Respect For Rights Research Articles

UNO and the Human rights education

Knowledge of rights and freedoms is considered a fundamental tool to guarantee respect for the rights of all. The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has proclaimed it as central to the achievement of the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The UNGA, in 1994, proclaimed the period from 1 January 1995, the UN Decade for Human Rights Education. On 2004, this organ proclaimed the World Programme for Human Rights Education to advance the implementation of human rights education programs in all sectors. UNESCO was a key organiser of this decade. This World Programme seeks to promote a common understanding of the basic principles and methodologies of human rights education. In this programme, education should promote values such as peace, non-discrimination, equality, justice, non-violence, tolerance and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms among all nations. This research aims to describe the goals and background of Human rights education and national and international initiatives in this matter especially the activities of UN in promoting this objective and finally result that Human Rights Education, training and public information are becoming the essentials ingredients to all societies in the world in order to promote and achieve of stable and harmonious relations among communities and to encourage respect and tolerance to those around us and build good citizens for the future.

DEMOCRATIC OBJECTIONS TO STRUCTURAL JUDICIAL REVIEW AND THE JUDICIAL ROLE IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

This article revisits my argument that structural judicial review – judicial review of those provisions of a constitution that establish the basic structure of government and divide power between the constituent parts of a federation – is vulnerable to the objection from democracy and defends that claim against arguments made by Jeffrey Goldsworthy and others. First, I deny that the democratic objection to judicial review can, by virtue of its commitment to respect for rights, be wielded only against rights review: on the contrary, I argue, it applies where judges have the power to interpret and enforce constitutional provisions or principles that are uncertain in their scope and which therefore require judges to make evaluative judgments in the face of reasonable disagreement. Structural judicial review routinely involves judges’ making, or reaffirming, choices of just this kind. Second, I deny that federal judicial review is immune from the objection either because it constitutes only a weak form of judicial review or because judicial review is a necessary attendant of federalism: on the contrary, federal judicial review requires judges to choose between contested conceptions of federalism in a manner not susceptible to legislative revision. In addition, I argue, there are institutional structures that would allow for the resolution of federal disputes without begging the question at the heart of federalism. Finally, I deny that judicial review of legislative procedures, of requirements establishing an independent judiciary, or of federal anti-discrimination norms (categories identified by Goldsworthy) create practically significant exceptions to my claim.

Rethinking humane education

The increase in violence in South African schools, as elsewhere, has been associated with a general ‘decline in moral values’. There have been three different responses that emphasise the decline in religious teaching at schools, the loss of traditional values like ubuntu, communalism and the like; and humankind's increasing alienation from nature. In other words, in terms of teaching and learning initiatives, we should turn to religion, community and the common good and nature (the natural environment and nonhuman animals) in order to feel the force of morality and, consequently, to counteract human violence and cruelty. After critically examining these responses, the present article focusses on the third as the most promising, albeit one that is in need of re-conceptualisation. We need to teach not as if nature mattered but that it matters. Concepts and principles like justice, equality and rights have worked in the past. They have been useful in governing and regulating relations between human individuals. Indeed, it is the recognition of and respect for rights that best exemplifies the transculturality of values. Taking these concepts and principles seriously requires extending and employing them beyond the human realm. This may well be the most reliable way of halting the rapid deterioration of the world. Humane education, insofar as it incorporates guidance in moral reasoning and critical thinking – over and above nurture of appropriate feelings in individuals – and engages both rationality and individual responsibility, consists of transmission as well as in transcendence of our moral and cultural heritage. ‘Decline in moral values’, then, is counteracted by an approach that combines caring with respect for rights, in order to contribute towards erasing what has been called ‘the ultimate evil’, namely human violence and abuse. Environmental education and humane education, so re-conceived, arguably have long-term benefits for both humans and nonhumans.

Watchdog or Lapdog? Media Freedom, Regime Type, and Government Respect for Human Rights

A main justification for press freedom is that free media will act as a watchdog over the government. While we would expect democracies to have free media and autocracies to have government-controlled media, some democracies have government-controlled media, and some autocracies have free media. How this mismatch between regime type and media system influences government behavior is a puzzle worth exploring. One of the most widely criticized government behaviors is the violation of physical integrity rights. The question posed here is, how does media freedom affect government respect for these rights? In this article, I theorize that the relationship between media freedom and government respect for human rights differs, depending on the presence of democratic institutions. The findings support my premise. Specifically, the influence of media freedom on government respect for human rights is negative for the most autocratic regimes and positive for only the most democratic regimes.

