The War on Drugs. An Example of Global Injustice

Existing case-study research suggests that the recent increase in human rights violations in Latin America is attributed to the US-funded drug war. This narrative, which is referred to as the collateral damage perspective, stands in contrast to US human rights law, which makes governments' respect for human rights a precondition to receive aid. The apparent endogeneity between aid and human rights introduces bias that casts serious doubts on the validity of the collateral damage narrative. In addressing endoge- neity, this article presents a simultaneous instrumental variable analysis of the human rights effects of US counternarcotic aid in the Americas. The results show that while counternarcotic aid to regimes increases overall violations of human rights, this effect is greater among democracies than autocracies. And with the exception of torture, this fi nding is consistent when disappearances, political imprisonment, and extrajudicial killings are also considered. The implication of this research suggests that policy makers in Washington risk losing regional support for US drug control policies if US laws that govern the allocation of aid are not effectively implemented. The impact of US counternarcotic aid in facilitating the escalation of drug- related violence and human rights violations in Latin America is highly contested. Recent reports of the bodies of mutilated and decapitated victims of the drug war have grabbed the attention of the media, human rights groups, and policy think tanks (Amnesty International 2008; Molzahn, Rios, and Shirk 2012). Human rights groups claim that the escalation of drug-related violence, especially in Mexico and Colombia, and extrajudicial killings of citizens at the hands of their governments in the execution of the drug war are in large part a function of collateral damage by US fi nancial sponsorship of drug enforcement in the region (Amnesty Interna- tional and Fellowship of Reconciliation 2008). A burgeoning academic literature has found support for this collateral damage narrative. Recent empirical research shows that US drug enforcement policies and sponsorship of the drug war in Central America and the Caribbean produced the unintended effect of increasing levels of property crime and violent crime (Bartilow and Eom 2009a). Case studies show how US counternarcotic aid to democratic governments in Latin America has also produced the unintended effect of increasing human rights violations. In other words, the narrative that emerges is that as US counternarcotic aid interacts with the democratic institutional characteristics of recipient governments that are engaged in the execution of the drug war, it degrades respect for human rights (Youngers 2005; Bagley 1992; Crandall 2008; Craig 1980). This narrative, however, stands in direct contradiction to US human rights law. The Leahy Amendment (or Leahy's Law), passed by Congress in 1997, prohibits

Oil-Exploitation in Nigeria: Procedures Addressing Human Rights Abuses

INTRODUCTION From Nike to Coca-Cola to Apple, the emergence of the corporate social responsibility (CSR) movement has led to the recognition of a duty on the part of multinational corporations (MNCs) to work to prevent and remedy human rights violations committed by their foreign subsidiaries and suppliers, regardless of where in the world the violations occur. The international community must now strengthen and utilise the momentum of the CSR movement and apply such a human rights framework to the problem of corruption in global supply chains. On the heels of more than a decade of calls for the recognition of a human right to live free of corruption, United States President Barack Obama lent legitimacy to the concept when he referred to pervasive corruption as a ‘violation of basic human rights’ in 2010. In the years preceding and since, a fair amount has been written about whether such a right exists and if so whether it could be deemed to bind corporations such that any causes of action arising there from could be adjudicated in an international or domestic court of law. This chapter accepts the prevailing view that international human rights protections generally do not bind corporations as a matter of hard law (with some notable exceptions). However, it also maintains that there is effectively an indirect, derived right to live in a corruption-free society, resulting from the relationship between corruption and human rights violations, i.e. systemic corruption frequently leads to and may cause violations of human rights. It further maintains that this right applies to corporations under John Ruggie's ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ framework (hereafter the Ruggie Framework or the Framework) and therefore must be incorporated into corporations’ CSR policies and internal compliance. While dispute remains as to whether corruption itself constitutes a human rights violation, it is certainly the prevailing view that systemic corruption entails and precipitates human rights violations. It follows that in order for companies to comply with their duty to respect human rights under the Ruggie Framework, those companies must prevent corruption from occurring within their supply chains. It is not possible to respect human rights without preventing corruption; therefore companies cannot be said to sufficiently respect human rights in their supply chains without making affirmative efforts to prevent corruption therein.

