Latest news with #U.N.HumanRightsCouncil
Express Tribune
3 days ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Israel waging 'campaign to obliterate Palestinian life in Gaza': UN expert
Listen to article UN experts said in a report on Tuesday that Israel committed the crime against humanity of "extermination" by killing civilians sheltering in schools and religious sites in Gaza, part of a "concerted campaign to obliterate Palestinian life." The United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel was due to present the report to Geneva-based U.N. Human Rights Council on June 17. "We are seeing more and more indications that Israel is carrying out a concerted campaign to obliterate Palestinian life in Gaza," former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, who chairs the commission, said in a statement. "Israel's targeting of the educational, cultural and religious life of the Palestinian people will harm the present generations and generations to come, hindering their right to self-determination," she added. The commission examined attacks on educational facilities and religious and cultural sites to assess if international law was breached. Israel disengaged from the Human Rights Council in February, alleging it was biased. When the commission's last report in March found Israel carried out "genocidal acts" against Palestinians by systematically destroying women's healthcare facilities during the conflict in Gaza, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the findings were biased and antisemitic. In its latest report, the commission said Israel had destroyed more than 90% of the school and university buildings and more than half of all religious and cultural sites in Gaza. "Israeli forces committed war crimes, including directing attacks against civilians and wilful killing, in their attacks on educational facilities ... In killing civilians sheltering in schools and religious sites, Israeli security forces committed the crime against humanity of extermination," it said. The war was triggered when Hamas-led militants killed 1,200 people in Israel in a surprise attack in October 2023, and took 251 hostages back to the enclave, according to Israeli tallies. Israel responded with a military campaign that has killed over 54,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza health authorities. Harm done to the Palestinian education system was not confined to Gaza, the report found, citing increased Israeli military operations in the West Bank and East Jerusalem as well as harassment of students and settler attacks there. "Israeli authorities have also targeted Israeli and Palestinian educational personnel and students inside Israel who expressed concern or solidarity with the civilian population in Gaza, resulting in their harassment, dismissal or suspension and in some cases humiliating arrests and detention," it said. "Israeli authorities have particularly targeted female educators and students, intending to deter women and girls from activism in public places," the commission added
Yahoo
20-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump's ‘America first' reveals a massive misunderstanding of international law
In February, President Trump issued an executive order pulling the United States out of the U.N. Human Rights Council. Less widely noted were other provisions in the order mandating a review of 'all conventions and treaties to which the United States is a party' in order to determine which 'are contrary to the interests of the United States.' Some might see the review launched by the order as consistent with Trump's promise, during his inaugural address, that 'our sovereignty will be reclaimed.' Hopefully, those carrying out this review for Secretary of State Marco Rubio understand that upholding America's international law commitments serves to advance, not hinder, our national interests. They should recognize that Trump's apparent belief that international law constitutes an infringement on American sovereignty reflects a basic misperception of how international law works. International law operates very differently from the domestic legal systems we know from our day-to-day experience. For one, there is no global legislature empowered to enact laws that regulate the behavior of countries. The essence of sovereignty — the idea that countries have freedom to enact such laws and policies within their territories as they wish — is not incompatible with international law but is rather a central feature of it. Countries can, of course, decide to assume obligations under international law, including limitations on their freedom of action. The key point, though, is that this is a matter of each country's sovereign choice. They exercise this choice by entering into treaties, essentially contracts between countries, or acting in a manner that reflects their own judgment that certain actions are legally required. In short, international law is consent-based, and countries are for the most part bound only by those rules that they have accepted. Why would a country agree to accept a legal rule that restricts its freedom to act? They do so to advance their interests, which requires cooperation. Even though the world would be better off if, for instance, countries were not allowed to engage in aggression by invading their neighbors, there is no world legislature empowered to enact a ban on aggression. Nor is there a global legislature, similarly, that can enact rules that would ensure countries' diplomats are not at risk of being arrested where they are posted, or the protection of investments of a countries' companies doing business abroad. In the absence of a global government, states agree on reciprocal limits on their actions (such as forgoing the freedom to invade their neighbors, to arrest foreign diplomats, or to expropriate foreign-owned property without just compensation) in order to achieve benefits for themselves and for the global order. International law is simply an instrument that allows countries to agree on rules that will enhance international coordination and cooperation — rules that will in turn increase global security and prosperity. Whether to assume an obligation under international law is a choice each country makes based on a determination of whether that obligation, if accepted by other countries, will enhance its self-interest. For example, when the U.S. decided to become a party to the Chemical Weapons Convention, it concluded that creating a nearly global ban on chemical weapons offered political and strategic advantages that outweighed surrendering the right of the U.S. to possess or use such weapons. In contrast, the U.S. has not decided that the advantages of outlawing