Jul 15, 2019 | News
On 13 July 2019, the ICJ hosted a discussion on the human rights consequences of Special Investment Zones in Thailand particularly focusing on the legislative frameworks of Thailand’s Special Economic Zones (SEZs) and the Eastern Economic Corridor (EEC).
Lawyers, members of civil society organizations and academics from across Thailand attended the discussion.
The participants explored existing adverse impacts and potential future impacts on human rights arising from the implementation of the current EEC and SEZ legal frameworks.
The discussion focused on: (i) governing authorities of the SEZs and EEC; (ii) designation of target areas and land acquisition; (iii) environment, health and well-being of the local communities; (iv) other rights of affected individuals and communities; (v) issues pertaining to workers and labour rights and (vi) roles of other stakeholders, including financial institutions, the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand, and the corporate sector.
The participants considered concerns with respect to Thailand’s duty to protect human rights under international human rights standards and identified key issues of concern relating to the legal frameworks of the EEC and SEZs.
During their discussion, the participants highlighted the lack of meaningful participation of affected individuals or communities at the policy and law-making levels and the absence of a formalized way for such individuals and communities to voice their concerns regarding their inability to exercise their rights connected to economic, cultural and social development and international human rights law.
The participants highlighted that the processes of land acquisition and classification of State-owned lands in the areas of SEZs and the EEC were allegedly not carried out in a human rights-compliant manner, and were not in line with the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-Based Evictions and Displacement.
Key concerns were raised regarding people and communities who has been living on lands upon which they depend for their livelihoods but to which they do not hold land title deeds.
Some participants also stressed the importance of strengthening Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Environmental & Health Impact Assessment (EHIA) procedures.
Proposed improvements included the hiring of independent consultants to carry out EIA and EHIA assessments, effective review by an independent body to ensure the credibility of assessment reports, and other mechanisms to ensure effective monitoring and follow-up on assessments.
Participants also called for the following rights to be respected in the implementation of development-based policy:(i) the right to genuinely and meaningfully take part in public affairs; (ii) the right to take part in cultural life; (iii) the right to secure one’s livelihood; (iv) the right to enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health; (v) the right to water and sanitation; and (vi) the right of access to justice, which encompasses the right to effective remedy and guarantees of the due process of law.
They also urged financial institutions which fund the development of the EEC and SEZs to take a more active role to prevent and mitigate human rights risks.
This discussion will provide the foundation for further work and analysis by the ICJ in detailing the human rights consequences of special investment zones frameworks in Thailand, focusing on the implementation of SEZs and EEC policies. It will also provide the basis for ICJ strategic advocacy at the national level.
Background
The Eastern Economic Corridor (EEC) and Special Economic Zones (SEZs) are flagship economic schemes of the Thai government to boost Thailand’s economy after the military coup in 2014 through large-scale investments into special investment zones covering areas in 13 provinces of Thailand.
In 2015, 10 SEZs were established in 10 different provinces of Thailand as a means to create economically-productive areas in border cities linked to other countries in Southeast Asia.
The SEZs were established towards enhancing growth in 13 target industries. Each SEZ will have different targets depending on each location development and province strategy.
Launched in 2016, the EEC builds upon the former Eastern Seaboard project and is being developed in the eastern coastal provinces of Rayong, Chonburi, and Chachoengsao purportedly to encourage investment into 10 next-generation industries that use innovation and high technology.
The EEC is also designated to be a pilot model in developing other SEZ areas in the future.
The EEC is currently already in operation in part. Most of the SEZs are currently in the process of land acquisition or classification.
Criticisms raised during the discussion noted that (i) the SEZs and EEC had been established without carrying out assessments with the full participation of affected persons, groups and communities; (ii) local residents had been forced off their land without fair or adequate compensation; and (iii) allowing fast-track environmental impact assessments (EIA) could result in undermining the overall objective and effectiveness of EIA.
Jul 12, 2019 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ joined other NGOs in an end-of-session statement, highlighting the achievements and shortfalls of the 41st Ordinary Session of the UN Human Rights Council, 24 June – 12 July 2019.
The statement, delivered by International Service for Human Rights (ISHR), reads as follows:
By renewing the mandate of the Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI), the Council has sent a clear message that violence and discrimination against people of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities cannot be tolerated. It reaffirmed that specific, sustained and systematic attention is needed to address these human rights violations and ensure that LGBT people can live a life of dignity. We welcome the Core Group’s commitment to engage in dialogue with all States, resulting in 50 original co-sponsors across all regions. However, we regret that some States have again attempted to prevent the Council from addressing discrimination and violence on the basis of SOGI.
The Council session also sent a clear message that Council membership comes with scrutiny by addressing the situations of Eritrea, the Philippines, China, Saudi Arabia and the Democratic Republic of Congo. This shows the potential the Council has to leverage its membership to become more effective and responsive to rights holders and victims.
The Council did the right thing by extending its monitoring of the situation in Eritrea. The onus is on the Eritrean Government to cooperate with Council mechanisms, including the Special Rapporteur, in line with its membership obligations.
