Forum for International Criminal and Humanitarian Law: Amb. Fife gets Bassiouni Award; Harhoff, Meron, ICTY; Indian Scholarship

Dear colleague,

We are pleased to inform you that Ambassador Rolf Einar Fife is granted the 2015 M.C. Bassiouni Justice Award in recognition of “(a) his unique contributions to the negotiation and adoption of the Statute of the International Criminal Court (‘ICC’), in particular at critical stages of the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court Rome, 15 June – 17 July 1998; (b) his outstanding diplomatic efforts to support and protect the nascent ICC in the early years of its existence, especially through his role in the Bureau of the ICC Assembly of States Parties; (c)  his consistent but unassuming contributions to the legitimization of the ICC in the wider international law and diplomatic communities; (d) his ingenious command of the art of what is possible in the development and strengthening of international law, combined with his integrity, courage and strategic capacity when leadership is required to seize favourable multilateral circumstances; and (e) his subtlety and sophistication in multilateral communication, including the fluent use of several languages, reaching a variety of audiences in a trustworthy and persuasive manner that unites actors”. You find more information here. The 2016 Award will be dedicated to an outstanding, young East Asian lawyer in the field of international criminal law and justice. Nominations may be sent to info@cilrap.org by 8 May 2016.  

We also release 11 new policy briefs today (see complete list at the bottom of this message), including 

With our Indian partners and the Planethood Foundation, CILRAP is pleased to announce the 1st CILRAP Scholarship on International Law (India) on the topic ‘What can India and Indian actors do to strengthen the system of collective security based on the United Nations Charter, including by deterring the illegal use of armed force in violation of the Charter?’. The competition is made possible through the generous contribution by the Nuremberg prosecutor Benjamin B. Ferencz and Professor Donald M. Ferencz. You find more information here.

CILRAP has completed the first phases of the Historical Origins of International Criminal Law Project with the publication of four volumes, completion of two academic conferences, and launch events in The Hague, Beijing, Berlin and New Delhi. You find extensive resources and links about this Project here. 

CILRAP’s department CMN organizes the conference ‘Strengthening National Justice for Core International Crimes: Laws, Procedures and Practices in an Age of Legal Pluralism’ in Het Spaansche Hof, The Hague on Tuesday 28 June 2016. You find more information here on the programme and registration. 

Kind regards,

Alf Butenschøn Skre

FICHL Executive Adviser

Secretary, 2015 M.C. Bassiouni Justice Award Committee

New policy briefs published 8 April 2016:

FICHL Policy Brief Series No. 56 (2016):

Marshet Tadesse Tessema and Marlen Vesper-Gräske:

Africa, the African Union and the International Criminal Court: Irreparable Fissures? 

Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher

Brussels, 2016

Published on 8 April 2016.

ISBN: 978-82-8348-035-1.

LTD-PURL: http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/17de1f/. 

FICHL Policy Brief Series No. 55 (2016):

GOU Jing:

On the Future of Regulation 55

Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher

Brussels, 2016

Published on 8 April 2016.

ISBN: 978-82-8348-034-4.

LTD-PURL: http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/a7e2ed/.

FICHL Policy Brief Series No. 54 (2016):

Devasheesh Bais:

India and the International Criminal Court

Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher

Brussels, 2016

Published on 8 April 2016.

ISBN: 978-82-8348-033-7. 

LTD-PURL: http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/3734dd/. 

FICHL Policy Brief Series No. 53 (2016):

Pooja Bakshi:

Sexual Violence in Conflict Zones and State Responses in India

Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher

Brussels, 2016

Published on 8 April 2016.

ISBN: 978-82-8348-032-0.

LTD-PURL: http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/62bbfc/. 

FICHL Policy Brief No. 52 (2016):

Shikha Chhibbar:

Sexual Violence in Private Space: Marital Rape in India

Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher

Brussels, 2016

Published on 8 April 2016.

ISBN: 978-82-8348-031-3.

LTD-PURL: http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/084bd1/. 

FICHL Policy Brief Series No. 50 (2016):

GONG Renren:

On Human Rights and Traditional Culture

Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher

Brussels, 2016

Published on 8 April 2016.

ISBN: 978-82-8348-029-0. 

LTD-PURL: http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/50380c/. 

FICHL Policy Brief Series No. 49 (2016):

Gunnar M. Ekeløve-Slydal:

ICTY Shifts Have Made Its Credibility Quake 

Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher

Brussels, 2016

Published on 8 April 2016.

ISBN: 978-82-8348-028-3.

LTD-PURL: http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/18ba48/. 

FICHL Policy Brief Series No. 48 (2016):

Julija Bogoeva:

International Judges and Government Interests: The Case of President Meron

Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher

Brussels, 2016

Published on 8 April 2016.

