| Global Justice Blog

The Ruth Adler Human Rights Lecture 2023 – Ms Mama Fatima Singhateh

July 17, 2023 GJA Admin Child participation, Children's Rights, Human rights, Incorporation, International Law, Sale and sexual exploitation, Scotland, Sexual Violence, UK, UNCRC

On 14 March 2023, the Global Justice Academy hosted the Ruth Adler Human Rights Lecture by Ms Mama Fatima Singhateh, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Sale and Sexual Exploitation of Children. Focussed on the importance of child participation, she talked about her functions as Special Rapporteur, the human rights law regulating the principle of participation, the importance of applying this principle and the challenges and opportunities it faces. The connection between Ms Singhateh’s work as Special Rapporteur and focus on children’s participation is highly relevant here in Scotland in light of the role of child participation envisioned in the pending UNCRC Incorporation legislation and the Committee on the Rights of the Child’s most recent Concluding Observations on the UK’s implementation of the UNCRC.

The Special Rapporteur began by explaining her functions: In annual reports to the UN Human Rights Council and UN General Assembly on thematic studies, she addresses thematic issues such as the sexual exploitation of children online, sexual exploitation of children in travel and tourism, including in the context of major sports events; the sale and sexual exploitation of children through prostitution and child trafficking; and sale of children for illegal adoption, transfer of organs, child marriage and forced labour. Furthermore, she analyses the root causes of the sale and sexual exploitation of children, identifies new patterns of the phenomena, exchanges good practices to combat this scourge, promote measures to prevent it, and make recommendations for the rehabilitation of child victims and survivors of sale and sexual exploitation, primarily targeted towards Governments, UN bodies, the business sector and non-governmental organisations. In addition to the annual reports, the Special Rapporteur undertakes country visits, sends out communications to States and other stakeholders on individual cases of reported violations and concerns of a broader nature, engages in awareness-raising and advocacy to promote and protect children’s rights, provides advice for technical cooperation, and contributes to the development of international human rights standard. In exercising these functions, the Special Rapporteur prioritises access to child-friendly spaces. Furthermore, she dialogues with children and hears their thoughts on the issues her mandate addresses.

Then, the Special Rapporteur turned to the issue of child participation and the human rights law regulating the topic. Children’s participation is a principle emanating from Article 12 of the UNCRC on the right to be heard. Even though the UNCRC does not expressly use the term’ child participation’, she affirmed that ‘the term has evolved and is now widely used to describe ongoing processes, which include information-sharing and dialogue between children and adults based on mutual respect, and in which children can learn how their views and those of adults are taken into account and shape the outcome of such processes.’ The Special Rapporteur also referred to the UNCRC, in general terms, as the most widely ratified human rights treaty in history. She recognised that children’s lives had been transformed by the UNCRC but affirmed that ‘there is, however, more work to be done to better promote and protect the rights of all children’. Finally, she made a particular reference to the UNCRC Incorporation (Scotland) Bill: While celebrating Scotland’s bold step in fully incorporating the UNCRC into Scottish legislation, she noted that the Scottish government must ensure that it follows through by reintroducing revised legislation so that effective implementation can begin.

When referring to the importance and application of child participation, the Special Rapporteur reminded the audience of the extent of article 12 of the UNCRC: ‘Children have a right to participate in any decision-making process affecting them as well as influence decisions taken on their behalf’. She affirmed that participation helps children develop confidence in their worldviews and value. Additionally, she recalled practical approaches that have created positive changes in ways of working with children, such as using child-friendly spaces and forums and including them in public policy development and monitoring.

Scottish Women’s Right Centre

A concrete example helped the audience to clearly understand Ms. Singhateh’s argument. The case was about role that children participation played in work carried out by an NGO against female genital mutilation (FGM). She explained that this secret practice was part of an initiation rite in a particular country. From focus groups with girls between 12 to 18 years old, the NGO learned about FMG and the rejection and embarrassment that it caused among them. With the active involvement of children, the NGO proposed restructuring the rite towards an ‘initiation without mutilation’. This turned into a successful campaign that produced a change in the places where it intervened and that was replicated in other communities. The lesson the Special Rapporteur takes from this example is ‘that deliberate and strategic actions to facilitate and create a conducive environment for children to participate in decisions about their lives can make a great difference in how the world perceives, protect, and promote their rights’.

In the last part of her lecture, the Special Rapporteur addressed the challenges and opportunities to child participation. By taking the audience through real-life stories she learned from survivors during her country visits, she highlighted the importance of raising awareness of the different manifestations of sexual abuse and sexual exploitation. She also referred to the government’s responsibility to design child protection policies that provide education and awareness raising, as well as ensure children have access to professionals where they can speak freely on any issue happening to them at home. In addition, she highlighted the need to provide professionals with skills and tools to effectively communicate with children, especially victims and survivors who have suffered abuse.

The Special Rapporteur also recommended involving children as trainers and facilitators of child participation and explained how they could participate at international-level gatherings designed for children and adults. Ms Singhateh concluded her lecture by ’emphasising the need to provide children with the opportunity to be heard, influence decision-making and achieve change’.

