Re BOOK ALERT: 
Welcome
....to JusticeGhana Group
JusticeGhana is a Non-Governmental [and-not-for- profit] Organization (NGO) with a strong belief in Justice, Security and Progress....” More Details
The UN debates its 'responsibility to protect'
- Details
- Category: Current Issues
- Created on Sunday, 22 April 2012 00:00
- Hits: 4364
The UN debates its 'responsibility to protect'
Chapter 7 of the United Nations charter has a clause, known as the 'responsibility to protect,' and it is the sole argument in international law that would allow for legitimate military intervention in Syria.
In light of the ongoing violence by the armed forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad against their own people, the possibility of military intervention has been repeatedly discussed to protect the civilian population from further attacks. The prerequisite for sanctioning any intervention is a resolution from the United Nations Security Council. The Council is the only body allowed by international law to impose sanctions, based on Chapter 7 of the UN charter, which permits such action when an act of aggression or breach of peace is evident.
Since the violence in Syria is not aimed at an external target, but rather a domestic one, intervention may be justifiable on the grounds of a Chapter 7 clause, known as 'the responsibility to protect' principle, or R2P, which is defined as an obligation to come to the aid of a civilian population under attack by an armed force.
The UN as a protective authority
It is incumbent on individual states, as signatories of the UN charter, to protect civilians. If they do not fulfill this obligation, a situation emerges in which the R2P principle may be transferred to the UN as a guardian of international law.
In the case of Libya, for example, UN Resolution 1973 from March 17, 2011, did just that. It formulated the legal basis for military intervention against the Gadhafi regime. Such interventions, however, have strict legal limits. Regime change through external military force must not be the aim of the intervention.
However, Russia and China argued that this was the case in Libya. For this reason, both veto powers, so far, have refused to approve a Chapter 7 resolution on Syria, although they have given their support to the peace plan worked out by the special UN envoy, Kofi Annan, which calls for an immediate end to attacks on civilians, among other things.
Political leverage with the Annan peace plan
According to reports coming from the Syrian opposition, more than 1,000 people have been killed just since President Assad agreed to the Annan plan on March 25. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, on Thursday, even accused the Assad regime of using its acceptance of the peace plan to gain time "to continue killing."
If Assad continues to violate the peace plan and its conditions, the veto powers Russia and China would find themselves under even more pressure to respond. Negotiations have been going on for months at UN headquarters in New York on the parameters for an intervention resolution. Ultimately, China and Russia could give up their reservations and at least agree to arrangements that would allow setting up safe havens for the civilian population and army deserters.
Safe havens protected by force
Security zones monitored by troops from the international community under the auspices of the UN could protect Syrians from persecution and violence perpetrated by the Assad regime.
Safe havens could be set up at one or several locations, in areas where large numbers of people were killed or threatened in the past. One possible region for such a camp would be the rebel stronghold of Homs.
The protection of these zones would be guaranteed by a UN resolution and lie in the hands of an armed international coalition of regional countries, or possibly NATO. In addition, this alliance would have to ensure that people attempting to reach a safe haven are not prevented from doing so by Syrian government forces. The Assad regime attempted to do just that when people sought refuge in neighboring Turkey.
Examples from past missions
The no-fly zones set up by the UN Security Council during the Bosnian war in October 1992 could serve as a model for safe havens in Syria. Only UN airplanes and support aircraft were allowed into the airspace over the former Yugoslav republic. When the Serbs ignored the no-fly zone and flew sorties in Bosnia-Herzegovina, NATO was granted authority by UN Resolution 816 in March, 1993, to impose the no-fly zone by force.
In the early 1990s there were also two no-fly zones in Iraq, although they had no UN mandate. They were set up to protect Kurds in the north of the country and Shi'ites in the south. Invoking an earlier UN decision, they were then enforced by the United States, Britain and France. UN Resolution 688, from April 1991, called for an end to the repression of the Iraqi people, but there was no decision on how this could be enforced. Resolution 1973 on Libya also paved the way for a no-fly zone over the entire country, but expressly stipulated that no ground forces could be used.
