November 14, 2012 – the day when family planning was officially declared as a fundamental human right by UNFPA.

The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) on its annual report, released in 14 november 2012, has explicitly declared family planning is a fundamental human right, and, hence, it must be assured that all ought to have access to family planning information and services.

The report states that since the ICPD Conference in 1994, the right to family planning should have been made available. However, it has been estimated that 222 million women in developing countries have an “unmet need for contraception” and for such need to be met a $ 4.1 billion-investment has to be made. According to the report, family planning has been proven to be the most cost-effective public health intervention and if access to contraception and other methods of family planning is provided, the lives of women worldwide can be significantly improved.

Although, from a legal point of view, the report does not impact on international law as it is for its non-biding status, the report is an important public step in stressing the urgent need for nations to make internal arrangements to provide for the full achievement of such right.

From a gender perspective, the report acknowledges that women must have full access to information, education and to family planning services in order to enable them to perform consciously their fundamental liberty: right to choose. Yet, the truth is crystal clear: there is no genuine decision without quality information, and there is no tangible decision if there is no means to fulfilling it.

Very often there is an abysm between political statement and real action, between a legally acknowledged human right and its concrete fulfillment, between international arena and local reality.

So, yes, indeed a step has been taken, still, it is not all for a relevant question emerges: will the inked words of UNFPA`s report become real action or will they just remain registered written words on a UN document soon archived?

When it comes to human rights, we should not rest until acknowledged rights and liberties match reality.

To the full report, please visit http://www.unfpa.org/webdav/site/global/shared/swp/2012/EN-SWP2012_Report.pdf

Giselle Pinheiro Arcoverde

Human Rights in a glimpse

The very genuine philosophy of Human Rights comprises the idea of protecting human being from misuse or abuse of authority power. It can be defined as a set of norms, standards, principles established with the main purpose of granting human beings certain entitlements that can not be denied, renounced neither by force not by choice and are inclinable, inalienable and non abolishable.

Human Rights are granted to people as a condition of being human beings; no other requirement needs to be met. They are meant to be “universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated”#. Its universal characteristic moves away from the political concept of citizen given by nation-states and its acceptance by nearly every state has proven them to constitute “a moral community of mankind”# transposing the frontiers of any type of political and social systems. Hence, human rights are acknowledged as one of the pillars of international system along with peace, democracy and rule of law#, and thus, it is found in any discourse on international matters.

“Human Rights” are meant to provide individuals and collectivity with a set of rules from which they have entitlements needed for a life with dignity. Their abstract nature has to be concretised through actions, policies and strategies from the primary responsible for their protection: the States. Sure then, the State holds the primary responsibility for Human Rights’ implementation, protection, respect and enforcement.

The State as a duty bearer possesses three main obligations: the duty to respect, to protect, and to fulfill the rights granted to human beings. The respect entails a negative behavior of refraining from interfering with the enjoyment of the right; the protection requires a positive behavior of enacting laws that institute mechanisms to prevent such violations by authorities in official capacity or non-state actors from occurring and if occurs, mechanisms of retribution (punitive and preventive), and the fulfillment likewise calls for active behavior to build an infrastructure placing institutions, elaborating procedures and allocating resources to enable people to enjoy their rights in full.

They are enshrined in international (for instance, Convention on the Rights of Child), regional (for instance, The African Charter on Human and people’s Rights) and national (for instance, national constitutions) human rights instruments.

In short, the systems of human rights protection can be described in three perspectives: national, regional and international.

At national level, the fundamental freedoms# and guarantees, typically, are given by pieces of national legislation. Mostly, due to their importance they are laid down on states’ constitutions once they are considered the keystone of any State.  

At regional level, regional intergovernmental organisations have come together in order to establish human rights binding instruments equipped with reporting and monitoring mechanisms for their specific regions#. The focal idea is to promote and to strengthen human rights protection and respect. The existing regional systems work concomitant with United Nations (UN) International Human Rights System. They mutually reinforce one another once as the States belong to both systems they have obligations and duties deriving from multiple sources of human rights instruments. Human Rights Protection counts at regional level with three structured and functioning systems: one for Europe, one for Africa and one for the Americas.

