international law

• ARMENIA: ‘As people leave their homes in search of safety, humanitarian organisations must support their basic needs’

  CIVICUS speaks about the civil society humanitarian response to the Azerbaijani blockade and military offensive against Nagorno-Karabakh – the disputed territory within Azerbaijan that until recently was governed by ethnic Armenians – withShushanik Nersesyan,Media and Communication Manager at People in Need (PIN) Armenia.

  Founded in 1992 bya group of journalists involved in the 1989 Czechoslovak ‘Velvet Revolution’, PIN is a civil society organisation (CSO) working in the fields of humanitarian aid, human rights, education and social work. Since it was established in 2003, its permanent office in Armenia has worked to strengthen Armenian people’s abilities to improve their lives and the communities they live in.

  How did the Azerbaijani blockade affect people in Nagorno-Karabakh?

  It all started in December 2022, when Azerbaijani civilians identifying themselves as environmental activists began obstructing the Lachin corridor, which links Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. In April 2023 Azerbaijan set up an official checkpoint that largely cut off the passage of people and goods between Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. Once it was under Azeri control, it was possible to use the corridor only in exceptionally urgent cases, through the intermediation of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) or Russian peacekeepers.

  On 29 July Azerbaijani authorities abducted V Khachatryan, a 68-year-old Nagorno-Karabakh resident who was being evacuated by the ICRC for urgent medical treatment through the Lachin corridor. Khachatryan remains in captivity. Another incident occurred in late August when three Nagorno-Karabakh students were captured by Azerbaijani border guards while travelling to Armenia via the corridor. They were only released 10 days later. Free movement of people to Armenia became impossible.

  The prolonged blockade led to a humanitarian crisis due to shortages of essential goods – including electricity, fuel and water – and the closure of basic services. People in Need, along with Action Against Hunger and Médecins du Monde France, condemned it but, regrettably, our efforts to open to road for the trucks with food to Nagorno-Karabakh were thwarted.

  The situation changed with the shelling that caused the deaths of hundreds of innocent people on 19 and 20 September. Since 24 September, over 100,000 people have fled Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenian regions, where they are also facing an emergency situation due to food and hygiene needs, plus longer-term issues of housing, education and jobs.

  How has Armenian civil society responded to the humanitarian crisis?

  CSOs including PIN deployed humanitarian projects to help blockade-affected people. CSOs conducted visits and issued statements. In Kornidzor, on the border, representatives from dozens of Armenian CSOs gathered during the blockade, urging the international community to uphold human rights and ensure the passage of humanitarian aid for civilians in Nagorno-Karabakh. The unimpeded delivery of essential goods, including food, hygiene items, medicine and fuel, as well as the unrestricted movement of people, including critically ill patients, are fundamental tenets of international humanitarian law.

  What work is PIN doing in this context?

  Since 1992, as a newly established organisation, PIN has been there to help people affected by the First Nagorno-Karabakh War, which lasted from February 1988 to May 1994. We have actively contributed to the growth of Armenian civil society, which has remained resilient throughout this crisis. We coordinate our efforts with the government and local authorities to closely monitor the situation on the ground and carry out numerous humanitarian projects.

  We continue assisting the most vulnerable populations. Since September 2020, we have provided essential humanitarian aid and long-term efforts for the social and economic integration of thousands of people.

  As a humanitarian organisation, we advocate for rights and a peaceful resolution of conflicts in adherence with international law. Along with our partners, we have expressed our concerns, called for measures to prevent the unfolding humanitarian catastrophe and continuously raised internal and donor funds to help people in need.

  When people started fleeing Nagorno-Karabakh, we immediately mobilised PIN funds to support the first recipient centre in the Syunik border region to deliver aid such as food, clothes and blankets to forcibly displaced people and create a special space for children’s activities while their parents dealt with registration and searching for accommodation. Additionally, we launched the SOS Armenia appeal and new humanitarian assistance projects funded by the Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the European Union, the Netherlands Refugee Foundation, Start Network and USAID.

  As people continue to leave their homes in search of safety without being able to take their belongings, humanitarian organisations must continue providing assistance to support their basic needs.

  Civic space in Armenia is rated ‘narrowed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with People in Need Armenia through itswebsite or itsFacebook page, and follow@PIN_Armenia on Twitter.

• ARMENIA: ‘Lack of compelling international action allowed the attack on Nagorno-Karabakh to occur’

  CIVICUS speaks about the humanitarian crisis in Nagorno-Karabakh– the disputed territory within Azerbaijan that until recently was governed by ethnic Armenians –withLida Minasyan, a feminist peace activist and Resource Mobilisation Consultant at theCentral Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central and North Asia (CEECCNA) Collaborative Fund.

  Founded in 2022, the CEECCNA Collaborative Fund is a feminist fund that mobilises sustainable resources for social justice movements across the CEECCNA region.

  What is the current security and human rights situation in Nagorno-Karabakh?

  The ethnic Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh was forcibly displaced within days of the Azerbaijani government launching a full-scale attack on 19 September. A week later, 100,632 people had arrived in Armenia, having left behind their homes, their belongings and the lives they had built.

  Several actions deliberately targeted against civilians occurred before the start of the ethnic cleansing of the Armenian population from Nagorno-Karabakh. In December 2022, Azerbaijan blocked the Lachin corridor, the only road connecting Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia, leaving the 120,000 Armenians who lived there completely isolated. People endured nine months of severe food insecurity, fuel shortages, electricity outages, communications breakdowns and medical supply shortages. This resulted in a humanitarian crisis that put people, particularly those with vulnerabilities, at risk. Many pregnant women had miscarriages and stillbirths, people with chronic illnesses couldn’t receive their medication and treatment, and risk of infection increased due to the lack of hygiene products. These were just a few of the severe challenges people faced during the blockade.

  The Lachin road was reopened several days after the Azerbaijani offensive, when people, already traumatised and starving, experienced a direct threat to their lives. They had no choice but to leave their homes in search of safety in Armenia.

  Why did Azerbaijan initiate the blockade and military offensive?

  The nine-month blockade and the offensive were meant to achieve the ethnic cleansing of the Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh. The intentional deprivation of essential resources for survival followed by the direct attack to take over Nagorno-Karabakh, along with the creation of conditions for the Armenian population to leave, indicate that Azerbaijan is not contemplating any peaceful end to the conflict or human rights guarantees for Armenian people to feel safe in their homes and continue living in Nagorno-Karabakh.

  By leveraging additional threats against Armenians and Armenian sovereign territories, demonstrating its military power, and consistently introducing new conditions in the negotiation process with Armenia, Azerbaijan intends to assert its dominance. This approach reinforces a policy of hatred towards Armenians spanning decades and undermines the peacebuilding process between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

  How has Armenian civil society responded to the humanitarian crisis?

  Displaced people endured a journey of over 20 hours to reach Armenia, during which they had no access to food, water or sanitation facilities. As a result, most of them arrived thirsty, hungry and in need of medical attention. When they began arriving, local organisations, activists and volunteers were among the first to give them food, hygiene products and assistance to register for the state support system.

  Local civil society organisations engage in continuous needs assessments of displaced people, using dynamic data collection approaches, as the situation is changing rapidly. In addition to the immediate provision of goods, there are medium and long-term needs to address. Displaced people need psychological assistance to overcome trauma, sustainable medical support, permanent housing, access to education and employment and services to prevent and address gender-based violence.

  As part of the CEECCNA Collaborative Fund, we provide timely updates about the situation to our international partners and mobilise and direct resources to local organisations. Due to limited resources, Armenian civil society activists worked under a lot of pressure because they had to initiate fundraising efforts while simultaneously providing emergency response.

  The Armenian government has provided displaced people with one-time financial support, essential products and access to temporary accommodation. For all its good intentions, however, the government also lacks resources and capacity to provide adequate long-term assistance to displaced people.

  Has the international community’s response been adequate?

  The response has been slow and inadequate. A few months into the blockade, the international community refused to call the situation a humanitarian crisis and many turned a blind eye to the deteriorating conditions of Nagorno-Karabakh’s Armenian population.

  After numerous appeals and demands from civil society, some international agencies began releasing statements urging the Azerbaijani government to open the Lachin corridor. They mainly referred to the International Court of Justice’s orders of 22 February and 6 July 2023, which unequivocally mandated Azerbaijan to ensure unrestricted movement of people, vehicles and cargo along the corridor in both directions.

  Despite these decisions, the road remained blocked. A group of four United Nations experts also expressed their concern about the continued closure of the Lachin corridor and called on the Azerbaijani authorities to promptly reinstate unimpeded and safe movement along the road, as stipulated by the November 2020 ceasefire agreement.

  The lack of more compelling action by the international community created an unhindered environment for the attack to occur. Many organisations are currently responding by issuing new alerts and appeals, along with providing much-needed humanitarian support. However, the people of Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia require sustainable peace and human security, which will only be achievable through a negotiation that is inclusive of the voices of those most profoundly affected by the conflict. We advocate specifically for the inclusion of women in formal negotiations, in order to pave the way to sustainable peace.

  The international community’s crisis-response support is highly appreciated, but it should be complemented by long-term funding for dialogue, peacebuilding and the reestablishment of human security. Armenian civil society working to alert about potential risks of conflict escalation on the borders of Armenia could also benefit from their support.

  Civic space in Armenia is rated ‘narrowed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Learn more aboutCEECCNA Collaborative Fund in thisblog.

• ARMS CONTROLS: ‘Greater women’s participation in male-dominated mechanisms would increase prospects for peace’

  CIVICUS speaks with Aaron Lainé, Policy and Government Liaison Officer, and Raluca Muresan, Programme Manager at Control Arms, a civil society coalition that advocates for greater controls in the international arms trade to end the human suffering caused by the irresponsible arms trade, and to stop arms transfers that fuel conflict, systemic armed violence, poverty and serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law.

  

  It was quite surprising to hear that the 2019 Conference of States Parties to theArms Trade Treaty (ATT) would focus on gender. What is the connection between gender and weapons, and between women’s rights and gun control?

  The thematic focus of the Sixth Conference of States Parties to the ATT (CSP6) on gender and gender-based violence (GBV) was the result of long-term efforts by progressive governments and civil society who called for more integration in the areas of sustainable development, women, peace and security and arms control. Building on the fact that the ATT is the first legally binding instrument to recognise the link between GBV and the international arms trade, efforts were concentrated on ensuring that governments recognise the importance of stopping arms transfers that perpetuate GBV and creating gender-sensitive arms control policies and programmes.

