On December 11

On this day in ...

... 1946, the U.N. General Assembly adopted Resolution 57(I), "Establishment of an International Children's Emergency Fund." The resolution aimed initially at helping "children and adolescents of countries which were victims of aggression" in the recently ended Second World War. Over time, of course, the mandate of the Fund – known today by its acronym, UNICEF – expanded to include all children throughout the world. On this very same day in 1965, when UNICEF was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, the organization was praised for the results it had achieved:

'Differences of view have been welded, almost always, into an accepted concensus in the search for agreement on the best methods of providing assistance to alleviate the agony of children who are victims of cruel circumstance.'

(Prior December 11 posts are here, here, here, here, and here.)

How to "fix that" United States elections process

(Final part of a 4-part series comparing voting in the United States and Venezuela, in light of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Part 1 is here; Part 2 is here; Part 3 is here.)

President Lyndon Johnson & Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., 1965

In the United States, citizens must continue to advocate vigorously to hold on to landmark historic voting rights protections and inclusionary guarantees.
For example, consider a controversial case soon to be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. Entitled Shelby County v. Holder, the case, arising out of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, represents a challenge to the constitutionality of the preclearance provisions of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 – provisions that require jurisdictions with a documented history of discrimination to obtain approval from the federal government before changing their election procedures.
For over 40 years, the Voting Rights Act has been upheld as constitutional. The Act worked to ensure historically disenfranchised minorities' increased participation in U.S. elections, and was reauthorized in 1970, 1975, 1982, and again, unanimously by a Republican Congress in 2006, during the administration of President George W. Bush.
Now, the most effective civil rights law in U.S. history faces an unprecedented challenge with Shelby County, which puts at stake the constitutionality of the VRA under the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the U.S. Constitution.
As Corey Dade of NPR has recalled, the preclearance provisions are still quite relevant in 2012, given that federal courts applied the preclearance provisions to block voter identification requirements in Texas, and other procedural electoral changes, ahead of the U.S. general election on November 6.
Similarly, California-Irvine Law Professor Rick Hasen, an election law expert, said :

'There is still evidence of unconstitutional conduct as found this year in the Texas redistricting case ... There certainly is some evidence of continued racial discrimination in voting, although it is far less common than in the 1960s. And when it occurs, it is more subtle. Section 5 has served to be an important bargaining chip.'

Indeed, many voting rights advocates point to the support that U.N. Under-Secretary-General Ralph Bunche provided Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the civil rights movement during the 1960s, which ultimately turned up the pressure on President Lyndon Baines Johnson to sign the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Bunche, winner of the 1950 Nobel Peace Prize  on account of his diplomatic efforts in the Middle East, had participated in the 1963 March on Washington. In a public statement at the Montgomery Statehouse during the 1965 march from Selma to Montgomery, he said that the United Nations supported the civil rights movement in the United States:

'In the UN, we have known from the beginning that secure foundations for peace in the world can be built only upon the principle and practice of equal rights and status for all peoples, respect and dignity for all.'

This resonated for me during my October service as an elections observer in Venezuela. While there, as depicted at left, I had the opportunity to meet the 1992 Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Rigoberta Menchú Tum. An indomitable indigenous rights advocate, she too was part of the International Accompaniment that observed voter access and participation. (photo courtesy of CUNY Professor Ron Hayduk) Menchú’s lifework reminded me of why it is so important to stay vigilant in the protection of these civil rights both at home and abroad.
Much work remains to be done.
 As I posted in Part 1 of this series, the 2009 Nobel Peace Prizewinner, U.S. President Barack Obama, said of U.S. voting-rights issues during his November 6 victory speech:

'We have to fix that.'

