Day of fighting Injustice

               Last Wednesday, 23rd of August was celebrated in Brazil, the day of fighting injustice. We all must defend justice, because when there is some injustice happening for so many years, a dangerous precedent can happen, destroying democracy and the fundamental feeling of justice of the people. So, the public trust in our institutions is severely harmed. Consequently, the people start asking if they are worth so many taxes. Besides, when there is not justice, the abuses tend to grow and to spread. I have been fighting for justice, democracy and human rights for so many years and intend keep this work for many more years ahead. I'll never give up to make Brazil a better country, more democratic, fairer, and where human rights are truly respected. This post is a summary of four articles. The first was published in August of 2017 at  http://www.paraiba.com.br/2017/08/23/82297-23-de-agosto-dia-de-combate-a-injustica-o-que-e-justo-ou-injusto-perante-a-lei. The second was published at   http://culturesofresistance.org/get-involved.  The third post was published at http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/address-injustice. The fourth was published at http://clairification.com/2015/10/15/its-blog-action-day-raise-your-voice-against-injustice/

                  Did you know that 23rd is the day of fighting injustice? The date is a good time to discuss what is in fact fair and unjust before the law. Whenever we see someone going through a situation that seems unjustified, we call it injustice. But is it also the case in legislation? What is injustice, anyway? With regard to the decision handed down by the judiciary, the definition of the concept of what is fair or not, can be controversial. This is because its meaning is constantly changing according to the principles of society. This problem mainly affects countries that adopt Civil Law, such as Brazil. some time ago, the functioning of the Judiciary followed the principles of logical positivism. According to this current of thought, the just is only achieved through the proper application of the legal norm. In that sense, it does not matter whether a particular precept is considered good or bad. When its approval is supported by the Legal Order it means that justice is being done. Injustice, therefore, would be the opposite process. Lately, the Judiciary has been focused on human relations and entering a phase that many call post-positivism, especially in what concerns social rights. In this context, injustice gains more from the lack of balance in the relations between individuals belonging to different classes and groups. As an opposing concept of justice, which is the pursuit of the common good, injustice would be the benefit of some achieved through the harm of others. Following this sense, injustice can be present in any social context in which the values and principles are disregarded. It can be present quite obvious and noticeable and sometimes, discreetly. Whenever an individual disrespects or does not recognize the rights of others, he is not practicing justice.

                 The challenges of injustice in the world can often seem overwhelming. Although many of us would like to take part in promoting positive change, it can be difficult to find good information and know how we can effectively contribute. That is why we decided to find inspiring forms of creative resistence, doing so, we have forged bonds with a broad array of cutting-edge organizers. You can check out the opportunities listed below. These groups are working day in, day out to combat injustice and demand human rights around the world. Safeguard Leading Activists Working For a New Latin America: If you are moved by the struggle against militarization and for democracy in Latin America, there are a number of serious ways to get involved. If you are concerned about increasing violence against journalists and human rights defenders, the Friendship Office of the Americas offers similar accompaniment opportunities. Fight for Indigenous Rights in Brazil:   Brazil is a focal point for battles over indigenous rights to land and water. These rights are consistently threatened by majot infrastructure  and agriculture projects, as well as heavy industry carried out by large firms. Raise Awareness about Contemporary Slavery:  Although we think of slavery as a thing of the past, the truth is that millions remain enslaved throughout the world. Today, activists are playing a key role in working to stop modern-day slavery. You can become a campus activist and assist by organizing speaking events featuring international activists or former victims or you can also go into the national effort to lobby against slavery and link you with other activists to a broader movement.

