As the Russian Federation launches a military invasion of Ukraine, its forces and those of other parties to the conflict must respect international law and protect civilian lives, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) urged today.
The “Peace to Prosperity” plan proposed by the United States, and developed in the absence of any meaningful engagement with Palestinian representatives, is not a serious means to solve the conflict between Israel and Palestinian, and all actors in the international community should reject it, the ICJ said today.
As presented, the Plan would pave the way for Israel to annex large portions of the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and deny the Palestinians the internationally protected right to self-determination as well as the right to return of Palestinians. In addition, it seeks to legitimize the acquisition of land by force, all in violation of international law and the UN Charter.
On 28 January 2020, US President Donald Trump publicly announced the plan at the Whitehouse in Washington, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at his side.
“The US plan is a political stunt that patently disregards international law and how the rights of Palestinians are recognized and protected under international law,” said Said Benarbia, the ICJ’s MENA Programme Director.
The ICJ emphasized that any claims of sovereignty by Israel over parts of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, based on this plan would be null, void and of no effect.
The text of the US plan inaccurately asserts that Israel has “valid legal and historical claims over the West Bank” and notes that “[t]he State of Israel and the United States do not believe the State of Israel is legally bound to provide the Palestinians with 100 percent of pre-1967 territory.”
This position runs counter to numerous applicable UN Security Council Resolutions, including Resolution 242, which required Israel’s complete withdrawal from the territory occupied in 1967.
“Any settlement to the conflict between Israel and Palestine must be consistent with international law, including international human rights law and international humanitarian law,” Benarbia added. “This requires negotiations on an equal footing between the parties, optimally with broad international engagement, not simply an intervention by a single State.”
Israeli settlements are established in violation of article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits the Occupying Power from transferring its own population into the occupied territory.
Their eventual incorporation into Israel would amount to unlawful annexation, in contravention of the prohibition of territorial acquisition by force established by the UN Charter and international law.
The US plan posits that “Jerusalem will remain the sovereign capital of the State of Israel,” apportioning to the State of Palestine the areas of the city beyond the separation barrier. It also denies the right to return of Palestinian refugees.
Effectively making Israel’s occupation of parts of the West Bank permanent, the US plan further provides that Israel will maintain “overriding security responsibility for the State of Palestine” and that the West Bank and Gaza should be fully demilitarized.
Contact
Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41-22-979-3817; e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
On 20 November 2019, the ICJ and Tineke Strik, Member of the European Parliament, hosted a roundtable discussion in Brussels on the ICJ’s report Accountability for Crimes under International Law in Libya: An Assessment of the Criminal Justice System.
Panelists called for the establishment of a Human Rights Council mandated Commission of Inquiry on Libya and for States to refrain from entering or implementing agreements that could give rise to support for or complicity in violations of international law.
They also called for the intensification of monitoring of Libyan Coast Guard operations and publication of its key findings, and for the European Commission to ensure its cooperation with Libyan authorities is conditional on meeting concrete, verifiable and timebound benchmarks.
At the launch, Said Benarbia and Kate Vigneswaran, MENA Programme Director and Senior Legal Adviser respectively, discussed the findings and recommendations of the ICJ’s report examining the criminal justice framework in Libya. The report finds that investigations and prosecutions of crimes under international law have been limited to a handful of cases, and substantial reforms to the legal framework are required to ensure fair and effective justice in future cases.
In light of the report’s findings, Marwa Mohammed, Head of Advocacy and Outreach for Lawyers for Justice in Libya, discussed the arbitrary detention of thousands of migrants, refugees and asylum seekers in Libya, systematic human rights violations and abuses being committed against them, and absence of options for protection, repatriation and return, including as a result of EU States’ policies.
Philippe Dam, Advocacy Director for Europe and Central Asia at Human Rights Watch, then discussed the engagement of the EU, European Commission and EU States with Libyan authorities, including in the context of violations and abuses committed against migrants, refugees and asylum seekers intercepted by the Libyan Coast Guard.
The panel was introduced by Karolina Babicka, Legal Advisor for the ICJ’s Europe and Central Asia Programme, and moderated by Tinneke Strik. It was attended by representatives of the European Commission, the EEAS, UNHCR, non-government organizations and independent persons
The ICJ today expressed its grave concern at the conduct of police forces in their enforcement of a court order to remove refugees and asylum seekers from the offices of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) in Cape Town on October 30.