  A gender perspective in arms control requires governments to examine how socially constructed gender roles affect policy decisions, particularly related to arms exports and controls. It also requires a better understanding of the gendered impact of armed violence and conflict, including of how women and men are impacted on, due to their sex or prevailing expectations about gender. It must be noted here that gender is not limited to women and girls but also includes men and boys and LGBTQI+ people.

  While the body of evidence that connects women and peace and security with arms control policies is continually growing, several studies outline the disproportionate effect of irresponsible arms transfers and arms proliferation on women and children and the gendered impact of modern armed conflicts. While men and boys are both perpetrators and the primary victims of armed violence and conflict, women and girls bear a substantial and differentiated burden, including because of GBV, displacement and lack of access to medical care during pregnancy and childbirth due to the destruction of medical facilities. Research on the gendered impact of conflict also indicates that bombs, missiles, mortars and rockets, when used in populated areas, result in disproportionate casualties among women and children.

  Therefore, Control Arms – along with other civil society organisations following the ATT process – has been urging governments to go beyond examining the risks that transferred arms may be used to commit violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, and look at the gendered impact of the use of weapons as part of a thorough examination of the potential for GBV facilitated by transferred arms. This is an essential component in reducing human suffering, the key purpose of the ATT.

  While gender and GBV are beginning to be receive proper recognition by various United Nations mechanisms, including in disarmament forums, what is more important is to see meaningful action on the ground. In the case of the ATT, Control Arms hopes that states parties will base arms export control decisions on the recognition of the risk of commission or facilitation of GBV. The Control Arms practical guide on how the ATT can address GBV was specifically designed to help states parties implement GBV criteria effectively when conducting a risk assessment before authorising an arms export, and help push for meaningful change by using the ATT to address GBV.

  Can you tell us more about the ATT and the role played by Control Arms in its negotiation and implementation?

  The ATT, which was adopted in 2013 and entered into force on 24 December 2014, is part of the international response to the tremendous human suffering caused by the widespread proliferation of conventional weapons and poorly regulated trade in them. The ATT sets common international standards for the transfer of conventional arms and ammunition, with the express purpose of reducing human suffering. The ATT represents a significant paradigm shift in the world of arms control through its prohibitions on certain arms transfers (Article 6) and the establishment of a detailed export risk assessment mechanism (Article 7). Under these articles of the Treaty, states parties must determine if an arms transfer would violate specific international obligations or arms embargos or if the arms would be used to commit or facilitate genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, serious human rights or humanitarian law violations, to enable terrorism or organised crime, or to commit or facilitate GBV, and stop it in case it risks having any of these consequences. With the inclusion of Articles 6 and 7, for the first time in history, states are required to place international human rights and humanitarian law at the core of their arms export decisions.

  The Treaty also sets out guidelines for importing, transit and transhipment states, requiring them to cooperate and share the information necessary to conduct the mentioned assessment.

  Today, the ATT’s membership comprises 105 states parties and 33 signatories.

  The Control Arms Coalition formed and launched a campaign in 2003 that tirelessly pushed for states to accept the idea of and negotiate the first global treaty to regulate the conventional arms trade. Since the adoption of the ATT in 2013, Control Arms has continued to push, first, for the 50 ratifications required for its entry into force, and then to hit a target of 100 states parties and for effective implementation. Through each stage of the ATT process, the role of civil society has evolved from primarily one of advocacy and awareness-raising to where we are today – where civil society plays an instrumental role in shaping the discussions and agenda of the Conferences of States Parties, advancing the Treaty’s universalisation and implementation, and ensuring transparency and accountability in the ATT through mechanisms such as the Control Arms’ ATT Monitor Report.

  What does the Arms Trade Treaty say about GBV, and how could its provisions be used to protect women and children?

  According to ATT’s Article 7.4, ‘[t]he exporting State Party, in making this [risk] assessment, shall take into account the risk of the conventional arms covered under Article 2.1 or of the items covered under Article 3 or Article 4 being used to commit or facilitate serious acts of GBV or serious acts of violence against women and children’.

  The aim of Article 7.4 is to ensure that an exporting state party takes into account the risk that the arms transferred will be used to commit or facilitate acts of GBV, when conducting its export assessment outlined in Article 7.1. It is an explicit requirement aimed at reducing the historical tendency to overlook GBV.

  In practical terms, if applied correctly, the ATT will help deprive human rights abusers of the arms that help facilitate violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, including acts of GBV and violence against women and children.

  What kind of advocacy work has Control Arms been doing in the area of GBV?

  The Control Arms Coalition played a key role in advocating for the inclusion of Article 7.4 in the Treaty. Since then, Control Arms has sought to raise awareness about the importance of this provision, through bilateral and regional meetings, social media campaigns such as 10 Reasons to #StopGBV, and interventions and statements in ATT-related meetings.

  Control Arms also produced a range of resources such as the Practical Guide on how to use the ATT to address GBV, a paper that provides interpretations on key terms from Article 7 and a factsheet on gender in the ATT. These resources were used in the first-ever training programme for export control officials on the implementation of the GBV criteria. Organised by Control Arms and the government of Latvia, the training session brought together representatives from 12 Central and Eastern European governments to learn in greater detail about the links between GBV and arms transfer decisions and the application of the ATT risk-assessment criteria that take these risks fully into account.

  Do you think women’s participation in disarmament and arms control negotiations and processes could increase the prospects for peace?

  Greater women’s participation in male-dominated disarmament and arms control mechanisms would without a doubt contribute to greater prospects for peace. Several studies, for example by the Council on Foreign Relations and a 2018 study by Jana Krause, Werner Krause and Piia Bränfors, highlight the positive impact of women in conflict resolution, concluding that “women’s participation in conflict prevention and resolution can improve outcomes before, during, and after conflict.” Similarly, gender equality among participants in international multilateral mechanisms can lead to more inclusive, effective and sustainable policy outcomes. This is relevant particularly for disarmament and arms control forums that have remained largely male-dominated and are stuck in an ideological window characterised by aggression, dominance, egotism and other characteristics of toxic masculinity.

  A recent study by the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, Still Behind the Curve, outlines the state of gender balance in arms control, non-proliferation and disarmament diplomacy. Its main conclusion is that “the proportion of women participating in arms control, non-proliferation and disarmament diplomacy… has grown steadily over the last four decades, but women remain underrepresented.” This applies to the ATT as elsewhere: only 27 per cent of representatives at the 2018 Conference of States Parties were female.

  Get in touch with Control Arms through itswebsite andFacebook page, or follow@controlarms and@AaronLaineRicoy on Twitter.

• ASEAN: ‘Laos’s leadership raises serious human rights concerns’

  CIVICUS speaks about the implications of Laos chairing the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) with Mary Aileen Diaz Bacalso, Executive Director of the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA).

  Founded in 1991, FORUM-ASIA is a network of 85 organisations across 23 countries, mainly in Asia. It works to strengthen movements for human rights and sustainable development through research, advocacy, capacity development and solidarity actions in Asia and beyond. It has consultative status with the United Nations and maintains a consultative relationship with the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights.

  What are the main challenges ASEAN will likely face in 2024?

  ASEAN is a regional alliance comprising of 10 Southeast Asian countries, plus Timor-Leste, which is on track to join. It was established in 1967 to preserve peace and stability in the Cold War era. Nowadays it oversees collaborative efforts on its three pillars of economic, socio-cultural and political and security matters. It is also meant to promote and safeguard human rights through a regional mechanism within the political-security pillar.

  With Laos as chair, ASEAN will face three significant challenges in 2024. The first is related to its reliance on consensus politics and non-interference, which means that progress depends on each member state’s unique circumstances. Political events such as elections in Indonesia, attempted coups in Myanmar and regressions in human rights and democracy in countries across the region, including in Cambodia, Laos, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand, obstruct advances in the protection and promotion of human rights and put the ability to achieve consensus to the test.

  The second challenge is the result of a notable lack of optimism and growing scepticism by human rights organisations about Laos’s role as chair. Laos’s reputation for human rights abuses and violations of fundamental freedoms raises doubts about its ability to lead ASEAN effectively in improving human rights protections.

  The third challenge is linked to external factors, particularly geopolitical tensions between China and the west, which will influence the regional bloc. These pressures may impact on economic, socio-cultural and political-security cooperation within ASEAN, adding another layer of complexity to the challenges the organisation will face in 2024.

  What does the fact that Laos is chairing ASEAN in 2024 mean for China’s standing and role in the region and globally?

  Laos continues to have the same voting power as other ASEAN members, but as chair, it has greater influence in shaping the organisation’s agenda. For instance, it has chosen ‘Enhancing Connectivity and Resilience’ as the theme for 2024 and has shown commitment to fostering connections with the East Asia bloc, including China. An official statement issued by the 2024 ASEAN Foreign Ministers Retreat emphasised the importance of enhancing ties between ASEAN and East Asian countries. It highlighted mechanisms such as the East Asia-ASEAN Summit, which includes the 10 ASEAN states plus China, Japan and South Korea.

  Two key concerns arise under Laos’s leadership, particularly regarding human rights. First, it’s uncertain how it will approach the Myanmar crisis, particularly due to the continued reliance on ASEAN’s Five-Point Consensus as the primary reference, despite calls from civil society to move beyond this plan.

  Laos has designated a seasoned diplomat as the ASEAN Special Envoy, tasked with meeting junta leader Min Aung Hlaing in Myanmar. However, the lack of a clear agenda for engaging with supporters of democracy such as the National Unity Government, the National Unity Consultative Council and the Ethnic Revolutionary Organizations raises doubts that ASEAN is playing a progressive role. Given historical and political ties between the military junta and the government of Laos, concerns linger about ASEAN’s alignment with the interests of people in Myanmar.

  Second, the future of the human rights agenda is uncertain given Laos’s dubious human rights track record, which includes cases like the 2012 enforced disappearance of a prominent member of Laotian civil society, Sombath Somphone, and the deportation of the Chinese human rights lawyer Lu Siwei in October 2023. Plans have already been outlined for the 2024 ASEAN Human Rights Dialogue, but it is unclear whether civil society will be included or whether Laos will ensure a secure environment for it to take part.

  Another pending topic on the human rights agenda is the revision of the terms of reference of the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights, which are supposed to be revised every five years but haven’t experienced any improvement in one and a half decades.

