Posts Tagged ‘humanitarian law’

« Older posts

Human rights defenders working in war zones such as Ukraine and Israel

July 1, 2024

On 20 June 2024 Swissinfo spoke with human rights defenders from Ukraine and Israel about how they operate in tough contexts. The main tasks of human rights defenders include investigating, collecting information about, and reporting rights violations. They raise public awareness to ensure that human rights are respected. But how do they work in a war zone or in an environment where a large part of public opinion is against them? SWI swissinfo met activists from Ukraine and Israel in Geneva’s Palais des Nations, where they had come to meet delegations and attend side-events during a session of the Human Rights CouncilExternal link .

“We are documenting testimonies from victims of the war in Ukraine,” says Lyubov Smachylo, an analyst with the Ukrainian organisation Media Initiative for Human Rights (MIHR).

MIHR’s main office is in Kyiv. It has direct access to victims and witnesses of rights violations, such as Ukrainians living in the north of the country – formerly under Russian occupation and now back under Ukrainian rule – or former prisoners in Russian jails. Smachylo, who lives between Kyiv and Paris, analyses documented testimonies of human rights violations committed by Russia. These include Russian armed forces acting with generalised impunity, the arbitrary detention of civilians – often accompanied by torture and ill-treatment – and in some cases enforced disappearances.
Lyubov Smachylo from the Ukrainian Media Initiative for Human Rights. Courtesy of Lyubov Smachlyo

MIHR is one of the few NGOs able to gather information on the ground. Virtually no international organisation can go into the occupied Ukrainian regions, not even the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), for example, has only limited access to Ukrainian prisoners of war. This absence of accountability and the underreporting of abuses mean there is an increased risk of mistreatment and of perpetrators going unpunished.

Among other things, the MIHR deals with prisoners of war and civilians who have been arrested in the Russian-occupied regions of Ukraine or who are being detained in unknown places. Beatings and torture are rife, and some have died because of the poor detention conditions, says Smachylo.

“We know of 55 places of detention in the occupied regions of Ukraine and 40 in Russia, where a total of at least 1,550 Ukrainian civilians are being held,” says Smachylo. Contacted by SWI, the ICRC did not comment on whether it has access to the occupied regions. More More Human Rights Council: Fundamental or fundamentally flawed?

This content was published on Jun 30, 2021 The Human Rights Council, convening in Geneva, is mired in US-China rivalry, while the Council also faces criticism from developing countries. Read more: Human Rights Council: Fundamental or fundamentally flawed Increasingly hostile environment

Tal Steiner is meanwhile a human rights lawyer and director of the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PCATI). The NGO holds Israel accountable on its use of torture, which is not illegal in the country, although there is an absolute prohibition on torture enshrined in international human rights instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Steiner says her NGO’s work has become particularly difficult since the Hamas attacks of October 7 and the Israeli-Palestinian war. Israel has restricted access to political prisoners, while rights defenders find themselves in an increasingly hostile environment where they are regularly branded as“defending terrorists”.

The political prisoners to which Steiner has access include Palestinians living in Israel and in the West Bank as well as Jewish Israeli citizens.

“Working on the issue of torture – or on any issue in Israel that affects human rights in terms of security – has never been easy,” she says.
Tal Steiner, right, pictured with Miriam Azem, advocacy associate at the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel (ADALAH). Keystone/AFP/Coffrini

Compassion for Palestinian prisoners and the view that human rights apply to everyone have been greatly diminished since the war, Steiner explains.“This means that the circle that supports our work has become smaller.”

According to her, many Israelis have opted for security above human rights. Many also harbour feelings of vengeance towards Palestinians.“We saw this, for example, at the Israeli Prison Service (IPS),” Steiner says. There, extreme overcrowding since October 7 has led to a severe deterioration in conditions, including limited access to basic needs like water, electricity, food, and medical care. Human rights groups have also noted cases of severe beating of detainees and prisoners, sexual harassment and intimidation.

Miriam Azem also took part in the SWI interview with Steiner. The international advocacy expert works for Palestinian organisation Adalah, which defends Palestinians living in Israel and the occupied territories in Israeli courts. “Since October 7, the attitude towards our lawyers has changed a lot,” she says. This has become apparent in disciplinary committees, which handle disputes in universities.“Since the beginning of the war, over 120 disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against Palestinian students – citizens of Israel – for statements made on their private social media accounts” she says.

She cites the example of Palestinian students with Israeli citizenship who have been accused of inciting terrorism on the basis of unfounded arguments. Adalah attorneys, who have represented 95 Palestinian students facing this charge,“were questioned regarding their loyalty to Israel”, Azem says.

