Prosecutorial Discretion and Victims’ Rights at the International Criminal Court: Demarcating the Battle Lines

Many victims were killed, and in fact one of us had to carry the head of her dead husband from Nakuru so that she could bury it. Her husband was killed during PEV. Do you know how traumatising that is? Another lady’s husband was killed in their house. These women are suffering and their only hope was the ICC. You are now informing us that the case has been terminated, do you want us to kill ourselves also? (Halafu unatuáfembia case imeisha, unataka hata sisi tujiue?) . . . Will the Court at least allow us to give our opinions in regards to this termination? There is so much we have to tell the Court and we feel they should listen to our grievances

Reparations for Mass Torts involving the United Nations: Misguided Exceptionalism in Peacekeeping Operations

In recent years, UN peacekeepers have been accused of several mass torts causing significant injury to host populations. Using the International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations as a backdrop, this article charts the efforts taken by host populations to seek reparation for the harms they suffered and the responses of the UN to arguments about their institutional liability and the consequential obligations to afford reparation. The author argues that the misapplication of the lex specialis principle has been central to the UN’s avoidance strategies

Human Rights Due Diligence Policies Applied to Extraterritorial Cooperation to Prevent “Irregular” Migration: European Union and United Kingdom Support to Libya

Extraterritorial cooperation—including by providing funds, equipment, training, and technical support—has become central to policies aimed at preventing access of refugees and “irregular” migrants to particular countries and regions. But cooperating countries and international organizations have due diligence obligations under human rights law to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the cooperation they provide does not result in human rights violations, even when the violations are perpetrated extraterritorially by third parties. Consequently, they can become liable for the failure to exercise due diligence to prevent human rights violations from occurring in the receiving states. Also, they may incur responsibility for the resulting acts where they knowingly aided or assisted the receiving state to commit human rights violations with the support provided. International organizations and some states have begun to adopt human rights due diligence policies to assess and mitigate the risks of such cooperation. Using the examples of European Union and United Kingdom support to Libya, this Article analyzes the due diligence policies they have applied to extraterritorial cooperation in the area of border control and the detention of refugees and other migrants. It finds that the policies as implemented have provided only superficial scrutiny and argues that they should be made more robust and transparent. Ultimately, this will help mitigate the human rights risks associated with extraterritorial assistance, and ideally help ensure that assistance contributes to the strengthening of human rights protections in recipient countries

Reparations, Assistance and Support

Explains the procedure for victim reparations, support and assistance before international criminal courts and tribunals

Detention and Pandemic Exceptionality

This essay considers the circumstances of persons deprived of their liberty in the context of Covid-19. Detention is always intended to be exceptional and the essay explores the extent to which the pandemic impacts upon this exceptional character. First, by increasing the unacceptability of detention, have the rules regarding what may constitute “arbitrary detention” changed? Secondly, for persons serving out prison sentences, to what extent should Covid-19 serve as a justification for early release or commutation of punishment? In this respect, should the goals of retribution and specific and general deterrence be weighed against the rights to health and safety of prisoners and prison staff, and if so, how? Do detaining authorities have absolute discretion to determine which detainees to release or must they ensure that policies of release also, are not arbitrary? To what extent does the arbitrary resort to detention as well as the arbitrary decision to maintain someone in detention during the pandemic, which may heighten certain individuals’ exposure to the disease and thereby produce extreme anxiety, give rise to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, if not torture? The paper considers how governments, specialist agencies and courts are beginning to grapple with these legal, ethical and public health issues. On the one hand, recognition of the heightened health risks for detainees associated with the pandemic is proving to be an important opportunity to reduce reliance on detention – and thereby to make good on the intention for detention to be recognised as an exceptional measure. Yet on the other hand, as will be shown, the selectivity of approaches and lack of transparency and oversight of decision-making has put some detainees at even greater risk of harm

The Alleged Murder of Jamal Khashoggi: Why this case strikes such a nerve

Essex Human Rights Centre blog post on the implications of the disappearance and murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi upon entering the Saudi consulate in Turke

Criminalizing Sexual Exploitation and Abuse by Peacekeepers

Sexual exploitation and abuse continue to pervade peacekeeping missions, and peacekeepers benefit from near-total impunity. • Several seminal United Nations (UN) studies and expert reports provide a useful blueprint of where the gaps lie, what must be done to address them, and how to do so. • Zero-tolerance UN policies have focused on preventing new abuse and strengthening codes of conduct. These goals are laudable but undermined when not accompanied by consistent discipline and criminal accountability. • Despite eight years of annual resolutions that underscore the need to address the problems, there is no evidence of greater accountability. • More work is needed to finish the job. States are responsible for disciplining and punishing their troops, but the UN must do more to ensure that this happens. • The UN needs to work actively with states to bridge the gaps in domestic legislation by issuing written advice and publishing model legislation. • The UN should publicly name and shame those states that fail to investigate and prosecute credible cases. • The UN should refrain from accepting troop contingents from countries that repeatedly fail to live up to their written assurances to investigate and prosecute. • The memorandum of understanding governing the relationship between the UN and troop-contributing countries should be further revised to introduce greater conditionality into the acceptance and removal of troop contingents