Strategic and Human Rights Litigation

Most commentary and, indeed, most controversy concerning class actions in Australia has concerned shareholder class actions and how they are funded. This paper consciously changes the focus of its commentary away from such debates and towards examining human rights class actions in Australia. As Australia is the only advanced country without national constitutional or statutory protections of human rights, attempts to legally protect human rights have manifested themselves indirectly in various areas of the law that might not at first glance seem to have much to do with human rights. Class actions has been one of those legal areas. Given the paucity of existing commentary on Australian human rights class actions this paper begins with an examination of the types of cases that have been bought as human rights class actions and provides examples of them. Drawing on literature concerning the effectiveness of actions undertaken to protect human rights and on class actions protecting human rights overseas, it uses publicly available information to undertake a qualitative analysis concerning the effectiveness of such litigation. After coming to some tentative conclusions about such effectiveness, it examines whether US class actions law might be a source of ideas that could be adapted to address any such limitations of effectiveness in the same way that US class actions jurisprudence was originally drawn upon by the Australian Law Reform Commission to recommend that class actions provisions be enacted in Australia. Given the relative absence of legal norms protecting human rights in Australia as well as the relative weakness of social movements seeking greater legal protection for human rights in Australia, the search by human rights advocates for ways to access courts and obtain greater legal furtherance of human rights is a task of some urgency. This paper attempts to contribute to that search as well as to advance the analysis of Australian human rights class actions and their effectiveness more generally.

Libraries, Human Rights, and Social Justice: Enabling Access and Promoting Inclusion examines the interrelationships between digital literacy, digital inclusion, and public policy, emphasizing the impacts of these policy decisions on the ability of individuals and communities to successfully participate in the information society. It is the first large-scale consideration of digital literacy and digital inclusion as policy problems and provides policy recommendations to promote digital literacy and digital inclusion. This book is intended to help librarians better understand and articulate their roles in promoting human rights and social justice, as well as to educate policymakers, government officials, professionals in other fields, and researchers in other disciplines about the contributions of libraries to human rights and social justice. It explores the intersections of information, human rights, and social justice from a range of perspectives and addresses the differing roles of library institutions (public, school, academic, and special libraries), library professionals, professional organizations, governments, and library patrons. Discussion focuses on the practical side of human rights and avoids most of the philosophical discussions of the term. Similarly, this book emphasizes the practical nature of social justice and the social and societal structures that foster equality. Related issues of digital literacy and digital inclusion are considered as essential to providing information in human rights and social justice contexts. Digital literacy, the ability to use the Internet to meet information, combines with access to the Internet in order to successfully apply the skills of digital literacy is discussed under the topic of digital inclusion. These topics are discussed through legal, policy, social, cultural, and economic lenses. Issues are examined both in terms of efforts to support equity in communities as a whole and the efforts intended to promote equity in specific disadvantaged or marginalized populations, such as the homeless, immigrants, people with disabilities, and the socioeconomically disadvantaged. Many examples of the issues discussed are drawn from the original research that the authors have conducted. The ideas and suggestions in this book should help members of the library community understand where their roles related to human rights and social justice originate, how they fit within the broader policy context, how to improve their related services and practices, and how to advocate for better support of these roles. The authors of this book have been involved in this research for many years and this breadth allows the book to offer comprehensive policy recommendations, solutions, and best practices for an area that is currently extremely fragmented. The writing is at a level to make it useful to undergraduate and postgraduate students, researchers, and policy makers.

The emerging field of public health ethics

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.

The problem of interrelation and interdependence of various human and civil rights and freedoms in the light of the concept of social justice is investigated. The problem of a fair measure of human and civil rights and freedoms is considered, it is argued that a fair measure of rights and freedoms in any sphere of human activity should initially proceed from the idea of natural human rights to life, freedom and property, but this measure should be conditioned by the concrete historical realities of a given society. The author considers social justice as a measure of freedom. In the course of researching issues related to the problem of human rights and freedoms, the author proceeds from the theoretical position that all economic, political and spiritual rights and freedoms are interrelated and mutually conditioned. The author explores the problem of human rights and freedoms and social justice using the principle of development, an axiological approach and a criterion of practice. The author explores various aspects of freedom from the point of view of the concept of social justice, in the context of the relationship between freedom and responsibility, rights and duties. The problem of various human rights and freedoms is studied by the author in the context of their interrelation and interdependence. It is argued that the basis of political and spiritual freedom is, first of all, economic freedom, but at the same time the value of spiritual and political rights and freedoms in themselves is emphasized. The author interprets the problem of human rights and freedoms and social justice as tools in reflecting the realities of the modern world and tries to identify ideas in them that can be used in modern society to solve existing problems in it. The problem requires further investigation.

