Human Rights Law Centre

The Unit was established in 2009 by Professor Nigel White, building on the work done by the Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights Unit (2006-2009) led by Dr Daniel Moeckli.  Its aim is to undertake research into the relationship between human rights law and international humanitarian law and current issues of security such as the threat of terrorism, the rise of private military security contractors and the changes to peacekeeping and other peace operations.  The Unit will produce academic publications and policy documents on these issues and is available to undertake specific research projects at the request of governments, non-governmental and inter-governmental organisations, as well as conduct training courses in human rights and humanitarian law for military and security services.

Human Rights in Eric Posner's Lawless World

Conservative legal provocateur Eric Posner has an article titled "Think Again: International Law" in the most recent Foreign Policy. If you are involved in human rights work, it won't make you happy.

Posner writes:

    "Academic research suggests that international human rights treaties have had little or no impact on the actual practices of states. The Genocide Convention has not prevented genocides; the Torture Convention has not stopped torture. The same can be said for the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and a host of treaties meant to advance the rights of women and children. States that already respect human rights join human rights treaties because doing so is costless for them. States that do not respect human rights simply ignore their treaty obligations."

What is Posner's argument here? That laws that aren't followed 100 percent of the time should be disposed of? That genocide and torture shouldn't be illegal?  If that is, in fact, what Posner is saying, his complaint isn't with international law, but law in general. After all, murder is illegal in every society, yet murders are still committed everywhere.

Posner goes on to explain:

    "The evidence shows that human rights are best in those states that are wealthiest, leading many scholars to speculate that the best way to promote human rights is to promote growth."

Wealthier states are, on average, more likely to respect human rights, but Posner is assuming that economic growth causes states to respect human rights. There is a huge body of literature, including, most famously, Amartya Sen's Development as Freedom, that concludes the exact opposite, that respect for human rights -especially freedom of expression- enables disaster-prevention, poverty reduction, and economic growth.

Then, there are the glaring examples of developed and wealthy countries showing little respect for the rights of people residing within their borders. Russia, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Singapore might all be developed, but they're hardly paragons of good human rights policy. Economies can boom and skylines soar on the labor of exploited, brutalized underclasses, and in spite of authoritarian denials of civil and political rights.

However, countries like Singapore, representing the so-called "authoritarian development" model, and rentier states like Saudi Arabia -regimes that survive on income from natural resources- are exceptions globally. Most undemocratic countries are dismally poor.

As law, human rights have instrumental value to people campaigning for equality, exposing cruelty, and taking cases against their abusive and feckless governments to national and international courts.

Whether it entails locating mass graves or litigating on behalf of slum residents, human rights work outside the democratic world often places advocates and their loved ones in mortal danger. International human rights law isn't always honored, and it certainly cannot bring the dead back to life, but without the law itself on their side, threatened human rights defenders in places like Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, and Russia would be even worse off than they are now.

If nothing else, human rights law gives some wronged parties recourse and a focus for the future. It has allowed Chechen village mothers whose sons were forcibly disappeared to take the Russian state to the European Court of Human Rights and, in doing so, say to the world, "Our government must account for its actions, and acknowledge our suffering." That alone is a powerful -and empowering-thing.

About which Eric Posner has nothing to say.

I wouldn't expect an arch-realist to address norms, but not addressing the instrumental value of human rights law is sheer intellectual laziness.

If Posner is correct about anything, it's that the world we live in is too often still one in which a person's birthplace, rather than humanity, dictates the rights she or he may enjoy.  But that's not an argument for less international law, that's an argument for more and better human rights advocacy.

Side note: Posner's worldview is, ironically, best represented by this Amnesty International ad -minus the last line, of course.

International drug crime measures 'lead to executions

Inmates take an oath to resist drugs at a ceremony to mark International Day Against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking at a drug rehabilitation centre in Wuhan in China's Hubei province. Photograph: Reuters

The United Nations, the European commission and individual states including Britain are flouting international human rights law by funding anti-drug crime measures that are inadvertently leading to the executions of offenders, according to a report seen by the Guardian.

