Elimination Of Racial Discrimination Research Articles

Inter-State Communications before UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies: Testing the Waters for Collective Communications

Abstract The awakening of inter-state communications with the first ever three cases before the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in 2018 has inspired new avenues of research about their potential and shortfalls. This article opens a new line of exploration, considering the mechanism’s potential as an avenue for collective action at a time when many States are responding to violations of international law, even when not directly affected by those violations. Those responses have included massive third-party interventions (Ukraine v Russia), and the initiation of proceedings before the icj by States not directly injured (The Gambia v Myanmar, Canada and the Netherlands v Syrian Arab Republic, South Africa v Israel). This article argues that enabling collective inter-state communications before UN treaty bodies could strengthen the mechanism as an avenue for treaty compliance and the protection of human rights, and for amplifying sovereign voices as part of peaceful dispute settlement processes.

Inter-State Cases under icerd as an Avenue to Protect Cultural Heritage

Abstract The most recent applications before the International Court of Justice (icj) under Article 22 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (icerd), Armenia v. Azerbaijan and Azerbaijan v. Armenia, both claim that the destruction of cultural heritage during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict constitutes a violation of the Convention. The applications have met with enthusiasm that icerd offers a potential new avenue for the protection of cultural heritage, as well as scepticism as to whether these claims fall within the scope of the treaty. Armenia and Azerbaijan bypassed the inter-State communications mechanism under Articles 11–13 before the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (cerd), as they are legally entitled to do. But the cerd perspective remains important. First, the Articles 11–13 mechanism is available in relation to 182 States Parties, whereas due to reservations, the Article 22 mechanism is available only in relation to 157 States Parties. Second, cerd practice in relation to cultural heritage ought to inform the determination of the Court. This article investigates the cerd approach to the protection of cultural heritage. It draws in related questions such as whether religious cultural heritage comes under a treaty on racial discrimination; the applicability of these protections in situations of armed conflict; and icerd’s relationship with other specialised instruments. It offers conclusions as to what extent an avenue for the protection of cultural heritage under icerd exists before the Committee and the Court.

From disconnection to intersection: making race and religion at the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD)

From disconnection to intersection: making race and religion at the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD)

Principle and power: The struggle to protect human rights

Professor Theo van Boven sent this piece to the Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights as part of his reflections on the 75 years anniversary of the UDHR. Professor van Boven is the former Director of the UN Human Rights Secretariat between 1977 and 1982, about which the film “The Subversives” was made in 2019. He was a Dutch representative on the UN Commission on Human Rights, an expert member of the Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, an expert Member on the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the UN Special Rapporteur against Torture, Consultant at the World Council of Churches and Professor of Human Rights at Maastricht University from 1982 to 1999. [Formula: see text]

UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies Talking to Domestic Adjudicators Through Their Quasi-judicial Work: An Examination of CERD and CEDAW

ABSTRACT: The article examines the merit of UN treaty bodies' accumulated case law as a resource for domestic adjudicators, i.e., courts and quasi-judicial bodies (such as national human rights institutions) addressing human rights complaints at the national level. It has the objective of assessing the extent to which treaty bodies are "talking to" an audience beyond the parties in the case. Starting from a view that sees impact on national adjudicators as the key issue for treaty bodies' rulings on individual complaints, the article assesses to what extent the way that treaty bodies are exercising this role fits in this view. The study's focus is on two UN treaty bodies with a broadly similar output in quantitative terms, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CmERD) and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CmEDAW).

The state of COVID-19 vaccine confidence and need in Black individuals in Canada: Understanding the role of sociodemographic factors, health literacy, conspiracy theories, traumatic stressors and racial discrimination