According to Azem, there has been an increase in arrests and interrogations due to posts on social media. “The vast majority of these posts do not meet any criminal threshold. Nevertheless, the accusations against activists were grounded in Israel’s Counter-Terror Law, which carries severe imprisonment penalties,” she says. More More Is Geneva still the capital of peace?

In February, PCATI and Adalah, together with two other Israeli organisations, sent an urgent appeal to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Alice Jill Edwards. They called on Edwards to intervene immediately to stop torture and the systematic mistreatment of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli detention facilities. Apart from private lawyers, these are the only four organisations that can currently visit Israeli prisons – Israel has denied the ICRC access.

“We are therefore the only ones who can report what we have seen there,” says Steiner. Around 10,000 Palestinian prisoners are currently in Israeli custody, many of them detained without trial. However, no one is allowed to visit the Israeli military camps for prisoners from the Gaza Strip. PCATI fears a“new Guantanamo” is being established there, in reference to the US facility in Cuba where prisoners were held indefinitely without trial in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

In their appeal to the UN rapporteur, the four organisations also expressed concern about the dehumanising rhetoric being used by some members of the Israeli government. The Minister of National Security, Itamar Ben-Gvir, in charge of the IPS, has repeatedly spoken out in favour of subjecting Palestinians to degrading and inhumane treatment.

In the meantime, UN rapporteur Edwards has called on Israel to investigate the numerous allegations of torture against detained Palestinians. Since the attacks of October 7, it is estimated that thousands of Palestinians including children have been detained, she has written. Edwards says she received allegations of individuals being beaten, kept blindfolded in cells, handcuffed for excessive periods, deprived of sleep, and threatened with physical and sexual violence. Burnouts and death threats

Burnout and death threats are also part of the job. Smachylo says the war which stretches through the whole of Ukraine is an added strain on a very stressful job. Activists and staff members of her organisation spend hours writing reports detailing torture and mistreatment of Ukrainian citizens by the Russian authorities. She particularly highlights the risk of burnout for those who regularly carry out missions in the field.

The Geneva-based World Organization against Torture (OMCT), which cooperates with the NGO, provides financial support for their psychological and therapeutic retreats.

Steiner, for her part, draws particular attention to the huge amount of work involved.“In view of the grief over the tragedies of October 7 and the war in the Gaza Strip, cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians is proving to be a challenge right now,” she says. For her, it is fundamental that every detainee has the right to defense.

Smear campaigns have also targeted her work. For example, the Israeli TV station Channel14, the equivalent of the rightwing US station Fox News, made a derogatory programme about PCATI and other organisations campaigning for Palestinian rights. The title:“Disgrace: the Israeli activists who take care of the treatment of Hamas terrorists”. The program led to harassment and threatening phone calls. Some of the emails Steiner received were about rape and death threats, others targeted her family.

“We are aware that we are operating in an environment that is very hostile to our work,” says Azem.“As an NGO registered in Israel, we are extremely cautious.” Steiner adds that the persecution of NGOs in Israel and Palestine has a long history. Six Palestinian human rights organisations have been classified as terrorist by Israel. And several bills currently envisage a higher taxation rate for Israeli NGOs in order to block their work.

https://menafn.com/1108388272/Silence-Threats-Burnout-Challenges-For-Human-Rights-Defenders-In-Times-Of-War

Posted in Human Rights Defenders | 1 Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Secretary-General’s 2024 Report on Responsibility to Protect

June 28, 2024

On 27 June 2024 the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect published a summary of the UN Secretary-General’s 16th report on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), entitled “Responsibility to Protect: The commitment to prevent and protect populations from atrocity crimes.” Within the report the Secretary-General issues a stark warning about worrying global trends, including increasing violations and abuses of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and International Human Rights Law (IHRL), and articulates challenges that UN member states and the international community have faced in upholding R2P over the past two decades. The Secretary-General asserts, however, that there are still opportunities to shift the current course of events through a more nuanced and strategic approach to prevention and protection by actors across all levels.

KEY POINTS

The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect would like to highlight the following key points from the report:

SECTION II. GLOBAL PATTERNS IN THE ONGOING COMMISSION OF ATROCITIES

As requested by many member states during the 2023 UN General Assembly debate on R2P, the Secretary-General takes stock of current global trends with regard to the risk of and commission of mass atrocity crimes. This section highlights the dire trends across three main areas: violations of IHL in the context of growing violent conflict worldwide, violations of and failures to institutionalize protections for human rights and factors that create enabling environments for perpetrators to commit atrocity crimes.

