Comics and human rights: an interview with the team behind Sogi’s Story

Professor Andrea Durbach is Director of the Australian Human Rights Centre in the Faculty of Law at UNSW, where she co­-directs projects on health and human rights, and transformative reparations and gender violence post-conflict. Andrea was Deputy Sex Discrimination Commissioner at the Australian Human Rights Commission in 2011-2012. Jed Horner is a Project Director on health, sexual orientation and human rights at the Australian Human Rights Centre and a PhD candidate at UNSW. Previously, he worked as an external advisor to the New Zealand Human Rights Commission and Office of the Children’s Commissioner (Young Peoples Reference Group). Interview conducted by Andrew Small (@_ansmall), Lead Editor of the LSE Human Rights Blog

Public interest litigation: making the case in Australia

Litigation is widely and appropriately recognised as an important component of the public interest advocacy \u27toolkit\u27. Yet, little attention has been paid in Australian research and scholarship to an important question: under what circumstances is public interest litigation (PIL) an effective way to bring about progressive social change? Informed by a review of the international literature on PIL, the authors of this article argue for the importance of drawing on Australia\u27s rich history with PIL to develop a solid empirical evidence base which can inform future decision about the strategic employment of PIL in campaigns to address the concerns and needs of disadvantaged and marginalised sections of Australian society

The Staging of the Hidden: Interrogating an Ambivalent Response to a Crime Against Humanity

In December 2018, a former member of a white supremacist group and perpetrator of a violent crime, Stefaans Coetzee participated in a panel discussion at a reconciliation conference in South Africa. In 1996, Coetzee was a key executioner of a bombing which killed four people and injured 67. After pleading guilty, Coetzee was sentenced to 40 years in jail and 20 years later, he was released on parole. Thirty years earlier, 25 black South Africans were convicted of the “necklace” murder of a black policeman. Fourteen of the 25 were sentenced to death. On appeal, a majority of the murder convictions were overturned and all the death sentences commuted. Drawing on these two cases, this essay explores contrasting responses to engaging with perpetrators of political violence through the lens of implication. It examines the shifting boundaries of legitimacy in the realm of political crime and analyses the underlying influences and imperatives of accountability for crimes against humanity committed under apartheid and in a nascent post-conflict state

Human rights in the lucky country. by Andrea Durbach

Raised and educated in the `rights vacuum' of South Africa, Andrea Durbach has a unique perspective on Australia's attitude to human rights

Evaluation of the alignment of policies and practices for state-sponsored educational initiatives for sustainable health workforce solutions in selected Southern African countries: a protocol, multimethods study

Introduction Health systems across the world are facing challenges with shortages and maldistribution of skilled health professionals. Return-of-service (ROS) initiatives are government-funded strategies used to educate health professionals by contracting beneficiaries to undertake government work on a year-for-year basis after their qualification. It is envisaged that once they have served their contract, they will be attracted to serve in the same area or government establishment beyond the duration of their obligatory period. Little is known about the processes that led to the development and implementation of ROS policies. Furthermore, there is no systematic evaluation of the strategies that demonstrate their utility. This research aims to evaluate the ROS initiatives, explore their efficacy and sustainability in five Southern African countries.Methods and analysis This study will be conducted in South Africa, Eswatini, Lesotho, Botswana and Namibia in a phased approach through a multimethods approach of policy reviews, quantitative and qualitative research. First, a review will be conducted to explore current ROS schemes. Second, a quantitative retrospective cohort study of ROS scheme recipients for the period 2000–2010 will be undertaken. Information will be sourced from multiple provincial or national information systems and/or databases. Third, we will conduct semistructured group or individual interviews with senior health, education, ROS managing agency managers (where appropriate) and finance managers and/policy makers in each country to determine managers’ perceptions, challenges and the costs and benefits of these schemes. Fourth, we will interview or conduct group discussions with health professional regulatory bodies to assess their willingness to collaborate with ROS initiative funders.Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval for this study was obtained through the Human Research Ethics Committees of the University of New South Wales (HC200519), Australia; South Africa and Lesotho (065/2020); Eswatini (SHR302/2020); Namibia (SK001); and Botswana (HPDME 13/18/1). Relevant findings will be shared through presentations to participating governments, publications in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at relevant conferences

Implementing Human rights in the Pacific through the work of national human rights institutions: The experience of Fiji

This article discusses the experience of the Fijian Human Rights Commission as an illustration of some of the challenges Pacific nations may face in achieving an independent and effective human rights institution in a complex and sometimes volatile socio-political context. The article argues that the presence of a supportive regional network of national human rights institutions is essential to creating and maintaining independent and effective national institutions

Testing the mettle of national human rights institutions: A case study of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia

In April 2008, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) was informed of the possible downgrading of its “A” status within the UN system, due to its apparent failure to comply with the Paris Principles relating to the status of national human rights institutions. This article explores this threat to downgrade SUHAKAM and the actions which it stimulated on the part of the Malaysian government and SUHAKAM itself. It argues that despite expectations by government and civil society at the time of its establishment, SUHAKAM has directly challenged government on major human rights issues on a number of occasions. At the same time, it has had difficulty persuading government to give effect to its recommendations and has as a consequence drawn strong criticism from civil society for failing to protect human rights that are within the government’s power to rectify