COVID-19, International Human Rights Law and the State-Corporate Complex

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jolyon Ford
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
The State ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human

Jurisdictional Immunities of the State for Serious Violations of International Human Rights Law or the Law of Armed Conflict

2013 ◽  
Vol 50 ◽  
pp. 243-287 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul David Mora
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
The State ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
International Human

SummaryIn its recent decision in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy: Greece Intervening), the International Court of Justice (ICJ) held that Italy had failed to respect immunities enjoyed by Germany under international law when the Italian courts allowed civil actions to be brought against Germany for alleged violations of international human rights law (IHRL) and the law of armed conflict (LOAC) committed during the Second World War. This article evaluates the three arguments raised by Italy to justify its denial of immunity: first, that peremptory norms of international law prevail over international rules on jurisdictional immunities; second, that customary international law recognizes an exception to immunity for serious violations of IHRL or the LOAC; and third, that customary international law recognizes an exception to immunity for torts committed by foreign armed forces on the territory of the forum state in the course of an armed conflict. The author concludes that the ICJ was correct to find that none of these arguments deprived Germany of its right under international law to immunity from the civil jurisdiction of the Italian courts.

The ‘Interpretive Compass’ of the CRPD: The Theory of Dignity

2021 ◽  
pp. 91-108
Author(s):  
Kay Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
The State ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human ◽  
Core Value ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Human Worth

Chapter 4 explains the ‘interpretive compass’ and examines the first limb being the theory of dignity in international human rights law and as a core value of the CRPD. It explores the meaning of dignity in the disability context and breaks it into its key components being that dignity involves recognition of inalienable intrinsic human worth, the relationship between dignity and equality, that dignity requires people to behave with dignity, that dignity requires a person to be treated with dignity, that the state should organize itself to support dignity, and the relationship between dignity and autonomy.

Part IV Normative Evolution, Ch.22 Core Rights and Obligations

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scheinin Martin
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
The State ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Right ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
The Core ◽  
International Human ◽  
Definition Of

This article examines the three main approaches in the identification of the core rights and obligations in international human rights law. These include the consideration of some human rights as being superior or more fundamental than others, the notion that each human right encompasses an essential core and the definition of core obligations of the state in relation to the enjoyment of human rights. This article suggests that the best way to achieve a thorough understanding of the normative quality and content of human rights as legal rights is to combine these three approaches.

Sovereign Rights of the State and the Scope of their Implementation in the Context of Development of the International Human Rights Law

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 164
Author(s):  
Iryna PROTSENKO ◽  
Кostiantyn SAVCHUK
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Adequate Treatment ◽  
International Human ◽  
The Right

In the contemporary science of international law, the state sovereignty issue lacks adequate treatment. In particular, the list and essence of sovereign rights and duties of the state are not defined, although these are referred to in some international legal instruments and resolutions of international courts and arbitrations. In addition, particular circumstances are being under development, which require if not precise outlining of the catalogue of fundamental rights of states, then at least determining the essence of some of these rights and the scope of their implementation. It goes about developing the practice to limit specific sovereign rights of the state to ensure the implementation of human rights (notably, the ones not directly related to the respective rights of the state). In this very way, the state is limited in its right to determine its own immigration policy. The fact is that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled in some of its judgments that by implementing this right, the state violates the right to respect for private and family life provided for by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 (ECHR). This resulted in ECtHR`s practice to be somewhat considered in the draft articles on the expulsion of aliens elaborated by the International Law Commission (ILC) in 2014. The examples from ECtHR`s practice analyzed in this paper provide the basis for the conclusion that the development of the International Human Rights Law is gradually narrowing the scope of the internal sovereign rights of the state.

5 Right to Counsel

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clooney Amal ◽  
Webb Philippa
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
The State ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human ◽  
Right To Communicate ◽  
Main Components ◽  
The Right ◽  
Scope Of Protection

This chapter addresses the right to counsel, an important, non-derogable right designed to prevent miscarriages of justice when a defendant faces a state that has greater resources, powers, and access to evidence. Under international human rights law, the right to counsel encompasses five main components: the right to be notified of the right to the assistance of counsel; the right to prompt access to qualified counsel, paid for by the state if the defendant is indigent; the right to choose counsel; the right to communicate confidentially with counsel; and the right to act as one’s own counsel. International bodies have defined the broad scope of protection that is afforded to defendants in broadly consistent terms, but the chapter highlights divergences relating to the right to represent oneself, and the circumstances under which international bodies will find that counsel has not been ‘effective’ in a given case.

scholarly journals Global laws for a global economy: A case for bringing multinational corporations under international human rights law

SURG Journal ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 14-23
Author(s):  
Alicia Grant
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Multinational Corporations ◽  
The State ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
International Level ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Host State ◽  
International Human

