![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
This inquiry has sought to assess for the first time the effectiveness of three of Australia’s National Human Rights Action Plans (NHRAP) in realising human rights and show that among other factors, the traditional concept of planning, which is still predominant in international human rights law, can play a key part in generating different problems in the way of an effective action plan. This focused case study was informed by four sources of data, including an online survey of 37 experts, an in-depth interview and secondary data, qualitative and quantitative. As the results of this mixed methods research indicate, the first two of Australia’s NHRAPs were only ‘slightly effective’ in implementing human rights. These two plans are beset by six fundamental and four subordinate problems which all stem from, inter alia, traditional planning. On the contrary, Australia’s current NHRAP which steps away from the very nature of traditional planning is more effective than the first two. The current experience of Australia, particularly in the areas of women’s rights and children’s rights, has a number of important implications for future practices. These include, but are not limited to, conducting a baseline study, linkage to the universal periodic review, evidence-based, theoretical foundation, extensive consultation and integrated governance approach. This all suggests a strategic shift towards the modern model of planning which is multi-level, participatory, top-down bottom-up, and theory laden.
Acknowledgements
The author owes a deep debt of gratitude to Bill Barker, the author of the UN Handbook on National Human Rights Action Plans, who generously shared his invaluable time, experience and knowledge for the purposes of this research. The author is extremely grateful to the online survey participants who took the time from their busy schedules to participate in this study. Without their participation and feedback, this study would not have been possible.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Note on contributor
Azadeh Chalabi is a lecturer in Law, School of Law and Transitional Justice Institute, Ulster University. Her main research interests include communities' rights practices, national action plans on business and human rights, national action plans on women, peace and security, and global governance for implementing human rights. All her work is published in peer reviewed journals and the majority appears in the leading journals in the area. She is currently completing a book on National Human Rights Action Plans.
Notes
1. A. Chalabi, ‘The Nature and Scope of States’ Obligation to Adopt a National Human Rights Action Plan’, The International Journal of Human Rights 18, no. 4–5 (2014): 391–413.
2. The Human Development Index (HDI) is a summary measure of average achievement in key dimensions of human development: having a long and healthy life, being knowledgeable and having a decent standard of living. The HDI is the geometric mean of normalised indices for each of the three dimensions.
3. A. Pal, Planning from the Bottom Up: Democratic Decentralization in Action (Amsterdam: IOS Press BV, 2008); P. Cook, Theories of Planning and Spatial Development (London: Hutchinson & Co, 1983); J. Rothman and M. Hugentobler, ‘Planning Theory and Planning Practice: Roles and Attitudes of Planners: A Synthesis of Empirical Research and Formulation of Derived Applications’, in Interdisciplinary Planning: A Perspective for the Future, eds M.J. Dluhy and K. Chen (New Jersey: The Center for Urban Policy Research, 1986).
4. A. Chalabi, ‘The Problem Oriented Approach to Improving National Human Rights Action Plans’, The Oxford Journal of Human Rights Practice 7, no. 2 (2015): 272–98.
5. A. Faludi, ‘What is Planning Theory’, in A Reader in Planning Theory, ed. A. Faludi (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1973).
6. A. Chalabi, ‘States' Compliance with the Obligation to Adopt a National Human Rights Action Plan’, The European Human Rights Law Review no. 4 (2015): 395–403; Chalabi, ‘The Problem Oriented Approach to Improving National Human Rights Action Plans’.
7. J. Friedmann, Insurgencies: Essays in Planning Theory (London: Routledge, 2011), 15.
8. W.L. Schonwandt, Planning in Crisis? Theoretical Orientation for Architecture and Planning (London: Ashgate, 2008), 5.
9. E.R. Alexander, Approaches to Planning: Introducing Current Planning Theories, Concepts and Issues (Luxembourg: Gordon and Breach Publishers, 1995), 102; M.J. Thomas, ‘The Procedural Planning Theory of A. Faludi’, in Critical Readings in Planning Theory, ed. C. Paris (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1982).
