On December 10

On this day in ...
... 1931, the Nobel Peace Prize was bestowed on Jane Addams; she was a co-winner with Nicholas Murray Butler. Nobel Committee Chair Halvdan Koht said in his presentation speech:

(credit)

'America helped – perhaps it would be more correct to say compelled – Europe to create a League of Nations which would provide a firm basis for peaceful coexistence among nations. It was a crushing blow that America herself did not join this organization, and without doubt her failure to do so contributed largely to the failure of the League of Nations to live up to expectations. We still see too much of the old rivalries of power politics. Had the United States joined, she would have been a natural mediator between many of the conflicting forces in Europe, for America is more interested in peace in Europe than in lending her support to any particular country.
'It must be said, however, that the United States is not the power for peace in the world that we should have wished her to be. She has sometimes let herself drift into the imperialism which is the natural outcome of industrial capitalism in our age. In many ways she is typical of the wildest form of capitalist society, and this has inevitably left its mark on American politics.
'But America has at the same time fostered some of the most spirited idealism on earth.'

A longtime advocate of peace, suffrage, and measures to alleviate poverty, Addams was emblematic of that idealism – of "the work which women can do peace fraternity among nations," Koht continued. But Addams, who was then 71 years old, was admitted to a hospital in Baltimore on this day in 1931, and so was unable to attend the ceremony in Oslo, Norway. She would die 4 years later in the city where she had long lived, Chicago. We IntLawGrrls honor her as a transnational foremother.

(Prior December 10 posts are here, here, here, here, and here.)

On December 8

On this day in ...
... 1923, in Washington, D.C., diplomats signed the U.S.-Germany Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Consular Rights. World War I hostilities between the 2 states had ended with a 1921 bilateral peace treaty (given that the United States had not ratified the multilateral Versailles Treaty).
The 1923 pact represented an effort to strengthen ties, after the "German economy collapsed under the burden of reparations" imposed at Versailles.

(Prior December 8 posts are here, here, here, here, and here.)

CEDAW goes local in California – and beyond?

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

This year has seen a measure of "global to local" migration –  a development that I find satisfying, inter alia, in that it integrates international human rights law into domestic law.

Berkeley
The story in Berkeley began in July 2004, when the City Council adopted Resolution No.62,617, directing that the operative articles of Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women be made part of Berkeley Municipal Code, and urging ratification of CEDAW by the United States.
The request that the Council do so had originated in a resolution of the Peace & Justice Commission, on which I serve. The Peace & Justice Commission, one of Berkeley's 30-plus commissions, is made up of of citizen-volunteers who serve the city on a wide range of related issues.
Over the years following the Council's 2004 resolution, City departments continued analyses of various aspects –  including the authority, procedures, and budget – were the city to in fact adopt a new law.
The proposed ordinance came before the City Council for a second time on February 14, 2012, eight years after the initial resolution. It was noted in the February discussion that CEDAW had not yet been ratified by the U.S. government, and that the United States was one of only seven member states of the United Nations in that category.
Following further analysis of the resolution by the City Attorney's office, Ordinance 7,224-N.S. of 17 March 2012 added Chapter 13.20, "Adopting the Operative Principles of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women," to the Berkeley Municipal Code. The new Berkeley law:
► Serves to "promote equal access to and equity in health care, economic development, educational opportunities and employment for women"; and also
► Addresses "the continuing and critical problem of violence against women."

San Francisco
The Berkeley experience with CEDAW unabashedly benefits from the example set by the City and County of San Francisco.
Given that CEDAW had not been ratified by the U.S. government, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors took action on the need for legal safeguards on behalf of preventing and ending discrimination against women. The Board held an all-day hearing in October 1997. The resulting Resolution No. 1021-97, duly signed into law by then-Mayor Willie Brown on November 17, 1997, requires city departments to use a gender and human rights analysis to review city policy. Selected San Francisco departments review hiring, funding and service for compliance with the law. (attached below)

After-Effects
► An electronic message, with the 2012 Berkeley law attached, went to U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay. Commissioner Pillay sent hearty congratulations, and forwarded the information to the CEDAW Committee that receives reports from the 187 states parties to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
► U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, and U.S. Representative Barbara Lee, whose congressional district includes Berkeley, sent letters of congratulations to the city.
► The Mayor's Office of Salt Lake City initiated a conference call with a member of the Berkeley Peace & Justice Commission and a member of the San Francisco Commission on the Status of Women, in order to fact-find details of the process.

