When asked what items they never leave the house without, many people (in the West at least) would likely answer, “my mobile (cell) phone.” It would be pretty difficult for people in the U.K., for example, to adjust to a world where their handset didn’t accompany them everywhere; where they were unable to receive SMSs from their family; where women found their husbands to be disapproving of them owning such a device. In developing regions across the world, this scenario is more fact than fiction.

Google’s annual I/O conference is taking place in San Francisco this week, and the keynote speech(es) yesterday highlighted the latest, shiniest offerings Google is releasing to the public. I didn’t sit and watch the whole thing (it was over three hours long!) but from the parts I did catch, mobile seemed to be an area of focus. “Newer – faster – more intuitive” was the take-away, with users expected to be using the Android OS, on a smartphone. And what about the millions and millions of people with more basic handsets? Not quite Google’s target market segment. I came across a great article on openDemocracy which examines African women’s digital agency, discovering in the process that — in an “oh…well yes, of course” moment — there is a pretty significant gender gap when it comes to owning and using mobile (cell) phones.

According to GSMA (and perhaps here it should be noted that this is a mobile industry body), while mobile phone use in “the developing world is exploding, women are being left behind.” Research from 2010 found that a gender gap of around 300 million women existed in low to middle income countries. In Africa, as Carolyn Humbaba writes,

“Due to financial constraints and limited economic power, most African women face the dilemma of choosing whether to spend their money on use of ICTs or to buy food for their families and meet other very basic needs of survival. The unequal power relations between men and women that contribute to differential access, participation and treatment of men and women in the Information Society is in most cases over looked in the various interventions that have been made over the years.”

A rather large part of the power inequality could be said to arise from the (lack of) education that girls and women receive in some regions of the world. While female enrollment in sub-Saharan Africa and South and East Asia has increased, a UNESCO report found this to be due to richer, urban girls participating. And, lest we forget, enrolment is not the same as actually completing school. Without proper schooling, girls and women are left illiterate — and within the context of telecommunications, this poses problems when dealing with text-based interfaces, not to mention English-language dominance when it comes to more sophisticated, internet-capable devices.

Women also face cultural and social barriers to mobile (cell) phone possession. Asiacell, an Iraqi mobile operator, built on research into why Iraqi women’s take-up rate of phones was so small compared to the market at large. In developing a product specifically designed for women, the company had to shift their usual strategy as barriers to entry included husbands’ concerns, male sales and customer service agents, and the possibility of damaging one’s reputation through receiving unwanted calls.

Their service, called “Alma,” includes the “bye bye” feature which can block any number (calling and sending SMS), so aiming to limit harrassment, and a dedicated female-staffed call center. It also, unsurprisingly, has an “exclusive menu” for women which rather predictably focuses on family health, beauty and recipes. This feeds into what GSMA have written in their marketing guide for mobile network operators, namely, suggesting it might be highly profitable to make your product gender-specific instead of gender neutral. As the Western world slowly starts to shift children’s toys toward being promoted in a more gender neutral way (if only slightly), it seems “grown up” toys are heading in the opposite direction. In this case, I say let’s even up the balance first, then worry about what it is the scales are holding. Talking of making products highly gender-specific, Oxfam decided to do just that when distributing phones to a project in Cambodia: They made them pink. But maybe not for the reason you would expect.

Is women owning mobile (cell) phones likely to overthrow patriarchy and eliminate gender discrimination? Not in my life time, I would wager. Fatimah Kelleher, in her openDemocracy article mentioned above, noted, “Digital advancements within the continent [of Africa] can play a major role, but alone they will not empower women.” Education, good healthcare and economic opportunity can. But mobile phones shouldn’t be overlooked as a powerful tool for increasing awareness, providing financial access through mobile finance to markets and banking, and helping people stay connected to one another. So call me, maybe?

Image: NOAA

For much of the world’s employed, maintaining communication with those closest to them while completing their employment requirements is not a contemplated issue. Many workers can use their own personal or workplace phones, computers, and other devices to contact their friends and family if need be. Outside the workplace, most working people return home to be with their loved ones or are able to contact them with relative ease and at a reasonable cost. Modern social media also allows people to keep informed of the major events and day-to-day lives of their contacts.

For the world’s seafarers, the ability to communicate with their home from their sea-going living and workplace is not the norm, but is gaining more significant attention.

When the world’s fleet is away from port, communication capabilities rely on satellites. Modern international seafaring vessels are equipped with such devices – indeed, international and national maritime laws require the observance of rather detailed technical specifications for ships’ communication and radio systems. These systems are in place more for the ship than its crew, and aim to facilitate its operation and to prevent injury to its crew, the environment or people. Personal communication is possible through such systems, but is often cost or time prohibitive.

The duration of a seafarer’s voyage depends largely on two factors: where seafarers are from and their vessel’s route. European seafarers can only be hired through contracts that are considered relatively short, approximately four or five months. Seafarers hailing from elsewhere in the world may be engaged for longer voyages. For example, the Philippines is home to most of the world’s seafarers and their contracts can be twice as long as their European counterparts. Despite advances in the maritime technologies, voyages can be extremely long. It can take 30 days to travel to Singapore from Port Newark around the Cape of Good Hope and a seafarer may be unable to use their ship’s satellite technology for personal communication for reasons varying from spotty signals to a ship’s policy.

According to Seafarers’ Rights International (SRI), 80 percent of all seafarers, but 97 percent of ratings, have no access to the internet while at sea.  68 percent of ratings have limited onboard access to email in port, while 52 percent of all seafarers actually have such access. What this demonstrates is an ability of ships’ officers and engineers being able to utilize the ship’s communications systems for personal reasons where lower-ranking seafarers do not.

