4,902 research outputs found
Monitoring sanitation and hygiene in the 2030 agenda for sustainable development: A review through the lens of human rights
International monitoring of drinking water and sanitation has been jointly carried out by WHO and UNICEF through their Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP). With the end of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) era in 2015, the JMP has proposed a post-2015 framework for integrated monitoring of water and sanitation targets included in the Sustainable Development Goal no. 6. This article discusses how each element of the proposed sanitation target and corresponding indicators can be understood from a human rights perspective. Building on the MDGs, and although some of the weaknesses and gaps persist, the discussion suggests that the post-2015 proposal is a step forward towards a monitoring framework where human rights elements related to sanitation are effectively promoted. In addition, to support the interpretation and implementation of the normative content of human rights obligations related to sanitation, the study proposes a reduced set of easy-to-assess indicators to measure the normative criteria of this right, which are then grouped in a multidimensional framework to describe increasing levels of sanitation service. To do this, the study combines literature review and specific local experience from three case studies. It is shown that the proposed monitoring tools, namely the indicators and the multidimensional indicator framework, provide guidance on monitoring the human right to sanitation. In doing so, they might ultimately help sector stakeholders in the realization of this right.Peer ReviewedPostprint (published version
Tapped Out: Threats to the Human Right to Water in the Urban United States
In the United States today, the goal of universal water service is slipping out of reach. Water costs are rising across the country, forcing many individuals to forgo running water or sanitation, or to sacrifice other essential human rights. The fixed costs of water systems have increased in recent years, driven in part by underinvestment in infrastructure. In many cities, this has been exacerbated by population shifts and the economic downturn. In this era of increasing costs and limited financial resources, water providers struggle to balance the competing priorities of modernization and universal access. This report, researched and written by students of Georgetown Law’s Human Rights Institute in the winter of 2013, details the causes, effects, and solutions to the affordability crisis affecting water in the urban United States
Under the Radar: Muslims Deported, Detained, and Denied on Unsubstantiated Terrorism Allegations
Through the targeted use of a wide set of immigration and law enforcement policies and actions, the U.S. government has cast Muslims as dangerous threats to national security, leaving Muslim communities across the United States vulnerable to discrimination and discriminatory profiling. This Briefing Paper by the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice (CHRGJ) and the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF) documents the U.S. government's deployment of lower evidentiary standards and lack of due process guarantees in the immigration system against Muslims to further marginalize this targeted group in the name of national security and counterterrorism. A number of particular immigration programs and practices -- such as the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS),the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) name-check system in the naturalization process, and racial profiling at U.S. borders have received critical attention for their discriminatory impacts on Muslim communities. This Briefing Paper draws on interviews with immigration and criminal defense attorneys and community-based groups, court documents, and media accounts to identify five key under-documented patterns of government practices that appear to be targeting Muslim communities through the immigration system
The Future of Freedom of Expression Online
Should social media companies ban Holocaust denial from their platforms? What about conspiracy theorists that spew hate? Does good corporate citizenship mean platforms should remove offensive speech or tolerate it? The content moderation rules that companies develop to govern speech on their platforms will have significant implications for the future of freedom of expression. Given that the prospects for compelling platforms to respect users’ free speech rights are bleak within the U.S. system, what can be done to protect this important right? In June 2018, the United Nations’ top expert for freedom of expression called on companies to align their speech codes with standards embodied in international human rights law, particularly the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). After the controversy over de-platforming Alex Jones in August 2018, Twitter’s CEO agreed that his company should root its values in international human rights law and Facebook referenced this body of law in discussing its content moderation policies. This is the first article to explore what companies would need to do to align the substantive restrictions in their speech codes with Article 19 of the ICCPR, which is the key international standard for protecting freedom of expression. In order to examine this issue in a concrete way, this Article assesses whether Twitter’s hate speech rules would need to be modified. This Article also evaluates potential benefits of and concerns with aligning corporate speech codes with this international standard. This Article concludes it would be both feasible and desirable for companies to ground their speech codes in this standard; however, further multi-stakeholder discussions would be helpful to clarify certain issues that arise in translating international human rights law into a corporate context
Human Rights Accountability Through Treaty Bodies: Examining Human Rights Treaty Monitoring for Water and Sanitation
Framing scholarship on human rights accountability through treaty bodies, this article examines the water and sanitation content of state human rights reporting to the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. In this novel application of analytic coding methods to state human rights reports, the authors trace the relationship between human rights advancements on water and sanitation and treaty body monitoring of water and sanitation systems. These results raise an imperative for universal human rights indicators on the rights to water and sanitation, providing an empirical basis to develop universal indicators that would streamline reporting to human rights treaty bodies, facilitate monitoring of state reports, and ensure accountability for human rights implementation
