犧牲的。 二、自由權：學生管教問題上，九成以上的受訪教師自評能在給予學生言語責罰的同時，並不會傷害學生的個人尊嚴。但僅有百分之四的教師能完全避免以「體罰」的方式來處罰學生。 三、隱私權：教師在未獲得學生本人之同意下，公佈學生的成績或排名在國中校園仍是一個普遍的現象，而這種刺激學生學習的方式卻也侵犯了學生的隱私權。 四、平等權：九成以上的受訪教師自評能秉持「大公無私」的原則來進行班級經營與管理工作，不會因學生的背景或成績優劣給予差別待遇。 五、表意權：教師在「班級各項政策的制定」及「幹部選舉活動」仍站在主導的地位，無法完全讓學生以民主方式進行。對於「學生反應與評鑑教師的機會」的實踐程度很低，雖然國中生思考尚未成熟可能讓評鑑有過於情緒化的狀況，但學生對教師的直接評鑑仍是未來的趨勢。 六、受教權：對於班會或社團活動、藝能科目、非主科科目，遭借用來進行考試或加強特定學科之教學的情況十分普遍。而教師仍難以避免採用教室外罰站或留置訓導處等可能侵害學生受教權的方式處罰學生。 七、國民中學教師在校園學生人權的實踐上，在「學校所在地」、「擔任導師年資」、「教育程度」、「專業教育背景」等變項中均無顯著差異。在「隱私權」、「平等權」的實踐上均不受本研究背景變項的影響。 八、健康權：(1)學校規模為「25~36班」的表現較「37班以上」及「13~24班」的學校佳。(2)教師年齡為「20~29歲」的表現較「50~59歲」的教師為佳；「30~39歲」的教師實踐表現較「40~49歲」、「50~59歲」的教師為佳。 九、自由權：(1)私立學校教師的表現較公立學校教師為佳。 (2)學校規模為「13~24班」的表現較「25~36班」為佳。 (3)任教年資「21年以上」的教師表現較任教年資「5年以下」、「6~10年」、「11~15年」的為佳。此外，除了任教年資「6~10年」組之外，學生自由權的實踐表現隨著任教年資呈現反比的趨勢。 (4)教授科目為「語文(英文)」及「自然與生活科技」的教師實踐表現較「綜合活動」的教師較差。 (5)教師年齡為「20~29歲」及「30~39歲」的教師實踐表現較「50~59歲」的教師為佳。 十、表意權：(1)私立學校教師的實踐表現較公立學校教師為佳。 (2)女性教師的實踐表現較男性教師為佳。 十一、受教權：教授科目為「語文(國文)」、「語文(英文)」、「數學」、「自然與生活科技」、「社會」的教師實踐表現較「健康與體育」教師為差。 十二、教師過去經歷中，曾在「自由權」及「隱私權」受到侵害的教師，在自己未來的教學活動中會盡量避免去侵害學生所同樣應享的權利，也就是秉持「己所不欲；勿施於人」的原則。 關鍵字：人權、兒童人權、學生人權 / Ministry of Education actively promotes the task of “Human Rights Education” in the Grade 1-9 Curriculum. In the meantime ,in Minguo 90, the Ministry of Education set up the Human Rights Education Committee to carry out Human Rights Education concept at school and let the human rights culture take root. Our research aims at the practice condition of students’ human rights of the junior high school teachers in Taoyuan area. The research targets at six indexes, rights to health, rights to freedom, rights to privacy, rights to equality, rights to free expression and rights to education, and the paper comes out with the following conclusions: 1. Rights to Health： More than 90 percent of the interviewee teachers have problem to start class and finish class on time to avoid taking up students’ rest time. Furthermore, more than 50 percent of the teachers would use the morning study hall or noon rest time to carry out remedial teaching or tests. For junior high school students whose mental and physical development is still immature, while teachers have given much thought to their study, appropriate time for students to rest should not be sacrificed. 2. Rights to Freedom： With regard to student discipline problems, more than 90 percent of the interviewee teachers assert that as they give students language punishment, they would not harm students’ personal pride. However, only 4 percent of teachers can completely avert corporal punishment while correcting students. 3. Rights to Privacy： It is still a common phenomenon for teachers to give out students’ grade or ranks without their permission in junior high school. Nonetheless, the manner to stimulate students to learn has at the same time violates students’ privacy. 4. Rights to Quality： More than 90 percent of interviewee teachers claimed that they can handle the tasks of class management and administration under the “perfectly fair and impartial” principle, and they will not discriminate students by their backgrounds or results of study. 5. Rights to Free Expression： Teachers still have dominant power over “the formation of various class policies” and “election of cadre members.” As a result, students cannot carry out the activities via democratic ways. The degree of the practice of “students’ feedback and opportunity of teacher evaluation” is rather low. Although junior high school students’ thinking may not yet be mature and thus their evaluation might become too emotional, students’ direct evaluation of teachers is still the trend of future. 6. Rights to Education： It is generally common to use class meeting, social club activity time, class time of art and minor subjects to give students exams or intensified teaching of specific subjects. Nevertheless, it is still difficult for teachers to avoid taking measures of standing outside the classroom or keeping them in Office of Student Affairs which might violate students’ rights to education while correcting students. 7. As far as the junior high school teachers’ practice of students’ rights on campus is concerned, there is no obvious difference between the variables of “school location”, “seniority of the home room teacher”, “educational background” and “professional educational background.” Besides, the practice of Rights to Privacy and Rights to Equality would not be affected by the background variable of this research. 8. Rights to Health： (1)The performance of schools with a scale of 25 to 36 classes is better than the school with a scale of more than 37 classes and 13 to 24 classes. (2) The performance of teachers aged between 20 to 29 is better than the teachers aged between 50 to 59 ,while the performance of teachers aged between 40 to 49 and 50 to 59 is better than teacher aged between 30 to 39. 9. Rights to Freedom： (1) The performance of private school teachers is better than public schools. (2) The performance of the school with a scale of 13-24 classes is better than the school with a scale of 25 to 36 classes. (3) Teacher who has more than 21 years’ teaching seniority performs better than those who has less than five years’ seniority, or those who has between 6 to 10 or 11 to15 years’ seniority. In addition, except the group of 6 to 10 years’ teaching seniority teachers, the practice performance of students’ rights to freedom has an inverse proportion to the teaching seniority. (4) The performance of practice of teachers whose teaching subjects are Language (English) and Nature Science and Life Technology is inferior to teachers who teach Integrated Activity. (5) The performance of practice of teachers aged between 20 to 29 and 30 to 39 is better than teachers between 50 to 59. 10. Rights to Free Expression： (1) The practice performance of the private school teachers is better than public school teachers. (2) The practice performance of female teachers is better than male teachers. 11. Rights to Education： The performance of the teachers teaching “Langauge (Chinese)” ,”Language (English)”, “Math”, ”Natural Science and Life Technology” and “Society” is inferior to teachers teaching “Health Education.” 12. Teachers whose “Rights to freedom” and “Rights to privacy” have been violated will avoid trespassing students’ same rights in their future teaching activity, which is also the principle of “Don't do unto others what you don't want others do unto you.” Keywords：Human Rights , Children’s Human Rights, Students’ Human Rights