Search results

In the aftermath of the devastation of the last World War, a new political will surged through the world community as a first step in the collective enforcement of a lasting peace for mankind, to safeguard the individual from the scourge of oppression. A renewed attempt was made to set standards of behavior, to which all people and nations should aspire, in the Charter of the United Nations, signed by the member states in 1945. Signature was a clear manifestation of the reaffirmation of their faith in fundamental human rights and freedoms, disregard of which had resulted in barbarous acts that had outraged the conscience of mankind. A historic document adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on the 10th December, 1948, was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which, in its Preamble, states that the "Recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all the members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world". Therefore, in laying down standards to be observed by all nations, the Universal Declaration proclaimed that all individuals were born free and equal in dignity "regardless of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status". Such were the ideals that all leaders and people had to strive for to recreate a society based on peace and stability. This goal led to the foundation in May, 1949, of the Council of Europe as the first European political institution. Its aims were, besides that of achieving a greater unity, that all members were to safeguard and realise the ideals and principals of common heritage, that of working for the "maintanence and further realisation of human rights and fundamental freedoms''. ; peer-reviewed

On 10th September 1990 the Government of Malta deposited instruments of ratification with the United Nations Secretary General for four multilateral treaties concerned with the international protection of human rights. These are: The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (hereafter referred to as Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Covenant); The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereafter referred to as International Covenant); The Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereafter referred to as Optional Protocol), all three adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1966, and the Convention Against Torture. and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degra ding Treatment or Punishment (hereafter ref erred to as the UN Convention on Torture) adopted by the General Assembly in 1984. All four treaties serve one common purpose: the protection of fundamental human rights and liberties through international legal regulation. But each instrument engenders a separate series of obligations for States in international law and the effect of the implementation of these undertakings by Malta, as a State Party, on our laws will be varied and revolutionary. The present outline is offered as a succinct record of the principal features incorporated in these instruments and of the contribution made by these texts to the formation of an ever developing com prehensive regime concerning international human rights protection that will become operative under our law. ; peer-reviewed

In 2002 Malta, a small island state in the Mediterranean, witnessed a sudden increase in the arrivals of irregular immigrants. The vast majority of migrants arrived by boat from Libya and almost all were directed towards Italy (mainland Europe). The immigrants originate from 47 different countries. In tandem with this social development, Malta was severely reproached by authoritative human rights organisations for not meeting its obligations to safeguard the human rights of the irregular immigrants. This widespread criticism, which resonates with similar situations in Europe, stands in contrast to the relatively good, almost untainted, reputation of respect to human rights that Malta had so far enjoyed. The migrationist Russell King, using the case study of Malta, shows that in the contemporary era characterised by globalisation and increased mobility, small islands have a particularly uneasy relationship with migration- "being good at emigration. but bad at coping with new immigration". This echoes the notion of ambivalence which the anthropologist Jon Mitchell aptly observed in Maltese political culture following a period of fieldwork in the late 1990s. Understandably Malta faced with such an unpredicted increase of irregular migrants needed time to set up a proper migration management system. This Chapter looks at these attempts from the point of view of human rights. ; peer-reviewed

Should journalists merely echo public fears and xenophobic attitudes towards immigrants or should they attempt to change those attitudes? This study discusses the journalist's role as agenda setter and opinion leader. It is based on qualitative in-depth data gathered from 13 journalists working with 8 news organisations on the Mediterranean island of Malta. It explores the various dilemmas faced by journalists in their coverage of irregular boat people and in their reporting of anti-immigrant movements. It shows how journalists hold divergent views on what constitutes national security. Some overstate the role of the police and the army in their effort to safeguard the territorial integrity of the Maltese islands from immigrant influxes. Others espouse a perspective that pegs security to fairness, justice, the protection of rights and cultural integration. This paper points out that globalisation, including migration processes, necessitate better comprehension and interpretation of international news where journalists could help foster greater public understanding of the international causes of migration. However, and to the contrary, Malta is now also experiencing media commercialisation trends that further marginalise foreign news and militate against such informed explanations. ; peer-reviewed

