Search results

This paper explores the health rights of prisoners as defined in international law, and the mechanisms that have been used to ensure the rights of persons in detention to realise the highest attainable standard of health. It examines this right as articulated within United Nations and regional human rights treaties, non‐binding or so‐called soft law instruments from international organisations and the jurisprudence of international human rights bodies. It explores the use of economic, social and cultural rights mechanisms, and those within civil and political rights, as they engage the right to health of prisoners, and identifies the minimum legal obligations of governments in order to remain compliant with human rights norms as defined within the international case law. In addressing these issues, this article adopts a holistic approach to the definition of the highest attainable standard of health. This includes a consideration of adequate standards of general medical care, including preventative health and mental health services. It also examines the question of environmental health, and those poor conditions of detention that may exacerbate health decline, disease transmission, mental illness or death. The paper examines the approach to prison health of the United Nations human rights system and its various monitoring bodies, as well as the regional human rights systems in Europe, Africa and the Americas. Based upon this analysis, the paper draws conclusions on the current fulfilment of the right to health of prisoners on an international scale, and proposes expanded mechanisms under the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment to monitor and promote the health rights of prisoners at the international and domestic levels.

This article examines the issue of prison needle‐exchange programmes (PNEP) based upon the international experience and evidence in six countries. A review of existing literature was undertaken together with original research comprising site visits to prison needle‐exchange programmes in four countries operating such initiatives in October 2002. During the course of the research, prison needle exchange programmes were initiated in two other countries, Kyrgyzstan and Belarus. Site visits were not possible in respect of these two countries, and data was gathered via conversations with staff and funding organisations involved and by the examination of documentary evidence. The paper presents an overview of the PNEP initiated and a commentry on the outcomes. Based upon the evidence emerging from the investigation, the paper concludes that while prison syringe‐exchange programmes have been implemented in diverse environments and under differing circumstances, the results of the programmes have been remarkably consistent. Improved prisoner health and reduction of needle sharing have been achieved. Fears of violence, increased drug consumption, and other negative consequences have not materialised. Based on the evidence and experience, it can be concluded unequivocally that prison needle‐exchange programmes effectively address the health‐related harms associated with needle sharing in prisons and do not undermine institutional safety or security.

HIV/AIDS is a serious health threat for prison populations in many countries, and presents significant challenges for prison and public health authorities. This situation is often exacerbated by high rates of hepatitis and/or tuberculosis. The generally accepted principle that prisons and prisoners remain part of the broader community means that the health threat of HIV within prisons, and the health threat outside of prisons, are inextricably linked and demand coordinated action. Yet many countries have not implemented comprehensive HIV prevention programmes in prisons, or achieved a standard of prison healthcare equivalent to the standard outside of prison. In December 2004, the authors were retained by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) to prepare an international Framework to address HIV/AIDS prevention, care and treatment in prisons. The Framework is a tool designed to assist governments meet international obligations on human rights, prison conditions, and public health. It outlines a 100‐point action plan for implementing a response to HIV/AIDS in prisons based on international health and human rights standards, and on evaluated models of good practice.

The intersection between drug control and the death penalty represents a key nexus for human rights and drug reform advocacy and constitutes one of the most visible examples of the link between abusive law enforcement and drug control in the current period. The issue has emerged as a flashpoint of international debates on drugs and is one that raises important questions and challenges for both ‘abolitionist’ countries that oppose the death penalty and ‘retentionist’ States that continue to execute people. The death penalty for drug offences cannot be dismissed as simply an internal matter for States. Not only do executions for drug offences violate significant international human rights legal protections, domestic capital punishment laws in many cases cannot be separated from the influence of the international drug control treaty regime. This chapter will explore the question of the death penalty for drug offences and the challenges it presents for the international drug control regime more broadly.¹

It is generally accepted that people in prison have a right to a standard of health care equivalent to that available outside of prisons. This “principle of equivalence” is one that enjoys broad consensus among international health and human rights instruments and organisations. However, given the extreme health problems evident in prisons worldwide, the legal obligations of the State to safeguard the lives and well‐being of people it holds in custody and the implications of poor prison health on overall public health, this article suggests that ‐ even if achieved ‐ standards of prison health care only equivalent to that in the community would in some cases fall short of human rights obligations and public health needs. The article argues it is time to move beyond the concept of equivalent standards of health care, and instead promote standards that achieve equivalent objectives. In some circumstances, meeting this new standard will require that the scope and accessibility of prison health services are higher than that outside of prisons.

The Dublin Declaration on Partnership to fight HIV/AIDS in Europe and Central Asia is the key policy document on HIV/AIDS in the European Region as a whole Among the Declaration’s 33 actions for governments are many that apply to prison populations. Based upon an analysis of these commitments, and a review of the current status of states in meeting those targets, it is clear that the scale‐up of HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment programmes and services in prisons lags far behind what is needed, what is available outside of prisons, and what is mandated within the Declaration itself.

The purpose of this paper is to explore how the history of a supply chain relationship impacts expectations concerning negotiation strategy use.

Following a grounded theory approach, experienced buyers and suppliers were interviewed to enhance understanding of the complexity of supply chain negotiations.

Qualitative analysis developed a theoretical framework emphasizing the impact of relationship history on negotiation strategy expectations in long-term buyer-supplier relationships. Data supports that previous negotiation interactions build a history between the involved organizations. This relationship history creates expectations. When negotiation strategy use is consistent with expectations, the relationship history will continue to develop in the same manner as it has previously. When negotiation strategy expectations are violated, the relationship impact will differ depending on evidence of an Extrarelational Factor that leads to the strategy change.

Results of this study present a theoretical framework that future research can quantitatively test, which has the potential to open up new streams of research on relationship history and supply chain negotiations.

Results show that buyers and suppliers should consider the strategy expectations of their negotiation partner. When actions are inconsistent with expectations, the effects impact the relationship.

Negotiation research has largely focussed on negotiations as discrete events with economic outcomes. This ongoing buyer-supplier relationship research highlights the impact that previous negotiations (relationship history) have on negotiation expectations. It also explores the relational impact when those expectations are or are not met.