Launching a Global Campaign Against Gender Apartheid in Afghanistan

Three items to share on this, the one-year anniversary of the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan:

Register and attend what promises to be a riveting discussion on Global Strategies for Countering Gender Apartheid in Afghanistan on Friday 19 August 2022, with courageous Afghan women human rights defenders like Shaharzad Akbar and Zarqa Yaftali and international partners like the University of Michigan’s Professor Karima Bennoune and Human Rights Watch’s Heather Barr. Register here.

View filmmaker Ramita Navai’s documentary Afghanistan Undercover, about which noted interviewer Terry Gross of the program Fresh Air remarked in her interview with Navai: “I feel like the world isn’t watching as carefully anymore. And your documentary was a wake-up call to me. . . . things have gotten so dire for women there.”

Read Professor Bennoune’s powerful analysis The Best Way to Mark the Anniversary of Taliban Takeover? Launch a Global Campaign Against Gender Apartheid in Afghanistan, which explains why “it is critical to commit to a more effective and principled global response, and to do so by recognizing this grave set of abuses for exactly what it is: gender apartheid.”

Time to act, UN Human Rights Committee

Afghanistan, which ratified the ICCPR in 1983, was last reviewed by the UN Human Rights Committee in 1995 – and it was a truncated review at that. The Afghan head of delegation was unable to be present due to delays en route, so the Chair suspended the review that had barely begun, saying that consideration of the report would be resumed at a subsequent meeting.

No subsequent review has ever taken place. Instead, there has been one postponement after another, as shown by the timeline below.  Why the neglect by the premier human rights treaty body authorized to monitor compliance with civil and political rights?  

Prompted by concerns we heard from Afghan women human rights defenders and Afghan human rights defenders more broadly, three of us wrote to the Human Rights Committee last week urging them to schedule a review of Afghanistan without further delay: Felice Gaer, Former Vice Chairperson and member, Committee against Torture, and Director, Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights; Karima Bennoune, Professor of Law, University of Michigan, and immediate past UN Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights; and yours truly, Stephanie Farrior, professor of international law for 30 years and past Legal Director of Amnesty International. We await a response. The Committee has reportedly already set its calendar of reviews for the next several years. If a review of Afghanistan is not already scheduled, it should be, and without yet more delay.  

Afghanistan has seen significant political turmoil in the years since that partial Committee review held in 1995 – from the Taliban, to the Karzai government after the US invasion and now, back to the Taliban, which is not recognized by the United Nations as the official representative of Afghanistan. This has not prevented other UN human rights treaty bodies from holding a review of the implementation of their treaty in Afghanistan (see below).

The Human Rights Committee did schedule review of Afghanistan for March 2000, but the government requested and received a postponement.  

The review was next scheduled to take place in October 2001, and in the preceding session in May, the Committee developed its “List of issues prior to reporting.” However, the events of 9/11 intervened, and the Committee decided “to postpone review of implementation of the Covenant in Afghanistan to a later and more favorable date.” A concern expressed in that meeting by the late Sir Nigel Rodley and shared by other Committee members at the time was that their statement postponing the review “should not be interpreted in such a way as to suggest that the Committee will henceforth no longer consider the reports of States Parties in which an armed conflict is taking place.” Christine Chanet added that the presence of armed conflict does not only not prevent consideration of a state party, but it actually “adds to the concerns of the Committee.”

It was not until a decade later, in July 2011, that a review of Afghanistan was once again on the table, when the Human Rights Committee announced it would develop a “List of issues prior to reporting” at its July 2012 session.  It did indeed adopt a list of issues at that 2012 session, but in the ensuing ten years, no review of implementation of the Covenant in Afghanistan was ever scheduled or held.

Today, the human rights situation in Afghanistan is dire. For women and girls, as a journalist quoted in Amnesty International’s recent report has stated, “it’s death in slow motion.” For some, it’s more than one can bear. According to UN News: “The situation for women is so desperate in Afghanistan that they are committing suicide at a rate of one or two every day, the Human Rights Council has heard.”