                While it is difficult to give a complete and adequate definition of justice, most observers can recognize clear examples of serious injustice when they arise. Such injustice comes in various forms. In somes cases, these unfair conditions are imposed, whether it is an authoritarian government or an outside aggressor. Those in power sometimes use the state's  systems to violate the political and economic rights of subordinate groups. Political injustice involves the violation of individual liberties, including infringements on rights to freedom of speech. This sort of injustice can contribute to serious social problems as well as political ones. Economic injustice involves the state's failure to provide individuals with basic necessities of life. Many scholars and activists note that in order to truly address injustice, we must strive to understand its underlying causes. Indeed, the roots of repression, discrimination and other injustice stem from deeper and complex political and social problems. It is only by understanding and ameliorating these roots causes and strengthening civil society that we can truly protect human rights. Addressing political injustice is often a matter of developing institutions of fair governance, such as an accountable judiciary. Severe violations of basic rights are sometimes enacted through government policies or inflicted during the course of warfare. It is commonly recognized that government leaders and soldiers, as well as civilians, must be held accountable for perpetrating such injustices. Some maintain that the vigilant observance of the international community is necessary to ensure justice. Various NGOs including Amnesty International and the International Commission of Jurists, are devoted to bringing injustice to light and pressure governments to address the injustice. Historically, The U.N. has likewise played a central role in dealing with international justice issues. Restorative Justice is concerned with healing wounds of victims and repairing harm done to interpersonal relationships and the community. It can play a crucial role in responding to severe human rights violations. Restoration often becomes a matter of restitution or reparations, some type of compensation package can help to meet the material and emotional needs of victims and remedy the injustice. Many notes that an adequate response to injustice must involve democratization and the creation of institutions of civil society. Only then can the underlying causes of injustice be remedied.

                    Blog Action Day 2015 theme "Raise your Voice" celebrates those who raise their voices to make the world a more just place. Let is raise our voices to defend their right to raise theirs. In safety. There are always wrongs that need righting. It can seem hopeless. But it is not. And lives have been made better. In large part, because of the compassionate work done through civil society, the social sector and citizens working together to right the ship. This year's Action Day theme is the mother of all issues: the right and the moral imperative, to raise your voice to speak out about any of the many injustices we see all around us. To shine a light on wrongs that must be righted, without fear of retribution. To look evil in the eye, rather than look away. To bring hope in the darkness, so that there will be light. This is a fight that must be won battle by battle. And the war is still raging. Even in the U.S. where freedom of speech is a guaranteed constitutional right, speaking out requires immense courage and can come at great personal sacrifice. We take it for granted. But we do so at our peril. Because even with this right, speaking out can mean censorship, threats, violence and encarceration. In many countries of the world it can mean death. We raise our voices to defend the rights of those who have been attacked to raise theirs. Because when we look the other way, nothing changes. Supression of free speech is everywhere. It is not just happening in the third world. And even when it is happening far from our shores, the digital revolution means that we have to see it. To see injustice and ignore it is how evil triumphs. Raise your voice for justice. What do you want? You want to shine a light somewhere to make the world less out of whack? You want to make the world a more caring and harmonious place? If, you said yes, you can do many things to help, such as: you can have a blog,  post on social media, join online groups, sign petitions, write to your congressman, donate to a cause in which you believe, exercise your opportunity to vote. Let is resolve, together, to do many things to get into the practice of rebalancing.

Why Nations Fail - Part II

            This post is the summary of the same book from last week, published at  http://norayr.am/collections/books/Why-Nations-Fail-Daron-Acemoglu.pdf

