Arms possession or arms transfers? Divisions and future directions in arms trade research

p class="MsoNormal"The consolidation of an international legal framework on arms transfers raises new questions on forms and manners in implementing the prevention activities connected with human rights violations. While these obligations are certainly addressed to States that must exercise control over arms transfer activities, there are also conditions for laying down and consolidating the groundwork of compliance and accountability of defence industries. One of the possible methods involves the sharing control of duties between States and corporations. The Internal Compliance Program (ICP), as provided in some sectoral regulations in domestic legal systems and recommended as an efficient method for dual-use exports at the supranational level, works in this way and could further shape the mandatory human rights due diligence of corporations, while being an instrument for exercising the State control in a more efficient way. This contribution will theorize the resort to ICP as a fundamental legal instrument for regulating the duties of corporations in the export of armaments and dual-use items and the advancement of mandatory human rights due diligence in the field.o:p/o:p

Since the height of the Cold War, major democratic arms suppliers have claimed that they take into consideration the human rights records of existing and potential purchasing states. After the Cold War, supplier policies suggested an increased focus on matters of human rights. But do their records match their rhetoric and their formal policies? We examine the arms transfer patterns of the four major democratic suppliers between 1976 and 2009. We argue that, if practice matches policy, then democratic suppliers should not transfer weapons to states violating human rights. However, because the global interests of these suppliers shift over time, we expect some transfers of major weapon systems to states that violate human rights, but not of the types most implicated in human rights abuses. Thus, we build on the existing arms transfer literature by disaggregating exports based on weapons type. The ordered logits we run for each major democratic supplier from 1976 to 2009 show that the major democratic suppliers generally do not account for human rights violations in the importing state, with the one exception being the United States transfer of land weapon systems. This research is important not only to arms and human rights research, but to foreign policy scholars in general. The patterns of supply and the continued preference of states to provide major conventional weapons to states with poor human rights records reveal important policy priorities for these democratic states.

Economic Sanctions Against Human Rights Violations

The main objective of the study is to examine the depiction of democratic and human rights abuses in Amelmal’s, Yältäkoäche Guzo (Unfinished Journey). One of the considerable importances of literature all over the world is its use of sympathetic and attractive literary language to expose basic human right abuses since human rights are also part of human life. Therefore, analyzing the roles of literatures that are written in Amharic language in portraying basic human rights violations is paramount. However, literatures written in Amharic language are not well studied from human rights violation perspectives. This article, therefore, explores how the violations of basic human rights are depicted in the selected novel. Because there was no computable data used, the study considered qualitative research method. Regardless of the system by which a country is ruled, human rights are inviolable because they are innate. The analysis of the novel, however, depicts that the inviolable human and democratic rights of human beings have been violated. The finding of the study showed that the depiction of human and democratic rights violations was explicit. It showed that people’s rights to life, rights to equality, rights to liberty, and rights to election were abused during the two political regimes.

Crime Against Humanity in the Chechen Republic of the Russian Federation

The conclusion summarises the key components that support the existence of a new special regime around serious violations of human rights—the substantive component, the monitoring component, the enforcement component, and the remedial component—and provides an overview of their principal elements. It further identifies other areas of international law that provide parts of potential additional components to the regime—such as arms trade or business and human rights frameworks. Lastly, it reflects on the use of the expression ‘serious violations of human rights’ as a standard in international practice, and on the possible alternative developments—become synonym to international crimes or remain just a standard in treaty provisions—that may determine the use of the expression in the international legal order.

