Mar 27 2015

The promise of eradicating poverty through human rights

Leave a comment

Rafael Silva is a senior human rights lawyer at the Research Centre of the Chilean Supreme Court, and was formerly Director of Techo-Chile in the Region of Valparaiso. He holds an LLM with a specialism in Human Rights from LSE. This is the second in a series of posts Rafael is writing about human rights and global poverty.

Urban poverty in Jakarta, Indonesia (photograph: J. McIntosh)

Urban poverty in Jakarta, Indonesia (photograph: J. McIntosh)

Certainly the most relevant contribution of human rights to the struggle against poverty is the introduction of a new logic to understand and to face this problem. Replacing the language of opportunities (characteristic of neoliberal approaches) with one of rights means that development is no longer a chance that benefits exclusively those who are able to demonstrate specific abilities or to conduct particular actions. Instead, it is a universal entitlement, especially for those unable to satisfy their most basic needs, and a legal obligation for those who are in a position to respect, to protect and/or to fulfil these entitlements.

The result of this new logic is that the eradication of poverty is now a mandatory legal aim for governments and non-state actors supported by a set of national and international law instruments and principles that demand the inclusion of all, not only of those who are functional to economic growth. Nevertheless, an effective deployment of the logic of rights has been obstructed in a manner that affects its essential features while undermining its impact. Especially, the role of duty-bearers and rights-holders has not been fully developed as in other kind of legal relations, either for lack of understanding of its particularities or of willingness.

Human rights obligations have usually been understood as binding legal duties exclusively to states, leaving non-state actors out of the equation. But the current economic global order has highlighted the role of non-state actors in the delivery of welfare. When transnational companies surpass the economic power and political influence of some developing countries, it is essential to hold them accountable for the human impact of their actions. Otherwise, as it has been experienced through the financial crises of the last decade, it will create a legal vacuum where human rights are being massively violated with no one being accountable, leaving their universal enjoyment as illusory. At this point, it deserves to be mentioned that the UN has attempted to establish a framework that sanctions and compensates the negative human rights impact of business. Although, it is still a weak framework that does not establish a mandatory set of legal obligations for corporations, it is certainly a step towards the recognition of a normative rhetoric against the impunity of these entities.

On the other side, the notion of the most excluded as rights-holders of legal entitlements that can satisfy their most basic needs has the capacity to create profound social transformation. First it has the empowering potential to enhance their protagonism towards their development, and secondly, it is particularly valuable when it is capable of breaking the status quo and the position of the poor as losers of the system established by the pace and decisions adopted by ruling elites. However, the logic of rights has been distorted through the inclusion of alien elements that directly affect the quality and effectiveness of the human rights (particularly social rights) that are held by people living in poverty. For instance, the process of commodification undermines the position of the most excluded, who are no longer perceived as citizens but as customers whose development will exclusively depend on their purchasing power. This model considers distribution as a political-economic issue instead of a legal matter. This will mean that the decisions adopted in this regard are based on the ´market´ that is presented as an abstraction that is technical, anonymous and incapable to produce social harm, consequently, not subject to legal responsibility.

In a similar vein, political actors have affected the efficiency of social rights in poverty eradication establishing their conditionality. The discourse of citizenship that promotes the individual not just as a rights-holder, but also as a duty-bearer, could be convenient to enforce behaviours that are probably desirable for a given society. But, when the execution of a specific action is the condition to satisfy basic needs it could easily lead to the establishment of a framework for social control where the ruling elites employ social rights to regulate the behaviour of the poor.

The deprivation of essential attributes of social rights through commodification or conditionality impedes the empowerment of the most marginalised based on a language of rights, basically because entitlements will not be used to satisfy their basic needs, instead to enhance the market and to control their behaviour. Moreover, this approach would only foster capitalism while undermining individuals. These welfare systems (according to Marxist criticism) would only ensure that citizens are able to satisfy the demands of companies, using public expending to guarantee the production of mentally and physically suitable workers. As a consequence, through ideologically loaded social provisions, the state would aim to transform citizens into wage-labourers.

However, arguably, the most harmful deprivation of social rights attributes is the questioning on their legal enforceability. Some arguments to impede the proliferation of social rights litigation comprise the imperfect obligations they would originate, the non-democratic intrusion of courts in political affairs, and even the unlikelihood to achieve pro-poor involvement of judges. Nevertheless, it is difficult to deny the practical value of judicial strategies of social development when we focus on the needs of the poor and on effective and inclusive strategies of poverty eradication, rather than theoretical legal debates. Under a framework of entitlements and duties, it becomes fundamental to establish an accessible and efficient mechanism of judicial redress, because it is necessary to hold accountable those who violate human rights, maintaining the rule of law and democracy. But, more importantly, it has the potential to foster social change by empowering the poor, introducing human rights standards in social policies and  breaking the status quo in the distribution of resources and power.

For example, the experience on right to food litigation in Camotan (a rural council in Guatemala), the first of its kind in Latin America, has shown the different levels of impact of social rights litigation on jurisprudence and rights realisation. At a recognition level, the Guatemalan tribunal has reasserted the poor as a right holder. It has concluded that the undernourishment of children is not the result of personal failures or negligence of their parents, but the result of a violation of social rights because the state did not adopt the necessary measures to fulfil its legal obligations. At a political level, human rights standards must be taken into consideration in the design and implementation of social policies. In a settlement as Camotan, with 89 per cent of its population living in poverty, those who experience severe deprivation need strong legal and political mechanisms to break a reality that seems predestined and to call the attention of political elites to represent their interests. Irrespective of the initial reticence of the Guatemalan authorities to comply with the 22 measures ordered by the tribunal, the withdrawal of the appeals and the progressive compliance of the measures can contribute to a rights-based comprehension of poverty.

