Bolivia’s Maritime Claim before the ICJ

It is our pleasure to welcome back Elizabeth Santalla as today’s blogger.  Elizabeth reports the following regarding Bolivia’s maritime claim before the International Court of Justice:

On 24 April 2013, Bolivia instituted proceedings before the International Court of Justice requesting that the Court adjudge and declare, in general terms, the existence of an international obligation on the part of Chile to negotiate in good faith and effectively sovereign access to the sea for Bolivia. The issue has been a longstanding thorn in bilateral relations between the countries. The way Bolivia lost its access to the sea, as a result of a treaty signed to put an end to a the “War of the Pacific” and under the pressure of continuing Chilean  military occupation, has created feelings of unfairness embedded in Bolivian generations since then. Leaving to one side one unsuccessful attempt to bring the claim to an international judicial forum (in the context of the League of Nations) in 1920, Bolivia’s recent move is a departure from the traditional approach of fruitless diplomatic conversations and negotiations.

My blog post on the topic for the Peace Palace Library is available here.  

Introducing Hope Elizabeth May

May-150x150We are delighted today to welcome Hope Elizabeth May as an IntLawGrrls contributor.  Hope is Professor of Philosophy at Central Michigan University, where she directs its Center for Professional and Personal Ethics. She earned her J.D. degree after first earning her Ph.D. in philosophy.   After her studies in law, she worked as a Visiting Professional in the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. 

Hope is passionate about the importance of public education to the “Peace Through Law” project, and to that end, creates innovative educational activities aimed at exposing the story and history of International Law to a broader audience than lawyers and the legal academy.  These activities include A Grotian Moment (celebrating the 10 year anniversary of the International Criminal Court), Piece of the Palace (celebrating the Centenary of the Peace Palace), and, celebrating the role of women in peacebuilding and international law: Pro Concordia Labor and The Bertha von Suttner Project. Additionally, Dr. May has developed the first study abroad course (based in Leiden and The Hague) for U.S. undergraduates that focuses solely on the International Criminal Court, the United States, and The Hague Tradition. Her deep interest in the power and importance of education about these subjects underlies her innovative educational projects on these topics.

Hope is also a member of the Board of Directors of the International Criminal Court Student Network, and is on the Council of Advisors of the Global Institute of the Prevention of Aggression.  Her latest book is Aristotle’s Ethics: Moral Development and Human Nature (Continuum 2010).

Hope’s introductory post today discusses the centenary of the Peace Palace and advocates for a paradigm shift in discourse around international justice.

Teachable Moments, Grotian Moment: May 18 and The Peace Palace Centenary

  international_court_of_justice600Within the field of psychology, a revolutionary paradigm shift known as ‘positive psychology’ is redirecting the attention of researchers to the positive.  Shifting away from the lugubrious ‘DSM IV mindset’ which focuses on disease and illness, the new paradigm turns instead towards inspiring stories of human flourishing.  In the new paradigm, focus on e.g., the connection between addiction and poverty is replaced by a focus on character traits – such as resilience and optimism – that have enabled some to transcend their inauspicious conditions.  The time is ripe for discourse on International Justice (IJ) to experience a similar paradigm shift.

Naturally, discourse on IJ tends to be dominated by stories of atrocity.  IJ is concerned with the development and implementation of mechanisms (criminal prosecutions, truth commissions) aimed at redressing state sponsored horrors.  The hope is that these mechanisms can help to heal the wounds inflicted by such outrageous harms and, ultimately, construct a substantive notion of human dignity that is realized both in state practice and in  ‘the small places close to home’.  It is in this domain that we encounter the meme of ‘Truth and Memory’ (T/M).   In its present mode, IJ tends to interpret T/M through a narrow lens, focusing on the abuses, violations and the public’s understanding of these harms.  T/M initiatives are concerned with deepening the public’s understanding (Memory) by preserving and communicating (Truth) about human rights violations, usually via state-sponsored truth commissions.

As important as it is to note, name and record such violations, it is imperative for IJ to link its concern with Truth and Memory to positive stories of accomplishment and hope.  A rich source of inspiration for IJ is the 19th century peace movement which led to the Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907.  Why?  These conferences marked the first time that the international community and an organized, mobilized public worked together to build an international institution aimed at ending war: The Permanent Court of Arbitration.  This achievement was so extraordinary that Andrew Carnegie, a private U.S. citizen, donated 1.5 million dollars to give, in his words, this ‘High Court of Humanity’ a proper, symbolic home.  Known today as ‘The Peace Palace’, this poignant symbol of optimism and faith in humanity is located at 2 Carnegieplein (Carnegie Place) in The Hague, Netherlands.  Unfortunately, few people know this story.  Consequently, few understand this story about how the U.S. government worked with the private sector and with educators to realize –for a moment- the pacifist vision behind the 1899 Hague Peace Conference.  Nor is it widely known that the 1899 Hague Peace Conference was so momentous to the U.S. that it inspired a state-sponsored program of peace education.  Inspiring stories such as these should be part of our ‘collective memory’ for they, too, have a role to play in fostering true healing and, possibly, the construction of a substantive notion of human dignity that is realized in both state practice and in the small places close to home.