We welcome the first Council resolution on the Philippines as an important first step towards justice and accountability. We urge the Council to closely follow this situation and be ready to follow up with additional action, if the situation does not improve or deteriorates further. We deeply regret that such a resolution was necessary, due to the continuation of serious violations and repeated refusal of the Philippines – despite its membership of the Council– to cooperate with existing mechanisms.
We deplore that Council members, such as the Philippines and Eritrea, sought to use their seats in this Council to seek to shield themselves from scrutiny, and those States[1] who stand with the authorities and perpetrators who continue to commit grave violations with impunity, rather than with the victims.
We welcome the written statement by 22 States on China expressing collective concern over widespread surveillance, restrictions to freedoms of religion and movement, and large-scale arbitrary detention of Uyghurs and other minorities in Xinjiang. We consider it as a first step towards sustained Council attention and in the absence of progress look to those governments that have signed this letter to follow up at the September session with a resolution calling for China to allow access to the region to independent human rights experts and to end country-wide the arbitrary detention of individuals based on their religious beliefs or political opinions.
We welcome the progress made in resolutions on the rights of women and girls: violence against women and girls in the world of work, on discrimination against women and girls and on the consequences of child, early and forced marriage. We particularly welcome the renewal of the mandate of the Working Group on Discrimination Against Women and Girls under its new name and mandate to focus on the intersections of gender and age and their impact on girls. The Council showed that it was willing to stand up to the global backlash against the rights of women and girls by ensuring that these resolutions reflect the current international legal framework and to resist cultural relativism, despite several amendments put forward to try and weaken the strong content of these resolutions.
However, in the text on the contribution of development to the enjoyment of all human rights, long standing consensus language from the Vienna Declaration for Programme of Action (VDPA) recognising that, at the same time, “the lack of development may not be invoked to justify the abridgement of internationally recognized human rights” has again been deliberately excluded disturbing the careful balance established and maintained for several decades on this issue.
We welcome the continuous engagement of the Council in addressing the threat posed by climate change to human rights, through its annual resolution and the panel discussion on women’s rights and climate change at this session. We call on the Council to continue to strengthen its work on this issue, given its increasing urgency for the protection of all human rights.
The Council has missed an opportunity on Sudan where it could have supported regional efforts and ensured that human rights are not sidelined in the process. We now look to African leadership to ensure that human rights are upheld in the transition. The Council should stand ready to act, including through setting up a full-fledged inquiry into all instances of violence against peaceful protesters and civilians across the country.
During the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial and summary executions, States heard loud and clear that the time to hold Saudi Arabia accountable is now for the extrajudicial killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. We recall that women human rights defenders continue to be arbitrarily detained despite the calls by 36 States at the March session. We urge States to adopt a resolution at the September session to establish a monitoring mechanism over the human rights situation in the country.
We welcome the landmark report of the High Commissioner on the situation for human rights in Venezuela; in response to the grave findings in the report and the absence of any fundamental improvement of the situation in the meantime, we urge the Council to adopt a Commission of Inquiry or similar mechanism in September, to reinforce the ongoing efforts of the High Commissioner and other actors to address the situation.
We welcome the renewal of the mandate on the freedom of peaceful assembly and association. This mandate is at the core of our work as civil society and we trust that the mandate will continue to protect and promote these fundamental freedoms towards a more open civic space.
We welcome the renewal of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Belarus. We acknowledge some positive signs of re-engagement in dialogue by Belarus, and an attempted negotiation process with the EU on a potential Item 10 resolution. However, in the absence of systemic human rights reforms in Belarus, the mandate and resolution process remains an essential tool for Belarusian civil society. In addition, there are fears of a spike in violations around upcoming elections and we are pleased that the resolution highlights the need for Belarus to provide safeguards against such an increase.
We welcome the renewal of the quarterly reporting process on the human rights situation in Ukraine. However, we also urge States to think creatively about how best to use this regular mechanism on Ukraine to make better progress on the human rights situation.
The continued delay in the release of the UN database of businesses engaged with Israeli settlements established pursuant to Council resolution 31/36 in March 2016 is of deep concern. We join others including Tunisia speaking on behalf of 65 states and Peru speaking on behalf of 26 States in calling on the High Commissioner to urgently and fully fulfil this mandate as a matter of urgency and on all States to cooperate with all Council mandates, including this one, and without political interference.
Numerous States and stakeholders highlighted the importance of the OHCHR report on Kashmir; while its release only a few days ago meant it did not receive substantive consideration at the present session, we look forward to discussing it in depth at the September session.
Finally, we welcome the principled leadership shown by Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, in pursuing accountability for individual victims of acts of intimidation and reprisals under General Debate Item 5, contrasting with other States which tend to make only general statements of concern, and call on States to raise all individual cases at the interactive dialogue on reprisals and intimidation in the September session.