Such occurrences are not infrequent due to the similar configuration of most ships’ communications systems. There may be more than one phone on board the ship, but typically only one voice call can be made at a time. Many ships do not have computers in crew or officer’s mess or recreation areas. The only computers available for common usage are perhaps several in the ship’s office and one in the engine room. These devices connect to the internet through a service such as FleetBroadband, a 3G capable data and voice service relayed through the Inmarsat-4 satellites. Reception varies throughout the world, resulting in higher-cost calls that are often dropped. Emails messages tend to be restricted to text-only format with a 10kb limit, and the ship’s master must perform manual connections to exchange email messages.

These limitations are quite restrictive, especially as many people today are accustomed to having instantaneous access to several forms of communication. Intertanko, the International Association of Independent Tanker Owners, recognizes that providing internet access to ships’ crews is a best business practice. It promotes employee attraction, retention, and satisfaction in a workplace that doubles as a living space. Training programs can be completed remotely while at sea, obviating the need to take precious time home to enroll in onshore programs.

Though the immediate cost of installing a ship communications system that could accommodate the free or prepaid use of internet and voice communications is relatively low, it still appears to be a factor dictating against providing such access. Shipowners are worried, perhaps not unreasonably, that readily accessible communications would be too great a distraction for ship’s crews, but at the same time the rest of the world’s workforce seems to manage. Like anywhere else, the use of personal communication technologies while on the clock would presumably be regulated by company policy. Additionally, the long-term benefits are arguably speculative and difficult to cognize, and there is not much activity from either the international legal or human rights communities regarding the issue.

When the International Labour Organization’s Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC) enters into force on Aug. 20, 2013, one of the most significant developments in the maritime industry’s history will have been achieved. Surprisingly, the MLC makes no mention of this issue. Despite its focus on the rights and welfare of seafarers, no attempt is made to codify such issues as a legal entitlement, a seafarer’s right. For such an isolated population, access to the internet is an empowering tool for seafarers to research their rights. A 2010 poll conducted by SRI indicated an overwhelming 96 percent of seafarers desired to learn more about their legal rights. Seafarers’ rights and welfare institutions recognizes these issues too, for a sizable part of their work involves providing telephone and internet access to the international seafarers visiting their respective ports.

International human rights law, for all of its concern with rights to life, quality of life, work, expression, family life, and so forth, has not considered the issue of access to communication technologies as being a rights issue. On land, it is colorable to argue it is not, and there is no such clear-cut right. For the more than 1.2 million seafarers worldwide, communication and engagement with their own communities as well as the world is of paramount importance, human rights doctrine is still nascent, and the prevailing industry position is a double-standard of reluctance and concern regarding the responsibility and professionalism of seafarers. Additionally, it is necessary for the future of the shipping industry that it strives to retain aspiring, young, and educated seafarers by making the positions desirable enough to compete with their land-based counterparts.

Photo by Robin Hammond

What does a country in the middle of collapse look like? This was the question filmmaker Lorie Conway attempted to answer in her new film on Zimbabwe, “Beatrice Mtetwa and the Rule of Law.” A recent showing by the United States Institute of Peace gave a venue for both the filmmaker and the film’s primary focus, human rights lawyer Beatrice Mtetwa, to discuss this question and its implications. By focusing on the rule of law, or at times the lack thereof, the film attempts to demonstrate not only the decline of the country, but also what is needed to get it back on track.

Once seen as the breadbasket of Africa, for many years after independence Zimbabwe enjoyed economic growth and strong socio-economic development in areas such as literacy, education, and healthcare. But underneath the rosy exterior, political intimidation and oppression remained. This reality was further masked once the main opposition party united with President Robert Mugabe’s party, turning Zimbabwe in a de facto single party state under ZANU PF. But with growing economic pressures and the emergence of a new opposition party with the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) in the late 1990s, the veneer started to fall away. What has happened since then – violent farm invasions, massive internal displacement, years of runaway hyperinflation, rampant government corruption, violent political oppression, crackdowns on independent press and civil society – are signs of a country in collapse but also symptoms of the underlying problem which is what happens when a government chooses to completely disregard the rule of law in favor of maintaining their power at all costs.

The World Justice Project defines the rule of law as four principles: 1) All person and entities are accountable under the law, including government officials, 2) law are clear and widely available, applied evenly, and protect fundamental rights, 3) the process for enacting laws and their administration is fair and accessible, and 4) justice is delivered by an independent judiciary who have adequate resources and are representative of the communities they serve. As the film and panel discussion highlighted, Zimbabwe lacks all four of these principles which makes development and growth extremely difficult.

In the fight for the rule of law, Beatrice Mtetwa looms large. Formerly a state prosecutor, when she left the prosecutors office and started her own firm in 1989, she quickly gained a reputation for her willingness to take on cases that others wouldn’t touch due to political sensitivities or controversy. As a result, she has appeared in some of the most high profile human rights cases in recent Zimbabwe history. Representing opposition politicians, journalists, evicted farmers, democracy activists and civil society leaders, Mtetwa is at the forefront of trying to uphold the law and hold the government accountable to basic human rights standards.

Doing so is not always easy or successful. Starting in 2001, the judiciary underwent restructuring which saw Zimbabwe’s independent judges forced out in favor of presidential political appointments. The obvious result is a biased system where the outcome of any given case is more likely to be based on political considerations than the legal merits. Coupled with draconian laws like the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act which heavily constricts the media, and the Public Order and Security Act which gives the security sector wide ranging powers to protect the presidency and curtails freedom of association, the ability of an attorney to hold parties to basic legal principles is difficult and at some times, downright impossible.