In light of the dire situation in Afghanistan, the Human Rights Committee could take action and schedule a long overdue review of the civil and political rights situation there. The Committee’s Rule of Procedure 70 allows for review of a state party in the absence of a report. In this case, the last report submitted by Afghanistan could be updated with the significant body of information documented by UNAMA, the UN Special Rapporteur on Afghanistan, and human rights NGOs.  In addition, Afghan human rights defenders are keen to submit shadow reports. They are also keen to see every human rights mechanism engaged to the extent possible, to keep up international attention and pressure.

In a situation where the de facto entity in control of a state’s territory is not a recognized government, the Committee could nonetheless follow normal procedures and send an invitation to participate in a review to the office of the Permanent Mission of Afghanistan in New York. The UN-recognized (former) government officials could attend, present an oral (or written) report – or not. It should be noted that Rule of Procedure 68.2 allows for consideration of a report if the state party does not send a representative.   

The timeline below shows year after year after year of postponements of a review of Afghanistan by the Human Rights Committee. Other treaty bodies have engaged in periodic reviews of Afghanistan in the years when the Human Rights Committee was not scheduling a review, most recently the Committee against Torture in 2017-2018, and CEDAW in both 2016 and 2020.

It is time for the UN Human Rights Committee to re-engage, and schedule a review as soon as possible, given the critical situation there and the importance of continued international scrutiny. The record of neglect by the Human Rights Committee means that there has been no authoritative analysis of the implementation of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in Afghanistan for 27 years. The Committee should correct this situation promptly.  

October 1991: Afghanistan submitted 2nd periodic report to the UN Human Rights Committee. 

October 1995: Committee began review of the 2nd report, but soon suspended the review due to the absence of the head of delegation caused by travel delays. “The Chairman said that consideration of the report of Afghanistan would be resumed at a subsequent meeting,” and the Committee requested the Government of Afghanistan to submit information updating the report before 31 May 1996 for consideration at” its session in July 1996.  No additional information was received.

The next mention of Afghanistan in Summary Records after October 1995:

October 1999: The Committee invited Afghanistan to present its report at its March 2000 session. The State party asked for a postponement.

November 1999:  The Committee discussed and adopted a list of issues to be taken up in connection with the consideration of the second periodic report of Afghanistan.  Materials used in the preparation of the list included the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan and a report by Amnesty International on the situation of women in Afghanistan.

May 2001: The Committee decided to consider the situation of Afghanistan during its session in October/November 2001, applying Rule of Procedure 68.2, which allows for consideration of a report if the state does not send a representative.

October 2001: The Committee decided to postpone consideration of Afghanistan to a later date, “pending consolidation of the new Government.” “The Committee has very serious concerns regarding the implementation of the provisions of the Covenant in Afghanistan, particularly with regard to the situation of women in Afghanistan, public and extrajudicial executions, and religious intolerance. . . . Despite the fact that, with the current situation of armed conflict in Afghanistan, other serious concerns concerning the protection of the rights guaranteed by the Covenant have been added, the Committee considers that reviewing the report would not be productive in the current situation. [The Chairman] has therefore decided to postpone consideration of the report to a later and more favorable date for the purposes of article 40 of the Covenant.”

Continued postponements: In succeeding annual reports, the Committee duly recorded the previous postponements, but never scheduled a review:

A/58/40(Vol.I)    2002-2003

A/59/40(Vol.I)    2003-2004

A/60/40(Vol.I)    2004-2005

A/61/40(Vol.I)    2005-2006

A/62/40(Vol.I)    2006-2007

A/63/40(Vol.I)    2007-2008

A/64/40(Vol.I)    2008-2009

A/65/40(Vol.I)    2009-2010

A/66/40(Vol.I)    2010-2011

May 2011: “Afghanistan accepted the new optional procedure on focused reports based on replies to the list of issues prior to reporting. It is thus waiting for the Committee to adopt a list of issues prior to reporting.”

