The Experts below are selected from a list of 24 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Marie Hazel - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
CHALLENGING THE SYSTEM Using Strategic Human Rights Litigation in Seeking Transnational Remedies in the Context of Business and Human Rights
2013Co-Authors: Enriquez Lavitoria, Marie HazelAbstract:When TNCs’ investment in developing countries causes the displacement of people from their land, how do human Rights advocates respond? In answering the question, this paper investigates the potential of strategic human Rights Litigation in seeking transnational remedies within the emerging business and human Rights framework. This research shows that tensions between business and human Rights arise because global economic market reforms have weakened the power of developing countries to fulfil human Rights obligations. I maintain that UN’s response to the tension by adopting the Guiding Principles has recognized the power of TNCs but still sustained that human Rights obliga-tions remain with the States. As exemplified in the case of Koh Kong sugar plantation, I argue that the use of legal and non-legal means is an epitome of human Rights NGOs’ continuous efforts to explore means and mechanisms to challenge, and eventually change the system that constrains the enjoyment of human Rights. Strategic human Right Litigation posits that while the system hinders the enjoyment of Rights and limit’s the remedies to be availed of, it depends upon the Right-holders to claim and to work for the realization of their Rights.
Marianne Engelman Lado - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Unfinished Agenda: The Need for Civil Right Litigation to Address Race Discrimination and Inequalities in Health Care Delivery
2001Co-Authors: Marianne Engelman LadoAbstract:I. Introduction From Central Harlem to rural Alabama, poor communities of color are exposed to great health hazards and experience high incidences of many chronic and acute health conditions, but have access to relatively few health services. The consequences are devastating: high rates of infant mortality and morbidity due to childhood asthma, delayed care, and, ultimately, shorter life spans. This article argues that civil Rights Litigation could play a vital role in battling continuing patterns of discrimination in the provision of health care and the lack of access to care experienced by many low-income African Americans. Moreover, the current transformation of health care financing and delivery systems presents unique opportunities for intervention and legal challenge now, before historical practices replicate themselves and become entrenched in the new health care industry. In the campaign for greater equity in the financing and provision of health care services, is there a need for Litigation? What role would Litigation play? Before reaching these questions, this article will first outline the need for civil Rights enforcement in the health care sector. Disparities in access to health care are centuries old but continue to threaten quality and longevity of life for many African Americans. Further, virtually unchecked patterns of discrimination on the basis of race and ethnicity by medical personnel and facilities send a strong message about how we, as a society, value the lives of poor people of color. A mother who cannot find a pediatrician in the neighborhood to examine her child,1 the person living with HIV/AIDS who cannot afford costly medication,2 and the patient on a hospital's public ward who learns to shut off his own IV because the bag is empty and no hospital personnel will respond to his calls,3 each understands the meaning of the message. The disparities are all the more amoral in a society that spends fourteen percent of its gross domestic product on health care, the majority of which is paid for by the public purse.4 Next, the article will turn to a historical perspective of legal advocacy and civil Rights enforcement in the distribution of the health care services. Although civil Rights advocacy in the health care area has been limited, in comparison to advocacy concerning discrimination in the areas of employment, housing and education, health care cases and advocacy have made a difference. Litigation puts issues on the table that are otherwise neglected. Although civil Rights litigators have some key allies (including, most notably, the National Health Law Program, as well as lawyers from legal service organizations and the private bar, and many national and community based organizations), there is no organized civil Rights health care bar to carry the ball. Lastly, the discussion will focus on areas for Litigation and advocacy, suggesting three possible priorities, specifically: 1. Administrative advocacy to build mechanisms for civil Rights enforcement; 2. Impact Litigation to challenge redlining and other discriminatory practices engaged in by managed care organizations; 3. The development of new models of Litigation to create and sustain medical infrastructure in underserved areas. By way of qualification, it should be noted that this article does not provide full treatment of the legal grounds for each area of potential Litigation. Readers interested in more discussion of specific legal claims can avail themselves of materials and analyses available elsewhere.5 11. Racial Disparities in the Distribution of Health Services and the Need for Civil Rights Enforcement In the early 1990s, civil Rights advocates, health care researchers, medical professionals, and representatives from an array of government agencies, community based organizations, and law schools gathered to explore access to health care as a civil Rights issue and to chart a course for Litigation and activism. …
Y.y. Brandon Chen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Charter Rights & health care funding: a typology of Canadian health Rights Litigation.
