Punitive populism and the politicisation of youth crime in Queensland: A human rights critique of the Making Queensland Safer Act 2024

Everything about human right is inalienable void of violation from the human race. It is therefore that responsibility of the international community in ensuring the effective preservation and respect of these rights without any threat of violations. In ensuring its recognition and implementation, international standards have been established where there is the need of States parties to these international human right treaties in ensuring its incorporation in its various domestic legislations. The content and specific features of the introduction of international human rights standards into national legislation have been analyzed in the article. The methodological basis of research is a set of general scientific and special methods, in particular, dialectical, historical-legal, epistemological, comparative-legal. International standards for the protection of human rights have been defined as principles and norms enshrined in international regulatory legal acts that define fundamental human rights and freedoms, the obligation of the State to respect them, to assist in their realization, preservation and protection against unlawful encroachments, and to establish liability for their violations and methods of protection. It has been clarified that the procedure of implementation of international human rights standards into national legislation includes the following stages: (i) recognition of human rights by the State and their enshrinement in national legislation; (ii) institutionalization of the standard of human rights protection; (iii) bringing the current legislation in line with the international human rights standard and interpreting the latter; (iv) establishment of measures and means of protection and defense of human rights; (v) determining the procedure for the realization of the enshrined right; (vi) control over the observance of the international human rights standard.

