Achieving the Zenith of Education: Human Rights Based Transformation of Higher Education in Sri Lanka

This study analyses US state court behaviours in citing international human rights treaties to advance human social rights. Employing case analysis and logistic regression, we find that US state court citation practices to human rights treaties provide support for human social rights depending upon the type of human rights treaty cited; whether the case opinion is a published decision; and, whether the judicial opinion is a criminal or civil case. These judicial citation practices provide US state judges with the institutional capacity to advance universal human social rights. Theoretical and empirical implications are presented in the concluding section.

The Nigerian legal system is diverse in that it recognizes several established legal systems that regulate how Nigerians conduct themselves. These legal frameworks include the civil law that was passed down from the British during and after colonization, pre-colonial customary laws and cultural practices, and religious laws (Christian and Islamic laws). Different kinds of norms and laws have subjected Nigerian women to violations of their rights depending on the woman’s cultural or religious affiliation. Such cultural and/or religious practices are usually in opposition to civil law and the Nigerian constitution, which is a custodian of these rights. Moreover, despite the supremacy of the constitution and expected compliance with international human rights treaties that Nigeria has ratified, the fact is that today there are impediments to the effective protection of women’s rights in Nigeria. For instance, although the Nigerian constitution outlaw’s discrimination on the grounds of gender, customary and religious laws continue to restrict the effective implementation of women’s rights, making it extremely difficult to harmonize domestic legislation with international human rights conventions, and also remove discriminatory measures. This article, thus, examines the issues of gender inequality as the basis for agitation for women’s empowerment and women’s rights while also proposing a re-alignment of domestic legislation in compliance with international human rights conventions and treaties, in order to combat cultural and religious norms that flout human rights considerations for Nigerian women. Therefore, the main objective of this paper is to highlight the challenges that may arise when these legal systems clash, and how that affects the protection of women’s rights, particularly in view of international human rights treaties which Nigeria has signed and ratified. The article will therefore propose that women’s rights should be protected by seeking to eradicate cultural and religious practices that are discriminatory. This can be achieved by adopting laws which can be interpreted by domestic courts in line with constitutional requirements protecting the rights of women. It is noteworthy that the Nigerian judiciary has declared certain customs and traditions contrary to natural justice, equity and good conscience. Some of the case laws and judicial pronouncements will also be examined in this paper to enable implementation for the protection of women’s rights. The methodology adopted is desk-top legal research where judgments of courts and legislative enactments will form the basis of the findings of this paper.

The legitimacy and role of reservations to international human rights treaties is a heavily contested issue. From one perspective, reservations, understandings, and declarations (RUDs) are a legitimate means to account for diversity and are used predominantly by those countries that take human rights seriously. From an alternative perspective, RUDs are regrettable at best and detrimental to the international human rights regime at worst. The first account predicts that liberal democracies set up more RUDs than do other countries, whereas the competing account holds the opposite, possibly after distinguishing among the group of liberal democracies. This article puts these hypotheses to an empirical test with respect to six core international human rights treaties. The results suggest that the revealed RUD behavior of state parties to the treaties examined is strongly in line with the first perspective, since liberal democracies have more, not fewer, RUDs than do other countries.

The chapter argues that international human rights treaties contain obligations with implications for the practice of recognition/non-recognition by states of other states and governments. It begins by explaining how international human rights treaty obligations relate to extraterritorial situations and how this might apply to the practice of recognition/non-recognition. It then explains how recognition/non-recognition practice is understood in international law. Following this, the chapter addresses what human rights treaty standards would require of recognition/non-recognition. Finally, consideration is given to the potential divergence in the human rights obligations of the recognizing/non-recognizing state, and the obligations of the object of that recognition/non-recognition.

INTRODUCTION. The year of 2018 marks with a global celebration of 70th anniversary of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the landmark international document which represents the universal recognition that basic rights and fundamental freedoms are inherent to all human beings which is solemnly proclaimed by the UN member states. The most debatable and ambiguous issue is the determination of the legal status of this essential document. Given the fact that the Declaration was adopted by the UN General Assembly in a form of the resolution, it has a recommendatory character. However, the Declaration which adopted as “standard to which all nations and states should strive to achieve” has undergone a certain legal transformation related to the constant development and refinement in the process of concluding a rich body of legally binding international human rights treaties that affected both domestic and international law. In this regard, the statements on the necessity of recognition of the certain provisions of the Declaration as norms of the international customary law are timely and fully justified. The article analyzes national judicial practice of sovereign states and the International Court of Justice in order to identify the possibility of such recognition. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The article is based on a considerable amount of materials, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, working materials of the UN Commission on Human Rights, statements made during General Assembly meeting (documented as verbatim records) on adoption of the Declaration, decisions and advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice, as well as the doctrinal positions of different authors. The methodological basis of the research comprises the general scientific methods (the dialectical, historical, statistical methods, methods of generalization and system analysis) and special methods of cognition (comparative legal and formal legal methods, methods of interpretation of legal norms). RESEARCH RESULTS. In the basis of the study of the international legal acts and international judicial practice, national legislation and judicial practice of concrete states, as well as doctrinal positions of scientists, the author makes conclusions on the legal status of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. In the article the author gives a historical reference on the diplomatic contestation in the period of the adoption of the Declaration which subsequently affected the final text of the document. Taking into account the moral significance, as well as weighty contribution of the Declaration to the adoption of international and regional human rights treaties, national legislation and judicial practice, the author comes to the conclusion that the certain provisions of the Declaration should be recognized as norms of the international customary law. The author also concludes that in modern conditions, when a number of states are still not a party to the main international human rights treaties, the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should act for them as binding norms of international customary law that are formed as a result of international practice of states and are gradually recognized by them as a legal norm. This conclusion is also formed on the basis of the practice of the International Court of Justice, the decisions and advisory opinions of which are analyzed by the author in this article.

