| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
114599
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
International surrogacy arrangements have created paradoxical situations of 'legal orphanhood' where highly desired surrogate babies with multiple parents are not recognized by either the child's country of birth or the country of the child's commissioning parent(s). This article examines the parentage and citizenship status of children born to Indian surrogate mothers and foreign commissioning parent(s). In the absence of comprehensive legislation, Indian courts have struggled to address these fundamental issues of surrogate babies given the differing interests of the parties and countries involved. The rights of surrogate children are addressed only on an ad hoc basis and only after the commissioning parents encounter actual difficulties in taking children to another country. By viewing the rights of the surrogate child as paramount, surrogate children born through surrogacy arrangements in India should have their origins known and documented accurately to preserve their identity. In addition, Indian citizenship should automatically attach at birth to prevent statelessness. Contrary results place the interests of other parties above the rights of the child.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
165138
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This paper examines the location and production of liminality with regard to voting rights of Tibetan exile community in India. Liminality is related here to the legal and bureaucratic ‘inbetweenness’ that characterises and orders the life of the Tibetan exiles in India. Tibetans born in India have been registered as voters in India’s electoral list albeit without an accompanying claim or path to citizenship. The paper argues that these voting rights are simultaneously contested and embraced by the Tibetan exile community. Responses of the exile community to voting rights are produced by the interaction between (a) the lived experience of statelessness and (b) complex constructions of cultural, political and legal identity. Both these factors are fundamentally informed by the liminal space that the exile community inhabits in India.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
154549
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This paper provides a new and original perspective on the plight of migrants in India. It incorporates an in-depth and practical analysis of Indian legal policies through the lens of migrant and refugee rights. In examining the extra-legal provisions operating in two of India's borderland states—Assam and Jammu & Kashmir—I show how special legal exemptions in Indian law inherently undermine efforts to protect migrant rights. I argue that these extraordinary laws hinder pathways to justice in three distinct ways: by circumventing international principles of non-refoulement; challenging the jurisdiction of India's Supreme Court; and delegitimising migrant-friendly laws. In highlighting an often overlooked aspect of migrants’ rights issues, this paper brings the human element of India's regional border disputes and related legal mechanisms to the fore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
185093
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The threat of statelessness has the potential to be realized anew in India with the announcement of the impending National Register of Citizens (NRC). It has propelled this populous democracy once again into controversy. The importance of this announcement in conjunction with the 2019 Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) cannot be overstated. We draw on the case of Assam for its potential to predict the implications and consequences of a pan-national register of citizens and the threat of detention, deportation, and large-scale rendering of statelessness for those excluded from the drafts. We stress the need for India to take incremental steps to establish transparent procedures and a clear trajectory for persons rendered stateless in situ by this state project.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
191613
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
As we approach the eight-year mark in UNHCR’s decade-long commitment to advance the rights of stateless persons, known as the #Ibelong campaign,Footnote1 there is much to celebrate. Statelessness is firmly on the agenda in conversations about forced migration, national security, human development, and the fight to end systemic discrimination. Significant challenges remain, as millions of people are still forced to endure statelessness and some governments continue to persecute stateless populations while denying the fundamental human right to a nationality. But awareness of the problem of statelessness has arguably never been so widespread, while civil society organisations that directly incorporate the voices and experiences of stateless persons surge,Footnote2 and think tanks and academic programs flourish.Footnote3 High quality scholarship on statelessness has increased exponentially,Footnote4 and Dr. Mira Siegelberg has made a tremendously important contribution to this growing body of work with Statelessness: A Modern History.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
090332
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
184066
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article discusses radical democratic citizenship in the context of the ‘Rojava Revolution’, an ongoing society-building effort that emerged in majority Kurdish regions in the context of the Syrian war. It describes aspects of the political vision of Abdullah Öcalan, as interpreted and applied by activists involved in the democratic self-governance system in Rojava (northern Syria), since 2012. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork in the region, the article focuses on the ways in which activists frame their revolution and notions of radical democratic citizenship as consciousness-raising efforts against the state system. Centering the role of educational institutions, it argues that theoretical discussions within the Kurdish freedom movement seek to emancipate political action from state-centric ways of articulating political will, justice demands, and wider geopolitical interests. Lastly, it encourages studying radical democracy efforts by taking seriously the political vocabularies, everyday practices, and long-term perspectives advanced in collective self-organisation from below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|