No description available.

Climate change litigation is expanding at fast speed throughout various jurisdictions around the world. Citizens are taking states’ lack of climate mitigation measures to courts, demanding that more has to be done on the climate crisis. More often now, litigants use human rights based argumentation which relies on international human rights law: human rights treaties, conventions, and precedent from human rights courts. According to litigants, states are therefore seen as both creating and prolonging this threat against the lives of their citizens, violating some of their most basic human rights, such as the right to life. Coupling these human rights obligations with climate treaties such as the Paris Agreement has proven effective when attempting to establish a causal connection between state emissions and climate change’s threat to citizen’s lives. This is sometimes characterized as a global ‘rights turn’ or a ‘greening’ of human rights. While a climate litigation case was denied to be brought up in Swedish courts in 2016, the Swedish government is now in 2021 finding itself tested again. Several children and youths in Sweden are currently suing the Swedish state, claiming that Sweden does not live up to its international human rights obligations. The claim is based on a human rights framing and is more similar to other ongoing or successful climate litigation cases at present time. While also facing a lawsuit as defendants in a case under the European Court of Human Rights, Sweden is now finding itself in the midst of this new phenomenon. Since, however, the issue of climate litigation in Swedish courts is quite new, the results of a new case in Sweden based on different grounds and on the precedent established in other successful cases in other similar jurisdictions, could be different.  The overall purpose of this thesis is to shed light on the intentional human rights obligations that the Swedish state is bound by internationally which can be used in a climate litigation case based on human rights argumentation. The issue at hand is therefore to ascertain what, how and why those obligations concerning the climate and human rights makes it possible or challenging to pursue a case against the Swedish government, and what these obligations entail. If the case is tried in Swedish courts, it will establish the current obligations concerning climate change and its threat to human lives under international human rights law, as well as Sweden’s mitigation duties.

The idea of universal applicability of human rights has been a symbol of hope that peace and justice in the world is possible, since the late 1940s. Although it is a fiction, and anthropology can proof this bringing countless evidence, strong general awareness of this idea still inspires many in their strive for freedom and dignity as well as opposition to violence. The aim of this thesis is to bring two controversial examples, illustrating how and why value-driven struggle for promotion of human rights fails. The aim is nevertheless not to compromise this noble idea but to contribute to its more thorough understanding as well as more effective implementation. A chapter on so called female genital circumcision (also known as female genital mutilation) offers critical analyses of the international campaign for eradication of this practice, led by international feminist movement since the late 1970s. The attention is drawn mainly to manipulation of facts and unfair argumentation, thanks to which the so called female genital circumcision was labelled cruel practice of backward societies serving degradation and control of women, making more structured understanding of reality impossible. A chapter dedicated to abortion tries to see political and cultural influences hidden under the surface of debate on...

Die Arbeit untersucht aus rechtlicher Perspektive das Phänomen der Finanzierung politischer Nichtregierungsorganisationen (NRO) durch ausländische Akteure. Die Arbeit legt hierfür ein liberales Verständnis der Funktion von NRO in nationalen politischen Prozessen zugrunde. NRO spielen eine wichtige Rolle bei der Organisation von politischen Interessen. Daher wirft die Auslandsfinanzierung die Frage auf, inwiefern ausländische Akteure an innerstaatlichen politischen Diskurse teilnehmen. Durch einen Vergleich fünf verschiedener Staaten werden deren Rechtfertigungsansätze für Regulierungen der Auslandsfinanzierung von NRO herausgearbeitet. Der Vergleich zeigt auch Ähnlichkeiten und Unterschiede der Regelungsansätze auf, etwa bei der Definition „politischer Aktivitäten“ oder der Qualität der Beziehung zwischen einer NRO und ausländischen Geldgebern. Die Auslandsfinanzierung von NRO wird sodann den völkerrechtlichen Regeln zum Schutz der staatlichen Souveränität und dem Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Völker gegenüber gestellt. Die Arbeit zeigt, dass das Phänomen beide berührt. Dies gilt insbesondere, wenn die Finanzierung den politischen Wettbewerb verzerrt. Die Zurechnung solcher Effekte ist indes schwierig, da in der Regel eine Vielzahl von Akteuren NRO finanziell unterstützen. Zuletzt untersucht die Arbeit die Regulierung der Auslandsfinanzierung von NRO aus der Perspektive der menschenrechtlich gewährleisteten Vereinigungsfreiheit. Diese umfasst auch das Recht, finanzielle Mittel aus dem Ausland zu erhalten. Die Effekte auf die Souveränität und das Selbstbestimmungsrecht stellen zwar legitime Gründe für Beschränkungen dar. Aufgrund der wichtigen Rolle von NRO in demokratischen Prozessen ist jedoch eine strenge Verhältnismäßigkeitsprüfung angezeigt. Während Transparenzvorgaben grundsätzlich gerechtfertigt werden können, verletzten striktere Maßnahmen, wie etwa ein Verbot der Auslandsfinanzierung, in der Regel die Vereinigungsfreiheit. / The study examines the phenomenon of political non-governmental organizations (NGOs) receiving funding from foreign actors from a legal perspective. It departs from a liberal understanding of the role of NGOs in domestic political processes. NGOs play a decisive role in organizing political interests. As a result, foreign funding implicates the participation of outside actors in domestic political discourses. The comparative analysis of five different national legal regimes for regulating the receipt of foreign funding by NGOs sheds light on common justifications for regulating the receipt of foreign funding by NGOs. It also highlights similarities and differences in the approaches taken, such as the definition of ‘political activities’ or the quality of the relationship between NGOs and foreign donors. In the context of international law, state sovereignty and the right to self-determination are examined vis-à-vis the phenomenon of NGOs receiving foreign funding. The study finds that foreign funding to NGOs can implicate both, especially where the funding leads to an uneven playing field in the political sphere of a given state. The attribution of such effects is difficult, however, as funding is often provided by numerous actors. Lastly, the study examines the regulation of NGOs receiving foreign funding through the lens of human rights law. It finds that receiving foreign funding is protected by the freedom of association. However, the effects of foreign funding on sovereignty and the right of self-determination can provide a legitimate reason for specific regulations. Given the importance of NGOs in democratic processes, a strict test of proportionality applies. While transparency requirements can be justified, more severe measures – especially a complete prohibition of foreign funding – will usually violate the freedom of association.