In line with the practical approach that Ms Singhateh gives to her mandate, she also accompanied the director of the GJA, Dr Kasey McCall-Smith, to a session of the human rights clinic. Students working on issues relating to the prohibition against torture and child rights budgeting were able to share their work with her and receive her questions and comments.

Ms Singhateh’s mandate as Special Rapporteur on the Sale and Sexual Exploitation of Children was extended for another three years. We look forward to reading more about her innovative efforts on enhancing children participation in her endeavours on promoting and advancing their human rights.

This post was written by Valentina Rioseco Vallejos. Valentina is a Chilean lawyer who holds an LLM in Human Rights from the University of Edinburgh. She is currently studying a PhD in Law, focused on incorporating a human rights approach to irregular migration. Valentina is a Research Assistant for the Global Justice Academy.

child participation, Children's Rights, Human Rights, Human rights legal clinic, Incorporation, international law, Ms Mama Fatima Singhateh, Ruth Adler Lecture, sale and sexual exploitation of children, UN Special Rapporteur, UNCRC, United Nations, women's rights

Comparing Police Discipline in the US and the UK: Lessons for American Law Enforcement – Part 2

September 14, 2022 GJA Admin Labour rights, Police and Policing, Scotland, UK, US Politics, USA

This is Part 2 of a two-part blog post by Prof. Paul Clark comparing police discipline in the US and the UK. It identifies aspects of the UK approach to police discipline that could have a positive impact on the discipline process in the US.

Paul F. Clark is Professor and former Director, School of Labor and Employment Relations at Penn State University in the United States. His research has focused on employment relations, labor unions, and the globalization of labor markets. His current focus is on police unions and police disciplinary processes in the UK and the US. He has authored or edited six books and his research has appeared in the leading scholarly journals in industrial and labor relations, applied psychology, and international labor issues. He has served as a visiting professor at universities in Scotland, Australia, and New Zealand and is currently President-elect of the U.S.-based Labor and Employment Relations Association.

A preliminary examination of the UK police complaint and discipline processes indicates that these processes differ significantly from, and work more effectively than, those in the US. This suggests that there may be elements of the British system of police discipline that could be adapted and adopted by American law enforcement.

One of the key differences between police discipline processes in the UK and the US that could have a positive impact on the US process is the UK’s emphasis on learning versus punishment. In 2020, an in-depth analysis of the police discipline and complaint process in England and Wales led to major reforms. One of the significant changes made was to establish “a culture of learning” as a key part of the discipline process. Toward this end, police supervisors are directed to divert incidents that do not constitute misconduct into either “an unsatisfactory performance procedure” or “a reflective practice review,” both of which help police officers learn from their mistakes and remain on the force.

The emphasis on learning and correcting behavior that UK law enforcement has adopted in recent years is an approach that American police unions and police departments, should consider. In the long run, working to create a culture of learning in US police forces would have many benefits.

Photo bt King’s Church International on Unsplash

Another mechanism that US law enforcement should consider to build public confidence is independent oversight boards. These agencies play a much bigger role in policing in the UK than in the US. In England and Wales, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) oversees complaints about police misconduct. The Police Investigations and Review Commissioner plays this role in Scotland and the Office of Ombudsmen does so in Northern Ireland. These processes are clearly works in progress and they receive mixed reviews from police federations, and sometimes from the public, but to ensure that police do not investigate police behind closed doors, these agencies are necessary.

There has been a movement in recent years in the US to establish such bodies. However, only about ten percent of police forces have done so and they are mostly in urban areas with large police forces. And their performance has been mixed. Still, independent oversight of police forces appears to be a necessity if public confidence in police is to be increased.

US law enforcement also needs to adopt a national database to identify police officers who have been fired for misconduct or incompetence, like the ones that exists in the UK. Currently, in the US only a handful of states keep such a list. Unfortunately, in many states officers fired by one police department are regularly hired by police forces within that state or in other states. A national list would identify officers fired for cause across the country. Any officer appearing on this list would be banned from being hired by any other police force.

Finally, the extremely decentralized nature of the American law enforcement system means that police disciplinary systems are established by each separate police force. In the UK, the police disciplinary processes are national in scope. This means that there is one disciplinary process that covers all police in England and Wales, one that covers all police in Scotland, and one that covers police in Northern Ireland. These national processes bring consistency to police discipline in each country.

With 18,000 police forces in the US (compared to only 43 in England and Wales, and one each in Scotland and Northern Ireland), there are essentially 18,000 different discipline processes. This is highly problematic. It means that reforms to the police discipline system in the US cannot be implemented on a national basis. However, individual states do have the authority to order changes for the police forces in their state. The widespread reform of police discipline processes in the US would most effectively be accomplished on a state-by-state basis. Establishing a consistent police discipline process across all fifty states is unrealistic. Yet, it might be possible to get a significant number of states to adopt such a process. This would be an important step towards improving the effectiveness of American police discipline processes.

