advocacy

• GLOBAL GOVERNANCE: ‘The Summit of the Future is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make a difference in people’s lives’

  CIVICUS speaks with Dr Richard Ponzio, Director of the Global Governance, Security and Justice Programme at the Stimson Center, about the deficits of the global governance system and civil society’s proposals for reform.

  The Stimson Center is a non-profit, nonpartisan think tank that promotes international peace and security and shared prosperity through applied research and independent analysis, global engagement and policy innovation.

  Dr Ponzio also co-directs the Stimson Center-ledGlobal Governance Innovation Network.

   

  What’s the purpose of the Summit of the Future planned for September 2024?

  The Summit of the Future, the convening of which had been recommended by the United Nations (UN) Secretary-General, was originally set to be held in 2023, but following somewhat acrimonious negotiations a decision was made to delay it by a year. We witnessed a major diplomatic fault-line between several influential global south countries and a large proportion of the UN membership, caused primarily by the perceived competition between the Summit of the Future and the mid-point Summit for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG Summit), held in September 2023.

  In particular, Cuba, on behalf of the G77 and China, repeatedly reiterated its lingering concerns that the Summit of the Future’s multiple tracks could divert political attention, financial resources and precious time, particularly for smaller UN missions, from the ‘main priority’ of achieving the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

  This is one significant area where civil society organisations worldwide can help bridge divisions between major groupings of UN member states. Specifically, they can help build the case that while the SDG Summit arrived at a relatively brief high-level political statement acknowledging global governance gaps in need of urgent attention to accelerate progress on the 2030 Agenda, the preparatory process for next year’s Summit of the Future is designed to realise – through well-conceived, politically acceptable and adequately resourced reform proposals – the actual systemic changes needed to fill those gaps.

  This will entail comprehensively tracking the SDG Summit’s identified gaps and ensuring their coverage, backed by sufficient financing and high-level political support – including through concurrent deliberations in the G20, G7 and BRICS+ forums – in the multiple, in-depth instruments to be negotiated for the Summit of the Future, including its main outcome document, the Pact for the Future, and the associated Declaration on Future Generations, Global Digital Compact and New Agenda for Peace. In tangible ways, these instruments will help take forward the 2030 Agenda, the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement and the wider UN agenda.

  What key considerations should policymakers take into account ahead of the Summit?

  While seeking to avoid political minefields that could make working relations between major groupings of UN member states even more toxic, it is critical that in the coming weeks and months, all member states begin to coalesce around a select number of ambitious, high-impact global governance innovations that will constitute the chief legacy of the Summit. Otherwise, what’s the point of holding it, let alone the UN75 Declaration and the Secretary-General’s Our Common Agenda that preceded it?

  The UN 60 Summit held in 2005 was the last time the need for improvements across the entire UN system was reviewed in a single intergovernmental summit. Although governments came up short in high-profile areas such as Security Council reform and disarmament, there were three major achievements: the creation of the new UN peacebuilding architecture, which included the Peacebuilding Commission, Fund and Support Office; the adoption of the Responsibility to Protect principle; and the upgrade of an enfeebled Human Rights Commission into an empowered Human Rights Council with new tools for safeguarding human rights, such as the widely acclaimed Universal Periodic Review.

  What would a successful Summit of the Future look like?

  Five big-ticket reforms, one for each of the Pact for the Future’s five agreed chapter headings, would help ensure a legacy worthy of UN75 that addresses today’s toughest global challenges.

  In the area of sustainable development and financing for development, the convening of a biennial UN-G20+ Summit for the Global Economy would help foster socioeconomic recovery from the pandemic, mitigate and manage cross-border shocks and address rising global inequality. Such global economic convening would push the leaders of the G20 and heads of the international financial institutions and World Trade Organization to join all 193 UN member states and the Secretary-General for the General Assembly’s annual high-level week – in which the participation of influential countries at the highest level has waned.

  In the area of international peace and security, a major reform would be the upgrade of the UN Peacebuilding Commission to an empowered Peacebuilding Council equipped to prevent conflict and build just and durable peace after protracted violent conflicts. Crucially, this would involve an expanded mandate to enhance peacebuilding policy development, coordination, resource mobilisation and conflict prevention efforts in countries and regions not directly addressed by the Security Council.

  In the area of science, technology and innovation and digital cooperation, it would be key to establish an International Artificial Intelligence (AI) Agency to advance the core principles of safety, sustainability, and inclusion through effective global governance to harness the potential of artificial intelligence and other cyber-technologies for humanity. Specifically, the new agency would improve visibility, advocacy and resource mobilisation for global AI regulatory efforts and provide thought leadership and help to implement General Assembly and Security Council AI and cyber-technology initiatives.

  Regarding young people and future generations, the focus should be on establishing an Earth Stewardship Council (ESC) for improved governance of the global commons, as well as a new Special Envoy for Future Generations, to better carry out together the Declaration on Future Generations now being negotiated. To ensure member states’ adherence to their declaration commitments, the ESC could conduct an annual Future Generations Review.

  Finally, the transformation of global governance could be achieved through reform of the global economic and financial architecture to allow for greater stability and sustainable progress. Among the most urgent changes needed is the strengthening of the global debt architecture through, for example, debt-for-nature-swaps and a representative sovereign debt authority to aid indebted countries in restructuring. There’s also an urgent need to repurpose multilateral development banks by expanding their lending capacity by more than US$100 billion, reforming voting rights and decision-making rules, instituting new measures to de-risk investments to further unleash private capital and issuing the International Monetary Fund’s Special Drawing Rights more regularly and at greater scale to finance critical global public goods.

  What pitfalls should the international community watch out for in the run up to the Summit?

  As noted earlier, a major diplomatic fault-line has opened between several influential global south countries and a large proportion of the UN’s membership, the Secretariat and many civil society groups.

  Despite a well-conceived and carefully consulted ‘roadmap’ by the summit’s co-facilitators, the permanent representatives to the UN of Germany and Namibia, and 11 carefully crafted policy briefs by the Executive Office of the Secretary-General, the current approach to Summit preparation involving consultations with member states and other stakeholders has been disappointing.

  Being excessively process-oriented, for most of last year it focused on determining the precise number of intergovernmental negotiating tracks and the degree of ambition within each track, risking delays to substantive work on the Pact for the Future and related instruments.

  Long-overdue discussions on substance are urgently needed to improve the methods and institutions that will enable the UN to face an expansive and critical agenda that runs across its three pillars – peace and security, sustainable development and human rights. Their absence is keeping the international community from achieving the UN we need for the future we want, as the UN75 Report put it.

  How can civil society engage with the Summit?

  As in past UN summits, the active, well-informed and independent contributions of diverse partners from across civil society worldwide, including advocates from civil society organisations, community-based leaders, regional and country-level practitioners, scholars, policy analysts and faith community leaders, are critical to a successful outcome. As well as having innovative ideas and expertise to share, they can help amplify key messages and commitments coming out of government-led negotiations in the weeks and months ahead for the broader public in their countries, mobilising greater support for actions to address global challenges.

  To facilitate further constructive contributions from civil society over the coming months, the Coalition for the UN We Need has encouraged UN missions to consider welcoming at least one individual civil society and one individual youth representative onto their negotiating teams in the months prior to the Summit, as well as to encourage open and accessible intergovernmental meetings for civil society to observe and, on occasion, offer timely substantive inputs. Member states are also encouraged to welcome and facilitate the participation of their national civil society leaders in the 9-10 May UN-Civil Society Forum in Nairobi, Kenya, which the UN Secretariat is planning with the Coalition for the UN We Need and other civil society partners committed to maximising the full potential of the Summit of the Future.

  Through a combination of critical mass, quality ideas, enlightened global leadership and deft multilateral diplomacy, civil society can team up with champion governments, alongside dynamic leaders in global and regional institutions, to ensure that this literally once-in-a-generation Summit of the Future makes a meaningful difference in people’s lives. Together, governments and their partners in civil society and multilateral institutions must work quickly and resolutely to leverage this opportunity to realise the future we want and the UN we need for present and future generations.

  How is the Stimson Center working to bring different stakeholders together?

  Since the 2015 report of the Albright-Gambari Commission on Global Security, Justice and Governance, Confronting the Crisis of Global Governance, and the 2021 launch of the Global Governance Innovation Network (GGIN), the Stimson Center has encouraged constructive engagement of diverse stakeholders in civil society, government and the private sector on issues of global governance innovation, and specifically in preparation for the 2024 Summit of the Future.

  Among the GGIN’s primary workstreams, it has facilitated 10 global and regional policy dialogues in the global north and south, including a forthcoming one in Africa, undertakes and commissions policy research, including from female and younger scholars, and coordinates a diverse, global online community of practice including scholars, practitioners and policy advocates.

  The GGIN is also a proud founding partner of the Coalition for the UN We Need, which – along with its predecessor, the UN2020 campaign – provides a global platform to enable greater civil society impact in strengthening the UN system. In 2024, the Coalition will give particular attention to engaging civil society partners in its critical advocacy work to raise the ambition of the Summit of the Future so that it can make the UN system more inclusive, effective and accountable.

  ---

  Get in touch with the Stimson Center through itswebsite and follow@StimsonCenter,@GGINetwork and@ponzio_richard on Twitter.

  This interview was conducted as part of the ENSURED Horizon research project funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed in this interview are those of the interviewee only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.

• GLOBAL GOVERNANCE: ‘To change global institutions, we must think boldly while acting strategically’

  CIVICUS speaks with Rebecca Shoot, Executive Director of Citizens for Global Solutions, about the deficits of the global governance system and civil society’s proposals for reform.

  Citizens for Global Solutions is a non-profit, nonpartisan, civil society organisation based in the USA. Initially founded as the World Federalist Association, for over 75 years it has advocated for a democratic world federation based on peace, human rights and the rule of law.

  What are the key global problems that need global solutions?

  Citizens for Global Solutions was founded in 1947 by some of the greatest minds and peace champions of the last century, including Albert Einstein, J William Fulbright, Norman Cousins, Clare Booth Luce and Benjamin Ferencz. It was founded in recognition of global challenges such as war, planetary emergencies of climate and health, and growing inequalities including poverty and human security.

  None of that has changed. These challenges have only accelerated and exacerbated. On 23 January 2024, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists announced that the Doomsday Clock, operational since 1947 and representing the likelihood of a human-made global catastrophe, stands at 90 seconds to midnight for the second year in a row – the closest it has ever been to the point that represents unprecedented danger, including extremely high risks of climate collapse and nuclear war.

  We now have the means to harm humanity and erode our planet to unprecedented levels and at unprecedented speed. We currently face the highest rates of violent conflict in more than 30 years. The threat of nuclear war brings the possibility of global annihilation, while cybersecurity and AI warfare capabilities posit questions that our current humanitarian law framework and institutions struggles to keep pace with. These security questions extend into other facets of life and global interaction, notably impacting on the levels of trust and cooperation among and within nations.

  To give another example: pandemics are not new. From the bubonic plague to the 1918-1920 flu pandemic, humanity has confronted these challenges from immemorial times. But never before have we had the level of interaction, travel and cross-border exchange that has enabled a pandemic to expand so quickly and widely as COVID-19 did.

  In sum, all challenges have become more global, complex and consequential. As a result, the state system envisioned in 1945 no longer meets our needs. The gap between the current needs of humanity and the planet and our institutions’ capacity and intent to address them continues to widen.

  We are convinced that humankind cannot survive another world conflict and yet we live in a world full of conflicts. This is why Citizens for Global Solutions advocates for global cooperation and common security through a democratic world federated system.

  Why is there a need for citizens to promote solutions for these global problems?

  Citizens are a necessary part of this equation, and they have always been. But they were removed from the corridors of power as our current institutions grew, and it is not to be expected that those who benefit from the current system would be willing to change that.

  To change global institutions effectively, we need to push for a wider range of voices to come to the table. For instance, a key success of Citizens for Global Solutions was as the early leader and continued champion of the Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC), which started as a small collective of civil society groups committed to putting an end to impunity and holding those responsible for the most heinous crimes accountable and grew into the world’s largest international justice coalition. It continues to this day, working for the universality of the International Criminal Court (ICC) beyond its 124 current member states and for its effectiveness as a means of accountability, and a force for the rule of law as opposed to the rule of might.

  Today, we carry that spirit forward through a variety of educational, outreach and advocacy initiatives, including dedicated youth programming, to advance our foundational vision of a democratic world federation across future generations.

  What are the global governance dysfunctions that most urgently need to be corrected?

  While being one of humanity’s greatest achievements, the United Nations (UN) system and the global governance apparatus that supports it is also deeply flawed. It is often underutilised and sometimes ill-utilised. It is based on a deeply asymmetrical and outdated concept of governance based on the Westphalian state model. While it was founded with noble ideals, it also reflects the biases and incentive structures of a small portion of the world’s population, from a small set of nation states, represented by an even smaller elite within those nation states.

  Rather than victor’s justice, what we got is victors’ governance. This is a system that inevitably struggles to uphold and often betrays the fundamental principles articulated in the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which assert the rights of all humans, future generations and our planet. This inconsistency challenges our understanding of global governance and our duties and responsibilities as part of it.

  In practice, the inequalities and inequities that are both baked into current systems and brought in through politicisation and manipulation obstruct the cooperation needed to achieve true solutions for some of the profound global challenges we face.

  No nation has succeeded in creating a society that fully meets the needs of all of its people. When this is extrapolated to the global level, the deficit is even starker. Democratic states typically have some form of governance in which the branches of government balance and sustain one another. In the current UN system, the current global governance structure, what we have is a monopod. We have a strong but partisan executive, a judiciary that is to some extent under-utilised and under-resourced, and are completely lacking a legislative branch. This is a deep flaw that needs to be corrected.

  But I believe we have the tools at hand to do so. We do not stand on the sidelines and watch these dynamics as spectators but actively participate in finding constructive solutions – and animating people to achieve them.

  What kind of change would need to happen so that global problems are addressed with genuinely global solutions?

  Citizens for Global Solutions ultimately pursues the reimagined global governance architecture of a democratic world federation, a governance model that recognises global interdependence and supersedes narrow national interests. Along the way, we champion short-term and medium-term goals to realise this overarching objective.

  For instance, to safeguard human rights and uphold international law, we advocate for an effective, well-resourced ICC and International Court of Justice (ICJ) as the primary means of dispute resolution among states. We continue to actively participate in the CICC as it plays an essential role in the ICC’s universality and efficacy. The CICC is a great example of a civil society coalition mobilising to strengthen the global justice ecosystem.

