Feb 11, 2021
In a new report published today, the ICJ called on the Thai Government to review and amend its laws, policies and practices to remove obstacles in holding Thai companies accountable for wrongdoing outside the country’s borders.
The recommendations of the report, addressing business activities of a transnational character, include a request for the Government to ensure that its laws and actions are in alignment with Thailand’s international legal obligations and international human rights standards.
Some of obstacles that are identified include: limitations on liability owing to the status of companies as legal persons as opposed to natural persons; the legal nature of corporations as distinct juridical entities; evidentiary challenge of access to corporate documentation; jurisdictional challenges in the home state; conflict of laws; and statutes of limitation.
The report also looks at the aspects of complexities in civil and administrative liability and the use of collective complaints for redress.
The report analyses Thailand’s legal framework governing corporate legal accountability for outbound investments and the remedies available and accessible to affected persons.
It recalls the obligations of Thailand to protect the human rights of persons not only within its territory, but also, to some measure, extraterritorially. This obligation extends to activities of Thai business entities, especially in cases where the remedies available to victims before the domestic courts of the State where the harm occurs are unavailable or ineffective.
Key recommendations to the Government of Thailand, the Parliament of Thailand and justice sector actors include:
- Extending the jurisdiction of Thai courts to cover claims against corporations and State enterprises that are domiciled or which principally conduct their business affairs in Thailand, regardless of whether alleged human rights abuses by the companies or their subsidiaries occurred in another country;
- Expanding liability for certain abuses caused by the conduct of a company’s subsidiaries over which it exerts control;
- Providing legal and procedural guarantees in domestic law to increase access to information about corporations and their activities, particularly in relation to cross-border enterprise activities;
- Relaxing the rule governing statutes of limitations to ensure that it will not be unduly restrictive to injured persons seeking to bring claims relating to human rights abuses committed abroad by corporations, including – by providing that a statute of limitation shall not be effective against civil or administrative actions brought by victims seeking reparation for serious human rights abuses;
- Facilitating access to justice of victims and their representatives in ensuring their agency in choosing the appropriate jurisdiction and justice mechanism before which they can litigate their case or otherwise seek remedy or reparation;
- Processing class action trials without undue delay and allowing class suit for cases filed in a Thai court by plaintiffs from another country who may not have the resources or capacity to otherwise pursue a claim individually before Thai courts;
- Ensuring that the division between administrative and civil jurisdiction, particularly for State enterprises, should not be used as a reason to obstruct victims or their representatives in accessing justice;
- Strengthening the role of the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand (NHRCT) to investigate, document, and expose instances of human rights abuse committed by Thai transnational corporations abroad, even in the absence of express powers;
- Providing training for members of the legal and judicial professions in handling cases involving corporate human rights abuse, and particularly abuse arising from cross-border business activities; and
- Providing legal aid and other funding schemes to claimants who are citizens and non-citizens in relation to cases of rights abuses arising from business activities.
Download
Southeast-Asia-Access-to-Justice-Thai-companies-Publication-ENG (English)
Southeast-Asia-Access-to-Justice-Thai-companies-Publication-THA (Thai)
Feb 11, 2021 | News
The ICJ today condemned the unlawful repression of peaceful protests and urged the Indian authorities to respect the right to freedom of assembly of Indian farmers who have been demonstrating in Delhi since November 26, 2020 against newly promulgated agricultural laws.
Since early February 2021, police have used metal barricades, cement walls and iron nails to block the roads leading to Tikri, Singhu, Ghazipur, the three main borders where the farmers have assembled. They have done so to prevent any vehicles from these areas entering Delhi. The barricades have also served to deny male and female farmers and their families, including children, consistent access to water and sanitation facilities. The protests at these sites over the past two months are reported to have been peaceful.
Thousands of farmers from all over India, and most heavily from Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh, have demanded the repeal of a new set of agricultural laws, fearing that these will serve to eliminate government protections for crop prices and thereby impact their livelihoods.
Two journalists were detained and assaulted for reporting from the ground, while nine senior journalists have been threatened with criminal charges including sedition charges by the Indian Government. More than 125 persons, including farmers and also bystanders have reportedly been arrested largely in response to a violent clash that occurred on 26 January 2021. At least 21 farmers are reported to be currently missing.
“Rather than protecting the right to peaceful protest as required by law, the Indian authorities have cracked down on farmers in an arbitrary and aggressive manner, using unlawful force and preventing free movement as well as access to essential facilities”, said Ian Seiderman, ICJ’s Legal and Policy Director.
