Bay Kou Bliye, Pote Mak Sonje: Climate Injustice in Haiti and the Case for Reparations

CLIMATE & ENVIRONMENT

Bay Kou Bliye, Pote Mak Sonje: Climate Injustice in Haiti and the Case for Reparations

This report by the Global Justice Clinic at NYU Law and the Promise Institute for Human Rights at UCLA Law, in collaboration with Haitian social movement organizations, illuminates the crisis of climate injustice in Haiti. 

The report outlines the impacts of climate harms on Haitian people and their human rights, the colonial construction of Haiti’s climate vulnerability, and the legal and moral arguments for reparations to advance both climate and racial justice. It also touches on grassroots efforts in Haiti for climate resilience and to advance land rights, environmental justice, and community self-determination.

Haiti is one of the countries most harmed by the global climate crisis. The country’s climate vulnerability is not just a product of its geography—it is also the result of centuries of racial injustice, originating in colonialism, slavery, and Haiti’s “independence ransom” to France. Haiti powerfully illuminates that the climate crisis is a racial injustice crisis. Yet there is little available research presenting the impacts of climate change—or climate disorder as Haitian activists term it—on Haitian people, analyzing the connections between racial and climate injustice, and presenting demands for climate justice, including critically for reparations. This report advances the case for reparations to Haiti, and demonstrates that reparations are essential to advancing climate justice.

Seizing the opportunity to improve Uganda’s national digital ID system

TECHNOLOGY AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Seizing the opportunity to improve Uganda’s national digital ID system

In 2014, Uganda introduced its first national digital ID system. Now, a decade later, as millions of ID cards are set to expire, the Government is planning a significant upgrade of the system and will soon begin a mass enrollment exercise to register all unregistered Ugandans. Given that many exclusions and harms have arisen from the current digital ID system, the Government’s plans to roll out a new system represent a key opportunity to learn from past experiences and ensure that the new system is more inclusive, equitable, and privacy-protecting.

In this document, we raise 5 urgent recommendations that the Government must adopt to put Uganda on the path towards a digital ID system that centers inclusion, equity, privacy, transparency, and accountability. Drawing on research and lessons learned from Uganda’s existing national digital ID system, as well as incorporating lessons from other countries’ experiences and from international best practices, we recommend that the Government should:

  • Improve communication and transparency about plans for the new digital ID;
  • Proactively facilitate participation, particularly of vulnerable communities and of civil society organizations, in policy and design choices;
  • Conduct a comprehensive Human Rights Impact Assessment to identify risks arising from the ID system and the registration process;
  • Take steps to ensure that marginalized and vulnerable groups are proactively included in enrollment and renewal processes;
  • Put in place concrete plans for a transition period to ensure that no rights are violated as the Government works to introduce new digital components

This is not intended to be an exhaustive list but instead focuses on short-term, actionable recommendations that will help concretely improve the Government’s approach in the immediate term and avoid further entrenching the well-documented problems and weaknesses that have affected the current system.

July 25, 2024. 

New Casebook—International Human Rights by P. Alston available in an Open Access Publication

HUMAN RIGHTS MOVEMENT

New Casebook—International Human Rights by P. Alston available in an Open Access Publication

Philip Alston’s International Human Rights textbook is now available free of charge in a comprehensively revised edition and on an Open Access basis starting July 8, 2024.

This book examines the world of contemporary human rights, including legal norms, political contexts and moral ideals. It acknowledges the regime’s strengths and weaknesses, and focuses on today’s principal challenges. These include the struggles against resurgent racism and anti-gender ideology, the implications of new technologies for fact-finding and many other parts of the regime, the continuing marginality of economic, social and cultural rights, radical inequality, climate change, and the evermore central role of the private sector.

The boundaries of the subject have steadily expanded as the post-World War II regime has become an indelible part of the legal, political and moral landscape. Given the breadth and complexity of the regime, the book takes an interdisciplinary and critical approach.

imaginative and stimulating materials with thought-provoking commentary… a wonderful teaching tool, as well as a valuable starting point for research.

Judge Hilary Charlesworth, Judge of the International Court of Justice.

Features include:

  • A focus on current issues such as new technologies, climate change, counter-terrorism, reparations, sanctions, and universal jurisdiction;
  • Expanded focus on race, gender, sexual orientation, disability and other forms of discrimination and the backlash against efforts to combat them;
  • Introductory chapters that provide the necessary overview of international law;
  • An interdisciplinary approach that puts human rights issues into their broader political, economic, and cultural contexts;
  • Diverse and critical perspectives dealt with throughout;
  • Sections dealing with political economy of human rights and the challenge of growing inequality;
  • Issues of international humanitarian law are widely reflected; and
  • Focus on current situations in Ukraine, Gaza, Myanmar, Venezuela, and others

Major themes that run through the book include the colonial and imperial objectives often pursued in the name of human rights, evolving notions of autonomy and sovereignty, the changing configuration of the public-private divide in human rights ordering, the escalating tensions between international human rights and national security, and the striking evolution of ideas about the nature and purposes of the regime itself.