This work highlights specific lexical items that have become racialized in specific contextual applications and tests how these words are cognitively processed. This work presents the results of a visual world (Huettig et al 2011) eye-tracking study designed to determine the perception and application of racialized (Coates 2011) adjectives. To objectively select the racialized adjectives used, I developed a corpus comprised of popular media sources, designed specifically to suit my research question. I collected publications from digital media sources such as Sports Illustrated, USA Today, and Fortune by scraping articles featuring specific search terms from their websites. This experiment seeks to aid in the demarcation of socially salient groups whose application of racialized adjectives to racialized images is near instantaneous, or at least less questioned. As we view growing social movements which revolve around the significant marks unconscious assumptions leave on American society, revealing how and where these lexical assignments arise and thrive allows us to interrogate the forces which build and reify such biases. Future research should attempt to address the harmful semiotics these lexical choices sustain.

This thesis explores the impact of the Syrian refugee crisis on the Common European Asylum System. It evaluates the extent to which the European Union was able to implement a common asylum system, identifies discrepancies between different European countries, primarily Germany and Hungary, and briefly examines the roots of these differences. To this end, the structure of the international refugee protection regime and the German and Hungarian asylum systems are analyzed. Furthermore, the thesis explores how the governments of the two countries perceive the rights of refugees and how their views have affected their handling of the crisis. The case studies of Germany and Hungary have revealed that the treatment of Syrian refugees varies enormously within the EU. Hence, the implementation of the Common European Asylum System has not been achieved, which can be attributed to the deficiencies within the system and the growing ideological rifts within the EU.

Le transfert de population est la cause et la conséquence de plusieurs conflits armés. Il comprend le déplacement arbitraire de la population, le transfert de colons ainsi que le confinement des civiles en temps de guerre. Le transfert de population est un crime en droit international des droits de l’homme, en droit international humanitaire et en droit pénal international. Néanmoins, il est encore considéré comme une solution aux problèmes de minorités et aux conflits ‘ethniques’. Cette thèse étudie comment le crime de transfert de population est défini, interprété et appliqué en droit international et par les tribunaux régionaux et internationaux et la communauté internationale selon l’État de droit. / Population transfer is a cause and consequence of armed conflict. It entails the arbitrary displacement of the population, the implantation of settlers and unlawful confinement. It is a violation of international human rights law and international humanitarian law and a crime in international criminal law. Yet, it is still considered a solution to minority and ‘ethnic’ problems. Using the rule of law as theoretical framework, this thesis assesses how the crime of population transfer is defined, interpreted and applied under international law and by regional and international courts as well as by the international community.

