This analytical paper synthesizes academic research, statutory and regulatory frameworks, and programmatic evidence to assess global solutions to homelessness. Drawing on human rights law (e.g., the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), national statutes (e.g., the United Kingdom’s Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 and Canada’s National Housing Strategy Act 2019), key court decisions (e.g., City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, 2024; Government of the Republic of South Africa v. Grootboom), and large-scale evaluations of Housing First and prevention systems, it identifies concrete policy designs that reduce homelessness sustainably. The article argues that legal duties of prevention, rights-based housing frameworks, scaled affordable housing, and fidelity-consistent Housing First—integrated with coordinated access and targeted supports for veterans, youth, and families—produce the strongest, most durable results when paired with fair public-space management and non-criminalization approaches.

Abstract This article critically examines the efficacy of ratifying International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) within the complex relationship between a State’s sovereignty and its pre-existing, non-derogable obligations under international law. Many States may use reservations, understandings, and declarations (RUDs) to ratify treaties like ICERD while managing substantive obligations. This article analyze ICERD’s the challenges of domestic enforcement, scrutinizing how ratification by States, could be diluted by extensive RUDs, thereby analysing whether formal ratification translates to meaningful compliance. This analysis further interprets enforcement lacunae, including the jurisdictional barriers facing the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in adjudicating human rights violations. By contrast, this article uses Malaysia as a critical case study to examine the legal implications of the persistent non-ratification of ICERD, a dimension of the international human rights scholarship that remains insufficiently examined. This article critically examine and analyse the domestic legal context to demonstrate that the State remains legally bound by the international principle of equality and non-discrimination through multiple legal nexus, the UN Charter membership, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) as Customary International Law, and the ASEAN Human Rights Framework, which cumulatively reinforce the jus cogens character of racial equality. This analysis advances a novel legal argument by applying the framework of jus cogens norms and constitutional equality principles under Malaysian law, suggesting that non-ratification of ICERD may have implications beyond a neutral exercise of sovereignty. The non-ratification of ICERD constrains the efficacy of the international human rights machinery, avoiding the full scope of external monitoring and legal accountability, and raising questions regarding the alignment of its domestic constitutional integrity. It is submitted that the States that ratify ICERD even with RUDs, demonstrate a foundational commitment to human rights norms despite enforcement complexities. Non-ratification perpetuates structural inequality and directly challenges international mechanisms designed to uphold universal human rights.

The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM) has been presented as a milestone in embedding migration governance within an international human rights framework. This article critically examines the extent to which this ambition has translated into concrete effects by analysing the Canadian case. Drawing on a legal doctrinal and contextual policy analysis, informed by the concept of mobility facilitation, the article shows that the GCM has had a limited impact on Canadian migration policies. Despite sustained international commitment to the Compact, recent developments reveal a regression in the facilitation of mobility and the protection of migrants’ rights. This regression has not been reflected in Canada’s international reporting, exposing a disjunction between national practices and international positioning and calling into question the GCM’s capacity to generate international accountability. This article argues that the limited effectiveness of the GCM cannot be explained solely by the shortcomings of its implementation and review mechanisms but must also be understood in light of the unfavourable political context. Moving beyond a compliance-centred perspective, it contends that the GCM should also be understood as lending itself to an indirect form of mobilisation, capable of functioning as a counter-narrative to dominant criminalising and securitising approaches.

The purpose of the study was to investigate the functions of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights in advancing and safeguarding human rights, specifically in relation to cases from Mali and Tanzania. The research analyzed literature from thirty-three published sources. The primary findings indicated that the types of cases brought before the court were alleged violations of civil and political rights, as well as economic, social, and cultural rights. The importance of the court lies in its role in arbitration, review, and interpretation of cases. Nevertheless, the court faces challenges related to financial resources, noncompliance, and lack of cooperation. The study also highlighted the necessity for the court to enhance cooperation as a strategy to improve its effectiveness. It concluded that the withdrawal of member states from the Court distances their citizens from the enjoyment of their freedoms, and the advancement of human rights is hindered by the misalignment of domestic laws with regional and international human rights instruments. Furthermore, the study recommends that the Court should bolster collaboration to tackle financial constraints, that nation states should ratify the protocol, and that the Court should be empowered with the authority to detain government officials who violate human rights. Received: 11 February 2026 / Accepted: 27 February 2026 / Published: March 2026

