Newsletter - School of Human Rights Research

Transcription

Newsletter
School of Human Rights Research
In this issue
Pg 1
Pg 2
Pg 2
Pg 3
Pg 4
Pg 5
Pg 5
Pg 7
Pg 8
Pg 9
Pg 10
Pg 11
Pg 13
Pg 14
Pg 15
Pg 16
Pg 17
Pg 19
Volume 17, Issue 2, June 2013
Editorial
Schedule of Activities
Conference: The Right to Citizenship
Article 1 lecture by Prof. Spijkerboer
Conference: Making Peace and Justice
The “Stolen Generations of Australia”
PhD Defense Simone van den Driest
Inaugural address Gerrit-Jan Zwenne
Town Hall meeting on Human Rights
Cleer workshop
PhD defense Chana Grijsen
Follow-up Course
Introductory Course
Letter from Bologna
Letter from Heidelberg
Personal Column
Publications
Miscellaneous
It was therefore hard for me to decide to accept a job offer: as
of April last I started working as Executive Secretary for the
Institute for Criminal Law of the School of Law of Utrecht
University.
My colleague, Vanessa Los-van Oostrum, will be my successor.
She already is acquainted with the School: when I was unable to
work at the end of 2010 for a considerable period of time, she
took over my tasks regarding the re-accreditation process, the
School was right in the middle of. She started working for the
School as of mid-June; I fully trust she will be successful in her
new job.
I wish to thank all members of the School for the trust and
appreciation shown to me over the years and hope to be able to
witness the progress of the School, be it from a little distance.
By the way, for the time being my new job will be temporary
for one year; maybe, I will return next year!
Best wishes,
Marcella Kiel
I would like to thank Marcella
for her kind words, as well as
Tom Zwart for his trust in me.
Editorial:
Change in management team School
For many years now (almost
20…) I have worked for the
School with much pleasure; I
started working at the
Netherlands Institute of
Human Rights (SIM) in 1994
and have closely witnessed the
School
developing
and
flourishing and was happy to
work for the School right
from the start.
I
especially
enjoyed
participating in the Graduate
Programme Committee of the School, entrusted with the
preparation of the training programme for the junior members
of the School. Inspiring contacts with researchers and
colleagues at the partner universities of the School always
encouraged me in my work.
For over ten years, I have very
much enjoyed working for
Utrecht University, (eight years
at
Constitutional
and
Administrative Law and two
years at International and
European Law) but decided that
it was a great opportunity for
me, to temporarily replace
Marcella at the School. After
returning from maternity leave a few weeks ago, I started here
and find that working for the School is new, interesting,
challenging and also fun!
Fortunately, the School is not entirely new for me, since I got to
know it quite well, while replacing Marcella in 2010, during the
re-accreditation process. I look back upon this period with
much pleasure. I have learned a great deal from Marcella, which
will hopefully result in a smooth change in registrars.
Nevertheless, please feel free to contact me, when I can be of
any help to you. I will do my very best at the School and look
forward to getting to know all of you.
Best wishes,
Vanessa Los
The School of Human Rights Research is a research and graduate school in the field of human rights,
officially recognised by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. The participants are Utrecht University, Maastricht University,
Tilburg University, Erasmus University Rotterdam, T.M.C. Asser Institute The Hague and Leiden University.
Newsletter June 2013
Schedule of Activities
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
2
29 July – 23 August 2013: Summer Course Human
Rights for Development – Antwerp, Belgium
5 August – 9 August 2013: Statelessness Summer Course
2013 – Tilburg University
26 August – 30 August 2013: Summer School Children’s
Righs at Crossroads – Leiden University
26 August – 30 August 2013: Summer Course on
Countering Terrorism – T.M.C. Asser Institute
2 September – 6 September 2013: Summer Course on
Disarmament and Non-Proliferation of Weapons of
Mass-Destruction in a Changing World – T.M.C. Asser
Institute
6 September 2013: conference “Criminal law protection
of the European Union’s financial interests: a shared
constitutional responsibility of the EU and its Member
States?” This event will take place in The Hague (NL) T.M.C. Asser Instituut
19 September 2013: conference “The Art of Making
Peace” – Utrecht University
26 September 2013: Annual SIM Peter Baehr
Lecture,”Rule of Law and Human Rights” (Lecturer:
G.J.M. Corstens) – Utrecht University
27 September 2013: Valedictory address Chrisje Brants –
Utrecht University
30 September 2013: Human Rights and the Netherlands
beyond Merchant and Missionary: Samuel Moyn and the
quest for a new, holistic history of Human Rights, 1945present – Utrecht University
9-11 October 2013: International Law Guest Seminar I:
The Use of Specific Groups in Armed Conflicts –
Private Military and Security Companies and Child
Soldiers (Lecturers: Evgeni Moyakine & Niels van Lit) Tilburg University, 10:45-14:30 hrs.
10 October 2013: Conference “Climate Change and
Human Rights”- Utrecht University
15 November 2013: Inaugural address Titia Loenen –
Leiden University
9-27-29 November 2013: International Law Guest
Seminar II: Military Facilitation of Humanitarian
Assistance in Africa – A Conflicting Reality? (Lecturers:
Eefje de Volder & Stefanie Jansen-Wilhelm): Tilburg
University, 10:45-14:30 hrs.
12 December 2013: Max van der Stoel Human Rights
Award 2013 – Tilburg University
5-7 February 2014: International Law Guest Seminar III:
Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Selected Issues in
International Criminal Law (Lecturers: Drazan Djukic,
Marloes van Noorloos & Lachezar Yanev): Tilburg
University, 10:45-14:30 hrs.
9-11 April 2014: International Law Guest Seminar IV:
Human Rights and Violence Against Women – Current
Perspectives in Law and Practice (Lecturers: Annemarie
Middelburg & Lorena Sosa) – Tilburg University, 10:4514:30 hrs.
The Right to Citizenship:
Towards fuller implementation of Article 15
UDHR
Panel discussion: Mark Manly, Laura van Waas, Peter
Spiro, Theo van Boven, René de Groot & Uli Jessurun
d'Oliveira (from left to right)
As part of the programme of events to celebrate the European
Year of the Citizen, on 7 March 2013 the Maastricht Centre for
Human Rights hosted a seminar entitled The Right to
Citizenship: Towards fuller implementation of Article 15
UDHR. With a diverse list of guest speakers and professors, the
event aimed at analysing the current status of the right to
citizenship under international law. This objective was pursued
from a variety of different angles: Mark Manly, head of the
UNHCR Statelessness Unit, gave an introduction on the
pressing challenge of statelessness, the manifestation of the
failure to fully implement Article 15 UDHR. Peter Spiro
(Temple University) explained the increasing erosion of states'
sovereignty in this domain. Laura van Waas, Director of the
Statelessness Program (Tilburg University) represented the
European Network on Statelessness with her presentation. The
role of the International Law Commission in the development
of norms relating to the right to citizenship was introduced by
Liesbeth Lijnzaad (Maastricht University and Netherlands
Ministry of Foreign Affairs). René de Groot (Maastricht
University) gave an overview of the most recent case law on the
right to citizenship under The European Court of Human
Rights and the European Court of Justice.
The seminar took the regular debate on statelessness one major
step further by addressing every person's human right to
citizenship. The diversity of speakers allowed for an analysis of
the issue from different angles. The opening statement by
Menno Kamminga introduced the central idea that nationality
matters are not merely a privilege of state sovereignty but
instead a responsibility of states to guarantee the right to
citizenship. Mr Kamminga pointed out that the traditional
approach of human rights activists to reduce the role of the
state is misplaced in efforts against statelessness. The state has
an important role in the struggle towards the right to
citizenship. However, as Laura van Waas noted after having
listened to the variety of presentations, unfortunately state
sovereignty still remains the initial focal point of each
discussion even today. Historically, the monopoly of states has
been the cause for large numbers of stateless people worldwide
due to major gaps between the nationality legislations and the
lack of coordination to close them. Over the years, the
development of international law in the area has put limits on
state sovereignty and contributed to a slow reduction of the
problem. Nevertheless, there are still 12 million stateless people
worldwide, at least 600.000 of whom live in Europe. The panel
agreed that in order to tackle the issue, the focus should not be
on history but on the here and now. Future generations of
international lawyers, academics and practitioners alike need to
adopt a forward looking approach that accepts the clearly
existing obligation of every state to work towards the
implementation of the universal right to citizenship.
Throughout the panel discussion, which was facilitated by Theo
van Boven (Maastricht University) the audience challenged the
speakers with their informed questions. The event had a great
turn out, attended not only by students and professors of the
law faculty but also other disciplines which allowed for a multilevelled in depth debate. During the panel debate, a new draft
Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights on the
Right to Citizenship prepared by Luise Ammerschuber (LLM
student at Maastricht University) was introduced. The proposed
protocol was welcomed by the panel for its potential role in
filling the existing gap in the ECHR, the only major regional
human rights treaty not to deal with nationality explicitly. The
most recent European jurisprudence of the ECtHR (Genovese
v. Malta, 2011) and the ECJ already point in the direction of the
right to citizenship becoming an enforceable human right.
Among the speakers and the audience questions were raised
such as how the new protocol could complement the European
Convention on Nationality or whether there would be a
potential interference.
In the later part of the discussion other measures proposed in
the prepared discussion note were debated, such as the
appointment of a focal point on the Right to Citizenship within
every National Human Rights Institute (NHRI). This
suggestion about a greater involvement of NHRIs was well
received by the panel. Among the 21 A-status NHRIs in
Europe there are several interesting precedents, including the
Danish Institute for Human Rights. NHRIs have an important
mandate in monitoring national human rights compliance.
Drawing their attention towards the issue of statelessness and
getting them involved is thus essential for any efforts towards
the right to citizenship. The Netherlands Human Rights
Institute has already shown itself to be sympathetic to the topic.
Another measure proposed in the discussion note was the
appointment of a UN Special Representative on the Right to
Citizenship. Mark Manly rejected the idea since in his view it
would lead to complications due to clashes and overlap in the
mandate of the appointed individual and the UNHCR
Statelessness Unit.
Towards the end of the event, the EUDO Database on the
Protection against Statelessness in Europe was launched. The
database was developed by the EUDO CITIZENSHIP
Observatory in cooperation with UNHCR. It offers
information on the extent to which statelessness is prevented
and individuals at risk of becoming stateless are protected
through the citizenship laws in 36 European countries.
By successfully bringing together academics and practitioners in
the field of statelessness and the right to citizenship, the
seminar succeeded in triggering a lively debate which produced
new insights and ideas. The questions raised and the issues
discussed inspired the future efforts of the speakers. We can be
sure there will be plenty of follow-up events and activities
which further develop the right to citizenship to successfully
eradicate statelessness worldwide.
Luise Ammerschuber
Maastricht University
[email protected]
Article 1 lecture by Prof. Thomas Spijkerboer:
“We are here”: Equal treatment of nonexpellable aliens ?
On 22 March 2013, prof. Thomas Spijkerboer (VU University
Amsterdam) delivered the annual Article 1 lecture in the Council Chamber