The human rights approach is certainly neither the panacea nor the definitive solution for defeating poverty. Indeed, it needs to urgently overcome the series of obstacles that have been described in this article in order to reach its full deployment and stop being more a promise than a reality. But, it is definitely a framework with the potential to create social and structural transformation and to empower the poor, guaranteeing their treatment as citizens, not as subjects of charity. Also, this approach allows the identification of duty bearers, which is particularly relevant when the persistence of poverty and high rates of inequality are definitively the result of conscious decisions adopted by political elites. Maybe, for its capacity to create change in favour of the poor, it is time to seriously take this approach into consideration, particularly when adopting the international consensus that will replace the Millennium Development Goals.
Interested in the intersection of human rights, fairness and justice with economic globalisation? The Laboratory for Advanced Research on the Global Economy (based in the Centre for the Study of Human Rights) probes the challenges posed by the complexities of the global economy and their implications for human well-being.

Posted by: Posted on by Andrew Small Tagged with: , , , , ,

Mar 25 2015

Revealing the real-world benefits of the UK’s Human Rights Act

Leave a comment

Natalie Threlfall is a Human Rights Associate at the British Institute of Human Rights. Her research is focused on key developments in human rights law.

img-introIf you’ve ever thought that human rights protections are more about good intentions than practical benefit, consider the following two stories.

In 2008, a 19-year-old man with epilepsy and autism jumped into a swimming pool fully clothed. He was restrained by five police officers using handcuffs and leg restraints and was bundled into a police van. The man relied on the UK’s Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) to challenge this treatment, and the Court found that the police had breached his right to liberty and his right not to be treated in an inhuman and degrading way.

The HRA is also important in everyday situations that never go near the courtrooms. For example, Jenny*, a voluntary patient in hospital, was told she couldn’t leave the ward, as she was “not well enough”. Jenny’s advocate argued that not allowing her to leave voluntarily breached her right to liberty protected in Article 5 of the HRA. After discussions with the Ward Manager, Jenny was allowed to leave the ward – initially accompanied, then unaccompanied – and was perfectly safe.

These are just two stories. There are countless others, which you can read here. These stories show how important the HRA is in everyday situations that don’t reach the courtroom and these situations lie at the heart of the work carried out by the British Institute of Human Rights (BIHR). The HRA helps to shape our experiences with those who hold power, and it provides the rule book for our democracy. However, this important role is rarely mentioned and public commentary tends to be dominated by misreported untruths about human rights. As the 2015 General Election approaches, this negative commentary will unfortunately fuel and reinforce the loud voices calling to scrap the HRA.

Given the recent climate of confusion about the HRA, it is worth noting how it can help real people achieve real outcomes. Firstly, the HRA puts a legal duty on all public authorities – including central and local government, the police, social services, NHS organisations, and state schools – to respect and protect human rights in their decisions and actions. Secondly, the HRA enables those who think officials have failed in this duty to seek a judicial remedy. Thirdly, the HRA requires all other laws and policies to be developed or applied in ways that take account of our human rights.

So, even if you think human rights laws will never have an impact in your life, they most likely already have.

This month, in an attempt to restore some balance to the debate surrounding human rights, the British Institute for Human Rights has launched a new campaign: March for Human Rights. Through the campaign, BIHR is asking people to tell us why they’re “Alright With Human Rights”. There has been a great response, with a wide range of people sharing their reasons for being Alright With Human Rights. One supporter, Rob, tweeted “#ImAlrightWithHumanRights as they are blind to class, wealth, gender, orientation, race and religion and help us safeguard life and liberty.” Chloe wrote: “#ImAlrightWithHumanRights because when protected, respected and fulfilled, they create an environment which enables human flourishing.”

To accompany this social media campaign, BIHR is also running a series of events called “Human Rights Beneath the Headlines”. At these events, we scrutinise recent news stories on human rights and check the facts to see if the whole story has been reported. Audience members can submit questions in advance about headlines or stories they’ve read, and can participate in discussions on the night.

Through our March for Human Rights campaign, we are providing a much needed space for people who are alright with human rights to speak up and join together and to find out more about human rights. Human rights can and should be a powerful source of unity – not of division.

The next “Human Rights Beneath the Headlines” event in London is due to take place on 29 April 2015. If you’d like to participate, book your free place here.

You can join the BIHR campaign by downloading this flier, and posting why #ImAlrightWithHumanRights on social media.

*Name changed to protect anonymity.

Posted by: Posted on by Andrew Small Tagged with: , , , , ,

Mar 18 2015

Why We Must Talk About FGM Today

Leave a comment

Lyndsey Jefferson is a graduate of the LSE MSc Human Rights programme (2012-2013). She is an activist for women and girls’ rights currently working for The Girl Generation. She also previously worked as a researcher in the UK Parliament. You can follow her on twitter @lyndseyj. This article originally appeared in Standard Issue.

Caroline Crawford and Lyndsey Jefferson campaigning for The Girl Generation

Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is not an easy subject to talk about. The taboo of discussing women’s genitals exists in every culture, and it can be difficult to engage with an issue that might feel far removed from one’s own individual experiences. However, each and every one of us must stop living under the illusion that FGM is not our issue.

According to the United Nations, one out of every three women in the world will personally experience physical or sexual violence. That’s one billion women. It is important to consider FGM as an expression of extreme discrimination and Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG), as the UN has already done with the 2012 resolution calling for a worldwide ban on FGM. It is also important to remember that VAWG, including FGM, are international problems that transcend cultural, religious, and economic boundaries.

FGM refers to the partial or total removal of the female genitals for non-medical reasons, with the goal of controlling a woman’s sexuality. It is usually carried out on very young girls between infancy and the age of 15. FGM is practiced in 29 countries in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, and due to migration it is also happening in Europe, North America, and Australia. The World Health Organisation has estimated that between 100 and 140 million women worldwide are currently living with the harmful effects of this practice. FGM can cause severe pain, bleeding, problems urinating and menstruating, cysts, infections, infertility, complications in childbirth, and sometimes death. The psychological effects of FGM are also severe and can cause post-traumatic stress and depression. Another study by UNICEF (pdf) found that over the next decade, 30 million more girls will be at risk. In the UK alone, over 20,000 girls under the age of 15 risk undergoing FGM each year. It’s time to start talking.

