Law of Peace(making) and Transforming Children’s Invisibility

Courtesy of the Blog of the Groningen Journal of International Law (August 22, 2017).

The law of international human rights came into being through an international peacemaking process, in particular the successive processes that gave birth to the Charter of the United Nations. The law as developed affirms children’s legal standing and agency as subjects of human rights. There is a concomitant international obligation to affirm the same in relation to the successive processes of peacemaking and give effect to those rights through the resultant agreements, as recalled by treaty and Charter bodies. Yet children are mostly invisible in such processes. Its extent is laid bare by a cursory review of collections of peace agreements. Of the close to eight hundred peace agreements in the United Nations database, for example, approximately ninety-five include a reference to children. The extremity of their invisibility raises a multiplicity of questions. Is it justified from the perspective of the law of peace(making)? May children’s human rights yield to the pursuance of peace?  And if not, why are children (mostly) invisible in peacemaking? These questions sparked and structured a probe of peace processes from a juristic, human rights and child rights perspective. Continue reading

Advertisements

Women, accustomed to the International Court of Justice

Standing beneath the portrait of Dame Rosalyn Higgins, the 1st woman judge and 1st woman president of the International Court of Justice, are, from left: University of Georgia School of Law students Lyddy O’Brien and Evans Horsley; IntLawGrrl Kathleen A. Doty, now serving as Interim Director of Georgia Law’s Dean Rusk International Law Center; student Jennifer Cotton; and IntLawGrrl and Georgia Law Associate Dean Diane Marie Amann.

HAGUE –  A briefing at the International Court of Justice was part of today’s Hague leg of the Global Governance Summer School that we at the University of Georgia School of Law Dean Rusk International Law Center are co-presenting with KU Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies. Providing insights into the work of the court was Dr. Xavier-Baptiste Ruedin (right), Legal Adviser for Judge Joan E. Donoghue. As IntLawGrrls well know, she’s one of three women who are now permanent members of the court, and one of only four in the court’s 72 years.

Recalling the photo at left, on which I posted a few years back, couldn’t resist making the “Women of the Global Governance Summer School” photo above.

Thus does international custom begin to crystallize.

 

 

Work On! ICCT Advanced Summer Programme

Work On! is an occasional item about workshops, roundtables, and other fora that do not necessarily include publication:

Screen Shot 2017-06-19 at 8.43.00 PMThe International Centre for Counter Terrorism with the T.M.C. Asser Institute is hosting an Advanced Summer Programme on August 28-September 1, 2017, at The Hague. Theme is “Countering Terrorism: Legal Challenges and Dilemmas.” Deadline to register is July 23, 2017. Details here. Preliminary programme here.

Postgraduate Colloquium on Frontiers of International Environmental Law

The PluriCourts Centre of Excellence for the Study of the Legitimate Roles of the Judiciary in the Global Order in collaboration with the Faculty of Law welcome 20 young scholars working in the area of International Law and Environment to present and discuss their work in a subject-specific forum.

The 2017 theme

Since the release of the Brundtland Report in 1987, international environmental law has gone through a rapid evolution. Negotiations over global warming and the ongoing negotiations towards the adoption of a convention to protect marine biodiversity show how often states are engaged in international negotiations with the aim to cooperatively prevent environmental degradation.

In spite of an increased number of multilateral environmental agreements, States are still reluctant to establish an International Environmental Court. This significantly impacts the protection of the environment. In case of transnational environmental damages or in case of non-compliance with international obligations, there aren’t any specialized environmental courts which would assess States’ responsibilities for environmental damage. In order to cover this lack of remedies, well-established international courts such as the International Court Justice (the Whaling case) or the International Criminal Court (Ecuador v. Chevron) have been asked to rule in cases involving environmental damages. Recent cases have been contributed to advance the protection of environment at an international level. See for instance the ITLOS Advisory Opinion Activities in the Area where the Tribunal recognizes the States’ obligation of due diligence in case of non-compliance of international environmental agreement.

It is therefore a good moment to evaluate the developments achieved by international courts in the context of environmental protection.

The colloquium seeks to address the following questions: What advances have been made in environmental protection in international courts and quasi-judicial bodies? Are new IEL principles emerging? What is the relation between the traditional corpus of IEL principles and new emerging States‘ obligations of due diligence and duty of prevention in environmental protection? Have the principles of inter and intra generational equity gained the status of legally binding principles? How do the Courts interpret the principles of equitable access to natural resources and how do they balance this with the right to Development?

Applicants

The colloquium welcomes research from postgraduate students (Ph.D and Post-Doc) at all stages of their postgraduate work and LLM students working in the area of International Law and Environment.

Prizes

Prizes will be awarded to the best oral and poster presentations during the drink reception at the end of the day.

Marks will be awarded for the following:

  • Introduction
  • Aims/Hypothesis
  • Appropriateness of methodology
  • Conclusions
  • Legibility of poster
  • Audibility of talk
  • Clarity of expression
  • Ability to answer questions, engage in scientific discussion
  • The impact of the work on future studies and the field

Submission and deadline

Those interested in presenting in any area of International Law and Environment are invited to submit an abstract, indicating whether it is intended for oral or poster presentation, of no more than 200 words by Sunday 4 June 2017. The authors of abstracts selected for presentation will not be expected to submit completed papers but they may do so if they wish.

Financial aid

The colloquium is made possible by generous funding from Lovsamlingsfondet and the PluriCourts Centre of Excellence. During the day of colloquium lunch and dinner will be served. Presenters in need of financial support are invited to make contact with the organisers to discuss coverage of travel expenses.