Regional human rights courts like the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), and the African Court of Human and People's Rights (ACtHPR) have become popular sites of mobilization for victims and activists who seek justice when justice fails at home. Besides being platforms for individual remedy, human rights courts increasingly shape social norms and state policy within countries, making them attractive avenues for rights advocates to develop new norms or to push domestic authorities to reform legislation. The judges of these courts can decide, for example, whether same-sex couples have a right to be married, if prisoners have the right to vote or receive HIV/AIDS treatment, or when a state can deport illegal immigrants to a country where they will likely be tortured. As these courts pass their judgments, they often find themselves in conflict with states that are violating human rights of marginalized groups on a large scale and are unwilling to implement international rulings. Although international human rights courts have become increasingly popular venues among victims and activists who seek justice when justice fails at home, we are only beginning to understand how activists play roles in shaping the development of regional human rights courts' case law—the body of judgments that shapes how judges will make their decisions in the future. We now have plenty of international relations and international legal research on the interactions between states and international courts: how judges in these courts wrestle between deferring to the interests of member state governments whose actions are on trial and sticking closely to the conventions' fundamental yet evolving principles (Alter et al., 2019; Helfer & Voeten, 2014). As some states begin to resist international courts' authority, scholars have begun to examine the dynamics of this backlash (Hillebrecht, 2022; Madsen et al., 2018; Sandholtz et al., 2018). Recent studies have also demonstrated that human rights advocates—whether NGOs or individual lawyers—have a significant impact on shaping the jurisprudence of international courts and the impact judgments have in concrete locations (Kahraman, 2018; Sundstrom, 2014; van der Vet, 2012; Kurban, 2020; Conant, 2018; Harms, 2021; Cichowski, 2016; Hodson, 2011; Haddad, 2018). Meanwhile, these advocates themselves have been subject to repression and stigmatization by governments as part of the backlash phenomenon. Without an adequate understanding of the factors shaping activists' engagement with international courts, we risk undervaluing their strategic impact on the expansion of case law, the human rights protection of marginalized groups who cannot find remedies at home, and the domestic implementation of these judgments in an age of state backlash. In this section, we summarize the three papers contained in this symposium and their original contributions to these themes. Over the last decade, dozens of countries have erected legal barriers or started vilifying campaigns to stymie the work of NGOs (Buyse, 2018; Chaudhry, 2022). One tactic in this toolkit is the enactment of burdensome regulation on NGOs that receive funds from foreign donors as they allegedly promote foreign agendas (Christensen & Weinstein, 2013; Dupuy et al., 2021). States that frequently abuse human rights are especially prone to target NGOs that engage in strategic litigation (Hillebrecht, 2019). Most NGOs depend on foreign funding, and NGOs that litigate international cases fall disproportionately in this category, but do funders affect the selection of cases? In “Foreign Agents or Agents of Justice? Private Foundations, NGO Backlash, and International Human Rights Litigation,” Heidi Haddad and Lisa Sundstrom examine the extent to which Western donors, particularly private foundations, have encouraged NGOs in Europe to litigate at the ECtHR as a human rights advocacy strategy. They examine overall patterns of donor funding and NGO litigation records, and look in more detail at the case of Russian NGOs' foreign funding and litigation records. The analysis is extremely timely, as the Russian government's criminalization of independent civil society actors, especially in the human rights field, and their accusation that foreign funding turns NGOs into “foreign agents” have been crucial elements of the Russian regime's autocratization. This claim has also provided fuel for Russia's disenchantment with the ECtHR in recent years, contributing to the assessment of many observers that Russia's full-scale attack on Ukraine was the last straw in an inevitable collision course leading to its exit from the Council of Europe. Haddad and Sundstrom debunk the idea that foreign donors are pushing NGOs toward strategies of human rights litigation. Instead, they argue, there is more evidence that NGOs themselves promoted the mechanism of international litigation as a strategy that donors later adopted. This article is a poignant reminder of the advocacy tools that Russian human rights activists and citizens have lost as a result of their government's departure from the Council of Europe, including ECtHR jurisdiction. Yet it also provides insight into the likely roles of foreign donors in other country cases where NGOs are using international court litigation as a human rights advocacy strategy, which is often a target of the ire of national governments, as explored in the next article in the symposium. When states attack human rights NGOs within their borders and/or international human rights courts themselves, how does this affect the willingness of those NGOs to take cases to international courts, and the ways in which they do so? De Silva and Plagis ask this question in their article about state backlash against NGOs in the case of Tanzania and the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights. A fascinating empirical question they pose is: does state backlash against NGOs increase NGO litigation at international courts (to contest state repression at those courts and use international mechanisms when domestic ones are not available), roughly in line with Keck and Sikkink's famous “boomerang pattern” (Keck & Sikkink, 1998), or decrease it due to heightened fear and restricted NGO capabilities that state repression creates? Employing a process-tracing analysis of NGOs' involvement in three cases before the African Court at different stages of the Tanzanian government's backlash against the Court, De Silva and Plagis find that “two-level backlash” by states can result in both phenomena, either promoting or deterring NGO legal mobilization at international human rights courts, depending on certain conditions. The three selected cases concerning the death penalty, the rights of persons with albinism, and the rights of pregnant schoolgirls and mothers, which took place at different time periods, demonstrate a number of patterns of state backlash interacting with NGO strategies. The authors find that domestic-level state backlash deterred domestic NGOs from partnering with international NGOs in litigation, but that such backlash, when it repressed domestic political and legal mobilization opportunities, actually encouraged both Tanzanian and international NGOs to turn to the African Court more frequently to seek remedies. International-level backlash in turn only deterred NGOs from international litigation when such backlash consisted of state efforts to restrict NGOs' ability to engage in litigation, and not when the international backlash was in the form of routine noncompliance with African Court rulings. Importantly, the authors find that NGO responses to state backlash were significantly shaped by their degree of legal consciousness and expertise with the rules, proceedings, and workings of the African Court. Those NGOs with less knowledge and experience were more likely to back away from engaging with the Court under the pressure of state backlash. De Silva and Plagis conclude that “NGOs' persistent human rights advocacy in the face of state backlash is a double-edged sword,” in the sense that they may not be deterred by state backlash initially, but there is a danger that their continued determination to engage in international litigation could prompt governments to engage in even more severe forms of backlash, with critical impacts on international courts and already vulnerable human rights defenders. Rights advocates have a growing menu of institutions and courts available to them. How do activists choose at which institution to lodge their cases in a world where legal remedies have diversified, or as some have argued, fragmented (Koskenniemi & Leino, 2002)? In “What Makes an International Institution Work for Labor Activists? Shaping International Law through Strategic Litigation,” Filiz Kahraman goes beyond the tendency of legal mobilization studies to only examine how activists interact with a single court or institution. Instead, Kahraman opens up how rights advocates imagine which institution is most receptive to their claims. Drawing on a comparative interview study of British and Turkish trade union activists and their legal mobilization campaigns at international courts and quasi-judicial institutions like the International Labor Organization (ILO), Kahraman examines how activists first probe and then strategically identify which court or international institution is most susceptible to their primary goals of influencing structural reforms and setting new norms. Through this probing process—or dynamic signaling game between courts and litigants—activists push a court's jurisprudence and case law into new issue areas. For instance, at the ECtHR, Turkish trade unionists challenged domestic courts' ruling that public sector workers did not have the right to establish unions, even though the ECtHR had no established case law on labor rights in 1990s. They won the case, with the ECtHR finding that Turkey violated the right of public sector workers to unionize. These cases not only had an impact within Turkey, but over the next decades, similar cases brought by British unionists would spin off the early precedent set by the Turkish legal mobilization efforts. Kahraman argues that they ultimately pushed the ECtHR to recognize the basic trade union rights as fundamental human rights. Kahraman sheds light on the often hidden strategies behind international litigation. Activists litigate not just for the immediate impact on the current case they work on, but how they envision that all the cases they work on may shape norms and domestic structural reforms further in the future. Whether an institution is perceptive of claims lies in the eye of the beholder. Kahraman finds that besides targeting institutions with high compliance rates, they also take cases to institutions with low rates of compliance, especially “if these institutions have extensive judicial authority to create new international norms.” So, it is not the de jure protection set by an international courts, but rather how activists perceive the juridical responsiveness and judicial authority of courts—or, how judges adopt either an activist approach or restraint in response to incoming cases and how willing states are to implement cases of a court, respectively—that determines why activists select certain courts or quasi-judicial institutions (like the ILO). Kahraman gives us new tools to interpret how activists perceive authority and receptiveness and respond to opportunities. Rather than static external legal remedies, courts and quasi-judicial institutions are opportunity structures that are malleable to the strategic vision of the activist or litigant. The articles in this symposium together reveal a number of key overlapping insights. At the broadest level, they demonstrate that activists' behaviors and strategies influence international courts' jurisprudence, politics within states, and the human rights outcomes of everyday citizens—and these influences have often been hidden in our existing canon of research on international courts. In addition, all of these articles show that, while activists may face challenges in their efforts, often including significant backlash from their home state governments, they also continue to retain significant agency through their creative efforts to develop legal strategies and circumvent state repression. Activists perennially innovate: sparking the ideas that inspire donors who fund them; calculating how to continue their litigation work when government actors threaten them; and taking risks in litigation to push courts to expand how they define human rights. However, along with these uplifting conclusions, there are worrying patterns that demand future research. States are increasingly pushing back against the powers of international courts to bind them to costly measures, and as this symposium has shown, national governments often point to activists as contributors to this “problem” of invasive international human rights standards. A growing body of research has tracked how human rights defenders of all kinds globally are under threat from actors like governments and corporations who disagree with their contentious actions. We need more studies that gather comprehensive data and systematically track these threats, specifically with regard to activists who engage in international human rights litigation. We suspect that such activists are likely disproportionately targeted due to the international visibility of their complaints. We also desperately need research into possible innovative responses to these threats to activists—responses from activists, funders, governments of countries that support human rights, and international courts themselves. Freek van der Vet is a University Researcher at the Erik Castrén Institute of International Law and Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of Helsinki and the principal investigator of the Toxic Crimes Project. Lisa McIntosh Sundstrom is Professor of Political Science at the University of British Columbia. She is the director of the ActinCourts network at UBC and conducts research on legal mobilization by Russian activists.

