#to make an Optional Protocol to the “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” that Conner mentioned

[wandixx]

GIW made a lot of mistakes and the biggest one was going against Young Justice part 2

part one is here

@whimsicalchaosgarden you asked to be tagged, sorry it took so long

Trigger warnings: mentions of experimentation and dehumanization (tell me if there is more appropriate way of phrasing it)

“So,” Robin started, taking the voice recorder out of his utility belt. “It'll probably be best if we get an explanation while making an accident report. This way we get it all over sooner”

Everyone agreed with this idea, standing in the loose circle in the debriefing area to make it all feel more serious. They had limited time before the next batch of cookies needed to be taken out of the oven and there was no way they all wouldn't devolve into chaos when it happened. M’gann knew from experience. 

To make sure they wouldn't take too long and cookies wouldn't turn on the fire alarm (again) both she and Danny set a timer.

In the meantime they had to learn who actually attacked them earlier.

“Phantom do the honors”

Danny froze for a moment, looking like deer caught in the headlight before he asked in a bit squeaky voice:

“How do I make an accident report?”

“Just say what happened but make it sound fancy,” Artemis explained. 

“Make a mission report and we'll fix it along the way,” Kaldur proposed.

“Answer ‘When? Where? Who was involved? What happened? What have you done about it?’ without excessive use of puns to avoid Bat-lecture” Robin helped, already in handstand.

“Bat-lecture? Really Rob?”

“So it's like lab report lite” Danny said before Robin did anything more than squawk indignantly “Alright, I can do it. Do you have any set phrase to start? And which accident report is it, in the database?"

“44th… How about ‘[Hero name], report’? Sounds serious enough.”

Everyone agreed, so after a moment of silence Kaldur did the honors.

“Phantom, report”

Danny straightened, rolling his shoulders back and locked his eyes in the middle distance. It was a bit eerie how fast he went from relaxed and goofy to almost emotionless statue. M’gann wished to never encounter it again, thank you very much.

“Incident report no. 45 made by Young Justice member Phantom, regarding an attack from earlier today, 26th April 20XX. The Young Justice Team, later referred to as the Team, went on a trip to an amusement park staying currently in the city of Happy Harbour. It was an activity meant to strengthen interpersonal relationships within the Team, previously green-lit by Red Tornado. Every member was in civilian attire as per protocol. Around 3:15 PM, after two and a half hours, the Team were disturbed by a group of ten armed people, recognized by member Phantom as belonging to Ghost Investigation Ward, colloquially known as GIW or Guys In White because of their uniforms. Later in the report the organization will be referred to as the GIW. Two shots were fired by the assailants, targeting but not reaching member Phantom. Members of the GIW were hostile but with use of humor and threat of legal actions, the Team managed to diffuse the situation before it endangered passerbys. Despite direct attack, none of the Team members’ identities were compromised. Assailants left the confrontation with belief that Phantom left his ectoplasmic signature on an unrelated civilian. Agents refused to admit they were working for the GIW since its operations break a couple of laws of the state Rhode Island. Because of that, their appearance was reported to local law enforcement and taken care of. No injuries or damage to the city infrastructure were sustained other than two burns in the asphalt in the place of confrontation. Required follow-up with local law enforcement in civilian attire as victims of assault. End of report” Danny sighed, easing back into a more natural position. “This good?” he asked, with a sheepish smile.

“Perfect”

“How are you so good at reporting? You didn’t even know what to do a second ago? That’s just unfair”

“I used to write my parent’s lab reports. It’s pretty similar in form”

“Lab-”

“Follow-up to the report only, Kid-Flash,” Robin interrupted “Phantom. elaborate on who were the assailants”

Danny stepped back from himself again.

“GIW is a ghost hunting organization supported and accredited by the state government in Illinois, legally operating also in states Wisconsin and Ohio. Their goal is to catch and examine ecto-entities to learn more about their biology and ways to obliterate them. Obviously their plans for experimentation don’t include consideration of ghosts’ well-being”

“Damn, that’s messed up”

“They wouldn't catch a blob ghost if they tried,” Danny shrugged, though something was wrong with the gesture. She wasn't sure though, so she moved on.

“Then why were you scared?” M’gann pressed on instead.

“My parents… are, you know, prominent ghost hunters so when GIW opened we all got a tour around the whole building. The lab was… it made me imagine things I wished I had never thought about”

“They have labs? Like evil labs?” Robin perked up like a kid who just heard that Christmas came early. “How could you hide it from us?!” he added, falling to hang on Danny's shoulder. He twirled a bit to catch the left one even though before he stood on halfa’s right side. Dramatic as always “Conner, we have a birthday gift for you!”

“What does GIW’s lab have to do with my birthday?”

“The potential!” Robin yelled, straightening for a better effect.

Everyone started laughing. Well, everyone other than Conner who just looked at them confused.

“He probably wants to storm another lab, bring up nostalgia of our first meeting,” Kaldur calmed down just enough to explain.

“Tell me you wouldn't like to punch an evil scientist,” Wally added, almost dropping to the floor. 

“This does sound nice”

“And THIS is exactly the reason why I haven't told you all. Thanks for spoiling my surprise Rob,” Danny lied, though he did his best to sound truthful. He even projected some false mirth.

It would take much more to trick M’gann though. She abruptly stopped laughing.

“You're lying. Why actually haven't you told us?” she demanded maybe a little too harshly, but she was worried. Everyone froze for a moment, before turning to look at Danny.

“They're all bark no bite, and aim worse than Stormtroopers’, so I haven't considered them important enough to report”

Other's didn’t know, of course, but M’gann knew just how terrified Danny was during the confrontation and how echoes of that fear soured air around him even hours later.

Everyone did realize this explanation was a tone of bullshit though. 

Apparently incredulous stares were enough of the response.

“You and the Justice League have more important things to deal with than some shitty local laws”

“Bullshit again,” Artemis burst her lips “This is exactly what Justice League is for”

“I already found people to help me lobby against them”

“And why aren't we on the list?” 

Danny fell silent, not looking anyone in the eyes, which was quite a feat considering they had him in a half circle. M’gann considered moving to his side to show her support. Stare down like that had to be quite stressful.

Why not actually. She stepped closer, and drew him in the loose side hug. Danny tensed, which wasn't abnormal for him. He usually relaxed in about thirty seconds, if he didn't, she'd let go.

“I didn't expect them to breach the containment…”

“Each of these lies is worse, you know? Like, insulting our intelligence level of worse,” Artemis interrupted once more, pinning him with her eyes alone “Give us truth or stop talking”

Danny raised his head to look back at Artemis and mimed zipping his mouth shut and throwing the key away. 

“Really?”

Boy just shrugged, not breaking eye contact.

“Alright, let's move on to the next question, how did it get approved in the first place?” Wally interrupted, waving his hand between them. They both shook off like dogs fresh out of water.

“Couldn't you wait five more seconds until I won?” 

“Ha! You wish Artemis. Though you could give us a moment”

“I gave you literal ages”

Danny snorted “Sorry, I keep forgetting how impatient you are”

“Oh shut up, my brain is just faster than yours, you slowpokes”

“Sure, sure”

“He made a good point,” Kaldur said “This shouldn’t even pass. And even if, you’re legally a Meta”

“Normal ghosts aren’t and halfas being a thing is not exactly common knowledge among the living”

“I’ll never get used to this distinction”

“I believe in you, Rob”

“What about ‘Extraterrestrial, extradimensional and otherwise previously unincluded’ Optional Protocol to the ‘International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’?”

“Oh my god Conner, you’re the only person to say the whole name ever”

“Hey!”

“It all comes down to the definition of the ghost and the fact that Alien addition uses sentience and sapience as a ground to give anyone said rights. And also, US signed it but didn’t ratify it so…”

“Isn’t it same thing?”

“Nope. I thought so too, but apparently signing anything means nothing unless it’s also ratified, so I’m kinda fucked. Can’t even get the UN to frown at them disapprovingly, because officially, nothing was agreed to. And you know, even if they ratified it, ecto-scientists conducted enough research to prove we aren’t sapient enough to have these rights anyway. Just most of the states didn’t need to make a law out of it”

“That’s rough buddy”

“Are you really quoting Avatar at me right now? Really Artemis?”

“Yes”

“Wasn’t Avatar this movie with blue people? I don’t think they said that there”

M’gann wasn’t quite sure why human members seemed to be appalled by the question.

“We’re going to fix that later-”

“What exactly is there to be fixed, because I feel like we’re talking about to different things”

“- but for now can we go back to the whole ‘ghosts have no rights in Illinois’ thing” Robin continued, completely ignoring Conner’s questions.

“Illinois, Wisconsin and Ohio. There are portals to the Zone in two of these states. GIW already tried to send nuke through one of them”

“How Americana of them,” Kaldur muttered.

“If you have another insane tidbit about them, please share it all now. My mind can’t utilize any more revelations like that”

“I handled it, don’t worry”

“Someone tried to nuke literal Afterlife…”

“Yup, get on the schedule Kid Flash. You’re supposed to be fast”

M’gann knocked her arm into his, kinda as a ‘don’t be mean’ message. Danny kinda tensed, but soon relaxed back and moved his head as if he wanted to lay it on her shoulder. Excitement of the day was clearly catching up to him.

M’gann wouldn’t be mad if he did laid his head there.

“Why do we learn about it just now?”

“I wrote the report, not my fault you haven’t read it”

“Can’t fault us for assuming we’d know every important thing from your endless bitching!”

Danny straightened and laughed, in this horrible humorless way that made M’gann want to claw at her brain until she couldn’t hear or sense any of it.

Instead, she brought her other hand up and just held him tighter.

Thankfully the whole spectacle didn’t last long.

“It’s cute that you think I bitch about anything important”

“Phantom…”

“Don’t Phantom me right now. Even if by some miracle they managed to send the missile to the Zone, it most likely wouldn’t have worked. They’re mostly just a joke.”

