The Human Rights Council’s consideration of gender representation in UN treaty bodies and special mechanisms: Call to submit inputs for the report of the Advisory Committee on current levels of representation of women in human rights organs and mechanisms

On July 11, 2019, the Human Rights Council adopted Resolution A/HRC/41/L.6 on the “Elimination of all forms of discrimination against women and girls.” GQUAL, a global campaign to achieve gender parity in the composition of international tribunals and monitoring bodies, worked with the United Nations Working Group on Discrimination against Women (WG) and the Mission of Mexico in Geneva to develop language for this year’s Human Rights Council (HRC) resolution promoting gender balance in United Nations (UN) international bodies. GQUAL’s efforts were successfully translated in the Resolution which acknowledges for the first time that “women remain underrepresented … in United Nations bodies and mechanisms responsible for developing international human rights norms and standards and monitoring their implementation.”

Additionally, the Resolution calls upon States and encourages the UN and other international institutions to promote, inter alia, balanced gender representation in the membership of international bodies at all levels. In particular, the Resolution calls upon States to develop better procedures at the national level to take gender as a consideration for the appointment and election of candidates. Furthermore, it encourages States and the appropriate UN bodies, including the OHCHR, to deepen their efforts to promote women candidacies through the distribution of information on available vacancies, encouragement to women to put their names forward, and monitoring and reporting on progress in achieving balanced gender representation.

Furthermore, the Resolution instructs the HRC Advisory Committee to draft a report, in consultation with CEDAW and the WG, and including the input of States and other relevant stakeholders, to systematize good practices and recommendations for increasing gender representation in international bodies. As part of the first step towards the preparation of the report, the HRC Advisory Committee has posted a call for inputs and views, including a questionnaire on the issue for stakeholders to submit information.

The call for inputs and views, was released on September 12, 2019 and the deadline to submit is January 12, 2020. The questionnaire to facilitate the submission of inputs for the report is posted here.

Submissions and other information should be submitted to:

Secretariat of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee
OHCHR – United Nations Office at Geneva
CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
Fax: +41 22 917 9011

The Resolution and the call for inputs and views by the HRC Advisory Committee provide a unique opportunity for civil society, academia and other interested parties, to submit information and proposals that contribute to improve selection procedures and to realize women’s right to equality in UN bodies.

Also, please contact the GQUAL Campaign should you have an interest in supporting this report at

GQUAL Campaign: 2019 achievements on gender equality and opportunities for 2020

During 2019, GQUAL carried out a very extensive and successful agenda, which resulted in important gains for moving towards gender parity in international justice. Some highlights of our work are described below. For a full report of activities see here.

Launched in September 2015, GQUAL is a global campaign to achieve gender parity in the composition of international tribunals and monitoring bodies. Data available on GQUAL’s website shows that the underrepresentation of women continues to exist across almost all international bodies in charge of imparting international justice.

As part of its goal to develop international standards, as well as good practices for national and international selection procedures that include gender as criteria for the appointment and selection of candidates, GQUAL embarked in several successful initiatives that included:

Adoption of Human Rights’ Council Resolution

GQUAL worked with the UN Working Group on Discrimination against Women (WG) and the Mission of Mexico in Geneva to develop language for a Human Rights Council (HRC) resolution promoting gender balance in UN bodies. GQUAL’s efforts were successfully translated in Human Rights Council Resolution A/HRC/41/L.6 on the “Elimination of all forms of discrimination against women and girls.” This landmark resolution acknowledges for the first time the lack of gender balance in UN treaty bodies and special procedures, and calls upon States, the UN and other international organizations to promote gender balance in the composition of international organs at all levels. In particular, the Resolutions calls upon states to develop better procedures at the national level to take gender as a consideration for the appointment and election of candidates, and the OHCHR to deepen their efforts to promote women candidacies.

Additionally, the Resolution calls on the HRC Advisory Committee to draft a report, in consultation with CEDAW and the WG, and including the input of States and other relevant stakeholders, to systematize good practices and recommendations for increasing gender representation in international bodies. As part of the first step towards the preparation of the report, the HRC Advisory Committee has posted a call for inputs and views (now extended), which includes a questionnaire for stakeholders to submit information. This provides a unique opportunity for civil society, academia and other interested parties, to submit information and proposals that contribute to improve selection procedures and to realize women’s right to equality in UN bodies.

Adoption of OAS General Assembly Resolution on criteria for the selection of members of the IA Commission and Court

For the fourth straight year, in 2019 GQUAL proposed language and advocated for a resolution at the Organization for American States (OAS) addressing the need for selection procedures at the national and regional level for the appointment of judges at the Inter-American Court and members of the Commission. AG/RES. 2941 (XLIX-O/19) Resolution, approved by the OAS General Assembly in June 2019, underlines the need of achieving better gender balance in these bodies.

Briefings before the WG and CEDAW

Both the WG and CEDAW play a fundamental role in developing legal standards on the obligation to promote gender parity in international representation and monitoring State’s compliance with this obligation.

– In June 2019, GQUAL briefed the members of the WG on a research conducted by the Campaign regarding the WG’s practice on issues of parity and representation. Also, in the briefing, both parties explored avenues for collaboration.

– Additionally, in July 2019 GQUAL conducted a private briefing to the CEDAW Committee during its 73th sessions in Geneva. GQUAL presented the results of research conducted by the Campaign on the Committee’s jurisprudence regarding gender parity in international bodies and called on the Committee to develop standards under article 8 of the CEDAW Convention and issue recommendations to States.

Submission of position paper to the UN treaty bodies strengthening process

In April 2019, GQUAL submitted a position paper to the OHCHR as part of a call to provide inputs to the human rights treaty body strengthening process launched in 2014 through UN General Assembly Resolution 68/268. Inputs were sought to enrich the UN Secretary General report to be published in January 2020, in anticipation of the state review process starting in April 2020.