BackgroundBlack communities in Canada have been among the most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, in terms of number of infections and deaths. They are also among those most hesitant about vaccination against COVID-19. However, while a few studies have documented the factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, those related to vaccine confidence remain unknown. To respond to this gap, this study aims to investigate factors associated to vaccine confidence in Black individuals in Canada. MethodsA total of 2002 participants (1034 women) aged 14 to 89 years old (Mean age = 29.34, SD = 10.13) completed questionnaires assessing sociodemographic information, COVID-19 vaccine confidence and need, health literacy, conspiracy beliefs, major racial discrimination, and traumatic stressors related to COVID-19. ResultsResults showed an average score of COVID-19 vaccine confidence and need of 33.27 (SD = 7.24), with no significant difference between men (33.48; SD = 7.24) and women (33.08; SD = 7.91), t (1999) = 1.19, p = 0.234. However, there were significant differences according to employment status, migration status, age, inhabited province, spoken language, education, marital status, religion, and income. The linear regression model explained 25.8 % of the variance and showed that health literacy (B = 0.12, p < 0.001) and traumatic stressors related to COVID-19 (B = 0.21, p < .001) predicted COVID-19 vaccine confidence and need positively, while conspiracy beliefs (B = −1.14, p < 0.001) and major racial discrimination (B = −0.20, p = 0.044) predicted it negatively. ConclusionsThis study showed that building the confidence of Black communities in vaccines requires health education, elimination of racial discrimination in the Canadian society and a focus on certain groups (e.g., young people, those living in Quebec and Ontario). The results also argue in favor of involving community leaders and organizations in the development and implementation of vaccination-related tools, strategies and programs by city, provincial and federal public health agencies.

Global Inequality and the Fracture of (Proactive) Solidarity

In this paper, I wish to examine what is meant by this new concept of “international solidarity”. The study will be presented in a number of sections, beginning with a general introduction that sets out the problem and emphasizes the importance of the document produced by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. I will then detail certain general characteristics of the normative concept of solidarity and clarify a number of methodological assumptions and historical data. Thirdly, I will forward an in-depth discussion on the analysis of and debate around the concept of solidarity in its bioethical context, both prior to and during the pandemic. Finally, I will attempt to analyze what I call the ‘rhetoric of solidarity’, as set forth by international organizations and political leaders of the Global North during the pandemic, understanding it as aid in the face of the morally objectionable global inequality and injustice caused by a number of factors, the principal one being the current system of patents imposed by the WTO and the conversion of vaccines into commodities and even ‘positional goods’.

Discriminatory practices in armed conflict contexts: exploring (parallel) proceedings under the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

ABSTRACT This article examines the approach of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) to claims of discriminatory practices linked to armed conflict, as well as the more recent development of overlapping or parallel interstate claims before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the interstate procedure of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), based on the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). It examines the potential implications of the latter trend for the application and interpretation of non-discrimination norms, and concludes that this should encourage the ECtHR once again towards application and explicit interpretation of Article 14 in armed conflict contexts. Such an approach would recognise the gravity of any discriminatory dimensions of conflict practices; ensure consistency with the ECtHR’s own evolving case law on discriminatory violence; and facilitate harmonious interpretation of non-discrimination norms, as well as the ECtHR’s autonomous interpretation of the ECHR and participation in judicial dialogue on concepts common to the ECHR and ICERD.

Discrimination on the Basis of Nationality Under the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

Following a recent judgment by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), a divergence has opened between the Court and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD Committee) over whether the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) covers nationality-based discrimination. The ICJ held that the CERD does not, but the CERD Committee had previously held the opposite. The solution to this difference is to recognize that the CERD excludes discrimination between citizens and aliens, and, in this, the ICJ was correct. However, this discrimination is distinct from discrimination between foreign persons on the basis of their nationality, which is covered by the CERD. It is for this latter form of discrimination that the CERD Committee is correct. In essence, the ICJ and the CERD Committee are both partly wrong and partly correct, and by identifying this nuance between forms of nationality discrimination, we can reconcile the two views.

Towards an Amicable Solution: The Inter-State Communications Procedure under ICERD

Abstract Articles 11–13 ICERD provide for inter-State communications before the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The mechanism was triggered for the first time in 2018, with three inter-State communications – Qatar v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Qatar v. United Arab Emirates and Palestine v. Israel. This article offers a detailed, article-by-article analysis of the ICERD inter-State communications mechanism. It looks back at CERD decision-making under Article 11, which pioneered rules of procedure and practice in inter-State communications before a UN treaty body. It considers the composition of the ad hoc Conciliation Commissions under Article 12. It looks forward to the role of the ad hoc Conciliation Commissions under Article 13 in terms of fact-finding, an amicable solution and recommendations. In conclusion, the potential of the Articles 11–13 mechanism as a global contentious human rights jurisdiction is emphasised.

