The dissertation explores the specific forms of subjectivity that are attributed to LGBTI individuals in international human rights law. It takes into consideration 8 rulings by the Human Rights Committee, the UN body charged with monitoring the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and advances a deconstructive reading of the specific articulation of homosexual and transgender subjects contained in them. It suggests that the three representations found, the legitimate gay, the gay activist and the gay outlaw can be understood as an attempt to depoliticize deviant sexualities, subsuming them under neoliberal, heterosexist hegemonic normative arrangements. In view of this argument, it  proposes a queer psychoanalytic reading of subjective and bodily constitutions, emphasizing Jacques Lacan’s, Judith Butler’s and Jacques Derrida’s works. In highlighting the contingency and violence inherent to libidinal organization, it paves the way to a radical  understanding of the co-implication of subjectivity and community. In light of this co-implication, Jacques Rancière’s notion of politics is
presented and reworked in light of Lacan’s concept of Sinthome, in a way that appears to allow for an aesthetic political engagement based on the
quasi-substance of the Sinthome as a contingent, continuous grafting of Lacan’s three metaphysical orders, the real, the imaginary and the symbolic.

In December 2018, the United Nations adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas. UNDROP is the product of 17 years of struggle by La Via Campesina, other transnational agrarian movements and allies that included NGOs, states, UN mandate holders, and academics. It recognises the dignity of rural populations, their contributions to global food production, and their ‘special relationship’ to land, water and nature, as well as their vulnerabilities to eviction, hazardous working conditions and political repression. It reiterates rights protected in other instruments and sets new standards for individual and collective rights to land and natural resources, seeds, biodiversity and food sovereignty. This Grassroots Voices forum includes interviews and articles by activists in the UNDROP campaign: peasants from Indonesia, Belgium, France, Germany, Senegal and Argentina; a US farmworker leader; a women’s rights activist from Spain; a Bolivian diplomat; the Indian leader of a transnational Catholic farmers’ movement; an advocate for fishers from Uganda; a Swiss jurist; a Mexican indigenous rights leader; and human rights advocates from the NGOs CETIM and FIAN. They describe a new kind of people’s diplomacy and an innovative, bottom-up process of building alliances, lobbying, and authoring international law.

While recognizing the need for intelligence gathering and acknowledging that gathering such intelligence may require the adoption of extraordinary measures and approaches, international human rights law ascribes limits to how such extraordinary measures can be used. First and foremost, intelligence collection, by its very nature, is likely to infringe aspects of the right to privacy that all individuals enjoy under international human rights law. However, there are six accepted grounds in international law under which it may be acceptable to interfere with an individual’s or group’s privacy: National security, public safety, the economic wellbeing of the country, the prevention of disorder or crime, protection of public health or morals, and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. All but public health and morals fall squarely within an intelligence service’s purview. While there is a growing body of jurisprudence on the use of so-called Special Investigation Techniques by law enforcement and domestic security agencies – for instance, telephone intercepts, eavesdropping devices, surveillance tools, undercover operations and human source recruitment – there is far less jurisprudence that touches upon the collection of foreign intelligence although perhaps some basic principles can be inferred from court rulings, as well as other international bodies.

This chapter attempts to analyse the way in which insights from the Marxist tradition can illuminate international human rights law. It begins by outlining the key elements of historical materialism. It then selects three key analytics – class, ideology and the structure of capitalism – and shows how they can illuminate the general phenomenon of human rights. In particular, it argues that human rights law is a social relation that mediates the struggles between classes. However, the particular form that this takes is one which tends to recast social conflict as a matter of individual rights violations and to draw attention away the root causes of social problems.

The chapter then goes on to apply these insights to the RMT v United Kingdom case, concerning the issue of secondary strikes in industrial disputes. It argues that aside from directly advantaging the capitalist class in its judgement, the European Court of Human Rights also reproduced the ideological effects of human rights law. In particular, it recast the political-economic logic of class conflict as a technocratic clash of individual rights. The chapter closes with an attempt to think through whether it would be possible to articulate a vision of human rights which takes on board the political-economic issues flagged up by Marxist analysis.

