Multinational enterprises are often accused to have a preference for investing in countries in which the working populations' civil and political rights are largely disregarded. This paper presents an empirical investigation of the popular "political repression boosts FDI" hypothesis and arrives at the conclusion that the hypothesis is not supported. On the contrary, multinational enterprises rather appear to be attracted by countries in which civil and political freedom is respected. Our finding thus supports the notion that there is a positive relationship between democracy and economic growth.
The international protection of human rights is generally recognized as a fundamental aim of modern international law. Even a cursory review of legal systems for the protection of human rights demonstrates the rapid expansion of this field since the end of World War II. During this period, nearly all global and regional organizations have adopted human rights standards and addressed human rights violations by member states. As a consequence, no state today can claim that its treatment of those within its jurisdiction is a matter solely of domestic concern. In Regional Protection of Human Right.
This book addresses how sexual practices and identities are imagined and regulated through development discourses and within institutions of global governance. The underlying premise of this volume is that the global development industry plays a central role in constructing people's sexual lives, access to citizenship, and struggles for livelihood. Despite the industry's persistent insistence on viewing sexuality as basically outside the realm of economic modernization and anti-poverty programs, this volume brings to the fore heterosexual bias within macroeconomic and human rights development frameworks. The work fills an important gap in understanding how people's intimate lives are governed through heteronormative policies which typically assume that the family is based on blood or property ties rather than on alternative forms of kinship. By placing heteronormativity at the center of analysis, this anthology thus provides a much-needed discussion about the development industry's role in pathologizing sexual deviance yet also, more recently, in helping make visible a sexual rights agenda. Providing insights valuable to a range of disciplines, this book will be of particular interest to students and scholars of Development Studies, Gender Studies, and International Relations. It will also be highly relevant to development practitioners and international human rights advocates.
Putin's Russia has developed into an increasingly authoritarian and conservative state. Anti-LGBT+ rhetoric has been adopted as part of Putin's narratives, challenging the hegemony of Western liberalism. LGBT+ rights are portrayed by the Kremlin as a Western liberal phenomenon that poses a threat to "traditional values." As part of its national security measures, Russia has devised a range of policies to limit LGBT+ rights. Consequently, LGBT+ Russians face challenging sociopolitical conditions where public visibility has become dangerous, accompanied as it is by censorship, discrimination, and even violence.
The expansion of human rights provisions has produced an increasing number of human rights practitioners and delineated human rights as a field of its own. Questions of who is practicing human rights and how they practice it have become important. This paper considers the question of human rights practice and the agency of practitioners, arguing that practice should not be conceived as the application of philosophy, but instead approached from a sociological point of view. Whatever the structuring effect of political institutions, human rights is being defined more expansively by practitioners. The weakness of international institutions and the interpretive scope of human rights discourse produce significant opportunity for practitioners to interpret the meaning of human rights. Our exploratory interviews of a small sample of practitioners reveal widely varying histories, in which they interpret their own work as "human rights" practice in differing ways. Practitioners who in the past thought of themselves differently, now identify as human rights activists. They are also becoming more professional, but concerned about professionalization. Their self-interpretations reflect these concerns and also respond to the necessities of career events. Through the conscious and unconscious aspects of their practice, practitioners exercise considerable agency in adapting human rights discourse to their own concerns while also being critical of it. Adapted from the source document.
In a post-Trump world, the right is still very much in power. Significantly more than half the world's population currently lives under some form of right-wing populist or authoritarian rule. Today's autocrats are, at first glance, a diverse band of brothers. But religious, economic, social and environmental differences aside, there is one thing that unites them - their hatred of the liberal, globalised world. This unity is their strength, and through control of government, civil society and the digital world they are working together across borders to stamp out the left. In comparison, the liberal left commands only a few disconnected islands - Iceland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Korea, Spain and Uruguay. So far they have been on the defensive, campaigning on local issues in their own countries. This narrow focus underestimates the resilience and global connectivity of the right. In this book, John Feffer speaks to world's leading activists to show how international leftist campaigns must come together if they are to combat the rising tide of the right. A global Green New Deal, progressive trans-European movements, grassroots campaigning on international issues with new and improved language and storytelling are all needed if we are to pull the planet back from the edge of catastrophe. This book is both a warning and an inspiration to activists terrified by the strengthening wall of far-right power.
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Blogbetreiber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie einen Blog Beitrag zitieren möchten.
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren rose Tuesday night to register her objections to Senator Jeff Sessions' nomination to the Attorney Generalship. In the course of reading a letter from the late Coretta Scott King (widow of Martin Luther King) about her objection to his appointment in 1986 to the federal bench, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell issued an objection saying that Senator Warren had violated Rule 19. That rule states, in part:
"No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator."
Senator Daines ruled Senator Warren out of order, telling her to take her seat. Warren challenged that ruling, but Senator Daines was sustained on 49-43 party-line vote. Senator Warren was then effectively barred from the remainder of the debate.
Senator Daines ruling Senator Warren out of order
The video of the incident quickly spread across social media. Democrats, liberals, and regular women were furious at a white, male senator suppressing the free speech of a female colleague. Even more galling, they indicated, was that Warren's male, Democratic colleagues were later allowed to read King's letter from the floor without interruption, let alone official reprimand.
