February 3rd, 2010 at 01:58pm
Justice Albie Sachs, who served on the Constitutional Court of South Africa until October 2009 and author of the recently published book The Strange Alchemy of Life and Law, will speak at Harvard Law School on February 5 at 3:00 pm in Austin North.
The program is sponsored by the Harvard Law School Office of the Dean, International Legal Studies Program, and Office of Public Interest Advising.
For more information, please click here.
Permalink
February 2nd, 2010 at 11:11am
Speaking at a press conference in Strasbourg, Jean-Paul Costa, President of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), expressed three reasons for optimism about reform measures for the Court in 2010.
Firstly, the Treaty of Lisbon opens the way for the European Union’s participation in the European Convention on Human Rights, strengthening the role of human rights in Europe. Dedicated “to enhancing the efficiency and democratic legitimacy of the Union and to improving the coherence of its action,” the treaty was written in 2007. It entered into force in December 2009, a month after it was ratified by the last remaining member of the European Union, the Czech Republic. The treaty amends the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community into a constitutional-type document intended to strengthen and guide the European Union.
Secondly, in January Russia ratified Protocol 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, which is designed to overhaul the procedures of the ECHR. Russia was the last of the forty-seven members of the Council of Europe to ratify the Protocol, which has been on the table since 2006.
Finally, in February 2010 a conference on the future of the ECHR will be held in Interlaken, Switzerland. The conference will draw together member states to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the ECHR and to reaffirm their commitment to the protection of human rights in Europe, while outlining a roadmap for the Court’s future development. Currently, more than 100,000 cases are pending before the Court.
For further information, please click here, here, and here.
Permalink
January 31st, 2010 at 04:16pm
On January 1st 2010, a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) took effect. The newly formed FTA is the third largest in the world, with a GDP of $6.6 trillion and a population of 1.9 billion. Prior to the agreement in 2008, China was ASEAN’s third-largest trading partner.
Despite the concerns of members like Indonesia over the impact that the agreement will have on domestic industry, ASEAN is confident that China will act cooperatively in order to ensure mutual gains. The State Councilor of the People’s Republic of China, H.E. Dai Bingguo, recently met with the ASEAN Secretariat to discuss China’s commitment to aid in the transition process, confirming China’s position in a speech before more than 300 dignitaries. This was the first time that a high-level Chinese Diplomat visited the ASEAN Secretariat.
Further, as the Secretary General of ASEAN notes, there are mechanisms such as anti-dumping safeguards in the FTA to protect the domestic markets of ASEAN member states.
For further information, please click here.
Permalink
January 18th, 2010 at 10:10pm
The United States is interested in pursuing a free trade agreement, which will be known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), with Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. As a result, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) has asked the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) to investigate the likely economic effects of removing duties and non-tariff barriers on product imports from TPP countries. The probable effects of eliminating tariffs on specific agricultural products are also under investigation. While conducting this analysis, the USITC will use the 2010 Harmonized Tariff Schedule and 2008 trade data.
The USTIC is asking the public for input as it explores the potential effects of the TPP. A public hearing will take place on March 2, 2010 in Washington, D.C., and written submissions for the record will be accepted until March 23, 2010. The USITC’s report to the USTR should be completed by early June.
For further information, please click here.
Permalink
January 11th, 2010 at 12:53pm
On December 22, 2009, the European Court of Human Rights issued its ruling in Sejdic and Finki v. Bosnia and Herzegovina. In its opinion, the court held that the Bosnian Constitution, which requires that the House of Peoples of the Parliamentary Assembly and the Presidency be solely composed of persons belonging to the three constituent peoples (Bosniacs, Croats, and Serbs), discriminates against ethnic minorities and infringes electoral rights in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. In order to prevent the government from adopting legislation contrary to the wills of any of the constituent peoples, the drafters of the Bosnian Constitution created a second legislative chamber (the House of the Peoples of the Parliamentary Assembly) composed of five members of each of the constituent peoples, and a collective Presidency composed of one member of each of the constituent peoples. In this case, a Jew and a Rom complained that the Bosnian Constitution and the Election Act of 2001 barred them from being candidates for office in the Presidency and the House of the Peoples of the Parliamentary Assembly, even though they possess experience comparable to the highest elected officials, because they refuse to declare affiliation with any of the constituent peoples.