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-

Abstract: Class actions are increasingly being used in some countries’ jurisdictions as a vehicle to address human rights violations committed by corporations abroad, including violations of workers’ rights and harm of foreign nationals. Class actions in Canada, however, provide limited redress in such circumstances. Without such redress in Canada, it will remain impossible to hold transnational corporations incorporated in Canada accountable for the violation of international treaties or Customary International Law. In the first part of this paper I outline the current state of international human rights class actions in Canada. After discussing two cases that provide insight into the limitations of class actions as a mechanism for addressing human rights violations abroad, I discuss the potential causes of those limitations: jurisdictional issues, the corporate veil, and remedies. I argue that while human rights class actions are particularly unattractive to class counsel because of the aforementioned limitations, Canadian class actions regimes can be altered to address this shortfall and better assist those seeking justice for human rights violations abroad. The Canadian class actions regime and broader legal system can better provide access to justice for people who have experienced human rights violations abroad — through law reform that facilitates human rights cases coming before Canadian courts, amendments to current class actions legislation, and institutional changes. This paper explores how class actions can be part of the pursuit to hold accountable the entities committing human rights violations abroad.

Human rights and social justice are recognized as integral to social work education. Previous research shows a variety of means are being used to teach human rights and social justice yet relatively little is known about the teaching methods used in social work programs and about the type of knowledge and skills delivered. This survey of social work programs across the United States found that three fourths of all responding programs teach social justice and human rights, yet social justice was more prevalent in the curricula and as an area of faculty expertise. Content on social justice and human rights was most likely to be integrated throughout required courses and in courses focused on cultural diversity and policy. It is recommended that additional resources should be developed for social work educators to learn about human rights and its relation to social justice to develop rights-based skills and approaches among students.

Beyond Claim‐Rights: Social Structure, Collectivization, and Human Rights

<p>The 1960s and 1970s were an important time in the history of legal education in India, when the legal aid movement and various legal aid committees’ reports started to draw attention to the importance of experiential learning, or learning on the job, in legal education. The main aim of involving law students in the national legal aid movement was to make them feel more responsible for the considerable part of the Indian population who, because of their socio-economic status, couldn’t access justice. The history of how India’s clinical programs were introduced has a lot in common with the history of clinical programs in other parts of the world. There was a desire to create a pool of lawyers, who would serve as soldiers in the fight for social justice for underprivileged groups in the country.</p><p>While some prestigious universities started their clinical programs in the 1970s, most of the regulators of legal education took a long time to include clinical papers in the curriculum. In 1997 the Bar Council of India introduced four practical papers in the curriculum. The spirit of public service, and the widespread poverty in a country, has always been central to the push for clinical programs everywhere. But in India, the legal aid committees’ and other statutory bodies’ reports calling for clinical programs to support social justice, were always ignored. The National Knowledge Commission’s working group on legal education specifically mentioned the need to introduce students to issues relating to poverty, social change and social exclusion, through clinical legal education.</p><p>After the introductory section, the second section discusses the introduction of clinical programs with their roots in the search for social justice in the United States and India. The third section discusses the continuous deliberation by various bodies, commissions and committees about the need to introduce clinical programs with a social justice perspective in India. The fourth section discusses the social justice-based clinical programs in China and South Africa. This section tries to highlight some of the clinical models focused on serving underprivileged groups, that have been introduced and implemented in these two countries and which ~ after local modifications ~ could serve as a template for programs in Indian law schools. The fifth section tries to search for clinical models best suited to India with reference to clinical programs in China and South Africa. Several examples of clinical activities in a few Indian law schools have been highlighted in this chapter to explain these models’ effectiveness and suitability for Indian circumstances. The sixth section sets out some suggestions for law schools and stakeholders of legal education in India as to how to further the country’s social justice mission of clinical legal education.</p>

