North America

Go On! IHL Workshop Applications Due TOMORROW (Oct. 11)

/ Karen Hoffmann / 2 Comments
Minneapolis St. Anthony Falls

Minneapolis St. Anthony Falls (Photo Credit: Doug Wallick)

 

On November 2 & 3, 2013, the University of Minnesota Law School, the Human Rights Center, and the American Red Cross will be hosting an International Humanitarian Law Workshop, with additional support by The Advocates for Human Rights.

This workshop features lectures and hands-on exercises that guide participants through an intensive examination of International Humanitarian Law (IHL), with a focus on its application to combatants and civilians. Topics include:

  • International Humanitarian Law: Setting the Context
  • Conflict Classification – When Does International Humanitarian Law Apply?
  • Overview of Key International Humanitarian Law Principles: Protecting the Vulnerable
  • Protected Persons in International Humanitarian Law
  • The Red Cross and International Services
  • Means and Methods of Warfare
  • Non-State Actors and International Humanitarian Law
  • International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law
  • Technologies of Warfare and International Humanitarian Law
  • Gendered Dimensions of International Humanitarian Law

This workshop is open to law and graduate students, lawyers, and practitioners, and has been accredited for 12 CLE hours. The workshop and course materials are provided at no cost to accepted applicants, though participants will be responsible for their own transportation and lodging. Some meals will be provided.

Applications to attend this workshop should be completed by October 11, 2013, and returned to matso092@umn.edu.

Applications and more information can be found at: http://www.redcross.org/ihlworkshop

Write On! McGill International Journal of Sustainable Development Law and Policy

/ Karen Hoffmann / Leave a comment

The McGill International Journal of Sustainable Development Law and Policy (JSDLP) is soliciting submissions of case comments. The JSDLP is a student-run, peer-reviewed academic journal based at the Faculty of Law of McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. The journal provides a forum for the exchange of ideas on the intersection between law, the environment, development and society.

The journal is currently seeking case comments on recent jurisprudence relating to environmental or sustainable development law and policy. Cases may come from any jurisdiction. Comments are generally 5,000 words in length. Submissions from academics, policymakers, practitioners, NGO representatives and graduate-level students are welcome.

Past issues of the JSDLP are available at http://www.mcgill.ca/jsdlp/jsdlponline for your reference.

Deadline for submission of full papers: October 31, 2013

Please send questions and submissions to Audrey Mocle, Case Comment Editor, at audrey.mocle@mail.mcgill.ca.

Faith and Feminism in Quebec, Canada

/ Mallika Kaur / 3 Comments

Palbinder Kaur Shergill, Canadian litigator, once stood in court and heard opposing counsel argue that lawyers and judges with religious “symbols” such as turbans should not be permitted.  In 2012, Palbinder was appointed Queen’s Counsel, still donning her classic black turban.

DSC_7614Palbinder is a Sikh, a feminist, and general legal counsel for the World Sikh Organization. She was called to the British Columbia Bar in 1991. Palbinder recently spoke with Harpreet Kaur Neelam and Mallika Kaur, board members of the Sikh Feminist Research Institute (SAFAR), about the importance of people-to-people contact in making change, whether around gender norms or responding to the recent reports around religious freedom curtailments in the province of Quebec.

SAFAR: Turbans, hijabs, yarmulkes, and Quebec are in the news again and many people are wondering about what the Quebec government is proposing, whether Quebec would really go this far?

Palbinder:  The Quebec premier, Pauline Marois, has confirmed a bill is coming, but has not commented on reports that they plan to ban the wearing of religious symbols or clothing by public-service workers.  A few years ago, a report was released by the Bouchard-Taylor commission after holding public hearings on the “reasonable accommodation” of minorities.  The report rejected an outright banning of religious symbols by government employees but suggested that this might be necessary for some positions such as judges, crown prosecutors and police officers. Recent media reports suggest that the Quebec government is considering a broad ban through a bill that it will table this fall.

Honestly, I think if the government tries this, there will be a lot of backlash in Quebec. I don’t believe the majority of people in Quebec support this idea. As always happens, there is a small vocal minority. Unfortunately they seem to be disproportionately represented in the Quebec government.

SAFAR: To step back, can you first elaborate a little on Quebec’s policies around religious freedom in general?