            For economists, Argentina is a perplexing country. To illustrate how difficult it was to understand Argentina, the Nobel Prize-winning economist Simon Kuznets once famously remarked that were four sorts of countries: developed, underdeveloped, Japan and Argentina. Kuznets thought so because, around the time of the World War I, Argentina was one of the richest countries in the world. It began then a steady decline relative to the other rich countries, but the reasons for its decline become clearer when looked at through the lens of inclusive and extractive institutions. It is true that before 1914, Argentina experienced experienced around fifty years of economic growth, but this was a classic case of growth under extractive institutions. Argentina was then ruled by a narrow elite heavily invested in the agricultural export economy. But it was not sustainable. Between 1930 when there was its first military coup and 1983, Argentina oscilated between dictatorship and democracy and between various extractive institutions. There were mass repression under military rule, which peaked in the 1970s with at least nine thousand people and probably more being illegally executed. Hundreds of thousands were imprisioned and torture. During the periods of civilian rule there were elections. But the political system was far from inclusive. Since the rise of Perón in the 1940s, democratic Argentina has been dominated by the political party he created. The Peronists won elections thanks to a huge political machine, which succeeded by buying votes, dispensing patronage, and engaging in corruption, including government contracts and jobs in exchange for political support. In a sense this was a democracy, but it was no pluralistic. Power was concentrated in the Peronist Party. Economic policies and institutions were designed to deliver income to their supporters, not to create a level playing field. There is little check on Argentina presidents and political elites, and certainly no pluralism. The elections have not brought either inclusive political or economic institutions is the typical case in Latin America. Perón and dozens of other strongmen in Latin America are just another facet of the iron law of oligarchy, and as the name suggest, the roots of this iron law lies in the underlying elite-controlled regimes. Nations fail economically because of extractive institutions. These institutions keep poor countries poor and prevent them from embarking on a path to economic growth. This is true today in Africa, in countries such as Zimbabwe and Sierra Leone in Latin America, in countries such as Argentina and Colombia, in Asia in countries such as Uzbekistan, and in the Middle East, in nations like Egypt. There are notable differences among countries from these regions. They have very different histories, languages, and cultures. What they all share in common is extractive institutions. In all these cases the basis of these institutions is an elite who design economic institutions on order to enrich themselves and perpetuate their power at the expense of the vast majority of people. The different histories and social structures of the countries lead to the differences in the nature of the elites and in the details of the extractive institutions. But the reason why these extractives institutions persist is always related to the vicious circle, and the implications of these institutions in terms of impoverishing their citizens are similar, even if their intensity differs. In Zimbabwe, for example, the elite comprise Robert Mugabe. In North Korea, they are the Kim Jong II and the Communist Party. In Uzbekistan is President Islam Karimov and his reinvented Soviet Union-era cronies. Colombia has had a long history of elections, which emerged historically as a method for sharing power between the Liberal and Conservative parties. Not only is the nature of elites different, but their numbers are. In Uzbekistan, Karimov could hijack the remnants of the Soviet state, which gave him a strong apparatus to suppress and murder altenative elites. In Colombia, the lack of authority of the central state in parts of the country has naturally lead to more fragmented elites, in fact, so much that they sometimes murder one another. In Egypt, the situation was similar under the avowedly military regime created by Colonel Nasser after 1952. Botswana, China, and the U.S. South just like the Glorious Revolution in England, the French Revolution, and the Meiji restoration in Japan, are vivid illustrations that history is not destiny. Despite the vicious circle, extractive institutions can be replaced by inclusive ones. But it is neither automatic nor easy. A confluence of factors, in particular a critical juncture coupled with a broad coalition of those pushing for reform or other propitious existing institutions, is often necessary for a nation to make strides towards more inclusive institutions. In addition, some luck is key, because history always unfolds in a contingent way. There are huge differences in living standards around the world. Even the poorest citizens of the U.S. have income and access to health care, education, public services, and economic and social opportunities that are far superior to those available to the vast mass of people living in sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and Central America. To answer, in fact, even to reason about, these questions, we need a theory of why some nations are prosperous while others fail and are poor. This theory needs to delineate both the factors that create and retard prosperity and their historical origins. This