INDEX

There are several ways in which individuals and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) can work with the UN to report human rights violations. One way is through the special procedures of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC). Find out how to work with them here.

• Document type World Coalition
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_pays in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 107
  
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 114
  
• Available languages Travailler avec les Procédures spéciales des Nations unies - Journée mondiale 2022

Research examining death penalty deterrence has been characterized as inconclusive and uninformative. The present analysis heeds a recommendation from prior research to examine single-state changes in death penalty policy using the synthetic control method. Data from the years 1979–2019 were used to construct synthetic controls and estimate the effects of death penalty moratoriums on homicide rates in Illinois, New Jersey, Washington, and Pennsylvania. Moratoriums on capital punishment resulted in nonsignificant homicide reductions in all four states.

• Document type Academic report
• Countries list United States
• Themes list Moratorium
  Warning: Undefined variable $lien_langue in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 127
  

An investigation into the death penalty in the People’s Republic of China in the Xi Jinping era (2012–) shows that unlike previous administrations, Xi does not appear to have articulated a signature death penalty policy. Where policy in China is unclear, assessing both the quality and frequency of discourse on the topic can provide evidence regarding an administration’s priorities.
This article was first published in Crime Justice Journal: https://www.crimejusticejournal.com/issue/view/119

• Document type Academic report
• Countries list China
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 114
  
  Warning: Undefined variable $lien_langue in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 127
  

The death penalty in Malaysia is a British colonial legacy that has undergone significant scrutiny in recent times. While the Malaysian Federal Constitution 1957 provides that ‘no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law’, there are several criminal offences (including drug-related crimes) that impose the mandatory and discretionary death penalty. Using Benford and Snow’s framing processes, this paper reviews death penalty politics in Malaysia by analysing the rhetoric of abolitionists and retentionists. The abolitionists, comprising activist lawyers and non-government organisations, tend to use ‘human rights’ and ‘injustice’ frames, which humanise the ‘criminal’ and gain international support. The retentionists, such as victims’ families, use a ‘victims’ justice’ frame emphasising the ‘inhuman’ nature of violent crimes. In addition, the retentionist state shifts between ‘national security’ and ‘national development’ frames. This paper finds that death penalty politics in Malaysia is predominantly a politics of framing.
This article was first published in Crime Justice Journal: https://www.crimejusticejournal.com/issue/view/119

• Document type Academic report
• Countries list Malaysia
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 114
  
  Warning: Undefined variable $lien_langue in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 127
  

The South Pacific forms a cohesive region with broadly similar cultural attributes, legal systems and colonial histories. A comparative analysis starts from the assumption that these countries should also have similar criminal justice policies. However, until 2022, both Papua New Guinea and Tonga were retentionist death penalty outliers in the South Pacific, a region home to seven other fully abolitionist members of the United Nations. In this article, we use the comparative method to explain why Papua New Guinea and Tonga have pursued a different death penalty trajectory than their regional neighbours. Eschewing the traditional social science explanations for death penalty retention, we suggest two novel explanations for ongoing retention in Papua New Guinea and Tonga: the law and order crisis in the former and the traditionally powerful monarchy in the latter.
This article was first published in Crime Justice Journal: https://www.crimejusticejournal.com/issue/view/119

• Document type Academic report
• Countries list Papua New Guinea / Tonga
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 114
  
  Warning: Undefined variable $lien_langue in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 127
  

In the former penal colony of New South Wales (NSW), a Labor government attempted what its counterpart in Queensland had achieved in 1922: the abolition of the death penalty. Although NSW’s unelected Legislative Council scuttled Labor’s 1925 bill, the party’s prevarication over capital punishment and the government’s poor management of the campaign thwarted abolition for a further three decades. However, NSW’s failure must be analysed in light of ambivalent abolitionism that prevailed in Britain and the US in the postwar decade. In this wider context, Queensland, rather than NSW, was the abolitionist outlier.
This article was first published in Crime Justice Journal: https://www.crimejusticejournal.com/issue/view/119

• Document type Academic report
• Countries list Australia
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 114
  
  Warning: Undefined variable $lien_langue in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 127
  

The abolition of the death penalty in Queensland in 1922 was the first in Australian jurisdictions, and the first in the British Empire. However, the legacy of the Queensland death penalty lingered in Australian colonial territories. This article considers a variety of practices in which the death penalty was addressed by Australian decision-makers during the first half of the 20th century. These include the exemption of Australian soldiers from execution in World War I, use of the death penalty in colonial Papua and the Mandate Territory of New Guinea, hanging as a weapon of war in the colonial territories, and the retrieval of the death penalty for the punishment of war crimes. In these histories, we see not only that the Queensland death penalty lived on in other contexts but also that ideological and political preferences for abolition remained vulnerable to the sway of other historical forces of war and security.
This article was first pubished in Crime Justice Journal: https://www.crimejusticejournal.com/issue/view/119

• Document type Academic report
• Countries list Australia
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 114
  
  Warning: Undefined variable $lien_langue in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 127
  

This article reviews the executions of Australians in the region and the Australian responses over the past two decades. Informed by the author’s legal defence role in death penalty cases in Singapore and Indonesia and other countries, the article explores developments in anti–death penalty advocacy since 2015: the parliamentary enquiry, the ‘whole of government’ strategy led by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the efforts made by Australia and Australians in Asia.
This article was first published in Crime Justice Journal: https://www.crimejusticejournal.com/issue/view/119

• Document type Article
• Countries list Australia
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 114
  
  Warning: Undefined variable $lien_langue in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 127
  

Two-thirds of the countries worldwide have moved away from the death penalty in law or in practice, with global and regional organisations as well as individual governments working towards universal abolition. This article critically examines the narratives of these abolitionist governments that have abolished the death penalty in their country and have adopted the role of ‘moral crusaders’ (Becker 1963) in pursuit of global abolition. In 2018, the Australian Government, while being surrounded by retentionist states in Asia, joined the anti–death penalty enterprise along with the European Union, the United Kingdom and Norway. Using the concepts of ‘moral crusader’ (Becker 1963) and ‘performativity’ (Butler 1993), this article argues that advocacy must be acted on repeatedly for governments to be anti–death penalty advocates. Otherwise, these government efforts serve political ends in appearance but are simply a self-serving form of advocacy in practice.
This article was first published in Crime Justice Journal: https://www.crimejusticejournal.com/issue/view/119

• Document type Academic report
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_pays in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 107
  
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 114
  
  Warning: Undefined variable $lien_langue in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 127
  

Despite a steady increase worldwide in the number of states that have abolished the death penalty, capital punishment remains a troubling presence in the international order. The world’s leading powers in terms of economics and population include the retentionist states of China, India, Japan and the United States of America (USA). It seems there is no linear path to abolition, and its achievement is indeterminate. Yet, in international human rights law, death penalty abolition is a powerful norm embraced by half the countries across the world. While the majority of death penalty research has emanated from and focuses on the USA, well over 90 per cent of global executions occur in Asia, which lags behind the global trend towards abolishing the death penalty. Our symposium and this collection seek to bring perspectives from a variety of disciplines and methods—historical, legal, sociological, comparative— to bear on the questions of retention and abolition in a variety of jurisdictions and time periods.
This article was first published in Crime Justice Journal: https://www.crimejusticejournal.com/issue/view/119

• Document type Academic report
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_pays in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 107
  
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 114
  
  Warning: Undefined variable $lien_langue in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 127