Impunity Watch: Scholarly Articles

The Path from the 1907 Hague Conference to Nuremberg and Forward

By: John Q. Barrett

This speech was given at the International Humanitarian Law Dialog, held at the Chautauqua Institution on August 29, 2007.  It is republished with the permission of its author and original publisher, American Society of International Law.

For the entire speech, please see: Download the_path_from_the_1907_hague_conference_to_nuremberg_and_forward.pdf

The Legacy of Nuremberg

By: Whitney R. Harris

This article was part of the first International Humanitarian Dialogs at the Chautauqua Institution in August, 2007.  It is republished with the permission of its author and original publisher, American Society of International Law.

For the entire article, please see: Download the_legacy_of_nuremberg.pdf

Echoes of Nuremberg

By: Michael A. Newton

This article was part of the first International Humanitarian Dialogs at the Chautauqua Institution in August, 2007.  It is republished with the permission of its author and original publisher, American Society of International Law.

For the entire article, please see: Download echoes_of_nuremberg.pdf

Our Troops Deserve Better: Why Our Troops and Not Depleted Uranium Should be Given the Benefit of the Doubt

By: Charles Mauer

Abstract

This paper will examine the military use of depleted uranium, including: what depleted uranium is, why it is used in armaments, a short history of its use, its possible hazards, and the legal issues surroundings its use. The legal issues that will be addressed include American case law and statutory approaches, treaties and international law principles, the law of war, and product liability issues. Finally, this paper will explore some policy considerations including the obligations we owe to the health and safety of our troops and others, as well as environmental concerns.

For the entire article, please see: Download maurer_submission_pdf.pdf

Sierra Leone: Getting reparations right for survivors of sexual violence

By: Amnesty International
This article is republished with the permission of its original publisher Amnesty International.

“When women asked the president for an apology for victims of sexual violence from the war and he refused, it sent the wrong message.”
NGO staff

“When the war ended, NGOs and the UN made it known to the government that we were prepared to fund or provide services for reparations. The government never asked.  It sent the wrong message.”
UN staff in Sierra Leone

“When the government responded to the … TRC recommendations with a white paper instead of just taking steps to implement them, it sent the wrong message. “
UNIOSIL staff

I.     Introduction

Six years after the end of the conflict in Sierra Leone, little has been done to ensure that survivors of sexual violence receive justice, acknowledgement of their suffering, or full, meaningful and effective reparations. The unimaginable brutality of violations committed against up to a third of Sierra Leone’s mostly rural women and girls has been well documented; however the government has failed to effectively address the physical, psychological and economic impact of these crimes on the survivors. Without justice, recognition of the crimes or effective programmes to ensure their rehabilitation, without help to rebuild their lives or steps being taken to ensure that they are protected from future crimes, the suffering of the women and girls continues.[1]

Amnesty International interviewed women and girls who have employed many strategies to survive, both during the conflict and in its aftermath. For them, sexual violence was not a single event but a violation that has continued in the absence of comprehensive measures to deal with it. Along with the sexual violence, many identified themselves as former ‘rebel wives’, which also contributed to isolation and exclusion. As a result, many have had difficultly accessing food, shelter, work and healthcare. The continuing discrimination they have faced has impeded their reintegration into the community.

            These women and girls expressed a desire for justice and meaningful reparations not out of revenge but simply to enable them to become economically independent and begin to re-establish their lives free from fear, stigma and discrimination. 

A reparations programme recommended by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) in its 2004 report includes specific measures for victims of sexual abuse. This provides the government with new opportunities to ensure that victims can finally begin to address the damage that has been done to them. Lessons learned from efforts at reintegration reveal that the needs of women and girls have not been adequately met.[2] These lessons must be incorporated into the reparations programme, which requires the active participation of its beneficiaries if it is going to be designed to meet their needs.

            In order to address the complex social and individual impact of sexual abuse, the reparations must be provided in a context that seeks to prevent future violence, addresses the deep-seated discrimination against women, promotes equality and improves women’s status.

All victims and survivors of crimes against humanity, war crimes and other serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian laws are entitled to justice and reparations. This report focuses specifically on reparations for survivors of sexual abuse, which mainly affects women and girls from rural areas in Sierra Leone. Amnesty International examines the social and individual effects of sexual violence, the failure of the government to provide measures to address its impact, including justice and reparations, and the need for the government to implement a comprehensive and effective reparations programme to get reparations right for victims of sexual violence.

---

For the entire article, please see: Download sierra_leone_getting_reparations_right.pdf

---

Children of a Lesser Law: The Failure of the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act and a Plan for its Redemption

By: Roger Byron

This article is republished with the permission of its original publisher Regent University Law Review and its author Roger Byron; it was initially published in 19 REGULR 275 and copyrighted in 2006.

