Category: Student Reflections

Rapoport Center’s Interdisciplinary Graduate Workshop

Interview with Autumn Reyes

The Rapoport Center opened a call for papers for graduate students across campus to submit papers relevant towards human rights, in hopes of generating discussion with both fellow graduate students and faculty within UT. This workshop operated in a way that utilized a method developed by the
Institute for Global Law and Policy at Harvard Law School, wherein other participants in the workshop would present each other’s work, which would then lead to further discussion on the work itself.
One of our own members of the Working Paper Series Editorial Committee, Autumn Reyes, was able to participate in the Interdisciplinary Graduate Workshop, which was organized with help from our own Apurva Gunturu. Briefly, we’re asking both Apurva and Autumn to share their thoughts on the process.

What drew you to this workshop?
AR: As an affiliated member of the Rapoport Center, the newsletter that comes out always informs me of new and upcoming events. As such, I thought that this workshop was a unique opportunity! Not only does it align with my research interests, but something of note was that as a graduate student we have
a tendency to be very insular with our own departments and research interests. The fact that this was pitched as interdisciplinary drew my attention immediately – as I hope to gain insight from fellow scholars.


What did you take away from the experience?
AR: So much! It was useful not only to gain valuable insight towards my own work but also to hear about other amazing academic pursuits happening the in LBJ School, the Law School, or in the History Department, to name a few. Being able to witness how human rights scholarship takes different avenues and shapes allowed me to appreciate the grand scope of all of these projects. Additionally, I found it to be a worthwhile experience in regards to discussing potential methodologies and how that could affect the pursuit of my project – something that I hadn’t thought of before! Lastly, something that I found unique and fantastic about the workshop was that the organizing committee were willing to reach out to faculty on campus on your behalf to come and attend the workshop. As such, I was able to gain insight in a formal setting towards my project from faculty in departments I wouldn’t have been able to work with otherwise (shout out to Dr. Hauser and Professor Laurin!).


What advice would you give to others thinking about going into this workshop?
AR: Coming in with an open mind is integral! The people attending the workshop are all brilliant minds who are there to help – such as pointing out gaps in projects. As such, it’s a great building opportunity. In addition, the fantastic organizing committee are able to work with your schedule so you can attend as much of the workshop as you’re able. Also – food was provided which is always a plus! I greatly encourage anyone to attend the workshop if they’re able.

Summer Reflections Series: Solidarity Center

By Lissette Almanza

Through the generous support of the Rapoport Center’s Project on Inequality and Human Rights, I was able to spend my summer 2018 interning at the Solidarity Center in Washington D.C. The Solidarity Center, a global labor rights NGO affiliated with the AFL-CIO, works to empower workers to raise their voice for dignity on the job, justice in their communities and greater equality in the global economy. With the fellowship supporting my work on labor and human rights issues, I developed the skills and confidence to continue to pursue a career in international human rights advocacy.

Much of my work at the Solidarity Center’s Equality and Inclusion Department involved conducting research on the relationship between gender, trade policy and women’s labor rights, particularly as it relates to the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). My deep-dive into this research allowed me to draft an intersectional analysis on gender-related issues and labor rights violations in the world of work. The exploitation of women workers for economic gains, especially in the garment industry, prevent women and their families from achieving better livelihoods. However, the abuses women experience at work often remain invisible. With a better lens into these issues, my research will help advance the advocacy efforts of the Solidarity Center by demonstrating to union partners in Africa the need to fight for women’s worker rights and an egalitarian workplace.

As the summer unfolded, I found myself immersed in work surrounding gender-based violence (GBV) at work. GBV is violence that is directed against an individual or group of individuals based on their gender identity and can take multiple forms, including physical and sexual abuse, bullying and coercion among others. Following the International Labor Conference (ILC) that took place from May 28 – June 8, a proposed global standard on ending violence and harassment against women and men in the world of work became one step closer to reality, with a strong focus on GBV. Since the International Labor Organization (ILO) is considering for the first time a Convention with a Recommendation on this issue, I quickly realized that I was in the midst of a valuable and learning experience at the Solidarity Center.

As part of this global march towards an ILO Convention with a Recommendation, I had the opportunity to participate in the process of assessing ways that the Solidarity Center can support partners and allies to champion its adoption in June 2019. I used my policy analysis skills to create a comparison document that analyzed the text of the proposed global standard and tracked the amendments offered during the ILC by government, employer, and worker members. These tools are intended to help union partners strategize for the next round of negotiations and understand the position of each member group. I also worked closely with another intern to create an evaluation survey and interviewed field staff across the globe on the work that Solidarity Center and partners have done towards addressing GBV at work, as well as supporting the ILO Convention.