  We are now taking that approach forward through a campaign called Legal Alternatives to War (LAW not War), of which we are a founding member. LAW not War seeks to bolster the ICJ – the foundational justice institution envisioned by the UN Charter – as the means for states to resolve their conflicts in courtrooms rather than on battlefields.

  While we want to safeguard and uphold the existing UN human rights mechanisms, we also urge a more transparent and democratic UN. We advocate for comprehensive reforms to the Security Council and General Assembly, and for the establishment of a UN Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA) and a standing UN peacekeeping body.

  The call for a UNPA, in particular, comes in recognition of a democratic deficit in the current global governance architecture. The UN functions ostensibly as an executive branch, without the checks and balances or the democratic accountability that come with a legislative body.

  We also support new global institutions and mechanisms, including an International Anti-Corruption Court, an international climate governance body and a World Court of Human Rights. Each of these bodies is a response to recognised gaps in the current international judicial landscape and would have distinct jurisdiction complementary to existing global, regional and domestic courts in a complementary judicial ecosystem.

  We also support Mobilizing an Earth Governance Alliance, a coalition dedicated to convening, catalysing and empowering experts and stakeholders to find the collaborative, cross-border governance solutions needed to halt further environmental degradation, climate crises and the harms we are inflicting upon our planet.

  As we navigate these challenges, we eagerly anticipate the upcoming Summit of the Future, a UN Summit aimed at enhancing cooperation, addressing global governance gaps and reaffirming commitments to the Sustainable Development Goals and the UN Charter. We believe this summit will play a pivotal role in reinvigorating our multilateral system, transforming it into a dynamic framework where global challenges are met with global solutions.

  What role is civil society playing in the run-up to the Summit of the Future?

  The Summit of the Future will be a unique collective moment for civil society. It is tasked with adopting an action-oriented outcome document, the Pact for the Future, the zero draft of which was released in January by co-facilitators Germany and Namibia. It’s established five key themes for the summit: sustainable development and financing for development, international peace and security, science, technology and innovation and digital cooperation, youth and future generations, and transforming global governance. All of these themes are intersectional and some are also crosscutting.

  This process is also likely to establish other structures, such as a UN Special Envoy for Future Generations. It’s a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reform and revitalise the UN as we know it.

  Civil society is playing an incredibly active role, particularly under the umbrella of the Coalition for the UN We Need. For the Summit of the Future to succeed in truly reimagining our global governance architecture, we need a very diverse array of people and organisations around the world to give input and feedback. To this end, a global civil society forum will take place in Nairobi in May, a few months before the Summit, to finalise a People’s Pact for the Future, which will collect the aspirations and demands of civil society worldwide.

  ---

  Get in touch with Citizens for Global Solutions through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@GlobalSolutions and@RAShoot on Twitter.

  

  

  This interview was conducted as part of the ENSURED Horizon research project funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed in this interview are those of the interviewee only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.

• GLOBAL GOVERNANCE: ‘We cannot address 21st-century challenges with 20th-century foundations’

  

  CIVICUS speaks with Nudhara Yusuf,Executive Coordinator of the Global Governance Innovation Network at theStimson Center, about the deficits of the current global governance system and civil society’s proposals for reform.

  The Stimson Center is a non-profit, nonpartisan think tank that promotes international peace and security and shared prosperity through applied research and independent analysis, global engagement and policy innovation.

  Nudhara also serves as Coordinator of theGlobal Futures Forum and as Global Youth Coordinator at theCoalition for the UN We Need.

   

  What were the key global challenges identified during the Doha Forum?

  The Doha Forum is a global platform for dialogue, bringing together leaders in policy to discuss critical global challenges and build innovative and action-driven networks that champion diplomacy, dialogue and diversity. This year it centred around the theme of building shared futures, addressing risks and opportunities.

  As it couldn’t ignore the current context, we delved into the ongoing crisis in the Middle East and the humanitarian situation in the region, while also acknowledging other crises occurring elsewhere in the world. We analysed the context and the path forward, both in terms of response and recovery, including the role of the broader international community.

  Two other big themes emerged during the forum. One of them was artificial intelligence and frontier technology, of which we explored the implications, risks and opportunities.

  The other theme was the climate crisis. As it closely followed COP28, the Forum paid considerable attention to the ways the future of humanity is being shaped by climate change and the steps needed to address it. Insights from the Climate Governance Commission and other stakeholders contributed significantly to these discussions.

  To what extent is the existing global governance system is able to address these global problems?

  The effectiveness of the current global governance system hinges on how we define the role of global institutions. If we consider their ability to bring diverse agenda items to the table, I will largely agree that it works. Over the past decade there has been a notable increase in awareness regarding global issues and the foresight needed to address them. However, there’s room for improvement in democratising the agenda-setting process. To that effect, We The Peoples is campaigning for a United Nations (UN) World Citizens’ Initiative that would allow people to bring agenda items to the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council.

  While identifying problems seems to be a strength of the system, the challenge lies in transitioning from identifying issues to implementing effective solutions. The road ahead demands solution-oriented approaches, but again, a significant challenge here lies in the inequalities and remnants of mistrust from past global injustices. Effective solutions will require gestures of multilateral trust-building.

  A big problem is that we are trying to address 21^st century challenges with 20^th century foundations. The UN was established in 1945, based on assumptions that belong to that era. How can it function on those same principles today? Take for example the global financial system, different on so many levels – with different stakeholders, practices and policies – from the one that existed when the Bretton Woods systems were created. It is worth also simply considering context: the UN was created at a time of post-war optimism; how do we create a new understanding of peace and security that reflects the need for positive peace in an increasingly tense geopolitical environment? We keep trying to stretch a system that is based on a logic from several decades ago. We need to rethink the basics.

  This mismatch hinders our ability to address crises effectively. At the most, it allows for limited solutions that serve as band-aids rather than address the complex and connected causes of crises.

  What changes are you advocating for?

  The Summit for the Future, coming up in September 2024, is an invitation to rethink the fundamentals of the current global governance system. This summit is expected to result in a Pact for the Future, an outcome document negotiated among governments. It will be an opportunity to rethink the fundamentals of the global governance system in a more future-oriented manner.

  The Pact for the Future will encompass five key chapters: sustainable development and financing for development, peace and security, science, technology and digital governance, youth and future generations, and transforming global governance. The Coalition for the UN We Need and the Global Governance Innovation Network are working on reform proposals for all five chapters.

  We are calling for inclusive global governance through several civil society initiatives including the We The People’s campaign and the UNMute Civil Society campaign. As an umbrella platform, the Coalition for the UN We Need is crafting a People’s Pact for the Future to support the Pact for the Future that will be negotiated by governments.

  Born out of the Global Futures Forum held in March 2023, the People’s Pact draws on the perspectives of people worldwide, resulting in three dozen recommendations. We will refine it in the run-up to the Summit in the hope that it will provide valuable insights for the UN system and member states, fostering a collaborative dialogue with civil society.

  To facilitate dialogue and collaboration, the Coalition for the UN We Need is also supporting the UN Department of Global Communications in organising a UN civil society conference in Nairobi in May 2024 toward the Summit of the Future.

  How can civil society have a bigger say in shaping future global governance?

  International civil society is eager to be a part of the conversation. While many raise questions on the way forward with international systems and the UN, there is a very active community that wants to participate – but how they are effectively and meaningfully included is a whole different question.

  We have moved from lack of recognition to some formal acknowledgement of civil society’s role in global governance to calls for networked and inclusive multilateralism. But the extent of civil society’s involvement is still constantly being debated. For example, the UN Secretary-General’s Our Common Agenda report calls for greater UN system engagement with civil society through focal points, but consultations for the Summit of The Future have been held behind closed doors. There is a tension between the need for member states to have candid discussions and the call for transparency to enable civil society to provide input and hold member states accountable.

  Despite these challenges, there have been notable wins, the UN Civil Society Conference set to take place in Nairobi being one of them. The hope is that member states will engage meaningfully. I personally think that COP28, for instance, has been one of the best in terms of young people’s active involvement. Young participants received increased media attention as they took part in panel discussions on the main stages, in negotiations and even as heads of some of delegations. This huge achievement is the result of young people beginning to truly understand how the system works and having become empowered to take part in it.

  However, challenges persist, particularly in regions where civic space is closed.

   

  ---

  Get in touch with the Stimson Center through itswebsite and follow@StimsonCenter and@nudharaY on Twitter.

  This interview was conducted as part of the ENSURED Horizon research project funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed in this interview are those of the interviewee only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.

• GLOBAL GOVERNANCE: ‘We must reaffirm the relationship between the rule of law and human rights’

  CIVICUS speaks with Francesca Restifo, Senior Human Rights Lawyer and UN Representative of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI), about the deficits of the global governance system and civil society’s proposals for reform.

  Established in 1947, the International Bar Association is the world’s leading organisation of international legal practitioners, bar associations and law societies. With a membership of over 80,000 lawyers and 190 bar associations and law societies spanning all continents, it influences the development of international law and helps shape the future of the legal profession throughout the world. The IBAHRI was created in 1995 to provide human rights training and technical assistance for legal practitioners and institutions, strengthening their capacity to promote and protect human rights effectively under a just rule of law.

  What does the IBAHRI do, and how does it interact with international human rights organisations?

  A leading institution in international fact-finding, the IBAHRI produces expert reports with key recommendations, delivering timely and reliable information on human rights and the legal profession. It supports lawyers and judges who are arbitrarily harassed, intimidated or arrested through advocacy at the United Nations (UN) and domestic levels and provides training and trial monitoring. We advocate for the advancement of human rights in the administration of justice, focusing on UN human rights mechanisms and pushing onto the UN’s agenda justice issues such as judicial independence and protection for all legal professions as essential building blocks to sustaining or reinstating the rule of law.

  To achieve this, the IBAHRI also trains lawyers, judges and bar associations to promote and protect human rights at the domestic level and engage with UN human rights mechanisms. For example, the IBAHRI is working with Afghan lawyers and judges in exile, and particularly with women, to denounce the ongoing gender persecution in Afghanistan. The IBAHRI works with lawyers and academics to promote jurisprudence to punish the specific crime of gender-based apartheid.

  We are also supporting Ukrainian lawyers on issues of accountability for war crimes, including via domestic jurisdiction and training them on international fair trail standards.

  To what extent do current global governance institutions protect the rule of law around the world?

  In January 2023, UN Secretary-General António Guterres said that ‘We are at grave risk of the Rule of Lawlessness’. Today, adherence to the rule of law is more important than ever. As Guterres pointed out, from the smallest village to the global stage, the rule of law is all that stands between peace and brutal conflict or repression.

  In Palestine, Sudan and Ukraine, we are witnessing systematic war crimes committed by states. We are witnessing increasing violations of the UN Charter with the annexation, resulting from the threat or use of force, of a state’s territory by another state.

  The ongoing devastating conflicts in Syria and Yemen have resulted in atrocities, thousands of deaths and incommensurable suffering. Unconstitutional changes in government are deplorably back in fashion. The collapse of the rule of law in Myanmar has led to a cycle of violence, repression and severe human rights violations. In Afghanistan and Iran, systematic attacks against women’s and girls’ rights that amount to gender persecution are creating an unprecedented regime of gender-based apartheid. In Belarus, Russia, Venezuela and many other places, authoritarian regimes are silencing the opposition and cracking down on civil society and civic space, repressing peaceful protests with excessive force and violence. In Haiti we see a severe institutional crisis coupled with an almost non-existent rule of law, leading to widespread human rights abuses and the escalation of crime rates.

  At a time plagued with conflicts, division, crackdown and mistrust, states continue to contravene international law with impunity. Created to anchor the protection of rights, the multilateral system is in deep crisis. In the aftermath of the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we must reaffirm the strong and mutually reinforcing relationship between the rule of law, accountability and human rights.

  Do you view these failures as linked to structural flaws in the global governance system?

  The collapse of the rule of law, coupled with failures by the UN system to establish just and effective responses and address global challenges, has undermined trust in leaders and institutions. These challenges are interconnected and can only be addressed by interconnected responses, through a reinvigorated multilateralism, placing the UN, its Charter and its values at the centre of joint efforts.

  We are facing a crisis of trust, a disconnect between people and the institutions that are supposed to serve and protect them, with many people left behind and no longer confident that the system works for them. We need to rethink ways to ensure effective responses.

  In his Our Common Agenda report, the UN Secretary-General emphasised the need for the UN to support states, communities and people in rebuilding the social contract as a foundation for sustaining peace, stressing that justice is an essential dimension of the social contract.

  However, we witness ever-increasing justice gaps, with many justice systems delivering only for the few. It has been estimated that 1.5 billion people have unmet justice needs. In many places around the world, women effectively enjoy only three quarters of the legal rights of men. Legal disempowerment prevents women, vulnerable groups and victims from using the law to protect and defend themselves.

  When states fail, the UN should mobilise against impunity and hold perpetrators to account through fair, independent judicial proceedings.

  What are the most needed reforms in the area of global governance?

  First, it is time to rethink, renew and rebuild trust in international institutions and support governments to rebuild the social contract with their people and within societies. UN institutions must start by rebuilding, restoring and sustaining the rule of law, both internationally and domestically, by supporting victims and survivors and providing access to justice, remedy and reparation. To do so, a more inclusive, effective and principled multilateral system is urgently needed.

  Communities need to see results reflected in their daily lives. People need to see their rights realised and need to know they can seek justice if their rights are violated.

  Means are within reach, but they need to be better used and reformed to ensure their effectiveness. From the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to the UN Human Rights Council, with its accountability mechanisms including fact-finding missions and commissions of inquiry, there are institutions and mechanisms to promote and reinforce the rule of law. But they need to be enabled to provide effective solutions. For instance, if the Human Rights Council’s commissions of inquiry collect, analyse and preserve evidence of atrocity crimes, there must be states willing to use that evidence to bring cases before the ICJ.

  The International Criminal Court is the central institution of the international criminal justice system, but the veto power enshrined in article 27(3) of the UN Charter systematically impedes the prosecution of the crime of aggression under the Rome Statute. All states have a responsibility to prevent genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity and ensure that such crimes are ended and punished when they occur, as per the 1948 Genocide Convention, the 1949 Geneva Conventions and customary international law. However, we have recently seen the excessive use of the veto preventing the UN Security Council (UNSC) from exercising its function to address the most severe threats to international peace and security. Permanent UNSC members have a particular responsibility in this regard, given the powers vested in the Council to adopt effective measures to restore international peace and security and prevent or end such crimes. A reform of the UN system is needed to limit the veto, and in the meantime, we need to think of creative ways to overcome it.

