Suchergebnisse

AbstractNo Abstract

AbstractNo Abstract

This volume maps out the response of states to human rights violations. It covers the period 1946-1999 and offers a complete and unmatched record for this period. Its starting point is that such responses are not established and accepted state practice. Traditional, if unwritten, norms of states' behaviour developed through centuries of silence and inaction; the prevalent reaction to human rights violations by another state remains the absence of any response. Furthermore, this book probes into evidence of active and passive complicity by reviewing aid to countries in which violations have been taking place and diplomatic initiatives undertaken to shield violators from public opprobrium. Since international law is generated through state practice, the book highlights the ongoing tussle between the pre-1946 heritage of silence and inaction and the 1946-1999 haphazard pattern of responses to violations

Istraživanje političkog nasilja, uključujući terorizam, moguće je općenito podijeliti u dvije faze: u prvoj, kvantitativnoj, istraživanja su tražila odgovore na pitanje: tko je što učinio, kada i gdje. Takav se pristup mnogo upotrebljavao u literaturi društvenih nauka. Druga faza vodi k produbljenom istraživanju ljudskog ponašanja postavljajući pitanja o tome zašto određene osobe učestvuju u terorističkim akcijama ili akcijama političkog nasilja. Usprkos činjenici da se uzročnost ne može generalizirati do stupnja u kojem postaje neprimjenjiva, istraživanje uzroka pokazalo se mnogo probitačnijim. Ono omogućava istraživanje problema rješavanja političkog nasilja kroz proces tretiranja njegovih uzroka, umjesto da se orijentira na kažnjavanje zbog njegovih konzekvenci. Osim toga, čini se pomak od deskribiranja i kategoriziranja onoga što se desilo k predviđanju onoga što će se najvjerojatnije dogoditi. Podaci o političkom nasilju koji su već prikupljeni i sistematizirani čine dobar okvir za istraživanje njegovih uzroka. Međutim, zahtjev znanstvene objektivnosti traži oprez kada se analiziraju takvi podaci; informacije često nisu objektivne, a statistika je često nekomparabilna. To je istodobno i jedan indikator da konsensus o tome što je zapravo političko nasilje još nije postignut. Objektivni kriterij za njegovo definiranje često je dopunjen subjektivnim konotacijama, kao što su motivi, težnje i percepcije istraživača i javnosti uopće. Identifikacija uzroka političkog nasilja u posljednje vrijeme privlači mnogo pažnje u literaturi o terorizmu. U osnovi, postoje četiri tipa terorizma determinirana uzrocima. Na prvom je mjestu potrebno uzeti u obzir politički i ideološki terorizam koji je često povezan s pojavom strategije nove ljevice. Drugo, terorizam je također jedan od konzekvenci etničkih i rasnih separatističkih ili emancipatorskih pokreta. Treći je tip karakterističan za aspiracije marginaliziranih društvenih slojeva kao što su studenti na pretrpanim univerzitetima, nezaposleni radnici ili radnici — migranti. Četvrti tip moguće je definirati kao patološki terorizam u koji je moguće svrstati i kriminalne terorističke akcije. Iako terorizam ne može biti objašnjen jednim određenim brojem uzroka, budući da objašnjenje mora računati na veći broj uzroka od četiri spomenute klasifikacije, može to poslužiti za početak identifikacije njegovih uzroka. ; Research on political violence, including terrorism, can broadly be divided into two phases: the first one, quantitative, could be described as seeking answers to questions: who did what, when and how. That one has been extensively dealt with in the current social science literature. The second phase leads into a more thorough research of human behaviour by posing the dilemma why did particular people do such a thing as an act of terrorism or a political murder. In spite of the fact that causality cannot be traced all the way neither generalized without becoming inapplicable, research on causes is far more advantageous. It enables us to look for more definite solutions for the problems of political violence by curing its causes instead of merely punishing for its consequences. Besides, we are thus moving from describing and categorizing what has happened to predicting what is likely to happen. Data on political violence, already gathered and systematized, form the framework for research of its causes. However, the quest for scientific objectivity requires utmost caution when analyzing such data: information is often biased, statistics are frequently incomparable. That is an indication that consensus on what political violence really is has not yet been reached. Objective criteria for its definition are generally supplemented by subjective connotations, such as motives and aims of the perpetrators and perceptions of researchers or of the general public. Identification of causes of political violence has recently gained much attention in literature on terrorism. There are basically four types of terrorism determined by the causes established so far. First, we have to take account political and/or ideological terrorism often tied to the appearance and strategy of the New Left. Secondly, terrorism is also one of the consequences of ethnic and racial separatist or emancipatory movements. The third type could be attributed to socio-economic conditions and aspirations of marginalized social strata, such as students at over-crowded universities, the unemployed or migrant-workers. The fourth type could be defined as pathological terrorism, and criminal terrorist acts can be subsumed into that category. Although terrorism cannot be explained by one set of causes only, as it usually falls into more than one type of the four enumerated above, such a classification serves as a beginning of identification of its causes.

This publication is the second volume of Thematic Human Rights Guides published under the auspices of the Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law. The aim of the Guides , as the title implies, is to facilitate the use of international human rights standards by their systematic presentation. Rather than reproducing full texts of various instruments, substantive standards are grouped according to subject-matter in order to enable users to quickly and easily locate the topic they may be looking for. A detailed index, with references to the many international instruments which address the same issue, reinforces this thematic approach. The choice of human rights and health for the second volume in this series highlights the aim of the Guides : to map out the entire range of human rights and fundamental freedoms as they relate to a specific topic. The sheer size of this volume illustrates the number and variety of human rights standards relevant for health. Many of these standards have been generated by organizations dealing with health rather than human rights, and quite a few are found under medical ethics rather than human rights. Subsuming medical ethics under international human rights law is a novel development, pioneered by the Council of Europe. Elsewhere, the two fields remain separate and the publication of this Guide is intended to overcome this separation. Documents have been included which provide an understanding of human rights within the health profession (such as guidance to medical doctors with regard to abortion adopted by the International Medical Association) and those human rights safeguards that have been elaborated to prevent abuses by health professionals (such as those concerning mental health). All of these standards provide a substantive background for inter-professional dialogue on the evolving understanding of human rights. A Thematic Guide to Documents on Health and Human Rights reflects the full range of issues encompassed by human rights and health. Besides the right to health, a wide range of rights and freedoms can be - and is - affected by the health sector. Priority has been accorded to the crucial human rights safeguards, namely those specifying protection against undue limitations or restrictions upon human rights. Much as with any other human rights topic, those safeguards are best developed for categories that are most vulnerable to denials and violations of their rights. Detainees, prisoners, victims of armed conflicts, children and the mentally ill thus figure prominently