Women @ ASIL (5th ed.)

As we have each year since our founding ((here, here, here, here, and here), IntLawGrrls is proud today to highlight women who will speak March 23-26 at the forthcoming annual meeting of the American Society of International Law.
This 105th gathering of the Society, entitled Harmony and Dissonance in International Law, kicks off with the Grotius Lecture by Nobel Prizewinning economist Amartya Sen, for which our colleague Kim Lane Scheppele (Princeton) will serve as discussant. Also of note are: the annual WILIG luncheon, featuring IntLawGrrl Lucy Reed, immediate past President of ASIL; an opening plenary by Michael H. Posner, Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor; and a plenary among several international judges. I'm especially excited about the Friday lunch dialogue featuring International Criminal Court Deputy Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda (left) -- wearing my hat as an ASIL vice president, I've been given the honor of serving as discussant/moderator for her talk. (photo credit)
All events will take place at the Ritz Carlton Hotel, 1150 22d Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. (Details and registration here.)
Delighted to see from the program that, once again, there's much diversity in topics and presenters. Virtually all panels again have at least 1 woman participating, and that many have many more. Particularly proud that so many persons featured are IntLawGrrls or IntLawGrrls alumnae!
Without further ado, here's this year's honor roll of Women @ ASIL:

Wednesday, March 23, 4:30-6 p.m.
► "The Global Status of Rights": Kim Lane Scheppele (Princeton) as discussant for Grotius Lecture by Amartya Sen.

Thursday, March 24, 11:15 a.m.-12:45 p.m.
► "The Supreme Court & Arbitration Law": Lorraine M. Brennan (JAMS International).
► "Legal Origins, Doing Business and Rule of Law Indicators: The Economic Evaluation of Legal Systems": Corinne Boismain (Université de Metz).
► "International Environmental Law Making and the International Court of Justice": Malgosia Fitzmaurice (University of London) (right), Natalie Klein (Macquarie), and IntLawGrrl guest/alumna Cymie Payne (Lewis & Clark) as panelists; Caroline Foster (Auckland) will moderate.
► "International Courts and Tribunals Interest Group: Judicial Selection": Eloïse Obadia (International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes) and Gabrielle Kirk McDonald (Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal) (left).
► "Commissions of Inquiry into Armed Conflict, Breaches of the Laws of War and Human Rights Abuses: Process, Standards, and Lessons Learned": Agnieszka Jachec Neale (Essex) and Heidi Tagliavini (Swiss Ministry of Foreign Affairs).
►"New Voices I: Global Health, Trade & Common Resource Regimes": Lisa Clarke (Amsterdam), Erika Techera (Macquarie), and Margaret Young (Melbourne).

Thursday, March 24, 1-2:30 p.m.
► IntLawGrrl Lucy Reed (right), immediate past President of ASIL and a partner at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP in New York, at the annual luncheon of WILIG, the Women in International Law Interest Group.
► "Fragmentation of International Legal Orders and International Law: Ways Forward?": Nele Matz-Lück (Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg) as panelist; Ruti Teitel (New York Law School) will moderate.
► "Responding to Nuclear Security Challenges in a Fragmented World": Asli Ü. Bâli (UCLA) and Rose Gottemoeller (Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Verification, Compliance, and Implementation).
► "Seamlessness or Segmentation? International Economic Governance and European Sovereign Debt": Odette Lienau (Cornell) and Ann Misback (Federal Reserve Board).

Thursday, March 24, 3-4:30 p.m.
► "Annual Benjamin Ferencz Session: Integrating the Crime of Aggression into International Criminal law and Public International Law": Teresa McHenry (U.S. Department of Justice) and IntLawGrrl Beth Van Schaack (Santa Clara).
► "The Role of International Tribunals in Managing Coherence and Diversity in International Law": IntLawGrrls guest/alumna Andrea K. Bjorklund (California-Davis) and Valerie Hughes (Legal Affairs Director, World Trade Organization).
► "Dispute Resolution Interest Group: IS ICSID Losing Its Appeal...Again?": Andrea Menaker (White & Case LLP), moderator.
► "Espionage and the First Amendment After Wikileaks": Mary-Rose Papandrea (Boston College).

Thursday, March 24, 5-6:15 p.m.
► "Decision Making in International Courts and Tribunals: A Conversation": plenary keynote featuring numerous international jurists, including Dame Rosalyn Higgins (former President of the International Court of Justice) (left) and Brigitte Stern (Université de Paris I (Panthéon-Sorbonne)).

Friday, March 25, 7-8:30 a.m.
► "Targeting with Drone Technology: Humanitarian Law Implications": Naz Modirzadeh (Harvard) will moderate.

