scholarly journals The ICC’s Appeals Chamber Judgments in the Jordan Case Regarding Al Bashir and Ntaganda Case: Victories for the Fights against Impunity and Immunity for Serious Crimes

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 150-156
Author(s):  
Aghem Hanson Ekori
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
Turning Point ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The United Nations

The creation of the ICC was a turning point in the fights against impunity for serious international crimes affecting mankind. Accordingly, the ICC does not recognise any form of immunities before its jurisdiction. Consequently, individuals and senior state officials cannot rely on any form of immunities if accused of any of the crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court. In the Jordan case regarding Al Bashir’s immunity, the ICC’s Appeals Chamber held that by ratifying the Rome Statute, states parties have consented to waive the immunity of their officials regarding proceedings before the Court. As a result of this, there is no immunity between the Court and states parties and between states parties themselves, and Sudan was bound by the Statute of the Court based on the United Nations Resolution 1593. In the Ntaganda case, the Court held there is no impunity for serious international crimes before its jurisdiction. This article examines both cases and concludes that while in the Jordan case there is victory for serious international crimes and the fights against human rights violations over immunity before the ICC, there is also victory for serious international crimes over impunity before the Court as seen in the Ntaganda case.

scholarly journals State Capture through Corruption: Can Human Rights Help?

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 113 ◽  
pp. 331-335
Author(s):  
Jimena Reyes
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Civil Society ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Regional Systems ◽  
State Capture ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Negative Impacts

Until recently, the United Nations and regional systems of human rights protection had shown considerable reluctance to address human rights violations resulting from corruption. Instead, these actors would underline the negative impacts of corruption on human rights without identifying corruption itself as a violation of human rights. Since 2017, however, this has begun to shift. The UN, regional human rights institutions, and civil society have begun to devise concrete ways for human rights institutions and instruments to better contribute to the fight against corruption. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (“the Court”), in particular, has taken preliminary steps to establish a legal link between corruption and human rights violations.

From Shame to New Name: How Naming and Shaming Creates Pro-Government Militias

2020 ◽  
Vol 64 (4) ◽  
pp. 906-918
Author(s):  
Lora DiBlasi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Community ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
Amnesty International ◽  
New Name ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Naming And Shaming

Abstract Researchers have identified naming and shaming as a strategy used by the international community to reprimand state leaders for their repressive actions. Previous research indicates that there is variation in the success of this tactic. One reason for the heterogeneity in success is that leaders with an interest in repressing opposition but avoiding international condemnation have adapted their behavior, at least partially, to avoid naming and shaming. For instance, some states choose to create and utilize alternative security apparatuses, such as pro-government militias (PGMs), to carry out these repressive acts. Creating or aligning with PGMs allows leaders to distance themselves from the execution of violence while reaping the rewards of repression. This analysis explores this dynamic. In particular, I examine how naming and shaming by Amnesty International and the United Nations Commission on Human Rights influences the creation of PGMs to skirt future international condemnation by the offending state for all states from 1986 to 2000. I find that countries are more likely to create PGMs, especially informal PGMs, after their human rights abuses have been put in the spotlight by the international community.

The Politics of Human Rights Diplomacy

2020 ◽  
pp. 097359842094343
Author(s):  
Anupama Ghosal ◽  
Sreeja Pal
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
United Nations ◽  
National Security ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Precise Formulation ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Relationship

The issue of Human Rights features as a prominent agenda of the United Nations and its related international organizations. However, when it comes to precise formulation of a country’s foreign policy in bilateral or multilateral forums, the issues of trade and national security find priority over pressing human rights violations occurring within the countries engaged in the diplomatic dialogue. An often-employed reason behind such an approach is the need to respect sovereignty and non-interference of a country in diplomacy. This article aims at analysing the potential which diplomacy holds to pressurize recalcitrant regimes to respect human rights. In doing so, the article tries to explore the ambit of Human Rights Diplomacy and the relationship between agenda of politics and human rights.