Introduction

The twentieth century saw significant progress made in the protection of children, and with good reason. Consider the following, all of which occurred in the United States within recent years:

• Weak and unable to fend for himself, a child was thrown into a dumpster and abandoned.[1]
• In obvious need of medical attention, which was immediately available, a child was merely wrapped in a blanket and died 2.5 hours later.[2]
• In desperate need of medical care, a child was laid on a table, abandoned in a closet and died.[3]
• Alive and moving, a child was sealed in a plastic bag and dumped in the trash, where he died.[4]
• Unknown whether he was alive or dead, a child was submerged into a toilet until his death became a certainty.[5]
• A child was plunged into a water-filled bucket and held there until he drowned.[6]
• While in a weakened state, a child was taken in hand and his neck was broken.[7]
• A child in a similarly weakened state was beaten with a dull instrument until he died.[8]
• Abandoned and struggling to breathe, twins were taken to a human body-parts wholesaler. When the wholesaler protested that live children were unacceptable, the supplier flooded the twins’ transport container with water and drowned them. Afterwards, the sale was completed.[9]

While these children are dead and gone, some comfort might be taken in knowing that those responsible for their deaths were brought to justice. Except that they were not brought to justice. In fact, they were never prosecuted. And there is no indication that many of the deaths were even investigated.

      How is this possible? It is simply that each of these children was marked for death.[10] Once marked for death, they had no rights.[11] Theirs was to die by hook or by crook. Each of these children was born alive through an abortion attempt. And then they were killed or left to die.

For the entire article, please : Download Children of a Lesser Law.pdf

EU must shun Africa’s dictators

By Eric Witte
Original Source: European Voice, http://www.europeanvoice.com, 19 July 2007

While the EU presidency rotated from Germany to Portugal at the beginning of the month, African Union (AU) leaders were meeting in Accra, Ghana and debating continent-wide unification. EU officials are mindful of the idea’s inherent difficulties. But with Portugal hoping to host a meeting between EU and African leaders in Lisbon before its presidency expires in December, the AU summit itself provides an important cautionary lesson.

Beyond the obvious difficulties of forging the political union of 53 countries, almost twice the EU’s 27, the absurdity of the proposal for rapid African unification stemmed from its sponsor’s identity: Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.

Gaddafi’s past stabs at Pan-African politics have included the training and arming of a West African warlord network including former Liberian President Charles Taylor, Burkina Faso’s Blaise Compoare, and the notorious limb-amputating Revolutionary United Front in Sierra Leone. Taylor currently faces a war crimes trial for his role in a plot that involved the export of Sierra Leone’s diamonds through Libya. From 1973 to 1987 Libya occupied a uranium-rich strip of Chad. In 2002 the Central African Republic’s teetering government rewarded Libyan military support with a 99-year concession for its gold, diamonds and suspected oil reserves.

In turn, Gaddafi has transformed Africa’s natural resources, including Libya’s own considerable oil wealth, into a lifeline for African dictators under pressure. It is no wonder that Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe was among those cheering the colonel in Accra.

If Africa were unified, Gaddafi would accurately represent the state of governance in most of its countries today: intolerant of political dissent, free media and minority groups, corrupt and afraid to submit to free and fair elections.

Portugal has announced that it wants to make Africa a priority during its presidency of the EU, and it is this crisis of governance that clamours for attention. Malgovernance has squandered efforts to address Africa’s health emergencies, including malaria and the HIV/AIDS pandemic, and mired most of the continent’s population in extreme poverty.

An EU democracy agenda should begin with stepped-up efforts to end the continent’s worst bloodshed. Stopping the genocide in Darfur through such meaningful measures as a no-fly zone is a pre-requisite to tackling Sudan’s myriad conflicts, all rooted in authoritarian central governance and the regional resentments it has engendered. The EU can do more to support the overwhelmed UN peacekeeping effort in the Democratic Republic of Congo and end the bloody anarchy in its East.

Brussels can help build on the Taylor trial and set expectations of accountability for warlords and governments which commit atrocities by supporting Senegal and urging it to bring to trial rapidly former Chadian dictator Hissene Habre, and by increasing support for judicial and penal reform throughout the continent.

The under-powered African Commission for Human and Peoples’ Rights has been a welcome venue and voice for Africans whose governments fail to live up to clear human rights standards set out in the treaty that created it. Portugal should explore how the EU could strengthen this body.

The AU, overwhelmed by peace-keeping roles in Darfur and Somalia, deserves greater European assistance, as do the many regional groupings involved in political and economic co-operation, including the Economic Community of West African States and the Southern Africa Development Community. However, these organizations also deserve scepticism when they serve to shield the likes of Mugabe from domestic cries for change. The EU should support and listen to African civil society organizations, especially in undemocratic countries.

A European democracy agenda in Africa must confront the EU’s reliance on Africa’s oil dictators, from Angola, Gabon and Equatorial Guinea to Libya itself. Brussels must improve efforts to end European imports of conflict diamonds, timber, and minerals – and stop the export of light weapons – that fuel Africa’s wars.

This ambitious list of priorities is not that of the European Commission, which instead is focused on pressuring African states to finish trade negotiations that would open their markets to European goods and services, including heavily subsidised agricultural products, by the end of the year. If Portugal acquiesces in placing this self-serving goal at the centre of Africa policy, the EU will squander credibility and leverage rather than employing them to address Africa’s chronic crisis of governance.

Indeed, the EU could exacerbate this crisis by proceeding to negotiate with dictators and despots, in addition to Africa’s true democracies. If that happens, the Commission’s hopes of a triumphant December signing-ceremony may merely reprise with EU participation a Gaddafi-esqe gathering at which few could legitimately claim to represent the interests of Africa’s people.


Eric Witte is a senior associate at the Democratization Policy Council, a transatlantic initiative for accountability in democracy promotion, and a former political advisor to the chief prosecutor at the Special Court for Sierra Leone.  Mr. Witte generously allowed Impunity Watch to re-publish his piece.