Abstract

This article addresses the critical issue of violence against children, defined as a violation of their rights across interpersonal, community, societal, and global settings, encompassing both physical and psychological actions targeting them or their parents. Globally, WHO estimates that an unacceptably large number of children aged 2–17 years, experience physical, sexual, or emotional violence or neglect yearly. War stands out as a major contributor to the infringement of children’s fundamental human rights. Those in conflict zones undergo traumatic experiences, including the loss of family members, disruptions to social networks, displacement, and the denial of basic needs. The severe deprivation of essential resources and opportunities, coupled with the stress of warfare, poses a grave threat to the emotional and cognitive development of children, increasing the risk of physical and mental illnesses, disabilities, social problems, and intergenerational consequences. The article aims to draw attention to this issue and advocates for the development of appropriate academic and post-academic educational courses and training programs. This will better equip pediatricians and healthcare professionals to effectively combat violence against children in any context.

Introduction

Violence against children, is a global critical issue, which is defined worldwide as a violation of their rights across interpersonal, community, societal, and global settings, encompassing both physical and psychological actions targeting them or their parents.1,2 Globally, WHO estimates that an unacceptably large number of children aged 2–17 years, experience physical, sexual, or emotional violence or neglect yearly.1., 2. War stands out as a major contributor to the infringement of children’s fundamental human rights. Those in conflict zones undergo traumatic experiences, including the loss of family members, disruptions to social networks, displacement, and the denial of basic needs.3 The severe deprivation of essential resources and opportunities, coupled with the stress of warfare, poses a grave threat to the emotional and cognitive development of children, increasing the risk of physical and mental illnesses, disabilities, social problems, and intergenerational consequences.2., 3., 4. The article aims to draw attention to this issue and advocates for the development of appropriate academic and post-academic educational courses and training programs. This will better equip pediatricians and healthcare professionals to effectively combat violence against children in any context.

Conclusion

In the current historic moment, it is crucial for pediatricians and families to provide support to children, mitigating the potential psychological repercussions mentioned earlier. Pediatricians can significantly contribute to ensuring that the children of the future enjoy better opportunities for a normal and enriched childhood. Their role is pivotal, especially in fostering psychological well-being and contributing to the personal growth of children within a community with its own set of rules. Children must cultivate love and respect for others, understanding that “other” does not signify a limitation but rather a treasure for their personal development. Consequently, the child of today can evolve into a better individual tomorrow.

Abstract

1 Introduction

2 FIL Background

3 Highlights of the FIL

4 The Road Ahead: Implementation of the FIL

5 Conclusion: Towards a New Era of the Foreign Investment Law Regime

References

Abstract

     China’s foreign investment law regime has experienced significant changes in recent years. A milestone came with the passing of the Foreign Investment Law (FIL) in 2019, replacing the laws and regulations that had governed foreign investment in China for four decades. This article first undertakes a political economic analysis to determine the relevance of internal and external factors contributing to the changes. It then discusses the key characteristics of the FIL and reveals how it is designed to create a liberal, stable, fair, transparent and accountable regime to promote and protect foreign investment. Although the passage of the FIL ushered in a new era of foreign investment in China, many important issues remain unresolved and further actions must be taken to ensure its smooth implementation. To support the sustained development of its foreign investment regime, China must address existing laws and regulations that are incompatible with the new regime, clarify key issues that the new law fails to address, issue clearer guidance on national security, shorten its ‘negative list’, promote opening up and enhance regulatory transparency.

Introduction

     On 15 March 2019, China passed the Foreign Investment Law (FIL)Footnote1 that demonstrated its commitment to providing a level playing field for foreign investors. Entering into force on 1 January 2020, together with its corresponding Implementation Regulation, the FIL put an end to the three primary laws that had governed foreign investment in China for four decades, namely the Sino-Foreign Equity Joint Venture Law, the Sino-Foreign Cooperative Joint Venture Law and the Wholly Foreign-owned Enterprises Law (together, the Three Laws). With unified provisions on market access, investment promotion, investment protection and foreign investment management, the FIL represented a milestone in China’s endeavour to open up to foreign investment through the rule of law. The law was promulgated to address international concerns, to summarise the domestic experience and to improve the business environment. In the face of unprecedented uncertainties and rising protectionism in the global economy, the law was intended to create a ‘golden age’ for foreign investors in China.Footnote2 Against this backdrop, this article first presents an overview of the development of China’s foreign investment law regime, delving into the economic, political and external factors that led to the enactment of the FIL. It then highlights the main features of the FIL. The third part of the article summarises the problems with the law that remain to be resolved and the measures required for its smooth implementation. Specifically, to support the sustained development of its new foreign investment regime, China must revise existing laws and regulations that are incompatible with the FIL, clarify key issues that the FIL fails to address, issue detailed guidance on national security, shorten the ‘negative list’ to promote opening up and enhance the transparency of the regulatory system.