Full book available here - https://www.crcpress.com/Research-Methods-for-International-Human-Rights-Law-Beyond-the-traditional/Gonzalez-Salzberg-Hodson/p/book/9781138603554

This book aims to address ‘boat migration’ with a holistic approach. The different chapters consider the multiple facets of the phenomenon and the complex challenges they pose, bringing together knowledge from several disciplines and regions of the world within a single collection. Together, they provide an integrated picture of transnational movements of people by sea with a view to making a decisive contribution to our understanding of current trends and future perspectives and their treatment from legal-doctrinal, legal-theoretical, and non-legal angles. The final goal is to unpack the tension that exists between security concerns and individual rights in this context and identify tools and strategies to adequately manage its various components, garnering an inter-regional / multi-disciplinary dialogue, including input from international law, law of the sea, maritime security, migration and refugee studies, and human rights, to address the position of ‘migrants at sea’ thoroughly.

Enacted February 24, 2014 and effective until August 1, 2014, Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act targeted Ugandans of minority sexual orientations and gender identities—many of whom self-identify as 'kuchu'—by imposing life sentences for homosexual sex and same-sex marriage. The original Anti-Homosexuality Bill introduced in 2009 promised even worse for kuchus: it would have mandated that all Ugandans report known homosexuals and threatened execution for serial offenders and other perpetrators of “aggravated homosexuality.” In the context of Ugandan political conflict, emerging international human rights norms, and global asymmetries of power, Uganda has become an ideological battlefront where competing actors—both US-based and Ugandan—advance their respective visions of a just and righteous global society. These factors mandate that US-based activists and organizations painstakingly consider how (or whether) they can advocate responsibly and effectively for international human rights related to gender identity and sexual orientation. Through interdisciplinary lenses and critical analysis, this paper explores three questions:

• How is Uganda distinct from other sites of antigay legislation?
• How have US-based organizations impacted Ugandan discourse and policy toward kuchus?
• How can US-based rights advocates and activists campaign for kuchus without doing them further harm?

The projected inclusion of the subsidiarity principle and the margin of appreciation doctrine in the preamble to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is a legal turn that deserves special attention. Is it a welcomed reform which will enhance the Strasbourg Court’s often-questioned legitimacy vis-à-vis member states? Does it represent, as some non-governmental organizations have claimed, a setback for human rights in Europe? This article elaborates on these questions by first entering into the current debate on the nature of human rights. I suggest that a “cooperative” political understanding of these rights, which is based on claims of relational justice, is a suitable ground for a normative theory of international human rights adjudication. I then use this political conception to present a non-statist reading of the subsidiarity principle, which is in accord with an incrementalist approach to human rights requirements and with a rationalized version of the margin of appreciation doctrine. My holistic reading is consistent with the axiological aims of the ECHR system as a regional driver of human rights protection without damaging Strasbourg’s legitimacy.

Europe is currently experiencing a "refugee crisis", demonstrated by millions of displaced people unseen since World War II. This book examines the interface between the EU's response to irregular flows, in particular the main extraterritorial border and migration controls taken by the Member States, and the rights asylum seekers acquire from EU law.

"Remote control" techniques, such as the imposition of visas, fines on carriers transporting unsatisfactorily documented third-country nationals, and interception at sea are investigated in detail in a bid to assess the impact these measures have on access to asylum in the EU. The book also thoroughly analyses the rights recognised by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights to persons in need of international protection, inclusive of the principle of non-refoulement, the right to leave any country including one's own, the right to asylum, and the right to remedies and effective judicial protection.

The fundamental focus of the book is the relationship between the aforementioned border and migration controls and the rights of asylum seekers and, most importantly, how these rights (should) limit the scope of such measures and the ways in which they are implemented. The ultimate goal is to conclude whether the current series of extraterritorial mechanisms of pre-entry vetting is compatible in EU law with the EU rights of forced migrants.

Palestra para o II Congresso Internacional das Américas, I Simpósio do GRULAC e Fórum Argentina Brasil de Direito - Aduaneiro e Tecnologia. Organizado pela Comissão de Direito e Relações Internacionais da Subseção de Santos da Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil. Dia 10 de junho de 2022.

This whitepaper provides a legal analysis to align the 1972 World Heritage Convention and the UNESCO Constitution and its commitment to human rights and fundamental freedoms. It sets out recommendations for UNESCO, the World Heritage governing bodies, and States Parties to ensure properties on the World Heritage List and Tentative Lists are not sites of serious, systematic violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law.

