A valedictory lecture is intended to be a farewell to a particular phase of one’s life. Today I bring to an end the chapter of my life at Leiden. There have been two major chapters in my life: one long and the other relatively short. The fi rst chapter, which lasted for sixty years, was my life in SouthAfrica. This chapter was about growing up in a strange society; about trying to promote humanrights in a racist and oppressive society; and about participating in the changes that took place in the 1990’s. This is a chapter that I aim to write about when I retire from a more active life! The second chapter, about which I shall speak today, started in 1998 when I was appointed Professor of InternationalLaw at the University of Leiden. It is a rich chapter, both in terms of changes to my personal life and in terms of professional experience. Professionally, my Leiden chapter has been dominated by three things. First, my work at the university - particularly teaching in its challenging advanced LLM program; secondly, my work at the InternationalLaw Commission, where I served as Special Rapporteur on Diplomatic Protection from 1999 to 2006; and, thirdly, my experience as Special Rapporteur to the Commission on HumanRights (and later the HumanRights Council) on humanrights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
rape. While headway is finally being made in the international community for LGBTI rights, there is no reason for SouthAfrica to wait idly for more action on the international level. In fact, quite the opposite is true. SouthAfrica has had a systemic problem with homophobic violence for a considerable period of time. It is the responsibility of the state and the government to address it. Soft law in the internationalhumanrights framework is only recognition that there is a grave problem that needs to be addressed. It is not intended to be the answer to the problem. Rather, the internationalhumanrights framework is intended to raise awareness of the problem and pressure states to act. SouthAfrica should lead the way in acknowledging the problem it faces and implementing vigorous reform in order to bring it to an end.
Inter-American Court of HumanRights Inter-American Commission on HumanRights European Court of HumanRights African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights CEJIL Constitutional Court of SouthAfrica Amnesty International ICRC African Union International Criminal Court Brazilian National Truth Commission Office of the High Commissioner for HumanRightsHumanRights Watch
Administrative barriers to market entry were reduced in 2006. The average time needed for business registration went down significantly from 30 days to 8. Other administrative formalities have been simplified and the Commercial Register decentralised. These measures were introduced on the basis of the new Action Plan for the Removal of Administrative Barriers, adopted by the Council of Ministers in March 2006. However, several major challenges still remain, especially the relatively high cost of starting and closing a business, the limitations of cadastral records and the size and scope of the informal economy 4 . The business climate has continued to suffer from a weak legal environment such as a lack of clearly defined property rights, from poor infrastructure, unreliable power supply and wide- spread corruption. The government appeared committed to addressing the latter. Overall, certain progress has been achieved in improving the business environment, however, despite determined government action, much still needs to be done in terms of combating corruption. Adequate legal system
How can international and national copyright law be changed to conform not just with the technology that is with us now, but with the amazing pace of technological expansion that is happening so fast that we cannot even imagine where we will be in a couple of decades? The slow-moving pace of legislative change, bureaucratic decisions and judicial opinion-writing makes it difficult, if not impossible, to cope with the current pace of technological innovation in informatics. And if this is true of municipal law, how much more true in the case of internationallaw, where the economic, social, cultural and other diversities are such that consensus (with all its subtle nuances) can only be achieved through intensely time-consuming negotiations, trade-offs against competing interests and overcoming hurdles presented by countless obstacles?
Conscious of their duty to achieve the total liberation of Africa, the peoples of which are still struggling for their dignity and genuine independence, and undertaking to eliminate colonialism, neo-colonialism, apartheid, zionism and to dismantle aggressive foreign military bases and all forms of discrimination, particularly those based on race, ethnic group, color, sex. language, religion or political opinions;
As an ethical human being, I find surrogacy inexcusable, and a humanrights violation. As a radical feminist, I can understand the horrors of surrogacy in its exploitation of women’s bodies and desires. As a mother, I can only say Oh my Goddess! There are no words for this horror. Yet Renate Klein has untangled the webs of deceit and opened pathways for all voices from every corner to stand to- gether to ban surrogacy worldwide.