Questions posed: Do you think that human rights and equality are sufficiently protected and promoted in Malta? If not: Which human rights do you believe need further protection and promotion? How can Malta better protect and promote human rights and equality overall? Are there any models that you would propose that government should consider looking at in terms of legislation, institutional frameworks or both? If yes, what is especially good about such models? Due to the fact that question (b) is broader in scope and consequence than question (a), it shall be dealt with first. A brief look into specific rights, which should serve only as an example of the many rights that need further protection, will then follow with regard to question (a), whilst the answers to question (c) will be incorporated into the first section. An observation is made about question (a) of the consultation: While it was understandable and conceivable that it is asked if the protection of any specific right seems particularly lacking, the latter part of the question, 'Which human rights do you believe need further promotion?' seemed anomalous to the very notion of universal human rights as proclaimed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is the Programme's belief that all human rights should be promoted with equal vigour. How can Malta better protect and promote human rights and equality overall? It is the Programme's tenet that a more holistic approach should be taken in protecting and promoting human rights and equality. Doing so would allow for the development of a culture of human rights wherein it is understood that such rights are universal, indivisible and inalienable and would thereby bring Maltese human rights protection within the standards of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1950. In this regard, while several positive measures aimed at providing individuals with access to their human rights have been adopted in recent years, it would be remiss not to acknowledge that the Maltese system of human rights protection is still lacking in a number of areas. ; peer-reviewed

As we have argued earlier, education is one among a number of features of a social formation that can contribute to human development. The UNDP articulates the latter in terms of creating 'an enabling environment for people to enjoy long, healthy and creative lives', widening'~ people's choices and increasing the level of their achieved well-being. Together with health care, political freedom, guaranteed human rights and self-respect, education figures highly as a contributing element to the fulfillment of these aspirations. The UNDP significantly distances itself from other approaches that purport to explain the linkage between education and human development. The most notable of these approaches is the human capital theory, which was pioneered in the post-war period by a number of economists such as Nobel prize-winner TW Schultz, Peter Drucker and BA Weisbrod. For a long period of time, this approach was promoted by such development agencies as the World Bank. Human capital theory, or theories of human resource development as it is now increasingly referred to, tends to look at people as a means to an end, that is in terms of their capacity to increase production. It treats education as an industry which generates the desired amounts of functional manpower. Consequently, the development of educated and skilled people, their number, quality and utilisation, is considered to be the most significant index of the wealth-production capacity of a country. The implications of this is that education will produce individuals with an increased general and job-specific knowledge which they subsequently can apply in an expanding economy, both to better utilise new technical developments and to generate innovations. The result is a marked pay-off in terms of increased production, yielding greater national wealth, corporate profits and individual wages. For the purpose of this report it is crucial to understand the distinction between views of education and development promoted by the United Nations Development Programme on the one hand, and those of the World Bank (to mention only one of the more important agencies) on the other. This understanding is particularly important given the fact that, irrespective of the differing political views of various governments, human capital theory approaches have been very influential in Malta from the post-war period to the present day. This is evident in the various development plans that closely link education with economic progress. The change in name from Ministry of Education, Culture and Environment to Ministry of Education and Human Resources after the 1992 General Elections merely serves to highlight and make more explicit the assumed link between education and the economy, where the former is considered to be a key partner in sustaining, even leading the latter by the best development of human potential. The change in nomenclature for the portfolio represents a formal marriage between education and development, a union which had in fact been consummated much earlier as Malta strove to become not only politically, but also economically self-reliant. The influence of Thomas Balogh in the promotion of human capital theory in Malta and other British colonies and several nations on the African continent needs to be underlined in this context. The different approach to education and development promoted by the UNDP is useful because it helps one distinguish between quantitative and qualitative issues in educational provision. It leads the basic question as to the manner in which educational expansion increased the well-being of citizens. Of course, the quantitative dimension of the question is rather more easily addressed, given that 'all' it requires is a set of numeric parameters to measure the trends and direction in the delivery of the service. The qualitative dimension, indexed by the woolly phrase 'well-being of people', is much more subjective and less amenable to measurement. This does not make it in any way less important. Indeed, the treatment of people as 'human capital', as units that contribute to production, obfuscates and mystifies the relationship that exists between education and production on the one hand, and domination and exploitation on the other. Indeed, research has tended to show that rather than leading to human well-being, education systems are directly involved in selecting and stratifying people - often on criteria that have more to do with class, race, and gender than 'objective' intellectual ability - and then channeling particular categories of students towards specific locations in a segmented labour market. While some of these segments are characterised by work conditions and remuneration that lead to healthy, creative life-styles, others are not. Schools are, thus, directly involved in the 'cooling out' of groups of students who are thus channeled towards the less lucrative and fulfilling sectors in the economy. There are those who claim that education systems are predicated on a logic of success for some, and failure for others. For, if an educator's dream that all students successfully complete a course of study were to come true, how would society be able to select, park and store all these students in the job hierarchy? This explains why a number of Maltese educational sociologists in the post-war period have consistently argued that education systems should be considered systems of violence rather more than of development. This report gives an overview of both the quantitative and qualitative growth in education provision, raises issues and draw conclusions related to the problematic relationship between both. This is particularly important not only in terms of the exercise of providing the education component of the human development index, but also because current official discourse in the field of educational development and policy making is steeped in quantitative rather than qualitative considerations, a point that has been made by the Minister of Education and Human Resources Consultative Body's report Tomorrow's Schools: Developing Effective Learning Cultures. ; peer-reviewed

