On land disputes, the United Nations human rights treaty bodies have consistently articulated that affected communities be effectively consulted (the effective consultation requirement). Recently, they have further required the ‘free, prior and informed consent’ of affected communities. Nevertheless, tension remains as to what this ‘free and informed consent requirement’ means. Rather than examining ‘consent’, this article focuses on the ‘free’ and ‘informed’ components of the principle. The requirement that such consent be ‘free’ and ‘informed’ echoes states’ other human rights obligations. This article focuses on three obligations, namely those concerning rights to freedom of expression, fair trial and protection of human rights defenders. It applies these standards to the situation in South-East Asia where large-scale land concessions have led to friction amongst governments, investors and local communities. Ultimately, the article argues that the governments in the region rarely fulfill the consultation requirement, let alone obtain consent, and that, more importantly they need to better protect the rights necessary to ensure the effectiveness of such consultations.

Powered by WPeMatico

Austerity measures have raised multiple human rights concerns. However, limited attention has been paid to their conformity with civil and political rights, particularly the absolute prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment. In the United Kingdom, a punitive approach has characterized many welfare reforms, particularly a system of conditionality for claimants followed by sanctions in case of non-compliance. This has resulted in adverse consequences, including anxiety, financial hardship, health problems and suicides. The jurisprudence of regional and national courts provides useful guidance on the circumstances under which such measures breach the prohibition of ill-treatment. The article argues that minimum core obligations identified by the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and notions of basic needs and dignity help identify the limits of policy-induced suffering under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. A clearer understanding of applicable standards has important implications for individuals seeking legal recourse against austerity measures and for policy makers.

Powered by WPeMatico

Traditionally, international human rights law was concerned only with torture perpetrated or directly condoned by the State. There has however been a development towards including equally serious acts by private individuals in the concept of torture. The present article explores the implications for the prevention of honour-related violence. It establishes that States have an obligation under international human rights law to prevent private acts of violence in certain circumstances, moves on to examine whether honour-related violence can violate the prohibition of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and concludes by discussing the obligation to prevent those forms of honour-related violence which violate the prohibition.

Powered by WPeMatico

Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which provides that ‘[n]o one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’, is considered to enshrine an absolute right. Yet it contains an under-explored element: inhuman and degrading punishment. While torture has been the subject of extensive academic commentary, and inhuman and degrading treatment has been examined to some extent, the prohibition of inhuman and degrading punishment has not been explored in significant depth, despite its considerable potential to alter the penal landscape. This article elucidates the key doctrinal elements of inhuman and degrading punishment ‘and treatment associated with it’, in the words of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). It addresses a number of ‘puzzles’ or problems which arise in applying the absolute right enshrined in Article 3 of the ECHR to sentencing and imprisonment, clarifies ECtHR doctrine and highlights some of its key implications. Bringing a theoretically informed understanding to bear on the application of Article 3 of the ECHR in a penal context, the article provides clarity and coherence to a complex and crucial intersection between human rights and penology.

Powered by WPeMatico