“They managed to shot you. Right upper arm or shoulder”

“Don’t deny it, we’ve seen you wince when I leaned on you and when M’gann hugged you”

Martian tried to let go hearing that, but Danny held her in place. She stayed where she was but carefully moved her hand away from the slightly damp area on his shirt. She suddenly caught on everything that was wrong with him, now that she knew to look for it.

“I got worse from the hand of my house’s security system”

“You… understand that it’s… like… way worse, right?”

“You don’t know life until you hear threats of dissection against your alter ego after stopping death ray with bowl of cereal,” he said, relaxing more into her side again. He sounded absolutely exhausted.

“Do you want to move in here? Until we deal with this whole GIW and assorted mess?” she said instead. Conner nodded, surprisingly eager to share the space that he considered somewhat sacred.

“Nope, I’m good, I’m needed there”

“You could Zeta- yeah, no, nevermind, it wasn’t good idea. But we could make it work”

“You still should-”

“It’s fine. I mean, I have it handled and it doesn’t affect that many people. And we’re working on it. It’s fine”

“It really is not,” Conner growled.

“You need your arm patched up” M’gann demanded, ignoring previous conversation, with eyes still fixed on the blood that stained her forearm. She should’ve destroyed at least Operative K.

“I bandaged it up”

“It soaked through then. Let’s go to med–”

Loud shrill interrupted her, because of course it did.

“Oh, look, convenient distraction! Let’s take the cookies out before they get burned!”

“We’ll talk about it tomorrow,” M’gann stated in a way that allowed no argument “You’re getting away for now only because I’m holding most of your weight right now”

“Sure we will. And I can stand on my own, thank you very much”

“I’ve heard many lies today and this might be the worst of them. We’re going to Medbay as soon as the cookies are out”

“You’ve got it boss”

[coprelawland]

The Implications of Soft Law for International Human Rights 

By Summer Lee, University of Colorado Boulder Class of 2023

September 12, 2023

The United Nations Human Rights Committee (HRC) and the United Nations Human Rights Council are two of the most important mechanisms used to implement and advocate for international human rights. Both intergovernmental bodies are responsible for (1) addressing human rights concerns and interests among different countries and (2) determining whether or not the actions of different countries are in compliance or non-compliance with international human rights treaties, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [1, 2]. In contrast to legally binding international agreements (e.g., the Biological Weapons Convention and the Geneva Protocol), interpretations regarding international human rights treaties are based on soft law in the form of guidelines, norms, or recommendations established by either the United Nations HRC, Human Rights Council, or another UN human rights legal mechanism [3, 4]. The general assumption is that countries and other stakeholders involved will use these guidelines and recommendations to help guide their decisions regarding human rights [5]. However, recent studies show that this may not always be the case. 

 Legal scholars have questioned how the notion of soft law embedded within these guidelines and recommendations will incentivize countries to comply with international human rights law. Vera Shikhelman, an Emile Noel Research Fellow at the New York University School of Law, notes that since international human rights is based on soft law, countries do not have a strong legal obligation to make decisions that would fully comply with the new recommendations, norms, and guidelines put forth by legal intergovernmental bodies. Furthermore, Shikhelman observes that countries are less likely to comply when their representatives are not convinced by the legitimacy of the legal mechanisms and institutions put in place to discuss human rights [4]. Since many legal mechanisms and decisions put in place to address international human rights law are non-legally binding, countries also have the option to opt out of discussions over complaints. The issue of institutional legitimacy also appears in the following human rights treaties: Article 28 of the CAT, Article 10 of the Optional Protocol to CEWDAW, Article 8 of the Optional Protocol to CRPD, etc. According to these treaties, countries can choose to opt out from addressing complaints from other shareholders by formally declaring that they do not recognize the legal intergovernmental bodies involved to be legitimate or competent [8]. 

Studies conducted by John Yoo and Eric Posner also indicate that the global average compliance rate with the International Court of Justice’s decisions regarding human rights is only 61.9 percent because there are not enough incentives for countries to comply with the recommendations and guidelines made by legal intergovernmental bodies [4, 6]. Due to these factors, “partial compliance is the most common form of compliance” among countries [4].  

Jurisdiction over international human rights law is further complicated by countries’ that have already violated currently existing human rights norms. In order to compensate for non-compliance with the current norms and guidelines set by international human rights law, a country may appeal to legal intergovernmental bodies and other shareholders involved to change the current legal norms regarding human rights. But since countries are not legally obligated to comply, there is no guarantee that they will implement the adjusted norms and guidelines they initially agreed to. Although the use of economic sanctions and restrictions on foreign aid can be used to persuade countries to comply with the new rules and norms, Jacob Cogan from the University of Cincinnati College of Law argues that without a strong legal framework and appropriate institutions set in place, countries can still choose to act in non-compliance with international human rights law regardless of economic or political restrictions [7]. 

With soft law underlying the international legal mechanisms and treaties used to address human rights concerns, interpretations and compliance with international human rights law is gradually changing based on the interactions between countries, legal intergovernmental bodies, and other shareholders.  

______________________________________________________________

Summer Lee is pursuing a B.A. in International Affairs at the University of Colorado Boulder. She is planning to graduate in the Fall of 2023.

______________________________________________________________

[1] UN Human Rights Council. International Justice Resource Center. (2018, January 24). https://ijrcenter.org/un-human-rights-council/. 

[2] Human Rights Committee. (2023). Introduction to the Committee: Human Rights Committee. United Nations Human Rights: Office of the High Commissioners. https://www.ohchr.org/en /treaty-bodies/ccpr/introduction-committee.

[3] U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (2018, February 15). International Agreements. Science, Safety and Security: Law & Policy. https://www.phe.gov/s3/law/ Pages/International.aspx#:~:text=Thus%2C%20the%20Geneva%20Protocol%20and,and%20consent%E2%80%9D%20of%20the%20Senate. 

[4] Shikhelman, V. (2019). Implementing Decisions of International Human Rights Institutions – Evidence from the United Nations Human Rights Committee. European Journal of International Law, 30(3), 753–777. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chz047. 

[5] The European Center for Non-for-Profit Law Stichting (ENCL). (n.d.). Soft Law, Hard Consequences. Counter-Terrorism & Human RIghts: .https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default /files/Documents/Issues/Terrorism/SR/UNSRCTbrieferSoftLaw.pdf. 

[6] Posner, E. A., & Yoo, J. C. (2005). Judicial Independence in International Tribunals. California Law Review, 93(1), 1–74. https://doi.org/https://www.jstor.org/stable/3481389 

[7] Cogan, J. K. (2006). Noncompliance and the International Rule of Law . University of Cincinnati College of Law Scholarship and Publications. https://scholarship.law.uc.edu/cgi/vi ewcontent.cgi?article=1346&context=fac_pubs.  

[8] United Nations. (2023). Complaints About Human Rights Violations. United Nations Human Rights: Office of the High Commissioner. https://www.ohchr.org/en/treaty-bodies /complaints-about-human-rights-violations#interstate. 

[imthebadguyyy]

Human Rights Issues (around the world)

a/n - this is simply to help educate ourselves on the human rights issues and how educating ourselves on such issues can help the people who have no choice but to continue to live under inhumane conditions. after yesterday i still find myself incredibly annoyed and upset at how some people with platforms are unable to educate themselves on important issues, if you have an issue with this, please scroll on instead of leaving a negative comment.

tw- violence. human rights violations, killings (articles talking about them)

first of all, what are human rights? by definition, they are -

'Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status. Human rights include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, and many more.  Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination'

under human rights come several sections such as,

1. Economic, social and cultural rights

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights entered into force in 1976. The human rights that the Covenant seeks to promote and protect include:

the right to work in just and favourable conditions;

the right to social protection, to an adequate standard of living and to the highest attainable standards of physical and mental well-being;

the right to education and the enjoyment of benefits of cultural freedom and scientific progress.

2. Civil and political rights

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its First Optional Protocol entered into force in 1976. The Second Optional Protocol was adopted in 1989.

The Covenant deals with such rights as freedom of movement; equality before the law; the right to a fair trial and presumption of innocence; freedom of thought, conscience and religion; freedom of opinion and expression; peaceful assembly; freedom of association; participation in public affairs and elections; and protection of minority rights. It prohibits arbitrary deprivation of life; torture, cruel or degrading treatment or punishment; slavery and forced labour; arbitrary arrest or detention; arbitrary interference with privacy; war propaganda; discrimination; and advocacy of racial or religious hatred.

3. some articles going into further details will be linked below if you're interested

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948),

International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965),

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006), among others.

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1979)

Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989)

while it is easy to make articles, pass laws and advocate for change, human rights go back way into the past. as wikipedia says,

'While belief in the sanctity of human life has ancient precedents in many religions of the world, the foundations of modern human rights began during the era of renaissance humanism in the early modern period. The European wars of religion and the civil wars of seventeenth-century Kingdom of England gave rise to the philosophy of liberalism and belief in natural rights became a central concern of European intellectual culture during the eighteenth-century Age of Enlightenment. Ideas of natural rights, which had a basis in natural law, lay at the core of the American and French Revolutions which occurred toward the end of that century, but the idea of human rights came about later. Democratic evolution through the nineteenth century paved the way for the advent of universal suffrage in the twentieth century. Two world wars led to the creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.'

the violations of such rights are prominent all through out history, whether it be the apartheid, the holocaust, child Slavery in the LRA, Forced sterilization for disabled underage girls, Forced examinations of Afghan women,Uganda's “Anti-Gay Bill”, Child Labour During the Industrial Revolution,Slavery in The United States to name a few.

you might be wondering why i'm bringing this to your attention. its because even now, people all around the world have to deal with laws, policies etc that are in direct violation of human rights, and whats worse is that people aren't educating themselves on such issues around the world. as human beings, we cannot be ignorant to the struggles of others, and must work towards building a better future for generations, because these are basic human rights. not educating ourselves is unacceptable. i understand that such news and topics are uncomfortable, have negative energy, but it is a mark of privillege that we are able to turn away from such topics and ignore them.

what about the men, women, children, and people who live in countries where their gender. sexuality, religion, race is a cause for worry and may be the very reason they are scared to leave their houses in fear of being arrested or killed?

here is a current list of countries that are under fire for human rights violations. do not scroll further if you are uncomfortable with such topics.