Welcoming Rita Maran

It's our immense honor to welcome Dr. Rita Maran (left) as an IntLawGrrls contributor.
As we have posted, Rita has described herself as a "lecturer, author, activist in International Human Rights." She's taught at the University of California, Berkeley. As indicated by this poem that Naomi Roht-Arriaza wrote for Rita's 80th birthday party and published on IntLawGrrls, she is a friend to many of us.
Rita's writings include a June 2008 manual, Human Rights for the University Classroom, a Active in the United Nations Association-USA, and a 1989 book, Torture: The Role of Ideology in the French-Algerian War.
Her activism includes service as a founding member of the Board of Directors of Human Rights Advocates, a Berkeley-based nongovernmental organization, as Advocacy Vice President of the East Bay Chapter of the United Nations Association of the United States, and as an appointed member of the Berkeley Peace & Justice Commission. In her introductory post below, she discusses the background – including a Peace & Justice Commission resolution – that led to the 2012 Berkeley ordinance incorporating CEDAW, the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
Heartfelt welcome!

Write On! Access to food & other scarce resources

(Write On! is an occasional item about notable calls for papers)

Columbia Law School's Center on Global Legal Transformation seeks proposals from "junior researchers" on "Triangulating Property Rights: Governing Access to Scarce, Essential Resources," to be presented as part of a New York conference on scarce-resource access, which the center will sponsor on June 20-21, 2013, in New York.
Our colleague Katharina Pistor (below left), NYU Professor of Law and Director of the Center, is organizing, along with NYU Visiting Law Professor Olivier De Schutter (right), the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, who's also a Professor of Law at Belgium's Catholic University of Louvain and College of Europe.
The full call for papers outlines the tension between global scarcities and private property rights, and then continues:

'Proposals should suggest models for governing essential, scarce resources. They can be qualitative or quantitative; make use of empirical data and field research or suggest a new theoretical approach. They should address if and how the following three normative goals (the basis of the triangle to which the title refers) for managing scarce, essential goods can be realized:

• equity (universal access to those resources that are essential for human life);
• efficiency (in managing scarce essential goods and minimizing waste); and
• sustainability (arrangements that do not unduly interfere with future productivity or availability of essentials).'

Interested persons should submit memos of 5-10 single-spaced pages to the project coordinator, Claire Debucquois, at cd2636@columbia.edu.
Deadline is January 15, 2013.

On December 3

On this day in ...
... 1992 (20 years ago today), U.N. Security Council Resolution 794 was adopted. In it, the Council's 15 members unanimously agreed to set up a United Task Force charged with establishing a "secure environment" in Somalia so that humanitarian assistance might be provided to the civilian population. Troops arrived in Mogadishu, as part of UNITAF, within days after the passage of the resolution. (image credit)

(Prior December 3 posts are here, here, here, here, and here.)

In case of Palestine, no sense in retroactive jurisdiction at the International Criminal Court

Yesterday Opinio Juris included a post arguing that "Yes, Palestine Could Accept the ICC’s Jurisdiction Retroactively."
With all due respect to its author, my friend and colleague Kevin Jon Heller, there seems a legitimate doubt whether a Palestine could ratify the Rome Statute of the ICC in its status, newly recognized by the U.N. General Assembly, of nonmember state permitted to participate in the work of the UNGA. Moreover, the argument against Palestine being able to take the ratification backwards in time appears even stronger.
As to current jurisdiction, there would have to be both:
► Acceptance by the ICC either of the instrument of ratification, or of a declaration pursuant to Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute, which states:

'If the acceptance of a State which is not a Party to this Statute is required ..., that State may, by declaration lodged with the Registrar, accept the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court with respect to the crime in question....'

and then:
►Determination by the court that there is a "state" for Rome Statute purposes.
Why this is complex, is that jurisdiction under the Rome Statute covers crimes committed (a) on a state's territory, and (b) by its nationals. If there is a dispute as to the state's "territory" and/or therefore "nationals," how does jurisdiction work? This is indeed unclear.
As noted already by one commenter responding to Kevin, the case becomes even more complicated if you try to argue the ratification would be able to be retroactive to July 1, 2002, using an Article 12(3) declaration.
Even if an entity becomes a "state," should there be jurisdiction that it can invoke back to a time when (a) there were no clear "nationals" of that state, and (b) there was no clear "territory" of that state, and in fact, even according to the General Assembly there was only an "observer" and not a "state"? (The ICC Office of the Prosecutor has already declined to exercise jurisdiction over this time-period once before.)
Let's not get carried away here.
We are in a rush to declare the consequences of potential jurisdiction when indeed there are many legal questions that remain. The Côte d'Ivoire precedent here is not true precedent, as it covers none of these complexities.
But I do completely agree with Kevin when he states:

'Palestine should be careful what it wishes for.'

