Jan 19, 2024 | News
On 15-16 January 2024, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), in cooperation with ARTICLE 19, organized a workshop in the province of Chiang Mai where over two dozen civil society actors and human rights defenders considered how to invoke and apply international law and standards related to land. The goal was to advocate for better protection of the human rights of affected individuals and communities across Thailand.
“Access to, use of, and control over land can have direct and indirect implications for the enjoyment of a range of human rights, particularly those under the International Covenant on the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) to which Thailand is a party,” said Seree Nonthasoot, Member of the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (CESCR).
Thailand has a long-standing track record of failing to meet its human rights obligations related to land, especially concerning Indigenous Peoples, peasants, and other traditional communities, many of which have a material and spiritual relationship with their ancestral lands. Violations include the failure to ensure the security of tenure and meaningful and effective participation of communities in land-related decision-making processes.
Large-scale forced evictions conducted in violation of international law, inadequate and inconsistent compensation provided to affected communities and individuals due to land-related policies, and displacement of entire communities that are consequently struggling to access livelihoods without adequate support from the State have also been reported.
“When the social, cultural, spiritual, economic, environmental, and political value of land for communities is systematically disregarded by domestic law, international law and standards become important tools for victims and civil society to use in their advocacy for the protection of human rights. International mechanisms also offer crucial avenues for exposing serious human rights violations and seeking accountability,” added Sanhawan Srisod, ICJ’s Legal Adviser.
The workshop aimed to build participants’ documentation skills, strengthen their advocacy and promote networking. Further, the training explored different approaches and the benefits of engaging with UN human rights mechanisms for the protection of human rights in relation to land. The workshop provided a space for participants to discuss how civil society actors can utilize the outputs of these mechanisms in their activities, as well as how to effectively communicate with such mechanisms to ensure that their engagement is strategic and productive.
Background
Speakers included:
- Pairoj Ponpesh, Adviser, National Human Rights Commission of Thailand
- Pratubjit Neelapaijit, National Human Rights Officer, OHCHR’s Regional Office for Southeast Asia
- Sanhawan Srisod, Legal Adviser, ICJ
- Seree Nonthasoot, Member of the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights
Unofficial translations of key CESCR’s jurisprudences into Thai were also provided and shared with the participants. These included:
For more information regarding the legal framework, policies, and practices related to land in the context of the establishment and development of special economic zones (SEZs) against international law and standards, available in English and Thai.
Contact:
Sanhawan Srisod, Associate International Legal Adviser, ICJ Asia Pacific Programme; e: [email protected]
Jun 1, 2021 | Advocacy, News
Thailand’s laws and practices governing the rights of land users may result in unnecessary and disproportionate restrictions on various economic, social, and cultural rights, particularly for forest dwellers and indigenous communities, the ICJ said during discussions last week with members of Thai civil society as well as government authorities.
On 28 May 2021, the ICJ co-hosted a discussion on international human rights law and standards on land rights in Thailand, with 70 members of civil society organizations, human rights lawyers, and academics in attendance. On 4 June 2021, the ICJ spoke at a discussion on the same topic, organized by Thailand’s Ministry of Justice, bringing together 80 governmental officials from several Ministries.
“Thailand’s land regulatory laws do not adequately protect the rights of indigenous people to access their ancestral lands and natural resources and to conduct cultural practices,” said Sanhawan Srisod, ICJ Legal Advisor. “We hope the Thai government will improve its general policies for land use and tenure, especially for indigenous peoples and forest dwellers, in line with its obligations under international law.”
Dr. Seree Nonthasoot, member of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) from Thailand, spoke at both discussions to introduce participants to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) to which Thailand is a party and the role of the CESCR. The CESCR is a body of independent experts from across the world established by ICESCR and tasked with providing authoritative interpretations of ICESCR in its body of jurisprudence.
“The CESCR recommended [that] Thailand […] effectively remove all obstacles to enjoyment of traditional individual and communal rights by ethnic minorities in their ancestral lands […] and ensure that forced evictions are only used as a measure of last resort. These should be addressed without any further delay,” said Dr. Seree Nonthasoot.
