Human Rights In Asia Research Articles

The Reform and Evolution of ASEAN Human Rights Regime: A Communicative Action Perspective

ASEAN has experienced significant progress since the initiation of the ASEAN Community Vision and the incorporation of human rights into its foundations. This development has ignited continuous scholarly discussions over the degree to which the ASEAN human rights framework shape regional identity and impacts member states’ behavior towards human rights. These debates often revolve around two key theoretical approaches: the logic of consequences and the logic of appropriateness. These logics pose challenges in fully understanding the complexity of state behavior, as they are often observed operating simultaneously and interchangeably within state actions. The article investigates the ASEAN human rights regime through the communicative action perspective and its logic of arguing. It employs a qualitative instrumental case study approach, focusing on the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) and the ASEAN Humanitarian Assistance (AHA) Centre to illuminate the region's evolving human rights strategies. It is characterized by both deliberate reforms and informal adaptations, reflecting a complex interplay of traditional principles, and emerging human rights norms. The findings indicate that ASEAN states are open to being convinced and persuaded by ideas related to human rights instead of dismissing them outright. ASEAN's approach to human rights, while progressing gradually, suggests a shift towards more substantive engagement with global human rights norms, facilitated by the discursive processes embedded within the AICHR and AHA Centre.

LGBT rights claiming and political participation in Southeast Asia

In this paper, I read the creation of the ASEAN human rights regime, the development of SOGIESC rights claiming (where this denotes sexual orientation, gender identity & expression, and sex characteristics), and the social conflict associated with homophobia and the backlash to LGBT rights through modes of participation analysis. This framework is used to interpret the different uses of rights and values-denominated language and institutions in the context of advocacy for sexuality and gender diversity rights protection. I first explicate the modes of participation approach and reprise how I have previously used this to analyse SOGIESC rights claiming. I then show its utility for understanding the emergence of the elite level human rights regime in ASEAN, before indicating how it can also be used to analyse non-elite resistance to SOGIESC rights. Both elite and non-elite resistance can be linked to the older anti-rights discourse of “Asian Values”, which I illustrate with refence to three states: Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore. Taken together, these examples illustrate the capacity of modes of participation analysis to provide a persuasive account of the often contrasting and competing politics of human rights in the region.

In-depth Review: Legal review on human rights enforcement in the ASEAN and EU context

ASEAN is one of the regional organizations without an inter-governmental regional human rights machinery. In addition, ASEAN must respond to the new phenomenon that human rights are no longer merely a problem within a country, but have become a problem between countries. On this basis the author carries out a legal comparison, because one of the points stated in the objectives in The ASEAN Charter, namely: respecting fundamental freedoms, promotion and protection of human rights, and promotion of social justice, as well as the establishment of an ASEAN human rights body, as a step to guarantee more concrete human rights certainty in ASEAN. The method used in this research is legal research with a common-core method approach which in general is the application of the functional method which is expanded by using the law in context method. The aim of this research is to unify the mechanisms for law enforcement and protection of human rights in ASEAN which are related to the authority of regional human rights institutions in deciding cases of violations of human rights so that they are in accordance with the objectives contained in the ASEAN Charter.

Chinese aid and new contests over the meaning of human rights in Asia

Chinese aid and new contests over the meaning of human rights in Asia

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AHRD IN INDONESIA

Cases of human rights violations continue to occur in the Asian region, including the ASEAN region, even though ASEAN countries have agreed to adopt the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration. In fact, the practice of AHRD is still minimally considered by ASEAN and ASEAN members themselves. Indonesia as an ASEAN member is also still taking action against human rights such as the case in Papua, not only local residents who get human rights violations from the government, but also from some data it is found that Papuan human rights activists are also intimidated. In this case, it can be seen that the implementation of the AHRD has not been fully maximized in Indonesia in handling cases of human rights violations contained in the points in the AHRD.

