Archive for April, 2011

Case Concerning Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments (Belgium v. Switzerland) is Removed from ICJ List

Posted in Uncategorized on April 12, 2011 by Don Anton

The following notice comes via press release from the ICJ earlier today:

Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Belgium v. Switzerland)

Case removed from the Court’s List at the request of Belgium

THE HAGUE, 12 April 2011.  Further to a request to such effect from the Kingdom of Belgium, by Order dated 5 April 2011, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, has removed from its General List the case concerning Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments  in Civil and Commercial Matters (Belgium v. Switzerland).

It is recalled that on 21 December 2009, the Kingdom of Belgium instituted proceedings against the Swiss Confederation in respect of a dispute concerning

“the interpretation and application of the Lugano Convention of 16 September 1988 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters . . ., as well as the application of the rules of general international law governing the exercise of State authority, in particular in judicial matters[, and] relat[ing] to the decision by Swiss courts not to recognize a judgment of the Belgian courts and not to stay proceedings which were later initiated in Switzerland on the subject of the same dispute”.

By letter dated 21 March 2011 and received in the Registry the same day by facsimile, the Agent of Belgium, referring to Article 89 of the  Rules of Court, informed the Court that his Government “in concert with the Commission of the European Union, considers that it can discontinue the proceedings instituted [by Belgium] against Switzerland” and requested the Court “to make an order recording Belgium’s discontinuance of the proceedings and directing that the case be removed” from the Court’s General List.

In his letter, the Agent cited as the reason for the Belgian Government’s request to discontinue the proceedings the Preliminary Objections raised in the case by Switzerland on 18 February 2011, following the filing of Belgium’s Memorial on 23 November 2010.  In the letter, the Belgian Government explains in particular that it has taken note of the fact that in paragraph 85 of its Preliminary Objections, “Switzerland states . . . that the reference by the [Swiss] Federal Supreme Court in its 30 September 2008 judgment to the ‘non-recognizability’ of a future Belgian judgment does not have the force of res judicata and does not bind either the lower cantonal courts or the Federal Supreme Court itself, and that there is therefore nothing to prevent a Belgian judgment, once handed down, from being recognized in Switzerland in accordance with the applicable treaty provision”.

A copy of the letter from the Agent of Belgium was immediately communicated to the Agent of the Swiss Confederation, who was informed  that the time-limit provided for in Article 89, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court, within which Switzerland might state whether it opposed the discontinuance of the proceedings, had been fixed as Monday 28 March 2011.

Since, within the time-limit thus fixed,  the Swiss Confederation did not oppose the said discontinuance, the Court, placing on record the discontinuance by the Kingdom of Belgium of the proceedings, ordered that the case be removed from the List on 5 April 2011.

The full text of the Order will be available shortly on the Court’s website (www.icj-cij.org).

 

Indian Journal of International Economic Law (IJIEL) – New Complimentary Issue

Posted in International Economic Law with tags on April 11, 2011 by Don Anton

Over on the IntLawProfessors listserv today, Abhimanyu George Jain, Chief Editor of the IJIEL gave notice that Vol. 3(2) is now available and included a pdf attachment of the entire issue (see below).

I’m writing on behalf of the Indian Journal of International Economic Law (IJIEL), a student-run, peer-reviewed journal produced by the National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bangalore.

IJIEL is proud to announce the release of Issue # 3(2), a special issue on the interface between space law and international economic law. This volume has tried to examine some of the many fascinating international economic and financial law issues emerging from man’s foray into space. This includes the role of WTO law in regulating private and public space activity, choice of law issues for international agreements, including financing agreements, anti-competitive behaviour, application of the intellectual property regime to space, etc.

In an effort to maximise visibility and reputation, we’re distributing this issue free on the internet.  I’ve attached a copy of the issue.

Queries regarding submissions and subscriptions to IJIEL may be directed to ijiel@nls.ac.in, or tasneemdeo@gmail.com.

Warm Regards,

Abhimanyu George Jain

Chief-Editor, IJIEL

ABA International Human Rights e-Brief, Issue No. 445 (11 April 2011)

Posted in ABA Human Rights e-Brief with tags , on April 11, 2011 by Don Anton

ABA International Human Rights e-Brief
11 April 2011 / Issue No. 445

  • Bulletin Board
  • Human Rights News
  • Job, Fellowship and Volunteer Postings
  • Educations Courses & Conferences

Bulletin Board

ICJ DISMISSES GEORGIA’S CASE AGAINST RUSSIA UNDER RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CONVENTION

FYI, a split ICJ today dismissed Georgia’s case against Russia.  The Court’s judgment and press release are at the links below:

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/140/16398.pdf

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/140/16396.pdf

For those of you interested, the dissenting opinions, separate opinions and declarations of the judges are now posted on the Court’s website at <http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&k=4d&case=140&code=GR&p3=4>.

Compliments of Ronald J. Bettauer ron.bettauer@verizon.net

 

Human Rights News

 

KHALID SHEIKH MOHAMMED FACES GUANTANAMO TRIAL FOR 9/11

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, and four alleged co-conspirators will be tried in a military commission at Guantanamo Bay, not a civilian court

“We simply cannot allow a trial to be delayed any longer,” Attorney General Eric Holder said, in a sharp U-turn.

The Obama administration abandoned plans to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a US court, amid fierce opposition.

President Obama recently lifted a freeze on new military terror trials.

He accused the US Congress of harming national security by opposing his plan to close the controversial Cuban prison and try some terror suspects in US civilian courts.

Death penalty

Mr Holder vigorously defended his earlier decision to use US federal courts to try the accused men during a news conference announcing the reversal on Monday.

He said that the US prison system had successfully held hundreds of convicted terrorists, and that the Obama administration would continue to prosecute terror cases in US courts.

Mr Holder blamed Congress for the high profile policy reversal, saying his hands “were tied” by “unwise and narrow” restrictions they had placed on the administration.

But, he said, the Justice Department had been prepared to “bring a powerful case” against Mohammed and his four co-conspirators.

Mr Holder noted though that the death penalty could be still sought in the case.

‘Waterboarding’

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has been held by the US since being captured in Pakistan in 2003.

In a 2007 hearing, he alleged that he had been tortured at Guantanamo Bay. CIA documents confirmed that he had been subjected to the waterboard technique 183 times.

US prosecutors say that Mohammed has confessed to a host of terrorist activities in addition to 9/11.

These include the 2002 nightclub bombing in Bali, Indonesia, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the murder of American journalist Daniel Pearl and a failed 2001 attempt to blow up an airliner using a shoe bomb.

The four other suspected terrorists to face military trials at Guantanamo Bay are Walid bin Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali and Mustafa Ahmed al Hawsawi.

