United Nations

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.”

Time to act, UN Human Rights Committee

/ Stephanie Farrior / 1 Comment

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.

UN Special Rapporteurship on Afghanistan

/ Stephanie Farrior / Leave a comment

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.     

Book Launch: Legal Limits to Security Council Veto Power (Jennifer Trahan)

/ Milena Sterio / Leave a comment
Please join us for this exciting book launch next week!
BOOK LAUNCH EVENT:  Existing Legal Limits to Security Council Veto Power in the Face of Atrocity Crimes (Cambridge University Press 2020), co-sponsored by the American Society of International Law International Criminal Law Interest Group and the American Branch of the International Law Association United Nations Committee
Join leading experts in the field discuss Professor Jennifer Trahan’s new book which examines the legality of the use by a permanent member of the UN Security Council of its veto while there is ongoing genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes.
Thursday, July 23, 12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m. EST (zoom link below)
Panelists:
Jennifer Trahan, Clinical Professor and Director of the Concentration in International Law and Human Rights, NYU, Center for Global Affairs
Richard Goldstone, founding Prosecutor, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
Beth Van Schaack, Leah Kaplan Visiting Professor of Human Rights, Stanford Law School
Michael Scharf, Co-Dean and Joseph C. Hostetler – BakerHostetler Professor Of Law, Case Western Reserve School of Law
Moderator:  Milena Sterio, Charles R. Emrick Jr.-Cafee Halter & Griswold Professor of Law; Director, Domestic and International LL.M. Program, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law
Topic: Professor Jennifer Trahan Book Launch
Time: Jul 23, 2020 12:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)
Join Zoom Meeting
Meeting ID: 979 1692 3543
One tap mobile
+19294362866,,97916923543# US (New York)
+13017158592,,97916923543# US (Germantown)
Dial by your location
        +1 929 436 2866 US (New York)
        +1 301 715 8592 US (Germantown)
        +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
        +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
        +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
        +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
Meeting ID: 979 1692 3543
Find your local number: https://csuohio.zoom.us/u/akDW5vEDo

Re-up: 2012 very-special-guest post from UNSG Ban Ki-moon

/ Diane Marie Amann / Leave a comment

Today’s the last day at UN headquarters for Ban Ki-moon, who’s served since 2007 as Secretary-General of the United Nations. On August 17, 2012, he honored this blog by contributing a very special guest post: as we then noted, Ban’s staff gave us permission to publish in full “Remarks to the World Congress of Global Partnership for Young Women,” a speech he delivered that same week in Seoul, Republic of Korea. We are very pleased to reprint that guest post below.

 

“Women are leading U.N. efforts”

 

 I am very happy to be here.

What a wonderful conference.
Looking at all of you, I see the world represented. Many of you travelled long distances – from other parts of Asia, from Africa and beyond. You bring a truly global dimension to this World Congress. Welcome.
Whether you came from near or far, your journey to this Conference is part of an important trend of women standing taller and taller in the international arena.

Today I want to discuss women’s leadership from peace to development at the United Nations and around the world. I will share my vision for greater engagement. And I will tell you specifically what I am doing to accomplish that critical goal.
The story of women is about crossing frontiers, breaking boundaries and charting a new path. It is a story told in numbers, percentages and statistics. But ultimately, this is a story about people. And you are writing that story – you young women and men are the authors and the actors.
I was raised on the teachings of Confucius. He said,

‘To put the world in order, we must first put the nation in order; to put the nation in order, we must put the family in order.’