Press freedom and the right to privacy are twin pillars of democratic governance and human dignity. In Nigeria, both rights enjoy constitutional protection under the 1999 Constitution (as amended), yet their coexistence has remained contentious. Media investigations, crime reporting, political exposés, and the proliferation of digital and social media have intensified clashes between the public’s right to know and individuals’ claims to privacy. This paper undertakes a doctrinal and analytical examination of the tension between press freedom and individual privacy rights in Nigeria. It analyses the constitutional and statutory framework, judicial attitudes through Nigerian case law, and relevant international and regional human rights instruments. Using the social responsibility and rights-balancing theories, the paper demonstrates that neither press freedom nor privacy is absolute and that Nigerian courts have increasingly adopted a balancing approach anchored in public interest and proportionality. The paper identifies persistent challenges such as weak enforcement, sensational journalism, and technological disruption, and proposes reforms aimed at achieving a principled and predictable balance between media freedom and the protection of individual dignity. It concludes that a responsible press and a coherent legal framework are essential for sustaining democracy and human rights in Nigeria.

ABSTRACT Under international human rights law (IHRL), local governments complement the national government in undertaking their human rights obligations. Regarding the right to food, local authorities in the UK have taken up a pivotal role in addressing food insecurity in a crisis support context. Research that examines such policy responses from a human rights perspective is limited. Drawing upon interview data and policy document analysis in two English cities, this article examines how local authorities should undertake their obligation to fulfill the right to food – as defined in IHRL and by local actors – in a crisis support context, and how their obligations relate to those of the national government. This article argues that while local authorities have obligations to implement rights-based policy responses within their remit, the national government retains its primary obligation to create an enabling environment for local authorities to fully discharge their right to food obligations.

ABSTRACT International relations, international law and political science provide different accounts of the relationship between international and domestic law and how this relationship should be measured and assessed. Yet the ‘black box’ of the state, and particularly the judicial system, as the core implementer of international law, remains underexamined empirically. This article presents findings from a unique cross-national database, the Migrant Worker Rights Database, in which 869 court cases were analysed to ascertain the influence of international law within domestic judicial outcomes. We conclude that while international law is not very important in broad domestic enforcement of migrant rights through the courts, that when it is utilised domestically, it is influenced by domestic factors that include: the method of incorporation of international law into domestic law – through executive or legislative powers; judicial reticence, informed by judicial seniority; and the capacity for litigants to appeal to supranational courts. This leads us to conclude that while international law generally does not play a large role in the domestic legal enforcement of migrant rights, when it does, domestic factors are important for supporting or blocking such inclusion.

The phenomenon of wrongful conviction in contemporary legal systems underscores the effectiveness of mechanisms for restoring violated human rights and the responsibility of the state for judicial errors. In the context of increasing attention to fair trial standards, the institution of rehabilitation of wrongfully convicted persons acquires particular significance not only as a procedural legal means of overturning unjust judgments, but also as a complex legal and criminological instrument aimed at safeguarding human dignity and restoring social justice. The subject of the research is the institution of rehabilitation of wrongfully convicted persons within the human rights paradigm, with an emphasis on its criminological nature, functional purpose, and role in the system of guarantees for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The purpose of the study is to develop a criminological concept of rehabilitation based on an analysis of its genesis, normative content, and doctrinal approaches, taking into account international human rights standards. The methodological framework of the research is based on general scientific and special legal methods of cognition, including analysis and synthesis, the systemic-structural method, the formal legal method, the comparative legal method, and the criminological method, which ensure a comprehensive understanding of rehabilitation as a multidimensional legal phenomenon. The relevance of the study is determined by the persistence of structural risks of wrongful conviction even in states with well-developed legal institutions, as well as by the insufficient conceptualization of rehabilitation within the criminological dimension. The scientific novelty of the research lies in substantiating rehabilitation as an independent criminological category that integrates restorative, compensatory, and preventive functions. The results of the study demonstrate that wrongful convictions have a complex criminological nature and are caused by a combination of procedural violations, institutional dysfunctions, and evidentiary deficiencies. The expediency of distinguishing between a narrow (procedural) and a broad (socio-legal) interpretation of rehabilitation is substantiated. An original conceptual approach to the grounds for rehabilitation is proposed, defining them as a set of legally significant and socially conditioned circumstances, the establishment of which confirms the unlawfulness or groundlessness of criminal prosecution and gives rise to a positive obligation of the state to ensure the full restoration of the legal and social status of the individual. The practical significance of the findings lies in their potential application to improving criminal procedural legislation, law enforcement practice, and the formation of criminological policy in the field of preventing judicial errors and protecting human rights. It is concluded that the effective functioning of the institution of rehabilitation serves as a criterion of the democratic maturity of a rule-of-law state and as a necessary condition for the humanization of criminal justice.