At international level, Human Rights protection mechanism is represented by “UN System” that carries out its functions based on charter-based bodies and treaty-based bodies and under the secretariat support and assistance of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human rights.

All systems at the different levels are integrated, sharing a common objective: the protection, promotion and respect for human rights. They are committed to advocacy, strengthening and continual improvement and development of human rights laws, mechanisms of enforcement and dissemination of human rights values.

By Giselle Pinheiro Arcoverde.

Internally Displaced Children: Our “Displaced” futures

According to several statistic sources, the number of people who have left their habitual residence due to armed conflicts, internal strife or systematic violations of human rights has exceeded 20 million persons.  [The international Protection of Internally displaced persons. By Nils Geissler, International Journal of Refugee Law, Vol. 11, N. 03, p. 451-478.]

Although these persons have been labeled “internally displaced people”, the legal status granted to them has been nearly “none” in comparison to the extensive and efficient protection system for Refugees.

In the bottom-line it means that people who have fled or left their homes however have not crossed an internationally recognized State border, but rather have sought refuge in another part of their own State, remain under national legal jurisdiction, and therefore have no clear especial treatment or protection by international instruments. Their protection is provided in an ad hoc basis by the legal bodies of Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law, and it is intrinsically linked to whether or not the referred State has signed and ratified the respective treaties.

The complexities and dilemmas related to IDPs start with its definition itself and continue with its normative framework, response strategies and policies. In the direction of defining a normative framework, the representative of Secretary-General on internally displaced persons developed, in 1998, the “guiding principles on Internal Displacement” to provide even guidance to all actors involved in addressing IDP needs.

It is clear that IDP cannot be considered refugee, once their status under law does not match. However, the lack of clear and well-defined rights, and a proper legal definition hinder their protection and assistance.

IDPs stand in a vulnerable position to acts of violence, and in a hazard environment susceptible to losses of values and traditions ties, and when it comes to children in such context, all of these rocket. They become gradually susceptible to forced labor, early marriage, domestic violence, sexual exploitation and recruitment (child soldiers), just to name a few.

Their special condition of “persons in physical and physiological development” requires additional attention when identifying risks, threats, vulnerabilities and capacities that may obstruct any endeavor in promoting and improving conditions for them to develop themselves in all aspects of livelihood.

As in general, children are very deeply influenced by their cultural and social environment, the identification of the factors that deeply influence negatively and positively children’s resilience and coping mechanism is crucial to the understanding of their needs and underlying issues. [Children in adversity, By Jo de Berry and Jo boyden, Forced Migration Review 09, p. 33- 36.]

Nonetheless, any type of activity towards children must acknowledge them as social actors as well as the crucial role they play in their own protection.  They must not be seen as victims or as mere recipients of aid, but as subjects of rights guaranteed by their own state, and, in its absence or inability, by international community.  As prescribed in article 39 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (psychological recovery and social reintegration), an environment conducive for children’s recovery, reintegration and development must be guaranteed; if not existent, it ought to be built. [Psychosocial rehabilitation of IDP Children: using theatre, art, music and sports, By Nazim Akhundov, Forced Migration Review 06, Dec 1999, p. 20 – 21.]

As there is no central body in charge of assistance and protection of IDPs, protection and assistance are carried out in cooperation amongst humanitarian actors (NGOs and UN agencies, for instance, UNICEF) based on ad hoc arrangements and coordination guided by “the principles of internal displacement”. However, the first policies must come from the local and national authorities, and international community may deliver complementary assistance.

There are at least 13 million internally displaced children worldwide, uprooted from their homes and regular lives. It means there are over 13 millions expectations waiting to be achieved.

By Giselle Pinheiro Arcoverde

Internally Displaced Children: Our “Displaced” futures

According to several statistic sources, the number of people who have left their habitual residence due to armed conflicts, internal strife or systematic violations of human rights has exceeded 20 million persons [i].  

Although these persons have been labeled “internally displaced people”, the legal status granted to them has been nearly “none” in comparison to the extensive and efficient protection system for Refugees.