The European Court of Human Rights acknowledged that the power-sharing mechanisms of the Bosnian Constitution were justifiably designed to achieve the aim of restoring peace to a war-torn country rife with ethnic conflict; however, it also noted that the country has made considerable progress in the fourteen years since the Dayton Peace Agreements. The court further noted the existence of other power-sharing mechanisms that do not require the exclusion of ethnic minorities not belonging to the three constituent peoples from high public office. As a result, the court found that the rule prohibiting non-constituent peoples from holding office in the House of the Peoples of the Parliamentary Assembly violated Article 14 of the European Convention on human rights (prohibiting discrimination in the enjoyment of rights guaranteed by the Convention) read in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (guaranteeing the right of free elections). The court also found that the constitutional rule prohibiting the applicants from running for President violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 (prohibiting discrimination in the enjoyment of any right set forth by law). In terms of remedy, the court held that the finding of a violation provided just satisfaction with regards to the plaintiffs’ non-pecuniary injuries, and ordered the State to pay 1,000 Euros to the first applicant and 20,000 Euros to the second to cover their costs and expenses.
For further information, please click here.
Permalink
December 5th, 2009 at 10:47am
On Monday, November 16th, Beijing’s No.1 Intermediate People’s Court ordered Microsoft to pull some versions of Windows off of the Chinese market for violation of Intellectual Property rights. According to the court, Microsoft exceeded the scope of its licensing agreement with Chinese software company Zhongyi by using certain Chinese character fonts in Window’s 98, 2000, 2003, and Windows XP. Microsoft plans to appeal, claiming that its licensing agreement was not only for Windows 1995.
The suit comes after extensive pressure from the United States and European Union for China to enforce intellectual property rights on behalf of companies like Microsoft. Michael Vella, the head of China litigation for Morrison & Foerster, LLP sees this as the beginning of a trend in which Chinese companies will take their own IP claims to court.
The injunction is unlikely to affect Microsoft’s long-term business goals since roughly 80% of Microsoft’s operating systems in China were pirated from Microsoft in the first place. Chinese courts are, of course, working to prevent this piracy as well. In fact, a Chinese court recently sent four bootleggers to jail for selling illicit versions of Windows 7 in advance of its launch last month.
For further information, please click here.
Permalink
November 26th, 2009 at 11:12pm
The Chairman of the International Chamber of Commerce, Victor K. Fung, last week expressed concern about rising world protectionism and lackluster progress on free trade negotiations. The combination, he argued, would imperil the world’s fragile economic recovery and undermine progress already made towards emerging from the current downturn.
Chairman Fung made his remarks as he addressed the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation CEO Summit in Singapore. Although he praised public stimulus spending around the world for laying the groundwork for long-term economic growth, he criticized the G20 governments, especially the United States and China, for adding trade barriers. Protectionism, he told the group, undermines successful economic recovery, and economic nationalism in the US-China trade relationship threatens to be particularly damaging.
The failure to conclude the Doha Round of trade negotiations also signals lackluster commitment to free trade and imposes another potential obstacle to worldwide recovery, Chairman Fung argued. Although praising the G20’s ostensibly strong commitment to Doha, Chairman Fung chastised the world community for failing to conclude an agreement despite eight years of trying.
For more information, please click here.
Permalink
November 22nd, 2009 at 06:06pm
Last weekend, the Leaders of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) met to discuss economic growth in the Asia-Pacific region in light of the worldwide financial crisis.
The conversation focused on developing balanced, inclusive, and sustainable growth. To achieve this end, the Leaders are looking to foster structural reforms in areas like infrastructure development and social security. They aim to allocate the benefits of growth across the population by promoting small businesses, job creation, and women’s education through income supplements and short-term social safety nets. In making these reforms, the leaders will take into account sustainability and work to make green technologies available.
The Leaders have maintained their definitive rejection of protectionism and are working to eliminate trade barriers. They are hoping for a successful conclusion to the WTO’s Doha Development Agenda by early 2010. Exploration continues on the prospect of a Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP), and APEC hopes to achieve regional trade integration by working on liberalization “at,” “behind,” and “across” the border, particularly in areas like supply chain connectivity and intellectual property rights.
The Leaders will also work to ensure human security and governmental transparency. In terms of security, they are particularly concerned with protecting the food supply from terrorist interference and stopping the spread of H1N1 and other global pandemics like AIDS. With regard to transparency, they are asking governments to ratify the UN Convention against Corruption.
For further information, please click here.
Permalink
November 15th, 2009 at 11:00pm
On Tuesday, November 10, the navies of North and South Korea exchanged fire in disputed waters off the western coast of the peninsula, damaging ships from both sides and reportedly killing a North Korean sailor. The incident began when a 215-ton North Korean vessel entered South Korean-controlled waters. Ignoring warnings from the South, the ship exchanged fire with two 130-ton South Korean vessels before re-crossing the border, reportedly in flames. The North, which claims the waters where the incident took place, has blamed the South for instigating the confrontation and issued repeated warnings through its state news service.