As Secretary-General, I must first make women’s advancement a priority in my own “family” – that is the United Nations.
When I began my term, there had been very few women peace envoys in the history of United Nations. I set out to change this. Now we have more female envoys than ever before.
Some people ask whether a woman can command a force of thousands or tens of thousands of troops. My answer is: Watch and learn. I named women to head some of our most difficult peacekeeping operations. Our missions in Liberia, the Central African Republic and South Sudan are all led by women. In total I have appointed seven female Special Representatives.
My senior legal adviser is a woman. My most senior police official is a woman too. So is my Chef de Cabinet. I have increased senior female appointments at the level of Under-Secretary-General by 60 per cent, and at the Assistant Secretary-General level by 40 per cent.
Women are leading United Nations efforts across the board – in peacekeeping, development and human rights.
But, we want more qualified women throughout our ranks. We are working to increase female representation across our middle management.
Wherever I go, I raise the issue of women’s empowerment with governments. That is because although there has been important progress, women still do not have a strong enough voice in decision-making. Women make up just a fraction of all chief executives of the world’s biggest companies. Fewer than one in ten presidents or prime ministers are women. And less than one in five parliamentarians are women. This world statistic is reflected here in the Republic of Korea.
The lack of women’s representation – of women’s empowerment — affects individual women’s rights – and it holds back whole countries.
One recent UN study showed that limits on women’s economic participation cost the Asia-Pacific region nearly $90 billion each year in lost productivity.

That is why I am so grateful that Duksung University and UN Women decided to focus their cooperation on the UN Women Young Women’s Partnership Programme, including the Asia-Africa Programme.
Africa is a young continent. More than two thirds of all people there are under the age of 30. I have seen Africa’s youth in action. Africa’s women are driving progress. They carry crops and children … they lead peaceful demonstrations and they head governments … they win the Nobel Peace Prize and they score even greater rewards knowing they are making a difference in our world.
Gender discrimination blocks progress. Equality makes it possible to achieve huge breakthroughs.
Helping women is critical to reaching the Millennium Development Goals by the year 2015.
Women do more work for less pay than men. Women produce up to 80 per cent of all food in sub-Saharan Africa. But their households are poorer, so they spend more of their income on food. They own far less land than men.
On education, millions more girls are in primary school than before. But there are far more girls shut out of class than boys. Two thirds of the 780 million people in the world who cannot read are women.
We have made progress in driving down maternal mortality. But a woman still dies every minute and a half from complications related to pregnancy or childbirth. This is a tragedy we can stop. I am spearheading a global movement called Every Woman Every Child to end these needless deaths, and to protect all children from preventable diseases.
We are moving on all fronts to invest in women so they can reach their full potential, drive development and lead us to a better future.
At the same time, we are looking beyond 2015. I have just appointed a High-Level Panel on the UN Development Agenda after 2015. I deliberately included many prominent women on the panel, and I count on the men to take gender concerns as seriously as I do. Reaching the MDGs and advancing to the next stage will only be possible when we unleash the power of women.
Women will only flourish when they are safe. That is why I am also leading a global campaign called UNiTE to End Violence against Women.
Around the world, more and more people realize that abusing or attacking women is a moral outrage and a criminal offence.
In Fiji, for example, the UN is sponsoring a programme that helps communities come together to report anyone who attacks women to the police. The results are clear. Men are showing more respect. Last year, 15 communities joined the effort, and that number is expected to double by the end of this year.
We need to end violence, give women a say in decision-making, protect their health and ensure equal opportunities. All of these challenges are at the top of the UN’s agenda – and they are on your agenda. The UN Women-Duksung Women’s University Global Partnership for Young Women is a wonderful initiative with enormous potential.
Ladies and gentlemen – but especially ladies,
Four years ago, I had the chance to meet Yi So-yeon, the first Korean astronaut who carried the UN flag into outer space. At the time, she was barely 30 years old.
I was deeply honoured when she presented me with that special UN flag. I immediately hung it on the wall in my office.
Yi So-yeon once said,

‘I want to show a side of women: that we also have great abilities. To me that is the biggest goal.’

That blue banner reminds me that women can go anywhere – even to outer space – and that they can take the values of the United Nations with them.
Our values – peace, human rights, opportunity and dignity for all people – are universal values. You do not need a flag to uphold them. You do not need a spaceship. All you need is the determination to stand up for what is right.
Young women should dream big. Look to the stars. Think of the grandmothers, mothers and other women who came before you – how hard they struggled and how much they accomplished. And think of the daughters, sisters and friends who will follow in your footsteps.
I count on each of you to build a new future where women are truly equal, and the whole world can benefit.
Thank you.