Locke and the Challenges of Crisis Government

There is a widely experienced tension between liberal democracy and the ability to confront crises.1 A doctrine of rights asserts that governments may not treat people in whatever way they find most expedient; that governments can and should agree to respect rights, then, implies that less expedient courses of action do not require an abandonment of the fundamental purposes of government. Wherever the ordinary modes of government are perceived to be at odds with these purposes, there the rhetoric of crisis government becomes evocative and so there the problem of crisis government arises. People may disagree what these fundamental purposes are, of course, but this is to recognize that whether a situation constitutes a genuine crisis or not depends in part upon the regime.2 Liberal democracy has an especially difficult time with crises because its justifying doctrine places a respect for rights among the fundamental purposes of government. In a sense liberal democracy is, in its very conception, opposed to crisis gov ernment.3 This opposition does not eliminate the reality of crises, however. The ordi nary modes of government do not become adequate to the pro tection and promotion of a regime's ends simply because that regime has declared its hostility to extraordinary modes. The reality of liberal democracy is that its hostility to crisis govern ment makes crises that much more extraordinary and so makes the rhetoric of crisis government that much more potent. Discomfort with the liberal response to exigency has stimu lated an increased interest in John Locke's doctrine of preroga tive.4 Some scholars worry that the liberal difficulty in dealing with crises will result in the people's abandoning core liberal principles. Others see the fecklessness of some such supposed principles and worry that essential actions will not be taken. Locke affirms both the real necessity for occasional deviations from normality and the importance of not permitting this to change what is normal. All parties can therefore find something in Locke to provide academic and authoritative respectability for their rhetorical positions. This turn to Locke for insight into the problems faced by liberal democracies leads some to seek immediate applica tion to the problem of terrorism. Yet prerogative is integrated into the entire commonwealth. We may call our democratic republic Lockean to the extent that it is designed to address the same problems and to the extent Loches focus is not so much the necessity of prerogative as how to control its excesses. that it embodies Locke's solution to the theologico-political pr blem.5 Our system of government is not, however, the commonwealth. I will leave for another place the translation of Locke's insights regarding the rule of law into the lang age appropriate for American government. In this paper I wish to argue for the inapplicability of argu ments to the debates characteristically arising from our con stit tional sy tem.

Consequentialism and Rights

Consequentialism is often criticized on the grounds that it justifies the gross violation of individual rights in order to bring about the best overall consequences. In this paper I argue that such criticism is mistaken and that consequentialism is able to accommodate respect for rights. Consequentialism does not necessarily demand the violation of rights, if rights are understood in a positive sense as capabilities and the ability to realize important goals, instead of merely the negative demand for noninterference from other moral agents. Moreover, consequentialists do not have to view rights as mere conduits to social utility; they can acknowledge the importance of preserving individual rights while taking into account thesocial context in which rights are to be protected.