In the bottom-line it means that people who have fled or left their homes however have not crossed an internationally recognized State border, but rather have sought refuge in another part of their own State, remain under national legal jurisdiction, and therefore have no clear especial treatment or protection by international instruments. Their protection is provided in an ad hoc basis by the legal bodies of Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law, and it is intrinsically linked to whether or not the referred State has signed and ratified the respective treaties.

The complexities and dilemmas related to IDPs start with its definition itself and continue with its normative framework, response strategies and policies. In the direction of defining a normative framework, the representative of Secretary-General on internally displaced persons developed, in 1998, the “guiding principles on Internal Displacement” to provide even guidance to all actors involved in addressing IDP needs.

It is clear that IDP cannot be considered refugee, once their status under law does not match. However, the lack of clear and well-defined rights, and a proper legal definition hinder their protection and assistance.

IDPs stand in a vulnerable position to acts of violence, and in a hazard environment susceptible to losses of values and traditions ties, and when it comes to children in such context, all of these rocket. They become gradually susceptible to forced labor, early marriage, domestic violence, sexual exploitation and recruitment (child soldiers), just to name a few.

Their special condition of “persons in physical and physiological development” requires additional attention when identifying risks, threats, vulnerabilities and capacities that may obstruct any endeavor in promoting and improving conditions for them to develop themselves in all aspects of livelihood.

As in general, children are very deeply influenced by their cultural and social environment, the identification of the factors that deeply influence negatively and positively children’s resilience and coping mechanism[ii] is crucial to the understanding of their needs and underlying issues.

Nonetheless, any type of activity towards children must acknowledge them as social actors as well as the crucial role they play in their own protection.  They must not be seen as victims or as mere recipients of aid, but as subjects of rights guaranteed by their own state, and, in its absence or inability, by international community.  As prescribed in article 39 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (psychological recovery and social reintegration), an environment conducive for children’s recovery, reintegration and development[iii] must be guaranteed; if not existent, it ought to be built.

As there is no central body in charge of assistance and protection of IDPs, protection and assistance are carried out in cooperation amongst humanitarian actors (NGOs and UN agencies, for instance, UNICEF) based on ad hoc arrangements and coordination guided by “the principles of internal displacement”. However, the first policies must come from the local and national authorities, and international community may deliver complementary assistance.

There are at least 13 million internally displaced children worldwide, uprooted from their homes and regular lives. It means there are over 13 millions expectations waiting to be achieved.

By Giselle Pinheiro Arcoverde

---

[i] The international Protection of Internally displaced persons. By Nils Geissler, International Journal of Refugee Law, Vol. 11, N. 03, p. 451-478.

[ii] Children in adversity, By Jo de Berry and Jo boyden, Forced Migration Review 09, p. 33- 36.

[iii]Psychosocial rehabilitation of IDP Children: using theatre, art, music and sports, By Nazim Akhundov, Forced Migration Review 06, Dec 1999, p. 20 – 21.

Security

“For a hungry family, human security means dinner on the table” says UN Deputy Secretary-General. So what does human security stand for?

On June 4, 2012, in New York, during the General Assembly plenary meeting on human security, the Deputy Secretary-General remarked: “…For a hungry family, human security means dinner on the table.  For a refugee, human security is shelter and a safe haven from the storms of conflict or disaster.  For a woman caught in conflict, human security is protection from harm.  For a child living in poverty, human security is the chance to go to school…” (DSG/SM/620-GA/11247)

Indeed, human security is, and, ought to be much more than an abstract concept developed over years of discussions.

Since the GA Resolution 64/291, and even before, much was voiced about human security. The term can be considered as an emergent concept, but the idea that feeds it may date back to the foundation of the International Committee of the Red Cross in 1860s based on the doctrine of the security of people that was further formalized in the subsequent documents of the UN Charter, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Geneva Conventions.

In 1994, the UNDP Human Development Report set the lines for a fresh aspect of the term “human security” dealing with its concept and complexity, highlighting non-traditional threats as an attempt to address human security towards the International Development Agenda. The Final Report on Human Security of the UN Commission on Human Security was released in 2003, and contributed not only for the reconfirmation of the concept, but also for the addition of new elements to further thinking.

Fundamentally, the protection and the empowerment of people are the core components behind the achievement of human security goals. According to Mrs. Sadako Ogata, the first refers to the norms, processes and institutions required to shield people from critical and pervasive threats and the latter emphasizes people as actors and participants in defining and implementing their vital freedoms.

