TBILISI, 5 July 2016 – The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly adopted the 2016 Tbilisi Declaration today, addressing key issues in the fields of political affairs and security, economics, the environment, human rights, and humanitarian concerns. (Full text available here in English, French and Russian.)

The Declaration, resulting from months of work by committee rapporteurs and several days of debates at the Assembly’s Annual Session in Tbilisi, contains wide-ranging policy recommendations and pronouncements, serving as policy guidance to OSCE governments and the international community. Some 300 parliamentarians from 54 countries spanning North America, Europe and Central Asia contributed to the Session’s work. The Declaration and resolutions will now be sent to parliaments and to the foreign ministers of OSCE countries as policy input ahead of the OSCE’s 2016 Ministerial Council meeting this year in Hamburg.

Among the issues covered in the recommendations adopted by the parliamentarians are transnational terrorism, the crisis in and around Ukraine, protracted conflicts in Georgia, countering corruption, energy, climate change, migration, and the rights of refugees. The Declaration is the final product of the Assembly’s 2016 Annual Session, which was held in the Georgian capital from 1 to 5 July under the theme “25 Years of Parliamentary Co-operation: Building Trust Through Dialogue.”

Stressing the theme of trust-building, the Declaration “reaffirm[s] the undiminished validity and historic role of the guiding principles and common values of the Helsinki Final Act signed in 1975, including the commitments on politico-military, economic, environmental, human rights, and humanitarian issues.” It regrets however the trend of gridlock in the OSCE and urges OSCE countries to enhance the level of co-operation in addressing common challenges.

On terrorism, the Declaration calls upon governments to strengthen co-operation and develop measures aimed at blocking the funding of terrorist organizations. It further urges the OSCE to help governments counter terrorism through pragmatic assistance and promotion of best practices.

On the crisis in and around Ukraine, the Declaration urges all parties to fully implement the Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements, and “underlines respect for the principles of the inviolability of frontiers and territorial integrity, peaceful settlement of disputes, equal rights, and self-determination of peoples as stated in the Helsinki Final Act.”

Regarding climate change, the Declaration calls upon parliamentarians to promote political dialogue in order to achieve the goals set by the Paris Climate Agreement adopted last year, and to ensure that the Agreement’s targets are met “with the greatest sense of urgency by implementing robust policies and regulations on greenhouse gas emissions and facilitating the transition to a low-carbon economy.”

On migration, the Declaration stresses the importance of prioritizing the rights of those fleeing violence, and urges governments to stop imposing legal and physical barriers to the movement of people fleeing violence and to actively work toward an inclusive approach to migrants and refugees.

The Assembly also approved 15 resolutions to supplement the Declaration, addressing issues such as fundamental freedoms in the Crimean peninsula, prevention of child sexual exploitation, confidence-building measures in the Baltic Sea region, and ensuring that members of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly affected by international travel bans are able to attend OSCE events.

For the full text of the Declaration and resolutions, as well as speeches, photos, videos and more, please visithttp://www.oscepa.org/meetings/annual-sessions/2016-tbilisi-annual-session. Additional photos are available on the Georgian Parliament’s Flickr pages at https://www.flickr.com/photos/geoparliament and https://www.flickr.com/photos/oscepatbilisi

The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly is comprised of 323 parliamentarians from 57 countries spanning Europe, Central Asia and North America. The Assembly provides a forum for parliamentary diplomacy, monitors elections, and strengthens international co-operation to uphold commitments on political, security, economic, environmental and human rights issues.

Related Stories

• Christine Muttonen of Austria elected OSCE PA President, Vice-Presidents and Committee Officers also elected
• OSCE parliamentarians consider resolutions on security, economic and environmental concerns and human rights
• Assembly’s work on migration presented to OSCE ambassadors by Ad Hoc Committee Chair Lombardi at special Permanent Council

Armenia’s civil rights activists, government officials, representatives of media and civil society were presented with awards in recognition of their outstanding efforts to promote human rights, rule of law, government reforms and free speech in the country on 23 June 2016 in Yerevan.

Established in 2012, the Universal Rights Awards Ceremony was the first initiative to highlight contributions of state and civil society representatives in promoting human rights organized by joint efforts of international community.

Argo Avakov, Head of the OSCE Office in Yerevan, presented the Woman of Courage Award to Jemma Hasratyan, the founder and president of the Armenian Association of Women with University Education. “The OSCE is pleased to present this award to Jemma Hasratyan, a highly active and well-respected public figure who has tirelessly sought to enhance women’s role in society and promote equal rights and equal opportunities for men and women in Armenia," said Avakov.

Citizen Observers Initiative received the Freedom Defender Award for their outstanding contribution to the electoral transparency and the establishment of rule of law and the Photolure news agency was given the Media Excellence award for journalistic professionalism and commitment in the coverage of public protests against electricity price increase in summer of 2015.

First Deputy Minister of Territorial Administration and Development Vache Terteryan was presented with Government Reformer Award for his commitment and leadership which have been crucial in the implementation of the local governance reform in Armenia. Zaruhi Batoyan, who received the Promoting Inclusion Award, was acknowledged for her commitment to creating equal opportunities for people with disabilities and significant contribution in ensuring that disabled individuals and their families are not segregated.

The newly introduced Promoting Justice of All Award was presented to a judge from the Lori District Court, Narine Hovakimyan, in recognition of her courageous efforts to ensure independent judiciary in Armenia.

The Universal Rights Award Ceremony was co-organized by the OSCE Office in Yerevan, the United States Embassy, the Delegation of the European Union to Armenia, the British Embassy, Council of Europe’s Office in Yerevan and the United Nations Armenia Office.