Friday, March 25, 9-10:30 a.m.
► "Strategy and Planning Meeting for ASIL's new International Disability Rights Interest Group," about which IntLawGrrl Hope Lewis, interest group co-chair along with Stephanie Ortoleva (BlueLaw), posted yesterday.
► "International Environmental Law Interest Group: Roundtable on Research Methodologies," an all-woman panel: Cinnamon Carlarne (South Carolina), Edith Brown Weiss (Georgetown) (right) and Jutta Brunnée (Toronto) as panelists; Sara Seck (Western Ontario) will moderate.
► "International Trade Law and International Investment Law: Convergence or Divergence?": Marinn Carlson (Sidley & Austin LLP).
► "What the Kosovo Advisory Opinion Means for the Future": Anne Peters (Basel).
► "The Role of Legal Norms in Mediation and Negotiation: Views from the Field": Jennifer Lake (Legal Advisor, Independent Diplomat, an advisory group).
► "Ethical and Practical Challenges for Corporate Lawyers Advising Clients on Human Rights": Sarah Altschuller (Foley Hoag LLP), Rachel Davis (Harvard's Kennedy School), and Alexandra Guáqueta (Flinders University).

Friday, March 25, 10:45 a.m.-12:15 p.m.
► "International Criminal Law Interest Group: 'Fact Finding Without Facts': A Conversation with Nancy Combs": IntLawGrrls guest/alumna Nancy Amoury Combs (William & Mary) will speak on her book titled above, about which she posted here; discussant will be her William & Mary colleague, Linda A. Malone.
► "Intellectual Property Law Interest Group: Harmonizing International Law: An IP Perspective": Seagull Song (Renmin University); Elizabeth Chien-Hale (Institute for Intellectual Property in Asia) will moderate.
► "Recent Trends in International Investment Treaty Law": Carolyn Lamm (White & Case LLP) and Loretta Malintoppi (Eversheds LLP).
► "The Roles and Responsibilities of International Organizations": Vera Gowlland-Debbas (Université de Génève) and Daphna Shraga (Office of Legal Affairs, United Nations) as panelists; Blanca Montejo (Office of Legal Affairs, United Nations) will moderate.
► "New Battlefields/Old Laws: Shaping a Legal Environment for Counterinsurgency": Ashley Deeks (Columbia) and Sarah Sewall (Harvard's Kennedy School).
► "Elections and Ethnic Violence": Susan Benesch (World Policy Institute); Sarah Knuckey (NYU) will moderate.

Friday, March 25, 12:30-2:30 p.m.
► "Luncheon Dialogue on the International Criminal Court": ICC Deputy Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda will be the principal speaker; yours truly, Diane Marie Amann (California-Davis), will serve as moderator/discussant.

Friday, March 25, 1-2:30 p.m.
► "International Legal Research Interest Group: Greater than the Sum of Its Parts: Global Cooperation in Making the World's Laws Accessible": Hongxia Liu (World Justice Project), Marylin Raisch (Georgetown), and Roberta Shaffer (Law Librarian of Congress) (left) as panelists; Amy Emerson (Cornell) will moderate.
► "Harmony and Dissonance in Extraterritorial Regulation": IntLawGrrls guest/alumna Hannah Buxbaum (Indiana).
► "Labor and Migration in International Law: Challenges of Protection, Specialization and Bilateralism": Nisha Varia (Human Rights Watch) and Ayelet Schachar (Toronto) as panelists; Regan Ralph (Fund for Global Human Rights) will moderate.

Friday, March 25, 3-4:30 p.m.
► "International Law and the Liability for Catastrophic Environmental Damage": Monika Hinteregger (University of Graz) as panelist; Marie Soveroski (ASIL International Environmental Law Interest Group Co-Chair) will moderate.
► "New Voices II: Internationalizing & Domesticating Law": Anna Dolidze (Cornell), IntLawGrrls guest/alumna Molly Beutz Land (New York Law School), and Tonya Putnam (Columbia).
► "Are There 'Regional' Approaches to International Dispute Resolution?": Katia Fach Gómez (Fordham), Judge Nkemdilim Amelia Izuako (U.N. Dispute Tribunal), and Catherine Kessedjian (Université Panthéon-Assas).
► "International Legal Theory Interest Group: Harmony and Dissonance in International Legal Theory": IntLawGrrls guest/alumna Nienke Grossman and Helen Stacy (Stanford).
► "International Legal Implications of Israel's Attack on the Gaza Aid Flotilla": Sari Bashi (Gisha: Legal Center for Freedom of Movement); Sarah Weiss Maudi (Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs); Naz Modirzadeh (Harvard).

