Search results

The purpose of this chapter is to explain the concept of right to participation from the viewpoint of development and tries to establish nexus between participation and right to development in context of human rights-based approach and try to establish the co-existence between the two terminologies. The term participation is closely associated with the traditional democratic system; under this system people are entitled to participate in governance system directly or indirectly, which can be dated back from the ancient Greek civilization (Faruque, 2002a). In a democratic system, participation is people central and can be treated as “an valuable module of any system that considers itself a democracy” (Kweit & Kweit, 1981) “corner stone of democracy” (Sherry, 1969) or “instrument of legitimacy of government” (Falk & Strauss, 2000). Participation means a right by which one can exercise his/her function in the society and express his/her view or behavior toward the political system and governance. So the notion of participation is “effective in mobilizing and natural resources and combating inequalities, discrimination, poverty and exclusion” (UN.DOC, E/CN.4/1990/9/Rev. 1, 1990, Ch. 7). However, the concept of participation “should be viewed both as a means to an end and as an end itself” (UN.DOC, E/CN.4/1990/9/Rev. 1, 1990, Ch. 7, para 150). In environmental level, public participation has played a vital role in decision-making for measuring the protection of environment. Public participation in decision-making that affects the environment is recognized in the Aarhus Convention (Convention on Access to Information, 2001).

The purpose of this paper is to examine the feasibility of adopting a market‐based land use model, Transfer of Development Rights (TDR), which is very popular in America and other countries as a positive land use control mechanism for conservation, in an evolving socialist land economy, namely China.

This paper utilizes a case study approach, supplemented by a cost‐benefit model, to estimate the feasibility of establishing a TDR model in Chongqing, China.

From the analysis, it is found that a market‐based land use mechanism can serve to maximize the benefits of all parties and can balance the interests between development pressures and conservation needs. However, this is based on a number of conditions, including: that a well‐developed legal framework should be set up, to clearly delineate property rights; that a good and enforceable planning system should be in place; and that a mature land market mechanism should be developed that allows open market prices to be realized in the trading of development rights.

This case study is based on a hypothetical situation of one case. More data are needed to support the argument in the future.

Conservation is a major concern for the local governments in China, given the recent high speed economic growth. A model that can balance development pressure, while allowing the market to compensate fully for the infringement of property rights in the process of urban regeneration, is worthy of the authority's attention in future policy formulation.

This paper shows that the society as a whole can strike a balance between the need for economic development and conservation of historic sites, provided some conditions can be met.

This paper fulfills an identified need to study the establishment of a market‐based land use model in the conservation policy of land in China.

The purpose of this paper is to engender new thinking regarding the intersection between universal human rights and development, and associated programmes. This leads to three subsidiary objectives: demonstrating the mutually reinforcing relationship between human rights and development; considering the practical divide between having and exercising a right; understanding the impact of non-state actors; and emphasising the ways in which state capacity and social capabilities need to be enhanced to both transform the consideration of human rights into a meaningful development catalyst and treat development as a significant contributor to human rights endeavours.

The paper begins by exploring the historical and contemporary understanding of the relationship between development and human rights – arguing for the increasing recognition of their mutually reinforcing relationship. The second section analyses the controversy regarding the existence of genuine “universal” human rights; followed by considering whether human rights are mere aspirations or genuine rights – exposing the difficulty of monitoring, evaluating, and enforcing adherence to human rights mandates, particularly given the growth of non-state actors, such as multinational corporations (MNCs)/transnational corporations (TNCs). The paper closes with a call to strengthen social capabilities and state capacities to consolidate the union between development and human rights.

Credence is broadly given to the moral argument for including human rights within a development framework. However, the economic argument remains largely neglected and certainly under-emphasized. Human rights and development should not be viewed or pursued as separate ends in themselves – competing objectives for separate organisations or programmes – but as mutually reinforcing. Both drive the same goal: the inclusive, equitable and qualitative development of human well-being. Further, to transform human rights into meaningful development catalysts one needs to be able to “exercise” the given rights – which in turn calls for strengthening social capabilities and state capacities.

Unlike some previous works, this paper does not prescribe a particular remedy. Rather, accepting the intangibility of human rights and the associated large degree of subjectivity, it provokes the reader to move beyond the strictures of conventional theories and frameworks. For example, the difference between “having” and “exercising” a right – a stark feature of actual practice has frequently been omitted from theoretical discussion. Likewise, the role of non-state actors, such as MNCs and TNCs, and the way in which their power can impede or support development goals and human rights is a relatively new point of discussion demanding further exploration.

There has been a lack of human rights education for a long period since New China was founded. Human rights education appeared at the university level in the 1990s, and has developed quickly over the past decade in mainland China. The purpose of this paper is to argue that human rights education in mainland China has had its own characteristics and problems during its development, and intends to identify and solve its problems in order to achieve sustainability.

First, this paper surveys the development of human rights education in mainland China. Second, it summarizes its characteristics and problems objectively, and then gives some ideas and suggestions for its future sustainable development.

Human rights education in mainland China has seen great improvement, although it also has its own characteristics and has had problems during its development. The ideas about and approaches to human rights education development in mainland China should be adjusted. Ensuring and promoting the respect of human rights in society is the main goal of human rights education. Balanced development, independent development, the encouragement of and investment by the government and society in the subject and the high quantity and quality of available human rights teachers are the guarantees for a sustainable model of human rights education in mainland China.

This paper studies the history and current situation of human rights education in mainland China, summarizing its characteristics and existing problems completely and objectively. This paper states that human rights education in mainland China should change its theories and its approaches to development.

