Search

Begin New Search Topic Human Rights Publication Year within 1 Year

31. Enhancing synergies between peacebuilding and human rights interventions of the Africa Union (AU)

Author:
Ojot Miru Ojulu
Publication Date:
03-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Conflict Trends
Institution:
The African Centre for the Constructive Resolution of Disputes (ACCORD)
Abstract:
Maintaining international peace and promoting the development and protection of human rights are three pillars upon which the United Nations (UN) is founded. This innate relationship between peacebuilding and human rights has been underscored several times by the UN. For instance, addressing the UN Security Council on 18 April 2017, UN Secretary-General António Guterres said, ‘upholding human rights is a crucial element of [conflict] prevention’ and ‘human rights are intrinsically linked to sustaining peace.’1 For the African Union (AU), the promotion of peace, security, and stability, on the one hand, and the promotion and protection of human and peoples’ rights, on the other hand, are among its key objectives.2 Despite this intrinsic relationship between peacebuilding and human rights, less attention has been given to mainstreaming this relationship into the decisions, interventions, and institutions of the AU. This article aims to shed light on the nexus between peace and human rights and why it is important for sustainable peace on the continent. In the first section, the article will analyse the peacebuilding and human rights nexus, and then the second section will zoom in on key peacebuilding and human rights frameworks under the AU. Finally, the article will highlight how peacebuilding and human rights could be better integrated under the AU frameworks and operations.
Topic:
Development, Human Rights, African Union, and Peacebuilding
Political Geography:
Africa

32. China’s Responsibility, and Ours: The Persecution and Neglect of Stateless North Korean Children

Author:
Rob York, Hannah Cole, and Kaylin Kim
Publication Date:
06-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Pacific Forum
Abstract:
What happens to the children of North Korean women who are born in China? What happens when they remain in China, or when they escape to other countries? It is believed that as many as 300,000 North Koreans have fled the country—most of them since the famine of the 1990s, and most of them women. To address China’s “bare branches”—its much larger population of young men than young women—North Korean women are often sold to young Chinese men as brides. The children of these brides will be born stateless, lack legal rights, and face the ever-present danger of their mothers’ deportation back to North Korea because they are considered illegal immigrants in China. These unique challenges persist, despite China being a party to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, among other international treaties. Even those children that eventually escape to third-party countries are haunted by their status, as their statelessness caused legal hindrances to their ability to settle and, specifically in South Korea, deprives them of government assistance. This study documents the treatment of “stateless” children born to North Korean and Chinese parents. It delineates the factors that contribute to their mistreatment—China’s unwillingness to anger the North Korean government, South Korea’s growing disinterest in North Korean defectors, and a lack of formal networks for North Korean defectors elsewhere. It further finds that, with China openly hostile toward “meddling” in its internal affairs, the most likely source of relief for these children will be a change in attitudes among South Koreans, the United States, and their allies and partners, resulting in conscious effort by their governments and civil societies to help them, both financially and in assisting with their assimilation.
Topic:
Human Rights, International Law, Children, and Statelessness
Political Geography:
China, Asia, and North Korea

33. Exploring the Effectiveness of the Human Rights Court in Indonesia: A Call for Humanitarian Action

Author:
Ria Wierma Putri, Yunita Maya Putri, and Eddy Rifai
Publication Date:
07-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Liberty and International Affairs
Institution:
Institute for Research and European Studies (IRES)
Abstract:
Indonesia’s Human Rights Court, established under Law No. 26/2000, has faced criticism due to persistent unresolved cases, highlighting flaws in its legal foundation. The Court’s performance revealed that Indonesia has been ineffective in resolving serious human rights violation cases. This research emphasizes two main points: 1) exploring human rights enforcement in Indonesia based on the effectiveness of the Human Rights Court’s performance, and 2) scrutinizing the context of humanitarian intervention in cases of gross human rights violations in Indonesia. The article utilized a normative juridical research approach, followed by a descriptive analysis through a literature study. The research illustrated that human rights enforcement in Indonesia was inadequate, often stalling at the inquiry stage. Trials for the 1984 Tanjung Priok massacre, East Timor, and Abepura resulted in acquittals, raising doubts about the effectiveness of the Human Rights Court’s Law (No. 26/2000). Furthermore, humanitarian intervention was deemed necessary to address these unresolved violations, viewed not as a violation of sovereignty but as a means to enhance human rights protection. This requires national and international cooperation, focusing on resolving cases rather than debating jurisdiction.
Topic:
Human Rights, Courts, Humanitarian Intervention, and International Humanitarian Law (IHL)
Political Geography:
Indonesia and Southeast Asia