But not always. Despite the deficiencies in the rule of law in Zimbabwe – the World Justice Project ranks the country second to last in the world in its’ Rule of Law Index – the persistence of figures like Mtetwa and their work demonstrates that for now there is still room where people can motivate change. Though slow, by constantly pushing back against corruption and authoritarianism, lawyers and civil society actors can diminish the progress of this backslide and hopefully move the line further towards a more democratic and inclusive government.

Zimbabwe is scheduled to hold elections later this year, the first since the violent elections of 2008. Both of the major parties have failed within the power sharing government and much is at stake in the election, not just in terms of who takes power but what direction the country will follow for the future. Opinions about who is best for the country vary but as with any democratic contest, the most important element is that the people are able to make that choice in a fair, free and transparent fashion. The rule of law is crucial to making that happen. So far, recent analysis is not optimistic that the reforms needed to guarantee this will occur prior to the election but there is still time. And regardless of the outcome of the election, it is obvious that major reforms in governance, judicial discretion and tackling security sector impunity are needed to put Zimbabwe back on track. Doing so will not only improve human rights but encourage economic growth, two things urgently needed to bring Zimbabwe back from the depths of collapse.

Here’s a little quiz to start you off with: In which profession do women make up less than 2% of the global workforce? I’ll give you a clue and exclude religious callings, firefighters and clowns from your choice of possible answers. (Hint: The title of this post might be a little bit of a giveaway!)

You would be correct if you had in fact chosen the maritime workers’ sector. As food for thought, a 2004 article found that in India, only 12 women were registered seafarers. Not 12,000, but 12.

As on land, so at sea

In land-based professions, women are disproportionately represented in the service sector and so it is for maritime professions as well. Women are mostly to found working “as hotel staff on passenger ships,” with only six percent of women overall employed on cargo vessels. As the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) notes, these ferry and cruise ship jobs “are among the worst paid and least protected of jobs at sea.”

The ITF also claims that in certain countries, women face discrimination when trying to enter the sector, with maritime training and education institutions forbidden from admitting women to their nautical programmes. Whether this is fact or hyperbole is unclear, as no sources are given. However, as the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO’s) website states that one of its objectives is to “encourage IMO Member States to open the doors of their maritime institutes to enable women to train alongside men and so acquire the high level of competence that the maritime industry demands” it would suggest this odd state of affairs is more fact than fiction.

As one of my favorite quotes from a 2003 ILO article marking the release of their first publication on the topic of women and seafaring shows, superstition may still hold sway:

What about the old saying that women are bad luck at sea?

An interesting myth, sort of like the myth that you will fall off the edge of the earth if you sail too far from port. But this is the twenty-first century, we know the earth is round and that superstitions have nothing to do with it. The ILO pursues a modern social agenda, with a strong gender component. Our work on behalf of women seafarers is a classic example of “mainstreaming” gender into all elements of a trade. In this case, mainstreaming extends also to all seven seas.

Aye aye, cap’n

And, similar to women being underrepresented in corporate board rooms, women also do not feature prominently in ships’ officer listings. However, this is slowly beginning to change — but not maybe the reason you would expect. Rather than simply being a positive attempt to achieve a more balanced gender structure, the motive is much more economic than altruistic. While the IMO describes its efforts as “making a concerted effort to help the industry move on from … tradition and to help women achieve a representation within it that is more in keeping with twenty-first century expectations,” research seems to indicate that this push is more out of necessity than due to any deep-seated desire for equality. In these tough economic times, there simply aren’t enough men competent enough to fill officer positions, a trend which began in the 1990s; with such a shortage of qualified candidates, “the focus now is on the possibility of recruiting more women into the maritime profession.”

Just over a fortnight ago, a conference on the Development of a Global Stategy for Women Seafarers was held in Busan, South Korea. With participants from various Asia-Pacific states and the World Maritime University taking part, the IMO thought it a good location to launch its promotional video, ‘Women at the Helm’ (below). The conference also saw the launch of the (very brief) Busan Declaration, in which parties agreed and committed to, among other principles, “Work towards enhancing greater awareness of the role of women as a valuable resource to the maritime industry and to the promotion of safe, secure and efficient shipping and the protection of the environment.” The right idea is there, however it seems a little “fluffy” in its wording. “Work towards enhancing” comes across as rather…pitiful in character, while “women as a valuable resource” seems a very unfortunate choice of words indeed. But it’s a start, right?

If you are even remotely interested in this sorely under-researched topic, I would highly recommend reading Momoko Kitada’s PhD thesis on “Women Seafarers and their Identities”, submitted in 2010. It provides a fascinating insight into the lives of women on merchant vessels, examining their approach to “fitting in” (or not) in a highly male environment, as well as their experiences on shore leave, where the gender balance evens up.

The Supreme Court of the United States. Image: fbi.gov.

On Wednesday, April 17, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, a case that developed over years and became highly anticipated by the international human rights community. The case itself had been before the Court twice and had the potential to address many unanswered questions regarding the jurisdictional scope of the Alien Tort Statute (ATS).

Characterization of the ATS is often described as enigmatic. The reasoning behind the statute’s enactment is muddled in history, and the precise aim of its language only began to be fleshed out by American courts in the 1980’s following the landmark Second Circuit decision of Filatriga v. Peña-Irala. The Supreme Court of the United States first addressed the statute in the 2004 case of Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, and the holding fell short of the hopes of human rights victims and advocates.

The Sosa case, for all it left unanswered, was clear in stating that not all violations of international law were actionable under the ATS. The court affirmed the proposition that the statute is merely jurisdictional, meaning that it created no independent cause of action. The cause of action must arise out of a “violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” Though violation of a treaty provision is straightforward, what constitutes a violation of the law of nations remained more elusive.