There are more types of borders today than ever before in history. Borders of all kinds define every aspect of social life in the twenty-first century. From the biometric data that divides the smallest aspects of our bodies to the aerial drones that patrol the immense expanse of our domestic and international airspace, we are defined by borders. They can no longer simply be understood as the geographical divisions between nation-states. Today, their form and function has become too complex, too hybrid. What we need now is a theory of the border that can make sense of this hybridity across multiple domains of social life.

Rather than viewing borders as the result or outcome of pre-established social entities like states, Thomas Nail reinterprets social history from the perspective of the continual and constitutive movement of the borders that organize and divide society in the first place. Societies and states are the products of bordering, Nail argues, not the other way around. Applying his original movement-oriented theoretical framework "kinopolitics" to several major historical border regimes (fences, walls, cells, and checkpoints), Theory of the Border pioneers a new methodology of "critical limology," that provides fresh tools for the analysis of contemporary border politics.

L’immagine più diffusa della pirateria è forse quella legata ai
romanzi di Emilio Salgari o di Robert Louis Stevenson, ed in
tempi più recenti a pellicole e serie televisive americane di
grande successo. Denominatore comune, sono le avventure in terre lontane ed esotiche e la sostanziale simpatia nutrita dal lettore o spettatore nei confronti dei personaggi di queste opere, quasi sempre
fuorilegge, ma (spesso), pure paladini della giustizia (seppur con tendenze anarcoidi e ribellistiche).
Vero è, che tale fenomeno è stato invece per lungo tempo endemico nel Mediterraneo ed ha interessato per oltre un millennio il nostro Mezzogiorno, ed è ancora (purtroppo), estremamente attuale in altre aree del pianeta a noi contigue o prossime.

Ce rapport de recherche s’intéresse à la place réservée au terroriste dans la mouvancesécuritaire internationale de notre début de XXI° siècle, en se posant plus particulièrement la question de savoir comment la communauté internationale et le droit peuvent-ils faire face à cette nouvelle menace en ce qu’elle n’émane pas d’un Etat, mais de plusieurs groupes extrémistes transnationaux qui ne respectent aucun code de guerre, mais pour qui il conviendrait de respecter les droits de l’homme au nom de l’universalité.
Il est nécessaire de situer d’une manière plus globale la place des mouvements terroristes face à la communauté internationale tant dans la notion dans laquelle le terrorisme est définit que dans les normes érigées pour lutter contre ces mouvements (Section 1), avant de s’attacher plus spécifiquement à la place du terroriste face au droit, notamment le droit international humanitaire et les droits de l’homme (Section 2).

Any society undertaking transitional justice measures must address the question of impunity for past atrocities. For societies like Kenya where the International Criminal Court (ICC) is involved in the prosecution of those who bear the greatest responsibility in the commission of international crimes, the question that invites address is how to hold accountable those who do not bear the highest responsibility. Thus, local prosecution of these individuals becomes an important indicator of successful transitional process. The chapter therefore critically analyses the major challenges affecting effective prosecution of international crimes in Kenyan courts and also assesses the effectiveness of these prosecutions within the broader picture of Kenya’s transitional justice process.

The forced transfer of children from one group to another is considered an element of the crime of genocide, yet this subject has attracted little scholarly attention. Using the history of the mass transfer of Armenian children during the Armenian Genocide of 1915-1922 as a case, this article argues that the study of child transfer and recovery is critical to both the history of human rights and a more sophisticated understanding of genocide, including the forms of genocide accompanying the colonial encounter. The experience of transferred children and their recovery or loss can help better clarify the historical relationship between the concepts of the rights of the child and individual human and minority rights as these have evolved before and immediately after World War II. Moreover, this article also contends that it is important to characterize child transfer as genocide, as opposed to colonial assimilation or acculturation as a feature of modernization, when explaining the broader social impact of mass violence, forced migration, and cultural destruction on victim/survivor and perpetrator communities.

Les auteurs proposent une réflexion sur l’impact que pourraient avoir les récents développements en droit international des droits de l’homme sur les revendications foncières des peuples autochtones au regard de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme. Ils entendent montrer l’existence d’un lien entre l’émergence d’un pluralisme juridique dans le droit international des droits de l’homme et la reconnaissance d’un droit de propriété autochtone originaire.

This Paper explores and summarises the Director's Duties of the UK Companies Act 2006 with emphasis on "the duty to promote the success of the company.

