Human Rights Reflection paper
Title:
The title of your paper must be one of the following:
* Claiming a right to religion in International Human Rights Law, who is a rights holder?
* The obligation to not torture within International Human Rights Law, an analysis.
* The Right to Reproductive Health, an analysis of applicable International Human Rights Law obligations.
* Socio-economic rights within International Human Rights Law – are they rights or guidelines?
Content:
From week 10-13 – compulsory readings, cases and presentations
Please consider what it means to be a rights holder, if the obligations that exist in IHRL exist in reality when individuals try to claim them, who does and who does not become a rights holder in reality, why etc.
paper must:
* Be 1,500 words (excluding footnotes – please do not write the facts of a case or treaty/general comment provisions in full – put them in your footnotes and only refer to them when they are relevant for your analysis).
* Refer to at least two cases from your chosen week
* Analyse the applicable human rights law provisions (relevant treaty articles and applicable general comments),
* Apply and evaluate at least one essential reading from the week you have chosen to write on, and one more (eg Megret/Fredman from week 6)
Week 10 cases:
– Leyla Sahin v Turkey EHCR 2005 ECHR 819 / (2007) 44 EHRR 5SAS v France ECHR 2014 to be read with the opinion of Hudoyberganova v Uzbekistan (below)
– Bikramjit Singh v France CCPR/C/106/D/1852/2008 (4 February 2013)
– EEOC v Abercrombie & Fitch Stores Inc., Supreme Court of the United States, No. 14-86, June 1, 2015.
– Samira Achbita v G4S Secure Solutions, NV CJEU (2017)
Case C-157/15
Week 11 cases:
– Chahal v. The U.K., (22414/93) ECHR 54 (15 November 1996)
– Ireland v. United Kingdom, 25 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) 25 (1978);
– Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights vs. Union of India, Writ Petition Nos. (C) Nos. 5328/80, 9229-30/82 Civil Appeals Nos. 721/85, 722/85, 723/85, 724/85, 2173-76/91, 2551/91 and Writ Petitions (C) Nos. 13644-45/84, Judgement dated 27 November 1997, http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=13628 (accessed 9 April 2015). (Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights vs. Union of India).
– State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Lakhwinder Kumar, Criminal Appeal No. 624/2013 and 625/2013, Judgement dated 25 April 2013, http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=40332 (accessed 9 April 2015)
– Prakash Singh and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors,
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 310 of 1996, dec’d on 22.09.2006
Week 12 cases:
– Devika Biswas v Union of India &
Othrs. WP (Civil) No.950f 2012. Judgment delivered on
14.09.2016
– Mellet v Ireland, Human Rights Committee, Doc No: CCPR/C/116/D/2324/2013dec’d: 31 March 2016
– Whole Woman’s Health et al. V. Hellerstedt, Commissioner, Texas Department of State Health Services, US SC argued March 2, 2016—Decided June 27, 2016. 579 US __ (2016) available at:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-274_p8k0.pdf
– Maria de Lourdes da Silva Pimentel (Alyne) v Brazil, Communication No. 17/2008 decision30thNovember 2007 Doc. No. CEDAW/C/49/D/17/2008
Week 13:
– Unni Krishnan, J.P. & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. AIR (1993) SC 2178 33
– Olga Tellis & Othrs. V Bombay Municipal Corporation & Othrs. AIR (1986) SC 180, 1985 SCC (3) 545.
– Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others vs. Grootboom (Grootboom) 2001 (1) SA
46 (CC), 2000 (11) BCLR 1169 (CC)
available here: https://www.escrnet.orgsitesdefaultfilesGrootboom_Judgment_Full_Text_%28CC%29_0.pdf
– Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy ‘Regulation Of Private Schools In India’ (2017) Available here
I AM ATTACHING THE LINK FOR THE AMOVE MENTIONED READINGS AND THE COURSE MANUAL
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/grq7cvszbkudy2z/AABq-QX2-HH3N5XVo7yLw-MMa?dl=0
The title of your paper must be one of the following:
* Claiming a right to religion in International Human Rights Law, who is a rights holder?
