The power of the ‘implicit’ : enacting global citizenship education and human rights education in chinese higher education classrooms

The UN Decade for Human Rights Education began in 1995, and since that time many nations have reported activities and programs in line with the decade (United Nations 1998; UNHCHR 2005). While 1995 was a pivotal year in the history of human rights education, the curricular movement neither began nor ended with the UN Decade. Human rights education has been developing for several decades, and efforts to introduce human rights into formal school curricula have included diverse and ongoing activities by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), and dedicated individuals throughout the world. Beyond advocating for human rights education in schools, the actors involved in promoting human rights education also have been involved in creating and developing a curricular movement. This article builds on previous comparative education research by analyzing the current discourse surrounding this emerging education model— human rights education. The first section provides a brief history of human rights education in formal education. The second section reviews research on international reforms, emphasizing analyses of processes in global diffusion and variation at national or local levels. Closely related, the third section discusses linkages and relational and associational processes that spread ideas and construct new models such as human rights education. The fourth section focuses on the current state of human rights education, ex-

The current study analyses the behaviours of US state actors in engaging in international human social rights practices. In particular, through citation count analysis, we examine the citation patterns of US federal and state courts in utilising international human rights instruments, such as international human social rights treaties, in facilitating human rights-based education rights. The empirical findings indicate that US federal and state courts are not engaging the global judicial human rights networks in promoting human rights-based education rights as a type of universal human social right. Theoretical and empirical implications are presented in the concluding section.

The 1990s was the era of human rights awareness, democratic transitions, and growing involvement of international organizations and the nongovernmental sector in human rights education (HRE). The UN Decade for HRE from 1995–2004 was not only born out of the initiatives and pressures of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) but it also actively triggered many new private initiatives and commitments by governments to increase HRE. New information technologies, globalization, and the rise of civil society paved the way for new strategies and methods to disseminate the idea of human rights worldwide. With this in mind, two aspects will be discussed in this article. First, how HRE can become an integral part of all formal education systems. In this respect I will discuss the role of governments and state responsibility. Second, there were shifts and developments that made HRE an adaptable and coherent education concept oriented towards future challenges such as climate changes or migration. Coherent international concepts and a clear definition of HRE should help avoid the misuse of education in human rights for political or ideological reasons.

Recently, doubt has been cast on the ability of Scottish education to meet relevant Human Rights requirements relating to education. This article will outline both a means of clarification for international requirements for Human Rights Education, and an analysis of documentation outlining Scottish educational policy for compatibility with these requirements. In doing so, this article will outline the development, and application, of a tool for document analysis focused on international requirements for Human Rights Education. The findings of this analysis suggest a number of key limitations in the current approach favoured by the Scottish Government. This approach posits Global Citizenship Education as a cross-curricular theme capable of fulfilling obligations in relation to rights in Curriculum for Excellence. I suggest that there is a distinct lack of support for the Human Rights Education requirements relating to the inclusion of taught content about human rights and that problems of apoliticality and the misguided focus on responsibilities all stand as significant barriers to Global Citizenship Education meeting the aims of Human Rights Education. I argue, on this basis, that the strategy currently adopted in Scotland appears to fall short of meeting basic international requirements for Human Rights Education.

Globalization is an on-going process in the world, today, demonstrating both dynamics of standardization and differentiation in the spheres of politics, economy and culture. On one hand, certain values and modes of communication are universalized, and on the other there is growing advocacy of local, ethnic and other multicultural forms of identification. Globalization encourages international institutions and global/domestic networks of non-governmental organizations to expand their influence, and curtails the autonomy and sovereignty of nation states.With respect to human rights, global standards as represented by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other human rights instruments prevail over national standards. The idea of universal human rights, which honor individual dignity, increasingly limits the scope of national jurisdiction. In addition, the concept of locally-specific human rights is also advocated, particularly by some non-Western countries, and the effective coordination of universal standard of human rights and the local cultural values and concerns is becoming a significant political issue. Today, it is generally maintained that the universal standards should be properly translated according to local contexts.In the field of human rights education as well, there has been a clear shift from the conventional approach, which emphasizes specific human rights issues, to one which focuses on strategies to design and implement comprehensive human rights education. The latter approach aims to educate agents of human rights as global citizens equipped with certain knowledge, skills and attitudes. It actively incorporates various theories, methods and perspectives of global human rights education. Recently, we notice that various initiatives on human rights education, such as “Dowa education”(education related to the Buraku issue in Japan), intercultural education, development education, gender education and others have increasingly come to use the common frameworks and language of global human rights education. The next challenge is how to infuse the universal perspective of human rights education into the concrete practice of education based on specific human rights issues.