As the Sosa Court clearly sought to limit the potentially expansive scope of the ATS by narrowing the field of actionable claims under the ATS “law of nations” prong essentially to jus cogens norms. Causes of action must be based on one of the Eighteenth century paradigms mentioned by the court (safe passage, offenses to ambassadors, and piracy) or a modern equivalent. To be recognized as a modern, tortious violation of the law of nations, it must be universally recognized by civilized nations, equally binding and nonderogable to those nations, and be clearly defined through an abundance of various corroborating sources. Further, prudential considerations such as the maintenance of foreign relations, must not preclude the exercise of jurisdiction under the ATS. Though the Court did not consider any other potential limitations on ATS claims, Sosa has largely been read as if the discussed limitations were the only limitations on ATS claims.

In setting the bar for ATS jurisdiction so high, human rights advocates perhaps were too optimistic regarding future ATS cases to reach the Supreme Court. In a Seventh Circuit ATS decision, Flomo v. Firestone Natural Rubber Co., LLC, the prolific Judge Richard Posner seems to do everything he can to tactfully undermine the Supreme Court’s restrictive approach to the ATS without ruling for the plaintiff. Ruling for the plaintiff could have resulted in the Supreme Court squarely addressing the issue of whether corporate liability can be had under the ATS in the negative, a question that the Court avoided in Kiobel.

Kiobel’s reasoning is not shocking. The proposition that the presumptive doctrine against extraterritoriality applies to the ATS was hardly contentious among the justices in a unanimous decision for the judgment. The court was not at pains to conclude that the tortious injury must occur in the United States or at least substantial activities that led to the injury occurred in the United States.

Though ATS litigation was dealt a strong blow, other doors remain open. Pleading such claims in U.S. state courts, or the courts of other nations, using the laws of U.S. states or other nations, may be the new approach to the presentation of cases dealing with grave violations of human rights. Many procedural and substantive questions are left unanswered in Kiobel, and commentators are quick to point out the inherent vagueness, which will contribute to conflicting readings of the opinion. Justice Kennedy’s short and ambiguous concurrence states “the presumption against extraterritorial application may require some further elaboration and explanation.” The question of corporate liability under a corporate social responsibility in human rights angle under the ATS still remains open.

Lastly, four justices did vote for reasoning that does not concern extraterritoriality at all, but Congressional intent in passing the ATS. The role of the court, to the four Justices signing Justice Breyer’s concurrence, is how to apply those Eighteenth century concerns in modern times where the “community of nations” is increasingly recognizing many more violations of human rights norms. Though this does not amount to a majority, it demonstrate that the court could be persuaded to receive a future ATS case less restrictively.

Every day across the globe millions of children are abused and neglected.  These innocent children are the victims of forced labor, sex trafficking and exploitation, physical abuse, sexual abuse, mental abuse, malnutrition, neglect, and used as child soldiers.

The impacts of child abuse do not come to an end when the child is taken from their abuser or abusive situation.  The impacts of child abuse are life long and affect the child’s mental health and well being throughout adulthood.  According to the U.S. Surgeon General,

… severe and repeated trauma during youth may have enduring effects upon both neurobiological and psychological development altering stress responsivity and altering adult behavior patterns … these individuals experience a greatly increased risk of mood, anxiety and personality disorders throughout adult life.

These mental health issues not only affect that of the child, but the entire community.  The global impact of child abuse is huge, as it not only impacts the the health and social well-being of the child, but that of the entire family unit, community and nation.  Child abuse has a direct impact on the economic and social development of a country, as children are less likely to either finish their education or preform well in school. Without adequate support, once adults, they are more likely to struggle with employment and have lower participation in the workforce.  Therefore, lifetime effects of child abuse impact not only on the health of individuals, but strain health and welfare budgets across the country.  Additionally, abuse survivors are less likely to have healthy relationships throughout their lives and continue to suffer from the physiological trauma of their abuse, and if not treated, may continue the same patterns of behavior in their own relationships and parenting, thus creating a cycle of violence. Survivors of abuse may also have continued physical problems related to their abuse and have an increased likelihood for substance abuse — all which not only impact their personal development, but can place a strain on the healthcare system.

In the United States alone, according to the Administration for Children and Families, 12,180 children died from abuse and neglect between 2001 and 2008.  However, the actual number of child deaths is significantly higher, as many child maltreatment, abuse and neglect related fatalities remain unrecorded.

In the U.S. the fight against child abuse first gained ground in 1974 when the first federal child protection legislation, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), was passed. Over the years the act has been amended numerous times, most recently by the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003.  However, it was not until the early 1980s that Congress made a commitment to identify and implement solutions to fight child abuse. Seeing the astonishing rate at which children were abused and neglected, they sought to create preventative programs and assist parents and families affected by maltreatment. Congress then designated the week of June 6-12, 1982, as the first National Child Abuse Prevention Week. The following year, April was proclaimed the first National Child Abuse Prevention Month. The Office on Child Abuse and Neglect (OCAN) within the Children’s Bureau coordinates Child Abuse Prevention Month, providing information, such as the annual Resource Guide, and releasing updated national statistics about child abuse and neglect each April.

Unfortunately, despite the best efforts of the many who have worked countless hours addressing child maltreatment, the U.S. continues to fall short of protecting its youngest citizens. Knowing the warning signs of abuse are key for every adult to keeping our children safe from harm, as awareness is the first step in prevention.  Please see my previous article, Knowing the signs of abuse to protect our children, to learn more on how you can protect and prevent children from abuse.  And while we need to increase our awareness and prevention programs, we must also strengthen our laws to ensure that all children are given a fighting chance.

News reporting on India, more specifically news regarding women in India, has recently been somewhat unsettling. Horrific cases of sexual abuse, some fatal, have made their way from the Indian media to a global stage. In terms of raising awareness, the impact has been powerful. Yet tarring all of India with the same brush would be a mistake, as should be obvious.