[photos, from top: Secretary-General Ban swears in Patricia O’Brien of Ireland as Under-Secretary for Legal Affairs and United Nations Legal Counsel (credit for 2008 UN photo); Karin Landgren of Sweden, Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Liberia (credit for UN photo); Rima Salah of Jordan, Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary-General, United Nations Mission in the Central African Republic and Chad (credit for UN photo); Secretary-General Ban with Hilde Johnson of Norway,  Special Representative of the Secretary-General and Head of the United Nations Mission in the Republic of South Sudan credit for 2011 UN photo by Evan Schneider; Susanna Malcorra of Argentina, Secretary-General’s Chef de Cabinet (credit for UN photo); Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, President of Liberia, co-winner of 2011 Nobel Peace Prize, and co-chair of High-Level Panel just appointed by Secretary-General Ban (photo credit); Korean astronaut Yi So-yeon with Secretary-General Ban and UN flag (credit for 2008 UN photo)]

by at 3:00 AM No comments:

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Work On! Director of Programs (TCC / NGO), Human Rights Program, The Carter Center

/ Osazenoriuwa Ebose / Leave a comment

Job Description

Summary: 
The Director is responsible for designing and implementing activities related to the human rights portfolio, through high-level contacts with representatives of governments, non-governmental organizations and international organizations, including the United Nations. The Director, in collaboration with the Senior Policy Advisor on Human Rights and Special Representative on Women and Girls (SPA/SR) and other responsible Carter Center staff, will be relied upon for in-depth analysis of international issues that impact on international and national human rights protection systems in order to guide the Center’s strategic direction and corresponding programs on human rights issues, including issues related to women and gender. The Director, Human Rights reports to the Vice President, Peace Programs.

The position will be responsible to strengthen, in consultation with other experts in the international human rights field and in collaboration with peace and health practitioners, the Center’s policy and agenda for the advancement and protection of human rights activities. The Director must maintain a contemporary understanding of the most pressing issues and be able to mobilize actions that are appropriate for immediate, medium, and long-term strategies. Additionally, drawing on the advice of the SPA/SR, the Director will be expected to reinforce the Center’s engagement on women’s rights issues.

The Director has the responsibility for managing the day-to-day staffing, operations, budgets, planning group meetings, annual conferences and related travel and activities associated with the Human Rights Program. Tasks include project development, implementation and management, proposal development, budget planning and tracking, project promotion, report production, and networking. The Director will liaise and collaborate closely with the SPA/SR as well as with the Design, Monitoring and Evaluation Advisor. The Director will supervise program staff, interns, and volunteers as needed.

Minimum Qualifications: The Director must be well accomplished in the field of international human rights.  Juris Doctor or Master’s degree in a relevant field and a minimum of ten years of program related experience in the field of international human rights are required.  The individual must have well-established relationships with high-level representatives of the U.S. and foreign governments, intergovernmental organizations, especially the United Nations, and international and local human rights defender non-governmental organizations. Proven strong leadership and management skills, including solid program design and strategy development experience, supervision of staff, budget management, as well as solid understanding of program resource needs for effective monitoring and evaluation is essential. S/He must demonstrate effective verbal and written communication skills, and familiarity with new communication technologies and social media. Fluency in English and one other U.N. language, preferably French as well as extensive international Human Rights experience in one or more developing countries is preferred. 

Interested? Apply here:  https://sjobs.brassring.com/TGnewUI/Search/Home/Home?partnerid=25066&siteid=5043

Distinguished jurist Navi Pillay discusses state sovereignty and human rights

/ Diane Marie Amann / Leave a comment

duo“The biggest violators of human rights are states themselves, by commission or omission.”

This quote by Navi Pillay aptly summarized her talk on “National Sovereignty vs. International Human Rights.” Pillay, whose renowned legal career has included posts as U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights and as a judge on the International Criminal Court and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, spoke this morning at the University of Georgia School of Law Atlanta campus.

