| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
142237
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article examines under what conditions benchmarking and associated measurement initiatives produced by UN human rights actors could, and should, play a role in promoting compliance with international human rights norms. It is organised around a comparative analysis of UN benchmarking initiatives for states and corporations. With regard to states, the article argues that ideological misgivings and technical limitations have so far triumphed over aspirations that indicators and benchmarks might play a significant role in increasing compliance with international human rights norms. With regard to corporations, we find that measuring human rights performance has been framed by the recent UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights using a much more expansive and less quantitative set of benchmarks. These latter benchmarks do not appear to be creating conditions under which the human rights performance of corporations is effectively interrogated, and as a result there is a danger of superficial legitimation. Comparative analysis of these two initiatives reveals some of the tensions inherent in utilising benchmarking in transnational efforts to achieve human rights compliance. It also allows us to contribute to broader debates about the quantification of performance and its potential and limitations as a tool of global governance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
187527
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article examines how the ‘health security’ paradigm positions health-related human rights as subordinate to national security concerns. As a consequence, health is viewed instrumentally, shifting the global health response towards maintaining national security rather than upholding human rights. We trace here how both the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Security Council have approached global health crises, evolving across infectious disease responses to HIV/AIDS, SARS, Ebola and COVID-19. While the Security Council has come to address human rights in select public health contexts, we see that the securitisation of human rights in times of crisis can pose severe limits on individual rights, failing to develop global health solidarity through a commitment to broader health objectives such as Universal Health Coverage. We conclude that the Security Council and the WHO should collaborate towards a rights-based response to COVID-19 that prioritises individual human rights alongside national security concerns, addressing underlying inequities in the global response to infectious disease.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|