Search results

What is the relationship between human rights and corruption? This question can take different forms, including moral, legal, socio-political and economic variants. This paper focuses on two key moral questions, asking whether corruption can violate or impact on people’s natural rights (on the one hand) or human rights (on the other). In answer, I aim to establish a strong conceptual link between (a) corruption’s ‘abuse of entrusted power’; (b) the ‘arbitrary power’ targeted by natural rights theorists like John Locke and the broader republican tradition and (c) the ‘arbitrary interference’ with protected freedoms prohibited by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I argue that the deep thematic links between systemic corruption and violations of human rights are stronger than have hitherto been recognized. In the twenty-first century, corruption should be recognized as a ‘standard threat’ (in Shue’s sense) to human flourishing and protected freedoms, vindicating the human right to freedom from systemic corruption.

With the growth of unstructured data, opportunities to generate insights into supply chain risks in low cost countries (LCCs) are emerging. Sourcing risk has primarily focused on short-term mitigation. This paper aims to offer an approach that uses newsfeed data to assess regional supply base risk in LCC’s for the apparel sector, which managers can use to plan for future risk on a long-term planning horizon.

This paper demonstrates that the bulk of supplier risk assessments focus on short-term responses to disruptions in developed countries, revealing a gap in assessments of long-term risks for supply base expansion in LCCs. This paper develops an approach for predicting and planning for long-term supply base risk in LCC’s to address this shortfall. A machine-based learning algorithm is developed that uses the analysis of competing hypotheses heuristic to convert data from multiple news feeds into numerical risk scores and visual maps of supply chain risk. This paper demonstrates the approach by converting large amounts of unstructured data into two measures, risk impact and risk probability, leading to visualization of country-level supply base risks for a global apparel company.

This paper produced probability and impact scores for 23 distinct supply base risks across 10 countries in the apparel sector. The results suggest that the most significant long-term risks of supply disruption for apparel in LCC’s are human resource regulatory risks, workplace issues, inflation costs, safety violations and social welfare violations. The results suggest that apparel brands seeking suppliers in the regions of Cambodia, India, Bangladesh, Brazil and Vietnam should be aware of the significant risks in these regions that may require mitigative action.

This approach establishes a novel approach for objectively projecting future global sourcing risk, and yields visually mapped outcomes that can be applied in forecasting and planning for future risks when considering sourcing locations in LCC’s.

The paper aims to examine and compare two understandings of liberty that have dealt successfully with the normative and analytical challenge of reconciling liberty with social justice: Philip Pettit's republican liberty as nondomination and Hobhouse's concept of liberty as personal growth available to all. The paper focuses on one particular question: how successful each of these thinkers has been in resolving the tension between voluntariness of action, implicit in the “primary” meaning of liberty (as defined by T.H. Green), with the often heavy demands of social justice policies aiming at social equality and entailing economic redistribution.

The paper analyses two theories of liberty by spelling out the difficulties they aimed to deal with and by assessing the level of success they have achieved in resolving these difficulties, with the objective to demonstrate their originality in the broader context of conceptualising liberty.

The paper criticises Pettit's republican theory from a new perspective and develops an original critique of it; it spells out the achievements of Hobhouse's understanding of liberty in a new light – related to the specific critique of Pettit's republican liberty; and by spelling out the analytical and normative achievements of Hobhouse's liberty as “personal growth available to all” it offers a viable concept of liberty that fits with contemporary conceptualisations but overcomes their shortcomings.

As the project is based on analysing texts that have been easy to access, there have not been significant research limitations.

The two theories of freedom assessed here (the contemporary republican and the “new liberal”) entail some subtle, but potentially significant differences in public policy implications. While both can justify extended state action, the latter could tailor specific policies in a manner more mindful of the well-being of all parties, even those on the wrong side of social justice.

The paper makes an original contribution in three areas: contemporary republican theory of liberty, Hobhouse's theory of liberty and conceptualisations of liberty in general.

The object of this paper is to examine the debate in business ethics over extending insights from political philosophy (e.g. theories of distributive justice) to address questions about the management and governance of economic enterprises.