While culture and tradition are often used to justify oppressive practices, there is no justification for violating the human rights of a child. FGM is erroneously linked to religion, but it is not particular to any faith, and predates both Christianity and Islam. Here in Britain, the fear of being politically incorrect has severely undermined efforts to end FGM in the UK. FGM has been illegal in the UK since 1985, but there have yet to be any convictions. Campaigning against FGM  is not cultural imperialism – ending this harmful practice is a human rights issue. Using the right language is also crucial: FGM is an act of violence against women and girls. Full stop. We would not accept a practice of cutting off a girl’s arm for culture, so how can we be silent about FGM?

By starting an open and honest discussion about FGM, we can create an environment in which more people are comfortable talking about sexual violence. FGM is shrouded in secrecy and in the affected communities everyone plays a role upholding this practice. Women who speak out against FGM risk a strong backlash, and uncut women are often stigmatised and ostracised. This is why it is absolutely vital that women and girls feel empowered and confident to talk about FGM in order to end the cycle of shame that drives the practice underground.

FGM is one of the most important human rights issues of our time because it goes hand-in-hand with other gender equality issues, including child, early, and forced marriage (CEFM), honour-based violence, and girls’ education. Talking about FGM opens up doors to wider discussions and can be a catalyst for change. The survivors will lead the way to ending this practice, and it is our duty to listen to their stories, and be humble and ready to learn. Everyone has a part to play in making a world that is safe for girls.

We need to push ourselves to take a stand, even though it may not always be easy. The rights of girls and women are more important than feeling comfortable. As women, as men, as parents, teachers, lawyers, police officers, health professionals, and as human rights advocates – FGM is everybody’s business.

To learn more about The Girl Generation’s campaign to end FGM in one generation visit www.thegirlgeneration.org or follow them on Twitter at @TheGirlGen.

Posted by: Posted on by Andrew Small Tagged with: , , ,

Mar 16 2015

Do African-Americans have the right to internal self-determination?

Leave a comment

Sarah Fuhrman is an American attorney and LLM candidate at University College London. Her research focuses on international human rights and democracy.

Protesters in Ferguson, Missouri: August 2014

Protesters in Ferguson, Missouri: August 2014 (Photograph: Jbouie/Flickr)

On August 9 2014, Michael Brown, an African-American teenager, was killed by a white police officer. Brown’s killing – and the subsequent deaths of Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, and others – ignited a firestorm in American society.

Some feel that the American legal system is broken and thus cannot address the challenges that these events have raised. Others argue that the domestic system is working perfectly, and that it has been designed to work against blacks and other minority groups. Whichever view one takes, it is clear that the legitimacy of the American legal order is being questioned, and that it is unable to provide answers to the challenges raised against it.

If the domestic legal system is not seen as one that can effect change, one must ask what other avenues are open to minorities in America. One such option is the right to self-determination. Self-determination has been poetically described as the right of a people to “decide their own destiny“; more prosaically, it ensures a people’s right to govern themselves or to participate in their own governance. Though the right has two aspects (external and internal), most scholarship has focused on whether groups have the right to external self-determination. This is most often seen in the context of decolonisation, and the benefit of its exercise is generally total secession from the parent state, or realignment with a different one.

There has been comparatively little discussion of what benefits the internal aspect of self-determination would yield. The recent protests by African-American and black communities may provide an illustration of how internal self-determination can help address challenges to a government’s legitimacy and its systematic discrimination of some groups.

Internal self-determination does not entitle a group to secession, but ensures that they are able to participate in their own governance, and that their culture is protected. The exercise of this right may mean changes for how a particular state operates, but should not cause disruption to national borders, and would be significantly less disruptive to the international community. In the Reference re Secession of Quebec case, for example, the Supreme Court of Canada found that Quebec did not have a right to external self-determination because its demands had been satisfied through internal self-determination. The Canadian government respected the Québécois culture and allowed them a large measure of self-rule; therefore in the opinion of the Court, the interests of the community – and the country – were protected.

Should African-Americans and blacks satisfy the requirements to use the right, as outlined by Kristin Henrard in her 2012 book Devising an Adequate System of Minority Protection, a number of benefits, similar to those the Québécois enjoy,  could result. Among those benefits are the legal obligations it would impose on the U.S. government; the systematic changes that it would necessitate; and the potential for renewal of the right.

International human rights obligations are few and far between in America. Though the country has signed and ratified several human rights treaties, its numerous reservations to those instruments and failure to incorporate them into domestic law have rendered them essentially toothless. There are few enforcement mechanisms for the protection of rights outside of state and federal courts, which may or may not be effective.

This makes the right of self-determination’s customary international law character critically important. Customary international law is binding on all states in the international system, regardless of whether they have signed a treaty or not. This means that the US has more than a general duty of good governance; it is legally obligated to evaluate the claims of African-Americans and blacks and to work with them to address their concerns.

Protesters in cities across the country have done an excellent job starting dialogues in their communities and calling for reforms. But inspiring change at the federal level is a difficult task, and one that might be facilitated by the exercise of self-determination. The exercise of the right brings force to a group’s demands, and requires governments to cooperate with them. In America, this may mean setting federal policy that requires police forces to hire more persons of colour or to engage in more community-oriented models of policing. It could lead to the creation of quotas for minority groups in state and national governments. Even more broadly, it could require changes to criminal penalties and voter regulation. Clearly, the impact of internal self-determination could be felt at every level of society.

The right of internal self-determination is never exhausted. External self-determination is more limited: one can only secede so many times in so many years before it has negative effects on the people of a state and on the international community. Internal self-determination involves comparatively less risk. Rather than the group severing ties with the government, the two are forced into a dialogue. The group claiming the right can call the government’s attention to the problem as often as necessary until the group’s full right to participate in their own governance is realised.

The internal right of self-determination is still relatively new and there are many unanswered questions. These include how, for example, the African-American and black communities would enforce their right against the government if the government ignored them, and whether the government or the group would decide which measures to implement to help the group achieve self-determination. Despite these questions, internal self-determination is an underused but important right for groups around the world whose ability to participate in their own governance is unsecured.

The advantages of exercising the right have largely gone unexplored. But if one imagines the right being used by African-American and black communities in light of the Ferguson protests, one can see the right’s enormous potential for change. In the United States, this could mean everything from police reforms to revisions of criminal law to the dismantling of racist policies at the highest levels of government. Unlimited to paving the way to a group’s secession, internal self-determination can result in structural adjustments to existing states, without the potentially negative repercussions for the international system.