PKS: Accommodation of religious minorities has been an issue in Quebec for a very long time. With respect to the Sikh community, it first came into focus around 2004 or so, when 12-year-old Gurbaj Singh Multani’s kirpan [article of faith, small sheathed sword] fell out in the school playground. This caused a lot of uproar from the parents of some students, and some teachers. The school suspended Gurbaj and told him that he could not come with his kirpan. Gurbaj sued the school board, but was unsuccessful up to the Quebec Court of Appeal.  The Supreme Court of Canada overturned the Quebec Court of Appeal, and Gurbaj’s right to religious freedom was upheld. That decision, and another decision by the SCC relating to the orthodox Jewish community, have both not sat well with some people in Quebec. From their perspective, the Charter of Rights is being pushed down their throats. The validity of the Charter and its applicability to Quebec is an unresolved issue for them. Thus, there is a tension that has been created by some Quebec politicians between freedom of religion and what they call secularism.

SAFAR: It’s a very curious re-definition of secularism that is being attempted. Shouldn’t secularism mean the state’s guarantee of the freedom for all and preference to none?

PKS: Yes. The Canadian people have overwhelmingly shown an understanding that secularism is not about stripping people of religious identity, but ensuring that no one faith is given preference over another. As I pointed out to the Court of Appeal in Grant v. Canada, religious symbols abound in public institutions. Our Coat of Arms, our Constitution, all make reference to God. The Queen, who is our head of state, is also the head of the Church of England. We are thus not really a secular society at all. But for some people who have grown up surrounded by Christian signs and symbols, they may equate that with secularism, and are offended by other people’s outward displays of their faith. In my view, there is no struggle at all between secularism as it is expressed in Canada, and freedom of religion.

Continue reading →

On the Job! CASIN Call for Applications for Editor-in-Chief, Eyes on the International Criminal Court

/ Karen Hoffmann / Leave a comment

From the Council for American Students in International Negotiations (CASIN) comes this announcement:

The Board of Directors is accepting applications for the position of Editor-in-Chief of Eyes on the International Criminal Court (Eyes), CASIN’s flagship academic journal on the International Criminal Court. Junior faculty, postdoctoral fellows, PhD candidates, law school graduates, and advanced graduate students are especially encouraged to apply.

Eyes is the only peer-reviewed, scholarly journal devoted to the study of the International Criminal Court. It has been published since 2004 by the Council for American Students in International Negotiations, a non-profit, non-partisan organization composed of a network of students and young professionals from around the world.

Eyes is an interdisciplinary journal that invites submissions from any field that addresses the International Criminal Court or international criminal law more generally. Past editors have come from the fields of international law, international relations, and sociology. To view current and previous volumes, please visit the journal’s website: http://www.americanstudents.us/journals/eyesontheicc/.

Full job description, and details on how to apply (deadline is Sept. 16), available here.

Cultural Disconnect in Trade Negotiations

/ Andrea M. Ewart, Esq. / 1 Comment

The June, 2013 G-8 Summit began with the announcement of the launch of negotiations between the United States and the European Union to conclude a Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership, or TTIP. The first round of negotiations concluded in Washington, D.C. on July 12, 2013.

At first glance it seems a very obvious thing to do. Already, trade between these two transatlantic giants accounts for about half of the world’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and nearly one-third of world trade flows.  Furthermore, as the biggest proponents of trade liberalization and open economies, EU and U.S. goods already enjoy very low tariffs upon entering each other’s markets. In other words, there is already a lot of trade happening between these two.

But, wait a minute! Why then is a trade agreement being negotiated?

Most of the benefit from a concluded TTIP is expected to come from removing or reducing regulatory barriers to trade – called non-tariff barriers or NTBs. Given the amount of trade already happening, the different regulations and standards on either side of the Atlantic Ocean create increased costs for businesses. Companies doing business in Europe and the United States face two or more sets of product approval processes, consumer safety standards, and inspection requirements. One anticipated outcome of the TTIP negotiations, then, are common standards or mutual recognition of each other’s regulatory requirements. Companies doing business on both sides of the Atlantic would then need to comply with only one set of standards and requirements.

US flag (courtesy of wikipedia)

US flag (courtesy of wikipedia)

At the same time, there is wide acknowledgement that this is not going to be as simple as it sounds. Arguably, there are some key areas in which regulations and standards differ for cultural reasons which may be difficult to overcome.