This book is a successor to previous volumes entitled International Human Rights in Context (1996, 2000 and 2008, all co-authored with Henry Steiner and in 2008 also with Ryan Goodman) and International Human Rights: Text and Materials (2013, co-authored with Ryan Goodman). “All four volumes were published by Oxford University Press, and I am grateful to them for reverting all rights to the author in order to enable this Open Access publication” says Alston. 

The 2024 comprehensively revised edition will be available free of charge and can be downloaded in either a single pdf file for the entire book or separate files for each of the eighteen chapters.

Recommendations to Funders to Improve Mental Health and Wellbeing in the Human Rights Field

HUMAN RIGHTS MOVEMENT

Recommendations to Funders to Improve Mental Health and Wellbeing in the Human Rights Field 

Improving and maintaining well-being is essential to individual health, to organizational functioning, and to the sustainability and effectiveness of the human rights field as a whole. There are many concrete, immediately actionable reforms that are achievable in the near-term and which address a variety of causes of distress, or which can support efforts to transform the field over the long term. Such steps should be taken while the human rights field works toward deep transformation. 

Human rights advocacy can be a source of significant joy, purpose, political agency, belonging, and community. Yet advocates can also experience harms, and trauma in their efforts to advance justice and equality, including those caused by heavy workloads, time pressures, discrimination and bullying in the workplace, vicarious exposure to trauma and human rights abuse, and direct experience of threats and attacks. Advocates can experience suffering, sometimes very severe, as a result, including demotivation, alienation, anxiety, fear, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder. How advocates experience their work and any resulting harms can vary widely, and may be highly contextual and culturally specific.

Improving and maintaining well-being is essential to individual health, to organizational functioning, and to the sustainability and effectiveness of the human rights field as a whole. 

Positively transforming mental health and well-being in the human rights field will require significant reforms and both structural changes and close attention to the contextually-specific needs of individual advocates and organizations. The causes and dynamics at play are complex, and there are no quick fixes that can address the cultural shifts required. As efforts are taken to improve well-being, it is important that the field avoids tick-the-box or commodified approaches. Improving the wellbeing of human rights advocates requires a holistic response and a movement-wide prioritization of well-being, with careful attention to context, culture, and the diverse needs of advocates and organizations.  

Recognition of the deeply-rooted problems requiring radical change or of the complexities of the issues and the difficulty of defining a clear set of recommendations applicable across the board should not operate as an excuse to take no action now to improve well-being. There are many concrete, immediately actionable reforms that are achievable in the near-term and which address a variety of causes of distress, or which can support efforts to transform the field over the long term. Such steps should be taken while the human rights field works toward deep transformation. Some of these steps include the following recommended actions, which are drawn from our research with advocates around the world.

Carbon Markets, Forests and Rights: An Introductory Series for Indigenous Peoples

CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENT

Carbon Markets, Forests and Rights

An Introductory Series for Indigenous Peoples

Indigenous peoples are experiencing a rush of interest in their lands and territories from actors involved in carbon markets. Many indigenous communities have expressed that to make informed decisions about how to engage with carbon markets, they need accessible information about what these markets are, and how participating in them may affect their rights.

In response to this demand for information, the Global Justice Clinic and the Forest Peoples Programme have developed a series of introductory materials about carbon markets. The materials were initially developed for GJC partner the South Rupununi District Council in Guyana and have been adapted for a global audience.

The explainer materials can be read in any order:

  • Explainer 1 introduces key concepts that are essential background to understanding carbon markets. It introduces what climate change is, what the carbon cycle and carbon dioxide is, and the link between carbon dioxide, forests and climate change. 
  • Explainer 2 outlines what carbon markets and carbon credits are, and provides a brief introduction to why these markets are developing and how they function
  • Explainer 3 focuses on indigenous peoples’ rights and carbon markets. It highlights some of the particular risks that carbon markets pose to indigenous peoples and communities. It also highlights key questions communities should ask themselves as they consider how to engage with or respond to carbon markets
  • Explainer 4 provides an overview of the key environmental critiques and concerns around carbon markets
  • Explainer 5 provides a short introduction to ART-TREES. ART-TRESS is an institution and standard that is involved in ‘certifying’ carbon credits and that is gaining a lot of attention internationally.

What I Should Have Said to Fernando Botero

HUMAN RIGHTS MOVEMENT

What I Should Have Said to Fernando Botero

Your art is a provocation to viewers to ask: what is our role in safeguarding human rights? A reflection on meeting Colombian artist Fernando Botero. 

