The Human Rights City: New York, San Francisco, Barcelona

The Human Rights City

We are used to thinking of human rights as a matter for state governments to deal with. Much less investigated is the question of what cities do with them, even though urban communities and municipalities have been dis- cussing human rights for quite some time. In this volume, Grigolo borrows the concept of ‘the human rights city’ to invite us to think about a new urban utopia: a place where human rights strive to guide urban life. By turning the question of the meaning and use of human rights in cities into the object of critical investigation, this book tracks the genesis, institutionalisation and implementation of human rights in cities, focussing on New York, San Francisco and Barcelona. Touching also upon matters such as women’s rights, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights and migrant rights, The Human Rights City emphasises how human rights can serve urban justice but also a neoliberal practice of the city. This book is a useful resource for scholars and students interested in fields such as Soci ology of Human Rights, Sociology of Law, International Law, Urban Sociology, Political Sociology and Social Policies.

Michele Grigolo is a lecturer in Sociology at Nottingham Trent University, UK. Routledge Advances in Sociology

253 Cinematic Tourist Mobilities and the Plight of Development On Atmospheres, Affects and Environments Rodanthi Tzanelli

254 Bicycle Utopias Imagining Fast and Slow Cycling Futures Cosmin Popan

255 Islamophobia in Muslim Majority Societies Edited by Enes Bayrakli and Farid Hafez

256 Equine Cultures in Transition Ethical Questions Edited by Jonna Bornemark, Petra Andersson, Ulla Ekström von Essen

257 Loneliness A Social Problem Keming Yang

258 Queer Community Identities, Intimacies and Ideology Neal Carnes

259 Comparative Sociology of Examinations and Educational Institutions Edited by Fumiya Onaka

260 The Human Rights City New York, San Francisco, Barcelona Michele Grigolo

For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge.com/ Routledge-Advances-in-Sociology/book-series/SE0511 The Human Rights City New York, San Francisco, Barcelona

Michele Grigolo First published 2019 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2019 Michele Grigolo The right of Michele Grigolo to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Grigolo, Michele, author. Title: The human rights city / Michele Grigolo. Description: 1 Edition. | New York : Routledge, 2019. | Series: Routledge advances in sociology | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2018051767 | ISBN 9781138644892 (hardback) | ISBN 9781315628530 (eBook) Subjects: LCSH: Human rights. | Urban policy. | Municipal government. Classification: LCC JC571 .G7828 2019 | DDC 323.09173/2—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018051767

ISBN: 978-1-138-64489-2 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-62853-0 (ebk) Typeset in Times New Roman by codeMantra For Professor Walter Stafford.

Contents

Acknowledgements ix

1 Introducing the human rights city 1

2 Tracking the human rights city 32

3 Institutionalising human rights in the city 63

4 The urban politics of human rights 98

5 Anti-discrimination policy in New York and Barcelona 129

6 Implementing human rights in San Francisco and Barcelona 154

7 A sociology of the human rights city 176

References 195 Index 217

Acknowledgements

This book is a turning point in a long journey I have undertaken in the study of human rights and cities. Research used for this book has benefitted from funding from the European Commission, the Spanish Government, the European University Institute (Florence), the Portuguese Federation of Science and Technology and Nottingham Trent University. I am thankful to Andrea Gattini, Antonio Papisca, Michael Keating, Virginie Guiraudon, Yasemin Soysal and Lydia Morris for their feedback and support over the years, before and after the realisation of this book. I am grateful to Gi- useppe Allegretti, Laura Centemeri, Mihaela Mihai and Mathias Thaler and Boaventura de Sousa Santos and the Centre for Social Studies at the University of Coimbra for helping me shape and refine the sociological lens that informs this book. I would like to thank Eva Chueca for the opportunity to connect my research to practice, starting from the Inclusive Cities project of United Cities and Local Governments. Nottingham Trent Uni- versity should get the final credit for supporting me during the realisation of this book over busy academic years and in particular Jason Pandya-Wood, Azrini Wahidin, Simon Holdaway, Robert Dingwall, Eric Baumgartner, James Hunter and Kate Stewart. I am especially grateful to Barbara Oomen and Martha Davis for sharing with me the pleasure and challenge of editing the contributions to the volume Global Urban Justice: The Rise of Human Rights Cities, where some ideas fully developed in this book were originally put forward. A number of other people, dear colleagues as well as friends, have stimulated ideas that have now found full expression in this book or simply made my life pleasant and more bearable while I was doing research and complet- ing this book. They know who they are. I am especially thankful to Alice, Martina, Elena, Peppe, Costanza and Mathias Möschel. Thank you Mike, Mark, Stefanie, Sharon, Sarah, Frances and Ian for being around in the office, for the chatting and laughing, and your encouragement. x Acknowledgements I would like to thank Martha Davis and Alice Mattoni for commenting on specific chapters of this book. Their insights into the structure and content of this book have been very helpful and highly appreciated. I am extremely grateful to the many people in New York, San Francisco and Barcelona who opened the doors of their organisations and spent time with me explaining their work. Among these, I wish to mention Patricia Gatling, Emily Murase, Krishanti Dharmaraj, Jaume Saura, Aida Guillén, Rosa Bada, Roser Veciana, Agustí Soler, Guadalupe Pulido Gustavo Czech-Bergtholt Tejeria and Cristina Monteys. I am especially grateful to the director and staff of the Barcelona Office for Non-Discrimination for the warm support they have provided to this research through the years. I hope this book, while reflecting my ideas, does justice to their work. Responsibility for misleading interpretations and factual mistakes in the book is solely of the author. Finally, I wish to thank my family for their support over the years, and especially my parents who make me feel home again every time I visit them. Thank you, Silvia and Elisabetta, for a life together. Thank you, Daniel, for believing in me and in this book (and for helping me proof read the Catalan and Castilian used in this book!). You are the good force that has put music in my life and got me where I am now. 1 Introducing the human rights city

This book is about what I call the human rights city. In the human rights city, people and institutions of the city are expected to act in accordance with human rights. Drawing on a sociological approach to rights as social construc- tions, this book investigates the establishment and diffusion of human rights across and in cities. The empirical focus is on New York, San Francisco and Barcelona, around issues of gender, sexuality, race and migration, as well as urban space. These cases show how human rights cities develop a practice of rights which, while being informed by international human rights as fil- tered and mediated by state practices of rights, is at the same time oriented by and towards the city. This book looks critically into human rights cities by exposing the association between human rights, the government of the city and neoliberalism. The first section of this chapter positions the book within the broader, emerging literature on human rights, cities and local governments, providing a definition of human rights city. Moving from this premise, the second and third parts sketch the sociological approach to the human rights city as practice, while the fourth part examines the more general conditions under which the practice has emerged. The fifth part presents the methodology and case studies of the book. The last section provides a chapter overview.

Searching for human rights (and) cities Over the last decade, there has been an increasing interest within human rights scholarship in exploring the nexus between human rights and cities (Grigolo 2010). This nexus is not always explicitly tackled but is often implied in studies that, while typically looking at the ‘local’ as a site of human rights (De Feyter et al. 2011; Marx et al. 2015), have begun to focus their attention on cities, local governments and how they implement human rights. Within the field of international relations moving from a constructivist approach, Shawki (2011) focusses on how alliances between activists and local governments can advance the cause of human rights, municipalities being identified here also as norm entrepreneurs. The same study emphasises how cities provide yet another example of the ‘translation’ of global norms into local practice (see Merry 2006). In his exploration of the relation between human rights 2 Introducing the human rights city and urban communities, Neubeck (2013) exposes the urban character of phenomena like segregation, marginalisation, exclusion and discrimination which have always been at the centre of human rights attention. Placing the ‘urban’ more at the centre of inquiries into rights, Nitrato Izzo (2017) reflects on the city as a legal space, with its own specificities, representations and practices. We begin to see, eventually, how the city ‘urbanises’ human rights and an urban practice of human rights emerges (Darling 2016, Grigolo 2016). The human rights city is yet another lens helping scholars to make sense of the nexus between human rights and cities. The human rights city is not an academic invention. The idea of the human rights city was launched in the late 1990s by the NGO People’s Movement for Human Rights Learning (PMHRL), at the time known as People’s Decade for Human Rights Educa- tion; (PDHRE). The idea of the Human Rights Cities Programme emerged from meetings held at UNESCO to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and in line with UNES- CO’s mandate, the Programme does emphasise the importance of education and learning in the construction of human rights in cities. Implementing a human rights city involve the elaboration of an Action Plan in which different communities participate, human rights then coming to inform the laws and policies of the city (Koenig 2012). Central to the genesis and expansion of Human Rights Cities is PMHRL’s Executive Director Shulamit Koenig, an activist for which human rights are primarily a ‘way of life.’1 Koenig’s leadership has attracted a variety of civil society organisations into the idea of establishing a Human Rights City. Since Rosario (Argentina) became the first Human Rights City in 1997, the Programme has expanded in other South American cities but also Africa (especially in Ghana and Mali), North America (including the US), Asia and Europe (for reports on particular cases, see Marks, Modrowski and Lichem 2008). More recently, the notion of human rights city has begun to surface in academic studies that, while not focussed necessarily on PMHRL’s Programme, nevertheless engage with the question of human rights in cities (Grigolo 2010; Oomen and Van den Berg 2014). The recent volumes Global Urban Justice: The Rise of Human Rights Cities (Oomen, Davis and Grigolo 2016) and Human Rights Cities: International and Swedish Perspectives (Davis, Gammeltoft-Hansen and Hanna 2017) have taken a step forward towards placing the human rights city at the centre of the broader scholarly debate on human rights and cities, while also exploring the connection with other (potentially competing) urban practices of rights, like right to the city (Chueca 2016; Grigolo 2016). The cases examined in these two volumes also give an idea of the variety of geographical and cultural areas in which cities are engaging with human rights. The literature mentioned above suggests that city engagements with human rights vary in terms of rights, actors and places. For this reason, comprehending different ways of doing human rights in cities within one definition of human rights city is admittedly complicated and inevitably Introducing the human rights city 3 influenced by an author’s disciplinary standpoint and analytical focus. Oomen and Van Den Berg (2014, p. 163) define human rights cities as ‘local authorities that explicitly base their policies, or some of them, on human rights as laid down in international treaties, and thus distinguish themselves from other local authorities.’ This definition has the merit of emphasising the legal relationship between human rights and cities, and eventually the centrality of the local government in the implementation of international human rights via urban policy. In this respect, it also reflects many human rights scholars’ interest in involving local governments in human rights work while making them accountable for their policies (see also Davis 2016). At the same time, this definition of human rights city comes with certain limits. First, it does not fully capture those instances in which the human rights spoken in cities find no immediate correspondence in any ‘international treaties.’ In principle, the many human rights cities inspired by the UDHR are excluded from this definition of human rights city. In some cases, the human rights vocabulary of the city is different from the international human rights canon. Consider, for example, how the right to the city has been incorporated into charters and statements produced in the context of the practice of the human rights city, and how similar documents on the right to the city have embraced the language of human rights (Rodríguez 2016). This is, to some extent, not surprising at all. Lefebvre’s (1968) original conceptualisation of the right to the city was informed by Marxism and oriented towards a broader critique of the appropriation and exploitation of the urban space by economic actors with an understanding that the city was becoming central in the production and reproduction of capitalism (see also Belda-Miquel, Peris Blanes and Frediani 2016). As such, human rights appear distinct from the right to the city. At the same time, they also present certain ‘affinities’ that justify their association in theories and practices about rights and cities. Lefebvre himself in his original formula- tion of the right to the city talks explicitly of rights like the right to housing, education and health as part and parcel of the right to the city (see in particular Lefebvre 1968, p.131). In his own proposal for a radical urban democracy at the centre of which he places the right to the city, Purcell (2008) acknowledges the importance of civil and political rights. By focussing on city users as opposed to citizens in the formal sense (as possessing the nationality of the state), then, the right to the city also evokes the notion of universality and equality of human rights. Eventually, the right to the city redefines human rights around issues of urban justice, allowing a more straightforward contestation of how economic interests shape the city while at the same time emphasising the centrality of urban collectiv- ities to reappropriate the space of the city and make decisions about that space (see also Purcell 2002). 4 Introducing the human rights city Second, the same definition of human rights city seems to exclude the possibility that the local government might not play a major role, or play no role at all, in the development of human rights in the city. Empirical studies highlight that human rights are used in some cities more as a discursive platform for empowering and organising local communities than for urban policy. In fact, this use of human rights in cities appears to be much more in line with the objective and model of PHDRE’s Human Rights Cities (see, for example, Merry et al. 2010; Blau 2011; Smith 2015). This is not to say, of course, that local governments are not relevant or even that they cannot start engaging with human rights at some point. The problem here is how a definition focussed on urban policy diverts attention from the multiple channels and variety of purposes through which human rights enter the city. Eventually, a definition of human rights city is needed which is abstract enough to comprehend different articulations and variations of human rights in the city. One way of finding this definition is to look at what a human rights city is about as opposed to what it is in particular cities or circumstances. PMHRL’s definition of the Human Rights City as provided in its website goes in this direction:

Imagine living in a society where all citizens have made a pledge to build a community based on equality and non discrimination; – where all women and men are actively participating in the decisions that affect their daily lives guided by the human rights framework; where people have consciously internalized the holistic vision of human rights to overcome fear and impoverishment, a society that provides human security, access to food, clean water, housing, education, healthcare and work at livable wages, sharing these resources with all citizens – not as a gift, but as a realization of human rights.2

This definition clearly places human rights at the centre of a new urban utopia: an ideal city driven by respect for and compliance with human rights, human rights then seemingly guaranteeing the harmonious coexistence of people with different background. At the same time, it also conveys the idea that the human rights city is not a given, a ‘gift,’ but rather the outcome of a ‘realization’ of human rights, leaving open the question of who is involved in the human rights project for the city, and how. As such, this definition reflects on the one hand, PMHRL’s concern for human rights as a learning as opposed to a policy tool. On the other hand, and at the same time, it does not deny the possibility, which is indeed considered in reports about cities that have participated in the Human Rights Cities Programme, that local governments become involved. For example, the European case of Graz (Austria) suggests a more proactive engagement of the local government in the Programme. In Graz, the agent of civil society involved with PMHRL which has led the Human Rights City project, Introducing the human rights city 5 namely the European Training Centre for Democracy and Human Rights (ETC), also appears much more professionalised around human rights (law) and more inclined to engage with institutional politics (see ETC 2012, Starl 2016) compared to the community-oriented approach pursued by Blau (2011), an activist sociologist who has used human rights to work with migrants in the town of Carrboro, North Carolina. Moving from this premise, I suggest a definition of human rights city focussed on what is more or less implied in many appropriations of human rights in the city: that the people and authorities of the city should behave in accordance with human rights. The human rights city, therefore, is a city which is organised around norms and principles of human rights (see also Grigolo 2016, p. 277). On the one hand, this definition is useful for analysing human rights cities from some of the perspectives currently engaged in the literature. It enables the exploration of the socialising impact of global norms like international human rights on both the people and institutions of the city, an issue central to constructivist approaches to human rights (Finnemore and Sikkink 1998). This definition also leaves ample room for a legal analysis of local governments’ engagement with human rights and eventually how human rights as defined by treaties are used by urban actors (see again Shawki 2011; Oomen and Van Den Berg 2014). On the other hand, this definition enables a distinctively sociological analysis of the human rights city as practice (on this see also Morris 2006a, 2013; Hynes et al. 2012; O’Byrne 2012). From this perspective, issues like what human rights in the city are and how they are used are treated as questions that need to be answered as opposed to taken-for-granted premise of the analysis. The human rights city is understood as a social construction (on the social construction of the ‘human rights state.’ see also Gregg 2012). This does not mean that what we usually define as international human rights do not matter anymore, or that the local government is not a relevant actor; rather, this sociological approach places both elements in the context of a broader analysis of who does what and why with human rights and, as part of the process, how the law and policy of the city contribute to position norms and principles of human rights (more) at the centre of the social and political life of the city. This is a process which, as the literature suggests, is hardly ever finished and marked by the obvious convergence of social actors towards realising human rights in the city but also tensions around particular articulations and uses of human rights. If we assume that the process of building human rights in the city is socially constructed, then, in line with Nash (2016), we need to acknowledge its political quality and this despite the appearance of neutrality conveyed by the legal character of human rights and the categories and formulas through which they are spoken. As such, it should be clear that the legal conversation about human rights and the city is also political and part of the broader politics of human rights in cities. 6 Introducing the human rights city Eventually, what emerges from this book is a discussion of what we could call an urban practice of human rights in which the idea of human rights, while informed by well-known, validated and often legalised notions of human rights, is at the same time constructed and reconstructed around and in cities. In this practice, the ‘urban’ as opposed to the fairly generic category of the ‘local’ becomes not simply the focus but also the source of human rights practice. In this practice, the urban character of many classical human rights issues, from segregation, marginalisation and discrimination (on this, see again Neubeck 2013), is exposed as much as new definitions and vocab- ularies of human rights emerge, like for example the right to the city, which push human rights to mean ‘something else’ and be practiced and used in new ways. Overall, far from being simply passive recipients of human rights, cities emerge from this research as being part of its evolving practice. They contribute to the consolidation and expansion of human rights while also instigating a shift of their meaning and content. This book shows that human rights will tend to change and assume new articulations and meanings as far as the city and its government are placed more at the centre of human rights. That said, and despite the overall optimism within the human rights community about cities engaging with human rights, this book maintains a critical and reflexive perspective. On the one hand, and in very general terms, the notion of cities and their local governments engaging with human rights sounds like good news, especially in the current political times. Moreover, the emergence of a new vocabulary of human rights, around issues such as the right to the city, is especially interesting not just for cities but for the entire field, helping to refocus human rights on important, everyday situations and conflicts taking place in the urban space. On the other hand, the rise of human rights cities invites reflections over the conditions under which human rights are appropriated, institutionalised and eventually deployed in the city, including neoliberalism, with an understanding that these conditions have an influence on the meaning and use of human rights in the city. The following sections reprise this and other issues we have just discussed while going into the detail of the book’s sociological approach to the human rights city

