Mar 9, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today delivered an oral statement to the UN Human Rights Council, highlighting the need for substantive discussions towards a treaty on business and human rights to be transparent, broad-based with clear timelines.
The statement, which was made during the General Debate on item 3 with the Human Rights Council, read as follows:
Mr President,
Regarding the “Report on the third session of the open-ended intergovernmental working group on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights” (A/HRC/37/67), the ICJ notes with satisfaction the holding of the third session and congratulates the participants, especially the wide participation of civil society groups. The ICJ calls on States from all regions to engage meaningfully in the important work of the OEWG.
The discussions during the third session confirm the need for an international treaty in the area of business and human rights to fill the existing normative and legal protection gaps. Recent years have seen little improvement in this area despite the growing State and business discourse about policies and commitments. Harassment and attacks on human rights defenders that work in the area of corporate accountability have increased and the difficulties for victims of abuse to have access to an effective judicial remedy persist, especially at the transnational level.
The ICJ calls for a transparent and broad-based consultation process with clear timelines to move in the direction of a draft treaty on the basis of the document “Elements for a treaty” presented by the Chairperson –Rapporteur. The ICJ calls on all States and stakeholders to engage responsibly in this process to enable the fourth session of the Working Group to focus on substantive negotiations overcoming divisions on procedure and politics.
Thank you.
Mar 9, 2018 | Advocacy, Open letters
The ICJ and other organisations today express concern about China’s draft UN resolution, “Promoting the International Human Rights Cause through Win-Win Cooperation”.
In a letter addressed to the Member and Observer States of the UN Human Rights Council, the organizations wrote:
“The draft resolution entitled “Promoting the International Human Rights Cause through Win-Win Cooperation” lacks balance and undermines accepted international human rights law and principles. Its adoption could undermine the ability of the Council and its mechanisms to protect and promote human rights, and risks undermining the rights of victims of human rights violations.
No resolution that purports to promote human rights but ignores victims can be considered a “win” for anyone. The right of every victim to an effective remedy, regardless of the preferences of the responsible State, lies at the very heart of any meaningful understanding of human rights, as the General Assembly, the Council, as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and human rights treaties, have repeatedly affirmed.
Cooperation between States, and between States and the Human Rights Council and its mechanisms, is an important component of the international human rights system. The version of cooperation envisioned by the draft resolution, however, finds no basis in the decades of practice of human rights at the UN or in the Institutional Building Package for the Council. “Win-win cooperation” and “a community of shared future for mankind” instead emanate specifically from the speech made by Chinese President Xi at the Palais des Nations in January 2017 and other national policy statements. Their implications have not been explained by the Chinese delegation, and reading these terms in their original context only raises greater concern about their import.
The language stating that “win-win cooperation is the only viable option” is perhaps the best example of our many concerns. Although the draft resolution does not specify in relation to what it is “the only viable option”, presumably the implication is with regard to human rights. This language of the draft resolution directly contradicts and undermines that part of the Council’s mandate, as articulated by the General Assembly in its resolution 60/251, that requires it to respond promptly and effectively to gross and systematic human rights violations.
Indeed, in all too many actual situations of gross and systematic violations faced by the Council, States responsible for human rights violations have shown no good faith to engage in any form of cooperation that could actually assist to end the violations or fulfil the rights of the victims. The draft resolution defies experience, and suggests no consequences for persistent non-cooperation.
Additionally, there is no mention in the draft concerning enforcement of States’ obligations under international human rights law by national, regional or international courts or other bodies, or even at a more general level, the need for accountability where abuses occur. As such, only impunity stands to “win” from such an approach.
Furthermore, the concept of “win-win cooperation” in the draft resolution as currently drafted clearly focuses predominantly, if not exclusively, on cooperation between States. The draft resolution does not call for States to cooperate with the Human Rights Council and its mechanisms. Neither does it call on States to refrain from committing reprisals against individuals or groups seeking to cooperate with UN human rights mechanisms to promote and protect human rights, including civil society actors and victims of human rights violations.
Our organisations call on States to reject the proposed resolution on “Promoting the International Human Rights Cause through Win-Win Cooperation” as drafted. Indeed, the problems with the text are so fundamental and far-reaching, it is difficult to see how consensus could possibly be reached without a substantial rethinking of the approach. If the proponents of the draft resolution sincerely believe that “win-win cooperation is the only viable option”, they surely cannot, at the same time, believe that it would be consistent with the draft resolution’s own terms for its adoption to be forced through on a divided vote, and should withdraw the draft resolution from consideration at the present Council session.
Signatories:
- Asian Legal Resource Center
- Amnesty International
- Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies
- Conectas
- Defend Defenders
- FIDH
- Human Rights Watch
- International Commission of Jurists
- International Service for Human Rights
The letter can be downloaded in PDF format here: UN-HRC37-OpenLetter-ChinaResolution-2018
Mar 5, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today delivered an oral statement to the UN Human Rights Council, on transitional justice, prevention and impunity, highlighting the continuing problem of impunity in Nepal.
The statement, which was made during a clustered interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence and the Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide, read as follows:
“The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) remains deeply concerned by continuing impunity for gross human rights violations in many parts of the world, which undermines the potential for transitional justice to contribute to prevention as outlined in the Joint Study (A/HRC/37/65).
For example, in Nepal, more than ten years after the civil war, political expediency has trumped calls for justice and accountability. There has been near absolute impunity for those responsible for serious crimes under international law.
Transitional justice mechanisms – the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons (CoID) – have fallen short of international standards, both in their constitution and their operation, despite repeated orders by the Supreme Court of Nepal to enforce the standards.