American Police Unions, Culture of learning, Police discipline

Comparing Police Discipline in the US and the UK: Lessons for American Law Enforcement – Part 1

September 14, 2022 GJA Admin American law enforcement, Conflict, Labour rights, Police and Policing, Punishment, Security, UK, US Politics, USA

This post is the first of a two-part blog by Prof. Paul Clark comparing police discipline in the US and the UK. Part I focuses on the relevant similitudes and differences between police discipline in the two countries and highlights the connections between police trade unions and police discipline.

Recent high-profile cases of police misconduct in the U.S. have heightened racial tensions and increased public awareness of systematic problems in American law enforcement. The deaths of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor at the hands of Minneapolis and Louisville police in 2020 were met by widespread protest around the world and for calls for police reform.

Photo by Gayatari Malhotra on Unsplash

The fact that Derek Chauvin, the officer who knelt on Floyd’s neck causing his death, had 18 complaints regarding serious misconduct filed against him since 2001 and was still working as a police officer, has contributed to the impression that American police are not being held accountable for their actions.

In the wake of these concerns, the movement to reform American policing has gained momentum. This reform movement is looking at all aspects of American law enforcement including oversight, funding, training, use of force, hiring, pay, and recruitment. However, one important element that has received minimal consideration in discussions about reform are the processes for disciplining police officers accused of misconduct.

While the British public has concerns about police misconduct, police are viewed more favorably in the UK than in the US. In surveys conducted in 2020, 74 percent of people aged 16 and over in England and Wales reported having confidence in their local police, while only 48 percent of Americans held that view.

To learn more about the UK police complaint and discipline processes, I spent the spring of 2022 in residence at the University of Edinburgh’s Global Justice Academy and the University of Oxford Law School. Because England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland each have their own systems of law enforcement, they each have their own police complaint and discipline processes. In the course of my work, I gathered information about the three processes and conducted 37 interviews with parties involved in these processes—police forces, police federations representing officers, independent public oversight agencies, and neutral hearing officers. An analysis of the data collected identified a few elements that differ significantly from the discipline processes in the US and that, in my view, have potential to improve what is now, in many cases, a problematic process in the US.

Police disciplinary processes in the UK and the US have some elements in common. Disciplinary processes are utilized to deal with both public complaints about officer conduct and internal charges made by police colleagues or supervisors. Public or internal charges can result in an investigation into an officer’s conduct. The results of the investigation are considered by police administrators and the charged officer (and the officer’s representatives) are given opportunities to respond. If the charges are not resolved, the case can go before a neutral third party who renders a decision.

Photo by King’s Church International on Unsplash

One significant difference between the US and UK systems of law enforcement is that the majority of police officers in the US belong to trade unions (57.5 percent in 2019) that have the right to collective bargaining. Some of these police unions, mostly in large cities, have used their bargaining power to negotiate contract clauses that make it harder to discipline their members. These unions also generally take a more adversarial approach when advocating for their members in the discipline process than their counterparts in the UK. For these unions, “defending the member at all costs” is the priority, even when the officer or officers involved have engaged in problematic behavior.

A recent analysis found that in 624 police discharge cases heard by arbitrators (neutral third parties) nationwide between 2006 and 2020, police officers were reinstated to their jobs 52 percent of the time. During the same period, in Minneapolis, in six of eight cases involving the discharge of police officers, the charges were overturned, and the officers returned to their jobs.

In the UK, police are not permitted to be represented by a trade union. Instead, officers at all ranks are represented by professional associations that advocate for the good and welfare of their members (for example, constables, sergeants, and inspectors in England and Wales are represented by the Police Federation of England and Wales), but do not engage in collective bargaining. While these federations and associations fight for their members when they feel they have been treated unfairly, they also tend to look more broadly at what is good for the policing profession and for the community. In some instances, they may put the interests of the profession and the community ahead of those of an individual member. For example, they might try to counsel a problematic officer into resigning from the force, rather than fight to get their job back. One long-serving police federation representative told me he thought “he might be responsible for getting rid of more bad cops than the police force had.”

Certainly, some police unions in the US do what they can to make sure that officers not suited to policing do not continue to serve. But in some notable cases where unions have won reinstatement for officers accused of excess force, racism, or corruption, these officers have continued to engage in misconduct. If they want to increase the public’s confidence in their members, the more aggressive police unions need to moderate their approach to representing their members and emphasize what is good for the profession and the community.

In addition to moderating their defense of “bad cops,” some US police unions need to consider rethinking existing contract language that makes it difficult for police departments to discipline officers (while still ensuring that they receive appropriate due process). Both changes would have a positive impact on how the public views the police.

Finally, it should be noted that an additional reason that police officers fired for misconduct in the US (and sometimes in the UK) are put back on the job is that police management sometimes does a poor job of investigating and building discipline cases against officers. Bringing a weak case before a neutral third party greatly increases the chances that a union will win the case and enable an undeserving officer to retain their job. Where this happens, police managers need to improve their performance.

Continue reading part 2 of this two-part blog.

