Arbitrary Deprivation Of Life Research Articles

International Protection for Criminals: To Grant or Not to Grant? Lessons from Australia, Belgium, and Canada

ABSTRACT Refugee law requires States to protect those who may face persecution in their country of origin. This protection, however, is not extended to those who, because of their acts, are considered to be undeserving of it. Similarly, the 1951 Refugee Convention allows the return to persecution of those who are considered a danger to the host country’s community. International human rights law, however, forbids States from returning anyone, regardless of their actions, to a place where they may face irreparable harm, such as arbitrary deprivation of life or torture (the non-refoulement obligation). Thus, forced migrants with a criminal background may find themselves in a situation in which they cannot benefit from refugee status but also cannot be returned to their country of origin. The uncertainties associated with this situation can be challenging for both migrants and States. Against this background, the current contribution explores how three States – Australia, Belgium, and Canada – regulate the situation of criminal migrants in need of international protection. More specifically, it identifies who these countries exclude from protection status, how they assess non-refoulement claims, and the measures they use to regulate the situation of these migrants. Lastly, this article evaluates whether currently applicable domestic measures comply with States’ human rights obligations. As there seems to be a lack of sustainable solutions for these migrants in the countries analysed, a reformed international protection procedure is proposed. This reformed procedure would allow the possibility of granting these migrants temporary status, subject to conditions, which, after a certain number of years, could lead to permanent residence.

Women's Reproductive Rights: a Way to Gender Justice

For generations, women have been battling for reproductive rights. Because of moral, ethical, and religious reasons, these rights have always been a contentious issue. Do reproductive rights simply imply the ability to reproduce? Is the issue, on the other hand, intrinsically tied to the myriad questions surrounding women's reproductive freedom? The ability to reproduce appears to be what distinguishes women from men. Do women, however, have control over their own reproduction? Do women have the right to decide whether, when, and how many children they want? Do women have access to safe methods of birth control? Do women have the right to an abortion that is safe? Is it possible to separate sexuality from reproduction? A resounding 'NO' in response to many similar inquiries sparked the birth of the women's health movement in several regions of the world in the early 1970s. It began with modest 'consciousness raising' groups that disseminated knowledge among women about the functioning of their bodies and gradually expanded into multi-faceted campaigns that have profoundly influenced health policies in many nations. Human Rights are those rights that should be available to every individual without any form of discrimination. The foundation of freedom is recognition of the inherent dignity and equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family. The most essential human right is the right to life. It is the highest human right, from which no exceptions are authorised. It cannot be taken away. The arbitrary deprivation of life is prohibited by Article 6(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. However, there are several contentious concerns surrounding this greatest privilege. One such issue is the matter of abortion rights. Among other women's rights, it is thought that every mother has a universal right to abortion. But the rights of the mother are to be balanced with the rights of the unborn. Previously, abortion was not permitted and was vehemently opposed by society. Terminating a pregnancy was considered a murder of the foetus. However, because to changes in time and technology, most governments now recognise this right, following the historic Roe v. Wade decision by the US Supreme Court. However, opponents remain, and many individuals believe that it should be made illegal.

Unsolved: Killings by Motorcycle Hitmen and Serial Murders of Women in Uganda.

A wave of unexplained and puzzling killings have occurred in Uganda since 2012, execution-style ride-by shootings and serial murders of women leaving a large part of the population in fear, and speculating as to the reasons for such acts as well as the individuals behind them. The shootings initially targeted a section of Moslem leaders, however, from March 2015 the attacks escalated to include senior government officials. This escalation coincided with the initial reports of the capture of Jamil Mukulu, the leader of the Allied Democratic Force (ADF), in Tanzania. A separate phenomenon, the murder by strangulation of over 20 women in Nansaana and Entebbe seems concomitant with the existence of one or more serial killers. This paper analyses the mysterious nature of these killings by attempting to locate them in their historical and socio-political contexts. It provides a brief historical account of the numerous killings that have occurred between 2012 – 2018, while systemically attempting to dichotomize the killings based on their nature, victims targeted, the manner of the killings and trying to identify the possible perpetrators. Through a human rights prism, the issue of the right to life and arbitrary deprivation of life is discussed in the context of Uganda with a layout of the pertinent legal framework. In attempting to answer the question, “Who is behind these killings?”, the paper evaluates the possible existence of rogue elements in government, terrorist sleeper cells, criminal elements, and serial killers. The paper concludes by looking in depth at possible methodologies that could be harnessed to address the issue by Law Enforcement, and evaluating the proposals put forth by Uganda’s security outfit to improve public safety.

Religion and Limitations to the Protection of Human Life

ABSTRACTDespite the contention that modern legal systems should function as if God did not exist, religious beliefs and practices continue to play an important role in how people develop, interpret, and choose to respond to legal systems. This article seeks to investigate the relation between religion and international human rights law, focusing on the protection of life in three religions: Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity. Political theory is drawn upon to argue that the motivation to adhere to norms within international human rights law is not only contained in these norms themselves, but that each of the religions surveyed has the potential to provide additional motivations to adhere to norms related to the right to life and its deprivation. Based on this exploration of selected authoritative legal or quasi-legal codices and principles, the article finds that these religions affirm the importance of protecting life and all three religions find that arbitrary deprivation of life is unacceptable, but that the protection of life is otherwise not the supreme value in any of three religions surveyed.