Food Standards: While genetically-modified or genetically-engineered foods (GMOs for short) are very much a part of the US agricultural and food landscape, European citizens have resisted the introduction of

EU flag (courtesy of wikipedia)

EU flag (courtesy of wikipedia)

“frankenfoods” into their food supply. The US sees the negotiations as an opportunity to revisit this issue. However, the European Commission —  the EU’s executive arm and negotiating party in these talks, has said that:

Basic laws, like those relating to GMOs or which are there to protect human life and health, animal health and welfare, or environment and consumer interests will not be part of the negotiations.

Buy American Act provisions: Legislation passed in 1913 restricts the purchase of non-US goods and services by the US Government. Need I say more?

Privacy: EU laws place a much higher value on protecting the privacy of European citizens. This interesting article by NBC news explains. This difference helps to explain why the negotiations almost broke down before they could even get started over revelations of the National Security Agency (NSA) spying activities. “US must justify why they treat us like enemies” said Martin Schulz, President of the European Parliament, in a Facebook interview.

 Copyright & Culture: The European Parliament is the EU’s directly-elected legislative body. It has issued its position paper on the US-EU negotiations, which included the request that cultural and audiovisual services be excluded from the negotiations.

Citizen Concerns: On both sides of the Atlantic, citizens have expressed concerns that “common standards” could actually mean a dilution of the national standards for which they have fought so hard.

Some of this disconnect even extends to the name. What the U.S. has dubbed the Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership or TTIP, Europeans have preferred to call the Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement, or TAFTA.

These differences in cultural values help to explain why trade negotiations are so difficult. They are about more than reducing tariffs. As negotiators discuss the dry issues of regulations and standards they bring to the table cultural perspectives that they will have to work hard to first understand, then resolve.

Fear Mongering and Oppression: Two for the Price of One in the NC Legislature

/ Sarah Stephens / Leave a comment

Mere moments before Americans celebrated Independence Day, the North Carolina Senate gave its final approval to legislation targeted at outlawing the use of Sharia (or Islamic) law and severely restricting the right to abortion.

The bill, text of which is available here, started out as a meaningless attempt by legislators to portray themselves as protecting the fundamental rights of the people from those scary foreign laws (i.e. the laws of countries where the law must be interpreted accord to the precepts of Islam). The law basically states that North Carolina will not apply the laws of a foreign jurisdiction in its courts, nor will it transfer a case to a foreign venue if doing so would mean that the fundamental rights of an American, as guaranteed by the United States and North Carolina Constitutions, would be violated. The reality is that this is already the law. Conflict of law principles, which help courts determine whether to apply the law of its jurisdiction or the law of another state or another country, dictate that public policy concerns – such as the violation of an individual’s fundamental rights – would prevent that court from applying the law of a foreign jurisdiction or transferring the case to a foreign venue, even if the parties had previously agreed to the application of such foreign law. All the law actually does is increase xenophobia, it is a scare tactic aimed at increasing anti-Muslim sentiment in the community. Unfortunately, if passed, the law may also have unintended effects such as impinging on international treaties and souring international business relationships.

Legislators in North Carolina were not satisfied to stop there. Renaming the bill the “Family, Faith, and Freedom Protection Act of 2013,” the Senate added anti-abortion measures to the unrelated bill late Tuesday, where they were passed by the Senate on Wednesday. The new bill would restrict health care coverage for abortions, ban sex-selective abortions, require physicians to be present during a chemical (pill) abortion, and require clinics performing abortions to meet the requirements of an ambulatory surgical center. According to news reports only one clinic in the state would meet those requirements.

On Wednesday, hundreds protested the last minute additions to the bill.

What make me curious is why are these types of bills being proposed with increasing frequency? Why were the anti-sharia and the anti-abortion bills proposed together? From what exactly is the North Carolina legislature protecting its citizens? And, don’t they have anything better to do?

The bill will need House approval before it goes to Republican Governor Pat McCrory‘s desk. The legislation will be taken up this week.

In the U.S., all eyes on Texas in the Reproductive Rights Debate

/ Aparna Polavarapu / Leave a comment

The reproductive rights debate rages on in the U.S. as much as in the rest of the world, with the most recent hotspot of activity in Texas.  Yesterday, during its last night of a special legislative session, the Texas Senate considered a bill that would severely restrict access to abortions within the state.  Among other things, the bill would ban (with limited exceptions) abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy and require abortion clinics to have admitting privileges with a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic, a high bar for rural area clinics.  Delving deeply into the rules of parliamentary procedure, opponents managed to block the passage of the bill by delaying any vote on it until after the session expired at midnight.

