There is a critical need for UN Member States and Secretary-General to use a new UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy to develop an independent oversight mechanism to assess and mitigate harm from counterterrorism measures.
At a UN dialogue on counter-terrorism, the ICJ warned States and UN institutions against the use of overbroad and ill-defined concepts in the 7th revision of the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, because they could breach the principle of legality and undermine protections under international human rights law.
The ICJ intervened today in the virtual two-day dialogue with human rights and civil society partners on the theme of “Building a Better Paradigm to Prevent and Counter Terrorism,” organised by the United Nations Office of Counter-Terrorism (UNOCT) and the Permanent Mission of Spain to the United Nations.
The Dialogue brings together Member States, UN entities, human rights representatives, women groups, youth and civil society actors, as well as experts and other stakeholders for a practical exchange of views on how to address terrorism and violent extremism while safeguarding and promoting human rights, in particular the rights of women, children and victims of terrorism.
The ICJ Statement reads as follows:
“Madam Special Rapporteur, Your Excellencies, Colleagues,
Thank you very much for the organizing this consultation.
The International Commission of Jurists has been working for decades to ensure that counter-terrorism measures are compliant with, and do not lead to violations and abuses of human rights and the rule of law.
The ICJ has produced authoritative guidance, such as the ICJ Berlin Declaration on Upholding Human Rights and the Rule of Law in Combating Terrorism of 2004 and a four-year study concluded in 2009 by the ICJ Eminent Jurists Panel on Terrorism, Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights, the result of 16 hearings across the globe.
That Panel concluded that the approach many States had taken in short-circuiting foundational rule of law and human rights principles caused “enduring long term harm.”
The ICJ has been insistent that countering terrorism and protecting human rights are important objectives that not only are not in conflict, but are part of a single shield of protection that States must provide for.
This finding is as valid today as it was then, as the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy itself recognizes that “when counter-terrorism efforts neglect the rule of law … and violate international law … they not only betray the values that they seek to uphold, but they may also further fuel violent extremism that can be conducive to terrorism.”
In this regard, we are concerned at the possible use in the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy of undefined concepts and terms, like “violent extremism”, “violent nationalism”, political concepts of “far right” and “far left” or “extremism”.
The abusive invocation of these terms carries risks for the protection of freedom of expression, freedom of religion and belief, freedom of association and the right to political participation, all protected under international human rights law.
Critically, from a rule of law perspective, legal certainty is a key principle of human rights law that informs the requirement that any legitimate restrictions of human rights including when countering terrorism must be prescribed by law.
Any undefined or widely defined concept of terrorism or extremism should not be promoted or applied in international instruments, standards or strategies, that, where incorporated into national laws and practice, would lead to violations of this international human rights law violations.
In this regard, we share the assessment by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism in her 2020 report to the UN Human Rights Council (A/HRC/43/46) and by the OHCHR in its Report on best practices on countering violent extremism (A/HRC/33/29, para. 19).
Concepts like “violent extremism”, nationalism, political opinions and other forms of religious, ethnic, or other belief or opinion, however extreme, cannot be part of the GCTS, as they are otherwise protected by international human rights law guarantees to protect the rights to freedoms of expression, religion or belief, and/or of association.
Furthermore, their insertion would water down the anti-terrorism focus of the strategy and lead the way to the application of very pervasive measures clearly restrictive of human rights for conduct that is not linked to terrorism.
The Global Strategy should focus exclusively on countering terrorism. Any more expansive approach will risk leading to measures in breach of human rights law and, therefore, of the founding values of the UN under article 2 of the Charter.
I thank you.”
(The ICJ Statement is at minute 2:48:21)
ICJStatement-OCTSpainVirtualDialogue-SessionI-final (download the statement)
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, ICJ UN Representative, e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org, t: +41797499949
The ICJ has submitted information and recommendations for the upcoming review of the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, emphasising the need to strengthen the role of human rights in the framework and implementation of the strategy.
The submission was prepared in response to a call for civil society input, from the UN Office of Counter-Terrorism (UNOCT).
It summarizes recent ICJ activities relevant to implementation of the strategy, and urges among other things:
The complete submission can be downloaded in PDF format here: UN-Advocacy-GCTStrategy-2019
For more information contact un(a)icj.org
Today, the ICJ made a submission to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in advance of Committee’s examination of South Africa’s initial periodic report under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. South Africa ratified the Covenant in 2015.
When CESCR convenes to consider South Africa’s report on 2-3 October 2018, it will therefore be the first time that the Committee has the opportunity to review a report from South Africa on the implementation of its Covenant obligations.
In its submission, supplementing submissions made by a range of South African civil society organizations, the ICJ drew the Committee’s attention to:
a) South Africa’s incomplete discharge of its obligations in terms of the Covenant;
b) The South African Government’s need for guidance from the Committee on the discharge of its obligations in terms of the right to work;
c) The South African Government’s need for guidance from the Committee on the discharge of its obligations in terms of the right to an adequate standard of living;
d) The South African Government’s failure to report effectively and accurately on its efforts to realize the ESC rights of persons with disabilities;
e) The uncertain status of the South African Government’s commitment to the enactment of legislation to ensure the implementation of the Covenant;
f) The uncertain status of the South African Government’s intention to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Covenant; and
g) The uncertain status of the South African Government’s declaration with regard to the right to education.
