 |
VOOZH | about |
|
VOOZH | about |
WCL’s War Crimes Research office has released a new report this week which “examines means of avoiding delays in proceedings before the ICC.” The report is available here. The executive summary is pasted below:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In its less than one decade of existence, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has achieved a great deal, opening formal investigations into six situations involving some of the most serious atrocities that have occurred since the birth of the Court in 2002 and commencing cases against a number of the individuals believed to bear the greatest responsibility for those atrocities. However, nearly ten years after coming into being, the ICC has yet to complete a single trial, raising concerns among States Parties to the Rome Statute and others regarding the effective functioning of the Court. Hence, while recognizing that the ICC is still a very young institution faced with a variety of novel substantive and procedural challenges, the aim of this report is to identify areas of unnecessary delays in proceedings currently before the Court that are likely to arise again, and to suggest ways in which such delays may be avoided in the future. The structure of the report is as follows: first, we address delays arising at the pre-trial stage of proceedings, referring to proceedings conducted before the Court‟s Pre-Trial Chambers; second, we address delays arising after a case has been transferred to the Trial Chamber; finally, we address issues that are relevant both at the pre-trial and trial level.
Last Wednesday ASIL’s Lieber Society and the American Red Cross sponsored an event with a very distinguished panel taking a historical look at the application of the laws of war during the American Civil War. Here is the event info:
ASIL’s Lieber Society on the Law of Armed Conflict and the American Red Cross are sponsoring a historical panel discussion on the application of the law of war in the American Civil War, in remembrance of the 150th anniversary of that conflict. Military historians and law of war experts Gary Solis, Isabelle Daoust, and Richard Jackson will be presenting historical vignettes, describing the application of the law of war (often referred to as international humanitarian law) to the Civil War. The panelists will discuss the contributions of Francis Lieber to the development of the law, the application of this law to detention operations and guerrilla warfare, and the historical antecedents of military commissions. —-Refreshments will be provided.
Panelists:
- Richard Jackson, Co-Chair, Lieber Society on the Law of Armed Conflict
- Gary D. Solis, Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgtown University Law Center
- Isabelle Daoust, Manager, International Humanitarian Law Dissemination Program, American Red Cross
- John Fabian Witt, Allen H. Duffy Class of 1960 Professor of Law at Yale Law School
The current president of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Judge Sang Hyun Song, recently delivered a lecture at at the Universidad de los Andes during his visit to Colombia. I have inserted the video above.
The IBA’s ICC programme has released a short documentary online on “defense rights” at the ICC. Here is a short summary of the film:
In the Dock: Defence Rights at the ICC is a 27-minute educational film that covers a number of subjects including the presumption of innocence, fair trial guarantees and the right to counsel. The film is informed by interviews with defence counsel currently practicing before the ICC, international criminal law experts and elected officials of the ICC, including ICC President Sang-Hyun Song and the Former Chief Prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), Richard Goldstone.
Charter-based mechanisms
Treaty-based mechanisms
CRPD
UNCAT
ICESCR
Inter-American
ECtHR cases
ICC
ICTY
Universal Jurisdiction
👁 3-icrc-delegation-visits-turkmenistan
The ICRC recently concluded a “round of consultations” with state delegations on both improving IHL compliance and discussing ways of strengthening protection in 4 areas of the law.
An interview with ICRC President, Jakob Kellenberger, discussing the recent consultations was posted today.
Dr Kellenberger’s address to the the permanent missions in Geneva is also available online. Here is a summary of the ICRC study by Dr Kellenberger which became the basis of the consultations:
..what is required in most cases in order to improve the situation of persons affected by armed conflict is a greater compliance with the existing legal framework. However, the ICRC study also showed that ensuring better protection for these persons involves addressing normative weaknesses through a reinforcement of the law in four specific areas, namely: (a) the protection for persons deprived of liberty; (b) implementation of international humanitarian law and reparations for victims of violations; (c) the protection of the natural environment; (d) the protection of internally displaced persons.
New report released yesterday by Human Rights First questioning the legality of current US detention-review policies in Afghanistan under International Law. According to the press release, here are the key findings:
- The current U.S. detention policy in Afghanistan does not provide detainees the minimum level of due process required by international law, including the right to see and effectively challenge the evidence, and to have their rights determined by an independent authority, empowered to order release.