Comparative law enforcement, Police misconduct

Reflections on a Conversation with Mohamedou Ould Salahi

April 7, 2022 GJA Admin Africa, Enforced Disappearances, Guantanamo, Human rights, Terrorism, Torture, UNCAT, USA

On 14 March 2022, the Global Justice Academy hosted a conversation between Mohamedou Ould Salhi, author of the best-seller Guantánamo Diary, and Dr Kasey McCall-Smith, director of the Global Justice Academy. The event was part of Mohamedou’s United Kingdom tour to talk about his experiences and what happens in the aftermath of torture and arbitrary detention. In the conversation, Mohamedou and Dr McCall-Smith, together with the audience’s participation, reflected on the post-9/11 human rights legal and political landscape.

Mohamedou was born in Mauritania, and as a young man studied and worked in Germany and Canada before moving back to Mauritania in 2000. Between 2000 and 2001, he was three times detained at the behest of the United States, questioned about the so-called “Millennium Plot”, and later released. However, in November 2001, Mohamedou was arbitrarily arrested in Mauritania, later transferred to Jordan and then Guantánamo Bay. Mohamedou eventually spent 15 years arbitrarily detained and was subjected to multiple forms of torture and ill-treatment under the ‘enhanced interrogation programme’. He was ultimately released without any charge or any form of redress by the US.

In his best-selling book, Guantánamo Diary, Mohamedou tells a Mauritanian proverb about a man who was afraid of a rooster. As the story goes, a psychiatrist asks this man why he is afraid of a rooster, an animal considerably smaller than human beings. The man replies that the rooster thinks he is corn. The psychiatrist says that the man is not corn, but a man indeed, so he should not be afraid of the rooster. Then, the man answers that he knows he is not a corn, but the rooster does not, which is why he is afraid. Unfortunately, this is the allegoric story about the many US ‘War on Terror’ detainees. Mohamedou and many other detainees tried for years to convince the US government that they were not terrorists just because they filled the ‘terrorist boxes’. In other words, they tried to convince the rooster they were not corn. Without access to fundamental human rights it was an almost insumountable task.

The event’s central theme was the conflict between national security and human rights. Through the ‘War on Terror’, led by the US after the events of 9/11, many men were arbitrarily incarcerated and tortured in order to gather information with the aim of protecting national security. These arbitrarily detained men, most of them Muslim, were deprived of their basic human rights, including the prohibition of torture and access to justice. The post-9/11 era is marked by states’ overwhelming concern for national security over human rights. Consequently, people are subjected to many forms of human rights infringements. Such abuses vary significantly from the most imperceptible and sometimes even consented breaches, such as infringements to the right to privacy and or access information, to the most gruesome violations as experienced and narrated by Mohamedou, including torture and ill-treatment, arbitrary arrest, inaccessibility to justice, and presumption of guilt instead of innocence.

One of the most shocking observations Mohamedou shared was the absence of justice and the rule of law in Guantánamo Bay. After years of being incarcerated without criminal charge or prosecution, Mohamedou petitioned for habeas corpus and was granted a release order in 2010. However, Mohamedou was only released in 2016. The six-year gap between the court order and its compliance is the result of the US judicial system’s lack of power in the Guantánamo Bay detention facilities. Although judges may grant habeas corpus orders, the judicial system does not have the power to enforce them. According to Dr McCall-Smith, the unreasonable amount of time it took for Mohamedou’s release indicates the disconnect between the US justice system and the organs that wield power in the context of national security. Even after his release, Mohamedou still faces the shadows of his arbitrary detention as the US keeps him blacklisted.

Guantánamo Bay must be closed.

In closing the event, Mohamedou and McCall-Smith discussed possible ways to move forward after the horrifying human rights violations perpetrated in the ‘War on Terror’. First, McCall-Smith and Mohamedou agreed that Guantánamo Bay must be closed. Of the 780 men detained in Guantánamo Bay, 38 men are currently imprisoned there, and less than 20 men have been charged with a crime, let alone convicted. The Obama administration promised to close Guantánamo, but only the US Congress has the power to do so. Thus, in this particular situation, McCall-Smith pointed out that the US ‘checks and balances’ system worked against the rule of law. Second, Mohamedou highlighted the necessity to hold accountable those who violated international law and the prohibition on torture. Without accountability, there is no possibility of democracy as the people become powerless in the face of the government. Finally, Mohamedou stressed the importance of forgiveness and reconciliation through actions. More than a beautiful thought, this idea entails states’ responsibility to reflect and reconsider the undermining of human rights as the formula to guarantee national security. Mohamedou’s experiences and scholarly debates have both shown that the suppression and outright violation of human rights has not guaranteed the security of peoples or states.

The recording of the event can be viewed here.

This post is authored by Helena de Oliveira Augusto. Helena is currently undertaking the Human Rights LLM at the University of Edinburgh. Helena is from Brazil, where she completed a Bachelor of Laws degree at the Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo.

Arbitrary Detention, Detainee, guantanamo, Mauritania, Prohibition against Torture, Rehabilitation, War on Terror

Reflections on Your Human Rights: Know them. Engage them. Defend them.