Chapter 4 focuses on human rights and environmental regulation of foreign investment. The environment and human rights are protected, in part, by the enactment or making and enforcement of environmental and human rights laws and policies. The African constitutions studied and the international human rights treaties and international environmental treaties to which African states are parties guarantee, recognise, and provide for the protection of fundamental human rights and the right to a healthy environment and impose corresponding obligations on African states to fulfil these rights. This chapter also analyses arbitral cases challenging environmental and human rights protection measures in order to assess how investment treaties restrict or might constrain the adoption of measures aimed at protecting the environment and human rights in Africa. It argues that African states’ duties to protect the environment and human rights emanate from national constitutions and international environmental and human rights treaties. Therefore, fundamental human rights and the right to a clean and safe environment and corresponding duties of African states place legal limitations on the standards of investment protection the states can undertake depending on their constraining effects on regulatory autonomy. It suggests that investment treaty terms must be made to be consistent with environmental and human rights obligations of African states.

Since 2009, the United Nations has been engaged in a process of ‘strengthening’ the human rights treaty body system which monitors the implementation of the core international human rights treaties. The number of human rights treaty bodies has, over time, expanded to ten, with each treaty body independently tasked with monitoring an increasing number of States Parties’ compliance with human rights treaties and optional protocols. This proliferation has in turn precipitated the need for a process to improve the overall functioning of the system. While significant attention has been dedicated in the treaty body strengthening process to the issue of States Parties’ under-reporting and capacity deficits, comparatively little attention has been directed towards accessibility issues, capacity building, and technical assistance for domestic civil society organizations (CSOs) - groups whose informed and active participation are essential to the proper functioning of the entirety of the treaty body system. In light of this lack of attention, an ecosystem of intermediary non-government organizations (NGOs) has emerged organically to provide much needed capacity building, advisory services, and technical assistance to domestic CSOs looking to engage with treaty bodies. However, the ad hoc nature in which these intermediary NGOs have emerged and the lack of formalized institutional relationships with treaty bodies has resulted in a number of systemic issues that desperately need to be addressed in the treaty body strengthening process. This paper will discuss the ongoing process of treaty body strengthening, current services provided by intermediary NGOs to assist domestic CSOs in engaging with human rights treaty bodies (as well as the Universal Periodic Review), gaps within the current framework, and recommendations to improve access for domestic CSOs within the current treaty body strengthening process.

Many view constitutional incorporation of international human rights treaties as the most effective way to enforce treaty rights domestically. Three competing theories seek to explain why this incorporation occurs or does not occur: (1) states constitutionalize treaty rights because treaties offer authoritative norms that are emulated through the power of their example; (2) states constitutionalize treaty rights because the treaties themselves demand constitutional incorporation; and (3) states only constitutionalize treaty rights when it is in their interest to do so; the treaty does not change state behavior. If the first, norm-based explanation is at work, treaty rights should be emulated widely once a treaty enters into force, regardless of ratification. If the second, law-based explanation is at work, states should constitutionalize their treaty obligations only upon ratification. If the third, interest-based explanation is at work, there should be no independent impact of human rights treaties on constitutional commitments.This paper examines empirically to what extent eighteen international and regional human rights treaties have altered rights commitments in national constitutions, through either the treaties’ ratification or their mere entry into force. Analyzing 103 constitutional rights in 186 countries over a sixty-one-year period, the paper finds that most treaties do not impact constitutional commitments. There are several exceptions. Two treaties, the CAT and the ECHR, have been emulated everywhere regardless of ratification. Two other treaties changed constitutional commitments among ratifiers only; ratification of the second optional protocol to the ICCPR and the thirteenth optional protocol to the ECHR (both abolishing the death penalty) increase the probability that the ratifying states constitutionally prohibit the death penalty.The paper also finds that the law-driven impact of human rights treaties is dependent upon the status of international law in the domestic legal system. In dualist systems, where treaties require implementation to have domestic effect, treaty ratification often spurs countries to constitutionally commit to the equivalent treaty rights. In contrast, in countries with a monist system of international law, where international law works directly and automatically in the domestic legal order, ratifying states are less likely to repeat treaty rights in their constitutions. Monist systems are thus characterized by a substitution effect, whereby treaty rights substitute constitutional rights. A similar substitution effect exists within the European and Inter-American regional human rights system, where treaties also work directly in the domestic legal order.