Electoral participation: Venezuela & United States

(Part 2 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 3 is here; Part 4 is here.)

An unprecedented 80.48% of Venezuela’s over 18 million registered voters participated in the presidential elections that took place on October 7 – elections at which, as I posted yesterday, I served as an international observer.
Fifteen years ago in Venezuela, a country with a population of around 27.1 million, only about 13 million voters were registered and eligible to vote. (Photo Credit: Swiss Delegation, CNE Accompañamiento Internacional de las Elecciones del 7 de octubre, 2012, Estado de Monagas, Venezuela)
Dr. Tibisay Lucena, current President of Venezuela's Consejo Nacional Electoral, the election council known as CNE, has engaged in some analysis of the massive shift in levels of participation in her essay, The Venezuelan Experience. Lucena and other members of the CNE, including Vice President Sandra Oblitas, attribute much of the increased participation to the massive investment of the CNE in electoral inclusion in historically disenfranchised urban and rural communities.

Tibisay Lucena

Earlier in 2012, before the registration process closed in April, Tamara Pearson of Venezuelanalysis.com reported that

Sandra Oblitas Ruzza

'CNE set up 1,300 registration tents around the country and in overseas consulates, and 1,360,598 people registered to vote for the first time, while 4,512,000 changed their voting address, according to CNE director Sandra Oblitas.'

Pearson reported that 89% of the new registrations were among youth aged 18 to 25; other new registrations included individuals who had since been granted Venezuelan nationality, people who were unable to register due to rural isolation or perhaps a disability, and people who chose not to register prior to 2012. Only individuals with Venezuelan nationality could vote in the October presidential elections; residents can vote in the upcoming December 16 regional elections.
Oblitas has stated that the gap between those able to vote and those registered had been reduced to 3.5%, a statistic she interpreted as a great advance and a direct result of a broader policy of participatory inclusion. The CNE employs over 400,000 people to staff the electoral mesas, provide on the ground digital technology support, and directly administer the electoral process, and maintains an independent budget of over Bs 2,273,000,000 (US$ 494 million) to carry out both the October 7 and upcoming December 16 regional electoral processes.
In contrast, consider that the highest participation rate in recent years in the United States was estimated at only 61.6% of registered voters, comprising only 57.47% of the entire U.S. voting-age population. That was in the 2008 presidential elections.
Amid reports of lower registered-voter turnout this year – an estimated 57.5% – the popular image of the United States as a leader in the development of open, participatory, democratic institutions is not exactly in alignment with current realities on the ground.
In fact, according to data compiled by the international Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, the United States trails behind 16 Latin American nations in terms of voter turnout, besting only Colombia (45%) and Honduras (53%), two countries that are not well-regarded for any laudable transparency in the electoral process.
The perennial confusion over voter registration in the United States, which may depress registration and participation levels, could be clarified by uniform national standards regarding voter registration. Reforms might take into consideration similar systemic electoral reforms in Latin America.
Along with observations from the Center for Economic and Policy Studies, the National Lawyers Guild International Committee's observations of Venezuelan popular democracy in action – observations in which I took part – stand in marked contrast with media depictions of Venezuela’s government as autocratic.

'Nuff said

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

'Then, after Mr. Dole’s wife, Elizabeth, rolled him off the floor, Republicans quietly voted down the treaty that the ailing Mr. Dole, recently released from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, so longed to see passed.'