Conclusion: Towards a New Era of the Foreign Investment Law Regime

     With the adoption and implementation of the FIL, the laws and regulations that have governed China over the last four decades fall away. The FIL establishes the basic framework for a new type of foreign investment legal regime and unifies provisions on market access, investment promotion, investment protection and investment management. As a landmark piece of legislation in China’s foreign investment law regime, the FIL is underpinned by a combination of internal experience and international practice. It provides a stronger legal guarantee of further opening up and the active and effective utilisation of foreign investment. With the adoption of the FIL, China is entering a new era of foreign investment wherein a level playing field will be created and a more stable, fair and transparent regime will be established.

Abstract

     Globally life imprisonment has been considered as the terminal and conclusive penalty, in most of the countries for the extreme violations and serious crimes. Thus since the last few decades this long-term conviction has been increasing throughout the world, it has attracted much of the attention towards a principal debate from human rights point of view that whether as an ultimate penalty is life imprisonment acceptable or is merely an act of violation towards human rights. In this article, the aim is to evaluate the life imprisonment complexity against the human rights standards and how it has been considered as a substitute for death penalty. Apart from this it also talks about Article 3 (universal Declaration of Human Rights) and if life imprisonment without possibility of parole violates convention or not. Further analyzing human rights perspective, the article revisits the debate to conclude if life imprisonment is justifiableretribution by severely examining it under Internationalcriminal law.

Introduction

     Life imprisonment as the only deterrent for violent offences has been a long-standing tradition which dates back to 1970s and 1980s when harsh and long-term penalties were seen as an appropriate retributive solution to rising crime rates in the US [1]. Eventually within a few years this toughon-crime movement spread across the Anglo-Saxon world, finally finding hold in Europe. In criminological research and national crime figures, there is little agreement about what constitutes a long-term jail sentence [2]; meanings vary from five years to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, the latter clearly indicating circumstances where inmates are held in prison until they die. While offences and punishments were originally regarded as inherently state prerogatives, implying that it was up to states to decide what were the worst crimes and how to prosecute their criminals, constituting the essence of their “right to punish”; International human rights law (IHRL) saw that as an unacceptable statement that needed to be revised, and it stood up to determine that states are not able to prosecute criminals in whatever manner they see fit, and that there would be certain restrictions. The current contribution builds on this foundation by addressing the punishment of life imprisonment, with a particular emphasis on forms of life imprisonment in which the possibility of parole is missing or, if available, is not materially open to inmates, again describing this as a sentence without the hope of any escape, even fairly – let alone completely [3].

Conclusion

     Providing life a prisoner with a possibility of parole is not only fair, but also compatible with their intrinsic humanity, which is unaffected even by the most egregious offences. The suggested theoretical framework to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole under International human rights legislation provides for the recognition of certain similar characteristics and discrepancies within the major International instruments aimed at the defence of human rights. The aforementioned arguments for life sentences under International humanitarian law seem to be critical for International criminal tribunals and courts to take a more oriented and careful human rights policy. This is because, aside from the tradition of infuriating and mitigating circumstances, these courts and tribunals have rendered no heed to the human rights-based arguments for life imprisonment. Recent judicial precedent suggests that the present state of affairs jeopardizes human-rights negotiations, and that the lack of annual evaluations results in unnecessarily lengthy sentences. Also, there has been a lengthy discussion on whether life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is the most serious kind of punishment that can be enforced on anyone under the age of 18. The sole solution to this debate is that the punishment should be equal to the severity of the offence and the risk that the criminal poses. Aside from that it has been concluded that life imprisonment can breach Article 3 if it possesses certain attributes or ignores certain vital legal authority conducts. However, since the European Court of Human Rights has not established any official uniform standards, the specifications for specified follow can be difficult. It is clear that a concrete and formal life sentence with no chance of parole is deemed a violation of Article 3. As a result, the only criterion for incarceration is that it does not violate Article 3 which prohibits cruel or degrading treatment. Overall, it is past time for us to reconsider our attitudes about long-term incarceration. This is critical, since long-term prisoners make up a vast and increasing percentage of prisons around the world, and protecting their basic human rights with a correctional facility that offers them a chance to be released is paramount.