Posted by: Posted on by Andrew Small Tagged with: , , , , , ,

Mar 12 2015

International investment and sustainable development: the unrealised link

Leave a comment

Andrea Saldarriaga and Andrea Shemberg co-lead the Investment and Human Rights Project, an initiative of the Laboratory for Advanced Research on the Global Economy in the Centre for the Study of Human Rights at LSE.

This article was originally posted as a think piece on the Investment and Human Rights Learning Hub. It was prompted by the Project’s participation in the UNCTAD Expert Meeting on “The Transformation of the International Investment Agreement Regime” in Geneva on 25-27 February 2015. 

protesters with banners opposing TTIP

London, 12 July 2014

There is increasing momentum worldwide to reform International Investment Agreements (IIAs) and Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) driven by criticisms and concerns from governments, civil society organisations, academics, and more recently, the arbitration community itself. This past year unprecedented public protests regarding the negotiation of an international investment agreement swept across Europe, echoing concerns voiced in Latin America, Africa and Asia.

Successful reform requires a careful assessment of the issues at the core of the criticisms being expressed. Some criticisms challenge what they call the ‘imbalance’ of rights and duties for investors contained in IIAs and in ISDS. Others reflect concerns about the apparent challenge that IIAs and ISDS pose to some of the foundations of what the UN and other authorities promulgate as precepts of good governance, such as transparency and accountability. Yet much of the criticism levelled against IIAs and ISDS also reflect wider disappointments and frustrations about what international investment is delivering (or failing to deliver). While international investment creates expectations for improved prosperity and standards of living, in many contexts it has failed to deliver on this front and has also resulted in negative impacts on people and the environment.

These same frustrations have underpinned a range of key policy discussions at the international level over the last decade, including in the areas of environment, taxation, corruption and business and human rights. Indeed, John Ruggie the former Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Business and Human Rights, pointed extensively to international investment as one key area where States and businesses need to better ensure the protection of and respect for human rights.

Thus, we believe that the crisis we are witnessing is not simply a loss of legitimacy for IIAs and ISDS. Instead it is a more profound crisis reflecting the failure of international organisations, institutions, businesses, governments and others to create policies, rules, practices and norms that ensure that international investment supports environmental, social and economic goals, while reinforcing principles of good governance. We can identify in this crisis an unrealised expectation that international investment should support the values that we now often identify as sustainable development.

Accordingly, overcoming this legitimacy crisis requires more than tweaking IIAs and introducing procedural reforms of ISDS. A broader stance to reform is needed, and it should begin by reinforcing the growing consensus around the supportive role that international investment should play with respect to sustainable development. The current negotiations of the Sustainable Development Goals appear to be pointing in this direction. Legitimacy can then be restored if this shared understanding is embedded in the very purpose and substance of the policies, rules, practices and norms that govern international investment.

What does this mean for reforming IIAs and ISDS specifically? The starting place must be an examination of the values embodied in the purpose and substance of these instruments. They came about to promote and protect international investment, providing an alternative to gunboat diplomacy. The tools promote investment by protecting against the single threat of host-State interference. The key to investment promotion and protection is contained in a fairly standard set of broad legal safeguards for investors to use against host-State governments.  The structure and substance of these instruments largely embody the values of a time when the dominant world view was that international investment necessarily resulted in economic growth, that economic growth alone secured development, and that corporations had no other purpose but that of making profits. The institutions and practices that grew up around these tools similarly reflect these values. These values and the practices and instruments that adhere to them are not aligned to what we now know to be true about achieving sustainable development.

Today we know that profitable international investment does not necessarily drive economic growth in host States, and we know that economic growth does not necessarily result in development, especially when it is achieved at the cost of people and the environment. Since 2011 we have an international consensus that companies have a responsibility to respect human rights in all of their activities and in every country where they operate. Moreover, the current body research provides inconclusive evidence as to whether IIAs are a useful tool for increasing international investment flows, and institutions like the OECD are now warning States about the financial, reputational and political risks of signing IIAs, especially in light of these dubious benefits.

These observations beg a number of questions.

  • If we have a shared understanding that international investment should support sustainable development, what does this mean for the shape of these tools? Is it possible for the tools to remain largely as we know them today but embody new values that underpin sustainable development? Or, on the contrary, do we need an entirely new design?
  • There is growing evidence that in addition to managing political risk, the management of social and environmental risks is key to the success of an investment. How does this understanding shape our ideas about what ‘promotion and protection’ could mean? How should the need to reduce negative impacts on people and the environment shape the design of international investment tools?
  • IIAs and ISDS were meant in part to serve the interests of host States by helping them attract international investment to drive development. Given what we know now about IIAs, international investment flows and resulting development, what does this imply for how these tools can better serve host States’ interests in achieving sustainable development? Moreover, how can these tools respond to the varying development needs of host States over time?

These are just some of the fundamental questions that need to be addressed if there is to be a meaningful reform of IIAs and ISDS.  At the Investment and Human Rights Project we are working to catalyse research and thinking around these ideas. 

 

Visit the Investment and Human Rights Learning Hub to explore the connections between investment and human rights, find relevant resources in the toolboxes, watch learning videos and read expert articles on a range of investment and human rights themes.

Posted by: Posted on by Zoe Gillard Tagged with: , , ,

Mar 11 2015

The Elephant in the Room: Human rights and the Mexico-UK “dual year”

Leave a comment

David Pérez Esparza researches security, crime and violence. He has participated in #PropuestaMx, which aims to enrich security and human rights policies in Mexico. He is currently pursuing a PhD in the Security Sciences Department at University College London.

246805948_c436365936_z

Human rights: an elephant in the room or an opportunity for reform? (Photograph: BitBoy/Flickr)

Last week, Mexico’s President Enrique Peña Nieto was on a three-day state visit to the UK. This official visit – which included audiences with the Queen, Prime Minister David Cameron and other high-ranking politicians in the UK – is special for both countries. In fact, 2015 is being promoted as a “dual year” celebrating their bilateral relations.

