Search results

This chapter examines technology-facilitated violence from the perspective of international human rights law. It explores current research relating to technology-facilitated violence and then highlights the international human rights instruments that are triggered by the various forms of such violence. Ultimately, it focuses upon international human rights to privacy and to freedom from violence (especially gender-based violence) and the obligations on State and Nonstate actors to address violations of these rights. It argues that adoption of a human rights perspective on technology-facilitated violence better enables us to hold State and Nonstate actors to account in finding meaningful ways to address violence in all of its forms.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of evolving developments in international, regional and EU law including the UK and Turkish jurisdictions for the liability of corporate businesses for modern forms of exploitative labour practices described as the modern forms of slavery.

In the first part, this paper outlines international, regional and EU instruments, UK and Turkish jurisdictions in relation to modern forms of slavery. The second part reviews legal frameworks for corporate liability for modern forms of slavery.

Slavery, slavery-like practices or some other exploitative practices are prohibited by numerous international law instruments starting from 1904. Apart from old forms of defined exploitative practices, multiple relevant current exploitative practices, called contemporary or modern forms of slavery exist all over the world. Under various international or regional conventions signatory States have been held responsible for exploitative practices by the international or regional courts or supervisory bodies, yet businesses were largely overlooked as a participating partner in the global movement to eradicate modern forms of slavery. For many years, multi-national businesses have engaged with various voluntary international corporate social responsibility initiatives in response to demands to operate in a socially responsible manner. There is a growing global recognition of the role corporate businesses can and should play in tackling crime and exploitative practices. A number of initiatives at the international and EU level and the introduction of the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act, (2010 – effective from 2012), the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015, the French Act on Due Diligence of Corporations and Main Contractors 2017 (loi sur le devoir de vigilance), the Australian Commonwealth Modern Slavery Act 2018, the Dutch Child Labour Due Diligence Act 2019, (which is due to come into effect in mid-2022), reflect this recognition.

This paper argues that it is important for companies to use available tools, participate in joint initiatives and advocate for binding international and regional instruments and effective national legislation and action – all aimed at ending business involvement in modern forms of slavery.

The child is at the centre of all Models of Child Health Appraised research and indeed all primary care delivery for children. Appraising models of primary care for children is incomplete without ensuring that experiences of primary care, design, treatment, management and outcomes are optimal for the child. However, the principle of child centricity is not implicit in many healthcare systems and in many aspects of life, yet it is extremely important for optimal child health service design and child health. By exploring the changing concept of ‘childhood’, we understand better the emergence of the current attitude towards children and their role in today’s Europe and the evolution of child rights. Understanding child centricity, and the role of agents acting on behalf of the child, allows us to identify features of children’s primary care systems that uphold the rights of a child to optimum health. This is placed against the legal commitments made by the countries of the European Union and European Economic Area to ensure that children’s rights are respected.

The aim of the present study is to shed light on the role of legal practitioners, namely, lawyers and notaries, in the fight against money laundering: Are they considered as facilitators or obstacles against money laundering? How does the global and the EU legal framework deal with the legal professionals?

The research follows a deductive approach attempting to respond to questions such as: How do the lawyers’ and notaries’ societies react in front of the anti-money laundering measures that concern them and why? What are the discrepancies between the lawyers’ professional secrecy and the obligations that EU anti-money laundering legislation assigns them?

This study disclosures the response of the European union and international legal and regulatory framework as well as the reflexes of the international and European legal professionals’ associations to this danger. It also demonstrates the reaction of lawyers against European union anti-money laundering legislation, to the point that it limits not only the confidentiality principle but also the position of the European judicial systems to the contradiction between this principle and the lawyers’ obligation to report their suspicions to the authorities.

To fulfil the study goals, it was necessary to overcome some obstacles, like the limitation of existing sources. Indeed, transnational empirical research considering the professionals who facilitate money laundering is narrow. Besides, policymakers and academics only recently expressed more interest in money laundering and its facilitators.

This paper fulfils an identified need to study the legal professionals’ role not only in money laundering practices but also in anti-money laundering policies.

Background: This work is a situation analysis of reported human rights abuses that have characterized the COVID-19 controls and lockdown in some countries of the world. This is as documented by reliable mass media sources, relevant international organizations and human rights non-governmental organizations between January 2020 to April 2020.

Methods: A combined content analysis, critical analysis, and doctrinal method is applied in this study in line with the reproducible research process. It is a secondary-data-based situation analysis study, conducted through a qualitative research approach.

Findings: The findings revealed among other things that: COVID-19 lockdowns and curfews' enforcement by law enforcement officers contravened some people's fundamental human rights within the first month. Security forces employed overt and immoderate forces to implement the orders. The lockdown and curfew enforcements were not significantly respectful of human life and human dignity. The COVID-19 emergency declarations in some countries were discriminatory against minorities and vulnerable groups in some countries.

Research limitations/implications: This report is based on data from investigative journalism and opinions of the United Nations and international human rights organizations, and not on police investigations or reports. The implication of the study is that if social marketing orientations and risk communication and community engagement attitudes were given to the law enforcement officers implementing the COVID-19 lockdowns and or curfews, the human rights and humanitarian rights breaches witnessed would have been avoided or drastically minimized.

Originality: The originality of this review is that it is the first to undertake a situation analysis of the COVID-19 lockdowns and curfews human rights abuses in some countries. The study portrayed the poor level of social marketing orientations and risk communication and community engagement attitudes amongst law enforcement officers, culminating in the frosty police-public relationships.