Q7

13

TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGE: TRUE OR FALSE?

1. The Nuremberg trials were a landmark development in the evolution of international criminal law and human rights.

2. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was the first major international human rights document in the twenty-first century to be binding on all nations.

3. The difference between positive human rights and negative human rights is that positive human rights create obligations on governments and negative human rights create obligations on individuals.

4. Humanitarian law is the body of law that addresses the global obligation toward refugees.

5. Torture is permitted under international criminal law where there is a “ticking time bomb.”

6. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights are identical to the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.

7. The Alien Tort Claims Act authorizes undocumented individuals to sue U.S. citizens in federal court.

8. Child soldiers are prohibited under international law and are outlawed by every country across the globe.

9. Corporations doing business abroad are concerned with financial profit and have little role in protecting the human rights of workers.

Check your answers at the end of this chapter.

INTRODUCTION

The twentieth century witnessed an unprecedented growth in the global law of human rights. The events of World War II inspired the creation of the United Nations and the drafting of a number of significant international human rights agreements. In 2002, following more than a century of agitation, the world community agreed to establish an international criminal court.

These developments, however significant, have not led to the achievement of universal human rights and social justice. Human rights are notoriously difficult to protect in a world

International Human Rights and International Crime

LAW AND SOCIET Y

comprising independent and sovereign nation-states whose governments are guided by their own self-interests. The international legal community also lacks strong mechanisms to enforce human rights.

This chapter outlines the development and structure of the international human rights regime. We then briefly examine several case studies of human rights protection, child soldiers, the plight of textile workers, drones, and torture. As you read the chapter, consider the factors that complicate the enforcement of international human rights.

THE EVOLUTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL LAW OF HUMAN RIGHTS

We start our discussion of the growth of global law with events following the aftermath of World War I. The death and destruction in this war between 1914 and 1918 are almost beyond comprehension. More than six thousand men died each day, and the number of deaths totaled over nine million. The total casualty figure for both sides was roughly twenty-five million. Each side sent waves of men across open fields to their death. Great Britain alone suffered over nine hundred thousand casualties. The war witnessed the introduction of airpower, the machine gun, poison gas, tanks, and sophisticated artillery (N. Ferguson 1999; Keegan 1998; Tuchman 1962).

Following the war in 1919, the United States, Great Britain, France, Italy, and Japan and the other Allied powers convened a commission to determine responsibility for the war. The commission found that the defeated Entente powers of Germany and Turkey had engaged in barbarous and bloody acts of unlawful warfare, and the commission took the unprecedented step of calling for the prosecution before international tribunals of those enemy leaders and combatants responsible for war crimes (Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War and on Enforcement of Penalties 1920).

With the Versailles peace treaty of 1919, the Allied powers forced Germany to agree to hand over accused war criminals for prosecution before Allied and multinational tribunals. Article 227 took the unprecedented step of stating that Kaiser William II, the German monarch, was to be “publicly arraigned” for a “supreme offense against international moral- ity and the sanctity of treaties.” The Allies feared these trials would destabilize the newly instituted democratic government of the Weimar Republic and lost their will to bring defeated enemy combatants and leaders to trial. In the end, only twelve individuals were brought to trial before a domestic German criminal court. Six of the defendants were acquitted, and three of the six who were convicted were sentenced to prison terms of less than one year.

Despite the fact that international trials were not conducted following World War I, the trials that were conducted proved important because, in the past, countries that violated the law of war merely paid compensation to the victimized state, and individuals were not held accountable for their criminal acts (Willis 1982).

World War I inspired the formation of the ill-fated League of Nations in 1920 and the signing in 1928 of the Kellogg-Briand Pact, in which sixty countries renounced war as a mode of resolving conflicts. Renewed enthusiasm developed over efforts to revive the idea of an inter- national criminal court. This idealism soon was overwhelmed by the rise of the Third Reich in Nazi Germany and the aggression of Japan in the Pacific. Following World War II, there was strong sentiment in favor of executing the leaders of Nazi Germany without trial. The United States prevailed in its insistence on convening an international tribunal at Nuremberg in 1944 to prosecute Nazi military and civilian officials (Mettraux 2008). This was followed by the convening of an international tribunal in Tokyo (Boister and Cryer 2008).

The Nuremberg trials stand as one of the most significant legal events in modern law. The tribunal, composed of judges from the United States, Great Britain, France, and the Soviet Union, convicted of international crimes eighteen leading Nazis, twelve of whom sub- sequently were executed. Nuremberg established a number of important principles that were

CHAPTER 13  INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL CRIME

the foundation for the international law of human rights and international criminal law.

Principles established by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg include the following:

Individual liability. Individuals are liable for international crimes regardless of whether they are military, governmental leaders, or low-level combatants.

International crimes. International crimes include war crimes, crimes against humanity (offenses against civilians), and crimes against peace (initiating or waging a war of aggression).

Superior orders. Superior orders are not a defense to criminal liability but may be considered in mitigation.

Supremacy of international law. An individual is liable for committing an international crime even in those instances in which the act is legal under domestic law.

The Nuremberg decision established the legal principles that were relied on to prosecute alleged Nazi and Japanese war criminals throughout Europe and the Pacific. Trials also were held by the Allied powers in Germany, including twelve trials conducted by the United States of leading Nazi doctors, lawyers, diplomats, and concentration camp officials. A number of governments continue to pursue alleged war criminals and to bring these perpetrators to the bar of justice (Appleman 1954). One of the most famous and controversial trials took place in 1961 when Israel prosecuted and convicted Adolf Eichmann, who was a leading figure in the extermination of six million Jews and an equal number of non-Jews in the concentration camps (Arendt 1963). Germany, in an effort to demonstrate its rejection of the events of World War II over the past decades, has actively prosecuted Nazi war criminals. The prosecutions following World War II focused on criminal offenses committed during wartime and did not discuss the rights of individuals during periods of peace. These trials, however, established the foundation for the recognition of international human rights.

13.1 You Decide

The defense of duress provides that an individual who commits a crime under the threat of serious bodily harm is excused from criminal responsibility. The defense traditionally was not available under the common law to an individual who kills another person although it might be considered in mitiga- tion of punishment. Civil law countries are divided

on this question, and some countries, along with the International Criminal Court, recognize duress as a defense when the crime is proportionate to the threatened harm. In 1995, Dražen Erdemović, a low-ranking member of the Bosnian Serb Army, was involved in an ethnic conflict against Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats following the breakup

PHOTO 13.1 The Nuremberg trials are a landmark event that is credited with establishing the foundation for international human rights and international criminal law. On October 1, 1946, twelve defendants were sentenced to death, hanged, and cremated, and their ashes were dropped in the Isar River. Three defendants were sentenced to life imprisonment, four were sentenced to prison terms ranging from ten to twenty years, and three were acquitted.

U .S

. A rm

y, W o

rld W

ar II S ig

nal C o

rp s P

ho to

g rap

h C o

llectio n

(Continued)

LAW AND SOCIET Y

of Yugoslavia. A number of unarmed, civilian Muslim men were detained by Serb forces and transported to an open field. These men ranged in age from 17 to 70 and, under the law of war, were classified as either unarmed civilians or prisoners of war. In either case, they were legally required to be treated in a humani- tarian fashion. Erdemović was ordered to participate in the execution of the detainees, which resulted in the killing of an estimated 1,200 individuals over a period of five hours. Erdemović admitted at his trial to killing between 10 and 100 individuals. He claimed that when he resisted participation, “they told me: ‘If you’re sorry for them, stand up, line up with them

and we will kill you too.’” Erdemović was concerned about his wife and child and complied with the order. He testified he would have been killed had he failed to participate, having witnessed another soldier killed for resisting orders. The detainees would have been killed even if Erdemović had refused to partici- pate. Erdemović was the only low-level participant in the slaughter who was charged and convicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, which considered Erdemović’s duress defense in Prosecutor v. Erdemović (Case No. IT-96- 22-A [Oct. 1997]).

How would you decide this as a judge?

(Continued)

THE UNITED NATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS

The United Nations (UN) Charter establishes a number of lofty aspirations, including the maintenance of international peace and the respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all people.

The Preamble to the UN Charter, the foundation instrument of the United Nations, rec- ognized that the rights of individuals are recognized under international law. The preamble proclaims that the United Nations is formed:

To save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and To reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and To establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and To promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.

The newly established UN almost immediately took two significant steps in regards to human rights. First, on December 10, 1948, the members adopted a treaty that proclaimed that genocide was an international crime that all countries signing the treaty were obligated to prevent and to punish. The next day, the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a “common standard of achievement for all people and all nations.” The document in Article 1 proclaims that all human beings are “born free” and “equal in dignity and rights.” This non-binding document articulates aspirations for countries to strive to achieve and is based on the notion that all human beings have certain rights that must be protected and provided for by the governments of the world regardless of their political system or ideology. These rights include equal right under the law, freedom of thought and religion, freedom of speech and assembly, equality under the law and the right to be presumed innocent, the right to marry and have a family, and the right to be prosecuted in a public trial that guarantees the rights of defendants. These types of rights are termed negative rights because they prohibit the government from interfering with individuals’ freedom. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights also protects positive rights that impose certain obligations on governments toward

CHAPTER 13  INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL CRIME

individuals. This includes the right to work, the right to an adequate standard of living, and the right to an education (Berlin 2002).

The Universal Declaration had a profound impact on the international community, and its provisions have been recognized as a yardstick to measure the human rights performance of coun- tries throughout the world. The declaration is the foundation for the development of human rights and inspired the drafting of a long list of human rights treaties.

In 1966, the UN adopted two treaties based on the Universal Declaration that member states were asked to make part of their own law. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights together with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights form what is termed the International Bill of Human Rights. In these three documents, the international com- munity clearly established that people—wherever they live and whatever their ethnicity, race, gender, or class is—possess universally recognized human rights.

These instruments were the culmination of movement for human rights whose origins can be traced to the early days of the American and French republics. Together, they estab- lished the foundation for a long list of human rights treaties that have been adopted over the past sixty years that protect the rights of children, women, refugees, indigenous peoples and prisoners, migrant workers, and people with physical challenges. Other human rights treaties protect freedom of religion, prohibit torture and racial and other forms of discrimination, and criminalize the practice of disappearances, summary and arbitrary executions and killings, and the slave trade.

Human rights treaties fundamentally transformed international law, which traditionally was based on the notion that nation-states were sovereign and supreme within their territorial boundaries and individuals were “objects” rather than “subjects” of international law and lacked rights under transnational law.

The UN’s initiatives in the field of human rights have been accompanied by a series of inter- national treaties regulating the humanitarian law of war, including the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and 1977 and treaties regulating land mines, cluster bombs, and chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Regional human rights treaties based on the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, along with human rights courts, have been established in Europe, Latin America, and Africa (Best 1980, 1994).

The treaties regulating the law of war—together with documents addressing terrorism, tor- ture, genocide, and other acts carrying criminal penalties—constitute the field of international criminal law. These crimes against humanity and war crimes are so serious and severe that all signatory states are obligated to prevent and punish these acts when an offender is seized within their jurisdiction (Drumbl 2007; Ratner and Abrams 2001).

The UN demonstrated determination to punish crimes against humanity and war crimes in 1993 when it established a special tribunal to punish individuals responsible for serious violations of the humanitarian law in the former Yugoslavia and in 1994 when it established a tribunal to punish criminal acts in Rwanda. The UN subsequently established “mixed criminal tribunals” in Cambodia and Sierra Leone, staffed by national and international justices. The trend toward a uniform system of individual rights and criminal offenses culminated in 1998 with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. This court began operation in 2002 and has brought indictments against individuals for activities in Uganda, the Congo, Sudan, and Kenya (Schiff 2008).

PHOTO 13.2 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the United Nations on December 10, 1948. Eleanor Roosevelt, the widow of U.S. president Franklin Delano Roosevelt, chaired the eighteen-member multinational drafting committee and is credited with ensuring adoption of the historic document.

N atio

nal A rchives and

R eco

rd s A

d m

inistratio n

LAW AND SOCIET Y

THE UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS SYSTEM

As of 2020, 173 countries have ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and 170 nation-states have ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The United States is a signatory to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights although it has not entered into the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protects a broad range of rights:

1. The right to life 2. The right to be free from slavery or forced labor 3. The right to due process of law throughout the justice process 4. The right of incarcerated individuals to humane treatment 5. The right to freedom of movement and residence 6. The right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion 7. The right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly 8. The right to be free from discrimination

Each state party to the covenant “undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory . . . the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.” The covenant creates a committee for human rights, which receives reports from signatories. The covenant also provides that countries signing the covenant may authorize other signatory countries and individuals to file complaints with the Human Rights Committee that they are failing to protect rights protected under the covenant. Thirty-seven states have signed an optional protocol in which they pledge not to employ capital punishment against criminal offenders.

The rights articulated in the covenant are subject to at least two limitations. Various rights are drafted to provide for significant exceptions. Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, for example, is “subject . . . to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals of the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.”

Perhaps more significant is the division between rights that can be modified (e.g., dero- gable rights) and rights that may not be limited or violated (i.e., that are non-derogable) in “time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed.” Non-derogable rights include freedom from slavery and torture, freedom from ex post facto punishment, and freedom of conscience. The document authorizes deroga- tion of the freedoms of speech, assembly, equal protection, and due process rights.

The primary weakness of the covenant is the weak procedural protections. The drafters of the covenant feared that countries would not enter a human rights treaty with a strong inter- national enforcement mechanism. States are obligated to submit reports at the request of the Human Rights Committee. However, these reports are requested infrequently and tend to be broadly worded and general accounts of a country’s human rights protections. In addition, no penalties are imposed on countries that fail to submit reports. The committee studies the reports submitted by states parties and makes “general comments” to the country. States may agree to allow other countries to file complaints against them with the Human Rights Committee and may separately agree to allow individuals to petition the committee to consider complaints against the country. The Human Rights Committee is charged with responsibility of helping the parties reach a compromise remedy. Forty-eight states participate in the interstate complaint procedure although a complaint has never been filed. Thirty-five countries participate in the individual complaint procedure.

CHAPTER 13  INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL CRIME

An additional limitation on the international covenant, along with other human rights treaties, is states’ filing of reservations to various provisions. The United States, for example, reserves the right to treat juveniles as adults rather than adhere to the requirement that juveniles shall be subject to separate judicial procedures and incarcerated in separate institutions ( Joseph and Castan 2013).

The Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights protects a number of areas:

• Freedom from discrimination • The right to work • The right to just working conditions and compensation and the right to form unions • The right to adequate housing • The right to adequate food and clothing • The right to marriage and family • The right to mental and physical health • The right to participate in cultural life • The right to education • Protection of children from exploitation

The Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the past has been criticized because signatory countries only commit to the progressive achievement of the rights in the treaty. In 2008, the UN General Assembly adopted an optional protocol, signed by a relatively small number of states, permitting a newly formed committee to receive complaints from individuals and groups who claim that their rights are not protected. The committee also is authorized to investigate the situation in countries.