Beyond UN Accountability for Human Rights Violations

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 68-104
Author(s):  
Frédéric Mégret
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Peace Operations ◽  
State Dependency ◽  
Host State ◽  
The United Nations

The overarching focus on the United Nations and its agents for human rights violations and abuses they may have committed, as well as the attention to troop contributing states and even ‘victims’, has broadly shifted attention away from the role of the host state in peace operation. This article seeks to unpack that omission and suggests that it is far more problematic than commonly thought, in particular because it tends to reproduce some of the problematic features of the political economy of peacekeeping that are the background of rights abuses in the first place. Instead, as part of a tradition of thinking of human rights in terms of sovereign protection, the article makes the case for taking much more seriously the role that the host state can and should have in order to address abuses by international organizations. It emphasises how international legal discourse has tended to ‘give up’ on the host state, but also how host states have themselves been problematically quiescent about violations occurring on their territory. This has forced victims to take the improbable route of seeking to hold the UN accountable directly, bereft of the sort of legal and political mediation which one would normally expect their sovereign to provide. The article contributes some thoughts as to why host states have not taken up their citizens’ cause more forcefully with the United Nations, including governmental weakness, a domestic culture of rights neglect, but also host state dependency on peace operations. The article then suggests some leads to rethink the role of the host state in such circumstances. It points out relevant avenues under international law as well as specifically under international human rights law, drawing on the literature developed to theorise the responsibilities of states in relation to private third-party non-state actors within their jurisdiction. It argues that there is no reason why the arguments developed with private actors, notably corporations, in mind could not be applied to public actors such as the UN. Finally, the article suggests some concrete ways in which the host state could more vigorously take up the cause of rights abuses against international organizations including by requiring the setting up of standing claims commissions or making more use of its consent to peace operations, as well as ways in which it could be forced to do so through domestic law recourses. The article concludes by suggesting that reinstating the host state within what should be its natural prerogatives will not only be a better way of dealing with UN abuses, but also more conducive to the goals of peacekeeping and state construction.

scholarly journals Kashmir Conflict: A Case for UN Intervention

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-78
Author(s):  
Javaid Ahmad Dar
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
International Recognition ◽  
The United Nations

The study explores the causes and consequences of Kashmir conflict which has always been an impediment in the development of both India and Pakistan. It begins with a brief discussion on the cause of the issue and its international recognition. The paper then explains Article 370 and its implications to India and Pakistan. Then the author discusses in detail the cases of displacement of Kashmiri Pundits and the human rights violations in the conflicted area. The respective perspectives of India and Pakistan on the issue are also discussed and the author critically analyses possible solutions to the issue, proposed by the United Nations and other international authorities. The author then concludes the study by throwing light on the significance of the UN intervention in the permanent solution of the issue. The author then concludes the study by proposing demilitarization of the disputed area on both sides of border, followed by unification of the whole region and then conducting a UN supervised-area wise plebiscite of the whole territory, as the most acceptable and realistic solution to the decades old conflict.

The United Nations Special Procedures

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thérèse Murphy ◽  
Amrei Müller
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Global Health ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Iterative Process ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Governmental Organizations ◽  
Non Governmental Organizations ◽  
The United Nations

This chapter examines the UN Special Procedures, a system of independent experts appointed to monitor and report on human rights violations and to advise and assist in promoting and protecting rights. It positions the Special Procedures as a “missing population,” neglected not just by proponents of global health but by human rights advocates too. This chapter sets out to counter this neglect by “peopling” human rights law. It does this by adding the Special Rapporteurs and others who make up the system of Special Procedures, positioning these experts as an essential supplement to the actors—courts, treaty bodies, non-governmental organizations, victims, and states—that dominate accounts of human rights law. Adding Special Procedures would help in particular to address the widespread failure to see human rights law as a deliberative and iterative process that draws in a range of actors.

Global Intersectionality and Contemporary Human Rights

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johanna Bond
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Analytical Framework ◽  
The United States ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Intergovernmental Organization ◽  
Race And Gender ◽  
Intersectionality Theory ◽  
The World ◽  
The United Nations

The book enriches our understanding of international human rights by using intersectionality theory, the concept that aspects of identity, such as race and gender, are mutually constitutive and intersect to create unique experiences of discrimination and subordination, to examine contemporary human rights issues. Perpetrators of sexual violence in armed conflict, for example, often target victims based on both gender and ethnicity. Human rights remedies that fail to capture the intersectional nature of human rights violations do not offer comprehensive redress to victims. The book explores the influence of intersectionality theory on human rights in the modern era and traces the evolution of intersectionality as a theoretical framework in the United States and around the world. The book draws upon critical race feminism and human rights jurisprudence to argue that scholars and activists have under-utilized intersectionality theory in the global discourse of human rights. As the central intergovernmental organization charged with the protection of human rights, the United Nations has been slow to embrace the insights gained from intersectionality theory. Global Intersectionality argues that the United Nations and other human rights organizations must more actively embrace intersectionality as an analytical framework in order to fully address the complexity of human rights violations around the world.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document