Search

The concept of jurisdiction is often said to encapsulate the very essence of human rights “qua normative relationship between rights holders and institutions as dutybearers” (Besson, 2012; 860). Twenty-first century human rights jurisprudence has highlighted one of the most contentious issues in relation to jurisdiction: the limits that human rights place on State behaviour outside national territory. In the context of migration, the extraterritorial application of human rights is a particularly critical concern. Loss of life on the high seas, refoulement at sea, and the striking systematic ineptitude of search and rescue operations by European countries have placed the debate on extraterritoriality at the heart of the human rights discourse on migrants and refugees. This Paper will compare and contrast extraterritoriality at the European Court of Human Rights and the Human Rights Committee (HRCttee), in order to put their jurisprudence into perspective and assess the current state of the law. A functional account of jurisdiction will be supported, whereby the State should protect human rights wherever in the world it operates, and whenever it can reasonably do so. Through a comparative analysis, I will argue that the principles of universality and effectiveness render extraterritorial applicability a necessary doctrine in human rights law. By juxtaposing the ECtHR with the HRCttee, I will illustrate the wide acceptance of extraterritoriality in the migration context, highlight the needs for improvement in future jurisprudence, and justify the functional approach to human rights protection that this Paper advocates.

Indonesia as a sovereign state has inherent ability to determine its own positive law. Departing from that, Indonesia upholds death penalty in its legal system in its Criminal Code and various lex specialis laws. Death penalty has been long an issue of universal concern as it relates to the non-derogable right to life. Meanwhile Indonesia has death penalty in the national laws to maintain its own interest, it is also bound to international commitment in human rights, one of them being ICCPR which has been ratified by Law number 12 of 2005. In ICCPR, state parties are only allowed to apply death penalty for most serious crimes. This article aims to find out what are the measure for most serious crime and if Indonesian law has aligned to the measure. The research employs normative qualitative method, namely research that analyzes meanings, concepts, and characteristics in related products of law and literature by drawing on diverse strategies of inquiry. This research finds out that Indonesia indeed still has some laws not yet aligned with the most serious crime measures despite as a sovereign country, it wields power to make laws (ius poenali) and power to implement its own laws (ius puniendi). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cancel culture calls into question the relation between artistic productions and values which these productions revoke. While it is widely accepted that art should not bear any constraints which might lead to censorship, it is open the discussion whether art works from the past should be removed or amended in light to the current democratic values endorsed by the western community. This leads to a set of questions: will old art crafts find a place in our museums even if they depict scene of colonization or slavery openly in contrast with the democratic values and the modern concept of statehood? To what extend the artistic freedom should be taken into account when it comes to historical art manufactories which remind old-fashioned values? The paper is structured as it follows: the first section will give an overview of the cancel culture movement, its genesis and its more recent developments. A second section will focus on the protection of artistic freedom of expression and its current state of art in the context of International and European law. The third section will discuss the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights concerning artistic freedom of expression, with particular regards to the concept of European Literature Heritage. The last section will conclude.

Restricting the freedom of movement of unwanted asylum seekers is the conceptual core of the CEAS reform package politically agreed upon by the EU’s legislative institutions in December 2023. Large groups of the people seeking international protection in the EU will be subject to so-called border procedures. Their claims will be processed while being ‘kept at or in proximity to the external border or transit zones’ (Commission proposal) in order to prevent their onward movement and to facilitate ensuing deportations. Introducing such confinement measures will be mandatory for all Member States, provided that an asylum seeker meets certain criteria, in particular a low rate of success of earlier protection claims made by his or her fellow nationals, calculated on an EU-wide average. Why did we fail to make asylum-seekers’ right to free movement relevant in context of the CEAS reform?