  We need to empower justice systems to better and more effectively use the principle of universal jurisdiction to prosecute crimes under international law and hold perpetrators to account. Through international cooperation, states should support domestic trials. For example, UN member states must be more proactive in supporting Ukraine’s justice system to conduct effective investigations and prosecute international crimes with fair trial guarantees.

  Some interesting developments that may help address accountability gaps deserve some attention. Although international law is largely concerned with states’ rather than individuals’ obligations, the so-called Global Magnitsky Acts and the system of individual sanctions represent an interesting paradigm shift in the field of accountability for violations of international human rights law, including regarding corruption.

  The Global Magnitsky Acts have been considered one of the most promising ways to address serious human rights violations and corruption in the future. They were established in response to the death of Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky in a Moscow jail cell in 2009, following which his client and US-born financier Bill Browder led a 10-year fight to strengthen national legal frameworks and responses to alleged gross violations of human rights. This led to a legal revolution in several countries across regions, including Canada, the USA and the European Union and its member states.

  How is civil society in general, and the IBAHRI specifically, advocating for reforms?

  Lawyers are at the forefront of the struggle for the protection of human rights. Without an independent, competent legal profession, victims of human rights violations are unable to exercise their right to redress. Lawyers, judges and bar associations have a vital role to play in promoting accountability, ending impunity and ensuring remedy for victims and survivors.

  As part of the world’s leading organisation of international legal practitioners, bar associations and law societies, the IBAHRI is ideally placed to engage the global legal profession with such mechanisms and to advocate for the advancement of human rights and the independence of the legal profession.

  We work with the legal professions at large to sustain the rule of law, ensure implementation of international human rights standards, enhance judicial independence and fair trial guarantees and encourage an effective and gender-responsive administration of justice. The IBAHRI supports the work of lawyers and legal professionals to bring about accountability for war and atrocity crimes, provide legal defence to those arbitrarily and unjustly detained, improve legal frameworks, promote the common acceptance of legal rules and encourage greater engagement with the UN system.

  Get in touch with the IBAHRI through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@IBAHRI on Twitter.

  ---

  This interview was conducted as part of the ENSURED Horizon research project funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed in this interview are those of the interviewee only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.

• GLOBAL GOVERNANCE: ‘When there is political will, states are able to uphold their responsibility to protect’

  CIVICUS speaks with Elisabeth Pramendorfer, Geneva Representative, Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect (GCR2P), about the deficits of the global governance system and civil society’s proposals for reform.

  The GCR2P is a civil society organisation (CSO) that works to uphold the principle of the Responsibility to Protect, which the United Nations (UN) adopted in 2005. This principle seeks to ensure that the international community mobilises to prevent and stop the mass atrocity crimes of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.

  What is the Responsibility to Protect?

  The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is an international norm that seeks to ensure that the international community never again fails to prevent and respond to genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing – often referred to as mass atrocity crimes. R2P was conceptualised as a political and operational response to the failures of the international community to prevent and respond to the genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia and Herzegovina. It was unanimously adopted at the 2005 UN World Summit. 

  R2P is a political commitment and call to action. It means that sovereignty does not provide a state with carte blanche to commit crimes against its own population. It stipulates that every state has the primary responsibility to protect its population from mass atrocity crimes and that the wider international community has the responsibility to encourage and assist them in meeting that responsibility. If a state is manifestly failing to protect its population, the international community must take appropriate collective action in a timely and decisive manner and in accordance with the UN Charter.

  In practice, this means that states have a responsibility to build and strengthen an atrocity prevention architecture by ensuring human rights protection, guaranteeing equal access to justice and a strong rule of law, and memorialising and acknowledging past atrocities, among other measures.

  A variety of measures may be involved in assisting other states in upholding R2P, such as providing technical assistance and capacity strengthening or supporting military and police training. In situations where atrocity crimes are imminent or ongoing, the toolbox of action may include the use of good offices, mediation, negotiation or other forms of preventive diplomacy; the imposition of arms embargoes and targeted sanctions against identified perpetrators; the establishment of UN-mandated investigative mechanisms to document and report on atrocity crimes; and the deployment of peacekeeping missions.

  It is key for the response to any given situation to be context-specific, based on the unique drivers, motivations and risk factors of violence, the enabling and mitigating factors that are in place, and an in-depth understanding of who is targeted and why – all of which, even within the same crisis, may change over time and pose different risks to different groups. This is what we call ‘atrocity prevention’.

  How well are existing global governance institutions fulfilling this responsibility?

  Since 2005, we have seen remarkable institutional progress in advancing R2P as a political norm. There have been more than 90 resolutions by the UN Security Council and over 75 by the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) that refer to R2P, including for situations in the Central African Republic, North Korea, South Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Many governments around the world have committed to the advancement and implementation of R2P, including by becoming members of inter-governmental networks such as the UN Group of Friends of R2P and the Global Network of R2P Focal Points, which also includes regional organisations such as the European Union and the Organization of American States.

  The UN General Assembly meets annually to exchange on best practices and lessons learned in upholding our individual and shared R2P. The UN has an office, the Joint Office on the Prevention of Genocide and R2P, fully dedicated to advancing R2P. Longstanding efforts to mainstream atrocity prevention on a national, regional and multilateral level have helped us better understand how to identify risk factors of atrocity crimes and develop early warning models.

  Yet the international community continues to fail to uphold universal human rights and prevent atrocity crimes – in China, Ethiopia, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Myanmar, Sudan and Syria, among many others. It also struggles in ensuring accountability and ending impunity.

  While R2P is the most effective principle around which the international community can coalesce when vulnerable populations face the threat of atrocity crimes, it does not have independent agency. As with so many other protection agendas, implementing R2P and making atrocity prevention a living reality rests largely with governments as political actors. And more often than not, political leaders fail to implement principles and institutions fail to uphold mandates.

  It is a sad reality of our job that politics and governments’ strategic interests often come in the way of meaningful action and that some serious country situations simply don’t receive the attention they should. Western governments’ extraordinary solidarity with Ukraine in the face of Russia’s illegal act of aggression shows how rapidly the international community can respond, including by establishing investigations at the UNHRC, imposing an expansive sanctions regime, opening an investigation at the International Criminal Court and obtaining provisional measures by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). These much-needed actions show that when there is political will states are able to uphold their responsibility to protect populations at risk and turn condemnation into action. At the same time, it has raised valid and long-overdue questions of why we have not seen a similar response to crises in Ethiopia, Myanmar or Sudan.

  Do you think this failure to respond is linked to structural flaws in the global governance system? 

  The international community has all the tools and measures to prevent and respond to atrocity crimes effectively – and any other human rights violations and abuses, for that matter. Implementing R2P means nothing other than implementing existing obligations under international law, including the Geneva Conventions and the Refugee Convention. But states continuously fail to make consistent use of this remarkable protection regime, both in an individual and collective capacity.

  We are witnessing a hierarchy of victimhood and an arbitrariness in compassion and condemnation. Mounting evidence of atrocity crimes in Gaza has revealed blatant double standards in our response to crisis situations, particularly by states that pride themselves as champions of human rights, justice and international law. So I don’t think it is structural flaws in the existing global governance system that explain our failure to protect people everywhere and at all times – it is the lack of states making principled and consistent use of it regardless of where atrocities are imminent or ongoing.

  As we have commemorated 75 years of both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Genocide Convention, we must remember that legal and political protection instruments – including R2P – only have meaning and value if we as an international community and as individual stakeholders are committed to respecting and upholding them anywhere and at all times. Failure to do so will seriously harm our credibility and legitimacy when we do take action and call for respect for those norms and values.

  At the same time, we must ensure that affected communities, human rights defenders and victim and survivor groups are systematically included in policy discussions and decision-making processes. For a crisis response to be effective, it needs to be transformative, rooted in the needs of affected communities and tied to long-term efforts to further peace, development and human rights.

  How is civil society in general, and the GCR2P in particular, advocating for R2P?

  Although R2P as a political commitment rests with states, most times it is CSOs that are the driving force behind pressuring governments to adhere to it. Our work and that of countless civil society activists around the world is fundamental in reminding states that they not only have a responsibility to protect their own populations but also mustn’t look away when rights are violated elsewhere.

  Through advocacy with UN member states, regional organisations and the multilateral system, we provide strategic guidance to governments, UN officials and other key stakeholders on what needs to be done – by whom, how and when – to prevent mass atrocities. We wouldn’t be able to do this if it weren’t for the civil society colleagues around the world who are at the forefront of documenting violations and abuses, holding their government and others to account and providing support and assistance to victims, survivors and affected communities, often at great personal danger. Our job is to amplify their voices, expertise, demands and calls to action in the arenas we operate in.

  One aspect of our work I would like to highlight is the fight against impunity. Ensuring accountability for mass atrocity crimes – which may include truth-telling, reparations, criminal investigations and transitional justice processes – is not only an end in itself but can help deter future mass atrocity crimes. We have worked hand in hand with human rights defenders and affected communities around the world to advance accountability efforts, including by leading campaigns for the establishment of UN investigations into atrocity crimes in Ethiopia, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory, South Sudan, Sudan, Venezuela and Yemen, as well as the establishment of an Independent Institution on Missing Persons in Syria, and contributing to efforts so that The Gambia filed a case against Myanmar before the ICJ for violations of provisions of the Genocide Convention.

  I would like to pay tribute to all our colleagues around the world who tirelessly fight to ensure ongoing attention on injustice, violence and suffering for even the most forgotten crisis. Every small success – be it advocating for special sessions to discuss an emerging crisis at the UNHRC, the opening of a universal jurisdiction case against perpetrators, or a government’s decision to re-engage with the international system and commit to genuine reform – is a step in the right direction. Every time the international community puts the spotlight on atrocity perpetrators somewhere, it sends a signal to those committing similar abuses elsewhere.

  Get in touch with the GCR2P through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@GCR2P and@ElisabethGCR2P on Twitter.

  ---

  This interview was conducted as part of the ENSURED Horizon research project funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed in this interview are those of the interviewee only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.

• GLOBAL: ‘Only through adherence to humanitarian principles and the rule of law can we shift away from armed conflict’

  CIVICUS speaks with Neshan Gunasekera, an international lawyer from Sri Lanka, about the role of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the context of the case brought by South Africa against Israel under the 1948 Genocide Convention.

  Neshan is a Visiting Research Fellow at the Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, Lead Counsel on Peace, Justice and Governance at the Centre for International Sustainable Development Law, Council member at the World Future Council and director of the International Association of Lawyers against Nuclear Arms.

  What’s the ICJ and why is it important?

  The ICJ is the main judicial organ of the United Nations (UN) and its role is to help peacefully settle disputes between member states and provide advice on matters relating to international law. Its creation was the result of a long journey to find peaceful ways to solve international disputes.

  In 2024, we will be commemorating 125 years since the founding of the ICJ’s earliest predecessor, the Permanent Court of Arbitration. This was one of the biggest achievements of the 1899 Peace Conference held at The Hague in the Netherlands. The extensive bloodshed that marked the 19th century prompted world leaders to gather and discuss how to transition from the outdated notion of war as a way to resolve disputes and towards preventive diplomacy, and the result was the Permanent Court of Arbitration, a forum for member states to bring their cases for resolution rather than resorting to armed conflict, violence or aggression as tools of diplomacy.

  World leaders at The Hague also discussed how armed conflict should be conducted, and how it could be limited. The outcomes of these discussions are referred to as the Hague Law and, taken together with the Geneva Law, resulting from the Geneva Conference of 1864, are collectively known as the 1949 Geneva Conventions that are the basis of international humanitarian law.

  Unfortunately, these notions took a backseat as the First World War erupted in 1914, and only resurged with the founding of the League of Nations in 1919. Three years later, the closest predecessor to the ICJ, the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ), was formed. While it heard some interesting cases, the PCIJ was also short-lived, as the League of Nations shut down as the world prepared for another world war.

  In 1945, when the UN was founded, the ICJ assumed its position as the highest judicial institution within the system and the Statute of the International Court of Justice became an integral part of the Charter of the UN. As it took forward PCIJ precedents, the ICJ has now accumulated over 100 years of jurisprudence.

  The ICJ is one of the most important tools ever established for peacefully resolving disputes between states. Its 15 judges are meant to represent all UN geographic regions, civilisations and legal systems worldwide, including Indigenous and traditional legal systems. This entails a huge responsibility, particularly when it comes to representing voices that are still marginalised or underrepresented, such as those of Indigenous peoples.

  The ICJ is now more relevant than ever because we are a critical time in history when we need urgently to correct our course. The danger of nuclear weapons going off becomes more real every day. And this is no longer the time of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: today’s nuclear arsenal can obliterate life as we know it.

  Why has South Africa brought a case against Israel before the ICJ?

  This case is intriguing because South Africa didn’t appear to be in direct conflict with Israel. But it didn’t need to: South Africa came to the Court alleging that Israel was violating the Genocide Convention, a treaty signed by most UN member states, including both Israel and South Africa. This convention grants all its signatories the right to bring a case before the ICJ against another if it’s suspected of committing, inciting or continuing to commit genocide.

  The ICJ has jurisdiction to hear contentious cases, including those where parties have entered into an agreement and to provide advisory opinions on matters pertaining to international law. It also has compulsory jurisdiction, although this is limited to states that accept it, and authority to provide interpretations of international treaties This means it can make binding rulings in legal disputes submitted to it by states and give advisory opinions on legal questions at the request of UN bodies, specialised agencies or member states. The South Africa v. Israel case is a contentious case, which means it will eventually produce a binding court ruling.

  What are the challenges of bringing genocide cases before the ICJ?

  Genocide is possibly one of the worst crimes recognised as such by the international community. The Genocide Convention was the very first human rights convention the UN agreed on in the aftermath of the Second World War.

  While there is considerable consensus on what constitutes genocide, it often takes decades to gather the necessary evidence to prove that genocide has been committed. Following the Second World War, a wealth of documentation was submitted as evidence of genocide, but the burden of proof was quite high to demonstrate the systematic and intentional engagement of individuals and states in genocidal practices. For individuals, this was dealt with under international criminal law and for states under international law.

  However, in recent years several cases of genocide have been presented before the Court and the burden of proof has been increasingly scrutinised.

  In 2019 The Gambia, also a state not directly involved in the conflict, brought a case against the state of Myanmar, alleging that Myanmar’s military and other security forces perpetrated genocide against its Rohingya Muslim minority in Rakhine province. It could do so because both were signatories of the Genocide Convention. In 2022, the ICJ decided it had jurisdiction under the Genocide Convention to hear the application filed by The Gambia.

