Volume 3, Fall 2022, Issue 1

THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF ALL PERSONS FROM ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCE: CONCEPTUAL AND PRACTICAL CHALLENGES AS REVEALED BY NATIONAL COURT DECISIONS FROM ARGENTINA, CHILE, AND MEXICO

Denise González-Núñez

The adoption of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICPED) by the UN General Assembly in December 2006 could be considered the highest point of a series of normative developments in the field that gained strength in the 1980s. The ICPED’s legal, political and symbolic value cannot be overstated, as it is a powerful tool for stakeholders pushing for truth, justice and reparations worldwide. This paper asked how enforced disappearance cases prosecuted by domestic courts in Latin America elucidate some of the challenges that States are likely to face when implementing the ICPED’s standards both from a conceptual and a practical perspective, and how the ICPED favors accountability.

This article evinced that by introducing the superior responsibility doctrine, the ICPED may have raised the standards for prosecution at the domestic level. It also noted that the further development of the doctrine would be desirable to clarify the nature and the scope of the duty to investigate. This article further argued that the ICPED contains several “enabling” features for prosecution, which could continue to empower victims, civil society organizations and other relevant actors seeking truth and justice. Ultimately, a historical and comparative analysis of the sentencing practices of national courts would allow for a more comprehensive and unique understanding of the evolving interplay between domestic jurisdictions and international human rights law, as applied to enforced disappearances.

CARROTS, VACCINES AND STICKS: CRITICAL REFLECTION OF COMPULSORY VACCINATION FROM A HUMAN RIGHTS PERSPECTIVE

Jennifer Heaven Mike

The end of 2019 ushered in the COVID-19 virus which soon spread to many parts of the world in 2020. Breakthrough vaccine remedies for COVID were subsequently discovered and these vaccines have been endorsed by the World Health Organization (WHO) and several other health organizations as safe and necessary for ending the COVID-19 Pandemic. States have been encouraged to ensure equitable and fair access to vaccines to reduce the chances of contracting the virus and to prevent people from getting seriously ill or dying from COVID-19 complications. To control the spread of the virus and contain its devastating effect, governments, companies, businesses, and private organizations have issued compulsory orders for COVID vaccinations. In some cases, it is considered a mandatory condition of continued employment, education, or access to services.

While the vaccine is seen to provide the necessary hope for many, it has also raised concerns and opposition on personal, ideological, safety, religious and legal grounds. From a human rights perspective, it is contended that mandatory vaccination violates the freedom to make health-related choices of choice, rights to liberty, privacy, and freedom from discrimination, in addition to touching on the principle of informed consent to medical procedures. On the other hand, it is argued that human rights are not absolute at all times and these rights can be limited in the interests of public health, order, and safety. Moreover, human rights include the right to be protected from harm. Businesses and organizations also have the right to determine their business activities and shape their work environments. This paper will examine these conflicting arguments and also make recommendations for vaccine equity. This interrogation is necessary in light of other existing and emerging life-threatening public health diseases such as Ebola, Monkeypox, Cowpox, etc.

VOLUNTARY CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY INITIATIVES VERSUS CONTRACTS THROUGH THE CONTEXT OF THE BANGLADESH ACCORD, THE FAIR FOOD PROGRAM (FFP), AND THE WORKER RIGHTS CONSORTIUM (WRC)

Alexis Abuhadba
Student Note

This article examines three enforcement models with respect to global supply chains against voluntary corporate social responsibility initiatives. The three models identified, the Bangladesh Accord, the Fair Food Program, and the Worker Rights Consortium, are examples of successful contracts that generate better human rights outcomes because they all share a legally binding element. Unlike voluntary corporate social responsibility initiatives that have been unable to effectively fulfill their goals due to lack of transparency and enforcement, contracts promote transparency and accountability, putting teeth behind substantive commitments. The conclusion drawn is that although each model poses challenges to the various actors throughout the supply chain, the potential for enforcement generates better human rights outcomes than models with a lack of enforcement.