Human Rights

Emerging Leaders Advisory Board of Human Rights First

/ Stephanie Farrior / Leave a comment

Announcement for young people passionate about using their creativity, knowledge and skills to promote and protect human rights:

The Emerging Leaders Advisory Board (ELAB) of the New York-based NGO Human Rights First is recruiting new members to join them. “Human Rights First recognizes the imperative to fully integrate talented young professionals at all levels of the organization, applying fresh ideas to hold oppressors accountable and free people from injustice.” Launched in late 2022, ELAB taps the creativity, energy, experiences, skills and social media savvy of young people to inform, support and advance the work of Human Rights First.   

To apply to be a member of the advisory board, click here.

Question: Do I have to live in New York to be a member of the Emerging Leaders Advisory Board of Human Rights First?

Answer: No. ELAB currently has board members based across the globe. All of the board meetings are held virtually. We do hold in-person events in NY/DC in which Advisory Board members may participate, but attending them is not a requirement for serving on the board.

Question: What is the role of Emerging Leaders Advisory Board members? What is expected of a member if appointed to ELAB?

Emerging Leaders Advisory Board members are expected to attend bi-monthly virtual meetings and support ELAB with its various initiatives. This may include, but is not limited to, contributing to ELAB’s blog, helping to plan events, and promoting our events and initiatives on their social media pages. They are also expected to serve on one of our three committees, which highlight our core competencies and streamline our priority initiatives: Advocacy; Fundraising; and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (D.E.I.).  Each committee hosts its own meetings, virtually, at the discretion of the committee chair. These typically occur bi-monthly. Committee overviews:

Advocacy Committee 

In November 2022, ELAB published an introductory blog post outlining the importance of young leaders and how our board upholds that history. In 2023, we continue to use our voices to publish op-eds on Human Rights First’s site to further educate audiences on the human rights issues that show up in our various lives. We encourage members across our committees to submit proposals for topics, and we will be publishing these op-eds during the year.

Fundraising Committee 

ELAB’s Fundraising Committee connects with new generations of donors, highlighting the work of Human Rights First through in-person events and online media campaigns. We launched our first individual fundraising drive on Human Rights Day (December 10), shortly after ELAB was established.

DEI Committee 

ELAB’s Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion Committee is currently spearheading recruitment to the Advisory Board. The committee is also actively engaged in planning events. A recent example is our Women’s History Month event, which took place in New York City on March 28, 2023. The committee is also collaborating with Human Rights First in drafting several protocols and initiatives to ensure diversity, equity, and inclusion in all aspects of our operations.

‘It is terrible to be alone’ and the (dis)remembered obligation

/ Sarah M Field / Leave a comment

Like Seamus Heaney’s republic of conscience international human rights law is wrought from ‘tears’ we wept when it became clear what we were capable of and what was at stake. Not solitude, as Hannah Arendt explains, but loneliness or ‘not belonging to the world at all‘.

contrarian suggestions

Though its root source resonates in our bones, the law’s words do not yield their intent easily. Like art, it seems to be: 

For in my experience, seemingly everywhere, in the global north and south, its meaning, is not merely screened by its legal bearings, but coloured by suggestion. It is susceptible to being revered as a referent of Justice herself or immutable law. Or conversely dismissed as a philosophic or legal abstraction. To being narrowed in scope and reduced in complexity. To being disregarded as law, parried as an import and censured as unnecessary or ineffective. So its meaning becomes blurred, leaving space for more threatening suggestions to gather affective and effective power. 

Continue reading →

Statement by Afghanistan’s Women Protester Movements Coalition re Taliban ban on women workers at UN offices

/ Stephanie Farrior / Leave a comment

Afghanistan’s Women Protester Movements Coalition
Press Statement
5 April 2023

The Taliban’s ban on women’s employment at the United Nations offices was foreseeable. The Taliban have made women’s right to work and education a tool for their political bargaining with the international community. They don’t believe in the participation of women in public life. They seek to systematically remove women from public spaces and have issued more than 40 decrees aimed at oppressing women since their return to power.