Patterns of violations of international humanitarian law

In recent years the world has experienced a dramatic rise in violent armed conflicts. Throughout many of these crises, parties to the conflict have increasingly employed methods and means of warfare with complete disregard for human life and in flagrant violation of international law and various treaty obligations. The IHL principles of distinction, proportionality, necessity and precaution are routinely violated by both state and non-state actors. There has also been an escalating pattern in the indiscriminate use of explosive weapons in populated areas, as well as targeted attacks on civilian infrastructure and cultural heritage. Drawing upon the Secretary-General’s annual reports on other related issue areas – including the Protection of Civilians, Children and Armed Conflict and Conflict Related Sexual Violence – the section highlights further worrying trends in violations against civilian populations, as well as the targeting of civilians on the basis of their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, descent, gender and other identity factors. The Secretary-General further notes the man-made humanitarian consequences of these conflicts, including the global forced displacement crisis and the record number of people facing acute food insecurity.

Acts that violate IHL may also constitute war crimes and may amount to crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing or genocide. Depriving civilians of objects indispensable to their survival, including through blocking access to humanitarian aid, may amount to war crimes.

Patterns of violations and abuses of human rights

The Secretary-General recalls that throughout history, atrocity crimes have often been precipitated by serious violations and abuses of human rights by state and non-state actors. Many human rights violations and abuses may themselves constitute or amount to an atrocity crime if certain thresholds or conditions are met.

The report notes that in many situations, violations and abuses of human rights have risen alongside democratic backsliding and patterns of targeted attacks by governments against actual and/or perceived dissenting voices. As some governments have stripped societies of human rights protections, they have also increased attacks on political opponents, human rights defenders and civil society, the media and other critical voices, sometimes through arbitrary detention, torture, enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings and other violations in a manner that may amount to crimes against humanity. The Secretary-General particularly highlighted the regression in women’s and girl’s rights.

Environments conducive to atrocity crimes

Atrocity crimes do not occur in a vacuum; they are often preceded by structural, societal and political factors that create an enabling environment for their commission. Some factors may facilitate crimes by creating the means, motives and opportunities for perpetrators to act or may inhibit their mitigation. While cautioning that the list is not exhaustive, the Secretary-General highlights trends related to several key enablers of atrocity crimes, including the continuation and expansion of discriminatory policies and practices targeting populations on the basis of identity – such as threats and attacks against indigenous populations – unconstitutional changes of government, shrinking of civic space, the spread of non-state armed groups, the role of new and emerging digital technologies in proliferating hate speech and capacity for mass surveillance and the impacts of climate change.

The report notes how each of these factors may impact societal resilience to atrocity crimes, particularly when combined with established trends in violations of IHL and IHRL. For example, in countries experiencing democratic backsliding and shrinking civic space, there are often corresponding human rights issues, including arbitrary deprivation of life and liberty, removal of due process guarantees and reversal of women’s rights, among others. Similarly, as the presence and capacity of non-state armed groups has expanded, their ability to perpetrate crimes against humanity and war crimes targeting populations has also increased. Moreover, efforts to regain territorial control and combat such groups have exacerbated fragile security situations and state actors themselves have perpetrated potential atrocity crimes in the name of counterterrorism.

SECTION III. ADVANCES AND CHALLENGES IN PREVENTING ATROCITY CRIMES AND PROTECTING POPULATIONS

This section focuses on advancements in prevention, protection and justice and accountability processes since the inception of R2P. It also reflects upon the numerous normative, conceptual and operational challenges that need to be confronted to improve the prevention of atrocity crimes and the protection of populations.

Advances in prevention and protection

The report acknowledges the progress made in understanding the processes that lead to atrocity crimes and in conceptually understanding early warning signs for atrocities, noting in particular the UN’s Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes, previous Secretary-General’s reports and work within the UN Peacebuilding Commission. Efforts have also been made by states, as well as networks, such as the Global Action Against Mass Atrocity Crimes and the Global Network of R2P Focal Points, to expand early warning expertise and capacities for response.

The Secretary-General notes the expansion of international investigative bodies and mechanisms mandated to assist in the collection, consolidation and preservation of evidence of potential atrocity crimes, as well as the monitoring and advocacy on country situations by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. In this regard, the report acknowledges how some of these bodies have utilized the Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes in their assessments of situations with ongoing crimes or potential atrocity risks.

