Accountability through Civic Participation in the Post-2015 Development Agenda

INEQUALITIES

Accountability through Civic Participation in the Post-2015 Development Agenda

This report traces the growing demand for a coherent accountability framework in the post-2015 development agenda through the lens of human rights and global governance, situating it in the broader landscape of existing inter-state, national, and sub-national accountability mechanisms and evaluating the structural case for integrating and improving upon these rather than constructing an entirely new system. This report argues that effective accountability carries foundational significance through the interlocking relationships between states, citizens, donors, and non-state actors central to sustainable development governance, generating a proposal grounded in the principles of transparency, inclusiveness, deliberation, and responsiveness as the essential architecture for a credible and participatory post-2015 accountability framework.

Download

Accountability has become a key focus of debate about the future direction and shape of the development agenda as the target date for the Millennium Development Goals (“MDGs”) draws closer. Consultations conducted by the United Nations Development Group have revealed widespread popular demand for “[the new post-2015 development] agenda [to] be built on human rights, and universal values of equality, justice and security” and for “a participatory framework for monitoring to ensure accountability during implementation.” Accountability in the post-2015 development agenda can be conceived both narrowly, as accountability for the attainment of all post-2015 goals, and more broadly as part of a need for “open, inclusive, accountable and effective governance” at the global, regional and national levels.

Accountability generally means, at the very least, that when one party makes a commitment or undertakes an obligation for the benefit of another party, the intended beneficiary can effectively call on the commitment-maker to comply with that commitment or obligation. The development landscape, however, involves a multitude of parties, both private and public. Accordingly, an effective post-2015 accountability framework must address all the relevant relationships and commitments. A focus on any single one of these accountability relationships (e.g. state-to-citizen, corporation-to-state, state-to-state, corporation-to-citizen etc.) is both difficult and counterproductive since it ignores the inter-related effects of different accountability relationships. For example, consider a donor-dependent state that must fulfill specific donor-set conditions in order to obtain funds necessary to provide services to its citizens. Although the state is accountableboth to the donor (for use of its money) and to the citizens (to fulfill their rights), it may feel pressure to prioritize donor demands over those of its citizens. Even for middle-income and developed states, the ability to fulfill their commitments to citizens is shaped and constrained by the global political economy in which a variety of non-state actors, whether international organizations or private entities, are influential. Thus, rather than addressing accountability relationships along only one dimension, the post-2015 development agenda must be accompanied by an integrated accountability framework that joins up and improves existing global, regional, national and local accountability mechanisms involving all relevant actors.

Given the many already-existing global, regional and national accountability mechanisms (see e.g. those set out in the Annexes), several of which monitor the implementation by states of commitments which are relevant to the post-2015 development agenda, a key question is whether a new accountability framework for the post-2015 commitments should be designed afresh, or whether it should integrate and improve upon existing regimes. This Report proceeds on the premise that an entirely new mechanism may place an unnecessary burden not only on states, which may already be experiencing an overload of obligations to different review bodies, but also on NGOs and citizen groups that often operate with very constrained resources. Integrating and improving upon existing mechanisms is not only more efficient but also allows for the integration and linkage of information from existing sources, thus increasing the credibility of the overall accountability system.

The UN General Assembly (“UNGA”) in 2013 adopted a resolution at the conclusion of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), which provides for the formation of a High-Level Political Forum (“Forum”). The High Level Forum is envisaged to serve, amongst other things, as an inter-state review of progress toward achieving the new sustainable development goals (“SDGs”). This Report takes the Forum as a starting point to illustrate how existing inter-state, national and sub-national accountability mechanisms could be linked up both to enhance the functioning of the Forum itself, as well as to allow for greater citizen participation in developing and monitoring the implementation of states’ post-2015 commitments. This Report proposes four overlapping principles that should guide the integrated global accountability framework for the post-2015 process: transparency; inclusiveness; deliberation and responsiveness. The report does not focus, at this stage, on national and other redress mechanisms, even though redress mechanisms are an extremely important dimension of accountability.

June 1, 2014 Youssef Farhat Product

Nourishing Change: Fulfilling the Right to Food in the United States

INEQUALITIES

Nourishing Change: Fulfilling the Right to Food in the United States

This report traces the systemic failure to address food insecurity for over 50 million Americans through the lens of the right to food, situating it in the broader framework of international human rights law and evaluating the structural gap between existing domestic nutrition assistance programs and the magnitude of need facing the country’s most vulnerable populations. This report argues that reframing adequate food as a human right rather than a charitable provision carries transformative significance through the accountability and prioritization processes central to rights-based governance, generating a roadmap for addressing the root causes of food insecurity that demands a fundamental reorientation of political will, program design, and resource allocation toward those least able to provide for themselves.