GQUAL’s position paper adds a unique focus on gender, by highlighting the importance of reviewing nomination and selection procedures and practices and adopting measures to achieve gender parity in the composition of human rights treaty bodies.

Participation in events

Additionally, to amplify knowledge and networks, in 2019 GQUAL participated in the following events:

Women Delivering Justice: Investing in Women Justice Professionals for the Achievement of the 2030 Agenda, side event during the Commission on the Status of Women (#CSW63) with IDLO and International Association of Women Judges Link to video
Event organized by the Commission of Judiciary and Political Affairs of the OAS to discuss good practices for the nomination and elections of members to the IACHR and Court and the text of a resolution to be discussed by the OAS General Assembly,
Gender Parity in UN human rights bodies and mechanisms, side event to the 41st Human Rights Council Session in Geneva, with the International Bar Association Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI), and Women@theTable.
Panel Discussion on Accelerating Gender Equality – 42nd Human Rights Council Session in Geneva. The panel discussion was part of a series of Meeting organized annually by the OHCHR. The objective of this session was to discuss the recently adopted HRC Resolution A/HRC/41/L.6, which addresses, inter alia, gender balance in international court and was promoted and drafted by the GQUAL Campaign.

2020 will be a busy year for the campaign. The HRC Resolution opened an important opportunity to develop guidelines and recommendations that can improve international selection processes and ensure that more women are nominated and elected. There will also be important elections both at the UN and at regional systems. We invite you all to check the upcoming elections here, and to contact us to learn more about our plans and actions.

CANCELLED: Call For Abstracts & Papers: 4th Annual “Revisiting The Role Of International Law In National Security” Workshop

Unfortunately, due to uncertainty around travel restrictions occasioned by the Covid-19 pandemic, this event will be cancelled this year. Stay tuned for 2021. 

JUNE 25, 2020

Cardozo Law School, New York City

Many conversations in the U.S. about situations of armed conflict – within civil society, academia, and the U.S. government – center on “national security law,” often drawing primarily from domestic law and military perspectives.  International law is sometimes set aside in these discussions.   This workshop aims to draw the international legal aspects of armed conflicts to the forefront of national security discussions.

The workshop, co-organized by the International Committee of the Red Cross’s Delegation in Washington, and faculty at Loyola Law School Los Angeles, Stanford Law School, and Cardozo School of Law, is for public international law scholars and practitioners.  It aims to drive discussions of public international law, including international humanitarian law, international human rights law and international criminal law, into conversations, in the U.S. in particular, on national security issues and situations of armed conflict. The organizers are particularly interested in discussing scholarship and ideas that seeks to bridge partisan political divides while addressing both the law and national interests.

The workshop will provide an opportunity for authors to have their works in progress critiqued by established experts in the field of IHL, and will provide a networking opportunity for participants.  The organizers ask only for papers that that have not yet been accepted for publication.

In addition to submissions to traditional US law reviews, participants might consider the possibility of publication in the ICRC’s International Committee of the Red Cross Review, which is seeking submissions for its upcoming editions.  The Review covers a wide variety of issues, and to the extent that there are paper topics that overlap with “revisiting the role of international law in national security” and upcoming Review topics, the organizers encourage these submissions. One upcoming Review topic is “Counter-terrorism and terrorism,” which is described in more detail below. The author would still need to submit the publication to the Editor of the Review for consideration.

We invite you to submit a detailed abstract or draft of an article for discussion.  A small number of papers will be selected for discussion at the workshop. Either draft papers OR abstracts may be submitted.

  • When:  June 25th, 2020 (full day)
  • Where:  Cardozo Law School, New York City
  • Submissions:  Please send your name, current affiliation, and paper proposal to Tracey Begley
  • Deadline for submissions:  April 1st, 2020

Co-organized by the International Committee of the Red Cross Delegation for the United States and Canada, and faculty at Loyola Law School Los Angeles, Stanford Law School and Cardozo Law School.

A limited amount of travel funds may be available.


Terrorism as a phenomenon is not limited to any one part of the world. It is a global phenomenon that, although it can occur in both wartime and peacetime, is often linked to armed conflict. Although there is no universal definition of “terrorism” under international law, international humanitarian law (IHL) prohibits acts which would be considered “terrorist” and acts or threats whose primary purpose is to spread terror among the civilian population. IHL also prohibits the underlying acts of attacks targeting the civilian population in both international and non-international armed conflicts. In response to the threat of terrorist attacks, States have undertaken numerous measures aimed at those that perpetrate them. While pursuing the legitimate aim of ensuring State security, counterterrorism measures can have a considerable impact on whether and how States fulfil their obligations under IHL. This issue of the Review will explore the issues like the so-called “foreign fighters”, the criminalization of aid, State, regional and UN counterterrorism sanctions, and partnered counter-terror operations, among others.

ICC Assembly of States Parties Symposium: Overall Update and Reflections & the Afghanistan Hearing

Guest Post By Jennifer Trahan, Clinical Professor, NYU Center for Global Affairs

ASP Photo 1

Members of Civil Society Organizations at the 2019 ICC Assembly of States Parties 

Milena Sterio has already blogged about two of the side-events held, and Valerie Oosterveld has provided an update on the progress made during various days of the ASP.  This blog post will provide an update on a few issues covered during the ASP, and on the hearings held simultaneously (December 4-6) at the International Criminal Court regarding the appeal of the rejection of the Prosecutor’s application to proceed with the Afghanistan investigation.  I was able to attend both the ASP as well as segments of the Afghanistan hearing, and also serve as an amicus on the Afghanistan appeal.