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12964588

GOLDSTONE’S GAZA REPORT STANDS, UN INSISTS

Judge’s informal remarks ‘do not invalidate findings’, says colleague on fact-finding mission into Israeli attack on Gaza

The UN has roundly rebuffed remarks by the South African judge Richard Goldstone that cast doubt on the report into the Gaza war that bears his name, causing rifts within the UN and furious debate across the Middle East.

In the first public sign of a split within the four-person committee that compiled the report into the Israeli attack on Gaza in December 2008, the Pakistani human rights lawyer Hina Jilani has openly contradicted Goldstone’s comments. In an interview with the Middle East Monitor, she said that the UN report still stood.

“No process or acceptable procedure would invalidate the UN report; if it does happen, it would be seen as a suspect move. The UN cannot allow impunity to remain, and will have to act if it wants to remain a credible international governing body,” she said.

Jilani sat with Goldstone on the fact-finding mission that looked into allegations of war crimes committed by both Israel and Hamas during the three-week war. The other two members of the committee, Christine Chinkin and Desmond Travers, could not be reached for comment.

Goldstone made his remarks in an article in the Washington Post in which he said that he regretted aspects of the report that he chaired, including the suggestion that Israel had intentionally targeted civilians. Had he been aware of evidence that had since come to light, he wrote, “the Goldstone report would have been a different document”.

In a further indication of his U-turn, the Israeli paper, Yediot Ahronot, said the judge planned to press for his report to be nullified.

The report, published in September 2009, found that Israelis involved in the Gaza war should face “individual criminal responsibility” for potential war crimes. Some 1,400 Palestinians died, at least 50% of whom were civilians, and 13 Israelis.

But the inquiry was carried out without Israeli co-operation, and information uncovered by Israel’s own investigations since then had changed his understanding of events, Goldstone said.

Though the judge’s comments have rekindled the heated debate that followed the Gaza war, they are unlikely to lead to any immediate action on the part of the UN. Cedric Sapey, spokesman for the UN human rights council that commissioned the report, said: “The UN will not revoke a report on the basis of an article in a newspaper. The views Mr Goldstone expressed are his own personal views.”

A move to change or withdraw the report would either require a formal written complaint from Goldstone, backed unanimously by his three fellow authors, or a vote by the UN general assembly or the human rights council, Sapey said.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/05/goldstone-gaza-report-stands-un

 

KENYANS AT THE HAGUE ON ‘CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY’ CHARGES

By the CNN Wire Staff

Nairobi, Kenya (CNN) — Three Kenyan political leaders accused of crimes against humanity following the country’s disputed 2007 elections had their first appearance Thursday before the International Criminal Court at The Hague.

Another three are scheduled to appear Friday.

The court’s top prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo, named the six as suspects in December, claiming they organized violence that left more than 1,000 people dead and displaced hundreds of thousands more.

Former Agriculture Minister William Ruto, opposition leader Henry Kosgey and radio journalist Joshua Arap Sang appeared Thursday. Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta, Cabinet Secretary Francis Muthaura, and former national police chief Hussein Ali are set to appear Friday.

The two groups of three come from opposite sides of the political dispute in Kenya.

Ruto, Kosgey, and Sang face four counts of crimes against humanity: murder; deportation or forcible transfer of the population; torture and persecution.

The judge set a date for them of September 1 to hear arguments as to whether they should go to trial.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/04/07/kenya.international.court/index.html

 

JAILED IRANIAN REPORTER HONORED BY U.N.

PARIS, April 7 (UPI) — An Iranian journalist jailed since his country’s disputed 2009 presidential election has won a United Nations award dedicated to press freedom.

An independent jury of 12 global media professionals chose Ahmad Zeidabadi as the laureate of this year’s Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization said Thursday in a release.

The selection of Zeidabadi “pays a tribute to his exceptional courage, resistance and commitment to freedom of expression, democracy, human rights, tolerance, and humanity,” jury president Diana Senghor said from UNESCO’s headquarters in Paris.
Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2011/04/07/Jailed-Iranian-reporter-honored-by-UN/UPI-70781302204721/

 

UN REFUGEE CHIEF VOICES DEEP SHOCK AFTER MORE THAN 200 MIGRANTS DROWN OFF ITALY

The head of the United Nations refugee agency expressed deep shock today at the apparent drowning of more than 200 migrants attempting to make their way to Italy from conflict and unrest in North Africa.

Media reports indicate that 213 people, including many Somalis, Eritreans and Ivorians, died this morning after the boat in which they were travelling experienced difficulties in rough seas near the Italian island of Lampedusa. The boat had left Libya three days ago.

Italy’s coastguard has rescued 47 people, including a pregnant woman, but the other passengers are all feared to have drowned.

António Guterres, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), issued a statement lamenting the disaster and noting that many of the passengers had been refugees twice over.

“They fled war and persecution in their own countries and now, in their attempt to seek safety in Italy, they tragically lost their lives,” he said.

Mr. Guterres urged all countries patrolling the waters of the Mediterranean Sea to do everything possible to help boats in distress.

Since pro-freedom protests erupted across North Africa and the Middle East earlier this year, large numbers of people – notably including people fleeing unrest in Tunisia and Libya – have taken to boats to try to reach Europe. Lampedusa has experienced a particularly high influx of arrivals.

UNHCR Goodwill Ambassador Angelina Jolie, who just wrapped up a visit to Tunisia to see the agency’s work there, expressed her sorrow at the news of the drownings.

“It is all the more devastating knowing that children were on board,” Ms. Jolie said, calling for urgent solutions to help civilians caught in the crossfire of fighting in Libya.

Until the recent fighting Libya has served as transit and destination country for refugees, with UNHCR recognizing at least 8,000 refugees inside the country and another 3,000 people seeking asylum.

SOURCE: UN DAILY NEWS DIGEST – 6 April 2011

 

AI WEIWEI’S DETENTION IN CHINA CAUSES GROWING CONCERN

Leading figures in the art world have joined the international outcry over Beijing’s crackdown on dissidents

Britain, the United States and the European Union, as well as leading figures in the art world, have joined the growing international outcry over the detention of the outspoken Chinese artist Ai Weiwei and Beijing’s wider crackdown on dissidents and activists.

Police have summoned more of Ai’s assistants for questioning, according to a US filmmaker who has been making a documentary on the 53-year-old. Alison Klayman said officers had told some staff and volunteers – several of whom are foreign – to leave the studio or leave the country, adding that one aide had already left Beijing.

Officials detained Ai on Sunday morning as he attempted to board a plane for Hong Kong. No one has been able to contact him or his friend Wen Tao, who was detained on the same day.

Ai’s installation of 100m sunflower seeds is still on show in Tate Modern‘s Turbine Hall and arts leaders and artists in the UK have added their voices of concern.