Human rights policies and practices in the People's Republic of China have repeatedly been criticized for falling short of international standards. Although China has signed the international covenant on civil and political rights, so far it has ratified only the international covenant on economic, social, and cultural rights, despite repeated urgings by the international community. China's performance even under the agreements to which it is bound remains a subject of frequent criticism.1 While China's compliance with international human rights standards seems highly problematic, its human rights record can be explained at least in part by reference to China's divergent interpretations of these standards based on factors of local legal culture. The paradigm of explains much about the ways in which international legal standards are interpreted and applied in light of local legal cultural norms in China.2 As well, China's compliance with its international human rights commitments may be understood by reference to factors of institutional performance. The paradigm of institutional capacity explains the ways that conditions of perspective, identity, and organization affect the performance of governance institutions. As an alternative to normative analysis of human rights violations, the cultural and structural dimensions of selective adaptation and institutional capacity explain much about China's human rights policies and practice.LEGAL CULTURE AND SELECTIVE ADAPTATIONLegal culture analysis permits appreciation of the tensions between the globalized systems of liberal legal norms, from which many international human rights standards derive, and deeply embedded systems of local norms and values. China's legal reform project represents in significant part an effort to adapt selectively foreign models of law and governance drawn largely from the liberal tradition.3 This involves questions about the potential for normative community between Chinese legal culture and the foreign models China is seeking to apply to its development project. Proceeding from tenets about human equality and natural law, liberal political and legal norms stand generally for the proposition that government should be an agency of popular will.4 Such agency requires accountability, from political leaders through democratic elections and from administrative agencies acting within the limits of lawfully delegated authority. Responsible agency is thus a typology by which regulators and their political superiors are accountable to the subjects of regulation, and as a result are expected to exercise regulatory authority broadly in accordance with norms of transparency and the rule of law. Thus, the accountability of political and administrative agents may be described in terms of their responsibility to society. In contrast, norms of governance in China suggest a typology of patrimonial sovereignty, by which regulators are accountable primarily to their bureaucratic and political superiors, and as a result have few obligations to heed the subjects of rule in the process or substance of regulation. Under the dynamic of patrimonial sovereignty, political leaders and administrative agencies have responsibility for society but are not responsible to it. This helps to set an ideological context by which protection of individual human rights is relegated to secondary status, behind the primacy of the state.Tensions between responsible agency and patrimonial sovereignty affect compliance with international human rights standards through the dynamic of selective adaptation, by which non-local institutional practices and organizational forms are mediated by local norms. While parties to international human rights treaties accept compliance obligations upon ratification, as a practical matter interpretation and application of specific international human rights standards will depend on a degree of commonality between the sodocultural norms underlying these standards and local norms. …