I then asked if he knew how many buses or airplanes arrive in El Salvador on a daily basis? He said “about 3 airplanes with adults from the United States and various buses per day from Mexico, I’d say about 10 buses per week full of migrants, both adults and children. Children under the age of 11 are repatriated via airplanes and Mexican officials are with them just like in the United States. Children from 12 years of age and over are sent via buses from Mexico.” How are children greeted once they arrive in El Salvador? “Children are greeted and welcomed by governmental institution with a meal, water, and psychological assistance.” I asked if the government offered some type of social and/or financial assistance to children for their development such as a scholarship. “No, the institutions do not have the resources to offer any of these services.” How do the authorities ensure the child gets home safe? “In the temporary passport file, the parent(s) indicate who is to pick up the child from the Salvadoran authorities once they have been repatriated. They must provide two names and two to three phone numbers where these individuals can be contacted to pick up the child.”
The Islamic thinkers Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn al-Qayyim and Ibn Kathir, and other scholars were of the opinion, and thought probable that the children of polytheists will be judged on doomsday, and if they are believers then they will enter heaven, and if they are unbelievers they will enter hell. Someone could hesitate in leaning towards this point of view, and the reasons for this hesitation include that the judgement hadith is not a single, reliable one, but rather in truth a collection of ways that can be described as: they are good and they support each other, and the judgement hadith was narrated by the Imam Ahmed, Abu Ya’ala and others in different ways and expressions, however they closely resemble each other: that the Day of Judgement will come, and along with it those who need holy God, in some accounts a deaf person, a mute man, a fool, a man who died before hearing about Islam and in other accounts a small boy, a crazy person in place of the fool, or a lunatic, and in the third account a man who died before hearing about Islam and in the fourth an old man.Those will come and the small child will say:“Oh Lord I am only young and I did not hear what the Prophet (peace be upon him) said.” The old man will say: “Oh Lord, when the Prophet (peace be upon him) was sent I did not understand what he said.” The crazy person, or the lunatic, will say: “Oh Lord, when the Prophet (peace be upon him) was sent, the children were throwing stones at me and I did not understand anything.” The deaf and the mute will say similarly. 98
critiqued the artiste visa scheme for not offering ‘practical and effective protection ’ against trafficking and exploitation. 130 It also reproached the Cypriot authorities for failing to take measures to protect Oxana Rantseva despite ‘a credible suspicion’ that she might have been trafficked or exploited. 131 The Court’s Article 4 ECHR reasoning turns full attention to the role of formal borders in encouraging abusive employment relationships for female migrant artistes. The Court finds unacceptable measures encouraging cabaret owners ‘ to track down missing artistes or in some other way to take personal responsibility for the conduct of artiste s’ . 132 Moreover, it considers that one of the main police failures was asking the employer to collect Oxana Rantseva instead of releasing her. 133 In interrogating formal borders, this kind of reasoning thus spotlights one of the mechanisms encouraging trafficking and exploitation in Cyprus: strong dependency of artistes on their employers. 134 The reasoning illuminates how formal borders may structure migrant women’s employment relations unequally and precariously. 135
Additionally, under internationalhumanrightslaw, states are not permit- ted to transfer individuals to countries where there is a real risk of torture or ill treatment. Article 3 of the UNCAT prohibits states from expelling, returning or extraditing individuals to another state where there are sub- stantial grounds for believing that there is a danger of being subjected to torture. Both the European Convention on HumanRights and the Inter- national Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) also prohibit such transfer. However, the rate at which states violate this law is as though this rule never existed. For instance, in Khaled El-Masri v. United States, the circumstances under which he was rendered to the CIA was enough of a signal to the respondent state that he would be tortured. The facts of that case also revealed an uncertainty as to whether the required diplomatic assurance was ever obtained by the respondent state from the CIA. 124 Also, in Ahmed Agiza v. Sweden, 125 the UN Committee on Tor-
A Brief Guide to International BY SUSAN BAZlLLl Cet article a it6 h i t en vue de servir de p i d e de prhentation aux dPfenseurs &S droits humains internationaux a j n de leur permettre k d h l o p p[.]