The decision to divide human rights into two treaties reflected a disagreement between western democracies, which prioritized civil and political rights, and Russia and other socialist states, which stressed social and economic rights. The reality is that these two types of rights are interdependent. Civil and political rights mean very little to a starving and homeless individual with a substandard education. The healthy and well-fed individual likely will be frustrated by his or her lack of personal freedom and ability to participate in government decision-making.

In 2006, the UN formed the new forty-seven-member Human Rights Council to serve as the UN’s primary body concerned with human rights. The council may consider complaints of situations involving consistent patterns of gross and reliably attested-to violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The council has the discretion to keep the matter under review and appoint an expert to investigate and to report back to the council for further action. There also is a provision for a universal review of the human rights performance of all countries in the world.

The Human Rights Council also appoints thematic rapporteurs, individual experts charged with investigating and studying important human rights concerns, including disappearances, summary or arbitrary execution, slavery, right to water, and freedom of religion.

We previously mentioned the war crimes tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda established by the United Nations Security Council; the mixed national-international tribunals for Cambodia and Sierra Leone, Kosovo, and East Timor; and the important development of the creation of the International Criminal Court.

The global human rights system also includes a number of regional institutional arrange- ments. The European Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights are fully functioning institutions. The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights is still in the initial phase of development.

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are an important part of the global human rights system. Groups like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Human Rights First, and

LAW AND SOCIET Y

the International Committee of the Red Cross investigate and report on human rights viola- tions around the world, help draft human rights treaties, and mobilize their membership to work on behalf of “prisoners of conscience” across the globe. Other groups like Doctors Without Borders work in war zones.

The transnational human rights movement has inspired countries across the globe to incor- porate the protection of rights in either their constitution or their statutory law.

A number of commentators have argued that the human rights movement has accomplished very little beyond the drafting and adoption of a number of largely ineffective international documents. Countries pay “lip service” to these rights while violating them on a regular basis (E. Posner 2014). Kathryn Sikkink has devoted her work to demonstrating that the human rights movement has made a considerable contribution to the betterment of humankind. She documents that despite “worrisome trends” in areas like the treatment of refugees there are many areas of “increasing awareness and improvements,” including fewer wartime deaths and the enhanced protection of the rights of women; of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals; and of people with disabilities. According to Sikkink, the general trend in the world is for “less violence” and “fewer human rights violations” than in the past (Sikkink 2017).

DOMESTIC ENFORCEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS

Adopting high-minded treaties on human rights unfortunately does not mean that people around the world are able to enjoy these rights. The treaty must be signed by a country’s executive (president or prime minister) and incorporated into the domestic legal system by the legislative branch. The next step is that the country must respect and enforce the right. The population must possess the capacity to take advantage of rights such as freedom of expression.

There may be resistance by portions of the local population to an international norm that conflicts with their customs and culture. A country may agree to adopt a democratic political system in which women are given the right to vote. This may be resisted by tribal elders and other men who view voting by women as contrary to the customary social order that reserves important decisions for men. Men may prohibit women from going to the polling station or may insist that they be given the authority to cast the vote of their wives or sisters.

Mindie Lazarus-Black studied the implementation of the 1991 Domestic Violence Act in Trinidad and Tobago (Lazarus-Black 2007). The act authorized the issuance of orders of protec- tion to individuals physically or emotionally abused by family members or intimate partners. The Domestic Violence Act was particularly significant because the statute placed Trinidad and Tobago at the forefront in the protection of the rights of women in the English-speaking Caribbean.

The statute, according to Lazarus-Black, was in large part a product of the expectations cre- ated by the international human rights movement that countries protect the rights of women, although the structure of the law reflected the politics and culture of Trinidad and Tobago.

Lazarus-Black finds that the law succeeded in many respects. She also concludes that the judicial process proved ineffective in providing women with orders of protection. Most applications for orders of protection were dismissed by magistrates or withdrawn by women. Lazarus-Black identifies a number of “court rites” that resulted in women who filed complaints feeling humiliated, intimidated, and frustrated. “Court rites” are “events and processes that occur in and around legal arenas and that mostly operate to dissuade people from using the courts or interfere with their ability to exercise rights” (Lazarus-Black 2007: 163).

The difficulties of the legal process according to Lazarus-Black were compounded by the economic dependence of some women on men and by a culture that expected women and men to reconcile and to preserve and protect family unity and privacy and avoid “airing dirty laun- dry in public.” Women were encouraged to accept the promise of men to refrain from future violence. As a result, orders of protection were issued “fairly rarely and only as a last resort.”

CHAPTER 13  INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL CRIME

Lazarus-Black concludes that “court rites” conspire against law being a mechanism for protect- ing women in Trinidad and Tobago against domestic violence.

As Lazarus-Black illustrates, the diffusion of international human norms depends on the domestic acceptance and enforcement of various human rights.

Country. The country must accept the international human right. Enforcement. Institutions within the country must enforce the right. Individual. Individuals must embrace the right.

In December 2012, the U.S. Senate refused to ratify a convention that prohibited discrimi- nation against people with physical challenges. Former Republican senator and presidential candidate Robert Dole, a wounded World War II veteran, came from his hospital bed to ask his former colleagues in the Senate to adopt the treaty. Senator Dole explained the document merely required all nations to accept the protections in the Americans with Disabilities Act. Only a handful of Republicans voted in favor of the treaty, explaining they feared that UN bureaucrats would become involved in dictating the policies of U.S. state governments.

Are all human rights universal? Human rights purists insist that despite differences in social customs and practices, the Universal Declaration embodies the single standard of rights to which all people are entitled. The notion that women are entitled only to the rights recog- nized in their own culture may condemn women to a life without full control of their bodies in which they may be compelled to enter into arranged marriages at an early age, be unable to gain custody over their children in the event of a divorce, not have the same rights of inheritance as their brothers, and be left destitute in the event of the death of their husband. It is convenient for men to claim that the denial of equal rights to women is a part of a culture rather than a practice intended to maintain male dominance.

On the other hand, how can we talk of a single standard for human rights in a world of over 190 countries and two billion people comprising a diversity of ethnic groups, religions, and races? Some people would find the American practice of the death penalty inhumane and bar- baric. Various human rights instruments were drafted at a time when the world was composed of fifty-five predominantly western nations.

In 1947, the American Anthropological Association issued a report questioning the notion of universal human rights. The report argues that in the past, the concept of human rights was defined by the outlook of the North American and European countries that dominated the world. Today, the “rights of man . . . cannot be circumscribed by the standards of any single culture, or be dictated by the aspirations of any single people. Such a document will lead to frustration, not realization of the personalities of the vast numbers of human beings” (American Anthropological Association 1947: 543).

Consider the events surrounding Salman Rushdie. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes the right to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” In 1989, this guarantee of freedom of speech clashed with the requirement in Islam that a believer who criticizes the religion or leaves the religion is an apostate (one who “turns away”) who is subject to the death penalty. Ayatollah Khomeini, the Supreme Leader of Iran, issued a fatwa (religious ruling) that called on “zealous” Muslims to kill Anglo-Indian Muslim author Salman Rushdie in retribution for passages in Rushdie’s book Satanic Verses that the Ayatollah viewed as an attack on Islam. A bounty was placed on Rushdie that eventually reached $2.8 million to whomever killed the author. Rushdie spent almost ten years in isolation under the protection of British police before emerging from hiding. The Ayatollah viewed the human rights of freedom of speech, the prohi- bition on punishment without trial, and the right to freedom of thought as the creation of the law of human beings, which was subordinate to divine law. How would you strike the balance between universal rights and the requirements of Islam (Chase 1996)?

LAW AND SOCIET Y

In another incident in late 2005 and early 2006, global protests erupted over the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten’s publication of twelve satirical cartoons portraying the Prophet Muhammad. Many Muslims believe that it is aniconism or blasphemy to visually depict the human form. A bounty was placed on the head of one of the cartoonists and the newspaper’s publisher, and the Danish embassies in Syria, Lebanon, and Iran were torched; in 2008, a bomb was ignited outside the Danish Embassy in Pakistan killing twelve people.

In both the Satanic Verses and cartoon controversies, there is a clash between freedom of expression and respect for one of the world’s great religions. An influential Harvard professor, the late Samuel Huntington, made the controversial claim that the major divisions in the new world are based on deep differences in culture rather than on politics (Huntington 2007).

In the 1990s, Singapore and other Asian countries challenged the notion of universal human rights and claimed there was a unique Asian version of human rights, which differed from the western notion of human rights. Asian countries claimed they should be evaluated on a separate standard. The emphasis in the Asian conception of human rights is on economic development and an individual’s obligation to serve society rather than on individual rights. Trust is placed in a small number of honorable men to direct economic development rather than rely on democratic procedures, which divide society. The emphasis is on consensus rather than on conflict. Should the global community accept that there are differing views on human rights?

COVID-19 has presented a severe challenge to human rights. At least eighty countries, according to the United Nations, imposed states of emergency and restricted civil rights and liberties in an effort to combat the virus. A number of countries have adopted a “militarized approach” and used these states of emergency as a pretext to arrest thousands of political opponents for curfew violations or for making statements about the deficiencies of the public health system that are considered to pose a danger to public safety. Other aspects of this “toxic lockdown culture” are the detention or expulsion of migrant workers from the country and the dangerous disregard of the health care of pregnant women (United Nations 2020).

13.2 You Decide

In October 2018, Jamal Khashoggi, a 59-year-old Saudi citizen and critic of 33-year-old Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), arrived at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, to finalize his divorce from his Saudi wife so as to enable him to marry a Turkish citizen.

Khashoggi in the past had been a close confi- dant of the Saudi royal family and as a journalist had spent time in Afghanistan reporting on Saudi national Osama bin Laden and had served as gen- eral manager and editor-in-chief of Al-Arab News Channel and of the newspaper Al Watan. Khashoggi, after moving from Saudi Arabia to the United States, wrote occasional columns in the Washington Post in which he criticized the Saudi regime and shared that as a result of his commentaries he feared for his life.

When Khashoggi after several hours did not emerge from the consulate, his fiancé, who was wait- ing outside the consulate, called Turkish officials.

There is indisputable evidence that while inside the consulate Khashoggi was killed by members of the Saudi Rapid Intervention Group directed by close aides to MBS. The members of the “hit squad” had been flown into Turkey with the mission of mur- dering Khashoggi. The Saudi operatives after killing Khashoggi reportedly dismembered his body with a bone saw, packed his body inside a bag, and bur- ied the bag in a yet unknown location (although the body may have been burned). MBS had remained in contact with the assassination squad throughout the day, and it later was revealed that in the past he had threatened to “put a bullet” in Khashoggi if he continued his criticism of the Saudi royal family.

CHAPTER 13  INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL CRIME

Khashoggi though a Saudi citizen was a legal resi- dent of the United States, had American-born children, and was affiliated with the Washington Post. MBS while praised for his efforts to modernize Saudi Arabia and authorization for women to drive had arbitrarily detained hundreds of Saudis, some of whom were members of the wealthy elite. They only had been released after paying millions of dollars, which MBS alleged had been corruptly obtained. MBS also initiated a war in Yemen against the Iranian-sponsored Houthi rebels that led to the death of as many as fifty thou- sand and left millions in dangerous conditions without food or shelter. President Donald Trump vetoed con- gressional efforts to withdraw U.S. support for the war in Yemen and in the aftermath of Khashoggi’s murder to halt arms sales to the Saudi regime.

The Saudi regime initially denied knowing Khashoggi’s whereabouts and later blamed his kill- ing on rogue elements of the Saudi regime. U.S. intel- ligence agencies reached the conclusion that MBS had ordered Khashoggi’s murder. President Trump nonetheless accepted MBS’s explanation that he was not involved in the killing.

The United Nations’ special inquiry into Khashoggi’s murder was conducted by Agnès Callamard, the UN Special Rapporteur on extraju- dicial, summary, or arbitrary executions. Callamard concluded that the “[e]vidence collected during my mission to Turkey shows . . . that Mr. Khashoggi was the victim of a brutal and premeditated killing, planned and perpetrated by officials of the State of Saudi Arabia.” The evidence gathered by Turkish authorities is that Khashoggi was immediately attacked and strangled after entering the consulate.

There is little question that the extra-judicial and summary execution of Khashoggi was in violation of Turkish sovereignty and constituted a violation of the basic principles of Turkish and of international law.

As public pressure mounted on the Saudi regime to take action against the individuals who killed Khashoggi, the Saudi regime sentenced five low-ranking Saudi agents to death for the killing of Khashoggi and three to prison terms

totaling twenty-four years for their role in covering up Khashoggi’s killing. Ahmed Asseri, the deputy head of Saudi intelligence who is thought to have directed the operation, was not criminally charged.

The Saudi government compensated Khashoggi’s children with tens of thousands of dollars and mil- lions of dollars in real estate as compensation for the death of their father. One of Khashoggi’s sons subsequently stated that he and his siblings had for- given the men who murdered their father, opening the door to sparing the men the death penalty and to the possibility of a complete pardon for all of the convicted killers.

Although in the past the country has supported and encouraged the spread of a radical and militant Islamic fundamentalism throughout the world, Saudi Arabia is crucial to President Trump’s strategy of containing Iran and for reaching a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Saudi Arabia was the first country that President Trump visited after assuming the presidency, and he has stressed that it is one of the best customers of U.S. military hardware.

Despite MBS’s involvement in the killing of Khashoggi, in 2019, thirty countries and a record six thousand individuals registered to participate in an event organized to explore investment opportunities with Saudi Arabia.

On December 11, 2018, Khashoggi was named person of the year by Time magazine for his work along with other journalists who had risked their lives by reporting on the news.

There is a trend toward the world community failing to act against national leaders who murder opposition figures. Russia, for example, was respon- sible for the poisoning in 2018 of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury, England, with a Novichok nerve agent. Thirty-four lawyers involved in combating Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte’s drug war, which has claimed the lives of over five thousand people, have been murdered.

What does the murder of Jamal Khashoggi indi- cate about the effectiveness of international human rights law to protect individuals?

CONFLICTING PERSPECTIVES ON INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS

Numerous policy concerns and philosophical issues arise in discussing international human rights.

LAW AND SOCIET Y

Civil and political and economic, social, and cultural rights. There is an ongoing debate on which rights are most important. The argument is that freedom of expression and the right to vote mean very little to an individual who is starving and lacks education. Rights inevitably benefit the wealthy, who, for example, can take advantage of the “right to travel” or the “right to own property.”

Hierarchy of rights. The exercise of rights at times may conflict with one another. Does the right to be free from discrimination permit racial profiling by the police to maintain the right of individuals to be safe and secure? Does freedom of speech protect pornography, obscenity, or Holocaust denial?

Derogable rights. Human rights instruments provide that various rights are “non- derogable,” meaning that these rights may never be violated. Other rights, such as freedom of speech and assembly, may be temporarily restricted when there is an officially proclaimed threat to the safety and security of the nation. The question is whether non-derogable rights such as freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment may be violated under emergency circumstances.

Rights and duties. The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights of 1986 provides that an individual has both rights and duties “towards his [or her] family, and society, and State and other legally recognized communities and the international community.” It is argued that an emphasis on human rights inappropriately encourages people to focus on themselves rather than on the welfare of the community.