Download

The United States (U.S.) is facing a food security crisis: One in six Americans lives in a household that cannot afford adequate food. Of these 50 million individuals, nearly 17 million are children. Food insecurity has skyrocketed since the economic downturn, with an additional 14 million people classified as food insecure in 2011 than in 2007.

For these individuals, being food insecure means living with trade-offs that no one should have to face, like choosing between buying food and receiving medical care or paying the bills. Many food insecure people also face tough choices about the quality of food they eat, since low-quality processed foods are often more affordable and accessible than fresh and nutritious foods. Food insecurity takes a serious toll on individuals, families, and communities and has significant consequences for health and educational outcomes, especially for children. Food insecurity is also enormously expensive for society. According to one estimate, the cost of hunger and food insecurity in the United States amounted to $167.5 billion in 2010.

The U.S. government’s predominant response to food insecurity involves a series of programs known as Domestic Nutrition Assistance Programs (“DNAPs”) that provide food and nutrition services to low-income Americans. Millions benefit from these programs: The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the Food Stamp Program, serves approximately 1 in 11 Americans each month, while more than half of infants born in the United States receive nutrition benefits through the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).

Yet DNAPs fail to adequately address the needs of the 50 million Americans who live in food insecure households. First, eligibility requirements may be drawn too narrowly, thereby excluding many food insecure individuals from receiving benefits. Second, eligible participants face numerous administrative barriers to participation, such as complicated application and renewal processes. And third, the benefits provided through DNAPs may not be sufficient to meet participants’ food-related needs.

The limitations of government nutrition assistance programs are reflected in Americans’ increasing reliance on private “emergency” food providers, like food pantries, which many now turn to as a routine source of food. Yet private entities are themselves struggling in the face of the economic downturn and a growing demand for assistance.

Food insecurity in the United States is not the result of a shortage of food or of resources; it is the result of poverty and of policies and programs that fail to prioritize the needs of low-income Americans. Despite the magnitude of the problem, and its far-reaching implications, eradicating food insecurity has not been a political priority. Instead of addressing critical gaps in food assistance, the U.S. government is considering severe funding cuts and other reforms to DNAPs that could strip millions of Americans of crucial support, exacerbate already alarming rates of food insecurity, and push families into deeper crises.

The time is ripe for a new approach to the problem. A human rights approach to food shifts the focus from food assistance as charity to adequate food as a human right. The right to food is a universally recognized norm that calls on governments to ensure that all people have access to food that is safe and nutritious, meets their dietary needs, and is appropriate to their cultural backgrounds. Adopting a human rights approach to food offers the U.S. government a roadmap for addressing the root causes of food insecurity while empowering those who are least able to provide for themselves. Particularly in times of economic crisis, when governments face resource constraints and must manage trade-offs between various goals, the human rights framework signals to governments that they must prioritize the needs of the most vulnerable and ensure that peoples’ basic needs and fundamental rights are fulfilled.

January 1, 2013 Youssef Farhat Product

Living Under Drones Death, Injury, and Trauma to Civilians From US Drone Practices in Pakistan

PREVENTION AND CONFLICT

Living Under Drones Death, Injury, and Trauma to Civilians From US Drone Practices in Pakistan

This report traces the human and strategic costs of United States drone strike policies in Pakistan through the lens of civilian testimony and human rights documentation, situating it in the broader framework of international accountability and evaluating the profound gap between the official narrative of surgical precision and the devastating reality experienced by communities living under sustained aerial surveillance and bombardment. This report argues that the systematic use of targeted killing as a counter-terrorism instrument carries deeply counterproductive significance through the compounding dynamics of civilian harm, institutional secrecy, and eroded public trust, generating consequences that undermine both the human rights of Pakistani civilians and the long-term security interests of the U.S. in ways that demand urgent and transparent policy re-evaluation.

Download

In the United States (U.S.), the dominant narrative about the use of drones in Pakistan is of a surgically precise and effective tool that makes the US safer by enabling “targeted killing” of terrorists, with minimal downsides or collateral impacts.

This narrative is false. Following nine months of intensive research—including two investigations in Pakistan, more than 130 interviews with victims, witnesses, and experts, and review of thousands of pages of documentation and media reporting—this report presents evidence of the damaging and counterproductive effects of current US drone strike policies. Based on extensive interviews with Pakistanis living in the regions directly affected, as well as humanitarian and medical workers, this report provides new and firsthand testimony about the negative impacts US policies are having on the civilians living under drones.