An article published online in The Hindu mirrors this sentiment, beginning, “In an atmosphere where every morning, our newspapers greet us with stories of girls being tormented, raped, killed or treated like a doormat in one way or another.”

The article however brings some positive news, reporting on the practice of a village in southern Rajasthan where 111 trees are planted each time a baby girl is welcomed into the community – a stark contrast to other places around the world where female infanticide is still an unfortunate reality. The village, Piplantri, also encourages parents to sign a document stating that their daughter will not be married off before she is legally of age, and that she will attend school regularly. One commenter below the piece says “it almost borders fiction” that such positive action is being taken, while another notes that introducing a financial incentive (a fund is set up for the baby girl) isn’t exactly the same as changing the ingrained mindset that girls are somehow inferior — a salient point.

The author makes a link to ecofeminism, one of the perhaps lesser-known contenders in the feminist arena. Ecofeminism, in the words of Rosemary Radford Reuther, “represents the union of the radical ecology movement, or what has been called ‘deep ecology’, and feminism.” A connection is made between humans’ subjugation of nature (and the prevalent idea that humans are superior to animals and plants) and society’s subjugation of women. Planting trees in honor of the girls born in Piplantri, villagers are sustaining their environment while also making a physical statement about life.

This ten-minute TEDx video provides a brief introduction to ecofeminism, should you wish to find out more:

Ecofeminist views and arguments should, however, be read with a critical eye when it comes to India and other countries of the Global South, argues Sowmya Dechamma in an essay available here. She contends that India’s caste system and its influence on daily life should not be ignored within the context of ecofeminist thought:

“Ritualistic hierarchy of caste, and patriarchy within the caste system that has been internalized over centuries has been largely responsible for construction of images, values, perceptions and representations of women and nature. And because relations with nature vary with the occupation (again directly related to caste), women of different castes have different relations with nature.”

Everyone’s relationship with the environment is inherently personal, and for each baby girl in Piplantri, especially so. While perhaps not adopting the practice on such a grand scale, maybe all parents should consider planting a tree in honor of their children to encourage a connection with nature for future generations. Will you be planting one?

Image: U.S. Dept. of State.

In what is often being labeled the “Korean Crisis” or “Korean Missile Crisis” the latest outward displays of military prowess by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) have prompted concerted international efforts on not only strategies of military containment, but of human rights inquiry. Comprehensive investigation into the domestic human rights record of the DPRK has eluded the international community for years, a shortcoming exacerbated by a lack of access to the DPRK and its people as well as the relative dearth of information and corroborated evidence.

Key U.N. Security Council Resolutions have focused on the DPRK in relation to the international policies and laws on the nonproliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Security Council Resolution 1781 (2006) established sanctions against the DPRK, albeit in a version more toned down than originally proposed. An embargo on technological, military and luxury goods was established, but the DPRK’s primary trading partner, China, has done little to prevent the DPRK’s regime from acquiring weapons, military technology and various luxury goods.

Reports indicate that it was the efforts of Japan that helped the U.N. Human Rights Council create the Commission of Inquiry on the DRPK. The Commission of Inquiry is charged “to investigate the systematic, widespread and grave violations of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, with a view to ensuring full accountability.”

The mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in the DPRK was also extended for one year. The Special Rapporteur is here particularly concerned with “the existence of detention camps, the use of torture, enforced disappearances, the abduction of foreign nationals, systematic violations of the right to food, and continuous violations of the right to freedom of expression.”

The threat of militaristic belligerence coupled with the ongoing reports of grave human rights abuses have pushed the international community as a whole toward greater action regarding the DRPK situation. Policies couched in concerns for territorial integrity and sovereignty from the DPRK’s neighbors such as China and the Russian Federation that have heretofore prevented a stronger approach towards the DPRK human rights situation will necessarily begin to fall closer in line with the newly-minted strategy spearheaded largely by Japan, the European Union, Canada, and the U.S. For once it appears that the DPRK’s nuclear weapons program is not overshadowing the human rights situation on the world stage, and the issues are being examined as different outgrowths of the same root problem of an abusive regime.

The DPRK has already responded to the mounting international pressure regarding its human rights record, though it has done so with resentment. The DPRK’s responses admit to mere denials of a deplorable human rights record and newly issued threats against Seoul and Washington, D.C. So Se Pyong, the U.N. Representative for the DPRK has promised “serious consequences” if the Commission of Inquiry proceeds with its work, adding the people of the DPRK are “happy with pride and honor that they have one of the best systems for promotion and protection of human rights in the world.” Though this stance passes little muster in the international or human rights communities, the conflation of the DPRK’s internal human rights abuses and external humanitarian threats appears poised to usher in new progress in international law and action, or at least a more unified approach from the international community.

U.N. General Assembly passes Arms Trade Treaty

Update to 26 of March entry, “Will a New Arms Trade Treaty Be Approved?”:

On 2 April, the U.N. General Assembly passed the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) – the first binding international treaty designed to regulate the $70 billion cross-border conventional arms trade, and create a standard to protect peace and security. Countries will be required to review each international arms contract to confirm that arms will not be used in human rights abuses, violations of humanitarian law, or terrorism.

Reaching the successful outcome was anything but easy.

Two rounds of voting were necessary on the third and final president’s (Ambassador Peter Woolcott of Australia) draft of the ATT. Prior drafts were viewed as flawed by various countries, which prevented them from ensuring their vote in the affirmative. After long negotiations to shape the third draft, diplomats concluded a strengthened draft had been pieced together. The conference then proceeded to the first of the two votes on the ATT on 28 March.