In December 2022, when the Taliban banned women’s employment in NGOs, women protesters expected international aid agencies to have a unified approach in protesting the Taliban’s restrictions on women’s employment and not continue their activities in Afghanistan without female employees. Contrary to our expectations, once again international aid agencies, including the United Nations, negotiated an agreement with the Taliban which allowed women to continue their work in limited sectors.

Such settlements and the international community’s unconditional engagement with the Taliban have emboldened them. The lack of unified and strong action in response to the Taliban’s continued attacks on the rights of women has led to the Taliban continuing their attacks with impunity.

Only the Taliban are responsible for starving 28 million Afghans who rely on humanitarian aid. By banning women’s employment, the Taliban take away the right to a decent life from the Afghan people and contribute to more poverty and hunger in Afghanistan. If this situation continues it will lead to a further crisis in the country.

In response to the Taliban’s recent ban on women’s employment in United Nations agencies, we, members of Afghanistan’s Women Protester Movements Coalition, once again call on the United Nations and other international aid agencies to:

  • Stop their operations in Afghanistan until women are allowed to work.
  • Abandon unconditional engagement with the Taliban and use all means and leverage to hold them accountable for their human rights violations.

The situation in Afghanistan is not only a humanitarian catastrophe but most importantly a human rights crisis. International aid agencies, including the United Nations, must demonstrate their commitment to human rights values in practice and place women’s human rights at the top of their priorities.

If the United Nations and other international aid agencies cannot firmly defend the rights of their female employees, we doubt their intentions to help the people of Afghanistan transition out of the current crisis.

COVID-19 hate crimes: Identifying the Real Virus that infects us [Part – II]

/ Tejaswini Kaushal / Leave a comment

Actions taken by the USA to control COVID-19 hate crimes

COVID-19 hate crimes act in the US

To address the nationwide spike in hate crimes against Asian Americans in 2022, US President Joe Biden signed the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act in May 2022. Following expert testimony about the spike in crime and grassroots pressure to defend Asian-American neighborhoods, the bipartisan measure was signed. The new Bill aims to enhance law enforcement’s ability to deal with hate crimes through public education campaigns, hate crime hotlines, and training for recognizing hate crimes. The Justice Department will quicken investigations and improve data gathering. The legislation aims to increase public awareness and accessibility of hate crime reporting at local levels.

Overview of the Act

The Congressional Research Service’s description of the Act lists five important provisions:

  1. A designated DOJ officer must expedite the review of hate crimes and related reports.
  2. State, local, and tribal law enforcement must receive DOJ guidance on setting up reporting procedures for online hate crimes and gathering information on protected characteristics.
  3. The DOJ and HHS must release recommendations to increase awareness of hate crimes during the COVID-19 pandemic.
  4. The Act creates funds for state-run hotlines, crime reduction initiatives, law enforcement programs, and the National Incident-Based Reporting System.
  5. Judges may impose community service or educational requirements as a condition of supervised release for those found guilty of a hate crime charge on probation.

Criticism of the Act

Stop AAPI Hate criticized the new law for giving law enforcement more authority, saying that it will only address hate crimes rather than significant hate incidents since it focuses on criminal law enforcement authorities in its remedies. They urged the federal government to address systemic racism and oppression through funding community-based organizations, enhancing civil rights laws, investing in mental health and immigration services, and supporting all communities’ voices and historical events.

Activities undertaken post the Act’s enactment

On the first anniversary of the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act, the Department of Justice launched initiatives to prevent and address hate crimes and bias-related occurrences. They released new guidelines in collaboration with the HHS to increase understanding of COVID-19-related hate crimes, distributed grant requests for state-run hotlines and neighborhood-based strategies, and hired their first Language Access Coordinator.