September 1, 2012 Youssef Farhat Product

Struggling to Survive: Sexual Exploitation of Displaced Women and Girls in Port au Prince, Haiti

PREVENTION AND CONFLICT

Struggling to Survive: Sexual Exploitation of Displaced Women and Girls in Port au Prince, Haiti

Struggling to Survive traces the widespread practice of sexual exploitation and survival sex among women and girls in post-earthquake Haiti’s displacement camps through a joint fact-finding investigation, situating it in the broader framework of international human rights obligations and evaluating the structural breakdown of family, community, and economic safety nets that has driven this new survival strategy amid persistent impunity for gender-based violence. This report argues that the prevalence of sexual exploitation carries profound human rights significance through the compounding dynamics of heightened vulnerability, inadequate humanitarian response, and entrenched institutional neglect, generating a need for holistic recommendations spanning immediate humanitarian relief, long-term economic and social support, integrated service coordination, and accountability measures to end impunity for perpetrators while ensuring that survivors are never themselves punished.

Download

Between 2010 and 2012, numerous reports have examined gender-based violence (GBV) in post-earthquake Haiti. These reports have focused on rape and other sexual violence perpetrated against women and girls living in internally displaced persons (IDP) camps in Port au Prince. In December 2010, recognizing that sexual violence against displaced women and girls is a serious problem in Haiti, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), issued a groundbreaking decision requesting that the Government of Haiti take urgent measures to address sexual violence. These measures included increased security patrols in the camps, improved lighting, adequate medical care, legal accountability, as well as participation of grassroots women’s groups in developing anti-violence policies and practices. United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteurs and the Independent Expert on Haiti have also drawn attention to the grave issues of violence against women and impunity for such acts in Haiti.

The Haitian Ministry for Women’s Affairs and Women’s Rights (Women’s Ministry) is in the process of finalizing draft legislation addressing violence against women. Notwithstanding this heightened awareness and attention, violence against women and girls continues unabated. A social science researcher has recently found a staggering twenty-two percent of displaced persons and two percent of general community members have been victims of sexual assault. The Haitian grassroots women’s organization KOFAVIV, through its network of community outreach workers and free sexual violence hotline, documented 269 incidents of rape in and around Port au Prince from March to October 2011 alone. Around 520,000 Haitians still live in IDP camps in conditions without access to adequate food, health services, security or economic opportunity, placing them at risk for increased violence. As the international presence diminishes, the situation in displacement camps continues to become more precarious.

Post-earthquake conditions have made young women and girls particularly vulnerable to sexual exploitation. Through its work combating rape and other sexual violence, KOFAVIV has identified sexual exploitation as a priority issue. “Sexual Exploitation” is defined in this Report as the abuse of differential power for sexual purposes, including, but not limited to, profiting monetarily, socially or politically from the sexual exploitation of another, thus abrogating the victim’s human right to dignity, equality, autonomy, and physical and mental well-being. “Survival sex” is defined here as the exchange of sex in circumstances where those exchanging sex for survival lack other options.

KOFAVIV requested the assistance of MADRE, the International Women’s Human Rights Clinic of CUNY School of Law, the Global Justice Clinic at NYU Law, and the UC Hastings Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, to investigate the problem of sexual exploitation, identify its causes and consequences, conduct a legal and critical analysis, and provide concrete recommendations to the Haitian government and other actors to develop more effective responses in line with international obligations.

While there are no reliable statistics on the prevalence of survival sex in IDP camps, or post- earthquake Haiti more generally, sexual exploitation has been identified as an issue in nearly every humanitarian or human rights report on women’s rights since the earthquake. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) conducted a study into the issue, finding that women in focus groups commonly reported exchanging sexual acts in return for food and other survival needs, including aid distribution coupons, access to direct aid distributions, cash for work programs, money, or even a single meal. On top of the hardships suffered by all IDP camp residents, Human Rights Watch (HRW) found that women and girls are additionally harmed by sexual violence, the need to engage in survival sex, and a lack of access to family planning, prenatal and obstetric care. Women and girls who engage in survival sex are especially at risk of unintended pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases and other related health problems. They are often isolated from their social networks and communities, increasing the risk of violence and despair.

A study by the Humanitarian Accountability Partnership (HAP) mirrored these findings, confirming that single mothers are the most vulnerable population to sexual exploitation, and therefore more likely to engage in survival sex. Additionally, preliminary survey results from a study conducted by the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice suggest that camp residents believe that trading sex for basic needs has become a more common survival strategy for women and girls in the camps since the earthquake. Thus, for many women, survival sex appears to be a new coping mechanism that is driven by the breakdown of family and community structures, the loss of associated protection and safety nets, and poor economic opportunity.

In November and December 2011, teams of researchers from MADRE, the International Women’s Human Rights Clinic at CUNY School of Law, Global Justice Clinic at NYU Law and the UC Hastings Center for Gender & Refugee Studies conducted a fact-finding investigation in Haiti in an effort to respond to KOFAVIV’s request for a critical analysis of the current response to sexual exploitation in Haiti and to build on existing research into the issue, such as that of the UNHCR and HRW.

