« Previous |
1 - 10 of 69
|
Next »
Number of results to display per page
Search Results
2. Holding the Islamic Republic of Iran accountable for atrocity crimes
- Author:
- Celeste Kmiotek, Alana Mitias, and Nushin Sarkarati
- Publication Date:
- 04-2023
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Atlantic Council
- Abstract:
- With little to no prospect for accountability within Iran’s domestic courts, victims and survivors of serious violations of international law are turning toward an increasing number of foreign jurisdictions—most commonly in Europe and North America, but also in Latin America, Africa, and other regions—to pursue justice for human rights violations carried out by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Under the principle of universal jurisdiction, certain domestic justice systems allow prosecutions in national courts for crimes committed abroad, regardless of the victim’s or perpetrator’s nationality. Universal jurisdiction stems from the concept that certain crimes are of such gravity that they harm the international community as a whole, so national courts outside the country where the violations took place may prosecute them to protect the international order. Although the crimes subject to universal jurisdiction provisions differ by state, they generally include crimes against humanity, torture, war crimes, and genocide. Limitations on universal jurisdiction also vary between states, however, as do the processes for filing complaints and procedures for investigations, trials, and appeals. As was shown by the trial and conviction of Hamid Noury in Sweden for his involvement in the massacre of Iranian political prisoners in 1988, national prosecutions of international crimes can be a fruitful avenue to justice for victims of the Islamic Republic. To this end, the Atlantic Council’s Strategic Litigation Project has compiled a guide to aid practitioners and independent investigators in navigating the legal systems of European states with the highest likelihood of prosecuting Iranian human rights violators. Focusing on five states—France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland—this manual outlines the crimes and violations subject to universal jurisdiction, best practices for investigating and documenting crimes, and processes for requesting investigations and participating in prosecutions as a victim, witness, or NGO. For information that is beyond the scope of this manual, the annex includes printed resources to consult and organizations to contact for additional assistance.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, Human Rights, Politics, Rule of Law, Accountability, Norms, Atrocities, Resilience, and Society
- Political Geography:
- Iran and Middle East
3. Pursuing justice for international crimes in Ukraine: A patchwork of multi-level and long-running efforts
- Author:
- Katja Creutz
- Publication Date:
- 06-2023
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Finnish Institute of International Affairs
- Abstract:
- The Russian aggression against Ukraine has triggered debates and initiatives on how to address crimes under international law committed in and against Ukraine, including war crimes and the crime of aggression. A single institution capable of dealing with all international crimes is nonetheless lacking. Tens of thousands of alleged war crimes have been reported and documented, part of which the Ukrainian courts themselves are handling. The massive caseload requires international assistance, in addition to which the ICC is also investigating alleged war crimes. The international community is divided in regard to the investigation and prosecution of the crime of aggression. As the ICC lacks jurisdiction with respect to this crime in this particular situation, European states are advancing a special ad hoc tribunal. Nonetheless, the majority of countries globally, particularly in the Global South, find it hard to support the initiative. The discussion on the best way to proceed with regard to addressing the crime of aggression committed by Russia is ongoing. Many problematic issues are being debated, ranging from political desirability to the issue of head of state immunities.
- Topic:
- Human Rights, International Law, United Nations, War Crimes, and Russia-Ukraine War
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe
4. The EU’s Magnitsky Act Obsolete in the Face of Russia’s Crimes in Ukraine?
- Author:
- Steven Blockmans
- Publication Date:
- 05-2023
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- International Centre for Defence and Security - ICDS
- Abstract:
- Despite the mounting evidence of the most serious of human rights violations being conducted by Russian forces on Ukrainian soil, the EU has chosen not to use its new Magnitsky Act to blacklist the perpetrators and their commanders. Instead, the EU has preferred to respond to Russia’s ‘dumb’ bombs with increasingly ‘dumb’ sanctions. This Brief explains why, after decades of work to smarten up its restrictive measures, the politicisation of human rights sanctions and the high threshold of evidentiary standards make it very hard for the Council to rely on evidence gathered from transition countries where the justice sector is still vulnerable to widespread corruption and political cronyism.
- Topic:
- Human Rights, International Law, European Union, and Russia-Ukraine War
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Europe, and Ukraine
5. The Responsibility of Business to Respect Human Rights
- Author:
- Özlem Zıngıl
- Publication Date:
- 11-2023
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV)
- Abstract:
- This brief provides a frame of reference and recommendations on the responsibility of business to respect human rights, based on the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and current examples.