If the ICC has jurisdiction over a situation, then it indeed would have jurisdiction over all sides.
Perhaps the lack of clarity here suggests that it would be prudent for all actors over whom there might be jurisdiction to refrain from committing Rome Statute crimes. Wouldn't that be a nice outcome of Thursday's vote?

Palestine news flash: 138 aye, 9 nay, 41 abstain

Cant' access the U.N. website at the moment, but the Guardian's live blog reports that the U.N. General Assembly has just upgraded Palestine's status to nonmember state, placing it on par with the Holy See, but not with the nearly 200 member states of the United Nations.
Here's the reported vote on whether Palestine should be recognized as a nonmember state:

No - 9:
Canada, Czech Republic, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Panama, Palau, United States of America

Abstain - 41:
Albania, Andorra, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Bosnia/Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Colombia, Croatia, Dem. Rep. of Congo, Estonia, Fiji, Germany, Guatemala, Haiti, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malawi, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Netherlands, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Poland, Korea, Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, United Kingdom, Vanuatu

Yes - 138:
Pretty much the rest of the General Assembly's membership.

IntLawGrrls' prior posts on what this change of status means, in the Middle East, at the United Nations, and at organizations like the International Criminal Court,  available here.

Welcoming Christen Broecker

It's our great pleasure today to welcome Christen Broecker (left)  as an IntLawGrrls contributor.
Christen is the Associate Director of the Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights (JBI) in New York, where her work focuses on strengthening international human rights institutions, the prohibition against torture, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and genocide prevention. She also provides research assistance to another IntLawGrrls contributor, JBI Director Felice Gaer. Specifically, Christen conducts research relating to Felice's work as Vice Chair of the United Nations Committee against Torture, a committee on which Felice has served since 1999.
In her introductory post below, Christen details a milestone achievement of the Committee against Torture; specifically, its adoption, on Friday, while meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, of General Comment No. 3, on the matter of right to redress.
Before joining JBI, Christen was the 2009-2010 New York University Law Fellow at Human Rights Watch, with responsibility for researching and reporting on human rights abuses in Indonesia. She holds a B.A. magna cum laude from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, as well as J.D. cum laude and an LL.M. in International Legal Studies from NYU, where she was an Institute for International Law and Justice Scholar. She also has provided volunteer support to attorneys litigating Alien Tort Statute claims against corporate defendants and to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Liberia.
Christen's publications include two reports on Indonesia for Human Rights Watch and several academic articles on corporate accountability for international human rights violations.
Christen dedicates her post as follows:

'To human rights attorney and professor Rhonda Copelon, whose pathbreaking work on Alien Tort Statute litigation opened the door for victims of torture perpetrated overseas to seek redress in U.S. courts, and whose scholarship and advocacy on sexual and gender-based violence led international bodies including the Committee against Torture to recognize that gender crimes including rape and domestic violence can constitute torture.'

In this she joins many who, in prior posts, have thus honored Rhonda, an IntLawGrrls foremother. (credit for above right photo by Jim Block, made in 2005 at the University of California-Berkeley School of Law) As we then posted, Rhonda passed away on May 6, 2010.
Heartfelt welcome!

United Nations Committee against Torture Adopts New General Comment on Right to Redress

(My thanks to IntLawGrrls for the opportunity to contribute this introductory post)

