Posts Tagged ‘International law’

Why we need human rights now more than ever [debate in the UK)

May 15, 2024

Shami Chakrabarti

On 6 May 2024 the Guardian gave the floor to Shami Chakrabarti, a lawyer and Labour member of the House of Lords; the author of Human Rights: The Case for the Defence, who makes a cogent and strong statement in the current debate on the UK leaving the European convention on human rights. [see also: https://www.economist.com/britain/2024/04/25/why-britains-membership-of-the-echr-has-become-a-political-issue].

In the three decades since I became a lawyer, human rights – once understood as an uncomplicated good, a tool for securing dignity for the vulnerable against abuses by the powerful – have increasingly come under assault. Perhaps never more so than in the current moment: we are constantly talking about human rights, but often in a highly sceptical way. When Liz Truss loudly proclaims “We’ve got to leave the ECHR, abolish the supreme court and abolish the Human Rights Act,” she’s not the fringe voice she might have been in the 1990s. She represents a dangerous current of opinion, as prevalent on parts of the radical left as on the populist right of politics. It seems to be gaining momentum.

As an idealistic youngster, I would have been shocked to know that in 2024 it would be necessary to return to the back-to-basics case, to justify the need for fundamental rights and freedoms. But in a world where facts are made fluid, what were once thought of as core values have become hard to distil and defend. In an atmosphere of intense polarisation, human rights are trashed along all parts of the political spectrum – either as a framework to protect markets, or as a form of undercover socialism. What stands out for me is that the most trenchant critics share a profound nationalism. Nationalists believe that universal human rights – the clue’s in the name – undermine the ability of states to agitate for their narrower interests.

Given that so many of our problems can only be tackled with an international approach, a robust rights framework is more important than ever

It’s no coincidence that the governments keenest on turning inwards – Viktor Orbán’s in Hungary, that of former president Bolsonaro in Brazil – have been least keen on common standards that protect minorities in their own territories and hold them to high standards in the international arena. At a time of insecurity, these leaders leverage fear to maximise their appeal. The prospect of a second Trump administration in the US demonstrates that this trend shows no sign of abating. In that context, it’s vital to make the case for human rights anew.

It boils down to this: given that so many of our problems – in an age of climate change, global disorder and artificial intelligence – can only be tackled with an international approach, a robust rights framework is more important than ever. There are parallels with the postwar period in which human rights were most fully articulated, a time when it was obvious to everybody that cooperation and global standards were the best way to shore up our common humanity after a period of catastrophic conflict and genocide.

Of course everyone believes in some rights – normally their own and those of friends, family and people they identify with. It is “other people’s” freedoms that are more problematic. The greater the divisions between us, the greater this controversy. And yet, it is precisely these extreme disparities in health, wealth, power and opinion that make rights, rather than temporary privileges given and taken away by governments, so essential. They provide a framework for negotiating disputes and providing redress for abuses without recourse to violence.

New technologies, and AI in particular, require more not less international regulation. As people spend more time online, they become vulnerable to degrading treatment, unfairness and discrimination, breaches of privacy, censorship and other threats. The so-called “black boxes” behind the technology we use make ever more crucial decisions about our daily lives, from banking to education, employment, policing and border control. Anyone who flirts with the notion of computer infallibility should never forget the postmasters and other such abuses, perpetrated and then concealed.

Our shrinking, burning planet is the ultimate reason why nationalism does not work in the interests of humankind

Perhaps most important of all is the growing contribution of human rights litigation to the struggle against climate catastrophe. A whole generation of lawyers and environmentalists is taking notes from earlier struggles, just as suffragists once learned from slavery abolitionists. This is despite the machinations of fossil fuel corporations versed in a thousand lobbying, jurisdictional and other delaying tactics.

Our shrinking, burning planet is the ultimate reason why nationalism does not work in the interests of humankind. Today’s global empires, sailing under logos rather than flags, need to be more directly accountable under human rights treaties. Our existing mechanisms, whether local and national governments, domestic and international courts, or some of the more notoriously tortuous UN institutions, may be imperfect and in need of reform. Yet, like all structures of civilisation, they are easier to casually denigrate than to invest in and adapt to be more effective.

While I have been writing this, I have been voting in the House of Lords on amendments to the so-called safety of Rwanda bill. It is the most regressive anti-human rights measure of recent times, and intended to be that way. It will not stop the boats of desperate people fleeing persecution, but is designed to stop the courts. British judges will be prevented from ensuring refugees’ fair treatment before they are rendered human freight and transported to a place about whose “safety” our supreme court was not satisfied. Rishi Sunak will be able to use this situation as excuse for an election pledge to repudiate the European convention on human rights.