July 2011:  The Committee report notes: “The timetable for consideration of reports posted on the Committee website would . . . take account of the States parties for which a list of issues prior to reporting was to be adopted in July 2012, namely Afghanistan, Croatia, Israel, San Marino and New Zealand.”

July 2012:  The Committee adopted a list of issues prior to reporting on Afghanistan with a deadline of 31 October 2013 for its response. In the Committee’s July 2012 LOIPR includes the following  “Please provide any other information on measures taken to disseminate and implement the Committee’s previous recommendations (CCPR/C/AFG/CO/2), including any necessary statistical data.”

For those interested in seeing what those previous recommendations were: Per the UN Library Services, “despite the fact that document CCPR/C/AFG/Q/3 clearly mentions CCPR/C/AFG/CO/2, this document symbol is not recorded in any other source or index and according to the historical research above, the second report issued in 1992 was never fully considered – so no formal documented outcome must have been issued.”

Over the ten years that have passed since it adopted the list of issues, the Human Rights Committee has never reviewed implementation of the Covenant in Afghanistan.

2013-2014: The Annual Report notes the Committee’s adoption of a list of issues prior to reporting on Afghanistan with a deadline of 31 October 2013 for its response. “This report has still not been received.”

Note: The Human Rights Committee’s Rule of Procedure 70 allows for consideration of a State Party in the absence of a report.

2014-2019: The next five Annual Reports of the Human Rights Committee stop giving the prior history of postponed reviews, and only mention Afghanistan in the list of states that are 10 or more years overdue in submitting a report.

There is no further mention of Afghanistan in Annual Reports or Summary Records.

Solidarity Activism in a time of Unpeace

For inspiration from amazing women who work for solidarity actions to assist the dis-empowered and vulnerable persons, including refugees, minorities, persons subjected to solitary confinement, and victims of atrocity crimes seeking truth, please see the video from the 2022 ASIL Roundtable including Noura Erakat, Maha Hillal, Azadeh Shashahani, Nia Houston, chaired by Cecilia Bailliet. The video is available here

A Judge for Humankind Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade

The recognition of a global shift in international affairs is marked by the passing of Judge Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade. His quest to pursue of the emancipation of those most vulnerable from oppression, including refugees, minorities, indigenous people, the environment, was articulated as the manifestation of a universal juridical conscience. He explained how human rights violations had a transcendental scope of traumatic impact upon individuals beyond the time of detention, the suffering of the families of victims subject to forced disappearance or torture, and the anguish of societies denied reconciliation after internal conflict via structures of impunity seeking to bury historical recognition of atrocity crimes. His analysis grounded the evolution of human rights law through articulation of the right to truth, the right to a life’s project, and characterization of non-discrimination as a jus cogens norm, as well as recognition of the rights to peace and development. He supported the aim of achieving a world committed to disarmament and protection of the common heritage of mankind. He warned that the focus on individual criminal accountability should not distract from the equally important recognition of state accountability of atrocity crimes. Fundamentally, he viewed the role of the international judge as carrying a responsibility to create spaces of freedom for individuals and marginalized groups in the face of repression thereby humanizing international law. I had the privilege of interviewing him in 2011 and his illuminating perspectives are available here.

Go On! Book Discussion: The Construction of the Customary Law of Peace, Latin America and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights

The Latin America Interest Group invites you to join us for a discussion oThe Construction of the Customary Law of Peace: Latin America and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, written by Professor Cecilia Marcela Bailliet, Department of Public and International Law, University of Oslo Faculty of Law on Wednesday May 11th at 11 a.m. EST on Zoom, the video is available here

The book explores the emerging construction of a customary law of peace in Latin America and the developing jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. It traces the evolution of peace as both an end and a means: from a negative form, i.e. the absence of violence, to a positive form that encompasses equality, non-discrimination and social justice, including gendered perspectives on peace.

Speakers:

  • Professor Cecilia Marcela Bailliet (author), Department of Public and International Law, University of Oslo Faculty of Law
  • Professor Jorge Contesse (discussant), Rutgers Law School
  • Laura Zielinski (moderator), Holland & Knight LLP

This session is organized by ASIL’s Latin America Interest Group and is cosponsored by the Center for Transnational Law at Rutgers Law School.