As a professor of political science, I appreciate Senator Daines' commitment to civil discourse. It is something that I try to model for my students at Montana State, and it's a value which has evaporated during these hyper-polarized times. I agree that Senator Daines' interpretation of Rule 19 falls within the letter of the rule. Senator Warren did charge Senator Sessions with conduct unbecoming of a Senator, even if Senator Warren was quoting someone else.
Daines was right. According to the letter of Rule 19, that is.
But it's the spirit of the rule—and the intention behind it—that matters. And in that respect, Senator Daines and Senate Republicans erred greatly in ordering the honorable member from Massachusetts to take her seat.
Consider first why something like rule 19 exists: To provide a "safe space" for the difficult and often contentious disagreements about policy and the direction of our nation. Political debates should confine themselves to substantive matters without devolving into attacks on personal character. As we know from the literature on international relations, repeated interactions in negotiations encourages cooperation and long-term thinking. By encouraging elevated discussions whilst removing name-calling, the Senate pushes its members to engage in a battle of ideas and not personalities (Side note: Refusing to engage in personalities was one of President Eisenhower's keys to successful leadership). At the same time, this encourages the development of relationships that go beyond the disagreements of the moment—relationships essential to the institution functioning well and the production of good policy. In this case, Rule 19 is a good thing to have handy for officers presiding over debate.
While Rule 19 encourages elevated discourse, its use on Tuesday evening conflicted with the constitutional responsibility of the Senate; that is, to provide its advice and consent in the nomination process.
It would seem that a rule of the chamber concerning decorum should be subordinate to the pursuit of an important constitutional check on the executive branch.
When Senator Sessions became President Trump's nominee to head the Justice Department, he was no longer just a Senator. He had become a potential member of the executive branch and therefore subject to the advice and consent process. It would seem, then, that a full consideration of the previous actions and record of that nominee—including the judgment of those who are in a good position to assess that record—is fair game for consideration during the process of advice and consent. Even if those allegations include remarks that might be perceived as impugning the character of a sitting U.S. Senator.
Beyond this technical point, however, it's hard to buy that Senator Warren's reading of the King letter impugned the character of Senator Sessions. First, the letter was an account of his behavior not as a U.S. Senator but in his position as a U.S. Attorney. And, perhaps more directly, the views expressed by Mrs. King assessed the actions of an officer of the executive branch—the same branch Sessions would serve as head of the Justice Department.
Even if we accept the notion that Senator Warren's reading of the letter was out of line under a strict application of Rule 19, consider if that same letter were written about Betsy DeVos. Senator Warren could have freely read the letter without fear of rebuke. DeVos was not a sitting senator at the time of her confirmation, therefore, Rule 19 simply does not apply.
In 1989, the former U.S. Senator John Tower's nomination to lead the Department of Defense was rejected after senators openly discussed documented allegations of womanizing and alcohol abuse. Although Tower was not an active member of the Senate at the time of his nomination by President George H.W. Bush, the Senate did not shy away from this important and difficult discussion about a former colleague. It defies reason, therefore, that the Senate chose to silence one of its members rather than have a complete and full discussion of Sessions' qualifications to serve as Attorney General—simply because he is an active U.S. Senator. This is, quite simply, a dereliction of its constitutional duty.
At the end of the day, it is not a surprise that Senator Daines upheld McConnell's objection and the Republican majority supported his ruling. As University of Maryland Professor Frances Lee documents, senators increasingly vote along party lines not just on issues of policy and ideology, but on routine procedural matters. Why? Because the parties are more interested in building a mentality of teamsmanship at the expense of cross-partisan collegiality and cooperation.
While that teamsmanship might yield electoral benefits in the short-term, it comes at great expense to Madison's carefully constructed system of checks and balances.
The rise of teamsmanship along with the weaponization of congressional oversight (which Matt Dull and I have documented a few articles), leaves Congress vulnerable to the continued expansion of the executive branch accruing more and more power. Without congressional ambition vigorously countering executive ambition, we risk the rise of a majority tyranny running roughshod over our individual liberties.
The central aim of Deliverable 9.5 is to analyse the positions and opinions of political groups in the European Parliament (EP) and European social movements on civil, political and social rights for women, migrants and minorities in order to understand their views on family-related rights and values, in particular the position of the Committee of the European Parliament on Women's Rights and Gender Equality (FEMM). The deliverable focuses on the policy issues of free movement of young women, migration and elderly care, and how they are affected by EU level policies, positions and opinions. The working process included several steps: - Desktop research to select relevant themes for the analysis. - Reading and coding all of the relevant policy documents (reports and opinions; see appendix) drafted by the FEMM Committee regarding free movement of young women, migration and elderly care from 2009 to 2014, using a critical frame analysis approach. - Mapping positions and opinions of political groups on the selected issues and identifying key frames. - Desk top research on positions and opinions of political groups and civil society organisations (CSOs) on the selected issues as these are communicated on their respective web sites. - Policy tracing key reports within each area in order to analyse the policy process (debate and amendments in Committee, plenary debate and voting results as well as explanations to votes). - Conducting, transcribing and analysing interviews with politicians (FEMM Committee MEPs) and civil society representatives (major European organizations in the field). - Producing data on the descriptive representation of women in the EP and the FEMM Committee. - Presenting an overview of existing literature related to the work, function and dynamics of the FEMM Committee.