Police appeared to be using excessive and unlawful force, resulting in injuries to some protestors.
The ICJ called for a prompt independent, impartial, and through investigation into the police conduct, with a view to holding account officials responsible for any ill-treatment and to prevent such methods of policing to recur.
While trying to remove largely peaceful protestors from the premises, police fired rubber bullets and stun grenades against refugees who were protesting in the streets of Cape Town last week. A video clip widely shared on social media showed police ripped a baby from a woman.
The court had granted an interdict to remove the group in Cape Town on October 18 at the Cape Town Magistrate’s Court following an application by the building landlord to evict the group. More than 100 protestors were arrested and released on warnings.
“The way refugees were treated in Cape Town on Wednesday is shameful. South African authorities should be acting to protect migrants from the xenophobic violence and threats they have been experiencing, not to perpetuate them,” said Arnold Tsunga, ICJ Africa regional director.
Refugees and asylum seekers had staged a sit-in outside the UNHCR offices in Cape Town and Pretoria for four weeks now, pleading to be resettled outside of South Africa, claiming that they felt unsafe. They said that recent attacks on foreign nationals left them feeling unsafe in South Africa. (Read the ICJ statement on the attacks here.)
In a statement, the UNHCR said the organization had received concerns of personal safety, access to documentation, challenges accessing services, and lack of job opportunities from the asylum seekers and refugees who had been camping outside of its offices.
The statement also indicated that some of the protesting group had demanded resettlements, which were only available for a limited number of vulnerable refugees. The UNHCR said it had been engaging with the refugees and asylum seekers since the protests began, encouraging them to participate in constructive dialogue to address their grievances and find a peaceful resolution to the situation.
“We call on South African authorities the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) to urgently address migrants’ concerns in a constructive and amicable manner before the situation escalates further,” Tsunga added.
Background
South African law and international law forbid the unnecessary and disproportionate use of force and protect people from ill-treatment. .
The UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Standards provides that law enforcement officials must use restraint and may use force only where only where strictly necessary, and any such force must be proportionate to the legitimate object, such as making a lawful arrest and protecting the lives and safety of others.
South Africa is party of the African Charter of Human and Peoples Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which guaranteed from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, including that resulting from unlawful use of force.
Contact
Arnold Tsunga (Director): c: +26 37 7728 3249 e: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org
Shaazia Ebrahim (Media Officer): c: +27 71 670 6719 e: shaazia.ebrahim(a)icj.org
An opinion editorial by Shaazia Ebrahim, Communications Consultant for ICJ’s Africa Programme.
Nomfundo Ngobese (25) was used to waking up at 4am to walk the 35km from her home in Nquthu, northern KwaZulu Natal (KZN) to school. In the blistering heat and the freezing cold, crossing rivers and sometimes dodging rain and lightning, Ngobese, was like many South African school learners who walked for hours to get to and from school each day.
“We had to wake up past 4 so that at past 5 we can go to school. In winters when we had to go to school, it was dark. We didn’t feel safe… We didn’t even realise the difficulties our smaller siblings were facing. It’s a thing that we just got used to,” Ngobese said.
While learners all over South Africa walk for hours every day to get to school and back home, KZN has the greatest need for scholar transport. According to the 2016 General Household Survey done by Statistics South Africa, some 483 633 learners in KZN walk more than half an hour in one direction to school each day.
But the end of the battle for learners with similar experiences to Ngobese could be in sight.
On October 23, Ngobese joined other Equal Education (EE) post-school youth organisers in picketing outside the Pietermaritzburg High Court. EE, represented by the Equal Education Law Centre (EELC), had sued the KZN Department of Education (DoE) to court to force the government into releasing the provincial scholar transport policy, which should have been available in December 2018.
They emerged victorious when government committed to releasing its Scholar Transport Policy for public comment by 31 January next year. Should the KZN DoE fail to comply, it will have to answer to the courts. The release of this policy is a critical step in ensuring that more learners will be able to have access to school transportation.
EE has been working to achieve free and safe scholar transport in Nquthu since 2014, after Equalisers told EE about the difficulties they faced with scholar transport. Learners highlighted the challenges they faced walking very far distances in extreme heat and in thunderstorms, and crossing rivers and mountains, at great risk of violent crime including sexual assault. Many learners said they felt tired and hungry after the long walk, and could not concentrate properly in class or perform well at school.
