The future of human rights protection in the new Libya: prospects and challenges. Jean Monnet Occasional Paper No. 6/2014

There is no doubt that demand for the respect of human rights was one of the factors behind the Arab Spring and Libya is no exception. Four decades of absolute dictatorship headed by Muammar Gaddafi had been further tainted with gross violations of human rights of Libyan citizens and restrictions on their basic freedoms. Before the revolution, Libya was a country where no political parties were allowed. Freedom of expression and the press were extremely restricted. Reports about the country’s human rights violations published by a number of international organizations documented large scale human rights abuses at the hands of the Gaddafi regime. The 17 February 2011 revolution in Libya led to a turning point in the country’s history. The regime of Muammar Gaddafi which had dominated the country since 1969 eventually collapsed, leading to the beginning of the painful task of reconciliation and state building. Nonetheless it is estimated that more than 7000 prisoners are held captive by various militias and armed groups without due process. This in addition to thousands of internally displaced persons. State building involves the consolidation of a democratic state based on a democratic constitution. In 2011, a constitutional declaration was adopted to replace the one that had been in effect since 1969. This was intended as a stop-gap solution to allow the new political forces unleashed in the country time to write a new democratic constitution. To help consolidate the democratic state, three elements are required: that human rights be placed at its core; that these rights are truly implemented and applied; and lastly that the independence of the judiciary is safeguarded. For all this to happen it is also essential to strengthen education on human rights by encouraging non-governmental organizations to take a stronger role in promoting human rights. Libyan citizens can only avail themselves of these rights and strengthen their implementation if they know what they are and how they can benefit from their implementation

Life Is Getting Worse in ESS Data: Is This Due to Micro or Macro Factors? Bruges European Economic Research (BEER) Papers 28/November 2013

In order to evaluate the success of a society, measuring well-being might be a fruitful avenue. For a long time, governments have trusted economic measures, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in particular, to assess their success. However GDP is only a limited measure of economic success, which is not enough to show whether policies implemented by governments have a positive perceived impact on the people they represent. This paper belongs to the studies of the relationship between measures of well-being and economic factors. More precisely, it tries to evaluate the decrease in happiness and life satisfaction that can be observed in European countries in the 2000-2010 decade. It asks whether this deterioration is mainly due to microeconomic factors, such as income and individual characteristics, or rather to environmental (macroeconomics) factors such as unemployment, inflation or income inequality. Such aggregate factors could impact individual happiness per se because they are related to the perception of an aggregate risk of unemployment or income fall. In order to strengthen this interpretation, this paper checks whether the type of social protection regime existing in different countries mediates the impact of macroeconomic volatility on individual well-being. To go further, adopting the classification of welfare regimes proposed by Esping-Andersen (1990), it verifies whether the decreasing pattern of subjective well-being varies across these regimes. This is partly due to the aggregate social protection expenditure. Hence, this paper brings some additional evidence to the idea that macroeconomic uncertainty has a cost in terms of well-being. More protective social regimes are able to reduce this cost. It also proposes an evaluation of the welfare cost of unemployment and inflation (in terms of happiness and life satisfaction), in each of the different social protection regimes. Finally different measures of well-being, i.e. cognitive, hedonic and eudaimonic, are used to confirm the above mentioned result.