The Tate director, Sir Nicholas Serota, said the whereabouts of the artist remained unknown. “We are dismayed by developments that again threaten Ai’s right to speak freely as an artist and hope that he will be released immediately,” he said.

Gregor Muir, director of the ICA which last week auctioned an Ai work for £50,000, said: “The ICA is deeply troubled to learn of recent events concerning Ai Weiwei. Our thoughts are with his family, studio staff and friends. Only last week, Ai donated a brilliant artwork to our fundraising auction and we are indebted to his generosity. To then hear news that Ai had been detained by his own government is deeply shocking.”

Tracey Emin called Ai’s predicament “a nightmare”, adding, “I hope he is safe.” He is an artist, she said, who “raises world awareness”. Antony Gormley, currently in St Petersburg, said: “I would call on all cultural institutions globally to voice their protest against all kinds of behaviour which we haven’t seen since the days of Stalin.” Bob and Roberta Smith, who makes slogan paintings, added his concerns in his own unique way .

Ai is China‘s best known artist and designed the Olympic Bird’s Nest stadium, but he has been an outspoken critic of the government. Last year he was placed under house arrest after announcing a party to mark the forced demolition of his studio in Shanghai.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2011/apr/05/ai-weiwei-detention-china

 

ZAMBIA DROPS CASE OF SHOOTING BY CHINESE MINE BOSSES

By BARRY BEARAK

Published: April 4, 2011

JOHANNESBURG — In what could be a politically explosive decision, prosecutors in Zambia have decided not to pursue a case against two Chinese supervisors who shot 13 coal miners last year during a wage protest, the managers’ lawyer said Monday.

The episode, which occurred at the Chinese-owned Collum Coal Mine on Oct. 15, was viewed as an outrage by many Zambians who resent the enormous economic influence China has over their country.

At the time, the government said the shootings, none of which were fatal, would be vigorously investigated. Prosecutors arrested the two Chinese supervisors — Xiao Lishan and Wu Jiuhua — and charged them with attempted murder, but many civic leaders predicted a whitewash.

Chinese investment in Zambia amounts to more than $1 billion a year, according to the government of the impoverished but mineral-rich country in southern Africa. Most new construction involves Chinese-run companies.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/world/africa/05zambia.html?_r=3&src=twrhp

 

Job, Fellowship, and Volunteer Postings

 

ABA-SIL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE JOB BOARD

The ABA-SIL Human Rights Committee is pleased to announce a comprehensive new Job Board consisting of web pages for potential employment opportunities from dozens of international human rights NGOs. The job board was developed by ABA member Ellen J. Tabachnick. It can be accessed from the Committee Resource module in the lower right column of our committee’s home page at http://www.abanet.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=IC950000.

 

EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT/CEO of Human Rights First

Posted: 3/30/11

Based in Washington, DC the EA will provide administrative and organizational support to the President/CEO. S/He must be proactive as well as manage a complex schedule.  The EA will work closely with the Chief of Staff to coordinate daily priorities and long-term schedule and will play a crucial role in maximizing the President/CEO’s time to achieve the organization’s goals in development, communications, operations, and program areas.  The applicant should have 2 to 3 years of administrative experience in a face-paced environment.

For more detailed information please go to: http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/Jobs/apply_staff.aspx?qs=EO

 

SENIOR ASSOCIATE, Refugee Protection Program – Human Rights First

Posted: 3/30/11

Based in Washington, DC, the Senior Associate in the Refugee Protection Program will work with the program’s director to develop advocacy objectives to advance the protection of refugees, as well as strategies and activities to achieve those objectives.  The Senior Associate will advance Human Rights First’s advocacy objectives through a range of advocacy strategies, working with the program’s Director, other staff and other key advocacy allies and actors.  Applicants should have at least five years of post-graduate work experience relating to refugee protection.

For more detailed information and to apply visit:

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/Jobs/apply_staff.aspx?qs=EO

 

SENIOR PROGRAM OFFICER

Law and Health Initiative – Public Health Program
Open Society Institute–New York

Application Deadline: April 8, 2011

The Open Society Foundations’ Public Health Program (PHP) aims to promote health policies based on scientific evidence, social inclusion, human rights, and justice.  Broadly, the program works with civil society organizations within two fields:  promoting the participation of socially marginalized groups in public health policy and fostering greater government accountability and transparency through civil society monitoring efforts.  Program areas focus on addressing the human rights and health needs of marginalized groups, facilitating citizen access to health information, and advocating for a strong civil society role in public health policy and practice.

PHP’s Law and Health Initiative (LAHI) promotes legal action to advance public health goals worldwide.  LAHI supports legal assistance, litigation, and law reform efforts on a range of health issues, including patient care, HIV and AIDS, harm reduction, palliative care, sexual health, mental health, and Roma health.  LAHI’s priorities include integrating legal services into health programs, strengthening human rights protections within health settings, and developing training and education programs in law and health.  By bringing together legal, public health, and human rights organizations, LAHI seeks to build a broad movement for law-based approaches to health and for the human rights of society’s most marginalized groups.

LAHI seeks a full-time senior program officer.

Qualifications

  • At least ten years of professional experience in four or more of the following six relevant fields: (1) legal advocacy and litigation; (2) international human rights; (3) health and human rights; (4) global health (specifically related to marginalized groups); (5) grant-making; (6) capacity development.
  • Management experience, including personnel management, project management and strategic management.
  • Law degree.
  • Experience working in one or more of the following regions: East and Southern Africa; Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and the former Soviet Union (fSU); Southeast Asia (SEA).
  • Excellent written and oral communication skills in English.
  • Demonstrated commitment to using law progressively to advance public health and human rights objectives.

To Apply

Please email resume and cover letter with salary requirements before to: humanresources@sorosny.org. Include job code in subject line: SPO-LAHI

OR

Open Society Foundations
Human Resources – Code SPO-LAHI
400 West 59th Street
New York, New York 10019

FAX: 212.548.4675

For more information visit: http://www.soros.org/about/locations/new-york/spo-plahi-20110310

 

FULBRIGHT SCHOLAR PROGRAM

The 2012-2013 Fulbright Scholar Program competition is open.

Posted: 3/31/11

The Fulbright U.S. Scholar Program offers 124 teaching, research or combined teaching/research awards in law. Faculty and professionals in law also can apply for “All Discipline” awards open to all fields.

For more information on 2012-13 opportunities, please visit www.iie.org/cies.

The application deadline for the Core Fulbright Scholar Program is August 1, 2011.  U.S. citizenship is required.  For more information, visit our website at www.iie.org/cies or contact us at scholars@iie.org.

Faculty and professionals are also encouraged to participate in one of our weekly webinars.  For more information, visit our website at www.iie.org/cies/webinar.