This article examines the recent amendments made to the Jordanian Execution Law in respect of imprisonment for failure to pay debts of civil and commercial nature. While the amendments made on the Law are long-awaited and are an improvement to the administration of justice in the Country; it remains that these amendments came below expectations. First, the recent amendments to the Law are short from the international obligations of the Country under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which Jordan is a signatory of. Second, the recent amendments still use the "one size fits all" approach whereby it does not provide a distinction between a procrastinating debtor and a debtor that is indeed not able to pay; to determine imprisonment in civil and commercial debts. Hence, while the recent amendments had made some positive changes to the imprisonment for debtors in civil and commercial debts; this article finds that Jordan must adhere to its international obligations by providing alternatives to imprisonment for civil and commercial debts; or at least provide a distinction between a procrastinating debtor and a not able to pay debtor to determine whether imprisonment of the debtor is due. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scholars have identified challenges to protecting individuals from discrimination in contexts where organisations deploy artificial intelligence decision-making processes. While scholarship on 'digital discrimination' is growing, scholars have paid less attention to the impact of the use of artificial intelligence decision-making processes on persons with disabilities. This article posits that while the use of artificial intelligence technology can be beneficial for some purposes, its deployment can also construct a disability. The article demonstrates that the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities can be interpreted in a manner that confers a wide variety of human rights on persons with disabilities in the context when entities deploy artificial intelligence decision-making processes. The article proposes a test for digital discrimination based on disability and shows how it can be incorporated into the treaty through legal interpretation. Thereafter, it moves to developing an analogous general test for digital discrimination under international human rights law, applicable beyond a catalogue of protected characteristics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Human Rights treaties which contain derogation clause, albeit allowing the derogation of some rights and freedoms in states of emergency, have provided some principles that must be observed by the States Parties for the derogation clause to be applicable. The purpose behind the prevision is the prevention from abuse of derogation right and gross violation of human rights by States under pretext of the existence of emergency situations. These principles can be divided into two general categories: substantive and procedural. The substantive principles are: the principle of exceptional threat, the principle of proportionality, the principle of observation of other international obligations, the principle of non-discrimination, the principle of good faith and the principle of non-derogable rights. The procedural principles are: the principle of proclamation and the principle of notification. Strict implementation of these principles requires their entry into domestic systems, especially in the constitutions of countries. Article 79 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran also deals with the application of necessary restrictions in times of war and similar emergencies. In the study, the issue of the status of emergency situations in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its compliance with the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) relating to the suspension of human rights in emergency situations has been examined comparatively. Findings indicate that Article 79 of the Iranian Constitution is slightly in line with Article 4 of the ICCPR and could be amended in a possible future revision.

The abandonment of seafarers is one of the major challenges that seafarers onboard vessels may face. In 2022, 1555 seafarers were abandoned on 113 ships. The port state's role in seafarer abandonment is crucial because it can assist abandoned seafarers by facilitating their repatriation. In practice, however, it has been seen in many cases that the port state of the vessel had restricted the disembarkation of the abandoned crew from the vessel by citing the reason that the vessel cannot be left unmanned. The present study will assess such measures adopted by the port states in light of International Law instruments, including the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966.