Law enforcement systems for reporting, tracking and tackling hate crimes

The COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act was passed to enhance hate crime reporting, response, and prevention at the federal level. However, there is a trust issue between Asian American communities and the police. Some states, such as New York City, have acted to improve this relationship by creating specialized teams to respond to pandemic-related violence and harassment and to educate people about their rights.

Furthermore, many Asian Americans lack confidence that local police will treat them with respect and courtesy, with only 24% feeling very confident. 73% support training law enforcement to recognize anti-Asian American and Pacific Islander bias should be given. Additionally, there is a need to increase the number of Asian American police officers in locations with large Asian American populations since they make up 6% of the US workforce but only 2% of police officers.

As a positive intervention, states like New York City have established special response teams to address pandemic-related hate crimes and improve trust with the Asian-American community by providing education, referrals, and investigations.

Provision of health care facilities, especially mental health services

Health systems need to be prepared to provide culturally and linguistically suitable services (CLAS) to Asian American patients who may have experienced trauma. Clinicians of Asian American origins may need to establish trust with patients who have experienced violence and discrimination. Online services like the Asian Mental Health Project and the National Asian American Pacific Islander Mental Health Association can link Asian Americans with culturally sensitive practitioners. Medical education should emphasize cultural sensitivity, and providers should inquire about prejudice, violence, and mental health issues with patients, as well as be aware of the social isolation and financial difficulties brought on by the pandemic. A responsive mental health workforce is critical, as many Americans of Asian origin may be hesitant to seek treatment.

Devoted research and funding

Only 0.17% of the National Institutes of Health’s research budget is allocated to studying the health requirements of AANHPI despite making up 7.0% of the US population. The Asian American Foundation has pledged significant multimillion-dollar community investments to address bullying in schools and engage interfaith leaders and journalists.

Education in schools

DOJ and the Department of Education offer resources to combat COVID-19-related harassment in schools, while school-based interventions can reduce racism and hate speech. 73% of Asian Americans support initiatives to educate the public on recognizing anti-AAPI bias to address their historical underrepresentation in society. AANHPI’s historical contributions to the US must be recognized, and more awareness is needed to combat entrenched prejudice and conflicts.

Removing public health reporting of bias

WHO and CDCP had cautioned that racially discriminatory rhetoric during COVID-19 can result in victimization, stigmatization, and division of people. President Biden signed an executive order directing agencies to prevent racism and xenophobia against AANHPIs. Furthermore, the new White House Initiative on Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders, co-chaired by Xavier Becerra and Katherine Tai, aims to resolve bullying and discrimination, improve quality and fragmentation, expand language translation, and better understand multigenerational household needs. Some local governments have approved resolutions condemning xenophobia.

INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS

1.      International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

This convention requires nations to “condemn” and eradicate racial discrimination and improve tolerance among all races.

2.      Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) calls for governments to formally reject hate speech and launch awareness programs and educational policies to combat racism. Training for the police and legal systems is also important to ensure familiarity with international obligations protecting free speech and expression while safeguarding against hate speech. Human Rights Watch recommends that all governments establish action plans to address new forms of discrimination and xenophobia, with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights providing guidelines for best practices.

Analysis and Conclusion

The incidents of brutality that are pursued in a developed, liberal and tolerant country like the United States put the whole world in a terrible shock. Though change has been brought across the nation to curb the discrimination and hatred towards the Asian-American community, future steps are required to address the growing public health concern of violence against Asian Americans, eradicate prejudice and hatred against Asian Americans, assess new tactics, and determine the future’s most effective methods of health and healing.

COVID-19 Hate Crimes: Identifying the Real Virus that infects us [Part – I]

/ Tejaswini Kaushal / Leave a comment

Asian Americans have reported a surge in hate crimes, including physical violence and harassment, since the outbreak of COVID-19. Health crises such as pandemics have historically been linked to stigmatization and discrimination against Asian people. From their arrival in America in the late 1700s, Asian Americans have faced verbal and physical abuse driven by personal racism and xenophobia. Discriminatory rhetoric and exclusionary policies have also been supported by the state, sustaining this violence at the institutional level. Insecurity and fear of foreigners have been exacerbated by COVID-19, leading to an increase in anti-Asian hate crimes, perpetuating inequality at individual and institutional levels.