The field of human rights Having defined the human rights city for the purpose of this book, I move now to sketch the main elements of my sociological approach to the study of its practice. In very general terms, I understand the human rights city as an idea and practice generated within the field of human rights. I begin in this section by offering a discussion of what I mean by human rights practice and who participate in it, to which a discussion of cities and local governments within the practice will follow. The two sections combined offer the broader theoretical framework guiding the analysis of human rights city practice in the rest of this book. Introducing the human rights city 7 Human rights as field I understand the human rights city as practice developed within the ‘field’ of human rights. Field is understood here in the Bourdieusian sense, as ‘a set of objective, historical relations between positions anchored in certain forms of power (or capital)’ (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992, p. 16). In Bourdieu’s sociology, the notion of ‘habitus’ integrates that of the field to help explain how both structure and agency are involved in the co-production of practice. Habitus is ‘a set of historical relations “deposited” within individual bodies in the form of mental and corporal schemata of perception, appre- ciation, and action’ (see again Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992, p. 16). At the same time, agency in the field is structured and best understood as practical sense guiding agents towards extracting some advantage from their own engagement with a particular field. Seen from this perspective, human rights are the product of a social space constituted by agents who collaborate and compete towards developing human rights in the city, with an understanding that the power of each agent to act in and influence the practice is uneven and depends on different forms of economic, social and cultural capital that each social agent can mobilise towards influencing the meaning and development of human rights (Rask Madsen 2013). As far as these agents operate within institutions with specific scopes and tasks, then, these capitals tend to become fixed and characterise what specific organisations are able to bring to, invest in and exchange in the human rights conversation. In the process, social agents collaborate as far and as long as they retain the notion of the importance of the object of the field, while at the same time struggling to influence how the object of the field is defined in order to maximise their advantage and position in the field. In line with this approach, rather than defining human rights as a pre- scribed set of legal norms and standards I view them as the idea that people have universal and equal rights. To become part of human rights, facts, issues and problems emerging in the social world need to be presented as affecting the ‘human.’ The human evokes a shared and minimum condition, which is ultimately biological and inescapable. As far as they affect the human, human rights are, in a Kantian perspective, a moral imperative tied to the preservation of another concept which is central in human rights: ‘dignity’ (Evans 2016). Dignity is the essential, inherent quality of the human being, which entitles them to human rights, from which all human rights stem, and for the protection of which human rights have to be recognised. The moral obligation to protect dignity generates rights that are distinct from other (non-human) rights. These rights are human because they are, and in fact must be, universal and equal. Human rights are rights of a higher moral status which can and should be invoked whenever dignity is at a threat of being violated in the social world. A constructionist perspective on human rights starts from questioning the process whereby human rights, far from pre-existing in some metaphysical or religious space, are themselves 8 Introducing the human rights city the outcome of social processes. The process whereby human rights are constructed and constituted entails what Waters (1996) refers to as ‘universalisation of interest.’ As far as any difference emerges then, which is constructed at tension with the universality of human rights, then equality has (also) to be asserted towards extending human rights to a particular group. The same process is also a discursive one. While we may assume that there are facts and vulnerabilities in society that demand public attention (Turner 1993, 2010), the process that brings them within the scope of human rights always entails the production of discourse. Discourse is understood here as performative, meaning a discourse ‘which claims to bring about what it asserts in the very act of asserting’ (Bourdieu 1992, p. 223). We find a similar notion of discourse in Foucault (2008, p. 19), for whom discourse generates and at the same time stems from practice via the imposition of a ‘regime of truth’ that organises facts and prescribes behaviour: a form of power that aims to produce the reality it ‘talks about.’ As Foucault (1998, p. 33) suggests in the case of ‘sex’, ‘we are dealing less with a discourse […] than with a multiplicity of discourses produced by a whole series of mechanisms operating in different institutions.’ While a thorough discussion of areas of convergence and divergence between the works of Bourdieu and Fou- cault is not possible here (on this, see Cronin 1996; Callewaert 2006), what Bourdieu’s work adds to discourse analysis is, to say with Bourdieu himself, a close attention to the ‘conditions of production of discourse’ (Bourdieu 2014, p. 15), the ‘effectiveness’ of discourse then being ‘directly proportional to the authority of the person doing the asserting’ (Bourdieu 1991, p. 223) and the amount of capitals this person (and any institution or organisation in which they are located) can invest towards imposing a certain meaning and knowledge of human rights. By investing a certain amount of capital, these social agents will seek to extract some advantage from the process and eventually enhance or convert their capital, e.g. from cultural (provided by family background and a good degree) into economic (a job that pays well) (see also Bennett in the introduction to Bourdieu 2010). Moving from this perspective, what we call international human rights are to be understood as the outcome of a long-term process of formal- isation of human rights at the centre of which the UN and its agencies and conferences have been placed. The foundational text of international human rights is the UDHR, approved in 1948, which combined with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the In- ternational Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), both open to signature in 1966, constitute the ‘International Bill of Rights.’ The two conventions formalised the legal value of civil and political as well as economic, social and cultural rights, while at the same time establishing the justiciability of the former and the programmatic character of the latter. More conventions and treaties have been approved over time within the international human rights system, which do not cease to reflect emerging and consolidating consensus over a variety of themes and set of rights (see Donnelly 2003). Introducing the human rights city 9 Eventually, if ‘international human rights’ are taken-for-granted ‘human rights’ is because they are validated and authorised notions of human rights, which have been approved through formal procedures, and as such have come to assume and exercise a special symbolic force. This version of human rights, which is itself co-produced in the field, via dynamics of competition and collaboration between social agents, then imposes itself back onto the agents as shared knowledge of human rights. In line with this approach, Sigona talks of human rights as ‘the doxa of our times’ (Sigona 2012, p. 982). Bourdieu (1977, p. 164) defines as ‘doxa’ the naturalisation of the ‘arbitrar- iness’ of the social order, an ‘experience’ in which the awareness and possibility of alternative belief is removed from the horizon of social agents. It is not within the scope of this book to assess whether human rights and in particular international human rights are a doxa or an ‘orthodoxy’ open to some degree of contestation. What matters here is that human rights impose themselves to some extent as the only vocabulary available to talk, claim and implement justice. Eventually, such shared knowledge of human rights set the terms and background, against which human rights are received, contested or supported in the field.

Agents of human rights While it makes sense to emphasise the openness and permeability of human rights practice to a variety of subjects (Goodale 2007), Rask Madsen’s (2013) map of human rights as a field dominated by social agents and institutions divided into different ‘camps’ helps in highlighting how structured the human rights conversation is as well as the particular forms of agency that shape and transform the field based on how each social agent’s play the field. To play the game of human rights and get something out of them, however, these agents will have first to assume the habitus of the field for themselves. In the same perspective, we can posit that the departure of existing agents, caused by a disinvestment in the idea of human rights, reduces the extension of the field as well as potentially the significance of human rights, depending on who withdraws and how central they are for the maintenance of the field. In particular, the field of human rights is constituted via inputs coming from state practices, civil society and the law, via the intervention of jurists, lawyers and judges (Rask Madsen 2013). The role of the state as the arena for producing, validating, preserving, as well as challenging human rights is crucial. The nation state remains central in human rights as far as it ‘remains the principle instrument for the delivery of rights, whether grounded on international conventions or in national rules of citizenship’ (Morris 2006b, p. 10; but see also Soysal 1994). State practices of rights provide inputs to human rights as much as these then influence how rights are practiced within the state via the intervention of agents and bodies, like international organisations and their specialised agencies. This interplay between rights and human rights is sustained by the production and circulation of ideas, definitions and categories of rights, in which social agents 10 Introducing the human rights city with a stake in human rights are obviously involved while competing and collaborating to define human rights. In this respect, we need to think of the state less as an agent itself and more as a ‘reserve of symbolic resources, of symbolic capital, which is both an instrument for agents of a certain type, and the stake in struggles between agents’ (Bourdieu 2014, p. 65). As such, the state is the ‘battlefield’ of human rights, where ‘many actors in and around the state’ (Rask Madsen 2013, p. 88) strive to influence rights and human rights, seeking a validation of rights by the state as a source of symbolic capital, as well as economic capital towards the realisation of human right. As far as a gap emerges between, on the one hand, ideas of and claims to human rights and, on the other hand, particular state practices of rights, agents in the field are oriented at constantly filling this gap. Eventually, human rights will be invoked against the state practice when resistance is experienced in the context of the state practice to new claims to rights, as far as human rights offer an opportunity to challenge and modify the state practice based on their higher, morally superior status of rights.

The role of civil society and experts Traditionally, civil society agents have played a key part in generating new ideas and interpretations about human rights, via ‘social action’ (Morris 2006c, p. 244) and the production of claims where certain issues and par- ticularities are redefined as a matter of human rights. In a bit generalised and simplified way, we can argue that civil society operates as a chain of transmission between the variety of questions and issues to be found in the social world on the one hand, and the more structured and organised field of human rights. In the process, these questions move between the social and the political fields, where these issues and problems are categorised in terms of rights, equality, discrimination, and so on. By presenting themselves as the voice of the marginalised and excluded, those whose human rights are not recognised or are indeed violated, civil society agents and their organisations exercise what Nash (2015, p. 15) calls ‘popular authority’ over human rights. As a camp, civil society is itself internally diverse and potentially divided. We can place civil society agents within a spectrum that goes from professionalised, relatively well-staffed and resourced non-governmental organisations (NGOs), to grass-root level activism, with limited resources. On the one hand, big NGOs like Amnesty International will have more capital and authority to invest in the human rights conversation, securing also stronger influence on international agencies and governmental bodies. On the other hand, we may find more informal groups and associations operating at a small scale and at the margin of the human rights field, which may well have a less solid connection with human rights. Eventually, research suggests how associations, especially those whose goals and agendas are not constructed primarily around human rights, may have a selective approach to human Introducing the human rights city 11 rights. Miller’s (2017) investigation of religious and left-wing organisations, for example, shows an uneven inclination to adopt a human rights approach as far as human rights fit with the values and objectives of the organisations. The field of human rights is also defined by a variety of experts, academics, consultants and individual norm entrepreneurs who influence the production of human rights and populate different organisations, governmental and non-governmental, which operate in the field. As Manokha (2009, p. 439) notes writing from a Foucauldian perspective, the ‘human sciences’ have been crucial in the production and reproduction of human rights discourse. Manokha is concerned with highlighting in a very critical way how social scientists and other academics act as a chain of transmission and diffusion of human rights, and as such as agents that sustain the reproduction of practice. Little attention is paid, however, to internal differences amongst experts and professionals in terms of what leads them to engage. Many academics’ adherence to human rights is often generated by their own experience and personal attachment to the discourse. At the same time, again, experts and academics with a proven background in human rights possess cultural and social capital to invest in human rights and ‘sell’ to other agents and, in particular, governmental organisations. Academics also have concrete stakes in the practice, e.g. providing consultancy for human rights projects, through which they can convert their valid knowledge of human rights into funding for their departments while also enhancing and proving the impact of their research.

On the place of the law In terms of expertise, lawyers, judges and legal experts in general exercise even more influence. They control the practice of human rights as far as they control the language and mechanisms through which human rights are spoken and validated but also decided and adjudicated. This is especially true in common law systems like the US, where lawyers play a key, more proactive role in legal proceedings compared to civil law countries. As such, there is an obvious proximity if not partial overlapping between the field of human rights and the juridical field (Bourdieu 1987). Both fields, for example, are very much organised around the value of universality as well as neutrality as a precondition for creating and maintaining the illusion of universality. Le- gal experts can be found in different camps and institutions. Jurists produce and control human rights via the imposition of their own legal authority in the field and their influence, via the law, on what constitutes or not human rights. This competition can be read partly as a reflection of hierarchies within the legal field, human rights being more often associated with legal domains which developed in opposition or inferior to the dominant field of private law, e.g. public, administrative and welfare law (Bourdieu 1987). Depending on their position and stake in the field, legal experts can advance or resist a certain interpretation or definition of human rights (see also Rask Madsen 2013) as far as the law itself is not only always self-explanatory 12 Introducing the human rights city but needs to be an object of expansive or restrictive restricted interpretations. ‘Cause lawyers’ (Dezalay & Bryant 2001), for example, play a crucial role in advancing the meaning of human rights via their engagement in strategic litigation. In all cases, lawyers and judges can claim and exercise a legal authority over human rights, which other agents in the field will acknowledge and seek as far as human rights are spoken through the law and lawyers possess the technical and professional legal knowledge to control or at least influence the production of human rights. The centrality of the law and lawyers in human rights and the theme of the legalisation of human rights raise important issues within the field of human rights. Overall, a tension emerges between, on the one hand, the stability that the law gives to human rights and their implementation and, on the other hand, the moment of closure that the law imposes on human rights and their meaning. On the one hand, the simple fact that human rights have been heavily legalised makes reliance on, to say it with Bourdieu (1987), the ‘force of the law,’ both strategic and to some extent obvious. On the other hand, the law also constrains the idea of human rights and the possibility of its discursive evolution and transformation within the space of a legal conversation and what we can call the formal and bureaucratic procedures through which the law operates. As a consequence, if human rights as language appear as a set of values that aim to reflect human needs and the cause of marginalised people and communities, the legalisation of human rights tends to lose that idealism in favour of what is doable within and compatible with the law. The potential of human rights to bring about radical change is constrained by the logic, requirements and precedents through which the law operates and de- cides. Eventually, the legalisation of human rights, while in many respects desirable for most agents in the field, may well alienate or discourage the participation of those agents who are less interested in and/or capable of investing in the law. Radical social movements, as well as grass-root activists, may privilege political over legal strategies oriented towards cultural transformation, via social action as opposed to legal reform. These activists and their constituencies may have less resources and capitals to invest and exchange in the production of human rights compared, for example, with big organisations that have authority and power to name human rights and scrutinise the state, relying on teams of well-trained human rights lawyers. There are implications to consider in terms of class as well. As far as the conversation about human rights become confined to and dominated by the legal field, it may well end up becoming a conversation between middle- and upper-class agents. As Bourdieu (1987, p. 842) notes, ‘[t]he membership of judges in the dominant class is universally noted.’ In general, understanding and engaging the law in human rights require competencies and skills that members of the lower classes are less likely to possess. These are qualities that many lawyers not only develop as part of their legal training and education: they are often also inherited through their middle- and upper-class Introducing the human rights city 13 background. While this does not exclude the possibility of a human rights alliance between agents across different class positions, one must acknowledge the power relations at stake in this type of cooperations, and the key role of mediation lawyers play in this conversation towards transferring claims from the social and political spheres into the legal field. What is adequate and ‘proper’ for the law (Wall 2014) and for human rights through the law, then, often reflects the taste, lifestyle and moral standards of upper-classes. Eventually, the nexus between human rights and the law raises important questions regarding not simply whether the law brings about social change (Galanter 1974, Horowitz 1977, Zemans 1983) but rather what kind of social change as a reflection of the influence of middle and higher classes on the legal and judicial process through which human rights are given meaning, which the law then imposes on the wider society via a process, which is also a value from the viewpoint of human rights, of universalisation. Univer- salisation, however, also brings normalisation (Bourdieu 1987). If. on the one hand, the law provides a venue for the recognition of new ideas and categories of human rights, on the other hand, and at the same time, it con- fines the interpretation and application of these ideas and categories within what the law considers as ‘proper’ from the viewpoint of the agents and institutions that know and exercise the law. In the same vein, human rights as legal rights are to be understood ‘as a strategic resource and a constraint, as a source of empowerment and disempowerment, for struggles to transform, or to reconstitute, the terms of social relations and power’ (McCann 2006). From a more distinct Foucauldian perspective (Golder & Fitzpatrick 2009; Golder 2015), it is possible to argue that the law plays a crucial role in ambivalent processes of emancipation and control of those individuals and communities who claim human rights. The question of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights provides a good example of the ambivalent functioning and normalising tendencies of rights, in particular around issues of essentialism raised by processes of legalisation. An established view in US civil rights practice as- sumes and requires the stability of sexuality and gender as a prerequisite for recognition. In the US, equal protection is more likely to be offered if ‘an immutable (and often highly visible) characteristic’ (Wintemute 1995, p. 62) is shared by all the members of the group which seeks protection under the law. This has led the many LGBT organisations to claim the immutability of sexuality as an ‘orientation’ as opposed to competing arguments based on fluidity and choice, towards seeking recognition in court. A similar essen- tialist approach to LGBT rights has been found also in the pertinent case- law of the European Court of Human Rights. Equally significant is how claims to equality based on the inevitability of sexual orientation combine with equality to inform judicial debates about sexuality and what is accept- able or not in terms of sexual life, against the background of established heteronormative standards of sexual conduct, relationship and family embedded in human rights and spoken through the law (Grigolo 2003). 14 Introducing the human rights city A focus on the city and its government A central idea of this book is that the city somewhat innovates human rights by shifting their meaning and use, as far as the city becomes an element of reflection and action within the field. Having introduced the human rights field and the main agents constituting its practice, in the following we ex- plore more systematically the place of the city and its government in human rights, towards developing a fuller understanding of what drives human rights towards the city. As we do this, however, we also clarify what drives cities towards human rights and the question of human rights as a tool for governing the city.