The expert committee tasked by 153 states parties to interpret and monitor the implementation of the UN Convention against Torture has adopted an authoritative interpretation of the content and scope of the right to redress for victims of torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
General Comment No. 3, issued last Friday by the UN Committee against Torture (logo at left), is the first interpretive statement by a UN human rights treaty body aimed at clarifying this relatively ambiguous area of international law. It draws from and consolidates decades of the Committee’s jurisprudence on the right to redress, including views that the Committee has articulated in its periodic reviews of states parties and in decisions rendered on individual complaints.
General Comments are considered subsidiary evidence of the content of international law, and they have been conferred considerable weight by some national courts. General Comment No. 3 thus represents a historic codification of the Committee’s understanding of the nature of the right to redress, one that makes a significant contribution to the international understanding of states’ obligations in this area.
While an exhaustive review of the significance of the Committee’s General Comment No. 3 is beyond the scope of this post, this review of some of its key provisions should demonstrate that the pronouncement represents a significant victory for victims of torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment (to which this post refers as "ill-treatment"). Indeed, the point of departure for the Committee, as reflected early on in the General Comment, is that

'the restoration of the dignity of the victim is the ultimate objective in the provision of redress.'

General Comment No. 3 reminds states of the wide-ranging legislative, institutional, and policy measures they must undertake in order to genuinely ensure that redress for victims of torture and ill-treatment is available, adequate, and effective. In doing so, it represents a significant addition to the body of international legal opinion on victims’ rights more broadly.
Article 14 of the 1948 Convention against Torture, which articulates the right to redress, reads:

'1. Each State party shall ensure in its legal system that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible. In the event of the death of the victim as a result of an act of torture, his dependents shall be entitled to compensation.
'2. Nothing in this article shall affect any right of the victim or other person to compensation which may exist under national law.'

General Comment No. 3 elaborates the Committee’s understanding of this article of the Convention over the course of more than 10 pages of text. The following points are of particular importance:

Definition of “victim” (¶ 3)
The Committee stresses that it understands the term “victim” as constituting all individuals who suffer harm as a result of conduct that constitutes a violation of the Convention, including immediate family members and dependents of victims of torture and ill-treatment. This articulation of family members of victims as victims in their own right is significant, and reflects past Committee practice.

Scope of conduct giving rise to victim status (¶ 1)
The Committee explains that the right to redress under the Convention extends not only to victims of torture but also to victims of ill-treatment. While the text of article 14 only refers to victims of “torture,” as the Committee stated in 2007 in its General Comment No. 2 on prevention of torture, the Committee understands the obligations to prevent torture and to prevent ill-treatment to be

On November 15

On this day in ...
... 1988, while meeting in Algiers, the Palestine National Council, by a vote of 253 to 46, proclaimed Palestine an independent state. The proclamation also was affirmed after the close of prayers in front of Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, claimed as the capital of the new state. The proclamation was transmitted to the U.N. General Assembly within days.
As posted, over the years an increasing number of states has recognized Palestine, and its leaders sought full member state status last year – in vain, as the request must be approved by all 5 permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. By letter dated last Thursday and available here, Palestine asked the United Nations to consider according it non-member-state status, an intermediate place between full membership and Palestine's current status of permanent observer.

(Prior November 15 posts are here, here, here, here, and here.)

'Nuff said

(Taking context-optional note of thought-provoking quotes)

'I continue to meet women and girls who tell me they are unable to exercise their right to family planning and end up having more children than they intend, burdening them economically, harming their health, and undermining opportunities for a better life for themselves and their families.
'Recent statistics show that 867 million women of childbearing age in developing countries have a need for modern contraceptives. Of that total, 645 million have access to them. But a staggering 222 million still do not. This is inexcusable. Family planning is a human right. It must therefore be available to all who want it. But clearly this right has not yet been extended to all, especially in the poorest countries.'

– Dr. Babatunde Osotimehin (right), Under-Secretary-General and Executive Director of the U.N. Population Fund.
The quote appears in his foreword to a 140-page report on the "state of world population 2012," released today and entitled By Choice, Not By Chance: Family Planning, Human Rights, and Development. Osotimehin, a physician who was born in Nigeria and educated there and in Britain, thus introduced the 1st express statement that contraception is a human right to be found in an annual report of the Population Fund.

