Dec 21, 2018 | News
CORE and the ICJ have been granted permission to intervene in an appeal before the United Kingdom Supreme Court (Vedanta Resources PLC and another v. Lungowe and others).
The two organizations will provide evidence on comparative law and international standards regarding the responsibilities of companies in relation to human rights and environmental protection, in particular the recognition of a duty of care of parent companies in relation to the communities living in the surrounding of companies operations.
In August 2015, 1800 Zambian villagers launched a legal action in the UK against mining company Vedanta Resources Plc and its Zambian subsidiary, Konkola Copper Mines, claiming that their water sources and farming land were poisoned from the copper mining operations of both companies.
Last year, the Court of Appeal upheld a High Court ruling that the Zambian claimants had a legal right to bring a claim through the courts in the UK and that a parent company may owe a duty of care to third parties affected by its subsidiary. Vedanta is appealing this ruling in the Supreme Court.
CORE and the ICJ have been lead participants in the elaboration processes of all major international instruments in the field of businesses’ human rights responsibilities in the last decade and are also specially situated to provide information on the state of the law in various jurisdictions.
Our submission is that the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that Vedanta arguably owed a duty of care to the claimants is supported by: international standards regarding the responsibilities of companies in relation to human rights and environmental protection; material published by the UK government with the aim of implementing those international standards; and comparative law jurisprudence.
The hearing will take place on 15-16 January 2019.
Apr 10, 2017 | News
Zambia should reaffirm its membership in the International Criminal Court to best advance justice for victims of atrocities, a group of African organizations and international nongovernmental organizations – including the ICJ – with a presence in Africa said today.
Zambia’s government began public consultations on the country’s ICC membership the week of March 27, 2017.
This was in response to the African Union summit’s adoption in January of an “ICC withdrawal strategy.”
An unprecedented 16 countries, including Zambia, entered reservations to this decision.
Zambia has been a role model on the continent in matters of peace, democracy, and human rights. Leaving the ICC would erode the country’s leadership and threaten respect for the rights of victims of the most brutal crimes across Africa, the group of organizations said.
As a member of the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC), Zambia has a proud history in the establishment of the ICC, they added.
SADC was active in the diplomatic conference in Rome in 1998 where the ICC’s treaty was finalized after six weeks of negotiations.
SADC members developed 10 principles for an effective, independent, and impartial court at a meeting in Pretoria in 1997.
The ICC is a groundbreaking achievement in the fight against impunity, the organizations said.
It is the first and only global criminal court that can prosecute individuals responsible for atrocities.
It is a court of last resort in that it has the authority to try genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity committed since 2002, but only when national courts are unable or unwilling to investigate and prosecute.
Since the court’s treaty opened for signature in 1998, 124 countries have become members.
Zambia signed the ICC’s Rome treaty on July 17, 1998, the day it opened for signature, and ratified the treaty on November 13, 2000.
The ICC faces many challenges in meeting the expectations of victims of mass atrocities and member countries, the organizations said.
Its inability to reach crimes committed in some powerful countries and their allies is a cause for deep concern, even as claims that the ICC is targeting Africa are not supported by the facts.
The court’s reach is limited to crimes committed on the territories of countries that have joined the court or offered the court authority on its territory, absent a referral by the United Nations Security Council.
The majority of ICC investigations in Africa have arisen in response to requests or grants of authority by governments in the countries where the crimes were committed – as in Central African Republic, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Mali, and Uganda – or through referrals by the UN Security Council – as in Darfur, Sudan and Libya.
The ICC has faced backlash from some African leaders since it issued arrest warrants for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir for alleged genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity in Darfur in 2009 and 2010.
In 2016, evidence of the backlash reached new heights when South Africa, Burundi, and Gambia announced they would withdraw from the court, the first countries to take such action.
Gambia has rescinded its withdrawal and South Africa is also re-examining withdrawal, making Burundi the only country to have maintained its withdrawal.
Under the ICC Statute, withdrawal goes into effect one year after the state party submits a notification to the UN Secretary-General.
In the wake of the announced withdrawals, many African countries – including Botswana, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ghana, Lesotho, Mali, Malawi, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, and Tunisia – have affirmed their commitment to remain in the ICC and to work for any reform as ICC members.
The organizations encourage Zambia to reaffirm its support for the court, particularly in the absence of any functioning regional criminal court that can hold perpetrators to account.
The groups expressing support for Zambia’s continued ICC membership are:
Africa Legal Aid
Africa Centre for International Law and Accountability–Ghana
Centre for Accountability and Rule of Law–Sierra Leone
Centre for Democratic Development–Ghana
Centre for Human Rights and Rehabilitation (Malawi)
Civil Resource Development and Documentation Centre (Nigeria)
Coalition for the International Criminal Court
Fédération Internationale des Droits de l’Homme
Human Rights Watch
Institute for Security Studies
International Commission of Jurists
JEYAX Development and Training (South Africa)
Kenya Section of the International Commission of Jurists
Kenya Human Rights Commission
Nigerian Coalition for the ICC
Parliamentarians for Global Action
Southern African Centre for the Constructive Resolution of Disputes (Zambia)
Southern Africa Litigation Centre (South Africa)
Jun 24, 2015 | News
The workshop took place from 22-24 June in Victoria Falls and had a special focus on children’s rights as a particularly vulnerable group.
Its primary objective was to create a pool of jurists and activists with the knowledge and ability to undertake strategic litigation before national or regional courts in the interest of victims of human rights abuse by business enterprises in the Southern/Eastern Africa region.
To this end the meeting brought together legal practitioners and Human Rights Defenders involved in human rights legal accountability of business enterprises.
This workshop gathered together a selected group of human rights advocates from Malawi, Zambia, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania working on cases relating to business’ human rights abuse.
In East and Southern African countries mining represents a significant part of the national economies and annual GDP.
Tanzania, Malawi, Zambia, South Africa, Botswana and Mozambique have seen the inflowing investments grow in recent years, but it is not clear that this trend has meant improvements in the realization of human rights, especially economic and social rights.
Child labour is endemic, and its occurrence in tobacco plantations subject children to additional hazards to their health and wellbeing.
Mining and oil exploration creates problems to local communities who are not properly consulted or benefit from the activity and usually bear the brunt of environmental degradation and pollution associated with those extractive industries.
Business enterprises are in many instances complicit with State’s violations of human rights.
The meeting also sought to provide legal and other tools to community representatives and litigators who want to start strategic litigation in the public interest.
This flows from the realisation that effective remedy and reparation for victims of business human rights abuses, especially in a transnational context, remains elusive as ever and confronts a series of legal and procedural obstacles.
Access to effective remedy and justice is a priority objective in the context of work relating to the human rights responsibilities of business enterprises.