Related Stories

• OSCE enhances legal and human rights education in Armenia
• OSCE Office in Yerevan presents awards to best women entrepreneurs in Armenia
• OSCE promotes unified application of law and predictability of justice in Armenia

The OSCE Office in Yerevan supported a summer school focusing on public international law from 30 June to 9 July 2016 which also included a two-day training course on international human rights law at the Russian-Armenian (Slavonic) University in Yerevan (RAU).

The summer school and the human rights law training course highlighted developments within the field of international law and provided an opportunity for future lawyers to grasp the main lines of the discipline and analyze the status of human rights in an international context.

“OSCE commitments affirm the fundamental character of human rights education and we hope that the summer school will provide a great opportunity to learn and cultivate values and skills for the better protection of human rights across the country,” said Radka Rubilina, Human Rights Officer at the OSCE Office.

Some 35 students of law, international relations and political science learned about international legal frameworks and sources, the theory and practice of international human rights law, the mechanisms for promotion and protection of human rights at the international and regional levels, including the functions of international organizations.

“My hope is that the summer school and the human rights training course will be a continuous initiative,” said Chairperson of the Law and Policy Chair at RAU Larisa Alaverdyan. “Besides the immediate interest in the proposed topics, the exchange of knowledge and ideas among students is of great importance.”

The summer school and the training course were organized with the support of the OSCE Office in Yerevan jointly with United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the Council of Europe, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the Mission Armenia charity NGO, and RAU. 

Related Stories

• Awards for promoting universal rights in Armenia presented by OSCE and international partners
• OSCE Office in Yerevan presents awards to best women entrepreneurs in Armenia
• OSCE promotes unified application of law and predictability of justice in Armenia

From 16 to 20 May 2016 in Budva, Montenegro, the OSCE Mission organized a training course for 45 legal professionals from northern Kosovo on international human rights standards during trial proceedings.

Participants, who are candidates to join the reintegrated justice system in northern Kosovo, were briefed and engaged in in-depth discussions on the human rights requirements, international standards and best practices in ensuring a fair trial.

The training consisted of presentations and lectures on international human rights standards, search tools for the European Court of Human Rights database, rights of access to justice and equality in the administration of justice, right to a public hearing, right to be presumed innocent and privilege against self-incrimination, protection of victims and witnesses, the equality of arms principle and the right to a hearing before a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

“The justice system in the northern Kosovo has been dysfunctional for years now. Such a situation negatively impacted both the rule of law, proper delivery of justice and the observance of fundamental human rights, including the right of access to justice and the right to trial within a reasonable time,” said Jean-Claude Schlumberger, Head of the OSCE Mission in Kosovo. “The aim of this training was two-fold: enhance participants’ awareness of the importance of promoting and protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms in the courtroom but also encourage them to use pertinent international mechanisms in their daily work.”

Nikola Kabašić, a leading representative of the judicial community in northern Kosovo, said: “Continuous and systematic education of professionals whose main responsibility is to promote, implement and protect human rights is an obligation of all local and international institutions and organizations. That is why this training is important because the level of democracy of one society is measured by the extent of respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

Kosovo Deputy Minister of Justice, Nusret Hoxha, who was a guest at the training course noted the Ministry’s support as well as the need for local judges and prosecutors to be given additional opportunities to become familiar with best international practices in the justice sector.  

The course was held following a needs assessment conducted by the OSCE Mission, which highlighted the need to engage in educational programs as a priority in building the capacities of judicial professionals in the north.

The OSCE Mission in Kosovo is mandated with human rights and communities rights protection and promotion, democratization and public safety sector development. The Mission supports the justice system in Kosovo and runs programmatic activities aiming to improve its performance in line with human rights and fair trial standards. 

Related Stories

• OSCE to organize 2016 Dialogue Academy for Young Women
• OSCE Mission assesses implementation of new Criminal Procedure Code of Kosovo
• Mini-Olympic Games 2016

Al Gore, Founder and Chairman of The Climate Reality Project on Trump winning: “In a moment such as this, it is important to remember that all major reform efforts, from civil rights to the climate movement, suffer dark days. And this is surely one.” Via Gore’s email list on November 6, 2024  

[The Conversation Africa] Mauritius' communications regulator recently shut down access to social media platforms until a day after the upcoming general election, due to be held on 10 November 2024. The decision was reversed a day later. Nevertheless, the move came as a surprise to many - Mauritius is often touted as a beacon of democracy in Africa.

[HRW] Johannesburg -- The Mozambican authorities should immediately end internet restrictions imposed since October 25, 2024, and restore full access to social media platforms, Human Rights Watch said today. Internet restrictions and shutdowns violate multiple rights including access to information, freedom of speech, and peaceful protest, and people's ability to earn a living through online business.

About 8% of the State Department’s full-time Foreign Service officers have at least one disability. So does approximately 17% of its civil service workforce.

The post State Dept urges workforce to prioritize disability rights in accessibility playbook first appeared on Federal News Network.

Matthew Daniels of the Institute of World Politics, and Anthony Jones of Howard University, join host Derrick Dortch to discuss a new initiative the created to teach the digital generation about the life of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

The post Spreading the dream of universal rights in the digital age first appeared on Federal News Network.

Tiffany Boiman, director of office and policy programs at the Labor Department's Women's Bureau, joined Women of Washington to discuss her career path and the department's continuing efforts to close the gender gap in the workforce and beyond.

The post Labor Department a champion for women’s workplace rights first appeared on Federal News Network.