The article examines the key strategic foundations for investigating war crimes committed during the ongoing international armed conflict in Ukraine. War crimes are identified as a highly complex category of offenses due to their evidentiary challenges, the large scale of crime scenes, the number of victims and witnesses, and the necessity to comply with international standards of proof. These factors require a coherent investigative strategy integrating forensic, procedural, technical, organizational, and humanitarian components. Particular attention is given to maintaining the chain of custody, as any breach may undermine the admissibility of evidence before international jurisdictions. The analysis highlights the importance of international documentation standards, including the Minnesota Protocol, the Berkeley Protocol on Digital Open Source Investigations, and the practice of the International Criminal Court, all of which set requirements for the authenticity and reliability of evidence. The article also underscores the role of cooperation with international organizations and human rights groups that verify digital materials and apply advanced OSINT methodologies. Security challenges faced by investigators in active combat zones are examined, emphasizing the need for specialized units, protective equipment, and coordinated actions. Moreover, the study addresses the use of modern forensic technologies such as 3D scanning, drones, GPS systems, digital mapping, and high-resolution imaging, which help compensate for restricted access to crime scenes and damaged infrastructure. The conclusion stresses that effective investigation of war crimes is possible only through the systematic integration of international standards, technological innovation, investigator safety, and a victim-centered approach rooted in respect for human rights.

One of the emerging paradigms in contemporary criminal justice is victim-centered justice, which emphasizes the recognition, protection, and active participation of victims throughout legal proceedings.This paper analyzes legal, institutional and socio-cultural aspects of victim based justice in Pakistan wherein the criminal justice system has been offender-based. In spite of the constitutional guarantees of dignity, equality of law and access to justice, and the pledges of the international human rights frameworks, the victims are not central in practice in Pakistan. Through a qualitative research design, the study evaluates the provisions of the constitution, statutory laws, judicial practices, and policy frameworks that involve the protection of the victim. The important legal means such as the Pakistan Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and legislation specific to the victim are assessed based on how effective they are in protecting the rights of the victims. The courts and case law, United Nations findings, and academic sources mention the systemic lack of legislation, institutional infirmities and socio- cultural obstacles that hinder access to justice. The results show that the legal framework in Pakistan does not have a full-fledged codification of the rights of the victims and therefore the protection is fragmented and not well implemented. There are institutional issues like substandard training, bureaucratic delays, insufficient victim support, and poor coordination which also contribute to the poor delivery of justice. It has been found that the patriarchal norms, stigma, and power imbalances hinder victim participation; therefore comprehensive reforms, codification of victim rights, institutional strengthening, and restorative justice are essential.