  The case is ongoing, and in November 2023 several additional states joined The Gambia’s genocide case against Myanmar. This was subsequent to the provisional measures the ICJ issued in January 2020 requesting Myanmar to prevent genocidal acts against Rohingya people while the case continued, and to report regularly on its implementation of the order. Developments in this case, as well as earlier cases relating to genocide, are most relevant to current proceedings.

  Notably, unlike Myanmar, Israel did not contest South Africa’s jurisdiction to bring the case before the court; that seemed like a settled issue. Still, proving genocide can be a long and arduous process, particularly when people are afraid to bring evidence before the Court, although in this age of information and technology there’s a lot of video evidence to support these cases. But when it comes to genocide cases, what’s most challenging is proving criminal intent.

  Why’s it so hard to prove genocidal intent?

  The ICJ faces the daunting task of proving the deliberate attempt to eradicate an ethnic, political or religious group. This isn’t only about the amount of violence or the number of deaths, but about the intent to eliminate a specific group, including through means other than murder, such as taking away children.

  This is why the interim measures requested by South Africa are so crucial. South Africa requested the immediate suspension of all hostilities by the Israeli military and for entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza to be allowed. While it did not order Israel to cease hostilities as had been requested, the ICJ’s interim measures requested Israel to take all necessary steps to prevent the commission of any acts of genocide. Further, it requested it take all necessary measures to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, an order on which the respected judge appointed by Israel also agreed with the majority decision.

  This is key because in international relations statements made by prime ministers, presidents and other high officials, including military officers, are interpreted as reflections of a state’s intentions. What they say is weighed against their actions and could serve as a way of proving intent.

  What are the consequences of the ICJ’s interim measures?

  All ICJ rulings and orders are binding, so the interim measures impose an obligation on Israel to comply. Additionally, when the ICJ issues a judgment, opinion or interim measure on a topic, its application extends beyond the specific case that originated it. This is why we are starting to see a wider impact of the case South Africa brought to the ICJ.

  For instance, in the Netherlands, civil society groups have filed several cases against their government to prevent it entering into military agreements that could incite or support the violation of human rights and humanitarian law in Gaza.

  In other words, the ICJ case is enabling deeper discussions on how member states should respond to armed conflicts and how citizens can hold their governments accountable and ensure that tax money is not used to fuel armed conflict.

  The case also underscores the ICJ’s vital role and its accumulated work over the years. States are increasingly resorting to the ICJ. Between 1947 and 2000, the ICJ issued interim measures on nine to 10 instances, while from 2001 to 2023 it has done so almost a dozen times, and most of these measures have been complied with. Overall, between 1947 and 2023, the ICJ has heard close to 200 cases and its opinions have been mostly respected. As of October 2023, there were 20 cases before the ICJ, including 18 contentious cases and two requests for advisory opinions. The two cases seeking advisory opinions are important: one is about the  ‘Legal consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem’, filed by 53 UN member states with proceedings currently underway at the Hague. The other one is about the obligations of states regarding climate change, with a deadline of 22 March 2024 for UN member states to submit written statements.

  This demonstrates the growing influence of the ICJ in interpreting international law and its adherence across the world. It also underscores the significance of international law. It is only through adherence to humanitarian principles and the rule of law that we can shift away from armed conflict. It is our collective responsibility to prevent future generations experiencing prolonged cycles of violence in which human rights and basic humanity are compromised. It is our collective duty towards all species on our planet.

  What challenges does the ICJ face?

  The ICJ is an integral component of the UN Charter, and its rulings should guide the actions of every member state. Unfortunately, out of the 196 UN members, only 74 have so far accepted the ICJ’s compulsory jurisdiction. To address this issue, a broad global civil society coalition supported by a group of likeminded UN member states has started the ‘LAW not War’ campaign to encourage other states to sign up and agree to its compulsory jurisdiction, so as to commit to go before the ICJ before resorting to the use of force.

  It’s also important to highlight that the ICJ does not operate in isolation. It is part of a broader network of international tribunals, such as the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the International Criminal Court, as well as regional institutions like the European Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Further, national-level courts and tribunals also play a role. Understanding the interconnectedness of these systems is essential in assessing the international system of adjudication and to achieving an international rules-based order.

  In terms of impact on foreign and domestic policies, there is a discrepancy between what countries sign up to in the international arena and what they end up implementing domestically. The primary reason for this gap is that, although the ICJ’s rulings are binding, the Court lacks its own enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance and depends on principles of international law such as good faith and respecting promises made through treaties, also referred to as the ‘pacta sunt servanda’ principle. As a result, universal human rights principles are unevenly implemented at the domestic level.

  There is still clearly much to be achieved and we must come together, urgently and with agency, to work towards a peaceful and sustainable planet, based on the principles of international law.

  Get in touch with Neshan through LinkedIn.

  ---

  

  This interview was conducted as part of the ENSURED Horizon research project funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed in this interview are those of the interviewee only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or any of the institutions the interviewee is a member of. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.

• GLOBAL: ‘With a wealth tax on the biggest fortunes, extreme poverty can be eradicated’

  CIVICUS speaks about climate change, global inequality and the need for redistribution with Adrien Fabre, a France-based climate economistand founder of Global Redistribution Advocates (GRA).

  GRA is a civil society organisation (CSO) that promotes public debate about three global redistribution policies that enjoy wide public opinion support worldwide – a global wealth tax, a global climate plan and a global climate assembly – and advocates towards political parties in several countries to incorporate these into their agendas and programmes.

  What inspired you to become a climate economist and found GRA?

  I started my PhD in economics with the goal of understanding humanity’s problems and proposing solutions. I always wanted to give voice to every human, so I naturally specialised in running surveys. Then, in the context of the Yellow Vests protests that began in 2018, I surveyed French people about their attitudes towards climate policies. This sparked interest at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which called on me to conduct a similar survey in other countries. I seized the opportunity to ask people questions they had never been asked before, such as whether they supported a global tax on millionaires to finance low-income countries. I was amazed by the levels of support: more than 70 per cent in every country!

  I ran complementary surveys in Europe and the USA. I tried asking questions differently and tested policies in which the respondents would lose money, but the results were the same: people in western countries were willing to lose a few dozen euros per month to end climate change and global poverty. Furthermore, the support is sincere: you can read this scientific article or my Twitter thread for details.

  Now, if there is such strong support for global redistribution, why doesn’t anyone propose it or defend it in public debate? To advocate for global redistributive policies to transfer resources or power from high to low-income countries I launched GRA in April 2023.

  What are your proposals?

  We have three main proposals to promote wealth redistribution, environmental sustainability and global cooperation to address pressing global challenges. The first is a global wealth tax on individual wealth exceeding US$5 million, with half of the tax proceeds distributed to lower-income countries.

  This tax would spare 99.9 per cent of the world’s population, who have wealth below US$5 million. And if the tax were just two per cent, it would collect one per cent of the world’s GDP, which is more than the GDP of all low-income countries, home to 700 million people, combined. Our proposed tax schedule is moderate: two per cent for fortunes above US$5 million, six per cent for those above US$100 million and 10 per cent for those above US$1 billion. A tax of two per cent is far lower than the interests, rents and dividends such a fortune generates.

  Our second proposal is a global climate plan aimed at combatting climate change through a worldwide carbon emissions cap, implemented by a system of global emissions trading, and financing a global basic income.

  This plan would enter into force as soon as signatory countries cover 60 per cent of global carbon emissions. Participating countries would enforce a cap on carbon emissions, decreasing each year and down to net zero emissions after three decades, in line with the temperature target. Each year, emissions permits would be auctioned to firms that extract fossil fuels or import them from non-participating countries, making polluters pay. To cover the cost of emissions permits, firms would increase fossil fuel prices, which would in turn encourage individuals and businesses to change their equipment or adjust their habits, eventually reducing carbon emissions. The revenues from carbon pricing would fund a global basic income estimated at US$50 per month for each person over 15.

  This plan would bring a massive redistribution from countries with a carbon footprint higher than the global average – like OECD countries – to those with a lower-than-average carbon footprint, including most of Africa, South and Southeast Asia and Latin America. It includes mechanisms to encourage participation by all countries, such as a tariff on goods imported from non-participating countries in proportion to their carbon content, a provision allowing middle-income countries such as China to opt out from the mutualisation of revenues to guarantee that it would not lose from the plan while ensuring that it decarbonises with the same carbon price, and a provision facilitating the participation of subnational entities like California or the state of New York even if the federal level does not participate.

  The wealth tax and the climate plan would each redistribute one per cent of the world’s GDP from high to low-income countries every year. Extreme poverty can be eradicated. The average income in a country like the Democratic Republic of the Congo would double following the transfers.

  Our third proposition is that of a global climate assembly, comprised of representatives elected through proportional representation in participating nations, tasked with drafting a comprehensive treaty to address climate change globally. Before even the beginning of that experiment in democratic governance at the global scale, the assembly would bring a radical change, as the election campaign would foster a global public debate on climate justice.

  Please check our website for details: each policy has its own advocacy campaign, with a fully-fledged policy proposal, a petition and a video.

  Who are you targeting these proposals at, and how are you working to get the message across?

  We are targeting our campaigns at policymakers, scholars, civil society and lay people. Many scholars have endorsed our proposals. GRA is a member of civil society networks in each of our policy domains, and we are hoping that key CSOs will endorse our proposals. We have already met with cabinet members of various governments, including Brazil, Colombia, France, Germany and South Africa, as well as many European Union (EU) politicians. And we are sending dozens of emails every day to get more meetings. Once we get a book on our climate plan and the scientific article finished and published, we will reach out to the public. We will publish an open letter in widely read newspapers, calling on world leaders to discuss global redistributive policies at the United Nations (UN), the G20 and climate summits.

  Hopefully, we will get media attention and the movement will grow. It will help if well-known personalities, including celebrities, endorse our proposals. But it will take a social movement to make change happen, perhaps a global demonstration. Our hope is that a large coalition of political parties, CSOs and labour unions throughout the world endorse some common policies towards a sustainable and fair future – ours, or similar ones. This will likely strengthen the parties of the coalition and help them win elections. Our research shows that progressive candidates would gain votes if they endorsed global redistributive policies.

  What are the prospects of these proposals being implemented in the near future?

  Our proposals are getting more and more endorsements every day. The African Union just called for a global carbon price and will defend this idea in international negotiations.

  But our proposal that receives the largest support is the global wealth tax. The next European Parliament elections will be held in June 2024, and left-wing parties will campaign on a European wealth tax. We have proposed that one-third of this European wealth tax would be allocated to lower-income countries outside Europe, and there are good chances that some parties will take this forward. A petition in favour of a wealth tax has recently been signed by 130 members of the European Parliament, and politicians from all parties on the left and centre endorse our proposal. However, a majority in the European Parliament would not suffice, as this proposal would require unanimity at the Council of the EU, that is, the approval of each EU government.

  However, three things can help. First, Brazil will chair the G20 in 2024, and we hope that President Lula, along with other leaders, will put pressure on global north states for global redistribution. Second, it would help if US President Joe Biden included wealth taxes on the agenda of his re-election campaign. Third, the campaign for the 2024 European Parliament elections could create momentum for some countries to move forward, even if the EU does not.

  I am optimistic that wealth taxes will be implemented – perhaps not in 2024, but within the next decade. However, I fear negotiations might end up being overseen by the OECD, resulting in a disappointing agreement, as happened on international corporate taxation. Negotiations on international taxation must be hosted by the UN, not the OECD. And regarding the content of the negotiations, we should be vigilant of three elements: the exemption threshold, which should not exceed US$5 million; the tax rates, which should be progressive and not too low; and the distribution of revenues, a substantial part of which must go to low-income countries.

  Civil society mobilisation will be key to promoting the global wealth tax, making it a central campaign issue and turning it into effective international policy. You can help by signing our petitions, donating, or volunteering for GRA. GRA is also hiring, so feel free to contact us!

  What are your hopes and expectations regarding the upcoming COP28 climate summit?

  COPs sometimes bring good surprises. Last year, high-income countries finally accepted the principle of a fund to compensate vulnerable countries for the loss and damage from climate change, after 30 years of demands from the developing world.

  But I don’t expect any good news this year, as the upcoming COP28 in Dubai is chaired by the CEO of the United Arab Emirates’ state oil company. More generally, I do not expect much from COPs because its decisions are made by consensus, so countries like Saudi Arabia can block any meaningful proposal. This is what led to the current system of nationally determined contributions: while all countries supposedly share the common goal of limiting global warming to ‘well below 2°C’, there are no binding commitments, no harmonised policies, no agreement on burden-sharing, and the sum of countries’ voluntary pledges is inconsistent with the common goal.

  To break the deadlock, states with ambitious climate goals should start negotiations in parallel with the UN framework. I think the EU and China should start bilateral negotiations. If they put forward something like the global climate plan that we propose, countries that would benefit from it would surely accept it, and more than 60 per cent of global emissions would be covered. This would put enormous pressure on other countries to join, and particularly other OECD countries such as the USA.

  ---

  Get in touch with Global Redistribution Advocates through itswebsite or itsFacebook page, and follow@GlobalRedistrib and@adrien_fabre on Twitter.

• GREECE: ‘The criminalisation of solidarity has had a chilling effect’

  CIVICUS speaks with Melina Spathari, Director of Strategy and Programmes at HumanRights360 (HR360), about theprosecution of civil society activists working with migrants and refugees in Greece.

  HR360 is a Greek human rights civil society organisation (CSO) that seeks toprotect the rights of all people, empowering them to exercise their rights, with a focus on the most disadvantaged and vulnerable populations, including migrants and refugees.

  What is the current situation for civil society activists and organisations helping migrants in Greece?

  As the United Nations Special Rapporteur for human rights defenders stated following her official visit to Greece in June 2022, ‘defenders in the country working to ensure the rights of refugees, asylum seekers and migrants are currently under severe pressure… At the tip of the spear are prosecutions, where acts of solidarity are reinterpreted as criminal activity, specifically the crime of people smuggling… The negative impact of such cases is multiplied by smear campaigns perpetuating this false image of defenders’.

  Since 2010, Greek ruling parties have demonised CSOs, criticising their use of public funding, to delegitimise their criticism of pushbacks of migrants and their condemnation of the conditions in reception and identification centres and refugee camps. In most cases, the allegations against CSOs later proved to be unfounded. This phenomenon is part of a worrying trend that negatively affects CSOs around the globe, which is why civil society has increasingly organised and developed strategies to resist and respond to the attacks they face from governments.

  Why is the Greek government criminalising solidarity with migrants and refugees?