Sovereignty. States have a duty to protect human rights within their own territorial juris- diction. What is the obligation of a state toward a state that grossly and persistently violates human rights, such as North Korea? Should states trade with a country that violates human rights or provide financial assistance? What if a refusal to provide financial assistance contrib- utes to the death of children? Are states obligated to criticize another state’s mistreatment of elements in the population or even consider armed intervention?

Private and public. Human rights address the actions of states in relation to individuals within their territorial jurisdiction. Women in many cases find their rights violated in the “private sphere.” Examples are intimate partner violence in the home and sexual assaults on the job. Various commentators argue that governments are responsible for tolerating wide- spread intimate partner violence and sexual assaults and that these attacks constitute “state action” and a violation of the human rights of women. The question is whether it is fair to extend human rights laws to cover private acts of violence.

Reservations. States are entitled to file reservations and understandings to the provision of treaties. The United States, for example, filed a reservation to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights reserving the right to treat juveniles as adults. Other nation-states may refuse to recognize reservations. Should nation-states be permitted to file reservations that undermine the protection of human rights?

Cultural. Claims of cultural differences often are invoked to justify acts such as arranged marriages of juvenile females to older males.

DOMESTIC COURTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS

U.S. federal courts have a unique global role in the international protection of human rights. In 1980, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that torts (e.g., personal injury suits)

CHAPTER 13  INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL CRIME

could be brought against violators of human rights norms under the Alien Tort Claims Act, also known as the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), 28 U.S.C. § 1350. The statute was adopted by the first U.S. Congress in 1789 and provides federal district courts with “original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort . . . committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” This statute has been relied on by nationals of foreign countries to bring actions for financial damages against human rights violators. In 1991, Congress adopted the Torture Victim Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1250, which provides for civil actions for damages against individuals who, while acting under the authority of a foreign nation, engaged in torture or extra-judicial killings.

Well over twenty legal actions have been brought successfully under these two statutes in U.S. courts against perpetrators who, when acting on behalf of a foreign government, commit- ted kidnappings, genocide, torture, summary and arbitrary execution, and unlawful detention (Filártiga v. Peña-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 [2d Cir. 1980]).

The ATS is defended as an expression of U.S. respect and protection for human rights and is based on the belief that human rights violators should not obtain a safe haven in the United States. The statute provides an opportunity for victims to draw attention to their plight and to receive compensation for the harm they have suffered; in addition, it establishes the principle that human rights violators will be brought to justice.

Critics claim that the ATS consumes judicial time and resources and that the United States should not be acting as a world police officer in adjudicating international crimes committed abroad. There is the added difficulty of obtaining witnesses and documents and re-creating events committed in another country (Coliver 2006).

In 2013, in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5–4 decision rejected a claim brought by a group of Nigerian citizens for damages against Shell asserting the company aided and abetted human rights abuses by the Nigerian government against indi- viduals protesting against the pollution of the natural environment. The Court indicated that it was reluctant to approve of an extra-territorial law that involved U.S. courts in the affairs of a foreign corporation doing business abroad. The act according to the Court was intended to apply to violations of international law occurring on U.S. soil although this presumption might be overcome if there is a strong link to U.S. territory (Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. 108 [2013]).

In Jesner v. Arab Bank, victims of terrorist attacks that were carried out between 1995 and 2000 in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza sued the Arab Bank under the ATS. The plaintiffs alleged that the Arab Bank, in violation of the law of nations, provided financial services to terrorists, knowingly accepted donations that were to be used to fund terrorism, and distributed millions of dollars to families of suicide bombers. Justice Anthony Kennedy writing in a 5–4 decision held that ATS did not extend to the activities of foreign corporations such as the Arab Bank. The Court did not address whether the ATS applied to U.S. corporations (Jesner v. Arab Bank, 584 U.S. ___ [2018]).

In 2016, the U.S. Congress passed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act that allows U.S. citizens to sue a foreign country substantially involved in an act of terrorism within the United States. The law was intended to allow the victims and families of victims of 9/11 to sue Saudi Arabia in U.S. federal court. Critics warned about the consequences of denying a foreign country sovereign immunity (exemption) from being brought to trial before a foreign (U.S.) court and that other countries would retaliate by allowing their nationals to bring suit against the United States in their courts.

Various international criminal treaties also provide for universal jurisdiction over offend- ers. Signatory states are obligated to prosecute or extradite abroad an offender detained in their territory. The United States asserted jurisdiction under the Torture Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2340, to prosecute and ultimately convict Charles Emmanuel of torture committed in Liberia. The Torture Act establishes criminal jurisdiction in federal courts over acts of torture committed abroad by U.S. citizens and nationals and individuals present in the United States. Emmanuel,

LAW AND SOCIET Y

a U.S. citizen and son of former Liberian strong man Charles Taylor, headed a paramilitary group, the “Demon Forces,” which engaged in “extraordinary cruelty and evil” in support of a rebel movement in Sierra Leone. Emmanuel ordered beatings, drownings, decapitations, sod- omy, and the dripping of molten plastic onto the sexual organs of detainees.

Absent this type of assertion of universal jurisdiction over international crimes, perpetra- tors like Taylor and Emmanuel and maritime pirates likely would not have been brought to the bar of justice because their state of nationality might have been reluctant or too weak and unorganized to prosecute them. The important case of Augusto Pinochet illustrates some of the issues that arise in the assertion of extra-territorial jurisdiction.

A country that wants to prosecute an individual who is located in another country files a request for extradition. The request must be supported by facts to back up the claim that an international crime was committed. Pinochet led a military coup in 1973 that overthrew the democratically elected government in Chile and in the process killed President Salvador Allende. Once the military junta assumed power, there was a brutal and violent crackdown on students and other suspected left-wing supporters of Allende. Pinochet finally stepped down from power in 1990 and before leaving office ensured his own position by adopting a law exempting individuals from prosecution for crimes committed in service of the military regime.

Pinochet remained chief of the armed forces until 1997 when he assumed the role of “senator for life.” He subsequently went to England for medical treatment. During his stay in England, a Spanish magistrate issued an arrest warrant for Pinochet and asked for his extradi- tion to Spain. The Spanish magistrate based his request on the fact that twelve torture victims in Chile were Spanish nationals. The English House of Lords held that despite the international immunity generally accorded to heads of state for crimes while in office, Pinochet’s involvement in torture violated the law of nations, and he was subject to extradition to Spain.

The English government of Margaret Thatcher was supportive of Pinochet and found he was too sick to be sent to trial in Spain. Pinochet returned to Chile where, despite threats to prosecute him, he lived out his remaining years as a free man (Regina v. Bartle and the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Others, 1998 House of Lords).

The Chilean government feared military unrest and a coup if it pursued cases against members of the junta and had little interest in seeing Pinochet prosecuted in Spain. Spain and the international community felt that Pinochet should be brought to the bar of justice despite the fact that prosecuting him in Spain would do very little toward satisfying the desire of the Chilean people for justice.

The event in England nonetheless revealed Pinochet’s crime to the world, and Chilean prosecutors and judges were inspired to pursue hundreds of indictments against members of the Chilean military, including unsuccessful efforts to prosecute Pinochet. Roughly seventy former members of the Chilean military presently are incarcerated.

The Pinochet case is an example of transitional justice, or the challenge confronting a government that wants to reestablish the rule of law in a society that is emerging from the rule of a tyrannical, undemocratic regime.

Hosni Mubarak after nearly thirty years in office in Egypt was forced from power in 2013 as a result of street demonstrations. He was imprisoned and charged with corruption and con- spiring to kill demonstrators. He subsequently was convicted of embezzling state funds and released after completion of a three-year prison sentence.

In May 2016 in a landmark decision, the Extraordinary African Chambers of the Senegal judiciary convicted Hissène Habré, the longtime authoritarian ruler of Chad, of war crimes and the crimes against humanity of rape, sexual slavery, torture, and ordering the killing of forty thou- sand individuals. Habré is the first head of state to be convicted by a court of another country.

General Efraín Ríos Montt, who headed a dictatorship in Guatemala during a bloody anti- guerrilla campaign, was found guilty in 2013 of an attempt to exterminate the Ixil ethnic group and was sentenced to eighty years in prison. The verdict was overturned by the Guatemala Supreme Court, and Montt was placed under house arrest while awaiting a new trial. He died in 2018 at age 91 while in the process of being retried.

CHAPTER 13  INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL CRIME

In August 2019, former Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir, who had been removed from office following months of street demonstrations, was charged with corruption after admitting to accepting $90 million in bribes from Saudi Arabia. A warrant earlier had been issued for al-Bashir’s arrest by the International Criminal Court, which charged him with genocide in Darfur.

In South Africa, the government created a truth and reconciliation commission. Individuals who come forward and admit to their crimes before the commission may receive a pardon. A separate committee is authorized to provide compensation to the victims of these crimes. Individuals who receive a pardon are immune from criminal prosecution and civil suit. Despite the international condemnation of amnesties as a violation of a government’s obliga- tion to provide remedies for violations of human rights, the South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal held that the interest in reconciling the various racial groups in South Africa justified the truth and reconciliation process.

The process of addressing past human rights violations is termed transitional justice. Experience indicates that the restoration of a belief in the rule of law is best achieved by a com- bination of criminal prosecutions, truth commissions, reparation programs, justice for women victimized by sexual abuse, reform of the police and military, and the creation of museums and memorials. This holistic approach addresses the need for accountability by those responsible, shows concern for the victims, and advocates permanent reform of the institutions that failed to protect and to preserve human rights.

U.S. CONGRESSIONAL STATUTES AND INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS

U.S. foreign policy historically has been based on a strong commitment to human rights. In 1978, President Jimmy Carter declared that human rights are the “soul of our sense of nation- hood.” The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (formerly known as the Bureau of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs) in the Department of State, headed by an assistant secretary of state, ensures that foreign policy decisions take human rights into consideration.

In 1974, Congress formally integrated human rights into U.S. foreign policy. An amend- ment to the 1961 Foreign Assistance Act establishes human rights as a primary goal of U.S. foreign policy. Military assistance is to promote human rights and is not to be provided to coun- tries that engage “in a consistent pattern of gross violation of internationally recognized human rights.” The U.S. president may provide assistance to a country that violates human rights if the president certifies extraordinary circumstances exist or a country’s human rights performance has improved. In making this determination, the president is to give special consideration to issues of religious freedom. The Department of State is required to prepare a report on the human rights conditions in any country receiving U.S. assistance.

This provision is repeated in provisions on developmental assistance adopted by Congress in 1995 prohibiting economic developmental assistance to countries that practice a “consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized rights” although there is an exemption for assistance that benefits “needy people.”

The 1988 Omnibus Foreign Trade and Competitiveness Act authorizes sanctions such as a denial of foreign assistance to countries that do not protect workers’ rights. The president may act when a country engages in a “persistent pattern of conduct” that denies workers the opportunity to unionize or bargain for wages, fails to provide a minimum wage and worker safety, and exploits child labor.

The International Financial Institutions Act requires the United States to promote human rights in making decisions on the financial assistance provided by international economic institutions by denying money to countries that engage in a “pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.” The Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1996 instructs U.S. representatives of international banks to vote against loan funds to countries with a “known history” of FGM that do not have educational programs to combat the practice.

LAW AND SOCIET Y

In 1993, Congress adopted the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) Act. The NED Act created a publicly funded, privately administered foundation to promote democracy.

In 2016, the U.S. Congress passed the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act. The law, which expands the Magnitsky Act of 2012, is aimed at Russian officials and oth- ers complicit in the detention, torture, and death of Sergei Magnitsky, a lawyer who revealed corruption in Russia. The Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act authorizes the president to ban travel to the United States and freeze the U.S. assets of individuals who are perceived to have suppressed human rights, targeted whistle-blowers exposing corruptions, and engaged in corruption and bribery.

Congress also has passed country-specific legislation that restricts assistance to specific countries such as Iran, Sudan, and various Central American and Latin American regimes. In some instances, the president is required to certify that a country receiving foreign aid meets certain human rights standards.

The United States also has imposed sanctions since 1990 on a number of countries, includ- ing Serbia, Libya, Haiti, Angola, Iran, Cambodia, North Korea, and Cuba.

President Trump in several instances has indicated that human rights should be subordinated to what he views as the economic and political interests of the United States. The U.S. Congress has disagreed with him in several instances and, for example, has supported a resolution recog- nizing the Armenian genocide and has voted to deny financial support for the Saudi Arabian air war in Yemen, which has involved the bombing of civilians (Wong and Edmondson 2019).

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in July 2019 announced that he was appointing a human rights advisory panel in the State Department chaired by conservative Harvard law professor Mary Ann Glendon. The new Commission on Unalienable Rights was charged with examin- ing whether the notion of human rights had been defined too broadly. Critics claimed that the appointment of this panel signaled a retreat from U.S. advocacy for women’s health and reproduction rights and LGBT concerns (Wong and Sullivan 2019).

As we turn to several case studies of human rights, consider two questions raised by historian Lynn Hunt. First, should we care about individuals in other countries, and what motivates some people to be concerned about people in distant locations? Second, what accounts for the capacity of human beings to commit cruel and atrocious violations of human rights (L. Hunt 2007: 211)?

13.3 You Decide

Jeremy Bentham, in Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Translation (1789), questioned the entire notion that unwritten rights provided a foundation for law and famously wrote, “If any man knows of any let him produce them. . . . Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhe- torical nonsense, nonsense upon stilts” (quoted in L. Hunt 2007: 124–125). Other commentators viewed the notion of human rights as threatening to a soci- ety based on class, privilege, and tradition. Edmund Burke, viewed as the inspiration for the modern conservative movement, writing in Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790), criticized the con- stant “praddling about the rights of men” and the “monstrous fiction of human equality.” Human rights

were a “dangerous fiction.” “Individuals require the order, direction, and discipline of the established social order . . . [and] lack the capacity to exercise freedom wisely and rapidly will reduce the social order to social anarchy” (quoted in Waldron 1987: 29–45). Bentham is alerting us to the fact that we should be concerned about what benefits society rather than be concerned about our own individual rights. We should be less concerned about whether we are being inconvenienced or whether our right to privacy is being violated when we are screened at the airport than with what is best for the safety and security of society. The concern with rights under- mines society.

What is your view?

CHAPTER 13  INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL CRIME

CHILD SOLDIERS AND THE HUMANITARIAN LAW OF WAR

In 2014, the United Nations launched the campaign “Children, Not Soldiers” to create a global consensus that children should not serve as soldiers in an armed conflict.

P. W. Singer, an expert on the contemporary law of war, writes that the use of child soldiers is one of the central developments in the conduct of war. A child soldier, according to Singer, is any individual under age 18 who is engaged in combat or combat support as “part of the armed force or a group.” He writes that child soldiers are used in three-fourths of the armed conflicts in the world.