the possession or use of nuclear weapons outweighs its interest in retaining such weapons, and it has accordingly not become a party to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The notion of accepting certain limits on freedom of action in exchange for countervailing benefits is an idea that should be familiar to us from our own daily lives. When I enter into an employment contract, for example, I surrender some degree of freedom of action. Going to work and performing my job duties means I will no longer have unfettered freedom to spend my time doing whatever I want, wherever I want. And yet few of us would view entering into an employment contract — which we do in order to earn a salary and secure the other benefits of the employment relationship — as an infringement on our liberty, which is the equivalent for individuals of sovereignty for states. Rather, assuming such legal obligations is a way in which we exercise our liberty. Similarly, given the consent-based nature of international law, a country's decision to become party to a treaty, even one that imposes some limitations on its freedom of action, is not a restriction on sovereignty. Instead, it is an exercise of its sovereignty, one that allows a country to gain the benefits of international cooperation, including greater security and prosperity. Rather than infringing America's national interest, international law is a tool to advance it. Allen S. Weiner is senior lecturer in law at Stanford Law School. He served as a career international lawyer in the State Department from 1990 to 2001. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
20-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Trump's ‘America first' reveals a massive misunderstanding of international law
In February, President Trump issued an executive order pulling the United States out of the U.N. Human Rights Council. Less widely noted were other provisions in the order mandating a review of 'all conventions and treaties to which the United States is a party' in order to determine which 'are contrary to the interests of the United States.' Some might see the review launched by the order as consistent with Trump's promise, during his inaugural address, that 'our sovereignty will be reclaimed.' Hopefully, those carrying out this review for Secretary of State Marco Rubio understand that upholding America's international law commitments serves to advance, not hinder, our national interests. They should recognize that Trump's apparent belief that international law constitutes an infringement on American sovereignty reflects a basic misperception of how international law works. International law operates very differently from the domestic legal systems we know from our day-to-day experience. For one, there is no global legislature empowered to enact laws that regulate the behavior of countries. The essence of sovereignty — the idea that countries have freedom to enact such laws and policies within their territories as they wish — is not incompatible with international law but is rather a central feature of it. Countries can, of course, decide to assume obligations under international law, including limitations on their freedom of action. The key point, though, is that this is a matter of each country's sovereign choice. They exercise this choice by entering into treaties, essentially contracts between countries, or acting in a manner that reflects their own judgment that certain actions are legally required. In short, international law is consent-based, and countries are for the most part bound only by those rules that they have accepted. Why would a country agree to accept a legal rule that restricts its freedom to act? They do so to advance their interests, which requires cooperation. Even though the world would be better off if, for instance, countries were not allowed to engage in aggression by invading their neighbors, there is no world legislature empowered to enact a ban on aggression. Nor is there a global legislature, similarly, that can enact rules that would ensure countries' diplomats are not at risk of being arrested where they are posted, or the protection of investments of a countries' companies doing business abroad. In the absence of a global government, states agree on reciprocal limits on their actions (such as forgoing the freedom to invade their neighbors, to arrest foreign diplomats, or to expropriate foreign-owned property without just compensation) in order to achieve benefits for themselves and for the global order. International law is simply an instrument that allows countries to agree on rules that will enhance international coordination and cooperation — rules that will in turn increase global security and prosperity. Whether to assume an obligation under international law is a choice each country makes based on a determination of whether that obligation, if accepted by other countries, will enhance its self-interest. For example, when the U.S. decided to become a party to the Chemical Weapons Convention, it concluded that creating a nearly global ban on chemical weapons offered political and strategic advantages that outweighed surrendering the right of the U.S. to possess or use such weapons. In contrast, the U.S. has not decided that the advantages of outlawing the possession or use of nuclear weapons outweighs its interest in retaining such weapons, and it has accordingly not become a party to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The notion of accepting certain limits on freedom of action in exchange for countervailing benefits is an idea that should be familiar to us from our own daily lives. When I enter into an employment contract, for example, I surrender some degree of freedom of action. Going to work and performing my job duties means I will no longer have unfettered freedom to spend my time doing whatever I want, wherever I want. And yet few of us would view entering into an employment contract — which we do in order to earn a salary and secure the other benefits of the employment relationship — as an infringement on our liberty, which is the equivalent for individuals of sovereignty for states. Rather, assuming such legal obligations is a way in which we exercise our liberty. Similarly, given the consent-based nature of international law, a country's decision to become party to a treaty, even one that imposes some limitations on its freedom of action, is not a restriction on sovereignty. Instead, it is an exercise of its sovereignty, one that allows a country to gain the benefits of international cooperation, including greater security and prosperity. Rather than infringing America's national interest, international law is a tool to advance it.