1. Afghanistan

The Taliban returned to power in 2021 after regrouping in Pakistan and waging an insurgency against the U.S.-backed government in Kabul. The Islamic fundamentalist group ruled Afghanistan from 1996 until the U.S.-led invasion in 2001.the Taliban regrouped across the border in Pakistan and started taking back territory they thought was rightfully theirs less. By August of this year, the Taliban had seized most major cities, including the capital of Kabul. The group’s swift offensive came as the United States withdrew its remaining troops from Afghanistan as outlined in a 2020 peace agreement with the Taliban. They are likely to impose harsh rule, and have been linked to al qaeda as well. despite their pledges to respect the rights of women and minority communities. this poses a threat to Afghan security, health services, and economic opportunities.

under the previous taliban rule, women were denied formal education and were usually forced to stay at home. During the Taliban's five-year rule, women in Afghanistan were essentially put under house arrest, and often forced to paint their windows over so that no one could see in or out. this time around, they have claimed to not impose such restrictions on women.

some further articles - Treatment of women by the Taliban - Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org

https://www.bbc.co.uk

2. Canada

the longstanding and systematic discrimination against the indigenous community in canada has been an area of concern for a long time. but while the world focuses on issues mostly in the middle east, there is a present tendency to overlook issues in larger, more powerful countries. Many of these relate to the rights of Indigenous peoples, including violations of their right to safe drinking water, violence against Indigenous women and girls, and violations of the right to food in these communities as a result of failures to mitigate the impact of climate change. Canada also ha serious issues with human rights issues abroad, such as abuses by Canadian mining companies and the government’s failure to stop the arms sales to the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen despite the United Nations to asking them to refrain from providing arms and military support to the parties in the conflict. The government has also failed to take meaningful steps to repatriate dozens of Canadians, most of whom are children, unlawfully detained in life-threatening conditions for nearly two years in prisons and camps for Islamic State suspects and their families in northeast Syria.

https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2021/country-chapters/canada

3. Saudi Arabia

saudi has a history of absolutely terrible human rights, and i doubt i will be able to cover all of it. with a history of discrimination against women, poor women's rights etc, saudi is one of the countries in the world where the situation is heart wrenching.

almost all known Saudi Arabian human rights defenders inside the country were detained or imprisoned at the. Grossly unfair trials continued before the Specialized Criminal Court (SCC) and other courts. Courts resorted extensively to the death penalty and people were executed for a wide range of crimes. Migrant workers are even more vulnerable to abuse and exploitation because of the pandemic, and thousands were arbitrarily detained in dire conditions, leading to an unknown number of deaths.

women's rights are practically non existent, with rules such as women not being able to enter the country unless they are accompanied by a sponsor or male relative. The Saudi Embassy advises women to dress conservatively in public; that means wearing ankle-length dresses with long sleeves and not pants. In many areas, particularly the capital, Riyadh, women are pressured to wear a full-length black covering called an abaya and to cover their heads. Women in restaurants not accompanied by a male relative often are not served, and religious police known as the Mutawwa travel in public watching for violations of social mores. Any public display of affection is considered offensive. A woman traveling with a man who is not her husband, sponsor or a male relative can be arrested.

im linking some articles below before my rage makes me type out too much -

https://en.wikipedia.org

https://www.amnesty.org ›

https://en.wikipedia.org ›

https://www.theweek.co.uk/60339/things-women-cant-do-in-saudi-arabia

https://www.equaldex.com

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia

4. France

surprised to see france on the list? well,

issues revealed include the recurrent unlawful use of force by police, particularly in deprived urban areas with a high proportion of ethnic minority residents, at least 15 such incidents between March and April in 15 cities. In some cases, police officers also made racist and homophobic remarks.

islamophobia is also on the rise, which holds a particularly political significance since France has the largest proportion of Muslims in the Western world, primarily due to the migration from Maghrebi, West African, and Middle Eastern countries. the reports of discriminations against muslims are reported constantly in the media in the muslim world, but once again, as a high ranking country, such issues are not always brought to light.

https://en.abna24.com ›

5. North Korea

north korea has significant human rights violations, including unlawful or arbitrary killings by the government; forced disappearances by the government; torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment and punishment by government authorities; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions, including in political prison camps, etc. Authorities maintained effective control over the security forces. Members of the security forces committed numerous abuses.The government takes no steps to prosecute officials who committed human rights abuses

https://www.state.gov/reports/2020-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/north-korea/

https://www2.law.columbia.edu ›

https://www.hrw.org ›

6. Israel/ Palestine

Since the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians began in the mid-20th century, there have been many cases of human rights violations along the Mediterranean coasts of Western Asia, including the West Bank and the Gaza strip. Millions of Palestinians are living in miserable conditions, with reports of deaths escalating since the civil war began in 1948. In just the last three Gaza conflicts in 2008, 2012, and 2014, the Israeli army has killed over 2,000 Palestinian civilians. These attacks violate international humanitarian law because of the excessive use of force. Palestinians had long been victim of brutal Israeli assailant forces. The innocent Palestinians civilians and children are not only victim of discrimination but are maltreated, battered and are forced to displace from their ancestral land.

Human rights in the State of Palestine - Wikipedia

7. United States

while the united states is a free, liberal country, racism, misogyny, homophobia, are prominent issues, among others.

Much of the criticism is directed at the existence of systemic racism, weaker labor protections than most western countries, imprisonment of debtors, invasion of its citizens' privacy through mass surveillance programs, police brutality, etc. once again, i will be linking helpful articles

https://eurekajournal.net

https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/americas/north-america/united-states-of-america/report-united-states-of-america/

these are only 7 countries i have picked to write about, althought there are many many more countries that face similar issues. but why is it important to educate ourselves on these topics?

as human beings, it is our responsibility to stand up for equal rights for everyone, to play our role as active citizens and define the society we want to evolve in.

while we may not have the ability to change or heal the world, it is our responsibility to learn about the issues we still face, and work towards that change. the news may be negative. gutting. sad or heartbreaking. but the people who have no choice, who have no voice, are in worse situations. i'm not asking anyone to do anything they're uncomfortable with. i simply ask you to educate yourselves, so you know about whats happening in the world.

to brush asides women's rights, lgbtq rights, equality, racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia or other issues because you think it affects your positive energy is a disgrace. Millions of people also do not like listening or agree with the bad shit but they have to put up with it because they cannot ignore it, or cannot escape their issues.

as a female poc, i resonate with some of these issues, even those that i cannot resonate with, i try my best to understand because i cannot be ignorant or turn a blind eye to the struggles of others. its a mark of privilege to say that you do not want to talk or interfere with social issues.

if anyone would like to add to this post, go ahead, if you do not agree with what im saying, scroll on. i wasn't able to cover all the issues in the world, but i have tried my best to cover the important ones.

once again, i ask you to sympathize with social issues.

(this was different to my anger filled rant, and i hope that this was educational instead of a mess of me screaming my anger out in words)

[larakeklik-work]

Timeline of child rights

1924

The League of Nations adopts the Geneva Declaration on the Rights of the Child, drafted by Eglantyne Jebb, founder of the Save the Children Fund. The Declaration articulates that all people owe children the right to: means for their development; special help in times of need; priority for relief; economic freedom and protection from exploitation; and an upbringing that instils social consciousness and duty.

1946

The United Nations General Assembly establishes the International Children’s Emergency Fund, UNICEF, with an emphasis on children throughout the world.

1948

The United Nations General Assembly passes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in which Article 25 entitles mothers and children to ‘special care and assistance’ and ‘social protection’.

1959

The United Nations General Assembly adopts the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, which recognizes, among other rights, children’s rights to education, play, a supportive environment and health care.

1966

With the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, United Nations Member States promise to uphold equal rights – including education and protection – for all children.

1968

The International Conference on Human Rights is convened to evaluate the progress made by countries in the 20 years since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. An agenda for future work is drafted and national commitments to upholding human rights are bolstered.

1973

The International Labour Organization adopts Convention 138, which sets 18 as the minimum age for undertaking work that might be hazardous to a person’s health, safety or morals.

1974

Concerned about the vulnerability of women and children in emergency and conflict situations, the General Assembly calls on Member States to observe the Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflict. The Declaration prohibits attacks against or imprisonment of civilian women and children, and upholds the sanctity of the rights of women and children during armed conflict.

1978

The Commission on Human Rights puts forth a draft of a Convention on the Rights of the Child for consideration by a working group of Member States, agencies and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations.

1979

To mark the twentieth anniversary of the 1959 Declaration of the Rights of the Child, the United Nations General Assembly declares 1979 as the International Year of the Child, in which UNICEF plays a leading role.

1985

The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice detail the principles of a justice system that promotes the best interests of the child, including education and social services and proportional treatment for child detainees.

1989

The Convention on the Rights of the Child is adopted by the United Nations General Assembly and widely acclaimed as a landmark achievement for human rights, recognizing the roles of children as social, economic, political, civil and cultural actors. The Convention guarantees and sets minimum standards for protecting the rights of children in all capacities. UNICEF, which helped draft the Convention, is named in the document as a source of expertise.

1990

The World Summit for Children is held in New York. The Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency outline strategies for preventing criminality and protecting young people at high social risk.