The ASP, chaired by ASP President Judge O-Gon Kwon, culminated in the adoption of seven resolutions by consensus on:  amendments to article 8 of the Rome Statute (adding starvation as a war crime when committed in non-international armed conflict), cooperation, the nomination and election of judges, the proposed programme budget for 2020, the remuneration of judges, review of the International Criminal Court and the Rome Statute system, and strengthening the International Criminal Court and the Assembly of States Parties (a/k/a the “omnibus resolution”).  The Assembly also elected six members of the Committee on Budget and Finance and a member to fill a vacancy, and a member of the Advisory Committee on nominations of judges.  In addition to the General Debate, there were thematic plenary sessions on cooperation and the review of the Court, and a large number of civil society and State Party-sponsored “side-events.”  (Press release, ICC-CPI-20191206-PR1505.)

The Review Process

One of the aspects that made this ASP different from past ASPs was the creation of a review process for review of the work of the Court and the Rome Statute system.  Calls for the creation of such a process came after the launch of politically-motivated attacks against the Court, as well as a motivation to strengthen certain aspects of the ICC’s work.  After many drafts this fall of the terms of reference for an independent expert review, it was determined that the review would focus on three areas: (1) governance, (2) judiciary, and (3) prosecution and investigation.  After submissions to the ASP President of nominations of the names of over 60 experts, President Kwon selected the final list of names, with three experts nominated under each category.  This list was then approved at the final ASP session.  This review process will run in parallel with certain review efforts to be addressed directly by the ASP.  There was debate both during the ASP about how the expert review would be implemented, and at least some concern that not all states necessarily seem to fully share the goal of strengthening the ICC.  It was noticeable that some states during the ASP and this past fall were calling for a “reform” process, whereas most agreed that the process was to be a “review” process aimed at strengthening the Court.  NGOs and States Parties have also undertaken to strengthen the process for the nomination and election of ICC judges, with some modest progress made in a resolution adopted on the topic.

 The Afghanistan hearing

ASP Photo 2

ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda addressing delegates at the ICC Assembly of States Parties 

Prosecutor Fatou Bensounda and ICC President Chile Eboe-Osuji had opened the ASP Plenary Session on December 2 with frank calls about the need to support the ICC as it faced politically-motivated attacks against its work, with the Prosecutor expressing her firm commitment to proceeding notwithstanding.  The timing was such that the ICC Appeals Chamber would simultaneously during the ASP conduct hearings on the appeal of the dismissal of the Prosecutor’s request that the Afghanistan preliminary examination proceed to the investigation phase.

The Pre-Trial Chamber had on April 12, 2019 determine that the Afghanistan preliminary examination met the grounds to proceed under Rome Statute Article 15—that there was a “reasonable basis to believe that the incidents underlying the [Prosecutor’s] [r]equest occurred” and “may constitute crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court” (Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorisation of an Investigation into the Situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan’ of 12 April 2019, para. 60).  Yet, the Pre-Trial Chamber notwithstanding held that it was not “in the interests of justice” under Rome Statute Article 53 (1) (c) to open the investigation based on the Pre-Trial Chamber’s de novo assessment of the application of that phrase (paras. 91-96).

The first day of the appeals hearing (December 4) focused on two procedural questions – whether “victims” had standing to be part of the appeal, and whether the appeal was one related to “jurisdiction.”  The second two days (December 5 and 6) focused on the merits of the argument—what the phrase “the interests of justice” was meant to address, and whether the Pre-Trial Chamber properly assessed the issue, and whether it properly construed the factors by which to evaluate application of the phrase.  This blog post won’t cover all the arguments, but on the day I attended (December 6), the amici present presented extremely persuasive cases that the Pre-Trial Chamber erred in its assessment, including a strong presentation by former US War Crimes Ambassador David Scheffer.

The Appeals Chamber’s ruling is extremely significant not only as to whether the Afghanistan investigation—involving alleged crimes by the Taliban, Afghan authorities, as well as US nationals—may proceed, but some of the criteria utilized by the Pre-Trial Chamber in evaluating whether to open the investigation represent extremely unworkable ones that potentially could jeopardize whether many of the ICC’s preliminary examinations are able to proceed.  Thus, the ruling has potential importance far beyond the Afghanistan situation.  I was privileged to submit a written amicus brief—as amici were asked to present either a brief or to present oral arguments.  All the written amicus submissions addressing “the interests of justice” agreed that the Pre-Trial Chamber had erred in its assessment.

The release of the annual report on Preliminary Examinations

While Valerie Oosterveld has already blogged about the Prosecutor’s release on Thursday, December 5, 2019, of her office’s annual Report on Preliminary Examination Activities, I will just note that the report has a new section covering “Phase 1” of Preliminary Examinations.  The Report (para. 23) explains that during “Phase 1”, the OTP analyzes all communications received pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute using the following criteria:

whether the allegations contained therein concerned: (i) matters which are manifestly outside of the jurisdiction of the Court; (ii) a situation already under preliminary examination; (iii) a situation already under investigation or forming the basis of a prosecution; or (iv) matters which are neither manifestly outside of the Court’s jurisdiction nor related to an existing preliminary examination, investigation or prosecution, and therefore warrant further factual and legal analysis by the Office.

This new section contains discussion of:  North Korea (dual nationals), North Korea (overseas laborers on the territories of States Parties), and Philippines (South China Sea).

At the Prosecutor’s accompanying briefing on Friday December 6, 2019, many representatives of States Parties and members of civil society were present.  Civil society members voiced several extremely heartfelt pleas for the OTP to make more progress in various of the situation countries.  While being sensitive to these interventions, the Prosecutor also explained the reality that the current budget and the limitations it imposes will force her office to “prioritize,” thereby delaying the OTP’s work in some situations.