(text in italics was not read out due to the limited time)
Signatories:
- International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
- Amnesty International
- ARTICLE 19
- Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
- Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
- Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies
- Center for Reproductive Rights
- CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
- DefendDefenders (the East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project)
- Franciscans International
- Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
- Human Rights House Foundation
- Human Rights Watch
- International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
- International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
- International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA)
[1] States who voted against the resolution on Eritrea: Bahrain, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Egypt, Eritrea, Iraq, India, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, the Philippines and Pakistan.
States who voted against the resolution on the Philippines: Angola, Bahrain, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Egypt, Eritrea, Hungary, Iraq, India, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and the Philippines.
Jun 27, 2019 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ highlighted the role of women in ensuring respect for human rights in relation to businesses, in a statement to the UN Human Rights Council today.
In an oral statement made during an interactive dialogue with the Working Group on Discrimination Against Women and the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, the ICJ stated as follows (check against delivery):
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) welcomes the report of the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, and agrees that despite years of progress, women continue to experience multiple forms of discrimination. Women’s voices continue to be unheard and they face insurmountable challenges as they use these voices to access justice on behalf of their communities.
We have seen numerous cases where women lead their communities in protesting abuses committed by business enterprises. Many of these communities are located in remote areas, far from courts or other mechanisms that could be used by them to seek justice. The women who lead these communities often do not identify as women human rights defenders. They see themselves as mothers protecting the health of their families or the land from which they grow their food and earn their living. Because of where these communities are located, local government authorities play a significant role on whether or not these women are heard or are able to access justice.
The women farmers of Kendeng in Indonesia, for instance, have been protesting the operation of a cement factory in their area, which contaminate their water and land. In 2016, the Supreme Court of Indonesia had already ruled in favor of these women farmers and their community, and ordered the revocation of the cement factory’s permit. To this day, however, the cement factory continues to operate, ignoring the final order of the Supreme Court. The Kendeng women farmers have raised the non-implementation of the Supreme Court’s order with the Governor of Central Java and the Indonesian government, but their voices remain unheard.
In the Philippines, the women community leaders of Pio V. Corpus, Masbate, have been protesting plans to establish a cement factory and a coal-fired power plant in their town. They allege that their local government leaders approved plans for this factory and power plant without consultation and in blatant disregard of the disastrous impact these would have on the environment and people’s health.
Mr. President, we join the Working Group in urging States and business enterprises to ensure meaningful participation of potentially affected women in all stages of human rights due diligence. We also urge States to take measures to ensure that women – wherever they may be located – are able to access justice for abuses committed by business. Finally, we recommend that local government authorities be made aware of the Guiding Principles and able to integrate the gender framework and guidance in discharging their human rights responsibilities.
Thank you.
Jun 1, 2019 | Advocacy
In July 2018, it was published the “zero draft” of a proposed first universal treaty addressing business and human rights. The document was authored by Ecuador’s Ambassador in Geneva acting as chair of the Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG) in charge of drafting the instrument.
The draft is strongly focused on issues of legal accountability of business enterprises and access to justice and remedy for those who allege harm by a business enterprise. The draft was presented and discussed in “first reading” by States and observers during the fourth session of the IGWG in October 2018.
In this document, the ICJ presents its comments to the zero draft. This commentary is not intended as a comprehensive assessment of the draft, but it rather addresses select provisions of priority concern to the ICJ on first reading. It contains recommendations on the way to strengthen them in accordance with human rights and rule of law principles.
Universal-Comments Draft Treaty BHR-Advocacy-2019-ENG (full text, in PDF)
Apr 25, 2019 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ draws attention to instances of alleged human rights abuses by the private military and security companies in all regions and analyses the challenges related to the accountability frameworks and access to justice.
The ICJ contribution is in response to the call by the UN Working Group on the use of mercenaries, which also has a mandate on private security companies, for written information to assist in its deliberations on “private military and security companies in extractive industries – impact on human rights”.
Private Military and Security Companies (PMSCs) are hired by companies engaged in extractive operations in all geographic regions of the world, but their activities or operations that give rise to allegations of human rights violations and abuses seem to be prevalent regions where abundance of natural resources and the favorable environment for foreign investment are propitious to the establishment of extractive companies in, many times, fragile contexts.
In this regard ICJ suggests the Working group to consider the following recommendations:
- States should ensure that their domestic legal framework provides for real access to effective remedies for victims of human rights abuse by PMSCs and extractive companies.
- Provide guidance to States to establish effective legal accountability frameworks of criminal or civil nature that pay due consideration to the inherently dangerous nature of the mining activity and the security services operating in that context.
- Recommend that States establish legal frameworks that require meaningful reporting/disclosure of company policies and practices in relation to human rights, including their use and effectiveness of grievance mechanisms at the operational level.
- Both extractive and security companies should respect all human rights in accordance with international standards, including the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights and other sectorial guidance applicable to PMSCs.
- Security companies, whatever their structure or ownership, should carry out enhanced processes of due diligence consistent with international best practices, and participate in remediation schemes.
Universal-ICJ Submission PSC and extractive industries-Advocacy-non legal submissions-2019-ENG (full text of the report, in PDF)