  Does Laos’s role as chair create any significant opportunity for Laotian civil society?

  We are quite sceptical about the potential impact of these changes in regional institutions on the domestic civil society landscape of a country with closed civic space.

  Laos systematically represses civil society activists and dissenters through a variety of legal and extra-legal measures, including surveillance, threats and violence. The decision to choose Timor-Leste over Laos as the host for the ASEAN Civil Society Conference/ASEAN Peoples’ Forum despite Laos holding the ASEAN chair underscores the apprehensions of civil society regarding safety within Laos.

  Given the principle of non-interference on which ASEAN is based, it remains an unresolved question whether other ASEAN countries will scrutinise Laos’s human rights track record.

  Nonetheless, from a civil society standpoint, this situation presents an opportunity to amplify efforts in advocating for justice and accountability for victims of human rights violations in Laos.

  FORUM-ASIA is steadfast in its commitment to monitor the human rights situation, document violations and hold the Laotian government, as well as all ASEAN governments, accountable for upholding their commitment to protect and promote human rights in accordance with international human rights standards.

  It is key to strengthen solidarity with Laos and leverage the momentum of Laos’s chairing of ASEAN. We urge the international community to participate in campaigns and advocacy initiatives. We must join forces to amplify the voices of the oppressed, shine the spotlight on Laos and the region and undertake collective action to address human rights concerns.

• EUROPEAN MEDIA FREEDOM ACT: ‘National security cannot justify the use of spyware on journalists’

  CIVICUS speaks about the role of civil society in the drafting process of the European Media Freedom Act with Jordan Higgins, Press and Policy Officer at the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF).

  Founded in 2015, ECPMF is a civil society organisation that seeks to promote, preserve and defend media freedom by monitoring violations,providing practical support and engaging diverse stakeholders across Europe.

  Why was the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) needed?

  The EMFA aims to support media freedom and promote media pluralism in the European Union (EU). While media-related matters have traditionally fallen under the competence of member states, EU-wide action has become necessary due to the severity of the threats media freedom faces across Europe.

  The EMFA was introduced in September 2022 and underwent successive rounds of negotiations, culminating in a political agreement reached on 15 December 2023. It is comprehensive and seeks to address critical threats to media freedom, including the independence of public service broadcasters, concentration of media ownership and the capture of media through the allocation of state advertising, among other issues.

  It safeguards the right of audiences to access pluralistic media sources and establishes a European Board for Media Services, composed of national media authorities that will advise the European Commission on the consistent application of key provisions of the Act in all member states. It also focuses on ensuring the safety of journalists, protecting them and their sources from surveillance and the use of spyware.

  In sum, the EMFA is a crucial tool to address some of the major threats faced by journalists and protect the editorial and market independence of media.

  What did civil society bring to negotiations?

  This initiative aimed to strengthen press freedom in Europe and was widely welcomed by civil society, including us at ECPMF.

  From the early stages, media freedom organisations proposed critical amendments to specific aspects of the EMFA that did not comply with the highest media freedom standards. In particular, we pushed for greater transparency in media ownership, comprehensive rules regulating financial relations between the state and media, including the allocation of state advertising, and full protection of journalists from all forms of surveillance, including spyware. We also advocated for the independence of national media regulators and the European Board for Media Services.

  The process incorporated the perspectives of media freedom experts and journalists and culminated in the final trilogue negotiations between the European Parliament, Council and Commission. One of the key areas of interest for media freedom advocates during these negotiations was EMFA Article 4 on the protection of journalistic sources. In particular, we hoped to see the removal of provisions – promoted by Cyprus, Finland, France, Greece, Italy, Malta and Sweden – that included ‘threats to national security’ as justification for the use of spyware on journalists.

  To what extent did the final text address civil society concerns?

  Civil society, particularly media freedom organisations, advocated for a robust version of the EMFA that considered the needs of those most affected by it. Throughout the negotiation process, we voiced our objections to concerns from publishers’ groups and regarding proposed amendments to Article 4, which could have removed legal safeguards that shield journalists from the deployment of spyware under the pretext of national security. Fortunately, the final version no longer cites ‘national security’ as a justification for using spyware on journalists.

  Now our work will shift towards ensuring the effective implementation of the EMFA through active monitoring, particularly in EU member states where press freedom is under the greatest threat.

  ---

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

• GLOBAL GOVERNANCE: ‘A system that embraces diversity and inclusion is more legitimate’

  CIVICUS speaks with Marc Limon, Executive Director of the Universal Rights Group and former diplomat at the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council, about the deficits of the global governance system and proposals for reform.

  Based in Geneva, Switzerland, theUniversal Rights Group is the only think tank in the world that focuses exclusively on global human rights policy.

   

  What are the main challenges with the global governance system, and what are the Universal Rights Group’s proposals to tackle them?

  A primary deficit in the global governance system is the inadequate representation of developing countries, particularly those in the global south. Despite the majority of UN member states being developing nations, there is a prevalent feeling that their needs and views are not being considered. Many feel that the system has been shaped by western powers to serve their own interests, further contributing to this perceived lack of inclusivity.

  To foster greater inclusivity, the UN Human Rights Council has established a Trust Fund to encourage participation in its sessions by developing countries, particularly from small island developing states and least developed countries. These are countries that don’t have missions in Geneva and may have never attended a Council session in the past. Thanks to economic support granted by this fund, officials from these countries can travel to Geneva and participate in the Council’s sessions.

  The Universal Rights Group supports this initiative by helping these countries with capacity development, facilitating their participation in Council meetings and eventually encouraging them to establish a mission in Geneva or consider running for a Council seat. By doing so, we aim to contribute to creating a more inclusive system, ensuring that developing countries are involved to the decision-making process.

  What would a more robust, effective, and democratic global governance system look like?

  For the global governance system to be more robust, effective and democratic, the three UN pillars – security, development and human rights – should have equal importance. Today, a lot of emphasis and funding are placed on the security and development pillars, while the human rights pillar is underfunded and under-resourced. While the UN Security Council and the UN Economic and Social Council are primary UN bodies, the Council remains a subsidiary one.

  Participation by developing countries should be increased across all three pillars as well as in other international organisations such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. This would create ownership among developing nations. But this would require, for instance, Security Council reform. Its current configuration, with its five permanent members reflecting post-Second World War power relations, is outdated, as seen in the exclusion of powerful developing countries such as Brazil and South Africa.

  The call for diversity and inclusion extends beyond structural reforms to staffing of UN agencies. At the Office of the Higher Commissioner of Human Rights, for instance, half of staff are from western states, with Africa and Asia greatly underrepresented. It would require concerted efforts to address this kind of imbalance.

  What benefits do you anticipate from a more diverse and inclusive system?

  A system that embraces diversity and inclusion is more legitimate. If developing states are actively involved in the decision-making process, they are less likely to perceive that the system is imposing decisions on them.

  Further, a diverse and inclusive system ensures that the topics discussed are more relevant. By considering a broader range of perspectives, the agenda becomes more responsive to the diverse needs of countries worldwide, making the system more attuned to the realities and challenges faced by a varied international community.

  The bottom line is that inclusion and diversity contribute to a more effective system. Developing countries are more likely to accept and value UN recommendations, particularly on issues such as human rights, when they perceive an equal stake in the system. Having their nationals involved in different UN human rights mechanisms reinforces this sense of equality, making recommendations more credible and impactful. Particularly when it comes to human rights, it is crucial to involve victims and human rights defenders. This is the area of focus of the Universal Rights Group.

  How does the Universal Rights Group involve victims and human rights defenders?

  First, we focus on empowering environmental human rights defenders who are at the forefront of environmental struggles. Rather than relying solely on international environmental law and governmental actions, we recognise the crucial role of individuals and local communities who work tirelessly to protect their environment and advocate against greenhouse gas emissions. We believe that the most effective way to protect the environment is to protect those who protect it.

  We also advocate for victims who seek accountability when states engage in gross and systematic human rights violations. International efforts are often focused on public shaming – on denouncing the actions of these states. But we tend to forget the victims and their rightful claim to remedy and reparations. For this reason, the Universal Rights Group is working to shift the narrative by placing the lives and faces of the victims at the forefront of the Human Rights Council. We aim to have the rights of those affected by human rights abuses recognised and prioritised so that their needs for justice, remedy and reparations are addressed.

  What specific reforms are your organisation campaigning for?

  Our efforts are now focused on the UN General Assembly’s 2021-2026 Review, set to assess whether the Human Rights Council should remain a subsidiary body or become a main body of the UN. This offers a unique opportunity to strengthen the Council and its mechanisms.

  We have also contributed to the UN Development System reform, which places sustainable development at the heart of the UN’s work. Considering that over 90 per cent of targets of the Sustainable Development Goals are grounded in intensive human rights work, this reform integrates human rights into UN development programming. We believe that if countries make progress on human rights, they are, by extension and definition, making progress on sustainable development. That’s why we consider it crucial for the UN to integrate human rights into national-level UN development programming.

  ---

  Get in touch with the Universal Rights Group through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@URGthinktank and@marc_limon 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: ‘Every person on the planet should have an equal opportunity to participate in decision-making’

  CIVICUS speaks with Andreas Bummel, co-founder and Executive Director of Democracy Without Borders (DWB) and the Campaign for a UN Parliamentary Assembly, about the deficits of the current global governance system and civil society’s proposals for reform.

  Founded in 2017, DWB is an international civil society organisation with national chapters and associates across the world, aimed at promoting global governance, global democracy and global citizenship.

  What’s wrong with existing global governance institutions?

  Global governance has rightly been described as a spaghetti bowl, and that’s because there is too much fragmentation, overlap, incoherence and opacity, with many parallel and siloed processes going on at the same time, involving who knows how many institutions, initiatives and projects.

• GLOBAL GOVERNANCE: ‘It may take a crisis as big as the one that originated the system to produce the reform it needs’

  CIVICUS speaks with John Vlasto, Board Chair of the World Federalist Movement (WFM), about the deficits of the existing global governance system and civil society’s proposals for reform.

  Founded in 1947, WFM is a non-profit, nonpartisan organisation seeking a just, free and peaceful world where humanity and nature flourish in harmony, through the creation of more effective, transparent and accountable global governance.

  What are the biggest shortcomings of the existing system of global governance?

  The main problem is that decisions are made in defence of the national interest rather than to serve the common good of humanity. This means we get the lowest-common denominator compromises rather than the profound changes that humanity needs.