of Utrecht University’s Law Faculty.
Before becoming Professor of Migration Law at the VU
University Amsterdam, Thomas Spijkerboer was a lawyer
specializing in asylum cases. At the moment, Prof. Spijkerboer’s
research focuses on the relationship between migration law and
gender, the role of courts in migration law, and what to do
about migrants who die during their efforts to reach Europe.
The Article 1 lecture series is meant to promote the antidiscrimination provision in the Dutch Constitution. This article,
the first in a chapter on Fundamental Rights, reads as follows:
All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal
circumstances. Discrimination on the grounds of religion,
belief, political opinion, race or sex or on any other grounds
whatsoever shall not be permitted.
The Article 1 lecture takes place annually and is organized by
the Institute of Constitutional and Administrative Law and
Legal Theory, School of Law at the University of Utrecht. Ernst
Hirsch Ballin, Professor of Dutch and European Constitutional
Law at the Tilburg Law School as well as Professor of Human
Rights at the University of Amsterdam was respondent. The
meeting was chaired by Jet Tigchelaar, Lecturer at Utrecht
University.
The topic of this year’s Article 1 lecture was the application of
Article 1 to aliens in the Netherlands. More specifically, Prof.
Spijkerboer looked at the plight of persons whose application
for a residence permit was finally rejected by the Dutch
authorities but who could not be expelled from the
Netherlands. In his lecture, Spijkerboer focused on four such
groups:
•
•
•
•
those that cannot be expelled because there is no
government to welcome them back (case of Somalia);
those whose country of origin refuses to take them
back (these are mostly oppressed groups subject to
ethnic cleansing; this is the case for the Sudan);
those from States generally unwilling to accept their
nationals back (Algeria, China for some time);
those from States that are only willing to accept their
nationals back if they themselves really want to return
(Iraq).
Until the particular problems of these groups are resolved, they
have no choice but to remain in the Netherlands. The principal
question addressed by Prof. Spijkerboer was: keeping in mind
the non-discrimination provision in the Dutch Constitution, to
what extent is it justified that these persons, who are located in
the Netherlands, are treated differently from other persons in
the Netherlands in terms of socio-economic rights, such as
employment, social security, housing, education and health?
Prof. Spijkerboer began by reminding the audience of Article 1
of the Dutch Constitution, quoted above. Article 1 is followed
3
immediately by what seems to be an exception to this general
rule. Article 2 of the Dutch Constitution proclaims inter alia that
‘the admission and expulsion of aliens shall be regulated by Act
of Parliament.’ The relevant Act is the Netherlands Aliens Act
(Vreemdelingenwet), according to which aliens may be expelled,
whilst Dutch nationals cannot. Moreover, an alien who is not
lawfully resident in the Netherlands may not claim entitlement
to facilities and social security benefits. Dutch nationals are
entitled to such benefits. All this does not seem to accord well
with Article 1. The justification for the discrimination between
aliens and Dutch nationals is that, even though aliens are
entitled to enjoy their socio-economic rights like everyone else,
they should enjoy these rights in their country of origin and not
in the Netherlands.
The aliens do not accept this argument. Since 2012, aliens
whose request for asylum was rejected by the Dutch authorities
but who cannot go back to their country of origin for different
reasons, have started to claim the enjoyment of all human rights
here in the Netherlands. The question is whether this category
of aliens can rely on Article 1 of the Dutch Constitution, and
claim entitlement to facilities and social security benefits. Can
the Dutch authorities deny people their fundamental rights in
order to encourage them to return to their country of origin, if
it is impossible for them to go back? Or should the Dutch
authorities accept that these people will not go back, with the
consequence that their situation no longer falls within the scope
of the ordinary Dutch migration legislation? If so, do they then
indeed have a right to equal treatment?
Applying Michael Walzer’s theory of spheres, and using the
book The Citizen and the Alien by Linda Bosniak as inspiration,
Spijkerboer ultimately reaches the conclusion that people who
have been in the Netherlands for some time because they
cannot be expelled for the above-mentioned reasons, are
entitled to the full enjoyment of their (socio-economic) rights in
the Netherlands, and in the end this can only be guaranteed
when they are given a residence permit.
Otto Spijkers
Assistant professor public international law, Utrecht University
[email protected]
4
Conference: Making Peace and Justice
On 22 March 2013 the multidisciplinary conference “Making Peace and
Justice: Images, Memories, Histories”, was held in the attractive hall of
Ottone in Utrecht. The conference, funded by the research project “Conflict
and Human Rights” and organised by the Willem Pompe Institute for
Criminal Law and Criminology (UU), set out to tackle the conflicting
dimensions of perceptions, images and memories of justice and conflict: In
what ways does “justice” transcend legal procedures and how is it sensitive
to memories and memorialisation? Who defines the nature of conflict and
atrocity, what does that mean for the perceptions of those involved and how
do such conceptions of justice change through time?
In his keynote speech professor Gert Oostindie addressed the
‘memory wars’ in the Netherlands, especially concerning
Indonesia and slavery, through time. In his analysis he showed
the shifts that have taken place in how the Dutch look at these
pasts; from an inclination to forget and the argument that
colonization and slavery should be understood in their historical
contexts, to a grudging acknowledgement of having been ‘on
the wrong side of history.’ The first session, moderated by
professor Kees Brants, gave the floor to two lectures about
‘Imageries and histories of slavery: the slavers and the slaves.’
The talk prepared by Dr. Leo Balai, acclaimed author of the
book “Het slavenschip Leusden” concentrated on the history
of slavery through material expressions such as the use of
copper bowls, symbols of repression now used to celebrate the
abolition of slavery. The project presented by Dr. Dienke
Hondius of the VU has started to map the monumental houses
of the slavers and proposes to mark these houses with small
plaques bringing these hidden histories of the slave traders into
contemporary public space.
The leading question of the second session, moderated by
Lauren Gould, revolved around the making of imagery and
history through memorialisation and non-memorialisation. Dr.
Srdjan Radović showed in an analysis of the dynamics of
memorialisation processes in former Yugoslavia how memorials
and memory sites are reassigned meanings through memory
politics to sustain new historical narratives, how grassroots
movements locally may contest these and offer alternative
narratives and how transnational memorial discourses are
adapted locally. Dr. Katrien Klep focused on the relation
between transitional justice and memorialisation practices and
argued that the latter has become an important component of
the former with a singular view to repairing the victims and
‘never forget.’ However memorials are expressions of contested
memories in a society and cannot be understood as isolated
entities with a clear cut meaning. Not only because of all the
different social actors involved in its creation but also because
they exist in relation to other monuments and memorials that
inhabit a landscape of memorialisation.
The last session critically assessed the question ‘Too much law,
not enough justice?’ and the dominant role of legal discourse in
transitional justice. Professor Marlies Glasius argued that
international criminal courts and their trails can contribute both
to justice and to transition by becoming more aware of, and
better at, their communicate aspect as a core means of
achieving goals that go beyond putting a few people behind
bars, that tend towards doing justice. Dr. Joris van der Wijk
shared his latest research data in an fascinating presentation on
the afterlife of justice, asking the question: ‘when the courts’
curtains are closed, has justice been done?’ He showed
empirically what has happened to those persons who have been
brought before an international criminal court and either
convicted or acquitted. The data show that very few individuals
serve the full sentence. He left the public with pressing
questions: what does this mean for justice? Is this what we hope
from international criminal justice? Is this what victims, what
societies expect from it?
The conference also marked publication of the book
“Transitional Justice: Images and Memories” (eds. C.H. Brants,
A. Hol & D. Siegel, Ashgate 2013) which was presented by
professor Dina Siegel and gracefully accepted by Professor
Jenny Goldschmidt of the Netherlands Institute of Human
Rights (SIM) who praised it as a successful collective effort
born out of the multidisciplinary Focus and Massa research
project “Conflict and Human Rights”.
The conference concluded with a performance of Velden van
Weleer, written and produced by Chrisje and Kees Brants. This
impressive performance, a combination of historical narrative,
contemporary images, fragments from diaries, poetry and music
sung by an eight-voice male choir and guided by a single voice
over, illustrates how ordinary soldiers, politicians, artists,
writers, poets and the home front in the different countries
thought about what was happening in the trenches of the First
World War and its relationship to a “just war”. The optimism
with which the young men started out their journey and their
brave and festive songs of the first hour, gradually gave way to
the fear, anger and insanity of the war, expressed in the songs
and written texts in English, German, French and Flemish. The
combination of the images of the young faces, the unbelievable
madness of the trenches and the cruelty of the useless attacks
with their story read out to the public and their voices given
voice by the choir, made for a very impressive end of the
conference indeed: what is justice?
See also: http://www.uu.nl/law/peaceandjustice
dr. Katrien Klep
Cultural Anthropology, Utrecht University
[email protected]
The “Stolen Generations” of Australia
On 25 March, Dr Honni van Rijswijk, senior lecturer at the UTS Law
School in Sydney, delivered a guest lecture titled “Narrative Interventions
into National Responsibility? Stolen Generations’ Testimonies in 2012”
at the Erasmus School of Law in Rotterdam.
The lecture dealt with recent endeavours in Australia to deal
with the so-called “Stolen Generations,” i.e. with the children of
Indigenous people who were removed from their families in the
20th century. The children were removed under a number of
different State-based legislative regimes and a policy that
continued well into the 1970s. The nature of this process is still
a matter of controversy in Australia, but there is now a wide
consensus that it was wrong. In 1981 historian Peter Read first
drew attention to the forced removal of children in a famous
pamphlet The Stolen Generations: The Removal of Aboriginal Children
in New South Wales 1883 to 1969. A key moment in the
acknowledgement of this historical wrong was the assembly of a
National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Children from their Families and the publication of its
report in Bringing Them Home 1997.
The lecture of Honni Rijswijk, and the ensuing discussion,
mainly focused on the response to the growing realization that
the Australian state had perpetrated a dreadful wrong when it
took these children away from their families. There was a
certain ambiguity in the way Australians reacted to this moral
blemish. The 1997 report Bringing Them Home, on the one hand,
provided room for testimony to build up a record of the
suffering. Some 10 to 30 percent of Indigenous children had
been forcibly removed. The Inquiry provided the children and
the families concerned ample space to testify about their
physical and psychological suffering and the serious adverse
effects of the removal policy. Indeed, the report was based on