What does one mean by a hate crime?

Hate crimes are a pernicious form of violence that target individuals or groups based on their membership or perceived membership in certain social or racial categories, such as ethnicity, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability, in the form of physical violence, property damage, harassment, and even murder. Hate crimes are distinct from hate speech, which refers to specific types of language that incite hatred or discrimination. Furthermore, while a hate crime is a criminal act, a ‘hate incident’ is noncriminal behavior driven by prejudice, which can potentially culminate into a hate crime.

The rippling consequences of hate crimes

The psychological effects of hate crimes can be profound and far-reaching, not just for the individuals who are directly affected but also for others. Victims of hate crimes that were motivated by hate and prejudice have been shown to have higher levels of psychological distress, including symptoms of despair and anxiety, than those of crimes not perpetuated due to xenophobia or racism. The following reasons for such an evaluation were addressed in a 1999 study:

  1. Hate crimes cause psychological and emotional harm as well as self-esteem issues to the individual victim.
  2. Hate crimes create a generalized fear among the targeted group.
  3. Hate crimes have a ripple effect on other vulnerable groups who associate with the targeted population.
  4. Hate crimes cause severe melancholy and stress in the entire community.

Hate crimes witnessed during the pandemic

The manifestation of the “Othering” theory

“Othering” is a process of marginalization and exclusion that occurs when a dominant group stigmatizes and excludes non-dominant groups who are racially different or lack a sense of “civic belonging”. This process is rooted in prejudice and fear and strengthens the dominant group’s perception of their own “normalcy” while categorizing those who are different as “abnormal.” This historical and ongoing process results in the disempowerment and social exclusion of marginalized groups.

Historical experiences of “othering” by Asian Americans

The projected immigration population of Asians in the US has grown dramatically yet prejudice and hate against them have been ongoing and they are frequently blamed for spreading disease during pandemics, and Asian Americans have historically been “othered” as an edifice and falsely portrayed as a model minority. This has resulted in microaggressions, hate crimes, and other forms of discrimination, like being labeled ‘dirty’ or ‘sickly’ during the pandemic. Asian Americans have been targeted regardless of their multiethnic identity, especially during times of economic instability, adversity, insurgency, or epidemic.

Burgeoning Anti-Asian hate crimes during the COVID-19 pandemic

In addition to prosecuting racial assaults against Asians and individuals of Asian origin, governments should take immediate action to stop racist and xenophobic violence and prejudice associated with the COVID-19 outbreak, according to a statement released by Human Rights Watch. Antonio Guterres stated that a “tsunami of hate and xenophobia, scapegoating and scaremongering around the world” and he asked states to “act now to strengthen the immunity of our societies against the virus of hate“. Government officials and political parties in various countries have used the COVID-19 pandemic to spread anti-immigrant, xenophobic, and white supremacist beliefs. This has resulted in an increase in hate crimes against minorities, including Asians.

Recent COVID-19 hate crime incidents in the US

Over the past year, more than 6,600 hate crimes have been reported against Asian-Americans, according to the advocacy group Stop AAPI Hate. Over the two years that the COVID-19 virus was widespread, several cases of violence and hate crimes in public spaces came up in the US. Some of the most preposterous attacks include homicide of an 84-year-old Thai immigrant on his daily walk in San Francisco, a 91-year-old senior being pushed to the ground in Oakland, assault and setting on fire an 89-year-old Chinese woman in Brooklyn, six Asian-American women being were shot at work in Atlanta, stabbing of two Asian American ladies at a bus stand in San Francisco,  among countless others.