The ICJ’s submission invites CESCR to make various specific recommendations to the Government of South Africa in its Concluding Observations on each of these issues. Broadly, the ICJ also invites CESCR to recommend to the Government of South Africa time-bound commitments to processes leading to:
1. The full domestication of Covenant in South African law;
2. A comprehensive review of South Africa’s domestic laws and policies on ESC rights to ensure that they are implemented consistently with South Africa’s obligations in terms of the Covenant; and
2. The ratification of Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
The ICJ’s submission also supports submissions by civil society organizations and the South African Human Rights Commission inviting CESCR to recommend that South Africa withdraw its declaration relating to its “immediate” obligations in terms of the Covenant right to education.
Finally, the ICJ considers it critical that the South African Government reflect on the ways in which the Covenant to increases, alters and nuances the nature and content of its human rights commitments and obligations in terms of the realization of economic, social and cultural rights.
This the ICJ submits is particularly crucial in regard to rights which are entrenched in the Covenant but not the South African Constitution such as the right to work (Articles 6-8) and the right an adequate standard of living (Article 11).
In undertaking this process, the ICJ submits that due regard should be had the standards set out in the Covenant as interpreted by the Committee in its general comments.
SouthAfrica-ICJSubmissionCESCR-Advocacy-Non-legal submission-2018-ENG (full text, PDF)
The ICJ today joined other International Non-Government Organizations operating in Myanmar in a statement marking one year since the commencement of military ‘clearance operations’ that caused the exodus of around 700,000 Rohingyas into neighbouring Bangladesh.
The statement reads:
As the UN Security Council meets in New York to mark one year since nearly 700,000 Rohingya refugees fled to neighboring Bangladesh, International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs) working in Myanmar say 600,000 Rohingya still left in Myanmar face daily discrimination and human rights abuses, making conditions unsafe for refugees to return.
INGOs urge the Security Council to use the one-year anniversary as an opportunity to step up pressure on the government of Myanmar to take action on three critical areas: addressing the root causes of the crisis in Rakhine State; ensuring accountability for human rights violations and improving humanitarian access.
Discriminatory policies mean that Rohingya communities in Rakhine State continue to lack citizenship and face restrictions on their freedom of movement, impeding their ability to go to school, seek medical care, find jobs or visit friends and family.
128,000 Rohingya and other Muslim communities remain trapped in closed camps in central Rakhine for the sixth year since the intercommunal violence of 2012.
Although some steps have been taken to relocate camp residents to new sites, the displaced communities have not been adequately consulted, are unable to return to their original homes, or another location of their choice, and continue to lack freedom of movement, access to jobs and services, thus further entrenching their confinement and segregation.
At the same time, a full and independent international investigation into human rights violations – sexual violence, killings, beatings and destruction of homes and properties – that caused refugees to flee has not happened and the perpetrators who facilitated these abuses have not been brought to justice.
The rights violations committed in Rakhine State are part of a pattern of ongoing military abuses against ethnic minorities throughout Myanmar, including in Kachin State, Shan State and the southeast of the country.
Humanitarian organizations working throughout Rakhine State continue to face serious restrictions on their access to affected communities and bureaucratic and administrative barriers hamper their ability to carry out their daily work.
In northern Rakhine, from where the majority of refugees in Bangladesh fled, full humanitarian access for most organizations has not been restored more than one year since restrictions were first put in place.
Although a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between UNHCR, UNDP and the Government of Myanmar in June with a view to enabling both agencies to resume operations in northern Rakhine, they still await full, unfettered access, and have not yet been able to begin the work of supporting affected communities and monitoring conditions.
The recommendations of the Kofi Annan-led Advisory Commission on Rakhine, published one year ago, provide the best roadmap for addressing the root causes of the crisis in Rakhine State, improving the lives of all communities and creating the conditions for an inclusive, fair and prosperous society for all the people in Rakhine.
INGOs welcome the progress made by the Government of Myanmar in implementing some of the recommendations, including those related to improving development and infrastructure, such as building new roads, schools, and hospitals, but conclude that not enough progress has been made in addressing structural human rights issues or in creating an environment where all communities can benefit from these developments without discrimination.
Without citizenship rights and freedom of movement, Rohingya communities in Rakhine State cannot equally benefit from improved development and refugees in Bangladesh will not feel safe to return.
INGOs call on the UN Security Council to set time-bound and measurable targets for the Government of Myanmar to make meaningful progress in all three of these areas and to hold regular public meetings on the crisis.
Specifically, the Security Council should call on the Government of Myanmar to implement the recommendations of the Advisory Commission in their entirety, including addressing structural problems of discrimination, restrictions on movement and denial of citizenship faced by Rohingya communities.
Implementation of the Advisory Commission recommendations also requires listening to the perspectives of all ethnic groups in Rakhine in an effort to break down the divisions that have pitted communities against each other.
Second, the Security Council should request the government of Myanmar to grant full and unfettered access for humanitarian organizations to all parts of Rakhine State as well as full access for independent media and journalists.
And finally, it should step up efforts with the government of Myanmar to allow independent human rights investigators full and unimpeded access to investigate human rights abuses, gather untampered evidence and refer cases to an international tribunal.
The Security Council must send a strong message to the Government of Myanmar to end impunity and prevent future violations.
Unless these measures are implemented, the international community risks perpetuating impunity and cementing segregation in Rakhine State for decades to come.
Myanmar-RohingyaJointNGOstatement-News-webstory-2018-ENG (full story in PDF)
Strong push back against US sanctions on the International Criminal Court at UN Human Rights Council
ECtHR Grand Chamber Ruling in Semenya v. Switzerland: Joint Statement of Third-Party Interveners
UN Human Rights Council struggles to fulfil its mandate in the midst of global attacks on human rights, the rule of law and multilateralism
South Africa: ICJ urges high court to apply international law protecting migrants and refugees from discrimination and xenophobia in case involving vigilante attacks