Specific issues highlighted by participants in the discussions included:
- Prosecution and Eviction: The use of laws ostensibly designed to counter climate change and forest conservation policies and legislatures, such as the Forest Act, the National Reserved Forests Act and the National Park Act, to prosecute forest dwellers and indigenous communities for trespassing and forcibly evict them from the land belonging to national reserved forests and national parks;
- Participation and Consultation: The inadequate participatory mechanisms and consultations with people affected by land-related policies and practices, in particular the increasing use of online mechanisms as the main platforms for consultation in Thailand, despite the low rate of access to the internet among affected communities;
- Judicial Recognition: The lack of explicit judicial recognition of historical and other indigenous forms of evidence and knowledge in order to establish validity of territorial claims;
- Impact of Tourism: The impact of tourism development projects on communities’ economic, social and cultural rights in land-related contexts, including on their traditional landownership and livelihood practices;
- Compensation and Assessment: The impact of large-scale land acquisitions in areas that had already been occupied or used, without carrying out adequate impact assessments and with inadequate compensation.
Sanhawan Srisod introduced participants to the CESCR’s draft General Comment No. 26, which is open for public comment until 27 July 2021. If a revised General Comment is adopted by the CESCR, it will provide an authoritative interpretation of States’ ICESCR obligations relating to land.
At the meeting’s conclusion, participants discussed advocacy strategies to strengthen Thailand’s legal frameworks once the draft General Comment is adopted by the CESCR.
Further reading
The Human Rights Consequences of the Eastern Economic Corridor and Special Economic Zones in Thailand
Thai Companies in Southeast Asia: Access to Justice for Extraterritorial Human Rights Harms
Joint submissions by ICJ and its partners to the Universal Periodic Review (UPR)
Sep 30, 2020 | Feature articles, News
Venezuela is suffering from an unprecedented human rights and humanitarian crisis that has deepened due to the dereliction by the authoritarian government and the breakdown of the rule of law in the country.
The International Organization for Migration (IOM) has estimated that some 5.2 million Venezuelans have left the country, most arriving as refugees and migrants in neighbouring countries.
The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in 2018 had categorized this situation of human rights, as “a downward spiral with no end in sight”.
The situation of the right to health in Venezuela and its public health system showed structural problems before the pandemic and was described as a “dramatic health crisis (…) consequence of the collapse of the Venezuelan health care system” by the High Commissioner.
Recently, the OHCHR submitted a report to the Human Rights Council, in which it addressed, among other things the attacks on indigenous peoples’ rights in the Arco Minero del Orinoco (Orinoco’s Mining Arc or AMO).
Indigenous peoples’ rights and the AMO mining projects before the covid-19 pandemic
Indigenous peoples have been traditionally forgotten by government authorities in Venezuela and condemned to live in poverty. During the humanitarian crisis, they have suffered further abuses due to the mining activity and the violence occurring in their territories.
In 2016, the Venezuelan government created the Orinoco’s Mining Arc National Strategic Development Zone through presidential Decree No. 2248, as a mega-mining project focused mainly in gold extraction in an area of 111.843,70 square kilometres.
It is located at the south of the Orinoco river in the Amazonian territories of Venezuela and covers three states: Amazonas, Bolívar and Delta Amacuro.
It is the habitat for several indigenous ethnic groups[1] who were not properly consulted before the implementation of the project.
The right to land of indigenous peoples is recognized in the Venezuelan Constitution. Yet, as reported by local NGO Programa Venezolano de Educación- Acción en Derechos Humanos (PROVEA), the authorities have shown no progress in the demarcation and protection of indigenous territories since 2016.
Several indigenous organizations and other social movements have expressed concern and rejected the AMO project.
The implementation of this project has negatively impacted indigenous peoples’ rights to life, health and a safe, healthy and sustainable environment. Human Rights Watch, Business and Human Rights Resource Center, local NGO’s, social movements and the OHCHR, have documented the destruction of the land and the contamination of rivers due to the deforestation and mining activity, which is also contributing to the growth of Malaria and other diseases.
Indigenous women and children are among the most affected. The Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO) has reported that “the indigenous populations living in border areas of Venezuela are highly vulnerable to epidemic-prone diseases”, and it raised a special concern about the Warao people (Venezuela and Guyana border) and Yanomami people (Venezuela and Brazil border).
Women and children also face higher risks of sexual and labour exploitation and of gender-based violence in the context of mining activities.
The High Commissioner’s recent report mentions that there is “a sharp increase since 2016 in prostitution, sexual exploitation and trafficking in mining areas, including of adolescent girls.”
In addition, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) have identified a trend among adolescents of dropping out of school particularly between the ages of 13 and 17. Indigenous individuals are acutely affected, as many children leave to become workers at the mines.
Violence and crime have also increased in the AMO. Criminal organizations and guerrilla and paramilitary groups are present in the zone, and the Venezuelan government has expanded its military presence. Indigenous leaders and human rights defenders have been targets of attacks and threats; and there is a persistence of allegations of cases of enforced disappearances and extrajudicial and arbitrary killings.