Background: Labour migration is a cornerstone of Nepal's economy, yet policy and research have predominantly focused on the outbound migration of Nepali citizens. This focus has rendered a significant population nearly invisible: immigrant women workers who migrate to Nepal from other countries, primarily India and Bangladesh. Concentrated in informal, unregulated sectors like domestic work, caregiving, and hospitality within urban centers, these women face unique and severe vulnerabilities. While global scholarship highlights the precarious position of migrant women, and Nepal has recently adopted progressive human rights frameworks like the National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights (2024–2028), the specific realities of immigrant women workers within Nepal remain critically under-examined. Objective: This study aims to analyze the multifaceted challenges faced by immigrant women workers in Nepal. It seeks to understand how intersecting structures of gender, class, nationality, and legal status shape their labour conditions and lived experiences. Furthermore, it critically examines the effectiveness of Nepal's migration governance and human rights frameworks in addressing the protection, rights, and access to justice for this marginalized workforce. Methods: The study employs a qualitative methodology, combining critical policy analysis with an integrative literature review. It draws on three main sources: (1) academic literature from feminist sociology and intersectionality scholarship; (2) grey literature and policy documents, including national labour laws, migration policies, and the National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights; and (3) secondary data from national statistics and migration databases. This data is analyzed through a gender-responsive and intersectional lens to identify gaps between policy commitments and the lived realities of immigrant women workers. Findings: The analysis reveals that immigrant women workers in Nepal experience profound marginalization due to the convergence of multiple factors. Their employment in the informal economy places them outside the purview of standard labour protections, leading to wage exploitation, unsafe working conditions, and harassment. This vulnerability is compounded by their immigration status, which may be irregular or undocumented, creating barriers to reporting abuse and accessing justice. Nepal's migration governance frameworks are found to be structurally biased towards outbound migration, with existing policies and human rights commitments failing to extend meaningful protection to inbound workers. This policy gap, combined with social isolation, language barriers, and gendered assumptions about their work, leaves immigrant women in a legally precarious and highly exploitable position. Conclusion: The study concludes that the vulnerabilities of immigrant women workers in Nepal are not incidental but are systematically produced and reinforced by intersecting structural inequalities and significant gaps in the national governance framework. The protections promised by policies like the National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights remain largely inaccessible to this group. Bridging this protection gap requires a paradigm shift towards a gender-responsive and intersectional approach that extends labour rights, monitoring, and grievance mechanisms to all workers within Nepal's borders, regardless of their origin or documentation status. Novelty: This research addresses a critical lacuna in migration studies by shifting the analytical lens from Nepal as a source country to Nepal as a destination country for women labour migrants. It is among the first studies to systematically apply an intersectional framework to the specific context of immigrant women workers in Nepal, foregrounding their invisibility within both policy and scholarship. By connecting their lived experiences to a critical analysis of national and international human rights frameworks, the study provides a foundational evidence base for developing more inclusive and rights-based migration governance.

Insights from a Legal Semiotics Analysis of International Law: Review of Clara Chapdelaine-Feliciati Feminicides of Girl Children in the Family Context: An International Human Rights Law Approach

The recognition of the third gender represents a crucial shift in the understanding of gender identity and human rights within contemporary legal frameworks. Despite judicial interventions and evolving legislative measures, individuals belonging to the third gender continue to face pervasive discrimination, social exclusion, and institutional neglect. This paper explores the multifaceted responsibility of the State to safeguard the rights and dignity of third-gender persons, emphasizing both its constitutional and international human rights obligations. The study highlights the State’s duty to adopt proactive measures-such as inclusive policies, anti-discrimination laws, welfare schemes, and sensitization initiatives-to ensure substantive equality rather than mere formal recognition. It further examines the need for effective implementation mechanisms, accountability structures, and social support systems to protect third-gender persons from violence, stigma, and barriers in education, employment, healthcare, and public participation. The analysis demonstrates that State responsibility extends beyond legal acknowledgment to fostering an enabling environment where third-gender individuals can live with autonomy, dignity, and equal opportunity. Ultimately, the study underscores that true social justice requires the State to bridge the gap between constitutional promises and lived realities

Abstract The EU-Turkey Statement of 18 March 2016 was introduced in response to increased migration from Turkey to the EU via Greece and the Western Balkans. This article critically examines the Statement’s compatibility with binding EU and international human rights standards, particularly focusing on the principles of non-refoulement and the prohibition of collective expulsion. It argues that the arrangement enables the return of asylum-seekers to Türkiye without adequate procedural safeguards, notably individual assessments of asylum claims. Additionally, the analysis questions Türkiye’s designation as a safe third country, highlighting risks of asylum-seekers being returned to conditions inconsistent with protections under the 1951 Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights. Drawing on jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights, the Court of Justice of the EU, and recent developments under the EU’s New Pact on Migration and Asylum, the article challenges the Statement’s legal validity and its human rights implications.