If he gets his way, rights will be removed not just from those arriving by boat, but from every man, woman and child in the UK. By contrast, the golden thread of human rights is equal treatment: protecting others as we would wish to be protected ourselves, if that unhappy day ever came. It’s a thread we must never let go of.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2024/may/06/the-big-idea-why-we-need-human-rights-now-more-than-ever

see also: https://eachother.org.uk/dont-make-human-rights-a-dirty-word-the-national-campaign-sweeping-the-highstreet/

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

Inter-American Court on the Escazú Agreement’s protection for environmental defenders

March 8, 2024

On 7 March 2024, the ISHR report that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights examined the Escazú Agreement’s role in safeguarding environmental defenders, a landmark move for climate justice and human rights

The Advisory Opinion, which has already garnered a record number of interventions – over 250, a record in the history of the court – will mark a rare instance in which the Court will analyse a treaty that is not part of the Inter-American System, but of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean: the ‘Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean’, also known as the ‘Escazú Agreement‘. For more on this, see: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/tag/escazu-agreement/

In order to support the protection of environmental defenders, ISHR filed an intervention on environmental defenders, in collaboration with CIEL, FARN, and other international, regional and national organisations and human rights experts. 

The obligation to effectively protect EHRDs

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has already recognised that States are obliged to protect human rights defenders, arising from the general obligations to protect the rights to life and integrity of the person, among others. However, the Court has yet to expressly establish whether protecting environmental defenders is an obligation that also derives from environmental commitments made by States, as these stakeholders are an indispensable partner in the fight against climate change. 

This is an opportunity for the Court to recognise that, in order to guarantee the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, States must protect environmental defenders, as violating their rights also violates the rights they are defending.

The Court is also called to elaborate upon the specific protection needs of Indigenous, women and youth defenders. These groups face particular forms of attacks which must be addressed with cultural and gender perspectives, taking into account not only the particularities of the attacks they suffer, but also of their needs and desires. 

In the case of Indigenous groups, the existing jurisprudence of the Court on recognising collective rights, along with the language used in article 9 of the Escazú Agreement – which establishes that ‘persons, groups and organisations’ can defend human rights – provides an opportunity to firmly establish the existence of a collective right to defend human rights, as well as the State’s obligation to set up and adapt their protection measures and mechanisms to ensure that collective protection is available when needed.

Environmental defenders and ‘access rights’

While the express mention of environmental defenders in the Escazú Agreement is extremely important, it is not its main focus. The treaty contains several obligations for States to guarantee access to information, to decision-making spaces and to justice in environmental matters. 

These ‘access rights’ are applicable to all persons, but the Inter-American Court must reaffirm and elaborate upon its own jurisprudence related to their applicability for environmental defenders, which states that: ‘defenders cannot properly defend environmental rights if they cannot exercise their own rights of access to information, freedom of expression, assembly and peaceful association, guarantees of non-discrimination and participation in decision-making‘.

This is also an opportunity for the Court to clearly assert that private actors are also under the obligation to respect these rights, which includes conducting meaningful consultations and ensuring the free, prior and informed consent of communities affected by their projects.

The extent of the Advisory Opinion

Latin America is the region with the most and the oldest laws and protection mechanisms regarding human rights defenders, so it was only logical that it would be the first region to adopt the first treaty that expressly protects them.

The Inter-American Court has also been a pioneer in this regard. It was the first regional human rights court to deal with human rights defenders’ cases and order structural reforms to better protect them.

These successes must be celebrated, but there is still work to be done. The coming years will see an increase in three areas, all linked with one another: climate crisis, the amount of environmental defenders, and the risks faced by defenders. 

The Court must seize this opportunity and set an example for countries in the region and beyond on how to properly defend the rights of those that defend our rights.

See the intervention here: Amicus 1 IACrtHR AO on CC and EHRDs

https://ishr.ch/latest-updates/environmental-defenders-and-the-inter-american-court-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change

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

Results of the 54th session of the UN Human Rights Council

October 15, 2023

On 13 October 2023 the ISHR and other NGOs shared their reflections on the key outcomes of the 54th session of the UN Human Rights Council [see: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2023/09/11/human-rights-defenders-at-the-54th-session-of-the-un-human-rights-council/:

…We firmly condemn all crimes and other grave violations under international law committed by both Israel and Palestinian armed groups. Targeted and indiscriminate attacks against civilians can never be justified. We call on the ICC Office of the Prosecutor to accelerate its investigation into serious crimes committed by all parties in Palestine and Israel. We call on Israel to ratify the Rome Statute, and for the ICC to hold both State and non-State perpetrators of international crimes accountable. We call on the Commission of Inquiry to address the situation within the context of its root causes: settler colonialism, apartheid, and denial of the fundamental rights to self-determination and return of the Palestinian people, all amounting to grave violations of international law. We call on governments to immediately stop providing political and military support to Israel, while Ministers manifest a genocidal intent against Palestinians. On 9 October 2023, Yoav Gallant, Israel’s Minister of Defense, stated: “We are imposing a complete siege on [Gaza]. No electricity, no food, no water, no fuel – everything is closed. We are fighting human animals, and we act accordingly”. We deplore the dehumanization of all people, including not mentioning  Palestinian civilians’ killings in statements in this Council. As we gear up to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the UDHR, we remind this Council that for 75 years, generations of people in Gaza and historic Palestine have not been born free and equal in dignity and rights. Until this is addressed, the cycles of violence will not end. As Israel continues to bomb the Rafah crossing, the international community has a duty to guarantee immediate humanitarian access to besieged Gaza. We call on States to establish an international protective presence in the OPT, as called for by UN Special Procedures.  For 75 years, the international community has enabled impunity and failed to fulfill the right to self-determination of Palestinian people, including through their legitimate right to resist colonialism.

