Human Rights, State Sovereignty and Medical Ethics: Examining Struggles Around Coercive Sterilisation of Romani Women -- Copyright -- Contents -- Acknowledgements -- Abbreviations -- Introduction -- 1 Sovereignty, Autonomy and Right -- 1.1 Introduction -- 1.2 National Sovereignty -- 1.3 National Sovereignty and Personal Autonomy -- 1.4 National Sovereignty and International Law -- 1.5 National Sovereignty and International Human Rights Law -- 1.6 National Sovereignty between Personal Autonomy and the International Human Rights Law Order -- 1.7 Recovering Autonomy -- 1.8 Core Dilemmas -- 2 Coercive Sterilisation of Romani Women in the Czech and Slovak Republics -- 2.1 Czechoslovakia -- 2.2 Domestic Law -- 2.3 Sterilisation as a Component of 'Roma Policy' in Czechoslovakia -- 2.4 The 1978 Charter 77 Action -- 2.5 The Pellar/Andrš Report -- 2.6 The Investigation by the Czechoslovak Prosecutors -- 2.7 Slovakia -- 2.7.1 The Body and Soul Report -- 2.7.2 The 2003 Ministry of Health Investigation -- 2.7.3 The 2003 Criminal Investigations -- 2.7.4 Actions for Violations of Law brought before Tribunals -- 2.7.5 Inter-Governmental Action -- 2.7.6 K.H. and Others v. Slovakia -- 2.8 The Czech Republic -- 2.8.1 Actions by the European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) -- 2.8.2 The Ombuds Investigation -- 2.8.3 The Report of the Ombudsman -- 2.8.4 Criminal Proceedings Following Complaints by the Ombudsman -- 2.8.5 Claims for Damages -- 2.8.6 International Concern about Coercive Sterilisation of Romani Women in the Czech Republic -- 2.8.7 Human Rights Minister Kocáb, 2009 Government Expression of Regret, Proposals for Compensation Mechanism -- 2.8.8 Summary: Czech Republic -- 2.9 Conclusion -- 3 Triple Helix: The Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, Roma and Racial Discrimination -- 3.1 The Buckley/Chapman/Connors Jurisprudence -- 3.1.1 Buckley.

3.1.2 Chapman -- 3.1.3 Connors -- 3.1.4 Summary -- 3.2 Expulsion -- 3.3 Discrimination -- 3.3.1 The Bulgarian Police Abuse Cases -- 3.4 Pogrom -- 3.5 D.H. and Others v. Czech Republic -- 3.6 Munoz Diaz, and Sejdic and Finci -- 3.7 Subsequent Judgments on Other Thematic Issues -- 3.8 Absence -- 3.9 Some Implications -- 4 Identifying the Harm: Coercive Sterilisation on Contested Interpretive Terrain -- 4.1 Extreme Harms -- 4.1.1 Genocide and Crimes against Humanity -- 4.1.2 Violence against Women -- 4.2 Informed Consent as a Core Principle of Human Rights in the Field of Bio-Medicine -- 4.2.1 Overview: Informed Consent as a Core Principle in the Field of Bio-Medicine -- 4.2.2 Free and Informed Consent and Contraceptive Sterilisation -- 4.2.3 Free and Informed Consent's Inverse: Coercion -- 4.2.4 Coercive Aspects of Financial Incentive -- 4.3 The Council of Europe, Bio-Medicine and Human Rights -- 4.3.1 The Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly -- 4.3.2 European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine -- 4.3.3 The European Convention on Human Rights and the Norm of Free and Informed Consent -- 4.4 Ruling on the Coercive Sterilisation of Romani Women -- 4.4.1 V.C. v. Slovakia -- 4.4.2 N.B. v. Slovakia, I.G. and Others v. Slovakia, R.K. v. Czech Republic, Cervenáková v. Czech Republic -- 4.5 The Court and International Law: Absorption, Refraction and Transformation of Norms -- 4.6 Conclusion -- 5 Social Forces and National, Regional and International Human Rights Processes -- 5.1 Theorizing Social Action in Human Rights -- 5.2 The Social Field -- 5.3 Civil Society -- 5.4 Attention by International and Regional Organisations -- 5.4.1 Council of Europe Monitoring Bodies -- 5.4.2 United Nations Monitoring Bodies and Review Processes -- 5.4.3 Bilateral Relations between States -- 5.4.4 European Union.

5.5 Implications for Social Action in Human Rights -- 5.6 Conclusions -- Conclusions: Human Rights as Effective Remedy, Human Rights as Liberation Ideology -- Summary -- Bibliography -- Index.