Emerging as a pro-choice hero was state Senator Wendy Davis, whose plans to filibuster for approximately 13 hours were interrupted 11 hours in by a discussion of whether Davis’s filibuster had ended due to her alleged violations of parliamentary procedure.  During the filibuster and discussion (when it remained unclear whether her filibuster had officially ended), Davis remained standing, without leaning, eating, drinking, or taking a bathroom break, as per the rules of the Senate.  Davis’s colleagues supported her to the end, prolonging the discussion and preventing a vote by raising a number of parliamentary points of order.  The Senate finally voted to end Davis’s filibuster with minutes remaining in the session, despite several attempts by Senator Leticia Van de Putte to be heard before the vote.  Van de Putte perhaps had the last word of the night, however, when she asked, “At what point must a female senator raise her hand or her voice to be recognized over her male colleagues?,” provoking a deafening uproar from pro-choice protestors in the gallery which ultimately prevented the passage of the bill before the session expired.

The issue, discussed for the better part of 11 hours through Senator Davis’s own words and the anecdotes of supporters around the state, highlighted the importance of access to women’s health facilities for all women regardless of economic class, and the notion that the bill wouldn’t lower the number of abortions but would instead drive these medical procedures underground.  Indeed, around the world, lack of access to safe and legal abortions has been connected to a rise in women seeking unsafe, clandestine abortions.

This may be a small victory for reproductive rights advocates, as the bill may simply be put to vote again in another special session.  Even still, for the many following along in person, on the live feeds, or on Twitter, the day and night felt momentous.  To the many pro-choice advocates, the coming together of the Senators and the public in the gallery was proof of democracy at work.  The filibuster, a tool designed to allow a minority to fight against complete majority rule, did precisely that last night.

The intensity of the last few hours of the legislative session may also be an indicator of an increasingly intense debate to come.  Texas is one of several states that has attempted to or succeeded in severely restricting abortion access in recent years, despite vociferous protest from pro-choice advocates and constitutional injunctions in states like North Dakota preventing strict abortion rules from becoming practice.  But the scene in Austin last night showcased the dedication of the pro-choice movement, surprising many who did not expect such a showing from Texas.  This may very well have renewed the momentum of the movement.  Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood and daughter of former Texas governor Ann Richards, has proclaimed:

“They lit the fuse in Austin – but the fire is catching all over the country.” 

EDITED TO UPDATE:  Texas Governor Rick Perry confirmed that he will be calling a special session, beginning July 1, 2013, to revisit the bill.

Congressional Briefing on The International Criminal Court and US-ICC relations

/ Megan A. Fairlie / 4 Comments

stephen-rappDelighted to return to intlawgrrls, and to have attended the June 10 briefing on the International Criminal Court (ICC) delivered by U.S Ambassador-at-Large, Stephen J. Rapp,(photo, left) head of the Office of Global Justice in the U.S. Department of State and hosted by the Washington Working Group on the International Criminal Court (WICC) and the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Those present heard an up-to-date perspective on the ICC, including its relationship with the United States, moderated by Christopher “Kip” Hale, Senior Counsel for the American Bar Association and Director of the ABA’s International Criminal Court Project.

Ambassador Rapp set the stage for his briefing by discussing the global leadership of the United States in the field of international criminal justice, beginning with the Nuremberg proceedings and continuing through to the work of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

He followed with an extensive and detailed discussion of the work of the Court to date, along with an incisive analysis of the evolving role played by the United States over the course of the ICC’s development.

Among other themes, Ambassador Rapp discussed:

  • The ways in which ICC practice and US policy are aligned: The clear preference of the United States is to see justice performed at the national level. This position, Rapp emphasized, is consistent with the Court’s principle of complementarity. Under each approach, the priority is for cases to be prosecuted at the national level unless nations lack the will or capacity for domestic prosecutions.
  • The benefits of engaging with the ICC: Rapp highlighted that the current policy of constructive engagement ensures that U.S. interests and perspectives are well-represented as the Court goes forward. To place the importance of this positioning in perspective, Rapp noted that  a number of Court’s developments—particularly those related to the crime of aggression—might have gone differently, and perhaps preferably, had the United States been a part of the ICC conversation from 2002-2008.
  • The need to structure engagement with the Court within the confines of existing laws: Federal law presently prohibits direct financial support to the ICC. Thus, Rapp discussed alternative means of US assistance including the U.S. Rewards for Justice Program which, with bipartisan backing, was recently expanded to include support for the apprehension of individuals wanted by the ICC.
  • The salutary benefits of the ABA’s ICC project: Federal law also limits U.S. non-monetary assistance to specific ICC cases,  precluding the United States from acting in ways designed to benefit the Court as a whole. Rapp lauded the ABA’s ICC Project for filling this void.  Promoting practitioner engagement and training is one of the three pillars of the ABA project, which aims to unite ICC lawyers and staff with their domestic counterparts, enhancing investigation and advocacy skills through such vehicles as best practices conferences and training workshops.