Human rights have long been an area of concern and active research since the inception of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948. The World Programme for Human Rights Education (2005-2014) has also re-emphasized the need for integrating human rights in school education as well as in the professional training of teachers through

The article analyzes the provisions of international legal acts at the universal and regional levels (Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1966, Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers of 1990, Committee of Ministers Recommendation Rec (2004) 4 to member states on the European Convention on Human Rights in university education and professional training etc.) regarding education in the field of human rights for representatives of legal professions. It is noted that representatives of legal professions who are at the center of human rights protection should be able to obtain high-quality education in the field of human rights in order to effectively perform their human rights function and prevent human rights violations. Human rights education programs were described (the UN World Programme for Human Rights Education, Council of Europe Programme for Human Rights Education for Legal Professionals). It is indicated that the UN World Programme for Human Rights Education consists of a number of stages aimed at specific issues: the first stage (2005-2009) was aimed at including human rights in the educational program of primary and secondary schools; the second stage (2010-2014) was dedicated to education in the field of human rights in the higher education system and professional training programs for teachers, lecturers, civil servants, law enforcement officers and military personnel; the third stage (2015-2019) was aimed at employees of mass media, and the fourth stage (2020-2024) identified youth as the target group. It is noted that the Council of Europe Programme for Human Rights Education for Legal Professionals (HELP) consists in strengthening the potential of judges, lawyers and prosecutors, etc. on the application of European standards in the field of human rights through online courses that cover a range of topics in this field.

우리나라의 인구통계를 보면 외국인노동자와 결혼이민자 등 국내 체류외국인이 증가하면서, 대한민국 사회도 본격적인 다문화사회에 진입하고 있다. 다문화가족이 증가하면서, 이들 가정내의 다문화학생 수도 지속적으로 증가하고 있다. 그러나 다문화학생들의 기본인권인 교육권에 대한 보장은 현실적으로 법적 근거가 미약하여 그 한계가 노출되고 있다. 우리나라 해당 법률에서 정의하거나 범위를 정한 다문화학생의 범위 등에 대한 논란조차도 다문화학생들의 교육받을 권리침해에 해당될 수 있다. 다문화가족지원법 및 청소년복지지원법의 소관부처인 여성가족부는 다문화가족 구성원인 아동･청소년 및 이주배경 청소년을 다문화학생으로 정의하고 있고, 재한외국인처우기본법의 소관부처인 법무부는 결혼이민자 및 그 자녀를 다문화학생으로 간주하고 있다. 정부의 관계부처 합동 이주아동 사회차별 해소 추진계획에서는 포괄적으로 이주아동 전체를 다문화학생으로 보고 있다. 교육부와 지방교육청은 불법체류 외국인 가정의 자녀도 다문화학생으로 보고 있다. 교육을 행정부처인 교육부와 지방교육청의 논리를 적용하면 불법체류 외국인 가정의 미등록 아동 등은 다문화학생으로의 법적 근거가 없거나 희박하여 중요 기본 인권인 교육권 자체도무시될 처지에 놓이게 된다. 보다 심각한 것은 다문화가족의 다문화학생에 대한 교육권 보장의 개별법이 없는 상태에서 정부의 소관부처 법률에 따라 충돌하여 위헌논쟁까지 있다는 점이다.이에 본 연구는 다문화학생들의 교육받을 권리와 관련해서 현행 교육관련 법의 한계와 문제점을 고찰하고, 다문화학생들의 교육받을 권리, 즉 인간의 기본 권리로서 다문화학생들의 교육권 보장을 위한 법의 개선방향을 제시하는데 그 목적이 있다. 연구결과로서 첫째, 교육관련 법들이 명문화한 다문화학생의 교육권은 제한적이었다. 둘째, 다문화, 다문화가족, 다문화학생 정의와 범위가 확대되고 통일되도록 개정되어야 하며, 다문화학생들의 교육권 보장을 위한 법적 근거 마련이 시급하였다. 셋째, 다문화교육을 포괄하고, 다 문화학생의 교육을 위한 독립적인 교육법 마련이 요구되었다.According to the recent Korean census, the number of multicultural students has been increasing due to the increase of multicultural families. However, multicultural students education rights as their fundamental human rights have not been practically guaranteed because of lack of legal grounds. Even the issues concerning concepts and scope of multicultural students defined by the current related laws in Korea can be considered infringement of their education rights. Multicultural Families Support Act and Juvenile Welfare Support Act which fall under the jurisdiction of The Ministry of Gender Equality and Family define the multicultural students as children and youth from multicultural families, and Act on the Treatment of Foreigners in Korea which falls under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice defines multicultural students as married immigrants and their children. The affirmative action plan for immigrant children by the government s ministries and offices concerned consider all immigrant children as multicultural students. The Ministry of Education and the provincial educational offices include children from illegal immigrant families in the definition of multiclutural students. According to the Ministry of Education and the provincial educational offices which administer education in Korea, unregistered children of illegal immigrant families have little or no legal grounds and their educational human rights as their fundamental human rights might be in danger of being disregarded. A more serious issue is that multicultural students educational human rights might be argued whether they are against the constitution or not due to the conflicts among the governmental ministries and offices concerned since there are no individual laws regarding their education human rights. Thus, the objective of this study is to investigate the limitations and problems of the current laws on education concerning the multicultural students education rights and to provide meaningful insights into the proper direction of the reform of the laws on their education rights. The findings of the research are as follows: 1) multicultural students education human rights stated on the current related laws are limited; 2) the concepts and scope of multiculturalism, multicultural families, and multicultural students should be extended and unified, since the provision of legal grounds for the multicultural students education human rights is urgent; and 3) the need for the provision of independent educational laws for the multicultural students and the inclusion of multicultural education.