10. Ibid.; E. Reade, British Town and Country Planning (London: Open University Press, 1987).
11. L. Sandercock, Towards Cosmopolis: Planning for Multicultural Cities (London: John Wiley and Sons, 1998).
12. Chalabi, ‘The Problem Oriented Approach to Improving National Human Rights Action Plans’.
13. See J. Ife, Human Rights from Below: Achieving Rights through Community Development (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).
14. See F. Westley, ‘Governing Design: The Management of Social Systems and Eco-systems Design’, in Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions, ed. L.H. Gunderson C.S. Holling, and S.S. Light (Columbia: Columbia University Press, 1995); J. Friedmann, ‘Towards a Non-Eucidian Mode of Planning’, in Readings in Planning Theory, ed. S. Campbell and S.S. Fainstein (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2003); P. Healeyet et al., Planning Theory: Prospects for the 1990s (London: Ashgate, 1991); B.M. Hudson, ‘Comparative and Current Planning Theories: Counterparts and Contradictions’, JAPA 45, no. 4 (1979): 387; N. Taylor, ‘Planning Theory and the Philosophy of Planning’, Urban Studies 17, no. 2 (1980): 159–72.
15. N. Harris, ‘Collaborative Planning: From Theoretical Foundations to Practice Forms’, in Planning Futures New Directions for Planning Theory, ed. P. Allmendinger and M. Tewdwr-Jones (London: Routledge, 2002).
16. A. Chalabi, ‘States' Compliance with the Obligation to Adopt a National Human Rights Action Plan’; Chalabi, ‘The Problem Oriented Approach to Improving National Human Rights Action Plans’.
17. Ife, Human Rights from Below, 208.
18. Chalabi, ‘States' Compliance with the Obligation to Adopt a National Human Rights Action Plan’.
19. Pal, Planning from the Bottom Up.
20. Alexander, Approaches to Planning, 3.
21. Ibid.
22. S. Campbell and S. Fainstein, ‘Introduction: The Structure and Debates of Planning Theory’, in Readings in Planning Theory, ed. Scott Campbell and Susan S. Fainstein, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2001), 3.
23. Chalabi, ‘The Problem Oriented Approach to Improving National Human Rights Action Plans’.
24. These organisations include, but are not limited to: Act Human Rights Commission (governmental organisation), Anti-discrimination Commission Queensland, Australian Federation of Disability Organizations, Australian Human Rights Centre, Australian Human Rights Commission (governmental organisation), Human Rights Law Centre, Australian Lawyers for Human Rights, Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, Children with Disability Australia, Civil Liberties Australia, Commonwealth Government, Disability Advocacy, Elder Rights Advocacy, Indigenous Research Unit, Leadership Plus, New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties, Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission (governmental organisation), Young People In Nursing Homes National Alliance, Australian National University, Monash University, University of South Australia, University of New South Wales, The University of Queensland, Charles Sturt University.
25. A completed response is where the survey taker has reached the last page of the survey.
26. For many years, Bill Barker served as Australia's representative to the United Nations' human rights bodies in Geneva and New York. He has also been acting as an international human rights consultant formulating NHRAPs in many countries.
27. Bill Barker, Interview, October 2013.
28. B. Barker, ‘Protecting, Promoting and Fulfilling Human Rights in Australia: A National Human Rights Action’, 2011, 6.
29. Ibid.
30. Ibid.
31. Bill Barker, Interview, October 2013.
32. Ibid., 13.
33. Ibid., 14.
34. Ibid.
35. Australian Government, ‘Australia's National Human Rights Action Plan’ (2004), 85, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/PlansActions/Pages/PlansofActionIndex.aspx
36. See UNHRC 24/07/2000. A/55/40, Sixty-ninth session, paras 498–528; UN Doc. CCPR/C/AUS/CO/5 (2009), para. 23; UN Doc. E/C.12/AUS/CO/4 (2009) para. 25; UN Doc. A/HRC/14/30/Add.4 (2010) 21–4; UN Doc. E/CN.4/2003/8/Add.2; UN Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.268, para. 62; UN Doc. CCPR/C/76/D/900/1999 (2002), para. 8.2; 24/07/2000. A/55/40, paras 498–528, Sixty-ninth session, 3.
37. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, ‘A Last Resort? National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention’, Commonwealth of Australia (2004), http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention_report/index.html (accessed 22 May 2013).
38. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Report (2004), 9.
39. Human Development Report (2005), http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-report-2005
40. Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM), http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/People/Gender-empowerment-measure
41. See Anne-Marie Mooney-Cotter, Culture Clash: An International Legal Perspective on Ethnic Discrimination, 1st edn (London: Ashgate, 2011).
42. See Anne-Marie Mooney Cotter, Gender Injustice: An International Comparative Analysis of Equality in Employment, 1st edn (London: Ashgate, 2004).
43. The United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women, Platform for Action (1995), http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/beijing/platform/plat1.htm#objectives (accessed 25 May 2012).
44. Ibid.
45. Ibid.
46. Australian Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, ‘Australia's Beijing Plus Five Action Plan 2001–2005’, http://www.dpmc.gov.au/women/publications-articles/government-international/un-4th-world-conference-on-women/beijing-plus-five-action-plan-2001-05.cfm> (accessed 23 May 2013).
47. Australia's response to the UNESCAP questionnaire on the implementation of the outcome of the Fourth World Conference on Women (Beijing 1995), April 2009, http://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/05_2012/unescap_questionnaire_response.pdf (accessed 23 June 2013).
48. Australian Bureau of Statistics, ‘2002–2011 Survey of Education and Work’, http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/1370.0main+features292013 (accessed 23 May 2013).
49. Ibid.
50. Life expectancy is considered a good measure of progress for health because it is one of the most widely used and internationally recognised indicators of population health. It focuses on the length of life rather than its quality, but provides a useful summary of the general health of the population.
51. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Measures of Australia's Progress (2013), http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/1370.0main+features252013 (accessed 23 May 2014).
52. As for women and the economy, the unemployment rate is a reliable indicator in that it is considered a good measure of progress for an economy that provides jobs because it indicates the percentage of people in the labour force who are unemployed.
53. Australian Bureau of Statistics, ‘Labour Force’ (2013), http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/1370.0main+features362013 (accessed 23 May 2014).
54. Bill Barker, Interview, October 2013.
55. Barker, ‘Protecting, Promoting and Fulfilling Human Rights in Australia’.
56. Ibid.
57. A peak organisation or body is an Australian term for an advocacy group with allied interests.
58. Human Rights Law Resource Centre, ‘Making Rights Real: A National Human Rights Action Plan for Australia, Submission to the Attorney-General's Department on the Development of a National Human Rights Action Plan’, February 2011, http://www.hrlrc.org.au/files/National-Human-Rights-Action-Plan-for-Australia-HRLRC-Submission.pdf
59. Barker, ‘Protecting, Promoting and Fulfilling Human Rights in Australia’, 13.
60. Australian Government, NHRAP (2004), 13.
61. C. Hartley, ‘Your Voice is Required!’, 2012, http://www.humanrightsactionplan.org.au/nhrapblogs/your-voice-is-required-participate-in-the-development-of-the-national-human-rights-action-plan
62. Ibid.
63. Barker, ‘Protecting, Promoting and Fulfilling Human Rights in Australia’, 15.
64. Ibid., 211.
65. Australian Government, NHRAP (2004), 5.
66. Ian P.S. Anderson, ‘Aust New Zealand Health Policy’, 2006, 3, 10.
67. A. Grover, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right of Everyone to the Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health: Mission to Australia’, 2010, UN Doc. A/HRC/14/30/Add.4 (2010), 21–24, 10, http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/49faf7652.html (accessed 6 June 2013).
68. Bill Barker, Interview, October 2013.
69. Ibid.
70. A. Chalabi, ‘National Human Rights Action Plans: A Roadmap to Development’, The Journal of Development in Practice 24, no. 8 (2014): 989–1002.