Mexican flags all over London are clear signs of this celebration. On Tuesday 3 March, Her Majesty made a speech referring to the “long and enduring friendship” between the UK and Mexico. “We remain proud to have been the first European country to recognise Mexican independence”, she said. Events happening during this dual year of Mexico in the UK and the UK in Mexico are the tangible result of this long-term relationship.

Nevertheless, what British and Mexican citizens would normally have seen as positive is now raising concerns on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. President Peña Nieto, who took office in December 2012 with a very intense economic reform agenda, is now doing his best to avoid talking about what Mexicans care about the most: insecurity, corruption and human rights violations. These issues are also not a significant part of the bilateral agenda.

Not surprisingly, many activists interested in the human rights situation in Mexico are upset with British officials for allowing this to happen. In the Joint Declaration signed by the two countries during the visit, for instance, human rights concerns accounted for just one short 62-word paragraph in the 3,100 word document. The UK has been very strict with other countries in similar conditions and activists simply do not understand why Mexico would be considered an exception.

With this in mind, organisations like Justice Now, Yosoy132, London Solidarity Group, Amnesty International and many others prepared demonstrations outside Downing Street during the official visit. The demand remains clear: Mexican authorities should commit to transform institutions and make the rule of law a reality, not just a nice expression to be used in public speeches. To British authorities, the demand is to raise pressure to promote such a transformation.

Some might ask whether the protesters are exaggerating. But recent figures regarding insecurity, corruption and human rights violations in Mexico prove that they are not. Crime data, for instance, does not support any possible optimistic position. Although the national official death toll has fallen, the reduction has been slight and only in some regions. And homicides are not the only problem. Other crimes are increasing even in formerly peaceful regions. The Federal Government has admitted that kidnapping, violent robberies and extortion rates have risen dramatically, a situation particularly evident in some regions.

Data reveals these facts clearly. In 2011, the national victimization survey (ENVIPE) revealed that more than 23,000 crimes had occurred for every 100,000 inhabitants. By 2014, ENVIPE reported more than 28,000 – a substantial increase of 18 per cent. Nearly 11 million households reported that they have been victims of crime at least once during 2013. The cost of crime is also increasing. From this survey, it can be estimated that the economic losses sustained by the Mexican public associated with criminal activity represent 213.1 billion pesos, or 1.27 percent of Mexico’s total GDP. All official attempts to diminish the issue fall under the weight of reality: for the fourth consecutive year, there were more crimes than the previous year.

In addition to the increase in violent crime in some regions, there are other problems that President Peña Nieto did not address in London. Recently, a scandal erupted when it emerged that the President’s wife, Angelica Rivera, had bought a luxury mansion from a subsidiary of the company associated with Mexico’s first high-speed rail contract. And in December 2014, it was revealed that Mexico’s Finance Minister, Luis Videgaray, had bought a mansion with preferential conditions from a subsidiary of the same company. Both of these cases represent conflicts of interest that should not be neglected.

Perhaps worse than these allegations of corruption, Mexico’s human rights record reveals that there is nothing to celebrate but much to protest. During the previous administration (2006-2012) an estimated 80,000 people were murdered in Mexico and more than 20,000 disappeared. Torture has increased by 600 per cent between 2003 and 2013, and arbitrary detentions and fabricated evidence cases are still common. Furthermore, Ciudad Juárez, in the Northern state of Chihuahua in Mexico, was the most violent city in the world for three consecutive years.

Unfortunately, since President Peña Nieto came into power, problems have persisted and in some cases become worse. Some estimates suggest that 25,000 more have been killed during the first 14 months of his administration. Hundreds are missing and more than 150 illegal mass graves have been found. Furthermore, impunity levels remain remarkably high and many other problems like gender-homicides and the widespread killing of journalists are officially ignored.

Probably the most high-profile case is the one of the 43 students of a rural teaching college in Ayotzinapa who disappeared due to alleged local police complicity with organised criminals in September 2014. Although civil society around the world campaigned widely on the issue, the Federal Government in Mexico closed the investigation without any conclusive evidence. President Peña Nieto stated at the time that Mexico “cannot remain trapped in [this case]”. He later proposed a policy response to tackle corruption among police and local government, however there are questions as to whether these changes will be voted in before elections in late 2015.

It is true that Mexico is much more than just a country experiencing problems with crime and human rights violations. It is equally true, however, that reality cannot be ignored and problems will not be solved on their own. This is the best opportunity for Britain to do more and enhance accountability, rule of law and human rights protection as key elements of the “dual year” agenda.

Posted by: Posted on by Andrew Small Tagged with: , ,

Mar 4 2015

Drumming out resistance in Japan: writing back Burakumin identity through music

Leave a comment

Noémie Adam is an alumna of the LSE MSc Human Rights programme (2013/14). She researches and writes on human rights and civil liberties in the UK, Europe and Japan.

Ikari drumming group (source: taikofestival.org.uk)

Ikari drumming group (source: taikofestival.org.uk)

“Burakumin maggots… kill eta filth… burakumin have four legs… buraku people cause AIDS…”

Recent graffiti recorded by Alasdair McLaughlan is a powerful reminder of the resilience of anti-Burakumin discrimination in 21st century Japan.

Yet, who are the Burakumin? Most people in Japan will know little, if anything, about this social minority, despite them numbering between 1 and 3 million people. Burakumin are largely ignored today, partly due to governmental policies that can be traced to the Meiji period (1868-1912). These policies focused on the assimilation of ethnic and social minorities to facilitate the creation of a mono-ethnic and mono-cultural national Japanese identity.

Human rights, minority rights and cultural approaches have failed in emancipating the Burakumin in Japanese society. However, an innovative taiko drumming group named Ikari has succeeded. Ikari specifically identify themselves as Burakumin taiko players – something previously unheard of. This allows the Burakumin to be written back into a narrative that historically silenced them.