The Indian Supreme Court on 17 December 2020, upheld the right to protest of farmers calling it “part of a fundamental right” which can be exercised “subject to public order”. The Court has further said that “[t]here can certainly be no impediment in the exercise of such rights as long as it is non-violent and does not result in damage to the life and properties of other citizens and is in accordance with law.”
“The suppression of the right to peaceful assembly has become a pattern in India, as we saw in December 2019 and January 2020 with the mass arrests of students and human rights defenders who were protesting against the Citizenship Amendment Act,” said Seiderman.
The ICJ called on the responsible authorities to remove barricades around protest sites, enable access to water and sanitation facilities and to desist from further arbitrary arrests.
Background
The three contentious farm laws being the Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020, Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020 and Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020 were brought in through executive ordinance without legislative consultation and adequate scrutiny and received presidential assent on 27 September 2020.
Farmer unions from Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh began to set up protest sites on the borders of Delhi on 26 November 2020. There have been a series of unsuccessful negotiations between the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare and the farmer representatives. In response to the protests, the Indian Supreme Court on 12 January ordered the suspension of the “implementation of the three farm laws until further orders”. The Court set up a four-person expert committee to negotiate between farmers and the Government. However the committee’s efforts have become stalled.
On 26 January, India’s Republic Day, some tens of thousands of farmers drove into Delhi in tractors, with some protestors deviating from the sanctioned routes permitted by the Delhi Police. There were clashes with the police where one protestor was killed in the violence, and nearly 400 policemen were injured. Some protestors also entered the Red Fort, an historical monument, and hoisted the Sikh religious flag on a flagpole.
On 29 January, police and at least some private forces tried to forcibly disperse the protests on Ghazipur, Singhu and Tikri borders through stone pelting and baton charging. Farmer protestors allege that the some of those working with the police were associated with Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangathan (RSS), the ideological outfit associated with the ruling party Bhartiya Janata Party.
On 6 February there was a three-hour blockade on state and national highways placed by farmers throughout large parts of India in protest against the agricultural laws, the government’s measures against the protestors and the reduction of budgetary allocation for farmers.
Freedom of assembly is protected under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which India is a party.
Contact
Maitreyi Gupta, ICJ India Legal Adviser, t: +91 77 560 28369 e: maitreyi.gupta(a)icj.org
Feb 10, 2021 | News
The ICJ and the Lebanese Center for Human Rights (CLDH) are deeply concerned about the role of the military in the arrest, detention and referral for prosecution by military courts of dozens of civilians in Tripoli.
The military’s crackdown has taken place in the context of ongoing protests in the city against a dire economic situation exacerbated by the nation-wide lockdown imposed by the government with the stated intention of combatting the COVID-19 pandemic.
“Under the Rule of Law, the military has no business policing demonstrations, detaining protesters or prosecuting civilians,” said Said Benarbia, the ICJ’s Middle East and North Africa Programme Director. “Instead of addressing the legitimate grievances of those protesting, the Lebanese government is using the military to silence dissenting voices by arresting and sending protestors for trial before military tribunals.”
While the military reported the arrest of five individuals on 27 January, five on 29 January and another 17 on 31 January, for, among other things, allegedly engaging in “rioting,” “vandalism” and “obstruction of civil defence,” other sources suggest at least 58 civilians were arrested by the military in connection with the above-mentioned protests in Tripoli. The whereabouts of many detainees remained undisclosed for days following their arrest. According to lawyers, the military’s Office of Public Prosecution has referred at least 14 individuals to a military Investigating Judge.
The ICJ and CLDH call on the Lebanese authorities to ensure that the military plays no role in policing the ongoing protests and in other law enforcement functions that are properly the sole responsibility of civilian law enforcement agencies. The military courts’ jurisdiction, in particular, must be confined exclusively to the commission of military offences by military personnel and, in turn, totally exclude the possibility of prosecuting civilians, as well as cases involving the perpetration of human rights violations by military personnel.
Referrals by the military’s Office of Public Prosecution follow an increasing, worrying trend of trying those involved in anti-government protests before military courts, which are neither independent nor impartial, and whose procedures do not comply with international fair trial standards.
“Lebanon’s military tribunals have a grim history of unfair trials and politicized proceedings against those suspected of opposing the government,” said Fadel Fakih, CLDH’s Executive Director. “If faith in the Lebanese justice system is to be restored, the jurisdiction of military tribunals must be fully reformed,” he added.
In a 2018 briefing paper entitled “The Jurisdiction and Independence of the Military Courts System in Lebanon in Light of International Standards,” the ICJ called on the Lebanese authorities to enhance the independence and impartiality of military courts, ensure the fairness of their procedures, and restrict their jurisdiction to cases involving members of the military for military offences.