Friday, March 25, 8-10 p.m.
► "ASIL Annual Dinner: A Celebration of Distinction and Promise": featuring, inter alia, award of the Goler T. Butcher Medal to IntLawGrrl guest/alumna Gay McDougall, (left), U.N. Independent Expert on Minorities; Certificate for Scholarship (Creative Scholarship) to Jutta Brunnée, coauthor with Stephen J. Toope of Legitimacy and Legality in International Law; and Certificate for Scholarship (Honorable Mention in a specialized area of international law) to IntLawGrrl guest/alumna Anne Gallagher, author of The International Law of Human Trafficking, on which she posted here.

Saturday, March 26, 9-10:30 a.m.
► "Duplication and Divergence in the Work of the United Nations Human Rights Treaty Bodies": Sarah McCosker (Office of the Australian Attorney General) and Catherine Powell (State Department) (right) as panelists; Christina Cerna (Organization of American States) will moderate.
► "Trade and Investment in Africa: Harmony and Disharmony with the International Community": Uche Ewelukwa (Arkansas) as panelist; Angela M. Banks (William & Mary) will moderate.
► "Geoengineering Climate Change: Can the Law Catch Up?": IntLawGrrl Hari M. Osofsky (Minnesota) as panelist; IntLawGrrl Rebecca Bratspies (CUNY) will moderate.
► "Author Meets Reader; International Law in the U.S. Supreme Court: Continuity and Change": IntLawGrrls guest/alumna Mary Dudziak (Southern California) and Lori Damrosch (Columbia) as panelists; Ingrid Wuerth (Vanderbilt) will moderate.
► "Transnational Piracy: To Pay or Prosecute?": Jennifer Landsidle (State Department) as panelist; Mileno Sterio (Cleveland-Marshall) will moderate.

Kudos to: ASIL President David Caron; ASIL Executive Director Betsy Andersen; the Program Committee Co-Chairs, IntLawGrrls' guest/alumna Chimène Keitner (California-Hastings), Catherine Amirfar (Debevoise & Plimpton LLP), and Tai-Heng Cheng (New York Law School), as well as Planning Committee members Kristen Boon (Seton Hall), Christiane Bourloyannis-Vrailas (EC/UN), Harlan Cohen (Georgia), Omar Dajani (Pacific McGeorge), Jennifer Daskal (Department of Justice), John Fellas (Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP), Chiara Giorgetti (White & Case LLP), Dick Jackson (Department of Defense), Rebecca Jenkin (Debevoise & Plimpton LLP), Larry Johnson (Columbia), Erasmo Lara (Mexico Foreign Ministry), Blanca Montejo (United Nations), Michael Newton (Vanderbilt), IntLawGrrl Christiana Ochoa (Indiana), Jeffrey Pryce (Steptoe & Johnson LLP), Regan Ralph (Fund for Global Human Rights), Hina Shamsi (American Civil Liberties Union), Ingrid Wuerth (Vanderbilt), Lionel Yee (Singapore Attorney-General's Chambers), and Nassib Ziadé (International Centre for the Settlement of International Disputes)!

Selecting Special Rapporteurs

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR) is currently seeking nominations for Special Procedures mandate positions that will be vacated in July 2011. Several key posts are opening up:

• the position of Independent Expert on Minority Issues, held by IntLawGrrls guest/alumna Gay McDougall;
  
• the position of Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, currently held by Martin Scheinin;
  
• the position of Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, currently held by John Ruggie;
  
• and of greatest interest to yours truly, the position of Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, currently held by Jorge Bustamante.

While it's indisputable that these Special Procedures mandate positions are important, they're also more than a bit mysterious. What is a Special Rapporteur, anyway, and what distinguishes one from an Independent Expert? How does anyone get to hold such a position in the first place? Beginning in 2006, the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) has been working to answer these questions and to review, rationalize, and improve the Special Procedures mandates.
The very first Special Procedures mandate was created in 1967, when the UN Commission on Human Rights was confronted with the problem of how to address individual complaints about human rights abuses in apartheid South Africa. The Commission established an ad hoc working group of experts to investigate the situation of human rights in southern Africa, and voila, the Special Procedures mandate was born. In 1975, in response to Pinochet's coup, the commission created an ad hoc working group on the situation of human rights in Chile. Four years later, it set up the first Special Rapporteur to investigate Pinochet's abuses in Chile.
Today, the Special Procedures Mandate-holders have expanded to a dizzying 21 thematic special rapporteurs, 6 thematic independent experts, 4 country-focused special rapporteurs, 4 country-focused independent experts, 5 thematic working groups, and 1 special representative to the secretary-general. In more recent years, more effort has been made to select women experts, with varying degrees of success. Of the 25 special rapporteurs, only 8 are women; of the 10 independent experts, only 3 are women; but of the 20 people on the 4 active working groups, 9 are women.
While some of the thematic mandates and mandate-holders are widely known -- for example, the Special Rapporteur on Torture, Juan Mendez and the Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, Rashida Manjoo, others are rather more obscure -- the Independent Expert on the issue of human rights obligations related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation; the Independent expert on the effects of foreign debt and other related international financial obligations of States on the full enjoyment of human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights; and the Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of people to self-determination come to mind.
On the question of how to differentiate between the different types of mandate-holders, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OCHCHR) offers a response that's perhaps a bit opaque to those not fluent in UN-speak:

