Search

In fighting corruption, good governance efforts rely on principles such as accountability, transparency and participation to shape anti-corruption measures. Initiatives may include establishing institutions such as anti-corruption commissions, creating mechanisms of information sharing, and monitoring governments' use of public funds and implementation of policies. Good governance and human rights are mutually reinforcing. Human rights principles provide a set of values to guide the work of governments and other political and social actors. They also provide a set of performance standards against which these actors can be held accountable. Moreover, human rights principles inform the content of good governance efforts: they may inform the development of legislative frameworks, policies, programmers, budgetary allocations and other measures. Corruption is recognized as a serious crime in the EU, which is reflected in its many anti-corruption instruments covering existing member states. Countries wishing to join still face considerable systemic corruption issues in their public institutions. In Macedonia as one of these countries the most significant human rights problems stemmed from pervasive corruption and from the government's failure to respect fully the rule of law. This article introduces anti-corruption work, good governance, and attempts to identify the various levels of relationship between that work and human rights with particular reference to Macedonia as an EU candidate country. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The founding of the United Nations in 1945, with the promotion of universal observance of human rights as a principle objective under its Charter, launched an era of international human rights institution-building and standard-setting. Despite the existence of a considerable number of human rights treaties elaborated on the international and regional level, one of the main challenges is the large implementation gap between the "high aspirations and the sobering realities on the ground". On the one hand, many national systems do not provide access to effective domestic protection systems for human rights; on the other hand, the UN system still lacks an effective judicial mechanism responsible for the implementation of these rights. Even where States have given their consent to be bound by a human rights treaty, there are failures in compliance. Non-enforcement is a major failure of the United Nations human rights treaty system. However, the promise of universal human rights protection is not likely to be fulfilled unless and until victims of human rights violations are able to have access to effective remedies at both the national and international levels. The World Court of Human Rights should be a permanent court established by a multilateral treaty under the auspices of the United Nations. The Court would exercise jurisdiction not only in respect of States but also in respect of a wide range of other actors, jointly referred to as 'Entities' in the Draft Statute. They would include intergovernmental organizations, transnational corporations, and other non-state actors. The article will try to answer three questions. First, whether a World Court for Human Rights would be desirable. Second, whether there is a need for such a court and third, whether there is a reasonable chance of actually realizing the plan, taking into account the most important challenges of the 21st century. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

States have been granting protection to individuals and groups fleeing persecution for centuries; however, the modern refugee regime is largely the product of the second half of the twentieth century. Like international human rights law, modern refugee law has its origins in the aftermath of World War II as well as the refugee crises of the interwar years that preceded it. The refugee in international law occupies a large space characterized, on the one hand, by the principle of State sovereignty and, on the other hand, by competing humanitarian principles deriving from general international law and from treaty. The study of refugee protections invites a look not only at States' obligations with regard to admission and treatment after entry, but also at the potential responsibility in international law of the State whose conduct or omissions cause an outflow. The community of nations is responsible in a general sense for finding solutions and in providing international protection to refugee. This special mandate was entrusted to UNHCR. At the start of the 21st century, protecting refugees means maintaining solidarity with the world's most threatened, while finding answers to the challenges confronting the international system that was created to do just that. The aim of this article is to describe the foundations and the framework of international refugee law, to define refugees and protection of refugees; as well as to provides a brief analysis of the changing migration and asylum dynamics in the region and outlines some of the main challenges arising in this context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on 1 December 2009, the European Union's Charter of Fundamental Rights ('the Charter') has found a place among the formal sources of EU law, and has become a standard of review for the validity of EU acts. It became legally binding for EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union, but also to the Member States. Even after the entry into force of the Charter', some doubts regarding its legal effects are still looming large. Among them is whether, and to what extent, the Charter applies to national measures that are connected to EU law but are not intended to implement it directly. This legal uncertainty affects the position of individuals seeking to assert their fundamental rights before a national judge. In particular, whereas the application of the Charter warrants disapplication of the conflicting national measures, the same remedy is often not available when plaintiffs rely only on other fundamental rights instruments (like the European Convention on Human Rights or national constitutions). There is no doubt that the borderline between EU law and national law is not always easy to establish in a concrete case. This article discusses theoretical and practical problems arising out of the application and interpretation of Article 51(1) of the Charter, according to which the Charter is addressed to the Member States 'only when they are implementing Union law'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Access to justice is a core fundamental right and a central concept in the broader field of justice. The case-law of the European Court of Human Rights on Article 6 is a complex body of rules. Article 6 of the Convention was inspired by Article 10 and 11(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human rights of 1948. It has also its counterpart - with minor differences in Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on 1966. Article 6, which guarantees the right to fair trial, occupies a central place in the system of the Convention. it is a generally agreed that this provision is the most frequently cited one of the Convention, both at the national and international levels. This Article contains a variety of rights which are all related to the good administration of justice, not only criminal, but also in the civil and administrative matters. The 'independent and impartial tribunal established by law' is one of textual elements of the Fair Trial Right, as long as it has direct and explicit expression in the text of Convention. Even in simple logical way it can be considered as a suite of requirements referring to 1) the notion of tribunal 2) its attribute of being established by law 3) being independent and 4) being impartial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Article proposes a genealogy of transitional justice and focuses on transitional justice as one of the key steps in peace building that needs to be taken to secure a stable democratic future. Transitional justice is a response to systematic or widespread violations of human rights. It seeks recognition for victims and promotion of possibilities for peace, reconciliation and democracy. The paper focuses on key concepts of transitional justice before addressing its traditional components: justice, reparation, truth and institutional reform. This Article meeting point on the transitional process in a society which has experienced a violent conflict and needs adequate mechanisms to deal with the legacies of the past in order to prevent future violence and cover the way for reconciliation and democratic consolidation. It provides key stakeholders with an overview of transitional justice and its different components, while examining key challenges faced by those working in this area. The present paper concludes with some remarks that challenge the traditional concept of transitional justice and its processes in order to initiate important debate on where future work in this field is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The risks posed by climate change are real and its impacts are already taking place. The biggest challenge about climate change is that there is no one single answer, no one single solution. This characteristic, together with the long history of political frictions and disputes worsened by environmental stresses suggests that global climatic changes have the potential to exacerbate existing international tensions. On December 31, 2012, the Kyoto Protocol's first commitment period will expire. Unless states agree to a second commitment period, requiring a further round of emissions cuts, the Protocol will no longer impose any quantitative limits on states' greenhouse gas emissions. Although, as a legal matter, the Protocol will continue in force, it will be a largely empty shell, doing little if anything to curb global warming. Unlike the Kyoto Protocol negotiations, which focused exclusively on developed country emissions, the ongoing negotiations on a post-2012 climate change regime have also addressed developing country mitigation actions, without which a solution to the climate change problem is impossible. This has made the current negotiations as much between developed and developing countries as between the U.S. and the European Union. Key issues include: Legal Form; Regulatory approach; and Differentiation. By the Durban conference in December 2011 the EU needs to decide whether - and how - it will sign-up to a second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol. This article focuses on the European Union needs to decide whether - and - how it will sign- up a second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol. Because asking, whether others will act is the wrong question. The real question is whether signing- up to some form of second Kyoto commitment period will support Europe's fundamental interests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]