1991

Experts from UNICEF, Save the Children, Defence for Children International and other organizations meet to discuss data gathered from the reporting process of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The meeting leads to the formal establishment of the Child Rights International Network (CRIN) in 1995.

1999

The International Labour Organization (ILO) adopts the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, calling for the immediate prohibition and elimination of any form of work that is likely to harm the health, safety or morals of children. UNICEF has been working with the ILO since 1996 to promote the ratification of international labour standards and policies concerning child labour.

2000

The United Nations General Assembly adopts two Optional Protocols to the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child, obligating State Parties to take key actions to prevent children from partaking in hostilities during armed conflict and to end the sale, sexual exploitation and abuse of children.

2002

At the United Nations Special Session on Children, child delegates address the General Assembly for the first time. The World Fit for Children agenda was adopted outlining specific goals for improving the prospects of children over the next decade.

2006

UNICEF co-publishes the Manual for the Measurement of Juvenile Justice Indicators with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. The Manual enables governments to assess the condition of their juvenile justice systems and make reforms as necessary.

2010

The United Nations Secretary-General issues the Status of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

2011

A new Optional Protocol to the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child is adopted. Under this Optional Protocol on a communications procedure, the Committee on the Rights of the Child can field complaints of child rights violations and undertake investigations.

2015

Somalia and South Sudan ratify the Convention. The Convention is the most widely ratified international instrument with 196 States. Only the United States has not ratified to date.

[onpoli]

Sharon McIvor has won yet another landmark legal victory for First Nations women -- this time at the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC). On January 14, 2019, the UNHRC released their decision which found that Canada still discriminates against "Indian" women and their descendants in the registration provisions of the Indian Act. Despite the fact that Sharon had already proven her discrimination case at trial and on appeal here in Canada, the federal government refused to eliminate all the remaining sex discrimination from the Act. This meant that Sharon and her descendants still have lesser or no Indian status as compared to her brother and his descendants -- simply based on sex. Sharon was therefore forced to bring a human rights claim to the UNHRC under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The UNHRC found Canada had violated Sharon's human rights and directed Canada to provide an effective remedy for Sharon McIvor, her descendants, and others who have suffered the same discrimination.

It is important to note that Canada is bound by this decision. The ICCPR came into force for Canada on August 19, 1976 and Canada has agreed to be bound by the jurisdiction of the UNHRC to make decisions on matters coming before it. This means that Canada has chosen to be bound by the rights contained within this Covenant for the benefits of all those in Canada. In this case, the UNHRC found that Canada had violated Sharon's human rights under Articles 3 and 26, read in conjunction with Article 27 of the ICCPR.

Article 3 guarantees the equal right of men and women to enjoy the rights contained in the ICCPR. Article 26 provides that all people are equal under the law and specifically prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, sex, birth or other status. These two articles were considered in conjunction with Article 27 which provides that ethnic minorities within States shall not be denied their right to enjoy their culture in community with other members of their group. The UNHRC found that Canada had violated Sharon's rights under all three articles and directed Canada to do make "full reparation" to Sharon, her descendants and others in her position. Canada was directed to:

1. Register all those like Sharon and her descendants, under Section 6(1)(a) of the Indian Act;

2. Take steps to clean up any residual discrimination within First Nation communities arising from sex discrimination in the Indian Act; and

3. Take any additional steps necessary to avoid similar violations in the future.

[brookstonalmanac]

Events 12.15

533 – Vandalic War: Byzantine general Belisarius defeats the Vandals, commanded by King Gelimer, at the Battle of Tricamarum. 687 – Pope Sergius I is elected as a compromise between antipopes Paschal and Theodore. 1025 – Constantine VIII becomes sole emperor of the Byzantine Empire, 63 years after being crowned co-emperor. 1161 – Jin–Song wars: Military officers conspire against the emperor Wanyan Liang of the Jin dynasty after a military defeat at the Battle of Caishi, and assassinate the emperor at his camp. 1167 – Sicilian Chancellor Stephen du Perche moves the royal court to Messina to prevent a rebellion. 1256 – Mongol forces under Hulagu enter and dismantle the Nizari Ismaili (Assassin) stronghold at Alamut Castle (in present-day Iran) as part of their offensive on Islamic southwest Asia. 1270 – The Nizari Ismaili garrison of Gerdkuh, Persia surrender after 17 years to the Mongols. 1467 – Stephen III of Moldavia defeats Matthias Corvinus of Hungary, with the latter being injured thrice, at the Battle of Baia. 1651 – Castle Cornet in Guernsey, the last stronghold which had supported the King in the Third English Civil War, surrenders. 1778 – American Revolutionary War: British and French fleets clash in the Battle of St. Lucia. 1791 – The United States Bill of Rights becomes law when ratified by the Virginia General Assembly. 1836 – The U.S. Patent Office building in Washington, D.C., nearly burns to the ground, destroying all 9,957 patents issued by the federal government to that date, as well as 7,000 related patent models. 1864 – American Civil War: The Battle of Nashville begins at Nashville, Tennessee, and ends the following day with the destruction of the Confederate Army of Tennessee as a fighting force by the Union Army of the Cumberland. 1869 – The short-lived Republic of Ezo is proclaimed in the Ezo area of Japan. It is the first attempt to establish a democracy in Japan. 1890 – Hunkpapa Lakota leader Sitting Bull is killed on Standing Rock Indian Reservation, leading to the Wounded Knee Massacre. 1893 – Symphony No. 9 ("From the New World" a.k.a. the "New World Symphony") by Antonín Dvořák premieres in a public afternoon rehearsal at Carnegie Hall in New York City, followed by a concert premiere on the evening of December 16. 1899 – British Army forces are defeated at the Battle of Colenso in Natal, South Africa, the third and final battle fought during the Black Week of the Second Boer War. 1903 – Italian American food cart vendor Italo Marchiony receives a U.S. patent for inventing a machine that makes ice cream cones. 1905 – The Pushkin House is established in Saint Petersburg, Russia, to preserve the cultural heritage of Alexander Pushkin. 1906 – The London Underground's Great Northern, Piccadilly and Brompton Railway opens. 1914 – World War I: The Serbian Army recaptures Belgrade from the invading Austro-Hungarian Army. 1914 – A gas explosion at Mitsubishi Hōjō coal mine, in Kyushu, Japan, kills 687. 1917 – World War I: An armistice between Russia and the Central Powers is signed. 1939 – Gone with the Wind (highest inflation adjusted grossing film) receives its premiere at Loew's Grand Theatre in Atlanta, Georgia, United States. 1941 – The Holocaust in Ukraine: German troops murder over 15,000 Jews at Drobytsky Yar, a ravine southeast of the city of Kharkiv. 1942 – World War II: The Battle of Mount Austen, the Galloping Horse, and the Sea Horse begins during the Guadalcanal Campaign. 1943 – World War II: The Battle of Arawe begins during the New Britain campaign. 1944 – World War II: a single-engine UC-64A Norseman aeroplane carrying United States Army Air Forces Major Glenn Miller is lost in a flight over the English Channel. 1945 – Occupation of Japan/Shinto Directive: General Douglas MacArthur orders that Shinto be abolished as the state religion of Japan. 1960 – Richard Pavlick is arrested for plotting to assassinate U.S. President-Elect John F. Kennedy. 1960 – King Mahendra of Nepal suspends the country's constitution, dissolves parliament, dismisses the cabinet, and imposes direct rule. 1961 – Adolf Eichmann is sentenced to death after being found guilty by an Israeli court of 15 criminal charges, including charges of crimes against humanity, crimes against the Jewish people, and membership of an outlawed organization. 1965 – Project Gemini: Gemini 6A, crewed by Wally Schirra and Thomas Stafford, is launched from Cape Kennedy, Florida. Four orbits later, it achieves the first space rendezvous, with Gemini 7. 1970 – Soviet spacecraft Venera 7 successfully lands on Venus. It is the first successful soft landing on another planet. 1973 – John Paul Getty III, grandson of American billionaire J. Paul Getty, is found alive near Naples, Italy, after being kidnapped by an Italian gang on July 10. 1973 – The American Psychiatric Association votes 13–0 to remove homosexuality from its official list of psychiatric disorders, the DSM-II. 1978 – U.S. President Jimmy Carter announces that the United States will recognize the People's Republic of China and sever diplomatic relations with the Republic of China (Taiwan). 1981 – A suicide car bombing targeting the Iraqi embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, levels the embassy and kills 61 people, including Iraq's ambassador to Lebanon. The attack is considered the first modern suicide bombing. 1989 – Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights relating the abolition of capital punishment is adopted. 1993 – The Troubles: The Downing Street Declaration is issued by British Prime Minister John Major and Irish Taoiseach Albert Reynolds. 1997 – Tajikistan Airlines Flight 3183 crashes in the desert near Sharjah, United Arab Emirates, killing 85. 2000 – The third reactor at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant is shut down. 2001 – The Leaning Tower of Pisa reopens after 11 years and $27,000,000 spent to stabilize it, without fixing its famous lean. 2005 – Introduction of the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor into USAF active service. 2010 – A boat carrying 90 asylum seekers crashes into rocks off the coast of Christmas Island, Australia, killing 48 people. 2013 – The South Sudanese Civil War begins when opposition leaders Dr. Riek Machar, Pagan Amum and Rebecca Nyandeng vote to boycott the meeting of the National Liberation Council at Nyakuron. 2014 – Gunman Man Haron Monis takes 18 hostages inside a café in Martin Place for 16 hours in Sydney. Monis and two hostages are killed when police raid the café the following morning. 2017 – A 6.5Mw earthquake strikes the Indonesian island of Java in the city of Tasikmalaya, resulting in four deaths.