The NFL just doesn't know when to stop. The Washington Post reports on a new NFL policy limiting journalists' use of video online:

In a move designed to protect the Internet operations of its 32 teams, the pro football league has told news organizations that it will no longer permit them to carry unlimited online video clips of players, coaches or other officials, including video that the news organizations gather themselves on a team's premises. News organizations can post no more than 45 seconds per day of video shot at a team's facilities, including news conferences, interviews and practice-field reports.

Now this policy isn't copyright-based -- the NFL doesn't have copyright in the un-fixed statements of its players and coaches -- but good old real property law. The NFL teams own their facilities, and with them have the right to exclude people physically, as trespassers. So the NFL is telling sportswriters, who depend on physical access to gather the background for their stories, they'll be barred at the gates if they use more than 45 seconds of video online.

Houston Chronicle columnists John McClain and Anna-Megan Raley show the absurdity of this policy by trying to complete interviews in 45 seconds, stopwatch in hand. Even stopping at 45 seconds, they apparently violate the policy if the video is not removed after 24 hours and doesn't link to nfl.com!

While the football league may be within its legal rights on this one, its policy still reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the medium. The league depends on independent journalists to do the research that keeps people following the sport between games, and journalists have turned to the Internet to dig deeper than they could in print or time-constrained TV. Readers go to sportwriters' websites and blogs precisely for perspectives they don't get from the official NFL.com website. Limiting the richness of media available on these sites is more likely to alienate fans and journalists than to drive traffic to NFL.com. Just look where the Olympics is.

Sometimes rights to exclude are best left un-exercised. By contrast, the National Hockey League has taken a better course, striking deals with YouTube, Sling Media, and Joost to permit people to see hockey when and where they want. "We're not content fascists," Keith Ritter, president of NHL Interactive Cyber Enterprises, which represents the league's interests in new media, tells the LA Times. Perhaps it's time for the Houston Chronicle team to battle global warming and pick up hockey sticks!

Thanks Scott!

Location: Electronic Resource- 

Location: Electronic Resource- 

No equal rights - Victims of injustice

Erasing Assyrians: How the KRG Abuses Human Rights, Undermines Democracy, and Conquers Minority Homelands

2018 Human Rights Report: Struggling to Breathe: the Systematic Repression of Assyrians

A federal judge in Idaho issued a block on a state law that would ban gender transitions for children before it was set to go into effect Jan. 1.

It's been more than three years since COVID began to shake up the world with lockdowns, social distancing and other measures that seem like relics of the past…

Two Chinese faces peep out from the front pages of the papers this week: Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and activist Ai Weiwei.

From cookbooks to constitutional rights, On Second Thought is proud to present another five stories from our archive to motivate you this Monday. 1) Historian Jill Lepore Explores 'These Truths' Of United States History In November 2018, On Second Thought sat down with Harvard American history professor Jill Lepore to discuss her book These Truths: A History of the United States and the obligation to learn from the past for a brighter future. Focusing on promises made in the Constitution, Lepore discusses the state of institutions like freedom, voting, and social struggles almost 250 years after the country’s founding. 2) Chef Pano Karatassos On 'Modern Greek Cooking' Atlanta chef Pano Karatassos made waves in culinary circles after winning Food Network’s Beat Bobby Flay with his signature lamb pie. Chef Karatassos is the executive chef of Kyma in Atlanta and has tasked himself with bringing traditional Greek foods to the South. He sat down with us last October to talk Greek cuisine

John Lewis has gotten into a lot of trouble in his life. The now 17-term House Representative from Atlanta has been arrested 45 times – five as a U.S. congressman. One of the original Freedom Riders , Lewis trained in nonviolent resistance, but faced a lot of brutality during his time as a young activist in the civil rights movement. He suffered harassment and attacks during lunch counter sit-ins in Nashville, his skull was fractured by a blow from a Klansman in 1961, and he was badly beaten after crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama on Bloody Sunday .

Seeking positive music for use in online video & advertising campaigns!

Music must be good vibes, positive and upbeat. All genres considered ie, Dance, Rock, Jazz, Electronica, Pop, R&B, Hip Hop, Classical, Orchestral, Ambient... etc.

Music must be high-quality, mixed and mastered. Instrumental tracks preferred, but great vocal tracks accepted too and if you can supply instrumentals even better!

All music will be listened to, reviewed and feedback given. Artists must own all rights to their music and there must be no copyright infringement.

Selected tracks will be licensed on a non-exclusive basis (so you maintain all rights to your music), simply go 50-50 on deals we get for you and you keep 100% of all publishing rights.

Clients are professional video production companies and advertising agencies that make high-quality online video content. Including JD Sports, The North Face, Asics, Addidas, Pringles, to name a few!

Artist's receive between £50-£1,000 per track depending on use, and there’s no limit the number of times a track can be licensed. So, if you have any positive music really love to hear from you!

Any questions please feel free to ask and look forward to working with you :)

All the best,
Giles

- Giles Gale - Music supervisor, sync & Licensing Manager - Resonant Music Licensing

Copyright 2020 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.

Juan Pappier, subdirector de Human Rights Watch, aseguró que las cifras de inseguridad en el país preocupan y que este año podrían ser las peores tras la firma de los acuerdos de paz

Fifty-seven percent of Floridian voters wanted to protect abortion rights going up to about the 24th week of pregnancy. But a 60 percent majority is required there, so the abortion amendment failed.

"As former governors, we support the Colorado River District’s purchase of Xcel's water rights for $99 million." -- former Govs. Roy Romer and Bill Ritter

"Instead of taxing law-abiding gun owners who purchase ammunition for recreational shooting and hunting, or defense, why don't we just reallocate part of the $40 billion Colorado annual budget?" -- Richard D VanOrsdale, Broomfield

Barack Obama released a statement on his passing.