–  New York Times reporter Jennifer Steinhauer, in an article on yesterday's vote on Capitol Hill: falling 5 votes short of the need 2/3 majority, the Senate rejected U.S. ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, notwithstanding a from-his-wheelchair plea by 89-year-old Bob Dole, formerly the Senate's majority leader and a Republican candidate for President. The 2006 treaty, which entered into force in 2008, has 155 states parties. By yesterday's vote the United States – though it signed the treaty in July 2009, as Hope Lewis then posted – remains a nonparty state.

Will Obama warm to Doha action?

'At Doha, negotiators will be looking for signs of how Obama plans to put his climate mission in action.'

So writes Suzanne Goldenberg, the D.C.-based U.S. environmental correspondent for Britain's Guardian newspaper, in an article speculating on what the United States might say and do at the 18th session of the Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Goldenberg notes that climate change garnered more attention in the weeks before the re-election of President Barack Obama, not in the least because of the damage wreaked by Hurricane Sandy. Obama referred to this renewal of interest in the early-morning victory speech (photo credit & video clip) that he delivered on November 7, when he said:

'We want our children to live in an America that isn't burdened by debt, that isn't weakened up by inequality, that isn't threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet.'

Whether and how that aspiration translates into action are the questions of the day for the Doha 2012 Climate Change Conference, which will begin in the Qatari capital just a couple hours from now and continue through December 7.

'Nuff said

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

(credit)

'A wiser approach would change course completely: The United States would distance itself from the Lobo administration, speak plainly about its deficiencies, and immediately cut police and military aid to Honduras.'

– Dr. Dana Frank (below right), Professor of History at the University of California-Santa Cruz, in "Honduras Gone Wrong," a scathing critique of U.S. foreign policy with respect to that Central American country, recently published in Foreign Affairs.
Frank notes inter alia that Honduras "now has the highest murder rate in the world," and faults the United States for supporting the administration of Porfirio Lobo Sosa, elected in November 2009 balloting that itself drew international criticism. That vote followed a June 2009 coup d'état, about which IntLawGrrls posted at the time; our Honduras posts are available here.

'Nuff said

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

'Although international legal principles regulate the actions of the Ecuadorian and U.K. governments in the dispute concerning the grant of asylum to Julian Assange, the dispute is more likely to be resolved through political negotiations rather than by legal principles.'

–  University of Melbourne Law Professor Alison Duxbury (left), in the concluding paragraph of her ASIL Insight entitled "Assange and the Law of Diplomatic Relations." Duxbury provides a most useful account of the facts surrounding, first, the decision of the founder of WikiLeaks (prior posts), to take refuge in Ecuador's embassy in London rather than submit to extradition to Sweden (assertedly out of fear that Sweden would hand him over to the United States); second, the decision of Ecuador (flag above right) to grant him asylum; and third, the decision of Britain not to enter the mission to arrest him. She then surveys the legal and practical feasibility (or not) of various proposed means for Assange to make safe passage out of London and into Ecuador. (This 'Grrl's favorite: squeezing the lanky Australian into a diplomatic pouch.) Duxbury argues persuasively that although pertinent national and international legal regimes are in place, settlement of the matter likely will occur via political channels.

On September 30

On this day in ...
... 2011, the United States killed 2 Americans by drone strike in north Yemen. As then posted, the 2, who were among several al-Qaeda-linked men traveling in a car when struck, were Anwar al-Awlaki, 40, a cleric whom the United States had long sought (and whom President Barack Obama said "had taken 'the lead role in planning and directing the efforts to murder innocent Americans'"), and Samir Kahn, 25, the editor of an online magazine maintained by al-Qaeda. Media attention was concentrated on account of the nationality of the 2, and so sparked a new round of debate regarding the U.S. policy respecting the drone aircraft (example picture above left), about which we've frequently posted. And see this report on civilians and drones, a just-released joint project of the Stanford International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic and the Global Justice Clinic at New York University School of Law. (photo credit)

(Prior September 30 posts are here, here, here, here, and here.)

