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

Joint Employer Status in Triangular Employment Relationships

The article examines the question of who should be considered the legal employer in triangular employment relationships. It is argued that outsourcing of employer responsibilities to temporary work agencies is illegitimate with regard to long-term employees and must be curtailed; further, that even in the case of short-term ('traditional') employment through agencies, there is reason to place some employer responsibilities with the user firm. The suggested solution supports regulations directed at preventing agency employment abuse, as currently exist in some European countries, but at the same time would place employer responsibilities with both agency and user firm, jointly and severally. Copyright Blackwell Publishing Ltd/London School of Economics 2004.