 The impressive number and diversity of side-events & civil society engagement

While a few side-events have already been covered by prior blog posts, the sheer number of events (related to justice in Myanmar, Darfur, Syria, and many, many more) was extremely impressive.  My only regret was that (with the ASP shortened to 5 actual and 6 scheduled days), it was impossible to attend many of the side-events as a number occurred simultaneously.  The ASP has become quite a gathering place for civil society members from around the world and States Parties interested in advancing (through many different approaches) the pursuit of international justice as well as prosecution of core crimes within national court systems.

The participation of civil society in large numbers at each ASP is largely attributable to the tireless work of the Coalition for the International Criminal Court (“CICC”).  The CICC was ably convened this year by Melinda Reed as Acting Convenor following the retirement of William R. Pace.

The Rome Statute and Cyberwarfare

While many side-events deserve their own blog posts, I will call attention to one that addresses a relatively new area (for ICC followers at least).  It was a side-event held Monday December 2 entitled “The Application of the Rome Statute to Cyberwarfare:  The International Criminal Court’s Jurisdiction over the Crime of Aggression.”  The panel featured Stefan Barriga (Minister and Deputy Ambassador, Liechtenstein Embassy in Brussels) as moderator, and myself and Don Ferencz (Convenor of the Global Institute for the Prevention of Aggression) as panelists.  It was sponsored by Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Liechtenstein, and The Global Institute for the Prevention of Aggression.

The discussion focused on how a cyberattack (if it reached a certain threshold of gravity) could potentially be covered by the ICC’s crime of aggression, particularly if launched by a state actor, and how a cyberattack by a non-state actor potentially could be covered by Article 8 war crimes and Article 7 crimes against humanity.  These issues will be pursued further in meetings of the newly formed Council of Advisors on the Application of the Rome Statute to Cyberwarfare, co-sponsored by Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Estonia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Spain, Switzerland, and The Global Institute for the Prevention of Aggression, and Chaired by Ambassador Christian Wenaweser, Permanent Representative of Liechtenstein to the United Nations.  Focus on the application of the Rome Statute to cyberwarfare illustrates one of the ways that the Rome Statute is potentially broad enough to address new challenges and new forms of warfare, and presents an area that should be of interest to many states that are increasingly facing such attacks.  It might even persuade some States Parties that have not yet ratified the ICC crime of aggression amendment, to see it in a potentially new light.

 Challenges ahead

With a huge number of preliminary examinations and investigations, the ICC has much work facing it, and it will be a challenge how much can be accomplished both due to budgetary limitations but also a frequently hostile political landscape.  For example, when both the Philippines and Burundi withdrew from the Rome Statute, while those countries are supposed to have continuing obligations to cooperate with the ICC, for the OTP to move forward most certainly becomes much more difficult.  While the reasoning contained within the Pre-Trial Chamber’s decision dismissing the OTP’s request to proceed with the Afghanistan investigation seems weak, if the Appeals Chamber reverses the decision and the Court proceeds, there undoubtedly will be significant hurdles to face.  Yet, at the end of the day, that seems exactly what the Court was designed to do:  to pursue difficult cases, particularly against high-level accused, where national systems are unwilling or unable to do so—remembering that there is always the initial choice for national authorities to conduct their own investigations and/or prosecutions, obviating the need for the ICC to play any role.  Additional challenges will be to ensure that at the conclusion of the review process, the ICC and ASP ensure that recommendations designed to strengthen the Court are effectively implemented.

ICC Assembly of States Parties: Final Day


The International Criminal Court (ICC) Assembly of States Parties (ASP) finished on December 6 – a day early – with the amendment of article 8 of the Rome Statute to include the war crime of starvation in internal armed conflicts, the approval of the Court’s 2020 budget, and the adoption of a number of resolutions.

States unanimously adopted an amendment to article 8 of the Rome Statute to include starvation as a war crime in situations of non-international armed conflict. Switzerland proposed this amendment, which mirrors the offence already included in the Rome Statute as a war crime in international armed conflict. As described by Federica D’Alessandra, the adoption of this provision was the result of joint state-academic-civil society efforts over the past year.

On the final day of the ASP, states also approved a 2020 budget for the ICC of €145.62 million. This is both less than the Court’s request of €147.42 million, and also less than the recommendation of the Committee on Budget and Finance of €146.21 million. This amounts to a .41% increase, which effectively shrinks the Court’s budget when one considers recent inflation trends.

The ASP’s plenary approved a number of other resolutions on: the remuneration of ICC judges, cooperation, review of the procedure for the nomination and election of judges, review of the ICC and the Rome Statute system, and the annual omnibus resolution on strengthening the ICC and the ASP. This last resolution indicates that the ASP “reiterates its commitment to uphold and defend the principles and values enshrined in the Rome Statute and to preserve its integrity undeterred by any threats against the Court, its officials and those cooperating with it” and “renews its resolve to stand united against impunity”.

The final day saw a number of side events. For example, Australia, Sweden, the International Center for Transitional Justice and the International Nuremberg Principles Academy co-sponsored an event titled “Enhancing Prosecution: A Crucial Factor in Cooperation for Core International Crimes”. As well, Canada and MADRE co-sponsored a discussion on the “Aftermath of ISIL: Community Hearings for Gender-Based Violence Survivors and their Communities in Iraq”. Additionally, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Human Rights Watch, the Independent Investigative Mechanism (Myanmar) and International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism (Syria) co-sponsored “Turning challenges into opportunities: Rethinking UN and civil society cooperation towards accountability in Myanmar and Syria”.

The 2020 ASP will be an important one for shaping the future of the Court, with the election of the next Prosecutor and a number of new judges. Stay tuned a year from now with more IntLawGrrls coverage!