[khalilhumam]

Toward a cyberfeminist future: A new study centers African women as protagonists online

New Post has been published on http://khalilhumam.com/toward-a-cyberfeminist-future-a-new-study-centers-african-women-as-protagonists-online/

Toward a cyberfeminist future: A new study centers African women as protagonists online

The internet perpetuates systems of oppression and inequality

A woman checks her mobile phone. Photo via Pikist, a royalty-free site for images.

Navigating the internet as a woman in Africa can be stressful if not straight-up dangerous. While digital spaces may appear free and equal, the reality is that the internet perpetuates systems of oppression and inequality. In Africa, women and sexual minorities disproportionately experience harassment, doxing, non-consensual sharing and other forms of online gender-based violence (GBV). But a lack of robust, baseline data has made it difficult to determine the full extent to which women are threatened online. Now, a large-scale research study — the first of its kind — reveals how African women living in five African countries experience the internet.   Over 3,000 women between the ages of 18-65, from Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, Senegal, and South Africa, were interviewed about their “perceptions of digital safety, as well as responses to online GBV from a legal perspective, law enforcement authorities and technology platforms,” according to a press release.  A comprehensive report from the study entitled, “Alternate Realties, Alternate Internets,” aims to inform evidence-based policy to push for digital equality, explained Neema Iyer, the founder of Pollicy, the civic tech organization that led the research project.  “We want to understand how online gender-based violence manifests across Africa, and how technology companies, which are often based out of Africa, respond to this violence,” said Iyer.  Online GBV refers to targeting individuals based on their sexual or gender identity or by enforcing harmful gender norms, including behaviors such as stalking, surveillance, bullying, sexual harassment, trafficking, defamation, hacking, hate speech and exploitation and other controlling behaviors. 

Pollicy, based in Kampala, Uganda, worked on this study in partnership with the Feminist Internet Research Network under the Association for Progressive Communication and with funding from the International Development Research Centre.

A website called “Survival Guide to Being a Woman on the Internet” encompasses a bot that walks viewers through interactive storytelling of the study findings.

The study found the 28 percent of women interviewed had experienced some form of online harassment. About 41 percent of these respondents believed that their gender was a primary reason for these attacks. “Online threats are mainly organized trolling. I’ve received death threats,” said a woman from Kenya. “They come up with campaigns or a hashtag, so they rant at me all day. These insults are based on me as a woman, my anatomy, my family.” In some countries like Ethiopia, 90 percent of respondents who experienced this online violence either did not know the identity of the perpetrator or found the perpetrator to be a stranger, and it was difficult to ascertain the primary perpetrator. Online GBV takes a monumental toll on mental health, including depression, anxiety and fear that follows women offline at home, school, work and other social spaces.

Screenshot from “Alternate Realties, Alternate Internets,” 2020.

‘Laws are not working to protect women’

While 71 percent of incidents of online harassment occurred on Facebook, results showed that up to 95 percent of the women were not aware of any policies and laws in place to protect women against online GBV.  About 15 percent of women interviewed said they deleted or deactivated their accounts whereas 12 percent stopped using a digital service after experiencing online violence.  “Women are not reporting even domestic violence because of the culture and the norm,” said a woman from Ethiopia. “Imagine going to report online gender-based violence. They are going to make fun of you and tell you to come back when the real violence happens,” she continued.  The report asserts that “violence against women online is often trivialized with poor punitive action taken by authorities, further exacerbated by victim-blaming.” The report also confirms that most African countries “do not have specific legislation or strategies against online gender-based violence. Existing preventive measures to specifically target online gender-based violence are lacking.”

Read more: The identity matrix: Platform regulation of online threats to expression in Africa

Courtesy of Pollicy.

In partnership with Internews, Pollicy analyzed the laws on online GBV in each of the five countries and found that “online GBV cases rarely make it to the courtroom at all,” seriously limiting any analysis of current legal frameworks in place. However, all five countries have ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), “which explicitly requires states to ensure that both men and women have equal enjoyment of the rights set out therein,” according to the legal analysis. The African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, to which all five countries are also signatories, also affirms equal rights regardless of sex. All five countries have also ratified the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). But Ethiopia, Kenya, and Uganda have not ratified the CEDAW optional protocol that allows for CEDAW committees to process and listen to complaints.

Toward a cyberfeminist future

The inherent whiteness and maleness of the internet today perpetuates inequality and props up patriarchal structures that oppress women and sexual minorities. By contrast, cyberfeminism “offers a space for feminist thinking to critique, imagine and recreate a radically open internet,” according to the report. Drawing from black feminist thought and feminist-informed tech theory, the report encourages the centering of women as “protagonists in technology-dominated Afrofutures.”

“How can we create a feminist internet?” Courtesy of Pollicy.

Iyer says there is an urgent need for digital security resources to be adapted to local contexts and languages, as well as mainstreaming these concepts in educational curricula. Other recommendations include training law enforcement on how to address GBV violations and to provide assistance and counseling to women who choose to report. African countries must also adopt and adequately implement data protection and privacy laws.  “When thinking of our Afro feminist future, we need to think of an internet where both the developers and users understand the intersectionality of the lived experience of an African woman,” said Iyer. 

Written by Amanda Lichtenstein

[banjo-gk]

So this UN thing, huh?

TLDR:  36/… The question of the death penalty has 2 parts. 1) the death penalty is bad and a human rights violation. But that's like our opinion, man. 2) If you HAVE to have the death penalty, please implement in an ethical way and maybe think about abolishing it.

First off, ilga.org has the whole document up as a PDF. http://ilga.org/downloads/HRC36_resolution_question_death_penalty.pdf Please try to forget all the commentary and just read it.

So correct me if I'm wrong... But having just read  the entirety 36/… The question of the death penalty, It only seems that this would have banned the death penalty in the US in two very specific scenarios; minors being tried as adults and those with mental disabilities.

The resolution seems to have two main sections. The First using Verbs such as "Recalling", "Recognizing", or "Noting." and the purpose of this section appears to be establishing the need and legality of the resolution by referencing past studies and agreements held by the UN. This is the section that talks about the moratorium on the death penalty and labeling  it as a human rights issue.  

Then about halfway down page 3 we start getting to the numbered articles of the document and these statements begin with verbs such as "Urges", "Calls upon", and "Requests." this change of verbiage and the fact that the previous clauses are not numbered leads me to believe that the intention of this section is different from the  that of the section it follows. From here on we start seeing things such as:

"2. Calls upon States that have not yet acceded to or ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aiming at the abolition of the death penalty to consider doing so; "

So, yeah, there's a call to abolish the death penalty but, it's optional. Useless you want to argue that agreeing to take something into consideration is the same as being forced to carry through with it. Now I'm not a lawyer, however, I don't believe that signing something in which you promise to think about an issue means that you're legally obligated to reach a final decision which mirrors that of the document. It just means you think about it and what you decide, you decide.

Let's explain it like this: I have four room mates. One of them clips their toenails in the living room. So we all get together and three of my room mates and myself draft up an agreement. The first part states that the majority of people living in the apartment find this behavior disgusting and that the ideal conclusion of our meeting would be the end of said activity. Then the second part states that if someone has to clip their toenails in the living room that they do so ethically. But it does also  ban the activity during instances when we have guests. So then the toenail clipping resident refuses to sign the agreement because they say its unfair because it bans all toenail clipping in the living room.

That's the way I read this at least.

Now I do believe there is a constitutional reason that we had to vote no. In the US we have set the legal precedent that the states have the right to self governance in this case. So in order to ensure our compliance it would have been necessary for the federal government to take an active role in regulating and reforming state judicial systems. Which the constitutional doesn't give the feds the power to do. So because we couldn't deliver on 100% of the deal we had to be honest and say that we couldn't agree to it.

So what's my problem? Well, that's not the explanation that we received for the "No" vote. Instead we got this: "We voted against that resolution because of broader concerns with the resolution’s approach in condemning the death penalty in all circumstances, and it called for the abolition of the death penalty altogether."

And that statement seems to me to be false after my reading of the document.  Also it makes it seem like the main reason we voted against this because we refuse to acknowledging that most of our colleagues in the UN think that the death penalty is really bad and they judge us for using it. But that doesn't change the fact that they do.  So... I dunno. I wrote a lot already . Your turn. *Braces for impact*

[g0dtier]

Nah. You can actually read the resolution for yourself, and it's super clear. If you go to ILGA's website you can find a full text copy of the resolution, but among other things: "Strongly deploring the fact that the use of the death penalty leads to violations of the human rights of the persons facing the death penalty and of other affected persons," "Urges States that have not yet abolished the death penalty to ensure that the death penalty is not applied against [..] persons below 18 years"

i read it.

it literally said that it wouldnt make the death penalty illegal, just that it urges all states to:

1. Urges all States to protect the rights of persons facing the death penalty and otheraffected persons by complying with their international obligations, including the rights toequality and non-discrimination;2. Calls upon States that have not yet acceded to or ratified the Second Optional Protocolto the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aiming at the abolition of the deathpenalty to consider doing so;3. Calls upon States that have not yet abolished the death penalty to ensure that it is notapplied on the basis of discriminatory laws or as a result of discriminatory or arbitraryapplication of the law;4. Calls upon States to ensure that all accused persons, in particular poor andeconomically vulnerable persons, can exercise their rights related to equal access to justice,to ensure adequate, qualified and effective legal representation at every stage of civil andcriminal proceedings in capital punishment cases through effective legal aid, and to ensurethat those facing the death penalty can exercise their right to seek pardon or commutation oftheir death sentence;5. Urges States that have not yet abolished the death penalty to ensure that the deathpenalty is not applied against persons with mental or intellectual disabilities and personsbelow 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime, as well as pregnant women;6. Also urges States that have not yet abolished the death penalty to ensure that it is notimposed as a sanction for specific forms of conduct such as apostasy, blasphemy, adulteryand consensual same-sex relations;

obviously the US feels attacked bc of these reasons lmao…this is too much for them and they dont wanna do it. their reaction is super fucking uncalled for and their explanation is whiny and childish and just shows they have no idea what the resolution was about