Oil-Exploitation in Nigeria: Procedures Addressing Human Rights Abuses

Human Rights are a set of rights that are essentially inherent in humans. This right is natural, cannot be contested or taken away, and applies universally. Violations of human rights occur if these rights are taken away or challenged by other parties. The field of human rights violations is very broad, covering various rights possessed by humans, including in this case regarding land in the agrarian sector. Violations of human rights in the agrarian sector are basically similar to violations of human rights in other fields, the difference being the object of the right that gives rise to the human rights violation. In this case, the object in question is land in the agrarian sector. Indonesian national law and international law have slightly different perspectives regarding human rights violations in the agrarian sector. The difference is regarding control over the agrarian sector. National law has independent rights over the agrarian sector within its territory without interference from other parties outside the country, including international law. However, this form of violation of human rights, even in the agrarian sector, remains the subject of international law, as is the universal principle held by human rights law. To provide protection of rights in the agrarian sector, Indonesian national law applies the provisions of the 1945 Constitution, Law Number 39 of 1999 concerning Human Rights, and Law Number 5 of 1960 concerning Basic Agrarian Principles Regulations. Meanwhile, international law applies Convention Number 169 of the International Labor Organization (ILO), as well as the United Nations Declarations on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Therefore, this writing aims to explain the point of view of how Indonesian national law views human rights violations in the agrarian sector through domestic regulations, as well as how international law through international instruments views human rights violations in the agrarian sector. This writing was also prepared based on normative juridical sources through Indonesian national regulations and related to international instruments. Human Rights are a set of rights that are essentially inherent in humans. This right is natural, cannot be contested or taken away, and applies universally. Violations of human rights occur if these rights are taken away or challenged by other parties. The field of human rights violations is very broad, covering various rights possessed by humans, including in this case regarding land in the agrarian sector. Violations of human rights in the agrarian sector are basically similar to violations of human rights in other fields, the difference being the object of the right that gives rise to the human rights violation. In this case, the object in question is land in the agrarian sector. Indonesian national law and international law have slightly different perspectives regarding human rights violations in the agrarian sector. The difference is regarding control over the agrarian sector. National law has independent rights over the agrarian sector within its territory without interference from other parties outside the country, including international law. However, this form of violation of human rights, even in the agrarian sector, remains the subject of international law, as is the universal principle held by human rights law. To provide protection of rights in the agrarian sector, Indonesian national law applies the provisions of the 1945 Constitution, Law Number 39 of 1999 concerning Human Rights, and Law Number 5 of 1960 concerning Basic Agrarian Principles Regulations. Meanwhile, international law applies Convention Number 169 of the International Labor Organization (ILO), as well as the United Nations Declarations on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Therefore, this writing aims to explain the point of view of how Indonesian national law views human rights violations in the agrarian sector through domestic regulations, as well as how international law through international instruments views human rights violations in the agrarian sector. This writing was also prepared based on normative juridical sources through Indonesian national regulations and related to international instruments.

In the recent past, there have been countless instances of arms transfers to countries with problematic human rights records, many of which have been cited in the reports of various advocacy groups. However, so far, the amount of research classifying these flows has been limited. This study examines the trends between 1999 and 2003 in arms transfer to countries with poor human rights records, as well as the reasons for continuation of these transfers. It puts forward two major arguments for these transfers to such countries. First, the national and international codes ostensibly "prohibiting" transfers to these countries are crafted in a way that eventually plays into the hands of the countries and manufacturers that want to transfer. Second, the end of the Cold War has turned the arms transfer market into a buyer's market more than ever. The declining domestic military spending experienced in most of the seller countries has forced arms manufacturers to pursue markets beyond their borders, sometimes even illegally and illicitly.

2024 marked ten years since the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) took effect. Firmly rooted in international human rights and humanitarian law, the ATT is the first legally binding instrument to regulate international arms transfers. It is a framework for national action to (i) contribute to peace and security, (ii) reduce human suffering caused by irresponsible arms transfers and (iii) promote transparency in the international arms trade. This piece exploresrecent developments in the ATT process that represent a pivot from building treaty infrastructure toward more expansive stakeholder engagement, increased information exchange centred on state practice and a sharper focus on the ATT’s human impact. Key new features are discussions on actual arms transfer decisions and the examination of the independent human rights responsibilities of industry that operate alongside government risk assessment obligations. Finally, this piece assesses the potential impact of these efforts on the achievement of the ATT’s humanitarian purpose.