Cities as spaces of human rights If cities and their governments have become strategic for many agents in the human rights field, from activists and NGOs to experts and international organisations, is because of the urban nature of experiences of ‘marginalisation’ and ‘discrimination’ around which human rights are claimed and developed (see again Neubeck 2013). As these experiences have intensified in the context of the increase and differentiation of the world urban population, the centrality of the city and the urban space towards social change has arguably become more apparent and has accordingly been re-emphasised in the study of citizenship and practice of government. Isin (2000, p. 13) argues that the global city especially has opened ‘a new space of politics in which new rights-claims are made, in which new ways in which being political/being a citizen are forged, experimented with and enacted.’ Eventually, ‘[t]oday, the rights of immigrants, ethnic and racialized groups, gays and lesbians, women, the poor and other groups are by and large fought for in global cities’ (Isin 2000, p. 15). Environmental issues which have become increasingly central in emerging ‘third generation’ rights, those of future generations, have also an urban dimension (Isschot 2015). Cities are, in this respect, part and parcel of those social processes through which human rights are generated and practiced more generally. From the viewpoint of activists and other agents of human rights, then, municipalities and their local governments are equally strategic towards meeting social needs underpinning human rights claims. As part of the state, municipalities are also ‘battlefield’ for human rights. While they can invest in human rights a variety of capitals and forms of authorities con- centrated in the state, municipalities also often offer an easier entry point into government towards influencing rights and policies and, in line with the broader practice of human rights, expanding citizenship rights via a claim to the superior legal and moral quality of human rights (Moyn 2010). Against the complexities of politics at the national scale, urban politics can be less difficult to influence towards advancing claims to justice and human rights. This is especially true for local activists with limited resources but Introducing the human rights city 15 who are able to mobilise effectively in the city and with contacts inside local institutions. There is also an established discursive nexus between the city and democracy which brings further ‘democratic legitimacy’ to human rights in the city while promising to open new space for more direct and participatory engagements with human rights. Eventually, by being in a position of close ‘proximity’ to issues and communities around which human rights are mobilised, urban policy is understood to be potentially more tai- lored to specific needs involved in human rights claims compared to central government action (see also Grigolo 2010). Proximity to people also appears strategic towards socialising people into human rights. Eventually, understanding the potential of cities for human rights invites further reflections over the agency of cities and their governments within the state and its apparatus. While historically they have become embedded in specific national projects, municipalities are also organisations with their own legitimacy (Isin 2000, p. 8). In a state that, as Rask Madsen (2013) notes drawing on Slaughter (2002), is increasingly ‘disaggregated,’ municipalities exercise a certain degree of autonomy around, for example, licensing, the regulation and use of public space, and policy around housing, health and education, which have several implications for human rights. With globalisation, then, a process of re-scaling of the state and re-articulation of its functions has taken place, both upwards towards supra-national institutions (Brenner 2003; see also Sassen 2007). This process has tended to expand the autonomy of cities vis-à-vis the state. It has been accompanied and sustained by an understanding of government as governance, based on inter-governmental coordination around the solution of specific problems in a ‘vertical sense,’ as well as more horizontal forms of collaboration with partners and stakeholders, towards the development of effective solutions for those problems (Walters 2004). Of course, this is a generic statement, which then needs to be assessed against the formal and material organisation of the state, guiding its internal distribution of functions, powers and competencies. As far as municipalities are not simply targeted by human rights agents but also get involved in the production of human rights in the city, and their own city in particular, the role of local government agents will also become more central towards the reception, articulation, interpretation and implementation of human rights. In the process, local government agents will be attracted into becoming human rights agents. By local government agents, I mean those individuals who operate within municipal institutions for the government of the city: from mayors, heads of departments and town coun- cillors, who provide political guidance and inputs for specific policies; to civil servants, managers, employees and street-level bureaucrats, who give administrative force to the political orientation and policy goals. Different agents of local governments, of course, may well become involved at different stages of the production of human rights. Local politicians as mayors but also members of the city’s legislative and executive bodies will arguably involve themselves more in the negotiations and decisions taken to open a 16 Introducing the human rights city symbolic space for human rights in the city, e.g. by launching a policy or ap- proving a law. As we move from the macro- to a micro-level of engagement with human rights, civil servants and street-level bureaucrats (Lipsky 2010) will arguably become more involved in concrete action around and use of human rights towards sustaining their diffusion in the city. In light of these observations, singling out local government agents against agents of human rights may appear, at least to some extent, arbi- trary or simply not necessary. Engaging with human rights will usually entail embracing the doxa and acquiring the habitus of human rights: local government agents may well be, or become persuaded, that human rights are important, that human rights mean international human rights, and that as local governments they share the obligation, to put it in classical human rights terminology, to respect, protect and fulfil human rights. Eventually, the distinction between human rights and local government agents may well not hold in practice as far as, as it has already been shown, in the making of human rights in cities individuals move between camps and wear different hats at different points and in different venues (Grigolo 2016). However, analytically speaking, this distinction can help identify agents with a different practical sense of human rights. In general, McCrudden (2005, p. 16) refers to politicians and civil servants on the one hand, and human rights experts on the other as distinct ‘epistemic communities’ whose members simply know things differently based on ‘shared set of normative beliefs, shared causal belief, shared notions of validity and a common policy enterprise.’ Most importantly, then, focussing on local government agents helps in understanding what happens to human rights in the context of their appropriation and institutionalisation within the municipality, as far as these agents then view human rights in a way which is different from (other) human rights agents and which is in many respects functional to sustaining the government of the city. In general, we can posit that local government agents will be inclined to embrace human rights not simply because they want to pursue justice but also because human rights promise to enhance their capacity to govern the city (Grigolo 2016, 2017). As such, more competition over human rights is built into the human rights city: not simply between different agents of human rights but also between these as agents whose primary stake is in human rights on the one hand, and agents whose primary goal is to govern the city on the other hand. As McCrudden argues from the viewpoint of human rights experts,

‘[t]o the extent that human rights values are exogenous to [the epistemic community of human rights], but are given to such administrators for their interpretation, such values may be underestimated in importance in interpretation, or given an interpretation different from what a human rights body would give to them. (McCrudden 2005, p. 17) Introducing the human rights city 17 The question is not simply of individual agents and what they think about human rights. As much as agents of human rights often operate within organisations which then restrict, mould and orientate the action of individual agents towards giving primacy to human rights, local government agents often operate within institutions whose primary goal is the government of the city. As such, the latter’s appropriation of human rights is likely to be tied to city government and because of this they are more likely to ‘play’ with human rights in ways that prioritise the government of the city. Eventually, it is possible to articulate this tension in a more concise and abstract way as one between justice and government (on this, see also Grigolo 2016). While this tension can indeed be solved in the context of the co-production of human rights in the city, solutions provided to it may well be below the expectations of human rights agents. What local government agents introduce in the production of human rights is an orientation towards the government of the city that may well place human rights in the position of serving government, whereas human rights agents will be thinking the other way around: of the city and its government as arenas that (should) work for human rights.

On politics and culture In very general terms, human rights will appear as an obvious choice for the local government as far as human rights resonate in the political culture of a city and eventually the state, generating different expectations in terms of their wider resonance amongst the population and therefore the political support and electoral reward that can be extracted from an engagement with human rights. Political cultures also influence the state practice of rights, which may emphasise the importance or relevance of different types of rights, which implies that human rights will be more or less relevant in the city depending on their association to state rights and how the state practice those rights. The question of political culture, then, combines with political ideologies informing different projects for and model of city government. For politicians, human rights are likely to be understood and articulated in accordance with changing understandings of what is left and right, progressive and conservative in a political market (Bourdieu 1992). As Ruzza (2006) notes, however, human rights are especially popular within the realm of liberal and left-wing politics. We can very generally suggest that liberal politicians will tend to prioritise civil and political rights and formal equality measures such as anti-discrimination policy, whereas more social democratic and eventually left-wing politicians will look at human rights more comprehensively, valuing the importance of economic, social and cultural rights, and supporting an understanding of equality as substan- tive equality and equity, including positive discrimination (see also Stam- mers 2009). If ever, liberal views of human rights will be more sympathetic with requests of recognition pertaining to the cultural sphere, whereas a 18 Introducing the human rights city left-wing approach will be more sensitive to material and economic issues of redistribution often associated to requests of recognition. In fact, as this book will confirm, most human rights alliances established between activists, experts and politicians are done in progressive cities with their governments (Grigolo 2016). That said, both the liberal and left-wing political camps, (in the following I will use the term ‘progressive’ when I need/wish to refer to both political camps at the same time) will tend to have a more ‘proactive’ approach to human rights compared to conservative political parties. This does not mean that conservative politicians are necessarily against human rights. As Nash’s (2017) comparison between the relatively new Spanish formation Podemos and the conservative UK Tory party suggests, conservative politicians will have an approach which is sensitive to the needs of the market and eventually security. Overall, as we move from the left to the right of the political spectrum, politicians will tend to have a more ‘neutral’ or ‘passive’ approach to human rights. The culture of a local government organisation is likely to impact also on the bureaucratic, street-level delivery of human rights. In line with Ruzza (2006) again, we can posit that different agencies, departments and organisations inside the local government will have a culture more or less compatible with and open to human rights, on the basis of which the adoption of a human rights framework may be more or less intuitive but also strategic towards realising particular policy outcomes. Studies on the exercise of administrative discretion at the point of policy implementation and delivery do suggest the potential of civil servants to pro- actively sustain human rights (Lipsky 2010; Ife 2012). Based on what Ife (2012) suggests in relation, in particular, to social workers, we can argue that whereas human rights experts and lawyers will operate deductively with human rights, starting from their own validated knowledge of them when framing and assessing given issues and problems, city employees and street-level bureaucrats will approach human rights more induc- tively, starting from concrete facts, issues and needs they have to deal with. Eventually, it is at this micro-level of interaction between human rights and the city, via urban policy, where human rights are applied on but also reconstructed around specific needs and problems emerging from the city, that the city and its policies contributes to expanding the content and vocabulary of human rights.

Human rights in the neoliberal city That said, it is crucial to remain critical of the extent to which politicians of any political colour are constrained by and eventually sensitive to the same economic interests against which human rights and in some cases the right to the city are mobilised. While the impact of capitalism and more recently of neoliberal imperatives has been widespread across different Introducing the human rights city 19 governmental bodies, it has been especially felt on cities (Swyngedouw 2005, 2009). In the context of the withdrawal of the central state from its role of mediation between market and territory coupled with the imposition from the same disaggregated state of financial austerity, municipalities have become more exposed and local politicians more sensitive to the interests of business, companies and investments on which they (believe they) depend more towards maintaining a sound fiscal basis in the city and eventually redistribute. It is under pressure of neoliberalism, which we can understand here as itself a performative discourse (see Springer 2012) stimulating a neoliberal practice of city government, that the process of rescaling of the state and a shift from government to governance already mentioned above has taken place. While governance opens venues for participation and contribution to policy to a variety of stakeholders, including of course human rights agents, these are also sites where local government agents, from politicians to managers, seek to build consensus around urban policy and minimise conflict. As such, neoliberalism has contributed to the expansion of local autonomy while, however, orienting and constraining its exercise (Walters 2004) towards the production and maintenance in the city of conditions of economic profitability. In a sense, it is possible to view this as a process of ‘individu- alisation’ (Beck & Beck-Gernsheim 2001) of local governments, which as organisations are invited to assume an entrepreneurial approach to city governance. While engaging with a variety of agendas, local governments do need to prioritise local growth, against the imposition of parameters of fiscal austerity and financial sustainability imposed through the state by the logic of neoliberal management and efficiency. It is from this premise that we need to consider the tension but also relation that may exist between the human rights and the neoliberal city, to the extent that, in the context of their appropriation and institutionalisation in the city, human rights come to serve and sustain a neoliberal practice of the city. As a ‘global brand,’ human rights can serve growth via their association with diversity, liberalism and tolerance which are expected to attract ‘creative classes’ (Florida 2002) as well as tourists (Richards and Wilson 2007). These ideas have currency in contemporary debates on local development, despite being contested in the literature (Hoekstra 2015) and having been associated to processes of gentrification. By ‘including’ marginal groups while ‘attracting’ more affluent ones, human rights help secure the ideal conditions in the city for business: the supply of, on the one hand, local and migrant labor to be employed in low-skilled, often precarious jobs, many of which generated by the city’s service sector; and, on the other hand, of skilled workers and professionals for the financial and creative companies that local as well as regional governments strive to attract to their cities. This happens in a context where ‘diversity’ itself has become a new mode of incorporation into society as well as the workforce (Kelly and Dobbin 2001; Faist 2009), via a positive construction of differences and their intersections 20 Introducing the human rights city as an opportunity for social and economic enrichment but also, and at the same time, as an economic asset for business, to which many companies show to at least formally subscribe. Human rights can serve neoliberalism also by sustaining urban order and security. As Helms, Atkinson and MacLeod (2007, p. 271) point out, ‘the economic profitability of urban space—whether in the form of business districts, shopping centres, hotel complexes, or tourist sites—is patently dependent on it being maintained as clean, secure and attractive.’ Human rights serve security via their moral and moralising content, notions of what is good and bad that human rights help implement. As Hoekstra show in the case of Dutch cities, diversity combines with fuzzy notions of ‘good citizenship’ spoken and subtly imposed by local authorities to combine a positive message about communities with control and policing over their public behaviours. While doing this, communities are invited to embrace typically middle-class, respectable uses of the city space. Not surprisingly, it is communities of migrants who are more closely targeted and subjected to these discourses. The prioritisation of development and security in contemporary neoliberal practice of city government evokes Foucault’s (2009, p. 354) notion of ‘[g]rowth within order’ characterising the consolidation of the modern state and governmentality (Foucault 2008, 2009). In this vein, cities have become crucial venues towards enabling people to remain active and become independent, to produce and consume, buy and sell labour, invest and do business. Eventually, for the purpose of this book, the question is how far human rights participate in, sustain but also resist a neoliberal practice of the city, via the centrality in both practices of liberalism. The question becomes the extent to which a purely liberal construction of rights, mainly centred on civil and political rights, is a vehicle for guaranteeing individual liberties as well as a mode of governing people and enhancing their self-government in an increasingly neoliberal environment. If we can posit that economic and social rights might be alternative to such neoliberal practice (Manokha 2009). However, the extent to which economic and social rights can also be oriented towards the production of neoliberal subjectivity, e.g. via their association to regimes of workfare and ‘human development’ (see for example Nickel 2010; Chea 2014) should also be considered. The law participates in the relation and tension between human rights and neoliberalism. They are evoked in Campbell’s (2013) analysis of different ‘legal associations’ operating in the city, which takes London as a case, distinguishing between ‘legal ordering’ and ‘legal consociations’: the former addresses associations between the law and forms of domination and policing, whereas the latter hints at ‘new forms of urban life, such as urban rights, the rights of the city and the right to the city’ (ibid., p. 192). At the same time, it is important to understand the different directions the law of the city can take in the context of the variety of laws produced at different international, Introducing the human rights city 21 central, regional and local scales, which converge and compete in the city. In this respect, the state is not only ‘disaggregated’ but also ‘heterogeneous’ as used by De Sousa Santos (2006, p. 40) in the sense of ‘the sociological plurality and fragmentation of legal practice’ which coexist within the state. Eventually, it is within such legal pluralism that the deployment of human rights in the city, whether embedded in urban law or not, not only produces the emancipatory and/or controlling effects, but also participates in different legal associations and the more general relation and tension between human rights and neoliberalism. Overall, we can argue that what human rights mean and how they operate in cities is the outcome of converging and diverging strategies deployed by agents with a stake in diffusing human rights in the city, at different points in the making of human rights in the city and eventually ‘at the point of institutionalisation’ (Stammers 2009, p. 112). As they come to frame and sustain claims to justice, municipalities and their agents may well respond in ways that are sensitive to these claims and the popular authority which sus- tains them. In most cases, however, claims will be met in the context of the broader scope of local government and adapted to different agendas. Local government agents may well become active proponents of human rights as far as they see a compatibility with their ideological orientation and position in the political market, while at the same time engaging with them in ways that serve the government of the city. The more human rights appear useful for government, from sustaining the global projection of the city to solving particular problems at the level of their application, the more likely they are to be spoken by mayors, transposed in urban policy and, eventually, incorporated into the law of the city.