Harm reduction is not enough for supply side policy: A human rights-based approach offers more

Supply-side harm reduction strategies: Bolivia's experiment with social control

The article deals with the formation process, the current state and perspectives of the relationship between states that do not respect human rights and basic freedoms. Such states pose a danger to the stable development of international relations and fruitful cooperation between states, and ultimately to international peace and security. The modern world is characterized by the fact that the expansion of human and citizen rights occurs as a result of the development of norms of both national and international law. This bilateral process helps mutual enrichment of legislation and allows raising the bar of human rights to a new level. Speaking of security, the world still ignores the real protection of human rights, replacing it with a formal one. The principle of respect for human rights has a direct and inverse relationship with international and national security: states that systematically abuse human rights are recognized as initiators of aggression. And external aggression itself contradicts the interests of both the aggressor state itself and its population. Aggression entails the application of serious international sanctions, which will hit its citizens hard, in particular, and will also entail a serious restriction of civil rights. And vice versa: an improvement in the situation in the field of human rights protection reduces the probability of an aggressive war. The refusal of a separate state to fulfill the requirements of the corresponding principles of respect for human rights does not cancel their importance for international and national security, and does not eliminate the negative consequences that such a refusal would entail. The attack of the Russian Federation led to serious and massive violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, which had catastrophic consequences for the exercise of almost all human rights in Ukraine. But over the past two decades, the Russian authorities have systematically violated and restricted basic freedoms within their own state, closed down independent mass media, and banned peaceful protests in the country. And the war in Ukraine entails a further deterioration of the state of human rights in Russia: now a new iron curtain is being lowered there, behind which the authorities oppose the exercise of civil rights and a free and independent civil society.

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.

This panel was convened at 10:45 a.m., Friday, March 27, by its moderator, Penelope Simons of the University of Ottawa, who introduced the panelists: John G. Ruggie of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and Special Representative of the United Nations' Secretary-General for Business and Human Rights; Robert McCorquodale, Director of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law; Christiana Ochoa of the Indiana University Maurer School of Law; Adam Greene of the United States Council for International Business; and Lisa Misol of Human Rights Watch. INTRODUCTION It is my pleasure to welcome you to this panel on the Future of Corporate Accountability for Violations of Human Rights. The global concern for the human rights implications of corporate activity and corporate impunity for violations of human rights is not new. The issue was most recently propelled to the forefront of global debate in 2003. The catalyst was the drafting of the UN Norms on the Responsibility of Transnational Corporations and other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights (1) (the UN Norms) by a UN working group of independent experts, their subsequent unanimous adoption by (what was then) the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, and finally their submission to the Human Rights Commission (now the Human Rights Council). One of the results of the controversy provoked by the UN Norms was the creation of a new UN special procedure, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and other Business Entities, and the appointment to that position of Professor John Ruggie. In April last year, Professor Ruggie submitted his much anticipated final report to the Human Rights Council. His Report sets out a comprehensive policy framework aimed at reducing the governance gaps in relation to the negative human rights impacts of corporate activity. (2) It is based on three principles: the further development of the state's international human rights law duty to protect individuals from violations of their human rights by corporate actors; the concept of the responsibility of business to respect human rights--to do no harm; and the development of remedies for victims of corporate human rights abuses. Professor Ruggie's proposals are thoughtful, comprehensive, and strategic. The Report was well received by the Human Rights Council, business, (3) and a number of NGOs. It has also been criticized by others who would have liked to have seen his recommendations go further and include some reference to the role of binding legal human fights obligations for corporate actors. (4) In June 2008, the Human Rights Council extended Professor Ruggie's mandate for another three years, requesting him to, among other things, develop the three principles of his policy framework; integrate a gender perspective throughout his work and give attention to those belonging to vulnerable groups, in particular children; identify, exchange, and promote best practices for business in this area; and advance the policy framework, continuing to consult with a wide variety of stakeholders. Professor Ruggie released his preliminary work plan for his new mandate in October 2008. (5) In this panel we will be discussing the work of the Special Representative and the operationalization of his policy framework. In particular, panelists will consider where we should go from here in the effort to develop norms to regulate corporate activity effectively and address corporate impunity for human fights abuses. (1) UNECOSOC, Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights, UN Doc E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/12/Rev.2 (2003) and Commentary on the Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights, UN Doc E/CN. …