thousands of hours of interviews. There was an affinity with the
truth-and-reconciliation process in South Africa in this
testimony. The process of people speaking publicly about the
terrible experiences they had gone through as a way to achieve
catharsis and healing. On the other hand, however, the report
also connected the forced separations with an international
human rights framework. It found the removal of children
added up to a form of cultural genocide. Moreover, the
violations of human rights raised questions about
compensation, restitution, guarantees of non-repetition.
Honni Rijswijk’s talk and the interaction with the audience
explored the tension between these two aspects ― the
reconciliation through testimony and the redress and
compensation through litigation. So far the Australian public
seemed to prefer a reconciliation process in which past wrongs
were recognized and official apologies voiced. Rijswijk raised
questions about the limitations of this exercise. There was
something altogether too facile about simply outing the truth. A
mere chronicling and recognition of the crimes that had
befallen generations of Indigenous people was too limited to
compensate for the suffering of the “stolen generations”.
Rijswijk argued that the claims of the victims for compensation
and reparation also needed to be processed in the courts.
Indeed, formal deliberation of the legal claims of the victims
would bring their own form of recognition of the suffering they
experienced. So far there was little appetite in Australia for this
type of legal redress, however.
Wouter de Been
Erasmus University Rotterdam, School of Law
[email protected]
PhD Defense of Simone van den Driest
On 10 April 2013, with precision and elegance Simone van den Driest
defended her PhD thesis entitled ‘Remedial Secession: A Right to External
Self-Determination as a Remedy to Serious Injustices?’ at Tilburg
University. Now, this is the right moment to ask Simone a number of
questions regarding her research condensed into a well-structured and
beautifully executed book.
5
remedial secession has emerged as a customary norm. Even
when adopting the progressive – yet controversial – human
rights approach towards customary international law, I have
found that no such conclusion could be reached. At present, the
right to self-determination does not allow for unilateral
secession, but rather focuses on its internal dimension and is
limited by the traditional core principles of international law,
such as sovereignty and territorial integrity of the State.
Simone, could you please briefly indicate what your PhD
thesis is actually about?
My PhD thesis has sought to shed light on the contemporary
meaning of the right to self-determination of peoples and, more
specifically, the question of external self-determination as a
remedy to serious injustices. The right to self-determination of
peoples is generally considered to be one of the most
fundamental norms in international law. In the decolonization
period, the right to self-determination implied the right of
colonial peoples to independence from their colonizer. Outside
the context of decolonization, the right to self-determination is
generally seen to constitute a continuous right, which is to be
exercised primarily within the framework of the existing State.
In contrast to this internal dimension of self-determination,
claims to external self-determination beyond decolonization are
much more controversial. This is primarily due to their relation
with the principle of territorial integrity of States and the
international community’s fear of creating disrupting
precedents. Yet, it is increasingly often suggested that when a
people is submitted to serious injustices on the part of the State
in which it resides, a right to unilateral secession, stemming
from the right to self-determination, may arise. In those
extreme circumstances, an alleged right to unilateral secession
would operate as a remedy of last resort. Such a right to
remedial secession may well be morally desirable. But the
question remains to what extent it has actually emerged under
contemporary international law. In my PhD thesis, I have
sought to answer this very question.
Is there a right to remedial secession under contemporary
international law?
On the basis of a detailed analysis of the various sources of
international law, I have concluded that the concept of remedial
secession has not (yet) emerged as a legal entitlement under
contemporary international law. Some support for such a right
was reflected in several sources, most notably in the subsidiary
sources of doctrine and judicial decisions and opinions.
However, this support was insufficient – in scope, in weight, as
well as in persuasion – for labeling it as a positive legal
entitlement today. The theoretical basis of a right to remedial
secession is thus relatively weak and seems to be primarily
prompted by considerations of morality and necessity, while its
main flaw involves the lack of convincing support for such a
right in international practice. An analysis of various attempts at
unilateral secession, including the case of Kosovo and the
international responses thereto, demonstrated that insufficient
State practice and opinio juris are available for concluding that
6
Yet, while there is insufficient evidence of the existence of a
right to remedial secession de lege lata, some sources of
international law do reflect traces of such a right. From these
traces, it appeared that some consensus exists on the contours
of a right to remedial secession de lege ferenda. So while it should
be emphasized that this still deserves further discussion,
elaboration and, most importantly, widespread support by the
international community of States, it became possible to draft
the main features of a right to remedial secession as it may
develop in the future. The traces of a right to remedial secession
generally involve remedial secession as a mode of exercising the
right to (external) self-determination, which would only arise in
exceptional circumstances and when certain requirements –
both substantive and procedural – have been met. In short, the
first substantive requirement concerns the persistent denial of
internal self-determination on the part of the central authorities
of the State. More specifically, it would at least be required that
the State persistently refuses to grant the people participatory
rights and a representative government before remedial
secession would be lawful. Two other factors which were also
frequently noted are the presence of gross human rights
violations and the discriminatory treatment of a people. These
factors are often seen in connection to the denial of internal
self-determination.
An addition to these substantive prerequisites, a procedural
requirement is to be met, requiring that remedial secession
actually operates as an ultimum remedium. Put differently, all
effective and realistic remedies to settle the conflict peacefully
within the framework of the existing State would need to be
exhausted before secession as a remedy may be permitted.
Obviously, this would have to be considered on a case-by-case
basis. In some instances, the special modalities of implementing
the right to self-determination internally would still be seen to
offer a realistic and effective alternative to secession, while in
other, more grave and disrupted situations, these modalities
would no longer be considered to offer a reasonable solution.
What is the relevance of the process of humanization of
the international legal order for remedial secession?
The humanization of the international legal order refers to the
development of international law from a primarily Statecentered system towards a more human-centered system, in
which States are no longer the sole actors and which is
increasingly aimed at respecting and promoting the interests of
human beings. It involves a kaleidoscopic process, which may
be regarded as the quest for a new equilibrium which does not
necessarily neglect the interests of States, but by no means
automatically attaches the highest value to these interests either.
As such, this tendency affects some of the fundamental
principles of the classical Westphalian system, in particular the
notion of State sovereignty and its corollaries.
Against this background, the debate on the question of a right
to external self-determination after serious injustices and the
emergence of the doctrine of remedial secession may be
appreciated. The suggestion of an ‘emergency exit’ for peoples
being submitted to oppression and flagrant human rights abuses
by their own State arguably fits well in the humanization
tendency. The idea of remedial secession seeks to consolidate
and expand the peoples’ right to (external) self-determination
beyond the context of decolonization. Moreover, it
simultaneously challenges the inviolable position of the State by
prioritizing the interests of peoples over the sovereign
prerogatives of the State, when they conflict.
The current shortage of support for the concept of remedial
secession by States, however, is symptomatic for the conclusion
that the transformation of international law from a primarily
State-centered system towards a more human-centered system
has not yet found a new equilibrium. Nonetheless, the quest for
this new balance between the sovereign prerogatives of the
State and the interests of human beings will most likely
continue. In view of this ongoing development and the traces of
a right to remedial secession which can be found at present, I
would submit that it is certainly not impossible that, one day,
such a right will indeed be part and parcel of positive
international law.
Simone, looking back at your academic career so far, what
could be possible pieces of advice and tips you would give
to other doctoral candidates?
Over the past couple of years, I have not only had the
opportunity to delve into a fascinating and much debated
subject of international law, but also to improve my academic
skills in the broad sense of the word. All in all, it has been an
extremely interesting and valuable experience. I would therefore
encourage PhD students to make the most of their
opportunities and, if possible, try to get involved in teaching
and managerial activities as well. At the same time, I have
experienced that it is important to block sufficient time for
writing as well. Particularly in the final stages of the process,
one really needs some peace and quiet to be able to focus on
one’s book.
Finally, what are your future career plans and dreams you
would like to realize?
Since I have thoroughly enjoyed working in academia over the
past few years and feel that this working environment suits me
well, I wish to pursue an academic career. I take great pleasure
in the combination of research, teaching and managerial tasks
and hope to be able to further develop my skills in these areas
in the years to come.
Evgeni Moyakine
Doctoral Candidate and Researcher
Tilburg University
[email protected]
Inaugural address Gerrit-Jan Zwenne:
“Diluted Privacy”
On 12 April 2013, Gerrit-Jan
Zwenne delivered his inaugural
address as the new “privacy
professor” at the department of
eLaw@Leiden, Centre for Law
in the Information Society,
Leiden University. Prof.
Zwenne’s inaugural address,
entitled “Diluted Privacy”,
focused on the broad
interpretation of the definition of
“personal data” in our data
protection laws. Privacy law will
continue to be his focus in his
future research.
Data protection law is applicable to “any information relating to
an identified or an identifiable natural person”. When personal
data is processed all kind of obligations apply for the controller
of personal data. The individual involved has certain rights at
his disposal, such as the right to access and correct his personal
data. Prof. Zwenne argued in his inaugural address that a too
extensive interpretation of the definition of personal data would
lead to the application of data protection law where it is not
needed. In addition, the already abstract terms used in the
current data protection regulation will continue to pose
problems for controllers that need to apply data protection law.
Using the example of an IP addresses, prof. Zwenne illustrated
how a broad application of data protection law with regard to
IP addresses may lead to undesirable results.
An IP address is a number identifying computers on the
Internet. Internet Access Providers assign IP addresses to a
subscriber and are therefore able to identify the individual who
signed up for the Internet access service. Therefore, for Internet