  The way decisions are currently made is absurd. Take the ongoing COP28 climate summit: it’s a circus, a clear symptom of dysfunctional global governance. We are driving the planetary ecosystem over a cliff because although it’s clearly in humanity’s best interest to reduce carbon emissions straight away, it’s in no nation’s interest to move to do so first.

  Decision making is dysfunctional because of the nature of our global governance institutions. The United Nations (UN) is basically a congress of ambassadors tasked with defending each country’s national interest as perceived by their governments. The dynamic is of competition rather than collaboration, so you end up with the lowest-common denominator compromises.

  How could this problem be tackled?

  To tackle global challenges we need global governance. We are taking enormous risks with our planetary home – but we don’t have to. We know how to create a legitimate and accountable decision-making process that serves the common good – through carefully implemented democracy.

  We could think of global governance as a well-functioning Europe – or a well-functioning USA, for that matter – extended to the global scale.

  What the world is missing that Europe has is a parliament. There is a longstanding proposal for creating a parliamentary assembly at the UN. There’s a big difference between a parliament and a congress of ambassadors such as the UN General Assembly. As explained by Edmund Burke, a British philosopher and politician of the 18th century, a parliament isn’t a collection of ‘ambassadors from different and hostile interests, which interests each must maintain’ – it is ‘a deliberative assembly… with one interest, that of the whole’.

  In a federal system like the USA, Congress has two chambers, one representing the people and another representing the states. This is a model that could be followed on a global scale. For the USA it would make no sense to have only one chamber representing the states – but that’s what we currently have at the UN, with all nations, regardless of size, having one seat at the General Assembly, an organ that consequently has little real power.

  As Carlos Romulo of the Philippines said after the 1945 San Francisco conference that established the UN, ‘as a spokesman for a small nation, I want to make it very plain that my nation... would be very happy indeed to trade the fiction of equality in a powerless Assembly for the reality of a vote equal to our actual position in the world in an Assembly endowed with real power’.

  If it followed the federal model, the UN would still have a General Assembly representing the interests of nations. But it would also have a parliamentary assembly, representing the people, making decisions to serve the common good of humanity.

  I believe that ultimately representatives to such body should be elected on the basis of the ‘one person, one vote’ principle, but I don’t believe we should do that tomorrow. Right now, the principle ‘one nation, one vote’ means a range from one vote per 1.4 billion people to one vote per 12,000. If we were to establish a world parliament tomorrow we should use degressive proportionality, as does the European Parliament, which means that although more populous nations elect more representatives than smaller nations, smaller nations are allocated more seats than they would strictly receive in proportion to their population. This is an intermediate solution between one nation one vote and one person one vote.

  Is there anything else that can be done?

  We need profound changes, the most profound being a UN parliamentary body, but in the meantime, there’s a whole bunch of lower-hanging fruit. In particular, WFM has two projects that I would like to mention.

  One of them is MEGA – Mobilising an Earth Governance Alliance, (or ‘Make Earth Great Again’!). MEGA is a coalition of civil society organisations that will be working in cooperation with like-minded states to strengthen existing environmental governance mechanisms and institutions and establish additional ones. It will be officially launched in January 2024 and will offer a forum for environmental organisations, experts, like-minded governments, legislators, campaigners and other stakeholders to engage, share information and strategies and support advocacy for better global environmental governance. It will produce a wide range of reports, proposals and campaigns – some managed by MEGA itself, others by partner organisations. MEGA as a whole provides a comprehensive solution to the environmental crises we face, and a basis for global governance more broadly.

  MEGA is promoting the implementation of the recommendations of the Climate Governance Commission’s 2023 report. To that end, we will be mobilising ‘smart coalitions’ of state and non-state actors – a proven method for the reform of global governance, the International Criminal Court and the landmines ban treaty being cases in point. Countries least responsible for climate change and suffering the greatest impact are potential leading members of such coalitions.

  Another WFM project, launched in October, is LAW not War. This doesn’t seek to change the institutions of global governance, but to make better use of the ones we already have. It proposes to enhance the jurisdiction and use of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) so that international disputes can be resolved peacefully rather than through recourse to the threat or use of force.

  Specifically, the objectives of the campaign are to increase the number of states accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ; encourage more frequent use of the ICJ as a dispute resolution mechanism provided in international treaties; appeal to states to make use of ICJ jurisdiction through mutual agreement for specific disputes; support UN bodies to request ICJ advisory opinions on critical issues; and encourage states to adopt constitutional amendments or legislative measures to affirm the UN Charter’s prohibition of war and the obligation to resolve international disputes peacefully, including through recourse to the ICJ.

  Do you think global governance would benefit from greater civil society access and participation?

  The dysfunction of global governance is not fundamentally about civil society having poor access. That’s a symptom of the core dysfunction, which is about decision making and legitimacy. If there were a world parliament, by virtue of its role it would give a voice to civil society – not only to civil society but also to business, Indigenous peoples and everyone else. A system allowing greater access to more voices would be better informed, more representative and more legitimate. But the solution is not simply giving civil society more access, because what would be the point in giving civil society the most wonderful access to a broken system? But if you created a parliament, civil society access would follow.

  What would it take for the reforms that you propose to materialise?

  This decision making and legitimacy dysfunction goes back to the very origins of the current system when the winners of the Second World War gave themselves a veto. It may take a crisis as big as the one that originated the system to produce the profound reform it needs. As Milton Friedman noted, what’s done in a crisis depends on the plans that are lying around at the time, so part of WFM’s role is to write the plan and keep it alive in the minds of policy makers until the crisis occurs and the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable.

  Exactly what such a crisis will be is unknowable, but I don’t think we’ve had a catalyst anywhere near the scale necessary yet. It took the Second World War to produce the current system, and it could take a third to produce a new one – though of course, it might be too late for that if as a result of this crisis we have been incinerated. The big question then is whether there will be sufficient catalyst for change before we pass some catastrophic tipping point.

  If one takes the view that catastrophe is inevitable, or on the other hand that everything will work out in the end, then there would be no point in advocating for better global governance. In my view it could go either way, so there remains a realistic path to a just, free and peaceful world, where humanity and nature flourish in harmony, and there is no better use of time than doing what one can to help steer humanity onto this path.

  ---

  Get in touch with the World Federalist Movement through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@worldfederalist 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: ‘The current system is dysfunctional, but we still depend on it in crucial ways’

  CIVICUS speaks with Natalie Samarasinghe, Global Director for advocacy at the Open Society Foundations (OSF), about the need for global governance reform and the proposalfor a civil society envoy within the United Nations (UN) system.

  OSFs is the world’s largest private funder of independent groups working for justice, democratic governance and human rights. It bases its work on the principles of justice, equity and expression as defining characteristics of any truly open society.

  What do you think are the biggest shortcomings of thecurrent global governance system?

  The most evident issue is its lack of effectiveness. While the global governance system is essential and is tasked with significant responsibilities, it is not delivering results. It’s dysfunctional and fails to respond to the biggest challenges we face – the existential climate emergency, the pandemic, the cost-of-living crisis and other major conflicts. The system is not dealing with these challenges – it’s not anticipating them nor preventing their escalation.

  The global governance system is also dysfunctional in addressing lower-magnitude issues. We were used to seeing the UN Security Council struggle to deal with big conflicts in which one of the permanent members had a close interest. But now we are seeing the UN being kicked out from countries where there is no such interest. Decades-old peacekeeping operations are being questioned for having achieved too little. Debt is another good example of an area where we don’t seem to be able to get fair deals on the table.

  This plays a significant role when it comes to legitimacy. We have a system that has baked-in inequalities. The quota system of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the structure of the UN Security Council are obvious examples. These were initially accepted because there was a common understanding that, to an extent, they worked. This is no longer the case: these systems are not doing what they are supposed to do: keep big powers in check. And it’s an even bigger problem because they are still tasked with fulfilling essential functions that millions of people across the world depend on.

  But there is no alternative global forum to replace the current system. While there are institutions such the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, we still heavily rely on the IMF and the World Bank for most of the development infrastructure and humanitarian needs. And when we are looking for verified information, such as updates on the situation in Israel and Palestine, we still place trust in UN sources.

  Although the current global governance system is dysfunctional, we still depend on it in crucial ways. So one of the massive issues we face is how to create something new without tearing down the old, which we still need.

   

  How could existing global governance institutions be made more effective?

  Let’s take the International Labour Organization as an example. This organisation, which predates the UN system, employs a tripartite system in which workers, employers and the government are represented – what we would now call a multistakeholder system. This means the right people are brought to the table at the right time. It’s not just the decision-makers, but also those who will take care of implementation and the ones who will be affected by the decisions.

  While decision-making processes that follow this system can sometimes be painfully slow, implementation picks up speed because the decision is clear and has ownership and legitimacy for all parties involved.

  There are lots of examples of processes bringing people together in similar ways. The case of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, shows that these don’t need to be time-consuming. In this case it was quite fast thanks to a structure that, although representative, included a limited number of people.

  It’s also interesting to explore complementary systems operating at multiple levels. Take, for instance, the global refugee system. Despite its limited ability to address the issue of climate refugees, there is no interest in introducing changes at a global level, for fear that opening it up to discussion can end up undermining it. But there is still the possibility of introducing innovations at the city and community levels, as shown in responses to the Ukraine crisis.

  Effective leadership is also crucial. Peacekeeping and mediation were not included in the UN Charter but were developed over time in response to a need. We need visionary leaders with the flexibility to generate new ideas. As we confront challenges such as climate change, the success of major gatherings such as climate summits hinges on leaders who can bring innovation and vision to the table. UN reform is urgently needed, but without good leaders it will remain elusive.

  Howis OSF working to advance a more robust, effective and democratic global governance system?

  OSF is the largest private funder of independent groups working for justice, democratic governance and human rights, and we are looking at how best to make our support count as new challenges meet existing ones. Earlier this year, we polled people across 30 countries – large, small, high-income, developing – and the results were both reassuring and alarming: people care about democracy and human rights. An overwhelming number of respondents were positive about the enduring value of these principles. But they aren’t seeing these values translate into results on the ground or in improvements in their daily lives, especially when it comes to economic and social rights.

  In addition to working with those on the ground, OSF is able to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. We can bring people together across geographies, issues and sectors. This allows for cross-learning from various human rights spaces and tools, tackling problems from different angles and supporting innovative ideas. OSF can back those advocating for change as well as provide funds to support the change-makers.