In addition to my work this summer, the Solidarity Center also facilitated weekly sessions to enhance our understanding of labor rights issues, as well as skill-based workshops. Interns met with staff or union affiliates to discuss topics on child labor, migration and human trafficking, workers’ rights in the global economy, and on collective bargaining. The conversations and discussions were enriching and allowed me to grasp a better sense of the importance of advocating for labor rights. The monitoring and evaluation session developed my understanding on what helps improve and achieve results for advocacy work.

Along with immersing myself in international labor rights during my time at the Solidarity Center, my voice as a labor rights advocate blossomed. Now, I feel connected to the worldwide labor movement and prepared to advance workers’ rights wherever I go. I am incredibly grateful for this opportunity and look forward to applying the skills and knowledge that I gained this summer as I jumpstart my career in the international human rights field.

Summer Reflections Series: Sustainable Settlements for Peace

As Berta Cáceres Fellow, Ricardo Velasco documented the development of Sustainable Settlements for Peace, a program developed by the organization CASA (Council for Sustainable Settlements of Latin America) and the Foundation Mentes en Transicion in Isla Grande, Islas del Rosario and in Filandia, Department of Quindío, Colombia. Through action-based and transformative education projects, and in dialogue with local knowledges, Sustainable Settlements for Peace aims to accompany and support historically marginalized communities in their achievment of their goals of autonomy and sustainable development, and to contribute to the construction of peace in rural Colombia by recovering local traditional knowledges and sharing practical skills for sustainability and peaceful coexistence. In Isla Grande, the program has been implemented in collaboration with the Local Council of Black Communities  through different pedagogical and community engagement processes that include agroecology and conflict resolutions workshops, as well as organizational efforts for improving the eco-tourism economy developed by local families. This local economy has been intrinsically linked with ongoing struggles for territorial autonomy in a context of state neglect. In Filandia the program has partenered with the Peasant Organization ANUC to accompany local coffee producers as they make an holistic transition into organic productive models that consider the social and cultural aspects of sustainability. The program also supports organizational efforts that have been disrupted within a context of stigmatization against local social leaders.

Ricardo’s research documents the differential impact Sustainable Settlements for Peace is having within the communities and how the program mobilizes the potential of local human and natural resources, and the opportunities opened by the transitional justice conjuncture. He explores the potential of the initiative for revitalizing community ties and producing new articulations of social and human rights mobilizations among ethnic minorities and marginalized groups to promote inclusion, social and environmental justice. At the same time, his work also includes teaching basic documentation techniques to youth leaders within these communities so that they can share and learn from their own experiences, recover local traditional knowledges, and have better communication strategies by leveraging the potential of new media.

Ricardo Velasco is a Berta Cáceres Human Rights Fellow (2018), a Summer Human Rights Fellows (2017 & 2018), and a Summer Fieldwork Grantee (2016)

Sierra Leone’s Experience with In-Country Outsourcing

by Francis Kaifala

23 DEC 2017

In 2007, I was in my first year as a lawyer working for a firm in Freetown, Sierra Leone. The managing partner of the firm forwarded an email from some foreign clients and instructed me to provide a well-researched, comprehensive response to the clients’ inquiries. The questions on “doing business in Sierra Leone” were fairly routine, as I had already responded to similar ones before. However, one question left me a bit confused – it asked what local legal and regulatory regime existed with respect to “outsourcing practices” in Sierra Leone. Until then, I had never heard the term “outsourcing” and had no idea what the clients were asking.

My research led me to one conclusion: there was nothing in our laws specifically regulating either cross-border or in-country outsourcing practices. Sierra Leone’s labor laws are primarily concerned with traditional employee-employer relationships.[1] Other practices such as consultancies are governed almost entirely by contract law. Our laws had paid little attention to outsourcing and there were scarcely any regulatory references to the practice. I came to learn that outsourcing—reflecting neoliberal motivations—aims to cut costs and reduce other liabilities associated with standard employee-employer relationships. This is achieved by creating an outside company that hires workers and then outsources them to other institutions to provide services.

I reported my findings about outsourcing to my Head of Chambers. After listening to me, he calmly said, “that which is not prohibited, is lawful.” My understanding of his statement was that because our laws did not explicitly prohibit outsourcing, it was an acceptable practice. We later explained to the clients that Sierra Leone’s labor laws protect workers but allow outsourcing based on a business’s right to contract freely.

