POS368 – Ethics and Human Rights
Worksheet #4 – Economic, Social, Cultural, Indigenous and Women’s Rights
Arizona State University – Dr. Eyal Bar
PART ONE
Leif Wenar gives us one creative way of lending greater enforcement to an aspect of the ICESCR while Onora O’Neill explains the seeming difficulties and lack of enforcement for welfare rights (i.e., rights to goods and services). According to Wenar, an international mechanism to compensate for stolen property must be established. For O’Neill, the physician and the farmer, the builder and the butcher, need to be consulted for advice and consent in order to establish justiciable provisioning of rights. Both are concerned with whether or how the rights encapsulated in ICESCR (Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights) ought to be delivered or secured.
Do you agree with O’Neill’s position or identify with her concerns on welfare rights enforcement? Does she offer a workable solution for securing and delivering welfare rights (i.e., rights to goods and services)? Can you think of any solutions or remedies that would help ensure delivery and enjoyment of the rights outlined in ICESCR?
(You can answer these questions addressing the ICESCR as a whole or by choosing a particular right/article/subsection in the ICESCR)
What is Wenar’s Clean Hands Trust? Do you agree or disagree that it provides a solution to ensure respect for a peoples’ economic rights? What barriers do you think have to be overcome to make this proposal a reality (if possible)? Can you think of any alternative solutions to ensure that peoples, like those of Equitorial Guinea, have some control over their nation’s natural resources and the profits earned from trade on the international market?
PART TWO
Recent efforts to develop a gas pipeline through Wet’suwet’en territory, against the wishes of local inhabitants and their allies, have led to massive collective action in Canada, including the disruption of highways and railways by protestors/protectors last year. Many of the First Nations elected councils (officially recognized by Canada) have agreed to the pipeline project or similar projects while many of the hereditary chiefs (whose legal recognition is challenged by the Canadian government) have disagreed and organized against the project (as seen in the AJ+ video).
The Wet’suwet’en have a long history of challenging Canadian sovereignty and authority over their territory. One of the paradoxes of their challenges is that they must make their sovereign claims in the foreign courts whose very legitimacy they challenge! Put another way, the Wet’suwet’en view the Canadian government (and therefore courts) as having no authority on their territory, and yet, they must submit their claims to these court, thereby legitimating the decision and authority of the court (for more on this, see Karena Shaw (2008), Indigeneity and Political Theory).
Are there any articles in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples that are relevant to this conflict or the struggle of the Wet’suwet’en peoples? Explain.
In your opinion, who has or ought to have the right to determine the sovereign claims and legitimate control over the disputed territory? In your view, what is the best way to settle these disputes? What considerations should be brought to bear in making these decisions and settling these disputes?
Resolution Copper is seeking approval to begin mining operations in the Oak Flats area of Arizona. The land is Apache territory and has long been protected and preserved. Resolution Copper has bought surrounding land in a likely effort to offer the Apache a land-trade deal. In addition to concerns over pollution of ground water, environmental degradation and loss of biodiversity, the Apache claim the territory holds invaluable cultural, ancestral and spiritual worth.
Are cultural, ancestral, or spiritual value given special consideration in the UNDRIP? In your opinion, are these rights fundamental and similar to the rights outlined in ICESCR and ICCPR, or are they importantly different? Explain.
What is the best way to settle disputes where economic value runs against cultural or social value? What considerations should be brought to bear in making these decisions and settling these disputes?
PART THREE
Rogaia Abusharaf introduced us to the controversial practice of female circumcision or, alternatively, female genital mutilation (FC/FGM). The procedure is viewed by many as abusive and an affront to women’s rights despite it being largely carried out by women. In many cases, the women interviewed admitted the procedure could be incredibly painful but claimed that it brings with it self-confidence, spiritual cleanliness, and social power.
Is FC/FGM a violation of human and/or women’s rights? Explain.
1. While figures vary widely by state (from less that 20 % to over 90%), on average, nearly 60% of male infants in the United States are circumcised. Is male circumcision/male genital mutilation (MC/MGM) a violation of human rights? Explain.
2. Are there any important differences between FC/FGM and MC/MGM? Do these differences lead you to answer A and B differently or not? Explain.
1. What should be done in the case of MC/MGM or FC/FGM? Are the solutions in the different cases different or the same? Explain.
If you believe these practices should be limited, then what is the best approach to limit them (legal, social, educational, other) either at home or abroad? Are these solutions consistent with respect for cultural and religious rights (or perhaps, rites…)? Explain.
The post POS368 – Ethics and Human Rights Worksheet #4 – Economic, Social, Cultural, appeared first on PapersSpot.
