Navigating health inequities and human rights violations: a narrative review on refugees and asylum seekers in Malaysia

The definition of refugee in law is famously vague. Two particularly challenging elements are the nature of and the scope of involvement in a crime against peace, war crime, or crime against humanity, as defined in [...] instruments (1) such that an otherwise eligible refugee would be excluded from protection. Given that asylum adjudicators have had over sixty years of experience in interpreting the 1951 Refugee Convention definition, now governing in the 148 states parties to the Convention and/or its 1967 Protocol, there should be ample opportunities for comparative analysis and judicial conversation. Outside the confines of the Convention itself, the evolution of human rights law since 1951 and the explosive growth in humanitarian law and criminal law since the mid-1990s have created rich environment for situating the refugee definition in more comprehensive law context. Some jurisdictions have interpreted persecution using the language of human rights, while others have developed what might be characterized as more inward-looking, refugee-specific, sense of the word. Similarly, some jurisdictions have indeed looked to international instruments to inform their understanding of exclusion for war crimes and related offenses, while others have based their exclusion analysis on other factors. The United States has taken different direction, by excluding those who persecute others, with the result that persecution for the purposes of exclusion is mirror image of persecution as defined for the purposes of inclusion. My work looks at the use, or lack thereof, of and comparative law in refugee status determination, and explores the consequences for coherence and consistency in protection. To the extent that law is taken into account in refugee status determination, it is generally regarded as positive development. It may feel intuitively correct that this is so, and some scholars have argued that an external legal framework provides analytical rigor to refugee status determination, but it does not empirically appear to be the case. My intention is to raise questions about these links. I am skeptic when it comes to the utility, or even the usage, of law norms in refugee status determination. I question the significance of finding citations to external sources of law in domestic asylum jurisprudence. To the extent that these citations reveal serious engagement with an analytic framework, and not just boilerplate language, there is risk of making refugee definition that is famously vague and difficult to apply consistently even more unwieldy by interpreting it with the often indeterminate norms of law. With respect to inclusion, is it helpful to say, as the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has done, that persecution is serious violation of human rights? (2) Or in the European Union formulation, that it is severe violation of basic human rights? (3) Human rights law does not recognize division of basic and non-basic rights. To the contrary, human rights are interrelated, interdependent, and indivisible. With respect to exclusion, is it useful to know that an asylum seeker may be excluded under Article 1F(a) of the Refugee Convention for war crime as defined under law? Would that refer to all violations of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which do not themselves use the terminology of war crimes, or perhaps just grave breaches? I have looked at the use of human rights law in refugee status determination in the context of claims of persecution based on economic harm, comparing Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, which interpret persecution in human rights terms, with Australia and the United States, which do not. (4) I found that despite de jure differences in the legal standard employed, all five countries applied de facto similar, strict, standard. …

Economic Sanctions Against Human Rights Violations

On March 30, 1998 Russia ratified the Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. On March 3, 1987 – the UN Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. On September 18, 1973 – the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. On May 5, 1998 – the European Convention for the Protection of an Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. However, from 2016 to the present, on the territory of Russia in the Chechen Republic, terrible inhuman things are being found - torture and murder of people because they belong to the LGBT community. The Chechen Republic is part of Russia. It is horrifying that Russia ignores the open violation of human rights in Chechnya, and the violation of human rights is carried out by law enforcement officers of the Chechen Republic. Refusing to initiate criminal proceedings on massive violation of human rights in the Chechen Republic, thus contributing to torture, violence and inhuman treatment of Russian citizens based on of their sexual orientation, Russia crudely violates Item 1 of Article 2, Articles 12-15 of the UN Convention on the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment , Articles 3, 5, 6, 7, 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms , as well as the provisions of domestic legislation. What can the world community do to stop the massacre of LGBT representatives in Chechnya? How to react to it? Protection of human rights is often closely intertwined with maintenance of peace and security. These two concepts are indivisible. It is becoming increasingly clear that violation and infringement of human rights are not only concomitant consequences of a conflict, but also its triggering mechanism. If state authorities start to systematically violate human rights this becomes a warning, an alarming signal and one of the most obvious indicators that such violations may be followed by instability and violence threatening to spread over to other countries. It is not surprising that the most totalitarian world regimes are also the most flagrant violators of human rights.