Seychelles acceded to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 1992. Article 9(3) of the ICCPR provides for circumstances in which an accused may be released on bail. Article 18(7) of the Constitution of Seychelles (2008) provides for the grounds on which a court may decline to release an arrested or accused person on bail. Article 48 of the Constitution requires Seychellois courts to, inter alia, refer to international treaties and the practice/jurisprudence of international human rights bodies when interpreting constitutional rights. This article illustrates the drafting history of Article 9(3) of the ICCPR and how it has been interpreted by the Human Rights Committee. It also highlights the right to bail under the African human rights system. Based on over 250 cases of the magistrate's court, Supreme Court, Constitutional Court and Court of Appeal decided between 1998 and 2023, the article discusses the extent to which the courts' jurisprudence complies with the practice and/or jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee on the following issues: the right to bail, courts with jurisdiction to grant bail, factors courts consider in making bail decisions, burden of proof in bail matters, bail pending appeal and court's power to revoke bail. It is argued, inter alia, that although the jurisprudence on bail substantially complies with the standards set by the Human Rights Committee, there are instances in which some of the courts' decisions are contrary to these standards. The article recommends that courts should ensure that the jurisprudence on bail complies with the principles developed by the Human Rights Committee. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author critically analyses the decision of the Human Rights Committee (HRC) in Daniel Billy et al. v. Australia and argues that this decision leaves several gaps in its interpretation and application of 'right to life' and rights of children in a climate change case. This is the second decision in which the HRC holds that climate change, sea-level rise, coastal erosion etc. is likely to negatively impact right to life of people residing in affected coastal regions in the next 10–15 years, preventing the HRC to hold that climate change or sea-level rise is an 'imminent' or 'foreseeable' threat to the right to life of people. For the rights of children, he HRC rules that right to culture was impaired, specifically because the islanders ability to disseminate their culture to future generations was impaired. While this rationale was used to hold 'right to culture' violations, this rationale was not applied in the context of 'rights of children'. The HRC decision overall does not take the inter-dependability of human rights into consideration, while holding that one right is violated and other is not. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The freedom of religion or belief is internationally recognized. However, studies demonstrate that the implementation of the right to apostasy, an essential aspect of this freedom, encounters difficulties in state practices. Doctrinal and historical research is conducted regarding the UN legal documents and the drafting history in order to demonstrate that the phrasing of the freedom to change religion in the provisions has been gradually altered since the legal establishment in 1948. Within the UN, member states have succeeded in changing the provisions, resulting in conceptual ambiguity regarding the right to apostasy. It is a matter of concern that there is little recognition, within the UN and in academia, of the fact that the explicit right to apostasy has been disregarded, resulting in diminishing the normative force of the religious freedom provision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In January 2021 the Human Rights Committee determined that Italy and Malta had both failed to protect the right to life of more than 200 migrants who perished in a shipwreck in 2013. The Committee tackled for the first time the question of extraterritorial application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to persons in distress at sea. While finding the decision against Malta to be inadmissible, the Committee engaged in a significant analysis of the concept of jurisdiction in both decisions. This article analyses how the decisions interpret the concept of 'jurisdiction' and juxtaposes this analysis against the approaches taken in other international legal regimes. The article then theorises on the impact of these two decisions in helping to crystallise a new 'right to be rescued at sea'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract As a state party to the ICCPR, Indonesia is subject to the compliance monitoring procedures enacted by the Covenant, which include, inter alia, the submission of State reports to the Human Rights Committee (HRC) as its treaty body and the obligation to comply with the recommendations made by the Committee as the output of the review process of said State report. Such procedures are enacted in the hopes of ensuring the States parties’ compliance with the treaty obligations. However, based on the judgement of the HRC themselves, as reflected in their Concluding Observation on Indonesia’s Initial State Report, it can be inferred that there are certain issues which demonstrate Indonesia’s failure to fulfill their ICCPR obligations, which to this day still persists. This article intends to delve on discussions regarding the factors that may be the cause of said failures, and finds that there are at least two such factors, which are the unwarranted expansion of treaty obligations towards its States parties by the HRC themselves, and an inhibition of a more pragmatic nature in the form of political reluctance by Indonesia as the State party in question themselves to follow the HRC’s recommendations due to the lack of internal will and external pressure. Abstrak Sebagai salah satu negara anggota ICCPR, Indonesia memiliki kewajiban untuk mematuhi prosedur-prosedur pengawasan kepatuhan yang diatur dalam ICCPR itu sendiri, yang meliputi, di antaranya, pengumpulan State report mereka kepada Human Rights Committee (HRC) sebagai treaty body dari ICCPR, dan untuk mematuhi rekomendasi yang dibuat oleh HRC kepada negara yang bersangkutan sebagai produk akhir dari proses eksaminasi State report yang bersangkutan. Kewajiban yang demikian diatur dengan harapan agar kepatuhan negara-negara anggota terhadap kewajiban-kewajiban perjanjian bisa dipastikan. Namun demikian, berdasarkan penilaian dari HRC sendiri, sebagaimana terefleksikan dalam concluding observation mereka terhadap State report pertama Indonesia, terdapat beberapa isu yang menunjukkan kegagalan Indonesia dalam memenuhi kewajiban ICCPR mereka yang, hingga saat penulisan artikel ini, masih bertahan. Artikel ini bertujuan untuk membahas mengenai faktor-faktor yang mungkin merupakan penyebab dari kegagalan-kegagalan tersebut, dan menemukan bahwa terdapat setidaknya dua faktor, yakni perluasan kewajiban perjanjian yang tidak sah oleh HRC itu sendiri, dan halangan yang lebih bersifat pragmatis dalam bentuk keengganan politis dari Indonesia untuk mengikuti rekomendasi oleh HRC karena kurangnya keinginan internal serta tekanan eksternal.