Date: 

Wednesday, May 11, 2022 – 11:00am to 12:00pm

For More Information 

UN Special Rapporteurship on Afghanistan

On Friday 1 April, the UN Human Rights Council relinquished an opportunity to put talk into action and send an important message to the Taliban by appointing what would have been the first woman UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Afghanistan.   (All those who held the position during its previous existence from 1984-2005 were men.)  

The UN Consultative Group, the body that screens Special Rapporteur applications (made up this year of three men and a woman, representing El Salvador, Malaysia, South Africa and Canada), had short-listed five candidates: four women — three of whom are Muslim or of Muslim heritage — and a man.  As the candidates’ applications show, all five short-listed candidates were well-qualified, all five had relevant experience, and several had considerable direct experience in Afghanistan and other conflict zones.   

CONSULTATIVE GROUP REPORT TO HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL PRESIDENT
Short-listed Candidates for the Position of
Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan

First nameLast nameNationalityGender
LeilaALIKARAMIIslamic Republic of IranF
RichardBENNETTNew ZealandM
KarimaBENNOUNEUnited States of AmericaF
KamalaCHANDRAKIRANAIndonesiaF
Kimberley Cy.MOTLEYUnited States of AmericaF

Despite having such highly qualified women candidates for the position . . . the Human Rights Council appointed the only man on the shortlist.  Curiously, in sending its recommendations of candidates to the Council president, the Consultative Group significantly understated relevant experience in its bios of the two women finalists among the final three (Leila Alikarami and Karima Bennoune), even omitting any mention of one candidate’s direct experience in Afghanistan.

Moreover, there was virtually no mention of women’s human rights in the Consultative Group’s entire report on this mandate (except for a brief reference in Alikarami’s bio) — including no mention of any experience at all that the candidate they ranked first might have in this area.   This despite the fact that the Council resolution creating the mandate emphasizes women’s rights and calls on the use of a gender perspective throughout the work of the mandate.    

The new mandate-holder, Richard Bennett, does have considerable experience on and commitment to human rights in Afghanistan, and deserves support in his critically important work.  The statement in his application that if appointed he would give priority to the human rights of women and girls is welcome indeed.  One wonders about the message the Human Rights Council sends, though, as it joins a long list of countries and organizations that are sending all-male delegations to Kabul.  The timing is especially unfortunate coming a week after the Taliban refused to reopen secondary schools for girls, reneging on an earlier pledge to do so.     

Anti-LGBTQ+ Protests in Hungary: Limiting Representations of Homosexuality to Minors

In June 2021, the Hungarian Parliament amended various laws that limit the spread of information regarding homosexuality and sex reassignment (H&SR) for juveniles and school children. Among other things, the law: 1) prohibits minors from accessing material encouraging or depicting H&SR or any other type of deviance from one’s sex designated at birth; 2) forbids delivering instruction about the aforesaid information and restricts sex education in registered organizations; and 3) forbids broadcasts exhibiting H&SR while bringing a new rating – Category V (not intended for children) – to any such programming. On August 6, 2021, the scope of this decree was expanded to include places near churches and also in schools. 

These modifications are due to rising anti-LGBTQ+ views, which fall on the heels of previous legislative backsliding, including: 1) restrictions on same-sex marriage, as well as the heteronormative definition of conjugal relationships and family groups (2013); 2) university prohibitions on gender studies (2018); 3) denial of official gender acknowledgment by substituting ‘gender’ with ‘sex at birth’ in the Civil Registry (2020); and 4) the constitutional restriction on child adoption for unmarried adults (2020). 

