Month: June 2016

Transitional Justice: What is the role of law in bringing imaginative and imaginary peace to Colombia?

/ Kristin Bergtora Sandvik / Leave a comment

This blog post is based on a reflection presented at the “Transitional Justice as Legal Field, Site and Imagination” panel at the Transnational Law Summer Institute, Kings College, London June 29, 2016. I am grateful to Prabha Kotiswaran and Peer Zumbansen for the invitation.  

What is the role of law in bringing imaginative and imaginary peace to Colombia?

June 23 2016 was described by Colombian and international media as the “last day of the war”, adopting FARC’s hashtag #ElÚltimoDíaDeLaGuerra. The signing of a bilateral ceasefire between the Colombian government and FARC formally ended hostilities in the world’s longest running war. The signing of a peace agreement is expected to take place during the summer of 2016.

To the overlapping academic fields of human rights, transitional justice and post-conflict reconstruction, the sophisticated Colombian transitional justice process is attractive and will likely be highly influential for the coming decade, both as an example of success and of failure. There is also a significant risk that scholars (outside Colombia) will embrace the Colombian experience either deterministically — as an example of systemic yet de-historicized power imbalances — or as a fantastical  and outsized legal progress narrative that can serve as an endless source of political models, constitutional processes and legal arguments suitable for embellishing the transitional justice juggernaut.

My argument in the following is based on one big supposition: I will put forward the idea that approached from a law and social change perspective, the Colombian transitional justice project is necessarily a failure foreseen.

“Everybody” knows that positive peace is not going to happen through legislation, decisions by a progressive Colombia Constitutional Court or the signing of a formal agreement. This Everybody also knows that if positive peace happens, it will not happen soon.  At the same time, it is easy to imagine that a year from now, politicians, ordinary Colombians, pundits and academics will dismiss the transitional justice legislation and the peace agreement as partial or total failures for their inability to perform the impossible expected by the Everybody; namely ending violence, providing reparations and changing the structural inequality that is the source of much of the violence.

However, I think that precisely at this juncture, as a community professionally engaged in the business of imagining peace and transitional justice, we need to reflect on what the critical takeaways from and beyond this failure foreseen could be. We may find that imagined and imaginative outcomes turn out to be imaginary. But this is not enough, it’s not even a starting point. We need to go beyond that.

Hence, after briefly describing the Colombian peace process, I will map out three sets of issues that could serve as tentative points of departure for critical reflection. This includes:

  • How we can gauge the meaning of the Colombian transitional justice process for Colombian citizenry, citizenship and the state;
  • The implications of Colombia being both outlaw and legal outlier for how we consider the role and place of the law in creating durable peace;
  • A first attempt to think through some of the general lessons Colombia can have for transitional justice practice and scholarship.

Peace and conflict as statecraft

The armed conflict between the government and FARC began in 1964. Separate negotiations have previously led to the demobilization of smaller guerillas (MAQL, M-19; EPL) and an agenda for formal negotiations has now been agreed with ELN.  However, Colombia has been at war or seen violent societal conflict for most of the time since the late 1890s. Colombian peace processes and attempts at political, legal and land reform are a fixture of Colombian statecraft. The last round of peace talks with FARC ended with fiasco in 2002. From 2003 president Uribe engaged in a much-criticized effort to demobilize the paramilitary AUC, with a basis in the 2005 Justice and Peace Law. Despite its shortcomings, it must be remembered that this framework has provided a platform for the current process.

Continue reading →

AALS International Human Rights Section Call for Papers

/ Milena Sterio / Leave a comment

The AALS International Human Rights Section is sponsoring two different Calls for Papers at the 2017 AALS Annual Meeting.  Submission details for both Calls for Papers are available below:

CALL FOR PAPERS
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS
SECTION PANEL
2016 AALS ANNUAL MEETING
January 3-7, 2017, San Francisco, CA

The AALS Section on International Human Rights is pleased to announce that it will sponsor a call for papers for its program during the 2017 AALS Annual Meeting in San Francisco, CA. The program will be called Human Rights Outside the West. It will take place during the Annual Meeting, which is scheduled for January 3-7, 2017. We anticipate selecting up to two speakers from this call for papers to present their work during our Section’s program.