Time and place: First Postgraduate Colloquium on Frontiers of International Environmental Law Sep. 21, 2017 9:00 AM5:00 PM

Write On! Hamburg Young Scholars’ Workshop in International Law


This installment of Write On!, our periodic compilation of calls for papers, includes calls to present at
the Hamburg Workshop as follows:

►The Hamburg Workshop will be held from 15 – 16 September 2017 at the University of Hamburg to discuss research projects in international law among peers (e.g. a chapter of a dissertation, a draft of an article, case comments). The workshop brings together promising doctoral students and postdocs with a background in international law and neighboring disciplines. All participants ought to exchange ideas and arguments to inspire each other and advance their research. Public international law and common sense will serve as a shared basis that will result in discovering parallel developments and similar issues in different fields of international law. For more details click here.

Victims’ interminable wait for justice in Sri Lanka

On 23 March 2017, the Human Rights Council (HRC) passed Resolution 34/1 on promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka – the latest in a series of resolutions addressing the aftermath of the ethnic conflict between the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). It follows Resolution 30/1 of October 2015 that provides a roadmap for judicial and non-judicial measures to promote post-conflict accountability and reconciliation in Sri Lanka. The first to be co-sponsored by Sri Lanka, Resolution 30/1 was heralded as an opportunity for Sri Lanka to reset its human rights record and embark on a post-conflict journey towards justice, reconciliation and non-recurrence.

Resolution 30/1 sought to implement the recommendations set out in the 2015 report of the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Investigation on Sri Lanka (OISL), which documented the “horrific level of violations and abuses” in the Sri Lankan civil war. (See my previous blogs “The Long Journey to Justice for Sri Lanka’s Victims” Part I and Part II for a discussion on the OISL report and Resolution 30/1 respectively). Resolution 34/1 rolls over Resolution 30/1 due to the lack of progress in fulfilling the latter.

Where do we stand, seventeen months after Resolution 30/1 and almost eight years after the official end to the conflict? In March 2017, reporting back to the HRC on the implementation of Resolution 30/1, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein noted that the GoSL has been “worryingly slow” in fulfilling its transitional justice commitments and that “the structures set up and measures taken during the period under review were inadequate to ensure real progress.” For instance, in August 2016, Parliament adopted legislation for the establishment of an Office of Missing Persons to investigate the tens of thousands of missing persons – a key transitional justice measure given that Sri Lanka records one of the highest rates of disappearances in the world. However, the legislation is yet to be operationalised.

Another key recommendation – establishing a “Sri Lankan judicial mechanism” with international actors – has been ignored despite being a cornerstone of Resolution 30/1 in securing accountability and justice for victims. International presence in an accountability process was intended to mitigate deep-seated mistrust in purely domestic mechanisms by providing impartiality and credibility. As noted by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in 2015, there has been “a total failure of domestic mechanisms to conduct credible investigations, clarify the truth of past events, ensure accountability and provide redress to victims.” Despite the GoSL’s commitments, President Sirisena, in January 2016, excluded any foreign involvement in an accountability mechanism – a position that has been maintained by other senior government officials including the Prime Minister.

Continue reading

Gender-Sensitive Reparations in the I.V. v. Bolivia Case: A Missed Opportunity?

 

woman-1022060_1280The human rights and feminist lawyers were hopeful. Finally a decision on forced sterilization from the Inter-American Court. Deprived of the remedial austerity of its Strasbourg equivalent, and with a harder legal force than the CEDAW Committee, this judgment was bound to be important. The I.V. v. Bolivia landmark decision on the forced sterilization of a refugee woman in Bolivia was delivered during the late days of 2016.

Inspired by the insightful earlier post by Lisa Reinsberg and Francisco Rivera Juaristi, I here discuss the specific reparations provided by the Inter-American Court and explain why the Court missed an opportunity to do something more transformative.

The reparations in I.V. v. Bolivia demonstrate the usual remedial richness of the Inter-American Court. The Court ordered personalized, specialized, and free medical rehabilitation, considering the direct victim’s sexual, reproductive, psychological and psychiatric health harms and needs. It also ordered the state to include I.V.’s family in the therapy and to pay 50,000 US Dollars in compensation to the direct victim for monetary and non-monetary damages. The Court recognized the encroachment of the applicant’s personal integrity, and the subsequent denial of justice, and commanded the state to publish the judgment and acknowledge its responsibility. As a guarantee of non-repetition, the Court stated that Bolivia needs to secure that consent to sterilization is always prior, free, informed, and full. Hence, all public and private hospitals ought to be equipped with printed, succinct information about the reproductive and sexual health rights of women: for the patients and the personnel. Finally, Bolivia should adopt permanent programs for medical students and professionals on informed consent, stereotyping, gender discrimination and violence.

The reparations ordered by the Court in I.V. v. Bolivia are plentiful, but not groundbreaking. They are largely consistent with existing, cited supranational practice. Indeed, also the CEDAW Committee (in the 2006 case A.S. v. Hungary) highlighted the importance of educating and monitoring medical staff in public and private health centers, and “naming and shaming”-awareness-raising through publication of supranational decisions. Moreover, the 50,000 US Dollars for damages is not that much more than the approximate 30,000 US Dollars that the Strasbourg Court has ordered the state to pay victims of involuntary sterilization (in 2011–12 cases V.C. v. Slovakia; N.B. v. Slovakia; and I.G. and Others v. Slovakia). In comparison to compensation amounts normally figuring in the IACtHR’s decisions, the figure in I.V. v. Bolivia is relatively low. Overall, the Court’s remedial approach is similar to the Inter-American Commission’s recommendations in the same case two years earlier. The landmark nature of I.V. v. Bolivia, in combination with the substantial references to earlier cases, seems to have made the Court self-conscious, adopting a cautious approach.

Continue reading