On November 14

On this day in ...
... 1904, born in Minneapolis, Minnesota, was a granddaughter of the founder of the Pillsbury Flour Mills Co. A couple years after graduating Phi Beta Kappa from Smith College, where she majored in French, she married a textile manufacturer named Oswald Bates Lord. Living with her husband and sons (one, Winston Lord, would become a U.S. Ambassador), Mary Pillsbury Lord (left) threw herself into volunteer work. In World War II, she toured Army installations throughout the world in her capacity as chair of the National Civilian Advisory Committee of the Women's Army Corps. In 1947, she organized and chaired the U.S. Committee for UNICEF, and in 1953, by appointment of President Dwight D.  Eisenhower, for whom she'd campaigned, Lord succeeded Eleanor Roosevelt as the U.S. representative to the U.N. Human Rights Commission. Later she was appointed a U.S. representative to the U.N. General Assembly. After completing that post, she continued to be active in international affairs until her death in 1978. A year after, she was honored posthumously with the Freedom Award of the International Rescue Committee, which she had served as president. Her papers are available here and here.

(Prior November 14 posts are here, here, here, here, and here.)

On November 7

On this day in ...
... 1962 (50 years ago today), Eleanor Roosevelt died at her home in New York, 78 years and a couple weeks after she'd been born Anna Eleanor Roosevelt in the same city. Her Uncle Teddy would become President of the United States by the time of her 17th birthday; 4 years later, on March 17, 1905, he would escort her down the aisle to marry her distant cousin, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who would be elected President in 1933, so that Eleanor served as U.S. 1st Lady till her husband's death in office in 1945. (credit for photo of ER's White House portrait) As posted about our foremother, ER's impact went beyond the White House, encompassing the United Nations and national and global society. Thus began her New York Times obituary:

'Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt was more involved in the minds and hearts and aspirations of people than any other First Lady in history. By the end of her life she was one of the most esteemed women in the world. ...
'Again and again, she was voted "the world's most admired woman" in international polls. When she entered the halls of the United Nations, representatives from all countries rose to honor her. She had become not only the wife and widow of a towering President but a noble personality in herself.'

(Prior November 7 posts are here, here, here, here, and here.)

U.N. Legal Counsel O'Brien on the rule of law, international criminal justice, responsibility to protect

(Delighted to publish the latest contribution to IntLawGrrls by Patricia O'Brien, Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and United Nations Legal Counsel – her October 20 Keynote Address to the American Society of International Law Midyear Meeting, delivered, as shown above, at the University of Georgia School of Law in Athens)

It is a great pleasure to be here today and to share with you some insights and reflections as Legal Counsel at the United Nations, and on some issues which are the focus of our work in the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs. I am honoured and grateful for the opportunity to address you this afternoon.
I will speak about three areas:
► The Rule of Law at the UN;
► International criminal justice and accountability; and
► The concept of Responsibility to Protect and the recent practice on this subject.

Rule of Law
Since joining the Organisation, it has become clear to me that international law – and the role of the UN as its champion – is central to the work of the UN and to the Secretary-General and his team.
Before I give you a sense of the centrality which I found, allow me to mention the Charter, which is of course the fundamental legal basis and primary law of the UN. The UN was established not only to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, but, as the Preamble also provides,

'to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained'.

Over the years, the UN has seen periods of great advancement in international law and jurisprudence. Addressing the American Society of International Law, it is appropriate to recall the key role played by representatives of the United States in the promotion of the rule of law on the international plane. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948 by the General Assembly, drew upon the foundational instruments at the core of the rule of law at the domestic level: the Magna Carta, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, and, of course, the American Bill of Rights. Eleanor Roosevelt’s tireless diplomatic efforts were instrumental in articulating the international community’s clear and uncompromising declaration of the rights to which all human beings are entitled. Mrs. Roosevelt stated to the General Assembly at the adoption of the UDHR:

Eleanor Roosevelt

'We stand today at the threshold of a great event both in the life of the United Nations and in the life of mankind. This declaration may well become the international Magna Carta for all men everywhere.'

The rule of law lies at the heart of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Its Preamble notes that

'it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse … to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.'