- Topic:
- Human Rights, United Nations, Business, Accountability, Transparency, and Labor Market
- Political Geography:
- Turkey and Middle East
6. Has Kosovo understood the Sexual Integrity of Women?
- Author:
- Blenda Asllani
- Publication Date:
- 09-2023
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Kosovar Centre for Security Studies (KCSS)
- Abstract:
- The sexual integrity of women means their right to own and have full control over their bodies without any form of violence or coercion. Kosovo, like many countries in the world, has faced significant challenges in ensuring and fully respecting the sexual integrity of women. One of the most frequent forms of violation of the sexual integrity of women is sexual violence: sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape. According to the database of the QIKA organization, from 2019 to 2022, 257 women reported that they were sexually assaulted and another 231 reported sexual harassment to the Kosovo Police. Violation of sexual integrity in Kosovo has not excluded even minor girls, where we recall the case of the rape of an 11-year-old girl by a group of 5 adult men in August, 2022. The recent data from the Information System of the Kosovo Police is a sobering reminder of the gravity of this situation: from January to May 2023, there have been 42 committed and 4 attempted rape cases. As Kosovo progresses towards enhanced national development and global integration, addressing sexual violence becomes crucial not just for individual well-being, but also as a fundamental matter of human rights, gender equality, public safety, and social cohesion.
- Topic:
- Human Rights, Women, Sexual Violence, Police, and Gender
- Political Geography:
- Eastern Europe and Kosovo
7. The UN Agenda for Protection: Policy, Strategic, and Operational Priorities
- Author:
- Damian Lilly
- Publication Date:
- 03-2022
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- International Peace Institute
- Abstract:
- In his 2020 Call to Action on Human Rights, UN Secretary-General António Guterres committed to developing an “Agenda for Protection.” The agenda provides an opportunity for the UN to reaffirm that the protection of crisis-affected populations is fundamental to its purpose and values. To be effective it should address the lessons learned from previous efforts to bring about a system-wide approach to protection, particularly the Human Rights up Front initiative. Critically, it should address the systemic and structural shortcomings of the UN to effectively respond to protection crises by providing strategic coherence to the fragmented ways in which the different UN entities contribute to protection. This policy paper analyzes the policy, strategic, and operational priorities for the forthcoming Agenda for Protection. It focuses on how the UN system can reform the way it addresses protection crises while remaining mindful that its role is heavily influenced by member states. It argues that without a transformative and comprehensive approach that brings together the fragmented ways the different UN entities contribute to protection, the Agenda for Protection is likely to suffer the same fate as previous unsuccessful efforts, further undermining the organization’s credibility. The paper concludes by providing several recommendations for the UN to consider as it drafts the Agenda for Protection: Establishing a clear vision statement and a commitment to protect; Setting out a common framework of protection measures to be implemented; Designating and resourcing a system-wide lead entity on protection; Outlining procedures to scale up the response in the event of a protection crisis; Developing an implementation plan and accountability framework; and Consolidating the reporting of protection results.
- Topic:
- Human Rights, United Nations, Sustainable Development Goals, Civilians, Humanitarian Response, and Protection
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus
8. Forging European Unity on China: The Case of Hungarian Dissent
- Author:
- Ties Dams
- Publication Date:
- 04-2022
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Clingendael Netherlands Institute of International Relations
- Abstract:
- EU Member states can be divided on China, even on issues such as human rights. Often singled out as an agent of division is the Hungarian government of prime minister Viktor Orbán. Hungarian dissent begs the question: how can the EU move forward on China given Hungary’s strategy of obstructive dissent? European cooperation ought not wait for unanimity, nor should it rely on value-politics: member states should play the power game to circumvent or break lingering impasses. Member States should support setting up a 27+1 Forum as the main platform for European China-policy, form a leading group tackling strategic corruption and corrosive capital, and initiative a track 1.5 dialogue on China with Germany and the Visegrád Countries.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Corruption, Human Rights, and European Union
- Political Geography:
- China, Europe, Asia, and Hungary
9. The Humanitarian Paradox: Why Human Rights Require Restraint
- Author:
- Asli Bâli
- Publication Date:
- 08-2022
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
- Abstract:
- For the United States to be “committed to a world in which human rights are protected, their defenders are celebrated, and those who commit human rights abuses are held accountable” requires more than rhetorical flourishes.1 To achieve the goal of protecting and promoting human rights, the United States must embrace a more restrained security posture together with a persistent diplomatic strategy that prioritizes engagement ahead of confrontation. Military force and economic coercion are the wrong tools for advancing human rights. As the cases of Iraq and Libya demonstrate, preventive or humanitarian wars have critically impaired human rights. Similarly, comprehensive sanctions regimes have imposed severe human rights costs while achieving few U.S. foreign policy goals, if any, in targeted countries. The United States should therefore incorporate the following policy approaches in the service of human rights: • Right-size its expectations of what American power can achieve to protect and advance human rights abroad. On balance, exaggerated and unrealistic confidence in American power has hurt rather than helped the cause of human rights. • Serve as a public advocate of human rights in multilateral settings, engaging with international institutions to pressure allies and adversaries alike on their human rights records. At the same time, the United States should raise human rights concerns directly in its bilateral dealings when abuses come to light, using private diplomacy to highlight specific issues or changes that are priorities. • Do much more to support the protection and promotion of human rights in areas under its direct control or influence. This would include, at a minimum, halting human rights abuses committed by the U.S. in its own counterterrorism operations, freezing military aid when U.S. arms are implicated in targeting civilians, building on the recent openness to Ukrainian refugees by strengthening and expanding U.S. asylum and refugee resettlement programs globally, and greatly increasing delivery of humanitarian aid, in the form of funding as well as medical and food assistance, to civilian populations deprived of their socioeconomic rights due to conflict, climate change, and the global food crisis.