Asian-American community lacked timely and sufficient support during the rise of hate speech in the US, possibly influenced by Trump and Pompeo’s use of “Chinese virus” and “Wuhan virus” in 2020. While Trump later stopped doing so, he did not call for government action either. In contrast, President Biden did bring out reforms to protect the Asian-American community in 2021.

Related issues with COVID-19 hate crimes in the US

Hate crimes often go unreported due to obstacles that hinder victims from reporting to local police, resulting in underreporting and a partial picture of the prevalence of hate crimes. Language barriers can also prevent Asian immigrants from reporting victimization. Additionally, mistrust of law enforcement and concerns about immigration status may deter victims from reporting hate crimes.

International Law and International Human Rights Law Programming at the 2023 AALS

/ Milena Sterio / Leave a comment

For those attending the 2023 AALS Annual Meeting in San Diego, California, here is a list of all International Law and International Human Rights Law-related programming.

  1. Conflict in Ukraine: Can Prosecuting Atrocity Crimes Make a Difference? (organizer/moderator Leila Sadat)

Cosponsors: Section on Comparative Law, Section on International Human Rights, Section on Global Engagement

Friday, January 6, 2023, 10:00 – 11:40 AM 

This program will focus on the atrocities committed during the conflict in Ukraine, from 2013 to the present time, as well as state responses to those actions. We will explore the actions of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and other justice mechanisms, including national systems, and the steps needed to investigate and prosecute atrocity crimes, as well as the political and diplomatic challenges to those prosecutions. We will also explore the reluctance of the United States to embrace the ICC as a global institution and the implications of that hesitancy for the legal academy and the Court. Finally, the panel will ask whether and how prosecuting atrocity crimes can make a difference either in Ukraine or elsewhere.

  • Second Program: Global War and Conflict in Ukraine and Beyond:  An Effective and Balanced Response? (Organizers/Moderators Craig Martin & Sahar Aziz)

Cosponsored by the Section on Comparative Law, the Section on Global Engagement, the Section on Litigation, and the Section on International Human Rights

Saturday, January 7, 2023, 8:30 – 10:10 AM 

The conflict in Ukraine, almost more than any other, has brought a host of international institutions and mechanisms to the fore and sparked litigation all over the globe. The United Nations Security Council, General Assembly, International Court of Justice, Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Human Rights Council, European Court of Human Rights, World Trade Organization, and International Criminal Court are among the institutions that have acted or been engaged in addition to national courts.  Have national and international institutions been effective?  And why has the response in Ukraine seemingly been so different than the response in Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Israel/Palestine and a host of other “hot spots” around the world? This panel will take a look back at the events of 2022 and take stock of how well our international institutions have handled (or weathered) the events that unfolded.

  • Pedagogy Program: How Can Students and Faculty Make a Difference via Teaching and Clinical Work in Times of Crisis? (Organizers/Moderators Cindy Buys, Charlotte Ku & Milena Sterio)

Cosponsored by the Section on Global Engagement, Section on International Human Rights, and Section on Comparative Law. (Also cosponsored by teaching international law committee of ABILA.)

Friday, January 6, 2023, 3:00 – 4:40 PM

In light of conflicts around the globe, refugee flows, and human rights crises, this discussion will explore creative ways for faculty and students to make a positive difference and contribute to the development of international law through clinics, pro bono work, internships, externships, and other activities.

  • Discussion Group: Russia v. Ukraine: Implications for a New Global Order (organizer/moderator: Milena Sterio)

Thursday, January 5, 8:00 – 9:40 AM

This program will be a discussion group composed of experts who have studied the role of international law and international institutions in world affairs. The overall goal of this program will be to assess whether the ongoing conflict in Ukraine has the potential to disrupt the existing global order and our understanding of the role which international institutions play in global affairs. In addition, the panelists will focus on what role law schools will be able to play in terms of shaping such a possible new world order.

  • New Voices in International Human Rights (organizer/moderator: Milena Sterio)

Saturday, January 7, 1:00- 2:40 PM

This program will feature presentations by emerging scholars in the field of International Human Rights.