book has proposed such a theory. Any complex social phenomenon, such as the origins of the different economic and political trajectories of hundreds of polities around the world, likely has a multitude of causes, making most social scientists shun monocausal, simple. and broadly applicable theories and instead seek different explanations for seeminglysimilar outcomes emerging in different times and areas. a successful theory, then does not faithfully reproduce details, but provides a useful and empirically well-grounded explanation for a range of processes while also clarifying the main forces at work. Our theory has attempted to acieve this by operating on two levels. The first is the distinction between extractive and inclusive economic and political institutions. The second is our explanation for why inclusive institutions emerged in some parts of the world and not in others. While the first level of our theory is about an institutional interpretation of history, the second level is about how history has shaped institutionsal trajectories of nations. Central to our theory is the link between inclusive economic and political institutions and prosperity. Inclusive economic institutions that enforce property rights, create a level playing field, and encourage investments in new technologies and skills are more conducive to economic growth than extractive economic institutions that are structured to extract resources from the many by the few and that fail to protect property rights or provide incentives for economic activity. The synergies between extractive economic and political institutions create a vicious circle, where extractive institutions, once in place, tend to persist. Similarly, there is a virtuous circle associated with inclusive political institutions. But neither the vicious nor the virtuous circle is absolute. In fact, some nations live under inclusive institutions today because, though extractive institutions have been the norm in history, some societies have been able to break the mold and transition toward inclusive institutions. History is key, since it is historical processes that via institutional drift, create the differences that may become consequential during critical junctures. Critical junctures themselves are historical turning points. And the vicious and virtuous circles imply that we have to study history to understand the nature of institutional differences that have been historically structured. Yet our theory does not imply historical determinism, or any other kind of determinism. Naturally, the predictive power of a theory where both small differences and contingency play key roles will be limited. Few would have predicted that the major breakthrough toward inclusive institutions would happen in Britain. The historical account we have presented so far indicates that any approach based on historical determinism, based on geography, culture, or even other historical factors is inadequate. Nations that have achieved almost no political centralization, are unlikely either to achieve growth under extractive political institutions or to make major changes toward inclusive institutions. Instead, nations likely to grow over the next several decades are those that have attained some degree of political centralization. In Latin America, it includes Brazil, Chile and Mexico, which have not only achieved political centralization but also made significant strides toward political pluralism. What can be done to kick-start or perhaps just facilitate the process of empowerment and thus the development of inclusive political institutions? The honest answer, of course is that there is no recipe for building such institutions. Naturally there are some obvious factors that would make the process of empowerment more likely to get off the ground. These would include the presence of some degree of centralized order; some preexisting political institutions that introduce a modicum of pluralism; and the presence of civil society institutions that can coordinate the demands of the population. But many of these factors are historically predetermined and change only slowly. A trasformative role in the process of empowerment is the media. Empowerment of society at large is difficult to coordinate and maintain without widespread information about whether there are economic and political abuses by those in power. The media can also play a key role in channeling the empowerment of a broad segment of society into more durable political reforms. Pamphlets and books informing and galvanizing people played an important role during the Glorious Revolution in England, the French Revolution, and the march toward democracy in 19th century Britain.Similarly, media particularly new forms based on advances in ICT, such as Web blogs, anonymous chats, Facebook, and Twitter, played a central role in the Arab Spring. Authoritarian regimes are often aware of the importance of a free media, and do their best to fight it. But of course a free media and new communication tech can help only at the margins. Their help will translate into meaningful change only when a broad segment of society mobilizes and organizes in order to effect political change, and does so not for sectarian reasons or to take control of extractive institutions, but to transform extractive institutions into more inclusive ones. Whether such a process will get under way and open the door to further empowerment, and ultimately to durable political reform, will depend, as we have seen in many differences instance, on many small differences that matter and on the very contingent path of history.