ASEAN’s Role in Protecting Migrant Workers’ Rights During the Covid-19 Pandemic

This paper focuses on ASEAN’s efforts as a regional organization to protect the rights of migrant workers in the Covid-19 pandemic situation. The protection of the rights of migrant workers is part of the protection of human rights regulated in various international legal instruments as well as within the ASEAN framework, especially in the ASEAN Consensus on the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Migrant Workers (ACPPRMW). Although responding quickly to the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the economic and health sectors, ASEAN’s response and efforts in protecting the rights of migrant workers during the Covid-19 pandemic were late and ineffective. This is also an illustration of the ineffective implementation of the system and mechanism for the protection of migrant workers in ASEAN as well as the implementation of other ASEAN human rights legal instruments, due to the main principle that is firmly held by ASEAN, namely the non-interference principle.

Adaptive Protection of Human Rights: Stealth Institutionalisation of Scrutiny Functions in ASEAN’s Limited Regime

Abstract Established as a limited regime that mainly carries out promotional activities of public education and roadshows on human rights, strengthening the ASEAN human rights system seems impossible when member states remain sovereignty-centric and thus wary of instituting protective mechanisms of scrutiny such as data transparency, reporting, monitoring, and complaints portals. This challenging outlook is compounded by human rights taking a backseat to economic development in the ASEAN Community’s agenda. However, tracking the rarely examined ASEAN human rights reports reveals that a counter-phenomenon quietly arising. This article presents Adaptive Protection as a process where ASEAN human rights officials, by building upon member states’ growing familiarity with the ‘intrusive’ oversight of the UN human rights system, have stealthily adapted (albeit loosely) similar functions of protective scrutiny—namely, data transparency, reporting, monitoring, and hearing complaints—into their limited mandates. Surprisingly, this process has not encountered pushback but instead has garnered grudging acquiescence by ASEAN states.

Deklaracja praw człowieka Stowarzyszenia Narodów Azji Południowo-Wschodniej, Phnom Penh, 18 listopada 2012 r.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) remains the only significant integration organisation in the Southeast Asia. Despite the ongoing process of integration of member states, this consolidation has been relatively late in embracing issues related to the protection of fundamental rights. The subject of translation is the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration (AHRD) adopted on 18 November 2012 by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. The document in question may in the future lay the foundations for the Asian human rights protection system based on non-European values. Indeed, the presentation of fundamental rights in this document is different from that found in the European human rights system. Particularly noteworthy is the linkage made by it between fundamental rights and the performance of duties that each person has towards the community. The document recognises the existence of some of the so-called collective human rights (right to development, right to peace). The Declaration also devotes considerable space to social rights. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it points out that the idea of human rights must take into account and respect the different models of political, social and economic system, cultural and religious differences and the different historical experiences of each country. This seems extremely valuable in view of the instrumentalisation of human rights as a tool of political pressure that sometimes takes place.

Adjudicating Separation of Powers: Lessons From The European Court of Human Rights for A Future Asian Human Rights Mechanism?

Efforts to build a regional human rights mechanism in Asia are being renewed. Separation of powers adjudication will be inevitable if the right of access to court is included in the new mechanism. This is significant since the potential for separation of powers cases involving human rights issues in Asia is high. An Asian human rights mechanism must take this possibility into account, since adjudicating on such issues may severely impact its stability and long-term viability. A mechanism based on existing regional systems such as the ECHR can seek to minimize these risks via institutional solutions. On the other hand, an Asian mechanism can side-step these issues in the short term by focusing on a narrow set of rights, which minimize the potential for raising issues of separation of powers. In the long term, however, a complete charter of fundamental rights cannot ignore separation of powers issues being linked with human rights. The aim of this paper is to highlight both the inevitability and risks of adjudicating cases involving a nexus between separation of powers and human rights by a regional human rights court.