The Jordanian Cybercrime Law No. 17 of 2013 has been controversial largely because of its vague wording—most notably, articles related to "false news" and other online content that is said to harm national unity or propagate depravity. These ambiguities have alarmed stakeholders as to what it could mean for free speech and the ability of journalists or activists to work unfettered within digital confines. Jordanian law to combat misinformation — fake news that undermines national unity and sparks discord, which has generated much controversy about human rights and freedom of expression. Amnesty International criticized the law as "draconian", which warned against its inclusive definitions and how individuals could be prosecuted even if nobody files a formal complaint. The legislation has been condemned by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, which said it threatens the security of Jordan's digital infrastructure and tarnishes Amman's record as a moderate, reform-conscious state. Local law scholars also question whether the rule will be a political weapon and won't achieve all of what it intends. The paper shows how the 2023 law has politicized fundamental rights and freedoms, including freedom of speech, freedom of the press, digital anonymity, and civic engagement. Finally, it underlines how the tension between state security narratives and international human rights obligations is reflected.

Background: The integration of human rights into development policy represents a paradigm shift from econometric growth models to frameworks centered on human dignity, social justice, and institutional accountability. Nepal, undergoing concurrent political democratization, federal restructuring, and constitutional transformation, presents a critical case for examining how the Human Rights-Based Approach (HRBA) has been operationalized within national development strategies. Objective: This paper critically examines the incorporation of HRBA into Nepal's development agenda, analyzing constitutional and institutional provisions, policy instruments, implementation mechanisms, and the disjuncture between normative commitments and substantive outcomes. It specifically evaluates the role of the National Human Rights Commission, alignment with Sustainable Development Goals, and compliance with international treaty obligations. Methods: The study employs a qualitative research design grounded in descriptive and interpretive analysis of secondary sources. Data were collected through purposive selection of constitutional texts (Constitution of Nepal 2015), national periodic plans (Fifteenth and Sixteenth Plans), legislation, scholarly literature, NHRC reports, and international policy documents. Thematic analysis was conducted using HRBA core principles—participation, accountability, non-discrimination, empowerment, and rule of law—as an analytical framework. Findings: Nepal has achieved substantial normative and institutional progress, including comprehensive justiciable fundamental rights, constitutionalization of the NHRC with Paris Principles accreditation, and systematic integration of HRBA principles into national planning frameworks aligned with SDGs. However, a persistent implementation gap exists, characterized by weak enforcement of NHRC recommendations, limited institutional capacity at provincial and local levels, structural inequalities (caste, gender, ethnicity, geography), low public rights-awareness, and the decoupling of policy discourse from grassroots development practice. A SWOT analysis reveals that while federalism, international partnerships, and social protection expansion offer opportunities, political instability, corruption, and entrenched discrimination remain significant threats. Conclusion: HRBA in Nepal remains more substantiated in constitutional and policy commitments than in transformative development outcomes. Bridging this formal-substantive divide requires strengthening sub-national governance, institutionalizing rights education, ensuring meaningful participation of marginalized groups, reinforcing accountability mechanisms, and allocating resources to rights-centered sectors. Without sustained political will and institutional reform, HRBA risks becoming rhetorical rather than a instrument for reconfiguring state-citizen power relations. Novelty: This study contributes original value by: (1) providing a comprehensive SWOT analysis situating HRBA within Nepal's post-2015 federal development architecture; (2) critically examining the NHRC's contested efficacy through an implementation-focused lens rather than formal mandate assessment; (3) synthesizing constitutional, planning, and institutional dimensions to expose the structural determinants of the rights-implementation gap; and (4) locating Nepal's HRBA experience within broader Global South debates on the translation of international human rights norms into local development practice.