  • (organizer Tom McDonnell) 

Co-sponsored by the International Law Section.  

Friday, January 6, 1-2:40 PM

This Program covers the following: (a) To recognize that sanctions may advance the right to life; condemn Russia’s aggression, war crimes, and gross human rights violations against Ukraine; and may deter other states from violating international humanitarian law and human rights, and (b) To examine the intended and unintended consequences of general rather than smart sanctions; to acknowledge that few civilians bear responsibility for Russia’s aggressive war, war crimes, or gross human rights violations; and to analyze whether general sanctions violate the economic, social and cultural rights of the most vulnerable of the Russian civilian population.

Tuesday Nov. 15: Defending Artistic Freedom After the Attack on Salman Rushdie

/ Stephanie Farrior / Leave a comment

Defending Artistic Freedom After the Attack on Salman Rushdie

When: Tuesday, November 15, 4:00 PM – 5:30 PM, Eastern Time (USA)

Where:  Palmer Commons on the University of Michigan campus, a 15 minute walk from the law school (Palmer Commons address: 100 Washtenaw Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2218 Palmer Commons | Welcome to Palmer Commons (umich.edu))

Link to event page with link for zoom registration: https://ii.umich.edu/humanrights/news-events/all-events.detail.html/98508-21796731.html. 

More about the event: 

On August 12, acclaimed writer Salman Rushdie was to address a crowd at the Chautauqua Institution about safe havens for at-risk writers, when he was stabbed multiple times. While Mr. Rushdie thankfully survived, he experienced severe injuries, after facing years of threats since the 1989 fatwa against his book “The Satanic Verses” by Iran’s then-Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini. What will be the impact of this brutal act of violence against a writer on efforts to defend the human right to freedom of artistic expression around the world? What kinds of threats are artists facing globally as they practice their crafts – practice essential to the cultural rights of all? What kind of self-censorship do these pressures foster, especially around controversial issues such as religion? What strategies can cultural rights defenders use to support artists like Salman Rushdie, and all the Rushdies around the world?

Moderated by: Karima Bennoune, Lewis M. Simes Professor of Law, Michigan Law School

Panelists:

Julie Trébault, Director, Artists at Risk Connection
Julie Trébault is the director of the Artists at Risk Connection (ARC), a project of PEN America that aims to safeguard the right to artistic freedom by connecting threatened artists to support, building a global network of resources for artists at risk, and forging ties between arts and human rights organizations. She has nearly two decades of experience in international arts programming and network-building, including at the Museum of the City of New York, the Center for Architecture, the National Museum of Ethnology in The Netherlands, and the Musée du quai Branly in Paris.


Salil Tripathi, Board member, PEN International, and former chair, PEN International’s Writers in Prison Committee

Salil Tripathi was born in Bombay and lives in New York. He chaired PEN International’s Writers in Prison Committee from 2015 to 2021 and is a member of its board. Between 2009 and 2013, he was on the board of English PEN. His honors include the Red Ink Award from the Mumbai Press Club in 2015 for human rights journalism and the third prize at the Bastiat Awards for Journalism in New York in 2011, among others. His journalism has appeared in major publications worldwide and he has been a correspondent in India and Southeast Asia. Offence: The Hindu Case, about the rise of Hindu nationalism and its implications on free expression, was his first book. His other books include The Colonel Who Would Not Repent: The Bangladesh War and its Unquiet Legacy (Aleph, 2014, Yale, 2016), and Detours: Songs of the Open Road, (Tranquebar, 2015). His most recent work is For In Your Tongue I Cannot Fit: Encounters with Prison, which he co-edited with the artist Shilpa Gupta. He is currently writing a book about Gujaratis, which Aleph will publish. Salil studied at the New Era School and Sydenham College in Bombay, and has an MBA from the Tuck School at Dartmouth College in the United States.