According to the rules of procedure of the conference, a consensus vote in the affirmative was necessary from all member states to pass the treaty – the clause was originally insisted upon by the U.S. to ensure its ability to block a treaty viewed to impinge on domestic gun ownership. The U.S. wound up supporting the third draft, but Iran, North Korea and Syria joined together to vote against it, blocking consensus and stalling the treaty. The diplomats representing the three countries claimed that the treaty is unjust because it is unbalanced between exporting and importing countries, there are many legal flaws, and it does not regulate the arms trade to non-State actors (such as rebel groups in Syria pushing to overthrow Assad). There were other nations, such as Russia and China, that did view the treaty favorably but did not block its passage.

To get around the blockade, the draft treaty was sent to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to request putting it to a vote in the General Assembly, where only a majority is needed. The treaty was indeed placed on the docket and on 2 April, after Angola switched its vote, 155 countries voted to pass the treaty, 22 abstained and the same 3 countries – Iran, DPRK and Syria citing the same reasoning – voted against it. The 22 abstaining countries that initially did not fully support the draft treaty as constituted – such as Russia, China, Bolivia, India and Saudi Arabia – provided various reasoning for their vote. A common thread was the document can be viewed as a political act. The NRA and many U.S. senators affirmed their opposition after the vote.

Fifty nations will need to ratify the ATT for it to enter into force, and then it will be implemented 90 days from that point.

Overall, CSOs were especially pleased with the number of countries that voted in the affirmative – Pakistan’s unexpected yes vote, for example, is thought to demonstrate the strength of the treaty.

As the final vote was displayed digitally inside the General Assembly Hall, it was met with applause and adulation from country delegations and CSOs alike, such as the Control Arms coalition, that spent significant time pursuing a treaty to regulate the arms trade.

British Prime Minister David Cameron welcomed the outcome as a “landmark agreement that will save lives and ease the immense human suffering caused by armed conflict around the world.” And U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry applauded the treaty as well, which he described as “a strong, effective and implementable Arms Trade Treaty that can strengthen global security while protecting the sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade.”

Image: DDFic, Flickr

The modern workplace and the requirements of jobs in the high-technology era have brought what was an outlying issue in the past to the forefront of the debate on employment arrangements. Some major technologically inclined corporations have come to different conclusions. Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer banned telecommuting arrangements via a memo and Google CFO Patrick Pichette stated that “as few [Google employees] as possible” telecommute. Virgin Group Founder Sir Richard Branson, who has never worked out of an office, finds these positions to be “backwards,” especially when the tools to make such arrangements productive, fulfilling and secure are available.

There is something to be said for either side of the argument, but the best answer is likely “it depends.” Whether a telecommuting arrangement will work or not depends on many factors, including the type and demands of a particular job and the desires of the employer and employee.

The pros and cons as well as the costs and benefits of telecommuting are numerous, and read to point towards favoring telecommuting as reducing costs and stressors of the employee, employer and society at large. Many employees see a telecommuting arrangement as job perks, appreciating the greater ability to manage personal and family life in relation to job requirements.

The response of the anti-telecommuting camp is to create, in a sense, the modern company town. Major corporations provide many on-sight services and benefits that have the effect of obviating many of the concerns of those employees who would prefer telecommuted working arrangements. Corporate facilities provide on-site dining, health care, automotive maintenance, and many other mundane but necessary and recurring tasks that employees may otherwise have to take time off of work to complete.

The potential for positive effects on the social goals falling under the purview of corporate social responsibility created by telecommuting arrangements are vast. Greatly reducing the pollution and injuries created by daily commutes, ensuring job security through the continuity of business in the event of a disaster, and reduces the opportunities for discrimination to pervade the workplace. In other words, the successful balancing of the work life and personal life of many employees through feasible telecommuting arrangements will, in the aggregate, significantly advance the goals and agendas of human and labor rights.

The normative content of the human right to work cannot approach a level of specificity or conviction that would recommend either the physical presence of employees in a workplace or a telecommuting arrangement. Certain jobs such as those in the service industry clearly require the presence of employees in a precise location, but many desk jobs could be carried out under a telecommuting arrangement.

The work of the International Labor Organization recognizes the necessity of achieving a harmonious work-life balance that satisfies the needs and interests of both employee and employer. Telecommuting could be a positive advancement in the work place for all.

This past month has seen some well-written policy briefs being published on NOREF’s (the Norwegian Peacebuilding Resource Centre’s) website. As the name might suggest, a major theme running through the collection of articles is peace — and also how women can contribute.

I’ve just chosen three to focus on in this post, however there are many more to be found on the NOREF website under the theme,”‘Women, peace and security,” all of which are worth a read.

Violence

The first short policy brief by Inger Skjelsbaek, “Sexual violence in conflict and post-conflict settings“ opens with a provocative statement:

The laudable focus on assisting victims of sexual violence in conflict and post-conflict settings distracts attention from the need to focus on dealing with the perpetrators of such violence, which is the only way to prevent it from happening.

Skjelsbaek calls for a shift from just a victim-centered approach to one which also includes a perpetrator-centered focus. Documenting the inexcusable actions and supporting those who have experienced sexual violence is no less important but as is pointed out, “Preventing perpetrators from committing acts of sexual violence is the only way to effectively combat such violence in armed conflict.” There has been a push for (international) criminal prosecution, which may act as a deterrent — however is this enough? If this is the only measure, a mentality of  ”only if I get caught” isn’t difficult to imagine. Skjelsbaek suggests that pre-emptive measures should be taken, with rigorous gender sensitivity training included in military preparations; any incidents should also be taken seriously by those in charge so that a culture of ambivalence is not allowed to develop or continue.

Will this policy recommendation be taken seriously and adopted by various military organizations? Or will it be one that is agreed to and then swept under the carpet, seen as “more meddling” in the ways of soldiers?

