№ files_lp_3_process_7_031703
File format: docx
Character count: 65124
File size: 128 KB
United Nations Human Rights Council report examining the human rights implications of new climate protection technologies, including carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation modification, within the framework of international human rights law and climate governance.
Document symbol:
A/HRC/54/47
Version:
Advance Unedited Version
Distribution:
General
Date of publication:
12 July 2023
Language:
English
UN body:
Human Rights Council
Session:
Fifty-fourth session (11 September–6 October 2023)
Agenda items:
3 and 5
Subject:
Impact of new technologies for climate protection on the enjoyment of human rights
Type of document:
Report
Issuing body:
Human Rights Council Advisory Committee
Mandating resolution:
Human Rights Council resolution 48/14 (8 October 2021)
Contributors:
Buhm-Suk Baek; Rabah Boudache; Milena Costas Trascasas (Chair); Ajai Malhotra; Javier Palummo; Vasilka Sancin; Patrycja Sasnal (Rapporteur); Vassilis Tzevelekos; Frans Viljoen
Cooperation:
Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change
Thematic focus:
Geoengineering; carbon dioxide removal; solar radiation modification; human rights law and climate governance
Annex:
The technological component and additional information
Price: 8 / 10 USD
The file will be delivered to the email address provided at checkout within 12 hours.
The file will be delivered to the email address provided at checkout within 12 hours.
Don’t have cryptocurrency yet?
You can still complete your purchase in a few minutes:- Buy Crypto in a trusted app (Coinbase, Kraken, Cash App or any similar service).
- In the app, tap Send.
- Select network, paste our wallet address.
- Send the exact amount shown above.
The final amount may vary slightly depending on the payment method.
The file will be sent to the email address provided at checkout within 24 hours.
The product description is provided for reference. Actual content and formatting may differ slightly.
Year:
2018
Region / City:
Geneva
Topic:
Development of electronic application form for plant breeders’ rights
Document Type:
Technical Report
Organization:
International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV)
Author:
UPOV Office
Target Audience:
UPOV members, plant breeders, and legal professionals in plant breeding
Period of Validity:
2017–2018
Approval Date:
August 23, 2018
Amendment Date:
None
Date:
September 25, 2024
Year:
2024
Region / City:
Geneva
Topic:
Intellectual Property
Document Type:
Report
Organization:
WIPO
Target Audience:
WIPO Member States
Period of validity:
From July 9 to 17, 2024
Date of adoption:
Not specified
Date of amendments:
Not specified
Document code:
TC/54/4
Session:
Fifty-Fourth Session of the Technical Committee
Date of document:
2018-10-15
Meeting date:
October 28-29, 2018
Location:
Geneva
Organization:
International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV)
Prepared by:
Office of the Union
Subject:
Examination of Distinctness, Uniformity and Stability (DUS)
Content:
Alphabetical list of genera and species with corresponding authorities having practical experience
Reference document:
TC/53/4
Language versions:
English, French, German, Spanish
Disclaimer:
This document does not represent UPOV policies or guidance
Year:
2022
Location:
Hanover, Germany
Organization:
International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV)
Document Type:
Technical Working Party report
Author:
Office of the Union
Target Audience:
Members and observers of UPOV
Period Covered:
2021–2022
Date of Document:
July 27, 2022
Topics:
Plant variety protection, Community Plant Variety Rights, CPVO activities, legal developments, R&D projects, international cooperation
Participating Members:
European Union, France, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, United Kingdom
Key Activities:
Statistical reporting, administrative updates, regulatory changes, international training and cooperation, R&D project progress
Year:
2023
Region / City:
East Africa, West Africa, Middle East
Theme:
Climate Change, Education, Gender Equality
Document Type:
Report
Organization:
She Leads consortium
Author:
She Leads consortium, including Plan International Netherlands, Terre des Hommes the Netherlands, Defence for Children - ECPAT the Netherlands, African Women’s Development and Communication Network (FEMNET)
Target Audience:
International Organizations, Policymakers, NGOs, Youth Advocates
Period of Action:
2023 onwards
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Year:
2020
Region / city:
United Nations
Topic:
Human rights, Terrorism
Document type:
Report
Institution:
United Nations Human Rights Council
Author:
Advisory Committee
Target audience:
States, international organizations, human rights advocates
Period of validity:
N/A
Date of approval:
22 January 2020
Date of amendments:
N/A
Year:
2016
Region / City:
Germany / Kenya
Theme:
Human Rights, Development Cooperation
Document Type:
Questionnaire
Institution:
German Government
Author:
German Government
Target Audience:
Governments, Development Organizations
Period of Validity:
N/A
Approval Date:
N/A
Date of Amendments:
N/A
Country:
Philippines
Addressee:
UN Special Rapporteur John H. Knox
Subject:
Human rights obligations relating to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment
Focus:
Protection of children’s rights from environmental harm
Type of document:
Government submission / official report
Legislation cited:
Republic Act No. 9512; Republic Act No. 10821; Executive Order No. 138 (s. 2013); Executive Order No. 26 (s. 2017)
Institutions mentioned:
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR); Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau (ERDB); Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD); Department of Education (DepEd); Council for the Welfare of Children
Programs referenced:
ERDB Youth Program; Gising Diwa Program; Comprehensive Emergency Program for Children (CEPC); National Environmental Education Action Plan for Sustainable Development; ASEAN Environmental Education Action Plan (2014–2018)
Thematic areas:
Environmental education; disaster risk reduction; child protection; public health; sustainable development; armed conflict monitoring
Geographical scope:
National
Timeframe referenced:
2001–2018
Date:
5 December 2023
Region / City:
Geneva
Topic:
Climate Change, Human Rights, Education
Document Type:
Call for Submissions
Organization:
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
Author:
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
Target Audience:
United Nations Member States, international organizations, civil society organizations, and stakeholders
Action Period:
1 March 2024
Submission Deadline:
1 March 2024
Date of Approval:
5 December 2023
Author:
Independent Expert on the enjoyment of human rights by persons with albinism
Country:
United States of America
Locations visited:
Washington D.C.; Atlanta, Georgia; San Juan, Arecibo and Quebradillas, Puerto Rico
Dates of visit:
7–18 October 2024
Document type:
Preliminary findings report
Subject:
Human rights of persons with albinism and Heřmanský–Pudlák Syndrome
Institutions engaged:
Federal and state government agencies; research and medical institutions; civil society organizations
Legal framework referenced:
ICCPR; CERD; Americans with Disabilities Act; Rehabilitation Act of 1973; Civil Rights Act; Law 109 of 2022 (Puerto Rico)
Communities concerned:
Persons with albinism; persons with Heřmanský–Pudlák Syndrome; family members
Planned follow-up:
Presentation of full report to the UN Human Rights Council in March 2025
Year:
2023
Region / City:
Nigeria
Subject:
Human Rights, Terrorism, Insurgency
Document Type:
Report
Organization / Institution:
National Human Rights Commission
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Government officials, human rights organizations, academics, policy makers
Period of Effect:
2010–Present
Date of Approval:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Year:
2017
Region:
Global
Theme:
Human rights, Gender equality, Digital divide
Document type:
Report
Organization:
United Nations Human Rights Council
Author:
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Target audience:
Member States, international organizations, civil society, technical community, academia
Period covered:
2013–2016
Date issued:
5 May 2017
Session:
Thirty-fifth session of the Human Rights Council
Year:
2017
Country:
United Republic of Tanzania
Region / Cities visited:
Dodoma, Dar es Salaam, Mwanza, Shinyanga, Kigoma, Kasulu
Subject:
Human rights of persons with albinism
Document type:
Official UN report
Issuing body:
United Nations Human Rights Council
Author:
Ikponwosa Ero, Independent Expert
Target audience:
UN member states, human rights organizations, policymakers
Mission dates:
18–28 July 2017
Key topics:
Attacks on persons with albinism, discrimination, health, education, legal and institutional frameworks, socioeconomic situation
Recommendations:
Measures to strengthen protection of persons with albinism, address implementation gaps, improve access to rights
Year:
2021
Session:
Forty-seventh session
Date adopted:
13 July 2021
Issuing body:
Human Rights Council
Original language:
English
Agenda item:
Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development
Document type:
Resolution
Target audience:
States, international organizations, civil society, private sector
Relevant events:
COVID-19 pandemic, digital divide challenges
References:
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Secretary-General’s Road Map for Digital Cooperation
Key concepts:
Internet universality, digital literacy, gender digital divide, human rights online, access to information and communications technology
Year:
2026
Region / city:
New Zealand
Topic:
Animal product regulations, pet food
Document type:
Regulatory amendment notice
Institution:
Ministry for Primary Industries
Author:
New Zealand Government
Target audience:
Animal product operators, pet food manufacturers
Effective period:
2026 and onwards
Approval date:
2026
Amendment date:
2026
Year:
2019
Region / City:
New Zealand
Subject:
Animal products, regulations, specifications
Document Type:
Consultation document
Organization / Institution:
Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI)
Author:
Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI)
Target Audience:
Operators in animal product industries, regulatory bodies
Effective Period:
2019
Approval Date:
Not specified
Amendment Date:
Not specified
Year:
2024
Region / city:
Global
Theme:
Christian Doctrine, Biblical Teachings
Document type:
Religious Text
Author:
Paul
Target audience:
Christian believers
Period of validity:
N/A
Approval date:
N/A
Date of amendments:
N/A
) and join the S1NET. For guides with in depth examinations of performance measure definitions, go to:
https://www.milsuite.mil/book/docs/DOC-129783
Table of Contents (Hyperlinks to Sections):