Annals of health law, 2010Co-Authors: Colleen M. Flood, Y.y. Brandon ChenAbstract:Canadian health consumers have increasingly relied on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to demand certain therapies and reasonably timely access to care. Organizing these cases into a 5-part typology, we examine how a Rights-based discourse affects allocation of health care resources. First, successful Charter challenges can, in theory, lead to courts granting and enforcing positive Rights to therapies or to timely care. Second, courts may grant a Right to certain health services; however, subsequently government fails to deliver on this Right. Third, successful Litigation may create negative Rights, i.e. Rights to access care or private health insurance without government interference. Fourth, consumers can fail in their legal pursuit of a Right but galvanize public support in the process, ultimately effecting the desired policy changes. Lastly, a failed lawsuit can stifle an entire advocacy campaign for the sought-after therapies. The typology illustrates the need to examine both legal and policy outcomes of health Right Litigation. This broader analysis reveals that the pursuit of health Rights seems to have caused largely a regressive rather than progressive impact on Canadian Medicare.
Enriquez Lavitoria - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
CHALLENGING THE SYSTEM Using Strategic Human Rights Litigation in Seeking Transnational Remedies in the Context of Business and Human Rights
2013Co-Authors: Enriquez Lavitoria, Marie HazelAbstract:When TNCs’ investment in developing countries causes the displacement of people from their land, how do human Rights advocates respond? In answering the question, this paper investigates the potential of strategic human Rights Litigation in seeking transnational remedies within the emerging business and human Rights framework. This research shows that tensions between business and human Rights arise because global economic market reforms have weakened the power of developing countries to fulfil human Rights obligations. I maintain that UN’s response to the tension by adopting the Guiding Principles has recognized the power of TNCs but still sustained that human Rights obliga-tions remain with the States. As exemplified in the case of Koh Kong sugar plantation, I argue that the use of legal and non-legal means is an epitome of human Rights NGOs’ continuous efforts to explore means and mechanisms to challenge, and eventually change the system that constrains the enjoyment of human Rights. Strategic human Right Litigation posits that while the system hinders the enjoyment of Rights and limit’s the remedies to be availed of, it depends upon the Right-holders to claim and to work for the realization of their Rights.
Colleen M. Flood - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Charter Rights & health care funding: a typology of Canadian health Rights Litigation.
Annals of health law, 2010Co-Authors: Colleen M. Flood, Y.y. Brandon ChenAbstract:Canadian health consumers have increasingly relied on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to demand certain therapies and reasonably timely access to care. Organizing these cases into a 5-part typology, we examine how a Rights-based discourse affects allocation of health care resources. First, successful Charter challenges can, in theory, lead to courts granting and enforcing positive Rights to therapies or to timely care. Second, courts may grant a Right to certain health services; however, subsequently government fails to deliver on this Right. Third, successful Litigation may create negative Rights, i.e. Rights to access care or private health insurance without government interference. Fourth, consumers can fail in their legal pursuit of a Right but galvanize public support in the process, ultimately effecting the desired policy changes. Lastly, a failed lawsuit can stifle an entire advocacy campaign for the sought-after therapies. The typology illustrates the need to examine both legal and policy outcomes of health Right Litigation. This broader analysis reveals that the pursuit of health Rights seems to have caused largely a regressive rather than progressive impact on Canadian Medicare.