Towards an asean Model of ‘Responsibility-Sharing’ for Refugees and Asylum-Seekers

Abstract The Andaman Sea crisis of 2015 focused global attention on asean’s response to mass refugee flows and generated calls for greater regional cooperation to protect the rights and safety of forced migrants. Such calls draw from the concept of ‘responsibility-sharing’; a concept that has long underpinned the international refugee regime. Scholars have responded to this challenge by identifying a range of ways in which asean countries might benefit from sharing responsibility for the refugees and asylum-seekers in their region. Based on interviews with 40 key asean-based actors working on migration and refugee issues across the governmental and non-governmental sectors, this article seeks to understand how the concept of responsibility-sharing for refugee protection is understood in four Southeast Asian countries: Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore. While it finds common agreement among the interviewees that the Andaman Sea crisis was a humanitarian disaster and that existing approaches to refugee issues in the region are ineffective, it also finds little to suggest that a regional approach to refugee issues is likely to develop in the short-to-medium term. On the other hand, interviewees identified a wide range of mechanisms through which bilateral, multilateral and global initiatives might assist the region to deal with refugee and asylum issues. Linking refugee issues with other issues that concern asean Member States and incremental progress towards embedding regional human rights norms via asean human rights institutions are identified as the most fruitful pathways towards regional cooperation to protect refugee rights and safety.

Questions and challenges for civil society and human rights in Asia

Questions and challenges for civil society and human rights in Asia

Human rights in Southeast Asia: ASEAN’s rights regime after its first decade

This piece introduces a collection of essays that examine various aspects of the ASEAN human rights regime, as we recognize decadal anniversaries for its two key foundational institutions: the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (ACIHR), established in 2009, and the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration (AHRD), promulgated in 2012. This introduction considers the aspiration of the regime to promote and protect human rights and the performance of the regime in practice over the decade since its establishment, and reviews the principle themes taken up by the contributors to this special issue of the Journal of Human Rights.

Challenging antisodomy laws in Singapore and the former British colonies of ASEAN

In 2007, Section 377 of Singapore’s Penal Code, a colonial-era law that criminalized sexual activities “against the order of nature,” was removed by Parliament. Section 377A, however, the law specifically criminalizing gay male sex, was kept on the books. Three years later, the first judicial challenge emerged, and after a change in standing requirements, a second challenge followed, both to be ultimately dismissed in 2013. By end of 2018, two new judicial challenges emerged, and by September 2019, another lawsuit was mounted—all three to be heard in November 2019. Despite having survived several constitutional challenges, could Singapore’s lawsuits to strike down Section 377A provide guidance or inspiration to similar attempts to repeal 377 or 377A in ASEAN? This article begins by examining the roots behind 377 and 377A and the attempts to repeal these laws in Singapore. Next, it explores the legal situation in the Southeast Asian nations with similar laws due to their common British colonial histories (Malaysia, Brunei, Myanmar) and discusses the position ASEAN has taken on anti-LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) laws in these nations. The article concludes with a discussion on how Singapore’s experience, as well as ASEAN human rights mechanisms, can potentially be used to expand and protect the rights of LGBT people in Southeast Asia.

Global Concepts, Local Meanings: How Civil Society Interprets and Uses Human Rights in Asia

ABSTRACT Over the past few decades, the human rights movement has made impressive inroads in Asia: human rights have become enshrined in national constitutions as well as increasingly visible in popular discourse and as a legitimising resource for civil society groups. With the recent rise of populist leaders and increased nationalistic discourses, however, a backlash against rights-based activism and counterclaims made by illiberal groups have brought into question the present and future of human rights as a tool for emancipation. In this article, we argue that despite these current challenges, and drawing on case studies from the Philippines, China, Korea and Malaysia, human rights continue to inform and strengthen civil society. At the same time, it is also possible that civil society and state actors may use human rights towards sometimes contradictory ends. The contestation and articulation of rights across the region, however messy, demonstrates that human rights remain a valuable resource for civil society actors to promote political and social change even in the face of immense challenges.