The Politics of Labor Reform in Latin America: Between Flexibility and Rights

The progress of economic reform and of democratization has been patchy in Latin America. Some aspects of economic reform such as trade liberalization and, in some countries, privatization and financial sector liberalization have been implemented reasonably well, but others have not, including the important issue of labor reform. Some democratic reforms such as the holding of free and competitive elections are also working well, but social and economic rights remain problematical. Labor reform, which is crucial to economic modernization and to safeguarding the rights of ordinary working men and women, has been characterized by uncertainty, slow progress, and lack of consensus, and its history is littered with government proposals that scarcely move from the drawing board. Decades ago the trade union movement was the focus of much social science research, but in recent years the emphasis has shifted to social movements. Social protest has replaced union strikes as the main arena of confrontation between the people and the government. Yet labor issues are as important now as they were decades ago.Maria Lorena Cook offers the first comprehensive and comparative discussion of the politics of labor reform in a thorough and well-documented, if at times overly detailed, account of attempts at reform in six countries organized into pairs — Argentina and Brazil, Chile and Peru, and Mexico and Bolivia. The logic of the pairing is that labor reform (or lack of it) has been shaped by the context of state corporatism in the first pair, of radical reform in the second pair, and of revolution in the third pair. Her discussion revolves around a number of questions: How can we explain the diversity of processes of reforms and of outcomes? Do international factors have an effect on the process? Will the current emphasis on labor flexibility, which makes employment dependent on market conditions and grants almost unlimited powers to employers to hire and dismiss workers, shift to a new emphasis on the rights of labor?Cook is critical of the way the reform process has unfolded. She argues that where reforms were imposed they were unsustainable: Argentina reversed its flexibility laws in 1998; those in Brazil remained marginal and ineffective; those in Chile did not incorporate respect for rights nor contribute to developing human capital; and those in Peru destroyed labor rights (p. 199). The author makes it admirably clear how labor reform is a highly politicized issue in which vested interests — sometimes of labor but invariably of employers — militate against any consensus on reforms that would benefit the economy and at the same time protect the rights of workers.If the author’s account of various reform projects is at times formidably detailed, this is compensated by an admirable clarity of exposition. She points to the difference between the collective rights of unions — principally to engage in collective bargaining, to defend the closed shop and preserve sector-wide unions — and those of the individual worker, principally the right of compensation in cases of dismissal, of clear and enforceable employment contracts, and the right to decent working conditions. In practice, of course, the two sets of rights may well overlap, but the core of any progressive labor reform must incorporate both sets of rights. But how can this be done while at the same time respecting the rights of society to the abolition of unfair impediments to economic reform? After all, most poor people are not in unions, and in some countries most are not even employed in the formal sector. As the author points out, the degree of informal employment is so high in many countries that there are few enforceable rights of workers, whatever the formal provisions of the law.Some additional contextual material would have been valuable — for example, more attention to the way that the structure of employment has changed over the past two decades, and more attention to the character of the unions (such as how democratic their structure is and how leaders are elected) in the countries under discussion. Readers would be interested in how the author might resolve the initial conundrum of combining respect for the rights of both the unions and the individual workers with the removal of impediments to economic growth resulting from anachronistic labor codes. It may be asking too much, but are there comparative examples outside Latin America where these various elements are held in the right kind of balance? These speculations, however, rest upon the achievement of the author in providing the indispensable guide to the politics of labor reform in recent years.

John Locke and Public Administration

John Locke, whose thought greatly influenced the American founding, makes an important contribution to contemporary public administration theory and to our understanding of the history of American public administration. Locke's theory gives an account of why it is legitimate for public administrators to sometimes perform functions that are legislative or judicial in nature and encourages public administrators to interpret directives from those with greater political authority in light of a respect for rights and the public good. Historically, Locke put his ideas into practice as he helped oversee the administration of the early American colonies and made proposals for administrative reform.

The Sources and Status of Just War Principles

Michael Walzer presents the theory of the just war that he develops in Just and Unjust Wars as a set of principles governing the initiation and conduct of war that are entailed by respect for the moral rights of individuals. I argue in this essay that some of the principles he defends do not and cannot derive from the basic moral rights of individuals and indeed, in some cases, explicitly permit the violation of those rights. I argue, further, that it does not follow, at least in some cases, that the principles are false. Even if some of the principles are not adaptations of a theory of rights to the problems of war, they may still be rational, pragmatic accommodations to epistemic and institutional constraints under which we must now act. Yet I also argue that respect for the rights that Walzer claims that individuals have requires us to try to overcome the epistemic and institutional impediments that restrict us at present. As those impediments are removed, the reasons for acknowledging and following some of the central principles Walzer espouses will diminish and, perhaps, disappear.