ICC Assembly of States Parties Symposium: Day Four

OTP Report on Preliminary Activities

Day Four of the International Criminal Court (ICC) Assembly of States Parties (ASP) saw a number of developments.

The ICC Prosecutor released her office’s annual Report on Preliminary Examination Activities today. The report details the preliminary examination activities carried out by the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) between December 2018 – November 2019 in relation to nine situations under consideration for possible investigation. During the reporting period, one preliminary examination – the situation in Bangladesh/Myanmar – was completed and authorization to investigate was granted on November 14, 2019. As well, the OTP appealed the April 2019 decision by Pre-Trial Chamber II rejecting the request of the Prosecutor to proceed with an investigation of the situation in Afghanistan. The Prosecutor also filed her reconsideration decision with respect to the referral brought by the Comoros, following the Appeals Chamber’s judgement.

During 2019, the OTP continued its preliminary examinations of the situations in Colombia, Guinea, Iraq/United Kingdom, Nigeria, Palestine, the Philippines, and Ukraine, all of which are now at the admissibility stage (complementarity and gravity), and in Venezuela, where the OTP is assessing subject-matter jurisdiction.  The OTP also received 795 communications pursuant to article 15 of the Rome Statute. Of these, 617 were found to be manifestly outside the jurisdiction of the Court.

The ICC ASP held a plenary session on the topic of “Inter-State and Inter-Institutional cooperation at the heart of cooperation challenges”. Both the Prosecutor and Registrar provided thoughts on this theme, pointing to the need for enhanced state cooperation, given – for example – the number of outstanding arrest warrants. The plenary session also heard from panelists, states and civil society organizations. NGOs called on the ASP to tackle non-cooperation and on States Parties to enter into voluntary cooperation agreements with the Court on witness relocation, interim and final release, and sentence enforcement.

The final consultation on the annual omnibus resolution – “Strengthening the International Criminal Court and the Assembly of States Parties” – was held today. It will be put before the plenary tomorrow. Negotiations also continued today on the ICC’s 2020 budget.

Among the many side-events held today was one focused on “Accountability for International Crimes Committed Against Ethnic Minorities in Myanmar: Discussing Complementary Avenues for Justice”, co-sponsored by Canada, Liechtenstein, the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, the Global Justice Center, the Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect, and the Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice. The event discussed the need for multiple forms of accountability to address Myanmar’s treatment of ethnic minorities – processes that will need to incorporate a strong gender perspective at every step. The panel considered how concurrent efforts at the ICC, the International Court of Justice, within third party states, and at the International Independent Mechanism for Myanmar need to act in a complementary manner in order to bring justice to the Rohingya and other minorities.

Day Five of the ICC ASP will see the introduction of draft resolutions to the plenary and a meeting of the Working Group on the budget.

ICC Assembly of States Parties Symposium: Between the 18th ICC ASP and the 71st Anniversary of the UDHR … Can hope rise again?

IntLawGrrls welcomes Ghuna Bdiwi, who contributes the post below directly from the International Criminal Court (ICC) Assembly of States Parties (ASP) in The Hague.

Ghuna BdiwiGhuna Bdiwi is a lawyer and a member of the UN Syrian Constitutional Committee as part of the experts and civil society group. She is a PhD candidate of international criminal law at Osgoode Hall Law School – York University. Ghuna is a delegate of the Canadian Partnership for International Justice to the 18th ICC ASP.

December seems to be a remarkable month for international justice. Two important milestones are taking place this month: the 71st Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the 18th ICC Assembly of States Parties. The former event is to be held on the 10th of December, to commemorate the fundamental principles that should apply to every human predicament. The UDHR affirms in its preamble some of the major principles that humans should not live without, providing that “the inherent dignity of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” The latter event is held every year by State Parties to the ICC to convene and discuss matters related to the advancement of the international criminal justice system. This system is meant to sustain one of the important foundations of human dignity, that is to guarantee justice. The ICC, to a large extent, blossomed to guarantee lasting respect for and the enforcement of international justice, and to ensure that human rights violations do not occur with impunity. The establishment of the ICC was a direct response to prior human suffering resulting from wars and human-caused humanitarian disasters.

In 2019, the picture shows that a number of countries around the world are speaking out against evidence of corruption within authoritarian governments, while demanding democracy, freedom, equality and dignity. We witnessed mass demonstrations in Egypt, whereby Egyptians defied their government. Protests, demanding the government’s resignation, have filled the roads in Lebanon. In Iraq, mass protests have taken place to end government corruption, economic mishandling of economic resources, and other social cavities like poverty, unemployment, and lack of essential public services. In Hong Kong, protests are in response to citizens’ struggle for freedom of expression, rights of autonomy and self-determination. In Iran, national demonstrations have also ensued. Citizens simply want to get rid of authoritarian regimes.

Yet, this picture reminds me of the Syrian uprising that began on March 15, 2011. Many Syrian revolutionists were optimistic to establish the country they had envisioned – a democratic state that secures respect of their humanity, dignity, freedom and the rule of law. Contrary to the expectations of Syrian revolutionists, the response to their demands included grave human rights violations. The responses amounted the infliction of torture, imprisonment, murder, extensive destruction and appropriation of properties, as well as widespread, systematic and indiscriminate targeting of civilians, schools and hospitals. According to Articles (7) and (8) of the ICC Rome Statute, the conduct listed above constitutes heinous international crimes – namely, war crimes and crimes against humanity. In response to state wrongdoing, calls to address and halt human rights violations have been heard loudly from a variety of voices; citizens, the international community, individual states, intergovernmental organizations, non-governmental organizations, practitioners, diplomats, scholars, and others. Despite the list of concerned voices, there have been limited responses. There is no doubt that the UDHR is a milestone document in the history of human rights, but, alone, it is not an adequate tool to respond to calls to protect innocent civilians and prevent the scourge of war.