- While the U.S. military has a legitimate need to protect intelligence sources and methods, the heavy reliance on secret evidence to determine whether a detainee meets the criteria for continued detention is unacceptable and does not meet the minimum requirements of due process – a practice that is counterproductive to the U.S. mission in Afghanistan because it encourages hostility toward U.S. forces.
- The DRB’s lack of authority to order a detainee’s release represents a serious shortfall in due process, one that leaves the process open to arbitrary delays and the possibility of political interference. This undermines both the legitimacy of the board’s proceedings and the ability of detainees to meaningfully challenge their detention.
- There is a lack of compensation – or even an official apology – for wrongful detention, theft or damage to property.
- The responsible transition of detention authority to Afghan control is critical to the future stability of Afghanistan, as well as to U.S. national security interests in the region. To help the Afghan government meet basic standards of due process will require a lasting commitment on the part of the U.S. government, working in coordination with other donor nations.
Today the UN Security Council held an “open debate” meeting assessing the UN bodies track record on protecting civilians in armed conflict situations. The meeting was opened with “briefings by top United Nations humanitarian, human rights and peacekeeping officials’ , and was subsequently followed by Statements by a number of member states.
Here is a summary of the proceedings.
A complete webcast of the meeting is also available here.
Oxfam also released a report (“Protection of Civilians in 2010”) coinciding with the SC meeting detailing “the international community’s record on protecting civilians in 2010.” According to a press release, ” the aid agency looked at 18 different armed conflicts that affected civilians throughout the world in 2010 and examined – amongst others – the number of civilians reported to have been killed, raped or displaced, as well as what actions the UN Security Council took or failed to take. The report also looked at the problem of child soldiers and at the number of aid workers killed in the course of 2010.”
**UPDATE**: Share Button Added for last 10 posts
Charter-based mechanisms
Treaty-based mechanisms
ICCPR
UNCAT
ICESCR
Inter-American
UC Berkeley Center for Latin American Studies: Baltasar Garzon: “Universal Jurisdiction and International Justice: An Inseperable Reality?” Event info
Audio for the event below is available here.
ISS:Can Human Rights Regulate Modern Conflict?
Abstract
The regulation of the conduct of warfare has been traditionally the preserve of international humanitarian law, but in a growing number of cases international and domestic courts have applied human rights law to situations of armed conflict. This jurisprudence builds on the principle, repeatedly stated by the International Court of Justice, that human rights do not cease in wartime. Is there a tension between the traditional regulation of armed conflict under international humanitarian law and human rights? What difficulties and risks does the application of human rights to warfare pose? More generally, is this development really to be welcome? Or is it an example of ‘human rightism’, the unreflecting and confused ideology that sees human rights as a solution to everything?
Short bio
Dr Guglielmo Verdirame will soon be joining King’s College London as Professor of International Law, appointed by both the Department of War Studies and the School of Law. He is currently a University Lecturer at the University of Cambridge and Fellow of the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law. He is the author, with Barbara Harrell-Bond, of Rights in Exile: Janus-Faced Humanitarianism (2005, Berghahn) – “a damning exposé of protection failures of those most responsible for safeguarding refugee rights: the host countries of asylum, contracting NGOs and the UNHCR” (International Journal of Refugee Law). His next major work, The UN and Human Rights: Who Guards the Guardians? (Cambridge University Press), will be published in June 2011.He has been in practice at the Bar, based at 20 Essex Street chambers, since 2007. He is a trustee of two charities involved in the advancement of human rights through law: the Africa and Middle East Refugee Assistance and the Human Dignity Trust.
Video for the event below is available here
DUKE LAW:National Security since 9/11: New Norms for a New Decade?
The years since 9/11 have produced remarkable developments in national security law and policy. These developments are ongoing, and in their evolution novel issues continue to arise. These issues, which include indefinite detention of terrorists, information security, armed drones, airport security, and the protection of privacy in the cyber era all illustrate the tensions between the needs of security in an era of asymmetrical threats and the preservation of civil liberties and other interests in a democratic society. Additionally, dealing with these threats raises new and complicated challenges with respect to civil-military relations.
Using a format of six panels and three meal speakers, our conference will be examining these issues and a number of other security issues of the new decade. To do this, we have assembled a prestigious group of scholars, policymakers and commentators who will take an interdisciplinary approach to all these issues from both a legal and a policy perspective.