Peacekeeping

“More meddling” is an accusation which could be thrown at the author of “Moving beyond the numbers: integrating women into peacekeeping operations,” Olivera Simić. In her four-page brief, Simić argues that women need to be integrated into senior, decision-making leadership roles as the current, somewhat ad-hoc approach to increasing the number of women peacekeepers is not translating into gender equality or mainstreaming. Improving the gender balance is one thing; deconstructing gender hierarchies and attitudes is another.

The author also discusses gender stereotyping, questioning whether the assumption that women’s “feminine”qualities — as “innately more nurturing and peaceful” — would have an impact on the number of sexual offenses committed by male colleagues. She argues such reinforcement of stereotypes is damaging and also detrimental to women peacekeepers in that they are characterized as being primarily there “to reduce aggressiveness and hypermasculinity…[they] are essentially expected to take on the responsibility for preventing sexual exploitation and abuse.” This links back to the key point made in Skjelsbaek’s brief — that diverting responsibility does not eradicate the cause.

Negotiations

The third brief focuses on peace negotiations and the often limited role that women are allowed. Christine Bell argues that today’s peace processes and negotiations are structurally biased, and not in favor of women. For example, if the process is fragile, there may be a reluctance to admit participants not at the heart of the conflict, as this may somehow upset key parties, and also with an increased number of interests, impede reaching agreement.

A 2012 study conducted by UNIFEM found that of 31 major peace processes between 1992 and 2011, only four percent of signatories, 2.4 percent of chief mediators and nine percent of negotiators were women, with the UN never having appointed a woman to be a chief mediator of a peace process. Furthermore, only 16 percent of peace agreements actually mention women specifically.

Bell outlines the various types of peace negotiations and agreements and highlights the opportunities and challenges facing women wishing to become involved. Furthermore, Bell provides substantive recommendations for consideration during negotiations, acknowledging there cannot be a single “women-friendly” blueprint as any peace agreement “must respond to local contexts to be effectively implemented.”

But, as is stated in the introduction, a peace process “not only aim[s] to institute a ceasefire and end the conflict, but often also define the new structures and constitution of the country.”

Can a process which does not involve or listen to the voices of women, who make up around 50 percent of the population, be called “peace”?

After nearly two decades of conflict, the Democratic Republic of the Congo makes a regular appearance in international news. The most recent chapter of the story is the conflict between the Congolese government and the M23 rebel group which started in April 2012. The back and forth fighting since then displaced more than 300,000 people  with large casualties on both sides.  Recent divisions within M23 furthered the spiral and placed peace talks on hold. But while events developed quickly, no one expected what happened on March 18 when the leader of M23, Bosco Ntaganda, walked off the street into the US Embassy in Kigali to request his own transfer to the International Criminal Court where he is indicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

It would appear that this is a low key – albeit perplexing – end of the warlord’s career who earned the nickname “the Terminator” for his ethnic cleansing of villages while with the Union of Congolese Patriots (UPC). His fighting career started when he fought with the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) who ultimately gained control of Rwandan following the 1994 genocide. However he then moved back to the DRC where he was raised and fought for the UPC in the Ituri conflict and the National Congress for the Defense of the People (CNDP) in the Kivus. After the CNDP was integrated into the Congolese national army as the result of a 2009 peace agreement, an army mutiny last April gave rise to the M23 movement led by none other than Bosco Ntaganda.

Despite strong opposition from the UN, M23 made impressive gains against the army, ultimately taking the city of Goma before pulling back. However the territorial gains of M23 became almost secondary to the political turmoil the conflict released. Accusations of alleged Rwandan and Ugandan support for M23 led to a reduction of foreign aid to Rwanda and strained relations between the small country and foreign donors who they accused of trying to manipulate African affairs with their checkbooks. Uganda in turn threatened to withdraw all Ugandan troops from peacekeeping operations, which would have dealt a serious blow to operations in Somalia among other places. Back in the DRC, various militia groups took advantage of the chaos for their own gain, including the FDLR which is comprised of former genocidaires from Rwanda. As peace talks centered on a possible multinational African peacekeeping force, the threat of escalation in a combustible region always remained near the surface.

Yet the chances of a possible peace agreement seems to be what led to the dramatic infighting between M23 factions in February. As Jason Stearns notes, Ntaganda’s indictment by the ICC meant the chances of reintegrating again with the Congolese army were slim and even if allowed to happen, he made for a choice bargaining chip for the DRC and could easily be sold down river in the future. The same could not be said for other M23 elites who could be granted amnesty as part of a peace agreement if approved by parliament. With such divergent futures, rivalries escalated into full scale fighting, further limiting the political power of M23.

And with this backdrop, one of the most wanted men on the planet walked into a US embassy to voluntarily face a prison sentence in The Hague rather than face an ever shrinking future in the DRC. Ntaganda’s surrender does not end the conflict in the Eastern DRC, but marks a positive development for the region. But even here, “the Terminator” has enshrined his place in history by apparently becoming the first international fugitive to voluntarily try to turn himself in to the ICC. Given that, it is unlikely this will be the last we hear of him.

Image: Flickr – Mazur/catholicnews.org.uk

Almost immediately after Jorge Mario Bergoglio became Pope Francis I, the 266th Pope of the Catholic Church, questions regarding his human rights record were being asked. The niceties of his election to the papacy, that Francis is the first Pope to be Jesuit and to hail from the Americas and the Southern Hemisphere, were immediately overshadowed by inquiries concerning the level of involvement with and knowledge of the activities of the Argentine military dictatorship that reigned from 1976-1983 and waged the infamous “Dirty War” against the Argentine populace. Bergoglio publicly endorsed that regime during his time in Argentina, though opinion varies on the question of Bergoglio’s culpability.