As a result of the survey on human rights awareness in Korea, the disabled ranked second among the groups that are subject to human rights violations or discrimination. Human rights violations and discrimination against the disabled were the highest in the 2022 National Human Rights Commission of Korea's human rights survey. The respect for human rights of the disabled was significantly lower than that of the socially disadvantaged groups such as women, children, adolescents, and the elderly. In addition, it was found that education on human rights for the “disabled” is the most urgent among human rights education. As a first step toward not discriminating against the disabled, it is important to improve the perception of the disabled and the discrimination environment through human rights education. There are many studies on abuse of children with disabilities, but studies on school violence, human rights violations, and discrimination against children with disabilities are far from sufficient. While research on school violence targeting non-disabled children is highly interested, no separate research has been conducted on disabled students in the “School Violence Survey”. In particular, human rights violations and discrimination against children with disabilities affect even after graduation. In the case of discrimination against human rights violations, it is difficult to decide on a career path, as well as negative perceptions of employment, self-efficacy, and interpersonal skills are lower, and both social and daily life have difficulty adapting. Therefore, by examining the damage experiences of disabled children that have not been covered in the study of discrimination against human rights violations, this study attempted to analyze the impact of human rights education experiences on human rights violations and discrimination.

UNDERSTANDING UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY TOWARD LATIN AMERICA: LESSONS FROM A COMPARISON OF NAFTA AND THE COLOMBIAN TRADE PROMOTION AGREEMENT Margaret M. Commins Queens University of Charlotte Ongoing issues with violence and drug trafficking in both Mexico and Colombia invite frequent comparisons between the two countries (Bonnor, 2010; Fukuyama and Colby, 2011). Indeed the parallels are significant . Both Mexico and Colombia are marked by some of the highest per capita murder rates in the world, weak and ineffective judicial institutions , and large swaths of each country considered ungovernable. And, perhaps predictably, United States policy toward both countries is similar as well. Plan Colombia, the United States’ response to narco-trafficking and violence in Colombia, and the Merida Initiative, the United States’ response to Mexico’s drug wars, both emphasize military solutions to drug trafficking, combined with varying degrees of emphasis on state-building and socioeconomic development. In terms of United States policy toward Latin America, however, these countries share another commonality, one that is not as well-explored: the United States signed and implemented preferential trade agreements (PTAs) with each. President Carlos Salinas de Gortari of Mexico and President George H.W. Bush of the United States endorsed the notion of a bilateral free trade agreement between their countries in June of 1990. In September, 1990, Canada asked to be included in the negotiations, and the resulting “North American Free Trade Agreement” (NAFTA) was passed by the United States Congress in 1993, and implemented on January 1, 1994. The Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement (CTPA) was signed by President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia and President George W. Bush in November, 2006, passed by the United States Congress in October, 2011, and entered into force on May 15, 2012. Though passed by the United States Congress almost twenty years apart, these agreements are quite similar. Both are preferential trade agreements signed between a developed country, the United States, and a developing Latin American country (and, in the case of NAFTA, another developed country, Canada). Both were initiated and negotiated primarily by Republican administrations, but shepherded through the United States Congress by Democratic presidents. At least rhetorically, both were touted by these presidents as demonstrations of major shifts in United States policy toward Latin America. Both agreements were passed in times of C 2013 Southeastern Council on Latin American Studies and Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 73 The Latin Americanist, December 2013 economic and fiscal difficulty for the United States. Both agreements were passed during periods of strain in the multilateral trading system. And, each agreement faced its most significant opposition not from business interests fearing import competition, but from citizen and labor groups worried about a variety of human rights issues, including the treatment of labor and potential environmental degradation. It is common to explain policymakers’ decisions to pursue trade agreements with reference to the demands of powerful economic interests that will benefit from an agreement’s provisions, particularly the opening of foreign markets and increased protection for foreign direct investment (see, for example, Milner, 1988; Rogowski, 1989; Hiscox, 2002). Though economic interests (capital and labor) that will be hurt by increased importcompetition will lobby against free trade agreements, if an agreement includes liberalization that will benefit a sufficiently broad and powerful coalition of economic interests, we can expect policymakers to pursue it. But, explaining U.S. support for NAFTA and CTPA in these terms is problematic. For one, explanations based on the preferences of interest groups are not always as compelling in the case of PTAs, particularly North-South trade agreements like NAFTA and CTPA. The potential economic benefits are usually much smaller. And, because opposition to these agreements is quite strong in the United States, particularly from non-economic interests like environmental and human rights groups, the interest group politics are more complex than those captured by analyses focusing on economic interests. Indeed, negotiating North-South PTAs is relatively costly for U.S. policymakers. These agreements cover a range of issues – from trade and investment to labor standards and environmental protection – and require significant time and attention to negotiate. And, unlike many foreign policy decisions taken by the United States government , trade agreements must be passed by both houses of the United...