The International Harm Reduction Association (IHRA), a non-governmental organisation that advocates less punitive approaches to drugs policy globally, says it has gathered evidence revealing "strong links" between executions for drugs offences and the funding of specific drug enforcement operations by international agencies.

It says programmes aimed at shoring up local efforts to combat drug trafficking and other offences are being run "without appropriate safeguards" that could prevent serious human rights violations in countries that retain the death penalty.

The report concludes that the UN Office on Drugs and Crime ( "are all actively involved in funding and/or delivering technical assistance, legislative support and financial aid intended to strengthen domestic drug enforcement activities in states that retain the death penalty for drug offences.

"Such funding, training and capacity-building activities – if successful – result in increased convictions of persons on drug charges, and the potential for increased death sentences and executions".

The report claims there is evidence of "complicity in acts that violate international human rights law", undermining the Council of Europe's commitment to abolish the death penalty, the United Nations Charter and UNODC's stated opposition to the penalty for drugs offences.

The 33-page report lists a series of case studies it says illustrate how efforts to garner convictions for drugs offences across borders have resulted further down the line in executions. International law does not prohibit the death penalty but does limit its use to the "most serious crimes". The meaning of "serious" is challenged by some states with the death penalty.

Rick Lines, deputy director of the IHRA and co-author of the report, said: "Many people around the world would be shocked to know that their governments are funding programmes that are leading people indirectly to death by hanging and firing squads." He said agencies and countries were not intentionally funding programmes that led to people facing the death penalty but that it was "a fact" that executions were happening.

The report comes soon after the execution by firing squad of Ronnie Lee Gardner in Utah, America, that once again highlights human rights concerns about capital punishment. However IHRA's focus on the persistence of capital punishment in other "retentionist" countries for drugs crimes is likely to resonate this week. Saturday is UN International Day Against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking, organised to highlight that some states, including China, have always executed drugs offenders to make a public example of them.

An IHRA report published last month revealed that of the 58 states that retain the death penalty, 32 permit it for drug-related crimes. Some use it more readily than others. The estimated overall number of executions including those for drugs-related offences in 2009 was 714, according to Amnesty International, although this does not account for potentially thousands more executions that are not disclosed by China.

Commenting on the IHRA report, Rebecca Schleifer, advocacy director of Human Rights Watch, said that while UNODC in particular has recently "taken steps in the right direction" to account for the human rights implications of its programmes, its drug enforcement activities, and those of other organisations and countries, continue to "put them at risk of supporting increased death sentences and executions in some countries".

Sebastian Saville, director of Release, a British drugs and human rights charity, said there was an urgent need for political leaders in Britain and the US to rethink their "disastrous 'war on drugs' policy and tacit support for regimes that continue executing people for relatively minor offences".

A UNODC spokesman welcomed the report for drawing attention to capital punishment, saying it raised "legitimate concerns" about how actions designed to deal with drugs crimes "may indirectly result in increased convictions and the possible application of the death penalty". He said UNODC had taken "concrete steps" to implement human rights assessments as part of "all drug enforcement activities". The IHRA report makes a number of recommendations including that European governments, the European Commission and UNODC urgently leverage their influence with countries that retain the death penalty "to restrict or abolish the death penalty for drug offences."

Rohingya People of Burma

For decades, the Rohingya people have been victims of systematic and widespread human rights violations at the hands of the military junta. In a recent report released by the Irish Center for Human Rights, an expert on international human rights law claimed that these mass atrocities perpetrated by the military government against the Rohingya minority in the country’s western region may constitute crimes against humanity. Overlooked for years, their plight and the root causes of their dire situation remain under-examined.

Brief history of Burma’s Rohingya Minority

The Rohingya are a Muslim ethnic minority living in northern Arakan state in western Burma.  They face religious discrimination at the hands of Burma’s military regime, which doesn’t recognize the Rohingya as citizens of Burma.  The regime does not consider the Rohingya people as one of 135 legally recognized ethnic minority groups in Burma, leaving the Rohingya stateless, homeless and rights-less.

