Suchergebnisse

Women's sexual and reproductive rights are politicized worldwide, with the most contentious right being the right to safe, legal abortion. In Latin America, where one stands on the issue of abortion has become a central identity marker; a salient issue in electoral mobilization, and a matter of coalition building and high politics. As a consequence, legalized contestation over abortion is raging across Latin America, and indeed much of the world. This article conceptualizes this as "abortion lawfare" and develops a framework for analyzing the complex dynamics and long-term, multisited strategies at play in the wars over abortion. The concept of lawfare – despite and, to some extent, because of its ideological uses and connotations – serves as a useful heuristic tool for grasping these dynamics, and the lawfare typology brings out the different facets of the phenomenon in terms of actors, strategies, and arenas and provides the basis for analyzing how, in any given context, actors face multiple and shifting opportunity structures. This, in turn, influences the strategies they pursue and what is achieved. ; Os direitos reprodutivos e sexuais das mulheres são politizados ao redor do mundo, e o direito ao aborto legal e seguro é o mais controverso. Na América Latina, o lugar que certa pessoa ocupa no debate sobre aborto se tornou um marcador central de identidade, uma questão importante na mobilização eleitoral e um elemento de construção de coalizões e de política. Como consequência, a contestação jurídica sobre aborto está ocorrendo em toda a América Latina e, na verdade, em grande parte do mundo. Este artigo conceitua isso como "abortion lawfare" e desenvolve uma abordagem para analisar a dinâmica complexa e as estratégias multilocalizadas de longo prazo em jogo nas guerras pelo aborto. O conceito de lawfare – apesar de e, em certa medida, por causa de seus usos e conotações ideológicas – serve como ferramenta heurística útil para compreender essas dinâmicas, e a tipologia de lawfare traz à tona as diferentes facetas do fenômeno em termos de atores, estratégias e arenas, além de fornecer a base para analisar como, em qualquer contexto, os atores enfrentam estruturas de oportunidades múltiplas e dinâmicas. Isso, por sua vez, influencia as estratégias que eles perseguem e os resultados que alcançam.

This article offers a framework for exploring litigation as a strategy to advance the right to health by holding governments accountable to human rights norms. Since the 1990s, cases in which people go to court to claim their right to health have increased dramatically in resource-poor countries. With issues ranging from access to health services and medication, to discriminatory labor practices, to public health, to the basic determinants of health (such as food, water, shelter, and a healthy environment), these cases potentially have huge financial and social implications. Little is known, however, about the success of such attempts to hold governments accountable for their obligations with respect to the right to health -- or about who benefits. Is litigation primarily used by marginalized persons to gain fair access to medical services, or is it more often a means by which those patients with more financial resources or creativity in seeking assistance pursue access to treatment that is not otherwise provided due to expense? To what extent does litigation affect health policy and service delivery? What little is known about these cases is fragmented and anecdotal. The theoretical framework outlined here facilitates the systematic comparative and interdisciplinary studies needed to advance knowledge in this field, taking account of the entire litigation and implementation process. Adapted from the source document.

This article offers a framework for exploring litigation as a strategy to advance the right to health by holding governments accountable to human rights norms. Since the 1990s, cases in which people go to court to claim their right to health have increased dramatically in resource-poor countries. With issues ranging from access to health services and medication, to discriminatory labor practices, to public health, to the basic determinants of health (such as food, water, shelter, and a healthy environment), these cases potentially have huge financial and social implications. Little is known, however, about the success of such attempts to hold governments accountable for their obligations with respect to the right to health -- or about who benefits. Is litigation primarily used by marginalized persons to gain fair access to medical services, or is it more often a means by which those patients with more financial resources or creativity in seeking assistance pursue access to treatment that is not otherwise provided due to expense? To what extent does litigation affect health policy and service delivery? What little is known about these cases is fragmented and anecdotal. The theoretical framework outlined here facilitates the systematic comparative and interdisciplinary studies needed to advance knowledge in this field, taking account of the entire litigation and implementation process. Adapted from the source document.

This comparative analysis of the judiciaries in Tanzania and Zambia finds that neither one has developed a strong accountability function vis-à-vis the government. It goes on to address why judges in the two countries rarely have restrained the government in politically significant cases, identifying three sets of factors that may explain why the judges perform as they do: the legal culture; the institutional structure; and the social legitimacy of the courts. The study concludes that there are signs in the Tanzanian judiciary of a certain willingness to hold the government accountable in politically salient cases, but that their opportunity to do so is limited, due to institutional, social and political factors restricting the flow of constitutional cases. The Zambian courts have more political cases and opportunities for fulfilling an accountability function vis-à-vis the executive, but are reluctant to assert such authority. This is attributed to the legal culture and to political pressure. (Democratization - www.frankcass.com/DÜI)