The human rights city in context As Rask Madsen (2013) notices, human rights do change but less in the short than in the long run. The practice of human rights rather ‘shifts’ as a consequence of changing economic, political and social conditions within which human rights are understood and practiced. In the following, I wish to offer an overview of the conditions under which human rights cities have emerged over time. This book identifies two moments in the human rights city, before and after the 1990s, which are characterised by a distinct focus on civil rights and non-discrimination emerging and consolidating in the US on the one hand, and a broader perspective on human rights developing in cities across different world regions, included Europe, on the other hand. In the process, the place of cities and municipalities in human rights is also more emphasised, and the concept of human rights city is invented and spreads across different world regions. This transition can be explained broadly speaking by the full development of human rights as a field of practice, a more proactive interest of local governments in appropriating and identify- ing with human rights, as well as the diffusion of neoliberalism. 22 Introducing the human rights city Early US city engagements with civil rights What I call civil rights cities developed in the context of the Black movement’s mobilisation against racism, in the 1950s and 1960s. Human rights claims were made against the US within the UN, in an attempt to drive international attention on the country’s regime of apartheid. At the same time, human rights provided the movement with a more radical discourse of justice, that allowed for the articulation of economic and social inequalities (Anderson 2003), while connecting Blacks’ struggle in the US to broader claim to self-determination made by African countries (Moyn 2010). These early claims to human rights, however, failed to produce their de- sired effects. African American struggles for rights led to the development of civil rights policy, namely anti-discrimination legislation and affirmative action policy. In this respect, Anderson (2003) speaks of these early struggles for human rights as somewhat a lost opportunity to expand the reach of US rights towards the recognition of economic and social rights, emphasising in this respect also the increasing marginalisation at the time of the more radical sectors of the Black movement and their Socialist agenda. Writing in the 1980s when civil rights and especially affirmative action were going through retrenchment, Crenshaw (1988) observes that, in fact, the Black movement could hardly achieve more than civil rights. Eventually, the more legalistic approach to justice inherited from the Reconstruction era imposed itself, championed by an organisation, like the National Asso- ciation for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) led by ‘elite black and White Northerners’ which was inclined to adopt and capable to play the legal and bureaucratic approach to anti-racism but was unable ‘to achieve a mass power base’ (Bumiller 1988, p. 46). Still today, the US continues to be regarded and studied for its ‘exceptionalism’ in human rights (Ignatieff 2005), especially regarding economic, social and cultural rights. Its participation in the international human rights system has remained selective and largely limited to treaties of human rights aligned to civil rights and the theme of racism, like the ICCPR and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). However, if Blacks’ claims to human rights failed while being steered towards civil rights, it is also because of the state of human rights at the time. Human rights were hardly central in conversations about justice apart from a restricted group of international lawyers and religious and peace organisations (Moyn 2010, pp. 52–53). Moreover, as Moyn (2010, p. 103) notes, when civil rights consolidated in the US ‘the language of human rights was still undefined.’ At the same time, the US civil rights practice both influenced and were influenced by the centrality of racism in debates about human rights at the time, in the context of Cold War politics. In his historical account of civil rights and affirmative action, Skrentny (2004, p. 4) emphasises the centrality of the notion of equality not only in the development of rights in the US but also of human rights at the international Introducing the human rights city 23 level: ‘[n]ondiscrimination was quite suddenly a world right, a human right.’ Eventually, European countries within the same Anglo-Saxon cultural area of the US, i.e. the UK and the Netherlands, also developed anti- discrimination policy, while targeting racial discrimination against people coming from their former colonies. These dynamics of ‘institutional isomorphism’ (see DiMaggio and Powell 1991) suggest the diffusion of civil rights as best practice across states striving to govern (their own issues of) race. These early engagements with human rights as civil rights and non- discrimination are reflected also in urban practice. Anti-discrimination and affirmative action policies were put in place in cities as a response to riots and protests mainly of Blacks but also other ethnic and religious communities. Civil rights have continued to be developed in progressive cities contributing to the emergence and consolidation of the anti-discrimination policy at the wider state and federal scales and in some cases anticipating or exceeding the protection offered by the law at supra-local scales of governments. At the same time, what is peculiar of these civil rights cities is the use of human rights to name laws and institutions that eventually incorporated themselves into the civil rights practice. Paradoxically, this has been made possible by one element in US political culture and legal system which has also been identified as one factor contributing to human rights exceptionalism: US people’s ‘principled belief in small-scale democracy within a federal system’ (Moravcsik 2005, p. 160). If, on the one hand, this emphasis on localism explains scepticism against values which, like human rights, have been constructed over time as alien and therefore disrespectful of local traditions (not least via their association under McCarthyism with Communism and Socialism), the same localism has also generated opportunities for particular urban practices of civil rights and eventually the use of human rights as a denomination for these policies. Eventually, as this book will try to show, while part of the broader US ‘exceptional’ practice of human rights centred on civil rights, local governments have functioned as an entry point for questioning and expanding the US conversation about rights.

A changing context: the expansion of human rights What the literature would refer to today as human rights cities developed beginning from the 1990s. By then, human rights had already been developed within a more expanded set of documents and conventions but also, and most importantly, they had established themselves as a language of justice of a more widespread use. The conditions for the expansion of human rights developed in the mid-1970s as human rights emerged strategically as a neutral language of justice in the context of Cold War politics. Amnesty International ‘invented grassroots human rights advocacy’ (Moyn 2010, p. 129) and by being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1977 contributed to the visibility and popularity of human rights (see also Finnemore and 24 Introducing the human rights city Sikkink 1998). However, human rights became ‘only intelligible in the aftermath of other, more grandiose dreams that they both drew on and dis- placed’ (Moyn 2010, p. 121), in particular, Communism and Socialism. With the collapse of the Soviet bloc human rights gained further legitimation and currency in international relations but also in the more ‘domestic’ and ‘lo- calised’ struggles around justice, which became struggles around rights sustained by claims about human rights. This expansion of the field of human rights sustained and was sustained by some closely intertwined processes. First, human rights began to be more fully appropriated and mobilised beginning from the 1970s by a variety of ‘new movements,’ e.g. the women (Elson 2006) LGBT people (Plummer 2006) movements. The environmental movement has also associated itself with human rights. In very general terms, compared to the ‘old’ workers’ movements, claims made in the context of ‘post-materialist’ politics, have tended to place issues of culture and identity more at the centre of claims to human rights and their recognition (Stammers 2009). In this respect, the Black and civil rights movement seems to occupy an in-between position, raising both questions of identity as well as core issues of redistribution via the class and poverty issues (still) implied in African American struggles for rights. This does not mean that new movements have consistently and thor- oughly embraced human rights. Within the LGBT community, for example, rights and law tend to be more popular amongst liberal, professionalised and reformist sectors (see for example Monro 2010) than radical and occasionally politically visible ‘queer’ activists resisting processes of assimila- tion through equality and eventually the marketisation of the gay identity (Kriesi et al. 1995; Hughes 2003; Conrad et al. 2014). At the same time, ‘anti’ or ‘alter’ globalisation movements emerged in the 1990s as well, which have put more straightforward material issues of redistribution at the centre of their political strategies. Moving from a left-wing perspective, these movements have tended to associate human rights to participatory democracy, the fight against capitalism and international solidarity (Stammers 2009, p. 209). The economic crisis of 2008 and the rise of austerity have also contributed to reconnecting human rights to redistribution, e.g. in the discourse of Podemos in Spain (Nash 2017). While occasionally embracing the language of human rights, the anarchist and squatting movement who emerged in the 1970s have found a new political space via the re-appropriation of the more urban space- oriented notion of the right to the city (Van Der Steen, Katzeff and Van Hoogenhuijze 2014). The UN provided a significant venue for the diffusion and specification of human rights, reflecting in this respect social mobilisation and political representation around an expanding set of themes and subjects. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) of 1979, the Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities of 2007 redefined human rights through the lens of the claims Introducing the human rights city 25 of discriminated populations. Global migrations that intensified in the 1980s and 1990s made the case for the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (1990). In the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union and ‘freed’ from their association to Communism, a new emphasis was also placed on economic and social rights under the slogan ‘all human rights for all’ (Thérien and Joly 2014), where human rights were presented as a package of, to use the famous diplomatic formula produced by the Vienna Conference on Human Rights of 1993, interdependent and indivisible rights (see also Donnelly 2003). Finally, a new discursive emphasis was placed on implementation at this point, based on the notion that enough time had been spent during the Cold War drafting documents with little impact. In 1993, the UN augmented its own human rights infrastructure with the creation of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Over time, what Hunt (2017) refers to as the ‘archipelago’ of human rights has developed, populated by a variety of ‘delocalised’ national human rights institutions (NHRIs) tasked with monitoring and promoting human rights within the state (see also Rorive 2009). In addition, human rights approaches were de- signed and popularised to substantiate the more programmatic economic and social rights, e.g. techniques of mainstreaming of human rights diffused within and from development and gender equality policies. This push for the diffusion of human rights, however, received the fundamental support of progressive parties that were in power at that time in many countries and in particular in the so-called West. Under Clinton, the US completed the process of signature and ratification of both the IC- CPR and ICERD, creating new opportunities for US activists and NGOs to participate in monitoring the country’s performance around civil rights and race discrimination. In Europe, centre-left parties and smaller left- wing and Green formations often in government coalition pushed both civil and human rights agendas at national but also international level. As the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) moved from being a relatively obscured body to the central player in a new European human rights system, under Blair’s Labour government the UK passed the Human Rights Act 1998 which made the ECHR directly applicable and enforceable in the country’s legal order. At the same time, the place and role of human rights in the construction of the European Union (EU) were equally emphasised. In 2000, the EU Racial Equality Directive (RED) and Employment Opportunity Directives (EED) were approved, as well as the Charter for Fundamental Rights, which became legally binding in 2009 with the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. In 2007, the EU also provided itself with a specialised agency, namely the Fundamental Rights Agency (De Schutter 2009). As the institutionalisation of human rights intensified, however, so did their association to neoliberalism. The 1990s, in fact, marked a fundamental 26 Introducing the human rights city integration of human rights into the global expansion of market capitalism. The UN development policy on human rights has been identified as one core area of such integration towards expanding market, entrepreneurship, banking and business in the third world (Nickel 2010; Cheah 2014). Human rights came to embed an economic ethos in international trade (McCrud- den 2005). The Reagan administration played a crucial role in this respect, associating human rights to efforts pursued on a global scale to promote a new world order defined by liberal democracy, free trade and the withdrawal of the state from the economy. Human rights here mean mainly civil rights, as noted by Manokha (2009). However, also many centre-left, social democratic parties embraced neoliberalism as part of the expansion and consolidation of a global economy and its institutions. The theorisation of a ‘Third Way’ to progressive politics provided a justification for such turn. Eventually, if human rights acquired a more formal, higher status in the EU, this happened in the context and as part of the EU’s central goal of creating and consolidating the free movement of goods, services and people within the increasingly unified European market. While the RED and EED were central in the diffusion of anti-discrimination policy across Europe, their approval was guided by concerns around fair competition between member states and eventually the creation and maintenance of a ‘well-functioning labour market’ (Ruzza (2006, p. 127).

The diffusion of human rights in cities It is in the context of this expansion of the field of human rights that human rights cities began their ‘rise.’ Wolman (2015a, 2015b, 2017) talks about the proliferation of sub-national human rights bodies and procedures as a phe- nomenon relatively invisible compared to those operating at national and supra-national level. The direction in which human rights practice has developed in cities has been very different. In the US, cities have been targeted by activists and associations interested in (re-)appropriating human rights for advancing different agendas. Benefitting from the same localism that had secured the development of civil rights practices, cities have provided a strategic place for experimenting with human rights, from community organising towards engaging municipalities and their urban policy in sustaining the implementation of human rights, and eventually changing the terms of the US conversation about and practice of rights from civil to human rights. Progressive local governments, more sensitised to social justice if not to the idea of human rights, have proved to be key partners in this human rights movement. Compared to the US, in Europe, human rights cities have developed much more with the active engagement of municipalities and their associations, in a context where local autonomy and the distinction of sub-national units from the central government were stimulated by the European construction Introducing the human rights city 27 and its a multi-level ‘governance’. Evidence of wider efforts made by local governments to reposition themselves at European level is testified by the revitalisation and proliferation of local government associations, e.g. EUROCITIES (Payre 2010), the EU itself instigating this reorganisation and providing cities and regions with a dedicated institution from which to participate in EU policy, namely the European Committee of the Regions. Under these conditions, the notion that local governments could or even should engage (also) with human rights appears almost obvious (see also Grigolo 2017). On the one hand, the pressure has raised on local governments to participate in an increasing number of policy fields. As noted by Le Galès (2002), under the new governance of Europe, a process of urbanisation of policy took place, local governments coming under pressure to inter- vene in a variety of policy fields, including those who had become previously more centralised. Eventually, local governments have become the target of new schemes and discourses produced by academic and practitioners advocating a new ‘hybrid’ or ‘joined-up’ governance of human rights (Grigolo 2011). On the other hand, especially progressive local governments and (as we will see in the next Chapter) the ‘municipal movement’ more generally have begun to see an opportunity in human rights, as a tool for both rede- fining their progressive identity and governing the city. At the same time, one should remain aware of the fact that this engagement with human rights makes sense and appears strategic for cities in a neoliberal context that emphasises certain meanings and uses of human rights, compatible with, when not supportive of, a neoliberal practice of the city as described above. Under the new European governance, local governments are expected to embrace a new and more entrepreneurial approach to city government, by projecting the city onto the ‘global’ scale and attracting new investments and resources to the city (on this see also Beal and Pinson 2014). Cities are under pressure to give their contribution to the European market by securing and maintaining in the city those conditions of freedom, mobility and engagement with the market that main- tain the economy alive, the urban space profitable and the city budget sustainable. In this respect, European local governments may well have traced a path for the engagement of local governments with human rights across different world regions, as far as both human rights and neoliberalism have become ‘global.’ While we might be witnessing a crisis of both human rights and neoliberalism in the context of the current political discourse of ‘sovrainism,’ human rights continue to influence how we speak about justice, as much as neoliberalism remains a powerful driver of the economy while informing the logic according to which agents in and beyond the field of the economy think, act and react. Overall, in line with Eshuis and Edwards (2013), we can think of human rights as a ‘brand’ that while communicating something about the city to the outside world it also at the same time opens a discursive 28 Introducing the human rights city space within the city, which can be filled with different types of meanings and uses and where an urban practice of human rights develops.

Exploring the human rights city

A story of human rights cities This book can hardly claim to be an exhaustive overview of human rights cities but makes an effort to produce an account of some core cities, dynamics, developments and policies within the practice. It moves from the macro-level of the genesis and developments of key initiatives and movements, especially in the first part of the book, towards micro-level dynamics of implementation stemming from the analysis of the three selected cities, namely New York, San Francisco and Barcelona, in the second part. An effort is made to expose the connections and recipro- cal influence between the macro- and micro-levels of the practice, between moments of appropriation and implementation of human rights, and the processes through which large-scale initiatives influence but are also influenced by actions and policies in particular cities. An emphasis is equally placed on key social agents and organisations, in and across different cities. Eventually, the analytical focus falls on what I call local human rights institutions, meaning the variety of organisations, processes and rules through which human rights are (expected to be) diffused in the city, often with and within the local government institutions, via urban policy. The inclination and capacity of these institutions to sustain human rights will be considered along a spectrum that moves from a more proactive towards a more neutral and eventually passive approach to the fulfilment of their human rights mandate. In most cases, this change of approach will be the outcome of a changing political climate in the city as well as ideological orientation of the municipal government and its mayor, which translates into uneven political and eventually financial support provided by the mayor and its administration to the establishment but most of all consolidation of human rights institutions. Equal relevance is given to the broader material and economic constraints imposed on these institutions by the economic context and situations of crisis which reflect on the budget and eventually capacity of these institutions to operate. The research on which this book draws has been conducted over a period of more than ten years. The original study that provides the backbone of the book started in 2004 and focussed mainly the anti-discrimination policies of New York and Barcelona. That study has been expanded over time to include the case of San Francisco, towards providing a more complete account of human rights cities. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with local politicians, administrators, city employees, techni- cians, experts and activists involved in the making of human rights cities. Introducing the human rights city 29 A number of primary sources were also used for this research, e.g. policy documents, statements and official reports, mainly produced by civil society organisations and local human rights institutions. Journalistic sources helped reconstruct some of the events examined in the book, especially in Chapter 4. A wide space is occupied in this book by the case of New York, as I tried to do justice to the long history of its human rights commission and anti-discrimination policy. For that purpose, this work relies on extensive research I made at the city’s municipal archives in 2005. Finally, this book draws on my own experience of participating in the human rights city practice, as an ‘expert’ and consultant, providing me with useful insights into how different agents play with human rights.