  A clear example of this approach was during the COVID-19 pandemic, when we advocated for developing countries not only to have access to vaccines but also to be able to produce them themselves, including support for the establishment of a vaccine manufacturing plant in Senegal.

  OSF aims to translate its advocacy into tangible actions, leveraging its privileged position to make a unique contribution.

  What initiatives is civil society advancing to reform global governance?

  I would like to highlight the UNMute Civil Society initiative, which advocates for a civil society envoy or a civil society champion within the UN system.

  The problem with civil society engagement is that it’s often seen through a very narrow prism of who’s in the room at a particular event, without a consistent, cross-cutting approach and outreach strategy to mainstream civil society participation.

  A civil society envoy could perform a number of sorely needed tasks, such as identifying gaps, assessing best practices, enhancing accessibility and streamlining processes. At the moment, it’s challenging, especially for smaller civil society groups, to navigate the plethora of websites, forms, requirements and timelines that are all different depending on which part of the UN they want to engage with. Sometimes the rules differ from event to event. An envoy could help simplify all this, and also help ensure that engagement is meaningful, substantive and helpful to all involved.

  Let’s clarify that the civil society envoy would not be someone who represents civil society, just like the Youth Envoy does not represent all young people, nor the head of UN Women represent all women. This is someone who represents the UN and its commitment to having civil society not just in the room, but on the ground, helping the UN to achieve its goals.

  And here’s where we could get creative. The envoy could explore ways of engaging people with digital and non-digital approaches and explore civil society engagement with the UN and also the World Bank, regional banks and other regional institutions. The envoy could also track the allocation of funds, and draw attention to the extremely low levels of funding – such as development and climate funding – that goes to groups such as grassroots women’s organisations.

  The role has enormous potential in terms of the change it could inspire. This is a hugely important effort, and I am really glad that CIVICUS and many other civil society organisations are pushing for it. I also know that there are plenty of supportive UN member states, even if people tend to think they are not. We’ve moved way beyond that. If you look at the UN75 Declaration or the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), there is a clear recognition that civil society needs to be at the table, and the envoy offers a way to do it in a more coherent and effective way.

  What benefits do you anticipate from greater civil society access and participation?

  Civil society participation is essential. We are not going to get anywhere on anything if we do not have people, communities, social movements and organisations involved. They have a key role in shaping responses to issues such as COVID-19 and climate change. By including civil society in decision-making, decisions gain legitimacy because they are based on what those directly affected think is the best solution.

  An example of how having civil society around the table has revolutionised our approach are cash transfers. Donors were against giving cash directly to people. They would rather give vouchers or support a project. But civil society showed them that when given cash, people would mostly make the right choices without the need for much of the infrastructure otherwise needed. Similarly, civil society has helped to advance accountability for human rights violations where UN processes have not been able to, through national-level work on targeted sanctions.

  Civil society groups are on the frontlines of development, climate change and humanitarian crisis. They are valuable partners of the UN and could be equally valuable partners of the World Bank and IMF if they were allowed to.

  It is often said that the UN does not have enough funds or capacity to get things done on the ground – but civil society is that capacity. Instead of designing a new set of SDGs, let’s have the UN transfer power, responsibility and funding to local groups that have the legitimacy and the ability to deliver what people on the ground need and want. This would be transformative.

  And civil society also acts as a conscience to international organisations and multilateral institutions by reminding them what they stand for. As we look at the suffering of civilians – in Ukraine, Israel and Palestine, Sudan and elsewhere – it seems like we have forgotten why we have humanitarian and human rights laws. Despite grave risks, civil society acts without fear or favour, calling out violations wherever they occur. And we at Open Society are committed to do what we can to help.

  ---

  Get in touch with the Open Society Foundations through theirwebsite orFacebook page, and follow@OpenSociety and@OpenNatalie 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: ‘The main problem is that words do not translate into tangible actions’

  CIVICUS speaks about the challenges of global governance with Carlos Quesada, founder and executive director of the Institute on Race, Equality and Human Rights (Race & Equality).

  Race & Equality is an international civil society organisation (CSO) that works with activists and organisations in Latin America to promote and protect the human rights of people who are excluded because of their national or ethnic origin, sexual orientation or gender identity. It does so through training, documentation of human rights violations and advocacy work at the national and international levels.

  What opportunities does the current institutional system of global governance offer?

  The current system offers opportunities to work for the improvement of international standards for the protection and promotion of human rights, which we have taken advantage of. Race & Equality played a key role, for instance, in developing the Inter-American Convention Against Racism, Racial Discrimination and Related Forms of Intolerance (CIRDI) and the Inter-American Convention Against All Forms of Discrimination and Intolerance, the approval of which was achieved following 13 years of work with various countries in the region.

  We work closely with political bodies of the Organization of American States (OAS) such as the General Assembly and the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs. In the global system of the United Nations, we help our national counterparts influence treaty bodies, during the Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review process in their countries, and in their interactions with Special Procedures – the Special Rapporteurs, Working Groups and Independent Experts.

  Our strategy focuses on supporting struggles for the rights of women, LGBTQI+ people, children and people of African descent using treaty bodies. In this way we ensure that our recommendations are integrated into the observations and conclusions of member states in bodies such as the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the Committee on the Rights of the Child.

  What are the main problems with the current global governance system?

  Returning to the previous example, although we have achieved the adoption of two Inter-American conventions against racism and discrimination, unfortunately only six states in the Americas have ratified CIRDI and one of them, Brazil, has issued a reservation limiting its use to cases before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR). Only two states in the hemisphere have ratified the Convention against All Forms of Discrimination and Intolerance.

  The main deficit of the global governance system lies in the lack of implementation of what has been agreed. There is a gap between states’ public declarations and promises in these instances and their real commitment to compliance. Despite progress, words are often not translated into tangible actions.

  Another example of this deficit is the low number of IACtHR rulings that are fully complied with. There is no mechanism to punish states that fail to comply with court rulings. The only positive aspect is that they are not time-barred, so there is always hope that a change of government takes place and the new government decides to comply with them.

  The fact that recommendations are not binding is a major challenge for both the Inter-American system and global systems and has been a fundamental structural problem since their inception. Sanctions should be binding, but they are not, and at the end of the day the process becomes a dialogue of good intentions where states promise to comply with recommendations, but in practice they rarely do.

  What do you think a more robust, effective and democratic global governance system would look like?

  The big challenge for civil society is to trigger a cascade effect from the local to the international levels. This involves strengthening democracy at the local level so that democratic principles are reflected in various spaces, even reaching international institutions such as the OAS. There should be real democratic political participation so that democratic states embrace a genuine commitment to respect and promote human rights and sanction violations.

  This commitment must not be merely declarative but must be genuine and accompanied by effective dialogue with civil society to advance standards for the promotion and protection of human rights. Currently, states and CSOs are engaged in monologues – we don’t engage in dialogue with each other. Civil society uses these spaces to make recommendations, but often lacks an interlocutor on the other side. States, for their part, make speeches for the world to hear, without establishing real dialogue. There is a need to move towards a more participatory and collaborative model.

  What reforms are you campaigning for?

  Race & Equality is promoting the CIRDI2024 campaign with the aim of achieving full ratification of CIRDI before the International Decade for People of African Descent ends next year. Our goal is to achieve the 10 ratifications needed to create an Inter-American Committee to Prevent and Punish Racial Discrimination in the Americas.

  We are also participating, alongside other CSOs in the Americas, in dialogues on how to improve civil society participation in the political bodies of the OAS. This way, we seek to transform current monologues into real dialogues between civil society and states. We want these dialogues to be real, tangible and effective, promoting more meaningful collaboration.

  In addition, we are promoting a campaign to make the rulings of the IACtHR binding. This step is essential to ensure the protection and prevention of human rights violations in the Americas. We are committed to producing significant and tangible changes to strengthen mechanisms for the protection and promotion of human rights.

  ---

  Get in touch with Race & Equality through itswebsite and follow @raceandequality onInstagram andTwitter.

  

  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.

• IRAQ: ‘Tolerance for abuses against LGBTQI+ people has now been made explicit through legislation’

  CIVICUS discusses the criminalisation of same-sex relations in Iraq with Sarah Sanbar, researcher at Human Rights Watch’s Middle East and North Africa division.

  The Iraqi parliament recently passed a law criminalising LGBTQI+ people, punishing same-sex relations with between 10 and 15 years in prison and transgender identities with sentences of one to three years. The original proposal included even harsher penalties, but lawmakers introduced amendments in response to strong criticism. Supporters claim the law upholds deeply held religious values, while critics condemn it for institutionalising discrimination and enabling serious human rights abuses.

  What led to recent legislative changes criminalising LGBTQI+ people?

  On 27 April 2024, the Iraqi parliament passed an amendment to the country’s 1988 anti-prostitution law, effectively criminalising same-sex relations and transgender identities. The amendment states that same-sex relations are punishable with between 10 and 15 years in prison, and provides for one to three years’ imprisonment for those who undergo or perform gender-affirming medical procedures.

  The law also punishes those who ‘imitate women’ with a seven-year prison sentence and a fine of between 10 and 15 million Iraqi dinars (approx. US$7,700 to US$11,500) and criminalises the ‘promotion of homosexuality’, a vague and undefined expression.

  The passing of this law follows years of steadily increasing hostile rhetoric against LGBTQI+ people. Prominent politicians and media personalities have consistently spread harmful stereotypes, tropes and disinformation. They often claim homosexuality is a western import that goes against traditional Iraqi values.

  This rhetoric has increasingly translated into government action. For example, on 8 August 2023, the Communications and Media Commission issued a directive ordering all media outlets to replace the term ‘homosexuality’ with ‘sexual deviance’ in all published and broadcast language. The directive also banned the use of the word ‘gender’, which shows how the crackdown on LGBTQI+ rights is intertwined with broader issues, and is also used to target and silence women’s rights organisations working on gender-based violence.

  Sadly, as in many other countries, LGBTQI+ people in Iraq are being used as political pawns and scapegoats to distract from the government’s failure to provide for its people. Tensions are growing between the more conservative and religious groups in society and government and those that take a more secular approach to governance. The fact that conservatives have gained increasing support in successive elections allows laws like this to be passed. Such a law probably wouldn’t have been passed even a few years ago.

  What’s the situation of LGBTQI+ people in Iraq, and how do you expect it to change?