There continued to be significant engagement with human rights issues by the Irish legislature, government and judiciary in 2008. The strengthening of the human rights of trafficking victims, lesbian, gay and bisexual men and women are worthy points of note. This must be contrasted with the continuing controversies in immigration law, the failure of the Irish Government to legislate so as to protect the rights of transgendered persons and the severe financial cutbacks imposed on the Equality Authority and the Irish Human Rights Commission. The number of cases argued before the Irish Courts on issues relating to human rights continues to rise. The judiciary have engaged in human rights disputes in a large number of areas, ranging from criminal law, family law, child law, immigration law, property law and mental health law. The incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms into Irish law has had no small part to play in the increase in human rights adjudication before the courts. As can be seen from the range of cases examined below, judicial engagement with other international human rights law instruments and treaties remains low. Nevertheless, in the area of child law at any rate, the judiciary seems more prepared to at least make reference to international legal instruments in coming to decisions, even if domestic or European human rights law can solve the issue at hand. It remains to be seen whether in future years, judicial reference to unincorporated international human rights treaties will expand.

This research explores the role of international human rights treaties in promoting gender equality and women's empowerment in Indonesia. The study adopts a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative and quantitative data collection techniques. The research delves into the implementation and enforcement of international human rights treaties, examining their alignment with domestic laws and policies. The study highlights the challenges and opportunities faced in advancing gender equality in Indonesia. Survey data from diverse stakeholders and insights from interviews and document analysis provide comprehensive findings. The research underscores the positive impact of international human rights treaties on gender-related policies but identifies challenges like limited resources and traditional cultural norms. The study concludes with evidence-based recommendations to enhance the influence of international human rights treaties in achieving gender equality and empowering women in Indonesia.

The United States prides itself on being a champion of human rights and pressures other countries to improve their human rights practices, and yet appears less willing than other nations to embrace international human rights treaties. Many commentators attribute this phenomenon to the particular historical context that existed in the late 1940s and early 1950s when human rights treaties were first being developed. These commentators especially emphasize the race relations of the time, noting that some conservatives resisted the developing human rights regime because they saw it as an effort by the federal government to extend its authority to address racial segregation and discrimination in the South. As this essay explains, the guarded and qualified U.S. relationship with human rights treaties stems not only from a particular moment in history but also is a product of more enduring, and less obviously problematic, features of the U.S. constitutional system. 1. This essay considers the history of the U.S. relationship with international human rights treaties. This relationship is sometimes described as being paradoxical or even hypocritical, in that the United States prides itself on being a champion of human rights and pressures other countries to improve their human rights practices, and yet appears less willing than other nations to embrace international human rights treaties. The United States did not begin to ratify any of the major human rights treaties until the late 1980s, and it still has not ratified a number of them, including the

Of Politicians and Technocrats, and Why Global Health Scholars Are Inevitably a Bit of Both: A Response to Recent Commentaries.

A human rights approach: The right to education in the time of COVID‐19

The 2017 Annual Conference of the Association of Human Rights Institutes (AHRI) held at the University of Leuven (KU Leuven) in Leuven (Belgium) from 27 to 28 April 2017 is the one of the leading events among the professional associations uniting international law scholars in human rights field. The conference focused on issues of monitoring compliance with international human rights obli-gations of States in the activities of universal and regional human rights bodies, particularly UN human rights mechanisms, human rights treaty bodies and regional and sub-regional human rights mechanisms within European, Inter-American and African human rights systems. Within these issues a particular at-tention was paid to the interaction between universal and regional human rights systems, specifically the role of regional mechanisms in the promotion and protection of human rights and enhancing univer-sal human rights standards enshrined in international human rights treaties. The paper provides a brief review of the selected reports presented at the conference, which raised a particular scientific interest of the author. The author describes the reports devoted to: 1) factors de-termining adoption and enforcement of international human rights obligations by States; 2) States’ im-plementation of international human rights norms through the lens of interplay between the internation-al, regional and national levels; 3) the interaction between the universal and European human rights sys-tems (European Court of Human Rights with human rights treaty bodies and special procedures of the UN Human Rights Council).

At the beginning in the 1970s, amount of emerging liberal democracies shaped the domestic constitutional order by placing international human rights treaties into the domestic constitutions. In the 1990s, the constitutional incorporation of international human rights treaties spreads in or outside the Europe, e.g. Bosnia and Herzegovina and South Africa, with the characteristics of direct applicability of international human rights norms and super-legislative status in the constitutional system. The openness to the international human rights treaties is a common constitutional identity amongst Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Macao Special Administrative Region as well as Taiwan. The communist ideology deeply influences the Chinese constitution-making modality and the relationship between national and international law. The international law-making process was criticized to have been completely manipulated by the Western Capitalist states. The self-empowered Judicial Interpretation may assume an imagined mechanism of which the international treaties could be applied.