The article presents a comprehensive study of the theoretical and legal foundations and practical mechanisms for implementing international human rights standards within the national legal system of Ukraine, which is of particular relevance under martial law and in the context of European integration processes. The authors examine the issues of harmonizing national legislation with international obligations defined by international treaties, conventions, and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The research employs a wide range of general scientific and special legal methods, including historical-legal, comparative-legal, system-structural analysis, formal-legal, and legal modeling methods, ensuring the complexity and scientific validity of the study. For the first time in Ukrainian legal scholarship, a systematic approach is proposed to analyze the implementation of international human rights standards, taking into account the dynamics of Ukraine’s legal system during armed conflict and current integration challenges. The authors develop an original periodization of the development of judicial practice in applying international standards, which allows for tracing the evolution of national courts’ legal positions. It is proven that the constitutional and legal foundations for the realization of international standards create a basis for stable legal integration; however, numerous practical problems persist – fragmentary implementation, formalism in law enforcement, the absence of a unified approach to interpreting international instruments, and difficulties in adapting human rights protection mechanisms under martial law conditions. It is noted that as of today, only about 35% of ratified international human rights treaties have been fully integrated into national legislation. In this regard, the authors substantiate the need to develop a National Strategy for the Implementation of International Human Rights Standards, establish a Unified Coordination Center, and adopt a Framework Law to enhance the implementation process. The results obtained have theoretical and practical significance and may be used in law-making, judicial practice, educational processes, and further scientific research in the field of international and constitutional law.

This article introduces the idea of human rights to the topic of workers' compensation in the United States. It discusses what constitutes a human rights approach and explains how this approach conflicts with those policy ideas that have provided the foundation historically for workers' compensation in the United States. Using legal and historical research, key international labor and human rights standards on employment injury benefits and influential writings in the development of the U.S. workers' compensation system are cited. Workers' injury and illness compensation in the United States does not conform to basic international human rights norms. A comprehensive review of the U.S. workers' compensation system under international human rights standards is needed. Examples of policy changes are highlighted that would begin the process of moving workers' compensation into conformity with human rights standards.