The first Rohingya people arrived in Burma as early as 7th century. These early migrants were known to be Arab sailors and merchants who traveled to Burma for economic pursuits. These Muslim settlers came to Burma in a total of three waves: from 7th to 13th century, in the 15th century and from 1826 onward throughout the British colonial rule. Today this day, Burma’s military regime maintains that the Rohingya immigrated to Burma from India while under British colonial rule, flagrantly omitting their earlier arrivals and settlements in the region.

With time, these Muslim settlers married into the local culture and made permanent settlements in western region of Burma. Today, Rohingya Muslims constitute 1/3 of the total population of Arakan State, and the rest belongs to Buddhist Arakanese.

International Human Rights and Grady Hospital in Atlanta

Recently, the Oinonen Law Group LLC wrote a request for precautionary measures to the Inter-American Human Rights Commission on behalf of Grady Hospital dialysis patients.

The international human rights petition resulted in the Commission officially contacting the U.S. government and requesting that the U.S. respond to the petitioners' allegations in addition to addressing the issue of medical treatment necessary for their survival. The Commission's action represents the first step in deciding whether to grant precautionary measures. The decision should be made some time soon.

The petition was officially submitted by the Oinonen Law Group LLC and Lindsay R.M. Jones. Mr. Jones who is lead counsel for the Grady patients, whose U.S. court case is currently to be submitted for appeal.

Grady dialysis patients lives are threatened due to the hospital attempting to deny the rights of the patients in accordance with a legally binding contract. The patients, third party beneficiaries to a legally binding contract, were denied the informed consent they are entitled to by law when Grady representatives told the patients that leaving the state was their only option. Moreover, Grady implored the patients to sign an agreement that reduced their contactual right of one year of treatment to three months.

For more information on international human rights and Grady Hospital, please contact Mario Williams at the Oinonen Law Group LLC at 404-654-0288

International Human Rights Law Institute

The International Human Rights Law Institute (IHRLI) is at the forefront of contemporary human rights and rule of law research, training and advocacy. Since its founding in 1990, IHRLI has designed and managed projects around the world on post-conflict justice, human rights documentation and analysis, capacity building for legal professionals, gender rights and human trafficking. IHRLI conducts scholarly research on international criminal law, international humanitarian law and a variety of human rights and rule of law issues. IHRLI also prepares DePaul law students, activists and scholars for careers in human rights through courses, fellowship programs, internships and research opportunities in Chicago and abroad.

International Human Rights Internships in Cambodia

Our Human Rights internships in Cambodia are based in the capital city of Phnom Penh. The placement gives interns the opportunity to work on alongside a respected humanitarian organization while also gaining first-hand experience in human rights law in practice.

Interns must have completed at least three years of a related undergraduate degree and have a strong interest in human rights issues. Interns with related degrees or relevant work experience are also encouraged to apply.

Interns need to commit to at least 2 months on a Human Rights internship in Cambodia.
Human Rights Internships Abroad in Cambodia

Human Rights interns in Cambodia Human Rights interns workwith the Community Legal Education Center (CLEC), our partner Human Rights organization in Phnom Penh. The organization is a non-profit NGO that focuses on a variety of Human Rights issues through promoting people's rights, legal education, and consultation. The organization represents local communities and develops laws to protect their interests. CLEC also trains groups like the Employers Council in workers rights and trains Commune councils so they understand their rights.

Recent areas that CLEC have been involved in include educating pregnant women on labor laws and helping groups that have been evicted from certain areas gain compensation for losing their land.

Interning with Projects Abroad in Phnom Penh would be a valuable addition to your resume and might just secure you that lucrative first job once you graduate.
International Human Rights Experience with Projects Abroad

Your precise role will be determined by your background and level of interest in specific areas. Interns work under the supervision of the local staff and will work in one of four departments: labor, good governance, natural resources and access to justice.

The vast majority of the work is office-based, though you may occasionally have the opportunity to join site visits within Phnom Penh or the surrounding provinces.

Interns working in any of the four departments can expect to be involved in researching and collecting documents, compiling reports, and editing and translating written materials.