For nearly two decades the United States Federal Government (US Government), state governments, and local authorities, have infringed on the religious freedoms of its citizens and lawful residents by enacting policies and practices that disproportionately discriminate against Muslims. For example, the 2017 Presidential Proclamation 9645, known as the Travel Ban or otherwise referred to by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and others as the Muslim Ban, is the newest addition to the list of preceding federal measures that attempt to legalize discrimination against Muslims. The US Government rather than striving to eliminate prejudice and discrimination, and striving to promote inclusivity, is fueling xenophobia and Islamophobia through sweeping policy decisions and antiMuslim rhetoric. This publication is part of the Global Justice Program’s Human Rights Agenda report series. In this series, we collaborate with other human rights, civil rights, and civil society organizations under the umbrella of the US Human Rights Network (USHRN), to advance the utility of the rights-based framework as a meaningful organizing tool for impacted communities and social movements to articulate claims of social, cultural, political rights, and belonging. Our reports are reviewed by the United Nations Human Rights Commission and inform the UN’s recommendations to hold the US Government and legislative body accountable to their obligations as related to the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), the International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

Social media platform corporations such as Meta (Facebook), Twitter, etc. find themselves in a position of having to interpret international human rights norms, in particular Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (freedom of expression). Millions or even billions of content moderation decisions need to be taken on the platforms each day that affect users' human rights interests. Since content moderation is integral to the technical and commercial set-up of these platforms, corporate decision-making vis-à-vis human rights and thus corporate interpretation of international human rights norms is inevitable. Yet, corporations are flawed interpreters. Whereas they act, like a court or tribunal, as triadic decision-makers, they, unlike a court or tribunal, do not share the neutrality, impartiality and independence of the latter. In particular, they are responsible to their shareholders and they pursue commercial interests when moderating content. This article grapples with the theoretical and doctrinal implications of flawed but inevitable corporate human rights interpretation. Taking the early practice of the Oversight Board, a body established by Meta, Inc. (Facebook), in order to tackle the "hard cases" of content moderation as a case study, the pitfalls and challenges of corporate human rights interpretation become apparent. In the end, I submit a few suggestions in order to remedy what seems to be here to stay with us at least for as long as an important part of public discourse is channelled through social media platforms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United Nations Human Rights Committee (HRC) is saddled with the responsibility of supervising the implementation of the provisions of the ICCPR by its state parties. However, it is only the reporting procedure that mandates each state party to submit a report to the HRC periodically, outlining the steps it has taken to fulfil its obligations to the treaty. Over the years, it was observed that states tend to embellish these reports before submitting them to the HRC because it had no means of checking the veracity of the contents of the reports. Consequently, the HRC has continued to introduce novel ways of checking the accuracy of the state parties’ reports, which includes the Committee partnering with National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) within the territories of state parties. This is to monitor the implementation of the provisions of the ICCPR and submit alternative reports to the HRC for it to have a more objective perspective on the level of the state compliance. To examine the effectiveness of the reporting procedure among African state parties, two states (Morocco and Rwanda) have been selected with the aim of gauging the effect of the reporting procedure in influencing state parties to fulfil their obligations to the treaty. In the course of the study, the jurisprudence of the HRC and domestic legislation of states were analysed and it is observed that for the HRC to be more effective it needs more visibility, especially within the African Continent.

Presidential Regulation No. 125 of 2016 is the first regulation that provides a normative framework to manage refugees and asylum seekers in Indonesia. However, many scholars believe that this regulation is simply an institutionalization of several existing informal practices, and it does not introduce any substantive changes to ensure refugee protection. This paper analyzes the content of the Presidential Regulation, including its background, structure, wording, and its aims. In addition, this study identifies the limits of the regulation in fulfilling, protecting, and respecting human rights based on the international human rights instruments. This article contends that the Presidential Regulation portrays what I call dilemma of hospitality. It reflects on the one hand, the regulation welcomes the refugees by providing mandates to the authorities to rescue those stranded at sea and to provide accommodation during their stay. On the other hand, the regulation implies a kind of distrust to the refugees—treating them as a threat, limiting their movement, and forbidding them from work. The dilemma by and large affects the effective fulfillment of the rights of the refugees. This study offers some policy recommendations.