These different titles neither reflect a hierarchy, nor are they an indication of the powers entrusted to the expert. They are simply the result of political negotiations.

So how is the sausage made? Before 2006, special rapporteurs were generally selected by the chair of the Commission on Human Rights, while independent experts and special representatives to the secretary general were appointed by the Secretary General acting in consultation with UNHCHR.
The process changed in June 2007 with the adoption of Human Rights Council Resolution 5/1, which revised the selection process for all special procedures mandates. The Resolution lays out general criteria "of paramount importance" in the nomination, selection, and appointment process: expertise, experience, independence, impartiality, integrity and objectivity. It suggests a focus on gender balance and equitable geographic representation, and requires that upcoming vacancies be publicized.
Nominations for mandate-holders can come from any one of a number of groups: governments; regional groups working within the UN human rights system; international organizations; non-governmental organizations; other human rights bodies; and individuals. The OCHCHR is responsible for maintaining a public list of eligible candidates collected from this process.
A consultative group whose members are appointed by regional groups working within the UN human rights system then reviews this list, and may consider additional nominations only in exceptional circumstances. The consultative group provides the President of the HRC with a short-list of the most viable candidates.
Following broad consultations, the HRC President in turn whittles down the list to one candidate for each vacancy, and circulates this list to member states two weeks before the meeting in which the appointments are discussed. The HRC must approve the appointments on the President's list in order for them to go forward. The mandate-holders may serve no more than two terms of three years each.
The deadline for submission of nominations for this year's vacancies ends on Monday, so it's not too late to ensure that your voice is heard in the selection process!

And now we are 4

Today we IntLawGrrls celebrate our 4th birthday.
It was on this day -- 'Grrls Day -- in 2007 that we launched this blog on "international law, policy, practice." (photo credit)
Much cause to celebrate!
This past year, in addition to cosponsoring an autumn conference for the 2d year in a row, we were chief sponsors of a roundtable at the American Society of International Law on the subject of "Women and International Criminal Law," in honor of our guest/alumna Patricia M. Wald. We look forward this spring to publication of the special issue of the International Criminal Law Review in which will appear the roundtable papers, many of them by IntLawGrrls. (Synopses of some already have been posted; more to come.)
Many of us have contributed to other IntLawGrrls' series this year; to name 2, our Kampala/International Criminal Court series and our North Africa series.
'Grrls continue to receive invites to speak at other conferences, and to contribute scholarship, blog posts, and op-eds on account of their work here.
As listed in full in our righthand column, contributing more than 4,000 posts have been nearly 3 dozen permanent IntLawGrrls voices, plus upwards of 200 women, from dozens of countries, who've joined us as guests. We're honored that one of our distinguished alumnae, U.N. expert Gay McDougall, will be receiving the Goler T. Butcher Medal at this month's ASIL annual meeting. And we' continue to draw inspiration from scores of transnational foremothers -- most recently, Sojourner Truth.
We're delighted that our readership has grown along with us. Last year we were consistently ranked among the most-read law prof blogs. To date we've reached more than 23,200 cities around the world, and today we will pass the milestone of 675,000 page views since our founding!
To all our contributors and all our readers, heartfelt thanks, and best wishes for another wonderful year!

ASIL early bird alert

Early bird discounts for the annual meeting of American Society of International Law expire this Friday, February 11. Register here now before costs go up.

The theme for this year's annual meeting -- the Society's 105th -- is “Harmony and Dissonance in International Law.” The meeting will take place March 23 through 26, 2011, at the Ritz Carlton Hotel, 1150 22nd Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

The full program is here. Among the highlights:

► Grotius Lecture by Nobel Prizewinning economist Amartya Sen (prior IntLaw Grrls posts here).

► Address to WILIG, the Women in International Law Interest Group, by IntLawGrrl Lucy Reed (right), ASIL's immediate past president.

