Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-01T10:35:16.032Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Would International Adjudication Enhance Contextual Theories of Justice? Reflections on the UN Human Rights Committee, Lovelace, Ballantyne and Waldman

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2006

Andrew M. Robinson
Andrew M. Robinson*
Affiliation:
Wilfrid Laurier University, Brantford Campus
*
Andrew M. Robinson, Department of Political Science & Contemporary Studies, Wilfrid Laurier University, Brantford Campus, 73 George St, Brantford ON N3T 2Y3; arobinson@wlu.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article seeks to advance thinking about contextual theories of justice as found in Carens' Culture, Citizenship, and Community and Parekh's Rethinking Multiculturalism by considering the suggestion that such theories would be enhanced by the incorporation of an element of international adjudication. It explores possible advantages and disadvantages of this proposal both theoretically and by reflecting on Canadian experience with the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) in its Lovelace, Ballantyne and Waldman views. The article concludes that international adjudication would enhance contextual theories of justice if it incorporated key elements of the HRC's individual communication procedure, including the non-binding nature of its decisions.

Résumé

Résumé

Cet article tente de faire avancer la réflexion sur les théories contextuelles de la justice qu'on retrouve dans Culture, Citizenship, and Community de Carens, ainsi que dans Rethinking Multiculturalism de Parekh. L'article suggère que ces théories gagneraient à incorporer un élément d'arbitrage international. Il explore les avantages et désavantages possibles de cette proposition tant du point de vue théorique qu'en réfléchissant à l'expérience canadienne du Comité des droits de l'homme de l'ONU dans les causes Lovelace, Ballantyne et Waldman. L'article conclut que l'arbitrage international pourrait améliorer les théories contextuelles de la justice s'il incorporait les éléments clés de la procédure de communication individuelle du Comité des droits de l'homme de l'ONU, y compris le caractère non contraignant des décisions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 39 , Issue 2 , June 2006 , pp. 271 - 291
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alston, Philip and Crawford, James. 2000. The Future of UN Human Rights Treaty Monitoring. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canada. Foreign Affairs. “Canada's Commitment to Human Rights.” http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/foreign_policy/human-rights/hr3-commit-en.asp (February 24, 2004).Google Scholar
Carens, Joseph H. 2000. Culture, Citizenship, and Community: A Contextual Exploration of Justice as Evenhandedness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ghandhi, P.R. 1998. The Human Rights Committee and the Right of Individual Communication: Law and Practice. Dartmouth: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Joseph, Sarah, Schulz, Jenny and Castan, Melissa. 2000. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Cases, Materials, and Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kymlicka, Will. 1995. Multicultural Citizenship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kymlicka, Will. 2001. Politics in the Vernacular: Nationalism, Multiculturalism and Citizenship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Parekh, Bhikhu. 2000. Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Steiner, Henry J. 2000. “Individual Claims in a World of Massive Violations: What Role For the Human Rights Committee?” In The Future of UN Human Rights Treaty Monitoring, eds. Alston, Philip and Crawford, James. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supreme Court of Canada. The Attorney General of Canada v. Lavell—Isaac v. Bedard, [1974] S.C.R. 1349.Google Scholar
Supreme Court of Canada. Reference re: Bill 30, An Act to Amend the Education Act (Ont.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1148.Google Scholar
Supreme Court of Canada. Adler v. Ontario, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 609.Google Scholar
Tully, James. 2000. “The Struggles of Indigenous Peoples for and of Freedom.” In Political Theory and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, eds. Ivison, Duncan, Patton, Paul and Sanders, Will. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tully, James. 2004. “Recognition and Dialogue: The Emergence of a New Field.” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 7: 84–106.Google Scholar
United Nations. Human Rights Committee. 1981. Sandra Lovelace v. Canada, communication no. R.6/24 (December 29, 1977), UN doc. supp. no. 40 (A/36/40) at 166.Google Scholar
United Nations. Human Rights Committee. 1993. Ballantyne, Davidson, and McIntyre v. Canada, communications nos. 359/1989 and 385/1989, UN doc. CCPR/C/47/D/359/1989 and 385/1989Rev.1.Google Scholar
United Nations. Human Rights Committee. 1999. Arieh Hollis Waldman v. Canada, communication no. 694/1996, UN doc CCPR/C/67/D/694/1996 (5 November).Google Scholar
United Nations. Human Rights Committee. 1999. “Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee, Canada: 07/04/99.” http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/hrcommittee/canada1999.html (March 10, 2003).Google Scholar
United Nations. Human Rights Committee. 2004. Rules of Procedure of the Human Rights Committee. CCPR/C/3/Rev.7 (4 August). http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/898586b1dc7b4043c1256a450044f331/39bc6e4659596091c1256f0900312d40/$FILE/G0443290.pdf (July 26, 2005).Google Scholar
United Nations. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. 2004. Status of Ratifications of the Principal International Human Rights Treaties As of 09 June 2004. http://193.194.138.190/pdf/report.pdf (July 26, 2005).Google Scholar