The section also acknowledges the progress made in transitional justice and memorialization as methods for dealing with the past and promoting truth, justice and non-recurrence. Moreover, the Secretary-General notes how national courts, international criminal courts and tribunals and the International Court of Justice have all played critical roles in holding perpetrators accountable for atrocity crimes.

Further challenges in prevention and protection

The advances highlighted by the Secretary-General demonstrate the depth of relevant information on risks, the existing potential to prevent their occurrence and the available institutional capacity to protect vulnerable populations and hold perpetrators of atrocity crimes accountable. They also expose the failure of the international community to prevent and protect populations from atrocity crimes. The report articulates four key challenges that contribute to the failure to realize the promise of R2P.

First, the international community has not capitalized on opportunities to start prevention initiatives before risk factors emerge. States and regional and international bodies need to more consistently take preemptive steps, such as instituting policies, systematic research, practices and structures that identify risk indicators and inform policy makers to enable societal resilience to atrocity crimes, including through the development of measures, laws and initiatives that protect the rights of all populations, prevent their marginalization and inhibit the development of the drivers of direct violence.

Second, improved understanding of the risk factors and gathering of early warning has not always translated into assessments and timely decision making. Due to the exceptional nature of atrocity crimes, patterns that lead to their commission are often not acknowledged or the potential trajectory of early warning information is not adequately anticipated, resulting in a lack of timely decision making.

Third, due to the lack of timely preventive action, discussions on response often occur when options are more limited and when decision-makers across all levels are more polarized.

Fourth, even when the risks are understood or clearly articulated, priority is not sufficiently given to develop adequate and appropriate measures to protect affected populations amidst other considerations decision-makers face in a particular situation. Moreover, the Secretary-General emphasizes the need to ensure that the knowledge and expertise of affected communities are centered in policy, practice and understanding.

SECTION IV. UNDERSTANDING EFFECTIVE PREVENTION AND PROTECTION

To address the challenges put forward in Section III, the Secretary-General highlights several aspects of prevention and protection that states and other actors should consider in order to bolster efforts to limit the occurrence and impact of atrocity crimes.

Prevention as a continuous process

The best way to disrupt the actions that lead to atrocity crimes is to approach prevention and protection as part of a continuous, permanent process. This includes not only a response to imminent and emerging risks, but also instituting policies, practices and structures that build long-term societal resilience to atrocity crimes. In this sense, the early prevention of atrocities is not significantly distinct from practices that support good governance: ensuring respect for the rule of law, supporting a competent and independent judiciary, protecting human rights, enabling civil society and the media to operate without interference or fear of reprisals and creating a political culture that favors tolerance and diversity. These are steps that governments can take to build the institutional architecture to prevent the drivers of atrocities from emerging.

Embodying prevention as a continuous process also includes consistent monitoring and assessment of risks amidst societal transformation and, when necessary, instituting necessary reforms to confront those risks.

A unique framework for atrocity crimes prevention

The Secretary-General invokes the atrocity prevention lens as a strong framework for enabling actors to better understand and more adequately respond to the drivers of crimes. Application of this lens includes identifying factors and indicators and assessing dynamics as they pertain to the risk and potential commission of atrocity crimes, guiding the necessary action at the domestic, regional and international level to prevent their perpetration and to effectively protect populations. This lens compels actors to reframe analysis and intelligence-gathering in order to recognize patterns of behavior and dynamics that may enable or precede atrocity crimes. The atrocity prevention lens also assists in identifying specific vulnerabilities of certain populations – including ethnic and religious minorities, women, populations with distinct sexual orientations and gender identities, children, disabled populations and others – and detects factors that may put them at particular risk to atrocity crimes.

The atrocity prevention lens may also represent an added value for existing conflict prevention, conflict resolution and protection agendas as it compels decision-makers to devise political strategies to counter threats and to avoid solutions that may exacerbate societal cleavages, structural exclusion or violence among groups. As it provides a more tailored understanding of the broader political landscape and how it relates to the threat to populations at risk, stakeholders can better understand what factors in the political process may act as triggers for wider violence or atrocities and what actions by state and non-state actors may exacerbate vulnerabilities faced by certain populations or regions of the country.

Prevention and protection: a cooperative effort

The report emphasizes that effective protection is only possible when informed by preventive assessments. The best outcomes will be reached when prevention and protection are implemented together.

Multiple forms of protection in action

When populations need protection, there are a variety of effective and complementary international instruments that can be utilized. Diverse entities within the UN, national governments and regional bodies, as well as independent human rights institutions, human rights defenders, civil society, and independent media, can all play a critical role in documenting and drawing attention to violations and abuses of human rights, threats to the physical integrity of populations and patterns in attacks.