Bermuda’s waters and the humpback whales that pass through them will be showcased during Air Canada flights, with the airline having purchased the rights to show “Where the Whales Sing” on its flights for a two-month period. In addition, a television station in Iran has bought the rights to broadcast the film in the Middle […]

Dawit Isaak has been held without trial in an Eritrean prison for 23 years.

The following article, Unhinged Liberal Women Cry On Social Media Over Trump’s Victory And Falsely Claim They’ve Lost All Their Rights, was first published on Conservative Firing Line.

(Natural News) Liberals have been working hard to portray Trump as a misogynist, and it worked on a lot of women – with some of them buying into the false narrative that he will work against women so wholeheartedly that they are now having very public meltdowns over his victory. Revolver put together some of the …

Continue reading Unhinged Liberal Women Cry On Social Media Over Trump’s Victory And Falsely Claim They’ve Lost All Their Rights ...

Building trust in trade deals – is human rights monitoring the answer? 27 May 2021 — 4:00PM TO 5:15PM Anonymous (not verified) 14 May 2021 Online

Exploring the arguments in favour of more robust human rights monitoring systems and why effective monitoring mechanisms have proved so difficult to get up and running.

Please click on the below link to confirm your participation and receive your individual joining details from Zoom for this event. You will receive a confirmation email from Zoom, which contains the option to add the event to your calendar if you so wish.

The recent signing of the EU-China Investment Agreement has reignited arguments about trade and human rights. While many trade agreements envisage human rights monitoring in some shape or form, the monitoring systems that have emerged so far are not especially coherent, systematic or impactful. 

Are the human rights commitments in trade agreements more than just window-dressing?  If so, what kind of monitoring is needed to ensure they are lived up to? 

At this panel event, which marks the launch of a new Chatham House research paper, participants explore the arguments in favour of more robust human rights monitoring systems and why effective monitoring mechanisms have proved so difficult to get up and running in this context. 

• What factors are presently holding governments back, and where is innovation and investment most needed?
• What are the political, economic and structural conditions for fair and effective human rights monitoring of trade agreements? 
• Is human rights monitoring best done unilaterally – or should more effort be put into developing joint approaches? 
• What role might human rights monitoring have to play in governments’ strategies to ‘build back better’ from the COVID-19 pandemic?

Geopolitical shifts and evolving social challenges – what role for human rights? 29 June 2021 — 3:00PM TO 4:30PM Anonymous (not verified) 10 June 2021 Online

Speakers reflect on some of the key themes that will influence the future of human rights.

Please click on the below link to confirm your participation and receive your individual joining details from Zoom for this event. You will receive a confirmation email from Zoom, which contains the option to add the event to your calendar if you so wish.

Shifts in geopolitical power and the rise of authoritarianism are disrupting the dynamics for making progress on human rights globally.

At the same time, the relevance of the global human rights framework is being called into question by some of our most acute social challenges – rapidly evolving technology, deepening inequality and the climate crisis.

Chatham House’s Human Rights Pathways project is exploring how alliances, strategies and institutions are adapting, and will need to evolve, to strengthen human rights protection in this increasingly contested and complex global environment.

At this panel event speakers reflect on some of the key themes that will influence the future of human rights, including the long-term impacts of the pandemic, the place of human rights diplomacy in the new geopolitics, the relevance of human rights to social movements, and the potential of human rights law to galvanise efforts on urgent challenges such as the climate crisis.

Why the next generation is key to protecting human rights Expert comment LToremark 23 June 2021

Strengthening youth participation in public affairs is essential to building inclusive and democratic societies that respect human rights.

Young people have always been drivers of social and economic reform, and today’s global youth population is more numerous and interconnected than ever before. While they have been at the forefront of civic rights movements in recent years, young people are largely excluded from discussions around human rights norms and how to monitor their protection and defence.

Young people are consistently underrepresented in intergovernmental mechanisms and national dialogues, which not only squanders their potential to contribute to effective solutions but also risks disengagement and disillusionment with multilateralism more broadly, at a time when many are already warning of the fraying of the international liberal order. Although there are actors and initiatives working to lift barriers to youth participation in governance – such as the UN Secretary-General’s Envoy on Youth, Jayathma Wickramanayake, or the UN 2016 Not Too Young To Run campaign – these efforts tend to fall short in effecting real change and rarely translate into institutionalized procedures.

While ‘the youth’ is a heterogenous group, comprising different ages, ethnicities, national identities and interests, their participation in realizing human rights is essential to addressing the current challenges and possibilities of human rights for future generations. This will help foster more effective solutions to rights-related challenges, re-build trust in the international human rights framework among younger demographics and broaden and deepen commitments to human rights across generations.

Human rights policies and the online environment

Young people tend to be more technologically literate than their predecessors and also represent the majority of internet users and social media consumers in many countries. They can therefore play a key role in innovating and imagining rights-based solutions to emerging problems for the human rights framework, such as illegitimate collection of data by governments and companies, microtargeting by online platforms, and the sharing of harmful content online. In many cases, international human rights practices have failed to keep pace with these changes and the challenges they bring.

Younger demographics may also approach these novel human rights issues from different starting points. For example, a UK study found that 30 per cent of 18-24 year-olds were ‘unconcerned’ about data privacy compared with only 12 per cent of those aged 55-64, and it has been shown that younger people tend to be more discerning of fake news compared to older generations. There may be a need for human rights institutions and practitioners to acknowledge and bridge these gaps in perspective and understanding to ensure long-term support for proposed solutions.