Why Nations Fail

             This book was a best-seller when was released and says what I have been saying in this blog for many years: for a better and successful country, we need a better education, and an effective democracy with an inclusive political system. This post is a summary of the book with the incomplete title above published in 2012 at  http://norayr.am/collections/books/Why-Nations-Fail-Daron-Acemoglu.pdf

              This book is about the huge differences in incomes and standards of living that separate the rich countries of the world, such as the U.S. the U.K. and Germany, from the poor, such as those in sub-Saharan Africa, Central America, and South Asia. As we write this preface, North Africa and the Middle East have been shaken by the "Arab Spring." By January, 2011, President Zine El Abidine, who had ruled Tunisia since 1987, had stepped down, but far from abating, the revolutionary fervor had already spread to the rest of the Middle East. Hosni Mubarak, who had ruled Egypt with a tight grip for almost thirty years, was ousted on February 2011. The roots of discontent in these countries lie in their poverty. 20% of the population is in dire poverty. What are the constraints that keep Egyptians from becoming more prosperous?  A natural way to start thinking about this is to look at what the Egyptians themselves are saying about the problems they face and why they rose up against the Mubarak regime. Noha Hamed, a worker at an advertising agency in Cairo, made her views clear as she demonstrated in Tahrir Square: "We are suffering from corruption, oppression and bad education. We are living amid a corruption system which has to change." The protestors in Tahrir Square spoke with one voice about the corruption of the government, its inability to deliver public services, and the lack of opportunity in their country. They particularly complained about repression and the absence of political rights. When the protestors started to formulate their demands more systematically, the first twelve were posted by Wael Khalil, a blogger who emerged as one of the leaders of the Egyptian movement, were all focused on political change. Issues such as raising the minimum wage appeared only later. To Egyptians, the things that have held them back include an ineffective and corrupt state and a society where they can not use their talent, ingenuity, and education they can get. But they also recognize that the roots of these problems are political. When they reason about why a country such as Egypt is poor, most academics emphasize different factors. Some stress that Egypt's poverty is determined primarily by its geography, by the fact that the country is mostly a desert and lacks adequate rainfall. Others instead point to cultural attributes that are supposedly inimical to economic development. Egyptians, they argue, lack the same sort of work ethic and cultural traits that have allowed others to prosper, and instead have accepted Islamic beliefs that are inconsistent with economic success. A third approach, is based on the notion that the rulers of Egypt simply don't know what is needed to make their country prosperous, and have followed incorrect policies and strategies in the past. In this book we'll argue that the Egyptians in Tahrir Square have the right idea. In fact, Egypt is poor precisely because it has been ruled by a narrow elite that have organized society for their own benefit at the expense of the vast mass of people. Political power has been narrowly concentrated, and has been used to create great wealth for those who possess it, such as the $70 billion fortune apparently accumulated by ex-president Mubarak. Countries such as Great Britain and the U.S. became rich because their citizens created a society where political rights were much more broadly distributed, where government was accountable and responsive to citizens, and where the great mass of poeple could take advantage of economic opportunities. We'll see that the reason that Britain is richer than Egypt is because in 1688, Britain (or England, to be exact) had a revolution that transformed the politics and thus the economics of the nation. People fought for and won more political rights, The result was a fundamentally diferent political and economic trajectory. Between 1820 and 1845, 40% of those who took out patents had only primary schooling or less, just like Thomas Edison. Moreover, they often exploited their patent by starting a firm, again like Edison. Just as the U.S. in the nineteenth century was more democratic politically than almost any other nation in the world at the time, it was also more democratic than others when it came to innovation. This was critical to its path to becoming the most economically innovative nation in the world. The real way to make money from a patent was to start your own business. But to start a business, you need capital, and you need banks to lend the capital to you. Inventors in the U. S. were once fortunate. During the nineteenth century there was a rapid expansion of financial intermediation and banking that was a crucial facilitator of the rapid growth and industrialization that the economy experienced. By 1914 there were 27,864 banks, with total assets of $27.3 billion. Potential inventors in the U.S. had ready access to capital to start their businesses. Moreover, the intense competition among banks and financial institutions meant that this capital was available at fairly low interest rates. The reason that the U.S. had a banking industry that was radically better for the economic prosperity of the country had nothing to do with differences in the motivation of those who owned the banks. Indeed, the profit motive, which underpinned the monopolistic nature of the banking industry in Mexico, was present in the U.S. , too. But this profit motive was channeled differently because of the different U.S. institutions. The banks also quickly got into business of lending money to the politicians who regulated them, just as in Mexico. But this situation was not sustainable in the U.S. Unlike in Mexico, in the U.S. the citizens could keep politicians in check and get rid of ones who would use their offices to enrich themselves. The broad distribution of political rights in the U.S. guarantted equal access to finance and loans. This in turn ensured that those with good ideas and inventions could benefit from them.The reason that Nogales, U.S. is richer than Nogales, Mexico, is simple; it is because of the very different institutions on the two sides of the border, which create very different incentives for the inhabitants. The U.S. is also richer today than either Mexico or Peru because of the way its institutions, both economic and political