The Commissions’ deeply flawed mandates, among other problems, allow them to recommend amnesties for gross human rights violations. In addition, their non-consultative, uncoordinated and opaque approach to their work has also created distrust with all major stakeholders, including conflict victims and members of civil society.
The Government continues to flout its obligation, both pursuant to the Supreme Court’s orders and under international law, to enact domestic legislation to criminalize serious crimes in accordance with international standards.
As highlighted by in the Joint study, turning a blind eye on past atrocities signals that some perpetrators are above the law, which further discredits State institutions and “breeds a (long-standing) culture of impunity in which atrocities may become ‘normalized’, rendering prevention significantly more difficult.” (para 43)
That, indeed, is the experience in Nepal: continuing impunity for gross human rights violations perpetrated during the conflict is one of the major obstacles to the creation of a stable and legitimate democratic government and lies at the heart of the rule of law crisis in the country. Ending impunity is essential to preventing further violations.”
Video of the statement is available here:
The delegation of Nepal exercised its right to reply later in the day. Its reply is here:
The ICJ oral statement complements a related written statement by the ICJ at the session.
Mar 2, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today delivered an oral statement to the UN Human Rights Council urging it to take action on the situation in Eastern Ghouta in the Syrian Arab Republic.
The statement, which was made during an urgent debate at the UN Human Rights Council convened with a view to adoption of a resolution, read as follows:
“The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) urges the Council to adopt a strong resolution today. The resolution should fully reflect the gravity, magnitude and character of the violations and abuses taking place, demand their immediate cessation, and set out specific measures for accountability of those responsible.
The ICJ highlighted these concerns in a statement one week ago. Every further day of delay costs lives. It is imperative that the Council act immediately and that the relevant forces move quickly to implement Security Council resolution 2401 and any resolution of the Human Rights Council. An immediate end to all attacks on civilians and civilian objects is paramount.
We welcome references to accountability, and urge the Council to explicitly call on States to make use of all means available in this regard, including in their national legal systems, as well as at the regional and international level.
All forces on the ground must respect international humanitarian law and human rights law and standards and be held accountable for failures in this regard. In particular, the Syrian Arab Republic and Russian Federation must comply with Security Council resolutions, ensure the effective protection of civilians, and create conditions in which rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian relief can actually take place.”
The Council did not complete the adoption of the resolution on 2 March, but ultimately did so on 5 March.
Mar 1, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today delivered an oral statement to the UN Human Rights Council, on attacks on lawyers and the legal profession in Turkey, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and China.
The statement, which was made during an interactive dialogue with the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders and the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, read as follows:
Our organizations welcome that the main report (A/HRC/37/51, para 13) and communications report (A/HRC/37/51/Add.1, e.g. paras 278-297, 431, 508-510) of the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders recognizes the role of lawyers as human rights defenders. In this regard, we would highlight the global problem of continued attacks on lawyers and threats to the independence of their profession, including for example as is well known in China (A/HRC/37/51/Add.1, paras 278-297), but also in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkey.
In Azerbaijan, lawyers face criminal prosecution, suspension or disbarment for statements clearly constituting protected freedom of expression. The lack of independence of the Bar Association is a serious concern, even more so now that new legislation prohibits lawyers from representing clients before courts unless they become a member.
In Kazakhstan, a proposed new law threatens the independence of lawyers by providing for representatives of the executive to be included on disciplinary bodies of the legal profession, contrary to international standards.
Finally, the situation of lawyers in Turkey under the current state of emergency is of particular concern. In particular, echoing the recent statement of five UN special procedures mandate holders for his release, we expresses concern at the current detention of Taner Kılıç, lawyer and president of Amnesty International Turkey.
These arrests, trial and disbarments as well problematic legislative changes have a chilling effect on the work of lawyers. They undermine access to effective and independent legal assistance to protect human rights, in contravention of the rights of both the lawyers and their clients, including as mentioned in the report of the visit to Turkey by the Special Rapporteur on Torture (A/HRC/37/50/Add.1, paras 24, 26, 41, 63-66, 71, 101(d)(e)(h), 106(c)).
Our organizations urge the Council to address these worrying developments threatening the rule of law.
The following organizations joined the statement, in addition to the ICJ:
- International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI)
- Union Internationale des Avocats (UIA)
- Lawyers for Lawyers (L4L)
- the Law Society of England and Wales
- Lawyer’s Rights Watch Canada (LRWC), and
- the Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales (BHRC).
The statement can be downloaded in PDF format here: UN-HRC37-JointOralStatement-LawyersHRDsTorture-2018
Feb 27, 2018 | Advocacy, News, Non-legal submissions
The head of the ICJ’s Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Matt Pollard, highlighted the role of judges, lawyers and prosecutors in preventing human rights abuses, at a UN expert workshop in Geneva.The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) organised the expert workshop, 21 to 22 February 2018, to discuss the role and contribution of civil society organizations, academia, national human rights institutions and other relevant stakeholders in the prevention of human rights abuses, drawing on the conclusions and recommendations of OHCHR’s study on the prevention of human rights violations.
The workshop, mandated by the Human Rights Council resolution 33/6, covered topics such as: a framework approach to prevention; human rights education; abuses by private actors, national and regional practices, planning and monitoring tools; human rights impact assessments; and the role of UN institutions.
The presentation on the role of judges and lawyers can be downloaded in PDF format here: UN-ExpertMeeting-JudgesLawyersPrevention-2018
More information about the expert workshop is available by clicking here.