This Thesis deals with the role of the Constitution and the Domestic Law in the implementation of the modern international standards of human rights as defined under the United Nations Covenants on Human Rights of 1966. It seeks to explain some aspects of the obligation of states parties to take legislative measures for purposes of the effective implementation of the Covenants at the domestic level. The study is conducted in the context of a case study of Jordan as a state party. The Thesis consists of three main parts, divided into seven Chapters and followed by Chapter VIII which is a general conclusion. Part One, contains two Chapters dealing with the relationship between the modern international standards of human rights and the domestic legal systems. Chapter I is a brief legal and historical background. It seeks to highlight some of the major developments in the legal background of the modern international standards of human rights and the legal system of Jordan. Chapter II discusses the applicability of the international rules of human rights within the domestic legal systems with special reference to Jordan. Part Two, is devoted to the first part of the role of the constitution and domestic law in the implementation of the modern international standards of human rights; namely, the adoption of equivalent standards at the domestic level. It also contains two Chapters. Whereas Chapter III focuses on the civil and political rights. Chapter IV deals with the economic, social and cultural rights. A list of four rights has been selected from each catalogue in order to define precisely what are the legislative measures required in the case of each right. Part Three, deals with the other part of the role of the constitution and domestic law, i.e. the introduction of sufficient domestic legal safeguards. It contains three Chapters. Chapter V discusses the role of the Judiciary as the vindicator of human rights, and the independence of the Judiciary as a legal safeguard against human rights violations. Chapter VI deals with the rights to judicial review of administrative actions, as a guarantee against excess or abuse of powers by the administrative authorities, and as an inevitable requirement for the rule of law and respect for human rights in practice. Chapter VII discusses emergency powers and the Impact of the state of emergency on human rights; and considers the question of derogation under Article 4 of the Political Covenant. It focuses on the role of the Constitution and the domestic legislature in imposing restrictions on the right of the national authorities to declare a public emergency and on the emergency powers themselves when the state of emergency is declared. Finally, the concluding Chapter VIII is a general assessment of; The role of the constitution and the domestic laws in the implementation of the modern international standards of human rights, the present system of international scrutiny of the domestic legislative measures, and the performance of Jordan as a state party and the existing legal system of Jordan in general.

‘Child friendly’ international human rights standards and youth offending team partnerships

