In 1989, Guy Goodwin-Gill wrote a paper entitled “The Language of Protection”. 1 There he noted that “[t]he word ‘protection’ has become something of a term of art, obscuring the scope of an activity that ought to be fundamentally clear”. 2 He went on:
The lack or denial of
on the Rohingyas, focusing on the question of their status and protection.
The Rohingya Crisis
Myanmar is an ethnically diverse and the largest of the mainland South-east Asian countries.
are Sunni Muslims and primarily live in the Arakan region, constituting
, such as children and those displaced within the borders of their countries, have built on centuries of moral and legal developments, especially international humanitarian law, international human rights law, and refugee law. From Security Council resolutions on Protection of Civilians to the un
ostensibly introduced for purposes of child protection, it has served primarily as a tool to control and remove those children who are deemed ‘out of place’ on the street. While the Begging Bill is officially a national bill, I specifically focus on its implementation in Lima, Peru’s capital and largest city
un and its member states that children – as a constituency – should be protected from conflict.
With this in mind, the Children and Armed Conflict agenda is built upon this single pillar: the protection of children. It is explicitly a protection agenda. This is reaffirmed in the preambulatory
themselves of certain investment protection mechanisms. Indeed, in light of the political risks, it is absolutely critical for investors investing in such areas to know the array of investment protection mechanisms available to them. This article analyses the applicability of such mechanisms to investments