This chapter argues that sustainable development must be anchored on a human rights regime and that an integrated framing of human rights and sustainability in development policy and practice is crucial in the achievement of the 2030 UN Sustainable Development Goals. Using data gathered from the author's field research during her US Fulbright Fellowship in the Philippines in 2017, the chapter examines the impacts of corporate mining on the Philippine Indigenous people using the United Nations Declaration on the Human Rights of Indigenous People as a framework for analysis. The experience of the indigenous people shows that large scale corporate mining – largely dominated by transnational corporations – threatens their right to life, right to ancestral land, right to a healthy environment, right to education and cultural rights, right to self-determination, and the right to sustainable development. The violation of these rights threatens the Indigenous people's survival and makes their situation even more precarious during COVID-19 pandemic. State and corporate recognition of these rights is crucial to building resiliency to the impacts of COVID-19 pandemic and the survival of the indigenous people.

The emergence of the Chinese aid consensus has come to have profound implications for sustainability. The Beijing Consensus “sovereignty doctrine” of non‐interference, presents a stark contrast to the Washington Consensus architecture of imposed conditionalities and the serving of geopolitical interests. For this reason, from Africa's perspective, the Beijing Consensus appears to represent the preferred comprehensive meta‐narrative for Africa. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the attributes of “good” aid architecture in relation to the peculiarities of Africa's challenges.

In examining its principles, objectives, framework differences and impact, the Beijing model shows that it supports the human rights which “unleash”, empower and protect self‐directed development grounded in ownership and in the strategic interests of recipients.

The Washington Consensus has been problematic for African development because it is economistic and exclusively instrumentalist. While conceding to this shortcoming, the inability of the consensus to appreciate the unique and complex development problems of Africa is more troubling. Comparing the two, the Beijing Consensus, which is multidimensional and encompasses the intrinsic and non‐economic roles of development aid, with the consequence of over‐emphasizing expanding local policy, is adjudged practical for Africa. The conclusion is that the dominant Washington Consensus is too poorly articulated and structured to respond to declared determination for ownership, mitigating capabilities deprivation, and improving development control.

This paper has argued that the basic approach of the Beijing Consensus has been more generous and more attractive for sustainable development in Africa. Much more important, perhaps, is the ability of the consensus to appreciate the unique and complex development problems which occur as a consequence of donor deafness on limited rights and conditionalities. In sum, the Beijing Consensus results in exclusionary changes of “less magnitude and speed” and promotes poverty reduction and sustainable development. Taken together, these factors and practices mean that the Beijing Consensus best serves the staircase of a nation's pathway to indigenous development, when compared with the Washington Consensus. Such a comprehensive meta‐narrative that builds alliances and creates a foundation for enlightened and effective politics of development aid will “unleash”, empower and protect the full potential of Africa.

Aim of the present monograph is the economic analysis of the role of MNEs regarding globalisation and digital economy and in parallel there is a reference and examination of some legal aspects concerning MNEs, cyberspace and e‐commerce as the means of expression of the digital economy. The whole effort of the author is focused on the examination of various aspects of MNEs and their impact upon globalisation and vice versa and how and if we are moving towards a global digital economy.

Many child‐focused civil society organisations (CSOs) working in Africa, Asia and South America have shifted from organising their work around children's needs to promoting their rights. The rights‐based frameworks they use are informed by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This article explores the value of global rights. Ethnographic studies about the lives of young people and their transition into adulthood point to diversity of ideas about childhood in different parts of the world, raising questions about whether the idea of universal child rights can accommodate such varied worldviews. Yet CSOs have often failed to take account of this diversity in the way they use rights frameworks. Research by anthropologists about children in three situations ‐ at work, on the move and facing violence ‐ is used here to reveal the problems caused if rights frameworks are used without sufficient understanding of context and complexity.

This paper discusses the institutionalists' economic thought and how they saw the role of property rights in economic development. It points out that the role of various institutions in the economic performance of many developing countries cannot be ignored. One of the important institutional factors in many developing countries and transitional economies is the nature and definition of property rights. This paper therefore addresses the impact of property rights on overall economic performance of a country and more specifically on agricultural production and on the conservation and management of the environment. It is generally agreed that property rights are a claim to a benefit stream where the state provides protection from others who may interfere with the benefit stream. Well‐defined property rights are considered vital for transitional economies which are undertaking major structural changes. The recent literature on property rights in transitional economies is largely concentrated on the former socialist and communist economies of Eastern Europe, which are embracing the market economy. However, this also has significant implications for many developing countries like Fiji which can also be considered as transitional economies. For Fiji the transition is from a highly protected, inward‐looking economy towards an export‐oriented economy. Getting the property rights “right” seems to be one of the major obstacles to economic reform agendas for many of the South Pacific countries including Fiji.

This chapter examines and illustrates the judicial treatment of relevant concepts and norms of corporate sustainability and relevant implications for the implementation of the UN Global Compact.

This is a conceptual examination of relevant legislation, cases and concepts used by judges in giving practical content to the concepts of ‘sustainable development’, ‘sustainability’ and ‘corporate sustainability’.

The judiciary has been fashioning applicable policy, resolving and balancing the clash of interests, setting guidelines and parameters for statutory interpretation in elucidating the concept of corporate sustainability. To that extent ‘corporate sustainability law’ is developing, not only in municipal public law where legislation is the key driver, but as ‘soft’ international law.

This is a general survey of trends in judicial reasoning from different countries and legal traditions and is not applicable exclusively to any jurisdiction. The implication is that there is room for detailed study of applicable rules in each jurisdiction.

The chapter offers guidance for strategic implementation of the Global Compact, compliance to emergent obligatory principles, for shaping policy and corporate political management.

This chapter contributes to an understanding of the role and impact of the judiciary in developing corporate sustainability law and congruent principles of the Global Compact.