Continue reading →

Call for Proposals: Emerging Voices at ILW 2016

/ Beth Van Schaack / Leave a comment

International Law Weekend 2016: International Law 5.0

Call for Proposals for Emerging Voices Panel

 

International Law Weekend 2016 (ILW 2016) calls on scholars and practitioners to address the accelerating nature of change in international law. From technological advances to environmental transformations, international lawyers are forced to confront emerging forces and new scenarios. Even once settled principles of law are no longer so settled. These tectonic shifts have been felt throughout the geography of international law. Legal professionals at every level – local, national, regional, and international – must change their practice to meet a changing world. Innovation will become necessary for survival.

Emerging Voices Submissions

ABILA invites the submission of abstracts on these issues from emerging scholars and practitioners in the field of international law.  We will select several abstracts for presentation at ILW 2016 as part of a panel of new professionals. The abstracts may be based upon ongoing work. While all submissions are welcome, preference will be given to papers not already published. Eligibility is restricted to applicants working in the field of international law for five years or less. Applicants should be ABILA members at the time of the conference.  (To join ABILA, please visit: http://www.ila-americanbranch.org/Membership.aspx.)

Submission Guidelines

Applicants must submit: (1) a 500-700 word abstract of their paper; (2) a cover letter describing their professional development; and (3) a curriculum vitae. The submission deadline is July 31, 2016. Submissions should be sent to conferences@ilsa.org with the subject line “Emerging Voices – ILW 2016.” Questions may also be submitted to: conferences@ilsa.org.

Submissions will be competitively selected in a peer review process.  Applicants will be notified by August 31, 2016.

ILW 2016 is scheduled for October 27-29, 2016 in New York City and will be held at Fordham Law School. Accepted applicants will be invited to present their papers at the Emerging Voices panel, which will be chaired by a senior scholar or practitioner. Accepted applicants will be required to pay for their own travel and lodging. However, their registration fees for ILW 2016 will be waived.

Dean Rusk and the dissent channel

/ Diane Marie Amann / Leave a comment
March 18, 1967. Afternoon. Secretary of State Dean Rusk conducts a briefing on Vietnam for state governors in the Fish Room of the White House.

At White House, with President Lyndon B. Johnson in attendance, US Secretary of State Dean Rusk briefs US governors on the US-Vietnam War. The briefing took place March 18, 1967, not long before Rusk set up a “dissent channel” for State Department diplomats frustrated by US foreign policy. (photo credit)

 

In my current role as leader of the 38-year-old Dean Rusk International Law Center at the University of Georgia School of Law, I tend to take a close look at any reference to our Center’s namesake, Dean Rusk, who served as the only Secretary of State to Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson.

And so it is with the US diplomatic topic du mois, the “dissent channel” at the Department of State.

This channel is much in the news these days, on account of a Page 1 New York Times story leaking a dissent-channel letter by 51 diplomats at State who want more use of force in Syria than President Barack Obama to date has authorized. (Worth-reading questions about the “leak” here.) And then there was yesterday’s Times story by Ellen Barry, about a dissent-channel “Blood Letter” that forestalled career advancement for the eponymous letter-writing diplomat.

Quite a surprise, amid all this, to read this explanation of the dissent channel, in a transcript of the June 17 Daily Press Briefing by a State Department spokesperson:

“This procedure, this vehicle has been in place since Secretary of State Dean Rusk was in office in 1971.”

Why a surprise? Because by 1971, Rusk was regaling Georgia Law students as the revered Sibley Professor of International Law.

At the briefing, an unnamed reporter took immediate issue with the spokesperson’s account:

QUESTION: And just – can we be clear about when it actually began? Because Rusk, I think, was gone by ’69 when the Nixon Administration came in. So I don’t think he was Secretary of State in 1971, but I could certainly be mistaken.

[ANSWER]: I think it was 1971 and —

QUESTION: Okay.

[ANSWER]: — my reading of the history said that Rusk had something to do with it. But I’m not going to quibble with you —

QUESTION: No, no.

[ANSWER]: — over the history of the program.

Uncharacteristic of these kind of transcripts, the spokesperson’s assertion is supported by a footnote [1]. It says only “William P. Rogers.” That’s the name of the man who became Secretary of State in 1969, after Rusk left government service for the last time. But a quick look at Rusk’s bio on the Department’s site would have confirmed the premise of the reporter’s question.

So what’s right, and wrong?

On the small point of timing, the spokesperson is wrong. But on the larger point of establishing a channel for dissent, unique among the world’s diplomatic services, the account is spot on. To quote a memorial published the year that Rusk died, in the Department’s own publication, Dispatch:

Dean Rusk left his mark not only on the nation and the world, but also on the Department of State as an institution. At a time of tremendous domestic social change, he encouraged minorities and women to enter the Foreign Service. He established the Dissent Channel and the Open Forum to give members of the Department alternative ways to make their foreign policy views known.