Access Providers, IP addresses can be “personal data”. Other
providers of Internet (connection) services, such as the provider
of the free Internet (WiFi) connection at Schiphol Airport,
cannot reasonably identify the individual behind an IP address.
Data protection authorities previously agreed that IP addresses
are only sometimes considered “personal data” and must then
be treated as such (by applying the data protection act).
However, all of a sudden Data protection authorities changed
their criterion and they were of the opinion that IP addresses
must always be treated as personal data.
In the new EU proposal for data protection law, it is recognized
that IP addresses can be used to identify individuals, but there
are not considered personal data in all situations. However, civil
rights groups, some politicians and the data protection
regulators (as shown above) want to expand the definition of
personal data so it is not about identifying individuals, but more
about individualizing, or, “singling-out” individuals. Prof.
Zwenne notes that if data protection law is to apply to all data
with which the one person is distinguished from the other, it
will be hard to think of a situation in which the privacy law will
not apply. The criteria for use of the law will be so ill defined
that its scope is almost unlimited. One could call this the
watering down or dilution of the privacy law.
7
Privacy law is about fundamental rights and concerns us all.
Therefore data protection law should be easy to comprehend.
Prof. Zwenne argues that instead to widen the scope of the law
“to infinity and beyond”, the legislator should rather make it
more comprehensible, usable and workable, to make it easier to
regulate and enforce. “Only then can it do what is meant to do:
protect our privacy”.
In the following interview, prof. Zwenne will comment on
some of his statements made during his (highly interesting)
inaugural address
I noticed that you were fairly critical of the way the Dutch
Data Protection Authority operates. Can you mention
three concrete measures they can take in order to improve
their work and therefore improve data protection overall?
Only three? Well, let me start by saying that in my view the
Dutch Data Protection Authority (DPA) may very well be one
of the best data protection authorities in the Netherlands.
However, I have noticed that this DPA often does not want to
explain its viewpoints, let alone tell us why its opinions on
important issues have changed. There is no shame in admitting
that its position is subject to an ongoing process. And I know
of not a few instances where the DPA changed its position,
sometimes 180 degrees. One obvious example is its take on IPaddresses; another is its opinion on the qualification of racial or
ethnic data (on the DPA’s websites we now find official
guidelines with conflicting statements on this).
Another thing, related to the remarks I made just now, is about
the DPA's consultations. Usually, consultations of draft
guidelines or decisions are open. Anyone that has something to
say about the consultation document can submit his or her
comments and views; subsequently the respective regulator
looks into these and may change the draft; then, when the final
document is published, the regulator explains why he made
changes or why he did not. That's how the process should
work. However, the DPA's consultation documents are marked
as “confidential” by the DPA, the consultations are re only
open for invited parties; all this which is quite strange, but to
make things worse, very rarely the submitted comments and
remarks have any effect on the final documents. This is very
unfortunate.
Last, but not least, the Dutch DPA invests heavily in lobbying
activities, drafting pseudo-official lobbying documents, sending
political letters to parliament; it is all a bit too much. In my view
the DPA's should focus more on enforcing data protection law,
and let the lobbying and politics to lobbying groups and
politicians.
H ow does the substance of your inaugural address
illustrate the work you do on a daily basis and research
questions that captivate you?
As a lawyer I see how the law works, in court and advising
clients, discussing issues with regulators, it all contributes to my
understanding and knowledge of the law. In my courses I can
use examples from my own practice (obviously to the extent my
professional secrecy allow for that). For me it would be strange
to only look at the law from the outside.
8
I am fascinated by how law is affected by technology, and vice
versa. Technological developments, new devices and
applications, and new business models continuously force us to
rethink the legal concepts we use in privacy and data protection
law. I am confident that new technologies and business models,
and new legislation and court decisions, will provide for many
fascinating research subjects. It could be augmented reality
(Google Glass) or the Internet of Things, or drone's connected
to the Internet, and most likely something we cannot predict
right now.
Gerrit-Jan Zwenne is now professor at eLaw@Leiden, Centre for Law in
the Information Society at Leiden University. He was awarded his
doctorate at the same university for his thesis on tax levies and information
obligations. Gerrit-Jan specializes in telecommunication- and privacy law.
He offers lectures and courses within these specializations and publishes
about the subject matter. He is also a partner at the law firm Bird & Bird
LLP in The Hague.
Jan-Jaap Oerlemans
PhD Candidate Leiden University
[email protected]
Town hall meeting on Human Rights
On April 17, 2013, Maastricht University Faculty of Law organized a
town hall meeting and invited Frans Timmermans, the Dutch Minister of
Foreign Affairs to discuss Dutch human rights policy. The meeting
consisted of various speakers who addressed various human rights issues,
among them women’s rights and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
rights (LGBT). The meeting was the last of a series of consultations that
built up towards a human rights policy that was presented to the Dutch
parliament.
After a welcome by the Dean of the Law Faculty, Professor
Hildergard Schneider, Professor of International law and
director of Maastricht Centre for Human Rights, Menno
Kamminga, briefly introduced the dilemmas of human rights
and stressed that the Netherlands should ratify several human
rights treaties that they have not yet to show their commitment
to human rights. Two examples he gave are the United Nations
Treaty on the Rights of Disabled Persons and the Optional
Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights.
Mouna Ghanem and Bassma Kodmani, Syrian women human
rights defenders were invited. They discussed the importance
of the protection and civilians during the civil war. Their
concern was that aid was not reaching the masses. They were
emphasized that women should be included in decision making
and Syria have an agenda sensitive to democracy. Both
Ghanem and Kodmani agreed that the Netherlands should
support the women and assist Syria in preparing for transitional
justice.
Koen vanDijk, the director of COC talked about the LGBT
rights and the cultural debate in both the EU and UN as to
whether human rights should include LGBT rights. Van Dijk
stated that the Netherlands should bring forward LGBT rights
as human rights.
In his speech, Minister Timmermans stated that if there is a
problem with human rights, then there is a problem with the
rule of law and democracy. According to the minister, no
distinction should be made between the three. He stated that
democracy is part of a constitutional framework that guarantees
the rule of law and human rights. And democracy must respect
these elements. He gave an example of the Arab world where
people’s freedoms were still being restricted. The minister
further stated that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs would
continue to assist individuals in states that violate human rights.
He also stated that the ministry would work with officials from
other states in developing policies without dictating what needs
to be done. As far as human rights, the minister stated that
women’s rights and LGBT rights were priorities for the
ministry. The minister also emphasized the importance of
everyone being involved in human rights discussions.
During the Question and Answer session, one question that the
minister was asked was what the Netherlands was doing about
Abdulla al-Mansouri, a Dutch citizen who has been in prison in
Iran for several years now. The minister stated that this was
always top of the priority list whenever the Netherlands has
contact with Iran. On the question about drones and their use
in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the minister stated that a legal
instrument should be used to regulate the use of drones and
collateral damage should be addressed on a more international
level than it has been in the past. When asked about the
ministry’s stand on women, especially women workers, the
minister stated that the Netherlands should take a look at
countries whose policies are working, like Moldova. The
minister also stated that not enough has been done to combat
this issue. In conclusion, the minister stated that states should
create coalitions with other states to deal with the various
human rights issues.
Phyllis Livaha
Maastricht University
[email protected]
‘EU Environmental Norms and Third Countries:
The EU as a Global Role Model’
CLEER Workshop 19 April 2013
Following up on the November 2012 workshop entitled
‘Linking trade and non-commercial interest’, this workshop
focused on EU environmental norms and third countries. Both
workshops were organised within the framework of the Centre
for the Law of EU External Relations (CLEER). The
participants, stemming from a broad range of European and
non-European countries, discussed a variety of general and
more specific aspects of the EU’s mission and potential to
promote ‘European values’ by enhancing the protection of the
environment and sustainable development not only in the
European Union, but also worldwide. Notably, attention was
paid to the shaping of commercial relations with third countries
in such a way that they are stimulated to embrace sustainable
development in an improved manner.
Asser Institute – and dealt with EU and private sector initiatives
aimed at promoting EU environmental standards in third states.
Prof. Ludwig Krämer, who worked for the European
Community’s DG Environment for a long time, introduced a
broad range of EU legal instruments that influence (or fail to
influence) third states. Dr. Reinier de Man, who stood at the
basis of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO),
focused on private sector initiatives and the need for regulatory
responses next to such initiatives.
Under the chairmanship of ms. Daria Ratsiborinskaya from the
Erasmus University of Rotterdam, session 2 focused on the
European Principles for the Environment (EPE) initiative of
the European-based Multilateral Financing Institutions and the
European Commission. It featured a speech by Dr. Dariusz
Prasek from the EBRD on applying EU environmental norms
as far as possible to projects outside the EU, and a reaction
from the side of Dr. Wybe Th. Douma.
By the year 2020, all EU countries need to ensure that 10% of
transport fuels used in Europe is from a renewable source – like
biofuels. The third session, chaired by dr. Louise van Schaik
from the Clingendael Institute, discussed sustainability criteria
in the EU biofuels legislation. These criteria should ensure that
biofuels are doing more good than harm to the environment
inside the EU and elsewhere. That forces non-EU producers
that want to export to the EU to alter their production methods
– for instance by certifying that their biofuels do not replace
tropical rain forests (for instance with RSPO certificates). The
EU approach met with a critical note from the side of dr. Arif
Havas Oegroseno, ambassador of the Republic of Indonesia.
Furthermore, legal issues in EU-Brazil biofuels cooperation
were discussed by dr. Stavros Afionis from the University of
Leeds.
The last session, chaired by prof. Marjan Peeters from
Maastricht University, dealt with climate change. Dr. Leonardo
Massai (lecturer International and EU Environmental Law,
Catholic University of Lille) discussed EU climate law before
and after Copenhagen. Ms. Suzy Huber from Climate Focus
presented her views on the EU ETS and Aviation under the
title “Fasten your seatbelts, turbulent times ahead” – hinting