CIES Bibliography 2011

У статті доведено, що наразі питання освіти у ОБСЄ опрацьовуються у декількох вимірах: захист освітніх прав меншин, освіта й права людини та освіта в умо-вах конфлікту. Автором підтверджено, що Бюро з де-мократичних інститутів і прав людини ОБСЄ серед ін-шого має на меті забезпечення поваги різноманітності і взаєморозуміння під час освіти та забезпечення освіти у сфері прав людини. У статті відображено увагу по-льових операцій ОБСЄ до освітніх питань щодо реформ системи освіти, включаючи юридичну освіту, визна-чення результатів і стандартів навчання, усунення дис-кримінації та відчуження під час освіти. Автором досліджено Гаазькі рекомендації щодо прав національних меншин на освіту і Пояснювальну записку до них, методичні публікації ОБСЄ «Викла-дання тем голокосту і антисемітизму. Огляд і аналіз освітніх підходів» «Протидія нетерпимості та дискри-мінації щодо мусульман: керівні принципи для викла-дачів. Боротьба з ісламофобією через освіту», «Керівні принципи з освіти в сфері прав людини для співробіт-ників правоохоронних органів» та «Керівні принципи з освіти в сфері прав людини для працівників охорони здоров’я».
 Автором відзначено, що підходи ОБСЄ до форму-вання власного закладу вищої освіти мають певну спе-цифіку, відмінну від підходів до цього питання ООН та установ системи ООН. Європейські стандарти вищої освіти зазнають вагомого розвитку через діяльність ОБСЄ, що реалізує власні завдання, як керуючись по-требою забезпечення права на освіту, так й врахову-ючи значущість освіти для сталого співробітництва й безпеки. Недоговірний характер самої ОБСЄ та участь в організації не лише європейських, але й усіх постра-дянських та деяких інших держав зумовлює специфіку як охоплення, так і методів застосування спеціальних стандартів ОБСЄ у сфері освіти. Основна увага в цих стандартах приділена захисту права меншин на освіту, запровадженню в рамках осві-ти анти-дискримінаційних механізмів, ефективному навчанню правам людини, зокрема й у рамках формаль-ної вищої освіти різних кваліфікацій. Автором дослі-джено договірне, законодавче та статутне забезпечення діяльності власного навчального закладу організації – Академії ОБСЄ у Бішкеку. У статті доведено, що ця Академія слугує специфічним прикладом реалізації наднаціональних практик ОБСЄ у сфері вищої освіти для конкретної установи. Автор резюмує, що реалізація стандартів ОБСЄ у сфері вищої освіти в Україні може слугувати підґрунтям для нових наукових досліджень.