shape the incentives of businesses, individuals and politicians. It is the political process that determines what economic institutions people live under, and it is the political institutions that determines the ability of citizens, albeit imperfect, or that they have usurped, to amass their own fortunes and to pursue their own agendas. It is also necessary to consider more broadly the factors that determine how political power is distributed in society. The people of South Korea have living standards similar to those of Portugal and Spain. To the north, in the in the so-called North Korea, living standards are akin to those of a sub-Saharan African country, about one-tenth of average living standards in South Korea. These striking differences are not ancient. In fact, they did not exist prior to the end of the World War II. But after 1945, the different governments in the north and the south adopted very different ways of organizing their economies. In the North Korea not only did industrial production fail to take off, but in fact experienced also a collapse in agricultural productivity. Lack of private property meant that few people had incentives to invest or to exert effort to increase or even maintain productivity. The stifling, repressive regime was inimical to innovation and the adoption of new technologies. North Korea continues to stagnate economically. Meanwhile, in the South Korea, eonomic institutions encouraged investment and trade. South Korea politicians invested in education, achieving high rates of literacy and schooling. South Korea companies were quick to take advantage of the educated population, the policies evcouraging investment, industrialization, exports, and the transfer of technology. South Korea quickly became one of the most rapidly growing nations in the world. The economic disaster of North Korea, which led to the starvation of millions, when placed against the South Korean economic success, is striking: neither culture nor geography nor ignorance can explain the divergent paths of North and South Korea. We have to look institutions for an answer. Those in the North Korea grow up without adequate education, creativity or entrepreneurial initiative. Much of the education they receive at school is pure propaganda, meant to shore up the legitimacy of the regime. These teenagers know that they will not be able to own property, start a business. They are even unsure about what kind of human rights they will have. Those in the South obtain a good education, and face incentives that encourage them to exert effort and excel in their chosen vocation. South Korean teenagers know that, if successful as entrepreneures or workers, they can one day improve their standard of living. Inclusive economic institutions create inclusive markets, which not only give people freedom to pursue the vocations in life that best suit their talents but also provide a level playing field that gives them opportunity to do so. Inclusive economic institutions also pave the way for two other engines of prosperity: technology and education. Sustained economic growth is almost always accompanied by technological improvements that enable people to become more productive. Intimately linked to tecnology are the education, skills, competencies and know-how of the workforce, acquired in schools, at home, and on the job. All the technology in the world would be of little use without workers who knew how to operate it. It is the education and skills of the workforce that generate the scientific knowledge upon which our progress is built and that enable the adaptation and adoption of these technologies in diverse lines of business. The low education level of poor countries is caused by economic institutions that fail to create incentives for parents to educate their children and by political institutions that fail to induce the government to build, finance, and support schools and the wishes of parents and children. The price these nations pay for low education of their population and lack of inclusive markets is high. They fail to mobilize their talents. They have many potential Bill Gates and perhaps some Albert Einstein who are now working as poor, uneducated workers, being coerced to do what they don't want to do or being drafted into the army, because they never had the opportunity to realize their vocation in life. Political and economic institutions, which are ultimately the choice of society, can be inclusive and encourage economic growth. Or they can be exclusive and extractive and become impediments to economic growth. Nations fail when they have exclusive and extractive institutions, supported by extractive political institutions that impede and even block economic growth. We have to understand why the politics of some societies lead to inclusive institutions that foster economic growth, while the politics of other to extractive institutions that hamper economic growth. The fundamental problem is that there will necessary be disputes and conflict over economic institutions. Different institutions have different consequences for the prosperity of a nation, how that prosperity is distributed, and who has power. This was clear during the Indusrial Revolution in England, which laid the foundations of the prosperity we see in the rich countries of the world today. It centered on a series of pathbreaking technological changes in steam power, transportation, and textile production. Even though mechanization led to enormous increases in incomes and became the foundation of modern industrial society, it was bitterly opposed by many. Such opposition to economic growth has its own logic. Economic growth and technological change are accompanied by what the great economist Joseph Schumpeter called creative destruction. They replaced the old with the new. New sectors attract resources away from old ones. New technologies make existing skills and machines obsolete. Fear of creative destruction is often at the root of the opposition to inclusive economic and political institutions. European history provides a vivid example of the consequences of creative destruction. On the eve of the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century, the governments of most European countries were controlled by aristocracies and traditional elites, whose major source of income was landholdings or from trading privileges they enjoyed thanks to monarchs. Consistent with the idea of creative destruction, the spread of industries and towns took resources away from the land, reduced land rents, and increased the wages that landowners had to pay. Urbanization and the emergence of a socially conscious middle and working class also challenged the political monopoly of landed aristocracies. 

