This dissertation looks at the concept of “trafficking in persons” and how it has been created, interpreted and utilized in the international sphere and in Canada. Using the approach of Critical Legal Pluralism (CLP), it examines the legal regulation of trafficking as being created through a bi-directional constitutive process, with paradigmatic conceptions of trafficking having a hand in creating regulation as well as being influenced by it. Through a review of data retrieved using a variety of qualitative methods as well as classic legal analysis, this dissertation explores the operation of various social actors and their effect on the determination of what trafficking is, and who is worthy of protection from it. In Part One the international framework is outlined through a discussion of the creation of the dominant paradigm of trafficking and implementations of it. Chapter One traces the history of the anti-trafficking movement by looking at the development of the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, and by examining the creation of dominant discourses around trafficking. Chapter 2 uses CLP to examine the influences of a variety of actors on the creation of these discourses and the repercussions the discourses have had on the implementation of anti-trafficking policies. Part Two then turns to the Canadian context. In Chapter Three, classical legal methodologies are employed to discuss Canada’s obligations under international law with respect to trafficking, as well as the creation of definitions of trafficking in the Canadian legal regulatory context. Chapter Four then reviews data from Canada to discuss the ways in which various actors have been involved in the creation and operation of the dominant paradigm and how it in turn affects the operation of trafficking-related legal constructs. Ultimately, it is found that due to the influence of the dominant paradigm and the motivations that aid in its operation, programs and policies framed under the rubric of “trafficking” necessarily fail to achieve meaningful redress for the groups they purport to benefit. On this basis, an alternative approach is suggested to address phenomena currently being dealt with through anti-trafficking frameworks. A move is suggested away from a focus on “trafficking” to a sectoral approach, accounting for the complexities and histories of individuals subject to exploitative circumstances.

"The rise in the number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Sudan and Uganda is in no small part, due not only to states' incapacity to protect their own people, but also to a direct attack by states on selected communities, or on insurgent groups. In Sudan, there is a large amount of information pointing to the responsibility of the Sudanese government in the human rights violations committed against the IDPs in Darfur. In Uganda, the majority of the displaced harbour considerable anger towards the government for having forced them out of their homes and then being unable to protect and provide for them, and in many cases being guilty of violations of their rights. The problem is aggravated by the facts that IDPs have no specific set of international instruments or a Convention in their favour, and there is no dedicated UN agency to turn to. The concept of state sovereignty still takes centre stage, and IDPs remain under the 'protection' of their own states, which in many cases are responsible for their plight. International humanitarian assistance is limited to the provision of basic necessities like food, shelter and medicine, while measures that ensure respect for the physical safety and the human rights of IDPs remain inadequate. The Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement particularise general human rights principles to the situation of the internally displaced, however they have no binding authority, and therefore do not bind states, neither are they enforceable by the IDPs. Currently, reliance is placed upon international humanitarian law and the existing international human rights law, but international humanitarian law only applies in situations of armed conflict. Consequently, this study proceeds from the presumption that the governments of Sudan and Uganda have failed to protect the IDPs within their jurisdictions, hence the need for stronger international protection. The study is aimed at addressing the specific problem of the lack of adequate international human rights protection for the IDPs from the time of displacement, to the time displacement ends. Emphasis of the study is placed on displacements resulting from armed conflicts, because these are the most rampant and most problematic in Africa. Darfur and Northern Uganda are the particular focus of this study because they are the most affected regions in Africa today." -- Introduction. / Thesis (LLM (Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa)) -- University of Pretoria, 2004. / http://www.chr.up.ac.za/academic_pro/llm1/dissertations.html / Centre for Human Rights / LLM

Over the last decades there have been a shift in the power balance between the transnational corporation and the state. This shift is due to the transnational corporation’s power has increased. Therefore, this thesis will examine the impact of the power balance between the state and the transnational corporation on the enforcement of law concerning human right abuses by transnational corporations. It will focus primary on the state’s possibility to enforce its international human rights obligations. In order to find out the impact the power balance has on the enforcement, I will discuss different challenges that could stand in the way for the state due to the power of the transnational corporation or that the state is powerless over the transnational corporation. The result is that the state only has a small possibility of enforcing human rights regulation on the transnational corporation.  The reason for this is because the state is relying on the economic opportunities from the transnational corporation and the system is constructed in a manner which made the state powerless in relation to the transnational corporation. The result was therefore that the state has difficulties in enforcing the law concerning human right abuses by transnational corporations. After this conclusion it is quite clear that the power balance between the state and the transnational corporation plays a crucial role in the enforcement of the law concerning human rights abuses by transnational corporations. However, it is possible to make changes in the system so that the power balance between the state and the transnational corporation do not have the same negative effect on human rights and therefore strengthening the protection of human rights.

It has been two decades since the terrorist attacks on September 11. These events were the starting shot for the US war on terrorism, which has resulted in extreme challenges for human rights treaties. Several people have fallen victim to the US protection measures, which have included a detention and interrogation program and extraordinary renditions. The US protection measures have resulted in military invasions, kidnappings, detentions, and acts of torture. Even though black sites are no longer secret, has nobody ever been held responsible for these crimes. The question of who should be held responsible for the systematic violations of the United States is therefore necessary to discuss as this is a problem that characterizes the international legal system still today. The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether the US legal argument for justifying enhanced interrogation techniques and extraordinary renditions is consistent with the human rights treaties. The study examines the extent to which the US exercises jurisdiction over people who are subject to extraordinary renditions. Furthermore, it is also important to investigate if extraordinary renditions conflict with two treaties that have been approved in the United States and consequently the legitimacy of the arguments will be tested against CAT and ICCPR. The problem has been analysed in the light of jurisdiction. The interpretation of the concept of jurisdiction in general international law and human rights treaties constitutes an essential issue regarding states’ responsibilities to uphold and respect the human rights within the research area and research questions. The study focuses primarily on the question of when a state has obligations under human right treaties outside of its own territory. The issue of jurisdiction has been discussed primarily in international courts since Bankovic. The investigation shows that people that have been subject to extraordinary renditions as well as the detention and interrogation program fall under US jurisdiction. According to case law, the study establishes that the United States exercises effective control over the people in the event of extraordinary renditions. Moreover, the study claims that state responsibility can be attributed to the US for having failed in its obligations to respect and protect human rights in the war on terrorism.

