on The IHL dimension of the responsibility to protect
The Committee to Promote Respect for International Humanitarian Law held an open session on 24 March on the international humanitarian law (IHL) dimension of the responsibility to protect.
The purpose of the open session was to examine the nexus between IHL and the responsibility to protect, which remains unclear despite significant overlap between principles of international law and the underlying humanitarian priority.
IHL consists of a set of international norms aimed at limiting the effects of war on people and objects and regulating means and methods of warfare. It covers the protection of war victims, the limitation and/or prohibition of different types of weapons, the protection of certain objects and the repression of war crimes. The responsibility to protect, on the other hand, refers to the obligation of States towards their own populations and all populations at risk of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.
Mr. A.A. Cakra Wijaya (Indonesia), a member of the Committee, chaired the session. Debates were initiated by Ms. J. Park, Executive Director, Canadian Center for the Responsibility to Protect, Mr. S. Janquin (France), co-Rapporteur of the resolution on Enforcing the responsibility to protect:
The role of parliament in safeguarding civilians' lives, and Mr. P. Zahnd, Continental Legal Adviser for the Americas, ICRC.
Discussions first focused on the similarities and differences between the responsibility to protect and IHL. It was noted that the former remained a
relatively new concept. Mainly political in nature and not yet anchored in law, it was a last-resort solution to be applied when everything else failed.
The latter was a body of law containing some of the strongest and most fundamental norms of international public law; its enforcement protected civilians, in particular in times of armed conflict.
Lying at the core of efforts to protect populations in international or national conflict situations, it imposed obligations on State or non-State actors engaged in armed conflict.
Participants then discussed challenges to the protection of civilians in armed conflict, most of which stemmed from the insufficient implementation and enforcement of legislation, in particular IHL. While recognizing that both the responsibility to protect and IHL responded to the objective of protecting civilians, they highlighted their differences. Focusing on IHL and the challenges to its national enforcement, participants highlighted the specific role of parliament in that respect. The national implementation of IHL treaties remained a crucial task. IHL needed to be incorporated in domestic law and resources should be set aside to ensure proper implementation.
Furthermore, parliaments should raise awareness of, promote and give visibility to all related issues.
Lastly, the enforcement of IHL required coordination among all parties to all conflicts, including internal armed conflicts, as they were bound to uphold IHL in all circumstances. For their part, parliaments had responsibility for encouraging, engaging in and supporting dialogue.
4. Panel session on Development in danger:
Filling legislative gaps to combat tomorrow’s natural disasters
A panel session on Development in danger: Filling legislative gaps to combat tomorrow’s natural disasters, held on 24 March 2013, served as a forum for discussing the specific role of parliaments in contributing to disaster management, prevention and recovery, through the adoption of adequate laws and effective enforcement. The session was chaired by Ms. S.V. Kalyan, Member of Parliament (South Africa). Panellists included Mr S.H.
Chowdhury, Member of Parliament (Bangladesh), Mr. V. Hernández, Member of Parliament (Ecuador) and Mr. D. Fischer, Coordinator, Disaster Law Programme, International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), and Ms.
A.M. Rebaza, Adviser in Peru, United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).
Inter-Parliamentary Union – Other events
The session heard that disasters and the devastation that followed in their path were on the rise around the world, in part owing to the effects of climate change. In 2012 alone, they had affected over 100 million people and caused damage worth over US$ 44 billion. Large-scale disasters, such as the earthquakes that had struck Haiti, Japan and Pakistan in recent years, Typhoon Bopha (Pablo) in the Philippines and Hurricane Sandy in the United States, seemed to be ever more present in the news, while hundreds of smaller disasters collectively wreaked even greater havoc in terms of human and material cost. Those disasters not only threatened lives around the world, but were also increasingly seen as one of the greatest threats to sustainable development gains, sometimes wiping out in minutes efforts that had taken decades. Moreover, the poorest and most vulnerable populations were invariably the hardest hit and faced the most daunting challenges to recovery. Legislation was one of the most important tools that nations had at their disposal to organize and formulate an effective defence to disasters.
The session was given a presentation of the "Model Act for the Facilitation and Regulation of International Disaster Relief and Initial Recovery Assistance", developed by the IFRC, the IPU and OCHA. Participants went on to discuss the role of legislation in disaster relief. They underscored that, for large-scale catastrophes, international assistance often made the difference between life and death, dignity and misery. Few countries, however, had clear rules in place for managing incoming international assistance operations. Those operations were becoming more and more complex as the number and variety of international responders continued to grow. Unintentional legal barriers, such as those related to visas, customs clearance, taxation, registration and transport permissions routinely snarled relief efforts, creating unnecessary restrictions, delays and costs at crucial moments when urgent help was most needed. At the same time, the lack of oversight mechanisms often hampered coordination, resulted in poor-quality relief and undermined the authority and capacity of domestic responders. Participants highlighted the need to secure more coordination between humanitarian relief actors, to develop regional guidelines for provision of relief and to ensure that those who delivered relief aid at the national level were properly trained.