The paper engages in a philosophical argument.

Even if justice does not matter in a direct manner for questions about economic enterprises, current debate overlooks the possibility that justice matters in an indirect manner for questions about the management and governance of economic enterprises. The paper illustrates two ways in which justice matters for such questions. The first concerns the promotion of stakeholder interests by multinational corporations. The second concerns the claims of workers to participate in the governance of economic enterprises.

The paper is offered as a contribution to the literature on normative theories of managerial responsibility and corporate governance.

An effective bank resolution regime requires taking action while the bank still has positive net worth and shareholder claims still have economic value. Such actions raise a number of legal issues with respect to the rights of shareholders. This paper aims to consider how to strike a balance between the need to protect the legitimate rights of shareholders and the need for a prompt and rapid action and a failure resolution mechanism that minimizes disruptions to the financial system and preserves market discipline.

The paper examines the nature of the shareholders' rights and the legal protection afforded to them. In the European context, the relevant sources of law are the European Convention on Human Rights and the applicable community legislation. It considers different options for resolution within this framework ranging from a pre‐packaged resolution decided by the shareholders ex ante to the outright divestiture of the shareholders once certain regulatory thresholds are breached while the bank still has positive net worth.

The curtailment of shareholder rights should seek to generate appropriate incentives for shareholders and other stakeholder and achieve broad objectives of enhancing predictability and maintaining public goods, while at the same time providing for due process, proportionality and adequate compensation.

The paper presents options on how to reform existing frameworks in order to facilitate bank restructurings in a crisis.

The paper discusses key elements that policy makers need to consider in the design of a regulatory framework for early intervention and resolution.

The purpose of this paper is to argue that the leadin‘g international actor responsible for the maintenance of peace and security, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), must ensure that they strictly abide by accepted fundamental human rights norms when promulgating and enforcing resolutions for freezing assets of suspected terrorists.

The paper presents an overview of some fundamental human rights affected by the UN resolutions. It then compares leading case law from both the international (European Court of Justice) and domestic (the UK and the USA) perspectives. Finally, the paper discusses the leading academic critiques before exploring whether the UNSC is right to infringe or derogate from human rights norms in its counter‐terrorism policy. If so, in what circumstances and under what conditions may they be right to do so?

There are several fundamental human rights norms which are not respected by the UNSC in the area of terrorist financing.

Research could be expanded to other courts. Further research should consider additional human rights that were outside the scope of this paper.

The UNSC should allow special advocates on all matters both before the ombudsman and themselves. This should provide greater transparency.

The paper should draw attention to the seemingly incongruous position of the UNSC, tasked with protecting us and our human rights, when in fact they themselves may be breaching them.

The paper will be valuable to governments and regulators that seek to regulate the financial markets. It will also be useful to human rights activists.

This chapter examines the ways social media, analytics, and disruptive technologies are combined and leveraged by political campaigns to increase the probability of victory through micro-targeting, voter engagement, and public relations. More specifically, the importance of community detection, social influence, natural language processing and text analytics, machine learning, and predictive analytics is assessed and reviewed in relation to political campaigns. In this context, data processing is examined through the lens of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) effective as of May 25, 2018. It is concluded that while data processing during political campaigns does not violate the GDPR, electoral campaigns engage in surveillance, thereby violating Articles 12 and 19, in respect to private life, and freedom of expression accordingly, as stated in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Love and force are thought of as the ultimate antithesis in human relations; the substitution of love for force is the utopian dream, the consummation devoutly to be wished but hardly hoped for, the far-off divine event to which the whole creation moves – perhaps – slowly if at all. It may therefore seem perverse to raise a question as to whether there is any fundamental or real difference between love and force. Yet consideration of that question will show that from a scientific, logical point of view, love is equivalent to force in human relations, and is in fact but a variety of force. It will show too, that force in the world in general, to be given any meaning at all, has to be regarded as a kind of love, as Empedocles contended long ago. This is no mere speculation or word-play; the point is of the most fundamental and practical significance in the field of social science, regarded as a project for improving the quality of social life.