New York Times
12-04-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
It's a Mistake to Leave Human Rights Out of Iran Talks
When the Islamic Republic of Iran marked its 46th anniversary in February, protests erupted in the remote southwestern city of Dehdasht. Iranians chanted anti-regime slogans and held signs reading, 'From Dehdasht to Tehran, unity, unity.' The demonstrations were part of a national movement that has been simmering since 2022, after the killing of a 22-year-old Kurdish Iranian woman, Mahsa Amini, prompted tens of thousands of Iranians to take to the streets to seek justice and demand freedom. The Women, Life, Freedom uprising has continued through rooftop chants, daily defiance of the regime's hijab law and sporadic, smaller protests across the country. President Trump should not forget the Iranian people's resolve when his Middle East special envoy, Steve Witkoff, sits down for talks with Iran's foreign minister over its nuclear program on Saturday in Oman. The Trump administration has reinstated a maximum pressure policy designed to stop Tehran from developing a nuclear weapon and counter its influence abroad. But so far, the administration has conspicuously omitted a critical issue for Iranians: human rights. It's a stark departure from Trump's first-term agenda, which condemned violations in Iran and framed human rights as a fundamental component of its foreign policy vision. More important, it's a grave miscalculation. Decades of U.S. precedent show that upholding human rights has been integral to helping keep America secure. The Carter and Reagan administrations, in particular, used human rights diplomacy as a critical tool to negotiate with the Soviet Union, using public and private pressure to secure arms control agreements, advocating for oppressed populations behind the Iron Curtain and bringing to a close one of the most dangerous eras of the 20th century. Mr. Trump still has an opportunity — arguably, an obligation — to push for human rights as a central element of talks with Tehran. Doing so would place him on the right side of history, bolster U.S. credibility among many Iranians and strengthen his negotiating position. Without it, many Iranians who oppose the Islamic republic will see any potential agreement as merely throwing a lifeline to an increasingly unpopular regime. Uprisings are bound to persist amid heavy repression. Without accountability, justice and improvement in the human-rights situation, these waves will almost certainly cause instability in Iran and the region. Protests that erupted in December 2017 — at the time, the most widespread geographically since the 1979 revolution — sparked waves of uprisings against the regime's mismanagement, corruption and repression. According to the U.N. Human Rights Council's Fact-Finding Mission on Iran, human-rights violations during the 2022 uprising amounted to crimes against humanity: Security forces killed at least 551 protesters and bystanders, including 68 children, and arrested as many as 60,000. Since then, the clerical establishment has continued to discriminate against women and girls, in what Iranian activists and human-rights defenders — including the Nobel Peace Prize laureate Narges Mohammadi, who is on furlough from a more than 13-year prison sentence — call gender apartheid. A draconian hijab and chastity bill passed in December imposes still harsher restrictions on women; penalties now include death. While the law has been paused, parts are being enforced. The Islamic republic also continues its longstanding use of executions to instill fear, particularly among minority groups such as the Kurds and Baluchis, as exemplified by the risk of execution of Pakhshan Azizi, Sharifeh Mohammadi and Verisheh Moradi. At least 901 people were executed last year — the most in a decade in Iran and the most per capita globally. In an environment where authorities act with impunity, families of the victims of protest crackdowns, prisoners and dissidents don't have the right to seek justice. If they demand it, they face reprisals through state harassment and prison sentences, such as with Manouchehr Bakhtiari and Nahid Shirbisheh, the parents of the slain protester Pouya Bakhtiari. Nearly every American president in the past half-century has recognized that human rights and national security are inextricable — even if merely through statements. The Carter administration attempted to center human rights in its foreign policy, ultimately with uneven application and mixed results, including in Iran. The Reagan administration advocated an aggressive policy grounded in military and moral strength against the Soviet Union, with human rights forming the heart of that moral stance. The Reagan administration continued Carter-era support of Poland's anti-Communist Solidarity movement, which emerged in 1980, and monitored Soviet