You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘African Union’ tag.
In advance of a workshop on Operationalizing the Responsibility to Protect: Building Trust and Capacities for the Third Pillar Approach, to be held April 26 at the Global Governance Institute in Belgium, the organizers put out a call for papers in January. The papers will address two areas: enhancing the legitimacy and consistency of the third pillar* approach, and improving the effectiveness of R2P’s civilian and military tools.
Per the policy brief, “The workshop is not concerned with the conceptual nature of the pillar itself, but rather on the range of peaceful and military measures and tools—such as economic sanctions, preventive diplomacy and mediation, fact-finding missions and, as a last resort, military interventions such as the implementation of no-fly zones and civilian missions—used for implementation.” Policy recommendations discussed at/born of the workshop will be contributed to the United Nations General Assembly informal interactive dialogue on the third pillar of R2P this summer.
NATO’s UN-approved mission in Libya has raised a number of concerns in regards to the actual carrying out of R2P. As noted above, intervention wasn’t solely intended to be of a military nature. The Libyan case therefore brings up questions of timeliness, legitimacy, proportionality, and effectiveness of this particular brand of action. Moreover, a greater emphasis on prevention would mitigate the need for intervention. Instead of reliance on the international community and the United Nations, regional actors such as the European Union and the African Union, should play bigger roles in responding to all stages of crises that would ultimately necessitate the invocation of R2P. Other elements of the principle to be discussed at both the workshop and the UNGA dialogue include trust-building, consensus-building, collaboration, transparency, capacity-building, early-warning systems, training, and a long-term holistic approach to crisis situations.
* The third pillar of R2P focuses on the international community’s responsibility to take timely and decisive action to prevent and halt genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and crimes against humanity in those instances where a State is unable or unwilling to protect its own populations.
* In a report titled “You Don’t Know Who to Blame: War Crimes in Somalia,” Human Rights Watch claims that all parties involved in the country’s ongoing conflict—al-Shabaab militants, Transitional Federal Government (TFG) forces, African Union troops, and government-aligned militias—have “committed serious violations of the laws of war that are contributing to the country’s humanitarian catastrophe.” These violations—which include indiscriminate artillery attacks, arbitrary arrests and executions, and the extortion and abuse of refugees—have made aiding those affected by the war and the famine more difficult. Human Rights Watch called on all parties to protect civilians and requested that international donors to the TNG establish “clear human rights benchmarks” to help ensure the government begins to abide by international humanitarian law.
* The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights released a report today documenting human rights violations during the conflict in the Sudanese state of South Kordofan. While both the rebels and the government are implicated, the report attributes a majority of the violations to government forces, which have purportedly targeted civilians during military operations, executed and arrested suspected rebel members, and indiscriminately bombed villages. Unconfirmed sightings of mass graves outside the city of Kadugli were also documented. The United Nations has called on Khartoum to allow international monitors to perform unhindered investigations into these allegations.
* During a press conference on Thursday, U.S. State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland told reporters that the government is prepared to work with the international community to establish “an international commission” to investigate allegations of crimes against humanity committed by the Burmese government during its clashes with ethnic rebels. This announcement comes shortly after thirteen female U.S. Senators sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in which they called for action against the Burmese regime for its use of rape as a weapon of war. “We are prepared to work to establish an international Commission of Inquiry through close consultation with our friends and allies,” Nuland stated.
* Following a meeting of the African Prosecutors Association, chief prosecutors from a number of African countries have vowed to step up their efforts to find, arrest, and extradite fugitives wanted for crimes committed during the 1994 Rwandan genocide. One way they hope to do this is through a greater level of intelligence sharing on the whereabouts of suspected criminals. There are reportedly 110 “indictments and appeals for arrests” still out for individuals suspected of being involved in Rwanda’s genocide.
Photos (from top): bar-kulan.com, Peter DiCampo/Pulitzer Center, news.az
On Wednesday, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) referred one of its cases to the Rwandan judicial system. The case is that of Jean-Bosco Uwinkindi, a Rwandan Pentecostal pastor charged with genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, and extermination as a crime against humanity. He was arrested in Uganda in June 2010 and has been in the tribunal’s custody since July of that year.