As years went by, we provided similar opinions to additional clients, particularly in the US, UK, Nigeria, and Senegal. By 2010, Nigerian banks and service providers, many of which had benefited from our advice, started businesses in Sierra Leone. While cross-border outsourcing did not take really take root in Sierra Leone as in other countries like South Africa and Nigeria, in-country outsourcing – the phenomenon whereby workers are hired by an outsourcer and then sent to provide services to another company on a contractual basis – has become more prevalent.

Before the influx of foreign companies, most local banks and other financial sector businesses directly hired their employees (from janitors to managing directors) who typically enjoyed full rights and relatively good conditions of service. Employees worked within the normal structure of the company and were paid reasonable salaries, ensuring that they and their families lived at least middle-class lifestyles. Apart from normal sub-contracting, outsourcing of work was not known.

With the introduction of the Sierra Investment Promotion Act of 2007,[2] which opened the market and guaranteed incentives for foreign investments, more and more Nigerian companies started establishing branches and subsidiaries in Sierra Leone. These included banks, insurance companies, mining companies, oil companies, technology companies, general supplies companies, and general services providers.

With the advent of outsourcing, newly launched financial institutions, insurance companies, and mining companies capitalized on this trend: staff members were laid off then heavily recruited and hired by outsourcers. Companies could then hire (or rehire) workers directly from outsourcers, sidestepping the standard worker protections required in employee/employer relationships. Payments were made directly to the outsourcer who then paid the worker a lesser amount. Other Nigerians established their own outsourcing companies to create a ready pool of local workers with a range of skills, providing a market for companies that needed them. They took advantage of the fact that in Sierra Leone, one could hire workers on “contract” for specific periods.[3]

Because contract workers are not categorized as employees, they cannot benefit from collective bargaining agreements or union rules. Thus, workers lacked formal employment relationships with both the outsourcer and with the company where they might be stationed. In some cases, contractual workers found themselves placed at the very same institutions that had fired them in order to make way for outsourced hires. Those affected mostly included custodial staff, security personnel, cashiers, and tellers. They were no longer part of the staff structure of the businesses and were not classified as employees. As contractors, they lost employment benefits like employee loans, car loans, leave allowances, sick day allowances, paid holidays, and medical insurance.

Today, businesses that once offered competitive wages and good benefits to employees have outsourced jobs to institutions that do not prioritize workers’ well-being. This has left workers with lower wages, disadvantageous terms and conditions of service, and many unregulated harmful labor practices. With outsourcing practices growing,[4] the livelihoods of workers affected in Sierra Leone are declining, leaving them worse off than workers from previous decades.

Without some protective intervention from the government this pattern will continue. Workers ought to be treated fairly, not exploited. A company’s environment and conditions must include respect for workers and protect their human rights. Therefore, domestic standards need to be developed to create a level playing field. Such standards should prescribe a minimum set of worker rights and conditions in labor and employment agreements. This action would balance the benefits that businesses accrue from outsourcing with their obligation to safeguard the vulnerable workers’ rights.

Work Cited

[1] “Traditional” here refers to direct employment relationship between and employee and employer whereby all responsibility and work is for the employer.

[2] After the end of the civil war, this Act was introduced to encourage and attract foreign investment in the country.

[3] With proper framing, these contracts would not be employment contracts to attract the application of Collective Agreements to them.

[4] In 2014, it was estimated to be growing at 12% to 26% according to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO).

Francis Kaifala was a Fall 2017 Human Rights Scholar at the Rapoport Center for Human Rights and Justice. He is also a Fulbright Scholarship recipient and a native of Sierra Leone.

The Need To Increase Participatory Mechanisms at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights

by Karina G. Carpintero

27 MAR 2017

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has been subject to significant criticism regarding the absence of participatory mechanisms that allow societal actors to intervene in the inter-American process.  To some extent, these critiques reflect a similar demand that is occurring in the domestic realm.  Latin-American constitutional democracies present a scenario in which social movements, among many different types of other relevant stakeholders, aim to move forward toward more participatory schemes. Societies are beginning to challenge governments and institutions with demands for more transparency, accountability, and concrete deliberative mechanisms.

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has just one available method for outside actors to participate in its international process: amicus curiae briefs. The process entails submitting a written brief before the hearing of an individual case or advisory opinion takes place. Unfortunately, the impact these briefs have is almost null. There is not necessarily any consideration of what the amicus argues, which can be understood as the ‘claim of society’ in an individual case. Because this is the only road to make societal voices heard, there is clear difficulty in accessing “inter-American justice.”