The Burakumin minority: an ambivalent emancipation

The Burakumin are descendants of the Eta (“extreme filth”) and Hinin (“non-human”) castes from feudal Edo Japan, a period which dated from 1603 to 1868. These castes, akin to the ‘untouchable’ Dalit castes in India, were abolished by the Eta Emancipation Edict 1871 in order to assimilate them into mainstream society. This was reinforced by post-1968 policies in modern Japan specifically targeting the Burakumin. These policies have enabled many Burakumin to be lifted out of abject poverty. Yet, they have failed to achieve substantive political emancipation for the Burakumin. The Burakumin have not been granted legal minority status or the associated benefits and have not been able to maintain their diverse craftsmanship traditions, which have been around for 300 years.

As a result, the Burakumin have experienced an ambivalent emancipation. Their socio-economic conditions have improved, but they are still discriminated against in areas such as education, employment and marriage.

This account demonstrates the peculiar predicament of the Burakumin: how do you write yourself into a narrative that doesn’t know you exist?

Activism on behalf of the Burakumin has not been insignificant, and today, the Buraku Liberation League has become Japan’s most powerful human rights movement. Yet, none have taken Ikari’s approach.

Ikari: A fresh perspective to ‘minority’ rights discourse

The Ikari drumming group was established in 1987, in the Naniwa area of Osaka – a Burakumin region. Although most taiko drum craftsmen in Japan were Burakumin from Naniwa, no taiko group in the whole of Japan identified themselves as Burakumin. This is where the significance of Ikari lies. In taiko history, there is a conscious disassociation of the production of the taiko, where handling of leather is considered ‘spiritually impure’, from the performance, which is often associated with ‘purifying’ religious rituals. Ikari’s performances exposed this broken history.

Ikari’s use of music and performance is not supposed to be an ‘authentic’ cultural practice. Rather, Ikari mimic the Japanese taiko in order to politicise it. When playing, they draw the audience’s attention to anti-Burakumin discrimination, which was previously ignored. In this way, a non-Burakumin, Japanese instrument is re-appropriated, transformed and shared with the public. Concepts such as identity, nation and culture can be locally re-written to empower both the Burakumin community and the non-Burakumin Japanese.

Minorities in Japan are often presented as passive victims of discrimination. Ikari, however, provides an alternative means of identification for the Burakumin as an active participant in his or her own story. Through performances that speak to the hearts and minds of the audience, the Burakumin acquire agency to change his or her own status rather than having to wait for the government or Burakumin activists to bring about that change. The non-Burakumin audience also become active participants in the community by being forced to question their own position in society.

The history of the taiko, contextualised through Ikari’s performance, acquires new and unexpected meanings. Ikari demonstrates that cultural practices can secure effective political representation where other more mainstream approaches, such as human rights campaigning, may fail. Although this story cannot be generalised, its bottom-up perspective provides an alternative and innovative account of being a minority in Japan.

With special thanks to The School of Oriental and African Studies for the screening of Angry Drummersand Q&A with the director, Professor Terada, for providing the motivation for this blog post. A fully referenced version of this post is available on request. 

Posted by: Posted on by Andrew Small Tagged with: , , , , , ,

Feb 28 2015

“We Charge Genocide” and the case for grassroots organising

Leave a comment

Shaka Lee is a black liberationist passionate about labour, the Midwest, co-ops and music. Shaka currently resides in Chicago, IL, and works as a researcher for a labour union that represents hospitality, airport and food service workers.

A makeshift memorial in Ferguson (Photograph: Jbouie/Flickr)

On 9 August 2014, Michael Brown, 18, was shot by Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri.

On 24 August 2014, Roshad McIntosh, 19, was shot by Chicago Police in Chicago, Illinois.

Every 28 hours, a black person is killed by the police, a security guard or vigilante (see George Zimmerman) in the United States.

Why? Police are more likely to harass, detain and kill black people regardless of what they are doing. The statistics are staggering. Even looking at Ferguson, Missouri, a city where two thirds of the population are black, over 80 per cent of the traffic stops are of black people, and almost 93 per cent of the arrests are of black people (source), the police department is almost entirely white.

But as an organiser, as a person of conscience, and a black queer person, where do I and others turn with this knowledge? The Department of Justice? The United Nations? Those most concerned with the civil rights and human liberties of black people find out that we must continue to turn to ourselves.

In November 2014, Michael Brown’s family, organisers and black and brown youth took a trip to Geneva, Switzerland to testify in front of the UN Committee Against Torture about police brutality and the increasing militarisation of American police forces. Organisations including We Charge Genocide and Millennial Activists United brought testimony, recommendations, reports, and their truths about American policing. Leslie McSpadden, mother of the late Michael Brown, told CNN, “We need the world to know what’s going on in Ferguson and we need justice.” We Charge Genocide sent its Youth Delegation to make sure the UN recognised that the murder of black and brown people by the police was never unique, but a product of systematic American racism.

Almost 64 years ago, another group of black organisers petitioned the United Nations with similar claims against the United States government. In 1951, Paul Robeson and William L. Patterson submitted the petition, “We Charge Genocide” at the United Nations charging the US government with genocide against black people. The lead organisation in this campaign, the Civil Rights Congress, was founded in Detroit, Michigan and was best known for organising the prosecution of the murderers of Emmett Till. The petition documented hundreds of killings of black individuals, patterns of police brutality, and lynching between 1945 and 1951, as well as the economic apartheid occurring in the US. The petition includes the following statement:

It is our hope, and we fervently believe that it was the hope and aspiration of every black American whose voice was silenced forever through premature death at the hands of racist-minded hooligans or Klan terrorists, that the truth recorded here will be made known to the world; that it will speak with a tongue of fire loosing an unquenchable moral crusade, the universal response to which will sound the death knell of all racist theories.

The 1951 petition was controversial and those involved experienced political persecution tied to the Red Scare. However, after the 2014 trip, the United Nations’ panel condemned the US record on police brutality and other related issues including Guantanamo and the detention of child migrants. How will their condemnation weigh in this deeply divided American political climate? And more importantly, how will their words and recommendations prevent the death of more black people (when every 28 hours another black person is killed by the police)? How many trips to Geneva does it take to protect our communities in Chicago, Ferguson, St. Louis, Detroit, New York, Cleveland, Beavercreek, Los Angeles, etc?