Legal protection
At the heart of prevention and protection of atrocity crimes lies the legal guarantee of protection provided by states through constitutional and legislative policies, as well as through compliance with international protection instruments, including the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and other rights-based instruments. Domestic legal frameworks should be designed in a manner that protects all populations by ensuring equal access to public services and full human right protections. The UN and other states parties to various conventions can also provide legal protection by reminding states of their obligations to populations under the respective conventions and, when necessary and permitted by the relevant treaty body, issue formal complaints about non-compliance.

Preventive diplomacy, good offices and mediation
Preventive diplomacy and mediation aimed at reducing tensions, averting violent escalations and negotiating among parties to conflicts or disputes is a necessary component of ensuring the long-term success of protection efforts. Negotiations among trusted leaders have prompted conflicting parties to step back from violent rhetoric and escalatory action, make political commitments to halt abuses and rethink the tactics utilized in protected civilian spaces. Domestic actors, such as local community and religious leaders, civil society activists and women’s and youth groups, also play a crucial role in de-escalating situations and in engendering dialogue between warring parties or groups.

Physical protection
The Secretary-General notes that a security sector that is community-based and respects international norms and standards on prevention is one of the most important actors in ensuring physical protection of all populations from atrocity crimes. This is particularly the case if the security sector is equipped with knowledge of the atrocity prevention lens and an understanding of the unique vulnerabilities of populations they may be protecting. When necessary, the UN Security Council may authorize regional or international forces to provide physical protection. However, the Secretary-General cautions that states should consider the use of force as a last resort because military action may have a devastating impact on populations.

Humanitarian aid and humanitarian protection
Many of the situations where atrocity crimes are ongoing have resulted in dire man-made humanitarian emergencies as populations flee en-masse and, in some cases, civilian infrastructure is attacked and humanitarian aid blocked. It is essential that humanitarian actors be provided access to all populations, including those in conflict areas, and that there be accountability for any actor who blocks or diverts aid. The Secretary-General further notes that there is growing recognition of the importance of developing a long-term, comprehensive plan and integrated framework to bridge the divide between humanitarian relief, development assistance and peacebuilding.

SECTION V. UPHOLDING THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT: CONCLUSION AND THE WAY FORWARD

The Secretary-General concludes by reminding states that next year will mark 20 years since the adoption of R2P at the 2005 World Summit and emphasizing the need to produce more tangible results in preventing atrocities and protecting populations. The Secretary-General further encourages states, regional bodies and UN entities to assess and further develop their capacities to prevent mass atrocities.

Summary of the UN Secretary-General’s 2024 Report on R2P, Responsibility to Protect: The commitment to prevent and protect populations from atrocity crimes

Posted in Human Rights Defenders, UN | Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

19 August: World Humanitarian Day 2016 focus on youth

August 10, 2016

United Nations and humanitarian organizations in Geneva will be marking the World Humanitarian Day on 19 August in Room XX, of the Palais des Nations, 10h00.

19 August was the day in 2003 when 22 humanitarian workers were killed at the United Nations office in Baghdad. This year, the Geneva World Humanitarian Day will be dedicated to the role young people play across the world in raising awareness about humanitarian crises and making a true difference in their communities. This year’s programme includes a panel discussion on youth in humanitarian action and will be followed by a solemn commemoration ceremony to acknowledge humanitarian workers who have lost their lives in the line of duty.

The World Humanitarian Day will conclude with a reception outside the meeting room. You are kindly invited to register for the event here.

More information, event’s programme and details are available on the following Facebook page:www.facebook.com/whday2016.

More news on the global campaign is available at www.worldhumanitarianday.org. (to be active very soon).

On the social networks, please use the following hashtags: #ShareHumanity and #YouthGE

Source: Sergio Vieira de Mello Foundation – Humanitarian action through dialogue

 

see also: https://thoolen.wordpress.com/tag/sergio-vieira-de-mello/

Posted in human rights, UN | Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , ,

Opening Statement of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights at the Council’s 31st session

February 29, 2016

The Statement of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, at the 31st session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva, on 29 February 2016 is worth reading (as usual). Some of the highlights are: UN HCHR Al Hussein
Today we meet against a backdrop of accumulating departures from that body of institutions and laws which States built to codify their behaviour. Gross violations of international human rights law – which clearly will lead to disastrous outcomes – are being greeted with indifference. More and more States appear to believe that the legal architecture of the international system is a menu from which they can pick and choose – trashing what appears to be inconvenient in the short term.
Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in human rights, Human Rights Council, Human Rights Defenders | Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Geneva Call: even armed groups can adhere to humanitarian standards

September 17, 2015

https://youtu.be/wje-II3KyYQ

In this short video produced by True Heroes Films (THF) spokespeople for armed non-state actors explain why they feel they have to adhere to humanitarian standards. The definition of human rights defenders excludes those who advocate or use violence but the importance of them respecting basic standards is a crucial, long-term issue.