New York, San Francisco and Barcelona The choice of New York, San Francisco and Barcelona was made with an eye on their overall significance for the development of human rights cities as well as the opportunity they provide for an academic discussion of some core questions emerging from the practice. There is a history of human rights cities that this book tells, which starts with New York and civil rights to then move to San Francisco and Barcelona, in the context of the world- wide expansion of human rights cities. The analysis of the three cities will emphasise the connections between them and the circulation of policies and solutions for human rights that their local governments have put in place. Overall, the analysis of these three cities suggests important theoretical reflections as well as empirical knowledge to the expanding debate on human rights (and) cities. Of course, the selection of other cities would have led to potentially different or even competing narratives. I accept that the absence of non-Western, small cities is a limit of this book, while inviting to read its findings in conjunction with other studies that do look at human rights outside the US and Europe (see for example Buerger 2016). New York, San Francisco and Barcelona also have a comparable size and a certain degree of homogeneity in terms of political, social and cultural landscape, which enabled their comparison. These are three big cities with a ‘diverse’ population and an overall progressive political culture, nurtured by a lively civil society (see, as an example, Mollenkopf and Emerson 2001; Marrow 2012; Zapata-Barrero 2017). They also have a pluralist political system, an element that promised to emphasise the variety of stakes in human rights within the city, and more specific articulations and directions taken by human rights in the context of evolving political. Also, these three cities have transited from an industrial to a service economy. With due consideration of the different scales of their economies and of the specific sectors that drive them, all these cities are in some way connected to a global economy and have been influenced by it. Eventually, this book will expose not only the relation but also the tension between neoliberalism and human rights in these cities: from the imposition of austerity in New York in the 1970s to the 30 Introducing the human rights city rise, consolidation and crisis of the so-called ‘Barcelona model’ (Charnock, Purcell and Ribera-Fumaz 2014). The three cities also allow the consideration of the place of the law in the human rights city. Human rights in New York and San Francisco have been incorporated into the law of the city, and in particular city ordinances, whereas in Barcelona (like in many other human rights cities) human rights discourse has circulated across policies more ‘fluidly’ but also ambiguously. This reflects the centrality of the law as well as lawyers and litigation in the US as well as the uneven degree of legal autonomy that municipalities enjoy under their state. Eventually, the comparison between the policies of these cities, especially in the second part of this book, exposes the enabling and constraining impact the law has on human rights. Finally, a few words should be spent on concrete issues and types of rights explored in this book. There is a clear focus on women rights in the case of San Francisco, due to the centrality of this theme in the initiative we are exploring in that city, although questions of women’s rights will also emerge in the other two cities. When examining New York and Barcelona, then, attention will be given to LGBT and migrant issues. The choice was made based on the centrality of these themes in the development of human rights and their politics in the two cities. This has to do partly with the wider, contested nature of these issues at the national level, municipalities offering in this respect a venue for advocating and implementing both LGBT and migrant rights. In the US, however, questions of sexual orientation, and increasingly also gender identity, continue to be contested by conservative (and) religious forces (on this, see Kopstein and Steinmo 2008). Not surprising, it is in cases like LGBT rights that human rights have been more often evoked in the US (Donnelly 2006), towards anchoring rights claims at the national level to a ‘higher’ set of rights. In Europe, a more ‘secularised’ debate on LGBT rights, under an overall sympathetic case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, appears to have favoured their more widespread acceptance at the social and political level. Barcelona, in particular, has a wide and composite set of LGBT activists and organisations that, while in some cases being critical of the local administration, have also collaborated with it in many venues, human rights being one of the policy areas in which this collaboration has been forged and consolidated. At the same time, migration has emerged as a controversial matter. Spain began to receive an inflow of ‘new migrants’ in the 1980s and 1990s and the question of their ‘integration’ at the local level has led to shifting inclusive and ‘law and order’ approaches. In all cases, however, both LGBT and migrant issues, whether they are associated with human rights or not, compose the kind of local diversity that municipalities (unlike national governments) tend to deal with more pragmatically (Poppelaars and Scholten 2008). They form part of that wider urban diversity that define the social landscape and progressive culture of both New York and Barcelona, while sustaining a positive image and eventually global projection of these two cities. Introducing the human rights city 31 Chapter overview The chapters of this book will illuminate different aspects of human rights cities. Chapter 2 provides an overview of key initiatives and developments in human rights city practice, from civil rights cities in the US to more contemporary and mixed approaches incorporating human rights. Chapter 3 traces processes of institutionalisation of civil and human rights in the three cities focussing in particular on the New York City Commission on Human Rights and Law, the ordinance that ‘translates’ and implements the Con- vention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in San Francisco, and the changing civil and human rights infrastructure of Barcelona. Chapter 4 begins to look at human rights in action by focussing on if and how local human rights institutions have advocated or not for human rights in public debates around matters becoming controversial at different points in time in different cities, i.e. LGBT rights in New York as well as squatting, migration and sexual work in Barcelona. The same two cities are under the lens of Chapter 5 as well, as the focus, however, moves from more public and visible interventions towards the micro-level implementation of the anti-discrimination policy. Chapter 6 continues to grasp policy implementation by examining the conditions and obstacles under which human rights have been mainstreamed in the local government and promoted in the city.