The human rights argument for the abolishment of the death penalty has been firmly established in modern times in both practical terms and in the academic circles. Today, most countries have abolished the death penalty for various reasons, all of which are based on human rights. This paper is a contribution to the numerous studies calling for the abolition of the death penalty in various countries. Aside from discussing relevant international instruments (and other national instruments and judicial decisions) relevant to abolishing the death penalty, it focuses on issues concerning the death penalty in Ghana. The primary aim of this paper is to make a recommendation to both the executive and legislative arms of the Ghana government to abolish the death penalty.

For over three decades, the United States and the international community has been attempting to engage North Korea diplomatically, aiming for the complete, verifiable, irreversible denuclearization of North Korea. The Kim family regime has been committing crimes against humanity, but human rights concerns have been discounted by U.S. and other negotiators, fearing they would be an obstacle to a negotiated solution to the grave military and security challenges Pyongyang poses. North Korea has breached each and every one of the international obligations it has assumed, from imembership in the Treaty of Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons to the 1994 Geneva Agreed Framework to the Six Party Talks to the 2012 Leap Day Agreement. While its negotiating counterparts have neglected human rights concerns in multilateral and bilateral talks, North Korea has continued to develop and test its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. It is time for a new paradigm, that brings human rights into the conversation, in a bilateral or multilateral setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Jamaican maximum-security correctional facilities are largely identified by their extremely poor, anachronistic, and inhuman conditions of custody. This overriding identity shelves the positive influence of reforms that have taken place or are currently underway. By drawing on interviews conducted with 55 inmates and nine correctional staff, secondary analyses, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, 1966), this article examines the degree to which recommendations from the "Improving Prison Conditions in the Caribbean" Conference have been implemented in the Jamaican context. The results suggest that since the Conference, noticeable steps have been taken by the Jamaican state to improve the quality of the rehabilitation experience against the backdrop of challenges of size and competing priorities. However, such improvements are not necessarily the direct result of the implementation of the Conference recommendations. Despite the improvements evidenced, it is argued that more meaningful reforms are required if more inmates are to be enabled to lead crime-free and productive lives upon release. This article provides contemporary insights into the improved conditions of imprisonment in Jamaica and makes recommendations on how serious offenders in the care of Jamaica's correctional service can be better enabled to experience effective (not successful) reintegration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present research examines the fairness of the liability of ‘total’ in absentia trials within three specific circumstances. First: the accused is given sufficient notice of the trial and their right to decline to be present. Second: the accused must have a defence counsel advocating them in the trial. Third: the accused’s absolute right to re-trial should be protected once the judgment has been passed in absentia. The main research question to discern the hypothesis is that the accused can be tried in absentia under international criminal tribunals. Therefore, the focus is on answering which procedural scenarios could be counted as “an absence of the defendant.” The present research questions will be analyzed by examining the practice of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL), its theoretical safeguards enshrined in the Statute, and the legal standards from human rights bodies’ jurisprudence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The term "Fair Trial" has become very important in modern times and is one of the basic rights of the accused. There is no comprehensive definition of this term, but there are details in the international documents on the guarantees that come as a result of this right. These include the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and many other human rights Instruments. The 18th Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan also makes the right to a fair trial a part of the Constitution. This right includes appointing a judge, giving the accused a chance to defend himself, the right to testify the witnesses, appealing against the verdict and some other matters are also included in the guarantees of this right. This term is not used in the Islamic judicial system, but Islamic teachings are very clear about the guarantees obtained as a result of this right and Islam clearly distinguishes between the accused and the guilty. Justice has always been given priority in the period from the time of Prophet hood to later times and history has preserved many incidents which are clear evidence of this right in the judicial system. This article appraise the Research Review of Right to Fair Trial in Islamic Judicial System. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Dutch ban on face-covering garments (BFG) has caused a considerable amount of debate in the Netherlands since its entry into force on August 1, 2019. Questions have been raised as to whether this law is discriminatory towards those who wear full-face veils for religious reasons, as these individuals, almost exclusively women, will be excluded from public life based on their religion. Inspired by this debate, this paper analyzes the Dutch BFG from a regional and international law perspective. More specifically, this paper seeks to analyze Dutch BFG in light of the European Convention on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). Additionally, feminist theories play an auxiliary role in specifying CEDAW obligations from a feminist perspective. While the ban may be justified from the point of view of the European Convention on Human Rights, it is problematic from the perspectives of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Further research should therefore investigate this tension to determine how these frameworks can be reconciled while considering that the standard set by the European Court of Human Rights only provides a minimum level of protection.