 

PROGRAM OFFICER

MENTAL HEALTH INITIATIVE

OPEN SOCIETY institute, BUDAPEST

Application Deadline: April 22, 2011

The Open Society Mental Health Initiative (MHI) is part of the Public Health Program at the Open Society Foundations and is based in Budapest, Hungary. MHI seeks to ensure that people with mental disabilities (mental health problems and/or intellectual disabilities) are able to live as equal citizens in the community and to participate in society with full respect for their human rights. MHI promotes the social inclusion of people with mental disabilities by supporting the development of community-based alternatives to institutionalization and by actively engaging in policy-based advocacy. MHI is both a grant making and an operational program, providing training and technical assistance to its partner organizations.

MHI seeks a full-time program officer to contribute to the development and implementation of its media strategy. The program officer will closely coordinate this work with the Health Media Initiative (HMI), part of the Public Health Program. HMI seeks to strengthen the capacity of civil society leaders and organizations to effectively advocate for health and human rights policies through successfully engaging with and utilizing media. The geographic focus of the work will be Central and Eastern Europe and East Africa.

The Program Officer is involved with program development and implementation and reports to the MHI Program Director.

TO APPLY: Send curriculum vitae, cover letter, salary requirements, and a maximum 2 page writing sample in English about how using media can play an important role in advancing the advocacy goals of grass root organizations to:

Email: applications@admingroup.hu

Subject line: MHI Program Officer

For more information visit: http://www.soros.org/about/locations/budapest/mhi-pgoff-20110324 and http://www.soros.org/initiatives/health/focus/mhi

 

Ph.D. RESEARCHER

Media Law Section of the Department of Communication Studies, Center for Journalism Studies and at the Law Faculty, the Human Rights Centre, Ghent University

The Media Law Section of the Department for Communication Studies of Ghent University together with the Human Rights Centre at the Law Faculty of Ghent University are looking for a Ph.D. researcher to work during 4 years on the topic of “Interferences with freedom of expression and ‘chilling effect’ ”.

The goal of the research project is to analyse the impact of the notion of the ‘chilling effect’ on freedom of expression as referred to  by the European Court of Human Rights and within other international, regional or national human rights systems. The research projects includes the analysis of applications of laws and interferences with freedom of expression relating to political speech, defamation, protection of journalistic sources, newsgathering, media reporting, investigative journalism, ngos reporting on matters of public interest or contributing to public debate, freedom of artistic expression and freedom of academic speech. The research project will develop and apply a methodology in order to identify and describe different kinds and consequences of chilling effect in the domain of public debate, media, journalism, art and academic research. The project will also specifically focus on the issue of minor offences, investigative journalism and chilling effect.

The researcher will work under the supervision of Prof. Dirk Voorhoof (www.psw.ugent.be/dv). Co-supervisor is Prof. Eva Brems.

Starting date: 1 September 2010
Ph.D. grant ca.1570-1750 Euro net/month (tax free)

Profile

  • law degree obtained with good (preferably excellent) grades
  • fluency in written and spoken English
  • good research and writing skills
  • good social skills
  • knowledge of and insight in human rights law, preferably with special interest regarding media law, information law, journalism studies or free speech issues.

More information can be obtained from prof. Dirk Voorhoof, dirk.voorhoof@ugent.be
More information about Ghent and Ghent University, see www.ugent.be

Please e-mail your CV with the contact details of two references, a letter of motivation and a sample of your writing skills (preferably in English) to prof. Dirk Voorhoof, dirk.voorhoof@ugent.be by 1 June 2010.

 

THE ARIEL F. SALLOWS CHAIR OF HUMAN RIGHTS

University of Saskatchewan – College of Law

The Sallows Chair will be of interest to outstanding candidates who have made distinguished contributions to research and/or practice in human rights; the candidate must have the academic qualifications required for an academic appointment. Past holders include Penelope Andrews, Marilou McPhedran, Virginia Leary, Paul Mahoney, Shelley Wright, the late Martin Ennals, Rebecca Wallace, Abdullah An-Na’im, Nihal Jayawickrama, Francisco Forrest Martin and Roy Adams.

Successful candidates for the Chair will be in residence in the College of Law, and it is normally expected that the candidate will pursue a research program, teach a course or seminar, give a public lecture and oversee the planning for a conference. Tenure will normally be for one year, but in any event no longer than two years. Salary will be commensurate with the experience and standing of the holders. The date for appointment is flexible, and may be as early as January 1, 2012.

Letters of application, accompanied by a current curriculum vitae and an outline of the research plans of the candidate, should be sent to:

Beth Bilson, Acting Dean
College of Law
University of Saskatchewan
15 Campus Drive
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
S7N 5A6

Deadline:  December 31, 2011

http://www.usask.ca/law/faculty_sessionals/employment_opportunities.php

 

INTERNATIONAL JOBS

Attorney/Legal Advisor
ACDI/VOCA
Location: Worldwide
Last Date: April 11, 2011
http://216.197.119.113/jobman/publish/article_74360.shtml

 

Justice Advisor
Civilian Police International, LLC
Location: Multiple Locations
Last Date: April 11, 2011
http://devnetjobs.tripod.com/cpi-11march2011.html

 

Human Rights Attorney/Lawyer
Open Society Justice Initiative
Location: London or New York
Last Date: April 19, 2011
http://devnetjobs.tripod.com/osji-18march2011.html

 

Head of Operations
Canadian Red Cross Society (CRCS)
Location: Port au Prince, Haiti
Last Date: April 23, 2011
http://devnetjobs.tripod.com/crcs-23march2011.html

 

Country Director – Nepal
Marie Stopes International (MSI)
Location: Kathmandu, Nepal
Last Date: April 24, 2011
http://216.197.119.113/jobman/publish/article_74614.shtml

 

Senior Project Manager/Senior Attorney – Justice Initiative
Open Society Foundations
Location: London, UK or Budapest, Hungary
Last Date: April 27, 2011
http://devnetjobs.tripod.com/osf-29march2011.html

 

Vice President
International Center for Transitional Justice
Location: New York, USA
Last Date: April 30, 2011
http://devnetjobs.tripod.com/ictj-23march2011.html

 

Executive Officer
AIDS-Free World
Location: in or around New York
Last Date: April 30, 2011
http://devnetjobs.tripod.com/4april2011-aidsfreeworld.html

 

Research Coordinator
The United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD)
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Last Date: May 4, 2011
http://216.197.119.113/jobman/publish/article_74876.shtml

 

SOURCE: See more jobs at: http://www.DevNetJobs.org or by sending a blank email to:
developmentjobs-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

 

Educational Courses & Conferences

CALL FOR APPLICATIONS: HREA distance learning courses

 

Short certificate courses [application deadline: 15 April 2011]:

- Business and Human Rights (11 May-21 June 2011) NEW!
- Human Rights and Transitional Justice (18 May-28 June 2011)
- International Trade and Human Rights: Balancing the Act (16 May-26 June 2011)
- Minority Rights, Indigenous Peoples and International Law (18 May-28 June 2011)
- The European System of Human Rights Protection and Promotion (16 May-26 June 2011)
- The United Nations Human Rights System (11 May-21 June 2011)
Applications can be submitted online. For further information about each course please click on the course link above. For a listing of all upcoming courses, please visit www.hrea.org/courses

HUMAN RIGHTS AND TECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE
Organizer: University of California, Berkeley
Date: April 26-27, 2011
Location: David Brower Center, 2150 Allston Way, Berkeley, CA

The Human Rights Center at the University of California, Berkeley is hosting a conference entitled “The New Machine: Human Rights and Technology” to address the application of technology to human rights work.  The conference aims to engage leading human rights practitioners and technologists to discuss the progress, successes, and challenges that have emerged in the use of technology to advance human rights.  The conference also includes the opportunity to submit via video innovative ideas about how to use technologies to advance human rights.