Ahmed Naji, writer, journalist, documentary filmmaker, Fellow at the Black Mountain Institute, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Ahmed Naji is a writer, journalist, documentary filmmaker, and criminal. His Using Life (2014) made him the only writer in Egyptian history to have been sent to prison for offending public morality. (Mr. Rushdie corresponded with him while he was imprisoned.) His book Rotten Evidence chronicles his time in prison, which is due out in September (2023) with McSweeney’s. Other published novels in Arabic are Tigers, Uninvited (2020), and The happy end (2022) Naji has won several prizes, including a Dubai Press Club Award, a PEN/Barbey Freedom to Write Award, and an Open Eye Award. He is currently a fellow at the Black Mountain Institute in UNLV. He now lives in exile in Las Vegas, where his writing continues to delight and provoke. For more about his work: https://ahmednaji.net/

Peace and Solidarity: Dilemmas of the Evolution of International Law in An Age of Decoupling

/ Cecilia Marcela Bailliet / Leave a comment

I presented my research to the North South Webinar Series, based on my previous Research Handbook on International Law and Peace (Edward Elgar 2019) and my forthcoming Research Handbook on International Law and Solidarity (Edward Elgar 2023). I will discuss the normative evolution of these third generation rights, the link to the UN Report Our Common Agenda, solidarity paradoxes in an age of decoupling and recoupling, as well as securitized peace and solidarity. There is a role for peace and solidarity in the context of transitional justice, and hence relevant to intractable conflicts like Palestine in which peace and solidarity civic society spaces are under threat. I argue for a pro homine peace and solidarity that is gendered, intergenerational, and inclusive. Peace and Solidarity are both means and ends as they call for pacific settlement of disputes, recognition of the right to freedom of expression (including digital access) and equitable participation and benefit in the common heritage of mankind. The lecture is available here

Launching a Global Campaign Against Gender Apartheid in Afghanistan

/ Stephanie Farrior / Leave a comment

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.”

RELINQUISHMENT TO THE GRAND CHAMBER: THE CLIMATE CHANGE CASE

/ Mili Gupta / 1 Comment

INTRODUCTION:

On Friday, 29th April, the European Court of Human Rights [ECtHR] declared that the Swiss Climate Case [Verein KlimaSeniorinnen and Others vs Switzerland] was relinquished to the Grand Chamber. The competent Chamber of the ECtHR relinquished authority to the Grand Chamber in compliance with Article 30 of the ECHR and Rule 72 (1) and (2) of the Rules of the Court. This relinquishment can be utilized, firstly, when the 7 judges agree that the issue raises a ‘grave question impacting the interpretation of the ECHR or its Protocols, or secondly, where there is a chance of deviating from preceding case laws’. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

The Swiss Climate Case involves a complaint filed by a Swiss Association and its members [a group of elderly individuals] who are protesting against the effects of global warming on their health and living standards. The applications mentioned three primary issues: first, insufficient climate policies in Switzerland that infringe upon the right to life and health under Articles 2 and 8 of the ECtHR; second, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court dismissal of their cases on irrational grounds, in breach of Article 6 of the Convention; and third, the courts and Swiss officials non-compliance with the subject-matter of their complaints, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention. 

The significance of the Swiss Climate case is that it will be the first case of climate change adjudicated by the ECtHR. Although Duarte Agostinho and Other was the first case to bring up the topic of climate change, the Swiss Climate Case and Agostinho address different legal issues.

RULE:

The competent Chamber of the ECtHR relinquished authority to the Grand Chamber in compliance with Article 30 of the ECHR and Rule 72 (1) and (2) of the Rules of the Court. This relinquishment can be utilized, firstly, when the 7 judges agree that the issue raises a ‘grave question impacting the interpretation of the ECHR or its Protocols, or secondly, where there is a chance of deviating from preceding case laws’.

In the case of Tatar vs Romania, the Court emphasized that pollution can damage the personal and family sphere of an individual because pollution damages the individual’s well-being and health. Further, the government has a responsibility to safeguard its people by governing and controlling the authorization, establishment, functionality and security of industrial operations, particularly those that are hazardous to the environment and human health. 