The Council has shown that it does have an important role to play in addressing violations amidst multiple human rights crises. We welcome the establishment of the mechanism on Sudan and the extension of the Special Rapporteur on Russia, inter alia, in this regard. But these stand in stark contrast to its failure to renew the critical mandate on Ethiopia, particularly in light of the expert finding of the acute risk of ongoing and further atrocity crimes, as well as other Council blind spots where mounting human rights violations remain ignored. We stress the need for the Council to take a principled approach and to address situations on their merits. 

We remain deeply concerned about reprisals against civil society actors who engage or seek to engage with UN bodies and mechanisms. We call on all States and the Council to do more to address the situation, including raise concerns about specific cases of reprisals and demand that governments provide an update on any investigation or action taken toward accountability. We welcome the adoption of the resolution on cooperation with the UN, including the reference to adequately resourced dedicated civil society focal points, however we are disappointed that several proposals by States and civil society to strengthen the text were not taken on board. The Secretary General’s most recent report on reprisals notes increased physical and digital surveillance of those cooperating with the UN and application of laws aimed at punishing or deterring cooperation. While the resolution takes notes of these trends we regret that the resolution does not fully address how these should be addressed. We welcome the strong focus on prevention and emphasis given to accountability. Nonetheless, the preventative role the Council could play in regard to reprisals, as signs of deterioration in civic space conditions, is overlooked. In addition, States’ monitoring and reporting responsibilities in relation to allegations of acts of intimidation or reprisal could be addressed more fully. Also, we welcome the call to the SG for adequate resources to be allocated to OHCHR to prevent and address allegations.

We welcome the resolution on preventable maternal mortality and morbidity, which reiterates that PMMM is a human rights issue that requires a human rights-based approach response, centering inter alia the principles of accountability, meaningful participation of primarily affected people, non-discrimination and equality and transparency. The resolution aims at garnering political will to curb maternal mortality and morbidity rates that have been stagnating and failing to meet SDGs targets. The resolution rightly highlights the full realization of the right to sexual and reproductive health and the provision of comprehensive sexual and reproductive health information and services, including comprehensive sexuality education and safe abortion (with the caveat of not when against national law), as pre-conditions to lower PMMM. We welcome the call to update the technical guidance on a HRBA to PMMM. We however deplore the amendments put forward seeking to weaken the text and apply a protectionist lens to women’s rights to bodily autonomy, taking away their agency and their status of full rights holders under IHRL.

We express our support for a new resolution on the right to privacy in the digital age, which contains strong new standards under the theme of data protection. The resolution also contains stronger language on remote biometric surveillance systems, such as facial recognition, stressing that they raise serious concerns with regard to their proportionality. While we applaud that the resolution acknowledges that some applications of new and emerging technologies may not be compatible with international human rights law, we call for future iterations to take a step further in establishing “red lines” and to call for bans of such technologies. We also urge the core group to address other emerging issues for the right to privacy in the future, such as social media monitoring.

We welcome the adoption of the resolution on the question of the death penalty aimed at ensuring that criminal justice systems are consistent with international human rights obligations in relation to capital punishment, with a focus on the relation between Art 6 and Art 14 of the ICCPR, particularly on the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence, and the right to have one’s conviction reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law. In accordance with the safeguards guaranteeing the protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty, as set out in the annex to Economic and Social Council Resolution 1984/50. We welcome that any attempt by a number of States to undermine the aim of the resolution through a number of amendments, have been rejected.           

We welcome the adoption of the resolution from rhetoric to reality: a global call for concrete action against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance’ and the mandate renewal of the Working Group of Experts of People of African Descent (WGEPAD). We welcome that the rhetoric to reality resolution, interalia, strongly condemns the discriminatory treatment, unlawful deportations, excessive use of force and deaths of African migrants and migrants of African descent, including refugees and asylum-seekers, at the hands of law enforcement officials engaged in migration and border governance. It calls on States to ensure accountability and reparations for human rights violations at borders and to adopt a racial justice approach, including by adopting policies to address structural racism in the management of international migration. However, we regret that it did not reiterate that the transatlantic trade in enslaved Africans and colonialism were grave violations of international law that require States to make reparations proportionate to the harms committed and to ensure that structures in the society that are perpetuating the injustices of the past are transformed, including law enforcement and the administration of justice. We urge all States to fully implement the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (DDPA). We also call on States to fully cooperate with the WGEPAD and EMLER including by accepting country visits, and implementing their recommendations as well as those from the Permanent Forum and the High Commissioner’s Agenda towards Transformative Change for Racial Justice and Equality.

We welcome the adoption of the resolution on the human rights situation in the Russian Federation, and the re-mandating of the Special Rapporteur. The human rights situation in Russia has drastically deteriorated in the past year, and the Special Rapporteur needs more time to report on the general situation in the country and the Council to equally be able to scrutinize the situation.