Human Rights in Asia: The Case of China, Japan and North and South Korea

Prawa człowieka w Azji na przykładzie Chin, Japonii i państw koreańskich
 Artykuł stanowi analizę zagadnienia praw człowieka w Azji na przykładzie wybranych państw regionu: Chińskiej Republiki Ludowej, Republiki Korei, Koreańskiej Republiki Ludowo-Demokratycznej i Japonii. W artykule przedstawiono problematykę praw człowieka „z europejskiej perspektywy”, nie pomijając jednocześnie koncepcji wartości azjatyckich, uniwersalnych dla regionu Azji Wschodniej. W tym celu analizie zostały poddane państwa o różnych ustrojach politycznych.
 Zdaniem części azjatyckich ekspertów i polityków wartości azjatyckie mogą być ekwiwalentem zachodniej koncepcji praw człowieka. W tym kontekście istotne było przyjęcie Deklaracji z Bangkoku z 1993 r., która jako pierwsza uwzględniła wartości azjatyckie w dokumencie o statusie międzynarodowym i podkreśliła ich istnienie oraz różnicę historyczną i kulturową w zakresie praw człowieka.
 Prawa człowieka jako produkt cywilizacji zachodniej nie obejmują osiągnięć i myśli filozoficznej regionu Azji. Można przyjąć założenie, że prawa człowieka są uniwersalne nie dlatego, że dotyczą wszystkich ludzi i są powszechnie szanowane i uznawane – jak twierdzi większość zachodnich ekspertów – ale dlatego, że zostały włączone do konstytucji wielu państw azjatyckich (formalnie uznane). W tym sensie możemy mówić o pewnym uniwersalizmie praw człowieka.

Coping with Human Rights Challenge: A Perspective from Asean

Since its inception, ASEAN has constantly faced criticism from western countries and international human rights organizations. This paper particularly focuses on ASEAN human rights and non-interference policy. ASEAN has established two new commissions: Intergovernmental Human Rights Commission and Protection of Women and Children. This study focuses on the current state of human rights in ASEAN and addresses the following key questions: how ASEAN deals with human rights problems? Why ASEAN response to human rights has been considered as insufficient to handle/tackle human rights problems effectively? Hence, a qualitative approach was applied to this study using secondary sources of data. This study is based on thorough literature review and critical analysis of ASEAN human rights situation, by reviewing the relevant studies on human rights challenges in ASEAN, and its strategies in tackling this challenge. This study concludes that although the problem of human rights is recognized as per national, regional and international laws, but the challenge to implement them in letter and spirit require more concrete step at regional level on behalf of ASEAN, however, Non-intervention policy is a serious challenge to collective decision making on ASEAN human rights. Therefore, ASEAN needs to setup a mechanism where the member states can find common ground to handle human rights challenge.

ASEAN’s Problematic Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights: The New Media’s Role in Enhancing the Protection of Human Rights

Citizens of ASEAN states appear to be increasingly involved, through Information Communication Technologies (ICTs), in pushing for greater openness and accountability of their political leaders and public institutions. In particular, ICTs afford citizens of ASEAN States and like-minded counterparts around the world in the human rights community to push for greater accountability of ASEAN’s human rights institutions. With the adoption of the ASEAN Charter in 2007, ASEAN states embarked on a process of crafting a regional ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR), eighteen years after the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna, Austria. While the World Conference had reaffirmed the universality of human rights, ASEAN states have moved grudgingly and gradually, egged on by greater global concern for human rights and by the pressures of globalization, towards the protection of human rights. The Terms of Reference (TORs) of the AICHR, adopted in July 2009 and favouring promotion rather than protection of human rights did not provide for an institutionalised role for the media. Subsequent drafting by AICHR of a proposed ASEAN Human Rights Declaration (AHRD) has excluded mainstream news media and civil society organizations (CSOs) from the process. In the absence of reporting and substantive reporting by most mainstream media in the region civil society, most importantly the new ICT based media, has played a vital role in seeking to advance the protection of human rights. This includes scrutiny of the specific rights that will be included in the forthcoming AHRD to ensure that international human rights standards are upheld and that ASEAN states honour their existing commitments under international instruments. The new media-environment provides a platform for a multitude of actors to disseminate human rights related information, to document human rights abuses and thereby enhance the protection of human rights in the region.