This thesis investigates the compatibility of a crucial aspect of Sudanese criminal justice, namely, the compatibility of the right to a fair trial with two main sources of this right: international human rights law and Shari’a law. The right to a fair trial is a cornerstone for any society and serves to observe the rule of law and other rights of citizens. The study illustrates that the right to a fair trial could play a significant role in the protection of human rights in Sudan. The main aim of this study is to establish ways in which the right to a fair trial can be strengthened in Sudan. The thesis has examined the work emanating from the international level by reviewing decisions, providing general comments and analysing other jurisprudence emanating from bodies such as the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the Human Rights Committee. The decisions, general comments and other jurisprudence from these bodies are juxtaposed against Sudan’s laws to establish the extent to which the right to a fair trial is upheld at the domestic level in Sudan. The study critically examines the sources of the right to a fair trial in Sudan. The main sources of right to a fair trial in Sudan are the Constitution, the Criminal Procedure Act, the Penal Code, Shari’a law and international human rights law. It seeks to answer the question whether Sudanese fair trial rights are compatible with international standards. The study establishes that one of the sources of law that govern the right to a fair trial in Sudan is Shari’a law. The main principle in Islam is that nothing is unlawful, unless it is expressly forbidden by law. However, the Shari’a law in Sudan has not been properly implemented as is illustrated through the rigid and traditional implementation of some of its provisions. The selective and rigid implementation of provisions of Shari’a law has resulted in a conflict with the accepted international standards of fair trial rights. What the study establishes is that a more progressive interpretation of Shari’a law can potentially solve the contradictions with international human rights law that currently exist. The study identifies a number of factors that have affected the development of the right to a fair trial in Sudan. Among these factors are the lack of political will, poverty, the lack of awareness about rights, laws that are contrary to the right to a fair trial, laws that inadequately protect victims and witnesses, impunity, corruption, the lack of resources both human and financial, abuse of power, existence of military and special courts, institutional constraints, discrimination against women, and the refusal or resistance of the executive branch of government to implement decisions of the courts. This study concludes that some pre-trial, trial and post-trial rights and standards in Sudan are not in conformity with international and regional standards. The study concludes by making a number of recommendations aimed at institutional and legal reform. / Dissertation (LLD)--University of Pretoria, 2014. / Centre for Human Rights / LLD / Unrestricted

Les négociations internationales concernant la protection des indications géographiques connaissent, depuis près de deux décennies, un blocage au sein de l’Organisation Mondiale du Commerce opposant des pays défenseurs des indications géographiques, à des pays plus sceptiques. Résultant d’un compromis entre l’approche des pays de l’Union Européenne et celle des Etats-Unis, les standards minimum de protection des indications géographiques de l’ADPIC ont mis en lumière la diversité des approches juridiques en la matière et fait émerger un débat quasi-passionnel sur les moyens appropriés que l’Etat doit mettre en œuvre pour protéger les noms géographiques. L’histoire renseigne sur le fait que le plaidoyer pour ou le réquisitoire contre l’un ou l’autre camp ont toujours tourné autour des philosophies de la protection des indications géographiques : d’une part, les pays défenseurs des indications géographiques prônent à travers leur mise en œuvre, la protection d’industries plus vulnérables à la concurrence ; d’autre part, les pays sceptiques privilégient le plus possible, la liberté du commerce et de l’industrie et par ricochet, la libre exploitation des signes. Pour ces derniers, seule la reconnaissance par le consommateur d’une association qualité-origine du produit justifie une réservation du nom. Le régime multilatéral des IG issu de l’Accord sur les aspects de la propriété intellectuelle qui touchent au commerce résulte donc d’un compromis entre ces deux philosophies de la protection. D’aucuns ont souligné le caractère insatisfaisant d’un tel compromis qui ne rend pas nécessairement compte de la nature réelle de ces signes géographiques. Ce travail tente de le transcender. Il est fondé sur le pari que, dans une perspective juridique, tout n’a peut-être pas été essayé. Dans un effort pour trouver un dénominateur commun et pour proposer une solution à l’impasse actuelle, cette recherche repose sur le rapprochement du régime de protection des indications géographiques, au régime de protection des droits de l’Homme. Non pas dans une perspective moralisatrice mais bien dans un effort pour déduire des solutions concrètes quant à la portée de la protection internationale des IG et du rôle des Etats dans la mise en œuvre de ces outils de propriété intellectuelle. L’article 15.1 c) du Pacte sur les droits économiques, sociaux et culturels prévoit : « Chacun a droit à la protection de ses intérêts moraux et matériels découlant de toute production scientifique, littéraire ou artistique dont il est l’auteur ». L’activation de cet article pourrait permettre de voir en les détenteurs d’IG non pas seulement les sujets bénéficiaires de la protection mais les sujets destinataires de politiques publiques. Il y aurait un donc un « droit de » bénéficier d’une certaine protection des IG et un « droit à » certaines prestations publiques. Au-delà de ce cadre en apparence rigide, le recours au droit international des droits de l’Homme rend la recherche d’un équilibre entre les droits de détenteurs IG et les droits du public plus intégratrice d’enjeux multiples et indispensable à la légitimité du régime multilatéral de protection des IG. / Since two decades, the international protection of geographical indications is characterized by a “blockage” in the negotiations at the World Trade Organization opposing the countries favorable to the protection of geographical indications to countries more skeptical in this regard. Deriving from a compromise between the European conception of the protection of GIs and the American one, the minimum standards of TRIPS have revealed the different legal options in this field and have resulted in a passionate debate over the appropriate role of the State. History shows that the advocacy for, or indictment against one or the other way of protecting GIs focuses essentially on the philosophy of protection in one or the other territories. As a reminder, the European Union “culture” is to protect industries far too exposed to competition while the American “culture” is to preserve economic freedom of operators and to grant monopoly on a geographical name only where such name has been tested on the market and is recognized by the “public” as having a geographical anchorage. Equally compelling, neither of these philosophies has allowed reaching the most acceptable balance for GI regime. This work seeks to transcend them. It bets that everything has not been tried yet, at least from a legal perspective. In order to find a common solution and a way forward to multilateral protection of geographical indications, the paper relies on the culture of “human rights”, not really with a view to “moralize” the field of study but more to deduct practical answers deriving from the international human rights law. As a matter of fact, article 15.1 c) of the Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights provides that “The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone […] to benefit from the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author”. The activation of this article could allow approaching geographical indications operators, not only as beneficiaries of certain rights but also as beneficiaries of public policies. By virtue of article 15.1 c), there shall be a right to benefit from the GI protection (“right-liberty”) but also, a right to claim certain public policies (“right-debt”) in this regard. Beyond this seemingly strict framework for GIs, the reference to international human rights law proves to beneficial to the necessary balance between the rights of GI operators and the rights of the public. Incidentally, this balance is inclusive of multiple issues which is essential to the legitimacy of the multilateral regime of protection of GIs.