Some contend that the then thirty-something Bergoglio was at most not courageous enough to publicly speak out against the junta. It appears evident that Bergoglio was not aligned with the military regime as some other religious leaders were. Questions of accomplice liability or of aiding and abetting the regime are harder to answer.

In 2010, Bergoglio was called as a witness regarding the crimes of that era in Argentine federal court for the third time. Despite perpetrators’ and victims’ engagement in various trials in Argentina and the enormous social gains to be had through these truth-seeking endeavors, Bergoglio twice invoked his legal right to refuse to appear. When he did appear in 2010, Bergoglio’s answers were characterized as evasive, but they did show that church officials were at least aware of the regime’s crimes early on.

Bergoglio’s involvement or complicity in the crimes of “Dirty War” era Argentina may never be fully uncovered. A 2011 article from the Guardian originally reported that Argentinean journalist Horacio Verbitsky claimed Bergoglio colluded with the Argentine Navy to hide political prisoners from the detection of human rights monitors. Following Bergoglio’s papal election, the paper retracted the statement.

These questions, though relevant to the preliminary assessment of the Catholic Church’s promotion of human rights in the era of Francis I, are probably not as foreboding as are his positions on social issues. Questioning Bergolgio’s involvement in the Dirty War is similar to the questions of those that arose of Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger’s Hitler Youth involvement when he was elected to the papacy. Much more pertinent is context in which Pope Benedict XVI stepped down when viewed along with the election of Francis I.

The Holy See, which represents the central government of the Catholic Church, enjoys permanent observer status at the U.N. Though the Vatican exists as a quasi-state, encompassing a territory and possessing legal personality under a treaty originally negotiated by Benito Mussolini, the Holy See refers to the Pope, the Curia, the cardinals, and the canon law of the Vatican. The Holy See had historically reigned over swaths of territory, but that ended in 1870 when the Risorgimento took Rome. In the modern era, the Catholic Church has, through its popes, remained a visible and influential voice regarding social issues, conflict and human rights.

The scandal of mass complicity in and the covering up of sexual abuse within the Catholic Church, though long known to be a problem seems to be emerging as a central reason why Benedict XVI stepped down, and the hard-line approach of Francis I appears to be a reactionary measure. His conservative positions on sexuality and related social issues may serve more to isolate victims than to promote acknowledgement of or responsibility from within the church’s ranks. If anything, the election of Francis I may signal the continuation of business as usual for the church rather than indicating any change that would bring the church to closer harmony with the human rights agenda.

Tomorrow, March 15th, will mark the final day of the 57th session of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW57). As mentioned in my previous post, the theme running throughout the session is the issue of violence against women (VAW). If you’re unsure as to why this is a necessary focus, please remember that we live in a world where, in South Africa for example, a woman born there is “more likely to be raped than educated.”

A participant at CSW57 wrote that, “Every March 8, leaders and civil society organisations from across the world commemorate International Women’s Day with undue enthusiasm and a pat on their backs for pushing ‘forward’ the gender equality agenda.” In some countries, women are officially given the day off, there are parades and events. Yet, she continues,

“While expecting thousands of women to be marching down the streets of New York to celebrate their special day it was sobering to note that many participants at CSW found no real value in celebrating when women continue to be raped daily, all forms of violence against women persists unabated and that women’s equality is far from reach.”

Indeed, another attendee commented that she was concerned nearly 50 years later, history would repeat itself: “Forty-seven years ago, the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women deliberating on the same topic as this year — preventing and eliminating violence against women and girls — failed to reach agreed conclusions. Every indication is that the 57th session of the global body charged with delivering gender justice to the women of the world will end in the same way.”

Are women’s voices being heard? Or is CSW57 another example of closed-doors negotiations where the lowest common denominator wins out to the benefit of, well, not many? Jenny Birchall of the Institute of Development Studies noticed that there seem to be three CSW57s running in parallel. The first CSW is where the official state delegates sit ensconced within the U.N. buildings, negotiating (well, diplomatically arguing) about outcomes, documents and wording. Then comes the second CSW — collections of activists and strategists dedicated to lobbying and pressuring the participants of the”‘first” CSW, hoping to maintain the strong and direct language of outcome documents too often watered down to appease certain interests. Then comes the third CSW — external events mostly organized by NGOs where the public are encouraged to attend and discover what’s going on beyond their own backyard. And the connection between all these CSWs? That question left Jenny Birchall wondering and me too.

Alongside the acronyms floating around, certain states have been engaging in political acrobatics to limit the reach of a CSW conclusion document (should one even be achieved). The Centre for Women’s Global Leadership (CWGL) and IWRAW Asia Pacific issued a statement condemning the backflips some parties are attempting, “alarmed and disappointed that the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women is wavering in its commitment to advance women’s human rights as demonstrated in the constant negotiation of the language in the outcome document continues.”

They question why states are continuing to try negotiate already established standards, powerfully noting that “Women’s human rights are not to be negotiated away.” Furthermore, they call for the rejection of any and all attempts to invoke “traditional values and morals” as excuses as to why women’s rights should be limited and infringed upon.

This is echoed in a statement issued by NGOs forming part of the Arab Caucus at CSW57, a grouping “deeply concerned with the role of the leadership of our countries in the negotiations on the crucial issue of violence against women and girls.” They are highly critical of the fact that their governments are “increasingly using arguments based on religion, culture, tradition, or nationality to justify violence, discrimination and allow the violations against human rights [to] continue with impunity.”

With the sheer number of states involved in CSW57, the need for flexibility and compromise is clear. However, the real impact on human lives means there should be a point where compromises are prevented from becoming a step too far.