The employment of children as combatants is contrary to the humanitarian law of war, which traditionally has treated children as deserving of special protection and provides that children may not be targeted by a military attack. Despite the requirements of the law of warfare, it is estimated by Singer that three hundred thousand children currently are fighting or recently have participated in armed conflict. Twenty-three percent of the military organiza- tions in the world are thought to employ children under age 15 in combat, and 18 percent use children age 12 and under. In Latin America alone since 1990, child soldiers have participated in conflicts in Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, and Peru (P. W. Singer 2006: 6–7, 16, 19, 30–31).

The NGO Child Soldiers International in its 2017–2018 report finds that forty-six state militaries and fifty-six armed militia groups recruited children under the age of 18. Children since 2016 have been involved in hostilities in at least eighteen armed conflicts. There were 203 reports of children being used as suicide bombers by the terrorist group Boko Haram in Cameroon and Nigeria alone in 2017.

According to Child Soldiers International, 71 percent of countries restricted military service to individuals 18 years of age or older. Approximately sixty armed paramilitary groups report- edly have pledged to stop recruiting children under 18. The so-called straight-18 standard, however, is not followed by all of the world’s seven largest economic nations, several of which allow voluntary enlistment of individuals under the age of 18.

Thirty or 40 percent of child soldiers are young girls. Underage girls reportedly are part of the armed forces of fifty-five countries. Insurgent groups, in particular, make use of young women in combat and also require them to cook, clean, wash, and provide sexual services (P. W. Singer 2006: 22–23). During the civil war in Sri Lanka during the 1980s and 1990s, the insurgent Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam recruited suicide bombers between the ages of 10 and 16. Roughly half of these suicide bombers were females, called the “Birds of Freedom” (33). There are an estimated twenty-five million refugee children in the world. Many of these children have grown up in conflict zones and have been surrounded by vio- lence as part of their daily existence. They often have lost a parent or are orphaned and lack access to education, food, shelter, and medical care. These children lack a sense of personal identity and self-worth and are easily recruited into insurgent groups.

The use of child soldiers in combat is facilitated by the development of light, plastic weap- ons with a small number of moving parts, which enables adolescents to operate and care for highly lethal weapons (P. W. Singer 2006: 46–47).

Children are obedient, dependent, inexpensive to support, and easily recruited and social- ized into committing severe acts of violence. They see the world in terms of good and evil and fight without regard to political ideology or political philosophy. They are indoctrinated into the militia group by having their heads shaved, their bodies fixed with tattoos, and the initials of the insurgent organization carved into their skin. In some instances, they are required to commit atrocities in their home villages to ensure they cannot return to their former lives and to desensitize them to violence.

Children typically lack a full understanding of danger, and their impulsiveness and reck- lessness on the battlefield is enhanced through narcotics and alcohol. Research indicates they are driven to continue to fight out of a sense of community and loyalty to their fellow soldiers.

LAW AND SOCIET Y

This concern rarely is reciprocated by insurgent leaders, who use the children as expendable cannon fodder or human shields (P. W. Singer 2006: 80–89).

Child soldiers suffer from injuries, disabilities, and psychological trauma. Disease, HIV, post-traumatic stress, and drug addiction are common. The children lack education and skills and find it difficult to reintegrate into society. Their psychological development has been short- circuited; they have not learned the lessons that children typically learn about fairness, sharing, concern for others, ethics, and trust.

The prevalence of internal conflicts across the globe and the need to recruit combatants have led to insurgent groups increasingly turning to the use of child soldiers. Children are particularly valuable to terrorist groups, which use them to infiltrate towns and cities without suspicion. The most alarming trend is the employment of child suicide bombers by terrorist groups in the Middle East, including the Islamic State group in Iraq, Syria, and Turkey (also known as ISIS); the Taliban in Afghanistan; and Boko Haram in West Africa. ISIS uses social media to highlight the “Cubs of the Caliphate” training for terrorist missions and reciting ISIS propaganda. Child soldiers reportedly also are used by insurgent groups in India, Pakistan, Libya, the Philippines, Thailand, and Yemen. The most pressing issue is in South Sudan where over two million individuals have fled their homes. An estimated sixteen thousand child soldiers have been pressed into combat by warring guerrilla groups despite efforts by the United Nations to prevent their recruitment.

Child soldiers have a human right to be protected from military service. The UN Security Council has condemned the recruitment and use of child soldiers and has urged support for their rehabilitation on six occasions since 1998.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1989 in Article 38 requires states par- ties to “refrain from recruiting any person who has not attained the age of fifteen into their armed forces.” Article 38(2) requires states parties to take all “feasible measures to ensure that persons who have not attained the age of fifteen years do not take a direct part in hostilities.”

The 2002 Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child expands the protection for children and requires countries to avoid conscripting or recruiting young people who have not “attained the age of eighteen years” or employing these young people in “hostili- ties.” Article 1 provides that states parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that members of their armed forces who “have not attained the age of eighteen years do not take a direct part in hostilities.” Article 2 states that states parties shall ensure that persons who have not attained the age of 18 years are not “compulsorily recruited” into their armed forces. Article 4 provides that armed groups unaffiliated with a state shall refrain from recruiting or using in hostilities persons under the age of 18 years of age.

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in Article 8 follows the Convention on the Rights of the Child in criminalizing “conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into the national armed forces or using them to participate actively in hostilities.”

The Special Court for Sierra Leone jointly established by the United Nations and the gov- ernment of Sierra Leone is given jurisdiction over “serious violations of international humani- tarian law.” Article 4(c) prohibits “conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into armed forces or groups or using them to participate actively in hostilities.”

The first international prosecution for the recruitment and use of child soldiers was the conviction of Samuel Hinga Norman, a pro-government militia leader and minister of internal affairs for Sierra Leone. An estimated ten thousand child soldiers under age 15 were used by the various rebel factions fighting in Sierra Leone. During the conflict, roughly five hundred thousand individuals were killed, wounded, or forced out of the country as a result of the conflict between rebel and government forces.

In 2013, the appellate chamber for the Special Court for Sierra Leone affirmed the convic- tion of former Liberian leader Charles Taylor for participation in the planning of war crimes

CHAPTER 13  INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL CRIME

and aiding and abetting crimes committed by rebel forces in Sierra Leone. Taylor was held responsible for the recruitment and use of child soldiers to amputate limbs, commit acts of sexual violence, and perform support activities including guarding diamond mines, staffing checkpoints, and foraging for food.

In March 2012, Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, in the first trial con- ducted before the International Criminal Court, was convicted of being a co-perpetrator of the war crimes of conscripting and enlisting children under age 15 and using them to participate in hostilities. Dyilo was president of the Union of Congolese Patriots and com- mander-in-chief of the Patriotic Forces for the Liberation of Congo and used child soldiers in fighting other militia groups.

In Dyilo, the International Criminal Court held that children under 15 years old are incapable of informed consent and as a result there is no meaningful difference between recruiting and conscript- ing children and enlisting children who voluntarily enroll in the armed forces (Prosecutor v. Dyilo, International Criminal Court [2012], para. 618).

The evidence indicated that Dyilo, along with other officials, was responsible for the widespread recruitment of children under the age of 15 on an “enforced” and “voluntary” basis. Children were subjected to harsh training and severe punishments, and young girls were subject to sexual violence. They were used as bodyguards and were required to take a direct part in hostilities. Dyilo went so far as establishing an elite, special armed unit comprising children younger than 15.

The Child Soldiers Prevention Act (CSPA) was signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2008 and criminalizes individuals who command forces that recruit child soldiers. A child soldier is defined as any person under 18 years of age who “takes a direct part in hostilities as a member of governmental armed forces.” The CSPA also was intended to prevent military assistance and arms transfers to countries using child soldiers. The State Department compiles an annual list of governments known to recruit and use children as soldiers called the Trafficking in Persons Report. This provision may be waived in the national interest. In September 2016, President Barack Obama despite criticism from human rights groups waived this provision in regards to Burma (Myanmar), the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, and Rwanda.

In June 2018, the State Department identified eleven countries in violation of the CSPA: Burma (Myanmar), the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Iraq, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The Trump administration waived the United States’ prohibition on foreign assistance to seven of the eleven countries in violation of the CSPA. Saudi Arabia was left off the list of countries in violation of the CSPA despite the fact that the Saudis recruit child soldiers from Sudan to fight in Yemen. The end result was that the Trump administration restored more than 97 percent of otherwise prohibited assistance to countries that use child soldiers (Reuters 2019).

Criminal prosecution to deter the use of child soldiers, however desirable, ultimately does not address the severe problem of the need to rehabilitate child soldiers and reintegrate them into society. The Lomé Peace Agreement of 1999 ending the conflict between the rebels and the government of Sierra Leone is the only peace treaty that addresses child soldiers. The treaty requires the government to pay particular attention to the issue and to mobilize domestic and international resources to address the “disarmament, demobilization and reintegration process.” Unfortunately, progress in rehabilitating child soldiers has been limited by the inadequate funding provided by the UN and by the international community.

PHOTO 13.3 Child soldiers under the age of 18 years old are used in combat in every region of the world. These children suffer long-term psychological and physical injury.

P ierre H

o ltz

LAW AND SOCIET Y

13.4 You Decide

Omar Khadr, a Canadian national, was the young- est detainee at the U.S. terrorist detention facility at Guantánamo. Omar was accused of murder and attempted murder of Sgt. First Class Christopher Speer in Afghanistan in 2002. Khadr and his parents left Canada for Afghanistan and for a time allegedly lived in a compound with Osama bin Laden. The compound was attacked by U.S. troops, and Speer was killed during the assault by a grenade. Khadr was detained at age 15 and held in detention for two years before being permitted to consult with a law- yer and was in detention for three years before being charged in January 2006 with a criminal offense. Along with two other “child soldiers,” Khadr was detained among the general adult population and was subject to the occasional shackling, enhanced interrogations, and threats. He was allowed to com- municate with his family on only one occasion dur- ing this entire period. Khadr pled guilty in 2010, was sentenced to eight years in prison, and in 2012 was released to Canadian authorities and served the remainder of his sentence in Canada. In 2015, a Canadian court released Khadr on bail despite the opposition of the conservative Canadian govern- ment. A year later, the newly elected Canadian gov- ernment decided against appealing Khadr’s release, and he was set free. The Canadian government later apologized for abandoning Khadr in Guantánamo and paid him more than $10 million in compensa- tion. Khadr was the first juvenile to be prosecuted for war crimes since World War II. In 2007, fifty-eight countries entered into the Paris Principles on child soldiers sponsored by the United Nations Children’s

Fund (UNICEF). The report summarizes the interna- tional law on the treatment of children and states that captured children should be treated as vic- tims rather than perpetrators and must be treated in accordance with a framework of restorative jus- tice and social rehabilitation, consistent with inter- national law. In December 2016, the International Criminal Court (ICC) opened the trial of Dominic Ongwen, a leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), a cult blamed for the deaths of one hundred thousand people and the abduction of sixty thou- sand children. He was charged among other acts for leading an attack in 2009 in the Congo, which resulted in the death of an estimated 350 civil- ians and the abduction of another 250 individuals, including 80 children. Ongwen faces a possible term of life in prison. Commentators have argued that in evaluating Ongwen’s guilt and certainly his crimi- nal sentence the ICC should consider that although Ongwen is 40 years of age, he was abducted and indoctrinated by the LRA at age 9.

The non-governmental organization Human Rights Watch estimates that Iraqi and Kurdistani regional government authorities were detaining approximately 1,500 children for alleged Islamic State terrorist affiliations at the end of 2018. At least 185 children have been convicted on terrorism charges and sentenced to prison terms, according to the Iraqi government.

Should children be prosecuted and punished for war crimes? In sentencing Dominic Ongwen, should the judges consider that he was abducted at an early age?

CORPORATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Over sixteen years ago, television personality Kathie Lee Gifford offered a tearful public apology when it was revealed that child workers in Honduras manufacturing her clothing line worked twenty hours a day. This incident starkly exposed a system of global sweatshops, in which workers toil for long hours with minimum pay. Countries that tolerate these types of factories are in violation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which provides that workers are entitled to a “decent living for themselves and their families . . . [and] safe and healthy working conditions.”

The UN special representative on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations has noted that large multinational corporations have a significant impact on the lives of people

CHAPTER 13  INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL CRIME

across the globe and should respect the human rights of all peoples whose lives they affect. Global corporations comprise fifty-one of the one hundred largest economies in the world while countries comprise forty-nine of the one hundred largest economies. These corporations affect areas ranging from access to medicine to the protection of the environment to conditions of employment and invest in and indirectly support countries whose governments engage in the systematic violation of human rights.

In 2011, the United Nations Human Rights Council unanimously adopted the non- binding United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPS), the first document establishing standards for businesses in relation to human rights. These non- binding principles are based on “three pillars”: the obligation of government to respect human rights; the responsibility of transnational corporations to respect human rights; and the need to provide remedies for victims of business-related violations of human rights. In 2013, Ecuador and eighty-four other countries and over five hundred NGOs proposed that a binding treaty should be drafted imposing an obligation on transnational corporations to protect human rights.

The Corporate Human Rights Benchmark in 2018 reviewed one hundred companies based on their adherence to the UNGPS. Each enterprise received a score of between 1 and 100 percent. The top-scoring company received a score of 87 percent. The average score for all companies was 27 percent, and over a quarter of the companies included in the study scored less than 10 percent. A number of companies made significant improvements over their score in 2017. There nonetheless were very few companies that took steps to ensure that the workers in their supply chain and operations abroad earned a living wage. More than half of apparel and agricultural companies were found to be deficient in preventing the companies in their supply chain from using child labor. Roughly 10 percent of the companies provided protections for employees who protested company practices toward workers. France was singled out for enacting a law that made parent companies liable for human rights violations committed by factories in their supply chains.

In a globalized economy, U.S., Canadian, and European firms increasingly locate factories abroad or establish relationships with foreign manufacturers in the developing world. Workers abroad typically are paid lower wages, which means that the cost of production is lower than if the goods were manufactured in the United States. Consumers benefit from lower costs, and foreign workers gradually accumulate savings that can be used to buy homes or cars or help to send their children through university. In time, the members of this younger educated genera- tion learn the skills necessary for economic development and help to develop a sophisticated economy. How realistic is this model of development?

In November 2012, a fire broke out at the Tazreen textile factory in Bangladesh, killing more than 117 workers. The fire was started by an electrical short circuit and quickly spread throughout the factory because of the fabric and yarn. Workers were caught in the blaze because the exit doors were locked shut. Firefighters battled the blaze for seventeen hours before putting out the fire.

Six months later, the Rana Plaza factory in Bangladesh collapsed, killing roughly 1,129 workers and injuring 2,500 in what is considered the most serious garment-factory accident in history. The owner had been warned the previous day to close the building because of cracks in the structure. Officials later found that the top four floors of the factory had been constructed without building permits. The owner of the factory, Sohel Rana, was convicted on corruption charges and sentenced to three years in prison. There are pending murder charges against Rana.

In the five months following the building collapse at Rana, there were at least forty-one additional fires in Bangladesh. More than 400 workers have died and roughly 1,800 have been severely injured in fifty fires since 1990.