The conference is intended to serve as a meeting ground for the tech-world and the human rights community. While the conference is dedicated to share lessons learned, it is also open to participants with no or little experience in the applications of technologies to human rights, and socially-minded techies who are interested in exploring how their skills can be valuable for the protection of human rights.

Additional information on the conference can be found here ( http://www.law.berkeley.edu/HRCweb/events/TechConference2011/index.html ), and online registration ( https://berkeleylaw.wufoo.com/forms/advancing-the-new-machine/ ) is currently open.  Questions may be directed to Melissa Carney, Conference Manager at mcarney@berkeley.edu.

HUMAN RIGHTS LITIGATION e-learning course

There are still some places available in the upcoming e-learning course on Human Rights Litigation, which will be offered from 27 April-12 July 2011. This distance learning course provides participants with knowledge of the concept, types, venues and strategies of human rights litigation. It focuses on strategic litigation and legal aid both internationally and domestically, and explores a variety of strategies: issue or group oriented litigation, community based services, legal clinics, NGO or law firm resourced actions and others. Participants are familiarised with court ordered structural relief, as well as with conventional victim-centered legal remedies. Non-litigation strategies to maximise the chances of winning cases and to ensure the effective enforcement of decisions too are considered. The course places impact litigation in its social and institutional context exploring issues of its legitimacy, as well as the ethics and accountability of human rights lawyering. In the last part it highlights litigation for the vindication of several groups of substantive rights, including economic and social rights, freedom from torture, equality and asylum. Participants will be provided with examples from various jurisdictions in the world illustrating strategic human rights litigation in practice.

For more detailed information and to register online, please go to: www.hrea.org/human-rights-litigation

 

4th ANNUAL ADVANCED TRAINING COURSE ON MONITORING ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS

The Project on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights at the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights organizes annually professional training courses on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Project has extensive experience in organizing two types of training aimed at providing professionals with tailored knowledge on the protection of ESC rights according to their level of experience. The “Training Course on Understanding Economic, Social and Cultural Rights” is designed to introduce participants to ESC rights, while the “Advanced Training Course on Monitoring Economic, Social and Cultural Rights” is aimed at providing more practical tools to advanced professionals in this area.

On this occasion, the Project proudly announces the organization of the 4th annual Advanced Training Course on Monitoring Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The Training Course will take place in Geneva, Switzerland from 9-13 May 2011.

The course is designed for professionals with advanced experience in working on ESC rights. The course will most benefit representatives from NGOs, national human rights institutions, governmental authorities, academia, international organizations, and United Nations bodies.

The course aims to enhance the work of professionals by training them on specific aspects related to monitoring ESC rights. The course will also instruct participants on how advocacy tools, including, for example, human rights indicators, budget analysis or litigation activities can be effectively used to build monitoring policies that would be addressed not only to domestic institutions, but also to international mechanisms mandated to protect and promote ESC rights.

For more information about the course, please see http://www.adh-geneva.ch/professional-training/professional-training-in-escr/at, where you can also register on-line. Or write us at escrtraining@adh-geneve.ch.

 

THEY FIGHT LIKE SOLDIERS, THEY DIE LIKE CHILDREN

The New York City Bar Council on International Affairs and the Leitner Center for International Law and Justice cordially invite you to a presentation by Lt. General (Ret.) ROMÉO DALLAIRE, Former commander of the U.N. Assistance Mission for Rwanda and author of the award-winning book, Shake Hands with the Devil.

Tuesday, May 24, 2011 at 7:00 P.M.

At Fordham University, Lowenstein Building, 12th Floor Lounge
113 West 60th St., New York, NY (at Columbus Ave.)

Roméo Dallaire was the Force Commander of the U.N. Mission for Rwanda during the 1994 genocide and urgently requested support from the U.N. that, if heeded, could have halted the genocide. Now a Senator in the Canadian Parliament, Dallaire founded a project called the Child Soldiers Initiative and its youth advocacy campaign – Zero Force – which work to end the use of child soldiers.

General Dallaire will discuss child soldiers, including during his time in Rwanda, and will offer solutions to eradicate their use. His new book on child soldiers will be available for purchase.

Ishmael Beah, a former child soldier and author of A Long Way Gone, will introduce Dallaire.

Sponsored by the NY City Bar Council on International Affairs (Chair, Mark R. Shulman) and the Leitner Center for International Law and Justice at Fordham Law School (Executive Director, Elisabeth Wickeri) and co-sponsored by the  City Bar’s Committees on International Human Rights (Chair, Stephen Kass) and African Affairs (Chair, Megan Maloney)

The program is open to the public. Please R.S.V.P. to elizabethbarad@gmail.com

 

THE FLETCHER SUMMER INSTITUTE FOR THE ADVANCED STUDY OF NONVIOLENT CONFLICT

Tufts University / Medford, Massachusetts

June 19-25, 2011

Visit the FSI 2011 Webpage

Download Flyer

Download Application

The International Center on Nonviolent Conflict is pleased to announce a call for applications to participate in an advanced, interdisciplinary program on nonviolent conflict taught by leading scholars and practitioners of strategic nonviolent action and authorities from related fields.

We also invite you to pass along this announcement to others who share our passion for achieving human rights and justice through nonviolent strategies.

If you have any questions, or would like for us to send you an application directly, please do not hesitate to contact us at fsi@nonviolent-conflict.org or visit our website at www.nonviolent-conflict.org.

 

JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM: APPLYING HUMAN RIGHTS BASED APPROACHES

IHRN

Announcing details of the International Human Rights Network 2011 justice sector training programme Justice Sector Reform: Applying Human Rights Based Approaches (OJIR11)
Dates: Monday 20th – Friday 24th June 2011 Venue: National University of Ireland, Maynooth, Ireland

This annual IHRN training programme aims at enhancing the skills of justice sector personnel, consultants, managers etc, in applying Human Rights Based Approaches to Justice Sector Reform.  The programme is designed for people working in the justice sector (with state or non state institutions) or undertaking Rule of law/Governance assignments as well as justice sector personnel wishing to adapt their expertise for international consultancy work (eg for bi-lateral donors, EC Framework Contract Lot 7 – Governance and Home Affairs etc).