Author: Daniel Scheschkewitz /gb Editor: Neil King Source: Deutsche Welle
No commentsDoes development or money drive globalization?
- Details
- Category: DateLines
- Created on Saturday, 21 April 2012 00:00
- Hits: 3774
Think Again
Does development or money drive globalization?
Is globalization about money or about development? This is the main focus of the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). Participants are expected to find it ever harder to reach a consensus.
Brussels approves data-sharing deal with US
- Details
- Category: Current Issues
- Created on Friday, 20 April 2012 00:00
- Hits: 3702
Brussels approves data-sharing deal with US
The EU parliament has approved a contentious data sharing deal with the US. Washington hopes that data of passengers flying in from the EU will help in the war on terror. Critics warn it's a violation of privacy.
Critics of the deal had tried until the last minute to convince their colleagues in the European Parliament that the controversial deal does not provide sufficient privacy protection for EU citizens. The Passenger Name Record (PNR) deal will give US authorities access to data on passengers flying in from the European Union. Parliamentarians gave the deal the green light with 409 voting in favor, 226 against and 33 abstentions.
The US hopes to use the data in its fight against terrorism and international crime.
Extensive data
The data, which is to be gathered by air carriers during flight reservations and check-in, is to include a passenger's name, address, phone number and credit card details, But it will also include information that some may consider to be more sensitive, such as meal choices based on religious grounds or requests a passenger makes for assistance due to a medical condition.
Under the PNR deal, the data will be stored for up to five years though after six months, the passenger's name is to be masked out. After five years, the information will be moved to a "dormant database" for up to 10 years, where access to it by US authorities will be far stricter.
Critics however warn the agreement does not provide enough privacy protection for EU citizens.
"In my opinion this is a step backwards for civil rights and the rule of law," German MEP Jan Albrecht of the Greens said after the vote.
"This means the passengers will be entirely laid bare. All possible data related to the journey and the passenger will be handed over the US," warned Alexander Alvaro, also a German MEP, of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe. He said the seven year deal went way too far.
The new deal is to replace an interim accord from 2007 under which the US can already request data from passengers travelling from EU countries to the US.
Fighting terrorism, international crime
Proponents of the new deal stress that it in fact provides a stronger protection of EU citizens' rights than the 2007 deal which the EU parliament demanded to be renegotiated due to privacy concerns.
Under the new agreement, data will first be checked by EU authorities and only handed over to the US if there is grounds for suspicion. Critics however doubt that this principle will in fact be upheld.
Washington claims that such data has aided nearly every high profile recent terrorist investigation in the US. The information is also to help authorities trace international organized crime and curb human and drug trafficking. In the EU parliament, the deal was mostly backed by conservative MEPs. German Christian Democrat Axel Voss for instance pointed out that the agreement gave legal certainty for both EU citizens and airline carriers.
US pressure
Washington had threatened massive sanctions should the EU fail to agree to the deal. MEP Alexander Alvaro warned that Brussels in fact had been blackmailed into giving the green light. "The US have said that should we not agree, they would strip airline carriers of the permission to land on US airports. And this threat has been enough to make the EU agree despite the flaws in the deal."
For passengers, the PNR agreement will hardly bring any changes for the better, Alvaro said: "Passengers will have to wait just as long in the future, they still will have to got through the entire process of embarrassing and intimate questions. The deal just cements the status quo."
Author: Rachel Gessat / ai Editor: Mark Hallam
Source: Deutsche Welle
EU up in arms over proposed border checks
- Details
- Category: The World
- Created on Saturday, 21 April 2012 00:00
- Hits: 3845
EU up in arms over proposed border checks
Opposition mounts against a proposal from the German and French interior ministers that called for the ability to reintroduce border controls in the Schengen area for up to a month at a time.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy has warned repeatedly in the run-up to Sunday's presidential election that if countries bordering non-Schengen nations fail to comply with their obligations to secure the frontiers appropriately, France have no choice but to protect its borders against illegal immigration by reinstituting passport controls.