both at the legal and political challenges to applying EU rules to
non-EU airlines, and at the effects of climate change on flying
airplanes. She explained how hard it is for the EU to convince
third countries to accept the unilateral EU rules, and discussed
the potential way out in the form a renewed effort to agree on a
multilateral instrument within the ICAO.
Throughout the day, it became clear that the ambition of the
EU to function as a green superpower is not always met with
enthusiasm in third countries, and that there is room for
improvements to both the instruments employed and to the
EU’s manner of conducting green diplomacy. A CLEER
Working Paper – available at www.cleer.eu - will appear later in
2013, covering the papers presented. For more information,
also see the European environmental law website and free
News Service at www.eel.nl .
By Dr. Wybe Th. Douma,
T.M.C. Asser Institute
The workshop encompassed four sessions followed by lively
Q&A parts. Session 1 was chaired by dr. Wybe Th. Douma –
board member of CLEER and senior researcher at the T.M.C.
9
PhD defense Chana Grijsen
On 26 April 2013 Chana Grijsen successfully defended her PhD thesis
“De handhaving van discriminatiewetgeving in de politiepraktijk”
[Enforcing discrimination law in police practice] at Utrecht University.
Former roommate Mark Hornman submitted her the following questions.
Can you briefly explain what your research is about?
My research concerns the way discrimination law is enforced in
police practice. For this purpose various structures or
discourses influencing police work are studied. Firstly, the
Criminal Code and the Discrimination Directive (issued by the
Board of Procurators-General of the public prosecution service)
are examined both to determine which types of discrimination
are criminalized in the Netherlands and the discretionary
powers police officers enjoy when dealing with common crimes
and discriminatory offences. Secondly, police practice is studied
on an organizational level, giving insight into internal rules,
policies and procedures influencing the way police officers
operate in cases of discrimination. Thirdly, police practice is
examined on an occupational level. By conducting a case study
on the Amsterdam Police Department, using various qualitative
research methods such as case file study, discourse analysis and
focus groups, three aspects of police decision making are
studied: the registration, classification and handling of
discriminatory
offences.
Finally,
in
assessing
the
interrelationship between law, police organization and structure
and police practice inconsistencies between law, policy and
practice are explicated.
statements or incitement to hatred) and common discrimination
(common crimes with a discriminatory background, like assault
or destruction of property). Some police officers appear to
adopt a narrow definition of discrimination enclosing only
specific discrimination, while others adopt a broader definition
that also includes common discrimination. The difficulties
surrounding the concept of discrimination I didn’t realize
beforehand.
As a result it turned out that common discrimination wasn’t
registered separately in police registration system as I expected
it to be. At the start of my research I had planned to examine
the way common discrimination was dealt with throughout the
criminal justice system, i.e. the police, the prosecution and
criminal courts. After visiting the Amsterdam police department
and finding out that common discrimination was not registered
separately, I made the decision to focus my research on the
police. After all, the police are so-called gatekeepers of the
criminal justice system and play a pivotal role in criminal law
enforcement. As the only organisation in the criminal justice
system in direct contact with the community, the police are the
first to be notified when a crime has occurred. The prosecution
service is only able to prosecute an offence if they are informed
about it by the police. In other words, police decisions in cases
of discrimination and the criteria officers use to make them are
crucial for the administration of the criminal law, and ultimately,
for justice. Since there has been very little research on police
decision making in the Netherlands, this was an area where my
research could have some real added value.
At our university multidimensional research is slowly becoming
the new norm. Your research contains both legal research
methods as well as methods that are traditionally only used in
social sciences.
H ow did you combine those methods?
It was actually quite obvious. I didn’t want to restrict myself in
dealing with criminal law on a mere theoretical basis, or on the
law in the books, but also focus on the law in action. In doing
so and focusing on police officers and police work, social
sciences automatically become part of your research method.
H ow do your findings relate to the expectations you had
when you started your research?
I initially expected the police to be somewhat reluctant to deal
with discriminatory offences. On average the nature and
severity of discrimination cases is relatively limited, while one
would expect police officers wanting to focus on tough crime.
Reality turned out to be different. I found out that the
enforcement of discrimination law is considered to be a priority
by the Amsterdam police force, not only on paper but also in
practice. However, there are other factors influencing police
officers and causing difficulties in enforcing discrimination law.
For instance there seems to be confusion in police practice
about the scope and definition of criminalized discrimination.
In Dutch criminal law distinction is made between two types of
discrimination: specific discrimination (e.g. defamatory
10
Developing an actual theoretical framework and combining
both legal research methods for your thesis then forms the real
challenge, but that is also part of the fun. That social
constructionism would majorly contribute to my research was
clear from the outset, but in which specific way was at that time
still an open question. In examining multiple studies on the
social construction of police work I ultimately decided to make
use of a framework developed by Grimshaw and Jefferson.
What would you advise to PhD candidates who also want
to perform multidimensional research?
Multidimensional research is fun, you gain a great deal of
knowledge and extend your own boundaries. I learned that the
best way to do this is to engage in conversations with academics
in those specific research fields, in telling them your idea’s and
ask them how they would approach certain issues. Those
conversations were really helpful. Eventually you are the one to
make a decision, but their input is of great importance. In my
opinion, in the end talking helps you further along the way
rather than reading, since you sometimes need confirmation or
rejection in order to make balanced decisions.
You decided to leave academia and become a lawyer in
the field of criminal law. H ow did you experience these
first six months as a lawyer? H ow does your new live as an
practitioner differ from that as an academic?
The difference is huge. Being a lawyer is very dynamic and
throughout the day you’re in direct contact with so many people
at so many different levels. The amount of interaction differs
enormously from my life as a PhD researcher where I spend
most of my time behind a desk and computer. Nowadays I am
much more on the go. Off course legal practice isn’t always as
profound as academia. It contains much more multitasking
since many things cannot be planned in advance.
H ow do the skills you developed during your PhD benefit
you in your current career?
They do so on a daily basis. During my PhD I really got to
develop myself. Starting up your own research project on such a
large scale, taking crucial decisions and presenting your research
are skills that still benefit me today. It gives you more
confidence about yourself and you’re able to gather knowledge
and information in a really short time.
Due to my PhD research I am trained in assessing in a split
second whether a book, an article or jurisprudence is relevant
for your research/case or not.
Now back to your research. What do you hope your most
important findings will bring about?
I hope I’ve made clear that it’s impossible to assume that policy
can be directly translated and applied into practice. Previous
research concluded that the police claimed more latitude in
handling cases of discrimination in practice than allowed by law
and in the Discrimination Directive. So far, this had been
predominantly explained through reference to unwillingness
and ignorance of police officers to combat discrimination. That
the police, in spite of various efforts made, to date, seems to be
unable to operate in accordance with the Discrimination
Directive however, raises questions concerning its causes. My
study offers a different, qualitative perspective on the policing
of discriminatory offences. In an effort to elucidate
inconsistencies between law, policy and practice, the way
discriminatory offences are dealt with by the Dutch police is
closely examined.
It has now been a few months since your book was
published. What is the most interesting or the funniest
response you’ve gotten from the Amsterdam police
department?
I’ve had several responses. Many police officers are interested in
the book and want to learn from my findings. The most
interesting response came from one of my contacts within the
Amsterdam police department who asked me if I wasn’t being
to kind in my findings. Apparently they got used to critique. Of
course I did found out that police officers do not always follow
the rules, but in examining police practice I got to understand
their motives in doing so. Besides, the police can’t be blamed
for issues arising with regard to defining discrimination. The law
is more or less clear on what discrimination is, but for police
officers it is not always possible to make that judgment in a
glance and based on little information. Another issue is that the
victim and the alleged perpetrator in most cases will need to get
along in the future as well, since they live in the same
neighborhood or might even be direct neighbors. Starting up
criminal proceedings against one of them could have a serious
negative impact on that relationship. One should not
overestimate the possibilities of criminal law when it comes in
solving societal problems.
And now the final question: do you miss your former
roommates as much as they miss you?
Yes!!!  I had some great years at the Willem Pompe Institute.
Mark Hornman LL.M.
PhD candidate at the Utrecht Centre for Accountability & Liability Law
(UCALL) and the Willem Pompe Institute for Criminal Law &
Criminology, Utrecht University
[email protected]
Follow-up Course 2013 of the School of Human
Rights Research
On the 15th and 16th of May, a diverse group of second-year PhD
candidates from various member universities of the School of Human
Rights Research gathered at Hotel Mitland in Utrecht for the Follow-up
Course 2013.
The morning of the first day started off with an ice-breaker to
get the junior researchers awake and energized. The always
inspiring Richard Engelfriet assigned to all of them roles that
ranged from icons such as Donald Duck and Angelina Jolie to
Marcella Kiel, an icon in her own right. He instructed them to
put their presentation and argumentation skills to good use: the
whole team was on a hot air balloon quickly loosing height and
it had to be argued by the participants why his or her particular
character’s life was to be spared. After several elimination
rounds, it turned out that ‘Marcella Kiel’ was deemed most
important and she was allowed to remain on board of the hot
air balloon. After a fun – but admittedly pretty violent – game,
it was time for the more serious part of the day.
In turns, PhD students gave presentations of about 20 minutes
on their own research projects or any other topic they wanted
to cover. Afterwards, everyone received feedback from Richard
and Agnes van Woensel as well as from each other. This was a
useful exercise allowing the participants to discuss various
issues: body language, the use of certain presentation tools such
as PowerPoint, Prezi and flash cards and even the actual
content of the presentations.
11
For instance, one topic of discussion was whether it was better
to stand still – the so-called ‘Being a Tree’ principle – or move
around in a natural, relaxed manner during your presentation.
Finally, the PhD students settled on something in between – a