Notes 1 Interview with PMHRL (Executive Director), New York, 26 May 2016. 2 See www.pdhre.org/projects/hrcommun.html, accessed 21 June 2016. For a similar definition, see also Koenig (2008, p. 11). References Abramovitz, M. (2011). The U.S. Welfare State: A Battleground for Human Rights. In S. Hertel & K. Libal (Eds.), Human Rights in the United States: Beyond Exceptionalism (pp. 46â67). New York: Cambridge University Press. Abu-Lughod, J. L. (2007). Race, Space, and Riots in Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Adam, E. M. (2017). âCommunity Voicesâ and âSpeaking Outâ: Rights Talk and the LGBTQ Community in the 1980s. Studies in Law, Politics, and Society, 73, 21â46. Allan, A. , Allan, M. M. , Kaminer, D. , & Stein, D. J. (2006). Exploration of the Association between Apology and Forgiveness amongst Victims of Human Rights Violations. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 24(1), 87â102. Anderson, C. (2003). Eyes off the Prize: The United Nations and the African American Struggle for Human Rights, 1944â1955. New York: Cambridge University Press. Antentas, J. M. , & Vivas, E. (2009). Resistencias globales: De Seattle a la crisis de Wall Street. Madrid: Editorial Popular. Anti-Discrimination Center of Metro New York . (2003). At the Crossroads: Is There Hope for Civil Rights Law Enforcement in New York? New York: Anti-Discrimination Center of Metro New York. Association of the Bar of the City of New York . (2001). It Is Time to Enforce the Law: A Report on Fulfilling the Promise of the Human Rights Law. Association of the Bar of the City of New York: New York. Batista, F. (2006). La dignidad de la persona en la ConstituciÃ³n espaÃ±ola: naturaleza jurÃdica y funciones. Cuestiones Constitucionales: Revista Mexicana de Derecho Constitucional, 1(14). Retrieved from https://revistas.juridicas.unam.mx/index.php/cuestiones- constitucionales/article/view/5750. Beal, V. , & Pinson, G. (2014). When Mayors Go Global: International Strategies, Urban Governance and Leadership. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(1), 302â317. Beck, U. , & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2001). Individualization: Institutionalized Individualism and Its Social and Political Consequences. London; Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd. Belda-Miquel, S. , Blanes, J. P. , & Frediani, A. (2016). Institutionalization and Depoliticization of the Right to the City: Changing Scenarios for Radical Social Movements. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 40(2), 321â339. Benjamin, G. (1974). Race Relations and the New York City Commission on Human Rights. Ithaca, NY, London: Cornell University Press. 196 Blakeley, G. (2005). Local Governance and Local Democracy: The Barcelona Model. Local Government Studies, 31(2), 149â165. Blakeley, G. (2010). Governing Ourselves: Citizen Participation and Governance in Barcelona and Manchester. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 34(1), 130â145. Blau, J. (2011). Growing and Learning Human Rights. In J. Blau & Mark Frezzo (Eds.), Sociology and Human Rights: A Bill of Rights for the Twenty-First Century (pp. 245â269). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Borgwardt, E. (2009). FDRâs Four Freedoms and Wartime Transformations in Americaâs Discourse of Rights. In C. Soohoo , C. Albisa , & M. F. Davis (Eds.), Bringing Human Rights Home: A History of Human Rights in the United States (Abridged edition, pp. 40â67). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1987). The Force of Law: Toward a Sociology of the Juridical Field Essay. Hastings Law Journal, 38, 805â813. Bourdieu, P. (1992). Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bourdieu, P. (2010). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London, New York: Routledge. Bourdieu, P. (2014). On the State. Cambridge, Malden, MA: Polity Press. Bourdieu, P. , & Wacquant, L. (1992). An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Cambridge; Malden, MA: Polity Press. Brenner, N. (2003). Metropolitan Institutional Reform and the Rescaling of State Space in Contemporary Western Europe. European Urban and Regional Studies, 10(4), 297â324. Buerger, C. (2016). Contested Advocacy: Negotiating between Rights and Reciprocity in Nima and Maamobi, Ghana. In B. Oomen , M. F. Davis , & M. Grigolo (Eds.), Global Urban Justice: The Rise of Human Rights Cities (pp. 139â156). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, W. (1995). States of Injury: Power and Freedom in Late Modernity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Bumiller, K. (1992). The Civil Rights Society: The Social Construction of Victims. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press. Button, J. W. , Rienzo, B. A. , Ph D., & Wald, K. D. (1997). Private Lives, Public Conflicts: Battles Over Gay Rights in American Communities. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Button, J. W. , Rienzo, B. A. , & Wald, K. D. (2000). The Politics of Gay Rights at the Local and State Level. In C. A. Rimmerman , K. D. Wald , & C. Wilcox (Eds.), The Politics of Gay Rights (pp. 269â289). Chicago, IL; London: The University of Chicago Press. Callewaert, S. (2006). Bourdieu, Critic of Foucault: The Case of Empirical Social Science against Double-Game-Philosophy. Theory, Culture & Society, 23(6), 73â98. Campbell, K. (2013). The City of Law. International Journal of Law in Context, 9(2), 192â212. Carter, D. (2004). Stonewall: The Riots That Sparked the Gay Revolution. New York: St. Martinâs Griffin. Cattaneo, C. , & Tudela, E. (2014). Â¡El Carrer Es Nostre!: The Autonomous Movement in Barcelona, 1980â2012. In B. V. D. Steen , A. Katzeff , & L. Van Hoogenhuijze (Eds.), The City is Ours: Squatting and Autonomous Movements in Europe from the 1970s to the Present (pp. 95â129). Oakland, CA: PM Press. 197 Chappe, V.-A. , & Quernez, E. (2015). La lutte contre les discriminations, entre droit imposÃ© et droit nÃ©gociÃ©: Analyse des interactions au sein des permanences locales de la HALDE. In P.-Y. Baudot & A. Revillard (Eds.), LâÃ¨tat des droits: politique de droits et pratiques des institutions (pp. 121â148). Paris: Presses de Sciences Po. Charnock, G. , Purcell, T. F. , & Ribera-Fumaz, R. (2014). City of Rents: The Limits to the Barcelona Model of Urban Competitiveness. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(1), 198â217. Cheah, P. (2014). Second-Generation Rights as Biopolitical Rights. In C. Douzinas & C. Gearty (Eds.), The Meanings of Rights: The Philosophy and Social Theory of Human Rights (pp. 215â232). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chueca, E. G. (2016). Human Rights in the City and the Right to the City: Two Different Paradigms Confronting Urbanisation. In B. Oomen , M. F. Davis , & M. Grigolo (Eds.), Global Urban Justice: The Rise of Human Rights Cities (pp. 103â120). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coll-Planas, G. (2008). Homosexuals, bolleres i rarets: posicions polÃtiques en el moviment lÃ¨sbic i gai. Athenea Digital, 14, 41â61. Cook, M. , & Evans, J. V. (Eds.). (2014). Queer Cities, Queer Cultures: Europe since 1945. London, New York: Bloomsbury Academic. Conrad, R. , Nair, Y. , Farrow, K. , Jones, J. R. , & Segura, L. (2014). Against Equality: Queer Revolution, Not Mere Inclusion. Oakland, CA: AK Press. Crenshaw, K. C. (1988). Race, Reform, and Retrenchment: Transformation and Legitimation in Anti-Discrimination Law. Harvard Law Review, 101(7), 1331â1387. Cronin, C. (1996). Bourdieu and Foucault on Power and Modernity. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 22(6), 55â85. Currah, P. (2006). Gender Pluralisms under the Transgender Umbrella. In P. Currah , R. M. Juang , & S. Price Minter (Eds.), Transgender Rights (pp. 3â31). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. DâEmilio, J. (1983). Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities: The Making of a Homosexual Minority in the United States, 1940â1970. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Darling, J. (2016). Defying the Demand to âGo Homeâ: from Human Rights Cities to the Urbanisation of Human Rights. In B. Oomen , M. F. Davis , & M. Grigolo (Eds.), Urban Global Justice: The Rise of Human Rights Cities (pp. 153â174). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Davis, M. F. (2008). Upstairs, Downstairs: Subnational Incorporation of International Human Rights Law at the End of an Era. Fordham Law Review, 77, 411â438. Davis, M. F. (2009). Thinking Globally, Acting Locally: States, Municipalities, and International Human Rights. In C. Soohoo , C. Albisa , & M. F. Davis (Eds.), Bringing Human Rights Home: A History of Human Rights in the United States (Abridged edition, pp. 258â286). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Davis, M. F. (2016). Cities, Human Rights and Accountability: The United States Experience. In B. Oomen , M. F. Davis , & M. Grigolo (Eds.), Global Urban Justice: The Rise of Human Rights Cities (pp. 23â43). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Davis, M. F. , Gammeltoft-Hansen, T. , & Hanna, E. (Eds.). (2017). Human Rights Cities and Regions Swedish and International Perspectives. MalmÃ¶: Raoul Wallenberg Institute. De Feyter, K. , Parmentier, S. , Timmerman, C. , & Ulrich, G. (Eds.). (2011). The Local Relevance of Human Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 198 De Schutter, O. (2009). The EU Fundamental Rights Agency: Genesis and Potential. In K. Boyle (Ed.), New Institutions for Human Rights Protection (pp. 93â135). Oxford: Oxford University Press. De Sousa Santos, B. (2006). The Heterogeneous State and Legal Pluralism in Mozambique. Law & Society Review, 40(1), 39â76. Dezalay, Y. , & Bryant, G. (2001). Constructing Law Out of Power: Investing in Human Rights as an Alternative Political Strategy. In A. Sarat & S. Scheingold (Eds.), Cause Lawyering and the State in a Global Era (pp. 354â381). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DiMaggio, P. J. , & Powell, W. W. (1991). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Field. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (pp. 63â82). Chicago, IL; London: The University of Chicago Press. Donnelly, J. (2003). Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Donnelly, J. (2006). The Virtues of Legalization. In B. ÃalÄ± & S. Meckled-GarcÃa (Eds.), The Legalization of Human Rights: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Human Rights and Human Rights Law (pp. 61â74). London, New York: Routledge. Dowling, A. (2005). ConvergÃ¨ncia i UniÃ³, Catalonia and the New Catalanism. In S. Balfour (Ed.), The Politics of Contemporary Spain (pp. 106â120). London, New York: Routledge. Drabble, R. , Maurici, J. , & Buley, T. (Eds.). (2004). Local Authorities and Human Rights. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Elson, D. (2006). âWomenâs Rights are Human Rightsâ: Campaigns and Concepts. In L. Morris (Ed.), Rights: Sociological Perspectives (pp. 94â110). Abingdon; New York: Routledge. Eshuis, J. , & Edwards, A. (2013). Branding the City: The Democratic Legitimacy of a New Mode of Governance. Urban Studies, 50(5), 1066â1082. ETC. (2012). Jahresbericht â Annual Report 2010â2011. Graz: European Training and Research Centre for Human Rights and Democracy. Retrieved from www.etc- graz.at/typo3/fileadmin/user_upload/ETC-Hauptseite/publikationen/Jahresbericht/ETC-JB1011- Web.pdf. Ethington, P. J. , & West, C. D. (1998). The Challenge of Intergroup Relations in Los Angeles: An Historical and Comparative Evaluation of the Los Angeles City Human Relations Commission, 1966â1998. Los Angeles City, CA: Human Relations Commission. Evans, J. H. (2016). What Is a Human?: What the Answers Mean for Human Rights. Oxfordâ¯, New York: Oxford University Press. Faist, T. (2009). Diversity â A New Mode of Incorporation? Ethnic and Racial Studies, 32(1), 171. Falvey, C. , (2002). Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women: A Case Study of San Franciscoâs Implementation Experience (Master of Arts in Public Administration). San Francisco, CA: San Francisco State University. Finnegan, A. C. , Saltsman, A. P. , & White, S. K. (2010). Negotiating Politics and Culture: The Utility of Human Rights for Activist Organizing in the United States. Journal of Human Rights Practice, 2(3), 307â333. Finnemore, M. , & Sikkink, K. (1998). International Norm Dynamics and Political Change. International Organization, 52(4), 887â917. 199 Florida, R. L. (2002). The Rise of the Creative Class: And How Itâs Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. Basic Books: New York. Ford Foundation . (2004). Close to Home: Case Studies of Human Rights Work in the United States. New York: The Ford Foundation. Foucault, M. (1998). The History of Sexuality: The Will to Knowledge. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Foucault, M. (2008). The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the CollÃ¨ge de France 1977â1978. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Foucault, M. (2009). Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the CollÃ¨ge de France 1977â1978. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Fraser, N. (2013). The Fortunes of Feminism: From Womenâs Liberation to Identity Politics to Anti-Capitalism. New York: Verso Books. Frate, B. (2016). Human Rights at a Local Level: The MontrÃ©al Experience. In B. Oomen , M. F. Davis , & M. Grigolo (Eds.), Global Urban Justice: The Rise of Human Rights Cities (pp. 64â80). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Galanter, M. (1974). Why the Haves Come Out ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change. Law Society Review, 9, 95â169. Gargiulo, E. (2015). Dalla Popolazione Residente Al Popolo Dei Residenti: Le Ordinanze e La Costruzione DellâalteritÃ . Rassegna Italiana di Sociologia, 1, 3â26. Gaspari, O. (2002). Cities against States? Hopes, Dreams and Shortcomings of the European Municipal Movement, 1900â1960. Contemporary European History, 11(4), 597â621. GimÃ©nez, C. (1997). La naturaleza de la mediaciÃ³n intercultural. Migraciones, (2), 125â159. Goldblatt, H. , & Cromien, F. (1962). The Effective Social Reach of the Fair Housing Practices Law of the City of New York. Social Problems, 9, 365â370. Golder, B. (2015). Foucault and the Politics of Rights (1 edition). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Golder, B. , & Fitzpatrick, P. (2009). Foucaultâs Law (1 edition). Abingdon; New York: Routledge- Cavendish. Goodale, M. (2007). Introduction: Locating Rights, Envisioning Law between the Global and the Local. In M. Goodale & S. E. Merry (Eds.), The Practice of Human Rights: Tracking Law Between the Global and the Local (pp. 1â38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gregg, B. (2012). Human Rights as Social Construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grigolo, M. (2003). Sexualities and the ECHR: Introducing the Universal Sexual Legal Subject. European Journal of International Law, 14(5), 1023â1044. Grigolo, M. (2008). The CEDAW ordinance of San Francisco: mainstreaming, translating and implementing womenâs human rights at the city level. Paper presented at the conference Gender and Citizenship: New and Old Dilemmas, Between Equality and Difference, Cortona (Italy). Grigolo, M. (2010). Human Rights and Cities: The Barcelona Office for Non-Discrimination and its Work for Migrants. The International Journal of Human Rights, 14(6), 896â914. Grigolo, M. (2011a). Incorporating Cities into the EU Anti-Discrimination Policy: between Race Discrimination and Migrant Rights. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 34(10), 1751â1769. 200 Grigolo, M. (2011b). San Francisco, United States: Implementing the UN Convention on Womenâs Rights Locally. United Cities and Local Government. Retrieved from www.uclg- cisdp.org/sites/default/files/San_Francisco_2010_en_final.pdf, 8 October 2018. Grigolo, M. (2011c). Barcelona, Spain. Building the âCity of Rightsâ: The Human Rights Policy of Barcelona. United Cities and Local Government. Retrieved from www.uclg- cisdp.org/sites/default/files/Barcelona_2010_en_final_0.pdf, 8 October 2018. Grigolo, M. (2016). Towards a Sociology of the Human Rights City: Focusing on Practice. In B. Oomen , M. F. Davis , & M. Grigolo (Eds.), Global Urban Justice: The Rise of Human Rights Cities (pp. 276â293). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grigolo, M. (2017). Local Governments and Human Rights: Some Critical Reflections. Columbia Human Rights Law Review, 49(1), 67â98. GuillÃ©n, A. (2005). Contradicciones globales, respuestas locales. Caso de estudio: la Carta Europea de Salvaguardia de los Derechos Humanos en la Ciudad. Barcelona: University of Barcelona. Gurian, C. (2006). A Return to the Eyes on the Prize: Litigating Under the Restored New York City Human Rights Law. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 33(2), 255â333. Haslip-Viera, G. , FalcÃ³n, A. , & Matos RodrÃguez, F. (Eds.). (2005). Boricuas in Gotham: Puerto Ricans in the Making of Modern New York City. Princeton, NJ: Markus Wiener Publishers. Helms, G. , Atkinson, R. , & MacLeod, G. (2007). Editorial: Securing the City: Urban Renaissance, Policing and Social Regulation. European Urban and Regional Studies, 14(4), 267â276. Hertel, S. , & Libal, K. (Eds.). (2011). Human Rights in the United States: Beyond Exceptionalism. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hodes, S. , Vork, J. , Gerritsma, R. , & Bras, K. (2007). Amsterdam as a Gay Tourism Destination in the Twenty-First Century. In G. Richards & J. Wilson (Eds.), Tourism, Creativity and Development (pp. 178â188). London, New York: Routledge. Hoekstra, M. (2015). Diverse Cities and Good Citizenship: How Local Governments in the Netherlands Recast National Integration Discourse. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 38(10), 1798â1814. Horowitz, D. L. (1977). The Courts and Social Policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Hughes, H. L. (2003). Marketing Gay Tourism in Manchester: New Market for Urban Tourism or Destruction of âGay Spaceâ? Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9(2), 152â163. Human Rights Institute . (2010). State and Local Human Rights Agencies: Recommendations for Advancing Opportunity and Equality Through an International Human Rights Framework. New York: Human Rights Institute. Human Rights Institute . (2011). Implementing Recommendations from the Universal Periodic Review: A Toolkit for State & Local Human Rights & Human Relations Commissions. New York: Human Rights Institute. Human Rights Institute . (2012). Bringing Human Rights Home: How State and Local Governments Can Use Human Rights to Advance Local Policy. New York: Human Rights Institute. Hunt, P. (2017). Configuring the UN Human Rights System in the âEra of Implementationâ: Mainland and Archipelago. Human Rights Quarterly, 39(3), 489â538. 201 Hynes, P. , Lamb, M. , Short, D. & Waites, M. (Eds.) (2012). Sociology and Human Rights: New Engagements. London: Routledge. Ife, J. (2012). Human Rights and Social Work: Towards Rights-Based Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ignatieff, M. (2005). American Exceptionalism and Human Rights. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Isin, E. F. (2000). Introduction: Democracy, Citizenship, and the City. In E. F. Isin (Ed.), Democracy, Citizenship and the Global City (pp. 1â21). London, New York: Routledge. Jonas, A. E. G. , & Wilson, D. (Eds.). (1999), The Urban Growth Machine. Critical Perspectives Two Decades Later. Albany: State University of New York Press. Kamuf Ward, J. K. (2016). From Principles to Practice: The Role of US Mayors in Advancing Human Rrights. In B. Oomen , M. F. Davis , & M. Grigolo (Eds.), Global Urban Justice: The Rise of Human Rights Cities (pp. 81â99). New York: Cambridge University Press. Kaufman, R. E. (2011). State and Local Commissions as Sites for Domestic Human Rights Implementation. In S. Hertel & K. Libal (Eds.), Human Rights in the United States: Beyond Exceptionalism (pp. 89â110). New York: Cambridge University Press. Kaufman, R. E. , & Ward, J. K. (2017). The Local Turn in U.S. Human Rights: Introduction to the Special Symposium Issue. Columbia Human Rights Law Review, 49, 1â11. Kelly, E. , & Dobbin, F. (2001). How Affirmative Action Became Diversity Management: Employer Response to Antidiscrimination Law, 1961â1996. In J. D. Skrentny (Ed.), Color Lines: Affirmative Action, Immigration, and Civil Rights Options for America (pp. 87â115). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Koenig, S. (2008). Foreword. In S. Marks , K. A. Modrowski , & W. Lichem (Eds.), Human Rights Cities: Civic Engagement for Societal Development (pp. 9â16). UN HABITAT and PDHRE. Retrieved from www.pdhre.org/Human_Rights_ Cities_Book.pdf. Koenig, S. (2012). Foreword: There is No Other Option! In J. Blau & M. Frezzo (Eds.), Sociology and Human Rights: A Bill of Rights for the Twenty-First Century (pp. viiâxi). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Kopstein, J. , & Steinmo, S. (2008). Growing Apart?: America and Europe in the 21st Century. New York: Cambridge University Press. Kriesi, H. , Koopmans, R. , Duyvendak, J. W. , & Giugni, M. G. (1995). New Social Movements in Western Europe: A Comparative Analysis. London: UCL Press. Kuymulu, M. B. (2013). The Vortex of Rights: âRight to the Cityâ at a Crossroads. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(3), 923â940. Kymlicka, W. (1995). Multicultural Citizenship. A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Lefebvre, H. (1968). Le droit Ã la ville. Paris: Editions Anthropos. Le GaleÌs, P. (2002). European Cities: Social Conflicts and Governance. New York: Oxford University Press. Libal, K. , & Hertel, S. (2011). Paradoxes and Possibilities: Domestic Human Rights Policy in Context. In S. Hertel & K. Libal (Eds.), Human Rights in the United States: Beyond Exceptionalism (pp. 1â22). New York: Cambridge University Press. 202 Lieberman, R. C. (2007). Shaping Race Policy: The United States in Comparative Perspective (New edition). Princeton, NJ; Woodstock: Princeton University Press. Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service (2nd Revised edition). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Lowi, T. J. (1964). At the Pleasure of the Mayor: Patronage and Power in New York City, 1898â1958. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe. Loyd, J. M. (2014). Health Rights Are Civil Rights: Peace and Justice Activism in Los Angeles, 1963â1978. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Lozner, S. L. (2004). Diffusion of Local Regulatory Innovations: The San Francisco CEDAW Ordinance and the New York City Human Rights Initiative. Columbia Law Review, 104(3), 768â800. Mackie, K. J. (1991). A Handbook of Dispute Resolution: ADR in Action. London, New York: Routledge. Manokha, I. (2009). Foucaultâs Concept of Power and the Global Discourse of Human Rights. Global Society, 23(4), 429â452. Marks, S. P. , Modrowski, K. A. , & Lichem, W. (2008). Human Rights Cities: Civic Engagement for Societal Development. UN HABITAT and PDHRE. Retrieved from www.pdhre.org/Human_Rights_Cities_Book.pdf. Marrow, H. B. (2012). The Power of Local Autonomy: Expanding Health Care to Unauthorized Immigrants in San Francisco. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 35(1), 72â87. MartÃn Zamorano, M. , & RodrÃguez MoratÃ³, A. (2015). The Cultural Paradiplomacy of Barcelona Since the 1980s: Understanding Transformations in Local Cultural Paradiplomacy. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 21(5), 554â576. Marx, A. , Hachez, N. , Meuwissen, K. , Schmitt, P. , Jaraczewski, J. , Lewis, T. N. , â¦ Weatherburn, A. (2015). Localizing Fundamental Rights in the European Union: What is the Role of Local and Regional Authorities, and How to Strengthen It? Journal of Human Rights Practice, 7(2), 246â271. McCann, M. (2006). Law and Social Movements: Contemporary Perspectives. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 2(1), 17â38. McCrudden, C. (2005). Mainstreaming Human Rights. In C. Harvey (Ed.) (pp. 9â28). Oxford, Portland: Hart Publishing. McNeill, D. (1999). Urban Change and the European Left: Tales from the New Barcelona. London, New York: Routledge. Merry, S. E. (2006). Human Rights and Gender Violence Translating International Law into Local Justice. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Merry, S. E. , Levitt, P. , Serban Rosen , M., & Yoon, D. (2010). Law From Below: Womenâs Human Rights and Social Movements in New York City. Law & Society Review, 44(1), 101â128. Miller, H. (2017). Rejecting âRights-Based Approachesâ to Development: Alternative Engagements with Human Rights. Journal of Human Rights, 16(1), 61â78. Mollenkopf, J. , & Emerson, K. (Eds.) (2001). Rethinking the Urban Agenda: Reinvigorating the Liberal Tradition in New York City and Urban America. New York: The Century Foundation Press. Monro, S. (2010). Sexuality, Space and Intersectionality: The Case of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Equalities Initiatives in UK Local Government. Sociology, 44(5), 996â1010. 203 Moravcsik, A. (2005). The Paradox of U.S. Human Rights Policy. In M. Ignatieff (Ed.), American Exceptionalism and Human Rights (pp. 148â197). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. MorÃ©n-Alegret, R. (2001). Tuning the Channels: Local Government Policies and Immigrantsâ Participation in Barcelona. In A. Rogers & J. Tillie (Eds.), Multicultural Policies and Modes of Citizenship in European Cities (pp. 61â84). Aldershot; Burlington, NJ, Sydney: Ashgate. Morris, L. (Ed.). (2006a). Rights: Sociological Perspectives. Abingdon, New York: Routledge. Morris, L. (2006b). Sociology and Rights â An Emerging Field. In L. Morris (Ed.), Rights: Sociological Perspectives (pp. 1â16). Abingdon; New York: Routledge. Morris, L. (2006c). A Foundation for Rights or Theories of Practice? In L. Morris (Ed.), Rights: Sociological Perspectives (pp. 240â252). Abingdon, New York: Routledge. Morris, L. (2013). Human Rights and Social Theory. Houndmills, Basingstoke; Hampshire: New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Moyn, S. (2010). The Last Utopia: Human Rights in History. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Nash, K. (2009). Between Citizenship and Human Rights. Sociology, 43(6), 1067â1083. Nash, K. (2015). The Political Sociology of Human Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nash, K. (2016). Politicising Human Rights in Europe: Challenges to Legal Constitutionalism from the Left and the Right. The International Journal of Human Rights, 20(8), 1295â1308. Neubeck, K. J. (2013). Community and Urban Sociology. In D. L. Brunsma , K. E. Iyall Smith , & B. K. Gran (Eds.), The Handbook of Sociology and Human Rights (pp. 234â244). Boulder, London: Paradigm Publishers. Nickel, P. M. (2010). Public Sociology for Human Rights as Rites of Rule. Current Sociology, 58(3), 420â442. Nijman, J. (2011). The Future of the City and the International Law of the Future. In S. Muller , S. Zouridis , M. Frishman , & L. Kistemaker (Eds.), The Law of the Future and the Future of the Law (pp. 213â229). Oslo: TOAEP. Nitrato Izzo, V. (2017). Gli spazi giuridici della cittÃ contemporanea. Rappresentazioni e pratiche. Napoli: Editoriale Scientifica. OâByrne, D. (2012). On the Sociology of Human Rights: Theorising the Language-Structure of Rights. Sociology, 46(5), 829â843. OâMahony, C. (2012). There is No Such Thing as a Right to Dignity. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 10(2), 551â574. Och, M. (2018). The Local Diffusion of International Human Rights Norms â Understanding the Cities for CEDAW Campaign. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 20(3), 425â443. Oomen, B. , Davis, M. F. , & Grigolo, M. (Eds.). (2016). Global Urban Justice: The Rise of Human Rights Cities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oomen, B. , & Van Den Berg, E. (2014). Human Rights Cities: Urban Actors as Pragmatic Idealistic Human Rights Users. Human Rights & International Legal Discourse (HR&ILD), 8(2), 160â186. Payre, R. (2010). The Importance of Being Connected. City Networks and Urban Government: Lyon and Eurocities (1990â2005). International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 34(2), 260â280. 204 Perkiss, A. (2014). Making Good Neighbors. Ithaca, NYk: Cornell University Press. PerÃ², D. (2008). Migrants and the Politics of Governance. The Case of Barcelona. Social Anthropology, 15(3), 271â286. Pinkney, A. (1984). The Myth of Black Progress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Plummer, K. (2006). Rights Work: Constructing Lesbian, Gay and Sexual Rights in Late Modern Times. In L. Morris (Ed.), Rights: Sociological Perspectives (pp. 152â167). Abingdon; New York: Routledge. Poguntke, T. (1989). The âNew Politics Dimensionâ in European Green Parties. In F. MÃ¼ller- Rommel (Ed.), New Politics in Western Europe: The Rise and Success of Green Parties and Alternative Lists (pp. 175â194). Boulder; San Francisco, CA, London: Westview Press. Poppelaars, C. , & Scholten, P. (2008). Two Worlds Apart: The Divergence of National and Local Immigrant Integration Policies in the Netherlands. Administration & Society, 40(4), 335â357. Purcell, M. (2002). Excavating Lefebvre: The Right to the City and its Urban Politics of the Inhabitant. Geo Journal, 58(2â3), 99â108. Purcell, M. (2008). Recapturing Democracy: Neoliberalization and the Struggle for Alternative Urban Futures. New York, Abingdon: Routledge. Rapp, L. (2004). GLBTQ: An Encyclopedia of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Culture. Retrieved from www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/gay_activists_alliance.html, 19 February 2007. Rask Madsen, M. (2013). Beyond Prescription: Towards a Reflexive Sociology of Human Rights. In M. Rask Madsen & G. Verschraegen (Eds.), Making Human Rights Intelligible: Towards a Sociology of Human Rights (pp. 81â103). Oxford: Hart Publishing. Readler, C. A. (1998). Local Government Anti-Discrimination Laws: Do They make a Difference? University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 31(3), 777â815. Repo, J. (2016). Gender Equality as Biopolitical Governmentality in a Neoliberal European Union. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 23(2), 307â328. Richards, G. , & Wilson, J. (Eds.). (2007). Tourism, Creativity and Development. London, New York: Routledge. Ridgley, J. (2008). Cities of Refuge: Immigration Enforcement, Police, and the Insurgent Genealogies of Citizenship in U.S. Sanctuary Cities. Urban Geography, 29(1), 53â77. Rimmerman, C. A., Kenneth , Wald, D. , & Wilcox, C. (Eds.). (2000). The Politics of Gay Rights. Chicago, IL and London: University of Chicago Press. Rorive, I. (2009). A Comparative and European Examination of National Institutions in the Field of Racism and Discrimination. In K. Boyle (Ed.), New Institutions for Human Rights Protection (pp. 137â173). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ruzza, C. (2006). Human Rights, Anti-Racism and EU Advocacy Coalitions. In L. Morris (Ed.), Rights: Sociological Perspectives (pp. 111â128). Abingdon; New York: Routledge. SÃ¡nchez RodrÃguez, A. M. (2016). The Right to the City in Mexico City: The Charter. In B. Oomen , M. F. Davis , & M. Grigolo (Eds.), Global Urban Justice: The Rise of Human Rights Cities (pp. 220â236). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 205 Sassen, S. (2007). Sociology of Globalization (1 edition). Contemporary Societies. New York: W.W. Norton. Saunders, K. L. , & Bang, H. E. (2007, April). A Historical Perspective on U.S. Human Rights Commissions. Presented at the Executive Sessions on Human Rights Commissions and Criminal Justice, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Retrieved from http://www.hks.harvard.edu/index.php/content/download/ 67468/1242682/version/1/file/history_of_hrc.pdf. Saunier, P. Y. (2001). Sketches from the Urban Internationale, 1910â50: Voluntary Associations, International Institutions and US Philanthropic Foundations. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 25(2), 380â403. Schill, M. H. (1996). Local Enforcement of Laws Prohibiting Discrimination in Housing: The New York City Human Rights Commission. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 23, 991â1030. Secker, E. (2009). Expanding the Concept of Participatory Rights. The International Journal of Human Rights, 13(5), 697â715. Sigona, N. (2012). Globalisation, Rights and the Non-Citizen. Sociology, 46(5), 982â988. Shawki, N. (2011). Global Norms, Local Implementation â How Are Global Norms Translated Into Local Practices? Globality Studies Journal, 26, 1â13. Skrentny, J. (2004). The Minority Rights Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Slaughter, A.-M. (2002). Breaking Out: The Proliferation of Actors in the International System. In Y. Dezelay & G. Bryant (Eds.), Global Legal Prescriptions: The Production, Exportation, and Importantion of a New Legal Orthodoxy (pp. 12â35). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Smith, J. (2015). Human Rights City Initiatives as a Peoples Peace Process. Presented at the ASU Peoples Peace Conference, Arizona State University, Tempe. Sok, C. , & Neubeck, K. J. (2011). Building U.S. Human Rights Culture from the Ground Up: International Human Rights Implementation at the Local Level. In W. T. Armaline , D. S. Glasberg , & B. Purkayastha (Eds.), Human Rights in Our Own Backyard: Injustice and Resistance in the United States (pp. 231â243). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Soohoo, C. , Albisa, C. , & Davis, M. F. (Eds.) (2009). Bringing Human Rights Home: a History of Human Rights in the United States. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Soysal, Y. N. (1994). Limits of Citizenship: Migrants and Postnational Membership in Europe. Chicago; London: University of Chicago. Springer, S. (2012). Neoliberalism as Discourse: Between Foucauldian Political Economy and Marxian Poststructuralism. Critical Discourse Studies, 9(2), 133â147. Stafford, W. (1984). Economic Decline and the Rise of the New Conservatism: Twin Threats to Blacks. In A. Pinkney (Ed.), The Myth of Black Progress (pp. 18â45). New York: Cambridge Press. Stafford, W. (1992). Wither the Great Neo-Conservative Experiment in New York City. In J. Jennings (Ed.), Race, Politics and Economic Development: Community Perspectives (pp. 103â116). New York: Verso. Stammers, N. (2009). Human Rights and Social Movements. London: Pluto Press. Starl, K. (2016). Human Rights and the City: Obligations, Commitments and Opportunities. Do Human Rights Cities make a Difference for Citizens and Authorities? Two Case Studies on the Freedom of Expression. In B. Oomen , M. F. Davis , & M. Grigolo (Eds.), Global Urban Justice: The Rise of Human Rights Cities (pp. 199â219). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 206 Steen, B. V. D. , Katzeff, A. , & Van Hoogenhuijze, L. (Eds.). (2014). The City is Ours: Squatting and Autonomous Movements in Europe from the 1970s to the Present. Oakland, CA: PM Press. Sugrue, T. J. (2001). Breaking Through: The Troubled Origins of Affirmative Action in the Workplace. In J. D. Skrentny (Ed.), Color Lines: Affirmative Action, Immigration, and Civil Rights Options for America (pp. 31â52). Chicago, IL; London: The University of Chicago Press. Swyngedouw, E. (2005). Governance Innovation and the Citizen: The Janus Face of Governance-Beyond-the-State. Urban Studies, 42(11), 1991â2006. Swyngedouw, E. (2009). The Antinomies of the Postpolitical City: In Search of a Democratic Politics of Environmental Production. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 33(3), 601â620. ThÃ©rien, J.-P. , & Joly, P. (2014). âAll Human Rights for Allâ: The United Nations and Human Rights in the Post-Cold War Era. Human Rights Quarterly, 36(2), 373â396. Thomas, D. Q. (2011). Are Americans Human? Reflections on Progressive Politics in the United States. In S. Hertel & K. Libal (Eds.), Human Rights in the United States: Beyond Exceptionalism (pp. xixâxxvi). New York: Cambridge University Press. Turner, B. S. (1993). Outline of a Theory of Human Rights. Sociology, 27(3), 489â512. Turner, B. S. (2010). Vulnerability and Human Rights. University Park, PA: Penn State Press. Vaid, U. (1995). Virtual Equality: The Mainstreaming of Gay and Lesbian Liberation. New York: Anchor Books. Van Der Steen, B. , Katzeff, A. , & Van Hoogenhuijze, L. (Eds.). (2014). The City is Ours: Squatting and Autonomous Movements in Europe from the 1970s to the Present. Oakland, CA: PM Press. Van Isschot, L. (2015). The Social Origins of Human Rights: Protesting Political Violence in Colombiaâs Oil Capital, 1919â2010. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Vaquer CaballerÃa, M. (2003). La Carta Europea de Salvaguardia de los Derechos Humanos en la Ciudad. Cuadernos de Derecho Local, 2, 139â145. Wald, K. D. , Button, J. W. , & Rienzo, B. A. (1996). The Politics of Gay Rights in American Communities: Explaining Antidiscrimination Ordinances and Policies. American Journal of Political Science, 40(4), 1152â1178. Wall, I. R. (2014). On a Radical Politics for Human Rights. In C. Douzinas & C. Gearty (Eds.), The Meanings of Rights: The Philosophy and Social Theory of Human Rights (pp. 106â120). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Walters, W. (2004). Some Critical Notes on âGovernance.â Studies in Political Economy, 73(1), 27â46. Waters, M. (1996). Human Rights and the Universalisation of Interests: Towards a Social Constructionist Approach. Sociology, 30(3), 593â600. Webislam.com. (2005). âSe presenta el Primer Congreso de Feminismo IslÃ¡mico en Barcelona. 14 October. Retrieved from www.webislam.com/noticiatema_imp.asp?idn=2445, 10 January 2008. Wexler, L. (2006). Take the Long Way Home: Sub-Federal Integration of Unratified and Non- Self-Executing Treaty Law. Michigan Journal of International Law, 28(1), 1â48. 207 WILD for Human Rights . (2008). Respect, Protect, Fulfill: Raising the Bar on Womenâs Rights in San Francisco. Report Authored by Debra J. Lebowitz . San Francisco, CA: WILD for Human Rights. Wilkinson, W. (2006). Public Health Gains of the Transgender Community in San Francisco: Grassroot Organizing and Community-Based Research. In P. Currah , R. M. Juang , & S. Price Minter (Eds.), Transgender Rights (pp. 193â214). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Wintemute, R. (1995). Sexual Orientation and Human Rights: The United States Constitution, The European Convention and the Canadian Charter. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Wolman, A. (2015a). Sub-National Human Rights Institutions and the Domestication of International Human Rights Norms. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 33(2), 224â250. Wolman, A. (2015b). Sub-National Human Rights Institutions and Transgovernmental Networks. Nordic Journal of Human Rights, 33(2), 110â131. Wolman, A. (2017). Sub-National Human Rights Institutions: A Definition and Typology. Human Rights Review, 18(1), 87â109. Zapata-Barrero, R. (2017). Intercultural Policy and Multi-Level Governance in Barcelona: Mainstreaming Comprehensive Approach. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 83(2), 247â266. Zemans, F. K. (1983). Legal Mobilization: The Neglected Role of the Law in the Political System. The American Political Science Review, 77(3), 690â703. Ajuntament de Barcelona . (2005). Pla municipal dâimmigraciÃ³. Retrieved from www.bcn.es/diversa/plamunicipal/index.htm, 6 February 2008. Ajuntament de Barcelona . (2006). OrdenanÃ§a de mesures per fomentar i garantir la convivencia ciutadana a lâespai public. ButlletÃ Oficial de la ProvÃncia de Barcelona, n.20, Annex 1, p.14, 24 January 2006. Retrieved from http://w110.bcn.cat/fitxers/ajuntament/consolidadescat/convivencia.436.pdf, 8 October 2018. Ajuntament de Barcelona . (2010). Carta de Ciutadania: Carta de Drets i Deures de Barcelona. Retrieved from http://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/dretssocials/sites/default/files/arxius- documents/%5BPDF%5D%20Carta%20de%20Ciutadania.Carta%20de%20drets%20i%20deur es%20de%20Barcelona.pdf, 8 October 2018. Ajuntament de Barcelona . (2016). Pla Municipal per la Diversitat Sexual i de GÃ¨nere: Mesures per la Igualtat LGTBI 2016â2020. Barcelona: Ãrea de Drets de Ciutadania, TransparÃ¨ncia i ParticipaciÃ³. Retrieved from https://bcnroc.ajuntament.barcelona.cat/jspui/bitstream/11703/98748/1/plalgtb_2016.pdf, 8 October 2018. Ajuntament de Barcelona . (2017). Programa Barcelona Ciutat de Drets: Accions de prevenciÃ³ i garantia de drets de ciutadania i accions per incloure lâenfocament de drets humans. Barcelona: Ãrea de Drets de Ciutadania, TransparÃ¨ncia i ParticipaciÃ³. Retrieved from http://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/dretsidiversitat/sites/default/files/MesuraGovernBCNDrets_CAT _0.pdf, 8 October 2018. Ajuntament de Barcelona, Barcelona InformaciÃ³ . (2005). Issue 82, February 2005. Retrieved from www.publicacions.bcn.es/b_informacio/bi_82/12-13.pdf, 22 August 2008. Ajuntament de Barcelona, OND. (n.a.). Queixes, 1999, 2000, 2001. Retrieved from www.oficinanodiscriminacio.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=4&i d=24&Itemid=29, 18 January 2008. Ajuntament de Barcelona , OND reports for the following years: 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014. Ajuntament de Barcelona, RDC. (2001). Carta Europea de Salvaguarda dels Drets Humans a la Ciutat: ProcÃ¨s de participaciÃ³ i aportaciÃ³ de les entitats de Barcelona. Barcelona, Drets Civils. Ajuntament de Barcelona, SdGB. (2005a). Informe al plenari del consell municipal. Any 2005. Retrieved from www.bcn.es/sindicadegreuges/pdf/informe2005.pdf, 8 October 2018. Ajuntament de Barcelona, SdGB. (2005b). Nota de prensa sobre la âOrdenanÃ§a de medidas para fomentar y garantizar la convivencia en la ciudad.