Reproductive Rights of Women: A Way to Gender Justice

Women have been fighting the struggle for reproductive rights for centuries. Historically, these rights are an especially controversial subject due to the moral, ethical, and religious considerations.Do reproductive rights merely mean the right to reproduce? Or is the issue inextricably linked to the numerous questions that surround women’s reproductive freedom? The ability to reproduce seems to be what sets women apart from men. But do women have control over their own reproduction? Do women have the freedom to choose whether, when, and how many children to have? Do women have access to safe birth control methods? Do women have the right to safe abortion? Can sexuality be separated from reproduction? A big ‘NO’ in answer to many such questions led to the emergence of the women’s health movement in different parts of the world in the early 1970’s. It started as small ‘consciousness raising’ groups, which began by spreading awareness among women about the functioning of their bodies and gradually evolved into multi-faceted campaigns that have significantly influenced health policies in many countries.Human Rights are those rights, which should be available to every individual without any discrimination of any kind. Recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom. The most important right of a Human is the Right to Life. It is the supreme human right from which no derogation is permitted. It is inalienable. The Article 6(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibit the arbitrary deprivation of life. But there are some controversial issues related to this supreme right. One such issue is the question of Right to abortion. Among other rights of women, it is believed that every mother has a right to abortion, it is a universal right. But the rights of the mother are to be balanced with the rights of the unborn. Earlier the right to abortion was not permitted and it was strongly opposed the society. The termination of pregnancy was termed to be a murder of the foetus. But due to the change in time and technology, nowadays this right has been legally sanctioned by most of the nations after the famous decision of Roe v. Wade by the US Supreme Court. But the oppositions are still present and people do believe that it should be legally prohibited.The question which is the reason for this discussion is -- whether a mother has a right to abortion vis-a-vis the right to life of the unborn. What are the International Instruments which sanction the right to abortion. What is the stand of India on this.

Complementary Protection in Australia two Years on: An Emerging Human Rights Jurisprudence

Since 24 March 2012, asylum seekers whose claims are processed in Australia have been able to claim protection on broader grounds than those contained in the Refugee Convention. This is known as ‘complementary protection’. Complementary protection provides protection to those who face a real risk of arbitrary deprivation of life, the death penalty, torture, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment if removed from Australia. This article provides an in-depth analysis of complementary protection in its first two years of operation in Australia. It examines: (a) the kinds of factual scenarios giving rise to complementary protection; (b) case law developments in relation to the content of, and exceptions to, the complementary protection criteria; and (c) the extent to which Australia's approach reflects international practice.

Judicial Analysis of the Constitutional and Procedural Safeguards against Arbitrary Arrest and Detention

Right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution
 has been accorded a paramount status by the judiciary.
 Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution envisages detailed
 safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention. The
 judiciary, in a series of cases, has examined at length these
 safeguards in the larger context of the power of the
 executive to apprehend persons who are suspected of
 having committed crimes. This paper makes an in depth
 analysis of the judicial pronouncements relating to the
 power of the executive to arrest. The paper also analyses
 the amendments made in the year 2008 to the Criminal
 Procedure Code 1973. The concept of compensatory
 jurisprudence laid down by the Supreme Court in cases of
 arbitrary deprivation of life and liberty under Article 21 of
 the Constitution is also assayed.

Lex Specialis?Belt and Suspenders? The Parallel Operation of Human Rights Law and the Law of Armed Conflict, and the Conundrum ofJus ad Bellum

Two different theories attempt to reconcile problems of application of international human rights law in time of armed conflict, to the extent that there is a potential conflict with norms set out in international humanitarian law. One, posited by the International Court of Justice, presents international humanitarian law as the lex specialis, a kind of prism through which the concept of “arbitrary deprivation of life” (Article 6(1) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) is to be understood in time of armed conflict. In effect, international humanitarian law supplants international human rights law during armed conflict. The other theory, advanced by the Human Rights Committee, views the two bodies of law as additive in effect. Both regimes apply, and the individual benefits from the more favorable one (“belt and suspenders” approach). Both theories profess the fundamental compatibility of the two different legal systems, yet they are predicated upon a method for resolving conflicts between them. Both theories encounter serious problems in their application. The author submits that the difficulty with these attempts to reconcile human rights law and humanitarian law lies with the failure to grasp an underlying distinction: international humanitarian law is built upon neutrality or indifference as to the legality of the war itself. Human rights law, on the other hand, law views war itself as a violation. There is a human right to peace. Because of this fundamental incompatibility of perspective with regard to jus ad bellum, human rights law and international humanitarian law can only be reconciled, as both the International Court of Justice and the Human Rights Committee desire, if human rights law abandons the right to peace and develops an indifference to the jus ad bellum. It too must accept the idea of the acceptability of “collateral” killing of civilians in war, even if the war itself is illegal. The author argues that it is preferable not to attempt to find a neat and seamless relationship between international humanitarian law and international human rights law, in the interests of preserving the pacifist strain within international human rights law.