 

(Cross-posted from our Center’s Exchange of Notes blog)

What will Brexit Mean for Britain’s Foreign Trade Relations?

/ Andrea M. Ewart, Esq. / 2 Comments

As I write this, we are probably just now beginning to absorb the reality that Britain has voted to leave the European Union. Along with this realization come a number of questions.

Brexit text with British and Eu flags illustration

There are no answers in this piece – only questions. Here are two issues uppermost in my mind:

Brexit Impact on Trade Relations with the US

For the past 40 years, transatlantic trade relations have been viewed and developed through the prism of two powerful trading blocs on either side of the ocean. US-EU trade has occupied about 30% of global trade.

What place has US-UK (British) trade occupied? In 2016, Germany was the top US trade partner in Europe (4.6% of overall US trade). Britain was second among EU countries (2.1%). Also in the top 15 US trade partners were France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Belgium. How will these figures affect US calculations going forward?

The United States and the European Union are currently negotiating the TransAtlantic Trade & Investment Partnership (T-TIP) Agreement. T-TIP negotiations are aimed at further cementing US-EU trade ties. Already low tariffs will be eliminated. Divergent rules and standards on the two sides of the ocean will be harmonized and standardized.

  • Will Britain choose to participate in the ongoing T-TIP negotiations?
  • If so, on what terms will Britain want to participate?
  • Will Britain be allowed to set the terms for its participation?
  • How will the EU and the US react?
  • Will the US be willing to negotiate separately with Britain?
  • Will T-TIP negotiations have to be suspended while they figure this out?

Brexit Impact on Trade Relations with Britain’s Former Colonies

Britain’s trade relations with its former colonies have also been shaped through the prism of its membership in the EU. Supporters of the “leave” Brexit vote may be waxing nostalgic for the days when the “sun never set on the British Empire”. (The Spanish Empire first held this title until most of its colonies in the Americas fought for and won their independence in the early 19th century.)

By the early 20th century, the British Empire comprised one-fifth of the world’s population and a quarter of the Earth’s total land area. Belgium, France, Germany, and the Netherlands were the other major European colonial powers.

After attaining political independence over the course of the 1960s and 1970s, the former colonies established the African Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP). The Cotonou Agreements, otherwise known as the “ACP-EC Partnership Agreement” set the framework for trade relations between the EU and the 79 ACP members. And the ACP-EU framework is the prism through which Britain has shaped its trade relations with its former colonies in Africa, the Caribbean, and the Pacific.

Currently, these relations have focused around negotiation and implementation of Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) with seven (7) regions. EPAs are replacing the unilateral access for a limited range of goods by ACP countries to EU markets with reciprocal access in goods and services. EPAs also include provisions for development cooperation and assistance to help countries make these transitions. Continue reading →

Go On! Adjudicating International Trade and Investment Disputes: Between Interaction and Isolation

/ Cecilia Marcela Bailliet / Leave a comment

The PluriCourts Centre of Excellence at the University of Oslo will host a two day conference on international trade and investment disputes.

The conference will take place on Thursday and Friday, August 25-26 at the Faculty of Law, University of Oslo, Norway.

The webpage with the final programme and registration information is available here.

For more information, please contact: Daniel Behn, PluriCourts (d.f.behn@jus.uio.no)

 

 

The conference will focus on the relationship, interactions and comparisons between the international trade and investment regimes in the context of adjudication of disputes.

 

The conference will present research from the disciplines of law and political science relating to three themes:

 

1) the new mega-regionals

2) comparisons and practices

3) cross-fertilization and learning

 

Historically, the global regulation of international trade and investment relations have been closely interrelated; but in the post-war period, international trade law and international investment law developed on largely divergent paths. While international trade regulation has culminated in a multilateral regime with a permanent dispute settlement mechanism, the international regulation of foreign direct investment is primarily governed by 3500 essentially bilateral treaty relationships calling for ad hoc investor – state arbitration potentially to be hosted by a variety of international institutions. Despite these seemingly distinct structures, there is a recent trend that some say signal a move towards regime convergence: most clearly seen in the rise of mega-regional free trade agreements (FTAs) with investment chapters.