We welcome the adoption of the resolution on a Working Group on the rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas. The resolution recognizes the contributions of peasants and other people working in rural areas in ensuring the right to adequate food and nutrition, a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, as well as to conserving and improving biodiversity. It calls upon all States and all stakeholders to cooperate fully with the Working Group on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas. The establishment of an interdisciplinary WG with balanced geographical representation will promote the effective and comprehensive implementation of the UNDROP and provide opportunities to share and promote good practices and lessons learned on the implementation of the UNDROP.

We welcome the adoption of the resolution on Afghanistan, which extends and strengthens the mandate of the Special Rapporteur. However, we are dismayed that the HRC once again failed to establish an independent investigative mechanism, despite compelling evidence for its need. This risks the entrenchment of impunity for crimes against humanity. This body must center rights holders and survivors, and heed the call of Afghan civil society, who have consistently asked for such a mechanism. We urge States to recognise the situation of women and girls in the country as amounting to gender apartheid, and to support the codification of this crime in the draft Articles on Crimes against Humanity.

We regret that the item 10 resolution on Yemen, again fails to respond to the urgent need for accountability for past and on-going violations and abuses in Yemen.

We welcome the adoption of the resolution on the enhancement of technical cooperation and capacity-building in the field of human rights and its focus on the Universal Periodic Review. The resolution contains a number of key references to the positive role civil society plays in technical assistance, and the possible role multi-stakeholder partnerships between States, UN agencies and civil society can play in supporting the implementation of international human rights obligations by UN Member States. The establishment of an online repository of technical cooperation and capacity-building activities could help civil society identify advocacy opportunities in regards to country-specific situations, in collaboration with UN agencies, as well as opportunities to share best practices and capitalize on lessons learned in regard to technical assistance.

We welcome the renewal of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Cambodia. In a context defined by systematic targeting and silencing of human rights defenders, critics and political opponents, the Special Rapporteur’s independent and objective assessment of the situation is more important than ever. However, we regret that the resolution once again failed to adequately reflect the reality of the situation and attempted to justify continuing restrictions on civil and political space on the basis of the country’s political and historical particularities as well as national legislation that contradict its international obligations.

We welcome the resolution on the rights of older persons and its important focus on the right of older persons to live free from violence, abuse, and neglect. Now, more needs to be done to ensure that older persons’ rights are protected in reality, including by establishing an international treaty on the rights of older persons.

We welcome the allocation of additional resources to the OHCHR in the area of economic, social and cultural rights, with the adoption of the resolution on ESCR and inequalities.

One year after the release of the OHCHR report finding possible crimes against humanity committed by China against Uyghurs and Muslim minorities, we deplore the sustained failure of this Council to engage in dialogue on the matter, let alone prevent the continuation of abuses. We regret the absence of a joint statement on China at the Council in 2023. The CESCR, the CEDAW, the CERD, the OHCHR, the ILO, as well as Special Procedures through three joint statements, nearly 30 press releases and over 100 letters to the government since 2018, have provided overwhelming evidence pointing to systematic and widespread human rights violations across the country. So long as the Council is not able to take principled action on the basis of objective criteria, other powerful perpetrators will feel empowered to continue committing atrocity crimes, relying on the Council’s silence. We reiterate our pressing call for all Council Members to support the adoption of a resolution establishing a UN mandate to monitor and report on the human rights situation in China.

Finally, we note the outcomes of the Human Rights Council elections. We welcome that Russia’s candidacy was defeated but regret the election of other members responsible for atrocity crimes, widespread civil society repression, and patterns of reprisals.

Signatories: International Service for Human Rights (ISHR), International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), GIN SSOGIE NPC, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, FIAN International, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA).

See also: https://www.jurist.org/news/2023/10/un-human-rights-council-adopts-5-new-resolutions-including-renewal-of-un-mandate-in-burundi/ 

https://ishr.ch/latest-updates/hrc54-civil-society-presents-key-takeaways-from-human-rights-council/

https://rightlivelihood.org/news/54th-un-human-rights-council-we-shed-light-on-activist-repression-indigenous-peoples-plight-in-nicaragua-environmental-degradation/

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

Iran: One year after uprising in Iran the international community must combat impunity says Amnesty

September 15, 2023

The international community must pursue pathways for justice at the international level to address systemic impunity for Iranian officials responsible for hundreds of unlawful killings of protesters and widespread torture, Amnesty International said on 13 September 2023, as Iran marks the one-year anniversary of the “Woman Life Freedom” uprising.

Over the past year, Iranian authorities have committed a litany of crimes under international law to eradicate any challenge to their iron grip on power. These include hundreds of unlawful killings; the arbitrary execution of seven protesters; tens of thousands of arbitrary arrests; widespread torture, including rape of detainees; widespread harassment of victims’ families who call for truth and justice; and reprisals against women and girls who defy discriminatory compulsory veiling laws.

