Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis research examines the extent to which negative attitudes toward African Americans influence public reactions to restoring political rights to felons. We argue that race-neutral policies, such as felon disenfranchisement laws, are non-separable from racial considerations, as images of criminals and felons are typically associated with Blacks. Such attitudes produce collateral consequences for felons, hampering the restoration of their full political rights and, ultimately, their citizenship. Predispositions, such as racial attitudes and political ideology, provide both racial and nonracial justifications for supporting these laws, yet, there are no empirical accounts of their relational effects on opinion toward felons' rights. Using nationally representative survey data, we find that racialized resentment and ideology exert the most influence on the reactions to policies seeking political rights for felons as well as beliefs about the value of doing so. Consistent with much of the literature on attitudes toward ameliorative racial policies, higher levels of racial resentment strongly predict lower support for felons' political rights among both conservatives and liberals, yet, racial resentment is most influential among liberals. Conservatives exhibit the highest levels of racial resentment, but its impact is depressed more by agreement on both racial attitudes and opposition to political rights of felons.

In a considerable number of cases the European Court of Human Rights has held that civil and political rights encompass (social) fulfilment elements, which are otherwise considered non-justiciable under the conventions on economic, social and cultural rights. This integrated approach has frequently been described in legal literature. However, a satisfactory normative explanation to the phenomenon has not been given, and we have not developed clear legal principles of guidance to treaty bodies when having to decide when and to what extent social facts can be considered legally relevant under the conventions on civil and political rights. The article applies a hermeneutic perspective in search of a better understanding of the integrated approach, the legal implications of the notion of the indivisibility of human rights and the justiciability of economic, social and cultural rights. Adapted from the source document.

ABSTRACTWhy hasn't Uruguay enfranchised emigrants yet? This study examines an underresearched case of nonenfranchisement and engages with debates on external voting, diaspora politics, and citizenship beyond borders. Building on qualitative and participatory methods, the analysis unveils the obstacles to franchise reform despite significant progress from 2004 to 2019. Although external voting was not enacted legally, emigrants' voting rights were debated, formally acknowledged, and encouraged. It is not the lack of norm entrepreneurs but the cumulative effect of indecisive actions that perpetuates a counterproductive dynamic and de facto uneven access to this right. An unresolved debate simultaneously advances conversations but precludes compromises, turning resolution deferral into an implicit form of regulating emigrants' political inclusion or exclusion. Presenting original evidence, this study expands existing accounts, highlights the interaction between institutional and social drivers of change, and invites further research on the role of policy diffusion, domestic politics, and timing.

Includes bibliographical references. ; The aim of my study was to measure the extent of children's participation in legislative processes that affect them and examine the factors that facilitate or inhibit such participation.

"From U.N. report A/5153, August 1, 1962." ; Cover-title. ; Mode of access: Internet.