Hate Speech in Japan: The Possibility of a Non-Regulatory Approach ed. by Shinji Higaki and Yuji Nasu

Reviewed by: Hate Speech in Japan: The Possibility of a Non-Regulatory Approach ed. by Shinji Higaki and Yuji Nasu Celeste L. Arrington (bio) Hate Speech in Japan: The Possibility of a Non-Regulatory Approach. Edited by Shinji Higaki and Yuji Nasu. Cambridge University Press, 2021. xviii, 506 pages. $125.00, cloth; $100.00, E-book. Hate Speech in Japan is an information-packed new book about a significant recent development in Japanese society: hate speech. Public demonstrations [End Page 435] and online comments against ethnic Korean residents of Japan (zainichi Koreans) attracted media attention within Japan and worldwide a decade ago and spurred international criticism. Particularly shocking was the targeting of a Korean primary school in Kyoto by the Zaitokukai (Zainichi Tokken o Yurusanai Shimin no Kai, or Citizens Association against Special Privileges for Resident Koreans). This book analyzes such hate speech and its relationship to older forms of discrimination against Japan's Korean and outcaste (burakumin) communities. It also details and assesses the diverse recent efforts to address the problem of hate speech, including via new national legislation, subnational government ordinances and guidelines, administrative measures, and court rulings. Through both formal legal analysis and nuanced examinations of policy implementation, this book's 20 chapters significantly advance scholarship about regulatory styles, law and social change, and the balance between freedom of expression and the right to human dignity in Japan. The term "hate speech" (heito supiichi) gained currency in Japan in the early 2010s, and new legislation to address the problem was enacted within just a few years. The 2016 Hate Speech Elimination Act (HSEA) defines hate speech as "unfair discriminatory speech and behavior against persons originating from outside Japan" or "their descendants who are lawfully residing in Japan." This narrow definition reflects what Erin Chung has called "rights hierarchies" in the South Korean context; noncitizens have different human rights protections depending on their visa category.1 And it excludes Japanese minorities like burakumin, Ainu, and Okinawans (for political debates about the definition, see pp. 233–36). Many of this book's contributors document discrimination against burakumin and zainichi Koreans long before the term "hate speech" began circulating and grapple with why zainichi Koreans were targeted most recently (chapter 16). This volume is empirically rich, drawing on formal legal analyses, comparisons of legal scholars' arguments, media and online content analyses, and interviews. For example, chapter 12 uses interview quotes to expose the traumatic impacts of hate speech on members of Kyoto's Korean community. And the social psychological discussion of discrimination, prejudice, and stereotypes illuminates phenomena adjacent to hate speech and the hateful Internet content analyzed in chapter 17. Despite such evidence, the Japanese government reported to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination as recently as 2013 that it "does not believe that, in present-day Japan, racist thoughts are disseminated and racial discrimination is incited to the extent that … legislation to impose punishment … [End Page 436] should be considered even at the risk of unduly stifling legitimate speech" (p. 66, note 30). Indeed, Japan long resisted regulating discriminatory speech, which led some of this book's contributors to worry that Japanese people were unaware of hate speech until the Zaitokukai demonstrations (pp. 222, 239–40). This volume persuasively documents, in a great service to scholars without Japanese-language abilities, one reason for the lack of hate speech regulations: Japanese legal scholars tended to privilege freedom of expression, usually citing the U.S. model rather than the German approach, which emphasizes human dignity (chapters 1 and 15, pp. 242–43, 415–21). Part 2 of the volume (chapters 7–9) details how few legal tools existed for addressing hate speech and racial discrimination in Japan. Criminal and civil claims can be made regarding defamation or insult, but such speech must be targeted against specific individuals or organizations. Since hate speech generally targets broader categories of people, it falls outside existing criminal and tort frameworks in Japan. The book's contributors conclude that it is unlikely that Japanese courts will recognize racist speech and discrimination as a new type of tort anytime soon (p. 204). Ryangok Ku summarizes the weaknesses of Japan's legal and institutional frameworks...