최근 한국과 일본의 외교관계는 점점 긴장되고 있는 현실이다. 현재 일본 정부는 과거 한반도에서 일본 식민지 지배하에 (1910-1945) 일어난 전시 잔학행위와 부당행위에 대한 배상을 제공하는 합의에 도달하는 것을 거부하고 있다. 이러한 역사적 기록에는 한국인들이 즉결 처형, 강제 노동, 그리고 강제적 일본군 위안부 동원의 대상이 되었었다는 것을 포함하고 있다. 또한, 한국인들은 일본으로 강제이주의 대상이 되었고, 그곳에서 전쟁 이후에도 계속 착취를 당했다. 세계이차대전이 끝난 이후부터, 한국인들은 주로 빈민가나 작은 촌락에 거주하며, 인권침해에 준할만한 체계적인 차별을 당해왔다. 일본의 국가 주도적 차원에서의 한인소수민족에 대한 차별행위들은 수십 년 동안 지속되어 왔다. 이러한 역사의 그늘 안에서, 현재 일본의 배상동의 거부 행위는 주변 국가들과의 관계까지도 훼손시키고 있을 뿐만 아니라, 심지어 모든 회원국들에 의해 마땅히 지켜져야 하는 국제 인도주의법의 기초가 되는 국제인권규범을 약화, 훼손시키는 행위임이 분명하다. 본 논문은 세대를 거슬러 지속된 차별과 소외를 겪고 있는 일본에 있는 한인소수민족을 중심으로 다룬다. 마땅히 당사국인 일본정부로부터 보호받아야할 한인소수민족의 기본적 권리들은 현시점까지도 전혀 존중 받지 못하고 있는 것이 현실이다. 따라서, 본 논문은 현재 한인소수민족에 대한 일본국가 주도의 인권규범위반에 준하는 차별적 행위들이 얼마나 이뤄지고 있는지에 대해 분석 한다. 현재 일본에 있는 한인소수민족들은 그들의 기본적 권리들이 지속적으로 침해되는 위험에 처해 있지만, 일본정부는 이러한 상황의 해결을 위한 적절한 법적 조치들은 없는 현실이다. 현재 일본의 정책들과 관행들은 국제인권규범들에 명백히 위배되는 것이며, 이는 인종적 다양성을 포용하는 소위 다문화주의 접근방식의 정책을 지향하고 있는 대부분의 민주주의 국가들에 반대되는 것이라고 볼 수 있다. 국제인권규범들과 그에 따른 기준들을 준수하기 위해 일본정부가 자국에 거주하고 있는 한인소수민족의 권리를 완전히 인식해야 할 필요성이 시급하다. 현재 일본정부는 한인소수민족의 인권 상황을 개선하고, 동시에 국제인권규범과 기준에 따라 고안된 정책들을 도입하는 국가 정책적 변화의 촉진을 위해 최선을 다해야 한다.Diplomatic relations between the Republic of Korea and Japan have become increasingly tense. The current Japanese administration refuses to reach an agreement that could provide reparations for its wartime atrocities and injustices, which happened on the Korean peninsula under Japanese colonial rule (1910 1945). The historical record includes Koreans being subjected to summary execution, forced labor, and the forced slavery of comfort women. Korean people were also subject to forced migration to Japan, where their exploitation continued, even after the war. Since the end of World War II, Korean ethnic minorities, often living in slums and hamlets, have been systematically discriminated against. These abuses amount to human rights violations. Japan’s stateled discrimination of the Korean ethnic minority group has remained unchanged for decades. In the shadow of this history, Japan’s refusal to agree to reparations strains its relationships with other countries in the region, and undermines the international human rights norms that form the basis of international humanitarian laws, which all member states must abide by. This paper considers the Korean ethnic minority group in Japan, whose experience of discrimination and marginalization extends across generations. Even in the current era, the fundamental rights of those with Korean ancestry have not been respected. Accordingly, this paper examines the extent to which state-led discrimination against Koreans amounts to human rights violations. The Korean minority population in Japan is currently at risk of having their fundamental rights continuously violated, while the Japanese government lacks adequate legal measures to resolve the situation. This paper finds that current Japanese policies and practices violate international norms pertaining to human rights, thus reversing the trend of many liberal democracies to embrace multiculturalism and ethnic diversity. There is an urgent need for the Japanese government to fully recognize the rights of the Korean minority in Japan in an effort to abide by international human rights norms and standards. The Japanese government should thus make utmost efforts to improve the human rights conditions of the Korean minority, and simultaneously bring Japanese policies into accordance with international human rights standards.

The study is devoted to a comprehensive analysis of the conceptual foundations, main features and practical aspects of the functioning of international human rights standards in the modern globalized world. The relevance of the work is due to the need to form a holistic theoretical approach to understanding the nature of international standards in the context of the dynamic development of international law and the adoption of over 300 international documents in the field of human rights.The work analyzes the evolution of conceptual approaches to defining international human rights standards, starting from the 2012 Declaration on the Rule of Law and UN General Assembly Resolution No. 41/120. Particular attention is paid to the study of the main characteristics of the standards: establishing the content and scope of human rights, their minimal nature as the “least acceptable compromise”, the obligation of compliance and model for national legal systems.A significant part of the study is devoted to the analysis of the paradox of the universality of international standards, which consists in combining their global nature with the possibility of various culturally specific interpretations. The practice of the European Court of Human Rights on the application of the doctrine of “margin of appreciation” and the approaches of different civilizations to the interpretation of fundamental rights and freedoms is considered. The need for a dialogue of civilizations to form a “consensus” language in the field of human rights is substantiated.Special attention is paid to practical aspects of the implementation of international standards, in particular the problem of establishing a fair balance between individual and collective interests. The process of standardization of the social significance of formally distinct legal phenomena and the dialectics of essence and form in the application of international standards are analyzed. The specifics of the maximum abstractness of the terminology of international standards and the features of their official interpretation in specific historical conditions are considered.The study demonstrates the complex and multidimensional nature of international human rights standards, their dynamic nature and ability to adapt to changing social needs, while maintaining the fundamental focus on protecting human dignity and ensuring justice on a global scale.