The author of the article has studied the essence of the prosecutor’s activity as a subject of guaranteeing human rights in Ukraine. The peculiarities of the reform of the prosecutor’s office have been emphasized and its relationship with the activity of the prosecutor as a subject of guaranteeing human rights has been determined. A legal framework that regulates the activities of the prosecutor as a subject of guaranteeing human rights has been established. It has been concluded that the state and level of human and civil rights and fundamental freedoms depend on the normative regulation of the prosecutor’s activity as a subject of guaranteeing human rights in Ukraine, which is the cornerstone of Ukraine’s establishment as a state governed by the rule of law with observance of the rule of law. It is determined that the Prosecutor's Office has recently undergone numerous reforms and changes in its organizational, staffing, functional systems and practical activities to protect human and civil rights and freedoms. Such changes are due to a number of factors including: the need to improve the activities of prosecutors, bringing domestic legislation in line with the legislation of EU Member States, to review organizational and staffing systems that have proved to be ineffective, etc. Given the above, it should be noted that the prosecutor as a subject of guaranteeing human rights in Ukraine plays one of the main roles and occupies a prominent place in the human rights system in Ukraine, since he / she acts as a system of checks and balances for pre-trial investigation agencies that restrict human rights during various procedural actions. Thus, it can be stated that the prosecutor as a subject of guaranteeing human rights in Ukraine must take all necessary and possible measures to prevent any human rights violations, i.e. the creation of such conditions, when other public authorities will respect human rights, and in case of their violation – the prosecutor immediately responds to all such manifestations and takes measures to prevent violations of human rights and freedoms. It has been established that the powers of the prosecutor in the field of human rights protection should be considered as a further priority area of scientific research in regard to the current reform of the prosecutor's office in Ukraine.

The study came under the title Social Justice and Violations of Human Rights in Sudan in the Light of the Sudanese Criminal Law (concepts - protection - obstacles and solutions), the problem of the study was to answer these questions: Why are human rights violations increasing in Sudan? Do dictatorial and military regimes have a role in human rights violations and threaten the security and stability of society? What are the human rights obstacles and proposed solutions? The study objectives are: knowing the concepts of social justice and the impact of human rights violations in Sudan on the stability of society, familiarity with the principles and provisions of the Sudanese criminal law related to the protection of human rights, as well as the contribution of the study to suggesting solutions that contribute to reducing human rights violations in Sudan. The researcher used the descriptive and analytical approach to find out the concepts of the human rights, social justice and the reasons for the violation of human rights and the provisions and principles related to the legal protection of human rights in the Sudanese criminal law. The study showed violations of human rights such as killing, violence, and illegal detention continue in Sudan to a very large extent during the transitional period, crimes and ethnic conflicts have spread alarmingly in Sudan, especially in the Darfur region, threatening local and international peace and security. One of the most important recommendations is that the State must stop human rights violations and carry out reconciliations between the conflicting tribes to achieve justice in the country, guarantee basic rights and freedoms, and implement the principle of the rule of law and respect of human rights.

