for Journals by Title or ISSN
for Articles by Keywords
help
Followed Journals
Journal you Follow: 0
 
Sign Up to follow journals, search in your chosen journals and, optionally, receive Email Alerts when new issues of your Followed Journals are published.
Already have an account? Sign In to see the journals you follow.
Journal Cover International Journal of Human Rights and Constitutional Studies
  [11 followers]  Follow
    
   Hybrid Journal Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles)
   ISSN (Print) 2050-103X - ISSN (Online) 2050-1048
   Published by Inderscience Publishers Homepage  [420 journals]
  • Victims' right to a fair trial at the International Criminal Court:
           reflections on Article 68(3) of the Rome Statute
    • Authors: Stephen Gbenga Fashoto, Faith-Michael Emeka Uzoka, Godwin Ukaiji Okpokpo
      Pages: 280 - 294
      Abstract: Before the existence of the International Criminal Court, other international criminal tribunals did not provide victims with significant rights of participation and were mainly concerned with bringing criminals to justice. The main provision on victim participation at the International Criminal Court is Article 68(3) of Rome Statute with the Regulations of the Court and Rules of Evidence and Procedure put in place to bring it into life. The adoption of provisions recognising participatory rights has caused much dissension amongst jurists. The arguments regarding to victims participation in proceedings are numerous. Many argue that the recognition of participatory rights represents a great victory in international criminal justice. Others fear that victim participation in proceedings may conflict with the accused's right to a fair trial. This paper seeks to dissect the right of victims' participation at the ICC as weighed against the rights of the accused and the concept of fair trial.
      Keywords: International Criminal Court; ICC; right to participation; crimes against humanity; Rome Statute; victims rights; right to a fair trial; victim participation; participatory rights; international criminal justice
      Citation: International Journal of Human Rights and Constitutional Studies, Vol. 4, No. 4 (2016) pp. 280 - 294
      PubDate: 2016-12-19T23:20:50-05:00
      DOI: 10.1504/IJHRCS.2016.081055
      Issue No: Vol. 4, No. 4 (2016)
       
  • Mechanisms to facilitate citizen participation in public policy making
    • Authors: Mojtaba Kiaei, Karamallah Daneshfard
      Pages: 295 - 312
      Abstract: This study aimed to identify mechanisms to facilitate citizen participation in public policy making in Islamic Parliament of Iran. After conducting a thorough review of the research literature and extracting the Arnstein ladder of participation, the current level of citizens' participation in public policy making, first from the Islamic Consultative Assembly representatives' and next from citizens' viewpoint, was considered. The results showed the current level of public participation in public policy making. Then a few interviews with the university professors and the Islamic Parliament representatives were held to identify mechanisms to facilitate citizen participation in public policy making based on the current level of participation. The data were analysed using theme analysis and then ten mechanisms were extracted. Finally, the mechanisms were prioritised using TOPSIS technique in terms of effectiveness and efficiency and the final model was extracted. Based on findings, three most important solutions are respectively 'broadcasting participation educational programs', 'electronic participation' and 'forming factions as their roles are absolutely obvious'.
      Keywords: citizen participation; public policy making; public participation methods; Arnstein ladder of participation; e-participation; electronic participation; online participation; Islamic Parliament of Iran; TOPSIS
      Citation: International Journal of Human Rights and Constitutional Studies, Vol. 4, No. 4 (2016) pp. 295 - 312
      PubDate: 2016-12-19T23:20:50-05:00
      DOI: 10.1504/IJHRCS.2016.081058
      Issue No: Vol. 4, No. 4 (2016)
       
  • How can we justify human rights?
    • Authors: Mojtaba Kiaei, Karamallah Daneshfard
      Pages: 313 - 329
      Abstract: Human rights form a political, legal, and moral consensus which appears to enjoy global acceptance. At the same time difficulties in implementing these rights and their claim to universality raise doubts about and attract criticism of the legitimacy of human rights. Such reactions are bolstered by the obligation to remain coherent with the core concept of the autonomy of the individual. Human rights therefore need a moral justification because autonomy requires justification of the reason why one's freedom should be restricted by human rights. These challenges lead to the question of how human rights can be justified. My paper will start by discussing some attempts to justify human rights. Based on this, the necessary characteristics of a justification of human rights will be analysed. A model of justification of human rights which is based on the principle of vulnerability will then be introduced. This approach to justifying human rights will then be applied with a specific human right - the right to own property. The paper will then explore the concept of adaptation supporting the discourse about the justification of human rights. Finally, some closing remarks will try to identify the added value of this approach for justifying human rights.
      Keywords: human rights justification; universality; principle of vulnerability; adaptation; moral justification; right to own property
      Citation: International Journal of Human Rights and Constitutional Studies, Vol. 4, No. 4 (2016) pp. 313 - 329
      PubDate: 2016-12-19T23:20:50-05:00
      DOI: 10.1504/IJHRCS.2016.081069
      Issue No: Vol. 4, No. 4 (2016)
       
  • Ministerial responsibility to the parliament: a comparative study of the
           legal systems in Germany and Afghanistan
    • Authors: Abdul Salim Amin, Jakob Efe
      Pages: 330 - 350
      Abstract: This article compares the legal systems of Germany and Afghanistan with regard to the responsibility of individual ministers to the parliament. Ministerial responsibility has strong democratic basis in the constitutions of both countries, albeit with different enforcement mechanisms, such as interpellation, citation and inquiry, and sanctions against a minister. The legal system of Germany exhibits advanced measures of interpellation and inquiry that serve members of the parliament in terms of gaining accurate information, whereas Afghanistan relies on simple means of the above control measures. The Afghan parliament, on the other hand, is equipped with a strong sanctioning instrument against a minister, i.e., the vote of no-confidence. Nevertheless, the clarity of this sanction within the relevant legal provision is often questionable. This study tends to point out such shortcomings and to draw lessons from the comparison.
      Keywords: ministerial responsibility; democratic principle; departmental principle; control rights; liability; accountability; citation; interpellation; inquiry; sanction; vote of no-confidence; Germany; Afghanistan; responsibility to parliament
      Citation: International Journal of Human Rights and Constitutional Studies, Vol. 4, No. 4 (2016) pp. 330 - 350
      PubDate: 2016-12-19T23:20:50-05:00
      DOI: 10.1504/IJHRCS.2016.081071
      Issue No: Vol. 4, No. 4 (2016)
       
 
 
JournalTOCs
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Email: journaltocs@hw.ac.uk
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762
Fax: +00 44 (0)131 4513327
 
Home (Search)
Subjects A-Z
Publishers A-Z
Customise
APIs
Your IP address: 54.205.106.138
 
About JournalTOCs
API
Help
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-2016