Article 7 affirms the equal right of every human being, without discrimination, to have recourse to the law’s protection. Indeed, the rule of law is the bedrock upon which all of the rights enumerated in the UDHR rely for their protection and enforcement.
We live in an era in which international law is no longer only the business of international courts and institutions. In the decades following the UDHR, States have entered into numerous treaties upon which individuals can directly rely to enforce their rights: the European Convention on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social And Cultural Rights to name a few. That States have binding obligations under such instruments has led to a greater role for international law before national and regional courts.
As Lord Bingham said in his superb book on The Rule of Law,

'International law is a body of law which complements national laws of individual states, and is in no way antagonistic to them; it is not a thing apart; it rests on similar principles and pursues similar ends.'

In many ways, the rule of law at the international level is the domestic rule of law writ large. It addresses the exercise of power and the relationship between the individual and the State. It of course goes further and regulates the relationship of States with each other.
Observance of the Rule of Law is just as important on the international plane as on the national. To quote from the 2005 SG’s report, In Larger Freedom,

'Every nation that proclaims the rule of law at home must respect it abroad and every nation that insists on it abroad must enforce it at home.'

Professor Dicey is credited for coining the expression “the rule of law” in 1885. But as Lord Bingham noted, Dicey did not apply his paint to a blank canvas. The qualities embodied in the notion of rule of law have been propounded for centuries and go back to antiquity. I will take the liberty of quoting Plato:

'Where the law is subject to some other authority and has none of its own, the collapse of the state, in my view, is not far off, but if the law is the master of the governments and the government its slave, then the situation is full of promise and men enjoy all the blessings, all the gods shower on a state.'

What vision do we in the UN have with respect to the implementation of international law for the UN as a global actor?

Under-Secretary-General O'Brien talking with law students

In essence, it is very simple. It comes down to promoting respect for the rule of law at the international level and by the UN itself as an actor.
For the United Nations, the rule of law refers to a principle of governance according to which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards. This principle underpins each of the issues which I will discuss today. The enormous strides taken in the field of international criminal justice in the last 20 years have been driven by the desire for accountability. And, proceedings in which Heads of State have been held accountable for serious international crimes illustrate the fundamental tenet of the rule of law that no one is above the law. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P), like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, articulates States’ moral and political responsibility to protect the rights of all of their citizens.
My Office plays a key role in promoting the rule of law at the national and international levels. Establishing respect for the rule of law is fundamental and essential for a number of reasons, including:

October 29

On this day in ...
... 2005, more than 8 months after the Valentine's Day bombing that killed former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and others dead in downtown Beirut, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad issued a decree forming a "special judicial committee" of officials in the government's law enforcement and judiciary services, and instructed it, according to a news report, "to cooperate with the independent International Investigating Committee and with the Lebanese judicial authorities in all what is linked to procedures of the investigation clarified by the decree."
That U.N. investigation commission would give rise to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. As for Assad, his crackdown in his own country this last year and a half has led to calls – some recounted in IntLawGrrls' Syria posts – that he be held accountable before some international criminal forum.

(Prior October 29 posts are here, here, here, here, and here.)

On October 24

On this day in ...
... 1970, the U.N. General Assembly adopted Resolution 2625 (XXV), entitled the "Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations." Paragraph 1 began:

'The principle that States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.'

The declaration then proceeded to detail means by which states ought to respect the prohibition on threat or use of force, set forth tersely in Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter.

(Prior October 24 posts are here, here, here, here, and here.)

Look On! Whistleblower on human trafficking

(Look On! takes occasional note of noteworthy productions)

Human trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation must be one of the most abhorrent abuses suffered by people (mainly women and children) today. A modern form of slavery, women and girls are kidnapped, beaten and raped by traffickers who make huge profits by selling women to men, who are willing to pay for sex.
The 2000 Protocol on human trafficking, aimed to prevent, suppress, and punish the offence, forms part of the Convention against Transnational Organised Crime.
But what happens if this organized crime is being perpetrated by those working in international organisations?
What happens if those involved in exploiting and raping women are UN peacekeepers with immunity?
And what happens to the person brave enough to report what is going on?