Knowledge and skills enhanced include:
*The legal principles, policies & practice underpinning human rights based approaches to justice sector reform
*The inter-linkages between justice sector roles (law enforcement, judiciary, corrections/rehabilitation, etc)
*The relationship between the justice sector and related terms; ‘security sector’, ‘rule of law’, ‘good governance’
*Human Rights Based needs assessment, programme design, implementation, as well as monitoring & evaluation
*Programming tools & checklists (including benchmarks & indicators of human rights change)
*Case studies from national contexts as well as international field missions (including conflict and post-conflict)
*Teamwork, advocacy, strategic partnerships and consulting opportunities

Past participant testimonials, Application forms and further details available at
http://www.ihrnetwork.org/justice-sector-reform_202.htm

 

LLM HUMAN RIGHTS LAW AND TRANSITIONAL JUSTICE
Transitional Justice Institute
University of Ulster
(Jordanstown and Magee campuses, Northern Ireland)

This LLM programme based at the Transitional Justice Institute, with staff expertise across a range of areas, offers an LL.M. degree which is designed to give students a unique lens on the study of human rights in the contemporary international moment. Using the local Northern Ireland political and legal context as a starting point the course will imbue students with a working knowledge of international norms and principles, while at the same time encouraging students to move beyond the local to reflect critically on present international law norms and their application to other situations and contexts. Students are encouraged to develop and transfer knowledge, experience and expertise of the transformative possibilities of human rights law both in respect of societies emerging from violent conflict and in relation to the local and global management of other particular societal problems. This dual focus – from the local to the global and back – is a core part of the course’s aim to equip you with the knowledge and skills base to contribute internationally as well as locally.

This programme has been developed to enable students to:

* Gain an in-depth knowledge of the theoretical and practical application of human rights law.
* Understand the particular human rights issues in conflicted and transitional societies.
* Gain knowledge and skills in carrying out research projects from design to write-up.
* Enhance skills in critically appraising published and commissioned research.
* Develop skills highly relevant to legal practice, and to policy, research and advocacy roles in the voluntary, public and private sectors in the UK, Ireland and beyond. Successful completion may also open up a range of further study and research options.

Further Information
Download Information Leaflet
TJI website: www.transitionaljustice.ulster.ac.uk , or
Applications should ordinarily be received before the last Friday in June, although consideration may be given to applications received after this date.

Contact
Ms Emer Carlin
Secretary
Transitional Justice Institute
Magee campus
Tel: + 44 (0) 28 71675146
Email:LLM@ulster.ac.uk

 

Reminder

The materials and information included in this listserv are provided as a service to you and do not necessarily reflect endorsement by the American Bar Association or the Section of International Law.  We encourage subscribers to pass the information along to colleagues and other interested parties and to contribute press releases, news items, event listings, job vacancies and other appropriate information.  To post a message email INTHUMRIGHTS@mail.abanet.org.  For questions, suggestions or problems, contact Russell Kerr, russell@kerrlawfirm.com.

Thank you again for your interest and participation!

 

FAIR USE NOTICE: This weekly digest contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material in this digest is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.  For more information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.


Security Council to Urgently Consider Plans for Specialized Somali Courts to Try Pirates

Posted in International Law with tags , on April 11, 2011 by Don Anton

This item is being reported by the UN News Centre today as the General Assembly discusses the Rule of Law and Global Challenges.   The report relates:

the Security Council today decided to urgently consider the establishment of specialized Somali courts to try suspected pirates both in the Somalia and in the region.The Council also urged both State and non-State actors affected by piracy, most notably the international shipping community, to provide support for a host of judicial- and detention-related projects through the trust fund set up for that purpose.

In its unanimously adopted resolution, the 15-member Council stressed the need for “a comprehensive response to tackle piracy and its underlying causes by the international community,” as it outlined a wide array of measures to more effectively counter the scourge of piracy.

These include calling on States to cooperate on the issue of hostage-taking; encouraging States and regional organizations to assist Somalia in strengthening its coastguard capacity; urging all States, including those in the region, to criminalize piracy under their domestic laws; and underlining the need to investigate and prosecute those who illicitly finance, plan, organize, or unlawfully profit from pirate attacks off the Somali coast.


General Assembly Sixty-fifth session Interactive thematic debate on “The rule of law and global challenges”

Posted in International Governance, International Law with tags on April 11, 2011 by Don Anton

Streaming right now on Channel 6 of UN Webcasts:  http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/index.html

General Assembly Interactive Thematic Debate on The rule of law and global challenges

“Promoting universal adherence to and implementation of the rule of law at the national and international levels”

11 April 2011, New York

The President of the 65th session of the General Assembly, in partnership with the Rule of Law Coordination and Resource Group and the Rule of Law Unit, will convene an interactive thematic debate of the General Assembly to examine how strengthening the rule of law can assist in addressing the key global challenges the international community is facing today.

Objective

The interactive thematic debate is a key step in the process leading to the high-level meeting of the General Assembly on rule of law, mandated for the high-level week of the Assembly’s 67th session. It will help draw out common ground among Member States and foster agreement on the modalities of this high-level meeting, to be finalized during the 66th session (A/RES/65/32). A thematic debate on rule of law and global challenges in the spring of 2011 is thus a critical stepping stone in the process leading up to the high-level debate to focus Member States’ attention and develop momentum for potential outputs for the high-level meeting of the General Assembly.

Background

The rule of law is a principle of governance which lies at the heart of the United Nations’ mission. It is an end in itself as well as a means to attain the fundamental goals of the Charter in the fields of peace and security, human rights and sustainable development. In the 2005 World Summit Outcome (A/RES/60/1), Heads of State and Government reaffirmed their commitment to the purposes and principles of the Charter and international law and to an international order based on the rule of law, which is essential for peaceful coexistence and cooperation among States. They also acknowledged that the rule of law at the national and international levels is essential for sustained economic growth, sustainable development and the eradication of poverty and hunger. Since the 61st session of the General Assembly, the Sixth Committee has considered every year the agenda item “The rule of law at the national and international levels.”

Programme

Modalities

The one-day interactive debate will be opened by the President of the General Assembly and the Secretary-General, followed by two keynote addresses, two thematic panel discussions and a wrap-up session. An interactive discussion will be part of each panel. The format will allow for the engagement of a wide range of stakeholders involved in strengthening the rule of law, including Member States, the United Nations system and civil society.

