scholarly journals The Right to Health Under International Law and Its Relevance to the United States

2005 ◽  
Vol 95 (7) ◽  
pp. 1156-1161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alicia Ely Yamin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Right To Health ◽  
The Right

scholarly journals The right to medical care and its economic consequences: an American dilemma

1972 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 317-327
Author(s):  
José Duarte de Araújo
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Health Care ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Right To Health ◽  
Economic Consequences ◽  
Right To Health Care ◽  
Modern Times ◽  
The Right

The concepts of "rights" and of "right to health care" including its evolution in modern times are discussed. The consequences of implementing this right are discussed in economic terms, regarding the situation in the United States of America. A discussion is also included on the limitations of the role of Health Insurance as a measure to solve the problem of providing health care for all individuals.

scholarly journals Human rights and immigrants’ access to care

2013 ◽  
Vol 55 (6) ◽  
pp. 631 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wendy Parmet ◽  
Simon Fischer
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Health Care ◽  
International Law ◽  
Detrimental Effect ◽  
The United States ◽  
Right To Health ◽  
Federally Funded ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Public Insurance ◽  
Legal Immigrants

Although the human right to health is well established under international law, many states limit non-citizens’ participation in public insurance programs. In the United States, immigrants face especially high barriers due to the lack of recognition of a broad right to health as well as federal statutes restricting many immigrants’ eligibility to federally-funded insurance. High rates of uninsurance among immigrants have a detrimental effect on their health, as well as on the health of citizens who live in their communities. Finch vs. Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector, a recent case decided by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, recognized the rights of legal immigrants in Massachusetts to state-supported health care, and demonstrates the importance of insuring immigrants in broadly-based, rather than immigrant-specific, programs.

scholarly journals The “Right to Remain Here” as an Evolving Component of Global Refugee Protection: Current Initiatives and Critical Questions

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 614-644 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Kanstroom
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
International System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Refugee Protection ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Right ◽  
Refugees And Asylum Seekers

This article considers the relationship between two human rights discourses (and two specific legal regimes): refugee and asylum protection and the evolving body of international law that regulates expulsions and deportations. Legal protections for refugees and asylum seekers are, of course, venerable, well-known, and in many respects still cherished, if challenged and perhaps a bit frail. Anti-deportation discourse is much newer, multifaceted, and evolving. It is in many respects a young work in progress. It has arisen in response to a rising tide of deportations, and the worrisome development of massive, harsh deportation machinery in the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Mexico, Australia, and South Africa, among others. This article's main goal is to consider how these two discourses do and might relate to each other. More specifically, it suggests that the development of procedural and substantive rights against removal — as well as rights during and after removal — aids our understanding of the current state and possible future of the refugee protection regime. The article's basic thesis is this: The global refugee regime, though challenged both theoretically and in practice, must be maintained and strengthened. Its historical focus on developing criteria for admission into safe states, on protections against expulsion (i.e., non-refoulement), and on regimes of temporary protection all remain critically important. However, a focus on other protections for all noncitizens facing deportation is equally important. Deportation has become a major international system that transcends the power of any single nation-state. Its methods have migrated from one regime to another; its size and scope are substantial and expanding; its costs are enormous; and its effects frequently constitute major human rights violations against millions who do not qualify as refugees. In recent years there has been increasing reliance by states on generally applicable deportation systems, led in large measure by the United States' radical 25 year-plus experiment with large-scale deportation. Europe has also witnessed a rising tide of deportation, some of which has developed in reaction to European asylum practices. Deportation has been facilitated globally (e.g., in Australia) by well-funded, efficient (but relatively little known) intergovernmental idea sharing, training, and cooperation. This global expansion, standardization, and increasing intergovernmental cooperation on deportation has been met by powerful — if in some respects still nascent — human rights responses by activists, courts, some political actors, and scholars. It might seem counterintuitive to think that emerging ideas about deportation protections could help refugees and asylum seekers, as those people by definition often have greater rights protections both in admission and expulsion. However, the emerging anti-deportation discourses should be systematically studied by those interested in the global refugee regime for three basic reasons. First, what Matthew Gibney has described as “the deportation turn” has historically been deeply connected to anxiety about asylum seekers. Although we lack exact figures of the number of asylum seekers who have been subsequently expelled worldwide, there seems little doubt that it has been a significant phenomenon and will be an increasingly important challenge in the future. The two phenomena of refugee/asylum protections and deportation, in short, are now and have long been linked. What has sometimes been gained through the front door, so to speak, may be lost through the back door. Second, current deportation human rights discourses embody creative framing models that might aid constructive critique and reform of the existing refugee protection regime. They tend to be more functionally oriented, less definitional in terms of who warrants protection, and more fluid and transnational. Third, these discourses offer important specific rights protections that could strengthen the refugee and asylum regime, even as we continue to see weakening state support for the basic 1951/1967 protection regime. This is especially true in regard to the extraterritorial scope of the (deporting) state's obligations post-deportation. This article particularly examines two initiatives in this emerging field: The International Law Commission's Draft Articles on the Expulsion of Aliens and the draft Declaration on the Rights of Expelled and Deported Persons developed through the Boston College Post-Deportation Human Rights Project (of which the author is a co-director). It compares their provisions to the existing corpus of substantive and procedural protections for refugees relating to expulsion and removal. It concludes with consideration of how these discourses may strengthen protections for refugees while also helping to develop more capacious and protective systems in the future. “Those guarantees of liberty and livelihood are the essence of the freedom which this country from the beginning has offered the people of all lands. If those rights, great as they are, have constitutional protection, I think the more important one — the right to remain here — has a like dignity.” Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, 19522 “We need a national effort to return those who have been rejected … and we are working on that at the moment with great vigor.” Angela Merkel, October 15, 20163