March 20, 2022 GJA Admin Constitutional Change, Democracy, ECHR, Engagement, Freedom of Expression, Global Justice Academy, Human rights, Human Rights Act, UK

On 23 and 24 February 2022, the Global Justice Academy, together with the Strathclyde Centre for the Study of Human Rights Law and Newcastle Forum for Human Rights and Social Justice, and other partners in the Northern UK Human Rights Network, held two webinars that gathered human rights experts to provide insights to the questions set out in the Ministry of Justice Human Rights Act Reform Consultation. The idea behind the webinars was to help the public — especially those who are not experts but are interested in protecting human rights — to respond to the Consultation, which puts forward ideas contrary to the Human Rights Act and may have devastating effects on human rights.

This GJA blog post presents the common themes and shared concerns that get to the heart of why experts find the Consultation proposals problematic and regressive. The post contains four parts, each focused on a central issue raised by the expert panellists.

The mismatches between the IHRAR and the Consultation

In 2019, the Conservative Party claimed the necessity to update the Human Rights Act (HRA) to modern times. The Secretary of Justice then set the terms for the Independent Human Rights Act Review (IHRAR), which commenced in December 2020. The IHRAR examined independent expert opinions and many submissions from civil society, ultimately completing its work in October 2021. The IHRAR recommended some changes but overall concluded that the HRA led to positive outcomes to human rights protection in the UK. However, the Ministry of Justice only published the IHRAR report in December 2021 together with the Consultation document, which no longer proposed to update the HRA but rather substitute it for a ‘Modern Bill of Rights’. Human rights experts are sceptical of the government’s claims to legitimacy of the Consultation as a follow on to the expert panel. Experts understand that the Consultation does not follow the IHRAR as it ignored several IHRAR recommendations and introduced a series of new issues that will significantly diminish human rights protection.

Priority of freedom of expression when in conflict with the right to respect for private and family life

One of the Consultation proposals is to create a legal provision to direct courts to prioritise the right to freedom of expression when in conflict with the right to respect for private and family life. The Consultation outlines that the European Court of Human Rights (or Strasbourg Court) has shown priority to privacy over freedom of expression, which has had a negative repercussion on the protection of rights related to the press. However, human rights experts disagree with this observation. Experts concluded that both the UK Supreme Court and the Strasbourg Court treat freedom of expression and the right to privacy equally when in conflict, without generally prioritising one over the other. The current provision of article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which contains the right to freedom of expression, has been effective in protecting journalists and their sources. Although it is important to widen the protection of rights related to the press, the way to do so is to enhance the HRA provisions instead of substituting them.

The permission stage and access to justice

One central issue in the Consultation is the belief that ‘frivolous or spurious’ human rights claims, which do not ‘merit court time and public resources’, has undermined public confidence in human rights.[1] The Consultation aims to create a permission stage for human rights claims that requires demonstration of ‘significant disadvantage’, or, exceptionally, a matter of ‘overriding public importance’, for human rights claims to be brought before UK courts.[2] Human rights experts strongly disagree with adding a permission stage. Article 34 of the Convention, incorporated into the UK by the HRA, together with extensive legal texts, have already established who is a victim and who can be a human rights claimant. Further requirements for initiating human rights actions would restrict judicial protection of rights. The permission stage proposal closely relates to the (deeply) problematic question 10 of the Consultation, which states that courts should only focus on ‘genuine human rights abuses’, perpetuating the false perception that many human rights claims are not genuine.[3] Human rights experts fear that the vague and potentially discriminatory ‘genuine’ standard for human rights abuse and the unnecessary permission stage will diminish human rights protections, especially for those in vulnerable situations.

The mischaracterised relationship between the UK Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights

A major theme throughout the Consultation — which some experts believe is the central political motivation leading to the Consultation— is the relationship between the UK Supreme Court and the Strasbourg Court. The Consultation presumes that the Strasbourg Court has been improperly intervening in the UK jurisdiction. On the basis of this unsupported presumption, the Consultation proposals point to the government’s desire to distance UK law from the Strasbourg Court. Nevertheless, the experts highlighted that the government’s desired distance between jurisdictions, together with the regressive protection of rights, will backfire. The Consultation was clear that the UK will not withdraw from the Convention or the Strasbourg Court. Thus, if human rights claimants are unsuccessful in bringing their cases to UK courts because their claims are not considered ‘genuine’, they can still go to the Strasbourg Court for their claims to be heard. This possible scenario would weaken UK human rights protections as domestic courts would not have the first say in interpreting ECHR cases in the UK though the UK would remain bound to give effect to eventual Strasbourg’s judgments that find the UK in breach of the Convention rights.

Ultimately, the webinar offered insight and assistance to people developing their responses to the Ministry of Justice Consultation. Although embedded in a language of protection of rights, the Consultation’s proposals will produce harmful effects for human rights in reality. Therefore, the webinar highlighted that it is important that as many people as possible engage and respond to the Consultation until its deadline on 8 March 2022 in order to oppose Consultation’s proposals and fight against the undermining of human rights.