South Africa’s higher education landscape mirrors its history of its relentlessly discriminatory past along racial, gender, social, political and class lines. Within this setting teacher education aims to cultivate its teaching and learning toward the fostering of moral persons who are caring towards the other and concerned with social justice and transformation. In this sense we explored the relationship between human rights education and human rights literacies and how these can be called upon to create one avenue to drive this agenda. In this chapter we use evidence-based findings to unpack the (im)possibilities for human rights literacies as revealed through student-teachers’ views of human rights education. As students’ views may reveal what and how they learned and what the curriculum offered them, we may unlock (im)possibilities for reviving human rights education and supporting human rights literacies through teacher education. We concentrated on the human rights education section in two surveys (S2013_RSA and S2015_RSA) to see how findings might shed light on future directions for teacher education to support human rights literacies, dynamically fluid, and that are continuously developing in response to the South African context. In response to critique against human rights education as stagnant, declarationist and as having lost its critical and transformative edge (Keet et al., South African Journal of Higher Education, 31, 79–95, 2017; Spreen and Monaghan, Human rights education: Theory, research, praxis, 2017; Keet, Human rights education or human rights in education: A conceptual analysis, 2007) we argue that for human rights literacies and human rights education to be supportive of one another, human rights education programmes in teacher education should regard human rights literacies as a disposition toward thinking and practising human rights that occupies the spaces that emerge when one transcends the division between what is legislation (written) and what is lived. For this reason, we recommend transformative pedagogies be included in teacher education programmes for human rights.

The position and the validity of the Declarations on Human Rights (1948) accepted by the United Nations (UN), and the subsequent declarations on Human Rights Education and Training (2010) are questioned by many scholars in their respective fields. These discourses manifest around the universality of human rights and its applications in human rights education suitable for global, contextual, diverse and particular societies. The proclamation of the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education (1995–2004) (Resolution, 49/184), the World Programme for Human Rights Education (2004/71), the reassessments of UN Declarations on Human Rights Education (March, 2011) and UNESCO publications on human rights education (2011), illustrate the need to infuse shared values into every sphere of society. However, scholars are questioning the ontology and epistemology of human rights as a universal declaration and as the only means for legitimising human rights education for its transformative competencies and to offer its shared values for a sustainably just society. The legitimacy of this ideal of a universality of human rights as a binding factor drawn from a Western liberal philosophy, is arbitrary and limited. These limitations of human rights expose the ideal of an interconnectedness between human rights and human rights education in multilayered and multicomplex social environments. Human rights literacies and its new languages on human rights is a progressing nexus between human rights and human rights education and offers an epistemology in understanding human rights in human rights education.

This article focuses on human rights education policy and aims to analyze the international regulatory frameworks on human rights education and training, seeking to highlight how United Nations documents serve as a reference for developing a human rights education policy. A documentary analysis of the normative frameworks was carried out, which favored the understanding of the sources that established international regulatory frameworks aimed at promoting education in human rights. From the analysis, it was clear that there is a global human rights education policy systematized within the UN, which defines principles, objectives, actors and spaces for action. This global policy seeks to direct the content, principles and fields of action foreseen for human rights education.

Human rights in education are an essential area that needs to be the highest priority for improving almost the entire world, especially for the 2030 agenda. This research analyzed the human rights in education values inside the UN Economic and Social Council’s declaration goal 4 of the official document entitled “Building back better from the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) while advancing the full implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”. The data are analyzed through a critical discourse approach in qualitative design and discourse organization analysis method. There are nine main human rights in education found inside the declaration including ensuring and protecting education equality, education, and learning development acceleration, preparing and providing sufficient education funding, cultural diversity in education, providing a safe environment for physical and mental health, providing safe, modern and convenient infrastructure and teaching-learning facilities, gender equality in education, internet literacy in education, involving every country as to the world’s global meeting and cooperation of education. The focus of improvement on human rights in education is concluded to be dynamic, which is influenced by economic, welfare, politics, IT, and other integral aspects of development and depends on the world’s and a country’s needs and future desire.

Democracy has a crucial role in tfle education process of future generations and human rights education constitutes one of the main elements of democracy education. The education programs on human rights depicts differences among countries. As a result of this, the global human rights values are hardly accepted by the citizens of different countries. Despite the main target of human rights education concentrates on individuals, limited common activities in this area decreases the possibility of a common approach. Moreover, the differences in internalisation of universal thought on human rights not only negatively affect the unique view provided by globalisation, but also cause inequity. Examining various applications of human rights education will also be helpful for the proper implementation of Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In this paper, the historical evolution of human rights education in Turkey is examined as well as different other human rights education applications in other countries. This paper, therefore, provides a comparative analysis of human rights education and evalutes Turkey's situation in the light of human right education. Keywords: Human rights education, European Convention on Human Rights, Council of Europe