International cooperation for human rights protection

It has been suggested that young people have reaped the benefits of previous human rights-based policy reforms and have a strong sense of what rights they are entitled to and why these need to be protected through an international framework. Young people are also generally more supportive of multilateralism compared to their older counterparts, as demonstrated by a 2020 survey by Pew Research Center on global attitudes, which showed that 72 per cent of respondents aged 18-29 stated they have a favourable view of the UN, compared with 58 per cent of respondents aged 50 and older.

At a recent Chatham House workshop, young participants from countries as diverse as Lebanon, Kenya and the United States expressed concern that growing hostility towards globalization threatens to undo progress in human rights standards and multilateralism more broadly, progress that they have seen and benefitted from. The rise of nationalist and populist parties has also seen countries shift their attention inwards, as evidenced by former president Trump’s decision to withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement on climate change, and threats by Brazil’s president, Jair Bolsonaro, to follow suit.

Engaging more actively with younger individuals on global human rights reform will help ensure the long-term relevance of multilateral cooperation as well as domestic buy-in of human rights commitments.

Awareness of the interconnectivity of global problems

Young people’s proficiency on online platforms has enabled greater coordination and knowledge sharing without geographical constraints, allowing young activists – like Greta Thunberg – to inspire global movements and foster online discussions about intersectional solutions to modern-day challenges.

This intersectional and transnational lens will be a vital component of building solutions to politically or historically complex issues and can be leveraged to foster better understanding of competing human rights claims relating to issues such as land re-distribution in South Africa or limitations on freedom of movement during the COVID-19 pandemic. These democratic forums and platforms will ultimately help build a global community committed to and engaged with human rights.

Capturing the next generation’s potential

With these concerns and areas of potential in mind, how can human rights institutions and mechanisms create more meaningful avenues for youth input? 

Recent Chatham House research has suggested that multilateral institutions’ efforts to engage youth has often taken the form of ‘superficial listening’, for example inviting a high-profile youth actor to a one-off event or appointing youth delegates who are not able to participate in formal discussions or mainstream governance forums. While encouraging youth participation in meetings focused on human rights can lead to positive change, tokenism can discourage future engagement and dilute the effectiveness of the forums in question.

Capitalizing on the potential of the next generation can be achieved through integrating youth councils and advisers into national and international human rights policy processes, as well as human rights institutions. A few replicable models are already operational, such as the Y7 and the Y20 delegations – the official youth engagement groups for the G7 and G20 – that advance evidence-based proposals to world leaders ahead of the G7 and G20 summits.

At the domestic level, grassroots youth-led movements can help bridge the gap between local constituencies and international policymakers, with youth activists on the ground helping to implement human rights standards and fighting against the spread of misinformation. Strong local networks and civic spaces are essential for pushing back against human rights abuses, and youth activists should be mobilized to connect the efforts of domestic and international bodies to the real issues on the ground; for example, canvassing grassroots youth networks on domestic and traditional customs before implementing development agendas around women’s rights.

As well as providing insertion points for youth policy actors, human rights institutions must communicate their goals more effectively to younger generations and promote intergenerational and inclusive dialogue, for example by holding virtual consultations that  give access to individuals from different backgrounds. Similarly, they should ask young people about their priorities for human rights reform using regular and accessible surveys or by sharing information on online platforms regularly used by this demographic. This will ensure lasting buy-in from the next generation, essential for the relevance and sustainability of the human rights framework in the years to come.

This piece draws upon insights gathered at a workshop hosted by Chatham House in March 2021, which brought together the Institute’s networks of next generation groups including representatives of the QEII Academy Ambassadors, the Panel of Young Advisers, and the Common Futures Conversations community, as well as young members from the South African Institute of International Affairs.

The trickle-up effect of rights-based climate litigation Expert comment NCapeling 16 November 2021

With governments failing in their pledges and companies accused of ‘green-washing’, human rights-based litigation is increasingly important for accountability.

Tuvalu’s foreign minister addressing COP26 while standing knee-deep in seawater was a stark illustration of how the climate emergency directly and imminently threatens the most basic human rights protected under international law – including to the right to life, self-determination and cultural rights.

Human rights are now a fundamental component of more than 90 per cent of the climate litigation currently taking place outside the US, highlighting the international reach of human rights law and how its emphasis on protecting the most vulnerable helps diverse communities find common arguments for shared goals.

Cases are set to continue and to evolve but three types of claim are emerging, each of which is examined in a new Chatham House briefing paper.

1. Enforcing commitments

One category of cases seeks to hold states accountable for pledges they have made on climate change, such as emission reduction targets made under the framework of the 2015 Paris Agreement. Drawing on human rights obligations, governments can be charged with not taking sufficient steps to implement these pledges.

The case of Leghari v Pakistan (2015) concerned the government’s failure to carry out the National Climate Change Policy of 2012 and the Framework for Implementation of Climate Change Policy (2014-2030). The Lahore High Court held that several of the human rights enshrined in Pakistan’s constitution cover climate change and ‘provide the necessary judicial toolkit to address the government’s response to climate change’.

The court ordered the government to carry out measures such as publishing an adaptation action plan realizable within a few months of the order and establishing a Climate Change Commission to monitor progress.

2. Positive duties to mitigate risks

Many rights-based climate cases are being brought to clarify the scope of states’ positive duties under human rights law to take meaningful steps to protect their citizens against foreseeable risks to life and other rights.