Asylum seekers report exposure to human rights violations associated with a range of psychological and medical sequelae. Clinical evaluators can provide forensic evaluations that document evidence associated with their reports of persecution. The aim of this study was to characterize the forms of abuse experienced by asylum seekers, the psychological consequences of abuse, and the frequency with which clinician-evaluators found evidence that corroborated asylum seekers' reports. We completed a retrospective chart review of 121 asylum seekers who received pro bono medical-legal evaluations through a human rights program and analyzed data using the constant comparative method. Eighty-eight percent of the clients reported experiencing multiple human rights abuses. Ninety-one percent of the clients who received psychological evaluations presented with symptoms associated with depression, anxiety, or trauma and stressor-related disorders. Clinician-evaluators found physical or psychological evidence consistent with the clients' reports in 97% of cases. Forms, perpetrators, and psychological consequences of abuse varied significantly by gender and geographic region. Asylum seekers report diverse forms of persecution in their countries of origin that differ by gender and geographic region. Clinician-evaluators overwhelmingly found physical and psychological evidence consistent with the asylum seekers' accounts of persecution.

Purpose – This paper studies the experiences of asylum seekers in Australia. The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between mental wellbeing, living conditions, and Australia’s detention policies in light of human rights. Design/methodology/approach – Using grounded theory, data were collected via observations, semi-structured interviews, key-informant interviews, and document analysis. Participants included seven asylum seekers and three professionals working with them. Findings – In light of a human rights framework, this paper reports on the mental distress suffered by asylum seekers in detention, the environments of constraint in which they live, and aspects of detention centre policy that contribute to these environments. The findings highlight a discrepancy between asylum seekers’ experiences under immigration detention policy and Australia’s human rights obligations. Research limitations/implications – This research indicates human rights violations for asylum seekers in detention in Australia. This research project involved a small number of participants and recommends systemic review of the policy and practices that affect asylum seekers’ mental health including larger numbers of participants. Consideration is made of alternatives to detention as well as improving detention centre conditions. The World Health Organization’s Quality Rights Tool Kit might provide the basis for a framework to review Australia’s immigration detention system with particular focus on the poor mental wellbeing of asylum seekers in detention. Originality/value – This study links international human rights law and Australian immigration detention policies and practices with daily life experiences of suffering mental distress within environments of constraint and isolation. It identifies asylum seekers as a vulnerable population with respect to human rights and mental wellbeing. Of particular value is the inclusion of asylum seekers themselves in interviews.

Informal externalisation, wherein destination states provide aid and assistance to third states in exchange for their cooperation in the extraterritorial management of asylum and irregular migration, presents a significant challenge to the authority of international law. This article explores the potential complicity of destination states aiding and assisting pushbacks and pullbacks of asylum seekers resulting in extraterritorial human rights violations. It comparatively analyses the Italy-Libya and Hungary-Serbia informal externalisation collaborations – two distinct cases with varying levels of aid or assistance from the externalising states – to understand the extent to which an externalising state can be held responsible for aiding and assisting human rights violations resulting from their assistance to the respective transit state. The article concludes by arguing that a state can be held accountable for extraterritorial human rights violations if it makes it materially easier for the assisted state to commit human rights violations through its positive contribution, has knowledge or near-certain knowledge that the aid or assistance provided will be used, at least in part, in their commission, and intends for its aid or assistance to contribute to these violations. The article further argues that both Hungary and Italy provide some form of material assistance to transit states in efforts to pullback asylum seekers, which could be a valid ground for holding Hungary and Italy complicit in extraterritorial human rights violations. Thus, assessing responsibility for aiding and assisting in such contexts could potentially provide an avenue for bringing complex forms of informal externalisation under the accountability of international law.

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.

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 April 2022, the United Kingdom (UK) government announced the signing of a deal with the Rwandan government to ‘transfer’ asylum seekers entering the country through illegal means, for processing in the African country. The argument was that UK’s Nationality and Border Protection Act of 2022 prevents persons who enter the UK illegally from being processed in the country. Reasons cited include to deter people from taking treacherous journeys across the English Channel, sharing the global refugee ‘burden’, and to cull the business of illegal traffickers, among others. Human rights activists have however, critiqued the deal, stirring dialogue on different platforms. With this interrogation, the dirge was what next steps can the two countries take? The objective of the paper was to unearth the real context, pros and cons related to the deal, using desk research, through a review of related literature. Findings were that as both countries are signatories to the United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees, they are in breach of Articles on non-penalization, non-expulsion, and non-refoulement, respectively. They are also in breach of the Global Compact for Migration, which seeks, among other things, to share the global‘ refugee burden’. By sending asylum seekers to Rwanda, the UK is absolving itself of the responsibility to share that burden. The paper bemoans the growing trend by Western states to transfer asylum seekers to other states, as if they were commodities: summarized as gross violation of human rights. The recommendation is for the deal to be rescinded, allowing asylum seekers the right to choose the country that they wish to seek their asylum in, without fear of reprisals, or further exacerbating their vulnerability.