The Roots: Individual Mastery versus Anti-hegemonic Sovereignty

The Core: Civil and Political Rights or Socioeconomic Well-Being

The Fruits: Identity Politics or the Flowering of Civil, Political, Cultural, and Environmental Rights

Conclusion: Concrete Universals

Notes

Disclosure Statement

Notes on Contributor

References

Abstract

     Based on the principle that universals are valid if they are concrete universals, this article provides a comparison between Western liberal and Chinese Marxist approaches to human rights. It does so in three steps. First is the analysis of the foundations, or roots, of the Western liberal emphasis on an individual’s mastery over a “right” understood in terms of private property, and the Marxist tradition’s emphasis on anti-hegemonic sovereignty in light of anti-colonial struggles for national liberation. Second is the contrast between the development of the Western approach to the core human rights in terms of freedom of expression, movement, and assembly, and the Marxist emphasis on the right to socioeconomic well-being, or common prosperity. Third is the comparison between the fruits of either tradition, one in terms of identity politics, and the other in the emphasis on civil, political, cultural, and environmental rights. The article concludes by asking whether the two approaches are able to come to an understanding of each other, and proposes that such an understanding may need to take place in light of the concept and reality of concrete universals.

The Western Emphasis on Individual Mastery over Private Property

     To begin with the roots: the Western tradition begins in Western Europe of the eleventh century. During this period, the fabled “lawyer popes” began the process of a thorough transformation of the European legal and political framework. These lawyer popes and their advisers made a crucial rediscovery: the ancient Roman concept of absolute private property. In Rome of the second century BCE, they were faced with a legal conundrum that concerned slaves. Was a slave a human being or a “thing” (res)? If the former, then the relation between a master and a slave would be one between human beings; if the latter, then the relation would be one between a human owner and an object or a “thing.” Given that slaves had gradually been reduced to the same level as cattle and material objects, it was the relation between a master and a “thing” that constituted the legal problem to be solved.

     Roman jurists—legal theorists—came up with an ingenious solution that would come to have repercussions they could never have imagined. This was the category of absolute private property,1 in which the primary relation of the owner of private property was to the “thing” that he—and it was invariably a “he”—owned.2 This may seem like a somewhat strange way to formulate the solution, since those who are immersed in the Western tradition tend to think of private property in terms of the relations with other owners: I own this object, which means that you do not own it. Not so for the Romans. Instead, absolute private property was constituted as the relation between the owner and the object owned. Why? Because the object owned was a slave. The various ways in which this relation was expressed are telling: the slave was seen as simply an extension of the master, an automaton that acted as though it were a part of the master, as the hand of the master.3

Conclusion: Concrete Universals

     In conclusion, two points need to be made. To begin with, I have emphasised two approaches and indeed traditions concerning human rights. One begins from individual mastery over private property, grows into civil and political rights, and flowers in terms of identity politics. The other begins from anti-hegemonic sovereignty, upon which grows socioeconomic well-being, and flourishes in term of civil, political, cultural, and economic rights in a socialist system. But a question remains as to whether they have any common ground. By way of an answer, let us consider two documents from the United Nations, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (UNGA 1966a) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (UNGA 1966b). In many ways, these two documents embody the two traditions I have analysed in this study, INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL THOUGHT 247 although it is notable that the Marxist tradition’s emphases are also to be found in most developing—and formerly colonised—countries, who also are signatories to the right to development (UNGA 1986). The history of the writing of these documents is instructive: the two main declarations were initially planned to be one document. However, due to disagreement in emphasis between countries that espouse the Western liberal tradition and the majority of countries that were formerly colonised by such countries and strongly advocate anti-hegemonic sovereignty, the declaration was divided into the two we have now. They were initially published in 1966, and they both came into effect in 1976. If one considers the countries that have signed and ratified the declarations (not difficult to determine), it is clear that a divide still exists and mutual recognition of distinct traditions and emphases on human rights still requires considerable work (Sun 2014; Li et al. 2015, 68–69; Zwart 2020).