Tags:
Companies Act 2006 model articles, Companies Act 2006 summary
companies act 2006 pdf
companies act 2006 model articles
companies act 2006 regulations 2013
Companies Act 2006 UK
UK Companies Act 2006

It is sometimes argued that the non-therapeutic, non-consensual alteration of children’s genitals should be discussed in two separate ethical discourses: one for girls (in which such alterations should be termed ‘female genital mutilation’ or FGM), and one for boys (in which such alterations should be termed ‘male circumcision’). In this article, I call into question the moral and empirical basis for such a distinction, and argue that all children—whether female, male, or intersex—should be free from having parts of their genitals removed unless there is a pressing medical indication.

States have increasingly moved away from refugee protection, intensifying the vulnerability of refugees and asylum-seekers. Drawing on theories of norm dynamics within International Relations (IR), this article argues that departures from refugee protection can be partly explained by the weakness of the normative principles governing the treatment of individuals fleeing persecution. Ambiguities, diverging interpretations, and varying levels of codification complicate efforts to hold states accountable to a complex bundle of human rights standards surrounding refugee and asylum protection. These weaknesses in the international refugee regime bolster norm-evading behavior wherein governments deliberately minimize their obligations while claiming technical compliance. Drawing on an analysis of US refugee and asylum policies under the Trump administration, the article reveals how norm evasion and accountability challenges emerge in the context of ambiguous standards vis-à-vis non-refoulement, non-detention, non-penalization, non-discrimination, and refugee responsibility-sharing. In response to global forced displacement-including an estimated 25 million refugees-governments have increasingly closed borders, detained and repatriated asylum-seekers against their will, developed 'deterrence' and 'repulsion' techniques to prevent asylum-seekers from reaching their territories, and engaged in other practices undermining human rights principles regarding the treatment of individuals fleeing persecution and conflict. 1 The denial of entry by European ports to asylum-seekers-including sick children-stranded for weeks in the Mediterranean, the deaths of children detained along the US southern border, and drastic cuts to third-country refugee resettlement prompt challenging questions about the status of the international refugee and asylum regime. 2 Given the barrage of state practices contravening human rights principles governing the treatment of refugees and asylum-seekers, it is reasonable to question whether refugee protection norms are in crisis.

The massacre of almost 50 Maidan protesters on February 20, 2014 was a turning point in Ukrainian politics and a tipping point in the conflict between the West and Russia over Ukraine. This mass killing of the protesters and the mass shooting of the police that preceded it led to the overthrow of the pro-Russian government of Viktor Yanukovych and gave a start to a civil war in Donbas in Eastern Ukraine, Russian military intervention in Crimea and Donbas, and an international conflict between the West and Russia over Ukraine. A conclusion promoted by the post-Yanukovych governments and the media in Ukraine that the massacre was perpetrated by government snipers and special police units on a Yanukovych order has been nearly universally accepted by the Western governments, the media, and many scholars. The Ukrainian government investigation identified members of the special company of Berkut as responsible for killings of the absolute majority of the protesters, but did not release any evidence in support, with the exception of videos of the massacre.
              The question is which side organized the “snipers’ massacre.” This paper is the first academic study of this crucial case of the mass killing. It uses a theory of rational choice and a Weberian theory of instrumental rationality to examine actions of major actors both from the Yanukovych government, specifically various police and security forces, and the Maidan opposition, specifically its far right and oligarchic elements, during the massacre.
          The paper analyzes a large amount of evidence from different publicly available sources concerning this massacre and killings of specifics protesters. Qualitative content analysis includes the following data: about 1,500 videos and recordings of live internet and TV broadcasts from mass media and social media in different countries(some 150 gigabytes), news reports and social media posts by more than 100 journalists covering the massacre from Kyiv, some 5,000 photos, and nearly 30 gigabytes of publicly available radio intercepts of snipers and commanders from the special Alfa unit of the Security Service of Ukraine and Internal Troops, and Maidan massacre trial recordings. This study also employs field research on site of the massacre, eyewitness reports by both Maidan protesters and government special units commanders, statements by both former and current government officials, estimates of approximate ballistic trajectories, bullets and weapons used, and types of wounds among both protesters and the police. This study establishes a precise timeline for various events of the massacre, the locations of both the shooters and the government snipers, and the specific timeline and locations of nearly 50 protesters’ deaths. It also briefly analyzes other major cases of violence during and after the “Euromaidan.” This study includes two video appendixes.
            This academic investigation concludes that the massacre was a false flag operation, which was rationally planned and carried out with a goal of the overthrow of the government and seizure of power. It found various evidence of the involvement of an alliance of the far right organizations, specifically the Right Sector and Svoboda, and oligarchic parties, such as Fatherland. Concealed shooters and spotters were located in at least 20 Maidan-controlled buildings or areas. The various evidence that the protesters were killed from these locations include some 70 testimonies, primarily by Maidan protesters, several videos of “snipers” targeting protesters from these buildings, comparisons of positions of the specific protesters at the time of their killing and their entry wounds, and bullet impact signs. The study uncovered various videos and photos of armed Maidan “snipers” and spotters in many of these buildings. The paper presents implications of these findings for understanding the nature of the change of the government in Ukraine, the civil war in Donbas, Russian military intervention in Crimea and Donbas, and an international conflict between the West and Russia over Ukraine.