Human Rights in Latin America

               This post is a summary of three articles. The first with the title above was published at  http://ella.practicalaction.org/wp-content/uploads/files/130128_GOV_ProHumRig_GUIDE.pdf. The second was published at http://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/14652.html. The third was published at http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/la/maine.html

             Human rights have played a key role in ending dictatorship in Latin America, inspiring democracy, fostering social justice and generating a more empowered and active citizenship. This guide highlights the key policies and practices that have made these advances possible. In particular, it focuses on two aspects of the Latin American experience. First, it explores the ways that states have implemented concrete legislative and public policy actions at the national and regional level to meet their obligations to protect and defend human rights. And second, highlights the impact of the activism of a vibrant civil society in using these mechanisms to promote and guarantee the realisation of human rights, and in creating oversight mechanisms to monitor states' compliance with their human rights obligations. Nowadays, Latin American countries present a contrasting panorama in terms of human rights. The 2011 Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission highlights some key advances in human rights, such as constitutional acknowledgement, protection of vulnerable groups and reparation for past crimes. But at the same time, key human rights challenges persist, such as "the demand for justice and the end to impunity, the end of security policies which ignore human rights, and failure to respect the rights of excluded groups like indigenous people, women,and children ". The variety of Latin American experiences in establishing mechanisms to meet the human rights obligations can be categorised into two types. The first has to do with states's obligations to protect and defend human rights by building a legal and institutional framework to enforce human rights at the domestic level. The second set has to do with states's obligations to promote and guarantee human rights. With the backing of legal and institutional frameworks, both governments and civil society are using these mechanisms to ensure the effective realisation of these rights. National courts have a crucial role in the implementation of the binding decisions of an international tribunal organ such as the Inter-American Court. In this process, the role of judges and and lawyers is fundamental to ensure that national courts will implement the international norms and standards at the domestic level. During dictatorships and after transition to democracy, episodes of social conflict have led to human rights violations in many Latin America countries, From this repression, groups of victims have emerged as crucial actors in transitional justice processes by calling on governments to guarantee their rights and reparation measures. These entail a range of structural and institutional reforms, as well as appropriate compensation, sanctions for violators of humsn rights and transparent efforts to reconstruct the truth. In every case, the victims demanding their rights to justice, truth and to a range of reparation measures for the abuses they had suffered is key to challenge governments to change the contexts that enable human rights violations. National human rights institutions in Latin America, also known as Public Defenders, Human Rights Commission or Human Rights Attorneys are becoming increasingly recognised for the strong and proactive role they are playing in promoting human rights. The creation of these institutions responded to the particular context of Latin America, a region emerging from the repression and armed conflict of the 1970s and 1980s, so that these institutions took on a particular shape, responding to the need for implementing mechanisms that control human rights abuses perpetrated by government authorities. Latin America's human rights institutions have become key players in promoting an innovative human rights strategy: integrating a human rights approach within public institutions' agendas and in public policies, programmes and laws within their jurisdiction. Another of their roles is mediating social conflict and fostering more active citizenship. Even if states have adopted legislative and institutional frameworks that guarantee human rights, they are essentially useless without specific public policy measures to guarantee human rights are realised, meaning that states undertake administrative, financial and even methodological changes to truly promote and guarantee the effective realisation of human rights. In Latin America over the last two decades, participation in strategic litigation has become increasingly prominent as a tactic to shape the realisation of human rights, in particular focusing on social rights. Strategic litigation deals with "issues that transcend individual circumstances to enter the judicial environment and attempts to determine human rights violations, foster legal reforms, and construct coalitions that create pressure for changes." The region is home to a number of organisations who are successfully using strategic litigation to promote human rights in their countries. To name only two, good experiences in developing strategic litigation may be represented by the Centre for Legal and Social Studies in Colombia and the Civil Association for Equality and Justice in Argentina. Both organisations are using litigation as a tool to promote human rights. They have managed to make social cases public by pointing out deficiencies in domestic frameworks to fulfil human rights. These cases demonstrate the usefulness and effectiveness of this tool when used to advance human rights and to influence public policies. Recently, some Latin America experts have pushed forward a joint agenda for anti-corruption policies and human rights based on three common principles: participation, transparency, and access to information and accountability. Based on these principles, civil society organisations (CSO) have been developing a variety of strategies to strengthen oversight mechanisms, like using the right to information to monitor the spending of public funds. CSOs can prevent corruption and may guarantee a better use and destination of public funds devoted to specific groups. The American Convention on Human Rights represented the region's first attempt at addressing human rights, establishing specific obligations for states and creating two mechanisms that may intervene in matters related to states fulfilling their human rights obligations: the Inter-American Commission and the Inter-American Court. These two organisations have pushed Latin American states to guarantee human rights by elaborating well-documented reports that denounce violations. they have also taken up individual cases and have provided precautionary measures to human rights defenders, advancing enforcement of human rights in the region.