Contact
Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41 22 979 38 17; e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org.
Fadel Fakih, Director of the Lebanese Center for Human Rights, t +961 81 065 041; e: ffakih(a)cldh-lebanon.org
Download
Lebanon-Military-Courts-COVID19-Press-Release-2021-ENG.pdf (English)
Lebanon-Military-Courts-COVID19-Press-Release-2021-ARB.pdf (Arabic)
Feb 8, 2021 | News
The Myanmar military’s coup d’etat of 1 February is unconstitutional and fails to comply with basic rule of law principles, said the ICJ today.
“The Myanmar military’s actions violate even the flawed Constitution that the military itself imposed in 2008,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Secretary General. “The irregularities alleged by the military in the recent elections do not justify declaring a state of emergency and shattering the already weak rule of law in the country.”
The coup d’etat does not comply with the Constitution of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar 2008, which suffers from multiple shortcomings in basic respect for the rule of law and international human rights standards.
Article 417 of the Constitution requires the President to declare a state of emergency when there is a risk to the sovereignty of the country.
Article 418 requires the President to hand over all power to the Commander-in-Chief of the Army. Contrary to this provision, the state of emergency was declared by the Vice-President, after the military detained President Win Myint.
“The accountability of the military to the civilian authorities is a core rule of law principle”, said Sam Zarifi “Myanmar’s military leaders have turned this principle on its head by usurping total authority again.”
The ICJ is concerned that Myanmar’s Constitution provides for the possibility of suspending protections for a number of human rights, such as freedom of expression and association and the right to habeas corpus. Under international human rights law, derogations from certain rights are permissible only when strictly necessary to meet a specific threat to the life of the nation, conditions not met under the current emergency.
The right to habeas corpus is among those rights that may never be suspended. The writ of habeas corpus allows any person detained by any State agent, including during emergencies, to challenge the lawfulness of the detention.
“The right to test the lawfulness of any detention needs to be restored and the judiciary must be able to independently examine the legality of any arrests and detentions and order to release of those it finds are detained illegally” said Sam Zarifi.
Of particular concern to the ICJ is the near-total impunity provided to the military after the declaration of the State of Emergency, and the proliferation of arbitrary detention without recourse to legal review.
Article 432 of the Constitution effectively shields the military and security forces from any review of ’legitimate measures’ pursuant to the declaration of a state of emergency, which the ICJ notes also flies in the face of the rule of law.
“After the shock of the coup d’etat, we are now seeing brave lawyers and civil society activists trying to use peaceful means at their disposal to demand their rights,” Zarifi said. “This movement is not focused around an icon or even one party, but on the notion that the people of Myanmar should be able to government themselves and decide their future.”
Contact
Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Secretary General, sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Feb 8, 2021 | News
The ICJ welcomes the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) decision establishing that the Court can assert its jurisdiction over serious crimes alleged to have occurred in the State of Palestine since 13 June 2014.
On 5 February 2021, the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I held by majority that: (i) Palestine has correctly acceded to the Rome Statute and has thus become a State party to it; and (ii) the ICC’s territorial jurisdiction extends to “the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, namely Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.”
“The ruling is a first step towards breaking the cycle of impunity for crimes under international law committed by all parties to the conflict in Palestine,” said Said Benarbia, the ICJ’s MENA Programme Director. “The Prosecutor should immediately open an investigation with a view to establishing the facts about such crimes, and identifying and prosecuting those most responsible.”
The decision was prompted by a request of the ICC Office of the Prosecutor seeking confirmation of the Court’s territorial jurisdiction.
The Prosecutor had previously concluded that there is a reasonable basis to believe that “war crimes have been or are being committed in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.”
On 16 March 2020, the ICJ submitted amicus curiae observations in support of the Court’s jurisdiction, arguing that:
- Palestine has successfully acceded, and is a State Party, to the Rome Statute. The Court should accordingly exercise its jurisdiction over Palestine as it does in respect of any other State Party;
- The Palestinian Territory over which the Court should exercise jurisdiction comprises the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza; and
- Palestine is a State under international law, satisfying recognized international law criteria for statehood, displaying State activity and engaging in diplomatic relations with other sovereign States. The decades-long belligerent occupation of Palestine by itself has no decisive legal effect on the validity of its claim to sovereignty and statehood.
The Pre-Trial Chamber decision confirmed the first two of these observations, without considering the status of Palestine’s statehood under general international law.
Contact
Said Benarbia, Director, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme; t: +41 22 979 3817 e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Vito Todeschini, Legal Adviser, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme; t: +216 53 334 679 e: vito.todeschini(a)icj.org
