Young European Research Universities Network (YERUN) is a network of young research universities in Europe seeking to have a true impact on the role and nature of academic pursuit. The competitive Research Mobility awards support early career researchers to establish new research collaborations within the YERUN network while providing a platform to promote multidisciplinary research.
Dr Koldo Casla will work alongside Marion Sandner (PhD candidate at Antwerp University) on the meaning of solidarity and responsibility in global politics and in international law, and the relationship between these two ideas and social rights.
Solidarity is one of the unifying principles of a society. But does solidarity have a role in the international society? How is solidarity recognised in international human rights law? What are the implications of the recognition of solidarity within nations and between nations? In other words, if we are bound by solidarity, what do we owe each other, and what does this mean for human rights, and for social rights in particular? These are some of the key questions Koldo and Marion will be busy with in the next few months.
Dr Fikayo Taiwo will work with Martin Munu (PhD candidate at Maastricht University) on access to justice, regional economic integration and electronic commerce (e-commerce).
On 29-30 July 2019, the authors organised an expert workshop at the School of Law, in association with the Essex Armed Conflict and Crisis Hub. The meeting brought together academics (working on international law, feminist legal theory, international relations, terrorism and security studies) and practitioners (working on gender, peace and security in the countries and regions of focus).
The meeting provided an opportunity to discuss the challenges associated with the women, peace and security and counter-terrorism frameworks, from a feminist perspective. It also provided an opportunity to consider the ways in which the international and regional frameworks represent diverse perspectives and views and how they can better do so. The meeting provided an opportunity to share experiences and practices, to develop common understandings and to map out how global feminist scholarly and activist communities can helpfully engage with these debates.
We were delighted to host such a dynamic group of experts for two days of what proved to be powerful, intensive and important discussions. We are excited about the prospects for building the next phases of the work, and the possibilities this will have for research collaborations and related policy work. These issues are multi-disciplinary and complex and it is so important to work collaboratively. We are hopeful that the next phases of our work will extend and deepen these collaborations.
The Global Context
In 2015, United Nations Security Council Resolution 2242 was adopted as
part of the wider Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda. This resolution
brought together the WPS agenda and counter-terrorism for the first time, and
and the United Nations to ensure the participation and leadership of women’s
organizations in devising strategies to counter terrorism and violent
extremism. It also encouraged the Plan of Action to Prevent Violent
Extremism to integrate women’s participation, leadership and empowerment as
core to United Nations strategy and responses and requested the
Counter-Terrorism Committee and its Executive Directorate to integrate gender
as a cross-cutting issue within their respective mandates.
Resolution 2242 is key in noting the need to situate women’s voices at the centre of the counter-terrorism agenda. The resolution has helped foster debates between the UN Counter-Terrorism Committee, UN Women and WPS. However, there has been debate amongst scholars and practitioners about bringing the feminist project together with the by now well-established post 9/11 international security regimes. Furthermore, references to women in the Resolution are arguably too superficial to engender a meaningful intersection between these very different agendas. Some of these concerns were highlighted by the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism. In her February 2018 report on counter terrorism and emergency legal responses, she highlighted the harmful impacts of gender-blind counterterrorism regulations. Also, there is clearly a great need to better include activist and practitioner voices.
The Regional Context
Multiple terrorist groups operate
within the Sahel region and North Africa, including Boko Haram, Al-Shabaab,
AQIM and other Al Qaeda affiliates. Such terrorist threats pose a great threat
the security of states and the human security for those who live there, impacting
on human development, good governance and rule of law. Killings by terror
groups have led to mass displacement and encampment where malnutrition, disease
and gender-based violence are prevalent. The increased use of sexual violence and abduction
from schools as tactics of systematic terror is a demonstration that terrorism
and extremism target and affect women, men, girls and boys in different ways. Disappearances
of male detainees impact female family members, who bear the burden of anxiety,
harassment, social exclusion and economic hardship. Similar effects ensue from
the prolonged detention without trial of male family members, extraordinary
rendition and forced deportations. However, while women are victims of
terrorism and counter-terrorism measures, they can also be volitional actors in
both terrorist entities and counter-terrorism measures. Terrorism has also ravaged
state infrastructure and undermined economic growth, fuelled by diminished
investor confidence and struggling tourist sectors.
The fight against terrorism has increased security spending, which has diverted resources from development initiatives. Also, some governments have used anti-terrorism policies to prey on minority, marginalised, religious or ethnic groups. In addition, some governments use vague terrorism definitions to punish people, particularly political dissenters, and to suppress social movements, including those that seek gender equality.
The particular security challenges in the Sahel region and North Africa have led to strategic partnerships between the UN and the African Union such as the United Nations-African Union Joint Task Force on Peace and Security. Similarly, the “G5 Sahel” – an institutional framework for coordination and monitoring of cooperation on security and development policies between Burkina Faso, the Republic of Mali, the Republic of Mauritania, the Republic of Niger and the Republic of Chad, launched a new Women’s Platform in Niger in October 2018. The goal of the platform is to increase women’s involvement in areas of peace, justice and security in the region by bringing together country leaders and civil society organizations. Additionally, there has been increased attention to such challenges within the AU, such as by the AU Office of the Special Envoy on Women, Peace and Security.
Our Next Steps
We will be releasing a report of the workshop which will summarise the main issues that arose and provide some analysis of next steps.
A newly published book, The Triangular Constitution: Constitutional Pluralism in Ireland, the EU and the ECHR, by Tom Flynn, lecturer in law at the University of Essex, offers a fresh account of modern European constitutionalism. It uses the Irish constitutional order to demonstrate that, right across the European Union, the national constitution can no longer be understood on its own, in isolation from the EU legal order or from the European Convention on Human Rights.
The constitution is instead triangular, with these three legal orders forming the points of a triangle, and the relationship and interactions between them forming the triangle’s sides. It takes as its starting point the theory of constitutional pluralism, which suggests that overlapping constitutional orders are not necessarily arranged ‘on top of’ each other, but that they may be arranged heterarchically or flatly, without a hierarchy of superior and subordinate constitutions.
However, it departs from conventional accounts of this theory by emphasising that we must still pay close attention to jurisdictional specificity in order to understand the norms that regulate pluralist constitutions. It shows, through application of the theory to case studies, that any attempt to extract universal principles from the jurisdictionally contingent interactions between specific legal orders is fraught with difficulty. The book is an important contribution to constitutional theory in general, and constitutional pluralism in particular, and will be of great interest to scholars in the field.