34. Potential Effects and Concerns of the Agreement Between Italy and Albania on Managing Migratory Flows

Author:
Rrezart Bushati and Emanuela Furramani
Publication Date:
09-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Liberty and International Affairs
Institution:
Institute for Research and European Studies (IRES)
Abstract:
The recent Memorandum of Understanding concluded between Italy and Albania for cooperation in the migration field has caused strong criticism. This agreement has raised many doubts regarding its compliance with the Albanian Constitution, specifically concerning the procedure required for concluding international agreements relating to the concession of the territory to foreign powers and the protection of human rights. Recently, the Albanian Constitutional Court decided that the Protocol does not violate the Constitution. This study aims to highlight the critical issues related to fundamental rights protection, particularly regarding the issue of which state will be responsible for human rights protection according to the ECHR. Another profile to consider is the determination of Albania as a safe place, considering that the agreement aims to transfer people rescued in international waters by Italian military vessels into Albanian territory.
Topic:
Human Rights, Migration, Treaties and Agreements, and Search and Rescue
Political Geography:
Europe, Albania, and Italy

35. Remedying a Legal Black Hole: The Future of Human Rights Jurisdiction in the Mediterranean Sea

Author:
Alison Beuscher
Publication Date:
02-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Institution:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Abstract:
The coastal States of the Mediterranean Sea tend toward a steady decrease in their search and rescue capacities. When a migrant boat sends out a distress signal, many ships in its vicinity either ignore it, merely observe the ship, or even move away from it. Rather than allowing people in distress onto rescue boats, the coastal States control the activity from a distance via, for example, mere distress calls. This lack of action occurs despite their legal obligation to protect under the law of the sea. Due to a maritime legal black hole, those stranded are effectively rendered rightless. This article examines whether a new jurisdictional approach may serve as a remedy and explores an intermediate design. It will assess this jurisdictional approach based on progressive Inter-American Court of Human Rights and Human Rights Committee cases while bearing in mind potential advantages and drawbacks.
Topic:
Human Rights, Migration, Law of the Sea, and Jurisdiction
Political Geography:
Europe and Mediterranean

36. Containing the Containment: Using Art. 16 ASR to Overcome Accountability Gaps in Delegated Migration Control

Author:
Almut Möller
Publication Date:
02-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Institution:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Abstract:
When the European Court of Human Rights found Italy responsible for push-backs on the high seas in Hirsi Jamaa based on Italy’s effective control over the individuals, it simultaneously solidified the concept of jurisdiction as a prerequisite of human rights obligations and provided States with deeper knowledge on how to avoid responsibility. Since then, instead of pushing the migrants back themselves, destination States increasingly delegate the task of migration control to third States. Under the guise of “capacity building”, they fund, train, and equip third States to exercise containment measures and carry out pull-backs. By way of bilateral agreements, destination States remain in control of the migration flow while avoiding any direct contact with the migrants that would trigger their human rights obligations. One example for this is the Italian-Libyan cooperation under the 2017 Memorandum of Understanding, which was renewed in 2020. Migrants intercepted by Libya are systematically detained in prisons under horrific conditions, which is in clear violation of their human rights. The present article explores ways to allocate responsibility on destination States for their involvement in those human rights violations notwithstanding the lack of jurisdiction. In particular, the article deals with the question whether the general international law of State responsibility is applicable alongside international human rights law. Responsibility for complicity, as lined out in Art. 16 of the Articles on State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts, is compared to the concept of due diligence obligations in international human rights law, dismissing the claim that the latter poses lex specialis. Subsequently, Art. 16 ASR’s substantive requirements are applied to the case study in order to test the provision’s capability to overcome the accountability gap.
Topic:
Human Rights, International Law, Migration, Accountability, and European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)
Political Geography:
Europe, Libya, and Italy

37. Nigerien Law 2015-36: How a New Narrative in the Fight Against Smugglers Affects the Right to Leave a Country

Author:
Sarah Isabel Pfeiffer
Publication Date:
02-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Institution:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Abstract:
In 2015, the Republic of the Niger adopted an anti-migrant smuggling law (Law 2015-36) with direct involvement of the European Union (EU). Since then, concerns have been raised that this law constitutes a de facto travel ban for anyone moving northwards from Niger. Rather than addressing the involvement of the EU, this article will focus on the direct obligations of Niger, including those set by regional human rights agreements, as the country where the so-called cooperative migration control takes place. People on the move towards Libya will be a special focus as the most affected by the Nigerien law. First, the Nigerien law and its provisions will be described, in order to then assess whether the law and its application infringe the human right to leave any country including one’s own. Drawing from the findings of non-governmental organizations and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants, this article argues that Law 2015- 36 renders it impossible for non-Nigerien nationals to leave the country without risking their life and safety. Thus, Law 2015-36 infringes the right to leave. The third part explores possible justifications for the law with a focus on the interests of people on the move, the interests of bordering States, and national interests. It finds that Law 2015-36 is disproportionate and, in fact, impairs the essence of the right to leave, resulting in an unjustified interference. The concluding fourth part contains recommendations for possible amendments to the law.
Topic:
Human Rights, International Law, Migration, European Union, Smuggling, and Irregular Migration
Political Geography:
Africa, Europe, and Nigeria

