Grand Chamber of the ECtHR Hears Climate Change Cases for the First Time
By: Jamela Wharton
Journal of Global Rights and Organization, Associate Articles Editor
STRASBOURG, France – The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) located in Strasbourg France, has decided to host Grand Chamber hearings for three climate change lawsuits. The cases are Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland (Verein), Carême v. France (Carême), and Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Other States (Duarte). There were other climate change cases that did not reach this stage. Two were deemed inadmissible, and there are six others that have been adjourned.
The Verein case was fast tracked which caused both hearings for the Carême and Verein cases to be held on March 29, 2023. Verein’s hearing was schedule in the morning, making it the first climate change case to be heard by the Grand Chamber of the EctHR. The Grand Chamber hearings are the last step before a judgment is rendered. The hearing for Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Other States does not have a hearing date yet, but it is expected to occur after the court’s 2023 summer recess.
The plaintiffs in all the climate change cases have asserted that their article two right to life of the European Convention on Human Rights has been violated. Verein argues that the Switzerland government failed to adequately mitigate the effects of climate change. The plaintiffs of this case are older members of the community who are concerned of the effects climate change may have on their living conditions and health. In Carême, the former mayor of a municipality in France contends that France has not taken the necessary steps to prevent the climate change crisis, and this failure amounts to a violation of the Convention. Duarte was brought against 33 member states for their role in greenhouse emissions. The applicants are made up of Portuguese nationals between the ages of 10 to 23. They claim the emissions cause a threat to their living conditions and health and is a violation of their right to life.
The decision is expected to determine whether a member state’s governmental inaction to mitigate climate change is a violation of human rights law. This decision would set a binding precedent to all member states.
For further information, please see:
ECtHR- Factsheet on Climate Change Cases Pending Before the Grand Chamber of the Court- Mar. 2023.
Greenpeace- First Climate Case Heard of the European Court of Human Rights – 29 Mar. 2023
Israeli-Palestinian Tensions Escalating in the Middle East Threaten Peace to All
By: Mahogani Counts
Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Associate Articles Editor
JERUSALEM, Israel – On Wednesday, April 5, 2022, Israeli police conducted an armed invasion into the third holiest site in Jerusalem, leading to the arrest of over 350 Muslims. Since these latest attacks, violent tensions have emerged between Israel and Palestine. According to CBS News, Palestinians attempted to stay overnight in the Al-Aqsa Mosque since the beginning of Ramadan, which began on March 22. However, worshipers can only stay overnight during the remaining ten days of Ramadan. Growing tired of defiance, Israeli officers entered the site daily to evict the worshipers.
Thousands of Muslims arrived at the Al-Aqsa Mosque on Tuesday evening for worship. Israeli officials claimed officers were forced to enter the compound as people armed with fireworks and stones barricaded themselves inside. Talab Abu Eisha, present at the time of the raid, said that “the youths were afraid and started to close the doors.” Video footage of the mosque invasion shows officers beating Palestinians with batons and rifle butts while many were restrained. Eyewitnesses also reported that Israeli police broke windows, smashed doors, and fired stun grenades into the Al-Aqsa Mosque.
The attack on this holy site is profound because there are jurisdiction violations as well as human rights violations. Under international law, Israel does not have jurisdiction to act in East Jerusalem. Furthermore, Israeli entry into the Al-Aqsa Mosque is prohibited by the status quo agreement. Nevertheless, Israeli officers have persistently sought to prevent Muslims from praying in the compound overnight. This ritual of performing overnight prayer is called “itikaf” and it is customary for Muslims do to this during Ramadan. Although there is no explicit rule against overnight prayer at Al-Aqsa Mosque, Israeli police informed Cable News Network, or CNN, that Muslims specifically were not “allowed to be in the compound during night hours.”
At least twelve people were injured in the Mosque attack, and three of the injured were transported to the hospital. The Red Crescent reported to CNN that their ambulances were blocked by the police, which prevented them from attending to the injured. Unfortunately, this is not the only act of violence by Israel towards Muslims. Last week, Israeli police shot and killed a 26-year-old Palestinian man named Muhammad Al-Osaibi at the entrance of the Mosque. These recent attacks by Israel have led to greater turmoil within the nation.
After the attack on the Al-Aqsa Mosque, a dozen rockets were fired from the Gaza Strip aimed at Israel. A leader of the Hamas, a militant group that runs Gaza, stated the unprecedented violations by Israel will not pass. Thereafter, Israeli fighter jets fired at weapons manufacturing and storage sites in the Gaza Strip. It is unlikely that tensions will cool because Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant said that they will return fire from any attacks and that they will make others regret threatening Israeli citizens. It is imperative that the attacks between Israel and Palestinians cease for the betterment of the country and civilians.