The essay argues that one of the greatest shifts in the international humanitarian order heralded by the end of the Cold War has been the concept of holding state sovereignty accountable to an international human rights standard. It argues that while the concept of R2P has generally focused on humanitarian intervention at a macro level, the period since the 1990s has also witnessed an increase of micro-level institutions, in the form of National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) that can advance R2P, including 31 such institutions in Africa. NHRIs can potentially bolster R2P and foster peace in countries in which they operate. The general popularity of R2P as an international standard is contrasted with the great suspicion with which it is regarded by a number of governments—particularly in Africa, where sovereignty is guarded with passion as a result of the anticolonial struggles that gave birth to national independence on the continent. The author further argues that NHRIs—when properly institutionalised and functioning optimally—can play an important role in protecting the rights of vulnerable groups, and have the potential to help countries attain international human rights norms and standards without unduly threatening their sovereign independence. The essay examines the role of NHRIs in the four cases of Sierra Leone, Uganda, Tanzania and South Africa, and assesses the establishment and operation of African NHRIs using measures formulated by the internationally agreed Paris Principles of 1993.

The aim of the work is examines the complexities surrounding conscription within the context of Ukraine’s ongoing conflict with Russia. It provides a detailed analysis of the historical evolution of military conscription, highlighting its role in state formation and defense across different eras. The paper explores the legal frameworks governing conscription, including international human rights law, and the balance between national security and individual rights. The article discusses the significant challenges Ukraine faces in mobilizing its armed forces amidst prolonged conflict, including the waning enthusiasm for enlistment and the increasing demand for additional soldiers. It delves into the societal divisions over compulsory military service, contrasting views on its necessity versus its human rights implications. Key sections cover the historical origins and variations of conscription, its impact during major global conflicts, and contemporary practices in different countries. The paper also analyzes the legal and ethical dimensions of conscription, particularly the limitations imposed by international human rights standards. Overall, the article aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of conscription’s role in modern warfare and the legal and moral considerations involved, offering insights into how Ukraine can navigate its current mobilization efforts while upholding human rights. Research methodology. This study employs a multifaceted research methodology to comprehensively examine the issue of conscription, particularly within the context of Ukraine’s current conflict with Russia. The methodology is designed to capture both historical and contemporary perspectives on conscription, analyze legal frameworks, and assess the ethical and practical implications of mandatory military service. The research methodology includes the following components: Legal Analysis: to analyze the legal frameworks governing conscription, with a focus on international human rights standards and domestic legislation. Case Studies: to explore practical examples and real-world applications of conscription policies. Analysis of conscription practices in various countries, including historical case studies and contemporary examples. Case studies include Ukraine’s current mobilization efforts, as well as practices in countries with mandatory military service such as Switzerland, Israel, and South Korea. The case studies provide insight into how different nations handle conscription and its consequences. Comparative Analysis: to compare conscription practices and their impacts across different contexts. Comparison of conscription systems in various countries to identify similarities, differences, and best practices. This involves analyzing the effectiveness of different conscription models and their compliance with international human rights standards. This research methodology aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of conscription’s role in state defense and its implications for human rights, drawing on historical analysis, legal evaluation, empirical data, and ethical considerations. The subject is legal customs, legal doctrine, International human rights law, legislation of Ukraine and the legislation of foreign countries in the field of the conscription. Conclusions. The author of the mentioned study comes to the conclusion that the system of military conscription played an important role in the state’s growing regulation of society and in shaping the mentalities and actions of the public. It was also an important element for defining citizenship in modern times. But at the same time it became one of the most highly contested public issues. Conscription is not in and of itself unlawful. However, international human rights law may interpret certain actions of the state as criminal, in particular the mobilization of minors, etc. Defending the Motherland is a constitutional duty of every citizen, as defence is one of the most important functions of the state and is the business of the entire nation. Every citizens and sodiers, both those who have chosen military service as their profession and those who are volunteers who have stood up to defend the Motherland in difficult times, sacrificing their own lives, must always remember that serving the country is a sacred duty of every citizens. It seems that the final choice is in favor of forced or voluntary сonscription of the armed forces has not yet been completed, and it is Ukraine that can be the bearer of a new trend that will have its influence and spread in the region and throughout Europe. Ukrainian society today is a certain indicator of this process, it is Ukraine that is the bearer of the trend of reviving forced recruitment, to which several European countries have turned in recent years.