tree blowing gently in the breeze. By the end of the day full of
presenting and discussing, the sun had come out and the group
of participants gathered in the hotel garden for a few welldeserved drinks followed by a nice dinner in the restaurant.
Though there were big plans for a bowling tournament, the
doctoral candidates decided to go sleep early, feeling slightly
nervous in the knowledge that their own research abstracts and
methodologies would be up for discussion the next day.
After an early start and a wonderful breakfast, we gathered for
the start of the second day of the course. During the plenary
session, Prof.Mr.Dr. Sanne Taekema and Prof.Dr. Yvonne
Donders gave two interesting lectures on the methodology of
legal research and human rights research in particular. There
was enough time to discuss several methodological challenges
faced by the PhD students and ask pertinent questions that
were brilliantly answered by both Professors. In the afternoon,
a unique possibility was offered to the participants to say a few
words about their own research projects and receive 20 minutes
of much-needed and focused feedback and advice from two
knowledgeable and experienced researchers.
All in all, the follow-up course was a great experience involving
two days of hard work, social interactions and relaxation and,
fortunately, this was the general feeling shared by all
participating junior researchers. The most important aspect of
this course is not just how beneficial it can be to your research
or your skills as a researcher, nor the elaborate hotel buffet,
12
comfortable hotel rooms with bubble baths or the bowling
centre next to the hotel. It is the opportunity to spend time
away from your desk engaging with and getting to know your
peers and colleagues. It appears that all doctoral candidates left
the course with a renewed sense of focus in their research and
hopefully a few new friends. Many thanks to Agnes van
Woensel, Richard Engelfriet, Yvonne Donders, Sanne Taekema
and the Graduate Programme Committee for organizing the
course.
Sarah-Jane Koulen & Evgeni Moyakine
Doctoral Candidates and Researchers
T.M.C.Asser Institute / Tilburg University
[email protected] / [email protected]
Introductory course School of Human Rights
Research
On the 25th and 26th of March 2013, the School of Human Rights
Research and its Partner Universities organized an Introductory Course for
first year PhD researchers. Fifteen junior scholars attended this yearly
returning event, which proved to be a rewarding experience. Most
importantly, the Course allowed the participants to reflect on the academic
and personal challenges of starting up a PhD research project.
On the morning of the first day, we were warmly welcomed by
Professor Tom Zwart, the Director of the School, and by
Agnes van Woensel, the School’s Education Officer and the
Coordinator of the Course. In his opening word, Professor
Zwart introduced the training programme, but also familiarized
us with the working groups and the many other facilities that
the School has set up for PhD researchers.
Next it was for Professor Fred Grünfeld and Professor Menno
Kamminga to make their appearance. Both well-known Human
Rights scholars had prepared a very clear message: methodology
matters! In line with the literature that we were asked to read in
advance of the Course (and in particular Professor Landman’s
chapter in the 2009 edited volume “Methods of Human Rights
Research” ), their lectures stressed the importance of
methodological soundness in Human Rights research. In
reference to some successful and some more problematic
examples, Professor Grünfeld and Professor Kamminga
discussed the challenges of non-traditional legal research and
encouraged us to keep thinking about the methodological
choices underlying our own research projects.
The afternoon showed that their message had not fallen on deaf
ears. In two parallel sessions, which were chaired by the two
guest speakers, all participants briefly introduced their PhD
projects with a particular focus on methodological issues.
Because the groups were small and everyone was willing to
speak candidly about his or her research, this part of the
program proved extremely valuable. It was not just a possibility
to give and receive feedback on each other’s plans, but also to
discover common research interests and approaches.
The final session of the first day focussed on personal
development. Marthe Lot Vermeulen and Marloes van
Noorloos, who both recently completed their PhD at Utrecht
University, shared their experiences about writing a dissertation
in two very frank presentations. Moreover, they offered some
tailor-made advice in response to the wide range of questions
that came up during the Q & A about issues like timemanagement, cv-building, and the life after your PhD defence.
The second day started with a training session on the basics of
networking by Richard Engelfriet. On forehand, I was perhaps
a bit sceptical about the concept of a networking training, but
praise for those who deserve it: Richard had everyone’s
attention from the first until the last minute. In a very
interactive and entertaining way, he presented a number of
networking principles with creative names like “Cow-theory”
and “Olvarit’s Law”. In addition, his training included several
though-provoking exercises and a helpful discussion on the use
of social media.
For the afternoon session, Agnes van Woensel had prepared
training on one of the most important but often overlooked
aspects of a PhD project: the relationship and communication
between the PhD researcher and his or her supervisor. Under
the title “how to run your supervisor”, the training stimulated
confidential discussion on what PhD researchers may expect
from their supervisors and on how to make sure that you get
the sort of supervision you need. Because everyone in the group
was once again willing to speak freely about their own
experiences, this session resulted in a lively conversation, which
Agnes guided perfectly.
All in all, the Introductory Course offered a balanced
programme on some of the very real academic and personal
challenges that first year PhD researchers face. In the
comfortable accommodation of Hotel Mitland in Utrecht, we
had the unique chance to step back from our daily routines and
to reflect on what for most us had been the first months of our
PhD project. Some of this reflection took place during the
formal sessions, but, as always, the discussions over dinners,
drinks and bowling matches turned out to very valuable as well.
This leaves me to thank all those who were involved in making
the training programme a success and to express the hope that
the follow-up course will be able to live up to the, by now, very
high expectations.
Abel S. Knottnerus
PhD Candidate – University of Groningen
[email protected]
13
Letter from Bologna
I have had the wonderful opportunity of visiting the Research
Institute on Judicial Systems in Bologna (IRSiG-CNR) for my
PhD research this spring. My visit was made possible in part by
the funding kindly provided by the Erasmus Trustfonds. I had
intended to take full advantage of this wonderful opportunity by
critically assessing my theoretical framework, further developing
my case studies and working on articles related to my research.
my research to the co-workers at the Institute and received
valuable feedback and encouragement for my project. The
discussions continued during the family-style lunches at the
beautiful and sunny terrace of the Institute and in individual
meetings. Furthermore, I also had the opportunity to meet
through the Institute other PhD candidates with similar
research interests from Bologna.
During my research stay I have been closely collaborating with a
senior researcher at the Institute, Dr. Crisitina Dallara. Our
discussions have proved particularly insightful, given her
knowledge on judicial reforms in Eastern Europe and the role
of the Venice Commission in guiding the reforms. It was also
interesting to learn more about the research opportunities in
this field of study from a political science perspective.
I have been spending most of my time here in Bologna at the
newly furbished working space for visiting researchers with a
great view on Piazza Verdi, the heart of the university district.
The office features a very handy library specialized on judicial
reforms. I enjoy tremendously my morning walks to the
Research Institute with stops at “my” local café for coffee and
breakfast. Productive work days follow, as I am able to take
advantage of the ideal research and writing space offered by
IRSiG.
My stay has been packed with great bonus activities as well. Not
only have I benefited from the active research environment on
judicial reforms and vast experience of the researchers in this
field, but also got to visit the office of the Justice of the Peace
and the Court of Appeal in Bologna and meet judges and court
administrators alike: The IRSiG organized the court visits and
meetings with judges and court administrators during the week
when Dr. Marijke Malsch of the Netherlands Institute of the
Study of Crime and Law Enforcement was visiting and I was
very eager to tag along. Typically to Italy, the Court of Appeal is
located in a historical palace, the Palazzo Ranuzzi Baciocchio,
so the court visit doubled as an art exploration.
The Research Institute on Judicial Systems in Bologna
(http://www.irsig.cnr.it/ ) was established in 1992 at the
initiative of Prof. Giuseppe di Federico. Its aim is to study the
functioning of judicial system with an empirical, comparative
and interdisciplinary approach. The researchers have both legal
and political science background. The Institute has an
established expertise in the fields of judicial reforms,
organizational and technological innovations in courts
cooperating with UNODC, Council of Europe and the
European Commission.
Given the fact that my research seeks to address problems of
operationalizing the implementation of European standards for
judicial management and specialization in Hungary and
Romania, the Institute seemed like the perfect place to explore
the practical side of my research. I was very happy when Dr.
Elaine Mak drew my attention that the Institute is also
accepting PhD candidates as visiting researchers.
On my first day the director of IRSiG-CNR, Dr. Marco Fabri
greeted me and got me acquainted with the researchers at the
Institute. I quickly integrated into the daily activities of the
Institute and started receiving notifications for upcoming
meetings and seminars. One of them was my own: I presented
14
Furthermore, I had the exciting opportunity to participate in a
workshop organized for professionals within the judiciary titled
“Innovation as Governance. Judicial Offices and their
Territory”. The workshop was organized by Dr. Daniela Piana
and focused on the judiciary and regionalization, being first of
its kind in Italy. The event took place in the historical museum
of Bologna in a meeting room dedicated to female Italian
scientists of the late thirteenth through the seventeenth century.
The terracotta busts of female protagonists of the historical
cultural and scientific scene provided a great surrounding for a
groundbreaking meeting.
Another great perk of my research visit has been the
opportunity to enjoy the resources of the EUI library on the
enchanting hills of Fiesole.
Needless to say, Bologna and its surroundings, plus the nearby
Tuscany offer great possibilities for charming trips. The rolling
hills surrounding Bologna, Ravenna, San Marino, Florence,
Siena and San Gimignano offered plenty of entertainment in my
case. I have also been actively pursuing my side project of
exploring the best gelato places of Bologna! (Upon request I am
happy to share my personal favorite gelato- trattoria- charming
streets routes!)
I have still two more weeks of happy writing ahead of me. At
the end of my research visit I will give another presentation
with the participation of Prof. Carlo Guarnieri and Dr. Daniela
Piana. The last two weeks of my research stay will be equally
exciting as the others!
All in all, this visit has been very useful both for deepening the
academic analysis of my research and exploring the practical
side of my research topic. The wonderful surroundings and
food could not yield a more motivating working and research
environment! I am happy that I could experience all three faces
of this great city : “la grassa, la rosa, la dotta (the fat, the rose,
the learned)”.
Petra Gyöngyi
PhD researcher, Erasmus University Rotterdam, School of Law
