| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
190824
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This first pan-regional analysis of civil society organizations’ perspectives on the contemporary situation of human rights defenders (HRDs) in the Commonwealth of Independent States uses United Nations’ Universal Periodic Review (UPR) data and reveals a shrinking civil space as HRDs face a raft of rights pathologies, including threats, violence and murder. Their work is curtailed by increasing state restrictions on freedom of association and expression. The analysis reveals how women HRDs are particularly subject to discrimination and gender-based oppression. The malaise is compounded by impunity for offenders, corruption and government inaction following earlier UPR recommendations. The findings are theorized with reference to Weissbrodt’s causal typology and Hollyer and Rosendorf’s model of authoritarian government treaty accession.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
116554
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Attacks against media professionals and human rights defenders do not only harm the individual victim but the whole society. In the system of the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), the issue of the legal protection of these groups of individuals has essentially been equated with the protection of the main civil forces which influence domestically the achievement of the democratic values and objectives that are enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In the supervision of a State's compliance with the treaty, the HRC builds on and expands its existing jurisprudence on violence against the individual by increasingly developing and improving a multilevel framework of the State's obligations that extend to critical procedural safeguards. Given the stakes involved, the legal protection of media professionals and human rights defenders has become a key case-study of effectiveness and rigour of every international law system of human rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
171838
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Research suggests that civil society mobilization together with the ratification of human rights treaties put pressure on governments to improve their human rights practices. An unexplored theoretical implication is that pressure provokes counterpressure. Instead of improving treaty compliance, some governments will have an interest in demobilizing civil society to silence their critics. Yet we do not know how and to what extent this incentive shapes governments’ policies and practices regarding civil society organizations. In this article we argue and show—using a new global database of government-sponsored restrictions on civil society organizations—that when governments have committed to human rights treaties and, at the same time, continue to commit severe human rights abuses, they impose restrictions on civil society groups to avoid monitoring and mitigate the international costs of abuses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|