South Korea’s options in responding to this incident are limited. Seoul’s right to military retaliation is constrained by the ongoing border dispute. The end of the Korean War never produced a peace treaty, and the North and South have technically been observing a truce since 1953. The North has never accepted the current sea boundary, a UN-drawn border called the northern limit line, and its ships regularly stray into waters controlled by the South. In this context, the South cannot make an undisputed claim that its territory was invaded.
South Korea’s options for less direct action are similarly constrained. While the South could initiate economic sanctions and asset-freezing, it believes that such measures could add to the desperate poverty of the North’s citizens and slow the recent détente between the two countries. In a sign that the confrontation has not altered trade relationships, a North Korean freighter was allowed to enter South Korean waters yesterday on its way to Incheon. Meanwhile, any attempt to arbitrate the dispute before an international body would require the consent of one of the most isolationist regimes in the world.
The North has a history of initiating skirmishes in order to escalate pressure before major regional events; the last time the countries clashed was in 2002, while the South was hosting the World Cup. In this case, analysts believe, the North may be trying to send a message to President Obama, who is currently visiting the region and is scheduled to arrive in Seoul on Wednesday. North Korea wants a formal peace treaty to replace the 1953 truce, including reconsideration of disputed territory. It also wants bilateral negotiations with the U.S., which it believes could lead to its acceptance as a nuclear power. President Obama, who has made engagement with “rogue states” a cornerstone of his foreign policy, plans to send special envoy Stephen Bosworth to Pyongyang for talks over ending the North’s nuclear program.
Permalink
November 15th, 2009 at 10:50pm
On November 5th, a three-judge panel at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) sentenced Michel Bagaragaza, the former head executive of the Rwandan tea industry, to eight years in prison for his role in the 1994 Rwandan genocide. The ICTR, which presides in Tanzania, found Bagaragaza guilty on one count of complicity for his role in having substantially contributed to the death of 1,000 ethnic Tutsis. Bagaragaza’s sentence includes credit for time he has already served since his detention in 2005.
As director general of OCIR/The, the government office controlling the tea industry, Bagaragaza oversaw 11 tea factories employing approximately 55,000 people. In addition to his government position in the tea industry, Bagaragaza was also the vice-president of a bank and a political leader in Gisenyi prefecture. His role in the 1994 genocide arose when 1,000 Tutsis sought refuge at Kesho Hill and at Nyundo Cathedral in Rwanda’s Gisenyi prefecture, close to the tea factories Bagaragaza oversaw. On April 8, 1994, Bagaragaza met with Thomas Kuradusenge, a senior official of the Giciye commune, and learned of Kuradusenge’s plan to carry out the killing of the 1,000 Tutsi seeking refuge. According to prosecutors, Bagaragaza aided and abetted Kuradusenge in carrying out those killings, authorizing that vehicles and fuel from the tea factories Bagaragaza oversaw be used in the attack, and ordering that the attackers be provided with weapons Bagaragaza had allowed the army to conceal at the tea factories since 1993. Bagaragaza also ordered that personnel from the factories participate in the attacks, according to a summary of the tribunal’s judgment. On subsequent occasions, Bagaragaza gave Kuradusenge large sums of money for the purchase of alcohol, so as to encourage those carrying out the killings in the Kabaya and Bugoyi areas to continue to do so.
Bagaragaza was initially charged with conspiracy to commit genocide, genocide, and in the alternative, complicity in genocide. On August 15, 2005, he voluntarily surrendered himself to the ICTR, pleading not guilty to each of the three counts listed in the initial indictment. Following procedural complications, he eventually pleaded guilty to the complicity charge in August of this year.
In sentencing, the judges noted that Bagaragaza had shown “genuine remorse for his actions,” providing “invaluable assistance to the Prosecution in its investigations.” They said that Bagaragaza had “to a remarkable degree contributed to the process of truth-finding with respect to the Rwandan tragedy and to national reconciliation.” The ICTR further noted that the defence had provided credible showing that Bagaragaza demonstrated no bias against Tutsis, and that his participation in the organization of the killings was likely motivated by concern for himself and his family. However, the court went on to state that the evidence did not suggest that Bagaragaza, “being a very resourceful person,” would have faced imminent danger had he not complied with the requests of the perpetrators.
Bagaragaza was represented by Counsel Geert-Jan Alexander Knoops from The Netherlands. The Prosecution was led by Wallace Kapaya, assisted by Patrick Gabaake, Mousa Sefon and Iskander Ismal.
The United Nations Security Council authorized the creation of the ICTR in 1994. An estimated 800,000 ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed in the genocide that began in early April of that year.
For further information, please see here and here.
Permalink
Next Posts
Previous Posts