Abstract

     Since the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) were adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in 2011, they have diffused into policy frameworks, laws, and regulations across the globe. This special issue seeks to advance the interdisciplinary field of human rights research by examining key elements of the emerging transnational regime for the regulation of business and human rights. In seven original contributions, scholars from political science, law, accounting, and philosophy critically reflect on the theoretical foundations of the UNGPs, they analyze the effectiveness of implementation mechanisms and current regulatory practice, and they advance proposals for the future development of the business and human rights regime. In this introduction, we prepare the ground for these analyses, proceeding in three steps. Firstly, we argue that the adoption of the UNGPs has triggered a norm cascade which requires a distinctive, empirically oriented research agenda focusing on the scope, governance, and effectiveness of corporate human rights accountability norms and instruments. Secondly, we explain how the articles in this special issue contribute to that research agenda by addressing these themes. Thirdly, we provide an overview of the individual contributions and point out avenues for future research.

Introduction

     Following the endorsement of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) by the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in 2011, they have become widely regarded as “the most authoritative statement of the human rights duties or responsibilities of states and corporations adopted at the UN level” (De Schutter 2013: xvii).Footnote1 Developed in a worldwide consultation process by the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General (SRSG), John Ruggie, the UNGPs were aimed at tackling and preventing business-related human rights abuses by closing governance gaps in the largely unrestrained global market economy (Ruggie 2013: xxiii).

     Although many corporations contribute positively to realizing human rights, e.g., through job creation, the production and distribution of goods, services, and infrastructure, business activities also impact negatively on human rights. Some of the most severe and widespread forms of corporate human rights abuse include the dislocation of indigenous communities without compensation or consultation, the impairment of people’s health and safety due to unfit working conditions and destruction of the environment, the leaking of individuals’ data to government agents, the denial of freedom of expression and of association, discrimination and sexual harassment at the workplace, and sweatshops, bonded labor, and child labor in the transnational supply chains of global brands (see Bernaz 2017: 1–2; Ruggie 2013: xv-xvi; ILO 2017). However, it is rather difficult to hold business enterprises to account for human rights abuses, for various reasons.

Conclusion and Avenues for Future Research

     Taken together, the contributions to this special issue offer a rich multi-dimensional and transdisciplinary analysis of key elements of the business and human rights regime. On the one hand, they enhance our understanding of different conceptions of corporate human rights accountability, of the role and functions, the impact but also the limitations of important actors and governance instruments of that regime. On the other hand, the articles engage with these limitations in a critical yet constructive fashion, making proposals for resolving misalignments in the governance architecture and improving the effectiveness of specific instruments. In so doing, all contributions are driven by a normative commitment to strengthen corporate human rights accountability, help prevent business-related human rights abuses, and improve access to effective remedies for victims.

     Building on the insights provided by the analyses in this special issue, as well as on the research agenda set out above, we identify three main tasks for future research in the business and human rights field. Firstly, scholarship needs to further investigate the scope and substance of changes in corporate human rights conduct in response to regulatory initiatives. This is not only to differentiate good corporate practice from rhetorical adaptation or strategic attempts to co-opt the human rights discourse but also to identify the underlying conditions for the effective socialization of business actors into norm acceptance and compliant behavior. Secondly, researchers need to keep pace with the evolution of, and changing trends in, the business and human rights regime. This implies the close monitoring and critical assessment of the construction, contestation, and transformation of human rights and accountability norms, as well as of the emergence and performance of actors and governance instruments, such as National Contact Points, National Action Plans, corporate reporting standards, and due diligence laws. Here, it is important to move beyond dominant perspectives on the Global North and extend the research focus to regulatory frameworks and corporate conduct at the starting point of transnational supply chains, especially in countries of the Global South. Finally, business and human rights scholars should continue to feed their academic expertise into the policy process and public debate at the local, national, and transnational levels. With their privileged access to the insights of multidisciplinary human rights scholarship, business and human rights scholars are in an ideal position to create awareness for the complexity of the issues at stake, help building bridges between opposing actors, and contribute to the enhancement of corporate human rights accountability.

Abstract

     Although the extractive industry has contributed to the socio-economic development of many African countries, it has also led to incidences of human rights violations in many rural communities. However, the use of an evidence-based approach to search, locate, explore and synthesize the literature systematically in order to understand the nature and pattern of human rights violations within the extractive industry remains limited. Consequently, this study employs the systematic review method to determine the nature and drivers of human rights abuses within the extractive industry in Africa. Of the 791 articles retrieved from the search of the databases, 58 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in evidence synthesis. Based on the thematic analysis conducted on the articles that met the inclusion criteria, we find that human rights abuses tend to be associated with the violation of economic, social, and cultural rights, tensions over land ownership, the loss of livelihood, and community marginalization. We conclude the study with some policy implications and suggest avenues for future research.