In Uganda there has been evidence of land evictions over the past years which has left many people landless and homeless. This study sets out the national standards with the major emphasis on the some of the provisions of the 1995 Constitution that deal with land rights and the 1998 land Act. In addition to the above, it tackles some international standards found under ICESCR, ICCPR and the Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-Based Evictions and Displacement that have to be followed either before or after land evictions. Despite the fact that Uganda is a dualist State, there is need for it to take into consideration international standards that cater for land evictions since it is a member State to both ICESCR and ICCPR. Furthermore, the study discusses only three cases among others of land evictions that have occurred in Uganda and it analyses them against the national and international human rights standards. This study is of the view that most of the land evictions that are carried out in the country are not in line with national and international human rights standards. Therefore, there is need to ensure that people’s human rights are protected through the implementation of the existing national and international human rights standards.

In 2014, Uganda’s Constitutional Court struck down the problematic Anti-Homosexuality Act (AHA). However, since the decision of the court was based on procedural rather than on substantive grounds, the AHA may very well be reintroduced, or, other anti-homosexuality laws in place can still be relied on to criminalise consensual homosexual conduct. The ideal solution is to have all the anti-homosexuality laws struck down in light of Uganda’s international human rights obligations. However, although a number of international human rights instruments lend impetus to the cause of decriminalisation in Uganda; these international standards have thus far not fully persuaded Uganda to have these discriminatory laws struck down. In this article, I argue that whereas arguments based on Uganda’s international and constitutional obligations form a good foundation for reform, these standards cannot of themselves form a complete solution to the prob- lem. Drawing on the various actors that were at the fore in the struggle towards the striking down of the AHA, I argue that translating the rights of lesbian, gay and bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people into a reality will require conscious efforts from a number of actors including the judiciary, international and national human rights defenders and faith-based organisations. I identify some of the mistakes made by the foregoing actors in advocating for the striking down of the AHA, and how these mistakes should be addressed if the cause of decriminalisation is to be effectively advanced. Although Uganda is placed at the heart of the discussion, the conclusions drawn are relevant to other African countries battling with this subject. Key words: Uganda, international human rights standards, Anti-Homosexuality Act, decriminalisation

У статті розглядається вплив міжнародних стандартів у сфері захисту прав людини на діяльність Національної поліції України. Розкрито сутність «Десяти основних стандартів прав людини для правоохоронних органів», якими повинні керуватися у своїх діяльності працівники Національної поліції України, а також звернено увагу на найбільш поширені порушення прав людини з боку окремих працівників Національної поліції. Згідно з результатами дослідження Національна поліція України повинна неухильно дотримуватися стандартів у сфері захисту прав людини під час реалізації своїх функцій. Саме значне зростання рівня транснаціональної організованої злочинності, стрімка міграція населення у світі, відмінності у підготовці поліцейських кадрів у різних країнах призвели до необхідності впровадження єдиних міжнародних стандартів у діяльність Національної поліції України. Визначено, що у грудня 1998 року у Лондоні «Міжнародною Амністією» спільно з посадовими особами поліції та експертами з різних країн було розроблено «10 основних стандартів прав людини для правоохоронних органів».Дані 10 стандартів були розроблені для використання їх органами поліції як вихідної точки для розробки детальних положень щодо навчальних тренувань та моніторингу поведінки працівників поліції. Встановлено, що, непоодинокими є випадки перевищення працівниками Національної поліції України своїх повноважень, що призводить до порушення прав і свобод людини і громадянина.Імовірними причинами порушень є відсутність ефективного механізму контролю за дотриманням працівниками Національної поліції міжнародних стандартів прав людини, неефективність застосування норм права щодо притягнення працівників поліції до кримінальної відповідальності за порушення прав людини, що вимагає розроблення пропозицій, щодо удосконалення механізму контролю за дотриманням працівниками національної поліції України міжнародних стандартів прав людини.

This article considers the interplay between international human rights standards and the development of, and debate around, personal secrecy provisions in two areas of Australian counter-terrorism policy: ASIO questioning; and detention warrants and preventative detention.These secrecy provisions are shown to violate relevant international human rights standards in the International Covenant on Civil And Political Rights and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. It is argued that, although international human rights standards have had some purchase in the formation of counter-terrorism policy in Australia, this has been insufficient to date to prevent the development of policies that violate these standards.