|
|
The end of Roe? Mississippi's decades-long restriction politics
Žižková, Andrea ; Sehnálková, Jana (advisor) ; Szobi, Pavel (referee)
This thesis aims to explore the circumstances in Mississippi and shed a light on the pattern of restrictive policies, some of which are in place for decades, that led to the ultimate ban on abortion. The Supreme Court agreed to review a case regarding the constitutionality of Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban from 2018 in Jackson Women's Health Organization v. Dobbs. This came as a no surprise - there is a significant conservative majority in the Court and the United States have recorded an unprecedented rise of abortion restrictions across the country. By taking up the case, the Court was expected to rule on the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade, a landmark decision from 1973 affirming the women's right to abortion. Mississippi's ban was ground-breaking at the time of passing, being the first state to push the time limit so low. After that, some states went even further, namely Texas and its heartbeat bill, banning abortion after only 6 weeks. This diploma thesis provides an overview of the most important judicial cases preceding Dobbs v. Jackson, namely Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania. It also analyses the consequences of the restrictive and discriminatory policies, like the ban on common second-trimester procedures or the federal funding on abortion,...
|
|
|
Violation of human rights within the American War on Terror: Case study Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib
Žižková, Andrea ; Čížek, Martin (advisor) ; Klvaňa, Tomáš (referee)
The principle aim of my work titled "Violations of human rights within the American War on Terror: A case study of Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib" is an attempt to show that violations of human rights, in prisons built by the United States for suspected terrorists, were not only committed by a number of lower-ranked soldiers, but by the American government, who provided suitable conditions for such practices. By becoming familiar with the basic principles of international treaties and agreements covering human rights and the rights of prisoners, as well as by examining American orders and memoranda after September 11th, this paper introduces the environment in which the controversial actions against prisoners could have arisen. Practices that violate international principles are explored in two main chapters, derived from the prisons in which they were committed. A separate section is also dedicated to the status of enemy combatant, which the United States decided to use to label all captured members of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, thus denying them due process under the Geneva Conventions. Together with all these aspects the paper provides a perspective on the difficulties of prisoners' legal rights during a unique security conflict, which the War on Terror following September 11th, 2001 undoubtedly is.
|
|
|
Violation of human rights within the American War on Terror: Case study Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib
Žižková, Andrea ; Čížek, Martin (advisor) ; Klvaňa, Tomáš (referee)
The principle aim of my work titled "Violations of human rights within the American War on Terror: A case study of Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib" is an attempt to show that violations of human rights, in prisons built by the United States for suspected terrorists, were not only committed by a number of lower-ranked soldiers, but by the American government, who provided suitable conditions for such practices. By becoming familiar with the basic principles of international treaties and agreements covering human rights and the rights of prisoners, as well as by examining American orders and memoranda after September 11th, this paper introduces the environment in which the controversial actions against prisoners could have arisen. Practices that violate international principles are explored in two main chapters, derived from the prisons in which they were committed. A separate section is also dedicated to the status of enemy combatant, which the United States decided to use to label all captured members of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, thus denying them due process under the Geneva Conventions. Together with all these aspects the paper provides a perspective on the difficulties of prisoners' legal rights during a unique security conflict, which the War on Terror following September 11th, 2001 undoubtedly is.
|
guest ::
RSS feed.