Introduction

     The relationship between resource extraction and sustainable development in Africa has largely remained contested. Indeed, while the World Bank and African governments/elites are often quick to point out that resource extraction contributes to the economic development of African countries, others have emphasized the negative socio-economic impacts of the extractive industry on the poor and marginalized communities (Akabzaa and Darimani, 2001; 1demudia, 2007; Tuokuu et al., 2018). As primarily an exporter of primary commodities, African governments pursuit of economic development through resource extraction with the adoption of neoliberal economic policies like the structural adjustment programs (SAPs) in the 1980s resulted in the liberalization of codes and laws that also allowed for the influx of foreign multinational corporations (MNCs) into rural communities where resource extraction tends to take place (Campbell, 2003, 2010; Tuokuu et al., 2019). As a result, in contrast to the 1960s that was dominated by African governments’ pursuit of nationalization of economic policies, the domain of opposition to MNC activities in the 1990s invariably shifted from host governments to local communities (Harvey, 2006). These contestations over the activities of MNCs in rural communities often resulted in a widespread incidence of corporate-community conflict and associated human rights violations. For example, local protests over incidences of environmental degradation associated with the operation of Shell in the Niger Delta area of Nigeria led to the displacement of the Ogoni people and the violations of their human rights (Obi, 2009). These kinds of incidences resulted in reputational damage, increased social risks, and associated costs for MNCs.

Conclusion and future directions

     The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize available evidence in the literature on the drivers and patterns of human rights abuses in the extractive industry as well as identify the common suggestions on how to address these abuses. Our analysis showed that the pattern of abuse is often in terms of the violation of economic, social, and cultural rights and the core drivers of human rights abuses are contestations over land ownership, the associated loss of livelihood, and the marginalization of communities in decision-making. Much of the suggestions on efforts to address human rights abuses in the sector focused on CSR programs, formalization of ASM, and active community engagement. The implication is that the literature on business and human rights within the extractive industry in Africa tend to focus on document incidence of human rights abuses as opposed to analyzing how MNCs seek to address their human rights obligations. Indeed, while the extant works are critical for better understanding of the nature of the human rights problems in the sector, there is a need to move towards examining the effectiveness of the different processes and practices that MNCs are putting in place to address their human rights obligations. This is particularly important given that several MNCs are increasingly signing up to global initiatives such as the UN global compact and the voluntary principles of security and human rights as means to demonstrate their commitments to become corporate human rights defenders. Put differently, future research can usefully examine the extent to which corporate commitment to such global initiatives have necessarily yielded positive human rights dividend for local communities on the ground. There is the need for future research to probe how corporate commitments to global initiatives have yielded human rights outcomes within the extractive industry in Africa. Similarly, a crucial assumption underpins the idea that it is in the best interest of MNCs to respect human rights and rely on the notion that they require social licenses to operate. While the concept of social licenses to operate has been a subject of various critiques (see Owen and Kemp, 2013), we still do not know whether and how poor communities can enforce social license to operate or what other effective alternative corporate accountability strategies that local communities might be deploying to ensure MNCs respect their human rights.

Abstract

     The digitalisation of production driven by new paradigms such as Industry 4.0, factories of the future and smart manufacturing, create new challenges as to how manufacturers and other supply chain actors would discharge their corporate responsibility to respect human rights. These new paradigms enable novel approaches like distributed and collaborative manufacturing. Manufacturers increasingly leverage digital technologies, such as 3D printing, cloud manufacturing and artificial intelligence, to provide customised products. Digital technologies also improve predictive and preventive maintenance on the shop floor and across the supply chain, increasing the overall resilience of manufacturing industries in times of crisis. This article proposes a blueprint of a collaborative, decentralised approach to human rights due diligence in digital supply chains. It argues that the pooling of human rights due diligence efforts in manufacturing industries could have network-wide effects of incentivising value chain actors to also collaborate on providing collective remedy.

Introduction

     The manufacturing of a modern aircraft, like an Airbus A321, is the result of highly efficient cooperation across complex, tightly integrated global supply and manufacturing chains. The process starts with the design and engineering, through production and transport of aircraft sections, to final assembly and tests, certification and delivery to the customer. Growing demand in air travel in the past few decades has naturally increased the production needs. At the same time, fast-paced developments in the information and communications technology (ICT) industry have offered new ways of optimising manufacturing. As a result, the supply chain of modern aircraft production no longer consists of just raw materials, such as steel, aluminium, titanium and their alloys. The deployment of smart sensors on the shop floor and the utilization of automated systems means that supply chains now include also digital assets, such as datasets, computer simulations, digital twins and pre-trained machine learning models.

