Fair representation on International courts: geography, gender and beyond

RESUMEN La conferencia plantea una cuestión acerca de los tribunales internacionales de justicia (ICs): ¿por qué debería importarnos que su composición sea suficientemente diversa, entendiendo por tal no sólo que atienda a diferentes tradiciones y especialidades judiciales, sino también a criterios de género, geográficos y otros? Para responder a la pregunta, la exposición planteará en primer lugar cuáles son las funciones que cumplen los tribunales internacionales de justicia, a la luz de las cuales examinará cuatro razones, epistémicas y morales, por las que la composición plural de tales tribunales importa. Abordará después la cuestión de cuáles serían los grupos o los criterios de diversidad a los que habría que atender. Y, por último, cerrará la exposición discutiendo diferentes medidas que pueden adoptarse en los procesos de nominación y selección de los jueces de los tribunales internacionales a fin de lograr que la composición sea más diversa y equilibrada

How many women judges are enough on international courts?

The African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACtHPR) made history on August 27, 2018. The majority of its judges were female—six of 11, and the first among international courts and tribunals (ICs) to secure sex parity—that is, numerical equality.1 This achievement is even more remarkable given that only 23% of the judges and arbitrators of the ICs are women.2 The milestone also prompts us to consider more closely what considerations of legitimacy entail about the proportion of women international judges. The present composition of ICs is clearly under legal, social, and political control, and ICs have profound effects. The persistent underrepresentation of women is especially striking since not only civil society groups, but also the states who nominate and establish election procedures have agreed several treaties that require or urge a balance of gender representation.3 So it would seem that the parity achieved by the ACtHPR should be applauded. However, that IC may now be even more gender equal than we may have reason to require of a legitimate IC—or so this article argues. A less egalitarian composition within a “parity zone” of approximately 40% of either of the main sexes seems to suffice. The present reflections considers various possible arguments offered concerning the impact of gender inequality on the international bench, drawing in part on studies of domestic judiciaries, as well as on available research and reflections by practitioners and women international judges.4 Several arguments support calls to increase the proportion of female international judges—but how far? Section 2 addresses some background issues: first concerning the terms “feminism,” “sex,” and “gender,” then, the tasks of ICs that should lead us to question the present sex inequality on the international bench

Stability and trust in federations with ethnic territories and a secession clause - Challenges and opportunities for Ethiopia

How might Ethiopia maintain its federal structure and its territory? ‘Constitutional contestation’ in Ethiopia is fuelled by two factors: regions and political parties follow ethnic line; and the Ethiopian Constitution has a secession clause. A central challenge is to secure sufficient political trust. The public must be assured that authorities and individuals across regional borders generally comply with the law. This requires authoritative, independent ways to settle disagreements and monitor compliance, including carefully designed multi-level checks and balances, representatives of regions in central decision making bodies, and a ‘competence police’. So we should welcome the prohibition of the 2019 Election Law against ethnically based political parties. Strong and credible human rights constraints together with free media and functioning opposition parties may also foster trusts,. This is one further reason why Ethiopia should grant the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACtHPR) jurisdiction to hear cases from ngo s and individuals

Much ado about nothing? International Judicial Review of Human Rights in Well Functioning Democracies

The chapter addresses some of the tensions between sovereignty, international human rights review and legitimacy, and bring these findings to bear on the proposals for reform of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) that would reduce its authority over national legislatures and judiciaries. The objectives of such review are not obvious, the causes of noncompliance are contested, as is the legality of dynamic treaty interpretation; all of which hamper efforts to assess proposed improvements. Section 1 presents some relevant aspects of the ECtHR. Section 2 reviews some of the recent criticism against the ECtHR practice of judicial review to protect human rights in ‘well-functioning’ democracies, in terms of various forms of legitimacy deficits. It also presents some of the recent proposals for reform of the ECtHR. Section 3 lays out some reasons why such judicial review of majoritarian democratic decision-making may be defensible, also for well functioning democracies. Section 4 responds to some of the criticisms, and presents a partial defence. Some standard objections are not well targeted against the practices of the ECtHR, partly due to the division of responsibility between it and national public bodies, and the different roles of legislators and of judiciaries. Section 5 returns to the proposals presented in section 2. Section 6 concludes by considering some of the important remaining normative challenges, this partial defence notwithstanding. Published December 2013 © Cambridge University Press http://www.cambridge.org/cr/academic/subjects/law/human-rights/legitimacy-international-human-rights-regimes-legal-political-and-philosophical-perspective

Hvis det norske forbudet mot dobbelt norsk statsborgerskap er løsningen, hva er da problemet?

Tilgjengeliggjort med tillatelse fra Pax Forlag

Theories of Human Rights: Political or Orthodox - Why it Matters

This material has been published in Moral and Political Conceptions of Human Rights: Implications for Theory and Practice edited by Reidar Maliks and Johan Karlsson Schaffer. This version is free to view and download for personal use only. Not for re-distribution, re-sale or use in derivative works. © 2017 Cambridge University Pres