The overall tenor of the briefing was markedly positive. Noting the U.S. commitment to hold perpetrators of atrocities accountable, Rapp reasoned that the United States ought to do what it can to assist the Court in bringing alleged war criminals to justice.

When I asked Rapp to identify what, in his view, was the most significant impediment to the United States joining the ICC, he first acknowledged that U.S. ratification of international treaties has historically been a lengthy process. Rapp noted, however, that before moving in this direction, the United States would have to overcome its concern that the Court might be used unfairly against it.  In Rapp’s view, this process will require more time for the United States to assess how prosecutors act and how ICC judges decide admissibility standards, in order to establish confidence that the U.S. would not be unfairly targeted by the Court.

faculty_megan_fairlie2This author is looking forward to discussing Rapp’s briefing next week at the International Criminal Court Summer School in Galway, Ireland, where she will be lecturing on the U.S. and the ICC.   The upcoming course, offered by the Irish Centre for Human Rights boasts a distinguished list of speakers, including the founding Director and now Honorary Chairman of the Centre, Professor William A. Schabas, fellow intlawgrrl, Nadia Bernaz, numerous ICC insiders and Don Ferencz, executive director of the Planethood Foundation and member of the Board of Advisors on the ABA-ICC Project.

A video-recording of the briefing is available here.

Canada’s Supreme Court to Hear Controversial Case Challenging Restrictions on Sex Work

/ Alexandra (Sasha) Filippova / 2 Comments

Tomorrow, on June 13, 2013, Canada’s Supreme Court will hear a controversial case regarding the constitutionality of three criminal law provisions restricting sex work in Canada.   Although the proceedings are currently under seal, they will be broadcast live and archived on the Court website, here.  The hearing is scheduled for 9:00 a.m. EST.

Bedford

Plaintiff Terri-Jean Bedford

Attorney General of Canada, et al. v. Terri Jean Bedford, et al.  will resolve a six-year court battle over this controversy, which began when three sex workers in Ontario challenged the constitutionality of three Criminal Code provisions in 2007.  The provisions at issue in the case prohibit brothels (“bawdy house” provision), “living off the avails” of prostitution, and communicating for the purpose of prostitution in public.  The applicants argue that these laws violate sex workers’ constitutional rights to security of person by forcing them to evade police notice and thus to engage in their (lawful) occupation in more hazardous environments.

Ontario Superior Court’s Justice Susan Himel agreed with the plaintiffs, holding that all three provisions are unconstitutional. (Her full opinion may be found here).  On March 26, 2012, the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed Justice Himel’s ruling with respect to the bawdy house provision of the Criminal Code, holding that it violates the constitutional rights of Canadian sex workers by forcing them to work outside, thus exposing them to greater risk.  However, the Court of Appeal reversed Justice Himel with respect to the communications provision, essentially outlawing street prostitution.  The Court also upheld the constitutionality of the “avails” provision but rewrote it to make clear that it applies only “in circumstances of exploitation,” and thus permits sex workers to take safety precautions, such as working in groups or hiring bodyguards.  (The full five-judge panel’s decision may be found here).  Both the government and the original plaintiffs appealed.

A number of advocacy organizations have intervened on both sides of the case, highlighting the ongoing public controversy regarding sex work and surrounding concerns about exploitation, human trafficking, as well as personal agency, gender inequality, and social morality. (Read more about the ongoing rift within the sex worker advocacy community here).  Thursday’s hearing will be an interesting next chapter of a debate that will shape the lives and safety of Canada’s sex workers and may well inform similar discussions in other countries struggling with similar regulatory challenges.

It is worth noting that all three provisions implicated in the case remain in effect pending the Supreme Court’s decision, a legal limbo that sex worker safety advocates argue endangers some of the most vulnerable individuals in Canadian society.