This ‘trickle-up’ effect of human rights was prominent in the case of State of the Netherlands vs the Urgenda Foundation (2019) where the Dutch Supreme Court held that reducing emissions with the highest possible level of ambition amounts to a ‘due diligence standard’ for states to comply with their positive duties to adopt adequate measures to address climate change. Human rights law was also used by the court to fill in the content of the due diligence standards.

There is also a growing trend for rights-based actions to be brought against corporations, such as a recent case which drew on the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights to define the parameters of Shell’s duty of care and due diligence obligations in relation to carbon emissions under Dutch law. The court ordered Shell to reduce emissions by a net rate of 45 per cent by the end of 2030 – relative to 2019 figures – through its group corporate policy.

3. Avoiding harm in climate action

The global human rights regime is also increasingly invoked in litigation concerning states’ negative obligations to ensure that their climate mitigation and adaptation activities do not themselves contribute to human rights violations (including discrimination) and that states prioritize adaptation measures for those most at risk in a just and equitable way.

As Chatham House’s paper makes clear, this kind of litigation ‘puts pressure on governments to expand their approach to tackling climate change beyond purely a regulatory one to a more holistic strategy’.

Closing the climate justice gap

Climate and environmental litigation grounded in human rights is set to continue given the overwhelming scientific evidence of risks associated with human-induced climate change and the limited confidence in pledges made by states and corporations alike – including those made recently at COP26.

A growing collaboration between civil society organizations and vulnerable communities in relation to both the protection of nature and the enjoyment of their land and cultural rights was evident at COP26, and this alliance will add further momentum to the trend for rights-based climate litigation based on the rights of indigenous and other vulnerable communities, especially on issues such as deforestation.

But more challenges are coming. International human rights law recognizes a duty of international cooperation but there remain significant hurdles for climate-vulnerable communities in developing countries to compel action by richer nations despite the vast debts of ‘carbon colonialism.’

One big issue is the problem of extraterritoriality, as the extent to which states owe obligations to individuals outside their territory is contested. Courts in both Germany and the Netherlands have rejected claimants from developing countries in domestic class actions on this basis. But a recent decision of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child on a complaint brought by Greta Thunberg and other youth activists against five countries opens the door for further litigation.

One of a number of cases being brought by youth claimants across the world, the committee concluded that a state’s human rights duties can – in some instances – extend to children in other countries. This includes any activities on the territory that host states have the power to prevent from causing ‘transboundary harm’ – such as emissions from the territory – where these activities ‘significantly’ impact the enjoyment of human rights of persons outside the territory.

To date, high-profile rights-based cases have argued for policy change and stronger targets underpinned by binding legislation responsive to the science. Claims are set to become more complex and contested. Building on scientific developments in climate attribution, rights-based litigation is now tackling other difficult questions such as apportioning responsibility and remedial action.

These cases examine both historically high emitters and the public and private actors who either continue specific activities or refrains from action in the face of the overwhelming science linking human activities such as extraction and burning of fossil fuels to deforestation and climatic consequences.

Courts are also likely to explore the duties that states and corporations owe to deliver a ‘just transition’ away from carbon-intensive industries, given the benefits of growth and climate action are already unevenly distributed.

A holistic human-rights based approach

Several states together with civil society are leading the charge for global recognition of the right to a healthy, clean, and sustainable environment in the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council, and multi-stakeholder processes are defining what effective corporate due diligence looks like.

In addition, UN-appointed special rapporteurs are delivering practical guidance on how to devise solutions which are fair, non-discriminatory, participatory, and climate-resilient without exacerbating inequality – including difficult issues of planned relocation – and UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies are unpacking the duty of international cooperation to act in good faith to address loss and damage.

Recently the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women recommended the Marshall Islands, in order to meet its duty to its citizens, should actively seek international cooperation and assistance – including climate change financing – from other countries but in particular the US, whose ‘extraterritorial nuclear testing activities have exacerbated the adverse effects of climate change and natural disasters’ in the islands.

Protecting universal human rights: Imagine a better world Explainer Video NCapeling 19 November 2021

Short animation examining why protecting and defending human rights ensures an equitable response to humanitarian crises and addresses economic inequality.

Human rights are not policies that can be overturned, they are not granted by governments. They belong to everyone as human beings.

For the most part, states are meeting their commitments to defend and protect universal human rights. But increasingly some governments are beginning to shy away from their obligations, and some are even actively seeking to subvert human rights.

And the regional and international bodies created and charged with defending these rights are being challenged by the rise of new powers and political movements.

Chatham House is built on big ideas. Help us imagine a better world.

Our researchers develop positive solutions to global challenges, working with governments, charities, businesses and society to build a better future.

SNF CoLab is our project supported by the Stavros Niarchos Foundation (SNF) to share our ideas in experimental, collaborative ways – and to learn about designing a better future.

China, Liu Xiaobo and the New Reality of Human Rights Expert comment sysadmin 18 July 2017

Liu Xiaobo, Chinese Nobel laureate and human rights campaigner, died on 13 July while serving an 11-year prison sentence for ‘subversion’. Steve Tsang tells Jason Naselli that the reaction to Liu’s death reflects the growing confidence of the Chinese government that it can ignore Western criticism.

What does the Communist Party’s handling of the case of Liu Xiaobo tell us about its approach to dissidents and freedom of speech in the Xi era?

What it tells us is the party is tightening control much more than before. The Liu Xiaobo case shows that the party is not comfortable with people asking for the constitution of the People’s Republic of China to be enforced. Charter 08, for which Liu Xiaobo was jailed, ultimately amounts to asking for the rights of Chinese citizens, as articulated in the constitution, to be fully implemented. That resulted in Liu Xiaobo being incarcerated.

