51 research outputs found

    Joint Submission to the Human Rights Committee: Draft General Comment 36 on Article 6, on the Right to Life

    Get PDF
    Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Clinic, the International Commission of Jurists, the Open Society Justice Initiative, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Rights Watch (UK) welcome the opportunity to provide the Human Rights Committee (the Committee) with the following observations on its draft General Comment on Article 6 (the draft) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the Covenant) on the right to life, ahead of its second reading

    New label no progress: institutional racism and the persistent segregation of Romani students in the Czech Republic

    Get PDF
    The over-representation of Romani children in special schools in the Czech Republic is well documented and widely condemned. In 2007 the European Court of Human Rights found the state guilty of discrimination against Romani children on the basis of disproportionate placement of children in remedial special schools. In 2015 high numbers of Romani children are still being misdiagnosed with Special Educational Needs and offered a limited and inappropriate education. This article explores the challenges which continue to hamper their successful inclusion in the Czech education system. Using Critical Race Theory as a lens to examine the Czech case, problems with the current policy trajectory are identified. The article shows that institutional racism persists in the Czech Republic, shaping attitudes and practices at all levels. Policy makers demonstrate little recognition of ingrained educational inequalities and Roma continue to be widely perceived as ‘others’ who must learn to adapt to Czech ways rather than as citizens who are entitled to services on their own terms

    Islamophobia in the National Health Service: an ethnography of institutional racism in PREVENT's counter‐radicalisation policy

    Get PDF
    In 2015, the UK government made its counter‐radicalisation policy a statutory duty for all National Health Service (NHS) staff. Staff are now tasked to identify and report individuals they suspect may be vulnerable to radicalisation. Prevent training employs a combination of psychological and ideological frames to convey the meaning of radicalisation to healthcare staff, but studies have shown that the threat of terrorism is racialised as well. The guiding question of our ethnography is: how is counter‐radicalisation training understood and practiced by healthcare professionals? A frame analysis draws upon 2 years of ethnographic fieldwork, which includes participant observation in Prevent training and NHS staff interviews. This article demonstrates how Prevent engages in performative colour‐blindness – the active recognition and dismissal of the race frame which associates racialised Muslims with the threat of terrorism. It concludes with a discussion of institutional racism in the NHS – how racialised policies like Prevent impact the minutia of clinical interactions; how the pretence of a ‘post‐racial’ society obscures institutional racism; how psychologisation is integral to the performance of colour‐blindness; and why it is difficult to address the racism associated with colourblind policies which purport to address the threat of the Far‐Right

    Shifting power? : assessing the impact of transparency and accountability initiatives

    Get PDF
    Accountability and transparency initiatives have taken democratisation, governance, aid and development circles by storm since the turn of the century. Many actors involved with them – as donors, funders, programme managers, implementers and researchers – are now keen to know more about what these initiatives are achieving. This paper arises from a review of the impact and effectiveness of transparency and accountability initiatives which gathered and analysed existing evidence, discussed how it could be improved, and evaluated how impact and effectiveness could be enhanced. This paper takes the discussion further, by delving into what lies behind the methodological and evaluative debates currently surrounding governance and accountability work. It illustrates how choices about methods are made in the context of impact assessment designs driven by different objectives and different ideological and epistemological underpinnings. We argue that these differences are articulated as methodological debates, obscuring vital issues underlying accountability work, which are about power and politics, not methodological technicalities. In line with this argument, there is a need to re-think what impact means in relation to accountability initiatives, and to governance and social change efforts more broadly. This represents a serious challenge to the prevailing impact paradigm, posed by the realities of unaccountable governance, unproven accountability programming and uncertain evidence of impact. A learning approach to evaluation and final impact assessment would give power and politics a central place in monitoring and evaluation systems, continually test and revise assumptions about theories of change and ensure the engagement of marginalised people in assessment processes. Such an approach is essential if donors and policy makers are to develop a reliable evidence base to demonstrate that transparency and accountability work is of real value to poor and vulnerable people. Keywords: Accountability, transparency, impact assessment, evaluatio

    The Impact of Transparency and Accountability Initiatives

    Get PDF
    Transparency and accountability initiatives (TAIs) have taken democratisation, governance, aid and development circles by storm since the turn of the century. Many actors involved with them – as donors, funders, programme managers, implementers and researchers – are now keen to know more about what these initiatives are achieving. This issue of Development Policy Review arises from a study of the impact and effectiveness of transparency and accountability initiatives in different development sectors. It analyses existing evidence, discusses how approaches to learning about TAIs might be improved, and recommends how impact and effectiveness could be enhanced
    corecore