Panel 1: “Rule of law and conflict situations”
Conflict prevention involves measures targeted at reducing the risk of conflict by strengthening national capacities at all levels for conflict management and laying the foundations for sustainable peace and development. Essential to these tasks is enhancing the delivery of security and justice, including through strengthened law enforcement, judicial and corrections services, legal protection and access to justice for all and the peaceful settlement of disputes within communities. Reinforcing capacities in these areas also plays a critical role in peacebuilding in the aftermath of violent conflict. At the international level, a rules-based international system and dispute settlement mechanisms, such as the International Court of Justice, as well as non-judicial ones, play an important role in preventing conflict. Transitional justice mechanisms which address the legacy of large-scale human rights abuses can contribute to achieving the broader objectives of prevention of further conflict, peacebuilding and reconciliation.

Key questions:

  • How can sustainable rule of law assistance and support to creating resilient societies help to prevent conflict?
  • In what ways can the rule of law contribute to peacebuilding in the aftermath of conflict?
  • What further steps should be taken to promote accountability, serve justice and achieve reconciliation to prevent relapse into conflict in peacebuilding contexts?
  • How can the international community better galvanize efforts to support States to strengthen the rule of law in peacebuilding and conflict prevention contexts in a coordinated, coherent and predictable manner?

Panel 2: “Rule of law and development”
Access to justice and the rule of law are critical to creating an overall enabling environment in countries for social and economic progress and achievement of the MDGs. Addressing poverty reduction involves ensuring that the poor are able to adequately voice their needs, seek redress against injustice, protect or leverage their resources, participate in public life, and influence policies that ultimately shape their lives. An effective legal and judicial system with harmonized investment protection and trade laws can also spur economic progress and improve living conditions. In today’s globalized world, development is also increasingly affected by transnational challenges, such as transnational crime and corruption. To address them, global responses, grounded in the rule of law at the national and international levels as well as in local needs and realities, are essential.

Key questions:

  • In what ways can the rule of law contribute to social and economic justice, economic growth and sustainable development?
  • What is the contribution of harmonization of investment protection and trade laws to achieving economic growth?
  • How will rule of law assistance, including through harmonization of laws, regulations and effective law enforcement cooperation across borders help combat transnational challenges and further sustainable development?
  • How can rule of law programming in developing countries better take into account local needs and realities, and ensure local participation and ownership?
  • What can be done to integrate rule of law in the development agenda in a more coordinated, coherent and consistent manner?
  • How can the support from the international community to addressing transnational challenges and strengthening rule of law and development be more coordinated, coherent and predictable?

Wrap-up session: “The United Nations and Global Governance: Our shared responsibility in strengthening the rule of law”
Drawing on the experience in all key areas of the rule of law discussed throughout the event, the wrap-up session will summarise the progress that has been achieved by the UN since the 2005 World Summit Outcome in strengthening the rule of law. It will further explore how to best address the most pressing global challenges to effectiveness of rule of law assistance in the context of global governance. A focus will be given to the need for increased partnerships and resources and for greater coordination and coherence among all stakeholders involved in strengthening the rule of law at the national and international levels, including steps that can be taken to enhance UN cooperation and coordination with international actors, regional organizations and other expert networks.

Organization

The meeting room and facilities will be provided through DGACM and the PGA’s Office. The United Nations Rule of Law Unit in the Executive Office of the Secretary-General will provide additional support for other organizational aspects of the debate.

Contact Information

Professor Giuseppe Nesi, Legal Adviser, Office of the President of the General Assembly (nesi@un.org)

ICJ Dismisses Georgia’s Case Against Russia Under the Racial Discrimination Convention

Posted in International Court of Justice, International Law on April 1, 2011 by Don Anton

The International Court of Justice issued its Judgment today in the case concerning Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation).  The Court ruled on two of Russia’s preliminary objections to Georgia’s Application alleging breaches of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.  The majority of the Court finds it lacks jurisdiction based on the second preliminary objection and that is, therefore, unnecessary to consider two remaining Russian preliminary objections.

Both of Russia’s preliminary objections that were ruled upon by the Court are premised on Art. 22 of the Convention, which provides:

“[a]ny dispute between two or more States Parties with respect to the interpretation or application of this Convention, which  is not settled by negotiation or by the procedures expressly provided for in this Convention, shall, at the request of any of the parties to the dispute, be referred to the International Court of Justice for decision, unless the disputants agree to another mode of settlement”.

Russia’s first objection claimed that no “dispute” existed between the parties under Art. 22 and thus there was nothing to refer to the ICJ.  Russia’s second objection asserted that Georgia was precluded from invoking the jurisdiction of the Court the Court because  it failed to satisfy two procedural preconditions contained in Article 22 of CERD (i.e. negotiations and the referral to procedures expressly provided for in the Convention).  By 12 votes to 4, the Court rejects the first preliminary objection.  However, by 10 votes to 6, the Court upholds the second objection and finds that it has no jurisdiction.

The procedural posture of the case is notable because the Court had already indicated provisional measures in the case on Oct. 15, 2008.  In making that order, the Court “consider[ed] that, prima facie, it ha[d] jurisdiction under Article 22 of CERD to deal with the case to the extent that the subject-matter of the dispute relates to the “interpretation or application” of the Convention . . ..” (para. 117).  Of course, prima facie jurisdiction in relation to provisional measures is just that, and upon fuller consideration during the preliminary objection phase may be found wanting.  The same outcome in the ITLOS Southern Bluefin Tuna cases comes to mind. Provisional measures were initially ordered by the Tribunal based on prima facie jurisdiction pending the constitution of an arbitral tribunal under Annex VII of UNCLOS.  The arbitral tribunal then dismissed the cases for want of jurisdiction.

The Court’s Press Release in the instant case summarises the majority judgment:

First preliminary objection –  Existence of a dispute (paras. 23-114)

. . . After reviewing the Parties’ arguments, the Court begins by examining the meaning of the word “dispute” in Article 22 of CERD.  The Court does not accept the Russian Federation’s contention that this term should be given in that provision a narrower interpretation than that to be found in general international law.  The Court recalls that in its jurisprudence, “[a] dispute is a disagreement on a point of law or fact, a conflict of legal views or of interests between two persons” and stresses that its determination must turn on an examination of the facts.  The Court observes that the existence of a dispute may be inferred from the failure of a State to respond to a claim in circumstances where a response is called for.

The Court then sets out the steps it will follow in order to establish the existence or otherwise of a dispute under Article 22 of CERD.  The Court needs to determine (1) whether the record shows a disagreement on a point of law or fact between the two States;  (2) whether that disagreement is with respect to “the interpretation or application” of CERD, as required by Article 22 of CERD;  and (3) whether that disagreement existed as of the date of the Application.  In terms of the legal significance to be accorded to the various documents and statements adduced by the Parties, the Court states its intention to limit itself to official documents and statements, and to make a distinction between documents issued  and statements made before and after Georgia became party to CERD.