The strongest response to human rights violations might be a military response, but it can cause severe repercussions. The case of Iraq illustrates this reality. In 2005, the US decided to militarily intervene, claiming its intervention would implement democracy and free the people of Iraq from Saddam Al-Hussein’s ruthless dictatorship, but the country remains in a state of unrest up to this moment.  In contrast, the Rome Statute of the ICC was created to guarantee and enforce legal – rather than militaristic – justice.

In the Syrian context, sadly, the death toll has reached approximately 600,000 people, nearly six million people are displaced outside the country, and approximately 600,000 people are reportedly missing. Despite these harrowing statistics, human rights law has been unable to provide them with adequate responses. If Syria was a State Party to the Rome Statute of the ICC, many perpetrators would likely be imprisoned by now, or at least fleeing from the hands of justice.

I might sound very optimistic, but it sounds to me that when we call for criminal accountability, our calls send a message to perpetrators that we know what they have done, and that they deserve to be prosecuted and punished. We tell them that we will hold them accountable whenever the circumstances allow for it. Calling for criminal accountability has value in itself; value that is beyond the values we generate from calling for human rights violations to be addressed. For example, calls for criminal accountability might deter government figures or make them think carefully before violating citizens’ rights. Think about the range of states mentioned above, which are witnessing recent demonstrations and demanding that governments step down: none of these countries have ratified the Rome Statute. I argue that, if those countries were Parties to the Rome Statutes, government reactions to citizen’s demands would take on an entirely different form, which is enough of a reason to justify the importance of the ICC.

Of course, the ICC faces many critics related to its efficiency, selectivity and financial cost, but let’s not forget that it is still in its childhood. Let’s try to be optimistic that the ICC will be one day be able to fulfil its promise to guarantee lasting respect, enforce justice, and prevent impunity.

This blogpost and the author’s attendance to the 18th ICC ASP are supported by the Canadian Partnership for International Justice, funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.






ICC Assembly of States Parties Symposium: Economic Acts as Criminal Acts

Throughout the 18th ICC Assembly of States Parties, IntLawGrrls is welcoming members of the Canadian Partnership for International Justice as guest bloggers, reporting directly from The Hague. Today, IntLawGrrls welcomes Morgane Greco, an International Studies Master’s degree student from University of Montreal.

MorganeMorgane holds a Bachelor of Public Law and a Bachelor of Political Science from Lyon II University in France. Thanks to the ERASMUS+ Program, Morgane also spent one semester in Nicosia at the University of Cyprus, where she studied the Cypriot post-conflict society. She is currently articling at the United Nations’ Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict in New York and writing a Master’s thesis about sexual violence in the Eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Morgane’s post discusses a December 3rd side-event on “The prosecution of economic and financial crimes: towards an extension of the ICC’s jurisdiction?”. Organized by the

Side-Event Dec 3

(Twitter @AFP-CU)

Association française pour la promotion de la compétence universelle, it featured Mr. Oliver Windridge, lawyer and senior advisor for the UK-based organization The Sentry; Ms. Suncana Roksandic Vidicka, assistant professor at Zagreb University; and Mr. Richard J. Rogers, lawyer and founding partner of the organization Global Diligence. Ms. Elise Le Gall and Laureen Bokanda Masson, attorneys-at-law at the Association française, moderated the discussion.

Panelists addressed whether goals of international law and justice can be achieved if serious and widespread economic criminal acts occurring in pre-conflict, conflict or post-conflict contexts are not prosecuted. They also discussed whether serious economic criminal offences can constitute crimes under international criminal law, and what would be the most appropriate economic offence(s) to be considered as crime(s) under international law.

Grand corruption is a threat to world peace and security…

Definitions of grand corruption

According to Transparency International, grand corruption is “one of the great unresolved legal challenges of our day.” In the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC)’s foreword, the Former United Nations Secretary General, Mr. Kofi Annan defined corruption as “an insidious plague that has a wide range of corrosive effects on societies.” It undermines democracy and the rule of law, leads to violations of human rights, distorts markets, erodes the quality of life and enables organized crime, terrorism and other threats to human security. The UNCAC’s foreword also explains that corruption is a key element in economic underperformance, and a major obstacle to poverty alleviation and economic development. Transparency International stresses that grand corruption corresponds to the abuse of high-level power that benefits the few at the expense of the many. The Sentry also defines the term of grand corruption as “a broad range of offenses, including bribery, embezzlement, trading in influence, misappropriation of state funds, illicit enrichment, and abuse of office committed by high-level public officials or senior officers of state-owned entities.”

At the side-event, Mr. Richard J. Rogers precised that such corrupted states are “kleptocracies”, which means, according to the Cambridge Dictionnary, “a society whose leaders make themselves rich and powerful by stealing from the rest of the people”. This definition entirely corresponds to Mr. Rogers’ words, who explained that such states tend to be involved in national and international networks aiming at moving money around and getting wealthier, while the population lives in poor conditions. Ms. Suncana Roksandic Vidicka further explained that grand corruption cannot be characterized as a Third World phenomenon, because the problem is global, depending often on multinational corporations that knowingly exploit, support and profit from kleptocracy, often making huge off-the book payments to corrupt leaders in exchange for deals granting access to natural resources or arms markets.

Characteristics of grand corruption white-collar crime

Grand corruption works thanks to deeply developed national and international networks, and is facilitated by new technologies of information and communication. Such white-collar crimes cause serious and widespread harm to individuals and societies, and also often goes unpunished. Ms. Suncana Roksandic Vidicka pointed out that some companies and business groups are way richer than states, making them highly powerful actors. In its 2011 report titled “The rule of law and transitional justice in conflict and post-conflict societies” the UN Secretary-General explained that transnational organized crime is often rooted in conflict and post-conflict settings, constituting an emerging threat to peace and security, development and the rule of law. Moreover, as Ms. Vidicka enlightened, global corruption is also allowing warlord to sustain longer on power.