This Geneva Call short video features 13 high-level representatives of armed non-State actors (ANSAs) from 10 countries, including Syria, Burma/Myanmar and Sudan. In it, they explain why they think it is so important to enter into a dialogue with Geneva Call on humanitarian norms and the protection of civilian populations.  Although ANSAs are responsible for violations of humanitarian norms in many conflicts, it is possible to engage them in a dialogue about respecting those norms.

It is in ANSAs’ interests to respect humanitarian norms, not only to gain support from populations in the areas they control but also to maintain a good reputation. Complying with humanitarian norms often sits well with the political or religious values that are at the root of their struggle, and compliance can make them more credible interlocutors when peace negotiations take place.

These statements were filmed at Geneva Call’s Third Meeting of Signatories in November 2014. This meeting in Geneva brought together 70 high-level representatives of 36 ANSAs from 14 different countries.

see also: https://thoolen.wordpress.com/2015/05/21/fighter-not-killer-application-now-available-from-geneva-call/

Posted in films, Human Rights Defenders | Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

3 July in Geneva: book launch “Conduct of Hostilities, the Practice, the Law and the Future”

June 23, 2015

The International Institute of Humanitarian Law (San Remo) is about to celebrate its 45th anniversary. In the context of its 15th Summer Course on International Humanitarian Law, it organizes a Book Launch to introduce the Proceedings of its last Round Table:  “Conduct of Hostilities, the Practice, the Law and the Future”. The launch is held on Friday 3 July 2015 at the United Nations Library in Geneva from 11 am to 1 pm.
In addition to the President if the IIHL, Professor, Fausto Pocar, and the Vice-President, Prof. Michel Veuthey, the following panelists will participate:

– Professor Marco Sassòli, Director, Department of International Law and International Organizations, University of Geneva (UNIGE)
– Mr. Laurent Gisel, Legal Adviser, International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)
– Dr. Nils Melzer, Senior Adviser, Security Policy Division of the Political Directorate, Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA).

The Institute’s next Round Table will focus on the important topic: The Distinction between International and Non-International Armed Conflicts:
Challenges for IHL? , to be held in San Remo between 3rd and 5th September 2015.

Please register for the UN Pass (required for this event) by Thursday 1 July at  http://bit.ly/1d3Mzth

Posted in books | Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

FIGHTER, NOT KILLER application now available from Geneva Call

May 21, 2015

On 13 May 2015, I announced the mobile application FIGHTER, NOT KILLER by Geneva Call [https://thoolen.wordpress.com/tag/fighter-not-killer-quiz/]. The app is now available from their website (both for apple and android).

The app aims to raise awareness of the law of war among combatants, commanders, officers, political leaders and civilian populations. The quiz has two levels of difficulty and 28 scenarios. Users are faced with true-to-life situations and questions related to war tactics, assisting the wounded, the use of certain weapons, child protection or the conduct of hostilities. If they answer correctly, users can access Commander Level; here they will be confronted with more intricate scenarios, but they will receive a certificate of achievement if they are successful.

As warring parties have rarely received a basic training, have varying levels of education and are located in remote areas, this application will try, at least partially, to overcome these difficulties.

Geneva Call | FIGHTER, NOT KILLER: A mobile application to raise awareness of the law of war among armed groups – Geneva Call.

Posted in human rights, Human Rights Defenders | 1 Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Geneva Call launches FIGHTER NOT KILLER QUIZ, a new tool for international humanitarian law

May 13, 2015

https://youtu.be/9Zaot7xB8tU

The video clip above is an introduction to “Geneva Call” which is an impartial non-governmental organization dedicated to promoting respect by armed non-State actors (rebels, guerillas, liberation movements, self-proclaimed authorities) for international humanitarian law. In 2015, it is engaging in dialogue with more than 50 armed non-State actors around the world. [www.genevacall.org]

On 19 May 2015 (from 18:00 – 19:00 at the Villa Moynier, 120B rue de Lausanne, Geneva) it is launching a new application “FIGHTER NOT KILLER QUIZ”, mobile technology in the interest of law and the protection of civilians, which could be a useful tool in the hands of human rights defenders working in areas of conflict.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in human rights, Human Rights Defenders | Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

