A note on versions:The version presented here may differ from the published version or from the version of record. If you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher's version. Please see the repository url above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription. everywhere that risk appears, it is assembled into complex configurations with other technologies… '(2004: 26-7). This article responds to that appeal by focusing specifically on prison governance in the UK. It aims, first, to draw attention to a range of intersections between risk and human rights, and argues that these intersections require analysis. Secondly, it suggests some key features of a 'risk and rights' analysis by drawing upon insights from within criminology, human rights law and regulation scholarship. In order to explore these issues, we have divided the article into three parts. The first part speculates on British criminology's (non) engagement with human rights and queries why the growth in prisoner rights litigation has not registered in criminology scholarship on prisons. 2 Then, in the second part, we highlight the widespread lack of engagement with risk amongst (human rights) lawyers, both at the theoretical level and in terms of the uses of risk assessment and management in legal practice. In the final part of the article, we argue that criminologists and lawyers should be examining the co-existence of risk and rights discourses in UK prison governance and we suggest some key features of a 'risk and rights' stream of academic enquiry. Part One: Criminologists and Human Rights
Discourses of risk and human rights circulate on a daily basis in the UK prison sector. Little attention, however, has been devoted to the overlap between the demands of organizational risk management and Human Rights Act compliance. This article highlights how the shift towards 'business risk' management in prison governance has occurred alongside increased recognition of the ability of human rights to manifest as significant organizational risks (for example, legal or reputational). Three 'rights as risk' prisoner case studies from across the UK are used to show how human rights violations can produce both legal risk and, what I term, 'legal risk+'. Contrary to pessimistic accounts of risk, the article concludes by calling for further scrutiny of the potential of organizational risk management to result in, or enhance, rights compliance -whereby human rights are viewed through a risk lens, and not just a rights one.
Consider, for example, the proliferation of references to 'preparedness'; specifically, 'public health emergency preparedness' and its more specialised variants such as 'public health emergency legal preparedness' and 'international legal preparedness'. There is also increasing use of related phrases such as 'global public health security' and 'international health security'. Of course, a proliferation of terms is not enough to prove that a new force is in play: language shifts all the time in all sorts of areas, and although such changes may reflect and contribute to deep social transformation, they can also be nothing more than passing fashions with little or no impact. But public health emergency preparedness does not feel like a superficial, short-lived trend: in fact, it seems almost the exact opposite. Indeed, as David Fidler and Laurence Gostin emphasise in their recent book, Biosecurity in the Global Age, a 'policy revolution' seems to have taken place -a revolution brought about by a 'collision' of public health and security. 1 The collision of security and public health is our focus in this article. But before explaining why, we need to define 'public health emergency preparedness', in particular its impressive-sounding correlate, 'global public health security', and its less readily comprehensible subset, 'public health emergency legal preparedness'. In the World Health Report 2007, Dr Margaret Chan, Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO), described 'global public health security' as 'the reduced vulnerability of populations to acute threats to health'. 2 Later in the same report, more detailed definitions were provided:
A note on versions:The version presented here may differ from the published version or from the version of record. If you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher's version. Please see the repository url above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription.For more information, please contact eprints@nottingham.ac.uk Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie 28 (2007), Heft 2, S. 201-212
A note on versions:The version presented here may differ from the published version or from the version of record. If you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher's version. Please see the repository url above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription.For more information, please contact eprints@nottingham.ac.uk
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.