… partly responsible for conflict-related sexual violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo…

 With 80 million hectares of arable land and over 1,100 listed minerals and precious metals, the Democratic Republic of the Congo has the potential of becoming one of the richest economic powers on the continent, and a driver of African growth. Nevertheless, the reality is drastically different. This is the paradox of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

A state rich in natural resources

As mentioned by the Enough Project report, the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s natural wealth reaches an estimated $24 trillion. Yet, the country has been plagued with armed conflict, political violence, and grand corruption for decades. Serious human rights violations are symptoms of Congo’s long tradition of violent kleptocratic regimes that have repressed civilians and hijacked the state for personal wealth and power purposes. Four minerals have fueled and continue to help sustain armed violence in Congo. During former President Joseph Kabila’s tenure, up to $4 billion per year went missing or were stolen due to the manipulation of mining contracts, budgets, and state assets. This follows the trend set by many Congolese officials through history, including King Leopold and the Belgian colonial authorities, Mobutu Sese Seko, and Joseph Kabila’s father Laurent Desire. These leaders’ international partners have also significantly benefited from this corruption.

One of the poorest countries in the world

In September 2019, the International Monetary Fund had qualified the DRC as one of the poorest countries in the world despite a large endowment of natural resources, while reminding that it has been prone to violent conflict over the years. Throughout the first decade of the 2000s, armed conflict and sexual violence in DRC were increasingly linked to exploitation and trade in “conflict minerals.” In 2000, the United Nations Security Council authorized the establishment of an “Expert Panel” to investigate the links between “illegal exploitation of natural resources” and armed conflict. As Professor Séverine Autesserre argues, such preoccupations with conflict mining and sexual violence became woven into a single narrative of the DRC conflict as caused by “the illegal exploitation of natural resources,” the most significant consequence of which was the “sexual abuse against women and girls.” While mining can be identified as one of the main causes of the Congolese conflict, it should be reminded that this situation is complex and cannot be limited to mineral resources only.

… and should be prosecuted at national and international levels.

At the ASP side-event, all panelists raised important questions related to the prosecution of white-collar crimes. They outlined the existing mechanisms addressing grand corruption and pointed at specific issues hindering the effective prosecution of economic and financial crimes.

Existing mechanisms addressing grand corruption

Some international regulating organizations already exist to deal with these delicate issues: we can cite as an example the organization Financial Action Task Force, which fight money laundering and financing terrorism, pursuant to the 2005 UN Convention Against Corruption.

States have also created mechanisms to address the issue. The United States Department of the Treasury or United Kingdom sanction regime can also target those responsible for human rights violations and corruption. National law enforcement can play a great role, as in the United Kingdom, where account freezing orders can be delivered to stop money from being transferred between accounts.

The difficult prosecution of severe economic and financial crimes

According to Mr. Richard J. Rogers, kleptocrats, understood as leaders who makes themselves rich and powerful by stealing from the rest of the people, fear to get in court if they lose power. While kleptocrats are in power, judges and prosecutors can be reluctant to carry judicial proceedings against them as the judicial body is often corrupted as well.

Ms. Suncana Roksandic Vidicka explained that a majority of illicit operations and economic and financial crimes are only prosecuted at national level. She cited some cases about corporate responsibility in war crimes, such as Khulumani (United States), Sanader (Croatia), Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum (United States), Lafarge (France), Lundi Petroleum (Sweden), and Guus Kouwenhoven (Netherlands). The assistant professor also pointed out that national authorities can interfere in proceedings carried out at the national level, thus hindering the effective prosecution of these crimes.


As emphasized by Ms. Suncana Roksandic Vidicka, corruption is used by state officials to hold on to power. These officials are more likely to be prosecuted when they lose power, as illustrated by the case of former Sudan leader Oman Al-Bashir. In order to hold more individuals in power accountable for those crimes, and to break the illicit networks, civil society needs to advocate for corporate transparency before pressure groups such as the African Union and the European Union. Additionally, the civil society have to push for prosecution both at national, regional and international levels. To that end, Ms. Suncana Roksandic Vidicka presented some proposals of economic and financial offences that could eventually become part and parcel of international law. Such acts could notably constitute serious violations of the 1966 International Covenant on Economics, Social and Cultural Rights, crimes against future generations, economic oppression, indigenous spoliation, illegal enrichment, or grand corruption.

Lawyer Mr. Olivier Windridge seeks accountability for all crimes that have economic and financial aspects. According to him, the world needs a first successful case dealing with economic and financial crimes, at international level. In that respect, fighting white collar crimes before the ICC would be a great step ahead.

 The author’s attendance at the 18th Assembly of States Parties to the International Criminal Court is supported by the Canadian Partnership for International Justice and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.


ICC Assembly of States Parties Symposium: Day Three

ASP photo

Photo credit: CICC

The agenda for Day Three of the International Criminal Court (ICC) Assembly of States Parties (ASP) included discussions on the 2020 ICC budget, a plenary session on the theme of “Review of the Court” and informal consultations on the annual omnibus resolution, “Strengthening the International Criminal Court and the Assembly of States Parties”.

The budget discussions are always challenging, as the Court is caught between increasing demands for more investigations and prosecutions, and the concerns of states paying assessed contributions to cover the budget. For 2020, the Court is proposing a budget increase of 1.6 per cent over the 2019 budget (€148 million). The Committee on Budget and Finance is recommending a 2020 budget increase of 0.81 per cent. Day Three saw presentations by the ICC Registrar, Peter Lewis, and the Chair of the Committee on Budget and Finance, Mr. Hitoshi Kozaki of Japan. Audit reports were then considered, and consultations followed. Budget consultations among states will continue throughout the week.