     New models of manufacturing are enabled by concepts like distributed, collaborative and additive manufacturing. At the same time, they also create distinct challenges as to how manufacturers and the various actors in their supply chains could discharge their corporate responsibility to respect human rights. It has become widely accepted that businesses do have a corporate responsibility to respect human rights. The United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (‘Guiding Principles’) promote this responsibility as a global standard of expected conduct from business enterprises, regardless of their size, sector, operational context, ownership or structure.1 Thus, from manufacturers to service-providing enterprises, all actors in the value chain are subject to the same responsibility.2 In this sense, the corporate responsibility to respect human rights applies equally to enterprises engaged in traditional manufacturing as well as those in smart manufacturing driven by the developments in so-called Industry 4.0.

Conclusion

     Collaborative smart manufacturing in Industry 4.0 represents a significant shift in the convention manufacturing paradigm. The vertical and horizontal integration of actors in the supply chain leads to the emergence of new business relationships entailing new potential adverse human rights impacts. It is beyond doubt that business entities have a corporate responsibility to respect human rights. A main tool to discharge this responsibility, human rights due diligence is premised on the idea that it is within the business enterprise’s control to prevent or mitigate human rights impacts at the beginning of a new business relationship or activity. This assumption, however, is challenged by technological and organisational processes within Industry 4.0 which are based on complex real-time network interactions and data-driven autonomous decision-making. In this new collaborative environment, the manufacturer becomes one of many actors in a network, along with the customer. This gives rise to new potential aggregate adverse human rights impacts at the level of the ecosystem which cannot be sufficiently addressed by any single actor alone.

Abstract

1. Continued cooperation, but with reduced scope, efficiency and influence

2. Potential instability

3. Scope for professional and academic engagement to improve efficiency and perhaps reduce instability

Funding

Declaration of competing interest

Abstract

The prospect of significantly reduced and potentially unstable EU-UK criminal justice cooperation under the 2020 Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) unless criminal justice professionals and academics can help to shape its future development. Key words Post-Brexit readjustment process; The EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA); EU-UK criminal justice cooperation

1. Continued cooperation, but with reduced scope, efficiency and influence

… an operational downgrade for law enforcement authorities across the UK … compared to what we had before, …though, if you look at it from the parameters of any other third country, we have done rather well …. 1

Part Three of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA)2 – the section dealing with criminal justice and security3 – indicates a spectrum of continuity/discontinuity in cooperation from January 1, 2021 onwards.4 This reveals both an initial (at least) loss of operational efficiency and a diminution of formal British government influence over the strategic development of EU criminal justice law, institutions and operational priorities, for example:

General continuity: data sharing (biometric and vehicle data via the Prüm arrangements and criminal records), PNR screening and confiscation measures.

Abstract

Keywords

1. Introduction

2. Democracy, constitution, and human rights protection

3. Comparative framework and analysis

4. Comparative constitutional law: civil liberties perspectives

5. Comparative constitutional law: political rights perspectives

6. Conclusion

Acknowledgement

Appendix

References

Abstract

This article examines constitutional protection of human rights, in particular civil liberties and political rights, in two democratic and two undemocratic regimes respectively. While the existing literature is consensual on the importance of constitutional democracy in upholding fundamental human rights, the discussion on authoritarianism is limited. This paper provides a comparative framework and suggests that not only do the constitutional democracies, namely Tonga and Monaco, perform well on constitutional human rights protection, Hong Kong and Singapore, both undemocratic, also demonstrate a similar level of protection on paper. Combining with their performance on human rights protection, it is argued that constitutional provisions in both democratic and authoritarian states carry limited significance, but how constitutions are interpreted and implemented matter the most.

In recent years two Swedish companies, Telia and Lundin Petroleum, have had to work hard to legitimate their actions as a result of allegations of criminal activity. In this paper, the corporate framings employed to deal with allegations of crime will be analysed on the basis of Stanley Cohen’s (2009) theoretical work on processes of denial and neutralization techniques. More specifically, the paper focuses on the temporalization of neutralizations of corporate crime and aims to answer the following questions: How have the corporations’ defence mechanisms changed over time? How might the types of crime of which they have been accused, and their corporate structures, affect the ways in which particular defence mechanisms are employed? The analysis demonstrates that although there are similarities, such as both companies framing their businesses as contributing to the development of democracy, human rights, prosperity and peace, the companies follow two different lines of development in their defences. While Telia moves from literal denial to confession, Lundin Petroleum stays with its literal denial in parallel with a strong condemnation of the condemners. These differences seem to be grounded both in the crimes of which the companies have been accused and their respective corporate structures.