Bangladesh is the second-largest textile exporter of U.S. and European brands in the world and has seven thousand garment factories, which employ 4.5 million workers, 80 percent of whom are women. The $19 billion-a-year industry, which is second only to China in terms of apparel production, accounts for close to 80 percent of the country’s exports, which are vital to the

LAW AND SOCIET Y

economy. Bangladesh is the United States’ fifty-eighth-largest trading partner: Bangladesh exports to the United States total roughly $5.4 billion, and U.S. exports to Bangladesh total over $700 million. The minimum wage in Bangladesh is 32 cents an hour, and the average monthly wage in the industry is less than $40, which is far below what is required to support a family of four. At the same time, the cost of living has risen an average of 10 percent in each of the past two years. It is not uncommon for textile workers to work fourteen to sixteen hours a day, seven days a week.

The factory managers and owners of Tazreen and Rana along with various supervisors sub- sequently were arrested and face criminal homicide charges. The reality is that these conditions have existed in Bangladesh for decades.

At least twenty-five U.S., Canadian, and European companies and retailers contracted with textile manufacturers in the Rana Plaza complex. Foreign suppliers are under pressure to manufacture goods increasingly inexpensively in order to lower costs for consumers. They inevitably cut corners on wages and safety and pressure workers to produce at an increasingly rapid rate. A country that too closely regulates manufacturers takes the risk that corporations will contract with firms in countries that are less strict.

Governments in countries like Bangladesh lack resources and experience and cannot be relied on to inspect factories. North American and European companies traditionally have hired private monitoring companies to examine conditions at foreign factories. These private firms find it difficult to monitor the thousands of firms across the globe and can spend only a few hours on each audit. Foreign factories, when receiving notice of an inspection, unlock exit doors, remove the clutter from stairwells, tutor workers on how to respond to questions, and tell child workers to stay home.

In May 2012, a number of western firms doing business with Bangladesh manufacturers signed a binding agreement, the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh, to autho- rize independent fire safety experts to inspect their supplier factories in Bangladesh. These reports were to be available to the public. Foreign firms obligated themselves to pay suppliers prices sufficient to allow them to repair and renovate their factories and require suppliers to allow outside experts to educate workers on safety and workers’ rights. The Accord provides for binding arbitration conducted by a steering committee composed of union and corporate representatives. The committee may impose fines on non-cooperative manufacturers, which are enforceable before the courts in the firm’s state of incorporation.

A number of leading clothing firms, which are headquartered in Europe, joined the Accord, including PVH (the world’s largest shirt seller), H&M (the leading exporter of textiles from Bangladesh), Carrefour and Tesco (the second- and third-largest retailers in the world), and Inditex (the world’s leading fashion retailer). Each firm pledged at least $500,000 to fund the compensation. Walmart, Gap, J.C. Penney, and a number of other North American firms refused to sign the Accord because of the provision imposing legally binding arbitration and preferred to form the Alliance for Bangladesh Worker Safety and to negotiate with their own suppliers on workers’ wages and conditions of employment. The Alliance is empowered to impose financial penalties on non-conforming firms. The Accord and the Alliance established the goal of inspect- ing two thousand apparel factories. Inspectors have discovered and have begun to insist factories address crumbling buildings, flammable fabric storage areas adjacent to work spaces, and inad- equate fire escapes (S. Greenhouse and Harris 2004). Bangladesh factories complain that while the costs of production have risen, global apparel firms have resisted paying the higher prices for goods, which are required to help the factories compensate for costs (Abrams and Sattar 2017).

The Asia Floor Wage Alliance, a coalition of labor and research groups, reports that the Accord identified 108,000 issues in roughly 1,600 factories, 60 percent of which have been corrected. The Alliance has repaired more than half of the issues that required repair at 600 factories. An example of the type of defect that needs to be addressed is the fact that as of 2015 close to 79,000 workers produced garments for one major U.S. firm in factories without adequate fire exits (Abrams 2016). Eighty to 90 percent of the 2,300 factories affiliated with the Alliance and the Accord addressed issues ranging from installing sprinkler systems to constructing stronger buildings (Chen 2019).

CHAPTER 13  INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL CRIME

The Bangladesh government as part of its reform program announced an increase in work- ers’ wages and greater protection for workers looking to unionize. Critics, however, note that wages have not risen as promised and point out that worker protests continue to be met with a violent response. An estimated 10 percent of garment workers are unionized, and in January 2017, protests over low wages led to the arrest of fourteen union leaders and to the firing of 1,400 activists (Abrams and Sattar 2017). The Asia Floor Wage Alliance found that workers at one factory worked nearly one hundred hours a week at poverty-level wages (Abrams 2016).

In January 2019, as many as 50,000 garment workers in the capital, Dhaka, staged strikes and street protests following what they viewed as an inadequate government raise in the monthly minimum wage to 8,000 takas ($96), an increase from the previous 5,300 takas ($63). Union groups had campaigned for a minimum of 16,000 takas ($193), which they claimed was a minimum “living wage.” Police used rubber bullets, tear gas, and water cannons to disperse the crowds. Roughly 11,500 workers lost their jobs as a result of union activity (Chen 2019).

Workers interviewed in a study by the NGO Human Rights Watch report being subjected to verbal, physical, and sexual abuse; forced overtime and refusal to pay overtime pay; withhold- ing of pay in retaliation for a failure to meet production quotas; a denial of maternity leave; and dirty drinking water (Human Rights Watch 2015).

The family members of victims of the Rana Plaza collapse were promised short-term financial support if they were able to verify that their family member died in the fire. The Rana Plaza Donors Trust Fund has paid roughly $650 (U.S.) to 2,849 claimants, which is 40 percent of the total compensation due to each claimant. Victims of the Tazreen fire have received $1,267 (U.S.), most of which has been spent by families on medical costs. Compensation to the workers has been slowed by the fact that a number of companies have failed to contribute or have contributed small amounts.

A study by researchers at Penn State found that, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, millions of textile workers in Bangladesh have been sent home to rural areas without being paid their salaries or severance pay. Western buyers for the most part have refused to contribute to the financial support of furloughed workers and have frozen all future orders (Paton 2020).

Conditions in the apparel industry in Indonesia, India, and Cambodia mirror conditions in Bangladesh. In Cambodia, workers producing goods for a well-known U.S. company work ten to fourteen hours a day in extremely hot conditions without breaks or access to clean water, and as a result, workers experience “mass fainting.” Workers may make as little as $140 per month, and workers who protested for an additional $20 a month reportedly were killed. In Indonesia, tens of thousands of workers reportedly sew garments in buildings without proper fire escapes (Abrams 2016).

The U.S. government spends roughly $1.5 billion a year at factories abroad. The govern- ment contracts with suppliers in countries, including Bangladesh, with a pattern of physical abuse of workers, dangerous working conditions, child labor, padlocked fire exits, and buildings on the verge of collapse (Chen 2014).

One of the most successful efforts to combat sweatshops has been student protests against the manufacture of university apparel by companies relying on sweatshop labor in the devel- oping world. This consumer activism has led universities to contract with companies whose suppliers are certified by independent monitoring organizations as paying a fair wage and that provide safe and secure working environments.

Major businesses realize it is in their interest to assure consumers that their supplier facto- ries have been audited and monitored. Americans buy an average of sixty-four garments a year, most of which are manufactured abroad. Opinion polls indicate consumers care about “ethical sourcing” and want to know the workers who manufacture their clothes are being treated fairly and humanely. A survey of over 1,100 U.S. consumers found that 45 percent would pay more for clothing and footwear that is ethically manufactured. Thirty percent said they would pay up to 5 percent more, and 28 percent would pay up to 20 percent more. Do these attitudes match consumers’ actions? A quarter of consumers said that they recently examined the origin of a consumer good. Other surveys indicate that students and millennials, perhaps because of their

LAW AND SOCIET Y

limited financial resources, go out of their way to avoid knowing the origin of products and are less likely to be willing to pay more for an ethically sourced product.

Nike received severe criticism over the conditions in an Indonesian plant in which workers earned 14 cents an hour and in a Vietnamese plant in which females were abused. Phil Knight, the CEO of Nike, in 1998 recognized Nike had become “synonymous with slave wages, forced overtime, and arbitrary abuse” and understood that the U.S. consumer “doesn’t want to buy products made under abusive conditions” (Cushman 1998: A1). Nike subsequently established itself as an industry leader in the humane treatment of workers by intensely monitoring sup- pliers and adopting a code of conduct, including a requirement that manufacturers adhere to a minimum wage for workers and a limitation on hours worked and by publishing a complete list of factories with which it does business (Nisen 2013). At the same time, very few firms have been willing to sign the Apparel and Footwear Supply Chain Transparency Pledge, sponsored by various human rights groups, which obligates companies to disclose the names of the various factories that manufacture their products (Westerman 2017).

This section has illustrated how, in the absence of government action, private corporations can come together to protect the rights of workers. Globalization with the outsourcing of man- ufacturing abroad originally was portrayed as benefiting people throughout the world, providing jobs, income, and increased foreign investment and trade. The reality is there is an increasing global gap between rich and poor. Developing countries at the bottom of the economic ladder compete with one another to attract foreign investment and to create manufacturing jobs. The global bank Credit Suisse compiles a global wealth pyramid each year. The most recent data show that 0.7 percent of the world’s adults own almost half of the world’s wealth, while the bottom 73 percent have less than $10,000 each and account for 2.4 percent of global wealth. Despite the best intentions of large North American and European firms to protect the rights of foreign workers, labor rights inevitably are compromised by the desire of large retail stores to stock their stores with inexpensive goods to compete with the competition, maximize profits, and make their companies attractive to Wall Street investors.

Samuel Moyn questions why the global community has embraced the ideal of equality of civil and political rights and yet has tolerated a gross disregard across the globe of economic justice (Moyn 2018b).

Are we able to monitor the goods we purchase even if we make a good faith effort? There perhaps is no industry as exploitative of workers as the Thai fishing industry. Numerous sources document the use of trafficked workers who work long hours at minimal pay and according to reports are beaten, drugged, shackled, and denied adequate food and sleep. The catch finds its way into the seafood purchased by global grocery chains and is a major source of food for U.S. pets and livestock (Urbina 2015).

Would you be willing to pay more to increase the standard of living of workers in the developing world? Is it realistic to ask businesses that are devoted to making a profit and paying investors to be concerned about conditions of employment?

Global Corruption

The issue of global corruption has become one of the most significant international issues. Corruption is defined by Transparency International as “the abuse of entrusted power for private gain.” Corruption is classi- fied as either grand, petty, or political. Grand corrup- tion is committed at a high level of government and

involves political leaders disregarding the law in order to accumulate wealth—for example, a government leader fraudulently transferring government revenues into a private, overseas bank account. Petty corrup- tion involves the regular abuse of power by low- and mid-level public officials in their relations with private

CHAPTER 13  INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL CRIME

citizens. This may involve the payment of bribes to obtain items such as a building permit or to avoid a traffic ticket. Political corruption is the manipulation of the law by political leaders to obtain personal and family benefits from their term in office. One example is a country’s government selling government land to a corporation that is controlled by family members of the country’s leader.

Corruption may diminish the national wealth of a country by leaders in return for bribes allowing the natural resources of a country to be controlled by foreign corporations that transfer the profits abroad. Public money rather than being used for roads and bridges and schools may be diverted into the personal foreign bank accounts of politicians. Individuals may be hired as public servants based on family connec- tions or the payment of bribes rather than based on qualifications. This type of abuse of power results in a lack of confidence in government and a lack of faith in the legal system and a growing disregard for the law throughout the country.

Governments whose countries benefit from the investment of corruptly obtained money from abroad also may refrain from criticizing and may tolerate repressive foreign regimes. This foreign money also may be used to influence the domestic politics of the host country.

Transparency International ranks countries on a scale of corruption ranging from 0 to 100. The five least corrupt countries with scores between 85 and 97 are New Zealand, Finland, Singapore, Sweden, and Switzerland. The five most corrupt countries with

scores ranging from 10 to 14 are North Korea, Yemen, South Sudan, Syria, and Somalia. More than two-thirds of countries score below 50, with an average score of only 43. Only 20 countries since 2012 have signifi- cantly improved their corruption scores.

There are no “full democracies” that score below 50, and these countries have an average score of 75. On the other hand, very few countries that have “auto- cratic” characteristics score higher than 50, and these countries have an average score of 30. Countries like Turkey and Hungary in which democracy has declined have experienced a spread of corruption.

An example of high-level corruption is Isabel dos Santos, Africa’s richest woman and the daughter of the former president of Angola. She is charged with transferring funds during her father’s presidency from the Angolan treasury to an offshore account that she controlled. Angola is an oil-rich country with an impov- erished population and a high illiteracy and child mor- tality rate. Dos Santos has a net worth of roughly $2 billion, which, in part, she obtained through a stake in Angolan diamond exports and the country’s primary mobile phone company, two banks, and a cement company and partnering with Angola’s oil company in investing in Portugal’s largest petroleum company. The dos Santos financial empire has holdings in 400 com- panies and subsidiaries across the globe and includes a $55 million mansion in Monte Carlo, a $35 million yacht, and a luxury home in Dubai located on a private artifi- cial island. The Angolan attorney general alleges that dos Santos and her husband have looted a billion dol- lars from the Angolan treasury (Forsythe et al. 2020).

13.5 You Decide

Students on more than three hundred campuses are demanding their universities disinvest their endow- ment funds from firms in the fossil fuel industry. The students object to the institutions of higher educa- tion making a profit from investments in companies involved in the release of carbon associated with the risk of global warming. As a result of student activism, twenty-eight universities have disinvested or have pledged to disinvest from investments in oil,

natural gas, and coal, and others such as Yale have begun to partially disinvest or have begun to study the issue. The University of Ottawa has become the first Canadian university to disinvest, and a number of English universities have disinvested.

The disinvestment effort is reminiscent of ear- lier efforts to persuade universities to disinvest from apartheid South Africa, tobacco companies, and companies doing business in Sudan, which continues

(Continued)

LAW AND SOCIET Y

to be accused of committing genocide in Darfur. Climate activists argue that disinvestment is a moral imperative given the global climate crisis and that dis- investment is a politically powerful symbolic gesture for creating a movement to combat the climate crisis.

A handful of small colleges have divested them- selves of the stocks of oil companies and other carbon-related stocks. Unity College in Maine, a small school specializing in environmental science, directed its relatively small $14.5 million endowment to investments that limited the institution’s exposure to fossil fuel stocks. Unity College president Stephen Mulkey explained that delaying a shift from an oil- based economy condemned the next generation to an unlivable planet. Unity began to disinvest in 2011 and completed the process in 2014 reportedly with- out harming the performance of its stock portfolio.

Middlebury College in 2019 is one of the most recent institutions to disinvest after rejecting disin- vestment six years earlier. A 2018 student referendum resulted in roughly 80 percent of students support- ing divestment, and in an earlier faculty referendum 98 percent of professors supported disinvestment. The University of California and Georgetown subse- quently decided to join Middlebury in disinvesting carbon-related stocks.

