The Olympic ideal and inclusive sports and their contribution to the promotion of human rights, peace and development were extensively deliberated on at the United Nations Human Rights Council Social Forum 2018. The outcome of the forum could contribute to strengthening inclusion and solidarity through a human rights- and Sustainable Development Goals-based approach to major sporting events, in particular the 2024 Paris Olympics. (more…)
Impacts of Unilateral Coercive Measures in Developing Countries: the need to end the US embargo on Cuba
By Vicente Paolo Yu and Adriano José Timossi
On 1 November 2018, the 193 Member States of the United Nations (UN) held the twenty-seventh consecutive annual vote of the General Assembly on a resolution entitled “Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed against Cuba.” The resolution was adopted with a near unanimous vote of 189 in favor, 2 abstentions (Ukraine and Moldova) and 2 against (United States of America and Israel). Before the vote and for the first time since the resolution was submitted in 1992, the US presented a set of eight proposed amendments to be considered by the 193 Member States, which were all rejected.
The present policy brief is a summary of the input prepared by the South Centre as a contribution to the 2019 report of the Secretary-General with respect to the imposition of unilateral economic, finance and trade measures by one State against another that is prepared pursuant to UN General Assembly Resolution 73/8.
Inequality is one of the greatest challenges that the world needs to face. Inequality is intimately linked with poverty. Although there has been progress in reducing poverty, a large part of the global population (overwhelmingly living in developing countries) is still denied access to a dignified life. While no poverty and reduced inequality are two of the outstanding Sustainable Development Goals, these and other goals are unlikely to be achieved by 2030. In fact, inequality is on the rise. Changing this situation will certainly require significant efforts at the national and regional level. But it also requires an international architecture that supports those efforts by respecting the policy space that countries need and coordinating constructive actions within the multilateral system. The current initiatives to ‘reform’ this system will only be legitimate if they recognize the gaps in the levels of development and contribute to effectively address them under a fair, pro-development system of rules. Please see last month’s SouthViews on “Understanding global inequality in the 21st century” by Jayati Ghosh, development economist and Professor of Economics at Jawaharlal Nehru University.
South Centre Quarterly Report, 1 January to 31 March 2019
This report summarizes the programmatic activities of the South Centre during the period 1st January to 31st March 2019. It is intended to provide information, organized by Program and themes, about recent developments in the areas covered by the South Centre’s Work Program and publications made and meetings organized or co-organized by the Centre to examine particular issues or to provide analytical support for international negotiations taking place in various fora. It also informs about external conferences and other meetings where the Centre has participated.
South Centre Quarterly Report, 1 October to 31 December 2018
This report summarizes the programmatic activities of the South Centre during the period 1st October to 31 December 2018. It is intended to provide information, organized by Program and themes, about recent developments in the areas covered by the South Centre’s Work Program and publications made and meetings organized or co-organized by the Centre to examine particular issues or to provide analytical support for international negotiations taking place in various fora. It also informs about external conferences and other meetings where the Centre has participated.
Setting the pillars to enforce corporate human rights obligations stemming from international law
By Daniel Uribe
The release of the Zero Draft of the Legally Binding Instrument to Regulate, in International Human Rights Law, the Activities of Transnational Corporations and other Business Enterprises by the Chairperson of the Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group on Business and Human Rights (OEIGWG), is likely to revive discussions on the recognition of corporate entities as subjects of international law. The present brief examines corporate entities’ human rights obligations in the context of the Zero Draft, taking into account the views and comments presented during the first three sessions of the OEIGWG and the need to advance the discussion on those entities’ obligations under international law.
Advancing international cooperation in the service of victims of human rights violations in the context of business activities
By Kinda Mohamadieh
A zero draft of a legally binding instrument to regulate, in international human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises, is the subject of discussions in an inter-governmental open ended working group under the auspices of the Human Rights Council (15-19 October 2018). The draft aims at harnessing international cooperation among home and host states of business enterprises in order to address barriers to get remedies to victims of human rights violations in the context of business activities of transnational character. This brief discusses the approach to States’ role and obligations as proposed under the zero draft.
A Human Rights Based Approach to International Financial Regulatory Standards
By Daniel D. Bradlow
Globalization and information and communication technologies pushed national financial regulators to establish international standard setting bodies (SSBs) which promote non-binding international financial regulatory standards. However, finance inevitably has social and human rights impacts and the SSBs and their members are not meeting their responsibility to account for these impacts in their international standards. This failure means that financial regulators and institutions may underestimate the risks associated with their operations leading to misallocations of credit, less safe financial institutions and less efficient and transparent financial markets. To avoid this problem, SSBs should adopt a human rights approach to standard setting. The benefits of doing so will exceed the costs. (more…)