Despite repeated requests from the European Commission (EC) and many European Union (EU) legislators, Prime Minister (PM) Viktor Orban’s government refused to remove the modifications. This comes after international condemnation of Hungary’s apparent association of sexual and gender identity [“SGI”] with pornography and pedophilia. In reaction, the EC has initiated a “rule of law” action against the Hungarian administration, claiming a breach of the values of dignity and equality as mentioned under Article 2 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Violations are likely to occur for a variety of reasons, including:

  1. Article 1 [dignity], 7 [expression & information], 11 [respect for private life], and 21 [non-discrimination] of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights for failing to substantiate the damage that such exposure has brought to children’s general well-being;
  2. Article 34 & 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU by failing to show that the limitations were properly reasoned, non-discriminatory, and ;
  3. Article 3 of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive, which imposes excessive and discriminatory constraints on the open dissemination of audio-visual media across borders; and 
  4. Disproportionate limitations on ‘information community services’ from other Member State under Article 3 of the E-Commerce Directive. Those limits may be enforced for the ‘safeguard of juveniles’ if there is a detriment to the cause or a substantial and grave danger of harm.
  5. Article 10 [ right to freedom of expression] & 14 [ right to non-discrimination] of the European Convention of Human Rights for limiting free discussions about gender identity and sexual orientation out of concern of ‘brainwashing youngsters’, and for expressly labeling LGBTQ+ material as undesirable and immoral.

The latest law of the Hungarian Parliament prohibits problems relating to the LGBTQIA+ population from being presented on prime time media. This has  the consequence of entirely eliminating the opinions of the community from public debate, thereby depriving them of their right to be heard. Similarly, while the amendments affected the rights of LGBTQIA+ people, their opinions were largely ignored during the legislative process. Furthermore, by prohibiting the simple representation of homosexuality to children, the legislation seeks to obscure the population. The purposeful obfuscation of the LGBTQIA+ population undermines its presence in society. As a consequence, familiarity and behaviorals standards are not sufficiently formed, thereby causing the interplay to be defined by the status quo inequality. 

Similar to Russia’s controversial ‘Gay Propaganda’ Law [2013], which, prohibited minors from being encouraged to engage in ‘non-traditional sexual unions,’ these modifications must be subjected to the same level of worldwide outrage and examination. Russian legislation made it illegal to make public declarations or posts about SGI, resulting in the imprisonment of numerous gay rights advocates. The European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) found an infringement of Article 10 [freedom of expression] & 14 [non-discrimination] following the petition of three such advocates. While the Russian government contended that societal acceptance of homosexuality was inconsistent with Russian societal norms and family ideals, the ECtHR cited a broad European agreement concerning the acknowledgment of gender identity and self-determination. The ECtHR found that the administration had failed to show how open homosexuality would have an adverse influence on Russian family ideals and norms. On the contrary, the Court found that sharing impartial information and scientific on SGI has a good impact on public health care and awareness. The right to exhaustive and non-discriminatory sexual education [Article 28], the right to acquire and transmit knowledge and thoughts of all forms [Article 13], and the right to receive contents targeted at devotional, social, physical well-being, and moral [Article 17] are all guaranteed by the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which binds both Hungary and Russia. The ECtHR stated in a detailed dissection of the claims made by Russian attorneys, by passing such laws, the Russian government promotes discrimination and ecnourages hompobhia, which is inconsistent with the values of fairness, diversity, and tolerance in a democratic country”. 

Opponents have compared the amendments with this propaganda, which according to independent experts has exacerbated societal hatred and fueled vigilante assaults against LGBT persons in the EU’s eastern neighbour. Nevertheless, if left unaddressed, the implications of these institutional reforms in Hungary could be disastrous. For one, this kind of nationalist discourse creates in-groups and out-groups, gaining support by inventing imagined concerns to the nation-state.  As a result, the LGBTQ+ group is regarded as a domestic threat as well as a foreign impact. The introduction of the phrase ‘gender ideology’ implies a refusal of fundamental sexual liberty and privacy rights. Conservative nationalists frequently give the phrase a stereotyped connotation, blaming it on so-called ‘Western liberal innovations’ of transgenderism, gender flexibility, and feminism, etc. 