{sidebar id=11 align=right}This week, German Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich is singing from the same hymn book. He and his French counterpart Claude Gueant wrote a letter to the Danish EU Council Presidency, calling for countries to have the right to reintroduce checks at the internal borders for no more than 30 days.
It is an election campaign maneuver, say critics, who reacted promptly. But Ska Keller, a German member of European Parliament for the Greens, said she believes there is more to the joint letter than just electoral politics.
"France and Germany want to put their fingerprint on the direction the discussion is going to go at the next Council meeting in June," she said.
Reforming border controls
The German-French initiative comes after months of smoldering conflict among EU states about a possible revision of the Schengen accord. Its key elements are the abolishment of border controls between member states as well as coordinated security policy and border control on the common external frontiers.
But some countries on the periphery of the Schengen area have massive problems coping with the influx of refugees and asylum seekers. Italy, for instance, was confronted with a huge wave of refugees from Arab countries. Currently, tens of thousands of Syrian refugees are trying to get into Europe via Turkey and Greece.
Keller said patrolling internal border controls are not the appropriate way to deal with refugees. She added that while the European Union is praising the democracy movements in the Arab world, it is not making constructive suggestions as to how to support immigrants from the region in the difficult period of transition. And 30-day controls, Keller said, would prove ineffective anyway.
Renate Sommer from the European Parliament's Christian Democratic group agreed reintroducing internal border controls is not an appropriate measure.
"Illegal immigrants usually don't go via the border checkpoint anyway, so controls wouldn't make any sense," she said.
Instead, Sommer suggested that the EU reinforce the protection of its external frontiers by enhancing the EU border protection group Frontex.
In addition, reintroducing controls on Germany's borders would entail a "traffic meltdown," Sommer said.
"We simply can't afford it. Germany is the number one transit country for heavy duty traffic. It would hurt our economy if we reintroduced border controls," she said.
Power struggle
The current discussion is about more than just illegal migration, however. It is also a new chapter in the power struggle between the national states and Brussels on the one hand, and between the various EU institutions on the other.
The EU Commission, the 27-member bloc's executive arm, presented a reform agenda for the Schengen accord last year, suggesting it become the sole body to decide whether border controls can potentially be reintroduced.
EU member states vehemently opposed the plan, with support from the European Parliament.
Sommer said the Commission was trying to gain powers that undermine countries' national sovereignty. She said the European Parliament would not lend its support to the initiative proposed by the German and French interior ministers.
"There's agreement among all the groups in the European Parliament that we will not allow member states to push through national solo attempts," she said.
Author: Rachel Gessat / nh Editor: Sean Sinico
Source: Deutsche Welle
Abu Qatada could be free within weeks, warns judge
- Details
- Category: Law & Justice
- Created on Thursday, 19 April 2012 00:00
- Hits: 6987
Abu Qatada could be free within weeks, warns judge
Theresa May says she will resist an application to release al-Qaida-linked Islamist cleric on bail.
Alan Travis and Owen Bowcott
The British judge at the centre of the Abu Qatada case has warned that the al-Qaida-linked Islamist cleric could be free and on the streets of London again within a fortnight.
{sidebar id=11 align=right}The home secretary, Theresa May, has vowed to "resist vigorously" an application for Qatada to be released on bail, a move widely expected after the collapse of her latest attempt to deport him.
But the damaging prospect that Qatada will again be free in Britain – albeit under highly restrictive conditions – came as the justice secretary, Kenneth Clarke, said the outcome of a Council of Europe summit being held in Brighton would result in fewer cases being sent to the Strasbourg human rights court.
Mr Justice Mitting, the British special immigration appeals commission judge who revoked Qatada's bail at a hastily-arranged hearing earlier this week, says in the written text of his decision – which was made public on Thursday – that he will have to consider releasing him on bail "if it is obvious after two or three weeks that deportation is not imminent".