“The anniversary of the ‘Woman Life Freedom’ protests offers a stark reminder for countries around the world of the need to initiate criminal investigations into the heinous crimes committed by the Iranian authorities under universal jurisdiction. Government statements calling on the Iranian authorities to halt the unlawful use of firearms against protesters, stop torturing detainees, and release all individuals detained for peacefully exercising their human rights remain as crucial as ever. These actions show victims they are not alone in their darkest hour.”

The anniversary of the ‘Woman Life Freedom’ protests offers a stark reminder for countries around the world of the need to initiate criminal investigations into the heinous crimes committed by the Iranian authorities under universal jurisdiction. Diana Eltahawy, Amnesty International’s Deputy Regional Director for the Middle East and North Africa

The Iranian authorities have waged an all-out assault on the human rights of women and girls over the past year. Despite months of protests against Iran’s compulsory veiling laws, triggered by the arbitrary arrest and death in custody of Mahsa/Zhina Amini, the authorities have reinstated “morality” policing and introduced a raft of other measures that deprive women and girls who defy compulsory veiling of their rights.

These include the confiscation of cars and denial of access to employment, education, healthcare, banking services and public transport. Simultaneously, they have prosecuted and sentenced women to imprisonment, fines and degrading punishments, such as washing corpses.

This assault on women’s rights is taking place amid a spate of hateful official statements referring to unveiling as a “virus”, “social illness” or “disorder” as well as equating the choice to appear without a headscarf to “sexual depravity.”

The authorities are also working on new legislation that will introduce even more severe penalties for defying compulsory veiling.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=3w-20lqbY8Y%3Ffeature%3Doembed

Mass arbitrary detentions and summons

During the uprising and in the months that followed, the authorities arbitrarily arrested tens of thousands of men, women and children, including protesters, human rights defenders and minority rights activists.  Those arrested include at least 90 journalists and other media workers and 60 lawyers, including those representing families of individuals unlawfully killed. Scores of other lawyers were summoned for interrogations. [see e.g. https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2023/05/11/now-it-is-the-turn-of-the-iranian-journalists-who-reported-on-mahsa-amini/]

Ahead of the anniversary, the authorities have intensified their campaign of arbitrary arrests targeting, among others, family members of those unlawfully killed, and forcing thousands of university students to sign undertakings not to participate in anniversary protests.

Execution of protesters

Over the past year, the authorities have increasingly used the death penalty as a tool of political repression to instil fear among the public, arbitrarily executing seven men in relation to the uprising following grossly unfair sham trials. Some were executed for alleged crimes such as damage to public property and others in relation to the deaths of security forces during the protests. All were executed after Iran’s Supreme Court rubber stamped their unjust convictions and sentences despite a lack of evidence and without carrying out investigations into their allegations of torture. Dozens remain at risk of execution or being sentenced to death in connection with the protests.

A crisis of impunity

The authorities have refused to conduct any thorough, independent and impartial investigations into the human rights violations committed during and in the aftermath of the “Woman Life Freedom” uprising and have failed to take any steps to hold those suspected of criminal responsibility to account.

Instead, authorities have applauded the security forces for suppressing the unrest and shielded officials from accountability, including two officials who admitted raping women protesters in Tehran. They have also dismissed complaints from victims and/or their families, threatening them with death or other harm if they pursued their complaints.

Amnesty International welcomed the establishment of a Fact-Finding Mission on Iran by the UN Human Rights Council in November 2022, yet much more is needed to combat the crisis of impunity for serious crimes in Iran – and to deter further cycles of bloodshed.

Amnesty International urges all states to consider exercising universal and other extraterritorial jurisdiction in relation to crimes under international law and other serious human rights violations committed by Iranian authorities, irrespective of the absence or presence of the accused in their territory. This includes initiating adequately resourced criminal investigations aimed at disclosing the truth about the crimes, identifying those suspected of responsibility, including commanders and other superiors and issuing, when there is sufficient admissible evidence, international arrest warrants. States should also contribute to achieving reparations for the victims.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/

https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/09/15/iran-crackdown-dissent-ahead-protest-anniversary

see also:

https://www.fidh.org/en/region/asia/iran/iran-statement-on-the-un-fact-finding-mission-s-oral-upda

https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/09/1141017

Iran’s women, digital rights and human freedoms

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/09/iran-un-experts-denounce-crackdown-public-commemoration-jina-mahsa-aminis

Posted in AI, Amnesty international, HRW, human rights, Human Rights Defenders, UN | 1 Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Elders urge European leaders to stand firm on Israeli annexation threats

July 3, 2020

As reported in the Sri Lankan Guardian The Elders have called on European leaders to maintain their resolve against Israel’s plans to annex swathes of the West Bank, and to insist that any such moves would have negative political and economic consequences for bilateral relations.