71. Bill Barker, Interview, October 2013.
72. Ibid.
73. Chalabi, ‘The Problem-Oriented Approach to Improving National Human Rights Action Plans’.
74. Human Rights Law Resource Centre, ‘Making Rights Real’.
75. Hartley, ‘Your Voice is Required’.
76. Barker, ‘Protecting, Promoting and Fulfilling Human Rights in Australia’, 14.
77. Alexander, Approaches to Planning, 4.
78. D. Higgins, ‘Protecting Children: Evolving Systems’, Family Matters no. 89 (2011): 7.
79. This approach is also known as networked governance and partnership governance.
80. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, UN Doc. CPPR/C/AUS/CO/5 (7 May 2010); UN Doc. A/HRC/17/10 (24 March 2011).
81. Australian Government, ‘Australia's National Human Rights Action Plan’ (2012), 73, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/PlansActions/Pages/PlansofActionIndex.aspx
82. Department of Immigration and Border Protection, ‘Immigration Detention and Community Statistics Summary’, 30 November 2013, http://www.immi.gov.au/managing-australias-borders/detention/_pdf/immigration-detention-statistics-nov2013.pdf (accessed 12 January 2014).
83. Ibid.
84. Ibid.
85. Ibid.; Department of Immigration and Border Protection, ‘Immigration Detention and Community Statistics Summary’, 30 September 2012, http://cm.org.au/wmm/Resources/immigration-detention-statistics-20120930.pdf (accessed 12 January 2014).
86. Australian Government, NHRAP (2012), 73.
87. UNHRC, Communication No. 2094/2011. Views adopted by the Committee at its 108th Session (8–26 July 2013), CCPR/C/108/D/2094/2011, 20 August 2013, http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CCPR/Shared%20Documents/AUS/CCPR_C_108_D_2094_2011_20720_E.pdf (accessed 29 March 2013).
88. Ibid.
89. Ibid.
90. Barker, Interview, October 2013.
91. Barker, ‘Protecting, Promoting and Fulfilling Human Rights in Australia’, 17.
92. S. Joseph and A. Fletcher, ‘Castan Centre For Human Rights Law: National Human Rights Action Plan: Draft Baseline Study’, 2012, 9, http://www.law.monash.edu.au/castancentre/policywork/national-hr-action-plan-sub.pdf
93. The Women's Legal Centre (ACT & Region) Inc., Baseline Study Consultation, 31 August 2011, 6.
94. Ibid., 2.
95. Human Rights Law Centre, ‘A Sound Baseline for Human Rights in Australia’, 2011, para. 9, http://www.hrlc.org.au/new-human-rights-action-plan-a-step-forward-for-rights-but-needs-stronger-accountability-measures
96. National Human Rights Consultation Summary, XXIV, http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/TreatyBodyReporting/Pages/HumanRightsconsultationreport.aspx (accessed 10 January 2014).
97. UN Doc. CPPR/C/AUS/CO/5 (7 May 2010), 8.
98. Australian Government, NHRAP (2012), 5.
99. Human Rights Law Centre, ‘A Sound Baseline for Human Rights in Australia’, para. 7.
100. A. Brown, ‘New Human Rights Action Plan a Step Forward for Rights but Needs Stronger Accountability Measures’, 18 December 2012, http://www.humanrightsactionplan.org.au/nhrap-blogs/new-national-human-rights-action-plan-a-modest-success
101. Human Rights Law Centre, ‘A Sound Baseline for Human Rights in Australia’, para. 7.
102. Human Rights Council, 2011, Recommendations Nos 31, 34, 94, 98, 100, 103, 108, 136.
103. Ibid., Recommendations Nos 6–9, 11–12, 57–58, 59–65, 96, 135.
104. Joseph and Fletcher, ‘Castan Centre For Human Rights Law: National Human Rights Action Plan: Draft Baseline Study’, 3.
105. Australian Government, NHRAP (2012), 25.
106. Ibid.
107. Barker, Interview, October 2013.
108. Ibid.
109. Human Rights Law Centre, ‘A Sound Baseline for Human Rights in Australia’, para. 7.
110. Ibid.
111. Australian Government, NHRAP (2012), 25.