[email protected]
Letter from Heidelberg
Since March I am a visiting researcher at the Max Planck for
Comparative Public Law and International Law (MPIL) in
Heidelberg, Germany. My Prince Bernhard Fellowship offered
me the opportunity to visit MPIL for five months and so far it
has been a very pleasant stay. As a part-time PhD student
(buitenpromovenda) I wanted a research period at a well-known
research institute in international public law where I would be
able to give the writing process a boost and enjoy an academic
stimulating vibrant environment.
Similarly, my research project on ‘Inclusionary Governance for
international institutions: towards a model for citizens
involvement’ identifies an increasing exercise of public power
by international institutions directly affecting individuals. A
proper legal framework for regulating transparency,
participation in decision-making, and access to justice
(inclusion) in the decision-making procedure of international
institutions is lacking, which has a significant negative impact
on the legitimacy and accountability of the decision-making
procedure. This project develops a Model for analyzing such
inclusionary processes in order to examine how inclusionary
governance is conceptualized at the international level by
international institutions and national institutions, and thus,
takes the practice of international institutions as its point of
departure. The research stay enabled me, so far, to write the
first chapter of my Ph.D. thesis addressing the premises of my
research and approach and methods adopted throughout the
research project.
On my first day, I received a warm welcome by my buddy
Sabiha Beg, who informed me on the ins and outs of the
institute. As part of the guest integration program at the Max
Planck you can apply for the buddy system. You will be coupled
with a researcher with similar research interests who – amongst
others – welcomes you at the institute and assists you in getting
in contact with other researchers with similar interests.
Afterwards I met with the director of the Institute Prof. von
Bogdandy, who welcomed me and provided me with all the
opportunities to present my research at MPIL, of which I will
make use the second half of my stay. Further it was a nice
surprise meeting fellow PhD Candidate Ingrid Leijten from
Leiden University at MPIL. She was at the end of her three
months research stay at MPIL and gave me the tips and tricks
for making the research stay as successful and effective as
possible.
The participation in the Dienstagsrunde from Prof. von
Bogdandy - in which ongoing (doctoral) research projects are
discussed within the framework of the Exercise of International
Public Authority research project - was very fruitful due to the
extensive discussions on the theoretical & philosophical
underpinnings of the projects making me critically assess my
own project on this point. I enjoyed particularly the extensive
discussions with Michael Ioannidis and Dana Schmalz on the
functioning of international institutions in general and
particularly of the UNHCR.
The choice for MPIL was made on the basis of the expertise of
the researchers at the Institute, the extensive library resources &
facilities and the guest integration program. My visit was further
motivated by the ability to discuss research with researchers
from the Exercise of International Public Authority Project.
The main idea of the project is that any exercise of international
public authority requires a public law framework. MPIL focuses
on constructing a legal understanding of and developing a legal
framework the exercise of international public authority. See
further
http://www.mpil.de/de/pub/forschung/forschung_im_detail/
projekte/voelkerrecht/ipa.cfm.
The group of visiting researchers you get to meet and work with
at MPIL is quite nice; some come for only a week others for a
longer period just like me. All of them coming from everywhere
over the world. In the reading room alone I counted a total of
18 different nationalities. I enjoyed particularly the
presentations by Kushtrim Istrefi (University of Pristina) on the
constitution of Kosovo, Mateja Steinbruck Platise (Marie Curie
fellow at MPIL) on the responsibility of international
Organizations for human rights violations, Danae Azaria
(University City London) on developments in the work of the
ILC on ‘Subsequent Agreements and Subsequent Practise in
relation to the interpretation of Treaties’ and Timothy Waters
(Indiana University Bloomington) on the ‘Milosevic Trial: Can
International Law write Good History’. There is ample
opportunity at MPIL to present research and/or discuss
developments in international, European or national public law.
15
I was happily surprised about how international Heidelberg is;
everyone speaks English but is also very willing to understand
my attempts to speak German. However, understanding and
reading German is essential when you want to fully participate
with all the activities of the Institute. Normally, half of the
meetings will take place in German the other half will be in
English.
Besides the interesting academic activities there was also plenty
of room for enjoying Heidelberg and its surroundings.
Heidelberg is a lovely city, which lies on the River Neckar in a
steep valley in the Odenwald. Heidelberg’s castle and the
Philosophenweg are two of the famous attractions of the city
well-worth visiting. With the Königstuhl and the Heiligenberg
in the proximity, Heidelberg is the perfect location to go hiking.
Heidelberg is a true university town, with a large international
student population. Unfortunately this makes the house hunting
a challenge. Luckily I was able to find a studio in Heidelberg
city center. Living in the mid of Old Town (Altstadt) is great,
you are in the middle of restaurants, bars, shops, a short stroll
from the castle and still close to the Institute.
Even though the weather was less nice than what it supposed to
be (apparently the area of Heidelberg forms one of the sunniest
regions of Germany), I still enjoyed being outside. The moment
that the weather is nice (read endurable) the Neckarwiese is
packed with people playing sports, having a picnic or just
relaxing on the side of the Neckar.
The Alumni Day of the MPIL was one of the highlights of my
stay. The day started with interesting speeches by Alumnus
Clemens Feinäugle and by the new Director of MPIL, Prof.
Anne Peters. Afterwards we had a nice walk alongside the
Neckar with a large group of the Alumni who all have
interesting positions in judiciary – national and international –
international organizations, governments or academia. In the
evening we had a lovely dinner with live music from three
alumni of MPIL, who formed a band during their stay at MPIL.
The live Latin-American music got everyone dancing & singing
at the end of the night.
Another nice social event is football on the Neckarwiese every
Wednesday with other researchers at MPIL. On the 2nd of July
we will – with our guests’ footballteam – compete against the
teams of Prof. von Bogdandy, Prof. Wölfrum/Stiftung and the
library & facilitation and strive for winning the football cup of
MPIL once more!
Overall, the research stay has been productive, nice inspiration
for further research and recommended to everyone searching
for an inspiring environment to give the writing process a
boost.
Marjolein Schaap
Erasmus School of Law, Erasmus University Rotterdam
[email protected]
16
Personal Column
Anne-Marie de Brouwer, associate
professor at Tilburg University, has
been appointed a Knight in the Order
of Oranje Nassau.
On Friday, April 26th she received the
award from Mayor Peter van der Velden
of Breda.
Dr. Anne-Marie de Brouwer, also research fellow at the
International Victimology Institute Tilburg INTERVICT, is
rewarded for her enthusiasm to making a difference, both
professionally and privately. Since her PhD in 2005 – published
by Intersentia – she is regarded as a leading international expert
in the field of victims of sexual violence in war. She is a
frequent speaker at national and international conferences,
advises the United Nations as well as national and international
foundations working on this theme and supervises many young
researchers.
Both in her professional and private life de Brouwer has a
special relationship with Rwanda.
She went there several times to study the consequences of
sexual violence during the genocide affecting many women,
men, children and society as a whole. For one of her projects
she stayed in Rwanda for three months to interview women in
the most remote places. Dr. de Brouwer also founded the
foundation Mukomeze ("Empower her"), which supports
livelihoods of victims of sexual violence in Rwanda.
Christa Tobler
Europe prize
wins
Every year, the „Neue
Europäische
Bewegung
Schweiz (nebs)/Nouveau
movement
européen
suisse (nomes)“ awards
the Europe prize to a
person who in Switzerland
is active in the field of
European integration. De
association nominates a
number of persons and
the winner is then chosen
by its members and other
visitors of its website.
This year, Christa Tobler was nominated because of the manner
in which she gives information about the bilateral law between
the EU and Switzerland via the press, radio and television.
The reasoning for the nomination was as follows (in German):
„Die Europadebatte wird in der Schweiz bisweilen sehr schnell
sehr emotional geführt. Kein Wunder also, wenn dabei nur allzu
oft die Fakten in den Hintergrund rücken. Christa Tobler
markiert hier einen wohltuenden Gegenpol, indem sie als
Expertin in europarechtlichen Fragen ruhig, gelassen und
überaus kompetent auftritt, sei dies in Zeitungen, im Radio oder
auch schon mal in der Arena des Schweizer Fernsehens. Damit
trägt sie dazu bei, dass Europadiskussion auf dem Boden der
Sachlichkeit stattfinden kann, angesichts der Tragweite der
aktuellen Herausforderungen in der schweizerischen
Europapolitik zweifellos eine schiere Notwendigkeit.“
The price was awarded on 4 May 2013 in the Swiss capital,
Berne.
Dr. Nicola Jägers has been
appointed Professor of
International Human Rights
Law at the department of
European and International
Law of the Law School of
Tilburg University from
June 1st, 2013. Jägers will
focus her research on the
challenges to the realisation of human rights that follow
from
processes
of
globalisation
and
the
economic/financial crises.
Over the past ten years Nicola Jägers has worked on the
transformations that have occurred in international (human
rights) law relating to changes in the relationships between
states and markets and changes in the regulatory roles and
capacities of NGOs and transnational business corporations. In
2002, Jägers published one of the earlier books on the issue of
corporate responsibility for human rights violations Corporate
Human Rights Obligations: in search of accountability. Ever since, the
consequences at the national and international level of the two
dominant faces of globalisation: the expansion of trade beyond
borders and the universalising effects of the human rights
movement have remained Jägers’ core research interest resulting
in (participation in) various research projects and multiple
publications on the issue. More recently, she has begun to
consider the ways in which regulatory approaches might be
useful for the enforcement, socialisation and protection of
human rights.
New Members
As of 1 May 2013 the following researchers have joined the
School as junior members:
Mohammad Hadi Zakerhossein
Mohammad obtained his Master of Laws at the University of
Tehran, Iran in 2010 and started his PhD research at Tilburg
University under the supervision of Professor Marc
Groenhuijsen and Dr. Anne-Marie de Brouwer on the topic:
“The Implementation of the ICC Arrest Warrant”. His research
project addresses the issue of the implementation of arrest
warrants issued by the International Criminal Court. The strong
link and relationship between Human Rights Law and
International Criminal Law are undeniable. Putting an end to
the culture of impunity across the world and bringing the
perpetrators of the most serious international crimes to justice,
whose ways are sought by his research project, provide practical
and influential protection of Human Rights in reality.
Monique Hazelhorst
Monique studied law at the Utrecht Law College at Utrecht
University. After completing her bachelor's degree in 2009, she
was admitted to the Master's Programme in Legal Research at
Utrecht University. During this time, she undertook research
projects in areas of EU law: financial supervision (at the Dutch
