User:Maria cuse/Sandbox: Difference between revisions
Maria cuse (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Maria cuse (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
==Criticisms== |
|||
==Current Projects== |
|||
Economic and Social rights are particularly more difficult to expose and enforce than civil and political rights and the CESR has met many challenges concerning its work and/or strategies, some met with success and others with failure. |
|||
The CESR is currently working on many projects across the world and is operating in 21 countries. |
|||
Critics suggest that it is not enough for an organization to simply expose a violation at the risk of becoming just another voice in a crowd but that greater methodological strength is needed. This includes not just focusing efforts at the higher end of the spectrum such as with governments and donors but more in-depth and greater involvement of the local populations who will be the ones most affected by a reallocation of resources inherent in economic and social rights. Economic and social right organizations, including the CESR, can sometimes spend too much time and effort working for new governmental spending and distributive justice at the risk of negating the real nature of the violations and turning them into monetary value. Significantly, many scholars and critics suggest it is more important to stigmatize rather than just work for accountability of actions and violations. Though not always efficient with every situation, analysis of violations should be more issue specific since economic and social rights cover a wide range of issues. More plainly put, some economic and social rights benefit from more use of stigmatization and thus public pressure than others. <ref>[Roth, Kenneth. "Defending Economic, Social and Cultural rights." John Hopkins University Press, 2004.]</ref> |
|||
One of the major projects taken on by the CESR in Latin America is the case of Guatemala Although Guatemala is a mid-income country it has some of the worst social indicators and uneven distributions of wealth in Latin America. Despite having fairly ore resources than many other countries in the region, progress in the area of economic and social rights has been stunted and successful outcomes have been minimal. Through research and analysis, the CESR determined that it is the state's fiscal policy that has been a driving factor in the denials and violations of economic and social rights in the country. The CESR sought to facilitate and promote changes in Guatemala through exposing the problems with the state's fiscal policy and make human rights an integral part of the debate and reform of the nations' budgets and taxes. As is typical of the CESR, the organization partnered with a local think tank of fiscal policy known as the [http://www.icefi.org/ Instituto Centroamericano de Estudios Fiscales] as well as with other local advocacy groups of a wide range of topics including health, education, human rights, development, etc. <ref>[Saiz, Ignacio. Derechos o Privilegios?. CESR and ICEFI, 2011.]</ref> |
|||
In addition to bringing human rights into fiscal debate and tax reforms and seeking government comitment on social spending in areas such as women's health, child malnourishment and ethnic and rural/urban inequalities, the CESR has also stated its official advocacy goals as the following |
|||
*engage donor community |
|||
*promote national and local level human rights monitoring capacity |
|||
*counter media and business discourses |
|||
*urge and pressure for accountability at international human rights and development forums<ref>[Saiz, Ignacio. Derechos o Privilegios?. CESR and ICEFI, 2011.]</ref> |
|||
This stigmatization means less focus on the existence of a violation and more emphasis on the nature of the violation as arbitrary and/or discriminatory. This method, contrary to the CESR's main focus on international pressure, governmental accountability and violation exposure, allows a more clear method of identifying the violation, the violator and the remedy. Arbitration and discrimination automatically implies wrongdoing rather than focusing on distributive justice and money that makes it harder to target a violator because of the great diffusion of responsibility in economic and social rights. This cleared method of exposing extreme wrongdoing and working more among the local population helps to incite public outrage that can be more effective in situations than organizational and international pressure. Thus, according to these studies, the CESR might be more effective with certain issues and countries by inciting greater stigmatization amidst its accountability and policy efforts rather than merely violation exposure and law negation.<ref>[Roth, Kenneth. "Defending Economic, Social and Cultural rights." John Hopkins University Press, 2004.]</ref> |
|||
Revision as of 15:14, 28 April 2011
I am a senior International Relations and Geography major at Syracuse University. [1]
Criticisms
Economic and Social rights are particularly more difficult to expose and enforce than civil and political rights and the CESR has met many challenges concerning its work and/or strategies, some met with success and others with failure. Critics suggest that it is not enough for an organization to simply expose a violation at the risk of becoming just another voice in a crowd but that greater methodological strength is needed. This includes not just focusing efforts at the higher end of the spectrum such as with governments and donors but more in-depth and greater involvement of the local populations who will be the ones most affected by a reallocation of resources inherent in economic and social rights. Economic and social right organizations, including the CESR, can sometimes spend too much time and effort working for new governmental spending and distributive justice at the risk of negating the real nature of the violations and turning them into monetary value. Significantly, many scholars and critics suggest it is more important to stigmatize rather than just work for accountability of actions and violations. Though not always efficient with every situation, analysis of violations should be more issue specific since economic and social rights cover a wide range of issues. More plainly put, some economic and social rights benefit from more use of stigmatization and thus public pressure than others. [2]
This stigmatization means less focus on the existence of a violation and more emphasis on the nature of the violation as arbitrary and/or discriminatory. This method, contrary to the CESR's main focus on international pressure, governmental accountability and violation exposure, allows a more clear method of identifying the violation, the violator and the remedy. Arbitration and discrimination automatically implies wrongdoing rather than focusing on distributive justice and money that makes it harder to target a violator because of the great diffusion of responsibility in economic and social rights. This cleared method of exposing extreme wrongdoing and working more among the local population helps to incite public outrage that can be more effective in situations than organizational and international pressure. Thus, according to these studies, the CESR might be more effective with certain issues and countries by inciting greater stigmatization amidst its accountability and policy efforts rather than merely violation exposure and law negation.[3]