The Global Justice Academy’s response to the consultation can be found here: March 2022 – GJA – Consultation Response – HRA Reform

[1] Ministry of Justice, Human Rights Act Reform: A Modern Bill of Rights – A consultation to reform the Human Rights Act 1998, available at <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1040409/human-rights-reform-consultation.pdf> accessed at 27 February 2022, p. 65

[2] Ibid p. 65

[3] Ibid p. 66

Human Rights Act, Ministry of Justice Consultation, UK

Your Human Rights: Know them. Engage them. Defend them

March 3, 2022 GJA Admin Constitutional Change, Constitutional Law, ECHR, Human rights, Human Rights Act, Knowledge Exchange, Law and Legal, Uncategorized, United Kingdom

On 23 and 24 February, the Global Justice Academy (GJA), Strathclyde Centre for the Study of Human Rights Law and Newcastle Forum for Human Rights and Social Justice, along with other partners in the Northern UK Human Rights Network, hosted a sandpit webinar on responding to the Ministry of Justice Human Rights Act Reform Consultation. The events brought together experts across public law, international law and human rights to offer concise insight on the key issues raised by the Ministry of Justice consultation on human rights reform.

Human rights experts’ preliminary views of the consultation paper are that the UK government aims to dismantle important human rights protections. The events were designed to assist individuals with different levels of engagement with human rights to distil the main legal tensions presented in the consultation paper and respond to the questions posed therein. The underpinning purpose is to assist those who have little time or experience responding to government consultations to develop their own responses by the consultation deadline of 8 March 2022.

Speakers included:

Ed Bates, Leicester University
Helen Fenwick, Durham University
Elisenda Casanas Adam, Univeristy of Edinburgh
Hélène Tyrrell ,Newcastle University
Conall Mallory, Newcastle University
Lynsey Mitchell, University of Strathclyde
Lewis Graham, Wadham College, Oxford University
Dimitrios Kagiaros, Durham University
Nicole Busby, University of Glasgow
Elizabeth O’Loughlin, Durham University
Douglas Jack, University of Strathclyde
Alison Seaman, University of Edinburgh

The recording of day 2 can be found HERE.

If you would like to develop your own response using the working document developed by the speakers and other contributing colleagues, it can be accessed here: March 2022 – Consultation Response – Mod Bill of HR – Shareable. We encourage you to build on our work and add your own thoughts. In a democratic society it is essential that we use our voices to let the government know our views.

The Human Rights Act has protected the people of the UK for two decades. Use your voice to let the Ministry of Justice know that we will not give it up without a fight.

Useful documents:

Ministry of Justice, Human Rights Act Reform: A Modern Bill of Human Rights, consultation paper
Independent Human Rights Act Review, Final Report
Joint statement, Amnesty International Scotland, the Human Rights Consortium Scotland, JustRight Scotland, Making Rights Real, and the Scottish Human Rights Commission
Scottish Government Response to consultation paper

Human Rights Act 1998, Human Rights Defenders, Human Rights Law, Judicial Interpretation, Ministry of Justice Consultation, Politics

AHRI Statement on the Russian Aggression against Ukraine

February 28, 2022 GJA Admin Conflict, Eastern Europe, Human rights, ICCPR, International Law, Russian Federation, Security, Ukraine, UN

The Secretariat for the Association of Human Rights Institutes (AHRI), hosted by the Global Justice Academy (GJA) and Strathclyde Centre for the Study of Human Rights Law, along with the full AHRI Executive Committee, today published its statement on the Russian Federation’s violations of fundamental international law, including human rights law, and the danger it poses to the post-World War II peace and security architecture.

The Russian Federation’s invasion of sovereign Ukrainian territory is a clear violation of international law and endangers the post-World War II peace architecture that has prevailed over Europe these last seven decades.

The Russian Federation is bound by seven of the core UN human rights treaties as well as the European Convention on Human Rights. We recall the position of the Human Rights Committee that States parties of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights who are engaged in acts of aggression as defined in international law, resulting in deprivation of life, violate ipso facto the right to life as protected by Article 6 of the Covenant. Each step it takes in Ukraine negates its commitment to respect and protect the rights of civilians in Ukraine and those in Russia who are unable to safely voice their opposition to their government. This unprecedented use of force and blatant breach of the UN Charter, the Charter of Paris, and the Helsinki Final Act brings suffering and misery to Ukraine and its people.

As the largest global network of human rights research institutes, AHRI stands together with its colleagues, students and friends in the Ukraine and those in Russia who have been intimidated and forced to remain silent in the face of Russia’s acts of aggression.

Photo of protestors holding Ukraine flags

Photo by: Beth LaBerge

Read the full statement here: AHRI Statement on Russian Aggression against Ukraine

Conflict, Crime of Aggression, Human Rights, international law, Russian Federation, Ukraine, Ukraine Crisis

Interpretive Convergence at the European Court of Human Rights: Strength in numbers or a cause for concern

February 11, 2022 GJA Admin Case Law, ECHR, Europe, Global Justice Academy, Human rights, International Law, Law and Legal, Uncategorized

On 25 January, the Global Justice Academy hosted its first event of the new year, ‘Interpretive Convergence at the European Court of Human Rights: Strength in numbers or a cause for concern?’. In this seminar, Dr Conall Mallory, Senior Lecturer at the University of Newcastle School of Law, presented his current research on the voting patterns of the judges within the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). In particular, his research scrutinizes judgments of the ECtHR that seem to often be unanimous with infrequent dissents. Drawing on extensive quantitative data analysis he furthermore explores potential wide-ranging implications on the authority of the court, the cohesion of Convention rights and the credibility of the judges.