compliance with human-rights provisions of international agreements, including the 1975 Helsinki Final Act. Unlike Jimmy Carter, who saw human rights as a goal in its own right, Ronald Reagan took a conservative approach, wielding human rights as a Cold War weapon against Communism. As a result, while the administration attacked Communist governments' human-rights records, it supported anti-Communist authoritarian regimes that violated human rights in regions like Latin America. Mr. Reagan also embraced a more narrow definition of human rights, focusing primarily on religious freedom and civil and political rights violated by the U.S.S.R. Still, his efforts increased global pressure on the Soviet Union and emboldened dissidents in the Eastern bloc. Although U.S. support for authoritarian governments elsewhere was highly problematic, the Reagan administration's human-rights diplomacy proved successful in the Eastern bloc. When Mikhail Gorbachev took power in 1985, he and his advisers recognized that improving their human-rights record was necessary for advancing negotiations with the United States and the West. Mr. Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev went on to hold talks on nuclear weapons limitations that culminated in the signing of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty — a diplomatic win for Mr. Reagan. Just two years later, the Solidarity movement toppled Poland's Communist government, triggering a wave of mostly peaceful revolutions across Eastern Europe that rolled back Communism and contributed to the Soviet Union's collapse in 1991. Though the end of the Cold War had multiple causes, U.S. pressure on human rights was indisputably a critical factor. Of course, Iran and Soviet Union differ ideologically and in the types and scale of their human-rights violations, especially regarding the oppression of women. But Cold War policy precedent nevertheless offers useful lessons for the Trump administration. U.S. negotiators have a range of issues they can use as leverage, as outlined by the recommendations in the March 2025 report of the special rapporteur on human rights in Iran, such as demanding the release of political prisoners, ending abusive and punitive hijab-related practices and imposing a death penalty moratorium. Human rights, of course, are not simply bargaining chips. They are the bedrock of any meaningful and lasting diplomatic effort. When the United States firmly stands with the Iranian people in their pursuit of accountability and positive change, it builds good will and credibility — not only among Iranians but also among America's allies in the region, which have common concerns over security and stability. As the first Trump administration itself acknowledged, 'Respect for human rights and democracy also produces peace, stability and prosperity — making it an integral component of U.S. national security.' In the negotiations, the Trump administration must demonstrate it stands with the Iranian people by addressing Iran's atrocious human-rights abuses. Failing to do so risks alienating Iranians and — when they ultimately prevail in their decades-long struggle against the Islamic republic — being remembered in history as the administration that abandoned them.
Nahar Net
20-03-2025
- Politics
- Nahar Net
Iran summons German, British envoys over calls to extend 2022 protest probe
by Naharnet Newsdesk 20 March 2025, 16:35 Iran's foreign ministry has summoned the British and German envoys over their calls to extend the mandate of a U.N. fact-finding mission investigating mass protests in 2022, local media reported Thursday. The fact-finding mission was formed in November 2022 after nationwide protests in Iran following the death in custody of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini, who had been arrested for allegedly violating the country's dress code for women. Her death triggered months of demonstrations, with hundreds of people, including dozens of security personnel, killed in the unrest and thousands of protesters arrested. In a Tuesday statement, Britain said the "human rights situation in Iran remains appalling" and called on the U.N. Human Rights Council to let the fact-finding mission continue its investigations. Local media in Iran reported that the foreign ministry had summoned the British charge d'affaires and Germany's ambassador over what it called their "anti-Iranian approaches". It also slammed the "submission of a draft resolution by these two countries to extend the mandate of the so-called fact-finding mission", according to the Tasnim news agency. On Tuesday, Iran's ambassador and permanent representative to the UN office in Geneva, Ali Bahreini, slammed Britain and Germany's "hypocritical behavior." He further criticized the fact-finding mission, saying its reports on Iran were "a compilation of lies and false accusations."
