Are Rights a Reality? Evaluating Federal Civil Rights Enforcement

This comment draws upon prior submissions to UN human rights experts, and past resources and scholarship, as well as independent research conducted by the Columbia Law School Human Rights Institute, in partnership with state and local actors, including a 2018 survey of IAOHRA member agencies

Federal Outreach and Mechanisms to Ensure Human Rights Implementation and the Federal, State and Local Levels

The United States has repeatedly affirmed that state and local governments are vital to comprehensive human rights implementation within and throughout the country. During the 2010 UPR, the Legal Adviser to the U.S. State Department emphasized that “the best human rights implementation combines overlapping enforcement by ... the federal government working together with state and local partners.” Indeed, state and local authorities are on the front lines of addressing key human rights issues, including housing, employment, criminal justice and education. This includes the over 150 state and local civil and human rights agencies that enforce federal, state and local human and civil rights laws and/or conduct research, training and education, and issue policy recommendations within the United States (“Human Rights Agencies”). It also encompasses the full array of state and local officials with decision-making and enforcement authority, including governors, state attorneys general, mayors, state legislators, city council members, law enforcement, city, county and town executives, and boards of supervisors

The Need for Comprehensive Federal Outreach and Mechanisms to Support State and Local Implementation of the Convention

Compliance with the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) requires effective federal coordination with, and education of, state and local governments. In ratifying the CAT, the United States indicated that state and local governments share authority to implement the treaty. This includes the over 150 state and local civil and human rights agencies that enforce federal, state and local human and civil rights laws and/or conduct research, training and education, and issue policy recommendations within the United States (“Human Rights Agencies”). It also includes the full array of state and local officials with decision-making and enforcement authority, including governors, state attorneys general, mayors, state legislators, city council members, law enforcement, city, county and town executives, and boards of supervisors. Together these state and local authorities are on the front lines of addressing key human rights concerns raised by this Committee, including criminal justice issues, school discipline and sexual violence

2018 IAOHRA Gender Equity Toolkit

Human rights provide a valuable tool for assessing and advancing women’s human rights; proactively identifying and changing the laws, policies, and practices that perpetuate inequality; addressing the stereotypes and beliefs that underlie gender discrimination; and shaping initiatives that improve gender equity

Closing the Gap: The Federal Role in Respecting & Ensuring Human Rights at the State and Local Level

This report offers an overview of the domestic landscape for human rights implementation and recommends action the United States must take to respect and ensure Covenant rights at the state and local level. This information responds directly to questions posed by the Human Rights Committee as part of the fourth periodic review of the United States, and offers a more complete picture of how the lack of institutionalized support impacts state and local governments. The report further describes a number of promising state and local human rights initiatives and details the myriad barriers that impede more comprehensive and effective state and local implementation

State and Local Human Rights Agencies: Recommendations for Advancing Opportunity and Equality Through an International Human Rights Framework

State and local human rights agencies can play a critical role in promoting and protecting human rights close to home. State and local human rights and human relations commissions already operate every day to prevent and eliminate discrimination. These institutions have multiple functions that include enforcing anti-discrimination laws, engaging in community education and training and advocacy. Central to their mission is encouraging and facilitating institutional change to eradicate discrimination and promote equal opportunity. Thus, advancing human rights protections intersects with and, in fact, supports the work of state and local human rights and human relations commissions to encourage and ensure fairness and opportunity locally. This report highlights ways in which an international human rights framework can advance the critical work of state and local human rights and human relations commissions and other state and local agencies, and recommends reforms at the national level that would result in more effective articulation between local, state and federal efforts

The Need for Effective Federal Outreach and Mechanisms to Coordinate and Support Federal, State and Local Implementation of the Convention

As this Committee has consistently recognized, compliance with the CERD requires effective coordination between federal, state, and local governments. In ratifying the CERD, the United States indicated that state and local governments share authority to implement the treaty. This includes the over 150 state and local civil and human rights agencies that enforce federal, state and local human and civil rights laws and/or conduct research, training and education, and issue policy recommendations within the United States (“Human Rights Agencies”). It also encompasses the full array of state and local officials with decision-making and enforcement authority, including governors, state attorneys general, mayors, state legislators, city council members, law enforcement, city, county and town executives, and boards of supervisors

2018 International Advocate for Peace Award Ceremony Honoring Leymah Gbowee

https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/event-invitations-2018/1040/thumbnail.jp

Bullets over ballots: Islamist groups, the state and electoral violence in Egypt and Morocco

This article is concerned with state-sponsored electoral violence in liberalized autocracies. The first section of the paper identifies a number of variables that can help explain the decision calculus of authoritarian incumbents to deploy force against strong electoral challengers. The second section then examines these propositions with reference to Egypt and Morocco. Drawing on recent parliamentary elections in both countries the article questions why, despite facing the challenge of political Islam, the two regimes differed so markedly in their willingness to manipulate the polls by recourse to violence. Whilst the Egyptian authorities decided to abrogate all pretence of peaceful elections in favour of violent repression against the Muslim Brotherhood candidates and sympathizers, no such tactics were deployed by the ruling elite in Morocco. We suggest that three principal factors influenced the regimes' response to this electoral challenge: (1) the centrality of the elected institution to authoritarian survival; (2) the availability of alternative electioneering tools; and (3) the anticipated response of the international community. The article concludes by suggesting that in order to understand better when and how states deploy violence in elections, we need to focus on a more complex set of factors rather than simply on the electoral potency of key opposition challengers or the authoritarian nature of the state

The Right to Abortion Access and Reproductive Healthcare

https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/flyers-2021-2022/1016/thumbnail.jp