Image from Slideshow: The Botero Exhibit at Berkeley Law

I was privileged to have met world-famous Colombian artist, Fernando Botero, who died last month [September 2023] at age 91, when he visited the University of California, Berkeley in 2007. I teach human rights at the law school, and the artists came to campus for the exhibit of his 2005 Abu Ghraib series. The canvasses and sketches depict the horrors of Iraqi prisoner abuse by US soldiers, based on leaked photographs taken by service members at the Abu Ghraib prison facility. 

Overwhelmed by the paintings and awe-stuck by the artist who created them, I fumbled my few seconds with Mr. Botero. My memory is that I offered an anodyne appreciation of his work. If I could speak with him now, here is what I would say:

Mr. Botero, every day I enter the law school I try to keep in mind that the job of law professors is to train the next generation of lawyers to embody the highest values of the profession. It is true that we teach law students how to analyze the law, how to evaluate the strength of arguments, and how to weigh the equities in any given case. But law is not a set of rules that lawyers discover or inherit. Law is made through human intervention, in the form of legislation, interpretation by lawyers, as well as judicial decisions. You made vivid the power that legal professionals have to strengthen or to destroy the rule of law fabric that sustains humanity.

Your art is a provocation to viewers to ask: what is our role in safeguarding human rights?

Government lawyers drafted the rules of interrogating prisoners captured in the so-called War on Terror, setting the background norms for the torture of prisoners perpetrated  by guards and recorded on film as trophy shots. And lawyers created the rules for the treatment of so-called enemy combatants the United States held at Guantanamo Bay. I interviewed dozens of former detainees, men never charged with a crime, who endured years of mistreatment proscribed by US government lawyers in violation of international law. Government lawyers and politicians led the public to believe that harsh treatment, even torture, of suspected terrorists was necessary to keep us safe. Your art asks us to confront this bargain and to reconsider what we become as a nation, if we accept that premise, and you offer us a way forward.

You said at the time of the exhibit that your outrage that the United State, which has stood for democracy and rule of law, would commit such abuse motivated you to paint the series. Your Abu Ghraib collection conveys the suffering of Iraqi prisoners. Yet through your iconic style of voluminous forms, you also render the victims literally larger than life and give their bodies a weight that suggests a hyper-permanence. Their humanity outlives the outrages inflicted on them by US soldiers. Humanity will endure in spite of depredations, but whether ruptures in rule of law are mended by justice is up to us. And I think this is what you meant when you said about these works that: “Art is a permanent accusation.” 

Thanks to your permanent gift of the series to the university, I can view a few of the canvasses on display at our law school. Viewers must investigate the causes of US descent to systematic torture and the path to correct the injustice. The paintings accuse the audience of the dangers of believing that we must trade human rights for security; that it is acceptable to strip individuals of dignity simply by their being called a terrorist by a powerful state. The paintings accuse lawyers of their role in justifying rules that strip individuals of fundamental due process protections against arbitrary arrest, imprisonment, and torture.

Today, we find ourselves in the midst of another shocking rollback of fundamental rights and inversion of the rule of law, this time closer to home. The Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade ushers in an era in which forced pregnancy, a form of torture under international law, is legal in the United States. There is a dangerous throughline from Abu Ghraib to the Dobbs decision: when we dehumanize one category of persons and legalize control over their bodies through direct or indirect violence, we make it easier to apply the same logic to an ever-expanding menu of targets. 

It is more than two decades after 9/11 and we as a society have not yet answered your accusation, Mr. Botero, to our detriment. Yet progressive lawyers and students continue to name torture and fight injustice when it is unpopular to do so. Justice remains a work in progress, which is why we need compelling art, like yours, to continue to challenge us to action.

October 4, 2023. Laurel E. Fletcher, Visiting Scholar (Fall 2023).
Laurel E. Fletcher is Chancellor’s Clinical Professor of Law at UC Berkeley, School of Law where she co-directs the International Human Rights Law Clinic and the Miller Institute for Global Challenges and the Law.

This post reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of NYU, NYU Law or the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice. 

UN Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights

INEQUALITIES

UN Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights

Philip Alston served as UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights from June 2014 to April 2020. The Special Rapporteur is an independent expert appointed by the UN Human Rights Council to monitor, advise, and report on how government policies are realizing the rights of people in poverty around the world.

During his mandate, Professor Alston carried out 11 official country visits and authored 12 thematic reports to the UN General Assembly and Human Rights Council. His thematic and country reports are available below. He also issued a large body of press releases and communications to states and other actors.