  In the case of Greece, the speed and impetus of the ongoing crackdown has been fuelled by current trends in both international and domestic politics, involving hostile relations with Turkey and imminent elections in both countries. Deploying a witch-hunt against CSOs kills many birds with one stone: it helps the government gain votes from the far-right side of the political spectrum and helps it manage the damage caused to its reputation by wrong political decisions and neglectful practices. Last but not least, by vilifying CSOs that are active and vocal in the field of human rights, the authorities aspire to manipulate and silence civil society as a whole.

  And to some extent, it has worked. Criminalisation has had a chilling effect. There have been some attempts among civil society to gather, discuss, assess the situation and work on a joint strategy, but these actions didn’t flourish. CSOs are now afraid to raise their voice, and we understand them: they have good reason to be intimidated. Still, some acts of solidarity have taken place, especially when those targeted were respected veteran human rights defenders.

  Has HR360 been targeted?

  In November 2022, the authorities stepped up an attack against our organisation: they demonised HR360 for receiving foreign funding aimed at regranting and disclosed the personal financial situation of HR360’s founders. The public prosecutor began a preliminary investigation, which hasn’t yet produced any outcomes. No information has been revealed, nor has any criminal process been ordered. HR360 finds itself in limbo, facing huge administrative and financial consequences and experiencing severe impacts on staff morale.

  But HR360 is not the only victim of this vile smear campaign. In late 2022, the Prosecutor’s Office criminally charged Panagiotis Dimitras, director of the Greek Helsinki Monitor, and Tommy Olsen, founder and director of Aegean Boat Report, a Norwegian CSO that monitors and shares data about the movement of people in the Aegean Sea, for ‘forming a criminal organisation with the purpose of receiving details of citizens of third countries, who attempt to enter Greece illegally, in order to facilitate their illegal entry and stay’. Following the same pattern applied to HR360, Dimitras has been accused of repeatedly conducting activities aimed at gaining illegal income.

  What support does Greek civil society need to resist and continue doing its work?

  Greek civil society needs more international support, which is currently quite limited and restricted to its advocacy work – that is, it can be used to help migrants and refugees, but not for CSOs and activists to protect themselves and therefore retain the capacity to continue doing their work.

  Right now, what Greek activists and CSOs need the most is legal support, including funding to cover legal fees. And in terms of changing the situation in the long term, what’s also needed is a well-organised European awareness campaign highlighting both the vital work civil society is doing and the attacks the government is subjecting it to. This would be very helpful, since bad publicity at the European level is one of the things Greek authorities fear the most.

  ---

  Civic space in Greece is rated ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor. Its rating has recently beendowngraded.

  Get in touch with HR360 through itswebsite or itsFacebook page, and follow@rights360 and@Melina_Spathari onTwitter.

• GREECE: ‘We fought until same-sex marriage stopped being impossible and became a necessary change’

  CIVICUS speaks about Greece’s recent legalisation of same-sex marriage with Giorgos Keratsas, Communications Officer of Positive Voice-Greek Association of People Living with HIV.

  Founded in 2009, Positive Voice is a civil society organisation focused on tackling the spread of HIV/AIDS, defending the rights of HIV-positive people and more broadly advocating for LGBTQI+ rights in Greece.

  What was civil society’s role in achieving the legalisation of same-sex marriage in Greece?

  Greek LGBTQI+ groups have advocated for marriage equality and the legal recognition of all families for many years. In 2015, civil partnership arrangements were made available to same-sex couples. This marked a historic victory for LGBTQI+ and human rights in Greece but left a large part of the LGBTQI+ community unsatisfied, because there were several important issues the law didn’t cover, including adoption rights. As a result, LGBTQI+ activism has continued to demand true equality in all laws and regulations concerning interpersonal relations.

  Our main argument concerns the discriminatory character of laws that exclude LGBTQI+ people, same-sex couples and diverse families from access to the rights that are afforded to cisgender straight people and heterosexual families. The fact that citizens don’t have the same rights and obligations is proof that we are not truly equal, and a state cannot be considered fully democratic when it has first-class and second-class citizens.

  LGBTQI+ organisations have therefore urged legal change, pointing to the example of so many European countries that have recognised marriage equality. The road hasn’t been easy. It involved a lot of struggle, disappointments and persistence. We fought for many years until the change we demanded – initially viewed as impossible, and therefore ignored – was eventually deemed necessary. The recent passage of this law was a civil society victory that proves, once again, that when we take action together, change can happen.

  How has Positive Voice contributed to the campaign?

  Positive Voice was consistently dedicated for years to the sometimes frustrating work of increasing the visibility of LGBTQI+ people and educating the public on LGBTQI+ rights when the state wasn’t doing anything about it. On the basis of the recognition of the strong association of HIV with social vulnerability, we have focused on the social rather than purely medical side of things.

  For over a decade, Positive Voice has been a staunch advocate of LGBTQI+ rights. We have continuously raised the urgent need for equality with government officials. We have been active participants of Pride festivals, consistently supported the demands of LGBTQI+ people, co-signed advocacy letters and statements, endorsed campaigns such as ‘Say Yes’ and hosted impactful exhibitions. A recent one was ‘Where Love is Illegal – Exhibition in a Box’, which shares real stories of LGBTQI+ people in countries where they are not allowed to be themselves or love freely.

  We can proudly say that Positive Voice has been one of the strongest advocates for social change in Greece. The building that accommodates Athens Checkpoint, a sexual health and prevention centre that offers free rapid HIV and hepatitis B and C testing and is our project that’s made the biggest impact, is one of the very few in Athens flying the rainbow flag. The flag has stayed despite the fact that in 2019 the building suffered an arson attack motivated by homophobia and transphobia.

  Have you encountered backlash?

  Partly thanks to consistent civil society campaigning, in recent years public attitudes towards LGBTQI+ people have started to shift. However, homophobia, biphobia and transphobia remain very strong, and hate speech and violence against LGBTQI+ people, and transgender people in particular, are now on the rise, in a very alarming trend that unfortunately is not limited to Greece. Our recent legal victory is obviously a very positive step in the right direction, but we still have a lot of work to do until we are genuinely equal and fairly treated.

  The far-right parties that have significantly grown in recent elections, as well as church representatives, have strongly opposed same-sex marriage. They contend that it infringes upon and destroys the concept of marriage and traditional family values and state that family is by definition the result of a union between a man and a woman. They also argue that the right to marriage should not be regarded as a human right, on the basis of which they claim that the LGBTQI+ community is not being deprived of any fundamental rights. Most importantly, they argue that children raised by same-sex parents will not have a healthy psychosocial development. From their perspective, it is children’s rights that would be violated.

  Concerningly, in the months prior to the law being passed, LGBTQI+ people were exposed to incredible amounts of abusive public discourse, particularly on TV. In show after show, for weeks politicians, journalists, artists, influencers and others were asked whether they agreed with marriage equality, as if human rights were to be subjected to the verdict of public opinion. Hundreds of particularly abusive and discriminatory statements were given airspace and therefore heard and absorbed by millions of people. It is hard to even imagine the negative impact this rhetoric has possibly had on young queer kids across the country.

  How do you connect with the regional and global LGBTQI+ movements?

  We constantly follow their work, participate in events, undertake joint action and take advantage of just about any networking opportunity with other LGBTQI+ organisations. It is a fact that numerous European – and also several non-European – countries are more advanced in claiming respect for LGBTQI+ rights than we are, in terms of legislation and everyday practices and social attitudes. They set an example for the rest of us.

  LGBTQI+ organisations worldwide are doing amazing work and they truly inspire us. And when any of us experiences blatant human rights violations, we all stand up for each other regardless of geography. What unites us is much more powerful than anything that could set us apart.

  ---

  Civic space in Greece is rated ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with Positive Voice through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow it onTwitter andInstagram.

• GUATEMALA: ‘Criminal law is being used as a weapon of political persecution’

  CIVICUS discusses corruption in Guatemala and the criminalisation of anti-corruption activism with Claudia González, former member of the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG) and Virginia Laparra’s defence attorney.

  Virginia Laparra is a former prosecutor of the Special Prosecutor’s Office against Impunity (FECI) who has recently been unjustly sentenced to four years in prison. The #LibertadParaVirginia (#FreedomForVirginia) campaign is mobilising in response.

• HONG KONG: ‘Any activism that the government dislikes can be deemed a national security violation’

  CIVICUS speaks about the persecution faced by Hong Kong activists in exile with Anouk Wear, research and policy adviser at Hong Kong Watch.

  Founded in 2017, Hong Kong Watch is a civil society organisation (CSO) based in the UK thatproduces research and monitors threats to Hong Kong’s autonomy, basic freedoms and the rule of law. Itworks at the intersection between politics, academia and the media to help shape the international debate about Hong Kong.

  What challenges do Hong Kong activists in exile face?

  Hong Kong activists in exile face the challenge of continuing our activism without being in the place where we want and need to be to make a direct impact. We put continuous effort into community-building, preserving our culture and staying relevant to the people and situation in Hong Kong today. 

  When we do this, we face threats from the Chinese government that have drastically escalated since the National Security Law (NSL) was imposed in 2020.

  This draconian law was enacted in response to the mass protests triggered by the proposed Extradition Bill between Hong Kong and mainland China in 2019.

  The NSL broadly defines and criminalises secession, subversion, terrorist activities and collusion with a foreign country or with external elements. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment. In 2022, the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Committee concluded that the NSL is ‘vague and ambiguous’.

  In practical terms, any activism the Hong Kong government dislikes, including meeting a foreign politician, organising an event and publishing an article, can be deemed a violation of the NSL, according to the government’s interpretation. This means we don’t know what is legal and what is not, and many people end up self-censoring to protect themselves.

  On 3 July 2023, the government issued new arrest warrants for eight activists in exile, including three in the UK – Nathan Law, Finn Lau and Mung Siu-tat – and offered bounties of around £100,000 (approx. US$130,000) each for anyone providing information leading to their arrest. All of them are accused of breaching the NSL. Despite having no legal basis for applying the NSL in the UK, the Hong Kong government continues to threaten and intimidate activists abroad.

  To what extent are civil society and independent media in exile able to continue doing their work?

  Since the imposition of the NSL, over 60 CSOs, including political parties, trade unions and media groups, have disbanded. Many have relocated abroad, including over 50 CSOs that signed a joint statement urging government action following the Hong Kong National Security arrest warrants and bounties this month. 

  There is a strong network of Hong Kong activists in exile, and activists in exile are still able to do their work. However, we have great difficulty collaborating with activists still in Hong Kong because of the risks they face. For example, last week, five people in Hong Kong were arrested for alleged links to activists in exile who are on the wanted list. Collaborations must now be even more careful and discreet than they already were.

  What kind of support do Hong Kong activists and journalists in exile receive, and what further international support do you need?

  In November 2022, Hong Kong journalists who relocated to the UK collaborated with the National Union of Journalists of the UK and Ireland to launch the Association of Overseas Hong Kong Media Professionals. They pledged to focus on freedom of the press in Hong Kong and provide mutual assistance for professionals who have relocated overseas.

  There is also extensive support among Hong Kong activists and CSOs in exile, from civil society of host countries and from the international community, as can be seen in the joint response to the arrest warrants and bounties issued on 3 July.

  However, more coordinated action is needed to respond to Beijing’s threats, particularly from the governments of host countries. There needs to be more assurance and action to reiterate that Beijing and Hong Kong do not have jurisdiction abroad and there will be serious consequences to their threats. 

  Hong Kong activists in exile are now making submissions to the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review process, which will review China’s human rights record since 2018.

  We urge UN member states, CSOs and journalists to use this opportunity to highlight the drastic changes that have taken place in Hong Kong and to continue supporting our fight for democracy, rights and freedom.

  ---

  Civic space in Hong Kong is rated ‘closed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with Hong Kong Watch through itswebsite or itsFacebook page, and follow@hk_watch and@anoukwear onTwitter.

• HONG KONG: ‘We urge governments to protect exiled human rights defenders within their jurisdictions’

  

  CIVICUS speakswith Anouk Wear, research and policy adviser at Hong Kong Watch, about recent district council elections held in Hong Kong amid an ongoing crackdown on dissent.

  Founded in 2017, Hong Kong Watch is a civil society organisation (CSO) based in the UK thatproduces research and monitors threats to Hong Kong’s autonomy, basic freedoms and rule of law. Itworks at the intersection between politics, academia and the media to shape the international debate about Hong Kong.

   

  What was the significance of Hong Kong’s 2023 district council elections?

  On 11 December 2023, Hong Kong held elections spanning 18 district councils with a total of 479 seats. District councillors advise the Hong Kong government on local issues within their districts and have funding to promote recreational, cultural and community activities.

  These elections were especially significant because following the previous round, held in 2019 and won by pro-democracy candidates by a landslide, the Hong Kong government introduced several changes to ensure that the pro-China camp would maintain the majority in future elections.

  The 2023 election was marked by a record-low voter turnout of just 27.5 per cent. Many people abstained because they felt a sense of despair given that all candidates had to be vetted and approved by the Chinese state. This left no opposition voices to vote for, diminishing the significance of the election.

  We want genuine universal suffrage, not a ‘democracy with Chinese characteristics’, as the founding chairman of Hong Kong’s Democratic Party, Martin Lee, aptly warned in 2014. Unfortunately, the situation has only worsened since then.

  What tactics did the government use to control the election?

  As analysed in a briefing we published recently, the election fit into a broader trend of democratic erosion in Hong Kong.

  In 2021, changes to Legislative Councils were introduced under the slogan ‘Patriots Governing Hong Kong’,  aimed at screening out democrats and ensuring that only pro-establishment candidates aligned with Beijing could run for seats. To that effect, candidates are now required to pass two major political barriers before participating in the election.

  First, they must secure nominations from all five sectors of the Election Committee, a 1,500-member electoral college made up of representatives of various constituencies, including industry, professions, grassroots organisations, the government and Hong Kong representation in Chinese bodies. Second, they are screened by the Candidate Eligibility Review Committee, mainly composed of government officials. Candidates who don’t have a strong pro-China agenda can be disqualified on grounds of not being ‘patriotic’ enough.

  A similar approach was applied to district council candidates. In April 2023, Chief Executive John Lee announced that upcoming district council elections would be open exclusively to patriots, with only a certain number of ‘depoliticised’ seats focused on administrative tasks elected by the public. He added that people who love the country and are willing to serve can participate in district councils through ‘various other ways’. In line with these reforms, only 88 seats were directly elected by the public, compared to 452 in the previous election, with 179 to be appointed by the chief executive.

  Moreover, in the lead-up to the elections, three members of the League of Social Democrats were followed and arrested for planning a protest against the election, which they called a ‘birdcage’, stating that ‘Hong Kong people’s right to vote and to be elected seems to be absent’.

  What should be done to restore democratic freedoms in Hong Kong?