  The situation of LGBTQI+ people is extremely unsafe. Threats to their physical safety, including harassment, assault, arbitrary detention, kidnappings and killings, come from society at large – including family and community members as well as strangers – and from armed groups and state personnel. Human Rights Watch has documented cases of abductions, rape, torture and killings by armed groups. Impunity is widespread, and the government’s failure to hold perpetrators accountable sends the message that this violence is acceptable.

  With the passage of the new law, the already dire situation is expected to worsen. Tolerance for abuses has now been made explicit through legislation. As a result, an increase in violence is to be expected, along with an increase in the number of LGBTQI+ Iraqis fleeing the country to seek safety elsewhere. Unfortunately, it is becoming even harder for LGBTQI+ Iraqis to ensure their physical safety in the country, let alone lead fulfilling lives, find love, make friends and build links with others in their community.

  What are the challenges facing Iraqi LGBTQI+ rights organisations?

  The space for LGBTQI+ organisations in Iraq has long been extremely limited. For example, in May 2023, a court in the Kurdistan Region ordered the closure of Rasan, one of the few groups willing to publicly advocate for LGBTQI+ rights in the region. The reason the court gave for its closure was its activities ‘in the field of homosexuality’, and one piece of evidence cited was its use of rainbow colours in its logo.

  Organisations such as Rasan have previously been targeted under vaguely worded morality and public indecency laws that restrict freedom of expression. By criminalising the ‘promotion of homosexuality’, the new law makes the work of LGBTQI+ organisations even more dangerous. Any action in support of LGBTQI+ rights could be perceived as ‘promoting homosexuality’, which could lead to activities being banned or organisations being shut down. It will be almost impossible for LGBTQI+ rights organisations to operate openly.

  In addition, all civil society organisations in Iraq must register with the Directorate of NGOs, a process that includes submitting bylaws, lists of activities and sources of funding. But now, it is essentially impossible for LGBTQI+ organisations to operate transparently, because they can’t openly state their intention to support LGBTQI+ people without risking closure or prosecution. This leaves two options: stop working, or operate clandestinely with the risk of arrest hanging over them.

  Given the restrictive legal and social environment, many organisations operate from abroad. IraQueer, one of the most prominent LGBTQI+ advocacy groups, is based in Sweden.

  But despite the challenges, LGBTQI+ organisations continue to advocate for LGBTQI+ rights, help people fleeing persecution and work with foreign governments to put pressure on Iraq to roll back discriminatory policies. And they have made significant achievements, facilitating the safe passage of people fleeing persecution and broadening coalitions to advocate for LGBTQI+ rights internationally. Their perseverance in the face of adversity is inspiring.

  What international support do local LGBTQI+ groups need?

  Global organisations should use their capacity to sound the alarm and advocate for the repeal of the new law and the reversal of other discriminatory measures, and for impunity for violence against LGBTQI+ people in Iraq to be addressed.

  An effective strategy could be to focus on human rights violations. Equal protection from violence and equal access to justice are required under international law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Arab Charter on Human Rights, both of which Iraq has signed. Advocacy for LGBTQI+ rights as human rights can put greater pressure on the Iraqi government to fulfil its obligations.

  It’s also essential to provide resources and support to local organisations in Iraq and in host countries where LGBTQI+ Iraqis seek refuge, to ensure people have access to basic needs and community support, and can live full lives without fear.

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

  Get in touch with Human Rights Watch through itswebsite, and follow@hrw and@SarahSanbar on Twitter.

• LEBANON: ‘The world seems to be starting to forget Syrian refugees’

  CIVICUS speaks about the situation of Syrian refugees in Lebanon withSerene Dardari, Middle East Regional Communications Manager, and Mahmoud Abdullah, Lebanon Bekaa Area Manager of American Near East Refugee Aid (Anera).

  Founded in 1968, Anera is a US-registered civil society organisation (CSO) dedicated to helping refugees and others hurt by conflicts in Jordan, Lebanon and Palestine (West Bank and Gaza). Working with partners on the ground, it mobilises resources for immediate emergency relief and for sustainable, long-term health, education and economic development.

  What is the situation of Syrian refugees in Lebanon?

  The human rights situation of Syrian refugees is getting worse by the minute. Freedom to work is almost non-existent. Right from the start Syrians were officially not allowed to work in most sectors, so they typically rely on informal jobs in services, agriculture or construction, where they get no insurance or benefits and are exposed to all kinds of labour abuses.

  While the situation for Syrian refugees in Lebanon has always been difficult, COVID-19 and the subsequent lockdown hit them very hard economically. As well as affecting host communities, the pandemic impacted on Syrian refugees with extra severity. Because Lebanese labour laws relegate refugees to the informal economy, they are dependent on gig work and daily jobs, usually in the service sectors. So they were particularly affected by the shutdown of the entertainment and food industries. 

  Because of school closures due to COVID-19 as well as ongoing teachers’ strikes to demand unpaid salaries, Syrian refugees have no place to study. Their freedom of movement has also been affected: everywhere in Lebanon there are notices warning that Syrians are only allowed to move around at certain hours. It’s starting to feel like full-blown segregation.

  It should be noted that Lebanon is already extremely segregated politically and religiously and has an extremely toxic and traumatic relationship with Syria. The presence of a large, mostly Sunni Muslim, Syrian community only adds to the political tension, to the point that violent clashes could erupt any time.

  With Lebanon’s ongoingeconomic crisis, the situation is hard for everyone, both locals and refugees. But on top of struggling economically, refugees are also facing growing xenophobia. Because Lebanese communities are struggling to put food on their tables, the narrative of refugees being a burden on society is becoming increasingly popular. When the Lebanese currency and politics were more stable, someone on an average salary could feed a whole middle-class family, but now they can barely get some petrol for their car. The idea that Syrian refugees are taking everything from Lebanese people is widespread, and reactions are becoming increasingly hostile and violent. When people see international funding going towards Syrian refugees, they get enraged.

  Many people think refugees are taking away potential aid that should go to Lebanese people. So on top of the livelihood challenges, refugees also face stigma, negativity and hostility, all of which affects their psyches. This isn’t happening just in Lebanon.Turkey is another example of this. The scenario is the same throughout the region: Syrian refugees are being blamed for everything.

  International factors such as fluctuations of the US dollar, political turmoil everywhere and the war in Ukraine are also affecting funding for Syrian refugees. So when it is most needed, funding is going to decrease. We have recently received a message that part of the assistance for Syrian refugees will be cancelled.

  Which are the most vulnerable groups of refugees, and why?

  Syrian women are for sure the most vulnerable among Syrian refugees, for several reasons. Their access to sexual and reproductive health centres, and to education, is truly low. There’s a general lack of knowledge and awareness of these issues and early marriage is frequent. In refugee camps such as those in Bekaa, Syrian women and girls are often exposed to gender-based and sexual violence. Those living in tent settlements know their chances of reporting sexual harassment and being heard are very, very low. Being a Syrian female refugee in Lebanon means dealing with toxicity and violence at all levels. 

  Children and young people are next in terms of their vulnerability. We are talking about early marriage, child labour and no prospects of accessing education or future employment opportunities. They have no access to proper medical attention either. If they get into an accident, they will wait in line for hours to be seen by a doctor. The most dangerous thing, however, is their lack of prospects. 

  What is Lebanon’s status regarding international refugee law?

  Lebanon hasn’t even signed the1951 Refugee Convention and is violating refugees’ rights by pushing them to ‘willingly’ go back to Syria. Lebanon should be bound by international law to protect these refugees, not to return them to unsafe territory.

  Unlike Turkey, the tents and places where Syrian refugees mostly live in Lebanon are privately owned. These private owners are Lebanese people profiting from refugees, who they make pay rent. They must pay electricity to have one bulb they can switch on and off inside the tents. They must be the only refugees on the planet who have to pay rent for the space they occupy!

  These rights violations are enabled by the fact that Lebanon has not signed the Refugee Convention. Syrian refugees are not officially considered refugees, which deprives them of their basic rights as refugees. This grey area is very dangerous.

  Refugees themselves aren’t aware of the laws that could protect them. They come from a country where they were never encouraged to inform themselves about and claim their basic human rights – which was one of the reasons they left. Upon arrival in Lebanon, they aren’t informed about their basic rights, so they are mostly unaware of them. And even if they knew what their rights are under international law, they have no guarantee these rights are going to be protected in Lebanon because nothing binds the Lebanese state to that law. 

  How does Anera promote the human rights of refugees?

  Anera is a humanitarian and development organisation. We are not a rights-based organisation, but we contribute to the protection of the basic human rights of refugees. Our role is to fill in the gaps left by the government to help refugees access education, work and healthcare, among other rights. 

  We work across several sectors, from livelihoods to food security. We try to create synergies between them to address several needs at once. We work with refugee families in both the north and south of Lebanon through agriculture support. We provide them with tools and technical education to grow and sell their produce. As for food security, we have programme in partnership with the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in Lebanon that provides hundreds of families with regular food parcels and cash assistance so they can purchase what they need. 

  One of our biggest programmes distributes free medicine. Each year we help mobilise medical supply shipments worth millions of dollars from international partners around the world and distribute them to refugee centres.

  We work to prevent child marriage through a cash transfer programme, using cash assistance as an incentive for families to keep their girls in school. And throughout our operations, we make sure all our partners abide by all humanitarian guidelines and standards when it comes to child protection and protection from sexual exploitation and abuse. Towards that end, we offer training and constantly do monitoring work. While we don’t directly provide safe spaces for victims and survivors, we work closely with other CSOs and grassroots groups that do so.

  It is worth mentioning that we always take the community aspect into consideration so as to balance things. For instance, our food programme also distributes food to the Lebanese population. 

  What challenges do you face?

  Thepolitical situation in Lebanon is very challenging. The fact that the government often has a hostile attitude towards Syrian refugees and is trying to return them to unsafe territories is a big obstacle. Government corruption also has a negative impact on our work with refugee communities, as it affects us on an organisational and funding level. 

  We also face challenges coming from the refugee communities where we work. An example of conflict happened recently in the context of a project on child marriage that we implemented due to the increase in child marriages among Syrian refugees in Lebanon. Because of the economic crisis, more families are encouraged to marry off their daughters at a younger age. Our project faced pushback by the refugees themselves. It seems that toxic coping mechanisms such as child marriage are easier for them in the short term.

  What support do organisations working with Syrian refugees need from the international community?

