Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: In this presentation I am going to concentrate on the human rights (HR) discourse and its political function. The centre of attention is the discourse on the right to work and the Decent Work (DW) Agenda and its political function in current international and trans-national relations. The political function of this discourse within the sphere of the HR discourse is least understood. It is rather dominated by labour lawyers and economists alike .
However, HR politics involve the examination of issues such as development, economic efficiency, national security or conflict resolution and consequently involve the examination of the HR paradigm and other political and social paradigms, movements and discourses. As a result, HR politics explores the political functioning of HR and therefore the relation of HR to power.

What derives from this core problem is the question how we can actually understand the political function of the HR discourse, and more specifically the employment discourse, as well as its implications.

When addressing the political functions of the HR discourse and specifically the global employment discourse, we should always be cautious not to regard the discourse as an undifferentiated whole. While the present paper is motivated by the wish to formulate general comments on the issue, the heterogeneity inside the discourse remains and will be examined in more detail in particular case studies within the framework of subsequent PhD studies.

The general hypothesis of this paper is that the discourse on the right to work and the DW agenda add legitimacy to the embattled HR and global employment discourse, yet the discourse does not contribute to universal political action. The questions, I wish to unfold in this paper with the aim to approach and finally verify or disapprove the above hypothesis are as follows:

1) When, where and how does the HR discourse strengthen or weaken the legitimacy of actors?
2) How does the right to work strengthen or weaken the legitimacy of the HR discourse as such?
3) What are the political implications of the employment discourse?

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Individual human rights, states' sovereign rights, and legally recognized property rights interact in complex and changing ways in new debates over development, social and economic policy. This paper argues that these three forms of rights, and the actors who advocate, assert and adjudicate them, are at the center of an emerging set of debates in economic, financial, trade and social policy, and for North-South economic relations. The politics of each of the three sets of rights, and the shifting relationships among them, are examined and illustrated by three cases from the period 1995-2004: the assertion by governments of several low-income countries of their sovereign rights to set social policy and meet urgent social needs, in the case of trade law and domestic production of generic HIV/AIDS antiretroviral medications; the NGO-led movement to assert a human rights-based argument against the privatization of drinking water provision across dozens of countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America; and the growing debate over public access to information regarding corporate investment in poor countries.All three forms of rights human rights, sovereign rights, and property rights are advanced as arguments in all three of these cases, and the patterns of interaction and conflict among them are central to current North-South conflicts over a range of social and economic policy issues. But as the three cases reviewed here demonstrate, the current round of debates is also shifting the relationships among them and creating dramatically new patterns of international politics, as human rights claims, embracing social and economic human rights, align with states' assertion of some sovereign rights, and human rights and property rights claims create sometimes conflicting and sometimes complementary demands on states and international governmental agencies.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Sexual violence has long been an important issue for feminists, but the adoption of rape as a legitimate subject of criminal justice and public policy has resulted in the development of new discourses to name and identify the harm of rape. In the last thirty years, scholars and activists have defined rape in a variety of ways: as an linchpin of patriarchal control over women; as a form of criminal victimization; and as a violation of equality, human rights, and fundamental freedoms.

This paper uses data from interviews and surveys with over 250 advocates who work at local rape crisis centers in the United States to examine how they describe the harm of sexual violence. Different types of rights talk both provoke and circumscribe how advocates explain the causes, assess the harms, and offer assistance to those affected by rape. While these ways of talking about rape are not exact typologies nor are they mutually exclusive, they do help predict how and explain why local advocates call on the state to assist rape victims, and whether advocates perceive existing legal and political structures as appropriate vehicles for seeking redress for victims of rape. General patterns show that victim’s rights advocates appear to be most supportive of mainstream responses and institutions; those who invoked human rights more likely to adopt a broader view of oppression but a gender-neutral conceptualization of rape; while women’s rights advocates were among the sharpest critics of existing legal and political structures.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper examines explicitly what kind of a right the right of humanitarian intervention is. It is argued that the most plausible right-holders would be the UN Security Council and any third party as authorized by the Council. The kind of right each right-holder would have is different. The implications of different kinds of rights are diverse and require both theoretical and practical considerations which are addressed in the paper. Moreover, a link between the right and responsibility to intervene is made.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The study of courts in comparative perspective benefits greatly from established theories in the study of American courts. However, before using the theoretical framework in question to countries different from the U.S., it is necessary to critique and evaluate the assumptions upon which such theories are based, to be sure that the concepts and methodological tools in use are appropriate to address our enquiry and make valid and reliable inferences. Epp examines traditional explanations of major increments of judicial protection of rights in a given polity, a phenomenon commonly understood as ‘rights revolutions’, looking at different covariates. He proposes that “support structures” -understood as the existence of economic, professional, academic and other resources necessary to carry out litigation to protect these rights- are the key element that allows the phenomenon in question to take place. Yet a study by Ostberg, Wetstein and Ducat on the Canadian Supreme Court suggests that ideological dimensions employed to analyze judicial behavior at the U.S. Supreme Court might not be employed to analyze other countries successfully. To overcome this problem, Ostberg et al worked out and developed their analyses based on a different dimension: communitarianism versus libertarianism, conceptualized in a way that allowed a more accurate comparison between the two polities.
This example raises the question of whether both criminal, and other civil rights and liberties, can be used as a combined measure for one and the same phenomenon when studying rights revolutions. To address these concerns, this paper proposes to analyse both criminal and civil rights issues separately, and therefore test the assumption that a combination of developments on both set of rights can be used as a good indicator of the phenomenon in question, without more careful consideration to each kind of case.
This paper will look at changes taking place in civil and criminal cases separately, with respect to the courts’ agenda and the direction of outcomes. This would rule out ‘false’ or ‘adverse’ rights revolutions, in which courts take more cases about rights, but then refuse to support the claimant’s petitions. The analysis will consist of a 30-year longitudinal study of five countries, focusing on decisions taken by high courts (courts of last resort) in these countries. We plan to use a random sample, taken from Haynie, Sheehan, Songer and Tate’s High Courts Judicial Database. Our analysis will include Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, Philippines, and India.