REPORT ❐ BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS She also expressed ‘the need for an international binding instrument on the corporate obligation to respect human rights’. Amnesty International’s Joe Westby reported that ‘the discussions at the Forum are primarily focused on implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, But despite much talk of progress, there is little evidence that governments are actually willing to tackle the root causes of problems around business and human rights’. He noted the ‘frustration among NGOs over slow progress exhibited at the UN Forum’. Drawing a biting distinction between the illustrious setting of the UN Palais des Nations in Geneva and the toxic devastation left by the Bhopal gas leak, he noted that ‘governments in ‘home states’ still turn a blind eye to serious human rights abuses involving their companies abroad. Many of the barriers to justice faced by the Bhopal survivors are systemic problems that require concerted action. However, avenues to justice seem to be closing rather than opening’. He lamented that ‘companies continue to publicly support human rights, but when faced with even modest demands – for example to disclose payments made to governments or publicly report on their supply chains or their impact on human rights – they fight tooth and nail to oppose them. It is overwhelmingly clear that companies will not go far enough on their own initiative – which is why the UN has such a potentially key part to play’. This year’s annual report on corporate legal accountability from the Business and Human Rights Resources Centre, frankly titled ‘Barriers worsen for victims seeking justice’ observed: ■ ‘steep and worsening barriers that prevent most victims of abuses involving companies from accessing justice’; ■ ‘less availability of courts in countries where companies are headquartered’ ■ ‘threats to lawyers bringing human rights cases against companies’. Enter the labour movement Better late than never, goes the saying, and trade unions are finally participating in the UN’s work on business and human rights by sending appropriately technically skilled delegations to participate . Although still comprising only a handful of people, this rush of labour movement lawyers, PhDs and senior officials, all present at the Forum, must of course be welcomed, but it seems unfortunate that the unions couldn’t muster this kind of participation back when all the fundamental terms of settlement were still to play for, in 2007-2010. Business as usual Some breathless reviews emerged from the CSR world, but many NGOs remain deeply sceptical: barriers to corporate liability are getting worse, not better INTERNATIONAL union rights Page 24 Volume 20 Issue 4 2013 DANIEL BLACKBURN is Director of ICTUR in London. Daniel is a UK-qualified lawyer and was awarded a distinction and academic prize for his MA thesis on the legal history of business and human rights I n December 2013 1,700 participants attended the second UN Forum on Business and Human Rights to examine and discuss the implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights in the two years since their unanimous endorsement by the Human Rights Council. It would be fair to say that most stakeholders at the Forum showed a strong commitment to the Guiding Principles, and a number of glowing reviews of the Forum emerged from the CSR world, but many civil society groups remain deeply sceptical of the process. During the Forum the Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (‘SOMO’), the International Corporate Accountability Roundtable (‘ICAR’), the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, and the International Federation for Human Rights (‘FIDH’) hosted a ‘Civil Society Dialogue’. Mariëtte van Huijstee of SOMO raised three key criticisms as outcomes of that session: ■ States and businesses ‘are doing far too little to implement the UNGPs and thereby fail to fulfil their respective duties and responsibilities to protect and respect human rights’. ■ Only one National Action Plan has been published so far, which includes far too little substance to create meaningful impact on the ground’. ■ ‘The same holds for human rights due diligence implementation efforts by companies. Instead of a focus on avoiding risks of human rights violations, human rights due diligence too often involves a simply seeking to avoid risk to corporate reputation’. Ms van...

Thomas Pogge’s ingenious and influential Rawlsian theory of global justice asserts that principles of justice such as the difference principle or, alternatively, a universal criterion of human rights consisting of a subset of the principles of social justice apply to the global basic structure or economic order. Individuals that contribute to upholding the latter and benefit from it are, Pogge emphasizes, jointly responsible for its unjust features, not least for the fact that it, foreseeably and avoidably, affects up to 18 million people per year in such a way that they die. The paper mounts an immanent criticism against Pogge revolving around his notion of collective responsibility. Especially, it argues that people cannot plausibly be held responsible for the distribution of benefits and burdens between individuals at the global level addressed by the kind of principles Pogge invokes. They, and their governments, can, and should, however, be held responsible for the unjust features of the existing law of peoples or states.

The study aimed to assess the human rights situation in Maguindanao Province during the period of 2006 to 2012. Specifically, it aimed to find out how CHR provides appropriate legal measures for the protection, promotion and respect for human rights for all persons residing in the Philippines as well as Filipinos residing abroad. The support agencies in the implementation of human rights protection, promotion and respect such as the, Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of th Interior and Local Government (DILG), Local Government Units (LGUs), Philippine National Police (PNP), Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), Non-Governmentl Organizations (NGOs) were also assessed. Problems encountered in the implementation of human rights protection, promotion and respect were also identified. The policy implications were drawn from the result of the study. The study was a qualitative research which used the phenomenological method which studies experiences of the residents. The researcher finds this method appropriate in describing the situation of human rights in the province of Maguindanao. The information was taken through interview of the key informants, observation and documents analysis. The study found out and concluded that the protection, promotion and respect for human right in the Municipality of Datu Odin Sinsuat, Maguindanao is high as manifested by immediate response of CHR and NGOs whenever there were incidents of violations and less occurrence of human rights violations. There were large numbers of human rights violations in the Municipalities of Talitay. Talayan and Guindulungan during the height of armed confrontations between the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) in 2008. However, these violations trimmed down due to the existing peace truce between the Government of the Philippines and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. The government agencies and non-governmental organizations had given their roles in the protection, promotion and respect for human rights of the residents of the Municipalities of Datu Odin Sinsuat, Talayan, Talitay and Guindulungan. The CHR and the partner agencies encountered problems on financial constraints and facilities in the implementation of their mandates as well as awareness and willingness of residents or victims to stand up their right.