  Everyone in Lebanon is vulnerable right now: Syrian refugees, Palestinian refugees and Lebanese people. The situation of Syrian refugees is stagnant right now, but everything else is worsening. 

  What’s needed is more advocacy and more funding for all communities to balance the help provided and avoid conflict. We need to calm things down and bring stability. We could also use some technical support at a government level when it comes to refugee management.

  The narrative around Syrian refugees needs to change so they are not viewed as a burden but as human beings in need of help.

  The question all Syrian refugees ask themselves is what’s next. If the situation in Syria doesn’t get better and Syrians are forced to leave Lebanon, they will try to get to Europe, or anywhere else offering some kind of opportunity. We need more global engagement to determine what will happen next. Collective work is vital.

  The world seems to be starting to forget these refugees. The topic trended on social media for a while at the beginning but then attention was captured by floods in Nigeria, war in Ukraine andrepression in Iran. No one is talking about Syrian refugees anymore.

  So much is going on in the planet. There are so many crises erupting all at once. But the fact that new crises are happening doesn’t mean the situation of Syrian refugees has improved and the issue disappeared.

  The international community must remember Syrian refugees and the Syrian crisis. Human rights defenders must advocate for the rights of Syrian refugees – because if they don’t, who will?

  Please help us change the narrative and remind people of Syrian refugees.

  ---

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

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

• SYRIA: ‘We spread the culture of human rights in a country with one of the world’s worst human rights records’

  CIVICUS speaks about Syria’s ongoing civil war and human rights crisis and its prospects for democratic change with Fadel Abdul Ghany, founder and Executive Director of the Syrian Network for Human Rights (SNHR).

  Founded in 2011, SNHR is a human rights civil society organisation (CSO) that works to monitor and document human rights violations, protect victims’ rights and hold perpetrators accountable, promoting the conditions for transitional justice and democratic change.

  What is the current security situation in Syria?

  We have a team of approximately 22 people in Syria that daily monitors and documents human rights violations, including extrajudicial killings, arbitrary arrests, enforced disappearances, torture and forced displacement. We have published daily reports on the civilian death toll for a decade. In September 2023, 55 civilians, including 12 children, were killed. Ninety-seven were killed in August, 55 in July and 42 in June. In the first half of 2023, 501 civilians lost their lives due to the ongoing conflict. Our monthly reports also cover arbitrary arrests, with 223 cases reported in August and 204 in September.

  We document crimes committed by all armed groups involved in the conflict, categorising them by perpetrator. From March 2011 to June 2023, a total of 230,465 civilian deaths were reported, with over 87 per cent attributed to Syrian regime forces and Iranian militias, three per cent to Russian forces and two per cent to ISIS. Based on our reporting and news of grave and pervasive violations no territory in Syria can be considered safe or secure.

  What are the working conditions for your colleagues in Syria?

  We consider ourselves on the frontline because we document violations on the ground and identify perpetrators. Our team operates discreetly in Syria, either from the office or from their homes using fantasy names. We safeguard their identities for security reasons. Their safety is more important than any documentation.

  Our team faces intense pressure, and if arbitrarily arrested, they risk severe torture by the regime led by Bashar al-Assad or other parties. We do our best to protect and provide security education to our staff. Our IT infrastructure is highly secure, and we’ve implemented measures to thwart cyber-attacks, which have included Russian attempts to hack our website.

  What’s the situation for Syrian refugees?

  Many Syrians aren’t safe in other countries either. In Lebanon and Turkey, refugees face the risk of forced return to Syria in violation of international law, specifically the 1951 Refugee Convention. Conditions are dire, with Syrians often blamed for economic hardship in host countries, even though Lebanon and Turkey receive substantial funding from the European Union and other donors to welcome refugees.

  The feeling of insecurity and lack of proper protection in neighbouring countries, which host over 70 per cent of refugees, drive Syrians towards-called ‘death boats’ to seek safety elsewhere in Europe. The international community should better distribute the responsibility of welcoming refugees, because the current allocation isn’t fair.

  What should the international community do to address Syria’s dire human rights and humanitarian situation?

  The international community must intensify efforts to achieve a political transition and end Syria’s 13-year-long conflict, which is taking a lot of lives and causing immense suffering, with widespread torture and forced displacement of half the Syrian population. Any prospect of political transition has been absent due to insufficient international pressure on all parties in the conflict, and particularly on the Assad regime, leaving the Syrian people and the conflict largely neglected.

  The international community must actively support efforts to fight impunity. The Assad regime has got away with numerous war crimes and crimes against humanity. There should be a collective effort to bring justice. If accountability is to be achieved, it also requires a political transition leading to the establishment of independent local courts.

  Chinese and Russian veto power at the United Nations Security Council obstructs the referral of war crimes to the International Criminal Court. With limited universal jurisdiction, only 27 sentences have been issued in Germany and other countries against Syrian war criminals, mostly from non-state terrorist groups such as Al-Nusra or ISIS.

  True accountability requires dismantling the Assad regime, the Syrian National Army, the Syrian Democratic Forces, the Islamist organisation of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham and other non-elected entities ruling Syria through fear.

  Aid should be directed to people affected by the recent earthquake and those displaced in northwest and northeast Syria. Continuous assistance is also vital for Middle Eastern states hosting most Syrian refugees. Such comprehensive support on a large scale is essential for advancing the Syrian movement toward democracy.

  How is Syrian civil society working for a transition to democracy?

  Syrian civil society continues to protest to demand respect for human rights, investigates rights violations and expose perpetrators based on the principle of equality and promote human rights through education. We work hard to spread the culture of human rights in a country with one of the world’s worst human rights records and to get rid of a decades-long dictatorship.

  SNHR publishes reports and statements urging a halt to violations and providing recommendations to other states. We conduct in-depth bilateral meetings with various foreign ministries, including those of France, Germany, the Netherlands, the UK and the USA, and convene other high-level meetings. We actively participate in and organise advocacy events. The most recent, held on 21 September, focused on human rights violations and avenues for accountability and was co-hosted by the USA and co-sponsored by France, Germany, Qatar and the UK.

  I believe the international community should also provide substantial financial and logistical support to active Syrian CSOs that have played a significant role in the Syrian civil war and have, to some extent, replaced the state.

  What has triggered recent protests across Syria?

  Since early August, many regime-controlled areas of Syria have witnessed peaceful civil demonstrations. People took to the streets because they felt even more hopeless following Assad’s interview with Sky News Arabia on 9 August. He didn’t apologise nor did he express any willingness to change the way he’s ruling the country. Instead, he said that if he could go back to 2011, he would kill even more people than he did.

  There are ongoing protests in areas of northern Syria that aren’t controlled by the regime. Protesters seek to hold the Syrian regime responsible for the worsening economic, social and political conditions. Their calls echo those of the 2011 Arab Spring: they demand an end to family rule and a transition to democracy, freedom of speech, the release of illegally detained people and accountability for perpetrators. Their major message is that Assad must go.

  We have monitored and documented multiple vicious methods used by the regime’s security forces to suppress protests, including arrest, torture, enforced disappearances and prosecution of hundreds of protesters. The regime uses its media outlets to slander protesters or anyone criticising it as traitors or collaborators working with foreign entities. The Syrian regime has also attempted to stage counter-demonstrations with loyalists chanting pro-regime slogans and threatening anyone opposing the regime.

  ---

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

  Get in touch with SNHR through itswebsite or itsFacebook page, and follow@snhr and@FADELABDULGHANY on Twitter.

   

   

• UN CYBERCRIME TREATY: ‘Civil society is fact-checking the arguments made by states’

  CIVICUS speaks with Ian Tennant about the importance of safeguarding human rights in the ongoing process to draft a United Nations (UN) Cybercrime Treaty.

  Ian isthe Chair of theAlliance of NGOs on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, a broad network of civil society organisations (CSOs) advancing the crime prevention and criminal justice agenda through engagement with relevant UN programmes and processes. He’s the Head of the Vienna Multilateral Representation and Resilience Fund at theGlobal Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime, a global CSO headquartered in Geneva, focused on research, analysis and engagement on all forms of organised crime and illicit markets. Both organisations participate as observers in negotiations for the UN Cybercrime Treaty.

  Why is there need for a UN treaty dealing with cybercrime?

  There is no consensus on the need for a UN treaty dealing with cybercrime. The consensus-based bodies dealing with cybercrime at the UN, primarily the UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (CCPCJ), could not agree on whether there was a need for the treaty since the issue was first raised officially at the UN Crime Congress in 2010, and in 2019 it was taken to a vote at the UN General Assembly. The resolution starting the process towards a treaty was passed with minority support, due to a high number of abstentions. Nevertheless, the process is now progressing and member states on all sides of the debate are participating.

  The polarisation of positions on the need for the treaty has translated into a polarisation of views of how broad the treaty should be – with those countries that were in favour of the treaty calling for a broad range of cyber-enabled crimes to be included, and those that were against the treaty calling for a narrowly focussed treaty on cyber-dependent crimes.

  What should be done to ensure the treaty isn’t used by repressive regimes to crack down on dissent?

  Balancing effective measures against cybercrime and human rights guarantees is the fundamental issue that needs to be resolved by this treaty negotiation process, and at the moment it is unclear how this will be accomplished. The most effective way to ensure the treaty is not used to crack down on dissent and other legitimate activities is to ensure a treaty focused on a clear set of cyber-dependent crimes with adequate and clear human rights safeguards present throughout the treaty.

  In the absence of a digital rights treaty, this treaty has to provide those guarantees and safeguards. If a broad cooperation regime without adequate safeguards is established, there is a real risk that the treaty could be used by some states as a tool of oppression and suppression of activism, journalism and other civil society activities that are vital in any effective crime response and prevention strategy.

  How much space is there for civil society to contribute to the negotiations process?

  The negotiations for the treaty have been opened for CSOs to contribute to the process through an approach that does not allow states to veto individual CSOs. There is space for CSOs to bring in their contributions under each agenda item, and through intersessional meetings where they can present and lead discussions with member states. This process is in some ways a model that other UN negotiations could follow as a best practice.

  CSOs, as well as the private sector, are bringing vital perspectives to the table on the potential impacts of proposals made in the treaty negotiations, on practical issues, on data protection and on human rights. Fundamentally, CSOs are providing fact-checking and evidence to back up or challenge the arguments made by member states as proposals are made and potential compromises are discussed.