  Civil space has drastically shrunk since the 2019 district council elections. Following the imposition of the National Security Law in 2020, over 60 organisations have been disbanded, including CSOs, political parties, trade unions and media outlets. Many organisations have relocated abroad, while others have adjusted the scope of their work to protect their members who remain in Hong Kong.

  It’s crucial that discussions are continued, the human rights situation is monitored and detailed reports are provided as steps towards restoring democratic freedoms in Hong Kong. We shouldn’t accept new repressive laws as the norm but instead stay vocal about any regressive legislation and rights violation.

  It’s important to keep speaking up for people in Hong Kong and human rights defenders in exile. For example, recently the Hong Kong national security police issued five arrest warrants offering HK$1 million (approx. US$ 128,000) bounties for exiled pro-democracy Hong Kong activists based in the UK and USA. We strongly condemn this illegal attack against our friends and colleagues. We urge governments to take a stand and protect Hong Kong human rights defenders within their jurisdictions.

  How is Hong Kong Watch working towards this end, and what international support do you need?

  We work to inform and educate legislators, policymakers and the media, as well as raise awareness among the wider public about violations of human rights, basic freedoms and the rule of law in Hong Kong. We advocate for actions to assist victims of rights violations through a combination of in-depth research reports, opinion editorials, monthly media briefings, interviews and advocacy campaigns.

  It’s crucial to hold Hong Kong and China accountable for their violations of international human rights law and urge them to fulfil their obligations. For instance, the 2022 review of the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Committee, tasked with monitoring compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), found that Hong Kong violated its international legal obligations and recommended that the authorities take tangible steps, with a clear timeline, to introduce universal suffrage and reform the electoral system in compliance with the ICCPR.

  We’re engaging in this effort through submissions to the Human Rights Committee and other treaty bodies, including the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as to the upcoming Universal Periodic Review at the UN Human Rights Council.

  We deeply appreciate the support we receive from governments, legislators, civil society and people worldwide. But we need more international solidarity, particularly at the governmental level, to pressure Hong Kong authorities to comply with their obligations under international law and ensure that other states refrain from conducting business as usual with Hong Kong, in view of the grave and systematic nature of human rights violations the current regime commits.

   

  ---

  Civic space in Hong Kong is rated ‘closed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with Hong Kong Watch through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@hk_watch and@anoukwear onTwitter.

  The opinions expressed in this interview are those of the interviewee and do not necessarily reflect the views of CIVICUS.

• INDIA: ‘Anti-Muslim hate speech sustains polarisation that benefits the ruling party’

  CIVICUS speaks about India’s ongoing elections with Aakar Patel,board chair of Amnesty International India.

  Amnesty International is a global movement of over 10 million people committed to creating a future where human rights are enjoyed by everyone. Amnesty International India was forced to halt its operations on 30 September 2020 as part of the Indian government’s crackdown on civil society.

  How has the election developed so far, and what roles is civil society playing in it?

  This is our lengthiest election yet, spanning from 19 April to 1 June. We expect to know the results on 4 June. This is an anomaly considering the advancements in technology that should have made the process faster. Previous elections have been completed in under three weeks, and even in the 1950s, when balloting was physical and counting manual, the process was swifter. One explanation for this election’s extended duration is that Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the focal point of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), needs time to campaign across all 28 states. The Election Commission, purportedly impartial, has been very accommodating to his needs.

  This campaign has been notably acrimonious, with Modi exploiting religion to polarise voters. Anti-Muslim hate speech sustains polarisation, and this benefits the BJP disproportionately because it leverages religious identity unlike any other party. This polarisation effect is compounded by the BJP’s implementation of divisive policies, such as the criminalisation of marriages between Hindus and Muslims. Such measures are reshaping segments of society and are likely to have enduring impacts on our social fabric.

  Modi also propagates baseless insinuations and accusations against the opposition, often left unchecked by the media. Political parties, particularly the BJP, adeptly harness digital tools for maximum impact, unbound by any ethical considerations.

  Civil society in India faces significant challenges that have intensified under the BJP and Modi. Despite this, many groups have actively countered the communal and divisive rhetoric as effectively as possible, and have engaged with voters to provide information on relevant issues.

  What are the major issues for voters?

  So far, voter turnout has been lower than expected, and this seems to be the result of lack of enthusiasm. The BJP is placing its bets on polarisation rather than putting forward substantive proposals to tackle voters’ material concerns. These move briefly onto the centre stage when the opposition is able to thrust them under the spotlight. And still, major media outlets, predominantly owned by corporate entities and seemingly tethered to the government, tend to sidestep pressing issues like unemployment, inflation and violence in Manipur state.

  Regional issues hold significant importance, particularly in the southern states where the BJP’s political influence is not as entrenched as in the north and west. The simultaneous holding of legislative assembly elections in Andhra Pradesh alongside the national election will undoubtedly influence dynamics. In Karnataka, where the Indian National Congress party secured victory last year, its performance in delivering on its promises will likely shape its electoral fortunes this time around.

  What are the chances of the united opposition coalition winning?

  The opposition has a chance, although it appears to be a slim one, for several reasons.

  The first is that the election is neither free nor fair due to the fact that many opposition leaders are currently in jail, even though they haven’t been convicted. They have been arrested just so that they cannot campaign. Opposition bank accounts have been frozen by Modi for the same reason.

  There is also the fact that the BJP is also the wealthiest party by far and has a highly efficient and experienced ground campaigns team.

  However, I would say that Modi’s performance over the last decade is a major concern for many voters and will likely impact negatively on his support among those still undecided.

  Coalitions have always been good in our part of the world because they impose a sense of moderation and prevent bouts of insanity. Ranged against the might of the BJP, the largest political party in the world, there is no option for non-BJP and non-communal parties but to ally.

  ---

  Civic space in India is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with Amnesty International India through itsFacebook page and follow @AIIndia onTwitter andInstagram.

• INDIA: ‘Civil society efforts will be crucial to the quality of the elections’

  CIVICUS speaks with Anjali Bhardwaj, founding member of the Society for Citizen Vigilance Initiatives (Satark Nagrik Sangathan, SNS), about recent electoral reforms and civil society efforts to ensure the quality of India’s upcoming election.

  Established in 2003, SNS is a civil society organisation (CSO) working to promote government transparency and accountability and foster active citizen participation.

  What recent changes have been made to rules on campaign financing?

  On 15 February, the Supreme Court ruled the electoral bond system currently used to finance election campaigns unconstitutional. This is a positive change, with a potential to bring transparency to campaign financing.

  Introduced in 2018, the electoral bond scheme allowed people and organisations to buy designated bank bonds ranging from 1,000 to 10 million rupees (approx. US$12 to US$120,000) to donate to political campaigns in a completely anonymous way. When it introduced this system, the ruling Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) presented it as a measure to combat corruption and increase transparency in political financing.

  Before the bond system was introduced, political parties could receive funds in cash or through the banking system, but large corporate donations were often made in cash. All cash donations below 20,000 rupees (approx. US$240) were anonymous under the Income Tax Act. So to hoodwink the system, parties often reported large cash donations as multiple donations of amounts smaller than 20,000 rupees.

  The electoral bond scheme was presented as a measure to increase transparency but the anonymity it ensured had the opposite effects. The opacity it enabled allowed single donors to provide unlimited funding. It hasn’t allowed people, CSOs, opposition political parties or even the Election Commission of India to track the flow of money in politics. It has compromised the public’s right to information, as voters are unable to discern the extent or sources of funding political parties receive. This limited people’s democratic right to make informed voting decisions.

  What was the reasoning behind the Supreme Court’s decision?

  The Supreme Court first addressed this issue as early as 2019, acknowledging the bond system’s potential harm to democracy but allowing it to continue while it analysed the substance of the case. But even back then, it emphasised the deepened information imbalance created by a system that allowed the ruling party to access information about donors and donations through the government-controlled bank while leaving opposition parties and the public in the dark.

  In its recent ruling, the Supreme Court stressed that electoral bonds infringe article 19 of the constitution because without the right to information in electoral matters, the rights to free speech and expression guaranteed by article 19 cannot be fully realised.

  Voters in India predominantly support parties, rather than individual candidates. When large corporations contribute generous funds to political parties, there is the presumption that they do so in the expectation of receiving favours in return once parties become part of governments. When favours are returned, policy is guided not by promises made to voters or by people’s needs but by the interests of funders. This is why funding transparency is crucial for informed voting. Without this information, voters cannot know what to expect when parties access government.

  Electoral bonds exacerbated corruption through anonymous funding that gave free rein to large corporations to influence policy. They also made the playing field even more uneven, as the BJP consistently received a substantial share of electoral bonds.

  The Supreme Court judgment declared the scheme and associated amendments unconstitutional, emphasising the importance of the right to information. The court prohibited further transactions and mandated disclosure of past transactions, marking a significant move towards restoring transparency and fairness in India’s electoral process.

  How has civic space evolved under Prime Minister Narendra Modi?

  Regrettably, since the beginning of the Modi government in 2014 we have seen a significant contraction of civic space, due to systematic attacks on the crucial right to dissent, a cornerstone of any democracy.

  The essence of democracy lies in people’s right to question those in power. But in India, this right has been under attack in three primary ways.

  First, those who express dissent, criticise government policies or challenge legislation are labelled as anti-national. The governments files legal cases against them, leveraging draconian laws, terror-related legislation and money laundering statutes to silence them.

  Second, the government has deliberately weakened the laws that empower citizens. The Indian Right to Information Act, lauded as one of the world’s most progressive, has been amended twice in the last five years. Regressive amendments have severely affected people’s right to access information and question the authorities. Similarly regressive amendments to other laws, such as the Representation of People Act and the Income Tax Act, along with the electoral bonds, have further curtailed people’s right to access vital information to hold the authorities to account.

  The government has also undermined the independence of institutions responsible for upholding fundamental rights, including the right to free expression and protest. This has eroded the constitutional protection people should enjoy when expressing dissent. Protesting and questioning the government have therefore become increasingly difficult.

  The cumulative effect of these developments has dealt a severe blow to civic space in India.

  Are there enough guarantees for a free and fair election?

  India has needed electoral reform long before the current administration. For decades civil society has advocated for changes to strengthen the electoral process. While India takes pride in conducting relatively free and fair elections, concerns over the quality of elections have increased over time.

  Civil society has repeatedly expressed alarm over issues including the influence of money over elections, the security and reliability of electronic voting machines and manipulation of the voter roll.

  Regarding the undue influence of money over elections and consequently over policymaking, electoral bonds have long been a matter of major concern. Civil society has also expressed apprehension about glitches in and tampering with electronic voting systems, prompting debate and ongoing legal challenges in the Supreme Court. Alarms were also sounded by recent elections that saw arbitrary deletions and additions to voter lists.

  Civil society continues to bring attention to these issues, urging authorities to find solutions. The resolution of these challenges is essential for India to genuinely claim it conducts free and fair elections.

  Who are the major contenders in the 2024 election, and what are the main issues the winner will need to tackle?

  India has numerous political parties that actively participate in elections. The BJP and its allies have successfully formed a government twice and are currently strong contenders to secure a third term in office. The opposition landscape includes the Indian National Congress, historically prevalent prior to the BJP’s rise. But there are many other national and regional parties that contribute to the diversity of the political spectrum.

  As a developing country, India, faces multifaceted challenges. Among the most significant are deep-seated socio-economic inequality and high incidence of poverty, with a small number of families holding a substantial portion of the country’s wealth and a substantial percentage of the population living below the poverty line. There is much need for policies to uplift those on the margins of society and reforms to the structures that perpetuate inequality.

  Equally crucial is the protection of civic freedoms, particularly for those who criticise the government, including through peaceful protests. Those who express dissent and demand accountability must be protected rather than criminalised.

  The next government should prioritise these issues, addressing inequalities and working to create an environment where citizens can freely express themselves and participate fully in the democratic process.

  ---

  Civic space in Indonesia is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with the SCVI through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow @sns_india on Twitter.

• INDIA: ‘Civil society organisations are at the forefront of the fight against gender-based violence’

  CIVICUS discusses the recent wave of protests against gender-based violence (GBV) in India with Dr Kavitha Ravi, a member of the Indian Medical Association (IMA).

  Protests erupted across India after a 31-year-old female medical trainee was raped and murdered in a Kolkata hospital on 9 August. The IMA called a strike, with protests held in major cities including Kolkata and Mumbai. While the official strike has ended, many doctors, particularly junior doctors, remain on strike and protests continue to demand justice, accountability and safer working conditions for women.

  What triggered the recent protests against GBV in India?

  Protests erupted after the tragic rape and murder of a young female doctor at the R G Kar Medical College in Kolkata on 9 August. This horrific incident shocked the nation and sparked widespread outrage. In response, a coalition of doctors, medical associations such as the IMA and various resident and faculty associations joined together in a nationwide strike to demand justice for the victim and better safety measures for health workers, particularly women who face significant risks in the workplace.

  Protesters are calling for major reforms, including the adoption of a Hospital Protection Act, which would designate hospitals as safe zones and introduce measures to create a safer environment for health workers. Their demands are part of a larger movement to comprehensively address GBV, prevent similar tragedies in the future and create a safer and more supportive working environment for everyone in the health sector.

  What steps have been taken so far to ensure justice and the safety of female health workers?

  The judicial system has acted swiftly by transferring the case to a higher authority to ensure a thorough investigation after concerns were raised about the police’s initial inquiry, which was not accepted by the students or the victim’s family. They were sceptical, believing the police might be favouring the college authorities and supporting the accused.

  This decision aims to ensure a detailed investigation so justice can be done. The Supreme Court of India is also overseeing the case to monitor its progress, address any issues that may arise and ensure all necessary steps are taken to uphold justice.

  In parallel, several initiatives are underway to improve the safety of female health workers. The Ministry of Health has proposed establishing a committee to review and improve safety protocols in health facilities. There are also plans to increase security in hospitals and establish a new national taskforce dedicated to improving safety through better infrastructure, advanced technology and additional security measures. However, despite these efforts, more needs to be done to combat GBV and ensure that these measures effectively protect female health workers.

  How have the authorities responded to the protests?

  The authorities have taken a mixed approach to the nationwide strike, combining concessions with new measures to address immediate concerns. The Health Ministry has drawn up a detailed plan to increase security in central government hospitals. This includes installing high-resolution CCTV cameras, monitoring access points with identification badges, deploying trained security personnel for constant patrolling and securing duty rooms for female staff. Hospitals are also encouraged to develop and regularly update emergency response plans and conduct mock drills.