The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) seeks to regulate the transfer of conventional arms on the principle that arms exporters and importers have a responsibility to ensure that weapons are not used in violations of international law. India wants the ATT to be limited to illicit trade. It believes that the United Nations has various mechanisms to deal with human rights violations and that this issue should not be linked to arms trade. Indian citizens have spoken against gun vio-lence. Whether it is against the guns that killed Jessica Lall in Delhi or people in the conflict zones of Manipur, Kashmir or the Maoist-affected regions, Indians are fighting against the menace of the gun culture. The ATT is a just cause and India needs to support it.

Corruption has devastating impacts on the realization of human rights. As of yet, corruption has not been classified as a violation of human rights. This dissertation argues that the conceptualisation of corruption as a violation of human rights in Indonesia is possible and beneficial. To identify the intersection of corruption and human rights, this dissertation focuses on corruption in the health and education sectors.The evolution of normative outputs of International Human Rights Institutions on corruption as a violation of human rights suggests that it is possible and beneficial to conceptualise corruption as a violation of human rights. It examines doctrinal issues relating to the authority of human rights courts to assess the causality between corruption and human rights injuries and argues that judicial activism by several Indonesian judges shows that conceptualisation of corruption as a violation of human rights is not impossible. Finally, this dissertation discusses the development of corruption as a violation of human rights from emerging norm into an accepted legal norm. This study combines the concept of international norm dynamics developed in international relations theory with the interactional legal theory and it shows the role of norm entrepreneurs in developing the standard of legality related to corruption as a violation of human rights. This study ends with recommendations for Indonesia and international actors on how to foster the process of conceptualising corruption as a violation of human rights through the formulation of normative outputs that enrich the content of the link between corruption and human rights.

The rise of China has led to a spate of scholarly and journalistic speculation about the future of a liberal world order. Apparently, the rise of a nondemocratic, Asian rival to US hegemony potentially undermines the growth of democracy throughout the system. Many see a resource-hungry China engaging itself globally out of purely self-interested motives, and Chinese business and aid offer a viable alternative to Western influence. Using the Stockholm Institute for Peace Research's (SIPRI) data on arms transfers since the end of the Cold War, we test the proposition empirically by assessing the nature and strength of Chinese politico-military support, measured as conventional arms transfers, globally and to African regimes. In short, we find that China relative to the United States transfers greater amounts of arms to democracies rather than autocracies, whereas the United States seems to prefer more autocratic regimes, despite rhetoric that claims an ethical foreign policy. The same result holds when we assess this relationship using human rights data. Moreover, Chinese arms transfers to countries suffering civil wars are much lower than the United States’. The findings are robust to the inclusion of several control variables and alternative estimation techniques. The findings show that popular perceptions about China's role in Africa do not match reality, particularly when assessed against the current hegemon's behavior.

The Nuremberg tribunal was the expression and the beginning of states' recognition of their duty to prosecute genocide and other gross human rights violations. It was a first step towards fulfillin...

This article assesses the frameworks and practical engagements of the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission (EHRC) in monitoring the national level implementation of recommendations provided by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. A qualitative study has been conducted based on laws, data, document analysis and interviews. The findings of the study indicate that prior to its reform (which began in 2019), EHRC had neither established frameworks for its engagement in monitoring the implementation of recommendations issued by African Commission, nor had it started practical engagement in this area. Following its reform, although EHRC has established institutional frameworks for engagement with international and regional human rights monitoring bodies, it has yet to adopt specific guidelines or directive to guide its involvement in monitoring the implementation of the African Commission's recommendations on cases of human and peoples' rights violations. Furthermore, it has not initiated practical engagement in this particular area. This article suggests that –as an institution with a statutory duty to coordinate international and national efforts to enhance the implementation of recommendations offered by regional human rights monitoring bodies and to advocate for ensuring justice to victims of human rights violations– EHRC should adopt specific guidelines to guide its engagement in this specific area and begin effective engagement with all stakeholders in monitoring the implementation of recommendations issued by the African Commission.