Plus de soixante ans après son adoption, la Convention de Genève compte 145 États parties.Instrument juridique universel sur le statut des réfugiés, elle est la lex specialis du droit international desréfugiés. Qui est réfugié ? Quelle protection lui est accordée ? Ces deux questions se posent avec uneacuité certaine du fait de l’accroissement des flux migratoires, des crises multiples et de la lutte contre leterrorisme. Le contexte actuel de l’application de la Convention est différent de celui de son adoption.Rédigée par la voie de dispositions générales, elle doit être interprétée pour être appliquée. Cependant, iln’existe pas un interprète. Si les États, le Haut Commissariat des Nations Unies pour les réfugiés et laCour internationale de justice sont les interprètes officiels, ils ne sont pas les seuls. L’Office français deprotection des réfugiés et apatrides et la Cour nationale du droit d’asile jouent un rôle important et la Coureuropéenne des droits de l’homme et la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne jouent un rôle grandissant.Cette multiplicité d’interprètes peut causer une diversité d’interprétations. Or, les interprétationsdivergentes nuisent à la lisibilité et la visibilité de la Convention en tant qu’instrument de définition et deprotection des réfugiés. La présente étude est une analyse de la contribution des interprètes aux évolutionsde la Convention. Dans cette perspective, la prolifération des instruments du droit européen etinternational des droits de l’homme et la complexification des déplacements contraints de personnes sontdes paramètres incontournables, pris en compte par les interprètes, pour éclairer le sens et la portée de laConvention. / More than sixty years after its adoption, the Geneva Convention counts 145 States ascontracting Parties. This universal legal instrument on refugee’s status represents the lex specialis ofinternational refugee Law. Who can be a refugee? What can be his level of protection? These questionsare particularly relevant under the influence of the increasing population flows, the multiples crises andthe fight against terrorism. The current context of the Convention’s application is different than the one ofits adoption. And due to its general provisions, this Convention needs to be interpreted in order to beapplied. However, there is no sole interpreter. The States, the United Nations High Commissioner forRefugees and the International Court of Justice are indeed the official interpreters, but not the only onesensuring this mission. Not only the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons andthe National Court of Asylum play an important role in this matter, but the European Court of HumanRights and the Court of Justice of the European Union also play an expanding role. This multiplicity ofinterpreters can induce a variety of interpretations. Nevertheless, a divergent interpretation can affect thereadability and the visibility of the Convention as a refugee defining and protective legal instrument. Thepresent study constitutes an analysis of the interpreters’ contribution to the Convention’s developments. Inthis perspective, the overgrowth of European and International Human Rights Law instrument and thecomplexity of forced migration are ineluctable feature, taken into account by the interpreters, to clarify themeaning and the scope of the Convention.