The investigation focused on elucidating the factors that make women and girls particularly vulnerable to exploitation, examining the effects of this exploitation, and evaluating the programs developed by the Haitian government and the international community to respond to it. During the fact-finding investigation, team members interviewed numerous young women who exchanged sex for food, education or other necessities for themselves and their families, as well as numerous residents of camps knowledgeable about the practice. The team also interviewed a wide range of governmental and non-governmental representatives as well as service providers and outreach workers from grassroots organizations working in displacement camps. The study suggests that sexual exploitation is widespread. In addition, the study found that little is being done to address the issue, due in large part to a lack of understanding and a history of impunity for violence against women in Haiti.

The findings of this Report are consistent with numerous other reports examining sexual exploitation and exchange in post-earthquake Haiti. Sexual exploitation is not unfamiliar in a country that has faced overlapping emergencies for decades. Yet the evidence suggests that sexual exploitation increases dramatically when levels of vulnerability are heightened and access to food and basic services needed for survival are limited.

The findings of this report suggest that much remains to be done in the way of effectively preventing, combating and responding to sexual exploitation, and other forms of violence against women in post-earthquake Haiti.

As such, the report concludes by offering a series of recommendations designed to holistically address this issue. These recommendations cover four areas of concern:

meeting immediate needs of those people most vulnerable to sexual exploitation, including ensuring that poor and displaced Haitians are provided with basic necessities of life such as food, comprehensive medical and health care and temporary shelter; and improving security measures and police response to sexual exploitation and other forms of gender-based violence;
meeting long-term needs, including the provision of free education, income generating opportunities, housing and adequate health care; and the implementation of effective measures to promote and protect the right to be free from sexual violence;
integrating services, including training medical staff, police, outreach workers and other first responders on how to identify and respond to youth vulnerable to sexual exploitation; coordinating with civil society, and encouraging the full participation and leadership of women and systematizing data collection documenting the prevalence of all forms of violence against women in displacement camps;
and ending impunity and ensuring accountability, including working to finalize, pass and implement the Draft Law on Violence Against Women; ensuring that reported cases of rape, and abuses of power by public sector and other humanitarian workers are held responsible, and, conversely, that women and girls engaging in survival sex are not punished.

January 1, 2012 Youssef Farhat Product

Suppressing Protest: Human Rights Violations in the U.S. Response to Occupy Wall Street

PREVENTION AND CONFLICT

Suppressing Protest: Human Rights Violations in the U.S. Response to Occupy Wall Street

Suppressing Protest traces the response of U.S. authorities, particularly in New York City, to the Occupy Wall Street protests through the lens of assembly and expression rights, situating it in the broader framework of international human rights law and evaluating the systematic policing abuses—including excessive force, surveillance, unlawful arrests, and obstruction of press freedom—that have undermined protesters’ fundamental freedoms. This report argues that the abusive and unlawful protest regulation documented across U.S. cities carries profound human rights significance through the compounding dynamics of institutional impunity, disproportionate policing in minority communities, and the chilling of collective democratic participation, generating an urgent need for independent review, accountability, and reform to bring U.S. authorities’ practices into line with their binding international legal obligations.

Download

In September 2011, waves of protests against mounting socioeconomic injustice broke out across the United States, capturing the attention of the country. The Occupy Wall Street movement, inspired by similar protests around the globe, used the occupation of public space and mass demonstrations to call attention to a wide array of shared concerns. The movement also used public assemblies to debate concerns and promote direct democratic participation. Within weeks of their emergence, the protests dramatically expanded and deepened U.S. political discourse around the widening gap between rich and poor, bank bailouts and impunity for financial crimes, and the role of money in politics.

The response of U.S. authorities to the protests also received significant attention. Images of police using pepper spray on seated students, the arrests of thousands of peaceful protesters across the country, midnight raids on encampments, baton-swinging officers, marches accompanied by phalanxes of riot police, and officers obstructing and arresting journalists were beamed around the world.

Through an eight-month-long study of the response in New York City, together with comparative data collected from cities across the U.S., this report highlights major policy concerns and serious violations of the rights of protesters.

Additionally, the report followed a review of thousands of news reports and hundreds of hours of video, extensive firsthand observation, and detailed witness interviews. In New York City, some of the worst practices documented include:

Aggressive, unnecessary and excessive police force against peaceful protesters, bystanders, legal observers, and journalists
Obstruction of press freedoms and independent legal monitoring
Pervasive surveillance of peaceful political activity
Violent late-night raids on peaceful encampments
Unjustified closure of public space, dispersal of peaceful assemblies, and kettling (corralling and trapping) of protesters
Arbitrary and selective rule enforcement and baseless arrests
Failures to ensure transparency about applicable government policies
Failures to ensure accountability for those allegedly responsible for abuses

These practices violate assembly and expression rights and breach the U.S. government’s international legal obligations to respect those rights. In New York City, protest policing concerns were extensive and existed against a backdrop of disproportionate and well-documented abusive policing practices in poor and minority communities outside of the protest context.