Continue reading

Ashgate Companion Symposium: Drumbl on “The Future of International Criminal Law and Transitional Justice”

drumblmDelighted to welcome Mark A. DrumblClass of 1975 Alumni Professor of Law & Director of the Transnational Law Institute at Washington and Lee University School of Law for this guest post*

Only I never saw another butterfly.
That one was the last one.
Butterflies don’t live here,
In the ghetto.[1]

A teenager, Pavel Friedmann, penned these poignant words while captive in the Terezin ghetto near Prague. Friedmann later perished in a Nazi concentration camp, along with 15,000 other Jewish children from Terezin. Friedmann knew he was being grievously wronged: his poetry makes that clear. But never would he have expected that his tormentors would come to face legal sanction. Moral condemnation, certainly, but courts of morality are for the afterlife. They are not courts of law for the worldly.

Friedmann’s suffering – along with that of millions of others – did motivate the creation of courts of law to condemn Nazi barbarity. These tribunals, principally situated in Nuremberg, were neither global nor permanent. But their work proved foundational.

The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg (IMT) famously held that: ‘Crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced.’ At the time, the IMT meant to dispel the argument made by defendants that they were not guilty because they served merely as powerless cogs in an abstract criminal state. The IMT battled to ensure that personal responsibility would not be obscured by the muck and murk of the anonymity of collective violence. Continue reading

Torture in Kenya: Ending Impunity by Speaking the Victims’ Truth

kenya flagMy heartfelt thanks to IntLawGrrls for the opportunity to contribute this introductory post.

This month, the Committee against Torture will meet in Geneva to conduct a review of Kenya’s progress in meeting its obligations under the Convention against Torture (UNCAT). I worked with Physicians for Human Rights to submit an alternative report in April on Kenya’s efforts to comply with UNCAT. The report highlights Kenya’s inability to address torture stemming from unchecked gang activity, its failure to stop the torture of domestic violence, and its de facto acquiescence to torture in the form of female genital mutilation.

Kenya submitted a report describing its own progress and challenges faced in ending torture. Other nongovernmental organizations submitted reports about Kenya’s efforts to address the insidious, destructive problem of torture within its borders. The independent observations of NGOs are central to the UNCAT reporting process, offering alternative perspectives to the self-serving reports submitted by the states.

PHR, while largely known for its cutting-edge forensic work exposing human rights abuses, is also home to the Asylum Program. The Asylum Program is a unique model that provides direct services to asylum seekers while advocating for improved conditions in immigration detention centers and documenting human rights abuses suffered by immigrants. To document torture suffered by asylum seekers in their home countries, the Asylum Program pairs volunteer physicians and mental health experts with asylum seekers in the U.S. The medical professionals perform evaluations, prepare affidavits based on those evaluations, and submit the affidavits along with the asylum seekers’ applications, providing medical documentation to support claims of torture and abuse.

In writing the report to the Committee on behalf of PHR, I read all the medical affidavits for asylum seekers from Kenya since 2008, written by professionals affiliated with the Asylum Program. (2008 was the last time Kenya participated in the reporting process to the Committee; the Committee had been requesting a report from Kenya for each of the preceding nine years, and the country finally complied for the first time in 2008).

The affidavits make up a stark narrative of torture and ill-treatment suffered by Kenyans at the hands of the mungiki, a criminal gang that has terrorized the country with impunity for decades. Rape, genital mutilation, and beheadings characterize its violence. Despite its status as an illegal organization, Kenya has been powerless to put a stop to the mungiki’s torture and has even harmed innocent civilians in its efforts to address mungiki violence. The government allegedly formed a secret police force to kill members of the mungiki on sight. When Kenyan activists began to investigate these extrajudicial killings, the police then began targeting the activists to silence their investigations. Staff of human rights organizations faced threats and beatings from police for their work in exposing the execution-style murders of suspected mungiki members.

Continue reading

Introducing Sari Long

sari bio picSari Long is a third year law student at Northeastern University School of Law in Boston. A proud Minnesota native, Sari graduated from McGill University with a Bachelor’s degree in Anthropology and Religious Studies and from Harvard University with a Master’s degree in Management. She was a Peace Corps Volunteer in Turkmenistan and has worked for a wide variety of human and civil rights organizations, including Physicians for Human Rights, ABA Rule of Law Initiative in Tajikistan, and the Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. Sari is the co-founder and Development Director of the Arzuw Foundation, an organization dedicated to providing educational opportunities to young people from Turkmenistan. After graduation from Northeastern this spring, Sari will pursue a career in immigration law in the Washington, D.C. area.  Her introductory post today focuses in the issue of torture in Kenya, arising her work with Physicians for Human Rights. Heartfelt welcome!

Ashgate Companion Symposium: DiBella on Equality of Arms in International Criminal Law

SCHABAS JKT(250X172)pathWe are delighted to welcome Amy DiBella for this guest post. Amy is a defence lawyer based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. She wrote her chapter in the Ashgate Research Companion to International Criminal Law: Critical Perspectives with Charles C. Jalloh, Assistant Professor at the University of Pittsburgh. 

In our chapter, “Equality of Arms in International Criminal Law: Continuing Challenges”, we considered the meaning of equality of arms and how is it implemented in international criminal law.

The analysis reveals the disparity between the theory and practice. Although the principle evokes a broad evaluation of fairness, in practice, it is “a lofty goal … applied feebly”. The chapter offers multiple examples of courts shying away from equality and instead embracing a more conservative interpretation of the principle. Rather than require equal resources, the legal principle has been interpreted to require no substantial disadvantage, an adequate opportunity or sufficient time.  Following a brief discussion of the link between equality of arms and the public trial guarantee, the chapter considers how equality of arms is more than a trial right; it is an expansive institutional entitlement which relates to the structural independence of the defence offices. Continue reading

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,025 other followers