GJC Weekly News Roundup

By Julia d'Amours

Chile proceeds with the repeal of its total anti-abortion laws. In August, legislation was presented to permit abortion in three cases: if the life of the mother was in danger, if it the fetus would not survive, or if the pregnancy was a result of rape. Lawyers argued that a total abortion ban was inhumane and a violation of women’s rights. Though polls indicate more than 70 percent of the population supports more lenient abortion laws, the Catholic Church and elite upper class staunchly opposed the bill. The repeal is considered a major victory in women’s rights and reproductive rights, and many hope it will lead to similar legislation in the region.

Last Friday, Kenya’s Supreme Court ruled that the re-election of the sitting president would be revisited after discovery that the vote counts had been irregular. It is the first example in Africa in which a court voided the re-election of an incumbent. Many are at unease considering Kenya’s fragile political landscape—the last disputed election in 2007 resulted in at least 1,300 dead and 600,000 displaced around the country.

On Sunday, Cambodia arrested Kem Sokha, the main opposition leader, accusing him of treason. This follows accounts of government harassment on the free press and expulsion of NGOs, such as the pro-democracy National Democratic Institute. A Human Rights Watch official called the arrest “a disastrous setback” for Cambodia as the country prepares for elections next year.

On Monday, Malala Yousafzi joined an increasing number of human rights activists in publicly criticizing Myanmar’s effective leader Aung San Suu Kyi for the treatment of the Rohingya Muslim minority in Burma. More than 73,000 Rohingya have fled into Bangladesh after they were attacked by Burmese military factions on August 25th. The UN special rapporteur for human rights in Myanmar has described the situation as “grave.” Widely seen as a champion of democracy, Suu Kyi has remained quiet on the subject of the Rohingya.

On Tuesday, President Trump broke headlines by announcing the end of DACA—the federal program that protected nearly 800,000 young undocumented immigrants who were brought to the US as children. He claimed DACA’s establishment was an abuse of electoral power and rebuking it would establish rule of law. Many of those enrolled in DACA already have families, started careers, or enrolled in higher education in the US. Permits that are set to expire in the next six months will be renewed, but the Department of Homeland Security will stop processing new applications for the program. Officials say there will be no formal guidance that former DACA recipients are not eligible for deportation.

On Wednesday, the Trump Administration introduced a Security Council resolution that would empower the United States Navy and Airforce to interdict North Korean ships and evaluate if their cargo contains military equipment. It also included a ban on the shipment of crude oil, petroleum, and natural gas, which would have severe results for the North Korean population as winter approaches, and aims to block the assets of Kim Jong-un. The resolution is careful not to encompass a total blockade, which is an act of war, but permits the US and UNSC to “nonconsensual inspections.”

On Thursday, a federal appeals court permitted thousands of refugees who had been blocked by President Trumps’ travel ban to enter the country. Since June, the government has frozen refugee resettlement applications and brought resettlement programs to a standstill.  Yesterday’s ruling mandated that the government resume refugee resettlements in the next five days. It also upheld a lower court decision that exempted grandparents and other relatives from the ban. A Justice Department representative remarked that they will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.

Also on Thursday, the High Court of Australia ruled that a postal survey on the legalization of gay marriage was legitimate, despite the objections of same-sex marriage advocates. The results of the survey could not make same-sex marriage legal or illegal, but it could spark a vote in Parliament. Polls suggest that a “yes” vote in favor of legalizing gay marriage will prevail. The results will be announced the 15th of November.

Photo by Alsidare Hickson 

GJC Weekly News Roundup

Sunday, this interactive New York Times article shows the harsh reality of women and children who are fleeing continuous violence brought on by Boko Haram in the Diffa area of Niger. Many settle along the only highway in the region where they are far away from a water source and with limited access to schooling and healthcare.

Monday, the Trump administration announced that it will be terminating funding for the United Nations Population Fund, the leading global provider for family planning services. This is a harsh blow to women and children in the developing world and to advocates for reproductive health care as most of their funding comes from the US and UN.