Kalaallit Nunaat (Greenland) has been, since 1979, a self-governing country within the Danish Realm. The population is composed of 89.6 % Greenlandic Inuit out of a total of 57,691 of inhabitants (July 2018 est.). The majority of Greenlandic Inuit refer to themselves as Kalaallit. Ethnographically, they consist of three major groups: the Kalaallit of West Greenland, who speak Kalaallisut; the Tunumiit of Tunu (East Greenland), who speak Tunumiit oraasiat (East Greenlandic) and the Inughuit / Avanersuarmiut of the north. The majority of the people of Greenland speak the Inuit language, Kalaallisut, which is the official language, while the second language of the country is Danish.

Greenland’s diverse culture includes subsistence hunting, commercial fisheries, tourism and emerging efforts to develop the oil and mining industries. Approximately 50% of the national budget is financed by Denmark through a block grant. In 2009, Greenland entered into a new era with the inauguration of its Act on Self-Government, which gave the country further self-determination within the Kingdom of Denmark. Together with the Danish Constitution, the Self-Government Act articulates Greenland’s constitutional position in the Kingdom of Denmark. The Self-Government Act recognizes the Greenlandic people as a people under international law with the right to self-determination. Greenland has a public government and it aims to establish a sustainable economy in order to achieve greater independence.

Greenland’s self-government consists of the Inatsisartut (Parliament), which is the elected legislature, and the Naalakkersuisut (Government), which is responsible for the overall public administration, thereby forming the executive branch. The Inatsisartut has 31 elected members. The Government of Greenland adopted the UNDRIP upon its ratification in 2007 and subsequent governments have committed to its implementation. Greenland and Denmark jointly prepare reports regarding good practice on implementation of indigenous peoples’ rights, as described in UNDRIP and other international rights and human rights instruments. The government of Greenland had a decisive influence on the Kingdom of Denmark’s ratification of ILO Convention 169 in 1996, as Greenland has prioritized actions to establish the indigenous peoples’ collective rights to land and resources in their territories.

Wong Ho Wing v. Peru case offers us the perfect opportunity to approach an applied study over the inter-judicial dialogue so important for the international public law nowadays. Classic bilateralism among equal states has been progressively replaced by an interchange dialogue between domestic and international courts. Such a new relationship model has been intensively applied on the field of human rights, where the plasticity of these treaties must be adjusted to effectively protect the human rights. Wong Ho Wing v. Peru describe that academic development, this is the reason to present it as a real success of this inter-judicial dialogue method to protect human rights.

Facilitating access to asylum and other forms of refugee protection for the millions displaced by mass atrocities in Syria and Iraq is essential to the implementation of the international norm of the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP). This responsibility, however, has been disproportionately shouldered by several states in the Middle East and Europe. This article explores the challenges associated with refugee responsibility-sharing in the context of RtoP and draws on work in climate justice and political realism to articulate a framework for integrating culpability as a key criterion in allocating states' responsibilities to protect refugees. An empirical and normative assessment of U.S. responsibilities to protect refugees in the cases of conflict-induced displacement in Syria and Iraq outlines several potential paths of culpability. The article ultimately argues for greater attention to culpability, equity, and legitimacy within the discourse surrounding RtoP and refugee protection. The article also advocates linking the benefits of refugee responsibility-sharing with states' national interests and highlights several such links with regard to U.S. responsibilities in Syria and Iraq.