* The obligation to not torture within International Human Rights Law, an analysis.
* The Right to Reproductive Health, an analysis of applicable International Human Rights Law obligations.
* Socio-economic rights within International Human Rights Law – are they rights or guidelines?
Content:
From week 10-13 – compulsory readings, cases and presentations
Please consider what it means to be a rights holder, if the obligations that exist in IHRL exist in reality when individuals try to claim them, who does and who does not become a rights holder in reality, why etc.
paper must:
* Be 1,500 words (excluding footnotes – please do not write the facts of a case or treaty/general comment provisions in full – put them in your footnotes and only refer to them when they are relevant for your analysis).
* Refer to at least two cases from your chosen week
* Analyse the applicable human rights law provisions (relevant treaty articles and applicable general comments),
* Apply and evaluate at least one essential reading from the week you have chosen to write on, and one more (eg Megret/Fredman from week 6)
Week 10 cases:
– Leyla Sahin v Turkey EHCR 2005 ECHR 819 / (2007) 44 EHRR 5SAS v France ECHR 2014 to be read with the opinion of Hudoyberganova v Uzbekistan (below)
– Bikramjit Singh v France CCPR/C/106/D/1852/2008 (4 February 2013)
– EEOC v Abercrombie & Fitch Stores Inc., Supreme Court of the United States, No. 14-86, June 1, 2015.
– Samira Achbita v G4S Secure Solutions, NV CJEU (2017)
Case C-157/15
Week 11 cases:
– Chahal v. The U.K., (22414/93) ECHR 54 (15 November 1996)
– Ireland v. United Kingdom, 25 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) 25 (1978);
– Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights vs. Union of India, Writ Petition Nos. (C) Nos. 5328/80, 9229-30/82 Civil Appeals Nos. 721/85, 722/85, 723/85, 724/85, 2173-76/91, 2551/91 and Writ Petitions (C) Nos. 13644-45/84, Judgement dated 27 November 1997, http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=13628 (accessed 9 April 2015). (Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights vs. Union of India).
– State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Lakhwinder Kumar, Criminal Appeal No. 624/2013 and 625/2013, Judgement dated 25 April 2013, http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=40332 (accessed 9 April 2015)
– Prakash Singh and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors,
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 310 of 1996, dec’d on 22.09.2006
Week 12 cases:
– Devika Biswas v Union of India &
Othrs. WP (Civil) No.950f 2012. Judgment delivered on
14.09.2016
– Mellet v Ireland, Human Rights Committee, Doc No: CCPR/C/116/D/2324/2013dec’d: 31 March 2016
– Whole Woman’s Health et al. V. Hellerstedt, Commissioner, Texas Department of State Health Services, US SC argued March 2, 2016—Decided June 27, 2016. 579 US __ (2016) available at:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-274_p8k0.pdf
– Maria de Lourdes da Silva Pimentel (Alyne) v Brazil, Communication No. 17/2008 decision30thNovember 2007 Doc. No. CEDAW/C/49/D/17/2008
Week 13:
– Unni Krishnan, J.P. & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. AIR (1993) SC 2178 33
– Olga Tellis & Othrs. V Bombay Municipal Corporation & Othrs. AIR (1986) SC 180, 1985 SCC (3) 545.
– Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others vs. Grootboom (Grootboom) 2001 (1) SA
46 (CC), 2000 (11) BCLR 1169 (CC)
available here: https://www.escrnet.orgsitesdefaultfilesGrootboom_Judgment_Full_Text_%28CC%29_0.pdf
– Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy ‘Regulation Of Private Schools In India’ (2017) Available here
I AM ATTACHING THE LINK FOR THE AMOVE MENTIONED READINGS AND THE COURSE MANUAL
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/grq7cvszbkudy2z/AABq-QX2-HH3N5XVo7yLw-MMa?dl=0
Previous answers to this question
This is a preview of an assignment submitted on our website by a student. If you need help with this question or any assignment help, click on the order button below and get started. We guarantee authentic, quality, 100% plagiarism free work or your money back.
Get The Answer