by Tad Daley | Mar 6, 2015 | Global Justice, Peace & Disarmament
On March 5, humanity celebrated the 45th anniversary of the coming into force of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). We also celebrated one more day of dodging the nuclear bullet, sitting in the chamber of the gun in our own hands. Along with my colleagues at CGS, I am convinced that we will not dodge this bullet indefinitely—unless someday the nations of the world comply with all the terms of the NPT and abolish nuclear weapons forever from the face of the earth.
So as a relatively new CGS guest blogger, I offer you a piece I published on the Huffington Post five years ago, excerpted from my book Apocalypse Never, to commemorate the NPT’s 40th anniversary and to explain what the treaty is fundamentally about.
You might want to read it quickly.
Because that bullet, aimed at each and every one of the 7.2 billion human souls alive today—not to mention the infinite number of our future descendants who have not yet even had the chance to be born —is not staying in that chamber forever.
by Jennifer Welden | Mar 6, 2015 | Global Justice, United Nations
On February 23rd, the United Nations Security Council held a debate on the Purposes and Principles of the UN Charter. There, US Ambassador Samantha Power made a plea for the Council, and the UN, to reaffirm its commitment to the principles laid out in the Charter. Most importantly, she urged the council to “recommit ourselves to these people – individuals in every one of our states whose basic dignity the Charter is meant to defend and uphold.”
It’s no secret that the UN isn’t the world’s best problem-solver. Even the body itself has admitted a failure to limit or stop certain events, such as the atrocities in Syria or rape in Darfur. Part of this is from inaction: many argue that it is too hard to pass a resolution, especially on the Security Council where each member’s veto power leaves propositions dead in their tracks. Power puts it best when she says, “divisions among Member States continue to prevent the Council from taking action…or even speaking in one voice to condemn the violence and call for meaningful accountability.”
But even when resolutions do pass, nothing really seems to change. Hiding behind strongly worded memos, the UN often fails to “exercise the political will and take the action needed to actually preserve international peace and security.” Power argues that part of doing this is coming up with “more effective ways to pressure” states that disregard UN/international rules, norms, and obligations.
What would some of those ways be? Power suggests that simply by showing unified support for resolutions, the UN will move toward being more effective. She cites North Korea as an example, stating that, “by shining a light on the unspeakable violations being perpetrated every day in the DPRK, UN action is helping to galvanize broader pressure on the regime to end abuses that were ignored for far too long.”
This makes sense: peer pressure can be very effective. Peer pressure can be especially important when it comes to the issue of state sovereignty, which many states argue “precludes the UN’s engagement on these issues [of human rights violations].” Though our more liberal ideologies may scoff at the very idea of this being a legitimate argument, it is still a regular topic of debate in the international arena. But why? As Power continually points out, the UN’s commitment is to individuals, not states. So why are we so beholden to them?
Part of the reason may be that the UN does not feel representative of individuals; after all, it’s called the United Nations, not the United Individuals. This has prompted many to push for a UN Parliamentary Assembly, something that could be truly representative of the people the body is meant to serve.
While it is easy to say what is wrong with the UN, it is harder to say how to fix it. (And even if you could, the old adage “It’s easier said than done” comes to mind.) However, Power’s speech is a necessary reminder of why the UN was founded in the first place: to “unite us in advancing the safety, security, and human rights of people across the world.” Ideals are often chided as being unreachable, but would we rather have a body founded on the reverse: realism that views crossing a border as more unjust than not protecting people?
Moving forward, the UN must not forget its ideals when facing reality. Reaffirming its founding priciples then, is the first step toward reaching its goals.
by Kevin Burke | Mar 2, 2015 | Global Justice, Peace & Disarmament
In a time where horrible atrocities continue seemingly unabated in Nigeria, Syria, South Sudan, and beyond, we find ourselves wondering whether our global institutions could be doing more to prevent them. Take, for instance, the International Criminal Court. In the preamble to the Rome Statute in which it was founded, it is said to be both “[d]etermined to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes and…to contribute to the prevention of such crimes.” Over ten years after its founding, is the ICC actually deterring crime? Or do these atrocities prove the ICC is failing?
The logic of the international criminal justice system preventing crime works on two prongs. First, there’s prosecutorial deterrence. As the likelihood of prosecution and the associated punishments (e.g., fines, prison sentences, etc.) goes up, crime goes down. The second form of deterrence is social. Those who violate the law may face stigmas associated with their crimes whether they are prosecuted or not; they may be shamed or shunned, and they may be excluded from profitable relationships domestically or internationally.
Is the International Criminal Court actually deterring crime on either of these models? Yes, with some caveats.
With respect to prosecutorial deterrence, a recent study shows that as states ratify the Rome Statute, hostilities in civil wars tend to pause. Additionally, another (early draft) study shows that as ICC prosecution in a state is threatened, violence against civilians decreases. And the ICC has add-on effects: once an ICC investigation starts, domestic prosecutions of lower-level officials are more likely with the international spotlight backing up the domestic legal system.