The second part of the session took a broader look at the role of legislation in disaster-risk management at the domestic level, with a special focus on disaster-risk reduction. Panellists highlighted the
international commitments taken under the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015, and that further to it many States had been adapting their legal frameworks to place a greater emphasis on the prevention of disasters. Reviews of progress on the Hyogo Framework for Action in 2011 had found that most disaster management laws remained primarily focused on response and little clarity was available on the extent to which risk reduction and climate change adaptation principles had been mainstreamed into the various areas governed by law. Resulting problems included lack of funding for key programmes, absence of clear lines of accountability, failure to fully engage and inform communities, civil society and the private sector, and major implementation gaps with regard to key rules, such as those related to land use and construction. Participants highlighted the importance of prevention and building national resilience and of investing in compliance with norms that reduced risk and increase resilience.
Hazards were natural but disasters were not and members of parliament could help to curb both the incidence and impact of the latter.
5. Meeting of parliamentary whips
For the second time, a meeting that brought together parliamentary whips and political party coordinators from several countries took place at the initiative of Mr. J. Fitzgibbon (Australia) on 24 March 2013. In the absence of Mr. Fitzgibbon, the meeting was chaired by Mr. P. Secker (Australia). Delegates from the following countries attended: Afghanistan, Australia, Bangladesh, Bahrain, Canada, Chad, Chile, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Lesotho, Namibia, New Zealand, South Africa, Trinidad and Tobago and Uganda.
The group discussed the establishment of a network of parliamentary whips as a pilot programme for a period of 18 months. Its aim would be to enhance professional development, encourage information sharing, promote the work and objectives of the IPU and foster inter-parliamentary cooperation.
The name of the network was discussed and, although no consensus was reached, it was decided that a different name would attract a wider audience and the issue should be debated further.
The meeting agreed to adopt the provisional title:
IPU Parliamentary Coordinators’ Network. Those present agreed that it should be hosted under the auspices of the IPU and proposed to explore whether the new IPU website could host the network’s website. A proposal was made to organize a workshop for parliamentary whips and party coordinators.
6. Panel discussion on The legalization of drugs:
Can it help curb organized crime?
A panel discussion on The legalization of drugs: Can it help curb organized crime? took place on 25 March 2013. Its main objective was to address the successes and challenges of current drug policies and reflect on positioning parliamentarians as critical leaders in taking the debate forward. With Lord Dholakia (United Kingdom) as discussion moderator, the panel included Ms. F.Z. Nadiri (Afghanistan), Ms. M. Obradović (Serbia), Mr. E. de la Reguera, journalist and author of Cocaine, and Mr. J. Calzada, Secretary General of the National Drugs Board of Uruguay.
Drug policies around the world had been driven by three UN instruments agreed in 1961, 1971 and 1988 that had contributed to the establishment of legal systems based on prohibition at the levels of drug production, trafficking and consumption. The presentations and ensuing discussions indicated that those policies had yielded mixed results. Most participants felt that the time had come to revisit those instruments and potentially seek other ways of addressing the drug problem. Political support for the debate had been growing at the highest levels, such that drug issues were no longer a taboo. The organization of the panel and the high level of participation by parliamentarians were seen as further evidence of that trend.
A very rich and lively debate took place on how to deal with drug issues and the effective approaches to doing so. While some countries strongly believed that current policies yielded results, others recommended that new approaches should be discussed and developed. All participants warned, however, that issues relating to drugs were complex and that it would be dangerous to look for over-simplistic solutions. It was recognized that the criminalization of drug use and production might not be the sole answer to the problem, but most participants cautioned against outright legalization.
State regulation of the drug market and some forms of decriminalization of drugs were seen by some as possible in-between solutions.
Participants agreed that the fight against drugs called for an examination of the underlying causes of drug production and consumption. Poverty and inequalities were identified as key issues, highlighting the fact that drugs were not only a security but also a development issue. Several participants stressed that drugs and the root causes of their consumption created fertile ground for corruption, which in turn gave rise to weak and fragile institutions. Participants warned that the
strength of State institutions had to be taken into account when discussing responses to drugs. They agreed that one way of fighting corruption was by strengthening the institutions of accountability, including parliament.
It was agreed that the problems of drugs transcended the borders of individual States and that any new solutions to fight them had to be found at the global and regional levels. Equally important, producer and consumer countries needed to work together and exchange information.
Within national borders the debate on drugs had to take place at all levels of society, and evidence on the impact and magnitude of the drug problem had to be collected before potential new policies were developed. Both public health and security concerns needed to be taken into account.
Parliamentarians were seen as key actors in fostering the debate on drug issues, involving civil society and other actors. They should seek information about the impact of drugs on their constituencies and lead public opinion. Eventually, parliaments would need to be equipped to translate evidence into legislation. The response of parliament to the issue of drugs should be cross-party and in close collaboration with the executive. It was agreed that the IPU had an important role to play in taking the debate further.