January 1, 2012 Youssef Farhat Product

Every Thirty Minutes: Farmer Suicides, Human Rights, and the Agrarian Crisis in India

INEQUALITIES

Every Thirty Minutes: Farmer Suicides, Human Rights, and the Agrarian Crisis in India

This report traces the largest wave of recorded suicides in human history through the lens of India’s agrarian crisis, situating it in the broader framework of international human rights law and evaluating the systemic failure of the Indian government to adequately address the structural conditions of debt, corporate dominance, and economic liberalization that have driven over a quarter of a million farmers to take their own lives. This report argues that the ongoing devastation of India’s smallholder farming communities carries profound human rights significance through the compounding dynamics of financial entrapment, institutional neglect, and corporate impunity, generating binding legal obligations on the Indian state to respect, protect, and fulfill the rights to life, health, food, and an adequate standard of living for the millions who remain at risk.

Download

It is estimated that more than a quarter of a million Indian farmers have committed suicide in the last 16 years—the largest wave of recorded suicides in human history. A great number of those affected are cash crop farmers, and cotton farmers in particular. In 2009 alone, the most recent year for which official figures are available, 17,638 farmers committed suicide—that’s one farmer every 30 minutes. While striking on their own, these figures considerably underestimate the actual number of farmer suicides taking place. Women, for example, are often excluded from farmer suicide statistics because most do not have title to land—a common prerequisite for being recognized as a farmer in official statistics and programs.

This report focuses on the human rights of Indian farmers and of the estimated 1.5 million surviving family members who have been affected by the farmer suicide crisis to date. Millions more continue to face the very problems that have driven so many to take their lives. The Report seeks to amplify the many voices calling on the Indian government to act now to put an end to this unmitigated disaster. Farmers in the western state of Maharashtra, for example, now address their suicide notes to the President and Prime Minister, in the hopes that their deaths may force the Indian government to remedy the conditions that have led so many farmers to take their own lives. Rachmandra Raut, who committed suicide in 2010, even went to the trouble of purchasing expensive official stamp paper and—in laying out the reasons for his despair to this official audience—cited two years of successive crop failure and harassment by bank employees attempting to recover his loans.

These farmers and their families are among the victims of India’s longstanding agrarian crisis. Economic reforms and the opening of Indian agriculture to the global market over the past two decades have increased costs, while reducing yields and profits for many farmers, to the point of great financial and emotional distress. As a result, smallholder farmers are often trapped in a cycle of debt. During a bad year, money from the sale of the cotton crop might not cover even the initial cost of the inputs, let alone suffice to pay the usurious interest on loans or provide adequate food or necessities for the family. Often the only way out is to take on more loans and buy more inputs, which in turn can lead to even greater debt. Indebtedness is a major and proximate cause of farmer suicides in India. Many farmers, ironically, take their lives by ingesting the very pesticide they went into debt to purchase.
The magnitude of the number of Indian farmers who have committed suicide must not overwhelm the fact that an intensely individual tragedy lies behind each and every one of these deaths. The effects of this tragedy haunt the families of these casualties of India’s agrarian crisis in ways that are impossible to escape—families inherit the debt, children drop out of school to become farmhands, and surviving family members may themselves commit suicide out of sheer desperation. The Indian government’s response to the crisis—largely in the form of limited debt relief and compensation programs—has, by and large, failed to address the magnitude and scope of the problem or its underlying causes.

This report focuses primarily on the human rights of cotton farmers in India. The government has long been alerted to the cotton farmer suicide crisis, yet has done little to adequately respond. Cotton exemplifies India’s general shift toward cash crop cultivation, a shift that has contributed significantly to farmer vulnerability, as evidenced by the fact that the majority of suicides in India are committed by farmers in the cash crop sector. The cotton industry, like other cash crops in India, has also been dominated by foreign multinationals that promote genetically modified seeds and exert increasing control over the cost, quality, and availability of agricultural inputs.

This report and its concluding policy recommendations are based on interviews with actors in India who have been working on agrarian issues related to farmer suicides for extensive periods of time. It also draws on and analyzes official government statistics on farmer suicides and surveys extensive academic literature and media investigations of farmer suicides in India. The report’s analysis of the human rights implications of the crisis—and the Indian government’s attendant human rights obligations—are based on the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice’s expertise in international human rights law, as well as its longstanding work on human rights in India.

As noted throughout this report, taking the steps necessary to prevent farmer suicides and ensure farmers’ rights is not just a matter of sound policy or basic humanity for the Indian government; it is also a matter of hard legal obligation. India is a State Party to multiple international human rights treaties and has consistently been put on notice by United Nations bodies that the human rights of farmers are at stake. As detailed in this report, a number of human rights are deeply affected by this crisis, including the rights to: life, health, water and food, an adequate standard of living, equality and non-discrimination, and the right to an effective remedy. India is obligated to respect, protect, and fulfill these rights, which includes an obligation to ensure that corporations and other business enterprises are not interfering with the enjoyment of human rights. Businesses must also, as a baseline, respect the human rights of Indian farmers, and should address adverse human rights impacts stemming from their activities.