On September 19

On this day in ...
... 1957 (55 years ago today), the United States conducted its 1st-ever underground nuclear weapon test. Detonated at a Nevada site 65 miles north of Las Vegas was a 1.7-kiloton warhead. This "Rainier" test was one of nearly a thousand nuclear tests that the United States would conduct before halting such testing in 1992. (credit for photo of dust kicked up by test)

(Prior September 19 posts are here, here, here, here, and here.)

On September 8

On this day in ...

... 1951, delegates from 4 dozen countries signed the Treaty of Peace with Japan, also known as the San Francisco Peace Treaty in recognition of the city where it was signed. (credit for photo of Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Yoshida signing at the War Memorial Opera House, as members of his delegation look on) The treaty began with Japan's promise "to apply for membership in the United Nations and in all circumstances to conform to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations," signed in the same city 6 years earlier, and further "to strive to realize the objectives of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights" that states then members of the U.N. General Assembly approved in 1948. The treaty brought to a formal end the Pacific Rim aspect of World War II. It marked too the start of a new, cooperative relationship between, in particular, Japan and the United States.

(Prior September 8 posts are here, here, here, here, and here.)

On August 28

On this day in ...
... 1867 (145 years ago today), a Navy captain "formally took possession," on behalf of the United States, of a 2.4-square-mile coral atoll comprising several islands in the North Pacific, a third of the distance from Honolulu, Hawaii, to Tokyo, Japan. "The atoll became the first Pacific islands annexed by the U.S. government, as the Unincorporated Territory of Midway Island, and administered by the United States Navy. Though considered part of the Hawaiian archipelago, it is a separate territory and not part of the State of Hawaii. It is, however, part of a U.S. wildlife preserve known as the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument. (credit for photo by Suzanne Canja of so-called gooney birds; Midway is home to the world's largest population of these Laysan Albatross) Midway's bounty and history are described here.

(Prior August 28 posts are here, here, here, here, and here.)

On August 21

On this day in ...
... 1959, a group of islands that once was an independent nation-state but was the subject of U.S. annexation in 1898, Hawai'i, became the 50th state in the United States of America. Statehood was achieved with the signing by President Dwight D. Eisenhower  of the Hawaii Admission Act, which had passed after the January 3, 1959, entry of Alaska as the 49th state overcame opposition within Congress: with regard to Hawai'i (state flag above), as described at this site, "a strong congressional contingent of Democrats from southern states expressed concern over incorporating Hawaii's predominantly non-white population into the Union."

(Prior August 21 posts are here, here, here, here, and here.)

U.S. sanctions: Restricting humanitarian aid to Iran

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

Two back-to-back earthquakes, measuring 6.4 and 6.3 on the Richter scale, struck the towns of Varzaghan and Ahar in northwestern Iran this past Saturday. Fars New Agency in Iran reports that approximately 300 people have died from the quakes, and over 2,000 have been injured. (map credit)
Although sixty-six rescue teams have been sent to assist, hospitals are overcrowded and unable to deal with the sudden influx of injured people seeking aid. There are shortages of water and food, as well as of shelters, for the thousands who have been rendered homeless as a result of the earthquakes. A local official estimated that the damages caused by the earthquakes are around $650 million.
The head of Iran’s Red Crescent Society, a humanitarian relief organization, stated:

'Considering the capability of our earthquake relief teams, at this time we don’t need international help.'

Meanwhile, however, Mohammad Hassan-Nejad, a member of Iran's parliament, claims that relief efforts need to be significantly ramped up, or else the death toll will quickly rise. In a similar vein, Vice President Mohammad-Reza Rahimi reportedly indicated a readiness to receive international assistance.
In response to the earthquakes, Press Secretary Jay Carney said in a White House statement:

'The American people send the Iranian people our deepest condolences for the loss of life in the tragic earthquake in northwestern Iran. Our thoughts are with the families of those who were lost, and we wish the wounded a speedy recovery. We stand ready to offer assistance in this difficult time.'

