Palm oil, land rights and ecosystem services in Gbarpolu County, Liberia

As part of the rebuilding efforts following the long civil war, the Liberian government has renegotiated long-term contracts with international investors to exploit natural resources. Substantial areas of land have been handed out in large-scale concessions across Liberia during the last five years. While this may promote economic growth at the national level, such concessions are likely to have major environmental, social and economic impacts on local communities, who may not have been consulted on the proposed developments. This report examines the potential socio-economic and environmental impacts of a proposed large-scale oil palm concession in Bopolu District, Gbarpolu County in Liberia. The research provided an in-depth mapping of current resource use, livelihoods and ecosystems services, in addition to analysis of community consultation and perceptions of the potential impacts of the proposed development. This case study of a palm oil concession in Liberia highlights wider policy considerations regarding large-scale land acquisitions in the global South: • Formal mechanisms may be needed to ensure the process of Free, Prior, Informed Consent takes place effectively with affected communities and community land rights are safeguarded. • Rigorous Environmental and Social Impact Assessments need to be conducted before operations start. Accurate mapping of customary land rights, community resources and cultural sites, livelihoods, land use, biodiversity and ecosystems services is a critical tool in this process. • Greater clarity and awareness-raising of land tenure laws and policies is needed at all levels. Good governance and capacity-building of key institutions would help to ensure effective implementation of relevant laws and policies. • Efforts are needed to improve basic services and infrastructure in rural communities and invest in food crop cultivation in order to enhance food security and poverty alleviation. Increasing access to inputs, equipment, training and advice is especially important if male and female farmers are no longer able to practice shifting cultivation due to the reduction/ loss of customary land and the need to farm more intensively on smaller areas of land.

Does terrorism threaten human rights? Evidence from panel data

Using panel data for 111 countries over the period 1982–2002, we employ two indexes that cover a wide range of human rights to empirically analyze whether and to what extent terrorism affects human rights. According to our results,terrorism significantly, but not dramatically, diminishes governments’ respect for basic human rights such as the absence of extrajudicial killings, political imprisonment, and torture. The result is robust to how we measure terrorist attacks, to the method of estimation, and to the choice of countries in our sample. However, we find no effect of terrorism on empowerment rights.

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.

Conscience, discretion and the creation of property rights

This paper considers the utility of the concept of conscience or unconscionable conduct as a contemporary rationale for intervention in two principles applied where a person seeks to renege on an informal agreement relating to land: the principle in Rochefoucauld v Boustead; and transfers 'subject to' rights in favour of a claimant. By analysing the concept in light of our current understanding of the nature of judicial discretion and the use of general principles, it responds to arguments that unconscionability is too general a concept on which to base intervention. In doing so, it considers the nature of the discretion that is actually in issue when the court intervenes through conscience in these principles. However, the paper questions the use of constructive trusts as a response to unconscionability. It argues that there is a need, in limited circumstances, to separate the finding of unconscionability from the imposition of a constructive trust. In these limited circumstances, once unconscionability is found, the courts should have a discretion as to the remedy, modelled on that developed in the context of proprietary estoppel. The message underlying this paper is that many of the concerns expressed about unconscionability that have led to suggestions of alternative rationales for intervention can in fact be addressed whilst retaining an unconscionability analysis. Unconscionability remains a preferable rationale for intervention as it provides a common thread that links apparently separate principles and can assist our understanding of their scope.

The "value" of property rights in social security law

This article provides a critical examination of the way that property rules are applied judicially in the context of social security law concerned with the assessment of capital, and especially in connection with the determination of ownership and the valuation of assets, which can have a critical bearing on entitlement to various means-tested benefits.

Health care rights and NHS rationing: turning theory into practice

How should we understand the nature of patients’ right in public health care systems? Are health care rights different to rights under a private contract for car insurance? This article distinguishes between public and private rights and the relevance of community interests and notions of social solidarity. It discusses the distinction between political and civil rights, and social and economic rights and the inherently political and redistributive nature of the latter. Nevertheless, social and economic rights certainly give rise to “rights” enforceable by the courts. In the UK (as in many other jurisdictions), the courts have favoured a “procedural” approach to the question, in which the courts closely scrutinise decisions and demand high standards of rationality from decision-makers. However, although this is the general rule, the article also discusses a number of exceptional cases where “substantive” remedies are available which guarantee patients access to the care they need.