The purpose of this paper was to analyze the forms of protection and fulfillment of human rights by local governments against the followers of the Tolotang faith in accessing their right to health service as minority group in Sidenreng Rappang District, South Sulawesi Province. The type of research used was normative legal research using a statutory approach. The results showed that The followers of the Tolotang faith have been recognized by the state, and weregiven space to worship based on their beliefs. Also Tolotang faith have recognize by the local government as part of the community in Sidenreng Rappang who have the same access in order to get health service from any medical stuff, doctor, clinic, hospital whenever they need it.The findings of this article can provide insights into the forms of protection and fulfillment of human rights by local governments against the followers of the Tolotang faith inin in accessing their right to health service as minority group in Sidenreng Rappang District, South Sulawesi Province.The followers of the Tolotang faith have been recognized by the state, and weregiven space to worship based on their beliefs. Also Tolotang faith have recognize by the local government as part of the community in Sidenreng Rappang who have the same access in order to get health service from any medical stuff, doctor, clinic, hospital whenever they need it [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Dutch ban on face-covering garments (BFG) has caused a considerable amount of debate in the Netherlands since its entry into force on August 1, 2019. Questions have been raised as to whether this law is discriminatory towards those who wear fullface veils for religious reasons, as these individuals, almost exclusively women, will be excluded from public life based on their religion. Inspired by this debate, this paper analyzes the Dutch BFG from a regional and international law perspective. More specifically, this paper seeks to analyze Dutch BFG in light of the European Convention on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). Additionally, feminist theories play an auxiliary role in specifying CEDAW obligations from a feminist perspective. While the ban may be justified from the point of view of the European Convention on Human Rights, it is problematic from the perspectives of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Further research should therefore investigate this tension to determine how these frameworks can be reconciled while considering that the standard set by the European Court of Human Rights only provides a minimum level of protection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Human Rights Committee—the treaty body established under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—performs a vital function in supervising the Covenant's implementation. This article presents an analytical account of the Committee's approach to determining the permissibility of limitations on the freedom of religion or belief under the Covenant. It finds that the Committee has set out certain primary legal criteria when determining the permissibility of a limitation. The Committee has then articulated certain additional normative constraints that apply to states' authority to limit rights—such as the requirement that the limitation be compatible with the principle of non-discrimination. Based on an analysis of the Committee's general comments and jurisprudence, the author argues that the Committee has offered a path towards imposing on states a heavier burden to justify limitations on the freedom of religion or belief. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The dowry system has been included in Bangladeshi Marriage system from Hindu marriage culture. In the rural areas, impact of this system is highly visible where it is treated as an essential component of every marriage contact. Dowry system has become a deep –rooted social custom and for this, many women are murdered, or they commit suicide. Interestingly, these incidents are caused those are vowed to protect them legally and socially. In Bangladesh, different kinds of laws have been introduced to minimize the social menace. Bangladesh is the member of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights where right to life and prohibition on arbitrary deprivation of right to life is ensured. But non payments of dowry deaths are on the rise despite legal intervention. This paper attempts to explain that lack of enforcement of anti-dowry laws, and also non-fulfillment of human rights obligation as mentioned in International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by Bangladesh, are the main causes of dowry related maltreatments and even deaths of the young married women.