For further information, please see:
CNN – Israeli police storm al-Aqsa mosque for the second time on Wednesday – 6 Apr. 2023
CNN – The situation in Jerusalem is boiling over. Here’s how it all happened – 7 Apr. 2023
AlJazeera – Israel-Palestine updates: Police raid Al-Aqsa for a second night – 6 Apr. 2023
Despite Newly Passed Avenues for Support to the ICC, the Biden Administration and Pentagon are at Odds in Determining Which Documents to Provide the ICC regarding Putin’s Actions in Ukraine
By: Patrick Farrell
Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Associate Articles Editor
THE HAGUE, Netherlands – As previously reported by Impunity Watch News, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Putin’s arrest due to his role in the atrocities perpetrated during Russia’s war in Ukraine. The public issuing of the warrant was heralded as a significant step for two major reasons. First, in deterring further crimes in Ukraine, and second, widespread support for the indictment has been characterized as a win for the basic principles of humanity. Yet, the Kremlin has directly condemned the ICC’s actions, labeling them as “outrageous and unacceptable” and even rejected the warrant. Given this response, the ICC is now in need of support for the investigation and eventual prosecution. With that said, the Biden Administration is currently at odds with the Department of Defense in determining the nature of the evidence that the United States will share with the ICC regarding Russian atrocities in Ukraine.
Following a National Security Council cabinet-level principals committee meeting on Feb. 3, President Biden has yet to make a decision to resolve the dispute. Although President Clinton signed the Rome Statute in 2000, he never sent it to the Senate for ratification, thus leaving the United States as a non-party to the Treaty. Further, in 1999 and 2002, Congress enacted laws that limited the support that the government could provide the ICC. However, following the bipartisan push to hold Putin accountable, Congress returned to the question of whether to help the ICC. Pursuant to regulations passed by Congress in December 2022, exceptions now exist that allow the U.S. Government to assist with “investigations and prosecutions of foreign nationals related to the situation in Ukraine.” These new laws, including the Consolidated Appropriations Act, the Justice for Victims of War Crimes Act, and the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act contain new elements highlighting the importance attached to supporting accountability for those responsible for atrocities such as these. Most importantly, the amendments in the Consolidated Appropriations Act allow the United States to provide assistance to the ICC Prosecutor’s efforts in Ukraine, even regardless of whether accusations have been made.
Despite these new powers, the Pentagon has maintained the position that the United States should remain separate from the ICC and that the Court should undertake its own investigation, especially since neither the United States nor Russia are parties to the Rome Statute.
Even amidst these internal tensions, national security experts and other government officials see an opportunity in using the ICC as a tool for enforcing accountability. According to John Bellinger, a lawyer for the National Security Council, the U.S. can assist in investigating and prosecuting war crimes by assisting the ICC, which is the successor to the Nuremberg tribunals. In addition, both Senator Lindsey Graham and Attorney General Merrick Garland have reiterated their commitment to helping Ukrainian prosecutors pursue Russian war crimes.
Even after modifications to longstanding legal restrictions which previously stifled America from aiding the ICC, a dispute now exists over whether the U.S. should provide such evidence. Still, it is hopeful that U.S. officials will come to a solution to assist the collaborative effort to bring justice for Russian atrocities committed in Ukraine.
For further information, please see:
Decision to Return Child to Father in USA Did Not Violate Mother’s Rights
By: Sallie Moppert
Impunity Watch News Staff Writer
STRASBOURG, France – The European Court of Human Rights (“ECHR”) handed down a decision on February 21, 2023 that determined no violation of Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights had occurred in the case of G.K. v Cyprus regarding the right to respect privacy and family life. The ECHR found that the district courts in Cyprus had properly considered the arguments of all the involved parties and ruled out any harm to the child before ordering his return to his father in the United States.
Photo Courtesy of In-Cyprus.
G.K., a native of Cyprus, married a US citizen (“Father”) in 2016 and the couple had a son born that same year. One year later in October 2017, G.K. filed a domestic violence complaint against the Father and subsequently sought an order of protection before moving to a safe house. She eventually took her son, now one-year-old, from the US back to Cyprus with the assistance of the Cypriot authorities. The son was granted Cypriot nationality and a passport during this time.
The Father hired private detectives to locate G.K. and their son, eventually tracking them down in Cyprus. In 2018, he requested the US authorities to apply to the Cyprus authorities under the Hague Convention for the son’s return to the US. The Cypriot authorities filed an application and affidavit in the Family Court in Paphos, Cyprus requesting the son’s return to the US. G.K. objected, claiming that the son would be in danger due to the Father’s prior record of violence. The Father refuted these allegations and provided an affidavit that he had a stable job and could successfully provide for his child.
After an adjournment and postponement due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the Court eventually ruled that the son should be returned to the US. The Father was determined to be a credible witness with consistent and persuasive testimony and evidence, while G.K.’s version of events was general, vague and contradictory. The Court found that she failed to provide evidence to demonstrate why the son should not be returned to the US. G.K. appealed, and the Family Court of Second instance affirmed.
G.K. argued that her right to private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was violated due to the unreasonable length of the proceedings and the Court’s decision to return her son to the US without adequately assessing the situation and risks involved. The Court disagreed, stating that the return of the son to the US was not an immediate decision, instead only being made after G.K. had the opportunity to cross-examine the Father, and the domestic courts had considered all the arguments of the parties before making a decision that was in the best interest of the child. The Court also determined that G.K. had not suffered a disproportionate interference with her right to respect for her family life.
For further information, please see: