Human Rights and the Pink Tide in Latin America: Which Rights Matter?

Latin America witnessed the election of ‘new Left’ governments in the early 21^st century that, in different ways, sought to open a debate about alternatives to paradigms of neoliberal development. What has this meant for the way that human rights are understood and for patterns of human rights compliance? Using qualitative and quantitative evidence, this article discusses how human rights are imagined and the compliance records of new Left governments through the lens of the three ‘generations’ of human rights — political and civil, social and economic, and cultural and environmental rights. The authors draw in particular on evidence from Andean countries and the Southern Cone. While basic civil and individual liberties are still far from guaranteed, especially in the Andean region, new Left countries show better overall performances in relation to socio‐economic rights compared to the past and to other Latin American countries. All new Left governments also demonstrate an increasing interest in ‘third generation’ (cultural and environmental) rights, though this is especially marked in the Andean Left. The authors discuss the tensions around interpretations and categories of human rights, reflect on the stagnation of first generation rights and note the difficulties associated with translating second and third generation rights into policy.     

Human Rights and Multinationals: Is there a Problem?

In recent years interested individuals and pressure groups have expressed considerable concern over the alleged complicity of multinational enterprises (MNEs) in violations of human rights. While such allegations are not historically unprecedented, the context in which they arise has changed. In particular, the increased integration of the global economy has created a perception that MNEs should take more responsibility for the social dimension of their actions, a perception that enterprises themselves have in part accepted through inter alia the issuing codes of corporate conduct. Furthermore, the rise of identity and lifestyle politics has made MNEs, as purveyors of products and services that help to define consumer lifestyles, a target of concern. These changes have significant implications for the evolution of human rights theory. In particular, they require a shift in the traditional view that corporations can only be victims of violations of human rights committed by states, towards one that extends responsibility for the commission, prevention and avoidance of such violations to MNEs themselves. On the other hand, there exist strong arguments against such an extension of human rights responsibilities. In particular, it is said that MNEs should only be responsible for the conduct of their business and should not be forced to involve themselves in such wider social issues. They are also private law entities and so should not possess the same responsibilities as states. This articles posits that such arguments in favour of extension, though strong and likely to remain influential, cannot answer the need for an extension of responsibility for human rights violations to MNEs where appropriate, on the basis that any attack on human dignity, whatever that legal nature and functions of its originator, must be liable to legal sanction. The technical legal means by which this might be done are considered. None the less, the article ends with a caution that any extension of human rights responsibilities to MNEs must not be allowed to deflect attention from the primary responsibility of states, as the most likely perpetrators of human rights violations, to avoid human rights violations on their own part and to establish a legal order in which the risk of such violations committed by private entities can be minimized, whether through effective national regulatory laws or international agreements on standards of corporate conduct.     

A Human Rights "Soul" for a Secular World of "Faiths": A Contradiction,or Just a Paradox?

Abstract

The critically important role of groups associated with the infant World Council of Churches in the process of introducing ‘human rights’ into the post-World War II international order, and then helping to define them in the Universal Declaration (1948), has been forgotten. It was asserted in those years that (at any rate Christian) faith is properly concerned with the inter-dependence of healthy religion and religiously neutral human-rights institutions. The principle was advanced, not only by Christians, that this conviction could be held in good conscience by any of the world-faiths. To open educational windows would increase knowledge of the beliefs of ‘the other’, and foster both self-criticism and mutual respect. This vision has been only very partially realised. Now, many difficult public issues spring from claims made by religious traditions, and many religious groups have rejected ‘universal’ human rights as a threat. This paper argues that the mutuality of religious faith and human rights needs to be re-enterprised urgently—and not only by elites—for the health of both and for the sake of containing violence. This is not a responsibility to which political authority—however religiously neutral—can or should remain indifferent.     

Who Has the Rights to Talk About the Human——Rights of Tibetans

At present, Tibetan human rights are a hot topic amongst some people right around the world. On the face of it they sound plausible. But as a matter of fact, they have absolutely no idea of what “Old Tibet” （referring to the time before the peaceful liberation in 1951） was really like, how the Tibetan slaves/serfs lived in old Tibet and how they survived in an appalling lack of numan rights in those days.     

Introduction: Women's Rights as Human Rights: Global Contestations over the Longue Durée

This short essay introduces the forum on ‛Women's Rights as Human Rights: Global Contestations over the Longue Durée’. It briefly outlines the state of the field, a new agenda for research in the area and the topics of the articles in the forum. The forum derives from a symposium on the same topic sponsored by Gender & History and held at the University of Sheffield in spring 2022.     

Parties,Governments and Pollsters: A New Form of Patronage?

In its first term, the Howard government hired Australasian Research Strategies (ARS), headed by pollster Mark Textor, to conduct market research for several Commonwealth departments and agencies. This was, the Labor Opposition claimed, a case of the Liberals handing jobs to their 'mates'. Textor played a key role in the Liberals' 1996 and 1998 federal election campaigns. However, Labor's attack rings hollow since in the 1980s the Hawke government similarly contracted Rod Cameron's ANOP to conduct opinion research for Commonwealth departments and agencies. At the time Cameron was Labor's strategic pollster and centrally involved in planning Labor election campaigns. On both sides of Australian politics, governments have begun to channel patronage towards their party's pollsters. In this research note, we suggest that this development cannot be explained as 'jobs for the boys'. Instead, this new form of patronage has its roots in the vital role that pollsters now play in guiding election campaigns, and in the commercial reality that Australian politics provides too little work to sustain specialist political pollsters. Parties in government now appear to utilise incumbency to sustain an ongoing relationship with the commercial polling organisations like ANOP and ARS to whom they will entrust much of the planning of their campaign for re-election.     

High Court Review 2010: The Resurgence of Rights?

In 2010 the High Court delivered several judgments with potentially significant implications for the protection of human rights in Australia. It invoked the doctrine of the implied constitutional freedom of communication in Aid/Watch; found that offshore processing of asylum seekers must comply with procedural fairness and natural justice; invalidated elements of the SA government's control order scheme as it encroached on the independence of the judiciary; and invalidated amendments to electoral laws that shortened the period for enrolment. In this review we evaluate the implications of these decisions in the wider context of the protection of human rights in Australia. We argue that while these decisions have made an important contribution to restating the boundaries of rights protection, there are significant limitations in relying on judicial review as a mechanism of rights protection within the Australian constitutional framework.     

A New Standard of Review: Craig v. Boren and Brennan's “Heightened Scrutiny” Test in Historical Perspective

“To withstand constitutional challenge, previous cases establish that classifications by gender must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to achievement of those objectives.” ¹ With this one statement, Justice William Brennan, Jr., writing for the majority in the 1976 Supreme Court case Craig v. Boren, ² both reversed the decision of the district court below and—more importantly—redefined the legal standard for equal protection in gender-discrimination cases. Brennan's statement encapsulated decades' worth of development and decisions under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which bars states from denying “to any person within [their] jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” ³ by creating what is now referred to as the “heightened scrutiny” ⁴ standard for judging equal protection legislation. Yet Brennan's creation of a new standard is quite striking, even when looked at in hindsight. How was Brennan able to create this standard of review, and where did it come from? Was this new step taken by the Justices under equal protection adjudication a mistake, or a necessary reality of the period? Through a close analysis of both the history of the Equal Protection Clause in its relation to gender legislation and the history of feminism during the 1960s and 1970s, the inevitability of Brennan's decision becomes clear. In fact, the creation of the heightened scrutiny standard was an inevitable outgrowth of two separate, yet fundamentally related progressions: the steps taken in the Court in its review of gender-discrimination cases in the years prior to Craig v. Boren; and the changes in society's relation to the feminist movement in the pre-1973 and post-1973 periods.     

1948 and All That: A New Chronology for the History of Palestine?

DEREK J. PENSLAR. The Engineering of Jewish Settlement in Palestine, 1870–1918. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991. Pp. xiv, 210. $25.00 (us).

JACOB BARNAI. The Jews in Palestine in the Eighteenth Century: Under the Patronage of the Istanbul Committee of Officials for Palestine, trans. Naomi Goldblum. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1992. Pp. xi, 305. $39.95 (us).

BARUCH KIMMERLING and JOEL S. MIGDAL. Palestinians: The Making of a People. New York: Free Press (Macmillan), 1993. Pp. xix, 396. $29.95 (us).

MAYIR VERETÉ. From Palmerston to Balfour: Collected Essays of Mayir Vereté, ed. Norman Rose. London: Frank Cass, 1992. Pp. xiv, 233. £28.00.

ISSA KHALAF. Politics in Palestine: Arab Factionalism and Social Disintegration, 1939–1948. Albany: State University Press of New York, 1991. Pp. xix, 318. $19.95 (us).

ANITA SHAPIRA. Land and Power: The Zionist Resort to Force, 1881–1948, trans. William Templer. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. Pp. x, 446. $59.00 (CDN).     

‘How Time Flies’: Celebrating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 1960s

Recent histories of human rights have identified the 1970s as the most decisive epoch in the birth of the modern rights era. These works have tended toward a parenthetic dismissal of the period 1948–70 as years of interregnum, of marginal impact to the ‘breakthrough’ moment which followed. This article argues for a more complex periodisation, and reclaims the importance of the 1960s. Far from an undifferentiated abyss, the two decades between the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the 1968 International Human Rights Year held their own shifts, integral to the evolution of modern human rights. A crucial transition in the status of the UDHR occurred across the mid-1960s, roughly aligned with the terminal years of liberal post-colonialism. Through a comparison of two hitherto neglected events in the history of human rights, the fifteenth and twentieth anniversary commemorations of the UDHR, in December 1963 and 1968, this article traces the trajectory of that transition. These commemorations, concentrated moments of explicit reflection on the meaning of human rights, encapsulated the gulf between the early and the late 1960s. In the space of five years, any vestigial consensus on the vision enunciated in 1948 was obliterated.