How 'universal' is the United Nations' Universal Periodic Review process? An examination of the discussions held on polygamy

In 2006, United Nations Human Rights Council was tasked to establish a new human rights monitoring mechanism: Universal Periodic Review process. The primary aim of this process is to promote and protect the universality of all human rights issues and concerns via a dialogical peer review process. The aim of this investigation isto ask the following question: has this claim of promoting and protecting the universality of the human rights been met, or challenged, during state reviews in the UPR process? The issue of polygamy has been selected as the focus for this investigation to be used, primarily, as a tool to undertake an in-depth analysis of the discussions held during state reviews in the review process. In addition, this paper will employ scholarly debates between universalism and cultural relativism, as well as the sophisticated and nuanced approaches that fall in between the polarised opposites, to analyse the discussions held on human rights during state reviews. Ultimately, the findings and discussion of this investigation will provide a unique and valuable insight to the work and operation of the UPR process, so far

'Issues of equity are also issues of rights': Lessons from experiences in Southern Africa

BACKGROUND: Human rights approaches to health have been criticized as antithetical to equity, principally because they are seen to prioritise rights of individuals at the expense of the interests of groups, a core tenet of public health. The objective of this study was to identify how human rights approaches can promote health equity. METHODS: The Network on Equity in Health in Southern Africa undertook an exploration of three regional case studies – antiretroviral access, patient rights charters and civic organization for health. A combination of archival reviews and stakeholder interviews were complemented with a literature review to provide a theoretical framework for the empirical evidence. RESULTS: Critical success factors for equity are the importance of rights approaches addressing the full spectrum from civil and political, through to socio-economic rights, as well as the need to locate rights in a group context. Human rights approaches succeed in achieving health equity when coupled with community engagement in ways that reinforce community capacity, particularly when strengthening the collective agency of its most vulnerable groups. Additionally, human rights approaches provide opportunities for mobilising resources outside the health sector, and must aim to address the public-private divide at local, national and international levels. CONCLUSION: Where it is clear that rights approaches are predicated upon understanding the need to prioritize vulnerable groups and where the way rights are operationalised recognizes the role of agency on the part of those most affected in realising their socio-economic rights, human rights approaches appear to offer powerful tools to support social justice and health equity

Towards Customary Legal Empowerment

Rule of Law and Development: Formation, Implementation and Improvement of Law and Governance in Developing Countrie