Developing ‘Significant Duties and Responsibilities’ OER Narratives: Notes, Rules, and Instructions OER Narrative Prohibited Techniques, Inconsistencies, No-Go’s: Negative Comment Rules Referred OERs Narrative Comment Examples Block a. APFT and HT/WT Block b. Overall Performance Block c. Character (to include SHARP comments) Block d. Presence Block e. Intellect Block f. Leads Block g. Develops Block h. Achieves Senior Rater Potential Senior Rater Narrative Examples Senior Rater Narrative Comment Examples (for potential, promotion, school, etc.) Successive Assignments Other SR Comments (explanations of anything unusual about OER) Effective Words for Evaluations JUNIOR OFFICER PLATE (DA FORM 67-10-1) NOTE: 2LTs who have NOT completed BOLC, will not receive an OER until they complete BOLC (AC and ARNG; USAR officers can receive an OER before completing BOLC). The FROM date will be their commissioning date. All time until their BOLC graduation will be NONRATED on their first OER. OER PROFILING: OERs: Rater and Senior Rater Profiles are CONSTRAINED, meaning Officers are only allowed to grant 49% of each rank they rate with either an “EXCELS” (as Rater) or “MOST QUALIFIED” (as Senior Rater). HOWEVER, if you have an immature profile, and have only just begun rating/senior rating Officers of a certain rank, you are allowed a ONE TIME option of giving one of the first two evaluations you make at a particular grade, an “EXCELS” (as Rater) or “MOST QUALIFIED” (as Senior Rater). OER (OER SUPPORT FORM) PART III: Developing ‘Significant Duties and Responsibilities’ (blocks a., b., and c.): Refer to DA PAM 611-21 (https://www.milsuite.mil/book/groups/smartbookdapam611-21
) and DA PAM 600-3 (Commissioned Officer Professional Development and Career Management), to assist in the development of PART III, block d. As a minimum, the duty description will include pr:
- Number of personnel supervised, - Amount of resources under the rated officer’s control, - Scope of responsibilities. 3) Descriptions must be clear and concise with emphasis on specific functions required. 4) Note conditions unique to the assignment; e.g. RA officers assigned to FT support duties with RC units or USAR officers assigned to RA units OER NARRATIVES: Notes, Rules, and Instructions Rater and Senior Rater Narratives: - Requires candor and courage; frank and accurate assessment. - Quantify officer’s value relative to peers and do so in concert with rater/senior rater box check. - Are short; tell a simple story about the quality of officer being evaluated. - Are interesting and compelling. - Are looked at by selection board members when they are looking for in-depth information about a rated officer’s performance and potential. - Numbers; 1-10, write them out (e.g. one, two, ten). 11 or higher, write the number; e.g. 11, 15, 105. Exception, when a 1-10 is WITH an 11 or higher; e.g. “5 tool kits with 20 tools each.” - Fashion the narrative to the officer; double check use of “he/his” vs. “she/hers.” - Awards: Awards and/or special recognition received during the rating period may be cited in evaluation comments (for example, “received the Humanitarian Service Medal” or “named the Instructor of the Year”). - Raters and SR CAN use the officer’s name in the narrative; e.g. “1LT Joe was ….” Rater and Rater Narratives: - Focus on PERFORMANCE; explaining what the rated officer did and how well he/she did it. - Focus on specifics to quantify and qualify performance. - Raters should advocate the rated officer to the SR. - When there is no SR (due to lack of qualifications), rater’s narrative provides the input on both performance and potential. Senior Rater (SR) and SR Narrative (see SR Rater Narrative section for examples): - Focus on POTENTIAL, 3-5 years out (promotions, command, school, & assignments). - Can amplify box checks by using the narrative to clearly send the appropriate message to selection boards. - CANNOT mention Box Check. - Additional information for when SR is also Rater can be found in DA PAM 623-3, pg. 26, “DA Form 67–10–1, part VI: block c—Senior Rater Narrative.” OER Narrative Prohibited Techniques, Inconsistencies, No-Go’s: - School/Course Comments: Bullets about how a Soldier did in a school or course are ONLY allowed if that school did not produce an AER/DA Form 1059. - Narratives are not a laundry list of superlatives – more is not necessarily better. - Brief, unqualified superlatives or phrases, particularly if they may be considered trite. - Excessive use of technical acronyms, or phrases not commonly recognized. - Techniques aimed at making specific words, phrases, or sentences stand out from the rest of the narrative; e.g. excessive use of capital letters; unnecessary quotation marks; repeated use of exclamation points; wide spacing between selected words, phrases, or sentences to include double spacing within a paragraph or between paragraphs. - Inappropriate references to box checks; e.g “Would be TOP BLOCK if profile allowed” or “absolutely far exceeded the standard”. - Trying to quantify (e.g. “top 2% of my captains”) with a small population. - Stay in your lane/level; avoid comments like “Best 1LT in the Army” unless you’re the Army CoS. - Stating “the best ever”; having 10 in the population, 50 in the profile. - Using overused phrases and clichés that are counterproductive or overused; e.g. stellar, historic, “delivered a dazzling performance,” “hit the ground running,” consummate professional, and unlimited potential. - Using specific selection board-type language. Examples of this include, “definitely a 6+ Soldier”. - Don’t exaggerate; “If I could prove it, CPT X is an LTC disguised as a CPT.” - Be mindful of what IS NOT said; it can have the same impact as what is said; e.g. NOT having numbers, or quantifiable points. - Don’t say the sa
Note:
en
Topic:
Officer Evaluation, Narrative Guidelines
Document Type:
Guide
Target Audience:
Raters, Senior Raters