38. Multilateralism Index 2024

Author:
Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP)
Publication Date:
10-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Institute for Economics & Peace (IEP)
Abstract:
There are growing calls to transform the multilateral system, which is widely seen as being in crisis. Yet solving the crisis of multilateralism requires understanding what that crisis entails. What parts of the multilateral system are in crisis, and what parts are still functioning? Where is commitment to multilateralism flagging, and where does it remain strong? Where is multilateral action failing to translate into concrete results, and where is it delivering? Who is being left out of multilateral engagement, and who is being included? And what are the trends over time? To help answer these questions, the International Peace Institute (IPI) and the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP) developed the Multilateralism Index. This 2024 edition of the Index assesses changes in international cooperation between 2013 and 2023 across five domains: Peace and Security, Human Rights, Climate Action, Public Health, and Trade. Each domain is evaluated across three dimensions: Participation, Performance, and Inclusivity
Topic:
Security, Climate Change, Human Rights, Multilateralism, Peace, Trade, Public Health, and International Order
Political Geography:
Global Focus

39. The US Should Support the National Resistance Front of Afghanistan

Author:
Luke Coffey
Publication Date:
08-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Hudson Institute
Abstract:
More than three years ago, the Taliban swept back into power in Afghanistan after a two-decade insurgency against the internationally backed Afghan government. Since then, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated considerably. The country faces an acute humanitarian crisis affecting millions and has once again become a haven for transnational terrorism. This tragic outcome was not inevitable, and it is worth reviewing recent history. Starting in 2014, United States troops in Afghanistan were no longer leading daily combat operations but were instead primarily training the Afghan military. When President Donald Trump entered office in January 2017, there were only 11,000 US troops in Afghanistan conducting the counterterrorism and training mission. This was down from a peak of 100,000 troops in 2010–11. In February 2020, Trump agreed to a deal with the Taliban that would have seen the phased withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan by May 2021. This agreement was the starting point of the Afghan government’s collapse and the Taliban’s return to power in August 2021. In January 2021, when President Joe Biden entered office, there were only 2,500 US troops in Afghanistan. Crucially, the US still provided close air support for Afghan forces. While this was not enough troops to ensure that the Afghan government could control the whole country, it was enough for the US to meet its counterterrorism objectives and prevent the Taliban from taking power. Instead of canceling the flawed withdrawal agreement with the Taliban—something that was in Biden’s power to do—the president merely delayed the date from May to September. On July 2 the US departed the strategically located and geopolitically important Bagram Airfield in the middle of the night without warning its Afghan partners. Around the same time, the US stopped providing Afghan troops with close air support. By the end of July, almost all US and international forces had left the country. On August 6, 2021, the Taliban captured Zaranj, the capital of Nimroz Province. This was the first time in almost 20 years that the terror group had successfully captured and held one of Afghanistan’s 34 provincial capitals. Soon after, government-controlled capitals started falling like dominos. The Taliban finally captured Kabul on August 15. By September 11—the twentieth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks—the Taliban controlled more of Afghanistan than it did on that day in 2001. Since the Taliban’s return to power, only one credible and non-extremist group has been willing to take up arms in opposition: the National Resistance Front (NRF) of Afghanistan, led by Ahmad Massoud. Based in the Panjshir Province and operating in more than a dozen other provinces, the NRF has continued to fight against the Taliban against all odds and without any international support. Though there is no longer an American presence in Afghanistan, the country remains geopolitically important. Afghanistan’s location in the heart of the Eurasian landmass has made it strategically significant in great power competition throughout the nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first centuries. There is no reason to assume this will change anytime soon. The Biden administration’s actions have left the US without many good policy options in Afghanistan. Furthermore, many Afghans remain distrustful of the White House. But a new US administration will have an opportunity to reset American policy toward the country.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Human Rights, Terrorism, Taliban, Democracy, and National Resistance Front
Political Geography:
Afghanistan and South Asia

40. R2P Monitor, Issue 68, 1 March 2024

Author:
Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Publication Date:
03-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Abstract:
R2P Monitor is a quarterly publication applying the atrocity prevention lens to populations at risk of mass atrocities around the world. Issue 68 looks at developments in Afghanistan, Central Sahel (Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger), China, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Haiti, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Myanmar (Burma), Nicaragua, Nigeria, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela, Cameroon, Central African Republic, South Sudan and Yemen.
Topic:
Human Rights, International Law, Responsibility to Protect (R2P), and Atrocity Prevention
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, China, Sudan, Ukraine, Israel, North Korea, Yemen, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Palestine, Nicaragua, Haiti, Syria, Venezuela, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Myanmar, South Sudan, Cameroon, Sahel, Central African Republic, and Global Focus