Monday, President Trump signed an executive order that revokes the 2014 Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces order, which demands fair pay and safe workplaces for women. This order is deemed a counter-progressive measure and negates “hard-fought” victories for women in the workplace.

Tuesday, with recent political decisions made by President Trump undermining U.S.’s leadership in human rights advocacy, former diplomats worry that human rights are not of much importance to the Trump administration. Furthermore, when the US loosens its grip on human rights leadership, many people suffer because of the lack of funding and loss of support for organizations that provide health care.

Friday, following the toxic gas attack in Syria and the UN council meeting to discuss Assad’s regime, the US missile airstrike on a Syrian air base garners outrage as people declare it a violation of international law.

Letter to the NY Times Editor, Rape in Syria, March 2014

Akila Radhakrishnan, Legal Director of the Global Justice Center, responds to an article in the New York Times, “Three Years of Strife and Cruelty Put Syria in Free Fall” that describes three years of conflict without mentioning the use of rape as a weapon of war.

Download PDF

The Cruelest Weapon

Akila Radhakrishnan and Kristina Kallas publish an article in Ms. Magazine, titled "The Cruelest Weapon" on how the US denies abortions to women raped in war.

Download PDF

Global Policy, "The Other Red Line: The Use of Rape as an Unlawful Tactic of Warfare"

The Security Council has found that the endemic use of rape in war for military advantage – which is primarily targeted against women and girls – is a military tactic that presents a threat to global peace and security. Despite concerted global efforts over the last two decades to end its use, rape as a tool of war continues undeterred. This article links the intransigent use of strategic rape with states’ failure to treat it as an unlawful tactic of war under the rules of international humanitarian law (IHL) that regulate the 'means and methods of war’. Embedding strategic rape under IHL’s weapons framework will increase its stigmatization, a critical factor in stopping the use of abhorrent weapons or tactics in war. Other potential benefits include the opening up of civil and criminal accountability frameworks and others which provide restitution and reparations for war rape victims. This article focuses on the role of all states in enforcing the weapons framework and it calls for states to undertake an impact and injuries assessment of strategic rape under the Article 36 weapons review process.

Download PDF

Open Letter to Commissioner Georgieva

GJC writes open letter to Commissioner Georgieva of the European Commission in response to her September 8, 2014 letter explaining the European Union's position on abortion and the Geneva Conventions.

Download PDF

Fact Sheet: Stopping The Use Of Rape As A Tactic Of War: A New Approach

There is a global consensus that the mass rape of girls and women is routinely used as a tactic or “weapon” of war in contemporary armed conflicts.1 Despite two decades of intense global efforts, rape used as a tactic of war continues undeterred. This is not surprising: rape is a cheap, powerful, and effective tool for military forces to use to kill and mutilate women and children, force pregnancy, terrorize families and communities, demoralize enemy forces, and accomplish genocide.

Rape used to further military objectives or the strategic aims of a conflict (“strategic rape”), constitutes a prohibited tactic or method of warfare under international humanitarian law.

Download PDF

Women, Peace, and Security: Janet Benshoof, President, Global Justice Center

The last two decades have seen a dramatic transformation in the Security Council’s (Council) role in advancing and enforcing international humanitarian law (IHL). The changing nature of armed conflict, the universal acceptance of human rights, the calcification of certain precepts of international law into jus cogens, and advances in international law have all redefined the limits of state sovereignty and influenced the modern understanding of the Council’s mandate under the United Nations Charter (Charter).

Within this new paradigm, the Council has made protecting civilians in armed conflict central to its duty to maintain international peace and security. As part of this effort, the Council has passed a series of resolutions addressing the impact of armed conflict on women and the use of sexual violence in conflict (Women, Peace and Security Series, WPS Series).2 Despite these efforts, the resolutions have failed to achieve one of the Council’s main goals – ending sexual violence perpetrated against women in armed conflicts around the world.