 

This potential convergence may be deceiving, however. The investment chapters of FTAs remain separate from the rest of the agreements and provide for distinct rules and procedures on dispute settlement. Moreover, issues of overlap between trade chapters and investment chapters have not been resolved, which means that the same case could possibly be raised simultaneously in two separate disputes under the same FTA. Legal disputes based on investment chapters in FTAs to date (ie under the NAFTA and DR-CAFTA) appear to interpret the investment protection chapters as standalone agreements with little or no reference to other sections of the FTAs.

Despite the limitations to integration that this new generation of trade and investment agreements may represent, there are other areas of interaction between the trade and investment regimes that could provide better evidence of a gradual move towards cohesion. This conference will look at the development of the new mega-regionals, but also the ways (or lack thereof) that the trade and investment regimes share practices and cross-fertilize. Below you will find the conference programme.

 

Conference program:

 

Adjudicating international trade and investment disputes: between interaction and isolation

 

Thursday, August 25

 

9:00 – 9:15

Welcome and introduction to the conference

 

Daniel Behn, Ole Kristian Fauchald, Geir Ulfstein and Michelle Zang, PluriCourts

 

9:15 – 10:30

The new mega-regionals

 

The mega-regionals: innovation versus imitation?

Manfred Elsig, World Trade Institute

 

Envisioning a model role for mega-regionals in international economic law

Tania Voon, University of Melbourne

 

10:45 – 12:30

The new mega-regionals – paper presentations

Chair and discussant: Jose Alvarez, New York University

 

International trade law in China: from paternalism to partnership

Greg Shaffer, University of California – Irvine

 

The scope of investment protection under newly negotiated FTAs: piecemeal reaction or serious reassessment?

Kate Parlett, 20 Essex Street

 

Participatory aspects of investor-state dispute settlement in the EU ‘new wave’ trade agreements

Joanna Jemielniak and Gunes Ünüvar, University of Copenhagen

 

The creeping multilateralization of investment dispute resolution under EU trade and investment agreements

Hannes Lenk, University of Gothenburg

 

1:15 – 3:00

The new investment court proposal – panel debate and discussion

Moderators: Daniel Behn and Malcolm Langford, PluriCourts

 

Completion of the legal analysis by the WTO appellate body – lessons for an appeal tribunal of an international investment court

Nicholas Lamp, Queens University

 

The Appellate Body of the WTO: obiter dicta, judicial economy, interpretation and the ban on adding obligations or diminishing rights

Lothar Ehring, DG Trade

 

Debate: Debating the pros and cons of the new EU investment court proposal

Julie Maupin, Max Planck Institute

Nikos Lavranos, EFILA

 

3:15 – 4:00

Cross-fertilization and learning

 

Converging divergences: a common law of international economic relations

Sunjoon Cho, Chicago-Kent College of Law

 

4:15 – 6:00

Cross-fertilization and learning – paper presentations

Chair and discussant: Laurence Boisson de Chazournes, University of Geneva

 

Cross-fertilization between the international trade and investment regimes

Markus Wagner, University of Warwick

 

Judicial interaction between trade and investment adjudication: theoretical foundation and empirical constraints

Michelle Zang, PluriCourts

 

Entry rights and investment in services: convergence between regimes?

Murilo Otavio Lubambo de Melo, University College London

 

The driving forces of the convergence of WTO dispute settlement mechanism and international investment arbitration

Fenghua Li, Renmin University of China

 

7:00

Dinner for speakers

Introduction: Geir Ulfstein, PluriCourts

 

The multiplicity of international courts and tribunals: factors of convergence and divergence

Georges Abi-Saab, Graduate Institute

 

Friday, August 26

 

9:15 – 10:30

Comparisons and practices

 

Comparative judicial practices: comparing dissent practices in the trade and investment regimes

Jeff Dunoff and Mark Pollack, Temple University

 

Comparing the East African and Caribbean Courts of Justice: explaining judicial behavior

Theresa Squatrito, PluriCourts

 

10:45 – 12:30

Comparisons and practices – paper presentations

Chair and discussant: J. Christopher Thomas, National University of Singapore

 

Do different treaty purposes matter for the interpretation of WTO agreements and investment agreements

Graham Cook, World Trade Organization

 

The use of public international law sources in WTO dispute settlement (with a side glance to the approach taken by investment tribunals)

Vitaliy Pogoretskyy, Advisory Centre on WTO law

 

Approaches to external precedent: invocation of international decisions in investment arbitration and WTO dispute settlement

Niccolo Ridi, King’s College London

 

Sharing interpretive functions between states and tribunals

Yuliya Chernykh, University of Oslo

 

1:30 – 2:45 Roundtable discussion – between isolation and interaction?