The proliferation of international legal instruments has led to a double phenomenon. On the one hand, it is the result of a desire to adopt humanrights treaties for particular marginalised groups. While new treaties were being negotiated, special attention was given to particular sub- groups already recognised in earlier treaties. For example, gender discrimination was specially addressed in the drafting of new humanrights treaties, such as the CRPD. By contrast, the issue of disability was given no consideration in the humanrights treaties prior to the adoption of the CRC. Interestingly, race and ethnic origin which were given special treatment in a humanrights treaty remained unaddressed in later international legal instruments. On the other hand, the more humanrights treaties deal with groups sharing a number of characteristics associated with distinct groups of marginalised people, the more these groups will be able to benefit from humanrights protection. The greater the attention paid to them in these treaties, the less likely they are to continue to fall through the net. Those left out will generally fail to draw much attention to themselves, with the result that they will be less able to mobilise international support. As far as the CRPD is concerned, disabled women and children have already been the subject of much discussion at UN level since the adoption of the Convention, 35 whereas other
Development Grand Challenges Initiative Grant 2008 Grant that allowed me to explore issues of culture, land use, and property law in relation to the Ga tribal group, mapping out flows and disjunctures of “traditional” and “modern” land regimes in Ghana.
Jealous of our hard-won independence and resolved to preserve same; convinced that the salvation of Africa lies in forging ever-growing bonds of solidarity among African Peoples, affirm our desire to contribute to the advent of a united and free Africa, while maintaining peaceful and brotherly relations with the other nations of the World, in accordance with the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations;
the United States’ own territory. It has been discussed that both arguments do not withstand scrutiny. There is settled jurisprudence of the ICJ in Nuclear Weapons, The Wall, and Armed Activities, that the prohibition against arbitrary deprivation of life contained within Article 6 of the ICCPR and forming part of customary internationallaw continues to apply during a situation of armed conflict, alongside the lex specialis of international humanitarian law, and that the test of whether a deprivation of life is arbitrary must be determined by reference to the applicable rules of international humanitarian law. 7 Further, it is now almost universally accepted that a state’s obligations under internationalhumanrightslaw apply extraterritorially, and thus the US finds scant support for its assertion to the contrary, sitting as it does at odds with state practice and opinio juris. Outside situations of armed conflict, the use of lethal force is lawful under internationalhumanrightslaw only in those circumstances where it is strictly necessary and proportionate, if it is aimed at preventing an immediate threat to life, and if there is no other means of preventing the threat from materialising. As UN Special Rapporteur Ben Emmerson QC rightly submits, only in the most exceptional of circumstances would it be permissible under internationalhumanrightslaw for killing to be the sole or primary purpose of an operation. 8 As the principal purpose of a drone strike is the employment of lethal force to kill a targeted individual(s), it follows that drone strikes will rarely comply with established
Notwithstanding the impact of a health condition, and even in a world that is not designed to facilitate well being, let alone full participation, of people with disabilities, in contract the empirical evidence and testimony shows that for many people with disabilities life is surprisingly good. 37 Gary Albrecht and Patrick Devlieger (1999) marshal the evidence that reveals that people with disabilities consistently report a quality of life as good as, or sometimes even better than that of nondisabled people. 38 What reasons can be found to explain the life of disability is good? Some cast doubt on the \reports of good quality of life, in terms of the “happy salve” idea: people think they are happy because they do not know any better. Psychological research has supported disabled people’s self reports of good quality of of life, rejecting the scepticism of. The use of objective standard of Quality of Life assessment is problematic, not because there are no such standards, but because from a first person perspective their application may appear arbitrary. On any account of standards like social indicators or normal functioning life will fail to qualify as good. Some people are content with their quality of life, even when others thin they shouldn’t be. The main concern regarding the various domains of Quality of Life, then , is to ask how people can be supported in developing their gifts and talents and how their own capabilities can be put to work for them in this respect. A capabilities approach to quality of life