Search results

AbstractHow to address invalid reservations has been an ongoing struggle for States, legal practitioners and academics. This article considers the evolution of severability and whether States intend the language of severance to serve as a signal of their view on legality to reserving States or simply use severability to bolster their own public reputation. Over the past decade, State practice toward invalid reservations to norm-creating treaties has shifted and both this shift and its impact on treaty law must be acknowledged. The arguments and assertions that follow rely heavily on contemporary practice relating to reservations made to the core UN human rights treaties which, admittedly, limits the application of the doctrine in many ways. Review of State practice, especially to human rights treaties, demonstrates that a broader number of States are slowly opting for severability when defining their treaty relations with States authoring invalid reservations. The doctrine of severability is gaining a slow but steady following by a growing number of States though there is tension about whether severing reservations is lex specialis, pertaining only to human rights treaties, or lex ferenda. This article examines the evolving practice and forecasts the role it will play in the future of treaty law.

"As human rights discourse increasingly focuses on analysing states and the institutions that promote and support the human rights machinery that states have created, this volume serves to recall that despite the growing size of the machinery and unwieldy nature of states, human rights began with real people. It samples a broad range of actors and localities where everyday people fought to ensure that the basic principles of human rights became a reality for all. This volume will give a face to the everyday people to whom credit is due for shaping human rights. It is designed to provide a point of reference for students of human rights, particularly those interested in pursuing a career in the field. It responds to the constant question about how to begin a career in human rights by highlighting that there is no single path into this dynamic field that was built on the back of small initiatives by people across a broad spectrum of career paths"--

In the aftermath of 9/11, the United States and its allies declared war on international terrorism. It was claimed that the use of military force against terrorists and their supporters is necessary in order to defend 'our' democracy, freedom and human rights, which are supposedly jeopardized by terrorism. This chapter discusses the ways in which these states have harnessed the power of the UN Security Council – both through its meetings and decisions – in order to perpetuate the othering discourse driving the war on terror. Examining the Council's work in the 1990s, following 9/11, and in response to the 'foreign terrorist fighter' phenomenon, the chapter argues that the language of human rights has, in fact, been co-opted in order to assert the existence of a collective right to be free from terrorism.

In the aftermath of 9/11, the United States and its allies declared war on international terrorism. It was claimed that the use of military force against terrorists and their supporters is necessary in order to defend 'our' democracy, freedom and human rights, which are supposedly jeopardized by terrorism. This chapter discusses the ways in which these states have harnessed the power of the UN Security Council – both through its meetings and decisions – in order to perpetuate the othering discourse driving the war on terror. Examining the Council's work in the 1990s, following 9/11, and in response to the 'foreign terrorist fighter' phenomenon, the chapter argues that the language of human rights has, in fact, been co-opted in order to assert the existence of a collective right to be free from terrorism.