It is widely acknowledged that the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) are peppered with grey language that requires the judges to interpret the Convention’s specifications. The fact that the 17 grand chamber judges, deriving from various cultural, legal, educational, professional and linguistic backgrounds unanimously agree on the interpretation of highly contentious human rights provisions, motivated Dr Mallory to further investigate the judges’ convergence. In the two ECtHR judgments Banković v Belgium and Al-Skeini v United Kingdom which were both concerned with the extraterritorial application of human rights law, the Court in both cases voted unanimously. However, the second case substantially deviated from the principles set out in its previous judgment.

Analysing approximately 400 Grand Chamber judgments between 1998 and 2021, Dr Mallory considered each judge’s individual vote on individual issues. He found that almost every time there was coherence across the judges’ votes. The judges took differing stances in only 10% of the votes on individual questions on whether a Member State had violated an article of the Convention.

Image credit: ECHR

Scholars before Dr Mallory have examined the motivation and incentives behind judges’ decision-making process in the courtroom. These previous studies revealed that judges tend to vote strategically, whether for individual benefits, to embed personal ideologies in judgments, or to pursue broader goals serving stakeholders. However, Dr Mallory’s research is focused more on the general legal culture of the Court and the implications for the Court as a whole. He suggests that by predominantly voting unanimously the judges aim to seek sociological legitimacy to remain a credible force in the European human rights adjudication. Contrary to normative and legal legitimacy, sociological legitimacy is concerned with the external perception of the court. In order to secure its authoritative and influential status the court attempts to project legitimacy in a manner that is compatible with the objectives of stakeholders.

In international law, sociological legitimacy is characterized by judicial constraint, consistency, coherence, and fair and unbiased decision making. The convergence of the judges voting pattern in Dr Mallory’s data implies that the court’s strategy is to adhere to those standards through voting in agreement. Notably, Dr Mallory was also able to identify voting patterns regarding the affected context of the violation. Namely, the Court disagrees more when voting on potential violations of the right to privacy and freedom of expression.

Dr Mallory concluded his talk by addressing the question whether this interpretative convergence is a cause for concern. In his opinion, the findings are not as alarming as one might think at the first glance. However, the voting patterns may suggest a sense of group thinking in the courtroom which may lead judges to develop a personal aversion for dissenting. This should be considered seriously, as the Court’s apparent strategy in striving for sociological legitimacy through convergent voting may create cascade conformity – meaning that judges who would normally disagree abandon their conviction and follow suit with the other judges. Returning to the initial consideration of the divergent rulings in Banković v Belgium and Al-Skeini v United Kingdom, Dr Mallory observed that the main problem is the fact that the court, depending on the composition of judges, may deviate so fundamentally in its judgments that it will fail to offer reliability and consistency.

This post was written by Juliane Müller. Juliane is currently reading the LLM in International Law at the University of Edinburgh. She is from Germany, where she completed her LLM in Law at the University of Mannheim. Juliane is also an Ambassador for the Global Justice Academy.

European Court of Human Rights, Events, Human Rights, international law, Interpretation, Judgments

Free Speech Protection for ‘Public Watchdogs’ in the European Court of Human Rights

December 10, 2021 GJA Admin Eastern Europe, ECHR, Freedom of Expression, Global Justice Academy, Human rights, Hungary, Newspost

For the second Global Justice Academy event of the current academic semester, Dr Dimitrios Kagiaros, Assistant Professor in Public Law and Human Rights at Durham Law School, presented his current research exploring the fundamental principles of freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In particular, his work scrutinizes the meaning of the term ‘public watchdog’, which is a term applied to certain speakers (eg the press) who carry out the function of keeping the public informed on matters of public interest. The European Court of Human Rights offers such speakers added protection under the Article 10 framework.

Until recently, the courts identified only the press and NGO’s as those who would be eligible for this protected status, but after a 2016 Grand Chamber decision in Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v Hungary the status was further extended to academics, authors of public literature, bloggers and popular social media users. In this case, the claimant was an NGO who was denied official information from the state police and challenged this under Article 10 of the ECHR. Dr Kagiaros explained what this extension of watchdog status means for rights and duties attributed to not only speakers, but also to the public who benefits from access to information and the state in terms of its obligations towards these public watchdogs.