The plenary session on “Review of the Court” included statements by the ICC President, Prosecutor and Registrar on the performance of their respective organs, followed by seventeen states and four representatives of civil society. States welcomed the establishment of an Independent Expert Review body to consider and report in 2020 on ways in which the Rome Statute system can be improved. Civil society representatives called for the review process to be transparent and inclusive.

States continued consultations on the omnibus resolution.

It was another busy day for side-events at the ICC ASP, which covered diverse themes. Topics included the rights of indigent detainees to family visits, the war crime of starvation, head of state immunities, the role of European states in strengthening the Rome Statute system, the challenges of pursuing universal ratification, the protection and participation of victims, and the value of a harm-based and victim-centered approach to reparative justice. Events also considered the situations in Colombia, South Sudan, Iraq, and Guinea.

Tomorrow, Day Four will continue with a discussion on cooperation and continued consultations on the omnibus resolution.

ICC Assembly of States Parties Symposium: A Recap of Two Excellent Side Events

As a delegate of the Public International Law and Policy Group, I recently attended the 18th Assembly of States Parties (ASP) to the International Criminal Court (ICC).  In addition to general debates among states parties regarding issues such as funding, election of new judges, and the general well-being of the court, various interesting side events took place, sponsored by states and NGOs.  This post will briefly highlight two such side events – the first on The Hague Principles on Sexual Violence, and the second on Timing and Duration of Decision-Making at the ICC.

The first side event, “The Hague Principles on Sexual Violence – Translating the lived experience of sexual violence survivors into law and policy,” was sponsored by Women’s Initiative for Gender Justice (WIGJ) and by Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Finland, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, the Republic of Korea, Romania, Senegal, Slovenia, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and Uruguay.

The panel was moderated by Melinda Reed from WIGJ, and panelists included Fatou Bensouda, Prosecutor of the ICC, Patricia Sellers, Special Advisor on Gender to the Office of the Prosecutor, Toufah Jallow, Toufah Foundation, Wayne Jordash, Global Rights Compliance, and Howard Morrison, ICC Judge.  Opening remarks were delivered by the Swedish Director-General for Legal Affairs, H.E., Mr. Carl Magnus Nesser, and closing remarks were delivered by the Ambassador of Australia to the Netherlands, H.E. Mr. Matthew Neuhaus.  Prosecutor Bensouda briefly spoke about her office’s efforts in prosecuting sexual violence offenders, and she emphasized the importance of the Ntaganda case, and this defendant’s conviction for crimes of sexual violence.  Judge Morrison spoke about the difficulty of prosecuting and judging cases involving survivors of sexual violence, who may be unwilling to come forward and testify because of their culture and/or because of the inherent necessity of reliving the trauma which court testimony would entail.  Special Advisor Seller highlighted the importance of case law in understanding how to prosecute future crimes of sexual violence, and Wayne Jordash described some of the difficulties associated with the international prosecution of crimes of sexual violence, as well as the failure to prosecute sexual crimes in the Lubanga cases.  The most poignant moments of this panel, however, included remarks by Toufah Jallow, a young Gambian woman who recently came forward and accused the former Gambian president of rape and sexual violence.  Ms. Jallow, who presently lives in Canada, spoke candidly about the assault, violence, and rape which she suffered at the hands of the then-Gambian president, who, according to Ms. Jallow, used sexual violence against her in order to punish her because she had rejected his offer of employment.  Ms. Jallow emphasized the necessity to use concrete language when describing circumstances of sexual assault, as well as the need to overcome cultural barriers and speak out against rape and sexual assault.  Ms. Jallow described how her own mother, who still lives in the Gambia, presently needed security, and how her mother may still believe that “a good African woman is supposed to remain silent” – event if subjected to rape and sexual violence.  Ms. Jallow confirmed that she has already testified before the Gambian national truth commission, where she has repeated the same accusation against the former president.  Finally, Ms. Jallow urged everyone to consider survivors of sexual violence as activists, and not simply as victims.

Finally, several panelists spoke about The Hague Principles on Sexual Violence, which can be found here: 

According to some of the panelists, these Principles will hopefully become an important tool in prosecuting crimes of sexual violence.

The second side event, “It’s about time – revising the timing and duration of decision-making at the ICC,” was sponsored by the Wayamo Foundation and Austria, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and the United Kingdom.  Speakers included Christian Wenaweser, Permanent Representative of Lichtenstein to the United Nations, Elizabeth Evenson, Associate Director, Human Rights Watch, Lorraine Smith Van Lin, Post-conflict justice advisor, REDRESS, Shehzad Charania, Director of the UK Attorney General’s Office and International Law Advisor to the Prime Minister’s Office, and Mark Kersten, Senior Consultant, Wayamo Foundation, as moderator.  Panelists addressed the ICC’s perceived inefficiency – the court’s seemingly long disposition of various investigations and cases.  The panelists acknowledged that the ICC has handled a relatively small number of cases since its inception, and that some investigations and cases have taken a long time.  At the same time, the panelists nuanced these remarks by noting that the court was an international adjudicative body with a wide mandate and complex cases, and that because of these unique characteristics, the ICC could not be easily compared to a domestic jurisdiction which may handle cases much more speedily.  The panelists also warned that efficiency should not trump due process rights and that cutting corners within investigations, for the sake of speeding up proceedings, would not be a desirable result.

In addition to the above-described events, this year’s ASP will feature dozens of equally fascinating side events and more general debate among states parties.  Stay tuned.