. . .

Turning to the events that unfolded in early August 2008, in particular the armed hostilities in South Ossetia that began during the night of 7 to 8 August 2008, the Court observes that, while the claims levelled against the Russian Federation by Georgia between 9 and 12 August 2008 (the day on which Georgia submitted its Application) were primarily claims about the unlawful use of force, they also expressly referred to ethnic cleansing by Russian forces.  These claims were made against the Russian Federation directly and were rejected by the latter.  The Court therefore finds that by 12 August 2008, there was a dispute between Georgia and the Russian Federation about the latter’s compliance with its obligations under CERD.  The first preliminary objection of the Russian Federation is accordingly dismissed.

Second preliminary objection –  Procedural conditions in Article 22 of CERD (paras. 115-184)

. . .

Before providing its interpretation of Article 22 of CERD, the Court recalls that in its Order on the indication of provisional measures of 15 October 2008 it made a provisional finding as to the meaning of the expression “which is not settled by negotiation”.  The Court further recalls that in that Order it also indicated that its provisional conclusion was without prejudice to its definitive decision on the question of whether it has jurisdiction to deal with the merits of the case.  The Court in addition observes that it is not unusual in compromissory clauses conferring jurisdiction on the Court and other international jurisdictions to refer to resort to negotiations.

The Court then proceeds to the determination of the ordinary meaning of the terms used in Article 22 of CERD with a view to ascertaining whether this Article contains preconditions to be met before the seisin of the Court.  The Court notes that the expression “dispute . . . which is not settled” must be given effect. According to the Court, the express choice of two modes of dispute settlement, namely, negotiations or resort to  the special procedures under CERD, suggests an affirmative duty to resort to them prior to seisin.  In addition, the Court observes that the use of the future perfect tense in the French version of the text further reinforces the idea that an attempt to settle the dispute must have taken place before referral to the Court.  In this regard, it points out that the other three authentic texts of CERD,  namely the Chinese, the Russian and the Spanish texts, do not contradict this interpretation.  The Court, having reviewed its jurisprudence concerning compromissory clauses comparable to Article 22 of CERD, further observes that it has consistently interpreted the reference to negotiations in such clauses as constituting a precondition to seisin. Accordingly, the Court concludes that in their ordinary meaning, the terms of Article 22 of CERD, namely “[a]ny dispute . . . which is  not settled by negotiation or by the procedures expressly provided for in this Convention”, establish preconditions to be fulfilled before the seisin of the Court.

The Court states that, in light of this conclusion on the meaning of Article 22, it need not resort to supplementary means of interpretation.  However as both Parties have made extensive arguments relating to the travaux préparatoires of CERD, and given the further fact that in other cases, the Court has resorted to the travaux in order to confirm its reading of the relevant texts, the Court considers that in this case an examination of the travaux préparatoires is warranted.  After reviewing the Parties’ arguments on the question, the Court notes that, whilst no firm inferences can be drawn from the drafting history of CERD as to whether negotiations or the procedures expressly provided for in the Convention were meant as preconditions for recourse to the Court, it is possible nevertheless to conclude that the  travaux préparatoires do not suggest a different conclusion from that at which the Court has already arrived through the main method of ordinary meaning interpretation.

Having thus interpreted Article 22 of CERD to the effect that it imposes preconditions which must be satisfied before resorting to the Court, the next question addressed by the Court is whether these preconditions were complied with in the current instance.  First of all, the Court notes that Georgia did not claim that, prior to seising the Court, it used or attempted to use the procedures expressly provided for in CERD.  The Court therefore limits its examination to the question of whether the precondition of negotiations was fulfilled.

In seeking to determine what constitutes  negotiations, the Court first observes that negotiations are distinct from mere protests or  disputations.  In its view, the concept of “negotiations” requires – at the very least – a genuine attempt by one of the disputing parties to engage in discussions with the other disputing party, with a view to resolving the dispute.  According to the Court, in the absence of evidence of a genuine attempt to negotiate, the precondition of negotiation is manifestly not met.  Where negotiations are attempted or have commenced, the precondition of negotiation is met only when there has been a failure of negotiations, or when negotiations have become futile or deadlocked.  Concerning the substance of negotiations, the Court observes that the absence of an express reference to the treaty in question during negotiations does not bar the invocation of the compromissory clause to establish jurisdiction.  However, to meet the precondition of negotiation in the compromissory clause of a treaty, these negotiations must relate to the subject-matter of that treaty.

Against the background of these criteria, the Court turns to the evidence submitted to it by the Parties to determine whether, at the time Georgia filed its Application on 12 August 2008, there had been negotiations between Georgia and the Russian Federation concerning the subject-matter of their legal dispute under CERD, and if so, whether these negotiations had been unsuccessful.  In view of the Court’s earlier finding that a dispute between Georgia and the Russian Federation falling within the ambit of CERD arose only in  the period immediately before the filing of the Application, the Court notes that it was only possible for the Parties to be negotiating the matters in dispute during that relevant period, i.e., between 9 August 2008 and 12 August 2008.  The Court also observes that it follows that it cannot accord any legal significance to earlier negotiations between the Parties which took place between Georgia and the Russian Federation before 9 August 2008.  After reviewing the facts in the record during the period of dispute, the Court is of the view that, although certain claims and counter-claims made by the Parties concerning ethnic cleansing may evidence the existence of a dispute as to the interpretation and application of CERD, these exchanges did not constitute attempts at negotiations by either Party.  The Court thus concludes that the facts in the record show that, between 9 August and 12 August 2008, Georgia did not attempt to negotiate CERD-related matters with the Russian Federation, and that, consequently, Georgia and the Russian Federation did not engage in negotiations with respect to the latter’s compliance with its substantive obligations under CERD.

The Court refers back to its earlier comment that Georgia did not claim to have used, prior to the seisin of the Court, the other mode of dispute resolution contained at Article 22, namely the procedures expressly provided for in CERD.  Considering the Court’s conclusion that, under Article 22 of CERD, negotiations and the procedures expressly provided for in CERD constitute preconditions to its jurisdiction, and considering the factual finding that neither of these two modes of dispute settlement was attempted by Georgia, the Court finds that it does not need to examine whether the two preconditions are cumulative or alternative.

The Court accordingly concludes that neither  requirement contained in Article 22 has been satisfied.  Article 22 of CERD thus cannot serve to found the Court’s jurisdiction in the present case.  The Court therefore upholds the second preliminary objection of the Russian Federation.

The full Judgment on the preliminary objections may be found here.  The Joint dissenting opinion of President Owada, Judges Simma, Abraham and Donoghue and Judge ad hoc Gaja may be found here.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.