World report: events of 2005

Book DetailsHuman Rights Watch. (2012). World report 2012: Events of 2011. New York: Seven Stories Press, 676 pages, paperback, ISBN 9781609803896.Synopsis and EvaluationHuman Rights Watch is one of world's most well known and most active nongovernmental organizations dedicated to protection and promotion of rights all over globe. It monitors state compliance with international rights standards, conducting extensive on site investigations and focusing international attention on situations of severe rights abuses and violations. With divisions in Europe, USA, Americas, Africa, and Asia, organization has various programs with focus on different fields: arms; business and rights; children's rights; health and rights; international justice; lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights; refugees; women's rights; etc. Its main goals are to give voice to those who are oppressed, to most marginalized and neglected, to bring justice and security, holding oppressors accountable for their crimes, laying legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted changes.The 22nd annual World Report summarizes rights conditions and key issues in more than 90 countries and territories worldwide, being outcome of extensive investigative work undertaken in 2011 by Human Rights Watch staff, usually with collaboration and close partnership with domestic rights organizations and advocates (p. 20).The book is divided into five essays, followed by country-specific chapters. In first essay, named Before Arab Spring, Unseen Thaw, Eric Goldstein assesses signs of change which were largely overlooked in Middle East and North Africa region. According to author tended to see mainly authoritarian governments, whose grip was never in doubt, even when they tolerated a controlled pluralism, cautiously independent print media, and a fragile civil society. What we undervalued were rising expectations on demand side, which subsequently fired 2011 upheavals, during which thousands of peaceful demonstrators gave their lives in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Bahrain (p. 25).In next essay, After Fall, Rachel Denber looks retrospectively into USSR's collapse 20 years ago in search of valuable lessons. Next, Benjamin Ward concludes in Europe's Own Human Rights Crisis that while many European officials see Arab Spring as the most thrilling period since fall of Berlin Wall, in Europe itself human rights are in trouble since old continent continuously demonstrates intolerance and discriminatory practices towards migrants and problematic minorities (p. 42).In her essay From Paternalism to Dignity, Shanta Rau Barriga calls for respect of rights of persons with disabilities who are often stripped of most fundamental of all rights - right to make choices about their own lives - under guise of protecting them from challenges of decision-making and living independently (p. …

Reflecting on the Rule of Law: Its Reciprocal Relation with Rights, Legitimacy, and Other Concepts and Institutions

Arguments concerning law and social change call for a relationship between legitimacy, the rule of law, and respect for rights. To the extent that a government is subject to the rule of law, the human and civil rights of its citizens are advanced. When citizens can bring disputes concerning rights to court rather than fight in the streets, the rule of law is enhanced. Respect for rights and the rule of law are likely to make a government more acceptable and hence more legitimate. A basic requirement of legitimacy is that government advance everyone's share of primary social goods, their opportunity to participate in society and hence their basic rights. Rights are not only statements of ideals or entitlements but goals and tools for pursuit of those goals, means for pursuing law reform, advancing the rule of law, and enhancing society's legitimacy.

Pravni položaj državljana trećih zemalja u Evropskoj uniji

The law of the European Communities regulates legal status of individuals pursuant to the goals establishing EC as a regional international organization and in the scope of activities set for achieving those goals. Therefore personal scope of application of the community law relates primarily to the citizens of the Member States. Their legal status has been determined and regulated since the Roman Treaty establishing European Economic Community through the freedom of movement, freedom of residence and freedom of services, and since the Mastricht Treaty on European Union and European Community through the freedom of movement and residence for the citizens of the European Union. The citizens of third countries are not included in the scope of application of the community law rationale personae except in extraordinary circumstances: (1) the capacity of a family member of the citizen of the Member State makes them derivative participant and their status depends on the status of the original participant who is exercising one of the above mentioned freedoms; (2) international agreements on cooperation, association, accession which are concluded between the EC and certain third countries are the sources of the special legal status for the citizens of those countries. Amsterdam Treaty on EC, as a primary source of the community law, establishes for the first time legal basis for adoption of the measures of secondary law in the field of legal status of the citizens of third countries, and in particular: (1) in respect of conditions to enter and reside, issue of visa and resident permits issued by the Member States for the longer period of time; (2) in respect of rights and terms under which the citizens of third countries, who are legal aliens in the Member States, can reside in other Member States. Although those community measures do not prevent Member States to keep or to introduce national measures in these fields they set minimum basis for broadening the number of citizens of third countries who can acquire the status of the community law participant.

