21 research outputs found
‘Repeal the 8th’ in a Transnational Context: The Potential of SRHRs for Advancing Abortion Access in El Salvador
This article undertakes a discursive feminist reading of citizenship and human rights to understand, through the cases of Ireland and El Salvador, domestic abortion rights movements as part of a transnational women’s rights movement. While abortion has been partially decriminalised in Ireland, approximately 42 per cent of the world’s women1 of reproductive age still live in a country where abortion is prohibited entirely or only permitted to save a woman’s life or health (Singh et al., 2018, p. 4). In El Salvador, abortion is illegal and those suspected of having the procedure are prosecuted. As in Ireland, since 2012/2013 numerous controversies have brought the issue to wider public attention and have further galvanised the feminist movement to campaign for reform. Feminist abortion rights campaigns in both countries have connected important sites of activism and contestation: civil society, national parliaments, regional human rights systems and the United Nations
Terrorism, Conflicts and the Responsibility to Protect Cultural Heritage
Intentional destruction of cultural heritage is a well-known phenomenon which has been particularly exacerbated in recent times. Its common denominator is represented by the intent to persecute the communities for which that heritage represents an essential element of their cultural identity and distinctiveness. In legal terms, it produces different implications, to the point that – depending on the circumstances in which it is perpetrated – it may be qualified as a war crime, crime against humanity, violation of internationally recognised human rights, or evidence of the existence of the intent to commit genocide. Since the whole international community is seriously affected by the destruction of cultural heritage, it is indispensable that the doctrine of responsibility to protect (R2P) be put into practice seriously and effectively with the purpose of protecting humanity against the irreplaceable loss of its heritage
Testing the presence of marine protected areas against their ability to reduce pressures on biodiversity
Marine protected areas (MPAs) are the preferred tool for preventing marine biodiversity loss, as reflected in international protected area targets. Although the area covered by MPAs is expanding, there is a concern that opposition from resource users is driving them into already low-use locations, whereas high-pressure areas remain unprotected, which has serious implications for biodiversity conservation. We tested the spatial relationships between different human-induced pressures on marine biodiversity and global MPAs. We used global, modeled pressure data and the World Database on Protected Areas to calculate the levels of 15 different human-induced pressures inside and outside the world's MPAs. We fitted binomial generalized linear models to the data to determine whether each pressure had a positive or negative effect on the likelihood of an area being protected and whether this effect changed with different categories of protection. Pelagic and artisanal fishing, shipping, and introductions of invasive species by ships had a negative relationship with protection, and this relationship persisted under even the least restrictive categories of protection (e.g., protected areas classified as category VI under the International Union for Conservation of Nature, a category that permits sustainable use). In contrast, pressures from dispersed, diffusive sources (e.g., pollution and ocean acidification) had positive relationships with protection. Our results showed that MPAs are systematically established in areas where there is low political opposition, limiting the capacity of existing MPAs to manage key drivers of biodiversity loss. We suggest that conservation efforts focus on biodiversity outcomes and effective reduction of pressures rather than prescribing area-based targets, and that alternative approaches to conservation are needed in areas where protection is not feasible