This speech by Joseph Filletti was given at the Promoting democracy and the rule of law conference in Valletta from the 19-20 October 1998. ; peer-reviewed

This paper provides a brief outline of the legislative development of first and second generation human rights and fundamental freedoms from the British period to post-independent Malta, with particular focus on the period 1953 to 2008. Human rights and fundamental freedoms as we know them today have been codified after WW H. Since then various declarations and conventions incorporating human rights and fundamental freedoms have come to the fore on an international, regional and national level. The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 10 December 1948 and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950 - the first soft law and the second hard law immediately come to mind. Nevertheless, in so far as Malta is concerned, we can trace our human rights history back to the Declaration of Rights of the Inhabitants of the Islands of Malta and Gozo of 15 June 1802 - a declaration which is reminiscent of similar declarations proclaimed during the late eighteenth century such as the American Bill of Rights of 25 September 1789 and the French Declaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen of 26 August 1789 and, very much earlier, the English Magna Carta of 15 June 1215. What is of historical relevance of the 1802 Maltese Declaration is that it was drawn up by the Maltese themselves - it was our first autochthonous human rights instrument which was not granted to us by a foreign colonial power who ruled Malta over time as were subsequent instruments such as the human rights and fundamental freedoms provisions in the 1959 Maltese Constitution, the 1961 Blood Constitution and the current 1964 Constitution of Malta, all three Constitutions being handed down to the Maltese by the sovereign British colonial ruler. ; peer-reviewed

Since gaining independence from the British Empire in 1964, Malta has had a very restrictive voting policy. Voter enfranchisement is based on three pillars: citizenship, residence and age. The only exceptions to this rule, introduced in 2004 as a result of EU accession, are the electoral rights granted to EU citizens at local and European Parliament elections. Prior to this, British citizens resident in Malta had already been granted Local Council electoral rights in 1993, when Local Council elections started being held. This latter 'exception' can be attributed to the strong ties between the two countries due to the historical colonial relationship, and by the mere fact that the British expat community is the largest foreign group in Malta. Voting is deeply entrenched in Maltese political culture. An indication of this lies in the consistently high voter turnout at national elections – 96 per cent in 2003 and 93 per cent in 2008. This is the highest for non-mandatory elections worldwide, often superseding even countries where voting is mandatory. The political scientist William Hirzy attributes this high voter turnout to the intense competition between the two main political parties, and the results are always very close; the national elections in 2008 were the closest, won by a mere 1,600 votes. Indeed, elections are preceded by aggressive campaigns, fraught with a confrontational style of electioneering. Loyalties to the two main political parties are 'strong, stable and rooted in social and family backgrounds.' This signifies, and is a result of, what the European studies scholar Michelle Cini has described as the 'extremely high stakes at general elections.' Interestingly, in spite of the fact that Malta uses a version of the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system which allows voters to cross party lists when selecting their candidates, in practice voters tend to vote per party. This shows the paramount importance of party allegiance for the Maltese. With such a deeply pervasive political culture, it is positively. The electoral rights of foreigners, in general, have not been a major topic of discussion in Maltese politics and society. Indeed, the question of enfranchising foreigners is rarely critically addressed by Maltese politicians, major institutions or Maltese society. Alternatives to the present system are hardly ever mentioned, except in some cases by 'Alternattiva Demokratika', the Green Party, a very small party which has only had limited success in a few Local Council elections. Even EU citizens, who have been enfranchised in Local Council and European Parliament elections since 2004, did not managed to stir a significant debate when they encountered difficulties in accessing their electoral rights. This demonstrates the inflexibility towards new alternatives and the reluctance to consider foreign voters on an equal par with Maltese voters. The paucity of debates in this field is interrupted, albeit on a minor scale, by two issues: the question of in-country voting together with the public expense of subsidising flights for eligible voters abroad, and the incident when around 19,000 EU resident citizens (constituting the vast majority) were struck off the Electoral Register in the 2009 EP elections. The first issue is a long-standing debate on the current and exclusive policy of in-country voting. This is a discussion which flares up around each election and is specifically prompted by the practice of the last two decades of offering subsidised flights to Maltese citizens resident in Malta but temporarily abroad. This practice is almost perceived as an entitlement or a right by many who feel that it ensures their access to the right to vote. It is, however, a costly practice when one takes into consideration the increasing number of Maltese people abroad and the newfound difficulty of proving that the minimum residence requirement has been met since Malta acceded to the EU and the Schengen area. In addition, one could also argue that the residency requirement is out-dated in the context of EU membership since it clashes with freedom of movement which is one of the fundamental pillars of the EU. The second issue which has arisen over the last years has to do with EU resident citizens' access to electoral rights in Malta. This had to do with the implementation of EU law and apparently procedural issues. EU resident citizens complain of discriminatory practices, that they were struck off the Electoral Register, and were therefore unable to vote in European Parliament elections. This issue has been championed by the Green Party, the smallest and 'youngest' party which has never managed to elect representatives in Parliament. The fact that this issue, and other issues regarding foreigners in Malta, are championed by the Green Party, and not generally by the main parties, is significant in itself and is to no small degree motivated by a vested interest in bringing about change to the traditional political culture. ; Research for the EUDO Citizenship Observatory Country Reports has been jointly supported, at various times, by the European Commission grant agreements JLS/2007/IP/CA/009 EUCITAC and HOME/2010/EIFX/CA/1774 ACIT, by the European Parliament and by the British Academy Research Project CITMODES (both projects co-directed by the EUI and the University of Edinburgh). The financial support from these projects is gratefully acknowledged. ; peer-reviewed

