O acesso enquanto direito humano: relato da Conferência Federation of International Human Rights Museums

Centro em Rede de Investigação em Antropologia UID/ANT/04038/2013

International Human Rights Movements and Protection of Women's Rights

This thesis is an attempt to explore the problems faced by Indian Women and to examine the ways in which the human rights of women could be better protected in the light of international movements with special reference to national legislation and judicial decisions.The evolution of human rights from early period to Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 is traced in the first chapter. The second chapter deals with the evolution of human rights in India. The evolution of fundamental rights and directive principles and the role played by the Indian Judiciary in enforcing the human rights enumerated in various international instruments dealing with human rights are also dealt with in this chapter. The rights guaranteed to women under the various international documents have been dealt with in the third chapter.It is noticed that the international documents have had their impact in India leading to creation of machinery for protection of human rights. Organised violations of women's rights such as prostitution, devadasi system, domestic violence, sexual harassment at workplaces, the evil of dowry, female infanticide etc. have been analysed in the light of existing laws and decisional jurisprudence in the fourth chapter. The fifth chapter analyses the decisions and consensus that emerged from the world conferences on women and their impact on the Indian Society and Judiciary. The constitutional provisions and legislative provisions protecting the rights of women have been critically examined in the sixth chapter. Chapter seven deals with various mechanisms evolved to protect the human rights of women. The eighth chapter contains conclusions and suggestions.

Legal outlier, again? U.S. felon suffrage: comparative and international human rights perspectives

The judiciousness of American felon suffrage policies has long been the subject of scholarly debate, not least due to the large number of affected Americans: an estimated 5.3 million citizens are ineligible to vote as a result of a criminal conviction. This article offers comparative law and international human rights perspectives and aims to make two main contributions to the American and global discourse. After an introduction in Part I, Part II offers comparative law perspectives on challenges to disenfranchisement legislation, juxtaposing U.S. case law against recent judgments rendered by courts in Canada, South Africa, Australia, and by the European Court of Human Rights. The article submits that owing to its unique constitutional stipulations, as well as to a general reluctance to engage foreign legal sources, U.S. jurisprudence lags behind an emerging global jurisprudential trend that increasingly views convicts’ disenfranchisement as a suspect practice and subjects it to judicial review. This transnational judicial discourse follows a democratic paradigm and adopts a “residual liberty” approach to criminal justice that considers convicts to be rights-holders. The discourse rejects regulatory justifications for convicts’ disenfranchisement, and instead sees disenfranchisement as a penal measure. In order to determine its suitability as a punishment, the adverse effects of disenfranchisement are weighed against its purported social benefits, using balancing or proportionality review. Part III analyzes the international human rights treaty regime. It assesses, in particular, Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”), which proclaims that “every citizen” has a right to vote without “unreasonable restrictions.” The analysis concludes that the phrase “unreasonable restrictions” is generally interpreted in a manner which tolerates certain forms of disenfranchisement, whereas other forms (such as life disenfranchisement) may be incompatible with treaty obligations. This article submits that disenfranchisement is a normatively flawed punishment. It fails to treat convicts as politically-equal community members, degrades them, and causes them grave harms both as individuals and as members of social groups. These adverse effects outweigh the purported social benefits of disenfranchisement. Furthermore, as a core component of the right to vote, voter eligibility should cease to be subjected to balancing or proportionality review. The presumed facilitative nature of the right to vote makes suffrage less susceptible to deference-based objections regarding the judicial review of legislation, as well as to cultural relativity objections to further the international standardization of human rights obligations. In view of this, this article proposes the adoption of a new optional protocol to the ICCPR proscribing convicts’ disenfranchisement. The article draws analogies between the proposed protocol and the ICCPR’s “Optional Protocol Aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty.” If adopted, the proposed protocol would strengthen the current trajectory towards expanding convicts’ suffrage that emanates from the invigorated transnational judicial discourse.