ISBN: 978-82-8348-027-6.

LTD-PURL: http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/56a576/. 

FICHL Policy Brief Series No. 47 (2016):

Frederik Harhoff:

Mystery Lane: A Note on Independence and Impartiality in International Criminal Trials

Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher

Brussels, 2016

Published on 8 April 2016.

ISBN: 978-82-8348-026-9.

LTD-PURL: http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/c2e5ad/. 

FICHL Policy Brief Series No. 45 (2016):

José A. Guevara:

Why the ICC Should Open a Preliminary Examination in Mexico: Allegations of Torture Committed in the Context of the War on Drugs

Por qué la CPI debería abrir un examen preliminar en México: Alegaciones de tortura cometida en el contexto de la guerra contra las drogas

Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher

Brussels, 2016

Published on 8 April 2016.

ISBN: 978-82-8348-019-1 (English) and 978-82-8348-020-7 (Spanish). 

LTD-PURL: http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/ef060d/ (English).

LTD-PURL: http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/6de31f/ (Spanish). 

FICHL Policy Brief Series No. 44 (2016):

Eloi Urwodhi and M. Nengowe Amundala:

Challenges in the Repression of Core International Crimes in the DRC

Les défis de la répression des crimes internationaux en R. D. Congo

Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher

Brussels, 2016

Published on 8 April 2016.

ISBN: 978-82-8348-018-4 (English) and 978-82-8348-050-4 (French). 

LTD-PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/84f601/ (English).

LTD-PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/a82ad9/ (French). 

Pakistan and China Among Countries With Highest Execution Rates

By Christine Khamis

Impunity Watch Reporter, Asia

 

LONDON, England –

Amnesty International released a report this week stating that the worldwide execution rate is currently at its highest point since 1989. More than 20,000 people remain on death row worldwide.

The report noted that at least 1,634 people were executed in 2015, more than a 50 percent increase since 2014. Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia’s use of the death penalty accounted for 89% of the executions. That figure excludes China, where most execution records are kept secret.

Amnesty International’s figures for highest execution rates worldwide. (Image courtesy of BBC News)

Amnesty stated in its report that China remains the country with the highest execution rate, with thousands put to death or sentenced to death in 2015. It was unable to give an exact estimate of the number of executions due to the secrecy surrounding the death penalty in China. It also stated that there were signs that China’s use of the death penalty had actually decreased in recent years, but that again, it was impossible to confirm for certain.

Pakistan executed 326 people in 2015. The country had continued a “state-sanctioned killing spree”, according to Amnesty, which followed a lifted moratorium on civilian executions in 2014. The report cited an attack on a school in Peshawar, Pakistan, as prompting the government’s resumption of executions in 2014. The moratorium was initially lifted for any charged with terrorism-related crimes, but was subsequently lifted for perpetrators of all capital crimes.

Amnesty’s report did note, however, that most countries have fully abolished the death penalty from their criminal justice system and that countries using the death penalty are now in the minority. It stated that 102 countries had abolished use of the death penalty by the end of 2015, with four countries eliminating the death penalty during 2015. In comparison, only 60 countries had abolished use of the death penalty by year-end in 1996.

Amnesty also named Saudi Arabia, the United States, Iraq, Somalia, and Egypt on its list of countries with the highest execution rates, among others.

In a statement accompanying its report, Amnesty said that the death penalty breaches the right to life and the right live free from torture, both fundamental human rights under he United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN in 1948.

 

For more information, please see:

Al Jazeera – Report Finds ‘Alarming Rise’ in Executions in 2015 – 6 April 2016

BBC News – Amnesty Highlights ‘Disturbing Rise’ in Global Executions – 6 April 2016

International Business Times – Amnesty Documents ‘Dramatic’ Rise in Global Executions in 2015 – 6 April 2016

Voice of America – Amnesty: ‘Disturbing’ Rise in Executions Worldwide in 2015 – 6 April 2016

 

 

 

 

Syria Justice & Accountability Centre: The Controversy over the Syrian Women’s Advisory Board

In February, the United Nations made history when the U.N. Special Envoy to Syria Staffan de Mistura convened the Syrian Women’s Advisory Board — the first time such a board has been created to advise a special envoy during peace negotiations. Advisory Board members participated in a press conference following a recent meeting with de Mistura to articulate their key demands which included the release of peaceful activists, the distribution of information on the fate of missing persons, and the lifting of Western-imposed sanctions so that humanitarian aid can reach Syrians. Despite the historic nature of the meeting, many Syrian activists criticized the Advisory Board as unrepresentative and a failed attempt at inclusivity. Some went so far as to suspend their own participation in the Advisory Board, such as the Syrian Women Network which has been engaged in women’s rights in Syria since its formation in 2013.