[michiganprelawland]

The United States Versus International Human Rights Conventions

By Robert Turnau, Grand Valley State University, Class of 2019

January 18, 2019

Since 1948 with the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United States gained the responsibility to protect the human rights of everyone. After the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there has been eighteen different human rights instruments added to the Universal Declaration of Human rights. Out of the eighteen, the United States have only signed nine or them, and out of the nine, the United States have only ratified five of the instruments. The instruments the United States has signed and ratified are:

The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination signed in 1966, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights signed in 1977, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights signed in 1977, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women signed in 1980, Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment signed in 1988, Convention on the Rights of the Child signed in 1995, Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict signed in 2000, Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, child prostitution and child pornography signed in 2000, and Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability signed in 2009. Out of those the United States Senate only ratified: the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination ratified in 1994, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ratified in 1992, Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ratified in 1994, Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict ratified in 2002, Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, child prostitution and child pornography ratified in 2002. [4]

Even though the United States have signed half of the human rights instruments, signing these instruments means that the state shows the intent to follow the treaty. Which meansthat these treaties themselves are not binding. Which means that the United States can break any of the instruments that have not been ratified such as, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, because a signature on a piece of paper is not binding. Whereas once a treaty is signed, each state will have to approve through their own national procedures. Once the treaty has been ratified by a state, at that point the treaty is now binding. [2]Which means that if the United States break any of the instruments that they have ratified such as, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the United States could face fines of millions of dollars.

For the United States to ratify a covenant such as, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the United States firstly must sign it. Once it is signed, the covenant must be approved by a 2/3 majority in the Senate. This comes from Article Two, Section Two of the United States Constitution which states, “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” [1] This is where many of these international covenants will sit for many decades. The reason these covenants will sit on the Senate floor for many years is because of the fear that these international covenants will infringe on the United States Constitution. However, in recent years social issues are the bases for why some of these covenants have not been ratified. According to John Gerard Ruggie, professor of Human Rights and International Affairs at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, wrote, “Its constituency base today is animated by a more diffuse set of social issues including capital punishment, abortion, gun control, unfettered property rights, and the role of religion in politics and policy…” [5].

Capital punishment is a prime example, does capital punishment counts as cruel punishment. Article Sixteen of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment states, “Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in Article One.” [3] Does capital punishment fall under acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and if so that means the United States would be in violation of this Convention. The United States have not ratified several of the human rights instruments, because the fact that some Senators fear that these conventions will overshadow the Constitution, and that it will impact social issues such as capital punishment.

________________________________________________________________

[1] https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/articles/article-ii

[2] https://www.government.nl/topics/treaties/the-difference-between-signing-and-ratification

[3] https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/cat.aspx

[4] https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CoreInstruments.aspx

[5] Ruggie, John Gerard, American Exceptionalism, Exemptionalism and Global Governance (February           6, 2004). KSG Working Paper No. RWP04-006. Available at               SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=517642 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.517642

[derechointernacionalpublico]

Some Thoughts on the Jadhav Case: Jurisdiction, Merits, and the Effect of a Presidential Communication

Some Thoughts on the Jadhav Case: Jurisdiction, Merits, and the Effect of a Presidential Communication

On 8 May, India instituted proceedings at the International Court of Justice against Pakistan relating to the latter’s imprisonment and award of death penalty to Kulbhushan Jadhav, an Indian national. Pakistan claims it arrested Mr Jadhav on 3 March 2016, in Balochistan (a Pakistani province), where he was engaged in espionage and sabotage activities. A military court sentenced him to death on 10 April 2017. India alleges that Mr Jadhav was abducted from Iran, where he was engaged in business following retirement from the Indian Navy. India further claims that following his arrest and throughout his trial, sentencing and now imprisonment pending execution of sentence, it has not been allowed consular access to Mr Jadhav.

India’s application asks the Court to declare that the sentence imposed by Pakistan is ‘in brazen defiance’ of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR), and of the ‘elementary human rights of the accused’ (para. 60). It asks the Court to direct Pakistan to annul the decision; or, if, Pakistan is unable to do so, to declare the decision illegal, and direct Pakistan to release Mr Jadhav immediately (Id.). India has also requested that the Court indicate provisional measures preventing Pakistan from executing him pending resolution of the dispute.

Oral hearings on provisional measures are listed to begin on 15 May. Meanwhile, President Abraham has issued an urgent communication to Pakistan, pursuant to his powers under Article 74(4) of the 1978 Rules of the Court. This provides:

Pending the meeting of the Court, the President may call upon the parties to act in such a way as will enable any order the Court may make on the request for provisional measures to have its appropriate effects.

In this post, we offer a brief account of several issues. We first note a few points in relation to India’s claims as to the Court’s jurisdiction and the merits of the claim proper. We then discuss the scope and effects of the President’s Article 74(4) communication. Our attention was caught by the fact that this communication was reported in the Indian media as a ‘stay’ on Mr Jadhav’s execution, with India’s Foreign Minister even tweeting that she had told Mr Jadhav’s mother ‘about the order of President, ICJ […]’. This squarely raises the question: can the Article 74(4) communication be read as a mandatory ‘order’ in the same way as provisional measures ordered under Article 41 of the Court’s Statute? And, if not, could a state in any way be found legally accountable in for its breach?

India’s Jurisdictional and Merits Claims

India’s application is founded on Article 36(1) of the ICJ Statute, read with Article 1 of the Optional Protocol to the VCCR. As the LaGrand case has previously confirmed, this is an appropriate jurisdictional basis to test breaches of VCCR Article 36 provisions on consular access.

Pakistan may claim that the VCCR is irrelevant to the present case, because the relations between the parties are governed by a 2008 bilateral agreement on consular access (Application, Annex 10). There is more to be said about this agreement, but its text does not, prima facie, indicate an intention to contract out of the VCCR. In any event, the application of the VCCR in light of this agreement is itself an issue that the Court can adjudicate on the present basis of jurisdiction.

Moreover, India’s claim that VCCR Art 36 has been violated appears sound: at least on the facts as alleged. Pakistan’s stance that India’s requests for consular access ‘shall be considered in light of’ its assistance in the investigation of Mr Jadhav (Application, Annex 3), does not find support in the VCCR; Article 36 does not permit states to impose such conditions on consular access.

There is, however, some doubt as to the ultimate relief that the Court can provide. The jurisdictional basis invoked limits the Court to findings vis-à-vis the VCCR. However, India further claims that Pakistan has violated Mr Jadhav’s right to a fair trial under the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights—the Court does not appear to have jurisdiction vis-à-vis this separate treaty. It is on the cumulative breach of both treaties that India bases its request that the Court declare the death sentence illegal and void. Can the Court grant this relief, if it cannot adjudicate whether Mr Jadhav was given a fair trial?

Assistance on this point may be found in LaGrand and Avena, cases brought under the VCCR and involving the imposition of the death penalty by the United States upon foreign nationals. In LaGrand, the Court found that ‘in cases where the individuals concerned have been […] sentenced to severe penalties’:

[I]t would be incumbent upon the United States to allow the review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence by taking account of the violation of the rights set forth in the Convention. This obligation can be carried out in various ways. The choice of means must be left to the United States. (para. 125)

In Avena, it emphasized that the review and reconsideration must be effective, examine conviction and sentence, and guarantee that the possible prejudice caused by violation of the VCCR will be fully taken into account. A clemency procedure would not suffice (paras. 138, 143). It is probable that a similar approach will be taken in the present case.

The Article 74(4) Communication

As regards President Abraham’s communication to Pakistan, the perception that it amounts to an ‘order’ is interesting, if inaccurate, and made us think more carefully about the scope and effects of such communications. We note the following.

First, and foremost, an Article 74(4) communication should not be confused with provisional measures ordered under Article 41 of the Statute. The Article 74(4) procedure is separate, taken by the President alone prior to any sitting of the Court, and—as Cameron has previously noted—is widely seen not to be binding. Pakistan could arguably go ahead and execute the sentence without anything more than moral censure; though that would obviously be without prejudice to the ultimate question regarding breach of VCCR Article 36.

That said, ICSID tribunals have found provisional ‘holding requests’—conceptually similar, some might think, to communications under Article 74(4)—to be as binding as provisional measures ordered under Article 47 of the ICSID Convention. But such requests are made by the tribunal as a whole and are not the subject of express mention in the ICSID Rules—they may thus be regarded as articulations of Article 47 proper, even if issued proprio motu by the Tribunal.

All the same, to defy an Article 74(4) request in a truly irreversible way would certainly be to breach the general principle of non-escalation and good faith in dispute settlement identified by the PCIJ in the Electricity Company case of 1939. There, the Court referred to:

[T]he principle universally accepted by international tribunals […] to the effect that the parties to a case must abstain from any of the measures capable of exercising a prejudicial effect in regard to the execution of the decision to be given and, in general, not allow any step of any kind to be taken which might aggravate and extend the dispute.

This principle underpins the Article 41 provisional measures issued by the Court, but is a freestanding rule of international law.

But, it is not clear that the Court can adjudicate a breach of this principle under the limited mandate of the VCCR Optional Protocol. Given that an Article 74(4) request is non-binding in and of itself, the Court would need to look to a source external to incidental jurisdiction to determine a breach of international law. Of course, the Court might fall back upon its inherent power to regulate its own jurisdiction, but the parameters of that jurisdiction have always been a little unclear.

There may be some temptation to read Article 74(4) as producing some degree of binding effect, such that non-compliance would attract legal as well as moral censure. Perhaps, one might think, this would represent a natural step forward from the LaGrand finding that provisional measures were binding—a point that had been disputed for some 80 years.

