Before identity, gender and human rights

This is the beginning of an exploration of before as the thesis ‘before’ (temporally) and ‘be-fore’ (spatially) difference. Before denotes the origin and the desired destination. Before (in the double sense of ‘before’ and ‚be-in-the-fore’) opens up a space of pre-difference, of origin and of forgotten memory, as well as a space of desire, objective, illusion of teleology, unity, completion. Applied to the two domains of Human Rights and Sex/Gender, the space of ‘before’ yields two slightly different vistas: in human rights, a premodern, functionally undifferentiated society which had to invent human rights as its safeguards of functional differentiation. In Sex/Gender, 'before' brings a self-referential construction: that of ipseity, as the form of identity beyond comparison that does not play with id but with ipsum. Ipseity is inoperable but not useless. It is inoperable because it cannot be observed from anywhere without suffering rupture. It is not useless because it offers a ground for the reconceptualisation of difference, both through awe and desire.

Achieving human security through UN human rights law: prospects and challenges

This paper explores the prospects and challenges of achieving human security through United Nations (UN) human rights law. The paper does not aim to pronounce definitively on the achievement of human security by way of UN human rights law that is, to assess the achievement of human security per se 'as a future end state'. Rather the focus of the paper is firmly placed on the capacity of UN human rights law to achieve human security. The paper departs from the premise that if human rights define human security, international human rights law and UN human rights law in particular should have something to say about the achievement of human security.

Statelessness as a Human Rights Issue: A Concept Whose Time Has Come?

The protection of stateless persons has long been understood as a challenge for the international community, yet for many of the past sixty years a prioritised focus on refugees has dominated, indeed arguably eclipsed, the plight and protection needs of stateless persons. Guy Goodwin-Gill has long argued for a refocus of international attention and effort on the plight, predicament and protection needs of stateless persons. In a seminal contribution over two decades ago he observed that at that time, statelessness was perceived by many as a mere ‘technical problem,’ yet ‘statelessness is indeed a broad human rights issue, even as it retains a distinct technical dimension.’ In this contribution, we examine the challenge set by Goodwin-Gill for the international community, namely, the need for greater recognition and protection of stateless persons, in light of developments over the more than two decades that have passed since his incisive analysis. We celebrate the positive developments and identify areas of ongoing challenge. We focus on the key initiatives he identified as requiring attention, and assess progress that has been made in relation to each, while concentrating predominantly on the need for closer attention to the relevance of developments in human rights law.

Struggles for Citizenship in South Africa

South Africa’s first democratic constitution of 1996, which defines the content and scope of citizenship, emerged out of what the country’s Constitutional Court accurately described as ‘a deeply divided society characterized by strife, conflict, untold suffering and injustice which generated gross violations of human rights, the transgression of humanitarian principles in violent conflicts and a legacy of hatred, fear, guilt and revenge’ (cited in Jagwanth, 2003: 7). The constitution was internationally noteworthy for its expressed protection of women’s and sexual minority rights and its extension of rights of citizenship to socio-economic rights, such as rights of adequate healthcare, housing and education (SAGI, 1996). During South Africa’s first two decades of democracy, the Constitutional Court has proven its independence by advancing citizenship rights on a number of occasions (O’Regan, 2012). The struggle for citizenship was at the heart of the liberation struggle against the apartheid regime and within the complex dynamics of the anti-apartheid movement, increasingly sophisticated and intersectional demands for citizenship were made. South Africa’s constitutional rights for citizenship are not always matched in practice. The country’s high rates of sexual violence, ongoing poverty and inequality and public attitudes towards the rights of sexual minorities and immigrants lag well behind the spirit and letter of the constitution. Nevertheless, the achievement of formal citizenship rights in South Africa was the result of a prolonged and complex liberation struggle and analysis of South Africa demonstrates Werbner’s claim that ‘struggles over citizenship are thus struggles over the very meaning of politics and membership in a community’ (1999: 221). This chapter will begin with a contextual and historical overview before moving onto analyzing the development of non-racialism as a basis for citizenship, non-sexism and gendered citizenship, contestations of white, militarized citizenship and the achievement of sexual citizenship by the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) rights movement. As shall be made clear, all these citizenship demands emerged during the decades of the country’s liberation struggle.