Socio-economic rights have been largely neglected in international human rights law. Misconceptions about the nature of these rights have resulted in their marginalisation and their relegation to second-class rights. Effective enforcement mechanisms in respect of socio-economic rights are still lacking in international human rights law. In the context of the ICESCR, an individual complaint mechanism for socio-economic rights was only introduced in 2009. In contrast, civil and political rights have long been recognised in international human rights law and have always been subjected to effective enforcement mechanisms, in particular, individual complaint mechanisms. The distinction between the two sets of rights - civil and political rights on the one hand, and socio-economic rights on the other hand - has begun to fade. The international human rights community has now recognised the interdependence, indivisibility and interrelatedness of all human rights. Supervisory organs tasked with the interpretation and enforcement of civil and political rights treaties, most notably the ECtHR and the HRC, have played a crucial role in this process. They have recognised in their jurisprudence the interrelatedness of both sets of rights and have allowed socio-economic interests to be enforced indirectly through the canon of traditional, civil and political rights. This article specifically considers the ECtHR’s and the HRC’s jurisprudence on the right to life which demonstrates the extent to which these organs have protected social and economic interests. By using a variety of techniques, which are examined in this article, both organs have permeated the right to life with significant socio-economic dimensions. The analysis of the jurisprudence of the ECtHR shows that the right to life applies to cases concerning health interests in the broad sense as well as environmental interests. For its part, the HRC has not only recognised health and environmental interests as coming within Article 6 of the ICCPR, but also subsistence interests. The article concludes that, despite the conceptual developments, it is difficult for victims of such violations to succeed before the ECtHR and the HRC. The high standards imposed make it difficult for victims to bring successful claims based on the right to life.

In the years since 9/11, international security discourse has heightened concerns around extremism, positioning this as the key threat that States need to address in order to prevent and combat terrorism. Politically, enactment of domestic legislation curtailing extremist expressions has been internationally authorised and encouraged and in May 2016 the United Kingdom (‘UK’), spearheading a liberal State trend towards rights-restrictive approaches to extremism, announced its intention to enact legislation imposing a range of civil sanctions on those publicly expressing extremist views. But laws such as this restrict the core democratic right to freedom of expression and so must comply with the tripartite requirements for restrictions enshrined in Article 19(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (‘ICCPR’) to be legitimate. Using the UK to dynamically exemplify the issues, this paper assesses the manner in which the laws curtailing extremist expressions comply with international human rights law.

This article contributes to existing understandings about the influence of human rights treaty bodies on the development of customary international law. It offers a method of assessing State responses to treaty body jurisprudence for the purposes of determining to what extent the responses push toward the reaffirmation or crystallisation of a customary rule of international law, namely the prohibition against torture. It speaks to the way in which, despite its status as a peremptory norm, the content of the norm is often challenged, but also incrementally expanding due in large part to the way in which treaty bodies engage and guide States both inside and outside of the primary reporting procedures. Ultimately, this article demonstrates that State practice and opinio juris are increasingly influenced by treaty bodies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A rich literature examines human rights treaty commitment and compliance. A subset of this literature has begun to examine the international legal actions states make following treaty ratification. I argue that the ways that states legally engage with treaties following commitment to UN human rights treaties is much more nuanced and differentiated than scholars have thus far presented via Reservation, Understanding, and Declaration. I introduce a first descriptive analysis of what I term Post-Commitment Actions (PCAs) to UN human rights treaties and generate varying hypotheses of why different PCAs have different relationships with expected human rights practices. I conduct a preliminary statistical analysis of the effect of PCAs on human rights practices and find that they are varied and important. Some PCAs result in improved human rights, while others result in worse human rights. I conclude by calling for further future study into these treaty actions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most international scholars think the one-child policy is the entirety of China' family planning policy. Such thinking is completely wrong. Actually, the Chinese government never officially called its Population Planning Policy the "one-child policy." Its official name is the Chinese Family Planning Policy. The Chinese Family Planning Policy remains a basic national policy position in China. It has changed and evolved over time. The one-child policy is only a central rule of Chinese family planning policies from 1980 to 2015. Start from 2015, the Chinese government had already changed the one-child policy, and China has entered a new era of two-child policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Brief considers the tension between the right to freedom of religion and LGBT rights in the context of the landmark ‘wedding cake case’ decided by the US Supreme Court in June 2018 and the Australian Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017. The author proposes a proportionality approach for balancing claims between LGBT rights and freedom of religion, drawing on international norms, case law and the work of progressive religious leaders and academics. The author further suggests that the practical utility of this approach could be bolstered through diverse cross-cultural dialogues between members of LGBT groups and religious groups, with the aim of developing an ‘overlapping consensus’ on core human rights norms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]