However, there are good reasons not to succumb to that temptation, principally that Article 74(4) vests discretion in the President, and not the Court. Were such communications taken to be binding, we would expect to see a repeat of the trend that has followed vis-à-vis provisional measures after LaGrand. There has been a noticeable tightening of the restrictions on the award of such measures, with the Court now required to satisfy itself that: is has prima facie jurisdiction, there is linkage between the rights to be protected and those judged on the merits, the claim on merits is plausible, and irreparable prejudice will result from a failure to indicate measures. To require the President, acting alone, to similarly satisfy himself on these points, would be to add a rather cumbersome prelude to what is above all a ‘rapid reaction’ device.

A Historical Nugget

Interestingly, a President of the World Court, sitting alone, has ordered binding interim relief in the past. In their first (1922) iteration, the Rules of the PCIJ provided in Article 57 that:

When the Court is not sitting, any measures for the preservation in the meantime of the respective rights of the parties shall be indicated by the President. Any refusal by the parties to conform to the suggestions of the Court or of the President, with regard to such measures, will be placed on the record.

Unlike Article 74(4) of the current Rules, Article 57 did not give the President a separate procedural power—rather, it placed the full authority of Article 41 of the Statute in the President’s hands. The provision was drafted in the days before affordable commercial air travel, wherein a large number of the Court’s members could be expected to take days, even weeks, to return to The Hague if the PCIJ was not in session. The President was expected to ‘man’ the fort. Thus, President Max Huber ordered interim relief in the Sino-Belgium Treaty case (the first ever decision under Article 41), after the Belgian application landed on the Court’s doorstep in the winter of 1926–1927.

Nevertheless, that Article 57 power does not provide precedent for the present case. Aside from the fact that it was merely an articulation of Article 41 of the Statute, its raison has vanished. In truly urgent cases, the members of the Court can be expected to return promptly to the Peace Palace. Indeed, advances in air travel—along with concerns as to the political burden that the giving of interim relief under such conditions imposed on the President—led to Article 57 being drastically revised in 1931, and this power was removed.

To Conclude

Coming back to the present, we fully expect the Court will speedily decide on provisional measures. Based on past precedents such as LaGrand and Aevena, the order may well be in India’s favour. We close by expressing the hope that, in the interim, the effects of a Presidential communication will not be tested by way of their disregard.

[via EJIL: Talk!]

http://www.dipublico.org/105932/some-thoughts-on-the-jadhav-case-jurisdiction-merits-and-the-effect-of-a-presidential-communication/

[migronomics-blog]

KEY TERMS: Migration

Source: IOM, Glossary on Migration, International Migration Law Series No. 25, 2011

Assimilation - Adaptation of one ethnic or social group – usually a minority – to another. Assimilation involves the subsuming of language, traditions, values, mores and behaviour or even fundamental vital interests. Although the traditional cultural practices of the group are unlikely to be completely abandoned, on the whole assimilation will lead one group to be socially indistinguishable from other members of the society. Assimilation is the most extreme form of acculturation.

Asylum seeker - A person who seeks safety from persecution or serious harm in a country other than his or her own and awaits a decision on the application for refugee status under relevant international and national instruments. In case of a negative decision, the person must leave the country and may be expelled, as may any non-national in an irregular or unlawful situation, unless permission to stay is provided on humanitarian or other related grounds.

Border management - Facilitation of authorized flows of persons, including business people, tourists, migrants and refugees, across a border and the detection and prevention of irregular entry of non-nationals into a given country. Measures to manage borders include the imposition by States of visa requirements, carrier sanctions against transportation companies bringing irregular migrants to the territory, and interdiction at sea. International standards require a balancing between facilitating the entry of legitimate travellers and preventing that of travellers entering for inappropriate reasons or with invalid documentation.

Brain drain - Emigration of trained and talented individuals from the country of origin to another country resulting in a depletion of skills resources in the former.

Brain gain - Immigration of trained and talented individuals into the destination country. Also called “reverse brain drain”.

Circular migration - The fluid movement of people between countries, including temporary or long-term movement which may be beneficial to all involved, if occurring voluntarily and linked to the labour needs of countries of origin and destination.

Country of origin - The country that is a source of migratory flows (regular or irregular).

Emigration - The act of departing or exiting from one State with a view to settling in another.

Facilitated migration - Fostering or encouraging of regular migration by making travel easier and more convenient. This may take the form of a streamlined visa application process, or efficient and well-staffed passenger inspection procedures.

Forced migration - A migratory movement in which an element of coercion exists, including threats to life and livelihood, whether arising from natural or man-made causes (e.g. movements of refugees and internally displaced persons as well as people displaced by natural or environmental disasters, chemical or nuclear disasters, famine, or development projects).

Freedom of movement - A human right comprising three basic elements: freedom of movement within the territory of a country (Art. 13(1), Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948: “Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.”), the right to leave any country and the right to return to his or her own country (Art. 13(2), Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948: “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country. See also Art. 12, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Freedom of movement is also referred to in the context of freedom of movement arrangements between States at the regional level (e.g. European Union).

Immigration - A process by which non-nationals move into a country for the purpose of settlement.

Internally Displaced Person (IDP) - Persons or groups of persons who have been forced or obliged to flee or to leave their homes or places of habitual residence, in particular as a result of or in order to avoid the effects of armed conflict, situations of generalized violence, violations of human rights or natural or human-made disasters, and who have not crossed an internationally recognized State border (Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, UN Doc E/CN.4/1998/53/Add.2.). See also de facto refugees, displaced person, externally displaced persons, uprooted people.

Irregular migration - Movement that takes place outside the regulatory norms of the sending, transit and receiving countries. There is no clear or universally accepted definition of irregular migration. From the perspective of destination countries it is entry, stay or work in a country without the necessary authorization or documents required under immigration regulations. From the perspective of the sending country, the irregularity is for example seen in cases in which a person crosses an international boundary without a valid passport or travel document or does not fulfil the administrative requirements for leaving the country. There is, however, a tendency to restrict the use of the term “illegal migration” to cases of smuggling of migrants and trafficking in persons.

Labour migration - Movement of persons from one State to another, or within their own country of residence, for the purpose of employment. Labour migration is addressed by most States in their migration laws. In addition, some States take an active role in regulating outward labour migration and seeking opportunities for their nationals abroad.

Migrant - IOM defines a migrant as any person who is moving or has moved across an international border or within a State away from his/her habitual place of residence, regardless of (1) the person’s legal status; (2) whether the movement is voluntary or involuntary; (3) what the causes for the movement are; or (4) what the length of the stay is. IOM concerns itself with migrants and migration‐related issues and, in agreement with relevant States, with migrants who are in need of international migration services.

Migration - The movement of a person or a group of persons, either across an international border, or within a State. It is a population movement, encompassing any kind of movement of people, whatever its length, composition and causes; it includes migration of refugees, displaced persons, economic migrants, and persons moving for other purposes, including family reunification.

Migration management - A term used to encompass numerous governmental functions within a national system for the orderly and humane management for cross-border migration, particularly managing the entry and presence of foreigners within the borders of the State and the protection of refugees and others in need of protection. It refers to a planned approach to the development of policy, legislative and administrative responses to key migration issues.

Naturalization - Granting by a State of its nationality to a non-national through a formal act on the application of the individual concerned. International law does not provide detailed rules for naturalization, but it recognizes the competence of every State to naturalize those who are not its nationals and who apply to become its nationals.

Orderly migration - The movement of a person from his or her usual place of residence to a new place of residence, in keeping with the laws and regulations governing exit of the country of origin and travel, transit and entry into the destination or host country.

Push-pull factors - Migration is often analysed in terms of the “push-pull model”, which looks at the push factors, which drive people to leave their country (such as economic, social, or political problems) and the pull factors attracting them to the country of destination.

Receiving country - Country of destination or a third country. In the case of return or repatriation, also the country of origin. Country that has accepted to receive a certain number of refugees and migrants on a yearly basis by presidential, ministerial or parliamentary decision.

Refugee - A person who, “owing to a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinions, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country. (Art. 1(A)(2), Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, Art. 1A(2), 1951 as modified by the 1967 Protocol). In addition to the refugee definition in the 1951 Refugee Convention, Art. 1(2), 1969 Organization of African Unity (OAU) Convention defines a refugee as any person compelled to leave his or her country "owing to external aggression, occupation, foreign domination or events seriously disturbing public order in either part or the whole of his country or origin or nationality.” Similarly, the 1984 Cartagena Declaration states that refugees also include persons who flee their country “because their lives, security or freedom have been threatened by generalised violence, foreign aggression, internal conflicts, massive violations of human rights or other circumstances which have seriously disturbed public order.”

Remittances - Monies earned or acquired by non-nationals that are transferred back to their country of origin.

Repatriation - The personal right of a refugee, prisoner of war or a civil detainee to return to his or her country of nationality under specific conditions laid down in various international instruments (Geneva Conventions, 1949 and Protocols, 1977, the Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, Annexed to the Fourth Hague Convention, 1907, human rights instruments as well as customary international law). The option of repatriation is bestowed upon the individual personally and not upon the detaining power. In the law of international armed conflict, repatriation also entails the obligation of the detaining power to release eligible persons (soldiers and civilians) and the duty of the country of origin to receive its own nationals at the end of hostilities. Even if treaty law does not contain a general rule on this point, it is today readily accepted that the repatriation of prisoners of war and civil detainees has been consented to implicitly by the interested parties. Repatriation as a term also applies to diplomatic envoys and international officials in time of international crisis as well as expatriates and migrants.

Resettlement - The relocation and integration of people (refugees, internally displaced persons, etc.) into another geographical area and environment, usually in a third country. In the refugee context, the transfer of refugees from the country in which they have sought refuge to another State that has agreed to admit them. The refugees will usually be granted asylum or some other form of long-term resident rights and, in many cases, will have the opportunity to become naturalized.