Activists note that disinvestment from carbon- related stocks will not jeopardize the “bottom line” because these stocks constitute a relatively small part of most college endowments. In the long run, it is shortsighted of college trustees to believe that these stocks will continue to prove profitable, and it makes business sense to disinvest before it is too late. The disinvestment campaign also argues that a university committed to scientific integrity cannot continue to hold stock in companies that are “wreck- ing” the global environment and that it is “wrong to profit from that wreckage.”

Most university boards of trustees have resisted calls for disinvestment, explaining their obligation is to maximize profits to build the endowment. Oil stocks in the past have outperformed other stocks. A large endowment allows colleges to fund student scholarships, loans, and grants. It is estimated the California Public Employees’ Retirement System allegedly lost $2 billion when disinvesting from South Africa and from tobacco stocks.

University officials point out that disinvestment will hurt endowments without impacting the cause of climate change. Corporate profits will not suffer because oil companies are extremely profitable and have little problem attracting investors. Institutions of higher education already are combating climate change through research and teaching. The best approach, according to administrators, is for stu- dents to work to change corporate policy.

According to administrators, the fundamental rea- son for resisting disinvestment is that universities are devoted to freedom of expression and tolerance and should not make investment decisions based on social and political considerations. The bottom line, as for- mer Harvard president Drew Faust wrote in October 2013, is that “the endowment is a resource, not an instrument to implement social or political change.”

A 2018 Inside Higher Ed survey indicated that 58 percent of college chief business officers agree with Faust that the investment of endowment funds should focus on financial rather than political or ethi- cal considerations.

Roughly 15 percent or 150 educational institutions worldwide have disinvested or have reduced certain investments in the fossil fuel industry, and about 50 of these institutions are in the United States. A num- ber of these colleges and universities have divested from particular sectors such as coal and tar sands or from corporations that deny climate science or work against efforts to combat climate change.

Roughly 600 colleges and universities have signed the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment in which they pledge to work toward the goal of moving toward carbon-neutral campuses.

An estimated 985 educational, religious, and other institutions across the globe have divested roughly $6.24 billion in assets from fossil fuel compa- nies. A number of municipalities in Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, and Virginia have adopted right-of-nature ordinances that recognize the right of lakes, rivers, forests, and moun- tains to “exist, flourish, and naturally evolve” free from pollution and destruction.” Santa Monica, California, has an ordinance that requires the city to “recog- nize the rights of people, natural communities and ecosystems to exist, regenerate and flourish.” These

(Continued)

CHAPTER 13  INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL CRIME

“right-of-nature” ordinances authorize public inter- est groups to bring actions to protect these natural resources from the harmful actions of human beings.

In Juliana v. United States (WL 6661146 [D. Or. 2016]), Our Children’s Trust brought a legal action against the U.S. government alleging that the gov- ernment has failed to fulfill a “public trust” to protect essential public resources. The premise of the legal action is that young people are being threatened by the government’s failure to act as a responsible stew- ard of natural resources, including the atmosphere. The legal action asked the court to require the gov- ernment to implement a national plan to phase out fossil fuel emissions. Both the Obama and Trump administrations opposed the legal action brought by Our Children’s Trust. In rejecting efforts by the Trump administration to dismiss the case, federal district court judge Ann Aiken stated that “I have no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of

sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society.” A number of state lawsuits brought by Our Children’s Trust have been dismissed, and this litigation also confronts a difficult challenge in the courts. In January 2020, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Judge Aiken and explained that although the world was coming close to the “eve of destruction” cli- mate change was a matter for the legislative rather than the judicial branch (Juliana v. United States, No. 18-36082 [D. Or. 2020]).

In September 2012, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a global group of climate scientists, concluded there is a 90 to 100 percent certainty that “climate change is the greatest chal- lenge of our time. . . . It threatens our planet, our only home.”

Should your college or university divest from the fossil fuels industry?

DRONES AND COUNTERTERRORISM

The humanitarian law of war places strict restrictions on aerial attacks. Attacks must be directed at military targets and may not target civilians or civilian objects. An attack on a military object, which may cause collateral damage to civilians, is justified where the military advantage from the attack outweighs the harm to civilians. There is a continuing debate whether the targeted assassination of terrorists who pose a threat to the United States is justified despite the risk that civilians may be killed. What of the killing of a terrorist bomb maker who is surrounded by his or her family ( Jaffer 2016)? President Barack Obama initi- ated more drone strikes outside the area of immediate combat in his first year than President George W. Bush undertook during his entire presidency. Obama carried out 563 strikes in Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen during his two presidential terms as compared to 57 strikes during President Bush’s eight years in office. U.S. law prohibits the government from engaging in assassination and murder abroad. Anwar al-Awlaki, however, was viewed by the Obama administration as waging war on the United States, and his name was listed on a “kill or capture” list compiled by the Obama administration.

President Obama stated that al-Awlaki had taken a “lead role in planning and directing the efforts to murder innocent Americans” and characterized the cleric’s killing as a “major blow” struck against al Qaeda’s “most active operational affiliate.” Al-Awlaki’s podcasts calling for Jihad against the West had inspired terrorists across the world, and he was thought to have encouraged Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s killings of twelve U.S. soldiers at Fort Hood in Texas. Al-Awlaki assumed an “operational role” and allegedly coordinated the unsuccessful effort of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to blow up a jetliner over Detroit in 2009. Al-Awlaki also was suspected of directing the effort to use printer-cartridge bombs to bring down cargo planes, and he inspired a plot to bomb the New York City subway system in 2009 as well as Faisal Shahzad’s attempt in 2010 to ignite a car bomb in Times Square in New York City. While living in the United States, al-Awlaki also appears to have had connections with some of the individuals responsible for the September 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center.

LAW AND SOCIET Y

The U.S. drone strike also killed Samir Khan, aged 25, an American from Charlotte, North Carolina, who was editor of Inspire, al Qaeda’s online magazine. Khan had written that he was proud to be a traitor to the United States and published articles instructing individuals how to construct bombs.

Al-Awlaki was born in New Mexico to Yemeni parents. He returned to Yemen at age 7 for schooling and came back to the United States to earn an engineering degree at Colorado State University. He was drawn to religion and was appointed imam of mosques in San Diego, Denver, and the Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C. He became disillusioned with the United States and in 2004 migrated back to Yemen where his political activism landed him in jail for a year. His familiarity with American values and culture allowed him to craft a message that was available on websites, Facebook, and CDs that appealed to young, aspiring Jihadists in the United States and in Europe.

An unfortunate aspect of reliance on drones is that a number of the victims were not active al Qaeda operatives. An October 2012 UN report on drone attacks concluded that more civil- ian casualties resulted from drone attacks than the United States was willing to admit. The report documented 330 drone attacks in the northwest tribal areas in Pakistan since 2004, which resulted in the death of four hundred civilians. A heavily cited Amnesty International report in October 2012 documented nineteen civilian deaths in 2 drone attacks launched in Pakistan in 2012.

The Obama administration disputed the claim that non-militants who were in the vicin- ity of drone strikes were victims of drone strikes and claimed that only a handful of innocent individuals have been killed in such attacks. International law recognizes that the infliction of “collateral damage” is justified when the importance of the military objective outweighs the injury of civilians and damage to civilian property.

The use of drones without the permission of the government whose territory is the target of the attack also violates the country’s sovereignty. On the other hand, these governments often have welcomed the drone attacks and have proven themselves incapable of combating terrorism.

“Signature strikes” target terrorist training camps, and “personality strikes” target individu- als. Al-Awlaki had been placed on the list of al Qaeda operatives to be killed or captured. Administration insiders stated he had been placed on the list following an in-depth review of the evidence. The debate over the justifiability of killing al-Awlaki according to critics centered on the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. The question was whether the “assassination” of al-Awlaki constituted a reasonable use of deadly force to apprehend a U.S. citizen. His killing without trial based on evidence that was not revealed to the public also was alleged to violate the constitutional protection of due process of law. A year before al-Awlaki’s death, his father had brought a case in federal court in an unsuccessful attempt to call a halt to the government’s pursuit of his son.

The Obama administration’s legal justification for killing al-Awlaki was set forth in a secret White House memo and was based on the argument that al-Awlaki posed an imminent threat based on his involvement in various terrorist plots. Congressional legislation that was passed following September 11, 2001, authorized the president to capture or kill individuals and terrorist groups who posed a threat to the national security of the United States both inside and outside the zone of combat. There was little possibility of capturing al-Awlaki because he had relocated to a remote and inaccessible part of Yemen; the only alternative was to kill him through the use of a drone. Then attorney general Eric Holder later stated that the United States would pursue terrorists who posed an ongoing threat to the United States within the borders of other countries with the permission of the country or in those instances in which the country was unable or unwilling to apprehend the suspect.

In May 2012, Fahd Mohammed Ahmed al-Quso, involved in the bombing of U.S. war- ship the USS Cole, was killed in a drone attack in Yemen. Several weeks later, a drone strike in Pakistan’s tribal region targeted and killed Abu Yahya al-Libi who was named deputy leader of al Qaeda following the death of Osama bin Laden.

CHAPTER 13  INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL CRIME

President Obama and his then chief counterterrorism advisor John Brennan reportedly were involved in selecting the individuals to be targeted in drone attacks. Brennan characterized the selection process as careful, deliberate, and responsible.

Critics assert that the United States has been using drones against individuals who do not pose a threat and that the attacks are provoking a backlash against the United States in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and other countries. The drones according to critics create resentment and fear because at times they hover over an area for as long as a month while tracking terrorists A 2012 Pew Research Center poll found that only 17 percent of Pakistanis endorsed U.S. drone strikes in their country, even if carried out in coordination with the Pakistani government against leaders of extremist organizations. Ninety-four percent of Pakistanis believed that drone strikes were killing “too many” innocent people.

Some commentators argue the United States is obliged to insert troops on the ground to combat terrorists rather than rely on technology. Attacks undertaken without the consent of the country on whose territory terrorists are located violate a country’s sovereignty.

The dilemma is that drone attacks are effective in targeting individual terrorists although the accompanying civilian casualties turn popular opinion in target countries against the United States. On the other hand, terrorists who situate themselves among the civilian population violate the prohibition against combatants situating themselves among civilians.

In May 2012, President Obama announced that in the future his administration would rely less heavily on drones. He stated the preference when possible was to detain, interrogate, and prosecute terrorists. The president explained the United States only targets individuals who pose a “continuing and imminent threat to the American people” when the government on whose territory the terrorist is located is incapable of addressing the threat. Drone strikes only were authorized when there was a “near certainty” that the terrorist target was “present” and a “near certainty” that non-combatants would not be killed or injured. President Obama stressed that “near certainty” is the “highest standard we can set.”

President Obama asserted that the program had taken “dozens of high skilled” terrorist leaders and dangerous terrorists off the battlefield and that the drone program was waged as a last resort in self-defense.

President Obama conceded that civilians had been killed in drone strikes although the casu- alties were much lower than reported in the media. He stated that the civilian casualties were tragic, but a failure to confront terrorists risked an even greater number of casualties of foreign citizens and of Americans at home and abroad. In 2016, a report by the director of American intelligence reported that between 2009 and 2015 there were 473 strikes resulting in between 2,372 and 2,581 combatant deaths and 64 to 116 non-combatant deaths. The report noted that NGOs placed non-combatant casualties at 200 to more than 900.

President Obama challenged the notion that reliance on traditional modes of warfare would limit civilian casualties. Airpower and missiles are less precise than drones and likely to result in more civilian casualties. Sending in troops may lead to fire fights that endanger the local population and risk escalation into a major conflict.

The Trump administration has expanded drone warfare by increasing the areas designated as official war zones to include Somalia, Libya, and other countries. These strikes typically are undertaken by the CIA which under President Trump has been authorized along with the Pentagon to undertake drone attacks. Commanders in the field under the Trump policy of “total authorization” are authorized to conduct drone attacks in designated areas without review by White House officials. Strikes outside war zones also have been expanded to allow the attack under the same standard as attacks inside war zones; a “reasonable certainty” that terrorists are present. Attacks no longer are limited to high-level terrorists and may target rank- and-file combatants. The standard of near certainty that civilians will not be harmed has been retained. Budgetary requests for missiles deployed by drones have been significantly increased. The Trump administration significantly has stopped issuing reports on the number of drone attacks and resulting civilian casualties (Lippman 2019: 275–277). There were 2,243 drone

LAW AND SOCIET Y

strikes in the first two years of the Trump presidency as compared with 1,878 in President Obama’s eight years in office. In 2009 and 2010, Obama launched 186 drone strikes on Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan. Trump launched 238 drone strikes in these three countries during his first two years in office (S. Ackerman 2018).

The Bureau for Investigative Journalism in London records a total of nearly 7,000 U.S. drone strikes in the “war on terror” that have killed roughly 8,500 to 12,000 individuals. As many as 1,725 casualties were civilians, and between 253 and 397 were children. The number of casualties is to some extent speculative because it often depends on aerial surveillance.

On January 3, 2020, the United States fired a drone missile that killed Major General Qassem Suleimani, a powerful political figure in Iran and the chief of the country’s elite military Quds Force. Suleimani exercised control over military operations carried out by the Quds Force and by paramilitary groups aligned with Iran across the Middle East. During the Iraq War, groups directed or sponsored by Suleimani are alleged to have been responsible for the killing of nearly six hundred Americans.

The killing of Suleimani seemingly contravened the international and U.S. legal prohibi- tion on the killing of government leaders. The Trump administration initially argued that Suleimani, who at the time of his killing was in Iraq, posed an “imminent threat” because he was allegedly directing a “series of attacks” on Americans across the Middle East. President Trump later tweeted that Suleimani was killed because of his “horrible past.” Iran responded by launching more than a dozen missiles at two U.S. military bases in Iraq. More than thirty American soldiers reportedly showed signs of traumatic brain injury as a result of the attacks (Entous and Osnos 2020).

Drone warfare is a glimpse into the future of technological warfare in which there is limited involvement by and risk to a country launching an attack. The FBI has begun to deploy drones for surveillance in the United States, and the U.S. Border Patrol uses drones to monitor the U.S.-Mexican border. A number of state legislators have passed legislation restricting the ability of the police to use drones other than to combat terrorist threats. The Trump administration has significantly expanded the definition of a “war zone” to allow the use of drones against “terrorist” groups without presidential approval in a number of countries.

13.6 You Decide

The Japanese during World War II abducted or deceived two hundred thousand women into sex- ual slavery to serve the needs of Japanese soldiers. Women as young as twelve in Korea, China, the Dutch East Indies, Taiwan, Malaysia, Burma, and the Philippines were detained and transported to “com- fort houses” in Japanese-occupied Asian countries. An estimated 70 percent of comfort women were from Korea, which was occupied by Japan between 1910 and 1945. Roughly 25 percent of the women survived, an estimated forty of whom remain alive in South Korea.

The so-called comfort women system was instituted following the “rape of Nanking” in 1937 to 1938 in which Japanese troops within a six- to eight-week period massacred more than three

hundred thousand civilians and raped more than eighty thousand women in the most brutal and unimaginable fashion. The thinking of Japanese military officials was that by providing sexual slaves the atrocities that fueled anti-Japanese sentiment and retribution by occupied populations could be prevented and order and discipline could be main- tained among Japanese troops. There also was a fear that uncontrolled sexual assaults would lead to soldiers contracting venereal disease, which would be spread throughout the Japanese population on the soldiers’ return home.