The Impact of the Universal Periodic Review and the State Reporting Procedure of UN Treaty Bodies on the Prosecution of Hate Crimes: The Hungarian Experience

AbstractThis article contributes to the debate about the impact of UN human rights review mechanisms on the ground, focusing on the issue of prosecution in hate crimes cases. National legislative or institutional changes presented as implementation measures do not necessarily reflect reforms in practice or genuine commitment of the government to comply with the recommendations of international human rights bodies. Rigorous follow-up of recommendations is missing from the UN review mechanisms—a gap which is frequently filled by domestic NGOs. The article focuses on the case of Hungary and those review mechanisms which are the most significant ones concerning hate crime-related advocacy, namely, the Universal Periodic Review and the state reporting system of the Human Rights Committee and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The impact assessment is based on a content analysis of recommendations and on semi-structured interviews with representatives of domestic NGOs advocating for more efficient prosecution of hate crimes. The author argues that more emphasis should be put on a thorough assessment of national reports and communications from the perspective of whether they reflect significant and long-term changes in practice. At the same time, state representatives involved in the Universal Periodic Review and expert members of UN treaty bodies should strive for a more detailed expression of recommended guidelines in order to adequately address the nuanced reality of human rights violations.

Novel Corona Virus and the Case of Novel Discrimination Based on ‘Feared Medical Condition’

Covid-19 has caused not only a worldwide health crisis but also triggered issues on social, economic, legal and political fronts in novel embodiments. Already rampant online hate-speech against migrants, foreign workers and victims of xenophobia has taken new dimensions. Since outbreak of Covid-19 outside Chinese borders, there are numerous reported incidents, which continue to take place, around the world where people of Asian descent have been targeted by hate-mongers, hurled at racial slurs and, at mild scale, refused entry into hotels and restaurants being labelled as carriers of virus – generally a phenomenon described as ‘Sinophobia’ denoting hate towards Chinese ethnicity. However, in the present case, the issue of discrimination due to fear of being infected is unique and distinct from other forms of discrimination based on race, religion, sex, ethnicity, language etc. Racial discrimination is outlawed under international conventions, notably the Convention on Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), and state parties are required to undertake appropriate legislation to eliminate it. Present crisis caused by Covid-19 has triggered a novel kind of discrimination which is not anchored, strictly speaking, in religious, ethnic or racial context but is based on a Feared Medical Condition (FMC) that an individual or group infected or likely to be infected can be responsible for transmission of the virus or disease to others. The objective of present study is to examine whether this peculiar type of discrimination is covered by selected instruments of international on human rights. If so, what are states’ responsibilities in eliminating such discrimination. The research employs analytical and qualitative method, and is followed by a conclusion and recommendations.

General Recommendation No. 36 (2020) on Preventing and Combating Racial Profiling by Law Enforcement Officials (C.E.R.D.)

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) adopted General Recommendation No. 36 on Preventing and Combating Racial Profiling by Law Enforcement Officials at its 102nd session, which took place from November to December 2020.

Discrimination on the Basis of Nationality Under the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

Discrimination on the Basis of Nationality Under the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

Norm Entrepreneurship at the UN - Dalits and Communities Discriminated on Work and Descent

Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings. However, caste-based discrimination is one of the areas that most human rights mechanisms overlook. As a result of several interventions by Dalit and human rights organisations, the erstwhile United Nations body, in 2000, has termed it ‘discrimination based on work and descent’. The above Dalit and other International organisations have also brought evidence before the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination which has endorsed caste-based discrimination as part of the discrimination based on descent, in Article 1 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). Further, it was also brought to the notice of various Special Rapporteurs and UN Committees that communities discriminated on work and descent (CDWD) face severe human rights violations and abuses that continue to restrain the socio-economic development of these specific groups of people in several countries globally. Dalit organizations and their solidarity bodies have gone ahead through a process of ‘norm entrepreneurship’ at the UN levels. This article narrates and analyses the challenges and human rights consequences of caste and discrimination based on work and discusses the norm entrepreneurship journey of Dalits and CDWD at the UN level.