Los derechos de los ciudadanos en relación con la salud y la atención sanitaria en Cataluña

Concern for respect for citizens’ rights in matters relating to health and healthcare has been a priority of the health administration since the beginning of the transfer of health powers to Catalonia. To update previous declarations, in July 2002 the Catalan government approved the citizens’ charter of rights and responsibilities concerning health and healthcare as a programmatic declaration. Based on a global vision that goes beyond matters concerning healthcare exclusively, the charter promotes individual autonomy through joint participation in decisions affecting health and strengthens the responsibility that should be demanded in mature democratic societies. For the charter to come fully into force, it is intended to draw up a plan to increase awareness of the rights contained in it among organizations and health professionals, to disseminate knowledge of the charter among users, and to periodically evaluate the degree of respect for rights and responsibilities and their adaptation to citizens with specific characteristics.

Crimes beyond justice? Retributivism and war crimes

For these crimes, no punishment is severe enough. It may well be essential to hang Goring, but it is totally inadequate. That is, this guilt, in contrast to all criminal guilt, oversteps and shatters any and all legal systems. That is the reason why the Nazis in Nuremberg are so smug. --Hannah Arendt (1) What you end up in post-genocide society is not justice. Perhaps we should use another word for it. --Gerald Gahima, Deputy Minister of Justice, Rwanda (2) In recent history, mass atrocities have occurred only at the margins of western experience. Since the end of World War II at least, the worst international crimes have taken place in remote spots like Cambodia, Rwanda, and Yugoslavia, appearing only as ghostly images on CNN and in the pages of Life magazine. This fact has had many consequences for our thinking about the relations between law, justice, and international society. In particular, it has left faith in international law and international criminal proceedings largely unchallenged in much of western consciousness. Increasingly, international criminal tribunals are promoted by diplomats and legal scholars as a means by which victims of horrendous crimes may achieve justice, and states may develop an international order based on a respect for rights. This movement reached a dramatic new phase with the codification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and its entry into force in July 2002 (with 139 signers). However, the development of this novel institution may bring the power as well as the limitations of international criminal justice into public debate again, raising questions that were asked--and largely dropped--at the end of World War II. One such observation was that of Hannah Arendt, quoted above. I take Arendt's comments and her somewhat oblique criticism to be important for understanding the moral foundations of modern war-crimes trials. In my view, she points to a problem that creeps only around the edges of contemporary legal thought, but one which nonetheless requires serious reflection. In particular, her assertion about Nuremberg points to a serious problem for retributivists (like myself), for whom punishment is considered to be a moral response to the crimes that were committed. In essence, if there is no possible equivalence between crime and punishment then, as Arendt asserts, then there is no moral rationale for such trials. Or at least, if this is the case, the retributivist view of punishment is in some deep sense a flawed one. However, this is not just a critique of a particular theory of criminal punishment, a theory that could be easily discarded in favor of another more appropriate one. Rather, Arendt's critique cuts deeper than mere theory. Her insight (shared by Churchill among others) points to a flaw in the central rationale for the nascent international criminal law regime. This legal order (comprising treaties, customs, and moral principles developed over the last sixty years since the international Military Tribunal [IMT] at Nuremberg) has been constructed around a particular philosophical ideal that depends on notions of justice, order, and dignity. It is these values that are the object of Arendt's critique. Thus, if her criticism is a valid one, it would prove devastating for the entire program of international criminal justice. In this essay, I seek to make sense of a retributivist approach to punishment for war crimes in light of Arendt's observation. My argument has several steps. First, I claim that a retributivist theory of punishment is the only approach that can effectively make sense out of the human rights revolution, on one hand, and war-crimes trials, on the other. This is especially true in light of current international criminal law and the newly constructed ICC. Second, I will turn to Arendt's objection, one that I take to be particularly threatening for the retributivist because it attacks this view on its own terms (that is, it offers an internal critique of retributivism). …

Editorial

This issue of Theoria marks a decade of democracy in South Africa. Invited to reflect on the process and challenge of building a modern liberal democracy and on progress towards social justice since 1994, the contributors have responded with detailed and in-depth analyses of a range of pertinent issues, from public institutions, national reform strategies, popular perceptions and moral responsibility to philosophical ideals, educational reforms, political participation and unrepudiated injustices. Beyond apartheid, beyond the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and beyond party politics, greater and more inclusive social justice, if not immediately within reach, is certainly attainable: through the equalization and redistribution of access to resources, through reparations for injustices, through respect for rights and recognition of obligations, through compromise, sympathy, socialization and debate, and through making sense of change, both symbolically and practically. Most of all, justice will be served, and democracy advanced, by promoting, widening and multiplying spaces and opportunities for people to conceptualize and act upon social transformation in new and different ways.