Foreward Preface PART I: HUMAN RIGHTS AS THE BEDROCK OF SOCIAL JUSTICE Ch 1. Introduction Rationale for this Work Toward the Creation of a Human Rights Culture The Importance of Words Five Core Notions of Human Rights Social Justice as Struggle Some Initial Provisos for the Human Rights Defender Summary Ch 2. Before and Beyond the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Toward a History of the Idea of Human Rights Human Rights in Antiquity The Middle Ages The Renaissance Age of Enlightenment Age of Industrialization Select Input Prior to the Endorsement of the Universal Declaration Select Major International Human Rights Initiatives Select Core Principles of Some Major Human Rights Documents Other Human Rights Regimes Implementation Summary PART II: BUILDING FROM THE FOUNDATION Ch 3. An Advanced Generalist/Public Health Model and Whole Population Approach to Human Rights and Social Justice A Helping and Health Profession Model of Intervention Levels of Intervention The Struggle to Implement Levels of Intervention Education Toward the Creation of a Human Rights Culture Commemorating Major International Days Proclamations, Resolutions, Declarations, and Bills Providing NGO Input: Statement of IFSW The Arts, Human Rights, and Social Justice Other Select Direct Nonviolent Strategies Summary Ch 4. At-risk and Clinical Social Action and Service Strategies Toward the Creation of a Human Rights Culture The Helping and Health Professions as an At-risk Group Business and Human Rights Humanistic Administration Social Entrepreneurship Grant Writing Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness Toward a Socially Just Human Rights Based Approach to Clinical Intervention Human Rights Principles Which Have Implications for the Therapeutic Relationship Some Words on the Meta-Micro Summary Ch 5. A Human Rights/Social Justice Approach to Research-Action Projects for the Helping and Health Professions Human Rights Documents as a Way to Define the Problem Toward a Culture of Informed Consent Quantitative Research Qualitative Research Research as Leading to Social Action Summary Ch 6. Ground Rules Toward the Paradoxical Commandments Some Ground Rules for Social Action and Service Conclusion Glossary Media Resources Appendix I: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights Appendix II: Select Portions of Major Human Rights Documents Index About the Author Foreword

Human rights, distrusted by Bentham, through emergence ofGesellshaft, have sometimes been identified with rights of market men and gradually on an ad hoc basis and so have been given a ‘relational’ or relativist character for that reason. Such a view ignores the test of humanness or the ‘tele’ of human rights surviving any political association and the need for full development of human personality as an autonomous being inherent in full respect for all as moral persons. This disposes of the view of human rights in terms of rules of a game, or of connection between human rights and human action, or of the standard of the ‘prudent’ man or, finally, of the ideology of the rising bourgeoisie. Equally, that very test of humanness disposes of criticisms of the human rights theory based on a concern for implementation of rights, on ‘concentric circles’ based on the specific and concrete, on the ‘impossibility’ of liking the billions, on the distinction between ‘negative’, ‘positive’ and administrative rights, on the condition of being able to make ‘valid claims’ and thereby denying human rights to the deprived millions in poor countries, on the ‘social justice’ model, on the potential for ‘violence and conflict’ and, finally, on the ‘vagueness’ or subjectivity of human rights. An eclectic synthesis not between good and evil nor between right and wrong but between the extremes of the views presented in such critical explanations e.g. between the New Right and the New Left and between Hobbes and Rousseau) is what is needed in order to present a workable theory of human rights in the modern-day world.

Brief Synopses of New Arabic Language Publications

Purpose This chapter introduces the role that libraries play in promoting and fostering human rights and social justice within the communities they serve. In describing this role, it highlights the different ways in which information intersects with human rights and social justice. Methodology/approach This chapter offers a brief review of the existing body of literature related to human rights and social justice in the field of library and information science (LIS). After articulating the need for this edited volume, we introduce the four sections in this book: Conceptualizing Libraries as Institutions of Human Rights and Social Justice; Library Services to Marginalized Populations; Human Rights and Social Justice Issues in LIS Professions; and Human Rights and Social Justice Issues in LIS Education. Findings The social roles and responsibilities of libraries have expanded greatly in recent years. These roles and responsibilities, however, are not often framed within the discourse of human rights or social justice. Together, the chapters in this book—written by researchers, educators, and professionals—paint a comprehensive picture of the broad range of roles and contributions of libraries in human rights and social justice. Originality/value This chapter introduces a book that explores the current efforts of libraries to meet a wide range of community needs (including education, employment, social services, civic participation, and digital inclusion) through the lenses of human rights and social justice.

Towards Social Environmental Justice?