Introduction

In recent years two Swedish companies, Telia and Lundin Petroleum, have had to work hard to legitimate their actions as a result of allegations of criminal activity. The telecommunications provider Telia’s1 dealings in Central Asia, and in Uzbekistan in particular, have attracted a substantial amount of media attention and criminal investigations both in Sweden and abroad. In 2012, the so-called “Uzbekistan affair” was uncovered, resulting in criminal charges against the former CEO and two other senior officials for their involvement in the company’s bribery scheme, and in legal proceedings against the company in Sweden for a disgorgement (i.e. giving up illegally gained profits) and a global settlement in which Telia agreed to pay $965 million to resolve charges relating to violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). The Swedish government is the company’s principal shareholder with almost 40 percent of the company’s shares. Lundin Petroleum was awarded a contract for Block 5A in southern Sudan in early 1997, and ever since that time the company’s operations have faced allegations of participating in crimes against humanity. A report entitled “Unpaid Debt”, written by the European Coalition on Oil in Sudan (ECOS),2 led to the initiation of an ongoing police investigation in Sweden into violations of international law. The Lundin family are the largest shareholder in the business, with 30 percent of the company’s shares. As a result of these allegations, the two companies have for more than a decade been faced with a need for ‘crisis management’ in order to legitimate themselves and their business in relation to public opinion, the media and their shareholders. Corporate selfdefences, which belong to a broader category of offenders’ neutralizations and denials, constitute a form of speech acts known as accounts (Scott and Lyman, 1968) that are employed when someone has to explain a gap between actions and expectations.

1. Introduction

2. Related work

3. Methodology

4. Case study

5. Discussion and implications

6. Conclusions

Acknowledgement

References

Abstract

Racism is increasingly recognised as a key driver of unfair inequalities in power, resources and opportunities across racial groups. A comprehensive understanding of racism is beneficial to activist groups, policymakers and governments. Traditional approaches, such as surveys and interviews, are usually time-consuming and inefficient in capturing the occurrence of large-scale racism. In this study, we utilise routinely collected data available on tourism websites to assess self-reported racism in the tourism domain. We present a data acquisition procedure that collects racism-related reviews from the Internet at the global scale and then utilise statistics and natural language processing techniques to analyse and explore racism in terms of its tendency, distribution, semantics and characteristics. The effectiveness of the proposed method is demonstrated in a case study, in which we acquire racism-related data at the global scale and validate the impact of racial discrimination on tourists’ experience.

Introduction

Racism is a social phenomenon that should not be ignored. It is a key factor that leads to unfair and avoidable inequalities in power, resources and opportunities across racial or ethnic groups (Berman & Paradies, 2010). This claim is reflected not only by increasing political attention but also by growing media coverage (Rodrigues, Niemann, & Paradies, 2019). Racism has various manifestations. Thus, it has been studied as a concept (i.e. beliefs, ideologies or worldviews) and as an action (i.e. forms of racial discrimination, such as offensive language or racist practices) (Paradies, 2016; Priest & Williams, 2017). Racism research is inherently multidisciplinary and has been the focus of research in humanities (Levy, 2017), social sciences (Henricks, 2015), cultural studies (Seikkula, 2019), economics (Lane, 2016), and law (Hirsh & Cha, 2018), among others.

With the development of the Internet, especially the rise of social networks, assumed anonymity and digital freedom of speech encourage people to freely disclose their racist ideologies or adopt an aggressive online behaviour with limited consequences. In today’s digital era, racism has become common and virulent on the Internet. It has also drawn much research attention in various fields, from engineering and technical science to psychology and social sciences (Jakubowicz et al., 2017; Bliuc, Faulkner, & Jakubowicz, 2018; Fortuna & Nunes, 2018).