GJC’s Ellie Happel Expert Witness in Case Blocking Trump Administration from Terminating TPS For Haiti

HUMAN RIGHTS MOVEMENT

GJC’s Ellie Happel Expert Witness in Case Blocking Trump Administration from Terminating TPS For Haiti

On Thursday, April 11, 2019 Judge Kuntz of the Eastern District of New York issued a nationwide Preliminary Injunction that blocks the Trump Administration from terminating TPS for Haiti.  Global Justice Clinic Haiti Project Director Ellie Happel was the first witness called by the plaintiffs in the case.  Ellie’s expert testimony was based both on her experience living in Haiti during the time under consideration (2010–2017), and on the facts presented in the Global Justice Clinic report, Extraordinary Conditions: A Statutory Analysis of Haiti’s Qualification for TPS

The Trump Administration ended TPS for Haiti in November, 2017.  Judge Kuntz ruled that the decision by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to terminate TPS for Haiti was improperly influenced by the White House.  The decision was “reverse engineered” to “get to no,” ruled Judge Kuntz, finding that the Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on claims they brought under both the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  The judge found that there was significant evidence that the decision to terminate was a “preordained outcome,” including evidence that suggesting that, in fewer than 30 minutes, a DHS employee reworked a memo that favored extending TPS for Haiti to one that supported termination.  The Court found that the plaintiffs’ Equal Protection claim raises “serious concerns.”  “Based on the facts on this record, and under the [relevant legal framework], there is both direct and circumstantial evidence [that] a discriminatory purpose of removing non-white immigrants from the United States was a motivating factor behind the decision to terminate TPS for Haiti.”  Judge Kuntz concluded that “absent injunctive relief, Plaintiffs, as well as 50,000 to 60,000 Haitian TPS beneficiaries and their 30,000 U.S. Citizen children stand to suffer serious harm.”

In addition to Ellie’s role as an expert witness in this case, the Global Justice Clinic was involved in a FOIA lawsuit that divulged relevant records from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the State Department.  These records were integral to this case and others challenging the Trump Administration’s termination of TPS for Haiti.  Professor Margaret Satterthwaite served as a plaintiff in the FOIA lawsuit.

April 16, 2019.

Attempted Digital Surveillance as a Completed Human Rights Violation

TECHNOLOGY AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Attempted Digital Surveillance as a Completed Human Rights Violation

Why Targeting Human Rights Defenders Infringes on Rights

On March 1, 2019, this briefing paper on the spyware industry was submitted to the UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression as a response to the Special Rapporteur’s call for submissions concerning the surveillance industry and human rights. 

This submission was made to underscore the need for further guidance on the prevention and remediation of such infringements of the rights to privacy and freedom of opinion and expression, and to encourage the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression to address these issues in his report on commercial spyware.

The research presented in this briefing paper:  

  • Uncovered a gap regarding the application of international human rights law to attempted digital surveillance of human rights defenders, as opposed to completed surveillance. 
  • Explains that attempted digital surveillance of a human rights defender is evidence of the unlawful targeting of that individual on the basis of their opinion. It not only gives the targeted individual a reasonable basis to fear that they are subject to surveillance; it also provides notice that existing due diligence frameworks, export control regimes, and other regulatory measures have failed to protect against human rights violations. 

The Global Justice Clinic states that when attempts to infect human rights defenders’ digital devices with commercial spyware are discovered, the targeted individuals should have the opportunity to seek protection and remedy, and such instances should prompt governments and companies to strengthen the safeguards against such abusive conduct.

With TPS set to terminate, GJC files a Freedom of Information Lawsuit against DHS and USCIS

HUMAN RIGHTS MOVEMENT

With TPS set to terminate, GJC files a Freedom of Information Lawsuit against DHS and USCIS

National Immigration Project et al. v. DHS et al. (Haiti TPS FOIA)

On November 20, 2017, the Trump Administration terminated TPS for Haiti, stating that the conditions caused by the earthquake no longer exist. With TPS set to terminate in July 2019, the Global Justice Clinic, together with the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers’ Guild, filed a Freedom of Information lawsuit against DHS and United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement to obtain records documenting the reasons behind the government’s decision to terminate TPS for Haitians. The lawsuit was filed in January 2018 with the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, and NYU School of Law’s Immigrant Rights Clinic provided legal counsel.

Temporary Protected Status (TPS) provides protection from deportation or removal and enables the beneficiary to apply for a work permit. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) designates countries for TPS if they are experiencing armed conflict, have suffered a natural disaster, or face other extraordinary yet temporary conditions that make them unable to safely repatriate their nationals living in the United States. DHS designated Haiti for TPS after the 2010 earthquake and subsequently extended it four times. As of November 2017 there were more than 50,000 Haitian people with TPS in the United States, out of a total population of 300,000 people from various countries with TPS.