Research on social deterrence is still developing, but already it has promising indications. One researcher notes a “Lubanga syndrome,” so named for Thomas Lubanga, the first convicted war criminal at the ICC – she found anecdotal evidence of a fear of arrest among his fellow compatriots in the Congolese military. The draft study in which social deterrence has been examined relative to prosecutorial deterrence shows it to be at least as effective as prosecutorial deterrence, though much work remains to be done. It is worth noting that this study shows that government actors are more deterred by ICC involvement than non-state rebel groups, but at least there is still a deterrent effect.
Caveats to these promising results are important. As we have noted here previously, ICC intervention in any case is fraught by the sovereignty of the state it is investigating: it needs cooperation to investigate, as in the Kenyatta case, and cooperation to make arrests, as in the Bashir case. It’s also worth noting that the ICC’s jurisdiction is not universal – many states, including the US, Russia, China, India, and much of the Middle East, are not parties to the Rome Statute.
With wider jurisdiction comes more universal acceptance of ICC norms. With additional resources, and more successful prosecutions, and a wider geographic area of investigations and charges, will come greater legitimacy, thus improving the effects found in these studies and further deterring future criminals. These results are early, and the ICC – and the global community – has much work to do.
And of course, deterrence isn’t the ICC’s sole mission: justice for victims and reconciliation for war-torn countries are among its many priorities.
The International Criminal Court is indeed imperfect. But with each new investigation, each new arrest or conviction, we can see that the incentives are turning against impunity in conflict. With evidence of these sorts of incentives, we can confidently invest more resources in the International Criminal Court as we work toward a more just and peaceful world.
by Hiram Helfman | Feb 20, 2015 | Global Justice, Human Rights
Although the struggle for women’s rights in China is far from over, the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party has allowed women more opportunities and rights than their ancestors before them, especially in the public sphere. The best thing that the Party did in the name of women’s rights has been to eradicate the practice of foot-binding.
Foot-binding began during the Song (or Sung) Dynasty (960-1279). Over time, this practice trickled down the socioeconomic ladder from the ruling to the lower classes.
Foot-binding can also accurately be called foot mutilation. It involved great risks, including infection and gangrene; some women and girls even died as a result of these complications. But those who willingly participated in it believed they were culturally obligated, as sometimes this was the only way a lady could improve her status and marry into a family of higher economic or political rank.
Besides being considered aesthetically pleasing, bound feet were also a symbol of women being inferior and dependent on men, as they couldn’t move about so easily. It was also believed that foot-binding helped to protect women’s chastity as well as devote their bodies’ energy into reproduction.
This practice undoubtedly reduced rural Chinese women’s economic productivity; some still managed to work in the fields, but having their feet bound made it harder for them.
Opposition to foot-binding occurred both inside and outside of China over different periods of time and by different rulers. Unfortunately, it seems that these leaders were not able to create the social, economic, and political conditions that succeeding generations did to end the practice altogether.
Foot-binding ended in stages that involved imperial edicts and campaigns by Western Christian Missionary organizations starting in the late 19th Century. The former Republic of China (1911-1925) outlawed the practice of binding the feet of women (although many women and girls still had their feet bound anyway). The practice also decreased as social opportunities for women arose via economic development, and finally the Communist Party under Mao Zedong eliminated the practice during the Great Leap Forward (1958-1960).
Today in some countries in Africa, the practice of female genital mutilation (FGM) remains popular as a cultural practice that causes grave harm to the women and girls who undergo it in their efforts to attain socio-cultural goals. The reasons for the practice of FGM are almost identical to the reasons for foot-binding in China.
However, the practice of FGM has a longer history and also has spread to other groups, even within modern times and even in industrialized countries. Foot-binding didn’t spread to other nations or empires like Japan and Vietnam, which were heavily influenced by Chinese civilization.
The places where FGM is commonly practiced have not been able to create the conditions necessary for the practice to cease, unlike China. However, if socioeconomic conditions can improve, female genital mutilation might become less common as time goes on.
Even though China can’t claim by democratic countries’ standards to have the best sociopolitical human rights model in the world, at least it was able to end foot-binding, a practice that caused great suffering to women seeking to adhere to socio-cultural standards in a male-dominated society.
by Rene Wadlow | Feb 20, 2015 | Global Justice, Human Rights
The United Nations General Assembly, on the initiative of Nurbch Jeenbrev, the Ambassador of Kyrgyzstan to the UN in New York, has proclaimed 20 February as the “World Day of Social Justice.”
The World Day of Social Justice gives us an opportunity to take stock of how we can work together at the local, national and global level on policy and action to achieve the goals set out in the resolution of “solidarity, harmony and equality within and among states.”
As the resolution states,
Social development and social justice are indispensable for the achievement and maintenance of peace and security within and among nations, and that in turn, social development and social justice cannot be attained in the absence of peace and security or in the absence of respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The Preamble to the UN Charter makes social justice—or “social progress,” the more common expression of that time—one of the chief aims of the organization. The Preamble calls for efforts to “promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.”
