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)
Mar 22, 2019 | News
The ICJ today strongly welcomed the renewal of the key UN expert on counter-terrorism and human rights, on terms that maintain the mandate’s independence, integrity and its essential focus on human rights.
The renewal of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, was enacted by a resolution adopted by consensus at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.
To acheive this successful outcome, Mexico (which leads the resolution) and other States had to defend the text of the resolution against attempts by Egypt and other States to insert language aimed at diluting, distorting or distracting the mandate from its current focus on preventing and responding to violations of human rights and on securing respect, protection and fulfilment of the human rights of victims of terrorism.
The Special Rapporteur delivers thematic reports to the Human Rights Council, carries out visits to countries, and acts on individual complaints. In the overall counter-terrorism architecture of the UN, the Special Rapporteur is also the only person with an exclusive independent mandate to remind States of their human rights obligations while countering terrorism, to advise them how to do so, and to draw public attention when they do not. So any dilution of the mandate would have also put the integrity and efficacy of the overall UN counter-terrorism strategy and architecture at risk.
Following the adoption of the mandate renewal resolution by the Council, the ICJ and other organisations expressed its deep appreciation for Mexico’s efforts, together with the strong support of numerous other States, to secure the future of the mandate.
The resolution text is available here: https://undocs.org/A/HRC/RES/40/16
Additional background is here.
Mar 1, 2019 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today delivered a joint oral statement to the UN Human Rights Council, addressing the abuse of counter-terrorism measures to repress human rights defenders and other civil society actors, and highlighting deep concerns about possible moves to allow Egypt a significant role over the UN’s independent expert on human rights and counter-terrorism.
The statement was delivered in an interactive dialogue with the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism. The ICJ made the statement jointly on behalf of Amnesty International, Article 19, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, CIVICUS, Human Rights Watch, International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), International Service for Human Rights (ISHR), and Privacy International.
The organisations had earlier sent a joint letter to all States’ delegations to the Council in Geneva, highlighting Egypts appalling record of abuse of counter-terrorism measures, and urging States to strongly oppose any attempts to weaken the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, whether by diluting or distorting it by importing the flawed Egyptian-led approach into the Mexican-led resolution for its renewal, or any moves by longstanding leader Mexico to share co-leadership of the mandate renewal resolution with Egypt or other States with such an appalling record in relation to the very issues the mandate is to address.
The joint oral statement to the Council read as follows (check against delivery):
“Madame Special Rapporteur,
Our organizations welcome your report on the impacts of counter-terrorism and counter-extremism measures against civil society and human rights defenders (A/HRC/40/52).
We strongly concur with your findings regarding the deliberate and targeted abuse of overly broad and vague definitions of terrorism and violent extremism to criminalize and otherwise suppress human rights defenders and other civil society actors. We also appreciate your highlighting the need to prevent indirect impacts on civil society.
Among those States with a particularly appalling record of deliberate and targeted abuse, Egypt, which is mentioned in your report (paras 53 and 56), is a prominent example. As Human Rights Watch recently stated: “Using counterterrorism as a guise to crush all forms of dissent could be Egypt’s hallmark of 2018… There’s simply not much room left to peacefully challenge the government without being detained and unfairly prosecuted as a ‘terrorist’.”[1] Other examples from the reports before the Council include Turkey (para 53), Saudi Arabia (A/HRC/40/52/Add.2 paras 21-29), and China particularly as regards Uyghurs and Kazakhs (paras 55 and 57).
We share your concern about the elements lost from the previous Human Rights Council and General Assembly resolutions on “protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism” in their March 2018 merger with the deeply flawed Egyptian-led initiative on “effects of terrorism” (para 29). We reiterate our call from March 2018 for future versions of the resolution to address the relevant issues exclusively and comprehensively from the perspective of the effective protection of human rights.[2] We strongly oppose any attempts to dilute your mandate, including by importing the flawed Egyptian-led approach into the resolution for its renewal, or any sharing of co-leadership of the mandate renewal resolution with States that have such an appalling record in relation to the very issues the mandate is to address.
Madame Rapporteur, beyond the particular cases mentioned in your report (para 53), what are your views on the broader situation within Egypt in terms of abuse of counter-terrorism measures and what can States, the United Nations, civil society, and other stakeholders do to stop such abuses in the name of counter-terrorism in Egypt and other egregious situations?
Thank you.
[1] https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/01/17/egypt-new-moves-crush-dissent (17 January 2019). See also among others: Human Rights Watch World Report 2019, https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/country-chapters/egypt; EuroMed Rights, Egypt – Finding Scapegoats: Crackdown on Human Rights Defenders and Freedoms in the Name of Counter-terrorism and Security (Feb 2018) https://euromedrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/EuroMed-Rights-Report-on-Counter-terrorism-and-Human-Rights.pdf; Joint NGO Statement, Egypt: Civil society faces existential threat (23 June 2016) https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Egypt-Advocacy-JointNGOStatement-2016.pdf.
[2] Joint NGO end-of-session statement (23 March 2018) https://www.icj.org/hrc37-endofsession/.”
The statement can be downloaded in PDF format here: HRC40-JointOralStatement-SRCTHR-2019-EN
For more information email un(a)icj.org.
Oct 19, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The International Commission of Jurists participated in the fourth session of the open-ended intergovernmental working group on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights that took place at the Palais de Nations from 15-18 October 2018. Below are the interventions the ICJ made at this session.
UN-ICJ statement IGWG4 general debate-Advocacy-ENG-2018
UN-ICJ statement IGWG4 prevention-Advocacy-ENG-2018
UN-ICJ statement IGWG4 legal liability-Advocacy-ENG-2018
Oct 12, 2018 | Events, News
First side event: Multi-stakeholder dialogue on the scope and content of a treaty on business and human rights, Monday 15 October 2018, from 13.00-15.00, Room XXVII, Palais des nations.
Second side event: What kind of international monitoring and/or adjudicating mechanism do we need? Tuesday 16 October 2018, from 13.00-15.00 Room XXI, Palais des nations.
On 26 June 2014, the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) adopted Resolution 26/9 establishing an “open ended intergovernmental working group on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights” with the mandate to “elaborate an international legally binding instrument to regulate, in international human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises”.
The first two sessions were dedicated to open deliberations about the format, scope and content of the future instrument, and a document with «elements» of the treaty was presented to the third session in 2017.
The fourth session of the OEIWG opens on 15 October with a «zero draft» of a treaty prepared by the Working Group Chairperson on the table for discussion.
The draft has so far met a mixed reception.
While much of the debate on a treaty has focussed on substantive questions around the scope and nature of substantive rights and responsibilities, the international monitoring and adjudicating mechanism has so far received far less attention.
Both side events organized on October 15-16 by the ICJ will be a space of discussion where stakeholders will be invited to share their views on key sections of the «zero draft» on business and human rights as well as on the best way to proceed in the negotiations in the next period.
Multi-stakeholder dialogue on the scope and content of a treaty on business and human rights (flyer in PDF)
What kind of international monitoring and/or adjudicating mechanism do we need? (flyer in PDF)
Contact:
Carlos Lopez, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, t: 022 979 3816; e: carlos.lopez(a)icj.org