As evidenced by multiple empirical studies performed over the last decade, Hungary’s persistent and intrusive effort against the LGBTQ+ community has left the population incredibly insecure in their own country. In 2010 & 2017, the Hatter Society conducted a comprehensive survey, finding that LGBTQ+ students face constant discrimination in schools.  According to a 2010 study [n=1991], 1 in every 5 students has faced discrimination at school. As per the findings of a 2017 survey, in an online poll of 928 LGBTQ+ students aged 13 to 21, more than 51% & 70% of participants indicated they had heard transphobic and homophobic statements from other classmates, professors, and school personnel regularly or often in the prior school session, respectively. In fact, 35% of those polled stated that the school officials never interfered. In addition, approximately 64% had experienced vocal and 22% had experienced physical abuse at school s due to their sexual identity. More than 56% of individuals who had revealed their sexual identity had been verbally abused (and 19% physically abused) in the prior school session. 

These emotions of uneasiness and insecurity at school can have a negative impact on an individual’s potential to not only achieve academically but also to create effective connections with classmates and participate in intra/inter-school activities. As per the Millennium Cohort Study, prejudice in academic institutions, resulting in a nearly threefold increase in degrees of depression, low-life contentment, and self-harm characteristics in LGBTQ+ adults as contrary to non-LGBTQ+ adults. This not only hinders physical and emotional development, but the atmosphere of disinformation and a lack of discussion produces a stagnant repressive environment for future generations. 

Hungary’s amendments, on the other hand, are certain to collide with the same legal currents that brought down its Russian equivalent. The post-COVID-19 rehabilitation package earmarked for Budapest [a sum of about 7.2 Billion Euros] has been vetoed by the European Commission. While PM Orban contends that the same is true in the case of the LGBTQ+ policy, the European Union has repetitively reiterated that it is founded on Hungary’s failure to follow through on anti-corruption and autonomous judiciary commitments. Hungary, therefore, has only a few months to answer to the European Commission and confronts imminent dangers of being directed to the European Court of Justice for a judgment. As an instant response, Orban pledged to hold a national vote on issues like facilitating gender identity workshops, the accessibility, and promotion of gender reassignment surgery, as well as the exposure of information that may influence a child’s gender identity. Nonetheless, no referendum has been conducted as of October 2021, with questions about its legitimacy still lingering. 

Persistent prejudices and the execution of prohibited legislation, as demonstrated in Russia’s history, are frequently unaffected by the simple favorable outcome of such judicial procedures. It is critical, then, to keep a constant eye out for such new and hidden forms of social tyranny. 

CONCLUSION

The proposed legislative reforms are in violation of international and European human rights principles. Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations as a member state by passing this law that targets homosexuals. The major argument given for doing so is to ensure that the mental and moral development is preserved. Moreover, in the matter of Alekseyev vs Russia, the ECtHR specifically stated that there is no scientific evidence to support the conclusion that the simple mention of homosexuality has a negative influence on children. The modifications leave no room for anything except one-sided and biased education, allowing stigmatisation and harassment of LGBTQ+ individuals to flourish.

Past Time for Respect for Indigenous Peoples and the Environment

Despite the challenges of 2021, it closed with some important milestones. At long last, the U.N. Human Rights Council recognized “the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment” and appointed a Special Rapporteur to focus on rights in the context of climate change. Additionally, the U.S. officially designated Indigenous Peoples’ Day on October 11. President Biden’s proclamation acknowledges “the centuries-long campaign of violence, displacement, assimilation, and terror wrought upon Native communities” and celebrates Indigenous Peoples’ “resilience and strength” and “immeasurable positive impact . . . on every aspect of American society.”

Violence against Indigenous Peoples and nature is deeply intertwined. For generations, Indigenous lands have been exploited as a “hunting ground” for resources with colonialism propped up by racial and gender hierarchies. In the U.S., Native American and Alaska Native women experience sexual assault at a rate 2.5 times higher than other women, with 86% of perpetrators non-Native men. For example, the oil boom in the Bakken region brought a 75% increase in sexual assaults and a 53% increase in violence with the influx of hundreds of transient male workers, housed in “Man Camps” near Indian territories. Moreover, with strained infrastructure and Indian tribes lacking jurisdiction to prosecute non-Indian defendants, there is often no accountability. Indigenous leaders have highlighted the link between sovereignty over land and bodily autonomy.