But what is really important isn’t so much that the party is tightening its control – that is happening anyway. What is more important is that the party is not that worried about how the Liu Xiaobo case affects international opinion.

If that’s the case, what lessons should countries looking to trade with China but concerned about human rights abuses take from Liu’s case?

We haven’t seen any major Western country come out to strongly and clearly hold the Chinese government to account over Liu Xiaobo’s human rights situation. A few leading governments have asked for Liu Xiaobo’s widow to be allowed to choose to stay or leave China. But so far there is no indication of any government backing that up with anything concrete.

That is very weak support for human rights in China. And it reflects a new reality: of the unwillingness of leading democracies to challenge the Chinese government on human rights matters, and the confidence on the part of the Chinese government to simply ignore what the rest of the world may think about it.

Given that there has been much discussion of China taking a larger global leadership role in the wake of an inward political turn in the US, what are the implications of Liu’s case for China’s global standing?

The implications are really small. There is a stronger expectation and desire to see China playing a global role because Donald Trump has damaged the standing of the United States as a global leader. It is not because of something that the Chinese government has done; it’s because of Trump.

That wider context hasn’t changed. So the Chinese government’s calculation is that the negative international reaction to Liu Xiaobo’s death will blow over in a matter of days – at worst, a couple of weeks – and then things will get back to normal.

There is no serious reason to believe that the Chinese government is wrong in their calculation. At the moment, the major Western countries are focusing on the economic relationship, and doing what they have to do pro forma about human rights issues in China. No major Western government is going to say that they are going to reconsider a major trade deal with China because of how Liu Xiaobo or his family has been treated. The Chinese government knows that and they act accordingly.

Moving on from the international reaction, how does Liu’s situation resonate within China?

Most Chinese don’t even know who Liu Xiaobo is. Within China, you cannot even search Liu Xiaobo’s name, or any permutation of Liu Xiaobo’s name, or the English initials of Liu Xiaobo. Anything potentially about or related to Liu Xiaobo is being censored.

Some things still get through; the ingenuity of a lot of bloggers is infinite. But most Chinese don’t even know what happened to Liu Xiaobo, or if they do, they mostly see him as a shill of the Western world trying to infiltrate and destabilize China.

If Western governments won’t engage China over human rights, what implications does that have for the global treatment of human rights as China becomes a bigger global player?

You can ‘engage’ in the sense of raising the issue with the Chinese authorities, as indeed the UK government and the German government have done, for example. But they haven’t actually taken any concrete steps.

The type of engagement where Western governments would get the Chinese government to demonstrate that something concrete was being done to improve the human rights situation – that era has gone. It is not going to come back in the foreseeable future. And therefore, the situation in terms of human rights in China will not be improving in the foreseeable future.

But what is more significant is how the Chinese government is asserting itself and dealing with domestic and international challenges, including on human rights issues. For many other countries around the world, China is showing an example for how to deal with the West. They don’t see it as being negative; they see it in positive terms.

There are still more countries in the world that abuse human rights than respect human rights. Most of those governments are pleased to see what the Chinese government has done in terms of how it handles the West.

Bangladesh: The Trade-Off Between Economic Prosperity and Human Rights 11 March 2020 — 1:00PM TO 2:00PM Anonymous (not verified) 28 February 2020 Chatham House | 10 St James's Square | London | SW1Y 4LE

Bangladesh’s recent gains in economic and social indices, set against its record of corruption and poor civil rights, has at times been termed the ‘Bangladesh Paradox’. Yet this label is overly simplistic; the current situation proves that these trends can coexist.

The Awami League government, in power since 2009, has increased political stability, delivered unprecedented economic and social advances, and adopted a counter-terrorism strategy to stamp out extremist groups. At the same time, it is criticized for curbing civil rights and failing to hold credible elections. However, as the two previous regimes have demonstrated, the rights situation is unlikely to improve even if the Awami League were replaced.

How did worsening rights become a feature of the state irrespective of its political dispensation? An unresolved contest between political and non-political state actors may hold the key to that puzzle. The perils of the current dispensation have recently manifested in weakening economic indicators, which jeopardize the very stability and social progress for which the country has garnered much praise.

Exploring Public International Law and the Rights of Individuals with Chinese Scholars - Part One Other resource sysadmin 29 October 2018

As part of a roundtable series, Chatham House and China University of Political Science and Law (CUPL) jointly organized this four-day meeting at Chatham House for international lawyers to discuss a wide range of issues related to public international law and the rights of individuals.

The specific objectives were to:

• create a platform for Chinese international law academics working on international human rights law issues to present their thinking and exchange ideas with counterparts from outside China;
• build stronger understanding within the wider international law community of intellectual debates taking place in China about the international human rights system and China’s role within it;
• support networking between Chinese and non-Chinese academics working on international human rights and related areas of international law.

The roundtable forms part of a wider Chatham House project exploring China’s impact on the international human rights system and was inspired by early discussions with a burgeoning community of Chinese academics thinking, writing (mainly in Chinese) and teaching about international human rights law.

For China University of Political Science and Law, one of the largest and most prestigious law schools in China and perhaps the only university in the world with an entire faculty of international law, the initiative is part of a drive to forge partnerships beyond China in the international law field.

The roundtable had a total of 22 participants, 10 Chinese (from universities and other academic institutions in Beijing and Shanghai) and 12 non-Chinese (from Australia, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States).

All discussions were held in English under the Chatham House Rule.

Exploring Public International Law and the Rights of Individuals with Chinese Scholars - Part Two Other resource sysadmin 30 October 2018

As part of a roundtable series, Chatham House and China University of Political Science and Law (CUPL) held a two-day roundtable meeting in Beijing on public international law and the rights of individuals.

