This article presents the results of the COVID Energy Map, a novel, global mapping exercise tracking emergency responses undertaken by governments, regulators, utilities and companies in the Global North and South to mitigate energy poverty by keeping energy affordable and available. The map constitutes a comprehensive open access evidence-based database, so far collating 380+ emergency measures, in 120+ countries. This paper particularly shows and discusses how the response has been developing until early 2021, highlighting various emerging longer-term concerns and strategies across Global North and South. The global COVID-19 response merits close attention in our view, as it reveals both the universal importance of household energy services access and important underlying existing narratives and policy-making questions about securing energy services access as a vital basic need, and even a ‘basic right’. In fact, the paper additionally evaluates whether and how COVID-19 responses seem to fall in step with a nascent global trend of (legal) recognition of ‘rights to energy’ in international, regional and national policy, including for example in the EU, India, Philippines, and Colombia. We conclude that while the COVID-19 response clearly reflects broad recognition of the vital importance of affordable, continuous energy services access for basic human well-being and capabilities during the pandemic, a right to energy perspective could additionally lay bare or give shape to important concerns about some households’ too minimal (insufficient) forms of modern energy access, questions of equity, and the role of the state and other actors. In terms of equity the article particularly raises issues with the manner in which support was made available only to some consumers (e.g. on-grid, off-grid, regulated, or non-regulated, post-paid or pre-paid), or only for specific fuels, and not others. In addition, the lack of attention to clean (renewable) (off-grid) energy services in COVID-19 responses is striking, and worrying, both in terms of immediate response, and green recovery from COVID-19. We argue that a right to (clean) energy perspective would help to reflect on, and inform, both shorter-term and longer-term responses to energy poverty and COVID-19, and should aid the realization of sufficiently equitable, robust, modern energy systems in line with universal UN Global Sustainable Development Goal 7. Specifically, it should also help to fulfil SDG7.1.’s promise of ‘leaving no one behind’.
By 2030, noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) will be the leading cause of death in every region in the world. While law and policy have an important role to play in curbing this pandemic, our current understanding of how they can most effectively be used is still limited. This contribution identifies a number of gaps in current research and insists on an interdisciplinary research agenda between law, health science and international relations aimed at designing concrete proposals for laws and policies to curb the NCD pandemic, both globally and domestically.
International and national disaster governance faces multiple challenges given the large variety and amounts of resources, skills and expertise that adequate disaster response commands. Moreover, disasters do not necessarily respect territorial boundaries, or may overwhelm the capacity of any one nation. They may therefore need a truly collective, joint, or even global effort to be overcome. Not seldom, reducing disaster risks and responding to disasters as they occur requires a sustained, concerted and coordinated effort of a broad range of actors, both public and private, acting nationally and internationally, and across the full 'disaster cycle'. Unfortunately, disaster governance is commonly characterized as patchy, fragmented and inadequate, leading to essential protection gaps for affected communities. In order to strengthen disaster governance, this article first aims to further conceptualize the practice and challenges of 'disaster governance', mostly through the lens of 'Multi-Level Governance'. Secondly, it proposes that disaster governance will greatly benefit from relevant actors more firmly embracing human rights-based approaches, particularly in the context of so-called, emerging 'multi-duty bearer human rights regimes'.
The practical and operational challenges of responding to disasters such as earthquakes, tsunamis and hurricanes are well known. The recent decision by the UN Human Rights Council to commission research on best practices and challenges in the promotion and protection of human rights in post-disaster situations therefore reflects the increasing acknowledgement of the human rights implications of natural and human-made disasters. This article analyses the approach taken by existing international accountability mechanisms concerning humanitarian preparations for and responses to major natural disasters, before advancing proposals for more effective and systematic oversight of human rights protection in disasters. Such systemic approaches are intended to promote greater legal clarity for States and humanitarian actors confronted with the uncertainty and devastation resulting from major natural and human-made disasters, and as a means of spurring redress for those affected.
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. Disasters and non-state actorshuman rights-based approaches Marlies Hesselman and Lottie LaneDepartment of Law, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands Abstract Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to examine the roles and responsibilities of non-state actors (NSAs) in contributing to disaster governance from an international human rights law (IHRL) perspective. In particular, it examines how non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and business enterprises are implicated. Design/methodology/approach -The paper analyzes a range of IHRL instruments, particularly treaties and international soft-law documents, and it utilizes the concepts "human rights-based approaches" (HRBAs) and "direct"/"indirect" human rights obligations to frame and understand how IHRL responsibilities for NSAs arise from these instruments. Findings -IHRL not only includes relevant standards for NSAs in the area of disaster management, but NGOs and businesses also actively engage with IHRL and HRBAs by means of (soft) self-regulatory instruments to further clarify their responsibilities.Research limitations/implications -The findings are of interest to all actors involved in disaster governance, and are instructive for NGOs and businesses seeking to improve the design of disaster management activity. The research addresses only the responsibility of NGOs and private companies, but the framework of analysis set out is equally of interest to other actors' activities. Originality/value -The implications of IHRL for NSAs involved in disaster management are still poorly understood, despite their vast engagement. This study contributes by clarifying the roles and IHRL responsibilities of NGOs and businesses specifically, and articulates how applications of HRBAs may improve the protection of persons.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.