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.

RAPAR applies our participatory action research methods to amplify the living experience of families seeking asylum in the UK who are in ‘contingency accommodation’, aka ‘hotels’, and claiming human rights abuses on these sites. From all over the world, these people are without status in the UK and are therefore without recourse to the public funds that are, theoretically, available to everyone living in the UK with status. Their complete legal dependence on the Home Office and its subcontractors to ‘look after’ them and deal with any complaints leads to the question: why would anyone choose to challenge any organisation about human rights violations when that same organisation exercises such profound control over their day to day living reality? The data comprises contemporaneously collected evidence from individual correspondence, questionnaires, semi-structured conversations and case studies with hotel residents. Our preliminary analysis demonstrates considerable failures of statutory bodies in implementing their statutory duties. No evidence of meaningful investigation by any implicated statutory authority, or their privatised sub-contractors, into the human rights violation allegations asserted by hotel residents has been produced. The Local Authorities and the NHS insist that the Home Office is responsible for hotel residents within their boundaries. In turn, the Home Office, including Greater Manchester Police and sub-contractors Serco and Migrant Help, have failed to address the allegations in any transparent way. We call for immediate action that enables hotel residents to safely protect themselves and stimulates inclusive solution-making, with them, to end these human rights violations.

On the one hand, business entities have a huge potential to contribute to economic and social progress and consequently to the advancement of human rights. On the other, violations of human rights connected with business are very common. Although the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) calls upon every organ of society, and thus business entities, to promote respect of human rights, the subsequent international human rights treaties, including the European Convention of Human Rights (the Convention), only oblige States to respect, protect and fulfill human rights. Against this backdrop, an attempt has been made to analyse the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) with respect to the State's responsibility for business-related human rights violations. The analysis reveals that the State will bear responsibility for business-related human rights violations if acts or omissions of a business entity, amounting to a violation of a particular right guaranteed under the Convention, can be directly attributed to that State. This would occur, for instance, in case a company is considered a governmental organisation or where the State empowers a business entity to perform public authority functions. In this situation, the State would be responsible for violating its negative obligations under the Convention, namely its obligation to refrain from conduct that breach human rights through its own action or those of its agents. Furthermore, the State will bear responsibility for business-related human rights violations if it fails: (a) to regulate business activities in order to prevent business-related human rights violations; (b) to investigate business-related human rights violations; and (c) to establish effective remedies for this kind of human rights violations. In these situations, the State would be responsible for violating its positive obligations under the Convention. This paper describes the State responsibility for violations of its negative obligations in business and human rights context as a direct responsibility for business-related human rights violations while its responsibility for violation of positive obligations describes as indirect State responsibility for business-related human rights violations. The analysis also reveals that despite the Court's intention to interpret the Convention in accordance with general rules of international law, including rules on the State's responsibility for internationally wrongful acts, it has its own specific approach. In determining whether the State can be held directly responsible for acts or omissions of business entity the Court combines several criteria. It takes into account: (a) the company's legal status (under public or private law); (b) the nature of its activity (a public function or an ordinary commercial business); (c) the context of its operation (such as a monopoly); (d) its institutional independence (the extent of State ownership); and (e) its operational independence (the extent of State supervision and control). Through the dynamic interpretation of the Convention and the elaboration of the concept of positive obligations, the Court has, to a certain extent, succeeded in providing individual protection at international level for business-related human rights violations.

African States have ratified a number of human rights treaties that require them to respect, protect and fulfil (facilitate, provide and promote) human rights, as well as to prevent violations of human rights. In practice, States and non-State actors have paid very little attention to the obligation to prevent human rights violations. This article examines the obligation of States to prevent violations of human rights and remedies for human rights violations. It considers the application of international human rights law within the national law of the State. It further examines discrimination based on sexual orientation drawing on State practice as reflected in domestic legislation and judicial decisions from Zimbabwe, Uganda and Malawi. It is observed that the obligation to prevent violations of human rights requires a new approach to human rights in Africa and what States must do to comply with international human rights obligations. The obligation to prevent requires States to refrain from acts or omissions they foresee or ought reasonably to foresee will create, contribute to or result in violations of human rights before they occur within and beyond State borders, and to take effective measures to prevent similar violations in the future. Despite the fact that most attention to violations of human rights has tended to be retroactive, the obligation to prevent violations of human rights necessitates taking action before individuals or groups of individuals suffer violations of human rights.