I remain unsure. But what I am sure of is that the response after the announcement of the non-indictments of the killer of Michael Brown (and, subsequently, of Eric Garner) shows the inadequacy of the United Nations to provide real protection to Black communities in the US. Although the UN recognises the issue of police brutality, there remains an absence of action as police officers are still not being held accountable for racially motivated brutality. We, as a global community, are continuously reminded from the courtrooms to the streets that we will have to be the protection, love, investment and radical change we deserve in our communities.

As someone who has protested and supported organising in multiple cities, including Ferguson and Detroit, I have seen evidence that we are ready to be what we deserve. Those who have been organising for 60 years and 60 seconds are coming together in recognition that black life is just as sacred. But many are coming to the conclusion that our larger state, federal, and international governing bodies will only follow the change we create, rather than actually creating it. It took decades of protests, organising and action to secure the gains won by the American Civil Rights Movement. But all of those changes were attacked and only maintained by the aggressive presence of people power. When we testify to our larger governing structures, it is more of an opportunity for them to legitimise their relevancy than ours. Because we will stay in this struggle for the long haul no matter who agrees or disagrees with our indignant rage.

The US government may not listen to the UN but will have to listen to all those out in the streets. The US government may not listen to the UN but it will have to listen if both domestic and international communities continue to draw closer and challenge America’s militaristic conquest on the vulnerable worldwide. So not only do we charge genocide, we will continue to charge, closer together, inside the halls of the UN, into police lines, on the picket line, in our classrooms, and on our street corners. As a worldwide community of conscience continues to arise from the West Bank to the West Side of Chicago, we will win. As organisations continue to build capacity for the movement that must occur – those for or against us will continue to show their true colours and commitment to the human family.

Posted by: Posted on by Andrew Small Tagged with: , , , , ,

Feb 19 2015

An Unlikely Bestseller Sheds Some Light on Guantanamo

Leave a comment

Hilary Stauffer is a Visiting Fellow at LSE’s Centre for the Study of Human Rights. She is an international lawyer with extensive experience working on projects in the U.S., Europe, Africa, and Asia. Her specialties include International Law, Rule of Law, Human Rights, Humanitarian Affairs and Diplomacy.

Guantanamo Diary - Cover

Whatever the architects of the United States’ post-9/11 counterterrorism policy were thinking when they decided to open a ‘secret’ prison camp on a remote military base off the tip of Cuba, we can state with confidence they did not imagine it would become an artists’ colony for bestselling writers.  Unbelievably, though, that is exactly what has happened, at least for one detainee in particular, Mohamedou Ould Slahi, a Mauritanian who has been in Guantanamo Bay for 13 years.

It’s very difficult to get people to care about Guantanamo, and I speak from experience. Previously, I served as the Deputy Director of the London-based legal charity Reprieve, which works on behalf of those who have been unjustly ensnared in the counterterrorism dragnet that the US and its allies deployed in the years following the September 11th attacks.  I was part of the legal team which represented more than a dozen men who are imprisoned at Guantanamo, and in this role, I encountered two distinct groups of people: those who are unaware that Guantanamo is still open, and those are willing to casually dismiss its inmates as ‘bad guys’ who ‘deserve’ to be there.  Mr. Slahi’s book, Guantanamo Diary (an unlikely bestseller in both the Amazon.com and New York Times rankings), may finally help dispel these misconceptions.

I did not work on Mr. Slahi’s case, although his story is representative of so many Guantanamo detainees.  He appears to be neither the victim of some grand conspiracy to subjugate the Muslim world and steal its oil, nor the perpetrator of terrible attacks against Western targets. Rather, he is someone with just ‘the worst luck’ – a pithy characterization made by Cliff Sloan, the Obama White House’s recently-departed Guantanamo guru, who has returned to private law practice after lasting a respectable 18 months in a thankless job.

Mr. Slahi is still detained at Guantanamo; his 400-page book is pieced together from diaries written while incarcerated, which were later passed to his attorneys, via military censors. The claims within are nothing new: descriptions of brutality, torture, and interrogations from intelligence officials who had the apparently mistaken impression that he was an active member of Al-Qaeda and involved in several plots against the United States. More than 20 years ago, Mr. Slahi did engage in some youthful misadventures in the wilds of Afghanistan—but then again, so did the U.S. and its erstwhile friends. In any case, in 2010, a federal judge reviewed and dismissed the government’s evidence against him.  So many of the detainees who remain in Guantanamo find themselves in equally Kafkaesque circumstances: ‘cleared’ of any prosecutable offense, but having nowhere to go.

Guantanamo’s problem has always been that it inspires extreme views in people—not extremist views, mind you, but extreme views.   From its supporters, it inspires extreme, sweeping generalisations of the ‘guilty until proven innocent’ variety, whereby everyone who is in Guantanamo is, ipso facto, a terrorist. After all, this is a prison for the ‘worst of the worst’, as President George W. Bush used to remind everybody. How curious, then, that approximately 660 of its 780 inmates — nearly 85 per cent — have been quietly released without charge, either returned to their own country or repatriated abroad.

From its detractors, Guantanamo inspires extreme sweeping generalisations of a different kind. According to this camp, practically ‘none’ of the detainees have ever been charged with any crime, and everyone inside is a blameless victim of the counterterrorism-industrial complex. Legally speaking, the fact that a majority of detainees have been ‘cleared for transfer’ doesn’t mean that they never committed any wrongdoing, but rather that the U.S. government doesn’t have enough evidence to charge them, or that any evidence they do have was illegally obtained through torture.  The practical outcome may be the same, but the underlying values are not.  I personally believe that many of the detainees currently in Guantanamo are guilty of nothing more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time (sold for bounty by poor, desperate people in a faraway land). However, insisting that they are all ‘innocent’ is distinctly unhelpful, as there are at least a few prominent examples of actual terrorists who have ended up in Guantanamo, and provide fodder for those who want to keep the prison open indefinitely.

From everybody else, Guantanamo inspires extreme apathy, and this is the most dangerous emotion of all. Because whether you believe that Mr. Slahi and his co-detainees are guilty, innocent, or just unlucky, the fact remains that we just don’t know because they were snatched up under the most unlawful of circumstances, tortured, beaten and finally dumped in a forgotten corner of the world for the past 13 years.  Very few have undergone any kind of legitimate judicial hearing which carefully examines the charges against them; some have died within their cells under suspect circumstances; most have just sunk into a deep depression as protracted diplomatic discussions grind on in Washington DC and foreign capitals.