  What progress has been made so far, and what have been the main obstacles in the negotiations?

  On paper, the Ad Hoc Committee has only two meetings left until the treaty is supposed to be adopted – one meeting will take place in August and the other in early 2024. The Committee has already held five meetings, during which the full range of issues and draft provisions to be included in the treaty have been discussed. The next stage will be for a draft treaty to be produced by the Chair, and then for that draft to be debated and negotiated in the next two meetings.

  The main obstacle has been the existence of quite fundamental differences in visions for the treaty – from a broad treaty allowing for criminalisation of and cooperation on a diverse range of offences to a narrow treaty focussed on cyber-dependent crimes. Those different objectives mean that the Committee has so far lacked a common vision, which is what negotiations need to discover in the coming months.

  What are the chances that the final version of the treaty will meet international human rights standards while fulfilling its purpose?

  It is up to the negotiators from all sides, and how far they are willing to move in order to achieve agreement, whether the treaty will have a meaningful impact on cybercrime while also staying true to international human rights standards and the general human rights ethos of the UN. This is the optimal outcome, but given the current political atmosphere and challenges, it will be hard to achieve.

  There is a chance the treaty could be adopted without adequate safeguards, and that consequently only a small number of countries ratify it, thereby diminishing its usefulness, but also directing the rights risks to only those countries who sign up. There is also a chance the treaty could have very high human rights standards, but again not many countries ratify it – limiting its usefulness for cooperation but neutering its human rights risks.

  ---

  Get in touch with the Alliance of NGOs on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice through itswebsite and follow@GI_TOC and@IanTennant9 on Twitter. 

• UN CYBERCRIME TREATY: ‘This is not about protecting states but about protecting people’

  CIVICUS speaks withStéphane Duguin aboutthe weaponisation of technology and progress being madetowards a United Nations (UN) Cybercrime Treaty.

  Stéphaneis an expert onthe use of disruptive technologies such as cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns and online terrorism and theChief Executive Officer of the CyberPeace Institute,a civil society organisation (CSO) founded in 2019 to help humanitarian CSOs and vulnerable communitieslimit the harm of cyberattacks andpromote responsible behaviour in cyberspace. It conducts research and advocacy and provides legal and policy expertise in diplomatic negotiations, including theUN Ad Hoc Committee elaborating the Cybercrime Convention.

  Why is there need for a new UN treaty dealing with cybercrime?

  Several legal instruments dealing with cybercrime already exist, including the 2001 Council of Europe Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, the first international treaty aimed at addressing cybercrimes and harmonising legislations to enhance cooperation in the area of cybersecurity, ratified by 68 states around the world as of April 2023. This was followed by regional tools such as the 2014 African Union Convention on Cyber Security and Personal Data Protection, among others.

  But the problem behind these instruments is that they aren’t enforced properly. The Budapest Convention has not even been ratified by most states, although it is open to all. And even when they’ve been signed and ratified, these instruments aren’t operationalised. This means that data is not accessible across borders, international cooperation is complicated to achieve and requests for extradition are not followed up on.

  There is urgent need to reshape cross-border cooperation to prevent and counter crimes, especially from a practical point of view. States with more experience fighting cybercrimes could help less resourced ones by providing technical assistance and helping build capacity.

  This is why the fact that the UN is currently negotiating a major global Cybercrime Convention is so important. In 2019, to coordinate the efforts of member states, CSOs, including CyberPeace Institute, academic institutions and other stakeholders, the UN General Assembly established the Ad Hoc Committee to elaborate a ‘Comprehensive International Convention on Countering the Use of Information and Communication Technologies for Criminal Purpose’ – a Cybercrime Convention in short. This will be the first international legally binding framework for cyberspace.

  The aims of the new treaty are to reduce the likelihood of attacks, and when these happen, to limit the harm and ensure victims have access to justice and redress. This is not about protecting states but about protecting people.

  What were the initial steps in negotiating the treaty?

  The first step was to take stock of what already existed and, most importantly, what was missing in the existing instruments in order to understand what needed to be done. It was also important to measure the efficacy of existing tools and determine whether they weren’t working due to their design or because they weren’t being properly implemented. Measuring the human harm of cybercrime was also key to define a baseline for the problem we’re trying to address with the new treaty.

  Another step, which interestingly has not been part of the discussion, would be an agreement among all state parties to stop engaging in cybercrimes themselves. It’s strange, to say the least, to be sitting at the table discussing definitions of cyber-enabled and cyber-dependent crimes with states that are conducting or facilitating cyberattacks. Spyware and targeted surveillance, for instance, are being mostly financed and deployed by states, which are also financing the private sector by buying these technologies with taxpayers’ money.

  What are the main challenges?

  The main challenge has been to define the scope of the new treaty, that is, the list of offences to be criminalised. Crimes committed with the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) generally belong to two distinct categories: cyber-dependent crimes and cyber-enabled crimes. States generally agree that the treaty should include cyber-dependent crimes: offences that can only be committed using computers and ICTs, such as illegally accessing computers, performing denial-of-service attacks and creating and spreading malware. If these crimes weren’t part of the treaty, there wouldn’t be a treaty to speak of.

  The inclusion of cyber-enabled crimes, however, is more controversial. These are offences that are carried out online but could be committed without ICTs, such as banking fraud and data theft. There’s no internationally agreed definition of cyber-enabled crimes. Some states consider offences related to online content, such as disinformation, incitement to extremism and terrorism, as cyber-enabled crimes. These are speech-based offences, the criminalisation of which can lead to the criminalisation of online speech or expression, with negative impacts on human rights and fundamental freedoms.

  Many states that are likely to be future signatories to the treaty use this kind of language to strike down dissent. However, there is general support for the inclusion of limited exceptions on cyber-enabled crimes, such as online child sexual exploitation and abuse, and computer-related fraud.

  There is no way we can reach a wide definition of cyber-enabled crimes unless it’s accompanied with very strict human rights safeguards. In the absence of safeguards, the treaty should encompass a limited scope of crimes. But there’s no agreement on a definition of safeguards and how to put them in place, particularly when it comes to personal data protection.

  For victims as well as perpetrators, there’s absolutely no difference between cyber-enabled and cyber-dependent crimes. If you are a victim, you are a victim of both. A lot of criminal groups – and state actors – are using the same tools, infrastructure and processes to perform both types of attacks.

  Even though there’s a need to include more cyber-enabled crimes, the way it’s being done is wrong, as there are no safeguards or clear definitions. Most states that are pushing for this have abundantly demonstrated that they don’t respect or protect human rights, and some – including China, Egypt, India, Iran, Russia and Syria – have even proposed to delete all references to international human rights obligations.

  Another challenge is the lack of agreement on how international cooperation mechanisms should follow up to guarantee the practical implementation of the treaty. The ways in which states are going to cooperate and the types of activities they will perform together to combat these crimes remain unclear.

  To prevent misuse of the treaty by repressive regimes we should focus both on the scope of criminalisation and the conditions for international cooperation. For instance, provisions on extradition should include the principle of dual criminality, which means an act should not be extraditable unless it constitutes a crime in both the countries making and receiving the request. This is crucial to prevent its use by authoritarian states to persecute dissent and commit other human rights violations.

  What is civil society bringing to the negotiations?

  The drafting of the treaty should be a collective effort aimed at preventing and decreasing the amount of cyberattacks. As independent bodies, CSOs are contributing to it by providing knowledge on the human rights impacts and potential threats and advocating for guarantees for fundamental rights.

  For example, the CyberPeace Institute has been analysing disruptive cyberattacks against healthcare institutions amid COVID-19 for two years. We found at least 500 cyberattacks leading to the theft of data of more than 20 million patients. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

  The CyberPeace Institute also submits recommendations to the Committee based on a victim-centric approach, involving preventive measures, evidence-led accountability for perpetrators, access to justice and redress for victims and prevention of re-victimisation.

  We also advocate for a human-rights-by-design approach, which would ensure full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms through robust protections and safeguards. The language of the Convention should refer to specific human rights frameworks such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It is important that the fight against cybercrime should not pit national security against human rights.

  This framing is especially significant because governments have long exploited anti-cybercrime measures to expand state control, broaden surveillance powers, restrict or criminalise freedoms of expression and assembly and target human rights defenders, journalists and political opposition in the name of national security or fighting terrorism.

  In sum, the goal of civil society is to demonstrate the human impact of cybercrimes and make sure states take this into consideration when negotiating the framework and the regulations – which must be created to protect citizens. We bring in the voices of victims, the most vulnerable ones, whose daily cybersecurity is not properly protected by the current international framework. And, as far as the CyberPeace Institute is concerned, we advocate for the inclusion of a limited scope of cybercrimes with clear and narrow definitions to prevent the criminalisation of behaviours that constitute the exercise of fundamental freedoms and human rights.

  At what point in the treaty process are we now?

  A consolidated negotiating document was the basis for the second reading done in the fourth and fifth sessions held in January and April 2023. The next step is to release a zero draft in late June, which will be negotiated in the sixth session that will take place in New York between August and September 2023.

  The process normally culminates with a consolidation by states, which is going to be difficult since there’s a lot of divergence and a tight deadline: the treaty should be taken to a vote at the 78^th UN General Assembly session in September 2024.

  There’s a bloc of states looking for a treaty with the widest possible scope, and another bloc leaning towards a convention with a very limited scope and strong safeguards. But even within this bloc there is still disagreement when it comes to data protection, the approach to security and the ethics of specific technologies such as artificial intelligence.

  What are the chances that the final version of the treaty will meet international human rights standards while fulfilling its purpose?

  Considering how the process has been going so far, I’m not very optimistic, especially on the issue of upholding human rights standards, because of the crucial lack of definition of human rights safeguards. We shouldn’t forget negotiations are happening in a context of tense geopolitical confrontation. The CyberPeace Institute has been tracing the attacks deployed since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. We’ve witnessed over 1,500 campaigns of attacks with close to 100 actors involved, many of them states, and impacts on more than 45 countries. This geopolitical reality further complicates the negotiations.

  By looking at the text that’s on the table right now, it is falling short of its potential to improve the lives of victims in cyberspace. This is why the CyberPeace Institute remains committed to the drafting process – to inform and sensitise the discussions toward a more positive outcome.

  ---

   

  Get in touch with the CyberPeace Institute through itswebsite or itsFacebook page, and follow@CyberpeaceInst and@DuguinStephane on Twitter.