Whistleblower (2010), directed by Canadian Larysa Kondracki, tells the fictionalised story of Kathyrn Bolkovac (played by Rachel Weisz). Bolkovac, an American police officer, was sent to Bosnia under a contract with Dyncorp, a private contractor as a peacekeeper. When in Bosnia, she uncovered the involvement of UN peacekeepers in the trafficking and sexual exploitation of women.
The film dramatises the protection that the United Nations gave the soldiers and policemen involved in the exploitation of the women, both in their roles as traffickers and as patrons of the women forced into prostitution.
Whilst a blind eye was turned to the rape and exploitation of the women in post-war Balkans and the men involved were protected from the scandal, Bolkovac was fired, in what a British employment tribunal later determined to have been an unfair dismissal on account of her investigation and reporting of human trafficking.
Whistleblower – an excellent and hard-hitting movie with big-name actors including Vanessa Redgrave and Monica Belluci – is a must-see for those interested in gender issues in postconflict situations and in accountability (or lack thereof) for the criminal actions of UN personnel.
For a followup on the real-life events since the film was released – including UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's staging of a special screening last year at the United Nations – see the Guardian article here.

(Cross-posted at Human Rights Film Diary blog)

On October 17

On this day in ...

... 1992 (20 years ago today), were announced the results of a late-September election, conducted under the supervision of the United Nations in accordance with 1991 peace accords that had brought a stop to a protracted civil war in Angola. More than 91% of registered voters took part. The party of incumbent President José Eduardo dos Santos had won nearly 54% of the votes for the legislature, but neither he nor his challenger, UNITA rebel leader Jonas Savimbi, had garnered 50% of the presidential vote. Margaret Joan Anstee of Britain, the Special Representative of the U.N. Secretary-General (a U.N. careerist who published the memoirs at right a few years back, brilliantly titled Never Learn to Type: A Woman at the United Nations), declared the vote "to have been generally free and fair." Yet Savimbi's UNITA responded with "a nationwide operation to occupy municipalities by force and remove the Government’s local administrative structures"; by month's end, "heavy fighting" had erupted. It would be years more before a new accord brought peace to the country.

(Prior October 17 posts are here, here, here, here, and here.)

'Nuff said

(Taking context-optional note of thought-provoking quotes)

(credit)

'On this first International Day of the Girl, and for the sake of all victims of international crimes, I call again on the international community to execute these outstanding arrest warrants to put an end to their victims’ plight.'

– International Criminal Court Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, in a statement calling for the capture of certain ICC fugitives – Omar al-Bashir, President of Sudan, and Joseph Kony and Bosco Ntaganda, warlords in, respectively, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo – as a tangible means to advance justice on this 1st-ever, U.N.-declared International Day of the Girl Child.

International context for affirmative action argument

'The University of Texas’ race-conscious admissions policy comports with international human rights standards guaranteeing the full freedom from racial discrimination for all and furthers the United States’ compliance with its international treaty commitments. Furthermore, the University of Texas’ program comports with the law of other jurisdictions upholding and endorsing race-conscious measures in admissions in higher education. This international context should inform the Court’s analysis of the constitutionality of the University of Texas’s consideration of race in its admissions process.'

– So concludes IntLawGrrl Connie de la Vega (left), University of San Francisco Law Professor, in her capacity as counsel of record for the Brief of Amici Curiae Human Rights Advocates, et al., in Support of Respondents in Fisher v.  University of Texas. In that case, to be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court tomorrow morning, petitioner Abigail Noel Fisher, a Texan denied admission to the university, seeks to overturn a 2011 decision in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, relying on the supreme Court's judgment in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), upheld the university's race-conscious admissions program. (A preview of the argument is here.)
Connie's brief argues in favor of the program by showing it to be in accord with:
► 2 treaties to which the United States is a party, the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the 1965 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination;
► The views of  the U.N. Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, a panel of independent human rights experts
► Rulings in the European Court of Justice; and
► National rulings and laws in Australia, Brazil, Canada, India, New Zealand, and South Africa.
A look at the titles of briefs filed in Fisher suggests that hers is one of the few to invoke international context – scarcely a surprise given that the Court's been rather reticent on this topic in the last few years. Kudos to Connie and her colleagues for adding this perspective to the Court's deliberations.