Chapter 4. State Responsibility Goes Private: A Feminist Critique of the Public/Private Distinction in international Human Rights Law

1994 ◽  
pp. 85-115 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Feminist Critique ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
The Public ◽  
International Human

2 Right to a Public Trial

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clooney Amal ◽  
Webb Philippa
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
National Security ◽  
Criminal Trial ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Nature ◽  
International Human ◽  
The Right

This chapter examines the right to a public trial, which protects both the defendant in a criminal trial and the interests of society as a whole in having a fair system of open justice. Under international human rights law, the right requires that a criminal trial should be held in public and that the court’s judgment is pronounced publicly. However, the right to a public trial is not absolute. The right may, for instance, be limited by valid national security concerns, or to protect the interests of a child or victim of sexual assault. This chapter examines the circumstances in which international bodies have found that exceptions to the right to a public trial are justified, and the additional measures that may be required to ensure that a criminal trial remains fair when there are restrictions on the public nature of proceedings. right to fair trial

scholarly journals Containment Instead of Refoulement: Shifting State Responsibility in the Age of Cooperative Migration Control?

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 306-332
Author(s):  
Annick Pijnenburg
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Migration Control ◽  
International Human ◽  
The Right ◽  
And Training

Abstract Containment policies whereby destination States provide funding, equipment and training to transit States that intercept refugees on their behalf suggest that destination States try to circumvent the prohibition of refoulement and raise the question to what extent destination States can avoid responsibility for violations of the rights of migrants and refugees by cooperating with transit States. Answering this question requires broadening the analysis beyond the principle of non-refoulement, including not only international human rights law, especially the right to leave and the concept of jurisdiction, but also the law of State responsibility, notably the prohibition of complicity. This article argues that, although it remains debatable whether the principle of non-refoulement applies when transit States intercept migrants and refugees on behalf of sponsoring destination States, the wider network of international law rules constrains the latter’s ability to avoid responsibility when implementing cooperative migration control policies.

Revisiting the working of patent requirements under Indian patent law

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 386-396
Author(s):  
Pratik Prakash Dixit
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
The Public ◽  
Disclosure Requirements ◽  
Patented Product ◽  
International Human ◽  
Indian Law

This article aims to analyse the working of patent requirements under Indian patent law. A patent working requirement generally entails that the patentee must work or apply the patented product in the patent granting country. This article evaluates the compatibility of the patent working requirement with the TRIPS Agreement from the perspective of international human rights law. A human rights approach suggests that the rights of the patentee must be reconciled with the interests of the general public. In such pursuance, this article argues that there is a need to recalibrate the patent working requirement under the Indian law to strike a right balance between the rights of the patentee and the public interest. Particularly, this article argues that India must modify the present patent working disclosure requirements to ensure that foreign patentees are able to do business in India without bureaucratic hassles.

scholarly journals THE OBLIGATION TO REFRAIN FROM ASSISTING THE USE OF THE DEATH PENALTY

2013 ◽  
Vol 62 (3) ◽  
pp. 523-556 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bharat Malkani
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human ◽  
The Law

AbstractIn this paper, I assert that the prohibition on the death penalty brings with it an obligation on abolitionist States to refrain from assisting the use of the death penalty in retentionist States. By considering the law on complicity and State responsibility, the obligation to protect under international human rights law, and the practice of States, I argue that although there are jurisdictional issues and although the death penalty is not prohibited under general international law, an obligation to refrain from being complicit in the death penalty is developing in international law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document