Elaborating on the quote above, Pillay decried national legislation aimed at restricting the activities – and with it the effectiveness – of local nongovernmental organizations. Such anti-NGO laws already have passed in Russia and are pending in Pillay’s home state of South Africa, among other countries. That said, she welcomed new means of speaking law to power; in particular, social media that permit human rights advocates to reach millions. Also welcomed were accountability mechanisms that the United Nations has developed in recent decades, such as Universal Periodic Review by the Human Rights Council, reporting processes of treaty bodies, and reports by special rapporteurs.

amann_pillayI was honored to give welcoming remarks at the breakfast. Georgia Law’s Dean Rusk International Law Center, which I lead, cosponsored this Georgia WILL event with the World Affairs Council of Atlanta and Georgia State University’s Global Studies Institute. (We owe special thanks to Judge Dorothy Toth Beasley for her hospitality this week.)

Conversing with Pillay was World Affairs Council President Charles Shapiro. They began by speaking of Pillay’s childhood in Durban, where she grew up the daughter of a bus driver. She spoke of how testifying as a 6-year-old in the trial of a man who’d stolen money from her helped spark her desire to become a lawyer – and how donations from her community helped make that dream a reality.

Shapiro then asked about capital punishment, noting a scheduled execution. Pillay acknowledged the absence of any universal treaty outlawing the death penalty, but found evidence of U.N. opposition both in the decision not to permit the penalty in U.N. ad hoc international criminal tribunals and in the growing support for the oft-repeated U.N. General Assembly resolution calling for a moratorium on capital punishment.

“It started with just 14 states against the death penalty, and is now more than 160,” said Pillay, who currently serves on the International Commission against the Death Penalty.

img_0335On this and other issues, she said, advocates endeavor to encourage states first to obligate themselves to respect and ensure human rights, and then to implement the undertakings they have made in this regard:

“The United Nations was formed by states. It is a club of governments. Look how steadily they have adopted treaties and agreed to be bound by them. That doesn’t mean we are transgressing sovereignty.”

(Cross-posted from Exchange of Notes)

The humanitarian quest for accountability: Examining the role of UNHCR

/ Kristin Bergtora Sandvik / 4 Comments

UNHCR 2015: A difficult crisis

The European refugee crisis has been a difficult experience for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). On the one hand, UNHCR has been criticized by civil society and the humanitarian community for not being present on Greek islands. On the other hand, the organization has experienced difficulties in negotiating this access with Greek authorities. In addition to criticism of UNHCRs actions/inactions in Greece, the organization also faced criticism for not doing enough to push states across Europe to admit a bigger responsibility for the refugee crisis, and to accept greater numbers of refugees for resettlement.

In the fall of 2015, there was explicit criticism of previous High Commissioner of Refugees, Antonio Guterres, as it was argued that his ambitions of becoming the new United Nations Secretary General was getting in the way of confronting European states more explicitly to  ensure that they live up to their responsibility as stated in the 1951 Refugee Convention:

“The heads of U.N. agencies with ‘well-nourished careers’ prefer to ‘put out cutesy heart-warming videos’ about individual refugees rather than criticize governments… They want another U.N. job … And they won’t get it if they piss governments off. You have to start shaming governments. That’s how things get done.”

Laying a new path under high commissioner Grandi?

Now things may be changing. Prior to the much debated EU-Turkey refugee deal, the new UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Filippo Grandi, stated that the potential refugee bottleneck in Greece was a major topic of discussion. And during a February 2016 visit to Athens, he took the opportunity to criticize “the border closures and the inability of European countries to face the refugee crisis with generosity and unity”. Only weeks later (in March 2016), the organization explicitly distanced itself from the EU-Turkey plan, as potentially undermining the tenants of international refugee protection.

Arguably this marks a shift in how UNHCR interprets and enacts its function as a key international actor tasked with the important job of holding states accountable to their commitments to international refugee protection (1951 Convention). And now that the EU-Turkey deal has become is a reality, it is certainly worth noticing that UNHCR was not part of the deal making. Instead, UNHCR is now looking to the future: “Let’s see what the European courts has to say on this,” said Vincent Cochetel, who is leading the UNHCR’s response to the crisis in Europe. A deal might be legal if Turkey overhauls its asylum system and guarantees that those returned are not kept in detention and are given a proper chance of claiming refuge, which is not currently the case, says Mr Cochetel. Other than Europeans, only Syrians have any right to claim shelter in Turkey under its current system. Accordingly, in line with UNHCR’s policy on opposing mandatory detention, the organization has suspended provision of transport to and from detention sites on Greek islands, and has also expressed concern that Greece may have deported asylum seekers by mistake, in violation of international law.