Since children are particularly vulnerable in armed conflicts, they are conferred legal protection under International law, like in the International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law. Despite of international legislation, the situation of children remains critically worrying with numerous ongoing armed conflicts and instabilities globally. On the one hand, they are assumed special protection, yet on the other hand, they are commonly used as shields or forced into being combatants. The aim of the study is to outline legal areas of ambiguity or inadequacy in the legal framework and see whether they are sufficient in seeking to protect children in armed conflicts. Following relevant conceptual discussions on International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law, the study employs a legal analysis in conjunction with a normative argumentation approach in reference to the works of various scholars. Based on the findings, I conclude that IHL and IHRL are often not adhered to, by state parties in armed conflicts due to a lack of binding power; hence such conventions do not produce the desired result. Since state parties are either in breach of the conventions, or have not yet ratified them, the conventions are not practically effective in protecting children.

Following the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, Muslim nations have been placed in the spotlight of international debate; the prevailing understanding is that democracy and Islam are fundamentally incompatible. This verdict is particularly damning in light of the trend in International Law which, since the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, has equated democracy with human rights. Yet, a thorough analysis of the debate, taking into account the historical and theoretical bases of liberal democracy — the cultural, legal, and political development of Islam, and the extent to which the politics of Islamic countries represents the politics of Islam — reveals that democracy and Islam are, in fact, fundamentally compatible. In practice, Islamic Law can be applied alongside developments in democratic representations and human rights, whilst popular perceptions of Islam as inhibiting development in human rights are often unfounded, as can be demonstrated by examining the case of Saudi Arabia.

Almost four decades have passed since the European Court of Human Rights introduced the concept of positive obligations. Positive obligations mean that the member states must take affirmative action in order to secure the rights and freedoms provided for by the European Convention on Human Rights. Since then, the scope of positive obligations has extended tremendously, and today all substantive rights generally contain positive obligations. The reason behind the development is to maintain the full effectiveness of human rights enforcement within the European context, and it has been enabled, inter alia, through dynamic interpretation and because the European Convention on Human Rights is considered a living instrument.  The fact that European companies operating transnationally, i.e. in a non-European context, sometimes through its commercial activities violates human rights has given rise to discussion in legal doctrine on whether the scope of positive obligations should be further extended so that the member states to the European Convention on Human Rights will incur state responsibility for national corporates’ extraterritorial human rights violations. Thus, the purpose of the thesis is to examine whether the European Court of Human Rights can and should proceed with such expansion. An expansion creates methodological and technical problems as it challenges the traditional notion of jurisdiction, however, it is not impossible. Whatever the European Court of Human Rights will decide to do, the thesis will provide arguments both for why home state responsibility for national corporates’ extraterritorial activities that violates human rights can and should be imposed, as well for why it is beyond its (the European Court of Human Rights) competence.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:23:30Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Ricardo Rodrigo Marino Tozo.pdf: 536926 bytes, checksum: f1be3f5291bf1c1496e198eed7ee4638 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015-02-26 / The present study aims to delineate the trajectory and the construction of Human Rights for the consequent need to materialize them in International Human Rights Treaties. From an international legal perspective solidified in the Treaties, the work seeks to evaluate the theories of reception and jurisdictionalization the Brazilian legal system, from the viewpoint of the principle of human dignity / O estudo em apreço visa delinear a trajetória e a construção dos direitos humanos para a consequente necessidade de materializá-los em tratados internacionais de direitos humanos. A partir de um plano jurídico internacional solidificado em tratados, o trabalho busca avaliar as teorias de recepção e a jurisdicionalização no ordenamento jurídico brasileiro sob a ótica do princípio da dignidade da pessoa humana

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?

This thesis used case study research methods to examine the role played by Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and the methods they use to increase public participation in environmental matters. It does this by investigating the process leading up to and following a Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decision, that of MiningWatch Canada v. Canada (Fisheries and Oceans) (2010 SCC 2). Specifically, the strategies and methods used by NGOs in this study and their impact on public participation during and in the aftermath of the decision are examined. The primary research question is: what is the impact of NGOs on participatory politics as seen in the SCC decision, MiningWatch Canada v. Canada? Other research questions examined are: what role have NGOs had in increasing participation in environmental decision-making, and: how do NGOs increase public participation in environmental decision-making? Three main groups of strategies are used by the NGOs: “Legal”, “Challenge or Inform Government”, and “Creating an Emotional Response in an Audience.” Strategies common to all NGOs in this study were: “Increase Knowledge” by “Networking,” “Working with Communities at a Grass Roots Level” and “Publications and Reports”. The argument this thesis presents is that democracy is a dynamic process and various strategies can be used to influence participation in environmental decision-making. Specifically, groups of citizens can form in response to an issue, raise public awareness and encourage legislation and policy changes in the search for social progress; in this case, increase public participation in matters involving the environment. / Graduate / 0398 / 0617 / 0630 / kirstye99@gmail.com