The absence of any direct military and legal moves towards annexation on 1 July – the deadline unilaterally declared by Israel’s Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu – should not be taken as grounds for complacency. Annexation of any part of the West Bank, including illegal settlement blocs, would constitute a flagrant breach of international law.
In letters to French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Josep Borrell, The Elders underscored the damage annexation would cause not only to any hopes of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but also to global respect for the rule of law.
Annexation “is fundamentally contrary to the long term interests of both the Israeli and the Palestinian peoples. [It] will not dampen future Palestinian demands for rights and self-determination, but destroying hopes in a two-state compromise will increase the risks of future violence in one of the most combustible areas in the world”, the Elders warned in their appeal to Europe’s leaders.
They called on the EU leaders to consider suspending the bloc’s Association Agreement with Israel if annexation does go ahead in any form, and recalled the UK’s historical and abiding responsibility to the region as the colonial Mandate holder in pre-1948 Palestine.
The Elders also reiterated their support for human rights defenders and civil society activists in Israel and Palestine, whose voices need to be protected and amplified at this challenging time.

http://www.slguardian.org/2020/07/the-elders-urge-european-leaders-to.html

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

Human Rights Watch’ Omar Shakir loses his appeal in Israeli Supreme Court

November 6, 2019

On 5 November 2019, the Israeli Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against the Jerusalem District Court’s decision to uphold a deportation order against Human Rights Watch (HRW) representative in Israel and Palestine, Omar Shakir, who is accused by the State of supporting the BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) movement. The Court ruled that Shakir must leave the country in 20 days. [see: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2019/04/18/israel-deportation-of-human-rights-watchs-staff-member-again-on-the-table/].  In the meantime his expulsion is immenent: https://imemc.org/article/human-rights-watch-director-expelled-today/

HRW stated “Omar Shakir’s Expulsion Would Send Chilling Message“. The Israeli NGO “Human Rights Defenders Fund” issued the following statment on the case:

The Court dismissed the claim raised by Shakir’s lawyers Michael Sfard and Emily Schaeffer Omer-Man, according to which he did not violate the law that authorizes the exclusion from Israel of those who call for or support boycotting Israel or an area under its control (Amendment no. 28 to the Entry into Israel Law, 2017). The Court also rejected a request to suspend proceedings until a new Israeli government is formed following the September elections and could consider whether to proceed with the deportation.

The constitutional claims raised in the appeal were not directly addressed by the Court, which stated that the constitutionality of Amendment no. 28 to the Entry into Israel Law will be examined in a separate petition currently pending before the High Court of Justice.

The Court further dismissed the claim that Shakir did not call to boycott Israel, but was merely fulfilling HRW’s long-held mandate in calling businesses not to contribute to human rights violations in the OPT. Head of the panel of judges, Justice Neal Hendel, adopted the State’s position and asserted that Shakir’s Tweets throughout the years, including the ones he posted on behalf of HRW regarding corporate responsibility in the OPT, all amount to active and consistent promotion of boycott activity.

One of the more disconcerting aspects of the Court’s decision is the conflation of Shakir’s independent activities prior to joining HRW with actions taken more recently in his capacity as a researcher at HRW, such as HRW reports shared on his social media, as indication that there is “enough evidence to show substantial, coherent and consistent involvement of Shakir in promoting boycott, in violation of the law.” 

The most disturbing component of the ruling is the Court’s holding that the law’s application extends to those who use boycott to promote the protection of human rights in the OPT, in accordance with international law:

“[…] the subjective aim of Amendment no. 28 […] validates that a call to boycott Israel may be included within the meaning of the law, even if its reasoning is founded on the protection of human rights or on the norms of international law. In fact, it seems that the possibility of disguising a call for boycott under a human rights discourse will devoid Amendment no. 28 of its content and harm its objective aim — fighting the boycott movement. These aims demonstrate that [the text of the law] is not only limited to boycott that is based on political opposition to Israel’s control of the territories, but also includes boycott that is based on the identification of the Israeli control in the territories as a violation of international law.”   
Following that statement, the Court held that since Shakir’s activity regarding corporate responsibility in the OPT is based on his entire opposition to the legitimacy of the Israeli settlements in the OPT, his work constitutes illegal support of boycott in violation of Israeli law.

In addition, the Court stated that HRW is not considered to be a “BDS organization” and reassured that its activity will not be harmed by the decision to deport one of his representatives. Furthermore, the Court dismissed the petitioners’ concerns by stating that the current decision will not affect other human right defenders and organizations who will want to enter Israel.

Nonetheless, HRDF views this ruling as a dangerous precedent that reflects the shrinking space for human rights advocates who defend human rights in the context of the occupation.

Following the decision, Adv. Sfard stated: “Today, Israel has joined countries like Syria, Iran and North Korea, who have also deported Human Rights Watch representatives in attempt to silence criticism against human rights abuses committed in their territory. The Supreme Court’s decision gives Israel a dangerous and anti-democratic veto power over the identity of the representatives of international organizations operating in Israel and in the OPT. Today they deport Omar, and tomorrow they will deport other representatives, foreign journalists and anyone who opposes the government policies in the occupied territories.”

Adv. Schaeffer Omer-Man added: “Today’s Supreme Court ruling not only lends legitimacy to Israel’s attempts to mask its disapproval of Human Rights Watch’s activities condemning settlement activity in the OPT by deporting Omar Shakir, but it threatens to deepen the already pervasive self-censorship by Palestinian and Israeli human rights defenders who are more vulnerable than ever to persecution for legitimate advocacy against Israeli violations of international law.”

Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, Kenneth Roth stated: “The Supreme Court has effectively declared that free expression in Israel does not include completely mainstream advocacy for Palestinian rights. If the government now deports Human Rights Watch’s researcher for asking businesses to respect rights as we do across the world, there is no telling whom it will throw out next.”
 
HRDF stands in solidarity with Omar Shakir and Human Rights Watch. The decision to deport Shakir on grounds of support for boycott is only one measure in the ever-growing efforts of the Israeli authorities in recent years to delegitimize human rights defenders, silence political expression and shut down the work of human rights organizations who report human rights abuses in the OPT.

The law on which the Court’s ruling relies is only one of a long line of legislation passed in recent years designed to delegitimize and sanction human rights defenders and organizations, block their funding, impose obstacles to their work, and create a chilling effect on Israeli, Palestinian and international human rights organizations.

The State’s and the Court’s insistence on separating Shakir’s work from HRW is artificial and its purpose is solely to conceal the harsh and far-reaching ramifications of this decision, which will enable the state to dictate and censor the work of human rights organizations who monitor and report human rights abuses in Israel and in the OPT. The international community must not be affected by this attempt to separate between HRW and its employee, Omar Shakir, as giving in to such tactics would harm the solidarity and support that all human rights defenders deserve.

(contact the HRDF team with any questions you might have: noa@hrdf.org.il)

———-

https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/11/05/israel-supreme-court-greenlights-deporting-human-rights-watch-official

https://mailchi.mp/18f35a27e33d/update-israeli-supreme-court-dismisses-appeal-against-the-deportation-of-human-rights-watch-israel-and-palestine-director-omar-shakir?e=51113b9c0e

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/10/israel-opt-amnesty-staff-member-faces-punitive-travel-ban-for-human-rights-work/

Israel: deportation of Omar Shakir must be halted and the work of human rights defenders protected

 

Posted in HRW, Human Rights Defenders | 3 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

The Sovereignty of Human Rights – Food for thought on New year’s eve

December 31, 2015
For those who want to spend New Year’s even with a more general reflection on “What are human rights?” I think that Patrick Macklem‘s “The Sovereignty of Human Rights” could be interesting reading”. Patrick Macklem is the William C. Graham Professor of Law at the University of Toronto and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada. The Sovereignty of Human Rights, was published by Oxford University Press in 2015.

9780190267315

One of his blog posts gives a good summary:

On this anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it is worth reflecting on the nature of human rights and what functions they perform in moral, political and legal discourse and practice.

For moral theorists, the dominant approach to the normative foundations of international human rights conceives of human rights as moral entitlements that all human beings possess by virtue of our common humanity. What constitutes a human right, according to this approach, isn’t determined by a positive legal instrument or institution. Human rights are prior to and independent of positive international human rights law. Just because a legal order declares something to be a human right doesn’t make it so. Conversely, the fact that a human right doesn’t receive international legal protection doesn’t mean that it isn’t a human right. The existence or non-existence of a human right rests on abstract features of what it means to be human and the obligations to which these features give rise. The mission of the field is to secure international legal protection of universal features of what it means to be a human being.

On moral accounts such as these, human rights protect essential characteristics or features that all of us share despite the innumerable historical, geographical, cultural, communal, and other contingencies that shape our lives and our relations with others in unique ways. They give rise to specifiable duties that we all owe each other in ethical recognition of what it means to be human. Rights and obligations can also arise from the bonds of history, community, religion, culture, or nation. But if such rights relate simply to contingent features of human existence, they don’t constitute human rights and don’t merit a place on the international legal register. And if we owe each other duties for reasons other than our common humanity – say, because of friendship, kinship, or citizenship – then these duties don’t correspond to human rights and shouldn’t be identified as such by international legal instruments.

In recent years, political theorists have generated a distinctive account of the nature and role of human rights. Unlike most moral approaches, which focus on universal features of our common humanity, political conceptions define the nature of human rights in terms of their discursive function in global politics. Human rights, according to political conceptions, don’t necessarily correlate to the requirements of moral theory. Global human rights practice, for several political theorists, is a social practice whose participants invoke or rely on human rights as reasons for certain kinds of actions in certain circumstances. They represent reasons that social, political, and legal actors rely on in international arenas to advocate interfering in the internal affairs of a state and to provide assistance to states to promote their protection. What this practice reveals is that human rights protect urgent individual interests against certain predictable dangers associated with the exercise of sovereign power. States have a primary obligation to protect urgent interests of individuals over whom they exercise sovereign power, but external actors, such as other states and international institutions, have secondary obligations to secure protection when a state fails to live up to its responsibility.

Legal theorists of human rights, in contrast, typically start from the premise that international law, not moral theory or political practice, determines their existence. An international human right to food, for example, exists because the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights enshrines such a right. Its international legal status as a human right derives from the fact that international law, according to the principle pacta sunt servanda, provides that a treaty in force between two or more sovereign states is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith. Similarly, the right to development is a human right in international law because the UN General Assembly has declared its legal existence. The international legal validity of a norm – what makes it part of international law – rests on a relatively straightforward exercise in legal positivism; a norm possesses international legal validity if its enactment, promulgation, or specification is in accordance with more general rules that international law lays down for the creation of specific legal rights and obligations.