Economic globalization has created a governance gap, often leaving powerful corporations largely unregulated. The result has been frequent and gross violations of human rights that too often go unpunished. This article outlines the mechanisms that currently exist for regulating the activities of multinational corporations including: (i) corporate self-regulation; (ii) regulation within the state where a company is operating (the host state); (iii) regulation within the state where a parent company is incorporated (the home state); and (iv) codes of conduct at the international level. The advantages and insufficiencies of each level are highlighted, and an argument is subsequently made that the governance gap will only be filled if firms are subjected to binding international law. The article then turns to an examination of international human rights law and discusses the place of non-state actors within this framework. It finds that corporations do have obligations under international human rights law despite the fact that systems for enforcing these duties do not currently exist. The final section discusses the difficulties that might be associated with creating enforcement mechanisms. The article ultimately argues that binding regulation at the international level is necessary in the long run; however, due to the difficulties in achieving this objective, regulation should also continue to be improved at the company, industry, host-state, and home-state levels. Keywords: multinational corporations; international law; human rights; corporate activity (regulation of)

scholarly journals Features of the status and protection of the rights of persons living on the occupied territories

2021 ◽  
pp. 433-446
Author(s):  
Oleksiy Kresin ◽  
Iryna Kresina
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Private Property ◽  
The State ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human

Based on the concluded study, the authors demonstrate that international law recognizes the unconditional responsibility of the power occupying or exercising effective (overall, general, de facto) control over the territory for the human rights of its population, and in particular the civilian population as protected persons. Such liability exists independently of the personal liability of the representatives (agents) of that State. In this case, the state, which exercises control over the territory, is automatically responsible for any actions of organizations under its control. At the same time, it is quite difficult to determine the share of responsibility of a sovereign state for the implementation of human rights on a territory over which that state does not exercise control. The legislation of Ukraine imposes responsibility for the protection and violations of human rights in the ORDLO on Russia under both international humanitarian law and international human rights law. International humanitarian law imposes on the occupying state the obligation to ensure all the minimum humanitarian needs of the population, its basic rights related to the preservation of life, health and dignity (with special emphasis on the rights of women and children), private property, effective protection of these rights and protection from any unlawful violence, preservation of the infrastructure of the territory. The occupying State cannot be absolved of responsibility for serious human rights violations, including war crimes and crimes against humanity. Decisions of international courts unequivocally extend these obligations, as well as obligations under international human rights law, to all forms of illegal control of the territory of another state. At the same time, the Constitution and legislation of Ukraine do not provide for the refusal of the state to ensure and protect human rights on its territory, even in conditions of state of emergency or war. Ukraine ensures the realization of the rights of the ORDLO population on the territory of other regions of Ukraine. Ukraine also protect and restore human rights in the territory of the ORDLO with the means provided by international law.

Immigration Policy: Between Demographic Considerations and Preservation of Culture

2008 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Na'ama Carmi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Immigration Policy ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
Demographic Factors ◽  
The State ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human ◽  
The Right

Cultural rights of minority groups are recognized in international human rights law. These rights include the right of minority groups to adopt various measures to protect their cultural identity, which may include closure of the group’s community from outsiders. The state in which such groups reside has a concurrent duty to respect these rights and sometimes even to take positive measures to ensure their implementation. The consideration of demographic factors, then, is regarded as legitimate when designed to protect minority groups. The rights of majority groups, on the other hand, are often ensured by the mere fact that they constitute a majority within the state and as such do not require special measures.This state of affairs is challenged, however, in face of mass immigration that could change the relation existing between majority and minority groups within the state. Under these circumstances, does a majority have the right to preserve its own culture through an immigration policy that takes into account demographic factors? I argue that the duty of states under international human rights law to protect rights of minority groups might serve as an incentive to restrict immigration endangering the character of the state. This character—the state’s public culture—is the outcome of collective preferences of the majority of its citizens, which is assumed ought to be respected.

COVID-19, International Human Rights Law and the State-Corporate Complex

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 195-213
Author(s):  
Jolyon Ford
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Data Gathering ◽  
The State ◽  
Data Driven ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human

Abstract Data-driven technologies (such as mobile phone-based tracing apps) have been at the forefront of public health responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, we have also seen high-level expressions of concern about how state actions ostensibly in pursuit of public health goals have in fact greatly accelerated existing human rights concerns about newer technologies, especially increased state and corporate surveillance. This article explores issues at the nexus of COVID-19 public health responses, civil-political rights under international human rights law, and the responsible governance of data-driven technologies. In particular, it offers a framework to evaluate the human rights compatibility of tech-assisted COVID-related state measures. The articles also explore analogies between COVID-related measures and post-2001 counter-terrorism actions taken by states in the name of public security. It cautions against exceptional measures becoming hardwired in ways that may unreasonably impact on pre-COVID freedoms. The article argues that the blurring of state and corporate surveillance and data-gathering and the often symbiotic relationship between tech firms and governments (the ‘state-corporate complex’) complicate efforts to assert clear frames of responsibility.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document