No longer Sukumbasis: Challenges in grassroots-led squatter resettlement program in Kathmandu with special reference to Kirtipur Housing Project.

The paper is the outcome of a systematic effort to study and analyze the experiences of the Kirtipur Housing Project (KHP), the first ever grassroots-led squatter resettlement project in Kathmandu. It is widely hailed as a success story as it has been able to provide a legal, affordable and good quality housing solution to the Sukumbasis through grassroots mobilization. The paper analyses the dynamics of this mobilization and the roles of different actors to show how community empowerment, civil actions and local government interests have converged to create a constructive partnership in line with wider enabling principles. Apart from meeting the narrowly defined objective to rehouse 44 households, the project reflects capacity of the community, quite apart from lobbying and protest, in areas of project planning and management. While no grassroots mobilisation can be expected to replicate in a dynamic environment, the paper draws some policy insights that indicate the ability of the grassroots mobilization in Kathmandu to continue and grow. Conversely, the lessons learned from the project also point to limitations in terms lack of prerequisite critical mass or economic benefits to influence the government to prepare a policy framework under which it can foster in a more structured way.

Courts and Consociations:How human rights courts may destabilize power-sharing settlements

We consider the use of consociational arrangements to manage ethno-nationalist, ethno-linguistic, and ethno-religious conflicts, and their compatibility with non-discrimination and equality norms. Key questions include to what extent, if any, consociations conflict with the dictates of global justice and the liberal individualist preferences of international human rights institutions, and to what extent consociational power-sharing may be justified to preserve peace and the integrity of political settlements. In three critical cases, the European Court of Human Rights has considered equality challenges to important consociational practices, twice in Belgium and, most recently, in Sejdic and Finci, concerning the constitutional arrangements established for Bosnia Herzegovina under the Dayton Agreement. The Court’s recent decision in Sejdic and Finci has significantly altered the approach it previously took to judicial review of consociational arrangements in the Belgian cases. We seek to account for this change and assess its implications. We identify problematic aspects of the judgment and conclude that, although the Court’s decision indicates one possible trajectory of human rights courts’ reactions to consociations, this would be an unfortunate development because it leaves future negotiators in places riven by potential or manifest bloody ethnic conflicts with considerably less flexibility in reaching a settlement. That in turn may unintentionally contribute to sustaining such conflicts and make it more likely that advisors to negotiators will advise them to exclude regional and international courts from having standing in the management of political settlements.