Determining the legal validity of an international human right is a relatively simple legal task. But legal validity doesn’t determine the normative purpose of a human right, and legal conceptions of human rights that seek to explain their purpose in terms that go beyond positivistic accounts of their legal production threaten to reintroduce moral and political considerations into the picture, which undermines the possibility that human rights can be understood in distinctly legal terms.

For example, human rights in international law are legal outcomes of deep political contestation over the international legal validity of the exercise of certain forms of power. Such contestation doesn’t cease upon the enactment of an international instrument that enshrines a human right in international law. Contestation continues over its nature and scope in particular contexts as diverse as individual or collective disputes requiring international legal resolution, opinions offered by international legal actors on state compliance with treaty obligations, juridical determinations of the boundaries between domestic and international legal spheres, and negotiations among state actors that yield binding or non-binding articulations of international legal obligations. Once transformed from political claim into legal right, and as subsequently as a result of interpretive acts that elaborate their nature and purpose, human rights in turn empower new political projects based on the rules they establish to govern the distribution and exercise of power. How to separate the legal dimensions of human rights from their political origins and outcomes is a challenge to those who seek to ascribe legitimacy to human rights in distinctively legal terms.

In my work, I seek to meet this challenge by defining the nature and purpose of human rights in terms of their capacity to promote a just international legal order. On this account, the mission of international human rights law is to mitigate the adverse effects of how international law deploys sovereignty as a legal entitlement to structure global political and economic realities into an international legal order. It contrasts this legal conception of international human rights with dominant moral conceptions that treat human rights as protecting universal features of what it means to be a human being. This account also takes issue with dominant political conceptions of international human rights, which focus on the function or role that human rights play in global political discourse. It demonstrates that human rights traditionally thought to lie at the margins of international human rights law – minority rights, indigenous rights, the right of self-determination, social rights, labour rights, and the right to development – are central to the normative architecture of the field.

Source: What are human rights? Moral, political, legal theory | OUPblog

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

Andrew Clapham: master and futurologist of human rights

December 4, 2015

At the occasion of the publication of the second (revised and updated) edition of Human Rights: A Very Short Introduction by Andrew Clapham, Professor of Public International Law (Oxford University Press), the Graduate Institute interviewed him, on 2 December,  about the climate and long-term outlook for human rights. Andrew Clapham will be teaching a Spring 2016 course on The International Framework for the Protection of Human Rights as part of the Graduate Institute’s Master and PhD programmes in International Law. The book has an accompanying website which links to the main texts discussed.

How should we understand the concept of “human rights”?

Andrew Clapham: I have heard serious people in Geneva refer to human rights as ‘aspirations’ and I have heard it said that human rights are a ‘soft subject’. Both these misconceptions should be knocked on their heads. Human rights belong to all individuals and not to some future utopia. If those rights are violated, it represents a violation of the law, not the disruption of a dream. Human rights treaties and customary law are as ‘hard’ as trade or investment law. There are courts and prosecutors. Those convicted of genocide or torture go to prison. States found in violation of human right pay out millions in compensation. Of course there are violations of the law but that does not make the rights themselves imaginary.

Andrew-Clapham.png

Where are the main failures in the protection of human rights in 2015, and what can be done about them?

Clearly there are egregious violations of human rights today. The right to life is being viciously violated in Syria; torture remains widespread in multiple countries; discrimination is everywhere; rights to food, education, health care and adequate housing are being denied around the world; but the human rights framework is used to frame the complaints about such issues and to design policies which prevent future violations. The failure to end the suffering in Syria sits with leaders who have the capacity to change things. The enforcement of human rights can play a role in prosecuting those who have committed crimes under human rights law and ensuring that everyone has the right to seek asylum.  The human rights framework can also be used to try to build a more stable and respectful society after the conflict

When is it justifiable for states to curtail or limit human rights?

Some rights, such as the right not to be tortured or the right not to be held in slavery can never be curtailed or limited; other rights related, say, to freedom of expression may have to be limited to protect the rights of others. Inciting racial violence is not protected by an absolute right to freedom of expression. Today, it is obvious that the right to privacy in one’s email correspondence is not absolute; it may have to be limited to protect others from threats to their lives through terrorist attacks. The discussion is over what procedures are necessary to limit such a right; should it be authorized by a judge, by the police, by a government minister?

Will we have a very different conception of human rights in 2065?

I doubt that any of the rights now included in the international texts will disappear, but their scope may be reduced or expanded. For example, there may be different expectations of privacy in 2065 – the right to be forgotten on the internet is only just emerging. In recent years we have seen new catalogues of rights for persons with disabilities and for indigenous peoples. I am confident that new rights for the elderly will be developed by 2065, and there will surely be developments along the lines of the right to a healthy environment. I suppose that eventually, some of the rights reasoning will be applied to sentient animals and the concept of animal rights will be more commonplace and less ‘aspirational’, but that is perhaps still quite a long way away.

Source: What will our “human rights” be in 2065?

Posted in books, human rights | 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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,