The Law Relating to Burial and Cremation

After some introductory discussion of aspects of the general law relating to succession to property and the administration of deceased estates relevant to burial and cremation, this paper concentrates upon two areas of the law of burial and cremation that are of particular present concern. 1. The Australian legislation, if any, relevant to reuse of graves and the related matter of limited tenure in respect of rights of burial; and 2. Simplification, where possible, of the documentation associated with burial and cremation. be comparatively small and well able to be accommodated within the grant I have already been awarded.

Respect for Human Rights after the End of the Cold War

By directly affecting democratization, globalization, domestic conflict, and interstate conflict, the end of the Cold War was hypothesized to exert an indirect effect on the propensity of governments to respect the human rights of their citizens. The findings for a sample of 79 countries showed that torture, disappearances, and extrajudicial killings continued at about the same rate even after the Cold War ended. However, after the end of the Cold War, there was significant improvement in government respect for the right against political imprisonment. Contrary to expectations, it was found that governments that decreased their involvement in interstate conflict or experienced decreased domestic conflict did not tend to increase respect for the right against political imprisonment. As hypothesized, it was found that governments that became more democratic or increased their participation in the global economy after the end of the Cold War tended to manifest higher levels of respect for the right of their citizens not to be politically imprisoned. However, a closer look at several recent examples of democratization in Africa suggests that any human rights improvements resulting from post-Cold War democratization may be short-lived. In the cases examined, improved government respect for the right against political imprisonment resulted from short-term manipulations by the leaders of `illiberal' or `demonstration' democracies who were not committed to democratization or to the advancement of the human rights of their citizens.

Measuring the Level, Pattern, and Sequence of Government Respect for Physical Integrity Rights

We employ a polychotomous version of Mokken Scaling Analysis to create an improved measure of government respect for a subset of human rights known as physical integrity rights. The scale we produce is shown to be unidimensional, and it contains information about the level, pattern, and sequence of government respect for these rights. No previous measure has explicitly addressed the issue of sequence of government respect for human rights. The sequence, or ordering, of respect for physical integrity rights that we find tells us which rights are more commonly respected (the rights not to be killed or disappeared) and which ones are more commonly violated (the rights not to be imprisoned arbitrarily or tortured). Our findings improve upon previous studies that have assumed unidimensionality and that have made a priori assertions of patterns of respect. They also stand in contrast to McCormick and Mitchell's (1997) claim that government respect for physical integrity rights is necessarily a multidimensional phenomenon.

The Ancient Maori System of Land Tenures

This article is a thesis written for the Jacob University Joseph Scholarship 1913, Victoria University College, Wellington, New Zealand. The author discusses the system of Maori land tenure and finds that the Maori possessed a definite system of land tenure that was universally recognised and almost habitually respected. Even with occasional resistance to the system, those customs were not materially affected, nor did it have any lasting effect on rights in land. The author also finds that "force" was somewhat frequently used as a means of commanding respect for rights in land, thus leading many people to mistakenly believe that "force" constituted the whole of Maori "law" and that their only law was a "Law of the Strong Arm". The author concludes that it remains for us to deal with a few of the ordinary customs under which land was actually held, leaving over the great bulk of these customs for future treatment.

Targeting Irrigation Support to Poor Women and Men

Gendered poverty alleviation is an important aim of many governmental and non-governmental irrigation agencies. This paper argues that the contribution of irrigation agencies to poverty alleviation is optimal if agencies target their support, and vest rights to newly developed irrigated land and water primarily in poor women and men. It is shown that the often-assumed trade-off between poverty alleviation and production growth probably does not exist. Further, agencies themselves play a preponderant role in including or excluding poor women and men in respect of rights in irrigated land and water. This role is especially strong in public irrigation, the focus of this paper. Evidence on the role of public irrigation agencies in allocating irrigated land and water rights is reviewed. Irrigated land is allocated through the site selection of infrastructural intervention, with or without changes in land tenure in the command area. Inclusion and exclusion occur implicitly through three principles of water rights allocation: on the basis of co-investments in infrastructure, on the basis of household composition, and on the basis of type of land rights.