Good Enough Accountability as existential challenge

These contradictory examples illustrate what amounts to an existential challenge not only for UNHCR, but for the humanitarian enterprise as a whole, namely the quest for good enough accountability.  In situations where the host state may be unable or unwilling to protect civilians, humanitarians step in to provide governance, care and protection. With a record-high number of humanitarian emergencies and displaced individuals worldwide, there are more humanitarian organizations doing more things in more places than ever before. They are not elected and are mostly unencumbered by legal obligations towards the communities they proclaim to work for. While the humanitarian sector has developed its own ‘accountability-industry’, humanitarians continue to express concern about how accountability-initiatives are skewed towards donors, at the expense of accountability towards crisis-affected communities and individuals. At the same time, there is deep disagreement about what good enough accountability might look like, how it might be achieved and what resources humanitarians and donors would be willing to invest towards reaching a satisfactory level of accountability.

A knowledge gap: Conceptualizing the history and ‘technologies of accountability’

Despite the key importance of accountability for the legitimacy of humanitarian action, inadequate academic attention has been given to how the concept of accountability is evolving within the specific branches of the humanitarian enterprise. Up to now, there exists no comprehensive account of what we label the ‘technologies of accountability’, the effects of their interaction, or the question of how the current turn to decision-making software and biometrics as both the means and ends of accountability may contribute to reshaping humanitarian governance.

In a recent book, UNHCR and the Struggle for Accountability: Technology, Law and Results-Based Management (Routledge Humanitarian Studies series) we explore UNHCR’s quest for accountability by viewing the UNHCR’s accountability obligations through the web of institutional relationships within which the agency is placed (beneficiaries, host governments, implementing partners, donors, the Executive Committee and UNGA). The book takes a multidisciplinary approach in order to illuminate the various layers and relationships that constitute accountability and also to reflect on what constitutes good enough accountability.

Table of Contents:

  • Introduction: The Quest for an Accountability Cure Katja Lindskov Jacobsen & Kristin Bergtora Sandvik
  • UNHCR and the Complexity of Accountability in the Global Space Niamh Kinchin
  • Advancing UNHCR Accountability through the Law of International Responsibility Maja Janmyr
  • Narratives of accountability in UNHCR’s refugee resettlement strategy Adèle Garnier
  • UNHCR and accountability for IDP protection in Colombia Miriam Bradley
  • Universalizing the refugee category and struggling for accountability: the every-day work of eligibility officers within UNHCR Marion Fresia and Andreas von Känel
  • Accounting for the Past, A history of refugee management in Uganda, 1959-64 Ashley B. Rockenbach
  • How accountability technologies shape international protection: results-based management and rights-based approaches revisited Kristin Bergtora Sandvik
  • UNHCR, Accountability and Refugee Biometrics Katja Lindskov Jacobsen

 

Kristin Bergtora Sandvik is an Associate Professor at the Department of Criminology and Sociology of Law at University of Oslo and a Senior Researcher at PRIO.

Katja Lindskov Jacobsen is Senior Researcher at The Centre for Military Studies at Copenhagen University, Department of Political Science.

Go On! University of Essex Human Rights Summer School (early enrolment discounts available now)

/ Julie Hannah / Leave a comment

Following on from a successful second year, the Human Rights Centre at the University of Essex is offering its five day summer school on Human Rights Research Methods from 27 June to 1 July 2015.  Additionally, the Human Rights Centre is offering a second week (4-5 July) of thematic modules on two contemporary and cutting edge issues in human rights:

An international team of experts will deliver teaching sessions, including leading human rights academics and practitioners. These are essential courses for postgraduate students, academics, lawyers, those working in civil society and international organisations, and importantly, those holding positions in government, including diplomats and civil servants.  The thematic modules are run in conjunction with the International Centre on Human Rights & Drug Policy and the Human Rights Centre.

Courses will be held at the University of Essex campus in Wivenhoe Park, an hour train ride from central London.  An early booking discount on the published course fee rates is available now.

A full course programme, including enrolment details are available here.  We hope to see you at Essex this summer!