Moderator: Ole Kristian Fauchald, PluriCourts

 

Georges Abi-Saab, Graduate Institute

Jose Alvarez, New York University

Laurence Boisson de Chazournes, University of Geneva

Giorgio Sacerdoti, Bocconi University

  1. Christopher Thomas, National University of Singapore

 

3:00 – 4:45

Comparisons and practices – paper presentations

Chair and discussant: Giorgio Sacerdoti, Bocconi University

 

Regime shifting of IPR law-making and enforcement to international investment law

James Gathii and Cynthia Ho, Loyola University Chicago

 

On the interchangeability of trade and investment disputes: potential risks and opportunities

Andreas Ziegler, University of Lausanne

 

Adjudicating performance requirements disputes: blurring lines of trade and investment dispute settlement

Julien Chaisse, Chinese University of Hong Kong

 

Can a court’s function adequately explain the exercise of inherent powers: a comparison of the powers of the WTO Appellate Body and ICSID tribunals

Ridhi Kabra, University of Cambridge

 

Conference Organizers:

Daniel Behn, Postdoctoral Researcher, PluriCourts

Ole Kristian Fauchald, Professor of Law, PluriCourts

Geir Ulfstein, Professor of Law and Co-Director, PluriCourts

Michelle Zang, Postdoctoral Researcher, PluriCourts

 

ICC Office of Prosecutor invites public comment on draft Policy on Children

/ Diane Marie Amann / 1 Comment

draftpolicyIt is my great honor to note today’s release for public comment of the draft Policy on Children of the International Criminal Court Office of the Prosecutor.

Since my December 2012 appointment as Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda’s Special Adviser on Children in and affected by Armed Conflict, I’ve had the privilege of helping to convene consultations and taking part in the construction of this draft Policy. As part of that process, as noted on page 11 of the draft, we at the Dean Rusk International Law Center, University of Georgia School of Law, were honored in October 2014 to host the Prosecutor, members of her staff, and nearly 2 dozen other experts from academic, nongovernmental groups, and intergovernmental organizations. Our “Children & International Criminal Justice” conference featured a morning public plenary and Prosecutor’s keynote (pictured below), followed by an afternoon of closed-door breakout sessions. (Proceedings from that event, to appear in our Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law, are nearing publication.)

Addressed in the draft Policy, which spans 37 pages, are:

► Overarching concerns, such as the nature of a child and childhood, the experiences of children in armed conflict and other contexts within the jurisdiction of the ICC, and how the Rome Statute of the ICC and other documents treat crimes against and affecting children; and

► Practical concerns, such as how the Office of the Prosecutor engages with children, in all aspects of its work, including preliminary examination, investigation, charging, prosecution, sentencing, reparations, and external relations.

As stated in the press release accompanying today’s publication:

In highlighting the importance of the Policy, Prosecutor Bensouda stated: “when I assumed 8_events2the role of Prosecutor in June 2012, one of the principal goals I set for the Office was to ensure that we pay particular attention not only to ‘children with arms’, but also ‘children affected by arms.’ This Policy demonstrates our firm commitment to closing the impunity gap for crimes against or affecting children, and adopting a child-sensitive approach in all aspects of our work bearing in mind their rights and best interests. It is also our hope that the Policy, once adopted, will serve as a useful guide to national authorities in their efforts to address crimes against children.”

The Office welcomes public comment on the draft. Such comments should be e-mailed to OTPLegalAdvisorySection@icc-cpi.int, no later than Friday, August 5, 2016.

Following revisions based on the comments, the Office of the Prosecutor expects to publish the final Policy on Children in November of this year.

(Cross-posted from Diane Marie Amann)

Look On! WILIG International Law Networking Breakfast

/ Osazenoriuwa Ebose / Leave a comment

Please join us for the annual WILIG International Law Networking Breakfast.

Wednesday, June 22, 2016
TIME: 8:30-10:30 AM

ASIL Headquarters, Tillar House (2223 Massachusetts Avenue, NW)

This breakfast roundtable conversation, sponsored by the Women in International Law Interest Group (WILIG) of ASIL, features accomplished professionals with experience working in international law, including at NGOs, law firms, international tribunals, and government. They will discuss their career paths and offer professional advice and insights for women interested in pursuing careers in international law. The facilitated conversation will be followed by a Q&A and networking opportunities among the panelists and participants.