- Topic:
- Human Rights, War, Humanitarian Intervention, and Coercion
- Political Geography:
- United States of America
10. Strategic Patience: Sustainable Engagement with a Changed Afghanistan
- Author:
- Adam Weinstein
- Publication Date:
- 08-2022
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
- Abstract:
- One year after the United States withdrew its military from Afghanistan, relations between the two countries are stuck in a holding pattern. The United States remains the single largest humanitarian donor to the people of Afghanistan, with over $774 million USD distributed since the Taliban takeover, but the United States maintains no diplomatic presence in the country — nor does it send official diplomatic envoys.1 U.S. sanctions have not altered the Taliban’s calculus on human rights or ties with al-Qaeda. The Taliban has proved intransigent and unrealistic in its relations not only with Washington but with neighboring countries like Pakistan. Its senior leaders lack a coherent vision for the country and its emir remains reclusive.2 Future U.S. policymakers might be tempted to disengage diplomatically and economically from Afghanistan and instead rely primarily on “over-the-horizon” counterterrorism.3 The most likely consequence of this approach would be a more isolated and unstable Afghanistan, which in turn could foster an even more permissive environment for transnational terrorists. Consistent diplomacy tied to long-term U.S. security objectives is likely to produce incremental results at best, but is still preferable to diplomatic disengagement or military intervention. This brief provides a concise background and analysis of the most pressing issues affecting U.S. interests in Afghanistan. It draws on open source data; interviews with government officials — including from the de facto Taliban government; and interviews with private analysts that were conducted remotely or in person — in the United States, Pakistan, and Qatar. Broad policy recommendations • The United States should work closely with regional countries, including Pakistan, India, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan to ensure they are prepared to handle security challenges as they emerge. If the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is revived, opportunities may emerge to engage Iran on Afghanistan. These should include routine dialogue, intelligence sharing, and capacity building, such as policing and border security. Washington should engage separately with India and Pakistan to bolster humanitarian aid and limited commerce to Afghanistan. • The United States should reiterate mutual responsibilities under the 2020 agreement it signed with the Taliban in Doha, but recognize that it lacks effective enforcement mechanisms and therefore is better understood as an aspirational framework. • Formal recognition of the de facto Taliban government should be withheld until it demonstrates a clear commitment to its counterterrorism responsibilities and respect for basic human rights, including for women. But Washington should place diplomats in Afghanistan either through the creation of an in-country Afghanistan affairs unit, whether based in the prior U.S. Embassy or inside a friendly third country’s diplomatic mission, or by sending temporary delegations to Kabul, as our allies have. This should be coupled with multilateral steps to remove the leadership’s travel privileges. It is important that U.S. officials interact with Taliban cabinet members in Kabul and other Taliban stakeholders based in Kandahar.4 Direct outreach by U.S. military officials and the intelligence community may have utility but it is not a replacement for a coherent civilian-led diplomatic strategy. • Sanctions intended to target the Taliban as a non-state actor now extend far beyond their original scope, since they became the de facto government of Afghanistan. If not yet determined, the U.S. government should communicate what steps the Taliban must take to be de-listed as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist Group.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Human Rights, Sanctions, and Engagement
- Political Geography:
- Pakistan, Afghanistan, South Asia, India, and United States of America