The specific objectives were to:

• create a platform for Chinese international law academics working on international human rights law issues to present their thinking and exchange ideas with counterparts from outside China;
• build stronger understanding within the wider international law community of intellectual debates taking place in China about the international human rights system and China’s role within it;
• support networking between Chinese and non-Chinese academics working on international human rights and related areas of international law.

The roundtable forms part of a wider Chatham House project exploring China’s impact on the international human rights system and was inspired by early discussions with a burgeoning community of Chinese academics thinking, writing (mainly in Chinese) and teaching about international human rights law.

For CUPL, one of the largest and most prestigious law schools in China and perhaps the only university in the world with an entire faculty of international law, the initiative is part of a drive to forge partnerships beyond China in the international law field.

The meeting in Beijing was hosted by CUPL and involved 20 participants, 10 Chinese (from universities and other academic institutions in Beijing) and 10 non-Chinese (from Australia, the Netherlands, South Africa, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States).

To ensure continuity while also expanding the experts network being built, the second meeting included a mix of participants from the first meeting and some new participants.

All discussions were held in English under the Chatham House Rule.

Exploring Public International Law and the Rights of Individuals with Chinese Scholars - Part Three Other resource sysadmin 30 October 2018

As part of a roundtable series, Chatham House, China University of Political Science and Law (CUPL) and the Graduate Institute Geneva held a two-day roundtable meeting in Geneva on public international law and the rights of individuals.

The specific objectives were to:

• create a platform for Chinese international law academics working on international human rights law issues to present their thinking and exchange ideas with counterparts from outside China;
• build stronger understanding within the wider international law community of intellectual debates taking place in China about the international human rights system and China’s role within it;
• support networking between Chinese and non-Chinese academics working on international human rights and related areas of international law.

The roundtable forms part of a wider Chatham House project exploring China’s impact on the international human rights system and was inspired by early discussions with a burgeoning community of Chinese academics thinking, writing (mainly in Chinese) and teaching about international human rights law.

For CUPL, one of the largest and most prestigious law schools in China and perhaps the only university in the world with an entire faculty of international law, the initiative is part of a drive to forge partnerships beyond China in the international law field.

The meeting in Geneva was co-hosted by the Graduate Institute Geneva and involved 19 participants, 9 Chinese (from six research institutions in Beijing and Shanghai) and 11 non-Chinese (from eight research institutions in Australia, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States).

To ensure continuity while also expanding the expert network being built, the third meeting included a mix of participants from the first two meetings and some new participants

All discussions were held in English under the Chatham House Rule.

Online Disinformation and Political Discourse: Applying a Human Rights Framework Research paper sysadmin 5 November 2019

Although some digital platforms now have an impact on more people’s lives than does any one state authority, the international community has been slow to hold to account these platforms’ activities by reference to human rights law.

This paper examines how human rights frameworks should guide digital technology.

Summary

• Online political campaigning techniques are distorting our democratic political processes. These techniques include the creation of disinformation and divisive content; exploiting digital platforms’ algorithms, and using bots, cyborgs and fake accounts to distribute this content; maximizing influence through harnessing emotional responses such as anger and disgust; and micro-targeting on the basis of collated personal data and sophisticated psychological profiling techniques. Some state authorities distort political debate by restricting, filtering, shutting down or censoring online networks.
• Such techniques have outpaced regulatory initiatives and, save in egregious cases such as shutdown of networks, there is no international consensus on how they should be tackled. Digital platforms, driven by their commercial impetus to encourage users to spend as long as possible on them and to attract advertisers, may provide an environment conducive to manipulative techniques.
• International human rights law, with its careful calibrations designed to protect individuals from abuse of power by authority, provides a normative framework that should underpin responses to online disinformation and distortion of political debate. Contrary to popular view, it does not entail that there should be no control of the online environment; rather, controls should balance the interests at stake appropriately.
• The rights to freedom of thought and opinion are critical to delimiting the appropriate boundary between legitimate influence and illegitimate manipulation. When digital platforms exploit decision-making biases in prioritizing bad news and divisive, emotion-arousing information, they may be breaching these rights. States and digital platforms should consider structural changes to digital platforms to ensure that methods of online political discourse respect personal agency and prevent the use of sophisticated manipulative techniques.
• The right to privacy includes a right to choose not to divulge your personal information, and a right to opt out of trading in and profiling on the basis of your personal data. Current practices in collecting, trading and using extensive personal data to ‘micro-target’ voters without their knowledge are not consistent with this right. Significant changes are needed.
• Data protection laws should be implemented robustly, and should not legitimate extensive harvesting of personal data on the basis of either notional ‘consent’ or the data handler’s commercial interests. The right to privacy should be embedded in technological design (such as by allowing the user to access all information held on them at the click of a button); and political parties should be transparent in their collection and use of personal data, and in their targeting of messages. Arguably, the value of personal data should be shared with the individuals from whom it derives.
• The rules on the boundaries of permissible content online should be set by states, and should be consistent with the right to freedom of expression. Digital platforms have had to rapidly develop policies on retention or removal of content, but those policies do not necessarily reflect the right to freedom of expression, and platforms are currently not well placed to take account of the public interest. Platforms should be far more transparent in their content regulation policies and decision-making, and should develop frameworks enabling efficient, fair, consistent internal complaints and content monitoring processes. Expertise on international human rights law should be integral to their systems.
• The right to participate in public affairs and to vote includes the right to engage in public debate. States and digital platforms should ensure an environment in which all can participate in debate online and are not discouraged from standing for election, from participating or from voting by online threats or abuse.