The US representatives who worked on the draft of the UN Charter were strongly influenced in their views of social progress by the “New Deal” legislation of President Roosevelt and its philosophy as it had been set out by his Vice-President Henry A. Wallace.
Wallace’s 1942 speech describing US war aims was the first time that such aims were not stated in terms of “national interest” and limited to the demands that had started the war. Wallace, who had first been the Secretary of Agriculture and who had to deal with the severe depression facing US agriculture, was proposing a world-wide New Deal based on the cooperative action of all of humanity.
Wallace said,
The people’s revolution is on the march. When the freedom-loving people march — when the farmers have an opportunity to buy land at reasonable prices and to see the produce of their land through their own organizations, when workers have the opportunity to form unions and bargain through them collectively, and when the children of all the people have an opportunity to attend schools which teach them truths of the real world in which they live —when these opportunities are open to everyone, then the world moves straight ahead…The people are on the march toward ever fuller freedom, toward manifesting here on earth the dignity that is in every human soul.
The People’s Revolution found its expression in the cry of the Tunisian uprising: Liberty-Work-Dignity. Today, in the vein of “Liberty-Work-Dignity,” we hear the demands of farmers to own land under sure conditions, to receive a fair price for their crops, as well as the right to organize to protect their interests. We hear the crises of industrial and urban workers to be able to organize and to have their work appreciated for its full value. We hear the demands of students and young people for an education that opens minds and prepares them for meaningful work.
The people’s revolution is on the march. While the forces of the status quoare still strong and often heavily armed, the energy has shifted from the rulers to the people. The concept of social justice has articulated and focused deep demands for liberty, jobs, and dignity.
The people’s revolution is not that of an elite willing to replace the existing ruling elite. The people’s revolution is a wave of everyone moving together, with deep currents below the surface.
The tide moves with only a few visible waves, but the collective demands for social justice and dignity is what makes the difference between the people’s revolution and a military coup. This is the true meaning of the World Day of Social Justice.
by CGS Blog Archive | Feb 4, 2015 | Global Justice, News, Peace & Disarmament
Palestine’s recent accession to the International Criminal Court is a crucial step toward accountability for grave crimes in the region and toward a peaceful resolution of one of the world’s longest running conflicts. The ICC’s jurisdiction will take effect on April 1st, making Palestine the 123rd state party.
In joining the Court, Palestine also submitted a declaration to the ICC under Article 12.3 of the Rome Statute granting the Court jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed on Palestinian territory since 13 June 2014—the date of the initiation of the Israel-Gaza hostilities this past summer.
“The Coalition fully supports Palestine’s accession to the Rome Statute,” said William R. Pace, convenor of the Coalition for the ICC. “For 12 years, the Coalition has urged all states to exercise their right to join the ICC, and key members have made special appeals to both Israel and Palestine to join the Court during the last year, which saw some of the deadliest and most destructive armed conflict between the two countries.”
“We hope this move will contribute to ending the cycles of violence between Israel and Palestine,” Pace continued. “Contrary to the position of some, Coalition members argue that enforcing international humanitarian law strengthens the peace process, while also giving victims recourse to legal remedy.”
Civil society has long urged both Israel and Palestine to join the ICC in order to stem well-documented mass violations of human rights during the course of the decades-long conflict between the two.
“We call upon Israel, rather than sanctioning Palestine for such a move, to ratify the Rome Statute as well. We call upon the US and all States publicly opposed to Palestinian accession to the international justice system to end their efforts to block accountability access and instead support the rights of victims to justice and redress,”
said Katherine Gallagher, vice president of theInternational Federation for Human Rights.
The ICC is a permanent international court with jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. Central to the Court’s mandate is the principle of complementarity, which holds that the Court will only intervene if national legal systems are unable or unwilling to investigate and prosecute perpetrators of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
Ishai Menuhin, executive director of the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, urged that “…universal values and norms become the framework through which the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is viewed and resolved. It is time that complaints of torture and suspicions of war crimes be examined by the Israeli justice system. Otherwise, they will be investigated by The Hague.”
In April 2012, the ICC Office of the Prosecutor rejected a special ad-hoc declaration made by Palestine in 2009 accepting the Court’s jurisdiction over acts committed on its territory since 1 July 2002, noting that such declarations are reserved for states only. In November 2012, the UN General Assembly upgraded Palestine’s status from observer entity to non-member observer state, and in December 2014 at the Assembly of States Parties, Palestine was for the first time invited to participate with non-state party observer status.
There are currently nine active investigations before the Court and the Prosecutor’s office is examining nine other situations in Africa, South America, Europe and Asia. Currently, there are two trials ongoing.
While the ICC will have jurisdiction over grave crimes committed on the territory of Palestine irrespective of the nationality of the alleged perpetrators, or by Palestinian nationals anywhere, the prosecutor will only investigate and/or prosecute if domestic authorities are genuinely unable or unwilling to do so. Should the prosecutor decide to open an investigation, it would be subject to authorization by ICC judges.
