Debating Human Rights

Debating Human Rights recently had the opportunity to sit down with Franco-Iranian photojournalist Reza Deghati. Reza has been photographing and traveling the world for decades, sharing his insights into the places he photographs and the people he meets. More recently, Reza served as a consultant to the United Nations in Afghanistan and has turned to advocacy work. In 2006, National Geographic awarded him with a fellowship. We are grateful he has taken the time to share his insights with us about the changing world that is unfolding in such unpredictable ways.

What follows is an excerpt from our interview. In it, Reza explores the implications of the kinds of citizen journalism we are seeing in the Middle East and North Africa.

by Ebba Lekvall

In the last few months, rumors have circulated about the possibility of offering Muammar Qaddafi amnesty if he steps down. While the rebel leaders have declared their opposition to the idea, it now seems that both France and the United Kingdom may be open to the idea of pardoning the estranged dictator. Perhaps from a political perspective, amnesty in exchange for Qaddafi relinquishing power would be a good deal since it would most likely mean that foreign troops (mostly British and French) would be able to withdraw from this conflict – one that has already extended far beyond anyone’s imagination when the operation was launched in March this year. However, from an international legal and justice perspective, offering Qaddafi amnesty would be highly detrimental. Amnesty would mean completely undermining the international community’s efforts to end impunity, it would thwart the interests of victims in receiving justice, and contrary to popular argument, it would not actually provide a long-lasting and stable peace. Furthermore, amnesty for the crimes of which Qaddafi is accused is a direct violation of international human rights law.  Continue reading →

by Ebba Lekvall

With the arrest of Goran Hadžić on July 20 this year and his transfer to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the last remaining war crimes suspect on the ICTY’s list will be brought to justice after seven years on the run. The tribunal will be able to close its doors after almost 20 years of working to prosecute those most responsible for the atrocities during the wars of the former Yugoslavia. The tribunal has endeavored to deliver justice to victims, and has served as a catalyst for the recent development in the area of international criminal law. Continue reading →

On 5 July, six days before the 16^th anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre that killed 7,000 to 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys, an appeals chamber in the Netherlands handed down an unexpected and historic verdict that for the first time found a state responsible for conduct in a UN peacekeeping mission.  The case (Nuhanović v. The Netherlands) involved the deaths of three Muslim men handed over to Bosnian Serb forces by Dutch peacekeepers at the UN compound near Srebrenica during the 1992-1995 Balkan conflicts.  The decision was celebrated by human rights groups but may have far reaching effects on the willingness of states to contribute troops to UN peacekeeping missions and may influence other cases involving UN and state responsibility for Srebrenica.  In addition, the ruling brings to light larger questions about the accepted status quo of immunity for UN peacekeeping forces. Continue reading →

By Matthew Gillett

Debating Human Rights is is proud to welcome Mr. Matthew Gillett from the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia as this week’s guest blogger

“Now, as a result of this disaster, lives have been lost, businesses have been decimated, communities that had already known great hardship now face the specter of sudden and painful economic dislocations, untold damage is being done to the environment; damage that could last for decades”

Press statement by President Barrack Obama following BP Gulf Oil Spill, 1 June 2010

The world faces an environmental threat of catastrophic potential. Climate change, deforestation, loss of biological diversity and pollution are increasingly ravaging the planet.  President Obama’s words convey the destruction wrought on the American people and the local environment following the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.  Irrespective of whether or not BP or its representatives could face criminal charges for that disaster, it demonstrates the destructive capabilities of mankind.  One potential mechanism for addressing and seeking to curb examples of egregious damage inflicted on the environment is international criminal law. Despite the rapid development of international criminal law over the lasts two decades, prosecutions at the international level of those responsible for severe environmental destruction have remained rare and have not resulted in convictions.  Nonetheless, with other efforts to address environmental damage stalling, it is worth considering the increased use of international criminal law as an additional tool to confront extreme cases of environmental damage of concern to the international community.

Continue reading →

by Dr. Philipp Ambach*

Debating Human Rights is proud to welcome Dr. iur. Philipp Ambach, Special Assistant to the President of the International Criminal Court as this week’s guest blogger.

One of the cornerstones of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (hereinafter “Court”) is the principle of complementarity. Contained in Article 17(1)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute of the Court (“Statute”), the principle of complementarity stipulates that it is the duty of every state to exercise criminal jurisdiction over those responsible of international crimes,[1] and more concretely perpetrators of the crimes enlisted in Article 5 of the Statute.[2] Only when states fail to fulfil their duty in this regard will the court step in and exercise jurisdiction.

Continue reading →

by Alexia Solomou

Debating Human Rights is proud to welcome Ms. Alexia Solomou from the International Court of Justice as this week’s guest blogger.

The advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (hereinafter the “Court”) regarding the accordance with international law of the unilateral declaration of independence in respect of Kosovo has been the subject of voluminous academic commentary since the date of its delivery. The aim of this commentary is to provide a concise understanding of this advisory opinion, providing an incisive critique of the majority opinion of the Court, and a reiteration of the cornerstone general principle of international law of territorial integrity. First, this commentary sets out the question posed to the Court by the General Assembly of the United Nations (hereinafter, the “General Assembly”). Second, it explains how the interpretation of this question by the majority of the Court constituted an actual reformulation of the question. Third, it briefly sets out the applicable sources of international law in this specific advisory opinion, namely Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999),[1] and the general principles of international law of territorial integrity and self-determination. Finally, it acutely analyses the majority opinion of the Court, challenging it both on methodological and substantive grounds. Continue reading →