January 1, 2011 Youssef Farhat Product

A Decade Lost: Locating Gender in U.S. Counter-Terrorism

PREVENTION AND CONFLICT

A Decade Lost: Locating Gender in U.S. Counter-Terrorism

This report traces the gendered dimensions and impacts of United States counter-terrorism policies across a decade of the War on Terror through the lens of women’s and sexual minorities’ rights, situating it in the broader framework of international human rights law and evaluating the systemic invisibility of gender-based violations within domestic and foreign counter-terrorism measures. This report argues that the failure to account for the differential impacts of counter-terrorism on women, men, and LGBTI individuals carries profound human rights significance through the compounding dynamics of institutional blindness, gendered stereotyping, and the squeezing of vulnerable populations between terrorist violence and state overreach, generating an urgent roadmap for integrating gender and human rights perspectives across all dimensions of counter-terrorism strategy.

Download

A Decade Lost: Locating Gender in U.S. Counter-Terrorism provides the first global study of how the U.S. government’s (USG) counter-terrorism efforts profoundly implicate and impact women and sexual minorities. Over the last decade of the United States’ “War on Terror,” the oft-unspoken assumption that men suffer the most—both numerically and in terms of the nature of rights violations endured—has obscured the way women and sexual minorities experience counter-terrorism, rendering their rights violations invisible to policymakers and the human rights community alike. This failure to consider either the differential impacts of counter-terrorism on women, men, and sexual minorities or the ways in which such measures use and affect gender stereotypes and relations cannot continue. As the USG leads a world-wide trend toward a more holistic approach to countering terrorism that mobilizes the 3Ds—defense, diplomacy, and development—and increasingly emphasizes the role of women in national security, the extent to which counter-terrorism efforts include and impact women and sexual minorities is set to rise. As the ten-year anniversary of the attacks of September 11, 2001 approaches, now is the time for the USG and governments the world-over to take stock of, redress, and deter the gender-based violations that occur in a world characterized by the proliferation of terrorism and counter-terrorism and the squeezing of women and sexual minorities between the two.
This report provides a roadmap for this effort. It represents the culmination of over three years of primary and secondary research into the gender dimensions and impacts of the USG’s counter-terrorism policies domestically and abroad, drawing on scores of interviews with USG and foreign government, non-government, academic, and inter-government entities; regional Stakeholder Workshops in the United States, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East and North Africa (MENA); and extensive secondary research (see further Methodology below). Where appropriate, the Report also draws on comparisons with the United Nations’ (U.N.) and foreign governments’ (including the United Kingdom’s) counter-terrorism strategies and their gender and human rights aspects and outcomes. While the Report’s findings and recommendations are primarily directed to the USG, the patterns documented and lessons learned will nonetheless resonate with, and be relevant to, those foreign governments and inter-governmental institutions which often emulate or participate in the USG’s approaches to countering terrorism.

Section 1

Section 1 outlines what it means to take a gender approach to counter-terrorism and terrorism, scrutinizing the USG’s current emphasis on women in national security, and presenting ten overarching recommendations to ensure that women and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) individuals are the beneficiaries rather than casualties of the USG’s counter-terrorism measures. This overview does not squarely address the USG’s claim that promoting gender equality counters terrorism—a question that is beyond the scope of this Report—but does demonstrate the failure to take account of gender cuts against both counter-terrorism and equality goals.

While A Decade Lost takes up this and other questions in respect of two of the most invisible stakeholders in national security—women and sexual minorities—it (1) devotes significantly more attention to the former, in large part because of the dearth of information on the latter; (2) locates the focus on gender in the broader context of the USG’s focus on Muslim communities; and (3) examines how the gender features and impacts of the USG’s counter-terrorism efforts relate to gendered patterns in failures to protect women and LGBTI communities against terrorist violence.

Section 2

Section 2 analyzes the USG’s development activities to counter the conditions that lead to violent extremism.

Section 3

Section 3 analyzes the USG’s militarized counter-terrorism efforts.

Section 4

Section 4 analyzes the USG’s anti-terrorism financing measures.

Section 5

Section 5 analyzes the USG’s tactical counter-terrorism efforts in terms of intelligence and law enforcement measures and cooperation.

Section 6

Section 6 analyzes the USG’s border securitization and immigration enforcement.

Section 7

Section 7 analyzes the USG’s diplomacy and strategic communications.

Section 8

Section 8 summarizes and offers initial insights into how to overcome the challenge of measuring counter-terrorism activities both in terms of gender impacts and efficacy, stressing the urgent need for tools to measure both outcomes as ultimately effective counter-terrorism measures should protect the whole population from terrorism, including particularly women and LGBTI individuals who are regularly its victims.