Recommended from our members
Abortion as a Human Right in the United States: Exploring the Role of CEDAW Cities in Challenging the Hyde Amendment
Women’s sexual and reproductive rights are foundational to gender equality. Having access to abortion care is fundamental to the full realization of a woman’s human rights. Anti-choice advocates consistently and successfully separate abortion from other basic health care that women need. At the same time, activists for gender equality often shy away from advocating for abortion care as part of their women’s rights agenda because of the political stigma that is associated with abortion. Although abortion is legal in the United States, anti-choice groups and conservative lawmakers have been successful in restricting the right to an abortion, particularly through legislation like the Hyde Amendment, which bans federal funds from covering abortion care for low-income women insured by the Medicaid program. U.S. constitutional law has upheld restrictions on abortion care, leaving a large portion of reproductive age women without the ability to exercise their constitutional right to an abortion. In contrast, international human rights mechanisms have had an impact on liberalizing national abortion laws by requiring that governments take affirmative action to ensure that women can access safe abortion care as a fundamental human right. While the international community is advancing abortion as a human right, several cities have aligned themselves with an international human rights framework by adopting the principles of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), an international women’s rights treaty that the U.S. has refused to ratify at the federal level. This research aimed to discover how these cities could utilize this human rights framework to advance abortion as a human right in their communities, particularly in states that follow the federal Hyde Amendment restrictions on abortion. The research was conducted through qualitative semi-structured interviews with local activists working to pass and implement CEDAW resolutions and ordinances, people working on the Cities for CEDAW (C4C) campaign, reproductive rights professionals, and a local abortion fund. This thesis found that framing reproductive health as a human right is a paradigm shift toward destigmatizing abortion. This thesis concludes that the local CEDAW resolutions and ordinances have the power to influence state policies involving abortion. Furthermore, local CEDAW activists can instigate a political shift by embracing and utilizing the jurisprudence, General Comments, and Concluding Observations identified by the United Nations CEDAW Committee regarding abortion as a human right. The negative human rights impact of the Hyde Amendment, although law of the land, can be challenged by activists through advocacy around passing and implementing local CEDAW ordinances and resolutions
Human Rights Crisis: Abortion in the United States After Dobbs
Following the United States (US) Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization in June 2022, people in the US who can become pregnant are facing an unprecedented human rights crisis. In Dobbs, the Supreme Court overturned the constitutionally protected right to access abortion, leaving the question of whether and how to regulate abortion to individual states. Approximately 22 million women and girls of reproductive age in the US now live in states where abortion access is heavily restricted, and often totally inaccessible. This briefing paper details the intensifying human rights emergency caused by the decision, and discusses the ways that Dobbs contravenes the US' international human rights obligations.Part II of this briefing paper outlines the consequences of Dobbs on the fundamental human rights of women and girls, as well as the disproportionate impact it has on certain demographics made vulnerable by systemic oppressions. This factual summary includes input from physicians in various states as part of fact-gathering efforts conducted by a number of organizations involved in this submission. Part III discusses the ways in which Dobbs contravenes the US' international obligations. Part IV sets forth our Conclusion and Calls to Action
The Only People It Really Affects Are the People It Hurts: The Human Rights Consequences of Parental Notice of Abortion in Illinois
Illinois' Parental Notice of Abortion Act (PNA), in effect since 2013, requires a healthcare provider to notify an "adult family member" of any patient under 18 at least 48 hours in advance of providing an abortion. Under the law, only a parent, grandparent, step-parent living in the home, or other legal guardian over the age of 21 qualifies as an adult family member who may be notified. Young people who wish to obtain an abortion without notifying one of these qualifying adult family members can go through an alternative "judicial bypass" process to demonstrate to a judge that they are 1) sufficiently mature and well enough informed to make an abortion decision without parental involvement, and/or that 2) parental involvement is not in their best interests.This report, a collaboration between Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Illinois, examines the harmful consequences of Illinois' parental notification law. Based on in-depth interviews conducted with 37 people, as well as analysis of data and other information collected by the ACLU of Illinois between 2017 and 2020 about young people pursuing the judicial bypass process, the report shows that PNA undermines the safety, health, and dignity of young people under 18, whether they elect to notify a qualifying adult family member or to go through judicial bypass. Human rights experts have consistently called for the removal of barriers that deny access to safe and legal abortion and have commented specifically on parental involvement requirements posing a barrier to abortion care. This report includes a detailed analysis of international human rights law and concludes that PNA violates a range of human rights, including young people's rights to health, to be heard, to privacy and confidentiality of health services and information, to nondiscrimination and equality, to decide the number and spacing of children, and to be free from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
- …