According to the Court’s case law on public watchdogs and the Magyar Helsinki Bizottság ruling, public watchdog status creates a negative obligation on the state to refrain from taking any action which would obstruct the watchdog of carrying out its function. It also includes positive obligations on the state to adopt a specific legal framework to protect public watchdogs and also to release official information to them, under circumstances, following a request . The decision also clarified that Article 10 places duties on public watchdogs to act responsibly when disseminating information which could be in the public interest. Increasingly, these duties are attributed to actors such as bloggers and popular social media users which Kagiaros argues that in today’s social media culture is too broad of a concept to understand who exactly would be eligible for public watchdog protection and also who, as rights-bearers, should be obliged to fulfil certain duties when exercising their right to free speech. Kagiaros says these legal obligations and broadly identified eligible actors must be better specified. To that end, he suggests that rather than limiting the protection offered to public watchdogs to specific groups (eg, academics, journalists, NGOs) the Court should carry out a functional test when presented with a case relating to speakers disseminating information in the public interest.

This research is particularly relevant within today’s social media climate and the frequent use of mobile phones to capture or record instances of everyday state injustice, like police brutality. Social media platforms have become an accessible space for receiving information and imparting information, which means determining who is a mere ‘ordinary speaker’ or a ‘public watchdog’ is becoming more complex. Along with this complexity is the matter of prioritising speech and how and what the courts consider information which is of public concern. Kagiaros emphasises the importance of protecting the act of imparting information which is of public interest as this is a prerequisite for a well-functioning democracy. These considerations become even more urgent in the context of transparency when dealing with matters such as climate change or interference with elections.

Kagiaros’ lecture points to the important role played by certain public and private actors to draw attention to public wrongdoings, particularly of public officials, and the need to protect those who come forward with this information that is important to enable meaningful democratic participation. As explained by the court, Article 10 of the ECHR is the bedrock of democracy. So, in order to protect the person’s right to freedom of speech and the public’s right to receive information, we must ensure an effective free speech legal framework to protect those who impart information of general concern.

This news item was written by Judi Martin. Judi is currently reading the LLM in Human Rights at the University of Edinburgh. She is from Ireland where she completed her BA in History at Trinity College Dublin.

Courts, ECHR, Europe, Free Speech, Human Rights

Reflections on UN Special Procedures

December 10, 2021 GJA Admin Asia, Blog, Global Justice Academy, Human rights, UN

On 4 November 2021, the Global Justice Academy together with the Edinburgh Centre for Global and International Law hosted their first in-person seminar for the 2021-22 academic year at Edinburgh Law School. Professor Rhona K.M. Smith, who served two three-year terms as UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Cambodia, engaged the audience with her reflections on UN Special Procedures. She is a Professor of International Human Rights and was head of Newcastle Law School at Newcastle University from 2016 to 2020.

UN human rights envoy Rhona Smith holds a press conference at the conclusion of her mission to the Kingdom yesterday. KT/Khem Sovannara

To ground her reflections, she opened with an overview on the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council, and the distinctions between country and thematic mandates. She took the audience through the procedures for appointing the mandate holders and gave insight into gender and geographical balances and imbalances. Many in the audience were shocked to hear about the amount of time a UN Special Rapporteur dedicates to their mandate and particularly in light of the fact it is an unpaid position. Prof Smith critically reflected on the reasons given by the UN Human Rights Council for maintaining the unremunerated status of these roles. The Human Rights Council asserts that this gives independence to the experts, however, Prof Smith recognized that, in reality, not all experts or potential experts could afford this privilege. Ultimately, she said ‘you need money to live’. This subject stimulated a lively discussion later in the session.

The core of Prof Smith’s discussion focused on her behind-the-scenes experiences as a Special Rapporteur. She elaborated the three main roles of UN Special Procedures: advising, monitoring and reporting. Each of these roles serves a specific purpose in relation to fulfilling the mandate and each is enabled or limited in direct relation to the resources allocated to facilitate the work.

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) plays a fundamental role is supporting the UN Special Procedures mandates. Prior to the Covid-19 outbreak, Prof Smith travelled on missions to Cambodia twice a year and reinforced the importance of communicating with the country through the OHCHR. Security measures were of upmost importance as every UN Special Procedure faces common death threats and other harassment. During missions, Prof Smith was able to gather information on the ground and meet with high-level government actors in order to develop a multilayered picture of human rights in Cambodia. She reflected on how she could make the most out of these visits because she knew the country already since she had lived there before being appointed to the UN mandate. During these meetings, she highlighted situations that would entail human rights violations, and suggested concrete actions that State actors could adopt to protect, respect and fulfil the human rights of people living in Cambodia.

In the end, Prof Smith reinforced that being a UN Special Procedure was both ‘a huge honour and an amazing challenge’. On the one side, she was able to deepen her knowledge of human rights in practice and steer the improvement of the human rights for Cambodians. On the other, she faced the challenge of becoming a public figure in Cambodia and the risks associated with that publicity.

In closing the event, Prof Smith narrated a day in the shoes of a UN Special Procedure during a mission and reflected on how her experience contributed to her human rights teaching. Her frankness and honesty helped the audience understand what it means to be a UN Special Rapporteur. While there are clearly challenges, the rewards in assuming such a role within the UN, she demonstrated the practical importance that UN Special Procedures play in advancing the global protection, promotion and respect for human rights.

Events, Human Rights, Newspost, OHCHR, United Nations

1 2 3 … 18 »