The responsibility to record civilian casualties

The responsibility to record civilian casualties in both armed conflict and civil disturbances must be an integral element of the responsibility to protect, particularly in the application of the just cause principles. The first part of this article examines the threshold issue of the possibility of large-scale civilian casualties which triggers the international community’s responsibility to react. The reports recommending the responsibility to protect emphasise the need to establish the actuality or risk of ‘large scale’ loss of life which is not possible in the current context without a civilian casualty recording structure. The second part of the article outlines the international legal obligation to record civilian casualties based on international humanitarian law and international human rights law. Thirdly, the responsibility to protect and the legal obligation to record casualties are brought together within the framework of Ban Ki-moon’s reports on implementation of the Responsibility to Protect. The fourth and final part of the article reviews the situations in Sri Lanka and Syria. Both states represent egregious examples of governments hiding the existence of casualties, resulting in paralysis within the international community. These situations establish, beyond doubt, that the national obligation to record civilian casualties must be part and parcel of the responsibility to protect.

Identifying and recording every casualty of armed conflict

This article discusses the international legal obligation to identify and record every casualty of armed conflict that finds its basis in the treaties and customs of international humanitarian law and international human rights law. The article applies the various facets of the legal obligation to the armed conflicts in Iraq and Sri Lanka and argues that the parties in these conflicts failed in their international legal responsibility to civilians.

Transitional justice in Nepal: the Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons, Truth and Reconciliation Act 2014

The Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons, Truth and Reconciliation Act 2014 is Nepal’s latest attempt to establish a transitional programme to respond to conflict era abuses. In part, the Act remedies the inadequacies of the 2013 Ordinance. It creates two commissions, on truth and reconciliation and enforced disappearances, makes provision for the establishment of a Special Court to try past abuses and incorporates systems to enable vulnerable witnesses to participate in truth seeking. Yet in a number of respects it continues to fall short of international legal standards, not least in the possibility of amnesty for international crimes and gross violations of human rights. In addition, the relationship between the three mechanisms – truth seeking, amnesty and prosecution – remains unclear and safeguards for individual rights are lacking. This paper explores these recent developments, highlighting issues that must be remedied if transitional justice objectives are to be achieved in Nepal.

Travail des enfants et droit à l’éducation au Burkina Faso: L’exemple de la carrière de Pissy

Cet article décrit et analyse le travail des enfants dans une carrière de granit d’un quartier de la ville de Ouagadougou, interroge le rapport entre l’école et le travail du point de vue des acteurs du site pour apprécier l’argument de la scolarisation comme solution alternative au travail des enfants. Les données proviennent d’une enquête réalisée dans le cadre de notre recherche doctorale au Burkina Faso, de février à avril 2009, dont la carrière de Pissy a été un des terrains d’enquête1. Les enquêtés sont constitués de parents et de leurs enfants âgés de moins de 16 ans ayant des trajectoires différentes : non scolarisés,scolarisés, déscolarisés et à la fois écoliers et travailleurs. Les personnes ont été choisies aléatoirement selon leur accord et disponibilité, en variant leur emplacement. L’approche choisie privilégie le point de vue des différents acteurs du site,l’analyse de leurs discours et l’observation de leurs pratiques de travail. La prise en compte du point de vue des enfants s’appuie sur la perspective théorique développée par James & Prout (1997), où les enfants sont des acteurs compétents dans la sphère du travail et de la vie sociale. L’article présente d’abord le processus d’institutionnalisation de l’école et la situation du travail des enfants au Burkina Faso, puis décrit les logiques autour du travail des enfants dans la carrière en montrant que celui-ci n’est pas seulement lié à la nécessité économique. Enfin, il confronte les alternatives au travaildes enfants invoquées par les enfants et leurs parents aux solutions d’éducation proposées par l’état et la société civile. This article is about a particular case of children in working situation: children crushing the granite in the quarry of Pissy. Their working conditions are considered as dangerous by national and international legal texts. This article aims to grasp the experience of children who work in this frame in order to test the hypothesis according to which schooling would be an effective tool of struggle against child labour. The fieldwork reveals that child labour in the quarry is not only guided by economic aspects. The wish of the parents (and of some children and teenagers) to find another job for working children reopen the debate on “the right to work” for children.

The regulation of cyber warfare under the jus ad bellum

This chapter evaluates the potential for legal regulation of the resort to cyber warfare between states under the ‘jus ad bellum’ (the law on the use of force). Debate in the literature has largely concerned whether cyber warfare falls within the scope of Article 2(4) UNC. The first part of this chapter sets out this debate. It then goes on to argue that the ‘Article 2(4) debate’ often misses the fact that an act of cyber warfare can be considered a breach of a different legal rule: the principle of non-intervention. The chapter further considers some of the issues in applying either the prohibition of the use of force or the principle of non-intervention to cyber warfare, and then concludes by arguing that the debate should be reoriented to focus on another existing international legal obligation: the duty to prevent cyber-attacks.

Legal outlier, again? U.S. felon suffrage: comparative and international human rights perspectives

The judiciousness of American felon suffrage policies has long been the subject of scholarly debate, not least due to the large number of affected Americans: an estimated 5.3 million citizens are ineligible to vote as a result of a criminal conviction. This article offers comparative law and international human rights perspectives and aims to make two main contributions to the American and global discourse. After an introduction in Part I, Part II offers comparative law perspectives on challenges to disenfranchisement legislation, juxtaposing U.S. case law against recent judgments rendered by courts in Canada, South Africa, Australia, and by the European Court of Human Rights. The article submits that owing to its unique constitutional stipulations, as well as to a general reluctance to engage foreign legal sources, U.S. jurisprudence lags behind an emerging global jurisprudential trend that increasingly views convicts’ disenfranchisement as a suspect practice and subjects it to judicial review. This transnational judicial discourse follows a democratic paradigm and adopts a “residual liberty” approach to criminal justice that considers convicts to be rights-holders. The discourse rejects regulatory justifications for convicts’ disenfranchisement, and instead sees disenfranchisement as a penal measure. In order to determine its suitability as a punishment, the adverse effects of disenfranchisement are weighed against its purported social benefits, using balancing or proportionality review. Part III analyzes the international human rights treaty regime. It assesses, in particular, Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”), which proclaims that “every citizen” has a right to vote without “unreasonable restrictions.” The analysis concludes that the phrase “unreasonable restrictions” is generally interpreted in a manner which tolerates certain forms of disenfranchisement, whereas other forms (such as life disenfranchisement) may be incompatible with treaty obligations. This article submits that disenfranchisement is a normatively flawed punishment. It fails to treat convicts as politically-equal community members, degrades them, and causes them grave harms both as individuals and as members of social groups. These adverse effects outweigh the purported social benefits of disenfranchisement. Furthermore, as a core component of the right to vote, voter eligibility should cease to be subjected to balancing or proportionality review. The presumed facilitative nature of the right to vote makes suffrage less susceptible to deference-based objections regarding the judicial review of legislation, as well as to cultural relativity objections to further the international standardization of human rights obligations. In view of this, this article proposes the adoption of a new optional protocol to the ICCPR proscribing convicts’ disenfranchisement. The article draws analogies between the proposed protocol and the ICCPR’s “Optional Protocol Aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty.” If adopted, the proposed protocol would strengthen the current trajectory towards expanding convicts’ suffrage that emanates from the invigorated transnational judicial discourse.