Gender equality in labor legal relations: international legal regulation

The article analyzes international legal documents on gender equality in labor relations, their significance and role. It is noted that the issues of gender equality in employment and dismissal, the right to fair and equal pay for equal work, the creation of favorable working conditions, as well as economic and social guarantees for the successful performance of professional duties remain relevant worldwide. It is noted that extremely important norms, the priority of which is to ensure equal rights of workers, are contained in the UN conventions (on the elimination of racial discrimination, discrimination against women and protection of the rights of migrant workers and their families), ILO conventions and recommendations (on equal pay for men). and women for work of equal value and discrimination in employment and occupation), as well as in the EU directives on equal pay, equal treatment in the workplace, on the application of the principle of equal treatment to men and women engaged in individual employment and employment. activities, on the safety and health of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding, in the workplace, on childcare leave, on equal treatment of women and men in social security schemes in the workplace).It is concluded that international labor regulation and the development of international standards to ensure equal rights of workers today is one of the priorities of the world community. Defining, consolidating and implementing international uniform and universally binding standards for the equality of employees is an important step towards creating an effective and civilized tool to protect the world’s population and ensure the living conditions of socially secure workers and their families. As the examples of international organizations and the documents adopted by them show, achieving gender equality is one of the key universally recognized priorities in human development. It is international law that makes it possible to understand the essence, content, structure and importance of gender equality as a key component of human rights, the conditions for sustainable development, peace and security on the planet.

Juridical Analysis on the Elimination of Race and Ethnic Discrimination in Making Certificate of Inheritance in the Land Registration Process Based on Law Number 40 of 2008

The classification of the population in Indonesia has occurred since the days of the Dutch East Indies, which is regulated in Article 163 IS. The regulation of population classification is still applied in the making of the Inheritance Certificate for Indonesian citizens, which is now regulated in the Regulation of the State Minister for Agrarian Affairs / Head of the National Land Agency No. 3 of 1997 concerning the Implementation of Government Regulation no. 24 of 1997 concerning Land Registration. The existence of these regulations creates acts of discrimination that are against Pancasila, legal principles, and laws. This research uses a normative juridical approach, namely by reviewing or analyzing secondary data in the form of literature, journals, and laws and regulations. Based on the results of research in the making of an inheritance certificate, there is still discrimination because it is based on the division of 3 (three) population groups, namely the European group, the Bumiputera group, and the Foreign Eastern group, thus this is not in line with the provisions of Law Number 40 of 2008 concerning the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and ethnicity because Indonesian citizens are entitled to equal positions before the law.Keywords: Classification, Inheritance Certificate, Discrimination

Inter-State Communication under ICERD: From ad hoc Conciliation to Collective Enforcement?

Abstract The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) contains the inter-State communication procedure within which the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) received the following three communications in 2018: Qatar v Saudi Arabia, Qatar v the United Arab Emirates, and Palestine v Israel. In these cases, CERD characterized this procedure as relating to collective enforcement, analogous to the inter-State application procedure within the order/regime of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). However, unlike the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), ICERD does not refer to ‘collective enforcement’, but merely contains ad hoc conciliation, that is a bilateral means for reaching a mutually agreed solution to a dispute. This article aims, rather critically, to assess whether, and to which extent, it is justified to view the CERD ad hoc conciliation procedure as a means of collective enforcement.

Race Discrimination Effaced at the International Court of Justice

This essay examines the interpretation of the core international treaty dedicated to the elimination of racial discrimination, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), and in particular how the prohibition on race discrimination applies to the treatment of migrants. This essay is timely, as CERD has travelled from the margins of human rights law to the center of the hottest interstate lawfare. At the time of writing, the first ever interstate dispute before any UN treaty body is before the CERD Committee, and CERD has been invoked in several interstate cases before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Unfortunately, this crucible of adjudication has not marked an increase in principled interpretation. This essay critiques the recent admissibility ruling of the ICJ in Qatar v. U.A.E. for its marginalization of the prohibition of race discrimination, in particular the failure meaningfully to consider how nationality discrimination may constitute prohibited race discrimination.