The purpose of the article is to critique the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues from the point of view of its (self-declared) role as the implementing body of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Our main concern lies with what the activities of the Permanent Forum entail with regard to the scope and substance of Indigenous rights, with a focus on human rights as distinct from a group right of self-determination. The article hinges on a detailed analysis of the processes through which the Permanent Forum has sought to create and define its own mandate. These processes have involved a marginalisation or co-option of ʻotherʼ voices in the field of Indigenous rights, testifying to the capacity of international organisations and the state system they represent to ʻderadicaliseʼ Indigenous resistance.

Written by Israeli scholar Natalie Davidson, American Transitional Justice: Writing Cold War History in Human Rights Litigation presents a refreshingly incisive critique of human rights litigation in the United States (US) pursued under the famous Alien Tort Statute (ATS). On the face of it, this transnational litigation, which permits US courts to exercise universal jurisdiction, is a form of salvation for people who have suffered torture and abuse under repressive regimes outside the US but who have limited mechanisms for redress other than a US courtroom. Yet, in sifting through the layers of meaning of two landmark cases from the 1980s and 1990s, Davidson reveals the problematic implications of using a US legal paradigm that is limited to individual parties and individual rights to decide significant foreign issues of public interest—in particular, its whitewashing of the greater context of economic injustice and of America’s complicity in foreign atrocities.

The paper discusses the norm of self-determination as a core element of and a difficult challenge to international democracy promotion. Collective self-determination is part and parcel of the promise of democracy and, hence, of democracy promotion. Yet, at the same time, the idea that political communities should determine themselves clashes with democracy promotion's aim to shape political orders from the outside. Given the scarce attention to the question of self-determination in the academic and political debates about democracy promotion, the paper is mainly of a conceptual and theoretical nature: Its aim is to review the literature on self-determination in order to clarify the concept-or, in fact, the competing concepts-of self-determination and discuss its relation with democracy in general and democracy promotion in particular. The paper (1) shows that the claim to collective self-determination constitutes a common normative denominator between contemporary opponents and supporters of democracy promotion; (2) reviews the range of conceptions of collective self-determination from a maximalist notion of liberal-democratic self-rule to a minimalist understanding of self-determination based on a rather broad notion of popular sovereignty; and (3) discusses implications for democracy promotion understood as the promotion of democratic self-determination. 1 This paper was written during a research visit at Nuffield College, University of Oxford. I want to thank the college for giving me the opportunity to work in such a stimulating research environment and Laurence Whitehead for the generous support and helpful comments. The paper has also benefited from discussions with Christian Arnold, David Miller and Alessandro Spena as well as, back at the

Article in Georgian: http://laf.ge/journals/index.php/test/article/view/2/2
One  will  often  find  statements  by  specialists  of  a  variety  of  branches  of  domestic law  in  Georgia  arguing  that  there  is  no  international  law.  Others  will  consider international  law  to  be  part,  for  example,  of  the  public  law  branch  of  domestic law. The Founder of the International Law School in Georgia, Academician Levan Alexidze  has  laid  a  solid  foundation  for  enlightening  lawyers  in  Georgia  on  the peculiarities of International Law, this independent legal system that undoubtedly and definitively exists. This article is a brief account of the importance International Law has for the international community and for the formation of domestic legal systems.

O artigo examina o perfil do exercício do controle de convencionalidade pela Justiça do Trabalho brasileira. Para tanto, procedeu-se a pesquisa jurisprudencial que intentou constatar como, com que frequência e em que casos o Tribunal Superior do Trabalho e os Tribunais Regionais do Trabalho (TRTs) das 1ª, 2ª e 15ª Regiões praticam o controle de convencionalidade. O exame realizado debruçou-se sobre um espectro amostral de decisões selecionadas a partir de acórdãos do TST e dos três TRTs de maior porte do país. Conclui-se que a Justiça do Trabalho, à semelhança dos demais ramos do Poder Judiciário brasileiro, faz uso do controle de convencionalidade de modo pontual e seletivo, inexistindo uma atitude hermenêutica de decisão que considere, sistematicamente, o possível exercício de tal controle na prática jurisdicional. A investigação realizou-se com emprego do método indutivo de abordagem e do método bibliográfico de procedimento.

Around 2.5 million children participate in judicial proceedings across the European Union (EU) every year, affected by parental divorce or as victims of, or witnesses to, crime. Although their effective participation in such proceedings is vital for improving the operation of justice, the treatment of children in justice systems remains a concern. FRA investigated to what extent children’s rights to be heard, to be informed, to be protected, and to non-discrimination are fulfilled in practice.