“I was once an Equaliser myself and I once walked to school every morning and afternoon,” Palisa Motloung (21) said. “We were never sure what’s going to happen on those routes. I remember this one time when I was walking with my friend, and then we passed a bush and there were men there talking. We couldn’t tell if they were talking on this side or that side of the fence because it was dark. It was very scary, we literally had to run. It was quite an experience and I don’t wish any child should go through that,” Motloung said.
After local visits to schools in Nquthu in 2014 and 2015, EE wrote to the KZN Department of Transport (DoT) and KZN DoE about these hardships learners were facing, and requested information about how they were providing scholar transport in the province. Governments’ replies were unsatisfactory, with the DoE responding that it found that only one of the 12 schools EE discussed qualified for scholar transport.
After long back and forth with government, who provided scholar transport in dribs and drabs, EE found that there was still a desperate need for scholar transport. Government officials claimed that five of the 12 schools did not qualify for scholar transport because learners were not attending the schools closest to their homes. They conceded that seven of the 12 schools did qualify for scholar transport, but said there was no money to provide it. EE took the matter to court.
This is not the first time that a provincial department of education has sued in South Africa for a failure to provide transport for learners. In 2015 the Judge Plasket of the Eastern Cape High Court held in a similar case that “The right to education is meaningless without … transport to and from school at state expense”.
The initial case was set to be heard at the Pietermaritzburg High Court. But before the hearing began, the lawyers representing EE and the lawyers representing the KZN government entered into negotiations with the KZN DoE and KZN DoT made certain promises. The order granted by the Pietermaritzburg High Court stated that the KZN DoE promised to provide scholar transport to learners in the 12 Nquthu schools by 1 April 2018.
While this was a momentous victory for EE, as part of ongoing court processes, the organisation filed a response to the KZN DoE report to the court, recognising the important steps that it had taken, but also noting significant gaps that remain.
The EE urged the KZN DoE in June last year to provide clear timelines for the finalisation of its scholar transport policy. This is a crucial step to clarify which learners qualify for government-subsidised scholar transport, how the KZN DoE and the KZN DoT will work together to provide scholar transport, and how learners’ safety will be ensured.
This report has been delayed for over a year now, but if the decision of the Court is to be implemented, it will be released in January next year.
After coaxing from South African civil society, including EE, The National Learner Transport Policy was finally published in October 2015. The policy contains important scholar transport guidelines and principles that provinces should adhere to. However, while this policy has been finalised, it has yet to be adopted.
The government’s failure to provide learners with transport is a violation of the right to basic education which is protected under the South African Constitution and international law. The International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, which South Africa ratified makes clear that education must be free for all learners at a primary school level and should progressively be made free for all learners at all levels.
Free education includes not only the absence of fees but also all other costs include free, reliable and safe transport. This means learners have a right to access their schools safely, and on time, so that they can use their energy to concentrate in class. For many learners in South Africa this is impossible without government funded transport.
“Most of the time, [schoolchildren] wake up very early and they get to school very hungry and tired. This affects their school percentage, the pass rate of the school also gets affected because of the long kilometers that children have to walk to school,” Sanele Zulu (22) said.
“I walked to school but I didn’t even know it was a wrong thing to do until Equal Education came and opened our minds. Even our parents didn’t know it was wrong, they thought that because in the olden days they walked long distances, so we must get used to it. But when EE came to our rural village, something went off in our eyes and we saw things in a different way,” Ngobese said.
Reflecting on their own experiences during school Ngobese, Motloung, and Zulu, continue to use their voices for learners who walk long distances to go to school. Equal Education, with the legal assistance of EELC, continues to advocate for the rights of learners in KwaZulu-Natal and all over South Africa.
Even though the persistent delays in the development and implementation of government policies to facilitate free, safe transport to and from schools is a cause for concern, learner’s faith in the judicial system and rights-based advocacy should be a source of optimism about the future of constitutional democracy in South Africa.
This op-ed was originally published in the Mail & Guardian.
EU: Ensuring the child’s voice is heard in legal proceedings
EU: Better support structures for children in conflict with the law are needed
Türkiye: ICJ and other organizations call on EU to respond to escalating crackdown on rule of law
Africa: Persons with Disabilities Push for Inclusive and Accessible Justice Systems