ANALYSIS:

i.                        VICTIM STATUS: 

The admissibility stage, particularly the acknowledgment of ‘victim status’ will be the initial obstacle for the Swiss Climate Case. According to Article 34 of the Convention, applicants can allege ‘to be the victim of an infringement’ of the rights in the Convention by one of the states.  If the claim is an omission to undertake appropriate measures mandated by a constructive obligation, the legal evaluation will invariably need at least an inquiry into whether the complainants have victim status.  Further, to be a victim of an infringement, the applicant must demonstrate that he/she was ‘directly impacted’ by the actions complained of, like in the current case, the allegedly omitted implementation of necessary actions despite an international duty binding upon Switzerland. 

In the case of Cordella vs Italy, the Court ruled that persons are ‘directly affected’ by the measures complained of if there is the persistence of a circumstance ‘of great environmental danger’, in which the environmental risk ‘will become potentially detrimental to the well-being and health of those who are subjected to it’. The Swiss climate case fulfills that standard because the Swiss authorities have not taken positive action to protect the elderly persons who will be subjected to intense heat waves in the future.

The applicant in Swiss Climate contended that the applicant organization should be given representative status for its members. This contradicts the previous precedent, as the Court does not consider petitions in the public interest [‘actio popularis’]. However, in the case of Fadeyeva, the court stated that because there is no  ‘right to nature preservation’ in the Convention, in cases of environmental deterioration ‘the involvement must personally affect the household, home or private affairs of the applicant’ to invoke Article 8 of the Convention. 

  1. POSITIVE OBLIGATION IN THE CONVENTION: 

Generally, positive duties are those which compel member states to undertake certain actions. They are essential where there is (I) a known and serious danger to the exercise of a right, and (II) the State has the potential to restrict, mitigate a danger or remedy its repercussions. A pre-requisite is that the State was aware of, or should have been aware of, the presence of a serious and imminent threat to a major legal value. In the case of Balmer-Schafroth and Others c. Switzerland, the Grand Chamber pointed to a ‘threat that was not just significant but also precise and, most importantly imminent’.

The two kinds of positive duties which have been recognized by the ECtHR to safeguard can co-exist in the same situation, whether it’s in the context of domestic violence or various other risks. The Swiss Climate case essentially turns on the issue of preventive positive duties under Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention. The applicants note the negative consequences of the absence of climate change prevention measures. See the case of Bevacqua and Others vs Bulgaria.

The case law and precedent of the Court acknowledging the duty to safeguard against widespread risks by legal and other actions [and the recognition that there can be potential victims, before damage has occurred] has conceptual implications on the evaluation of the victim status provision. If claims of omissions to act in respect to particular, one-time risks will receive preferential consideration over claims of breaches of duties to safeguard against potentially serious risks on a broader level, protection would be rendered ineffective. Certainly, the positive duties at issue in the current case are primarily directed at the law-maker [and as the Swiss Federal Tribunal stated, the duties are consequently of importance to political entities]. However, because of the lawful character of the duties, their invocation shouldn’t be considered inadmissible due to procedural grounds. 

CONCLUSION:

Humanity is facing a worldwide climate catastrophe that is already having devastating consequences for human rights. To avoid disastrous climate change and the wave of human rights abuses that would follow, immediate, comprehensive, and revolutionary reforms are essential. When States fail to adopt effective measures to accomplish the objectives of the Paris Agreement, international human rights courts may and should give adequate protection to elderly people or other vulnerable persons who are endangered by catastrophic heat waves and its related consequences. The Court’s reaction to this conclusion is expected to set the stage for how it handles future climate issues, and it will be echoed in the court rulings of domestic courts as well as various other human rights organizations. The ECtHR shall act as a Court of Law within the scope of its jurisdiction, always keeping in account that Convention protections must be practical and genuine, not fictitious.