In October 2017, a law school student in California posted a list on the social media platform Facebook of Indian men accused of sexual harassment. In response, within a day, a group of feminists had posted a statement asking the group that had posted the list to consider due process rather than anonymous accusations with ‘no context or explanation’. These two texts became the subject of an intense and fraught debate among feminists in India. This chapter focuses on feminist arguments, disagreements and solidarities in the wake of #MeToo rather than on the debates surrounding sexual harassment itself. Rather than sexual harassment, it was feminism which became the subject of contestation. This chapter traces narratives from this debate and engages in conversations with feminists to think back to that moment. The chapter is located around the idea of what it calls internet time and its capacities to reshape the trajectory of feminist debates. It reflects on what it means to have an argument in internet time. What does it mean to engage as feminists with each other in the online space? What are the specific pressures and anxieties produced by articulations and disagreements in online spaces? How might one reflect on the question of disagreement, especially disagreement with allies, in a time of social media? And how might one think of and construct the possibilities and circumscriptions of feminist solidarities in internet time, in messy circumstances?
This chapter considers the Indian state, which invariably mirrors the behaviour of the individual patriarchal predator rather than taking on the protective role it owes to female, femme and queer citizens. It asks whether the MeToo movement in India sufficiently addressed the role of the state in perpetuating cultures of patriarchal violence against the most vulnerable.
Against the student protests of 2015–2016 in South African universities, this chapter looks at issues of sexual harassment and rape culture that took place within these movement spaces. A personal reflection on what transpired at the time, it shows the implications of such violence emanating from within progressive spaces for this and related progressive social movements.
Beyond the media storm – on sexual harassment in the news and the newsrooms
This chapter provides crucial insights into sexual harassment in the newsroom, while contending with the successes and limits of #MeToo’s impact on this deeply sexist terrain. By locating this moment within a long and fractured history of gendered harassment within journalism, and reading it in the context of the larger women’s movement in the country, it positions #MeToo as responsive to and conditioned by neoliberal governmentality.
Most human activities at sea are conducted by or from ships, including the transport of around 90 per cent of all goods that are internationally traded. This chapter focuses on the way in which international law regulates the safety and seaworthiness of ships and the well-being of their crews. It begins by outlining the framework for such regulation, examining the varying roles of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), International Labour Organization (ILO), flag States (including the law governing the grant of nationality to a ship), coastal States and port States (including their competence to regulate foreign ships visiting their ports). The chapter continues by examining the standards for safety and seaworthiness that have been adopted by the IMO, and the ways in which those standards are implemented and enforced. That includes examination of the IMO’s mandatory audit scheme; the role of port States in inspecting ships and detaining them if they are unseaworthy; and the co-ordination of port State control activities at the regional level. The chapter then turns to examine the measures that have been prescribed by the IMO and ILO to protect and promote the well-being of seafarers, as well as the role of human rights treaties in this regard. The chapter ends by examining ships’ routeing and other measures designed to prevent collisions and ships running aground.
There are various ways in which disputes concerning the law of the sea may be settled peacefully. This chapter begins by providing an overview of how disputes are settled under general international law, considering first the role of municipal courts and diplomatic protection before then summarising the various ways in which inter-state disputes may be settled peacefully. It then sets out the mechanisms for the settlement of disputes under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, analysing the provisions of Part XV in detail, including its elaborate compulsory dispute settlement provisions (with reference to the relevant case law). It concludes by considering two general issues concerning dispute settlement, namely locus standi and the rules for treaty interpretation.
Conservative responses to nationalisation and Poplarism, 1900–40
The chapter is concerned with the politicisation of ‘corruption’ during the early twentieth century. It contends that corruption remained a contested concept long into the twentieth century, when – much as before – it was deployed to support a variety of political arguments and objectives. It does so through a focus on Conservative objections to nationalisation and so-called ‘Poplarism’, a term used to stigmatise the efforts of high-spending left-wing local councils in the 1920s to provide generous levels of outdoor relief and unemployment compensation. The Conservative critique of nationalisation rested on the argument that public ownership was anathema to good government. Shorn of commercial imperatives, socialist politicians sitting on the boards of nationalised industries would grant privileges to trade union officials and bribe working-class electors with promises of material benefits. Infused by similar anti-democratic assumptions, Conservatives opposed Poplarism on the grounds that it was corrupt and even, some suggested, analogous ‘to the open and extensive bribery which prevailed in elections in the good old days’. The Poplarist credo of generous outdoor relief was felt to be demoralising and inimical to the spirit of self-help, constituting a flagrant violation of orthodox Poor Law principles. Whereas in previous centuries condemnations of corrupt practices were often bound up with radical demands for a more representative polity, they now, at the start of the twentieth century, registered a profound unease with the realities and ramifications of universal suffrage.
News coverage of the murders of Jyoti Singh and Anene Booysen
In South Africa, over 2,500 women aged 14 years and older are killed each year. Fewer than 20 per cent of these femicides are ever reported on in the press. The rape and murder of 17-year-old Anene Booysen, in February 2013, was one of the most-reported femicide stories that year, appearing in nearly 700 local news reports. Anene’s murder, although brutal, was not unique in its violence. Why, then, did the incident draw so much, and such intense, media attention? The answer to this lies in news coverage of two other femicides: the gang rape and murder of Indian student Jyoti Singh in Delhi, in December 2012; and the shooting of South African model Reeva Steenkamp by her celebrity sportsman boyfriend, in February 2013. While the Delhi rape-homicide amplified coverage of Anene’s death because of similarities in the attacks, the murder of Reeva Steenkamp intensified media coverage of Anene Booysen because of the differences between the victims. A study of the intersecting media coverage of these three cases reveals that certain global occurrences can play a significant role in boosting the visibility of local events, magnifying or multiplying the perceived importance of incidents that might otherwise have gone relatively unnoticed.
‘Strait’ is not a term of art, and it is not defined in any of the conventions produced by the United Nations Conferences on the Law of the Sea. It bears its ordinary meaning, being ‘geographically, a narrow passage between two land masses or islands or groups of islands connecting two sea areas.’ It is the legal status of the waters constituting the strait and the fact of their use by international shipping, rather than any definition of ‘strait’ as such, that determines the rights of coastal and flag States in the waters of the strait. This chapter first considers the rules governing straits prior to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), before turning to a detailed analysis of the UNCLOS regime, notably the transit passage through straits used for international navigation, established by Part III of the Convention. It addresses a coastal State’s legislative jurisdiction and the (less clear) scope of a coastal State’s enforcement jurisdiction. It considers the issue of whether there is a right similar to transit passage through international straits as a matter of customary international law. The chapter concludes by noting special regimes which regulate passage through particular straits.