More on the Sakharov Prize and the Arab nominees

October 16, 2014

A few days ago I published a piece about the little ceremonial dropping of Arab nominees for the European Parliament’s Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought [https://thoolen.wordpress.com/2014/10/11/europes-sakharov-prize-in-trouble-with-regard-to-arab-nominees/]. The main actor in this story – Alaa Abdel Fattah – has given his own views in a piece  in Jadaliyya on 7 October, entitled “On the Sakharov Prize”. To do justice I copy it in its entirety below:

[Sculpture of Soviet nuclear physicist and human rights activist Dr. Andrei Dmitievich Sakharov. Photo by David via Flickr.]
[Sculpture of Soviet nuclear physicist and human rights activist Sakharov. Photo by David via Flickr.]

It was with joy that I received the news of my nomination for the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, the same joy any act of solidarity inspires.

Since my release from prison in Egypt on bail, with my fate still bound to the Special Terrorism Courts and the draconian Protest Law, I have been facing constant harassment from official and unofficial representatives of the regime. New trumped-up criminal charges pop up every few days. A horde of political talk show hosts on supposedly independent TV stations discusses old and out-of-context tweets, twisting my words and assigning sinister implications to them. There is an insistent tarnish campaign meant to prepare the general public for my eventual return to prison. Needless to say, I am banned from appearing on local TV stations, and I am forbidden to travel outside Egypt.

So it is solidarity such as that of European United Left/Nordic Green Left (GUE/NGL) that creates the pressure to keep me out of jail and out of harm. It was also a comfort to find comrades in unexpected places; GUE/NGL’s stance against neoliberal policies and against the distortion of European democracy seemed in line with the aspirations of persecuted revolutionaries in Egypt and the broader Arab context.

I was proud to be nominated along with Tunisian rapper, Ala Yaacoubi, and Moroccan rapper, Mouad Belghouate, both imprisoned for insulting the police in their popular songs. I was relieved that the European Parliament members (MEP) who nominated us understood the point of doing symbolic/verbal violence to the image of the powerful who consistently commit systemic actual violence to the bodies, souls and livelihood of the powerless; relieved that the MEPs understood the meaning of questioning the humanity of those who derive their power from dehumanizing their opponents.

I was not surprised when a new tarnish campaign was launched in reaction against my nomination. My family has faced such campaigns before by supporters of the Israeli occupation and Israeli apartheid. The latest when my sister, Mona Seif, was shortlisted for the Martin Ennals Award. But I was surprised when the president of the GUE/NGL decided to withdraw my nomination based on a two-year-old tweet taken out of context. And I was surprised that this was done without an attempt to contact me for clarification, and without any regard for how such public condemnation affects my safety and liberty. The president of the GUE/NGL has now sent a clear message to the Egyptian authorities that whatever international solidarity and support I have is fragile—easily destroyed with a tweet.

The GUE/NGL are of course free to form their opinion based on whatever sources of information they choose—including well-known neocons writing for the Wall Street Journal about an out-of-context tweet. However, since they made the nomination and made it publicly, it was their responsibility to ascertain how the manner of retreating from it would affect my safety. Other options were available to them; they could have asked me to withdraw, or they could have quietly dropped my name from the short-list.

The GUE/NGL’s president’s statement claims that I “called for the murder of a critical number of Israelis.” For what it is worth, here is what I would have said if anyone from GUE/NGL or any other MEPs had asked me to clarify.

The tweet in question is certainly shocking if taken out of context, but even then it cannot be framed as “a call” for anything. It was a “mention” to two friends, part of a private conversation—a thread spanning multiple tweets—that took place over a public medium (limited to 140 characters) on the first night of Israel’s 2012 attack on Gaza. A conversation between friends who already knew enough about each others’ views to make it unnecessary to clarify and elaborate, for instance, the distinction between civilians and combatants—as one would if one were making a public statement. As this was not a public statement, only those who follow all three of us on Twitter would have had this tweet appear on their timeline at two a.m. on 15 November 2012. And even after the tarnish campaign, it has only been retweeted four times.

To pretend that you can interpret this tweet two years later without consulting the people involved in the conversation, and to claim that it constitutes a call to action, is simply ridiculous. That I should now feel the need to explain and clarify what was not intended for a general public in the first place, and to be condemned for my thoughts, not my actions, in such a manner is clearly an attack on my personal liberty. The chilling effect of having to adapt to such harassment and condemnation should be perfectly clear for those honoring Andrei Sakharov’s legacy.