Mitting's ruling also reveals how close the home secretary came to putting Qatada on a plane back to Jordan before this week's dispute over the deadline for last-minute appeal rights to the European court of human rights closed down that option.
The judge says in his ruling that there was a route by which the home secretary could have "short-circuited" the lengthy appeal opportunities in the British courts, which meant there was a "realistic prospect" that the long-run saga could have been brought to a rapid conclusion "within, at most, a matter of a very few weeks".
{sidebar id=12 align=right}Labour home affairs spokeswoman, Diana Johnson, said that the ruling confirmed that because of "the home secretary's shambolic handling of the Abu Qatada case, he may be out on our streets within weeks". She added: "Additional avenues and delays have been opened up by the home secretary, all because she apparently got her dates wrong."
But May, whose handling of the affair came under severe criticism from MPs during an hour of Commons exchanges on Thursday, insisted that the government would "resist vigorously any application he might make to be released on bail".
The home secretary stressed, however, that the 22-hour curfew bail conditions that he had been on up until his televised re-arrest on Tuesday were "among the most stringent ever applied to anybody here in the United Kingdom".
Qatada's legal team, which includes Gareth Peirce, the leading defence solicitor in terror cases, has not yet declared its intentions but an application for his release from the top security unit at Belmarsh prison in London is widely expected shortly.
The dispute over whether the deadline for appeals to the Strasbourg court in the Qatada case was Monday or Tuesday night continued to rage on Thursday. May insisted that Qatada had no right to have his appeal accepted for consideration because it was lodged "out of time" at 11 pm French time on Tuesday night.
"The government is clear that Abu Qatada has no right to refer the case to the grand chamber of the European court of human rights, since the three-month deadline to do so lapsed at midnight on Monday," she told the Commons. The Home Office later published documents and a briefing note entitled "six facts that prove the government right" to support their claim that the three-month deadline passed at midnight, Monday 16 April rather than Tuesday 17 April.
But advice circulated by Labour from the Council of Europe, which oversees the Strasbourg court, suggested that Qatada's appeal may have been lodged "just in time".
An official at the secretariat of the Council of Europe sent a message to the House of Commons library regarding the appeal which said: "I would say that [the appeal was lodged] just in time, but of course the court may decide otherwise."
The dispute will be resolved by a panel of Strasbourg judges but it may be at least two months before they rule whether or not the 11th hour appeal should be heard and in the meantime any deportation proceedings remain frozen until a decision is made.
It may be that the home secretary is proved right on the timetable but she repeatedly declined to reveal in the Commons whether she had been officially advised to wait 24 hours before ordering Qatada's televised arrest on Tuesday to remove any doubt about the deadline, nor to explain why she had been unwilling to wait.
She only said that British officials had been in contact with the Strasbourg court and they had been "well aware" that the Home Office was working to a Monday midnight deadline. Strasbourg court officials told the Guardian on Wednesday that they believed the deadline had been on Tuesday night.
In Brighton, Clarke brushed aside judicial opposition to UK proposals for reforming the European court of human rights, claiming a declaration by 47 member countries would result in fewer cases being appealed to Strasbourg.
Dismissing criticism by the British judge Sir Nicholas Bratza, the court's president, Clarke insisted the "Brighton declaration" would speed up the process of tackling the backlog of more than 150,000 cases waiting to be heard.
But the justice secretary did concede that there had been opposition from other states within the Council of Europe and not as much progress had been made as the UK originally hoped.
"These reforms represent a substantial package and are a significant step towards realising the goals that the prime minister set out in Strasbourg," Clarke said following agreement on the text of the declaration which has been refined over months of negotiation.
"Taken together these changes should mean fewer cases being considered by the court. Those that it considers should be allegations of serious violations or major points of interpretation of the convention and will be processed without the scandalous delays we are seeing at present."
Source: The Guardian UK