The chapter, Women, Peace and Security, in the forthcoming publication, Security Council in the Age of Human Rights, examines the Council’s actions in the WPS Series against its duties to act under the evolving imperatives of IHL, in particular those rules considered jus cogens. The chapter argues that the Council has a duty to take stronger and more effective measures to address sexual violence against girls and women in armed conflict, in order to successfully deter its use.

Download PDF

Myanmar/Burma’s Binding Obligations Under International Law

November, 2012

This document outlines some of Myanmar/Burma’s (hereinafter “Burma”) obligations under international law, and demonstrates the ramifications of these obligations. Burma’s obligations under international law have greatly increased due to the advances in international law and the enforcement of states obligations over the last fifteen years.

International law mandates that states either act or refrain from acting in certain ways, and provides remedies for state breaches. The framework of Burma’s obligations arise from four interrelated bodies of international law: international human rights and other treaty law, including the United Nations (UN) Charter; customary international law, including the laws of state responsibility; international humanitarian law; and international criminal law.

Download PDF

The 2008 Constitution Breaches Myanmar/Burma’s Binding Obligations under International Law Including the United Nation’s Charter

The 2008 Constitution Establishes a Civilian Government Without Full Sovereign Powers

Under the 1947 Constitution, in place when Burma applied for United Nation (UN) membership in 1948, Burma was a sovereign state. The Union of the Republic of Myanmar, as established under the 2008 Constitution (the “Constitution”), is not a sovereign state as defined by international law. A “sovereign” state must have supreme power to make laws that are applicable to all institutions and citizens of the state “without accountability” to any other body. To be considered a sovereign state, the civilian government must have “paramount control of the constitution and frame of government and its administration” as well as be the person or body of persons which has no political superior.

The Constitution is unlike any in the world in that it grants the Defense Forces complete autonomy and supremacy over the civilian government.No branch of the “sovereign” state (consisting of the legislative, executive and judicial branches) may exercise oversight over the military. The Constitution reserves 25% of Parliamentary seats for the military and Constitutional amendments require more than 75% majority for passage. This essentially reserves a veto over Constitutional amendments for the military. The civilian government under these limitations does not have full sovereign powers as defined by international law.

Download PDF

Will the UN Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty Actually Result in a Treaty?

The UN Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty (July 2-27) will conclude this week in New York, and member states and NGOs are scrambling to include last-minute changes and amendments to the document before the final is submitted to a vote by member states. The Treaty itself has taken years to draft and includes input from civil society groups as well as governments and intergovernmental organizations. The push for such an agreement was initiated by NGO’s and civil society groups concerned with the proliferation of weapons and the role that arms producers play in perpetuating armed conflicts in some of the poorest nations in the world. The fact that the Conference is taking place at all is a testament to the hard work and dedication not of governments or politicians, but of groups representing individuals and civilians who suffer most from the unmitigated international weapons trade.

Proponents of a strong ATT face significant obstacles in their quest to limit the international arms trade. The monetary value of the global arms market is estimated at $60 billion per year and many powerful states run highly lucrative arms industries that serve to enrich governments and elite officials both financially and in terms of political power and influence. Originally, the United States and other large countries expressed support for a strong treaty that included clear language prohibiting the export of arms to countries or governments with a history of using such weapons against their own populations or in the face of evidence that the weapons may be used for non-defensive purposes. Over the past two weeks, however, many states have begun to pull back their support for strong language and meaningful regulations.

While many were confident of the treaty language early in the Conference proceedings, there have been growing attempts to weaken the treaty’s language to a degree many find unacceptable. This is a troubling trend as it suggests that states may not be able to ultimately agree on treaty conditions and that members may ultimately fail to pass the treaty at all. States and NGOs that are proponents of a strong ATT argue that no treaty would be better than a weak treaty that fails to address the real concerns and dangers implicit in the international weapons trade. Further increasing the likelihood that member states will fail to pass an ATT is the fact that the United States ensured early in the process that any vote on an ATT must be voted for unanimously by all member states in order to take effect. Given these difficult circumstances, it looks to be increasingly unlikely that the UN will be able to agree on any meaningful ATT before the Conference comes to a close on Friday.

Post by: Adrian Lewis