Suchergebnisse

This article examines the implementation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) to critically consider its effectiveness as a bill of rights for women. After having discussed the need for such a convention for women it examines the vital role that non-governmental organisations (NGOs) play in the implementation of the Convention. As of March 2005, 180 countries – 90 per cent of the members of the United Nations – were party to this Convention. However, the document is one of the most highly reserved international human rights instruments and although many nations have ratified the Convention they have done so conditionally. Despite these reservations, women's NGOs have used CEDAW as a powerful tool to effect change. Yet, whilst CEDAW has been heralded as a significant step in the development of international human rights, women across the globe still suffer abuse because they are women. There is a need therefore to suggest ways forward in order to ensure the improvement of human rights for women.

We report on two studies undertaken to establish the factors that affect funders' trust and likelihood to invest in crowdfunding campaigns online. Findings from an initial small-scale qualitative study are reported and subsequently triangulated in a larger quantitative survey. Across these studies, we demonstrate the importance of social information within the peer economy, with a strong reliance on other users across the course of the investment decision-making process. Decision making on whether to invest is informed not only by the content of the crowdfunding campaign page but also by social influence factors that are present (e.g., liking of the campaigner, reciprocity). It is further shaped by due diligence checks focused on the progression of the prototype for which funding is sought, and by assurances from outside the campaign page—namely on social media. Such assurances center around the importance of social proof, garnered through opinions of previous customers or other funders. The risk here is that much of this information is content that can be faked, and as such a reliance on this may leave potential funders vulnerable. Meanwhile, a genuine lack of prior experience and customer base means that some legitimate campaigners struggle to gain trust from potential investors who are reliant on such social information. Our findings present an empirical grounding to develop future security solutions that (1) protect existing funders and (2) increase potential funders' level of trust, to encourage their engagement with legitimate crowdfunding campaigns.

This paper considers two specific difficulties in developing a code of ethics for the public sector, the contested nature of the values to be expressed in a code of ethics and the organisational demands of a corporate managerialist framework which uses performance indicators. Using the example of the Western Australian public sector code of ethics, the authors conclude that a good strategy for developing a public sector code of ethics will recognise contestability, demonstrate philosophical integrity in the code, mesh the code with identified performance indicators and provide whistleblower protection. The strategy described provides a sufficient framework for any public sector bureaucracy to develop a justifiable code of ethics for use by public sector employees.

This paper focuses on a recent public consultation to criminalise trespass in England and Wales. Through an analysis of the consultation discourse and documentary evidence, we argue that the government has used this process to manufacture a mandate for criminalisation. We show how the construction of democratic support has been achieved by: Pre-coding responses in the initial call for evidence; distorting evidence in the response; and utilizing 'state simplifications' which foreground hostile and racist sentiments whilst presenting sedentarisation as in the 'best interests' of nomadic communities. While the 2018/19 consultation is only the most recent in a long history of civilising offensives against Gypsy-Travellers, as well as other 'unfixed' communities, this particular move to criminalise trespass and attack nomadic heritage is also further evidence of the UK government's steady formalization of property ownership: moving away from considering property 'use' on the ground towards an abstracted registration system de-rooted from place. This denies long-standing rights to roam and non-normative modes of inhabitation, thereby pushing property relations in a direction that rarely benefits those on the housing margins. We foreground an alternative to criminalisation, pointing towards a recent pragmatic, bottom-up policy of 'negotiated stopping' in Leeds in northern England. This builds upon dialogue and cooperation in avoiding costly and disruptive eviction and criminalisation processes, but also potentially creates spaces and opportunities for more positive urban encounters with difference.

This paper focuses on a recent public consultation to criminalise trespass in England and Wales. Through an analysis of the consultation discourse and documentary evidence, we argue that the government has used this process to manufacture a mandate for criminalisation. We show how the construction of democratic support has been achieved by: Pre-coding responses in the initial call for evidence; distorting evidence in the response; and utilizing 'state simplifications' which foreground hostile and racist sentiments whilst presenting sedentarisation as in the 'best interests' of nomadic communities. While the 2018/19 consultation is only the most recent in a long history of civilising offensives against Gypsy-Travellers, as well as other 'unfixed' communities, this particular move to criminalise trespass and attack nomadic heritage is also further evidence of the UK government's steady formalization of property ownership: moving away from considering property 'use' on the ground towards an abstracted registration system de-rooted from place. This denies long-standing rights to roam and non-normative modes of inhabitation, thereby pushing property relations in a direction that rarely benefits those on the housing margins. We foreground an alternative to criminalisation, pointing towards a recent pragmatic, bottom-up policy of 'negotiated stopping' in Leeds in northern England. This builds upon dialogue and cooperation in avoiding costly and disruptive eviction and criminalisation processes, but also potentially creates spaces and opportunities for more positive urban encounters with difference.