The Council of Europe has for years insisted that all contracting parties to the Convention should have the right mechanisms in place to cultivate a human rights culture and to ensure the swift execution of judgments . The establishment of the Human Rights and Equality Commission as a National Human Rights Institution (NHRI) in Malta is essential for the promotion of a human rights culture. However, the White Paper does not enable one to determine what implementation mechanisms, if any, will be entrusted with the NHRI. It is suggested that the setting-up of a parliamentary committee based on the Belgrade Principles can work in conjunction with the HREC to ensure maximum fulfillment of Malta's human rights protection obligations and more importantly serve as a base for the expansion of a human rights culture. It is proposed to enable the NHRI to effectively work towards the enforcement of judgments through the recommendation of legislative changes to the parliamentary committee. The proposal is for the Human Rights Commission to retain its proposed objectives whilst having the added responsibility of liaising with a Human Rights Parliamentary Committee that could in turn ensure that the necessary legislative changes are brought to the attention of Parliament. ; peer-reviewed

Dual Masters ; M.SC.CONFLICT ANALYSIS&RES. ; M.A.CONFLICT RES.&MED.STUD. ; In September 2019, the Government of Malta announced a public consultation to inform the reform of sex work related policies in Malta (MEAE, 2019). A number of stakeholders proposed policy recommendations to the reform, through submissions of policy papers and discussions at meetings of the Social Affairs Committee of the Parliament in March 2020. This dissertation looks to answer how a conflict mapping process can help to inform this policy reform on sex work in Malta. The methodology of critical reflection contributed to the design of a Conflict Map Analysis proposal to inform the reform. This proposal is situated in a human rights and harm reduction based framework, and aims to aid the advancement of active governance. Additionally, this dissertation offers an example of the benefits of conflict mapping to the policy reform process by applying a tailor-made Narrative Map Analysis to analyse the audio recording of the Social Affairs Committee meeting which was held on the 4th of March 2020. A key finding of this research is that a conflict mapping process, rooted in human rights values and harm reduction principles, can enhance active governance, and aid the Government of Malta to address the needs of sex workers in this policy reform. ; N/A

The treatment of irregular migrants in Malta is problematic from a human rights perspective, for it contravenes the principle of universalism that is intrinsic to human rights philosophy. Malta is unusual among states in that it imposes mandatory detention on such migrants, including asylum seekers. Based on a reading of foundational documents of the modern human rights movement, especially the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the article argues that the principle of human dignity underlies the concept of human rights, but that the bypassing of this principle enables the Maltese government to continue its detention policies while claiming to uphold human rights. It is an approach contested by NGOs in this area, which point to the dehumanising effects of detention on migrants. It is not just the appalling conditions in which migrants are held that renders their lives miserable, but the dehumanisation produced by detention itself. ; peer-reviewed