On the Need for an Association for Vaccinated Person’s Rights

2021 ◽  
pp. 089011712110596
Author(s):  
Paul E. Terry
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Right To Health ◽  
Social Accountability ◽  
Harm To Others ◽  
The Right

COVID-19 has been more difficult to contain in the United States than in other countries due, in part, to our nation’s rootedness in preserving individual freedoms, sometimes in defiance of the need for social accountability for health. With growing evidence that anti-vaccination proponents are increasingly organized, funded, and influential, this editorial argues that the right to health should transcend individual freedoms that have a likely probability of spreading harm to others. An association for vaccinated person’s rights, much like ANSR, an association for non-smokers rights, may be needed to counter anti-vaccination rights organizers. Advancing a goal of mostly “vaccinated and fully immunized populations’ would make members of such a group ‘VIP-ers.’”

Apotex Inc. v. United States: Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (NAFTA Arb.)

2013 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 905-965 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald J. Bettauer
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
Minimum Standards ◽  
The North ◽  
The Right

The North American Free Trade Agreement between Canada, Mexico, and the United States (NAFTA) entered into force on January 1, 1994. Chapter Eleven of NAFTA contains provisions governing investment protection and investor-state arbitration. In general, NAFTA provides investors of one of the parties protections for their investments in another NAFTA party, guaranteeing: treatment at least as good as that of host or third country investors (NAFTA articles 1102-1104); treatment in accordance with the minimum standards of customary international law (NAFTA article 1105); and compensation for expropriation (NAFTA article 1110). NAFTA article 1139 defines “investment” broadly but excludes contracts for the sale of goods or services. After meeting specified threshold requirements, such an investor has the right to international arbitration against the host state to vindicate these protections.

Citizenship and Allegiance in Constitutional and International Law

1907 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 914-929 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. W. Willoughby
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Good Reason ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
American Citizen ◽  
The Status ◽  
American Law ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Right

The recent report on Citizenship of the United States, Expatriation, and Protection Abroad, together with the work of Mr. Van Dyne on Citizenship of the United States, and the invaluable Digest of International Law, by Prof. John Bassett Moore, render easily accessible and readily comprehensible the principles of the American law with reference to the status of our citizens and of aliens for the time being within our territorial limits. At the same time, however, these publications make more evident the fact that, in many instances, the conflicting claims of two or more states upon the same individual are settled rather by mutual concessions than upon principle; that legal and political rights are asserted, but with an understanding, more or less explicit, that under given circumstances they will not be exercised. Thus, by a legislative act, legally binding upon our executive and judicial officers, we have declared the right of the individual to expatriate himself to be an absolute and indefeasible one, and that the naturalized American citizen is to have the same rights and is to receive the same protection as the native-born citizen, whether or not the state of original allegiance consents to the expatriation thus involved. In practice, this law, thus formally declared, has never been rigidly enforced, for the very good reason that to attempt to do so would lead to constant and serious international difficulties.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document