Smokes and mirrors at the United Nations’ universal periodic review process

Purpose: In 2006, the United Nations’ Human Rights Council was tasked to establish a new human rights monitoring mechanism: the Universal Periodic Review Process. The purpose of this paper is to examine the nature of discussions held in the process, over the two cycles of review in relation to women’s rights to access health care services. Design and Methodology: This investigation is a documentary analysis of the reports of 193 United Nations’ state reports, over two cycles of review. Findings: The primary findings of this investigation reveal that despite an apparent consensus on the issue, a deeper analysis of the discussions suggest the dialogue between states is superficial in nature, with limited commitments made by states under review in furthering the protection of women’s right to access health care services in the domestic context. Practical Implications: Considering the optimism surrounding the UPR process, the findings reveal that the nature of discussions held on women’s rights to health care services is at best a missed opportunity to make a significant impact to initiate, and inform, changes to practices on the issue in the domestic context; and at worst, raises doubts as to whether the core aim of the process, to improve the protection and promotion of all human rights on the ground, is being fulfilled. Originality/Value: Deviating from the solely technocratic analysis of the review process in the existing literature, this investigation has considered the UPR process as a phenomenon of exploration in itself, and will provide a unique insight as to how this innovative monitoring mechanism operates in practice, with a particular focus on women’s right to access health care services

Women\u2019s human rights when experiencing humanitarian crises and conflicts: the impact of United Nations Security Council Resolutions on women, peace, security, and the CEDAW General Recommendation no. 30.

Violence and insecurity are strictly linked to unequal political, social, and economic power. However, the continuity of violence is obscured by masculinist and patriarchal rules of security within gendered structures, especially inside the division of public/private dimensions and spaces, of production-reproduction activities, and of conflicts of war/peace. Nowadays, there is a general perception of the gendered dimensions of humanitarian emergencies in public policy outcomes and more in general in institutional contexts where the central role of women in security and maintaining peace, at all levels of decision making, both prior to, during, and after the conflict stage, hostilities, and peace-keeping and peace-building stages, as well as in trying to pursue a condition of reconciliation and reconstruction, has been formally recognized at international level. Nevertheless, it is necessary to focus on some problems related to the conceptualization of and legal provision for \u2018gender based security\u2019 and its subsequent effects upon accountability, with particular reference to transitional justice and post-conflict societies. It is important to assess a range of contemporary issues implicated for women and security, such as violence and other forms of harassment in times of post-conflict

The analytical framework of water and armed conflict: a focus on the 2006 Summer War between Israel and Lebanon

This paper develops an analytical framework to investigate the relationship between water and armed conflict, and applies it to the ‘Summer War’ of 2006 between Israel and Lebanon (Hezbollah). The framework broadens and deepens existing classifications by assessing the impact of acts of war as indiscriminate or targeted, and evaluating them in terms of international norms and law, in particular International Humanitarian Law (IHL). In the case at hand, the relationship is characterised by extensive damage in Lebanon to drinking water infrastructure and resources. This is seen as a clear violation of the letter and the spirit of IHL, while the partial destruction of more than 50 public water towers compromises water rights and national development goals. The absence of pre-war environmental baselines makes it difficult to gauge the impact on water resources, suggesting a role for those with first-hand knowledge of the hostilities to develop a more effective response before, during, and after armed conflict

Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) for Guidelines: Paper 3 – Using qualitative evidence syntheses to develop implementation considerations and inform implementation processes

Background: This is the third in a series of three papers describing the use of qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) to inform the development of clinical and health systems guidelines. WHO has recognised the need to improve its guideline methodology to ensure that decision-making processes are transparent and evidence based, and that the resulting recommendations are relevant and applicable to end users. In addition to the standard data on effectiveness, WHO guidelines increasingly use evidence derived from QES to provide information on acceptability and feasibility and to develop important implementation considerations. Methods: WHO convened a group drawn from the technical teams involved in formulating recent (2010–2018) guidelines employing QES. Using a pragmatic and iterative approach that included feedback from WHO staff and other stakeholders, the group reflected on, discussed and identified key methods and research implications from designing QES and using the resulting findings in guideline development. As members of WHO guideline technical teams, our aim in this paper is to explore how we have used findings from QES to develop implementation considerations for these guidelines. Results: For each guideline, in addition to using systematic reviews of effectiveness, the technical teams used QES to gather evidence of the acceptability and feasibility of interventions and, in some cases, equity issues and the value people place on different outcomes. This evidence was synthesised using standardised processes. The teams then used the QES to identify implementation considerations combined with other sources of information and input from experts. Conclusions: QES were useful sources of information for implementation considerations. However, several issues for further development remain, including whether researchers should use existing health systems frameworks when developing implementation considerations; whether researchers should take confidence in the evidence into account when developing implementation considerations; whether qualitative evidence that reveals implementation challenges should lead guideline panels to make conditional recommendations or only point to implementation considerations; and whether guideline users find it helpful to have challenges pointed out to them or whether they also need solutions. Finally, we need to explore how QES findings can be incorporated into derivative products to aid implementation