Against this backdrop of abuse, the climate crisis is displacing Indigenous communities at increasing rates and leading to economic instability, land disputes, and disruptions in social safety nets, contributing to increased risk of gender-based violence. Moreover, Indigenous leaders have been at the forefront of sounding the alarm on climate change and may also experience violence as retaliation for their actions as human rights defenders confronting environmental degradation. Further, the COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately impacted Indigenous Peoples, aggravating preexisting inequalities and resulting in heightened rates of infection and  increased environmental degradation, economic insecurity, and gender-based violence, threatening Indigenous cultures. 

Continue reading

Women Refugees and Gender Persecution

The UN AudioVisual Library invited me to give a lecture on Women Refugees and Gender Persecution. It gives an overview of gender-based violence, the context of forced migration faced by women, the application of the due diligence principle in Refugee Status Determination, assessment of risk, evidentiary issues, credibility determination, gender-related persecution, nexus to protection categories, and the application of cessation clauses and the Internal Flight Alternative. It will be made available on March 7th on the eve of International Women’s Day! Please check the UN AVL website

The Human Rights Brief of American University Washington College of Law published my article titled Examination of the Effects of Deportation as a Result of Revocation of Status Upon the Rights to Non-Discrimination, Family Unity, and the Best Interests of the Child: An Empirical Case from Norway, This article discusses the European and Nordic trend of non-European/Schengen nationals to their countries of origin or transit countries and implementing deportation as a principal mechanism of immigration control. It examines a particular case from Norway resulting from a review of cases involving select nationalities extending back in time beyond five years. This review identified persons who lied about their country of nationality and were subject to revocation of status and deportation in spite of their ties to family and integration within the community. The article discusses the role of the judiciary as a resistant gatekeeper to international human rights, in particular the right to family unity and the best interests of the child, as well as the right to non-discrimination. It calls for reform of review of old cases based on nationality, instead acting only an individualized security risk assessment and the adoption of a human rights based approach to revocation and deportation.

International Solidarity

Professor Cecilia M. Bailliet has been chosen to Chair the Expert Advisory Group to the UN Independent Expert on Human Rights and International Solidarity Obiora Okafor. Together with other members of the group, Bailliet will prepare a report and suggest revisions to the current draft declaration on the right to international solidarity.

In addition to Bailliet, the group consists of Professor Obijiofor Aginam of the UN University, Professor Mihir Kanade of the University of Peace in Costa Rica, Professor. Vesselin Popovski of the Jindal Global Law School, and Professor Jaya Ramji-Nogales of Temple University.

The group will present its report and recommendations for a revised draft in April 2022 to the Independent Expert who then will share with key states within the UN Human Rights Council in order to make a presentation to the Council for adoption.

The group benefits from the findings provided by the research assistance of UiO law students Solveig Hodnemyr and Julie Skomakerstuen Larsen and Johns Hopkins University student Jeff Baek. The right to solidarity is described as being part of “the second wave of third generation rights” including the right to peace (adopted as a Declaration by the UN General Assembly); the right to development (currently being drafted as a convention); and the right to a healthy environment (recognized by the UN Human Rights Council).

This work complements Professor Bailliet’s current project editing the Research Handbook on International Solidarity to be published by Edward Elgar 2022-23; it includes chapters by other women scholars (including Jaya Ramji-Nogales): Beate Sjåfjell, Alla Pozdnakova, Vasuki Nesiah, Sylvia Bawa, Usha Natarajan, Elizabeth Salmon, Karin Frode and Shyami Puvimanasinghe.

For those of you attending the 2022 ASIL Conference virtually, there will be a session on solidarity in Track 6 on Competing Values of International Law. This roundtable will include Noura Erakat, Maha Hillal, Azadeh Shashahani, Nia Houston, and Cecilia Bailliet.