Sanitation, human rights, and disaster management

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to link debates around the international law on human rights and disaster management with the evolving debate around the human right to sanitation, in order to explore the extent to which states are obliged to account for sanitation in their disaster management efforts. Design/methodology/approach The paper is based on analysis of existing laws and policy relating to human rights, sanitation and disaster management. It further draws upon relevant academic literature. Findings The paper concludes that, while limitations exist, states have legal obligations to provide sanitation to persons affected by a disaster. It is further argued that a human rights-based approach to sanitation, if respected, can assist in strengthening disaster management efforts, while focusing on the persons who need it the most. Research limitations/implications The analysis in this paper focuses on the obligations of states for people on their territory. Due to space limitations, it does not examine the complex issues relating to enforcement mechanisms available to disaster victims. Originality/value This is the first scholarly work directly linking the debates around international human rights law and disaster management, with human rights obligations in relation to sanitation. The clarification of obligation in relation to sanitation can assist in advocacy and planning, as well as in ensuring accountability and responsibility for human rights breaches in the disaster context

Moving research beyond the spanking debate

© 2017 Elsevier Ltd Despite numerous studies identifying a broad range of harms associated with the use of spanking and other types of physical punishment, debate continues about its use as a form of discipline. In this commentary, we recommend four strategies to move the field forward and beyond the spanking debate including: 1) use of methodological approaches that allow for stronger causal inference; 2) consideration of human rights issues; 3) a focus on understanding the causes of spanking and reasons for its decline in certain countries; and 4) more emphasis on evidence-based approaches to changing social norms to reject spanking as a form of discipline. Physical punishment needs to be recognized as an important public health problem

Avoiding a dystopian future for children's play

Describes the conflict between children's freedom to play and the quest for safety and makes recommendations for the future

Monitoring and Implementation of Children's Rights

Effective Protection of Fundamental Rights in a pluralist worl

Regulating disasters? The role of international law in disaster prevention and management

Purpose – This article explores the role of international law in disaster prevention and management, with a particular focus on the emerging field of international disaster law, and its relationship with international human rights law. It further introduces the four articles of the special column of this journal issue, dedicated to disasters and international law. Design/methodology/approach – The analysis is based upon primary sources of legislation and policy, as well as academic literature on disasters and international law. Findings – Although the field of international disaster law is at its infancy, we argue that this emergent area does have the potential to gain widespread recognition as a distinct field of law, and that this could be of benefit for the wider disaster management community. Originality/value – The article introduces key legal features and themes relating to international law and disasters, highlighting their relevance for disaster management. The added value is to widen the discussion on aspects of disasters regulated by international law, thus facilitating the future exchange with other academic subjects and operational fields. Keywords – disasters; international law; disaster management; treaties; human rights; international disaster law; international human rights law. Paper type – Research pape

Towards a global ‘child friendly’ juvenile justice?

The impact of globalisation on juvenile justice is increasingly conceptualised with reference to neo-liberal governance and the intensification of ‘new punitiveness’. Whatever the merits of such analyses, they have the effect of marginalising, if not completely overlooking, the extent to which international human rights instruments might serve to neutralise and/or mediate punitive currents. Indeed, it might be argued that the commitment – repeatedly expressed in official discourse – to both protect and promote the human rights of children in conflict with the law has itself come to comprise a discursive and tangible dimension of global child governance. Key signifiers of this phenomenon – at the global level – include a corpus of interrelated human rights conventions, standards, treaties and rules, formally adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, whilst at the European level authoritative rights-informed guidelines on ‘child friendly justice’, ratified by the Council of Europe, are similarly representative. Against this backdrop, this article seeks to investigate the degree to which individual nation states receive and respond to their human rights and ‘child friendly justice’ obligations. Whilst recognising the mediating capacities of formal human rights instruments, we aim to critically interrogate the relations between globalised rhetoric and localised reality; between the promise of international rights discourse on the one hand and the limitations of territorial jurisdictional implementation on the other