But that statement provokes a question:
How exactly can the American people “stand ready to offer assistance” given the considerable restrictions imposed by the current sanctions regime of the United States?
Pursuant to U.S. sanctions, almost all trade with Iran is prohibited.
There is, as stated at 31 C.F.R. § 560.210(b), a limited exemption for exporting humanitarian goods intended “to relieve human suffering.” Yet even though this exemption makes it legal to donate food, clothing, and medicine for humanitarian purposes, it does not allow for the provision of monetary donations to organizations based in Iran.
Unless a general license is issued, a specific license must be obtained  from the Office of Foreign Assets Control, a unit of the U.S. Department of Treasury, before attempting to donate money to organizations in Iran.
While the Office has issued guidelines clarifying how to provide humanitarian assistance to Iran in the aftermath of the quakes, the guidelines merely reiterate the need for a specific license for most forms of assistance.
Further, even with the humanitarian exemption, some organizations have reportedly been unwilling to send exempted items because of confusion created by the sanctions regime’s complexity.
So while sending certain humanitarian items to Iran is not illegal per se, the sanctions have made it practically almost impossible to do so.

Look on! In Guatemala, Mountains Tremble

(Part 1 of a 2-part Look On! series of posts; Part 2 is here.)

When the Mountains Tremble (1983) is an incredible documentary.
It tells the story of state repression, under the leadership of General Efraín Ríos Montt, of indigenous populations in Guatemala during the 1980s. The filmmaker is Pamela Yates (bottom right) of Skylight Pictures, an IntLawGrrls contributor.

(credit)

Narrating this documentary about the war on Guatemala's Mayan population is Rigoberta Menchú (left). Then in her early 20s, Menchú would go on to win the Nobel Peace Prize in 1992.
Mountains bravely uncovers the role of the United States in facilitating, for its own trade purposes, military rule in Guatemala. Liberal capitalism and free trade promoted by the United States, the film tells us, led to the dispossession of local populations. Footage from both Guatemalan and US television is presented – including a statement of then-President Ronald Reagan, in which he calls on businesses to

'be bold and spread American enterprise throughout the hemisphere'.

Beyond asserting US responsibility in providing finance and weapons to the Guatemalan military, Mountains also looks at the complicity of religious organizations in a massacre. Following repression of some priests within the Catholic Church, evangelical groups from the US began to arrive.

(credit)

Throughout the story, we witness the organization of el pueblo guatemalteco, the people of Guatemala. It is these people who star in this film, risking their lives to tell the stories of repression and mass human rights violations. We see training exercises of the guerrillas, the activism of young men and young women who wish to protect their people and who strive for equality.
This powerful documentary, exploring the multifaceted factors which lead to genocide and human rights violations, currently can be viewed free online at PBS here. 
In my post tomorrow, I'll review Yates' 2011 sequel to this film – another documentary, entitled Granito.

(Cross-posted at Human Rights Film Diary blog)

On August 1

On this day in ...
... 1902 (110 years ago today), the United States purchased from France the rights to the Panama Canal -- that is, the Central American land on which the French for decades had tried in vain to build a canal interocéanique that would link the Atlantic and the Pacific. (credit for 1885 illustration of French-led excavation) Congress had authorized the purchase a month earlier, by its passage of the Spooner Act of 1902. (Prior posts on the subsequent completion of the canal and its much-later return to Panama are, respectively, here and here.)

(Prior August 1 posts are here, here, here, here, and here.)

Dueling 'Nuff saids

(credit)

Here's Ambassador Victoria Nuland (right), Department Spokesperson for the U.S. Department of State, quoted on the U.S. government's position regarding news that ATT 2012, a diplomatic conference this month in New York aimed at drafting a U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (that is, "to elaborate a legally binding instrument on the highest possible common international standards for the transfer of conventional arms") (prior post), had ended Friday without reaching an agreement:

'While we sought to conclude the month's negotiations with a treaty, more time is a reasonable request for such a complex and critical issue.'