However, realizing how narrow access to this international process is, and debating about it, does introduce an opportunity to start thinking about ways to improve it. The Court should reconsider its procedures in order to enact fruitful strategies that lead to more active participatory methodologies. In fact, there are some alternatives that the Court could take as steps towards that aim. One effective reform could be using a virtual platform, like the internet, as an accessible tool that aids in shortening distances and reducing the economic costs of international actions. Another pathway for reform could be holding an open call for hearings, not only for the parties of individual cases as it does in its ordinary period of sessions, but also to individuals, advocates or organizations that participate in amicus briefs. A bolder method of reform could be considering formal changes to the Court’s rules of procedures to encourage more democratic practices.  Without doubt, engaging in effectively increasing the level of participation at the international order is a difficult challenge to implement, but it is clear that amicus curiae briefs are insufficient as the sole available tool.

All in all, if the Inter-American Court assumes the role of informing the regional consensus about how human rights should be interpreted, protected and guaranteed, more clarity on how these consensuses are reached should be guaranteed. So, the next step for the Inter-American Court, and human rights advocates generally, is to search for more participatory mechanisms to legitimize the creation of conventional meaning.

Karina G. Carpintero is an LLM student at Texas Law, concentrating in Human Rights and Comparative Constitutional Law, and member of the 2016-2017 Working Paper Series Editorial Committee.

New Research on the Relationships between Businesses and Military Regimes under Latin America’s Cold War

by Eyal Weinberg

13 FEB 2017

State terror and human rights violations during Latin America’s authoritarian phase have been amply studied in the past two decades. Scholarship has revealed how Cold War military dictatorships and juntas-headed national security states detained, tortured, and disappeared hundreds of thousands of civilians— from indigenous groups in Central America to political activists in the Southern Cone. Studies have also illuminated how the relations of military regimes with various international and domestic forces—among them U.S. policymakers, Church representatives, technocratic experts, and industrialists—enabled and facilitated that repression. Yet many facets of the repressive apparatus remain under-examined.

Recently, scholars are returning to scrutinize the interplay between business corporations and Latin American regimes. Early literature has already unraveled the close ties between business elites and authoritarian rules, from the state’s reliance on industrialists in developing a pro-market, open economy, to industrialists’ consent and sometimes-active support of coups d’état and ensuing state-led repression.  Today, newly available archives and updated approaches to the study of Latin America’s Cold War allow researchers to revisit some of these issues, as well as other questions that explore the entanglements between corporations and regimes.

Studies exemplifying this new wave of research were presented last September in a special workshop at the University of Göttingen in Germany. Presentations shed light on the changing nature of relationships between businesses and dictatorships across states and over time, analyzing the transitions from collaborations to conflicts and even opposition. They also examined the direct and indirect roles companies played in state-sponsored repression.  And they explicated how the regimes’ policy planning met business interests to introduce new domestic industries—healthcare, energy, and pharmaceutical markets, to name a few. The histories of multinational corporations under the military rules received a particular focus. Moving beyond the traditional interpretation of the authoritarian state as a guarantor of international companies, papers focused on how subsidiaries dealt with both state apparatuses and parent corporations, typically located in Europe or North America.

In Argentina, for example, German companies Deutz, Siemens, and Daimler-Benz held subsidiaries operating during the Dirty War. Case studies examined how these businesses reacted to workers’ protests and union demands, as well as how they handled reports of disappeared people in their correspondence with the distant board of directors. In 2015, for example, a team of Argentinian researchers supported by Argentina’s Ministry of Justice published a detailed report that investigates the responsibility of domestic and multinational companies in regard to human rights violations carried out on the premises of their factories. The workshop’s papers also payed considerable attention to the relationship of Volkswagen do Brasil (a subsidiary of the German car manufacturer) with the Brazilian regime and its counterinsurgency agencies. The Brazilian National Truth Commission (2012-2014) concluded that over 70 corporations, among them Volkswagen, provided security agencies with blacklists of unionizing and “problematic” workers, some of whom were later detained or fired. The workshop’s presentations illustrated the controversy over the extent of VW’s collaboration with state repression, a result of inaccessible or missing archival material. For now, appeals are still in review at the office of the Attorney General.

As the last example demonstrates, there is much to reveal about the intricate relationships between corporations and authoritarian regimes in Latin America, and particularly about their relation to human rights violations. Further archival research, as well as intellectual exchanges focused on that theme, will expand current knowledge and scholarship.

Eyal Weinberg is a PhD candidate in the Department of History at The University of Texas at Austin and member of the 2016-2017 Working Paper Series Editorial Committee.