PANELISTS:
• Marinn Carlson, Partner, Sidley Austin

• Christina Giffin, Assistant Deputy Chief, Human Rights & Special Prosecutions Section, Department of Justice

• Fanny Gomez-Lugo, Human Rights Specialist, Rapporteurship for the Rights of LGTBI Persons, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights

• Catherine Rivkin, Special Counsel to the General Counsel at U.S. Department of Defense

• Rita Siemion, International Legal Counsel, Human Rights First

Registration is open through June 20, and is limited to the first 75 participants.

Cost is $10 for ASIL members, $15 for non-members.
Please register at: https://www.asil.org/event-list

This event will be recorded and posted on ASIL’s website following the event.

We hope to see you there.

Best,

Shana Tabak & Tracy Roosevelt
WILIG Co-Chairs

The Orlando Attacks and LGBTI Rights

/ Melanie Bejzyk / Leave a comment
Photo credit: Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG). Paying tribute to the victims of the Orlando attacks.

Photo credit: Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG). Paying tribute to the victims of the Orlando attacks.

 

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex (LGBTI) communities and their allies around the world are rallying together to express their solidarity and sadness following the shootings in Orlando, Florida. In the early morning of June 12, a gun man opened fire in a night club popular in the LGBTI community, leaving at least 49 people dead and over 50 wounded. A large proportion of the victims were people of color, particularly those from the Latino community.

The brutal reality is that these deaths are only the most recent in a long list of documented abuses and killings of LGBTI individuals globally. Many studies have reported incidences of murder, physical abuse, including sexual assault, beatings, stabbings, kidnappings, and psychological harm, such as coercion or threats inflicted on account of a person’s actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity and/or gender expression. (See for example the 2011 report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘Discriminatory Laws and Practices and Acts of Violence against Individuals Based on their Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity’ and the 2014 ‘Overview of Violence Against LGBT Persons’ of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Rapporteur on the Rights of LGBTI Persons.)

A common thread involving many attacks against LGBTI individuals is their particular brutality in comparison with other bias-motivated violence, more often demonstrating severe cruelty, such as mutilation. This conduct is perpetrated by private actors, including members of the family and community, but also by state agents.

The attacks in Orlando are a stark reminder that there is no place in the world where LGBTI people are free from discrimination and violence. Human rights violations against LGBTI people occur in a host of settings, including detention facilities, medical institutions, the home, the community and other public places. Spaces claimed as LGBTI-friendly continue to be especially vulnerable targets of hatred, harassment and violence.

Entrenched laws and policies, many rooted in British colonial legislation and maintained by post-colonial regimes, reinforce the stigmatization, discrimination and violence against members of this community. Intimate, consensual same-gender relations between adults are still criminalized in over 70 countries, with penal sanctions that include the death penalty in several countries.  A host of laws prescribe acceptable gender identity and/or gender expression by prohibiting behaviour, including imitating the appearance of the opposite sex. In some instances, laws of general application, such as prostitution or indecency, are used to sanction people solely on the basis of their perceived sexual orientation and/or gender identity. The intolerance and prejudice perpetuated by such provisions may be bolstered by prevailing social, cultural and religious norms debasing those who fail to comply with hetero-normative behaviours and societal-imposed binary perceptions of male and female. The stigmatizing legacy can endure long after anti-LGBTI laws have been repealed.   Continue reading →

Introducing Melanie Bejzyk

/ Karen Hoffmann / Leave a comment

bio photoIt’s our great pleasure today to introduce Melanie Bejzyk as an IntLawGrrls contributor. Melanie is a Canadian lawyer and a Master’s candidate in public international law at the University of Oxford. Her current research and teaching interests focus on international human rights law, in particular sexual orientation, gender identity and the law. She has lectured at the Faculties of Law and Social Sciences at the University of Ottawa, and the Norwegian Centre for Human Rights at the University of Oslo. She has also conducted diversity and awareness training on sexual orientation and gender identity for law enforcement agencies, human resource professionals and government officials in Canada.

Melanie previously served as a Legal Officer in the UN, Human Rights and Humanitarian Law Section and the Criminal, Security and Diplomatic Law Division of the Legal Affairs Bureau of Global Affairs Canada. She holds a Juris Doctor from the University of British Columbia and an LL.M from the University of Ottawa. She was called to the Ontario Bar in 2006, after interning at the Legal Resources Centre in Johannesburg and clerking at the Federal Court of Canada.

Melanie’s first post will discuss the recent attack in Orlando in the context of LGBTI human rights violations worldwide. Heartfelt welcome!