Stateless person - A person who is not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law” (Art. 1, UN Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, 1954). As such, a stateless person lacks those rights attributable to nationalidiplomatic protection of a State, no inherent right of sojourn in the State of residence and no right of return in case he or she travels.

Xenophobia - At the international level, no universally accepted definition of xenophobia exists, though it can be described as attitudes, prejudices and behaviour that reject, exclude and often vilify persons, based on the perception that they are outsiders or foreigners to the community, society or national identity. There is a close link between racism and xenophobia, two terms that can be hard to differentiate from each other.

[loyallogic]

A Critical Analysis of Covenants of 1966

This article has been written by Samarth Suri, a student from Symbiosis Law School , NOIDA. The article briefly discusses the UN Declaration of Human rights with special emphasis on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The article also has a section which deals with India’s compliance with the treaty. 

Introduction

United Nations (UN) on December 16, 1966 adopted two covenants in its Resolution 2200 A (XXI): The International Covenant on Civil and Political rights (Hereinafter, ICCPR ) and the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (Hereinafter, ICESCR), these were made in pursuance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Post the 1948 Universal  Declaration of Human Rights, it gave the work to a committee to prepare a Covenant for the enforcement of such rights. This also led to debates between the capitalist and communist states, with countries such as the USA pressing the need for Liberty Rights , whereas other communist states insisting on economic, social and cultural rights. The deadlock in the interests between these led the UN to direct the committee to make two different Covenants. 

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights 

The ICESCR is a multilateral treaty adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 16 December 1966 as part of the larger resolution on Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It aspires to provide non-self governing and trust territories and individuals , labour rights, right to health , right to education and the right to an adequate standard of living 

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

The ICCPR is a multilateral treaty adopted by the United Nations on December 16, 1966, and came into force on March 23, 1976. The Covenant commits parties to respect the civil and political rights of individuals, which includes, right to freedom of speech and expression, right to freedom of religion, Freedom of assembly, electoral rights, due process and a fair trial. As of 2019 the treaty has 173 parties and six signatories that are yet to ratify. 

      Click Above

Objective 

The international human rights movement was strengthened when the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, this combined with the ICCPR and the ICESCR form the International Bill of Human Rights. The major objective of these Covenants is to ensure that each person is guaranteed these rights without any discrimination. 

Importance

The ICCPR was a trailblazer in the field of Human Rights enforcements, this is because the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted in 1948 was majorly persuasive in nature and didn’t have any binding powers as such. Therefore, the ICCPR was made with the intent of bearing legal power, in the sense that those countries which sign and ratify the treaty, have to then abide by its provisions and will be held liable for violation of those rights. Many countries that ratified the ICCPR also agreed that the Human Rights Committee may investigate allegations by individuals and organisations that the state has violated their rights.  Article 28  of the ICCPR established a Human Rights Committee , which shall consist of eighteen members and shall carry out the following function:

Reporting;

Considering Individual communications- the committee can receive individual communications from any individual under the jurisdiction of a State that is party to the first optional Protocol. The communication has to be made by the person who alleges that his rights have been violated or any person on his behalf. The communication cannot be anonymous. The person has to show that domestic remedies have been exhausted, and the complaint should not be under consideration of any other international body. 

The committee also has the right to issue general comments on the interpretation and usage of different Articles. This authority has been given to the committee under Article 40.

Under Article 41 of the ICCPR, one State party may submit to the committee that another State party is not fulfilling its obligations, under the covenant. This provision is only applicable when both countries have recognized the competence of the committee in this arena. 

Main provisions

Article 1 – Allows for the right of people to “self-determination”, including right to freely determine their political status. It also includes a negative right, that people should not be deprived of their means of substance. 

Article 2 – Each State party undertakes to respect and ensures the rights provided by this Covenant to everyone that comes under its jurisdiction, without any distinction of any kind such as race, gender, caste, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion. This Article also mandates that each State party has to take legislative measures for implementation of the laws in this covenant, unless the same has already not been done. This Article also mandates that every such person whose rights are violated has to be provided with an appropriate remedy, even if such violation has been committed by persons acting in their official capacity. To further ensure that the person claiming such a remedy shall have his right adjudged by a person clothed with judicial or administrative authority. To also ensure that such remedies are properly enforced when granted. 

Right to physical integrity 

Articles 6– it provides for a person’s “inherent Right to life”, and requires the same to be protected by the law. It states that this is the most supreme right, and no derogation of this is ever possible. It doesn’t prohibit death penalty, but restricts it to the most serious crimes. 

Article 7– it prohibits human degrading punishment, derogation of this is also strictly prohibited. 

Article 8– Prohibits slavery and forced labour.

Right to Liberty and security of  a person 

Article 9– provides for liberty and security of a person, prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention, it also provides to the people arrested recourse to courts and a fair trial for curbing their liberty. 

Article 10 – This provides that whoever has been arrested whether it be for a crime, psychiatric care or otherwise shall be treated with humane condition, this Article complements Article 7 that provides for humane punishments. It also requires the set up for Juvenile Prisons for separating them from adults. 

Article 11 – Prohibits the use of punishment for breach of contract.  

Procedural fairness and rights of accused 

Article 14- It provides for a fair trial to everyone, Article 14.1 states that everyone should be at an equal standing before the courts, and all such hearings should take place in an open court, closed hearings only being allowed for privacy matters etc. The Article also provides for other rights of the accused in a trial i.e. presumption of innocence, forbids double jeopardy, right of the accused to appeal in a higher court, right to be protected against self-incrimination and fair and speedy trial. 

Article 15– It prevents prosecutions under Ex-post facto law and imposition of retrospective criminal penalties, and requires imposition of lesser punishment where criminal sentences have changed between the time of commission of crime and the date of the judgement. 

Article 16– requires the state to recognize everyone as a person before the law. 

Individual Liberties 

Article 12– This provides for freedom of movement, including the right of persons to choose their residence and to leave or return to their country. 

Article 13- Forbids arbitrary expulsion of resident aliens and requires such decisions to be appealed and reviewed 

Article 17– Mandates the right of privacy, under Article 17.1 it specifically protects privacy to consensual sexual activity, hence nullifying restrictions on homosexual behaviour. This also protects people from unlawful attacks to their honor and reputation. 

Article 18 – Mandates freedom of religion and belief 

Article 19 – mandates Freedom of expression 

Article 20 – Provides that any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law. 

Article 21 & 22 – Article 21 provides for the right of peaceful assembly, no restrictions shall be imposed on the same other than those which have been imposed for integrity and peace of a democratic society. Article 22 provides that everyone shall have the right to form associations, it also provides for restrictions in the same manner as the previous Article. It also provides that members of the International Labour Organization, shall not have or pass any law that prejudices the freedom that is guaranteed to citizens in that Convention. 

Article 23 – The right of men and women to marry shall be recognized, and this shall not be done without the consent of both the parties. Each State shall also take appropriate steps to ensure equality of rights and responsibilities between the parties during and even after its dissolution. 

Article 24 – Right of a child to acquire nationality immediately after birth and also have a name. 

Article 26 – every person shall be equal before the law and be treated equally without any discrimination, the state shall also guarantee to its citizens equality on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, national, social origin etc. 

Article 27 – In States where religious or linguistic minorities exist, members of these communities shall be allowed to enjoy their own culture and to profess and practise their own religion and use their language. 

Opinion protocols 

There are two opinion Protocols to the Covenant. The first one established an individual complaints mechanism allowing individuals to complain to the Human Rights Committee about violations of the Covenant. As of 2019, there are 116 countries that are party to the first Protocol. The second opinion Protocol abolishes the death penalty, however, it allows the States to implement death penalty for the most serious crimes of military nature, committed during wartime. As of 2019, the second opinion Protocol has 87 parties.  

                    India and the ICCPR 

The body that regulates and protects human rights in India is the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). For making a Treaty as binding in any particular State, it has to ratify the same, during this time any country can also make some declarations. In this regard, India has also made certain declarations with respect to the ICCPR. 

It has been stated by the government while ratifying the Treaty that Article 9 of the treaty works in consonance with Article 22 of the Constitution of India, which provides for preventive and punitive detention laws. In this regard, it has been explicated by the government that there is no enforceable right under the Indian legal systems to provide compensation to victims of unlawful arrest. With respect to Article 13 of the ICCPR which prohibits expulsion of resident aliens, the government of India reserves its right to apply its own domestic laws. India has also complied with the principles of the ICCPR and established the National Human Rights Commission under the Protection of Human Rights Act in the year 1993. The NHRC has wide ranging powers and all human rights violation complaints can be made to the Commission itself. The Commission can send in recommendations to courts with respect to human rights cases, and can take suo moto cognizance of these issues.

Conclusion

World War I & II left the world devastated, whether it be in terms of financial damage or human rights violation, particularly in relation to prisoners of war. Post World War II, the United Nations was formed which tried to reconcile the differences between countries and work towards a better future. Human rights are the very basis of existence of all human beings, to be treated with dignity and to have basic rights are sacrosanct for the growth of the human race. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 formed the basis for a plethora of human right laws to factor in, the most notable of which were the ICCPR and the ICESCR, both of these Treaties gave way for rights that every person is bound to have irrespective of any and all of the factors. This article briefly discussed one of those two Treaties in detail. It is deductible from this that the rights that are seen in the ICCPR have also been formulated in India under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. It provides for the Right to speech and expression, assembly, association, movement, settlement, to practise any trade or profession and all of these are also seen in the ICCPR.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/joinchat/J_0YrBa4IBSHdpuTfQO_sA

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.

The post A Critical Analysis of Covenants of 1966 appeared first on iPleaders.

A Critical Analysis of Covenants of 1966 published first on https://namechangers.tumblr.com/