January 1, 2011 Youssef Farhat Product

Foreign Land Deals and Human Rights Case Studies on Agricultural and Biofuel Investment

INEQUALITIES

Foreign Land Deals and Human Rights Case Studies on Agricultural and Biofuel Investment

This report traces the surge in large-scale foreign land investments across the Global South through the lens of the right to food and host community rights, situating it in the broader framework of international human rights law and evaluating the gap between the developmental promise of agricultural investment and its lived consequences for the world’s most vulnerable populations. This report argues that the unchecked expansion of industrialized land acquisition carries systemic human rights significance through the compounding dynamics of state complicity, investor impunity, and structural dispossession, generating entrenched threats to equitable food security that demand a fundamental reorientation of investment philosophy toward community agency, rights-based standards, and sustainable development.

Download

In 2009, the number of hungry people in the world topped one billion. This milestone is a tragic reminder of what is at stake in the world today. Ensuring food security in a sustainable and equitable manner is both a paramount and increasingly urgent goal.

In this context, the Global South is experiencing a surge in foreign direct investments in agricultural land. Prompted in part by the global food crisis, state and private investors are buying and leasing millions of hectares of farmland in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, and “[this] ‘land rush’ is unlikely to slow.” As currently conceived and implemented, however, many large-scale land investments do not serve the goal of ensuring equitable and sustainable food security and may, in fact, be further jeopardizing the rights of host populations.

This Report was prepared by the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice —in support of the mandate of the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutter. It includes four case studies on large-scale land investments in developing countries and explores various ways in which states, investors, and host communities can address the numerous human rights challenges posed by large-scale land investments. The observations offered in this Report contribute to an understanding of the essential minimum steps that can be taken to enhance the benefits of investments that are already underway, while mitigating the risks moving forward. These observations combine an analysis of obligatory human rights standards applicable to states involved in these investments with proposals for private actors to ensure that their activities respect the rights of affected communities.

Ultimately, these recommendations cannot substitute for the need to fundamentally reevaluate an increasingly discredited philosophy: that large-scale industrialized agricultural production and biofuel investments, as currently conceived, can ensure the environmental and developmental needs of the planet in a sustainable and equitable way. The rights of communities affected by large-scale land investments must finally take center stage. Their agency over resources must be respected and the development of policies to address their needs must be made a priority.

October 1, 2010 Youssef Farhat Product

Minimum Standards for Transfer: International Law Concerning Rendition in the Context of Counter-Terrorism

PREVENTION AND CONFLICT

Minimum Standards for Transfer: International Law Concerning Rendition in the Context of Counter-Terrorism

This Legal Advisory sets out the minimum baseline standard to be applied whenever the United States carries out the extraterritorial transfers, articulating threshold standards, substantive norms, and procedural requirements; and concludes with a discussion of human rights norms applicable to the United States’ use of diplomatic assurances.

Download Report

In January 2009, President Obama promulgated a number of Executive Orders that created several Task Forces to advise him on certain aspects of U.S. counter-terrorism policy. One of the key issues under review is the U.S. practice of rendition. Several bodies of international law binding on the United States set out rules relevant to the transfer of individuals outside the United States to U.S. territory or to the custody of another state in the context of counter-terrorism operations. International refugee law, international human rights law, and international humanitarian law apply extraterritorially and concurrently.

Examining human rights, refugee law, and humanitarian law norms together allows for the identification of a minimum baseline standard to be applied whenever the United States carries out the extraterritorial transfer of an individual within its effective control. The transfers to which this minimum standard applies include, for example, “renditions to justice” to the United States or a third state; renditions pursuant to an international arrest warrant or request for surrender by an international court; transfers carried out at the close of hostilities in the context of armed conflict (i.e. repatriations of prisoners of war or security detainees); and transfers across borders of individuals detained in the context of armed conflict.

This Legal Advisory sets out this minimum baseline standard, articulating threshold standards, substantive norms, and procedural requirements. As a threshold matter, formal transfer processes may not be intentionally bypassed and the United States must have a valid basis for apprehending an individual in contemplation of transfer. Substantively, the U.S. government may not transfer an individual to the custody of a state where he/she is at a real risk of: torture or ill-treatment; persecution; enforced disappearance; or arbitrary deprivation of life. Procedurally, an individual facing transfer must have the ability to challenge the basis for his deprivation of liberty in contemplation of transfer prior to transfer before an independent decision-maker. This challenge must allow the individual to contest the transfer on the basis of fear of being subject to any of the risks protected against by international law. This Legal Advisory concludes with a discussion of human rights norms applicable to the United States’ use of diplomatic assurances.