              "Through this book Sonia Cardenas' voice emerges as that of a determined but clear-eyed optimist, willing to confort the dark realities of politics and power but inclining toward what another Latin Americanist, adopted as 'a bias for hope." ... In all, it is a remarkable compact synthesis on this sprawling subject." Said Alexander Wilde from Journal of Latin America Studies. For the last half century, Latin America has been plagued by civil wars, dictatorship, torture, legacies of colonialism and racism, and other evils. The region has also experienced dramatic, if uneven, human rights improvements. The accounts of how Latin America's people have dealt with the persistent threats to their fundamental rights, offer lessons for people around the world. Human Rights in Latin America: A Politics of Terror and Hope is the first textbook to provide a comprehensive introduction to the issues facing an area that constitutes more than half of the Western Hemisphere. Sonia Cardenas brings together regional examples of both terror and hope, emphasizing the dualities inherent in human rights struggles. Organized by three pivotal topics: human rights violations, reform, and accountability. This book offers an authoritative synthesis of research on human rights on the continent. From historical accounts of abuse to successful transnational campaigns and legal battles, this book explores the tensions underlying a vast range of human rights initiatives. In addition to surveying the roles of the U.S.A., relatives of the disappeared, and truth commissions, Sonia covers newer ground in addressing the colonial and ideological underpinnings of human rights abuses, emerging campaigns for disability and sexuality rights, and regional dynamics relating to the International Criminal Court. Engagingly written and fully illustrate, this book creates a niche among human rights textbooks. 

               The human rights situation in Latin America varies considerably country to country. Yet, if there is one violation that is common to most of the continent, it is impunity, the lack of punishment, and often even of investigation, to those who are responsible for committing the most dire human rights abuses. Impunity has the effect not only of leaving free those who have committed these abuses, but of communicating to the rest that they can do as they wish with the population, and will not have to suffer for it. We believe that exposing human rights violations is the first step in battling against them. It is much easier to kill, rape, torture and unjustly imprison under the cover of darkness. We hope that the reports there will be useful to you, and that will also encourage you to work to stop human rights violations in Latin America and the world.