7. Open session of the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians on Promoting greater parliamentary solidarity with MPs under threat
The Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians held its first ever open session on 25 March 2013. It was attended by over 60parliamentarians, including 24 women, representing the parliaments of the following 30 countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Australia, Bahrain, Belgium, Bolivia, Burundi, Chad, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, France, Gabon, Germany, Ghana, Finland, Mali, Netherlands, Palestine, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Turkey, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania and Zimbabwe, along with one Associate Member, the East African Legislative Assembly, and one observer, the Global Organization of Parliamentarians against Corruption (GOPAC).
The open session was chaired by Ms. M. Kiener Nellen, a member of the Swiss National Council, and attended by the following members of the
Inter-Parliamentary Union – Other events
Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians: Mr. B. Mbuku-Laka (Democratic Republic of the Congo), Ms. I. Stoejberg (Denmark), Mr. K. Jalali (Islamic Republic of Iran) and Mr. U Nilsson (Sweden).
The purpose of the session was to highlight the need to protect parliamentarians in the discharge of their duties and examine how parliamentarians could come to the aid of their colleagues. The subject had long preoccupied the IPU, leading in 1976 to the setting up of the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians. The Committee sought to protect members of parliament and offer them redress whenever they were subject to abuse, as in the case of politically motivated legal proceedings, arbitrary detention, enforced disappearance, torture and murder. The Committee’s work was underpinned by the notion of parliamentary solidarity.
After a brief presentation of the role and functioning of the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians by Ms. Kiener Nellen, two panellists were invited to share the experience of their respective parliaments in protecting MPs.
Ms. P. Ernstberger, a member of the Bundestag, informed participants of the existence of a committee on human rights and humanitarian aid in the Bundestag. It had run the “Parliamentarians Protect Parliamentarians” campaign since 2003, when it had been launched in accordance with the basic principle that parliamentarians who could exercise their mandate in safety should help their fellow parliamentarians at risk in other countries.
The committee had members from all elected parliamentary groups and had established a network of international contacts. It enjoyed the support of working groups on human rights and humanitarian aid in various parliamentary groups, the German delegation to the IPU and the German delegations to the parliamentary assemblies of the Council of Europe and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, along with major international human rights non-governmental organizations, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
All members of the Bundestag were invited to participate in the campaign.
Describing the experience of the National Assembly of Burundi, Mr. F. Kabura, Second Vice-President of the National Assembly, said that a parliamentary commission on the human rights of parliamentarians had been established in his country in 2006. It was composed of five parliamentarians representing all parliamentary groups in the National Assembly and set out to address the situation of Burundian MPs who had suffered violations of their rights, in
particular during the decade-long political crisis the country had undergone. It monitored ongoing investigations and judicial proceedings, conducted its own fact-finding missions, visited parliamentarians in detention and followed up the cases before it with all competent authorities. It reported to the Speaker of the National Assembly and sent a representative to each IPU Assembly in order to report to the IPU Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians.
In the ensuing debate participants made the following comments and suggestions:
· Parliamentarians who can exercise their mandate in safety should help those who cannot (German model);
· Parliaments whose own MPs have suffered violations of their rights should consider setting up a parliamentary committee to address their situation and facilitate the settlement of such cases (Burundi model);
· Setting up national parliamentary human rights committees is critical as it helps to reinforce cooperation with the IPU and its Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians;
· Human rights concerns should be dealt with in a non-partisan manner as the integrity of each MP must be preserved irrespective of their political affiliation;
· MPs at risk can be helped in different ways but, beyond the expression of inter-parliamentary solidarity, MPs should focus on showing physical solidarity by carrying out missions to assess the situation for themselves, establishing personal contacts and endeavouring to visit detained MPs;
· Parliaments should ensure that members who are aware of human rights cases, or are victims of human rights violations themselves, are included in their delegations to IPU Assemblies;
· The work of the IPU Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians should be more visible and promoted through further open sessions and via the media; the possibility of using the International Day of Democracy (15 September) to promote its work, or of creating a special day, was mentioned by some participants;
· Cooperation between the IPU Committee on Middle East Questions and the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians could be strengthened;
· IPU Member Parliaments have a responsibility in promoting membership of the Committee that is based on human rights records. While some
suggested that the overall human rights record of States should be a membership criterion, others expressed strong opposition to the suggestion on the grounds that membership should primarily be based on the more objective criterion of individual competence.
8. Panel discussion on the theme Addressing the rights of children with disabilities
The panel discussion on the theme Addressing the rights of children with disabilities provided about 100 parliamentarians with the opportunity to examine how best to address the issue in their parliamentary work. Indeed, the rights of persons with disabilities were often infringed; that was especially true for children, who were stigmatized and made to suffer discrimination and denial.
Moderated by United Nations and civil society experts, the panel resulted in a lively discussion during which the participants exchanged data and experiences of current best practices in various countries.
According to the participants, disability was more of a reality than a perception. The world of disability was porous and open. Anyone could have a disability. That did not mean that disability should give rise to discrimination or that the disabled should be “catalogued” in any way. Persons with disabilities had rights, first and foremost among them the right to life and to be considered as human beings.
The participants firmly recommended that arrangements for children with disabilities be given
The participants firmly recommended that arrangements for children with disabilities be given