KOMUNIKASI IJIC: PROFESIONALISME SEBAGAI MODAL AKREDITASI JURNAL

In today's digital era, publication of scientific works is a standard for the progress of universities and even the State. Publication of articles in journals both nationally and internationally is a standard for the development of science and technology which is loved by many people including Indonesians. Therefore, IJIC is present as a scientific journal to contest in the standard of higher education progress. To support the management of online journal system journals and arouse the spirit of writing scientific articles, IJIC held a workshop on reputable article writing techniques and management of Online Journal System journal management, by presenting two reliable resource persons namely Al Khanif, SH, MA, Ph.D as Editor in Chief Journal Of Southeast Asian Human Rights and Director of the center for human rights, multiculturalism and migration (CHRM2) Chair Persons of the Indonesian Consortium for Human Rights Lectures, SEPAHAM Indonesia and Dr. Abdul Muhid, M.Sc as Editor In Chief Engagement: Journal of Community Service Kopertais Region IV Surabaya that has been accredited by Sprott 3. ID Scopus 57209454955. The results obtained from the workshop were at least three things namely First; the author is a writer who studies deeply, is written and then published. Second; the writing style of the IJIC article is seven in general namely the title. Ownership lines (byline), Abstracts, Keywords (keywords), Body of writing, references, and completeness of articles. Third; the editorial board of IJIC has an extraordinary passion for serving science, even though it is not supported by various things such as facilities and finance. Even though the journal management agency must have the ability to organize journal publishing. This is based because the institution must have the capital to publish a journal and have an IP address network device and have an online journal publishing information system or better known as an online journal system (OJS).

ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights and Effectiveness of Fulfilling Human Rights Obligations of ASEAN Members States

The inauguration of the ASEAN Declaration of Human Rights was inseparable from criticism from several parties, especially human rights organizations both within and outside ASEAN member states. This paper focuses on the function and mandate of the AICHR (ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights) and its influence on the effectiveness of the fulfillment of human rights obligations ASEAN member states. The results showed that within its mandate AICHR there is no balance between the functions of promotion and protection function because of the ambiguity of vision for an ASEAN Human Rights set the standard, which is between universal standards and particularist that maintains the principle of "Asian values" and "non-interference". These different points of view led to the implementation of human rights obligations fulfillment by member states of ASEAN to be very varied

ASEAN and European Human Rights Mechanisms, What Should be Improved?

The human rights mentioned in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) are universal values agreed upon countries in the world. This is reflected by the fact that no state rejects the United Nations General Assembly Resolution in 1948. It is even strengthened by the ratification of two major international human rights covenants, which have binding legal powers. They are the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights in 1966. European states are legally bound to human rights through the European Human Rights Convention that is signed in 1950 and come into force in 1953. On the other hand, ASEAN states are bound to human rights as parties of ICCPR, ICESCR, and their commitment to the regional level ASEAN Declaration of Human Rights. Both in European Union and ASEAN have their own human rights mechanisms: the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR). This study employed a comparison method with a normative legal research approach to compare the human rights mechanisms in Europe and in ASEAN. It also deals with the implementation of human rights protection by the states in the two regional organizations. As a result, although the two regional organizations have human rights mechanisms applied in their areas, with experiences through cases appealing to European Human Rights Courts, Europe provides more assurance and legal certainty towards individuals when a state commit human rights violations against individuals. On the other hand, the AICHR, as the equal commission in ASEAN region, tends not to have sufficient legal power in handling human rights cases occurred in its territory.