  In response to these measures, the IMA suspended its strike. However, other doctors’ associations have continued to protest for more substantial reforms. Many people remain dissatisfied, particularly after recent incidents of police violence. While the Supreme Court’s intervention may have temporarily eased the tensions, protesters remain concerned about the new measures’ effectiveness and full implementation.

  Why is GBV so prevalent in India, and what’s being done about it?

  Deep-rooted cultural, social, economic and legal factors account for the high prevalence of GBV in India. This is a patriarchal country where traditional gender roles and the subjugation of women are deeply entrenched. Women tend to be economically dependent on men, which traps them in abusive relationships that make it difficult for them to seek help or escape. Intergenerational cycles of violence perpetuate the problem, as children who witness or experience abuse may come to see such behaviour as normal.

  Low literacy rates, particularly in rural areas, further limit women’s understanding of their rights and the available support. When they do seek justice, the system often fails to protect the victims or hold perpetrators accountable. Systemic failures in law enforcement and justice help perpetuate GBV.

  Many initiatives and campaigns have helped highlight and address this issue. But it has not been easy. A lack of consistent political will and weak implementation of policies have hindered substantial change. Feminist and social justice movements often face resistance from conservative parts of society, making it difficult to change these deeply entrenched cultural norms.

  To combat GBV effectively, we need a comprehensive approach that includes better education, legal reform, economic empowerment and cultural change. Civil society organisations are at the forefront of this fight, actively advocating for stronger laws, better enforcement and increased public awareness. Continued and robust efforts are essential to address this widespread problem and ensure meaningful change.

  Civic space in India is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with the Indian Medical Association through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@IMAIndiaOrg on Twitter.

• INDIA: ‘The government is dealing with dissent in very concerning ways’

  CIVICUS speaks Sudha Bharadwaj, a lawyer and long-time human rights defender working for the rights of workers and Indigenous peoples in India.

  Sudha wasarrested and detained in August 2018 under the draconian Unlawful Activities Prevention Act and accused of having links with Maoist terrorist organisations. Alongside 15 other human rights defenders, she was further accused of conspiring to incite violence among the Dalit community. Despiteproof that incriminating evidence against them was planted,concerns expressed by United Nations (UN) experts about the arbitrary charges and UN calls to release political prisoners from crowded jails during the pandemic, requests for Sudha’s release, including on health grounds, were repeatedlyrejected. She was finallyreleased on bail in December 2021 after three years in detention.

  How did you get involved in human rights work?

  For the last 35 years I have been working in Chhattisgarh, an area in eastern India that is very rich in mineral resources. I began around 1986 as a trade unionist and worked with a legendary union leader, Shankar Guha Niyog, who was organising iron ore miners. Conditions were appalling. Workers were not unionised, working hours were long, wages were very paltry and even the very basic labour laws of our country were not being applied.

  I became a lawyer basically because my trade union needed one. I graduated in 2000, at the age of 40. I initially took up matters of our own union and later I shifted to work at the high court, where I realised contractual workers, farmers resisting land acquisition and Adivasi Indigenous groups resisting mining projects were forced to face very expensive corporate lawyers without any real legal assistance. They needed lawyers who understood them and who could devise legal strategies compatible with the tactics of their movements.

  I started a group of lawyers to provide legal aid to unions, farmers’ and village organisations, Adivasi communities, and civil society organisations (CSOs). Around this time, I became involved in the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), one of the oldest human rights organisations in India. We dealt with various human rights issues, including attacks and harassment of minorities and the criminalisation of Dalits and Adivasis under false accusations of having links with armed Maoist groups, also called Naxals. We took up several cases in which security forces fired on villagers accused of being Naxalites. We were eventually able to prove that these were false accusations.

  I dealt with cases against big corporations, so I made powerful enemies. By taking up cases of Adivasis I also annoyed the government. In 2018 I was teaching a course at the national lawyer’s university in Delhi and that’s when I was arrested.

  Can you tell us about your experience in detention?

  Because the case was in Pune, I was initially sent to the women’s wing of the Yervada central jail, which is a prison for convicts. I was taken there with another activist, Shoma Sen. As soon as we were brought there, we experienced attacks on our dignity. We were asked to strip and squat. We were isolated: kept in separate cells, unable to communicate with other prisoners, led out into a yard for only half an hour a day. We were under constant surveillance.

  In the winter it was very cold. We spend most of the time reading, although we struggled to get books. Because the library was in the men’s side of the jail, only 25 books were brought at a time. We were allowed to keep only two or three with us in our cell. We also had issues with access to water and sometimes had to carry in buckets. Shoma struggled with severe arthritis. 

  Later on, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) took over our case, so we were moved to Byculla jail in Mumbai. This jail was extremely overcrowded, and we lacked any privacy. We would sleep right next to one another on coffin-sized strips of the floor which were allotted to us by the kamwali (staff) in charge of the barracks. There were also limited bathrooms to share.

  Social distancing was impossible, and during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, many detainees got infected and were stuffed in a quarantine barrack. I did not become seriously sick but both Shoma and I requested medical bail due to underlying conditions. This was systematically denied.

  Due to the pandemic, we were totally cut off from the outside world and were not taken to the courts for about five or six months. Then PUCL and other groups requested the Bombay High Courts to authorise telephone calls and we were allowed to speak to our families for 10 minutes once a week. Our lawyers could talk to us by sending an email to the jail, and the jail would allow us to phone them back - for 10 minutes, twice a week. That’s how we were able to tell them about prison conditions. I also tried to help people around us who were old or sick to write petitions.

  How did you feel when you were finally granted bail, and what’s next?

  The bail order was issued on 1 December 2021. I felt extremely disappointed that other activists linked to the case were not released with me. My request for bail was accepted on technical grounds. I heard the NIA appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn my bail, but it was immediately dismissed.

  On 8 December I was taken to the court, given cash bail, and asked to produce sureties. When I came back to the jail, many detainees celebrated for me and gave me their requests. I was released the next day.

  The bail conditions have restricted me to Mumbai, which is not my city. Friends have been very helpful, but I don’t have a home or work here so I’m still trying to adjust to the situation. I would like to continue my practice on behalf of prisoners and trade unions. For now, I have to attend court hearings and check-in at the police station every two weeks.

  How have the conditions for activism in India changed while you were in jail?

  Even before I went to jail things were already challenging, but since I was released, I have seen increasing attacks against minorities, notably Muslims. There has been a rise in hate speech, which seems to be manufactured and copiously funded, especially on social media.

  The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), passed in December 2019, is discriminatory against minorities. There was a strong movement against the CAA law, in many places led by Muslim women, but this was shut down due to the pandemic.

  We are also seeing that many institutions that are supposed to be independent – such as the Election Commission and investigating agencies – are being manipulated by the government. There are even concerns about the independence of the National Human Rights Commission, which has failed to take a proactive role on many important issues. The undermining of these institutions will affect their roles in their future, even if the government changes.

  The government is dealing with dissent in very concerning ways. One clear example is the increasing surveillance of journalists, activists, and advocates. A lot of us involved in the case had our phones infected by Pegasus spyware. We have approached the Supreme Court-appointed Technical Committee looking into the use of Pegasus against Indian citizens and it has decided to request our phones from the NIA and undertake an inquiry.

  There are also concerns about the impacts of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) on civil society. If you advocate for workers, Indigenous peoples or poor communities, your work is considered a political activity and you are barred from doing it. Larger CSOs with FCRA registration should be able to support smaller CSOs on the ground, but the government is depriving them of the ability of distributing funds to local grassroots groups and reaching out to real beneficiaries.

  Where do you see positive change coming from in India?

  One beacon of hope is the farmers’ movement. The opposition was against the farm bills proposed by the government, but it was unable to stop them. It was farmers themselves who stopped them, by standing their ground for almost one year in the heat, cold and rain. Thousands of criminal cases were brought against farmers, and they were smeared as terrorists. But they managed to hold their ground, build unity and push back. The key lesson here is that people must get organised.

  I think that if it hadn’t been for the pandemic, the anti-CAA law movement would have had similar results. Students are also an important force, but we are seeing them facing attacks to prevent them organising and speaking up. But they will find a way to continue their struggle.

  At a time when many internal mechanisms are failing us, international scrutiny and pressure are also key to improving the situation. There are international standards India cannot ignore. But of late, the Indian government has taken a problematic attitude towards UN bodies, including UN missions to Kashmir, and has gone as far as preventing people from speaking at or participating in international conferences. When UN Special Rapporteurs have made comments on human rights in India, the response has been dismissive and disparaging.

  The government often uses terrorism and national security as an excuse for all kinds of human rights abuses. It is important to put the spotlight on this and not let the government get away with it.

  Civic space inIndia is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor. 

  ---

  Sudha was one of our #StandAsMyWitness faces. The campaign advocates for the release of Human Rights Defenders behind bars. In 2021, we welcomed the news of the release of three Human Rights Defenders -including Sudha-, and we continue to use our voices to call for the release of all other detained activists. Head to the official campaign page to read more about the current faces featured and join us in standing as their witnesses!

  

   

• INDIA: ‘We have achieved a historic labour rights win for female Dalit workers’

  CIVICUS speaks about a recent labour rights victory in India’s garment industry with Jeeva M, General Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Textile and Common Labour Union (TTCU).

  TTCU is a women-led independent and majority Dalit trade union of textile workers that represents 11,000 female workers in Tamil Nadu, India. Jeeva, who hails from the Dalit community, has worked for more than five years in the Tamil Nadu textile industry, including at Eastman Exports. She is a founding member of TTCU and has led struggles for decent work and violence-free workplaces in the garment industry for more than a decade.

  What is the Dindigul Agreement, and how significant is it?

  The Dindigul Agreement was signed in April 2021 by TTCU and Eastman Exports, one of the largest textile producers in India, which supplies knitwear, apparel and accessories to major global clothing brands. Its aim is to end caste-based and gender-based violence and harassment (GBVH) at Eastman factories and spinning mills in Dindigul, a city in India’s Tamil Nadu state.

  This is a historic labour rights win for around 5,000 mostly female Dalit workers, who are placed at the bottom of India’s caste system.

  The Dindigul Agreement includes an enforceable brand agreement (EBA), a type of legally binding agreement in which multinational companies commit to use their supply chain relationships to support a worker-led or union-led programme at particular factories or worksites. In this case, TTCU, the Asia Floor Wage Alliance (AFWA) and Global Labour Justice-International Labour Rights Forum (GLJ-ILRF) have signed an EBA with the multinational fashion company H&M, which requires H&M to support and enforce the Dindigul Agreement. If Eastman Exports violates its commitments, H&M must take steps to penalise the company, including by reducing business, until it comes into compliance.

  This agreement is the first of its kind in India, the only EBA to cover spinning mills and the first to include explicit protections against caste-based discrimination, a problem that intensified during the pandemic.

  The Dindigul Agreement is in line with the International Labour Organization’s Convention 190 concerning the elimination of violence and harassment in the workplace. It creates structures that will empower female workers, supported by their union, to monitor and seek redress for GBVH. It also provides a new model for brands, suppliers and trade unions to cooperate to prevent and respond to GBVH in garment supply chains.

  What tipped the balance in favour of the agreement after so many years of efforts?

  Civil society has advocated for better working conditions for Dalit workers for many years, but it was not until the murder of Jeyasre Kathiravel, a Dalit woman garment worker and member of TTCU, that we succeeded in addressing the extreme problems of GBVH pervasive in this industry. The killing of Jeyasre by her supervisor in January 2021 prompted TTCU to shed light on the situation at the factory where she was killed.

  In response, TTCU, AFWA and GLJ-ILRF formed a unique partnership and launched the #JusticeforJeyasre campaign in India and other Asian countries as well as in Europe and the USA. Over 90 international unions, labour groups and women’s rights organisations joined to urge international brands and Eastman Exports to sign a binding agreement to end GBVH.

  A year-long campaign ensued, including an international vigil for Jeyasre held across 33 countries and an 11-city speaking tour across the USA to raise awareness about her case and the need to address GBVH in global supply chains. This enabled the civil society coalition to lead the negotiations that concluded with the historic agreement.

  What other challenges do Dalit workers face in India, and what needs to be done to improve their situations?

  Caste discrimination permeates every aspect of society. Due to its systemic nature, workplaces and supply chains are likely to be affected by it unless special measures to counter it are put in place.

  For instance, Dalit workers experience poorer working conditions than non-Dalits, including longer working hours, sexual harassment, lower wages, dirtier or more hazardous tasks and abusive language and gestures. We also face discrimination at the hiring stage – for instance, qualified applicants from Dalit communities are not considered for skilled jobs – and encounter discrimination in accessing services and utilities offered by the employer, such as housing, healthcare and education and training.

  With approximately 80 per cent of the bonded workforce coming from the Dalit community, strong measures need to be put in place to address bonded or forced labour and to ensure that employment in this sector is not forced.

  Important measures to advance Dalit workers’ labour rights include ensuring the freedom of association and collective bargaining, improving working conditions, paying living wages and implementing binding agreements such as the Dindigul Agreement to address caste-based discrimination and GBVH in sectors where the workforce is mostly made up of Dalit women.

  What’s next for the civil society groups involved in the Dindigul Agreement?

  Through the campaign and negotiation process, TTCU built strong forward momentum and gained respect from the factory and brands. TTCU, AFWA and GLJ-ILRF have built a powerful coalition of unions, women’s rights groups and Dalit rights advocates, among others. Now the agreements have been signed, we need to keep that momentum. We will continue to keep our allies engaged in the implementation phase and as we work to drive industry-wide change.

  We see the Dindigul Agreement as part of a regional movement against GBVH in garment supply chains. We plan to use it as a model for organising against GBVH across the industry and the region. We are already calling on more brands to join this agreement and working with them to expand it. There will surely be challenges, but we are confident we will overcome them.

  Civic space in India is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
  Get in touch with AFWA through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@asia_floorwage,@tamil_labour and@GLJhub on Twitter. 

• INDONESIA: ‘Proposed changes to the Broadcasting Act are part of a regression driven by religious fundamentalism’

  CIVICUS discusses proposed changes to Indonesia’s Broadcasting Act that would restrict LGBTQI+ rights with Dédé Oetomo. Dédé is co-founder of GAYa NUSANTARA, a civil society organisation at the forefront of the struggle for equality in Indonesia.

  Proposed amendments to the 2002 Broadcasting Act, which covers conventional and digital media, include restrictions on content that depicts LGBTQI+ ‘behaviour’ or promotes other ‘negative’ behaviours. The bill is expected to be passed before President Joko Widodoleaves office later this year. It will punish violations with fines and penalties such as the revocation of licences. Rights activists criticise its vague wording, which will allow for discretionary implementation and further restrict freedom of expression.