The research aimed to present children's rights in Islamic law and international conventions, with reference to the stages in which children's rights are declared and protected as comprehensive protection from cradle to adulthood. To achieve the research's objectives and goals, the descriptive-analytical approach and the comparative approach were adopted, given their suitability to the research topic and its context. Several Arab and foreign sources and references were consulted in preparing this research. A number of different conclusions were reached, the most prominent of which are: Islam, with its principles in the field of human rights and childcare, preceded positive legislation and international agreements, which emerged hundreds of years later, confirming in some of their foundations and principles what Islam affirmed long ago. The Universal Declaration of the Rights of the Child is a global achievement by the United Nations in the field of human rights in general, and children's rights in particular. However, this achievement does not mean it is the first of its kind in human history, as some jurists claim. Islam, as the study demonstrates, preceded this declaration and other international human rights conventions by many centuries. The researcher also presented a number of recommendations, the most important of which are: the necessity of continuing research and studies and holding seminars and conferences on the subject of children's rights, as it is an open forum for suggestions and efforts, and strengthening the status of children as persons with full rights in society, which instills in the souls of young people self-confidence and a sense that they are a respected entity whose rights are protected.

ABSTRACT This article contributes a set of concepts to the study of international human rights agreement-making: anti-effectiveness and potency in the residue of power. It suggests that an agreement is anti-effective insofar as its text cannot be either effective or ineffective. I show that the 1985 United Nations General Assembly Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals Who are Not Nationals of the Country in Which They Live (DHRN) is anti-effective. Nonetheless, there is power associated with it. Interrogating the story of the DHRN, this article suggests that it can be seen as what will be called a residue of power, and identifies potency within it. This potency is neither centred around nor located in the final text, but is found behind the scenes of the text. I identify three dimensions to this potency, though there may well be more: potency-in-power-politics, potency-in-ideas, and potency-in-momentum.

Globally, there is a strong trend toward liberalizing safe abortion laws, with Africa leading in expanding legal grounds for safe abortion over the past two decades. Despite this progress, Nigeria still maintains restrictive, century-old abortion laws. Given Nigeria's alarming contribution to maternal deaths and unsafe abortions, this paper examines empirical evidence on the factors influencing abortion policy changes in African countries.The study utilised scoping reviews, which involved a search of databases - Web of Science, Scopus, JSTOR, PubMed - that yielded 8793 records. After screening for relevance, only 14 studies were included in the review, which focused on factors and processes of abortion law liberalisation in African countries. The study found the following factors vital in influencing liberalisation in most African countries: scaling-up awareness through research, medical society engagements, women's movement, the transnational influence of international human rights norms, and multi-stakeholders coalition. Drawing from the lessons of other African countries, liberalising Nigeria's abortion laws and providing accessible safe abortion services can significantly reduce unsafe, illegal abortions. To achieve policy reforms, researchers, advocates, and other stakeholders must strategically navigate Nigeria's murky abortion policy space collectively and strategically.

The regulation of intermediary liability occupies a critical position at the intersection of digital governance, freedom of expression, and international human rights law. As online platforms increasingly mediate public discourse, economic activity, and civic engagement, the legal obligations imposed upon intermediaries have profound implications for democratic participation and access to information. This section examines international human rights standards governing intermediary liability, with particular emphasis on expression rights articulated in global treaties, resolutions and reports of United Nations bodies, UNESCO’s normative guidance, and transnational principles governing digital content and electronic contracts. It further analyses the Manila Principles on Intermediary Liability as a consolidated soft-law framework reflecting global consensus on proportional, rights-respecting intermediary regulation. The study highlights how excessive or vague liability regimes risk producing collateral censorship and chilling effects on lawful speech, while underscoring the need for legal certainty, due process, and judicial oversight. By situating intermediary liability within international human rights jurisprudence, this section provides a normative benchmark against which domestic regulatory frameworks may be assessed and reformed.