June 10, 2009 Youssef Farhat Product

The International Law of Genetic Discrimination: The Power of ‘Never Again’

TECHNOLOGY AND HUMAN RIGHTS

The International Law of Genetic Discrimination: The Power of ‘Never Again’

This Working Paper traces the regulation of genetic discrimination through the lens of international human rights law, situating it in the broader historical context of eugenics and the compounding vulnerabilities of marginalized groups and evaluating the gap between existing international instruments and their operationalization in domestic legal frameworks governing employment, insurance, and criminal investigation. This essay argues that genetic discrimination warrants distinct legislative treatment within the general human rights framework, carrying foundational significance through the intertwined principles of human dignity and the right to benefit from scientific progress, generating an urgent need for comprehensive privacy protections, clarified consent standards, and targeted safeguards for vulnerable populations including women, children, indigenous peoples, and persons with disabilities.

Download

The goal of this Woking Paper is to offer an approach to genetic discrimination based on international law. Many studies have been written on the topic of genetic discrimination, either from a comparative law perspective or from a utilitarian perspective of medical research development. Others have tackled the problem from the perspective of social justice. Although all of these contain elements of international law, they do not provide a comprehensive overview: hence the need for this study.

The relationship between new technologies and the protection of human rights is complicated. In part, this is because history shapes that relationship: the legal regime of genetic discrimination is influenced by the history of genetic discrimination, specifically its use during the genocide and crimes against humanity during World War II. More controversially, it might also be argued that this history is also the reason why the legal regime relating to genetic discrimination should be analysed more thoroughly than other types of discrimination that may arise from other uses of technology.

Perhaps this can be put another way: imagine if the science underpinning eugenic thought had been right—what would our critique be then? If we could not summarily dismiss eugenics as hegemony based on ignorance and as instrumentalist science, what arguments would we marshal to defeat its programme? What principled distinctions can we make between their institutionalization efforts and ours? What difference is there between their pedigree counselling and our genetic counselling? What distinction can be drawn between their race betterment agendas and our hope for alleviation of suffering through genetic therapy? Such questions are not posed to suggest that there is no difference. Rather, they are posed in order to remind us that we must consciously and deliberately respond to eugenics not only so that we avoid repeating the mistakes of the past, but also so that unwarranted fear and guilt do not render us incapable of properly appropriating and incorporating genetic information into our social structure, our policies, and our jurisprudence.

Main questions

The main questions asked in this paper are:

What is the meaning of genetic discrimination?
How can efficient legislation on privacy protection prevent genetic discrimination?
What is the relationship between international law and domestic law in fields such as insurance, employment and criminal investigation and what is the best way to protect individuals?
How are various groups, such as women, indigenous people and persons with disabilities, affected by or vulnerable to genetic discrimination?

Part 1

In Part 1, the main texts in international law will be outlined. Particular emphasis will be placed on the 1997 Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights (UDHGHR), the first international instrument in this field. This will lead into an examination of the controversies surrounding the definition of genetic discrimination. By contrast with those who argue that it is not necessary to single out this type of discrimination, I will suggest that it should be legislated for separately within the general human rights framework. Arguments referring to the recent eugenic past, as well as the fundamental principle of human dignity and the rights ‘of everyone to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications, provide further support for adopting an individual approach to this type of discrimination.

Part 2

The second part analyses the protection of genetic privacy. The 2003 International Declaration on Human Genetic Data (IDHGD) of UNESCO, which has been described as ‘a sequel’ to the UDHGHR, provides the main international legal framework in this regard. The most sensitive issues arise when consent to genetic data use is involved. Express consent is stipulated by the IDHGD but, as Hélène Boussard explains in her chapter in this volume, there are still many issues which remain unclear, especially as regards the relationship between individual consent and the interests of third parties, and also collective consent.

Part 3

Part 3 deals with how international law against genetic discrimination becomes operational in domestic law in the fields of employment, insurance and criminal investigation. In accordance with Article 23 of the IDHGD,‘[s]tates should take all appropriate measures, whether of a legislative, administrative or other character, to give effect to the principles set out in [the] Declaration, in accordance with the international law of human rights’. To date, the European tendency has been to prohibit the use of genetic data in employment and insurance; by contrast, in the US, state legislation provides a regulatory approach with variable definitions and degrees of prohibition of genetic discrimination. Criminal investigation is another field which raises concerns about possible discrimination. DNA databases are a valuable instrument for criminal investigations and bring major benefits. Yet, as emphasized by the IDHGD, certain practices bring up rights concerns, including: retaining full DNA samples, rather than just the DNA profiles used for identification; retaining people’s records on the database without consideration of the nature of their offence and also including those who have been arrested but not charged, or those who have been acquitted; and using the database for genetic research without consent.

Part 4

The last part deals with the issue of vulnerable groups, specifically, women, children, indigenous peoples and disabled persons.

September 16, 2008 Youssef Farhat Product