(credit)

And here's Suzanne Nossel (left), Executive Director of Amnesty International USA, offering an NGO perspective on the U.S. position:

'It's a staggering abdication of leadership by the world's largest exporter of conventional weapons to pull the plug on the talks just as they were nearing an historic breakthrough.'

Nuff said(s).

The Role of State-State Investment Arbitration

Arbitration news site IA Reporter reports (subscription wall) on an expert opinion by Professor Michael Reisman (pictured left; credit) of Yale Law School. The opinion concerns a novel issue in the investment arbitration realm, one with potentially far-reaching implications.
In addition to investor-state arbitration, many bilateral investment treaties provide for arbitration between the two contracting states, but this mechanism has rarely been used. Indeed, the very innovation of investor-state arbitration is that it permits investors themselves to sue states rather than relying on their governments to espouse claims on their behalf or to settle their disputes diplomatically. This raises the question of the purpose and proper reach of claims brought by states under these treaties.
Ecuador has initiated arbitration under the following state-state mechanism in the U.S.-Ecuador investment treaty: 

'Any dispute between the Parties concerning the interpretation or application of the Treaty which is not resolved through consultations or other diplomatic channels, shall be submitted, upon the request of either Party, to an arbitral tribunal for binding decision in accordance with the applicable rules of international law.'

Similar clauses are found in many modern investment treaties. 
Professor Reisman’s opinion, submitted by the United States, argues for a very limited effect of the decisions of tribunals in state-state investment treaty arbitrations. In his view, because the very purpose of the investor-state dispute resolution is to displace state espousal of investor claims and to give investors a neutral forum of adjudication, investor-state tribunals have exclusive competence to determine the meaning of treaty protections. States should not be able to restrict a treaty’s meaning post hoc through arbitration. Therefore, the decisions of state-state tribunals are not binding on investor-state tribunals.  In fact, he believes that state claims should not be permitted except concerning issues such as a state’s refusal to enforce an arbitral award or a state’s denouncement of a treaty. 

As IA Reporter points out, other scholars have advocated greater use by states of avenues other than renegotiation to steer the interpretation of their treaties. Professor Anthea Roberts (pictured right; credit) (prior IntLawGrrls posts) of the London School of Economics, for example, has argued that states should use interpretive statements for this purpose. She observes that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties views such statements as primary sources of treaty interpretation. 
Professor Reisman, and others, worry that states may abuse the state-state mechanism in ways that thwart investor expectations and potentially disrupt investor-state arbitrations. It is conceivable that a state could initiate such a claim during an ongoing arbitration with an investor in an attempt to circumvent the authority of the appointed tribunal.  The Ecuador-United States investment treaty arbitration will thus be an interesting one to watch.

On July 3

On this day in ...
... 1848, slavery was abolished what was then known as the Danish West Indies (map credit), on which were found sugar, tobacco, and cotton plantations. Slaves had rebelled in that part of the Caribbean in 1733, holding the island of St. John for half a year "until French troops arrived from Martinique to put down the rebellion." Today the territory composes the U.S. Virgin Islands, the United States having bought them from Denmark in 1917, during World War I, "out of fear of German expansion and a potential naval base: there. Having been granted U.S. citizenship in 1927, Virgin Islanders 1st were permitted to elect a nonvoting member of the U.S. Congress in 1972.

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

On June 28

On this day in ...

... 2004, through its appointed Coalition Provisional Authority administrator, Paul Bremer, the United States transferred Iraqi sovereignty back to the people of Iraq.  The BBC reported that the Baghdad ceremony was "low-key," and had been advanced a couple days "in an attempt to prevent the occasion being marked by bloodshed." The final convoy of U.S. troops would not leave the country until the end of December 2011. (credit for image of Iraqi flag in effect 2004-2008)

(Prior June 28 posts are here, here, here, here, and here.)