In 1996, the United Nations issued a report on the comfort women, which included graphic testimony.

Lee Ok-sun recounted that at the age of 13 she was kidnapped by a Japanese soldier and beaten and

CHAPTER 13  INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL CRIME

raped multiple times at a police station. She then was taken to a Japanese army barracks where as many as four hundred Korean women were forced to serve as sex slaves for over four thousand Japanese soldiers. Each of the women was required to provide sex to as many as forty men per day. Lee was beaten when she protested, and matchsticks were held to her private parts until she complied. She watched one young woman who protested be stripped, beaten, tied, and rolled over onto a board of nails and then beheaded. Another Korean woman contracted vene- real disease and according to Lee was sterilized by a hot iron. Hwang So-gyun describes at the age of 17 being promised a factory job by the head of her village and instead finding herself subjected to sex- ual slavery. Young women who contracted venereal disease were killed, and Hwang stated that a young woman who resisted was beheaded in front of the other women and cut into small pieces.

Many of the comfort women who were not killed died during poorly performed abortions or as a result of malaria, weakened conditions, or near- starvation diets and starvation.

Other than a 1948 Indonesian trial and convic- tion of Japanese officers and operators of “comfort houses,” none of the Japanese involved in sexual slavery during World War II were prosecuted. A ris- ing tide of feminist activism in South Korea and in Japan in the late 1970s led to the public disclosure and discussion of the “comfort women” as an exam- ple of the continued exploitation of women in Asia. In 1991, three comfort women agreed to publicly dis- cuss their past brutalization, which led to over two hundred former comfort women coming forward.

Japan claims that all disputes between the two countries arising from World War II, including the treatment of the comfort women and forced labor, were resolved under the terms of 1965 treaty in which Japan agreed to provide an $800 million aid-and-loan package in exchange for South Korea considering all wartime compensation issues settled. South Korean argues that the 1965 agreement did not cover “illegal acts against humanity.”

In 1991, over thirty comfort women filed a legal suit for compensation in Japan. The lawsuit led to the uncovering of a number of documents that detailed the Japanese Army’s sexual exploitation of

the comfort women. In response, in early 1992, Prime Minister Miyazawa Kiichi expressed his regrets before the South Korean National Assembly for Japan’s “mistaken national policy” during World War II. The Japanese Diet resisted compensation and instead in 1992 established a privately funded Asian Women’s Fund that “in atonement” would promote awareness of the comfort women and provide financial support for projects that address issues of concern both to comfort women and to contemporary women.

The South Koreans viewed Prime Minister Miyazawa’s apology as a personal gesture rather than as a formal governmental apology from the Japanese Diet and insisted on reparations from the Japanese government to individual victims rather than a fund addressing public policy. South Korea also objected that Japan continued to place primary responsibility for sexual slavery on independent operators rather than on the Japanese military.

In 1997, the U.S. Congress passed a joint resolu- tion calling on Japan to formally apologize to and pay reparations to the victims of Japanese atrocities including the comfort women.

In December 2015, at the urging of President Barack Obama, Japan and South Korea announced a “final and irreversible settlement” in which Japan accepted “deep responsibility,” offered a formal apol- ogy to the South Korean women, and established an $8.3 million “old age fund” to care for the women. South Korea also agreed to consult on removing a bronze statue of a “young comfort woman” from in front of the Japanese embassy in Seoul, South Korea. Some of the former comfort women, however, con- tinue to reject the settlement because of Japan’s failure to admit “legal responsibility” and to specify that the payments are in reparation for injury to the women. Statutes were erected in protest in front of Japanese diplomatic buildings throughout the world.

In 2018, South Korea shut down the fund created by Japan under the 2015 agreement with Japan. This, in part, was motivated by the dwindling number of comfort women who remain alive, which provided a sense of urgency that the women receive a for- mal apology and compensation directly from the Japanese government. South Korea also has opened a new research center devoted to academic study of the comfort women, announced the first Comfort

(Continued)

LAW AND SOCIET Y

Women Day, and unveiled a memorial to the comfort women in the city of Cheonan, South Korea. Civic groups and activists, dissatisfied with the agree- ment with Japan, created a domestic fund named the Justice Remembrance Foundation that provides support to the former comfort women similar to that offered by the Japanese-funded foundations shut down by the Korean government.

South Korea’s decision to abandon the agree- ment with Japan has strained diplomatic relations between the two U.S. allies. Relations have been further impeded by a decision by the South Korea Supreme Court, which in October 2018 reversed pre- vious rulings and found the Japanese Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation guilty of exploiting Korean labor during World War II and ordered com- pensation to four victims. A month later, the South Korean court ordered Mitsubishi Heavy Industries of Japan in two cases to pay compensation to five South Korean women and six men forced to work in Japanese factories during World War II. Perhaps as many as several hundred Japanese firms exploited Korean labor during the war, and millions of Koreans were forced to work in factories or serve in military. Other cases for wartime compensation have been filed against as many as seventy Japanese firms including Toshiba, Panasonic, and Nissan. Japan retaliated following the South Korean supreme court decision by curbing exports to South Korea, and the Korean people responded with protests

and boycotts of Japanese products and the curbing tourist travel to Japan.

In both South Korea and especially Japan there is little tolerance for views that question each country’s view of the comfort women controversy. Most recently, a young U.S. filmmaker has been sued for defamation for a documentary critical of Japan, an art fair in Japan was closed after the threat of a terrorist attack stemming from the display of a statue symbolizing the comfort women, and in 2015 a South Korean court ordered an academic to redact passages from a book suggesting that the relation- ship between Japanese soldiers and the comfort women may have been more complex than com- monly described in the South Korean history books.

When should a country apologize to another country or to a segment of the population for past human rights violations?

Consider a 2009 congressional resolution that states that “the United States, acting through Congress . . . apologizes on behalf of the people of the United States to all Native Peoples for the many instances of violence, maltreatment, and neglect inflicted on Native Peoples by the citizens of the United States; and Urges the President to acknowl- edge the wrongs of the United States against Indian tribes in the history of the United States in order to bring healing to this land.”

Should a government apologize and pay repara- tions for past violations of human rights?

TORTURE AND CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY

Torture—cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment—is prohibited under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and regional human rights treaties as well as under the primary documents regulating the humani- tarian law of war. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that free- dom from torture is a non-derogable right. The universal condemnation of torture has resulted in torture being considered jus cogens, or a norm of international law that may not be violated under any circumstances. Torture also is considered to be outlawed as matter of customary law. This means that the prohibition on torture is so strong that it is prohibited even when a country has not formally entered into a treaty prohibiting the practice.

Torture committed in conjunction with armed conflict is a war crime. Torture also is a crime against humanity when committed in an organized, widespread basis by a government against a civilian population.

A 1984 comprehensive document prohibiting the state practice of torture, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, has

(Continued)

CHAPTER 13  INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL CRIME

been ratified by 155 countries. The Convention defines torture as any act by which “severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental,” is intentionally inflicted by a “public official” for a purpose such as obtaining information. Torture does not “include pain or suffering arising inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions” such as imprisonment or the death penalty. The definition of torture has three primary components:

1. The intentional infliction of severe mental or physical suffering

2. by a public official

3. for a specific purpose.

Torture is used for various purposes. The 1984 Convention lists the “purposes” for which torture should not be employed. These include the following:

Punishment. The infliction of pain in retribution or to deter future acts of violence.

Confessions and intelligence. The abuse of individuals to obtain admissions of criminal conduct or to obtain information.

Coercion and deterrence. The maiming or incapacitation of an individual to eliminate him or her as a threat and to deter other individuals.

Discrimination. The use of torture as an expression of discrimination against a group because of race, religion, gender, sexual preference, or any other reason.

The Convention also prohibits acts of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punish- ment that do not constitute torture.

The treaty on torture provides for universal jurisdiction over torture. A signatory is obli- gated to prosecute or extradite when an offender is found within its jurisdiction, an offender or victim is a national of the state, or the crime is committed within the state’s jurisdiction.

An important provision prohibits extraditing or returning an individual to another nation- state “where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being sub- jected to torture.” This provision has become relevant when a nation-state sends an individual back to a country with a documented history of torture, even when the receiving nation-state pledges to guarantee the offender’s safety and security. Great Britain has been brought before the European Court of Human Rights on two occasions by individuals confronted with extradi- tion to Middle Eastern countries.

Torture includes the infliction of severe physical or psychological pain. Acts of torture typi- cally are applied in combination with one another. Acts viewed as torture include the following:

Physical. Waterboarding, electric shock to various parts of the anatomy, beatings, stress positions, and sexual abuse.

Manipulation of the environment. Subjecting individuals to intense heat or cold, long periods of sleep deprivation, and sensory deprivation.

Psychological. Mock executions, destruction of sacred religious objects, use of psychotropic drugs, threats to family members, or abuse of family members.

Torturers prefer interrogation methods that do not result in physical injury because it enables them to deny having abused detainees.

U.S. federal courts have held that torture violates “universally accepted norms of the international law of human rights” and have ruled that claims of torture may be brought under the Alien Tort Claims Act when torture is committed by private individuals as well as by government officials (Kadić v. Karadžić, 70 F.3d 232 [2d Cir. 1995]).

LAW AND SOCIET Y

Despite the prohibition on torture, torture is practiced throughout the world by at least half of the states ratifying the Convention against Torture and is as prevalent as when the Convention was adopted in 1984 (Rejali 2009: 22). An extreme example is a photo archive of fifty-five thousand images of torture and execution committed by the Syrian government that, in January 2014, was leaked to the international media. According to experts, the photos indi- cate that torture was systematic and widespread and reminiscent of the abuses of Nazi Germany. According to Amnesty International, detainees in intelligence branches in Syria have described being subjected to dulab (forcibly contorting the victim’s body into a rubber tire) and falaqa (flogging on the soles of the feet), electric shock, rape, the pulling out of their fingernails and toenails, scalding with hot water, and burning with cigarettes. There also is evidence of mass extermination of detainees.

Countries customarily deny they are using torture, and the practice of torture typically is undertaken in secret outside of the formal legal system. The torturers detain and abuse indi- viduals and in many cases do not process detainees through the legal system and are able to act without the restraints of judicial supervision. Torture often is undertaken in conjunction with the practice of disappearances. Individuals are kidnapped off the street by unidentified individuals, and the government claims no knowledge or responsibility for the individual’s disappearance. There is evidence that death squads have been employed by President Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines to kidnap and kill thousands of drug dealers, drug users, and political opponents of the regime (Villamor 2017).

Once torture is initiated, it is difficult to stop. Individuals suspected of opposition to the government who are subjected to torture invariably are willing to provide whatever the inter- rogator wants to hear to halt their abuse. They will provide the names of other alleged terror- ists to authorities. These individuals, in turn, will identify more alleged terrorists. As the list of terrorists grows, the regime will become increasingly fearful and detain individuals involved in increasingly minor acts of protest.

In one of the earliest cases involving allegations of torture, Ireland brought a complaint against Great Britain before the European Court of Human Rights alleging torture against members of the Irish Republican Army who were fighting for an independent Northern Ireland. The European Court found that Great Britain used “five techniques” in combination against detainees:

1. Wall-standing: Requiring detainees to remain in a spread eagle stress position for hours at a time.

2. Hooding: Placing a thick bag over detainees’ heads other than when interrogated.

3. Noise: Continuous loud and irritating noise.

4. Sleep deprivation: Preventing detainees from sleeping.

5. Deprivation of food and liquids: A reduced, subsistence diet.

The European Court held the five techniques constituted cruel and degrading treat- ment but lacked the necessary severity and cruelty to constitute torture. The tribunal did not explain the basis for the decision. Other courts, in determining whether torture has occurred, have considered the length and nature of the mistreatment, the physical condi- tion and age and gender of the victim, and the surrounding circumstances of the victim’s incarceration.

In 1997, in Aydin v. Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights held that a 17-year-old female victim suspected of collaboration with Kurdish separatists and detained for three days had been tortured. The defendant was “blindfolded, beaten, stripped, placed inside a tire and sprayed with high pressure water, and raped . . . and paraded naked in humiliating circum- stances” (Aydin v. Turkey, ECHR 1997-VI [1997]). In Prosecutor v. Akayesu, a trial chamber

CHAPTER 13  INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL CRIME

of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda found in an often-cited passage that rape was a form of torture: “Like torture, rape is a violation of personal dignity, and rape in fact constitutes torture when inflicted by or at the instigation of or with consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity” (Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T [1998]).

A number of countries in a proposal that has been endorsed by the UN General Assembly have pledged to prohibit trade between nations in the “tools of torture.” These “tools of tor- ture” are instruments that have no use other than for torture or for capital punishment. The prohibited “tools” include finger screws, thumb cuffs, leg irons, restraint chairs, spiked batons, and whips embedded with barbs, hooks, or spikes.

The prohibition on torture as noted is absolute: torture is never justified. A number of commentators ask whether torture should be prohibited when confronted with a “ticking time bomb” in which decision-makers confront an immediate emergency and believe a catastro- phe may be averted by torturing a detainee with knowledge of the location of the bomb. Is it not justified in torturing a single individual to save hundreds of lives? How certain must officials be that torture will yield the required information? What if torturing the individual will reveal the names of other individuals who know the location of the bomb? Will this lead to a “slippery slope” in which torture may be undertaken in non-emergency situations, such as planning an attack on the United States? Does it make little sense to prohibit torture under all circumstances?

The United States and Enhanced Interrogation

Following the attack on the United States of September 11, 2001, the George W. Bush admin- istration announced that al Qaeda and Taliban detainees would not be recognized as lawful prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions and instead would be considered enemy com- batants who were entitled to limited legal protections.

The administration grew frustrated over the lack of intelligence regarding al Qaeda, and the White House, together with the CIA, made plans to use alternative interrogation methods against high-level detainees. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), the office in the Department of Justice that provides legal guidance to the executive branch, was asked to draft a memo clari- fying the meaning of the terms torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.

The memo from Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee to White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales of August 1, 2002, concluded that an interrogation technique had to meet a high standard to constitute unlawful torture:

Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death. For purely mental pain or suffering to amount to torture . . . it must result in significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years.

The memo also asserted that the president as commander-in-chief possessed unrestricted power and authority to combat the enemy and this authority could not be restricted by Congress. In 2004, the OLC, in response to public and media criticism, rescinded the 2002 memo’s definition of torture.

A separate August 2002 memo from the OLC approved of fifteen interrogation methods, including solitary confinement, hitting a detainee’s head against the wall (“walling”), cramped confinement in a box filled with insects, stress positions, sleep deprivation, removal of clothes, denial of food and water, shackling to the floor, rectal feeding, cold temperatures, loud music, and waterboarding. These techniques, applied individually or in combination, were once again approved in memos drafted in 2005 from the Department of Justice.

