Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Human rights (Basic elements (sterilisation abuses in India during the…
Human rights
Basic elements
sterilisation abuses in India during the 1975 “emergency”; re-emergence in India of provider targets and disincentive schemes; and the case of Peru (see page 68).
13 rights
Despite longstanding global agreements, notably the 1987 Safe Motherhood Initiative—an international effort to reduce maternal mortality—and the ICPD Programme of Action, the rights to life, health, and reproductive autonomy are not a reality for most girls and women.
In fact, many governments have instead tried to control childbearing, at times through coercive programmes: China's one-child policy;
sterilisation abuses in India during the 1975 “emergency”; re-emergence in India of provider targets and disincentive schemes; and the case of Peru (see page 68).
sterilisation abuses in India during the 1975 “emergency”; re-emergence in India of provider targets and disincentive schemes; and the case of Peru (see page 68).
sterilisation abuses in India during the 1975 “emergency”; re-emergence in India of provider targets and disincentive schemes; and the case of Peru (see page 68).
-
-
Inherent – Human Rights are inherent because they are not granted by any person or authority. Human rights do not have to be bought, earned or inherited; they belong to people simply because they are human. Human rights are inherent to each individual.
Fundamental - Human Rights are fundamental rights because without them, the life and dignity of man will be meaningless.
Inalienable - Human rights cannot be taken away; no one has the right to deprive another person of them for any reason.
Imprescriptible - Human Rights do not prescribe and cannot be lost even if man fails to use or assert them, even by a long passage of time.
Indivisible - To live in dignity, all human beings are entitled to freedom, security and decent standards of living concurrently.
Interdependent - Human Rights are interdependent because the fulfillment or exercise of one cannot be had without the realization of the other.
This crossnational study seeks to explain variations in governmental repression of human rights to personal integrity (state terrorism) in a 153-country sample during the eighties. We outline theoretical perspectives on this topic and subject them to empirical tests using a technique appropriate for our pooled cross-sectional time-series design, namely, ordinary least squares with robust standard errors and a lagged dependent variable.
We find democracy and participation in civil or international war to have substantively important and statistically significant effects on repression. The effects of economic development and population size are more modest. The hypothesis linking leftist regime types to abuse of personal integrity rights receives some support.
We find no reliable evidence that population growth, British cultural influence, military control, or economic growth affect levels of repression. We conclude by considering the implications of our findings for scholars and practitioners concerned with the prevention of personal integrity abuse.