Skip to main content

The Relationship between Atrocity crimes and violation of Human Rights

 The Relationship between Atrocity crimes and violation of Human Rights

The Responsibility to Protect is a political commitment made by heads of state and government at the 2005 UN World Summit aimed at preventing and halting four mass atrocity crimes, namely genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. In doing so, states agreed that governments have the primary responsibility to protect populations within their borders from atrocity crimes, that the international community should help states in building the capacity to uphold this responsibility, and that when a state is unwilling or manifestly failing to do so, the international community must be prepared to take timely and decisive collective action in accordance with the UN Charter.

Atrocity crimes do not occur in a vacuum, nor are they isolated or random incidents. Rather, they are typically the consequence of a broader process. In order to adequately prevent and respond to the threat of atrocity crimes, there is a need to understand the early warning signs, risk factors and aggravating conditions that may culminate in the perpetration of such grave crimes.

In their Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes, the UN Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect identifies a “record of serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law [IHRL and IHL, respectively]” as one of the common risk factors for atrocity crimes.

The Framework of Analysis highlights eight indicators to examine when reflecting on a record of serious violations of IHRL and IHL:


  • Past or present serious restrictions to or violations of IHRL and IHL, particularly if assuming an early pattern of conduct and if targeting protected groups, populations or individuals.

  • Past acts of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes or their incitement.

  • Policy or practice of impunity for or tolerance of serious violations of IHRL and IHL, of atrocity crimes, or of their incitement.

  • Inaction, reluctance or refusal to use all possible means to stop planned, predictable or ongoing serious violations of IHRL and IHL or likely atrocity crimes, or their incitement.

  • Continuation of support to groups accused of involvement in serious violations of IHRL and IHL, including atrocity crimes, or failure to condemn their actions.

  • Justification, biased accounts or denial of serious violations of IHRL and IHL or atrocity crimes.

  • Politicization or absence of reconciliation or transitional justice processes following conflict.

  • Widespread mistrust in state institutions or among different groups as a result of impunity.

Human rights violations and abuses occurring in a context with inadequate human rights protection can also elevate atrocity risks. Perpetrators of atrocity crimes require an environment that enables them to mobilize and commit violations without consequence.

Several indicators cited in the Framework of Analysis show how the inability or unwillingness of a state to adhere to international rules and norms surrounding human rights protection may increase the risk of atrocities. This includes:


  • National legal framework that does not offer ample and effective protection, including through ratification and domestication of relevant IHRL and IHL treaties.

  • National institutions, particularly judicial, law enforcement and human rights institutions that lack sufficient resources, adequate representation or training.

  • Lack of awareness of and training on IHRL and IHL to military forces, irregular forces and non-state armed groups, or other relevant actors.

  • Limited cooperation of the state with international and regional human rights mechanisms.

However, while these indicators are crucial in identifying potential emerging or escalating atrocity risks, they do not necessarily always lead to the commission of atrocities or a significantly elevated risk. Often it is when human rights violations and abuses are paired with other risk factors, such as armed conflicts, limited civic space and high levels of political, social or economic instability that we observe an escalation to atrocity crimes. In recent years, amidst rising nationalism and xenophobia, we have witnessed a simultaneous increase in provocative hate speech and attacks on minorities. In countries that fail to protect the human rights of minorities – either through actively persecuting and discriminating against them or through failing to provide adequate legal protection to all groups within society – the combination of these factors creates an environment conducive to the commission of atrocity crimes.

In Myanmar, for example, decades of structural human rights violations preceded the so-called “clearance operations” of 2017 during which approximately 745,000 Rohingya were forced to flee. Since the 1980s, the Rohingya minority in Myanmar have been systematically stripped of their basic human rights, citizenship and essential services such as health care, education and employment through national laws, including a 1982 citizenship law and the so-called “Protection of Race and Religion” laws adopted in 2015. Such laws created a permissive environment for widespread discrimination, rampant hate speech by prominent religious actors, inter-communal violence and targeting by the security forces. The clearance operations themselves were characterized by brutal acts that amount to genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, including indiscriminate killings, rape and sexual violence, arbitrary detention and torture.

By contrast to the Myanmar case, the infringement on women’s rights in Saudi Arabia is institutional and pervasive, including through male guardianship laws, restrictions on freedom of movement and detention for peaceful advocacy. The government of Saudi Arabia consistently represses dissidents, human rights activists and independent clerics, regularly violating the right to freedom of expression, association and belief. Though these clearly constitute serious human rights violations, in the absence of aggravating circumstances or other risk factors such violations have not contributed to the commission of atrocity crimes.

.  
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more