Interns will need to have excellent English skills and should be flexible, proactive, and hardworking. You will be a representative of a professional organization and must take your position seriously to meet the demands of this rewarding internship.

International Human Rights Law LLM

This course is aimed at graduates from all over the world that are keen to develop an expertise in the evolving discipline of international human rights law. The programme is intended to empower successful candidates to become human rights practitioners, critical scholars, innovators and masters of their chosen disciplines.

Bringing Human Rights Home Lawyers' Network

The "Bringing Human Rights Home Lawyers' Network" encourages U.S. compliance with international human rights law, including through the U.N. and Inter-American Human Rights systems and the development of strategies to use human rights law in U.S. courts and domestic policy-making and debate.

The Network's 390 members are drawn from domestic social justice organizations, the U.S. programs of international human rights groups and law school human rights programs. HRI convenes the Network through semi-annual meetings and provides coordination on projects as needed.

Based on the principle that all rights are interdependent, many of these strategies crosscut different rights-based movements and respond to a growing need among domestic public interest lawyers to work together to meet common threats, such as the across-the-board attack on federal rights and the roll-back of federal social safety nets. As part of its work to develop the use of U.N. and regional mechanisms by domestic activists, HRI worked with the U.S. Human Rights Network to coordinate and provide technical support for domestic organizations interested in participating in the review of U.S. treaty compliance by the UN CERD Committee.

The BHRH Lawyers' Network serves as a forum for information sharing, strategic discussions and relationship building. The Network held its  Spring 2010 Network Meeting on May 25, 2010. The meeting was preceded by an international legal research training session with Kyle Courtney, Reference/Electronic Services Librarian at Northeastern University School of Law.  We are pleased to share Kyle's PowerPoint presentation and research training outline.

The Fall 2009 Network meeting was held on October 8, 2009. Attending members included representatives from law school human rights programs, international human rights groups and civil rights groups. The meeting was followed by a panel on Human Rights and Detention featuring Sir Nigel Rodley and a number of U.S. attorneys working on different aspects of detention.

The Network also held its annual meeting with staff of the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights (IACHR) on October 26, 2009. The newly formed Inter-American Working Group also met with representatives of the U.S. State Department for the first time.
HRI continues to grow the Lawyers' Network membership. If you would like to join the Network and the new listserv, please contact Vicki Esquivel-Korsiak at vesqui@law.columbia.edu.

International Human Rights Law

According to freemylife.com, International human rights law is a system of laws, domestic, regional, and international designed to promote human rights. Human rights law is made up of various international human rights instruments which are binding to its parties.

An important concept within human rights law is that of universal jurisdiction. This concept, is not widely accepted, is that any nation is authorized to prosecute and punish violations of human rights wherever and whenever that may have occurred. Some customary norms in human rights law are also recognized and these are considered binding on all nations, even if they have not ratified any relevant treaties. International human rights law is carried out on a domestic level and nation states that ratify international human rights law treaties, commit themselves to enact domestic human rights legislations. In addition to international human rights law, human rights law has been created on a regional level. These three main regional statutes regarding international human rights law are African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, the American Convention on Human rights, and the European Convention on Human Rights. International human rights law is related to, but not the same as international humanitarian law, and refugee law. Areas such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide have their own treaty laws.

The premier ruling on international human rights law is the Universal Declaration of Human rights. While this charter is not a form of legally binding international human rights law, it is the status quo on this topic. Some legal experts postulate that the UDHR is the basis for customary international law, and has become the premier reference in international human rights law. The international human rights law movement began after WWII and was strengthened when the United nations General Assembly adopted the UDHR. International human rights treaties and other instruments adopted have granted legal form on innate human rights and developed the body of international human rights law.

Under international human rights law, there are clear obligations that states are bout to respect and by becoming a part of international treaties, nations are signing on to do their part to protect international human rights law. There is a struggle in many places of the world where these laws are not being upheld. Currently, places such as the Darfur region in Sudan and Sierra Leone are extremely volatile with a great deal of political unrest. There humans are being denied their very basic rights therefore it is quite imperative that international human rights law exists and that there is an international forum in which to try criminals to violate these laws.