Building climate justice : an analysis of how the nexus between climate change and human rights shapes public policy agendas and alternatives

This thesis provides an analysis of how the nexus between climate change and human rights shapes public policy agendas and alternatives. It draws upon seminal work conducted by John Kingdon, whose landmark publication “Agendas, alternatives, and public policy” described how separate streams of problems, solutions, and politics converge to move an issue onto the public policy agenda toward potential government action. Building on Kingdon’s framework, this research explores how human rights contribute to surfacing the problem of climate change; developing alternative approaches to tackling climate change; and improving the political environment necessary for addressing climate change with sufficient ambition. The study reveals that climate change undermines the realization of human rights and that human rights can be effective tools in building climate resilience. This analysis was developed using a mixed methods approach and drawing upon substantial literature review, the researcher’s own participation in international climate policy design; elite interviews with thought leaders dealing with climate change and human rights; and regular inputs from focus groups comprised of practitioners drawn from the fields of climate change, development and human rights. This is a journal based thesis with a total of six articles submitted for evaluation, published in peer‐reviewed publications, over a five year period. Denna avhandling analyserar hur klimatfrågan och mänskliga rättigheter i samverkan formar den politiska agendan och det politiskt möjliga. Den bygger på banbrytande forskning av John Kingdon, vars publikation “Agendas, alternatives, and public policy” beskriver hur en fråga blir politiskt viktig och lyfts upp på den politiska agendan. Med utgångspunkt i Kingdons ramverk, utforskar avhandlingen hur mänskliga rättigheter bidrar till att blottlägga klimatfrågan som problem; utveckla alternativa metoder för att angripa och hantera klimatfrågan; samt skapa ett politiskt klimat nödvändigt för att på ett ambitiöst sätt kunna angripa klimatfrågan. Studien visar att klimatförändringar undergräver mänskliga rättigheterna men att arbete med mänskliga rättigheter kan vara ett effektivt verktyg för att stå emot och hantera effekterna av klimatförändringar. Analysen har genomförts med hjälp av en rad olika metoder vilka inkluderar litteraturstudier, författarens egna observationer under klimatförhandlingar; intervjuer med ledande tänkare inom klimatfrågan och mänskliga rättigheter; samt data insamlad genom fokusgrupper bestående av yrkesverksamma inom klimat, utveckling och mänskliga rättigheter. Avhandlingen är baserad på totalt sex artiklar som publicerats i fackgranskade tidskrifter under en femårsperiod.

Pogge -vs- Sen on Global Poverty and Human Rights

This Paper is part of a broader project examining the ways in which Amartya Sen’s “capability approach” provides a framework for thinking about global poverty as a denial or a violation of basic human rights. The Paper compares the “capability approach” as a basis for thinking about global poverty and human rights with the alternative framework developed by Thomas Pogge. Both the “capability approach” and Pogge’s theory of “severe poverty as a violation of negative duties” support the idea of “freedom from severe poverty as a basic human right”. However, there are important differences. The Paper examines the limitations of Pogge’s “apparent minimalism” and establishes the ways in which Sen’s treatment of the “capability approach” and human rights moves beyond a “minimalist normative position” whilst avoiding Pogge’s charge of “implausibility”.

The role of necessity in international humanitarian and human rights law

The nature of armed conflict has changed dramatically in recent decades. In particular, it is increasingly the case that hostilities now occur alongside ‘everyday’ situations. This has led to a pressing need to determine when a ‘conduct of hostilities’ model (governed by international humanitarian law—IHL) applies and when a ‘law enforcement’ model (governed by international human rights law—IHRL) applies. This in turn raises the question of whether these two legal regimes are incompatible or whether they might be applied in parallel. It is on this question that the current paper focuses, examining it at the level of principle. Whilst most accounts of the principles underlying these two areas of law focus on humanitarian considerations, few have compared the role played by necessity in each. This paper seeks to address this omission. It demonstrates that considerations of necessity play a prominent role in both IHL and IHRL, albeit with differing consequences. It then applies this necessity-based analysis to suggest a principled basis for rationalising the relationship between IHL and IHRL, demonstrating how this approach would operate in practice. It is shown that, by emphasising the role of necessity in IHL and IHRL, an approach can be adopted that reconciles the two in a manner that is sympathetic to their object and purpose.

Globalization, economic freedom, and human rights

Using the KOF Index of Globalization and two indices of economic freedom, the authors empirically analyze whether globalization and economic liberalization affect governments’ respect for human rights in a panel of 106 countries over the 1981–2004 period. According to their results, physical integrity rights significantly and robustly increase with globalization and economic freedom, while empowerment rights are not robustly affected. Due to the lack of consensus about the appropriate level of empowerment rights as compared to the outright rejection of any violation of physical integrity rights, the global community is presumably less effective in promoting empowerment rights.

Just another case of treaty interpretation? Reconciling humanitarian law and human rights law in the ICJ

This chapter offers a fresh critique of the approach taken by the International Court of Justice to the relationship between humanitarian law and human rights law. In so doing, it seeks to move beyond the intractable debates that have dominated this area, offering an original account of the relationship that is firmly grounded in general international law concepts of treaty interpretation.

The challenge of gender equity and human rights on the threshold of the twenty-first century

Includes bibliography