The conversation relating to the war on Gaza started with a friend expressing her doubt that the conflict would ever be resolved by local actors. The other friend in the conversation and I replied, insisting that like most such conflicts, it would be resolved locally. The tweet stated what seems to be the basic strategy of most national liberation movements, especially those that opt for armed resistance: To make the price of occupation/colonization/apartheid too expensive for the society that supports it. The strategy of the Palestinians is exactly that—via both violent and nonviolent means (boycott, divestments and sanctions, and armed resistance, for example). Since this was during a time of war, I had armed resistance in mind. Think of Vietnam or Algeria; many would say this is exactly what happened: After a critical number of casualties in asymmetric wars, the civilian population supporting the occupier refused to continue its support—despite the fact that the casualties suffered by the society resisting colonization were massively higher.

My tweet was not a call for anything; it was not even a statement of opinion. It was a statement of one of the facts of the conflict. If GUE/NGL had asked me about my views I would have directed them to my March 2012 debate on Deutsche Welle.

It should perhaps be remembered that the first laureate of the Sakharov Prize was Nelson Mandela back in 1988, when he and the African National Congress (ANC) were considered terrorists by many democratic governments. At the time, his views on the necessity of violence for resisting apartheid must have required and inspired complex debates on appropriate tactics and strategies, the rules of engagement, the moral, political and social limitations that should be put on revolutionary violence, etc. There would have been plenty of statements attributable to him or his comrades—including the famous Rivonia Trial speech in which he admits to planning sabotage—that would have looked pretty scary out of context.

Finally, I hardly ever call for any solution or action on my own. As an individual, I have always expressed my opinions and positions in the clearest and strongest language. But as an activist, I have always worked for any given cause with and through the largest united front possible. When it comes to calls for solutions or actions, and for the sake of consensus, I would make the very compromises I refuse to make when speaking only for myself.

More importantly, I do not call for anything when it is not a cause that I am directly engaged with. I stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people, but I never presume to tell them what to do.

If my views on violence—specifically against civilians—are what is in question, the answers can be found in my actions and my published views in my local context and my own struggle in Egypt.

 [This piece is co-published with Mada Masr]

On the Sakharov Prize.

Posted in awards, EU, human rights, Human Rights Defenders | Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The (eternal) humanitarian intervention debate moves to Reykjavik in April

March 7, 2013

The Institute for Cultural Diplomacy and the Ministry of Interior of Iceland organise the Reykjavík Congress on the topic: “Human Rights: Human Rights Protection & International Law: The Multifaceted Dilemma of Restraining and Promoting International Interventions”, in Reykjavik, Iceland from 10 to 13 April 2013.

It aims to argue and debate the notion of the responsibility to protect from a human rights perspective, taking into account the divergent dimensions in restraining or promoting international intervention. It plans to consider the current most vehement cases of human rights violations, and further comprehend the varied issues and approaches to these mass atrocities and crimes against humanity from a theoretical perspective, analyzing the complex layers and structures, and taking into account the ethical dilemma surrounding the responsibility to protect and international intervention. For more information please visit: www.reykjavikcongress.org

I would add that this is a most interesting and of course always ‘hot’ topic. I touched upon it in my own article “The international human rights movement: not perfect, but a lot better than many governments think” in the book ‘NGOs in China and Europe’. That the book was published also in Chinese makes it more interesting in view of the strong anti-intervention position taken by the Chinese Government: “Clearly, sovereignty is and remains one of the central organising principles of the international system as we know it. At the same time, there can be no doubt that the very idea and doctrine of internationally protected human rights is a powerful limitation. There is a clear tension between human rights law and general international law. The concept of the sovereignty of States and the principle of non-intervention in internal affairs is laid down in Art 2(7) of the UN Charter, but the qualifying word ‘essentially’ should be noted. Moreover, the Security Council may use the existence of a threat to international peace and security to take action, which overrides sovereignty. From the beginning of the 20th century, international human rights NGOs played a major role in this process of norm shifting, from the Dumbarton Oaks Conference up to the recent debates on the ‘right to inference’ (droit d’ingerence ). After decades of slow but steady development, the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action in 1993 confirmed that human rights are a ‘legitimate international concern’. Of course, this short chapter cannot settle the complex debate surrounding the issue of sovereignty and intervention, but it demonstrates that it is far from static and that the international human rights movement is an active ingredient in its development.” (from: Yuwen Li (ed), NGOs in China and Europe, Ashgate, 2011, pp 287-304 (ISBN: 978-1-4094-1959-4).

Posted in human rights | Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

« Older posts