Ministry of Finance), competition law (at Clifford Chance LLP),
and private international law. Currently, she is a PhD candidate
in the department of Private International Law at Erasmus
School of Law. The topic of her research is: “The Role of the
Right to a Fair Trial in the Cross-border Enforcement of Civil
Judgements in the EU”, her supervisors are: Professor X.E.
Kramer and Professor K.A.M. Henrard. Within the European
Union, recognition and enforcement of judicial decisions in civil
and commercial matters across Member State borders were
governed until recently by a harmonised procedure under the
Brussels I Regulation: the exequatur. The recognition and
enforcement of a judicial decision could be opposed on a
limited number of grounds, including public policy. For several
years now, the policy goal of the European Union has been to
abolish intermediate procedures such as exequatur to enable
free movement of judgments, and with it, to abolish grounds of
refusal. Although this goal has not been obtained under the
recently adopted Brussels Ibis Regulation, there are a number of
instruments of EU private international law that do not provide
for an exequatur procedure. One of these, the Brussels IIbis
Regulation, gave rise to the contested judgment of the ECJ in
Zarraga, in which the ECJ decided that the fact that the right of
a child to be heard had been breached could not lead to a
refusal to execute the judgment. The tendency to abolish
exequatur and the safeguards it provides thus raises questions
from a fundamental rights point of view. This research project
asks whether the EU fundamental rights framework requires
that a possibility remains to challenge the execution of a civil
judgment - that is the result of an unfair procedure - and how
this can be aligned with the EU objective of mutual trust among
Member States. This question is examined by analysing the EU
legal framework on fundamental rights, including the ECHR
and case law from the ECtHR, the EU Charter on Fundamental
Rights and case law of the ECJ, and the possibility of EU
accession to the ECHR. The results are then weighed against
the principles of mutual trust and mutual recognition, which
have become the cornerstone of judicial cooperation in civil
matters in the EU. This PhD research is part of NWO research
project of Professor X.E. Kramer: 'Securing Quality in CrossBorder Enforcement: Towards European Principles of Civil
Procedure?'.
Publications
Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights
Volume 31, No. 2, June 2013
Table of Contents
COLUMN
Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action: 20 Years
Later
Cees Flinterman
17
PART A: ARTICLES
The Changing Nature of the Relationship between the
United Nations Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture
and National Preventive Mechanisms: In Search for
Equilibrium
Elina Steinerte
The American Convention and the Protocol of San
Salvador: Two Intertwined Treaties. Non-Enforceability of
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the InterAmerican System
Oswaldo R. Ruiz-Chiriboga
The Right to Development in International Human Rights
Law: A Call for Its Dissolution
Arne Vandenbogaerde
PART B: HUMAN RIGHTS NEWS
I European Convention on Human Rights
Lize R. Glas
II International Criminal Court
Elinor Fry
PART C: DOCUMENTATION
New Titles
Abstracts of Articles
The Changing Nature of the Relationship between the
United Nations Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture
and National Preventive Mechanisms: In Search for
Equilibrium
By Elina Steinerte
The unique aspect of the mandate of the UN Subcommittee on
Prevention of Torture (SPT) lies in the relationship that the
Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture
(OPCAT) puts in place between the SPT and National
Preventive Mechanisms (NPMs) established by State Parties at
their national levels. However, at least initially, the SPT
struggled to find its feet in its engagement with NPMs: faced
with crippling budgetary problems and uncertainty over the best
ways for interaction with NPMs, the SPT spent its initial five
years nearly side-lining its national counterparts. The Fifth
Annual Report of the SPT indicates a turning point in the way it
intends to engage with NPMs. Introducing new type of visits,
changing its attitude towards engagement with NPMs outside
its visiting mandate and reshuffling its internal structure are all
signs of the change in the nature of the relationship between the
SPT and NPMs. After five years, the SPT is finally signalling its
readiness to embrace the relationship with its colleagues at
national levels and this is a relationship that all those engaged
with the prevention of torture have every right to have high
expectations of. This article will examine the relationship
between the SPT and NPMs to date and the way it has been
changing over the past year. It will argue that the changes
introduced by the SPT vis-à-vis NPMs are promising signs of
the Subcommittee finally establishing some equilibrium in its
relationship with its national counterparts, NPMs. It is
submitted here that without such equilibrium the premise of
torture prevention encapsulated in OPCAT cannot be achieved
The American Convention and the Protocol of San
Salvador: Two Intertwined Treaties. Non-Enforceability of
18
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the InterAmerican System
By Oswaldo R. Ruiz-Chiriboga
This article discusses the direct enforceability of economic,
social, and cultural (ESC) rights in the Inter-American System,
also called ‘the direct approach’. It starts by presenting two
apparent conflicts between certain provisions of the American
Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”) and the
Protocol of San Salvador (“the Protocol”) related to the ESC
rights recognised in Article 26 of the Convention and the
mechanisms of protection of such rights. The author concludes
that ESC rights were never intended to be directly enforceable
before the Inter-American System and therefore the direct
approach is not feasible, except for the right to unionisation and
the right to education, the only rights expressly conceived as
directly enforceable by the Protocol. The recent decision of the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights in Acevedo-Buendía et
al. v. Peru is also studied. The Court declared that it has
contentious jurisdiction over alleged violations of ESC rights,
but it took no notice of the Protocol. This article stresses that
every interpretation on ESC rights in the Inter-American
System must not ignore the Protocol of San Salvador
The Right to Development in International Human Rights
Law: A Call for Its Dissolution
By Arne Vandenbogaerde
In light of its recent twenty-fifth anniversary and the
determination of the core norm of the right to development,
the article revisits the question concerning its added value. After
having examined the current legal framework it finds that the
right to development does not raise any new substantive
obligations for States and non-State actors and thus appears
dissolvable within the current framework. The article concludes
by calling for a focus on extraterritorial and transnational
human rights obligations in order to further advance towards an
international enabling environment for the realisation of all
human rights. At the moment, the right to development is
doing a disservice to other human rights, especially economic,
social and cultural (ESC) rights, as it considers those rights to
be consolidated in their scope and content regarding
international responsibilities
***
School of Human Rights Research Series
Transforming
Discriminatory Sex Roles
and Gender Stereotyping
By Ramona Biholar
School of Human Rights
Research Series, volume 62
published by Intersentia (June
2013)
ISBN: 978-1-78068-167-2
Miscellaneous
Call for Interns: International
Criminal/Humanitarian/Human Rights Law
The T.M.C. Asser Instituut offers advanced law students, as
well as those who have recently graduated, the opportunity to
enrich their knowledge with practical experience of working in
the field of International Criminal, Humanitarian and Human
Rights Law.
The T.M.C. Asser Instituut, located in The Hague, is a leading
inter-university institute operating in the broad field of
international law. Its research is of an interdisciplinary as well as
comparative nature, covering all fields of law in which the
Institute specializes, including International Criminal,
Humanitarian and Human Rights Law.
What we offer
A full-time internship for a period of six months, starting 1
October 2013, for a recently graduated or an advanced law
Student specializing in International Criminal/Humanitarian/
Human Rights Law to work in the IHL/ICL section.
The intern will be considered a full member of a team working
on an array of projects, including assisting with the setup of an
international crimes database, assisting with the planning and
execution of multiple research activities (including conferences
in the context of the International Humanitarian and Criminal
Law Platform), offering help with the logistics regarding the
Supranational Criminal Law Lecture Series as well as the
occasional HILAC Lecture Series and other tasks as they arise.
Interested candidates should have:
•
A demonstrable interest in and an academic
background in international criminal humanitarian
and/or human rights law;
•
Strong legal analysis and writing skills;
•
The ability to coordinate with off-site partner
organizations and to help organize events and
conferences;
•
Flexibility, motivation and the capability to work
independently;
•
Fluency in written and spoken English. Knowledge of
other languages, especially Dutch, is an advantage.
How to apply:
Students who are interested in applying can send their letter of
motivation and CV (in Europass format), in English and MSWord only, to [email protected] before 1 September 2013.
Interviews will be held in the week of 9 September 2013.
19
Administration
Drift 15, 3512 br Utrecht
The Netherlands
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: +31 30 253 80 34
Fax: +31 30 253 71 68
www.schoolofhumanrights.org
Colophon
The School of Human Rights Research (established in 1995)
aims at promoting disciplinary and multidisciplinary scientific
research in the field of human rights. By means of critical
analysis and the submission of proposals, based on thorough
scientific research, the School wants to contribute to the
further implementation and strengthening of the international,
regional and national system of protection of human rights.
Participants:
Utrecht University, Faculty of Law
Utrecht University, Faculty of Humanities
Maastricht University, Faculty of Law
Tilburg University, Faculty of Law
Erasmus University of Rotterdam, Faculty of Law
Leiden University, Faculty of Law
T.M.C. Asser Institute, The Hague
University of Amsterdam, Faculty of Law (aspirant member)
Directorate:
Prof.dr. Tom Zwart, Director
Mrs. Vanessa Los – van Oostrum, Registrar
Ms Agnes van Woensel, Education Officer
Board:
Prof.dr. M.T. Kamminga, chair (Maastricht University)
Prof.dr. H.S. Taekema (Erasmus University Rotterdam)
Dr. N.M.C.P. Jägers (Tilburg University)
Prof.dr. D. Siegel-Rozenblit (Utrecht University/Law)
Dr. P.A.M. Malcontent (Utrecht University/Humanities)
Dr. J.P. Loof (Leiden University)
Dr. O.M. Ribbelink (T.M.C. Asser Institute)
The Newsletter of the School of Human Rights Research
appears in 1000 copies four times a year. The planned dates of
publication are: March, June, September and December.
The Newsletter is also available on the website of the
School of Human Rights Research:
www.schoolofhumanrights.org
Editorial Board Newsletter:
Otto Spijkers (Faculty of Law Utrecht University)
Ingrid Leijten (Leiden University)
Phyllis Livaha (Maastricht University)
Evgeni Moyakine (Tilburg University)
Petra Gyongyi (Erasmus University Rotterdam)
Sarah-Jane Koulen (T.M.C. Asser Institute)
Vanessa Los (School of Human Rights Research)
Vacancy (Faculty of Humanities Utrecht University)
Any reactions to or comments on articles published in the
Newsletter are welcome: [email protected]
ISSN: 1386-0453
20

Newsletter - School of Human Rights Research

Transcription

Similar documents

академ программы англ

Alphonse Bertillion - Hicksville Public Schools / Homepage

Elena Ford, Why haven`t you responded to my

Inside Out - Shini Europe

Distortion Social

PRIMECorp Annual Report

You Can Help - Goombay Bash

NÄKYVÄ POLIISITYÖ IRC-GALLERIASSA

Term 4 2015

ITEM MOT 00-05141 Ammunition Purchase from Kiesler Police

Minutes seminar Netherlands Dec 2nd 2010