An empirical study on the principles of indivisibility and interdependence by Flavio Azevedo

In this article, I set out to investigate the extent to which the contemporary debate about the indivisibility principle has translated into in tandem state respect for the historically separated set of rights, i.e. Civil & Political rights and Social, Economic and Cultural rights. Adapting and expanding on the ideas and methods proposed by Minkler, while using data collected by both CIRI and SERF, an empirical method is provided for the evaluation of states’ adhesion to the principle of indivisibility. It is done via a series of numerical techniques which were able to produce global, regional and country-specific longitudinal profiles of respect for each set of human rights. Additionally, an investigation is carried out to examine the extent to which human rights are in practice interdependent. In doing so, a bird’s-eye view analysis of states’ respect for human rights is provided. Results show that states’ practices in terms of upholding civil & political rights and fulfilling economic & social rights are neither frequently exercised, nor reveal any sort of dependence or reinforcing characteristic. Interestingly, is the finding that while civil & political rights are especially vulnerable worldwide, states that prioritized this set of rights, as opposed to prioritize economic & social rights, are shown to be committed to respecting both sets of rights – thus respecting the indivisibility principle. The opposite, however, does not hold true. Finally, the pertinence and applications of the proposed methods and findings are discussed.

[Stage: adapting M.Sc. manuscript for submission] 

Human rights in a realist world: How power dictates progress by Flavio Azevedo

The notion that the interests of the most powerful are the leading force in moderating global politics belittles the ideal of an international community. Yet, this is the first lesson of realpolitiek and a resilient modus operandi in today’s international relations. The emergence of human rights discourse and international human rights regimes was not an anticipated phenomenon. Amartya Sen suggests that the urgency to act and quickly respond to worldwide appalling deprivations, hunger and oppression in World War II was more important than developing conceptual and/or theoretical justification.  But international consensus were short lived and only lasted for a few years. With the onset of the Cold War, rhetoric and power gave rise to international cleavages and 'versions' of human rights. This is the setting in which human rights reside, between 'how the world is' and 'how it should be'.

[Post-Graduate thesis - Geneva University]

Analysing systemic segregation in Bosnian schools by Flavio Azevedo

The importance of education in developing societies after conflict is absolute. With a great deal of general support of how schools can be either a conduit for or an inhibitor to reconciling communities, it is important to look at the policies and their implications in such regions. Furthermore, where young people from different communities are segregated either by de facto conditions or mandate, international laws related to human rights in education are possibly being violated. To justify these arguments, this paper is divided into three major sections: a scientific review of education in divided societies, the legal implications of dividing education and an explanation of the importance of reviewing the 'Two Schools under One Roof' policy for divided schools in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Published Article