1- BHR: a brief overview

2- IB, responsible business, and human rights

3- The value-added of a human rights perspective

4- Bringing IB and BHR together

5- Conclusion

References

Abstract

The discussion on business responsibilities for human rights is thriving – although, surprisingly, predominantly outside of the International Business (IB) field. This article introduces business and human rights (BHR) as a research area with great potential for IB scholars. IB scholarship has much to offer when it comes to better understanding the relation between multinational enterprises (MNEs) and human rights. BHR, on the other hand, is a field that can no longer be ignored by IB research if the field is to remain at the forefront of scholarship in globalization-related issues concerning MNEs. Therefore, this perspective article aims at providing guidance to IB scholars interested in engaging in BHR research by tracing common themes and overlaps, and outlining a research agenda that addresses some of the research gaps and open questions in both fields.

BHR: a brief overview

Granted that human rights have traditionally been thought to relate exclusively to government conduct, there has been a thriving discussion on the respective responsibilities of business since the mid-1990s (Wettstein, 2012) (see Table 1 for a timeline of the discussion). Already in the 1970s, the UN and OECD had launched parallel initiatives to regulate the business activities of MNEs through international codes of conduct. Both the UN Draft Code, drafted by the then newly-established Center for Multinational Corporations, and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises contained a paragraph connecting corporate conduct with human rights. While the UN Draft Code was never adopted and the UN Center dissolved in the 1990s, the OECD Guidelines have become one of the most important global codes on corporate responsibility and contain a full chapter on corporate human rights responsibility today, modeled on the 2011 UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights – UNGPs – a soft-law initiative identifying the responsibility of companies to respect universal human rights as they operate locally or globally (Ruggie, 2011). The context and experience of Western MNEs operating in apartheid South Africa during the 1970s and 1980s influenced both codes of conduct and their outlook on human rights and business relations with authoritarian and racist regimes. It also inspired some first academic writings on the connection between corporations and human rights in the late 1980s (see, e.g., Donaldson 1989). However, despite such contexts, initiatives and early writings, a systematic debate on BHR started to emerge only during the mid-1990s against the background on the one hand of the involvement of Western oil companies – among them particularly Shell – in large-scale environmental destruction and human rights abuse in Nigeria, and on the other hand of breaking stories concerning sweatshop conditions and child labor in the production facilities of the suppliers of major Western sporting firms like Nike. BHR is to be seen as distinct from the broader CSR discussion. One of the most striking differences between the two is that BHR emerged predominantly from legal scholarship, while CSR has its root in management studies (Ramasastry 2015). Accordingly, the early BHR debate in the late 1990s and early 2000s was focused predominantly on clarifying potential bases of legal human rights accountability of corporations (Frey 1997; Ratner 2001) and non-state actors more generally (Clapham 2006), their status under international human rights law (Muchlinski 2001), and forms and foundations of corporate complicity (Clapham and Jerbi 2001).

INTRODUCTION

WOMEN’S HEALTH AND THE RIGHT TO HEALTH IN IRAN

WOMEN’S RIGHT TO UNDERLYING DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH

WOMEN’S ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE IN IRAN

Nondiscrimination

Financial accessibility

Physical accessibility

Information accessibility

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Summary

In Iran, discrimination based on gender in enjoyment of the right to health is prohibited. Making health services physically and financially accessible to the entire population and removing social and cultural barriers of women’s access to health services are main considerations of the health laws and policies of Iran. The health of Iranian women has improved considerably in recent years. But there are disparities in health status and access of women to health services around the country. Some groups of women, including the poor, the elderly, the disabled, the illegal immigrant, and those without an appropriate male guardian, and rural women have limited access to health services in Iran. To realize women’s right to health, this country should immediately remove the disparities and use all the necessary means including legislative, administrative, budgetary, promotional, and judicial measures. National plans on women’s empowerment and support should be interpreted in provincial programs and action plans. Moreover, a monitoring system and certain benchmarks for tracing the progress of the plans should be established. Realizing other economic, social, and cultural rights including the rights to food, shelter, education, work, social security, and participation in society will improve the Iranian women’s enjoyment of their right.

INTRODUCTION

The right to health has been recognized by several international human rights treaties such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 1945 and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) 1966. According to the UDHR, everyone has a “right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well‐being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.” 1 Article 12 of the ICESCR defines the right to health as “a right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.” Any discrimination on any prohibited grounds such as race, sex, language, national or social origin, and religion in the exercise of this right is prohibited.2 However, around the world, women face more obstacles to access health services than men. They often have less power in making decisions in their families and about their health and lives. Furthermore, they are more likely to be poor, unemployed, and economically dependent on men.3 Therefore, women’s right to health and equal access to health services should get especial attention in national and international health policies.