Current situation under COVID-19 pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic and the lack of adequate response to it has aggravated this situation.
The government declared a state of emergency (estado de alarma) on 13 March and established a mandatory lockdown and social distancing measures. Yet mining activities have continued without adequate sanitary protocols to prevent the spread of the pandemic.
The State of Bolívar -the largest state of the country which is located in the Orinoco Mining Arc- has among the highest numbers of confirmed cases of COVID-19 which have included indigenous peoples.
The Venezuelan authorities’ response to the pandemic in these territories has not considered culturally appropriate measures for them. In addition, although authorities established a group of hospitals and medical facilities called “sentinel centres” to attend persons with COVID-19 symptoms, they are located in cities while indigenous communities live far from cities.
Furthermore, the lack of petrol in the country aggravates the obstacles to easy transportation to these centres.
Civil society organizations and indigenous leaders complain about the lack of COVID-19 tests and the data manipulation of the real situation of the pandemic. Also, the OHCHR reported the arbitrary arrest of at least three health professionals for denouncing the lack of basic equipment and for providing information about the situation of COVID-19, and stressed that there are “restrictions to civic and democratic space, including under the “state of alarm” decreed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.”
[1] At least Kari’ña, Warao, Arawak, Pemón, Ye’kwana, Sanemá o Hotï, Eñe’pa, Panare, Wánai, Mapoyo, Piaroa and Hiwi.
Download
Venezuela-COVID19 indigenous-News Feature articles-2020-ENG (full article with additional information, in PDF)
Sep 2, 2019 | News
In a statement, the ICJ, along with various other local and international civil society organizations and affected communities demand redress for forced evictions following visit of African Commission member and ICJ Commissioner Jamesina King.
On 27-28 August 2019 members of local communities who have endured or are at imminent risk of forced evictions in Eswatini met in Manzini to continue their advocacy efforts against forced and mass evictions. These stakeholders called on the responsible government authorities in Eswatini to take immediate measures to address the practice of forced evictions in violation of the right to housing.
The Eswatini land governance system fails Swazi people. Most land is held by the King in “trust”, other Swazi people live on title-deed land without formal recognition. Swazi people do not enjoy security of tenure and are vulnerable to forced evictions. Under international human rights law, forced evictions may only happen as a last resort, in terms of a court order, once all other feasible alternatives have been exhausted and appropriate procedural protections are in place.
Some participants in the workshop had previously submitted a report that documents forced evictions in Eswatini and engaged with the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) at its 63rd Ordinary Session in Banjul, Gambia in October 2018. As a follow-up, the community representatives invited ACHPR Commissioner Jamesina King to participate in their meeting in Manzini in August 2019.
“It is very obvious that the laws of Eswatini have to evolve to provide these communities with legal protection and to put an end to forced evictions,” Commissioner King told the communities. King also called for the government to declare a moratorium on forced evictions until laws have been enacted which provide sufficient protection for the right to adequate housing.
The meeting, which was facilitated and coordinated in partnership with the Foundation for Socio-Economic Justice, the International Commission of Jurists, Amnesty International and the Southern African Litigation Centre, was also attended by local civil society organizations, religious groups and concerned individuals. The participants also had the opportunity of engaging with the Eswatini Commission on Human Rights and Public Administration.
Participants included representatives from communities recently affected by evictions from affected communities, from Nokwane and the Malkerns. Representatives from communities facing imminent eviction in Mbondzela, Gege in the Shiselweni region, Vuvulane, Madonsa and Sigombeni also participated.
Participants demanded the following in conclusion of the engagement:
- A public, time bound commitment to a moratorium on forced and mass evictions.
- The enactment of legislation that explicitly prohibits forced and mass evictions in all circumstances and sets out safeguards that must be strictly followed before any eviction is carried out.
- The provision of reparations for those families who have already been subjected to forced evictions in the absence of sufficient legal protections.
“The ICJ sees the Minister of Justice Pholile Dlamini-Shakantu’s willingness to discuss forced evictions with Commissioner King as a welcome indication of the government’s openness to constructive input by the African Commission. It is hoped that the government takes heed of struggles of community members, and acts swiftly to put an end to forced evictions in Eswatini”, said Arnold Tsunga, ICJ’s Africa Director.
Find the full statement, which is endorsed by the Foundation for Socio-Economic Justice, the International Commission of Jurists, Amnesty International and the Southern African Litigation Centre here;
Eswatini-Swazi Government to End Forced Evictions-News-Webstory-2019-ENG
For more information contact:
Tim Fish Hodgson timothy.hodgson(a)icj.org +27 82 871 9905
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.