Previous requests for referral to the Rwandan courts were rejected by ICTR judges on the basis that a fair trial could not be guaranteed. In this case, however, the court noted that “Rwanda had made material changes in its laws and had indicated its capacity and willingness to prosecute cases referred by the ICTR adhering to internationally recognised fair trial standards enshrined in the ICTR Statute and other human rights instruments.” Uwinkindi’s referral is the first one granted since Chief Prosecutor Hassan Bubacar Jallow filed three new transfer requests based on his determination that the legal climate in Rwanda had changed enough to allow fair trial for the accused.
In their ruling, the ICTR judges requested that the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights be appointed to monitor the Rwandan proceedings for fairness.
The ruling, which Rwandan pro-government daily The New Times labeled “a vote of confidence in the Rwandan judicial system,” follows the UN Security Council’s Resolution 1966 asking the tribunal to find ways to wrap up all cases by 2014.
Africa: Civil society groups urge governments to support ICC
A report by African civil society groups and international organizations working in Africa calls on African member states of the ICC to cooperate with and continue supporting the actions of the International Criminal Court. Titled “Observations and Recommendations on the International Criminal Court and the African Union,” the report criticizes AU requests for delays in ICC prosecution of Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir and in the investigation of Kenya’s 2007-08 post-election violence, and condemns AU reluctance to support Security Council Resolution 1970 on Libya.
The organizations, numbering 125 and based in more than 25 countries, make seven recommendations to Africa’s 32 ICC member states: 1) support the ICC at AU summits, 2) push for accountability for serious violators of international law in Darfur and Kenya, 3) voice objections on Kenya and Darfur to the Security Council rather than the ICC, 4) address concerns about plans to expand jurisdiction of the new African Court of Justice and Human Rights, 5) cooperate with ICC prosecution of crimes in Libya, 6) comply with obligations regarding people targeted by ICC warrants, and 7) take a more active role in selection of the next ICC prosecutor.
Currently the African Court of Justice and Human Rights is allowed to rule on general legal matters and human rights treaties. The AU has proposed widening its jurisdiction to criminal prosecution for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Noting the complexity of these cases and the region’s lack of experience in handling them, the report advises caution. If the African Court moves ahead, says the report, it must adhere to international legal and procedural standards, have access to adequate resources to conduct investigations, and clarify its standing to make sure it doesn’t undermine ICC authority.
The recommendation regarding the Bashir warrant appears to be a response to the AU call for members not to cooperate with the arrest, while the plea for cooperation with the ICC on Libya aims to ensure that African concerns about military action don’t obstruct justice for crimes against civilians.
Photo: Human Rights Watch
The Stanley Foundation in May released a policy report titled The Role of Regional and Subregional Arrangements in Strengthening the Responsibility to Protect. Based on the proceedings of a conference hosted by the foundation, the report analyzes the differences in methods of implementation of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) across different regional organizations.
The report hails the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) as one of the most successful in incorporating R2P. The authors attribute this in part to Europe’s commitment to the principles of human rights and conflict prevention and response, which were articulated and matured in European-level institutions before being addressed at the international level. For Europe the provisions of R2P have long been the norm.
Asian regional organizations—specifically the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)—have developed impressive policy frameworks to promote regional compliance with R2P. The problem, says the report, lies not in commitment but in capacity: ASEAN is too underfunded to develop adequate crisis prevention and response tools, or to sponsor programs that properly promote norms without outside help. Despite this, one of ASEAN’s greatest strengths is the dialogue it maintains with international organizations—cited as a key factor to successful implementation of R2P.
In the Americas, R2P faces ideological resistance. The Organization of American States (OAS) has tried to balance a firm belief in protecting human rights with an equally firm belief in territorial sovereignty. This has resulted in skepticism towards what some countries within the OAS view as the interventionist tendencies of R2P, leading to policies that are “more reactive that proactive.”
The African Union (AU) and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) have good policies in place, but lack the capacity needed to enforce the policies. While their flexibility allows for a huge array of responses, ranging from political pressure to military force, a lack of capacity has hamstrung their ability to respond to crisis effectively. The authors of the report give the example of the AU’s inability to muster sufficient military force from member states in response to the recent crisis in Cote d’Ivoire.
Despite vast differences between these regions, the report recommends some universal policies necessary for successful implementation of R2P. These include a high level of public engagement and education concerning R2P; the creation or modification of institutions that can viably perform the tasks necessary; and continued development of the capacity of regional arrangements to respond.