The Geneva negotiations, in all its iterations, have long been criticized for their failure to substantively include women in the talks. Although women have been involved with peacebuilding and human rights efforts at the grassroots level, almost every photo taken of high-level meetings in Geneva features a roundtable full of men. Since women have consistently been victims of detention, home raids, and massive displacement, in addition to socio-economic burdens when their husbands, fathers, and brothers disappear or die, they have a large stake in the outcome of the talks. Moreover, certain crimes of sexual and gender-based violence, including rape, forced marriage, and sexual slavery, have specifically targeted women. To ensure that these grievances are addressed and the voices of all Syrians are heard, Syrian women, specifically survivors of violations, should participate in any negotiated settlement.

The inclusion of women is not only a theoretical moral principle. Research has shown that peace processes that include women lead to longer-term peace and stability. In a study of 40 peace processes, the Graduate Institute of Geneva found that when women participate, peace agreements are 35 percent more likely to last for at least 15 years. Since conflict affects women and men differently, the inclusion of women in peace talks helps address the concerns of half the population; and, when half the population feels more secure, the chances of successful peace is more likely. Also, while men generally focus more on issues of power and security, women tend to expand the list of priorities to include victims’ rights, transitional justice, and other important social issues that contribute to reconciliation and the sustainability of an agreement.

The Syrian Women’s Advisory Board is the United Nation’s attempt to be more inclusive. So why did the Advisory Board fail to satisfy the demands of civil society? First, many human rights activists criticized the selection process due to its lack of transparency and clarity. While many notable Syrian women were left off the Board, the United Nations chose to include a few women who were members of political groups that allegedly defended government-sponsored violence, who allegedly have links to extremism, who participated in corrupt practices, and who worked for organizations that assisted with government-led human rights violations. While SJAC is not in a position to confirm or deny these allegations, the accusations suggest that de Mistura’s team did not properly vet members, which angered many Syrians, including long-time women’s rights activists.

“I am a Syrian feminist and this advisory board does not represent me in the slightest.”

Source: Facebook post by Syrian Women’s Rights activist Oula Ramadan.

 

Second, the Advisory Board’s final demands indicate that the women negotiated for political aims, rather than for principles of women’s rights. The most striking example of this is the Board’s demand to lift sanctions so food and medical aid can reach Syrians. While sanctions affect many Syrians by preventing those in the Diaspora from sending money to loved ones and creating difficulties in securing goods from abroad, sanctions cannot be scapegoated for the lack of food and aid in many parts of Syria. The inability of humanitarian aid to reach Madaya and other besieged towns, for example, is not the fault of sanctions, but of the Syrian military’s deliberate policy to starve out and repress opposition-controlled towns. A statement that blames sanctions is clearly politicized, reflecting the makeup of the Board itself.

Third, Syrian civil society is concerned with whether the Advisory Board will be allowed to make meaningful contributions to the negotiation process. Civil society has rarely been consulted in the Geneva talks so far. In fact, Syrian negotiators appear to be sidelined altogether as many deals only take place during high-level talks between the United States and Russia. Exactly how the Special Envoy will feed the demands of the Advisory Board into discussions between the opposition and the government or between Secretary John Kerry and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is unclear. It is not enough to create an Advisory Board or to hold one meeting with civil society — engagement must meaningfully contribute to the process and the final deal.

The Syria Justice and Accountability Centre (SJAC) favors the United Nations’ attempt to broaden the inclusiveness of the negotiation process. Women must be part of the negotiations in order for their specific grievances to be addressed and for the final deal to have a lasting impact on the ground. The creation of an Advisory Board, however, must have a clear vetting and selection process, should aim to articulate principles as opposed to political statements, and will only be effective if the Board can meaningfully participate in the creation of a final framework agreement. The current Advisory Board has fallen short, and, as a result, it has not been embraced by Syrians.

 

For more information and to provide feedback, please contact SJAC at info@syriaaccountability.org.

Global Citizen: Help Nadia defeat ISIS

Friend,

“I will speak without a microphone. I’ve been speaking so loud and the world has not been listening.”

That’s how Nadia, a Yazidi woman, started her speech at an event we just did with her.

On August 3, 2014, the so-called Islamic State waged an attack on the Yazidi people in Sinjar, Iraq, killing more than 3,000 civilians and enslaving 5,000-7,000 more, mostly women and children.

Current estimates suggest 3,200 Yazidis remain in ISIS captivity, including Yazidi women who are being used for sexual slavery.

This is genocide. It’s not just us saying it – Secretary of State John Kerry said it last month.

Led by Nadia Murad, the surviving Yazidi community has requested that the International Criminal Court take on this case – and they’re asking for our help.
 

 

Thank you for all that you do.

Simon and the Global Citizen Team