During this period they have missed births, deaths, graduations, weddings, anniversaries and hundreds of other quotidian occurrences which make up a human life.  Some have suffered greatly as they watched the Middle East go up in flames and wondered what happened to their families in Syria, Egypt, Tunisia or Yemen, unable to assist their loved ones in any way.  Some have been ‘lucky’ enough to be released to a third country where they don’t speak the language or have the right to work, and are under constant supervision by the intelligence services. Is this better than being in Guantanamo? Sure; but how depressing that we must accept that as a measure for comparison.

It is anyone’s guess whether Mr. Slahi’s newfound celebrity will positively impact his case; his lawyers certainly hope that it does. But even if it has no practical effect, the success of Guantanamo Diary makes it that much harder for the rest of us to forget that this black hole exists a mere 90 miles off the coast of the continental United States.  That can only be a good thing.

Posted by: Posted on by Maria Werdine Tagged with: , , ,

Feb 16 2015

Important new guidelines on the right to birth registration and a nationality in Africa launched in Côte d’Ivoire

Leave a comment

Bronwen Manby is an independent consultant and Visiting Fellow at the Centre for the Study of Human Rights.

On 10 February 2015 a ground-breaking but not-much-heralded document on human rights in Africa was launched in Côte d’Ivoire by the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child.

In the wake of UNHCR’s major new #ibelong campaign to end statelessness within ten years, the Committee, the official body responsible for monitoring the implementation of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, has produced one of the strongest statements yet in international law on the right to a nationality for all children.

The Committee used the Third Conference of African Ministers Responsible for Civil Registration for the official launch of its second General Comment, adopted last year, interpreting Article 6 of the Charter on the right to a name, to birth registration and to a nationality.

The General Comment provides guidance on the obligations of African states in relation to a question that many have struggled to deal with since independence, and builds on developments in the European, Inter-American and UN systems. While an important document in relation to birth registration, for a continent where around half of all children are not registered at birth, it is in its interpretation of the right to a nationality that the General Comment is perhaps most significant and innovative.

Article 6 of the African Children’s Charter provides that:

1. Every child shall have the right from his birth to a name.

2. Every child shall be registered immediately after birth.

3. Every child has the right to acquire a nationality.

4. States Parties to the present Charter shall undertake to ensure that their Constitutional legislation recognize the principles according to which a child shall acquire the nationality of the State in the territory of which he has been born if, at the time of the child’s birth, he is not granted nationality by any other State in accordance with its laws.

Like the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the African Children’s Charter recognises the links between birth registration and the right to a nationality, since it is through a birth certificate that the facts indicating the child’s parentage and location of birth, on which nationality is based, can most easily be established. It repeats the CRC’s statement that every child has the right to acquire a nationality, but goes beyond the CRC by including in Article 6(4) an adaptation of the specific requirement in Article 1 of the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness that a child who cannot acquire the nationality of his or her parents shall acquire the nationality of the country where he or she is born.

Only a few African countries have incorporated these provisions into their national constitutions and laws: as outlined in a recent study on the right to nationality prepared by the Committee of Experts’ sister body, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, only the constitutions of Angola, Ethiopia, Guinea Bissau, Malawi, Rwanda and South Africa expressly provide for the right to a nationality either for “everyone” or for all children. While some other states provide for the right to a nationality in dedicated children’s laws, many of the same countries do not ensure through the provisions of their nationality code that all children do in fact have the right to a nationality.

The General Comment takes up this question, drawing on the Committee of Experts’ decision in the Kenyan Nubian Children’s Case, and recognising that “Even if the vast majority of human rights are not formally restricted on the basis of nationality, the lack of a recognised nationality in practice has a profoundly negative impact on respect for and fulfilment of other human rights”. Thus, the General Comment states that “While the right to a nationality becomes of greater significance as a person approaches and reaches adulthood, it is critical for the right to a nationality to be recognised for children.” Moreover, “the lack of recognition as a full participant in the political and social life of the country where a person has been born and lived all his or her life, has been at the heart of many of Africa’s most intractable political crises and civil conflicts.”

The General Comment “reminds African States that States do not enjoy unfettered discretion in establishing rules for the conferral of their nationality, but must do so in a manner consistent with their international legal obligations.” The Committee therefore condemns discrimination in rules relating to nationality, both the still-too-common discrimination on the basis of sex, but also discrimination on the grounds of race and ethnic group, which still exists in the laws of several African countries.

The Committee of Experts draws on guidance from UNHCR to comment that “it can be difficult to prove the risk of statelessness: that is, that a person does not have, or is not going to acquire, another nationality. In addition, it may be unreasonable to expect a child who may have a theoretical right to another nationality to take the steps needed to acquire that nationality.” Therefore, “States must accept that a child is not a national of another State if the authorities of that State indicate that he or she is not a national. A State can refuse to recognize a person as a national either by explicitly stating that he or she is not a national or by failing to respond to inquiries to confirm the child is a national.”

The Committee makes various recommendations in line with these findings, including that States Parties should adopt legal provisions that provide nationality to children born on their territory not only where the child is otherwise stateless, but also in other cases where the child has the strongest connection to that state. The Committee endorses the rule of double jus soli where a child is automatically attributed nationality if one parent (either mother or father) was also born in the State, and urges that children born in the territory of a State of foreign parents should have the right to acquire nationality of that State, and that this should be “after a period of residence that does not require the child to wait until majority before nationality can be confirmed.”

Nationality and belonging have created major challenges for Africa’s arbitrarily demarcated states since they obtained independence. The members of the African Committee of Experts have made a major contribution to the efforts to resolve these problems through their guidance on the rules that should be applied to avoid statelessness and also enable children to acquire the nationality of the country where they have the strongest connections.

The full text of the General Comment is available in English and French at: http://acerwc.org/the-committees-work/general-comments/

Posted by: Posted on by Andrew Small Tagged with: , , ,