The concept of procedural justice has been promoted as a potential solution in the contest for resources involving indigenous peoples and others. It seeks the formulation of processes that are fair and just both to indigenous peoples and to the other parties affected. Using a comparative approach, this paper analyses processes and mechanisms adopted in some selected common law jurisdictions against the ideal of procedural justice. It seeks to consider mechanisms which conform to the principle of procedural justice to address the issue of indigenous peoples’ rights to land and resources in Malaysia. The principle is relevant in Malaysian common law which also subjects matters affecting fundamental liberties to procedural justice. Comparative perspectives provide models for practical applications of indigenous peoples’ rights. They assist policy analysis through learning from the successes and failures of other jurisdictions in improving legal reform.
Ebenezer Durojaye and Mariam Wallet Med Aboubakrine
This article examines non-communicable diseases (ncds) as a challenge among indigenous population in Africa. From a rights-based perspective, the article considers some of the social determinants of health and other challenges that can aggravate ncds among indigenous groups in Africa. It further examines the recognition of the right to health of indigenous populations under international law. This is followed by a discussion on some of the barriers to addressing ncds among indigenous peoples in the region. It concludes by urging African governments to be more proactive in adopting measures grounded in human rights standards to address the rising incidence of ncds among indigenous peoples in the region.
Hungary has been praised by international monitoring bodies and scholars specializing in minority rights for being a pioneer in establishing a sophisticated cultural autonomy regime for the safeguarding of the cultural rights of its minorities, which could serve as a salient example for other countries too. However, after nearly twenty-five years of implementation, during which a major amendment of the original Act lxxvii of 1993 on the Rights of National and Ethnic Minorities (2005) took place, followed further by the adoption of a new Act clxxix on the Rights of Nationalities (2011), there continue to exist serious problems in the operation of the whole arrangement, putting in question its efficacy to adequately address the cultural needs of Hungary’s minorities and to serve as a model for exportation.
Naomi Birdthistle, Antoinette Flynn and Susan Rushworth
Ethnic entrepreneurship has emerged as an economic, societal, and political panacea to the growing number of refugees on the move across the globe. Employing the 2014 World Economic Forum framework, this article seeks to explore the Australian entrepreneurship ecosystem, to determine whether it is enabling migrants and/or refugees to become entrepreneurs with a focus on Syrian refugees. At its core, the Australian entrepreneurship ecosystem is comparatively strong in terms of human capital, accessible markets, and finance. Even within the three ‘core’ characteristics of the ecosystem, the Australian ecosystem falls short when examined through the lens of refugee entrepreneurs. Recommendations under the 2014 World Economic Forum framework are made that will assist key stakeholders in developing an entrepreneurial ecosystem.
Minority protection under the League of Nations (LoN) generated an unprecedented level of activity and debate on the topic, which in turn contributed to the general advancement of human rights. Nevertheless, it is also important to note that the League’s Secretariat developed rather conservative practices regarding the receivability of minorities’ petitions as well as on some important related decisions. Our perspective here contrasts with what is commonly found in the associated historiography, i.e. that the part played by the Minorities Section was rather neutral. Without downplaying the importance of some states’ resistance to the protection of minorities and its supervision, the Section’s narrow interpretation of the LoN jurisdiction is noteworthy, as is the absence of serious attempts to take advantage of the decisions in favour of minorities made by the LoN Assembly. The way the Section constructed the non-receivability of petitions, especially those which were ‘outside treaties’, illustrates our argument.
A. Aslı Bilgin
The foundation of European Integration is based on economic objectives from the beginning of the 1950s. The founding treaties did not include provisions regarding minority rights. Minority rights have been a foundational value since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, but there is no legislation related to minority rights or internal minority policy at the European Union (eu) level, because of the absence of competence given to eu institutions. This study analyses how issues relating to minority protection are handled vis-a-vis internal market objectives under eu law in the light of primary, secondary and eu case-law. While determining the legal framework on minority rights in the eu, not only the impact of the case-law of the cjeu on minority protection, but also the possibility of the cjeu’s power to establish an internal minority policy and the Member States’ approaches to an internal minority policy have been taken into consideration.
Alex J. Bellamy and Stephen McLoughlin
Miliary intervention remains a controversial part of human protection. Indispensable in some circumstances, military intervention confronts significant structural challenges which means that it is used only rarely and has the propensity for causing unintended negative consequences. In this essay, we examine the place of humanitarian intervention within the human protection regime. Focusing on the case of Libya, we argue that the UN Security Council has now accepted that the use force, even against a sovereign state, is a sometimes legitimate response to mass atrocities. But the Libya experience also raised three major challenges – challenges of regime change, accountability, and selectivity – that will have be addressed if military intervention is ever to become a legitimate part of international society’s anti-atrocities arsenal. First, we show how increased international activism after the Cold War helped put downwards pressure on the incidence of mass atrocities worldwide. Second, we explain why armed intervention remained a controversial and rarely employed instrument of human protection. Third, we argue that the UN Security Council’s decision to authorise armed intervention in Libya represented a significant development in the place of armed intervention as a tool of human protection. Finally, we examine the political consequences of the intervention and argue that these will need to be addressed in order to rebuild sufficient trust to allow future considerations of the use of force for humanitarian purposes.
Andrea L. Everett
The practice of humanitarian military action has changed markedly in the 21st century when compared with the 1990s. This essay explores three broad trends that have shaped this evolution. First, the UN has adopted the protection of civilians as a central element of its agenda and as a guiding principle for reforming its peace operations and its responses to atrocities such as genocide and ethnic cleansing. Second, major powers have played a central role as belligerents or patrons of belligerents in many of the worst conflicts of the last two decades. And third, the wealthy Western states with the greatest resources and military capabilities for ambitious humanitarian operations have substantially reduced their direct contributions to these missions. Together, these developments have shifted the balance of responsibility and effort for humanitarian military operations toward the UN and developing countries; constrained the ambitions of these missions; limited what they can accomplish and contributed to gaps between the expectations they create and the protection they are able to deliver; and discouraged meaningful action in response to many of the century’s most devastating conflicts.
Since the end of the Cold War, Iraq has faced three international interventions. While their humanitarian component was a secondary – and at times, arguable – factor, they all played a central role in normative debates on the extent to which states should protect populations from mass atrocities beyond their borders (and what that actually entails), making Iraq a central piece of the human protection puzzle. In addition to analysing how Iraq’s fate has played a key part in the development of human protection over the years, the article argues that France had a central role in both the interventions and the normative debates they generated, and investigates its role in depth. By doing so, it deepens our understanding of human protection, France’s foreign policy and Iraq’s development.