â Retrieved from, www.bcn.es/sindicadegreuges/es/d_2_notes_de_premsa.htm, 28 November 2006. Anti-Discrimination Center of Metro New York. (2003). At the Crossroads: Is There Hope for Civil Rights Law Enforcement in New York? by Craig Gurian, New York. Association of the Bar of the City of New York . (2001). It Is Time To Enforce The Law: A Report On Fulfilling the Promise of the Human Rights Law, by Craig Gurian, New York. CittÃ in rete nei Balcani. (n.a.). Curriculum Vitae of Roser Veciana. Retrieved from www.creb.it/conferenzadiritti/cvrel/veciana.pdf, 22 August 2005. City and County of San Francisco . (1998). Ordinance No. 128â98, Chapter 12K of the Administrative Code (CEDAW ordinance). Retrieved from http://sfgov.org/dosw/cedaw- ordinance 24 March 2018. City and County of San Francisco . (1999). âGuidelines for a Gender Analysis of City Departments in the City and County of San Francisco,â Commission on the Status of Women and Strategic Analysis for Gender Equity, 7 June. City and County of San Francisco . (2003). CEDAW Action Plan. Commission on the Status of Women. City and County of San Francisco, DOSW. (2010). Human Rights in Action: San Franciscoâs Local Implementation of the United Nationâs Womenâs Treaty. Retrieved from https://sfgov.org/dosw//sites/default/files/Documents/dosw/Reports/CEDAW_report_101810.pdf, 8 October 2018. City and County of San Francisco, Office of the Mayor. (1998). Press Release: Mayor Signs Historic Legislation Implementing International Womenâs Convention Within City, 14 April. Retrieved from http://wildforhumanrights.org/ourwork/cedawpressrelease.html, 06 November 2008. City of New York. (1964). Title 8 of Administrative Code of the City, Human Rights Law, revised text of 27 November 2017. Retrieved from www1.nyc.gov/assets/cchr/downloads/pdf/NYCHRL_Nov.%2027,%202017.pdf, 21 May 2018. City of New York. (2012). Mayor Bloomberg And Speaker Quinn Announce Same-sex Marriage Has Generated $259 Million In Economic Impact In The Last Year, Retrieved from www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/276-12/mayor-bloomberg-speaker-quinn-same-sex- marriage-has-generated-259-million-economic, 04 May 2018. City of New York. (2017). Int. No. 1186-A. Retrieved from www1.nyc.gov/assets/cchr/downloads/pdf/amendments/Int_1186.pdf, 14 September 2018. City of New York, Department of Records. (n.a.). Isaiah Robinson Files, 1968â1972. City of New York, CHR. (2005). Discrimination and Race Relations: Selected Reports from the NYC Commission on Human Rights (1935â2005), CD ROM. 209 City of New York, CHR. (2016). Gender Identity/Gender Expression: Legal Enforcement Guidance. Retrieved from www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/law/legal-guidances-gender-identity- expression.page, 14 September 2018. City of New York, MCU/COIR/CHR Annual Reports for the following years: City of New York- MCU: 1944, 1945, 1948, 1951 City of New York- COIR: 1959 City of New York- CHR: 1965, 1967, 1970â77, 1979, 1980, 1983, 1984, 1985â86, 1990â93, 2000, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017. Coll-Planas, G. (Ed.). (2011). Combating Homophobia. Local Policies for Equality on the grounds of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. A European White Paper. Barcelona: Ajuntament de Barcelona, DirecciÃ³ Drets Civils. Council of Europe, CLRA (2019). Currah, P. , & Minter, S. (2000). Transgender Equality: A Handbook for Activists and Policymakers. New York: Policy Institute of NGLTF and NCLR. DiputaciÃ³ de Barcelona, Oficina de ParticipaciÃ³ Ciutadana. (2007). Els Drets humans a la ciutat: AdaptaciÃ³ de les normatives municipals a la Carta Europea. Barcelona, DiputaciÃ³ de Barcelona. ETC (2012). Jahresbericht - Annual Report 2010 â 2011. Graz: European Training and Research Centre for Human Rights and Democracy, 2012. Retrieved from www.etc- graz.at/typo3/fileadmin/user_upload/ETC-Hauptseite/publikationen/Jahresbericht/ETC-JB1011- Web.pdf. Generalitat de Catalunya . (1998). Ley 22/1998, de 30 de diciembre, de la Carta Municipal de Barcelona.DOCG n. 2801, 8 January 1999. Text with amendments up to 2014, Retrieved from http://portaljuridic.gencat.cat/ca/pjur_ocults/pjur_resultats_fitxa/?action=fitxa&mode=single&doc umentId=182811&language=ca_ES, 08 August 2018. Generalitat de Catalunya . (2014). LLEI 18/2014, del 23 de desembre, de modificaciÃ³ de la Carta municipal de Barcelona, DOGC n. 6779 of 30 December 2014. ICC consultors. (2009). LGBT associations in Barcelona. A contribution to the Municipal Plan for LGBT people. Barcelona: Ajuntament de Barcelona Drets Civils. Retrieved from http://w3.bcn.cat/fitxers/dretscivils/4lgbtassociationsbcn.393.pdf, 8 October 2018. Municipality of MontrÃ©al. (2006). MontrÃ©al Charter of Rights and Responsibilities. Retrieved from http://ville.montreal.qc.ca/portal/page?_pageid=3036,3377687&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTA L, 8 October 2018. NYAGRA. (2005). NYAGRANEWS, Vol.1, Issue 3. Powell, C. (2008). Human Rights at Home: A Domestic Policy Blueprint for the New Administration. Washington, DC: American Constitution Society for Law and Policy. SOS Racisme . (2005). âAlÂ·legacions a la nova ordenanza sobre civisme a la ciutat de Barcelona,â 15 December 2005, Retrieved from www.sosracisme.org/reflexions/pdfs/alegacionssos.pdf, 27 January 2008. Tribunal Superior de JustÃcia de Catalunya. (2001). Recurso n. 1008/2001, Sentencia n. 528, 18 May 2001. UCLG. (2012a). European Charter for the Safeguarding of Human Rights in the City. Retrieved from www.uclg-cisdp.org/en/right-to-the-city/european-charter, 8 October. UCLG. (2012b). Global Charter Agenda for Human Rights in the City. Committee on Social Inclusion, Participatory Democracy and Human Rights. Retrieved from www.uclg- cisdp.org/en/right-to-the-city/world-charter-agenda, 8 October 2018. 210 UN General Assembly. (2013). Local Government and Human Rights (No. A/HRC/RES/24/2). Retrieved from www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/AdvisoryCom/A_HRC_RES_24_2_ENG.pdf, 19 February 2018. UN General Assembly. (2015). Role of local government in the promotion and protection of human rights â Final report of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee (No. A/HRC/30/49). Retrieved from https://documents-dds- ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G15/174/88/PDF/G1517488.pdf?OpenElement, 19 February 2018. WILD for Human Rights. (2007). Respect, Protect, Fulfill. Raising the Bar on Womenâs Rights in San Francisco. Corriere della Sera. (2007). New York: âTuristi gay cercasi,â by Alessandra Farkas, 05 December 2007. Retrieved from www.corriere.it/esteri/07_dicembre_05/gay_turisti_72cbd770-a311-11dc- 8831-0003ba99c53b.shtml. BBC Mundo.com. (2004). Barcelona al desnudo, 31 August 2004. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/spanish/misc/newsid_3614000/3614122.stm, 14 September 2018. Empire State Pride Agenda. (1998). New York City Takes Historic Step on Domestic Partnership, Press release. Europa Press. (2006). LâagÃ¨ncia dâajuda a la prostituciÃ³ de Barcelona ha atÃ¨s a deu de les dones detingudes en la redada del Raval, 20 November 2006. Retrieved from www.donesxarxa.cat/spip.php?breve462, 10 January 2008. El Local ES. (2017). Barcelona and Airbnb reach deal after months of conflict, 13 July 2017. Retrieved from www.thelocal.es/20170713/barcelona-and-airbnb-reach-deal-after-months-of- conflict, 15 October 2018. El Mundo . (1996a). Maragall recorta el proyecto de ERC de crear un instituto de defensa de los marginados, 11 February 1996. Retrieved from www.elmundo.es/papel/hemeroteca/1996/02/11/barcelona/85489.html, 13 December 2006. El Mundo . (1996b). La ciudad de San Francisco ofrece a BCN una subvenciÃ³n para el instituto de derechos civiles, 8 May 1996. Retrieved from www.elmundo.es/papel/hemeroteca/1996/05/08/barcelona/108673.html, 13 December 2006. El Mundo . (1998a). BCN dispondrÃ¡ al final de mes de un Centro interreligioso, 7 October 1998. Retrieved from www.elmundo.es/papel/hemeroteca/1998/10/07/barcelona/520401.htmle, 13 December 2006. El Mundo . (1998b). La autodeterminaciÃ³n como derecho humano, 11 December 1998. Retrieved from http://www.elmundo.es/papel/hemeroteca/1998/12/11catalynua/560375.html, 13 December 2006. El Mundo . (1999a). Joan Clos serÃ¡ alcalde con los votos de ERC e IC-V, 3 July 1999. Retrieved from www.elmundo.es/papel/hemeroteca/1999/07/03/catalunya/738750.html, 13 December 2006. El Mundo . (1999b). ERC pone quince condiciones para pactar tras las elecciones, 7 October 1999. Retrieved from www.elmundo.es/papel/hemeroteca/1999/10/07/catalunya/759331.html, 13 December 2006. El Mundo . (2000a). El Ayuntamiento critica la excusa que da el Puerto al Racismo en el MaremÃ gnum, 4 February 2000. Retrieved from www.elmundo.es/papel/hemeroteca/2000/02/04/catalunya/811105.html, 13 December 2006. El Mundo . (2000b). Barcelona quiere crear la figura del Defensor de la CiudadanÃa, 24 November 2000. Retrieved from www.elmundo.es/papel/hemeroteca/2000/11/24/catalunya/922738.html, 13 december 2006. El Mundo . (2001a). Barcelona tendrÃ¡ un Defensor del Ciudadano antes del mes de julio, 6 May 2001. Retrieved from http://www.elmundo.es/papel/2001/05/06catalunya/991182_imp.html, 13 December 2006. El Mundo . (2001b). El Ayuntamiento de BCN denuncia una agresiÃ³n homÃ³foba en Correos, 30 May 2001. Retrieved from http://www.elmundo.es/papel/2001/05/30/catalunya/1002927_imp.html, 13 December 2006. El Mundo . (2001c). PolÃ©mica actuaciÃ³n policial en Barcelona durante la protesta âantiglobalizaciÃ³n,â 25 June 2001. Retrieved from http://www.elmundo.es/papel/2001/06/25/economia/1013655_imp.html, 13 December 2006. El Mundo . (2001d). La presidenta de las ONG catalanas culpa a la PolicÃa, 25 June 2001. Retrieved from www.elmundo.es/papel/2001/06/25/catalunya/1013642_imp.html, 13 December 2006. El Mundo . (2001e). La actuaciÃ³n policial enfrenta a Clos con sus socios de gobierno en Barcelona,â 26 June 2001. Retrieved from www.elmundo.es/papel/2001/06/26/catalunya/1014166_imp.html, 13 December 2006. El Mundo . (2001f). Gays y falangistas convocan hoy actos en la plaza Universitat de BCN, 30 June 2001. Retrieved from http://www.elmundo.es/papel/2001/06/30/catalunya/1016290_imp.html, 13 December 2006. El Mundo . (2001g). El desalojo de una casa âokupaâ provoca una batalla urbana en GrÃ cia, 18 July 2001. Retrieved from http://www.elmundo.es/papel/2001/07/18/catalunya/1024553_omp.html, 13 December 2006. El Mundo . (2001h) Piden asistencia social para los âsin papelesâ con orden de expulsiÃ³n, 3 September 2001. Retrieved from http://www.elmundo.es/papel/2001/09/03/catalunya/1042901_imp.html, 13 December 2006. El Mundo . (2001i). El CiU pide el cese de Mayol y Veciana, 8 September 2001. Retrieved from www.elmundo.es/papel/2001/09/08/catalunya/1045254_imp.html, 13 December 2006. El Mundo . (2002a). Cartas, 2 January 2002. Retrieved from http://www.elmundo.es/papel/2002/01/02/catalunya/1089593_imp.html, 13 December 2006. El Mundo . (2002b). Once âokupasâ se cuelgan con cuerdas de la fachada de una masÃa para evitar su desalojo, 3 April 2002. Retrieved from www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2002/04/30/sociedad/1020176100.html, 11 January 2008. El Mundo . (2002c). Recogidas 1.400 firmas en contra del proyecto del 22@ en Poblenou, 13 May 2002. Retrieved from http://www.elmundo.es/papel/2002/05/13/catalunya/1142328_imp.html, 13 December 2006. El Mundo . (2002d). Las prostitutas reclaman un reconocimiento legal a su trabajo, 15 July 2002. Retrieved from http://www.elmundo.es/papel/papel/2002/07/15/catalunya/1183325_imp.html, 13 December 2006. El Mundo . (2003). Una concejal de Clos descredita el FÃ³rum y dice que naciÃ³ âfracasado,â 5 February 2003. Retrieved from www.elmundo.es/papel/2003/02/05/catalunya/1328487.html, 13 December 2006. El Mundo . (2005a). Los socios de Clos tildan de âinjusta e ilegalâ la prohibiciÃ³n de la prostituciÃ³n, 22 October 2005. Retrieved from www.elmundo.es/papel/2005/10/22/catalunya/187711_impresora.html, 13 December 2006. El Mundo . (2005b). Casi 150 maltratadores pasan por un servicio de inserciÃ³n municipal, 22 October 2005. Retrieved from www.elmundo.es/papel/2005/10/22/catalunya/187713_impresora.html, 13 December 2006. 212 El Mundo . (2006a). La Caixa patrocina una exposiciÃ³n sobre violencia domÃ©stica, 17 January 2006. Retrieved from http://www.elmundo.es/papel/2006/01/17/catalunya/1916861_impresora.html, 13 December 2006. El Mundo . (2006b). El Ayuntamiento de Barcelona ha multado ya a 43 prostitutas y solo a dos clientes, 15 February 2006. Retrieved from www.elmundo.es/papel/2006/0215/catalunya/1930613_impresora.html, 13 December 2006. El Mundo . (2006c). BCN tramita 1.389 denuncias en un mes en aplicaciÃ³n de la nueva ordenanza cÃvica, 18 February 2006. Retrieved from www.elmundo.es/papel/2006/02/18/catalunya/1931980_impresora.html, 13 December 2006. El Mundo . (2006d). Las normas sobre prostituciÃ³n abren una nueva crisis en el Ayuntamiento de BCN, 20 April 2006. Retrieved from www.elmundo.es/papel/2006/04/20/catalunya/1960206_impresora.html, 13 December 2006. El Mundo . (2006e). El plan municipal de BCN sÃ³lo atrae a 11 prostitutas, 16 June 2006. Retrieved from www.elmundo.es/papel/2006/06/16/catalunya/1985177_impresora.html, 13 December 2006. El Mundo . (2007). MÃ¡s de 4.000 denuncias en BCN, 29 January 2007. Retrieved from www.elmundo.es/papel/2007/01/29/catalunya/2078147_impresora.html, 10 January 2008. El PaÃs . (2001). La concejal de Derechos Civiles âexigeâ a Clos que cumpla con los acuerdo de acogida de inmigrantes, 3 September 2001. Retrieved from https://elpais.com/diario/2001/09/03/catalunya/999479244_850215.html, 16 October 2018. El PeriÃ³dico . (2004). Pilar Malla es perfila com la SÃndica de Greuges de BCN, 19 November 2004. El PeriÃ³dico . (2018). Colau, reprobada per la pallissa dâuns manters a un turista. 9 August 2018 (paper edition). Gay City News . (2002). Seal of approval: Council moves to recognize partnerships and marriages licensed elsewhere, by Andy Humm, 30 June 2006. Retrieved from http://gaycitynews.com/GCN5/CouncilPartnerships.html. Gay City News. (2005). Turning law into action: Panel at NYU discusses obstacles, opportunities of gender rights law, by Winnie McRoy. Retrieved from http://gaycitynews.nyc/gcn_416/turninglawintoaction.html, 30 June 2006. Gay City News . (2011). NYCâs Gay Rights Anniversary, by Andy Humm. Retrieved from http://gaycitynews.nyc/nycs-gay-rights-silver-anniversary/, 30 March. Gay City News. (2013). Ed Koch: 12 Years as Mayor, a Lifetime in the Closet, by Andy Humm, 3 February 2018. Retrieved from http://gaycitynews.nyc/ed-koch-12-years-as-mayor-a-lifetime- in-the-closet/. Gotham Gazette . (2001). Fight for Equality by Transgendered, by Andy Humm. Retrieved from http://legalminds.lp.findlaw.com/list/queerlaw/msg04246.html, 21 July 2006. Gotham Gazette . (2006). Christine Quinn and Gay Rights in NYC, by Andy Humm, 5 January 2006. Retrieved from www.gothamgazette.com/civil-rights/3105-christine-quinn-and-gay-rights- in-nyc, 16 October 2018. Guardian . (2016). Is this the worldâs most radical mayor? Retrieved from www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/26/ada-colau-barcelona-most-radical-mayor-in-the- world, 13 March 2018. La Vanguardia . (2005). âIncivismo: Local y Global,â by M. Castells, 3 September 2005. La Vanguardia . (2010). Un monje llamado Aleix: Al convertirse en monje de Monserrat, Aleix PuiggalÃ ha rendido un gran homenaje a la libertad. Retrived from www.lavanguardia.com/opinion/20081012/54058904731/un-monje-llamado-aleix.html, 25 March 2018. 213 Naciongay.com. (2003). Me parece peligrosa la divisiÃ³n del movimiento gay, 8 January 2003. Retrieved from www.naciongay.com/editorial/entrevistas/08012003174817.asp, 27 November 2006. New York Blade. (2004). Trans Protection Compromised, by C. Zeigler Jr. New York Post. (2005). Top Gay Activist Mends Fence with Bloomberg, by Frankie Edozien. Retrieved from https://nypost.com/2005/10/18/top-gay-activist-mends-fences-with-bloomberg/, 8 May 2018. New York Post. (2014). Human Rights Chief Fired after Letitia James Demands New Head. Retrieved from https://nypost.com/2014/11/07/human-rights-chief-fired-after-letitia-james- demands-new-head/, 24 May 2018. New York Times . (1993). My Hopes, My Fears, My Disease, by Dennis deLeon. Retrieved from https://nyti.ms/29jmGGR, 30 April 2018. New York Times . (2004). Two Sikhs Win Back Jobs Lost By Wearing Turbans, by James Barron. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2004/07/29/nyregion/two-sikhs-win-back-jobs-lost-by- wearing-turbans.html, 30 April 2018. New York Times. (2009). Dennis deLeon, AIDS Activist, Dies at 61, by Dennis Hevesi. Retrieved from 30 April 2018, www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/nyregion/15deleon.html. Noticias.info. (2003). DÃa Internacional de la No Violencia contra las Mujeres: presentado un libro sobre la red que atiende a mujeres en caso de maltrato en Barcelona, 25 November 2003, Retrieved from http://www.noticias.info/archivo/2003/20031125/20031125_14457.shtml, 10 January 2008. Park, P. (2010a). Bloombergâs record on gay issues is dismal. Originally sent to the editor of Washington Blade the 6 July 2007. Retrieved from https://paulinepark.com/?p=1574, 4 May 2018. Park, P. (2010b). Giuliani & Transgender Rights: The Untold Story. Originally posted on Big.Queer.com the 10 July 2007. Retrieved from https://paulinepark.com/?p=1576, 4 May 2018. PlanetOut. (2005). New York honors transgender icon, by Christopher Curtis. Retrieved from www.planetout.com/news/article-print.html?2005/11/18/3. 19 February 2007. RegiÃ³7. (2013). Hi ha moments que ens cal afrontar els fantasmes del passat per tirar endavant. Retrieved from www.regio7.cat/cultures/2013/06/01/hi-ha-moments-que-cal/234698.html, 24 March 2018. The Village Voice. (2002). Rights Revival? One City Agency That Didnât Take a Budget Cut, Retrieved from www.villagevoice.com/news/0219,169662,34574,5.html, 26 July 2006. Interview with OND (Director and Technician), Barcelona, 17 November 2004. Interview with IDHC (Manager), Barcelona, 19 November 2004. Interview with SdG de Catalunya (Adviser), Barcelona, 20 November 2004. Interview with ColÎlectiu Gai de Barcelona (activist), Barcelona, 22 November 2004. Interview with Observatori de la Familia de la Generalitat (Member), Barcelona, 22 November 2004. Interview with IDHC (President), Barcelona, 14 February 2005. Interview with Barcelona Activa (Director), Barcelona, 14 February 2005. Interview with RDC (Head), Barcelona, 15 February 2005. Interview with RDC (Head), Barcelona, 16 February 2005. Interview with Regidoria PonÃ¨ncia de SÃ²l i Habitatge (Head of the Cabinet), Barcelona, 17 February 2005. Interview with Regidoria de CooperaciÃ³ Internacional (Director and Technician), Barcelona, 22 February 2005. Interview with Regidoria de Benestar Social (Adviser), Barcelona, 23 February 2005. Interview with IDHC (President), Madrid, 25 February 2005. Interview with AssociaciÃ³ Catalana per a la Defensa dels Drets Humans (lawyers), Barcelona, 25 February 2005. Interview with FAVB (Member), Barcelona, 28 February 2005. Interview with RDC (Civil Rights Coordinator), Barcelona, 28 February 2005. Interview with SdGB (Ombudsperson), Barcelona, 28 February 2005. Interview with CHR (Deputy Commissioner for Law Enforcement), New York, 17 October 2005. Interview with Equal Employment Practices Commission (Executive Director), New York, 3 November 2005. Interview with Legal Momentum (attorney), New York, 6 November 2005. Interview with UJC (Director of Policy Advocacy), New York, 9 November 2005. Interview with CHR (Chair), New York, 14 November 2005. Interview with CHR (Chair), New York, 18 November 2005. Interview with CHR (Chair), New York, 5 December 2005. Interview with Anti-Discrimination Center (Executive Director, CHR attorney), New York, 5 December 2005. Interview with NYAGRA (Executive Director), New York, 15 December 2005. Interview with WILD (Executive Director), San Francisco, 4 January 2006. Interview with San Francisco Human Rights Commission (Senior Contract Compliant Officer), San Francisco, 4 January 2006. Interview with DOSW (Director and Policy Analyst), San Francisco, 5 January 2006. Interview with Mayorâs Office for People with Disabilities (Executive Director), New York, 9 January 2006. Interview with New York City Housing Authority (Equal Employment Opportunity Officer), New York, 18 January 2006. Interview with NYC AIDS Housing Network (Executive Director and Deputy Director), New York, 20 January 2006. Interview with New York Civil Liberties Union (legal director), New York, 20 January 2006. Interview with Puerto Rico Legal Defense and Education Fund (Associate Counsel, CHR intern), New York, 24 October 2006. Interview with UJC (Director of Policy Advocacy) and Women of Color Policy Network (Assistant Research Scientist), New York, 25 October 2006. Interview with CHR (Commissioner, Journalist), New York, 26 October 2006. Interview with CHR (Commissioner, Professor of Law), New York, 3 November 2006. Interview with Anti-Discrimination Center (Executive Director, CHR attorney), New York, 6 November 2006. 215 Interview with OND (Technician), Barcelona, 4 December 2006. Interview with SdGB (Ombudsperson), Barcelona, 5 December 2006. Interview with Panteres Grogues (President), Barcelona, 6 December 2006. Interview with OAR (Coordinator), Barcelona, 7 December 2006. Interview with DOSW (Director), San Francisco, 16 September 2010. Interview with RDC (Director of Civil Rights), Barcelona, 10 November 2010. Interview with CHR (Chair and LEB Attorney), New York, 9 December 2011. Interview with OAR (Coordinator), Barcelona, 2 October 2013. Interview with CHR (Attorney), New York, 10 June 2013. Interview with CHR (Director of Community Mediation), New York, 10 June 2013. Interview with CHR (Chair), New York, 11 June 2013. Interview with OAR (Coordinator), Barcelona, 2 October 2013. Interview with PMHRL (Executive Director), New York, 26 May 2016. Interview with OAR (Coordinator), Barcelona, 2 October 2013. Interview with DDCD (Director), Barcelona, 18 April 2017.