  What changes has the government proposed to the Broadcasting Act, and how will they affect LGBTQI+ people?

  The Indonesian government has proposed amendments to the 2022 Broadcasting Act, focused on determining what it is ‘appropriate’ to broadcast in Indonesia. The government’s proposed changes include restrictions on the ‘exclusive broadcast of journalistic investigation’, which critics warn could curb the ability to conduct investigative journalism.

  The draft bill also bans the broadcast of content depicting LGBTQI+ ‘behaviour’ and restricts content depicting professions or figures with ‘negative behaviours or lifestyles that could potentially be imitated by the public’. Penalties for violating these provisions could range from written warnings to the revocation of broadcasting licences.

  Politicians argue the changes are needed to update the outdated law, while free expression advocates and LGBTQI+ activists believe they will severely restrict media freedom and the right to free expression, and enable an escalation of restrictive measures targeting minority communities and dissenting voices.

  What’s the situation for LGBTQI+ people in Indonesia?

  Same-sex acts between consenting adults are not criminalised nationally. They are only effectively criminalised in Aceh province, which applies Sharia law. Penalties are provided for in other districts, but are often vague and not systematically enforced. However, they are used as a tool for harassment.

  Although LGBTQI+ relationships and identities are generally not criminalised, hate speech by politicians and conservative religious leaders is widespread. Public institutions such as the military, police and universities have issued statements and policies that discriminate against LGBTQI+ people. For example, the Faculty of Engineering at Gadjah Mada University recently issued a circular banning LGBTQI+ people being professors, administrators or students. This decision was, however, backtracked on following internal pressure.

  Transgender people face particularly severe persecution, including family abuse and community harassment. They are often visible targets and can suffer violent attacks, arbitrary arrest and torture in some areas, such as Aceh province.

  In more sparsely populated eastern regions, such as parts of the Maluku Islands and Sulawesi, persecution is less common and there are initiatives for local anti-discrimination ordinances. At the national level, there is a coalition working towards an anti-discrimination law, quietly supported by United Nations (UN) agencies, friendly embassies and various human rights organisations.

  For many LGBTQI+ people, day-to-day survival is the main issue. Discrimination in education, employment and housing is widespread. While there are some supportive communities and families, visibility often leads to persecution. This could worsen if initiatives such as the Family Resilience Bill, which would force families to report LGBTQI+ members, become law; it’s been shelved for now due to protests.

  What obstacles do LGBTQI+ activists face, and how would the new law affect them?

  Activists face significant obstacles, including physical threats and the need to hold events in secret to avoid attacks. For example, Pride events are held in undisclosed locations to avoid disruption by anti-rights vigilantes. Public marches or large gatherings are impossible due to the threat of violence.

  If the proposed amendment to the Broadcasting Act goes through, it will have a devastating impact on LGBTQI+ activism. The media would be unable to interview activists or even mention LGBTQI+ issues, essentially erasing their presence from public discourse. This mirrors the ‘Don't Say Gay’ mentality seen in other parts of the world, which aims to suppress any mention of LGBTQI+ identities.

  Despite setbacks, previous attempts to criminalise LGBTQI+ activities have been blocked by protests. For instance, the 2022 Penal Code criminalised adultery and fornication, but it stopped short of criminalising same-sex behaviour as a result of successful advocacy.

  Do you see the proposed changes to the Broadcasting Act as part of a wider regressive trend?

  The proposed changes are part of an ongoing regressive trend driven by fundamentalist religious groups. Since the fall of the dictatorship in 1998, the opening of civic space has allowed for the growth of numerous civil society organisations, including fundamentalist religious organisations. These groups initially targeted sex workers and trans women, but eventually broadened their focus to include the wider LGBTQI+ community. The growing harassment of those who defy traditional gender norms is often justified by a selective interpretation of religious principles.

  This is happening in a context of democratic erosion, with political elites and families consolidating their power. The recent murder of a journalist investigating online gambling highlighted the growing threat to freedoms. But while democracy is indeed under threat, there is still significant civil society resistance, in the form of petitions and public protests, to stop the backsliding.

  What international support do Indonesian LGBTQI+ activists need?

  International visibility, pressure and practical support can help Indonesian LGBTQI+ activists continue their fight for rights and recognition.

  International solidarity can take the form of public statements from friendly governments and high-level international organisations. When Indonesia is reviewed by bodies such as the  UN Human Rights Council or the Committee Against Torture, international pressure should be applied to highlight civil society concerns.

  Solidarity from the global community, including protests at Indonesian embassies and financial donations, can also be crucial. However, a significant barrier against raising awareness of Indonesia's unique challenges is that the country is often overlooked internationally. Interns and volunteers who can overcome language barriers and support local organisations are also valuable.

  ---

  Civic space in Indonesia is rated ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with GAYa NUSANTARA through itswebsite orInstagram page, and follow@gayanusantara and@dedeoetomo on Twitter.

• INDONESIA: ‘We must become an example of successful societal resistance against the threat of autocratic rule’

  CIVICUS speaks about the upcoming general election in Indonesia with Muhammad Isnur, chairperson of the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation (YLBHI) and Secretary of the Board of theHuman Rights Working Group.

  Founded in 1970, YLBHI is a human rights civil society organisation (CSO) that provides legal aid to excluded communities throughout Indonesia and engages in research, advocacy and empowerment initiatives. Every year the organisation receives at least 3,500 legal complaints and requests for assistance.

  What is at stake in the upcoming general election?

  The upcoming election will define Indonesia’s trajectory amidst a trend of growing authoritarianism. The incumbent government led by President Joko Widodo, known as Jokowi, is responsible for numerous human rights violations. It has targeted poor people through evictions and arrests, weakened anti-corruption efforts and criminalised civil society.

  Jokowi has expressed support for the presidential candidacy of Prabowo Subianto, who faces allegations of crimes against humanity, including abductions and enforced disappearances of activists during mass protests in 1998 that led to the downfall of the Suharto dictatorship. He was dismissed from the military but hasn’t faced accountability and his victims haven’t received reparations, and some remain missing. His victory would be the worst possible scenario for civil society.

  Jokowi has also undermined the rule of law to pave the way for his 36-year-old son, Gibran Rakabuming, to become a vice-presidential candidate. The controversial Constitutional Court ruling issued in October 2023 to grant him an exception to the legal minimum age of 40 to run for president or vice-president was delivered by Chief Justice Anwar Usman, who happens to be Jokowi’s brother-in-law. Gibran represents the interests of the Jokowi government and corrupt and authoritarian economic elites.

  If the ruling elite succeeds in arbitrarily extending its power, there is risk of a resurgence of the kind of authoritarian and oligarchical rule we saw during dictatorship from 1966 to 1998.

  Who are the other contenders, and what are their human rights records?

  The other candidates are Ganjar Pranowo and Mahfud MD of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle, which has a long history of wielding power and currently holds the highest number of ministers in the government. Mahfud has defended the Jokowi government for many years and denied the gross human rights violations committed by Indonesian security forces against Indigenous Papuans.

  We’ve also documented numerous human rights violations in Central Java during Ganjar’s tenure as governor. In Kendeng, despite a court decision favourable to the local community opposed to the construction of a cement factory, Ganjar reissued an environmental permit for the construction to proceed. In Wadas, he facilitated the implementation of a mining project aligned with Jokowi’s agenda, disregarding opposition from the local community, which also faced extraordinary repression, including arrests and beatings by the police and disruptions of internet and electricity services.

  The third pair of candidates, Anies Baswedan and Muhaimin Iskandar, in contrast, position themselves as advocates for change. Anies has a social agenda focused on protecting poor people. But they receive support from parties that are integral to the existing power structure and have also backed laws that weakened labour rights and undermined the Corruption Eradication Commission.

  What are the prospects of the election being free and fair?

  The public is concerned about Jokowi’s numerous efforts to make the election unfree and unfair. First, although he later denied it, under the pretext of COVID-19 he planned to amend the constitution to stay for a third term. He then focused on building a political dynasty. He supported his son-in-law and his son to be elected as mayors in Medan and Surakarta. Civil society reports suggest the police and army played an influential role in their victories. Concern persists as Jokowi has signalled support for the Prabowo-Gibran pair and ordered his officials to back his son’s campaign, even though they are required to remain neutral.

  There are also significant concerns about potential fraud, which have prompted civil society to intensify efforts to establish an election monitoring system and set up monitoring mechanisms at polling stations. Civil society remains vigilant, scrutinising any statements, policies or threats that could undermine the integrity of the election.

  Civil society is joining forces to prevent the election of Prabowo. Online activists have created the Four Fingers Movement to urge voters to choose a different pair than Prabowo-Gibran.

  Surveys currently indicate that Prabowo could receive about 40 per cent of the vote. To force a runoff, it’s essential to prevent fraud and secure turnout. If nobody takes over half of the vote on 14 February, civil society and the public may unite around an alternative candidate to counter Prabowo in the runoff. But there are concerns about a potentially low turnout. The number of people choosing not to vote was already high in the previous election.

  What should be done to counter democratic decline in Indonesia?

  Democracy in Indonesia is being eroded by a government that disregards constitutional principles and the rule of law and instead uses laws as tools of power to suit its interests. Jokowi has reinstated the army and police in various public roles and issued presidential decrees and enacted policies to undermine other political parties and eliminate the opposition.

  A key symptom of democratic decline is repression of government critics, including journalists, activists, academics and others advocating for human rights. A revealing example is the case against activists Haris Azhar and Fatia Maulidiyanti, who faced criminal defamation charges for exposing state corruption and human rights violations in the Papua region. Human rights are being violated across Indonesia as communities are evicted under the pretext of investment or national development projects, and people who denounce this are systematically criminalised.

  But there are other issues that should be tackled to foster democracy in Indonesia. Indonesian political parties lack a clear ideological orientation and don’t represent public interests. Their position depends on their leadership and decisions are often made by a few. There is no internal democracy in political parties. The high costs of campaigning lead parties to rely on support from wealthy investors and businesspeople, undermining transparency and enabling corruption.

  To foster change, we should work toward democratising parties, making them more transparent and accountable. Efforts should be made to involve the public in the legislative process. Laws are sometimes passed within a week without any consultation with civil society. Referendums and other mechanisms should be explored to enhance public participation.

  The upcoming election has additional significance in the face of a global surge in authoritarianism. We must avoid following the path of the Philippines, where the son and daughter of two authoritarian dynasties succeeded in getting elected. We must unite in the face of authoritarianism and become an example of successful societal resistance against the threat of autocratic rule.

  ---

  Civic space inIndonesiais rated ‘obstructed’by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with YLBHI through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@YLBHI on Twitter.

• IRAN: ‘Mahsa’s death highlights the struggle women must face just to go about their daily lives’

  CIVICUS speaks with Kylie Moore-Gilbert about thecurrent women-led protests in Iran, sparked by Mahsa Amini’s death in the custody of the so-called ‘morality police’.

  Kylie is a British-Australian women’s rights advocate and academic specialising in Islamic studies. She has extensively researched political issues in the Middle East, including the ‘Arab Spring’. In 2018 she was falsely charged with espionage and remained in prison in Iran for more than two years before being released in a prisoner exchange deal negotiated by the Australian government. She speaks about this experience in a recently published book,The Uncaged Sky: My 804 days in an Iranian prison.

  What are the demands of the protesters currently mobilised in Iran?

  In contrast to previous outbreaks of protest and civil unrest in Iran, from the very first day the current protesters adopted slogans calling for the fall of the Islamic Republic regime. Their slogans include ‘Death to Khamenei’, the Supreme Leader, ‘Down with the dictator’ and ‘No to the Islamic Republic’.

  While the trigger for the unrest was the senseless death of Mahsa Amini at the hands of the morality police, the issue of forced hijab and the harassment of women by regime officials due to their clothing and behaviour has become a symbol of the protesters’ desire to remove this regime altogether. Protesters are demanding freedom, equality between women and men and an end to the tyranny imposed on them by Iran’s regime of ageing clerics.

  The protests are happening countrywide and have involved Persian and ethnic-minority communities, irrespective of language, religion or class. To further their demands, protesters are using overwhelmingly peaceful tactics, such as rallies and marches, organised hijab-burnings and hair-cuttings, and general strikes.

  How have the authorities responded to the protests so far?

  The protests have faced a rolling crackdown since their inception. Many protesters, including several young teenagers, have been shot dead in the streets by security forces. Thousands have been rounded up and arrested. Sharif University of Technology was besieged for several days, with its students rounded up, beaten and imprisoned.

  The regime has cut off internet access to most of the country in a bid to contain protests. This is why it is so important for the international community to keep up the pressure on Iran and continue to shine a light on its human rights abuses. It must help prevent a massacre of innocent protesters and hold the regime to account for its crimes.

  Has Amini’s case helped reveal underlying women’s rights issues?

  Yes, most definitely. One reason why Amini’s arrest and murder touched such a nerve in Iran is that nearly all Iranian women, and many men too, have had similar encounters with the morality police at some point in their lives. What happened to Mahsa could have happened to any one of them.

  Mahsa’s death highlights the struggle women in Iran must face just to go about their daily lives. Women are routinely harassed in public by regime officials and pro-regime sympathisers for ‘bad hijab’ and are even banned from singing and dancing, hugging or touching men who are not their relatives, among too many other things. Many Iranian women are tired of the constant policing of their appearance and behaviour. They want to be free to get on with their lives as they see fit.

  What needs to change for women’s rights to gain recognition in Iran?

  For women’s rights to be recognised, the regime would have to change. I do not believe the Iranian government is capable of reforming itself. Forced hijab and discriminatory laws against women are a core pillar of the regime’s ideology. If it granted women equal rights, it would cease to exist.

  My hope is that the protests will make a difference well beyond women’s rights. As the protests are now entering their third week, my hope is that they will eventually lead to the downfall of the regime altogether. Iranians deserve a democratic government that respects gender equality and freedom of speech and is truly representative of the will of the people.

  What kind of assistance does Iranian civil society need from the international community?

  Iranian civil society desperately needs its voices to be amplified internationally and for attention to continue to be focused on what is happening inside Iran. The full glare of international media and foreign governments will act as something of a brake on the worst excesses of the regime’s crackdown.

  The international community could also assist in trying to keep Iran’s internet functioning, so protesters can communicate with one another and get news, photos and videos out of Iran so the world knows what is happening there.

  Foreign governments could also impose sanctions on Iranian officials responsible for the crackdown and other human rights abuses, and should cease all negotiations with Iran over sanctions relief and unfreezing Iranian assets abroad.

  ---

  Civic space in Iran is rated ‘closed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Follow @KMooreGilbert on Twitter.