The Dynamic Impact of Periodic Review on Women’s Rights

Human rights treaty bodies have been frequently criticized as useless and the regime’s self-reporting procedure widely viewed as a whitewash. Yet very little research explores what, if any, influence this periodic review process has on governments’ implementation of and compliance with treaty obligations. We argue oversight committees may play an important role in improving rights on the ground by providing information for international and primarily domestic audiences. This paper examines the cumulative effects on women’s rights of self-reporting and oversight review, using original data on the history of state reporting to and review by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CmEDAW). Using a dynamic approach to study the effects of the periodic review process, we find that self-reporting has a significant positive effect on women’s rights. We explore three clusters of evidence for the domestic mobilization mechanism: information provision through domestic civil society organizations; publicity and critique through the domestic media; and parliamentary attention, debate, and implementation of recommendations. This is the first study to present positive evidence on the effects of self-reporting on rights and to describe the mechanisms that link Geneva bodies with local politics. Our findings challenge the received wisdom that the process of reporting to these treaty bodies is basically useless

Draft bills and research reports on: reducing judicial corruption and child labor in Nepal

These two draft bills and accompanying research report comprise the work of two teams of Nepali officials from Nepal's Ministry of Law and Justice who prepared them in the context of the Boston University School of Law Program on Legislative Drafting for Democratic Social Change. They attended that Program as part of a larger Ministry of Law and Justice Program, funded by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), to strengthen Nepal's legal framework and the Rule of Law. Using the bills and reports as case studies, the four officials aimed to learn legislative theory, methodology and techniques. The Ministry had assigned them, on their return to Nepal, to play a significant role in institutionalizing an on-going learning process to strengthen Nepali drafters' capacity to prepare the effectively implementable legislation necessary to ensure good governance and development

Accreditation Reconsidered

Higher education is one of the most successful sectors in the nation at a time when much of the economy is struggling. Its quality has been buoyed by a long tradition of investment, both public and private, and by a healthy degree of autonomy from governmental control. America’s three governance innovations, citizen governing boards, shared governance, and accreditation, also have encouraged both quality and institutional autonomy in higher education. Accreditation has been a particularly important contributor to the institutional diversity and vitality of American colleges and universities. Most nations have a ministry of education that oversees institutions of higher education. But, such centralized control too often stifles innovation and quality. By contrast, the United States has long relied on private accreditors that use periodic peer assessments to support continuous quality improvement. Legal accreditation at the moment is out of step with most of higher education accreditation because of arbitrary limits placed on the participation of legal educators by the Council of the ABA Section on Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar. It is time for legal education to have a system of accreditation that is grounded on peer assessment, dedicated to improving, and not just assessing, the quality of legal education, and guided by the same peer governance structure that has worked so well for the rest of American higher education

From security to justice? The development of a more justice-oriented approach to the realisation of European minority rights standards

The aim of this article is to reassess the development and consolidation of minority rights in Europe with reference to Kymlicka’s liberal theory of minority rights and to his own critique of the European minority rights framework

Policy-Making in the EU: Achievements, Challenges and Proposals for Reform. CEPS Paperbacks. June 2009

This report is the product of a joint project initiated by the Centre for European Policy Studies and the Swedish Confederation of Enterprise. Three expert groups of academics, policy-makers, business representatives and other stakeholders were formed to analyse the major issues and challenges facing the European Union today and to put forward recommendations for reform that can realistically be implemented in the short and medium term. The expert groups focused on EU Decision-Making, Better Regulation and Implementation & Subsidiarity

Study of Fundamental Rights Limitations for Online Enforcement through Self-Regulation

The use of self-regulatory or privatized enforcement measures in the online environment can give rise to various legal issues that affect the fundamental rights of internet users. First, privatized enforcement by internet services, without state involvement, can interfere with the effective exercise of fundamental rights by internet users. Such interference may, on occasion, be disproportionate, but there are legal complexities involved in determining the precise circumstances in which this is the case. This is because, for instance, the private entities can themselves claim protection under the fundamental rights framework (e.g. the protection of property and the freedom to conduct business). Second, the role of public authorities in the development of self-regulation in view of certain public policy objectives can become problematic, but has to be carefully assessed. The fundamental rights framework puts limitations on government regulation that interferes with fundamental rights. Essentially, such limitations involve the (negative) obligation for States not to interfere with fundamental rights. Interferences have to be prescribed by law, pursue a legitimate aim and be necessary in a democratic society. At the same time, however, States are also under the (positive) obligation to take active measures in order to ensure the effective exercise of fundamental rights. In other words, States must do more than simply refrain from interference. These positive obligations are of specific interest in the context of private ordering impact on fundamental rights, but tend to be abstract and hard to operationalize in specific legal constellations. This study’s central research question is: What legal limitations follow from the fundamental rights framework for self-regulation and privatized enforcement online? It examines the circumstances in which State responsibility can be engaged as a result of selfregulation or privatized enforcement online. Part I of the study provides an overview and analysis of the relevant elements in the European and international fundamental rights framework that place limitations on privatized enforcement. Part II gives an assessment of specific instances of self-regulation or other instances of privatized enforcement in light of these elements