For the UNDP Commission, Human Security means “to protect the vital core of all human lives in ways that enhance human freedoms and human fulfillment” (1). The key word, here, is vital: the freedoms that are the essence of life, those elementary rights that cannot be denied to anyone in order to provide a life with dignity. The extensiveness of the definition is intentional to have an impact on political, social, environmental, economic, cultural and military policies and systems, for only by providing this holistic condition it would be possible to strengthen the building blocks of survival, livelihood and dignity (2).

Even after years of discussions, there is still no consensus on an adequate definition of what Human security, but there is an agreement that it was thought to be dynamic, flexible and comprehensive enough to incorporate the three main agenda items of peace, security and development (3) in order to attain “freedom from fear” and “freedom from want”.

Despite the fact that Its people-centered approach brings the universal principle of human dignity into light, it confirms that Human Security demands collaborations of governments, civil society, communities and businesses, in partnerships of common purpose (4) to be concretely felt in the daily lives of people.

Undeniably, Human Security must not remain a potential and abstract concept, it ought to become concrete actions and measures, It ought to become implemented policies and strategies, and it ought to allow the full safety and empowerment of people worldwide.

By Giselle Pinheiro Arcoverde

(1) http://ochaonline.un.org/Default.aspx?alias=ochaonline.un.org/humansecurity

(2) (3) HUMAN SECURITY NOW: Commission on Human Security – Final Report. New York, 2003.

(4) REPORT OF THE HELSINKI PROCESS ON GLOBALIZATION AND DEMOCRACY TRACK ON “HUMAN SECURITY”.Empowering people at risk: human security priorities for the 21 st Century. In: http://www.cmi.fi/files/HP_report_track3.pdf

For the final report on human security visit:

http://ochaonline.un.org/Reports/tabid/2186/language/en-US/Default.aspx

Does gender inequality fuel statelessness?

Statelessness is a legal concept describing the lack of any nationality, of any recognized link between an individual and any state able to dispossess someone from the enjoyment of the full array of human rights and from the full participation in society.

Worldwide it is estimated by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees there are over 12 million people worldwide in the invisibility of statelessness, in the search for citizenship and identity. In this limbo, half of the 12 million is of children.

In the case of women and their children, the lack of nationality means no legal status in place to effectively protect them from sexual violence or any other sort of abuses and bias.

In this zone of vulnerability, the denial of nationality leaves deep and pervasive roots. It impedes the construction of a cultural identity and it drastically impacts on a range of human rights such as access to education, to health and to official jobs, just to name a few. Further, It also prevents any engagement in society and in social and political activities such as getting married, voting, acquiring property.

However, it is relevant to ask does gender inequality fuel statelessness? Indeed, it does. One possible cause was made noticed by UNHCR in the occasion of the International Women’s Day.

On March 08, 2012, UNHCR Geneva issued a warning on the fact that unequal treatment of women in domestic legal orders may contribute to the number of stateless people. In given press release, it was stressed that in most continents there are domestic nationality laws based on gender discrimination. At least 25 countries have in the domestic legal order, provisions preventing women from passing on their nationality to their children.  According to UNHCR, most countries out of those 25 are based in Middle East and North of Africa (12), in the Sub-Saharan Africa (09), in Asia (4) and in South America (02).

Grounded on this form of discrimination, children are brought into this world from day one as stateless and, hence, as vulnerable and invisible human beings. It strikes most because such situations take place despite the existence of core international instruments on Statelessness (the 1954 Convention on the Status of Stateless Persons and the 1961 Convention on the Reductions of Statelessness) on women (the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women) and on children’s rights (the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child).

Conscious of the importance of State participation in the improvement of statelessness issues, UNHCR has launched an awareness campaign to the protection, prevention and reduction of statelessness.

Though significant improvements require collective efforts, one initial step for the prevention of statelessness may be of legislative nature at domestic level calling States to revise their domestic laws, in particular those nationality-related, in order to embrace gender equity (equal right to men and women) alike recently have done Sri Lanka, Egypt, Iraq, Indonesia, Morocco, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Tunisia and Monaco.