LAW AND SOCIET Y

The most controversial interrogation technique was waterboarding. The detainee is strapped to the bed, with feet elevated and forehead and eyes covered. A cloth is placed over his or her nose and mouth and water is poured onto the cloth causing the individual to struggle to breathe and to feel he or she is being suffocated by the water. Abu Zubaydah, director of terrorist operations for al Qaeda, reportedly was waterboarded 83 times. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (known as KSM), a mastermind behind the attacks of 9/11, was waterboarded 183 times.

At KSM’s 15th interrogation session, according to a CIA report, he had been sleep deprived for more than six days, and during his waterboarding 12 liters of water were poured in “water applications of two of less than 5 seconds, two of 10, three of 15, one of 20, one of 25 and one of 40” (Rosenberg 2020). A series of drawings by Abu Zubaydah depict his waterboarding along with other interrogation techniques used to obtain information from him by the CIA (Rosenberg 2019).

Although the OLC concluded waterboarding did not constitute torture, U.S. military officers were convicted by a war crimes tribunal for employing the “water cure” during the Philippine-American War. Following World War II, Japanese military officers were convicted of the water torture of U.S. prisoners of war, and U.S. domestic courts have convicted police officers for employing water torture (Rejali 2009: 461–465).

Debate continues over whether the enhanced interrogation program yielded valuable intel- ligence, particularly whether intelligence produced led to the killing of Osama bin Laden. Most trained interrogators insist that building a relationship between a prisoner and a detainee is the most effective method of obtaining information. They assert that individuals subjected to abuse will provide interrogators with whatever they want to hear to halt the abuse. The George W. Bush administration insisted that a number of terrorist plots were uncovered as a result of enhanced interrogation, including a plan to hijack a passenger plane and fly the aircraft into a building in Los Angeles.

The practice of torture was associated with extraordinary rendition. This involves turning foreign nationals detained in U.S. custody over to another country for interrogation. In other instances, individuals living abroad are detained and kidnapped and transferred to the United States or to another country for interrogation and in some instances to stand trial. The process often is undertaken without consulting the country on whose territory the detention takes place, and the detention and rendition take place without using the formal legal extradition process. There are documented instances of individuals who have been detained in secret “black sites” or in foreign prisons and tortured.

Although the U.S. Constitution does not extend to non-citizens abroad, extraordinary rendition violates the Convention against Torture prohibition on turning an individual over to another country where there are “substantial grounds” for believing there is a “danger” that the individual will be subjected to torture. The European Parliament issued a report critical of the extraordinary rendition program and documented the involvement of fifteen European countries in the U.S. extraordinary renditions program.

In one well-documented case, Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen and Syrian national, was mistakenly identified during a stopover in New York as a terrorist sympathizer and was sent to Syria where he was detained and tortured for almost a year.

In 2005, Congress amended the Detainee Treatment Act to prohibit the use of cruel, inhu- man, or degrading treatment by government personnel and to prohibit military interrogators from employing interrogation techniques not authorized under the Army Field Manuals. The manuals, for example, prohibit the use of dogs, hooding, forced nakedness, hypothermia, mock executions, electric shocks, and waterboarding.

President Obama, on taking office, stated that terrorist detainees would be accorded the rights of prisoners of war, the employment of enhanced interrogation would be halted, and the United States would adhere to the requirements of the law of war as set forth in the U.S. Army Field Manuals. He also formed a specialized enhanced interrogation team trained in safe and effective methods of interrogation. The Department of Justice

CHAPTER 13  INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL CRIME

announced criminal charges would not be pursued against CIA personnel involved in the enhanced interrogation program.

In 2015, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence issued a comprehensive report on the CIA’s detention and interrogation program and found no evidence that enhanced inter- rogation had proven effective in obtaining information from detainees. Confronting these indi- viduals with information proved to be the most effective interrogation technique. According to CIA records, seven of the thirty-nine CIA detainees known to have been subjected to enhanced interrogation failed to provide intelligence. Other detainees provided accurate infor- mation before or without having been subjected to enhanced interrogation (Senate Intelligence Committee 2014).

President Trump in his first days in office stated that although he believes in the effective- ness of enhanced interrogation and of waterboarding, which he described as “just short of torture,” he would follow the view of his military advisors that interrogation is more effective when the interrogator is armed with a “pack of cigarettes and a six pack of beer.”

Keep in mind there has been continuing opposition to enhanced interrogation within the U.S. government. FBI interrogators, for example, stressed that interrogation is most successful when a close relationship of trust is established between an interrogator and a detainee.

There is continuing debate whether terrorists brought to trial before U.S. civilian courts should be read their Miranda rights before their interrogation. The Obama administration adopted the position that these individuals may be interrogated initially without the Miranda rights in order to uncover evidence that may jeopardize public safety. Following the initial interrogation, the accused receives the Miranda rights informing him or her of the right to a lawyer and the right to remain silent.

Statements made under torture are considered unreliable and generally inadmissible into evidence before military commissions and federal courts.

A 2006 survey of 1,767 soldiers in the Multi-National Force in Iraq conducted by the U.S. Army surgeon general found 36 percent of soldiers and 39 percent of Marines believed that tor- ture should be permitted to gather information from insurgents. Forty-one percent of soldiers and 44 percent of Marines approved of torture to save the life of a soldier or marine. Forty-six percent of soldiers and 32 percent of Marines would report the torture of a civilian. General David H. Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq at the time, advised against combatants permitting their emotions to lead them to commit “hasty, illegal actions” (Rejali 2009: 472–473). Should the United States use waterboarding to interrogate suspected terrorists?

A 2016 Pew poll on public attitudes toward torture found that 58 percent of Americans favored torture against suspected terrorists to gain information on planned attacks as compared to a global figure of 40 percent supporting the use of torture in these circumstances.

The U.S. public ranks sixth in the world in the survey on the percentage of the public sup- porting torture against suspected terrorists. The countries in which a greater percentage of the public supports torture are Uganda (78 percent), Lebanon (72 percent), Israel (62 percent), Kenya (62 percent), and Nigeria (61 percent). Most alarming was the fact 44 percent of indi- viduals feared that they would be at risk of torture if detained.

13.7 You Decide

The Israeli Supreme Court in Judgment Concerning the Legality of the General Security Service’s Interrogation Methods, in September 1999, issued a judgment on the legality of interrogation methods

employed by the Israeli Security Agency against Palestinian detainees. These techniques were adopted during a period of Palestinian violence directed against Israel. Between 1996 and 1998,

(Continued)

LAW AND SOCIET Y

roughly 121 Israelis died and 700 were injured as a result of terrorist violence, including kidnap- ping, hijacking, and the planting of explosives and murders. The Israeli security service relied on several interrogation methods, which allegedly yielded a number of convictions of important terrorists and provided valuable intelligence that resulted in the prevention of potentially lethal attacks against civilians. The most controversial method of questioning was the “Shabach position.” In Shabach, a “detainee’s hands are tied behind his back, [and] he is seated on a small and low chair whose seat is tilted toward the ground. One hand is tied behind the suspect, and placed inside the gap behind the chair against the back sup- port. His second hand is tied behind the chair against its back support.” A heavy bag is placed over the suspect’s head, falling down to his shoulders. Loud music continuously is piped into the room. The suspects are secured in this posi- tion for lengthy periods of time and are periodi- cally interrogated. The Israeli Supreme Court held that the Shabach position violates the suspect’s “dignity” and “right not to be degraded and not to be submitted to sub-human conditions in the course of his detention of the sort likely to harm his health and . . . his dignity.”

The Israeli Supreme Court refused to approve of the use of the Shabach method or the use of force or torture during interrogation. The justices

did hold that an interrogator prosecuted for the abuse of a detainee who believed the abuse was justified to prevent an imminent and immediate threat might, after the fact, rely on the necessity defense. Necessity or the “choice of evils” provides a justification defense in those instances in which the harm caused by the defendant’s criminal act is outweighed by the harm the defendant intended to prevent. Should a court recognize the defense of necessity to torture? Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz criticizes the decision of the Israeli Supreme Court on the grounds that an interroga- tor who feels that torture is required to respond to a threat is required to speculate on whether a court will recognize the defense of necessity. An incorrect analysis may result in a criminal convic- tion and possible imprisonment. Dershowitz argues for an alternative method: the use of “torture war- rants.” Prior to subjecting a detainee to torture, a prosecutor would apply for a warrant from a judge authorizing a limited application of torture for a specified purpose (e.g., obtaining confessions or intelligence). The judge would issue the warrant where the prosecutor can support the applica- tion for a warrant based on probable cause (e.g., “beyond a moral certainty”). The use of “torture warrants” would ensure that torture was limited and restricted and subject to judicial monitoring and oversight.

Do you agree with Professor Dershowitz?

(Continued)

13.8 You Decide

On August 6, 1945, at Hiroshima and on August 9, 1945, at Nagasaki in Japan the first atomic bombs in history were exploded on a human population. The 12.5-kiloton bomb dropped on Hiroshima and the roughly 20-kiloton bomb dropped on Nagasaki, although small by contemporary stan- dards, resulted in the death of perhaps 108,000 in Hiroshima and between 60,000 and 70,000 in Nagasaki.

The late Jonathan Schell in his classic book on nuclear war summarized the impact of the explosion of a nuclear weapon today as inevitably leading to a “republic of insects and grass” (Schell 1982).

Atomic bombs unlike conventional weapons do not only directly kill their immediate targets. The air burst of a modest-sized 1-megaton nuclear weapon, which is equivalent to 1,000 tons of TNT, will imme- diately emit nuclear radiation consisting of gamma

CHAPTER 13  INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL CRIME

rays that will kill unprotected human beings within a radius of 6 miles. A second impact of the explosion is an electromagnetic pulse that can knock out elec- trical equipment within a wide area. A multi-kiloton bomb exploded in Omaha, Nebraska, could dam- age electrical circuits throughout the United States, Canada, and Mexico. A third effect of the atomic bomb is a thermal pulse that lasts about ten seconds and can cause second-degree burns to individuals within a radius of 9.5 miles. A fireball is formed, and as the fireball expands, it emits a blast wave that can flatten virtually every building within a radius of 4.5 miles. The ground burst from a bomb exploded near the surface of the earth will create a crater, and the dust and debris combined with radioactive matter will be absorbed into the atmosphere, and the fall- out of a 1-megaton bomb may contaminate an area of over 1,000 square miles resulting in cancers and in the deaths of individuals who are exposed to the nuclear fallout. The ignition of larger weapons will lead to millions of tons of debris in the atmosphere, which can lead to a cooling of the earth’s surface and to “nuclear winter.” Another global impact of the explosion of multiple weapons is the likely depletion of a significant portion of the ozone layer that shields the earth from lethal levels of ultraviolet radiation, which would jeopardize human life. All this would be compounded by the collapse of the global economy, food and health system, and law and order.

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is the major international agreement on nuclear weapons, which has been signed by most countries in the world. The pact pledges the five major nuclear weapons states (United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, and China) to use weapons for peaceful purposes and to avoid the proliferation of nuclear weapons and commits non- nuclear states to refrain from developing nuclear weapons. Four countries with nuclear weapons are non-signatories to the treaty: India, Israel, North Korea, and Pakistan.

Nuclear weapons simply cannot be justified under the core principles of the international law of war. The International Court of Justice while avoiding declaring whether these weapons may be deployed in self-defense following an exhaus- tive review concluded that the first use of nuclear

weapons may not be justified under international law. The impact of these weapons according to the International Court of Justice is disproportion- ate to any provocation and cannot be limited to military targets (Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 226).

A new legal development is the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which was opened for signature of countries across the globe in July 2017. Signatories undertake among other provisions not to develop, test, produce, acquire, possess, stockpile, use, or threaten to use nuclear weapons. The treaty also prohibits the deployment of nuclear weapons on national territory and prohibits assis- tance to any state in the conduct of prohibited activ- ity under the treaty.

The United States and Russia together possess more than 90 percent of the world’s 13,865 nuclear weapons. At the same time, these two nuclear goli- aths are slowly dismantling the arms control regime that has provided safeguards against the use of these weapons of mass destruction. The risk is that heightened tensions will lead to a new arms race and an increased likelihood that the weapons will be employed. As tensions escalate, there is an enhanced risk of the United States and Russia misreading one another’s intentions. Both the United States and Russia are moving toward developing nuclear weap- ons that will provide the other country less time to decide whether to respond to what appears to be a nuclear attack. Europe would be particularly vulner- able to a surprise attack or to blackmail with the anticipated ending of restraints on intermediate- range nuclear missiles. As the international barriers and consensus against these weapons breaks down, other states may feel free to develop nuclear pro- grams, and this proliferation runs the increased risk of a nuclear exchange.

In the past, the notion of mutually assured destruction meant that both the United States and Russia feared that the use of nuclear weapons would lead to the destruction of both countries. Is this still an effective deterrent? Why are nuclear weapons, which clearly violate the fundamental principles of law of war, continuing to be accepted as weapons of war?

LAW AND SOCIET Y

C H A P T E R S U M M A R Y

The twentieth century witnessed the development of the global law of human rights. The events of World War II led to the Nuremberg trials, which established the principle that individuals possess international duties that transcend the demands of their country and that individuals who violate international law may be held criminally liable. The interna- tional community established the United Nations to main- tain international peace and to work toward international social justice.

The UN was responsible for the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, along with other human rights documents. The international community has drafted a number of

treaties regulating the humanitarian law of war, and in 2002, following over a century of agitation, the world community agreed to establish an international criminal court. There are various layers of human rights protection. At the international level, the UN relies on state self-reports and investigations and with the consent of a member state on interstate and individual complaints. The UN also has been involved in creating various specialized war crimes tribunals. Europe, Latin America, and Africa have regional human rights courts, and domestic courts also are involved in protecting human rights.

A review of case studies of child soldiers, labor rights, drones, and torture illustrates the difficulty of overcoming the political, economic, and social factors that impede the enforcement of international human rights.

C H A P T E R R E V I E W Q U E S T I O N S

1. Discuss the significance of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg.

2. What is the importance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

3. Distinguish between the type of rights protected in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and type of rights protected in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Political Rights. How do the procedures provided in these two conventions to enforce human rights differ from one another?

4. What is the role of the Human Rights Council in protecting human rights?

5. Discuss the role of domestic courts and institutions in protecting international human rights.

6. What is the relationship between international human rights and domestic enforcement of human rights? Discuss the challenge of enforcing international human rights in a world of pluralistic sovereign nation-states.

7. Describe how the protection of international human rights is incorporated into U.S. congressional statutes.

8. Discuss the role and limits of international and domestic law in protection of child soldiers and textile workers, and in limiting the use of drones and torture.

T E R M I N O L O G Y

child soldiers Convention against Torture

and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

derogable rights drone enemy combatants Human Rights Council

humanitarian law of war International Bill of Human Rights International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights International Covenant on Economic,

Social and Cultural Rights international criminal law International Military Tribunal

at Nuremberg

military commissions negative rights non-derogable rights positive rights truth and reconciliation commission Universal Declaration of Human

Rights universal jurisdiction waterboarding

CHAPTER 13  INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL CRIME

A N S W E R S T O T E S T YO U R K N O W L E D G E

1. True

2. False

3. False

4. False

5. False

6. False

7. False

8. False

9. False