Human rights in all parts of the world, operate in a terrain where a plurality of normative orders coexist, interact and sometimes conflict. Whether and under what conditions legal pluralities as a socio-legal phenomenon constitute a factor that promotes or prevents human rights realization is a research question that call for interdisciplinary research. The article shows how the phenomenological, evaluative and normative dimensions of this broad research question may be addressed through a combination of legal anthropological and human rights methods. An analytical framework addressing law as a semi-autonomous social field where different state and non-state actors engage in contestation over who has the power to generate law and construct its meaning is presented. What this analytical framework has to offer is demonstrated through a longitudinal study of the interplay between the human right to water, colonial and post-colonial water laws and community based water laws in Zimbabwe.

I 2019 ble det lovfestet en plikt til lønnskartlegging i likestillings- og diskrimineringsloven – ldl. Plikten utgjør en del av arbeidsgiveres aktivitets- og redegjørelsesplikt (ARP). Lovteksten om lønnskartlegging er bredt utformet og sier lite om hvordan plikten skal oppfylles. I forarbeidene er det anbefalt å kartlegge lønnsforskjeller mellom kvinner og menn i virksomheten ut fra stillingsgrupper, hvor stillinger som utgjør «samme arbeid eller arbeid lik verdi», plasseres i samme stillingsgruppe og sammenlignes med hverandre. Denne tilnærmingen er lagt til grunn av Bufdir i direktoratets veileder om lønnskartlegging. Uttrykket «samme arbeid eller arbeid av lik verdi» er hentet fra likelønnsbestemmelsen i ldl § 34. Likelønnsbestemmelsen har blitt kritisert for å inneholde vide og uklare kriterier som gir rom for skjønn. Dette reiser spørsmål om dens egnethet som redskap for sammenligning av lønn i forbindelse med lønnskartlegging. I denne artikkelen diskuterer vi hvorvidt og i hvilken grad lønnskartleggingsplikten vil kunne utgjøre et effektivt redskap for bekjemping av lønnsforskjeller mellom kvinner og menn. Gjennom en juridisk og en empirisk analyse søker vi å kaste lys over hvilken betydning de vide og til dels uklare kriteriene i forbindelse med inndeling av stillingsgrupper kan ha for oppfyllelsen av lønnskartleggingsplikten. I artikkelen trekker vi også linjer til EUs nye likelønnsdirektiv (Direktiv 2023/970).

Likestillings-og diskrimineringslovgivningen har vaert

acknowledgements, the abundance of misspellings of German words is irritating. This is, however, something that occurs in many English-language publications on Namibia, and one wonders what this signifies. In the same vein, both of the publishers – UNAM Press in Namibia and Berghahn in the Rest of the World – and their reviewers, proof-readers and copy-editors should have considered printing footnotes instead of endnotes, for readability, and tried harder at providing references and complete citations – for instance, who described the first SWA administrator, Hofmeyr, as ‘prancing proconsul’ (p. 19)? This reviewer would have preferred more references for, particularly, the critical points made by the author. Overall, however, Gordon’s treatise is an overdue and valuable contribution to the history of apartheid, a history of moral, academic and intellectual dissonance (p. 140), which deserves to be read widely in Namibia. What looks like another elaboration on a dry academic topic is, written by Gordon, an exciting read, full of brilliant poignancy and the deconstruction of an unsavoury aspect of the German–Namibian–South African (hi)story.

During its sessions the CEDAW Committee considers reports of States parties to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Following such consideration, the Committee formulates concluding observations that assist the State under review in the further implementation of the Convention. These concluding observations outline positive aspects, principal subjects of concern and the Committee’s recommendations on how to address challenges faced by the State party. The reports of States parties, the concluding observations (once adopted), and other documentation for the sessions is publically available here: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/ceda w/sessions.htm

The UN recognition of a human right to water for drinking, personal and other domestic uses and sanitation in 2010 was a political breakthrough in states' commitments to adopt a human rights framework in carrying out part of their mandate. This chapter explores other domains of freshwater governance in which human rights frameworks provide a robust and widely accepted set of normative values to such governance. The basis is General Comment No. 15 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 2002, which states that water is needed to realise a range of indivisible human rights to non-starvation, food, health, work and an adequate standard of living and also procedural rights to participation and information in water interventions. On that basis, the chapter explores concrete implications of the Comment for states' broader infrastructure-based water services implied in the recognised need to access to infrastructure, rights to non-discrimination in public service delivery and respect of people's own prioritisation. This implies a right to water for livelihoods with core minimum service levels for water to homesteads that meet both domestic and small-scale productive uses, so at least 50-100 l per capita per day. Turning to the state's mandates and authority in allocating water resources, the chapter identifies three forms of unfair treatment of small-scale users in current licence systems. As illustrated by the case of South Africa, the legal tool of "Priority General Authorisations" is proposed. This prioritises water allocation to small-scale water users while targeting and enforcing regulatory licences to the few high-impact users.

No country in the world has, so far, closed the gender gap. Inequality and disadvantage play out on all scales: globally, regionally, nationally, locally, and within social groups and families. The...

Sammendrag Artikkelen gir en kritisk analyse av Solberg-regjeringens reformforslag på diskrimineringsfeltet. Det er foreslått omfattende endringer både i det materielle regelverket og i håndhevingen av det. Endringene berører både diskrimineringsvernets individuelle og strukturelle sider. Artikkelen retter særlig oppmerksomhet mot sider ved forslaget som innebærer – eller kan innebære – at diskrimineringsvernet svekkes, med særlig vekt på situasjonen for svake og marginaliserte grupper. Forholdet mellom Solberg-regjeringens forslag og grensene for det politiske handlingsrom som etableres gjennom Grunnlovens diskrimineringsforbud, internasjonale menneskerettighetsforpliktelser og EU/EØS-rettslige forpliktelser, kommenteres løpende. Selv om Solberg-regjeringens forslag inneholder noen forbedringer sammenlignet med dagens regelverk, særlig når det gjelder vernets sanksjonering, konkluderes det med at reformen sett som helhet innebærer at regelverket og håndhevingsapparatet svekkes langt mer enn det styrkes.