► Award of the Goler T. Butcher Medal to IntLawGrrls guest/alumna Gay McDougall (near right), U.N. Independent Expert on Minorities. (The medal's namesake is herself an IntLawGrrls foremother.)

Keep an eye out for IntLawGrrls' annual "Women @ ASIL" feature (previous posts here, here, here, and here).

UN Forum: Minorities and Effective Participation in Economic Life

UN Independent Expert on Minority Issues and IntLawGrrls contributor Gay McDougall (photo, right) organized and convened the Third Session of the Forum on Minority Issues at the Palais des Nations in Geneva on 14-15 December.
This year’s session focused on “minorities and effective participation in economic life”—a timely and significant topic given the ravages of the global economic crisis on minority groups throughout the world. (See coverage by Minority Rights Group International (MRG) here.)
According to Forum Chair Dr. Gita Sen, Professor, Indian Institute of Management and Adjunct Professor, Harvard School of Public Health,

Times of economic crisis can be particularly difficult for minority groups that may already be subject to societal discrimination and stigma, and who may be undocumented or migrant workers. Societal pressures to blame those who are the most vulnerable can become explosive unless governments play a moderating role and act as guarantors of protection from violence and abuse.

Draft Recommendations
Consultations centered on the associated Draft Recommendations on Minorities and Effective Participation in Economic Life. The draft served as a platform from which we could explore the roles of minority groups as economic actors and as participants in their own empowerment. Governments, business enterprises, international financial institutions, and other actors share the responsibility to provide the necessities and rights that sustain all groups and individuals. But they also bear affirmative responsibilities to remove barriers to minority groups’ own efforts to build a sustainable and human rights-based future.
Previous sessions of the Minority Issues Forum resulted in recommendations on “Minorities and the Right to Effective Political Participation” (2009) (see also Gay McDougall’s post on the session here) and recommendations on “Minorities and the Right to Education” (2008).
The Diversity of Minorities
The meetings bring together individuals from minority groups and civil society, diplomats from UN and regional organizations, and academic experts to share ideas and to make action-oriented recommendations. The Forum’s mandate is to assist in the further implementation of the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Linguistic and Cultural Minorities
This year’s session was attended by approximately 500 participants, including 300 members of minority groups or their representatives, as well as attendees from government permanent missions. The proceedings follow a participatory and inclusive approach, encouraging oral and written interventions by as many participants as time permits.
The fact that many women were represented among the key speakers and participants was perhaps not surprising given McDougall’s leadership, but very welcome nevertheless. The presence of women was not merely symbolic, since minority group issues that have special impact on women were prominent on the agenda and in the draft recommendations. An intersectional perspective, in which both minority status and gender implications are taken into account, was evident throughout the program.

As noted above, the Forum was chaired by Dr. Gita Sen. UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, Navanethem (Navi) Pillay (photo, left) opened the proceedings along with the President of the Human Rights Council, H.E. Ambassador Sihasak Phuangketeow.
“Economic Life” in Multiple Dimensions
The Draft Recommendations and Forum addressed a wide range of issues, evidencing the fact that “the economy” implicates all aspects of life, including civil, political, social, and cultural spheres.
Key themes reflected from the Draft Recommendations included:
► Sustainable Livelihoods;
► Work and Social Security;
► Meaningful Consultation/Participation;
► Capacity-Building for Effective Participation;
► Poverty Reduction and Development Strategies;
► Minorities and the Millennium Development Goals; and
► Discrimination and Positive Measures/Affirmative Action.
The presenters highlighted barriers to the effective participation of minorities in economic life. Failure to protect and promote the language rights of minorities, for example, also prevents full participation in education, training, and employment. Gender discrimination, in combination with racial, ethnic, religious, or cultural discrimination, marginalizes or exploits women’s roles in economic and social development. Religious, ethnic, or racial restrictions on land ownership, use, transfer, or title may lead to entrenched poverty among minority groups. Violence and the promotion of hatred against racial, ethnic, or national minorities may marginalize or exclude their participation in the building of society as a whole or exacerbate broader conflict. See McDougal’s recent statement on links between protection of minority rights and the prevention of violence and conflict here. Unsustainable or top-down farming or land distribution practices prevent pastoralists, indigenous peoples, and other minority groups from pursuing sustainable livelihoods for themselves and their families. Such practices may also destroy cultural traditions and ways of living that sustained groups for generations. Policies pursued by business enterprises and international financial and trade institutions may intensify the impact of human rights violations or exclude minority groups from the benefits of human and social development efforts.
Participants also noted some positive developments and best practices. For example, a participant described recent successes in providing effective compensation for African-American farmers damaged by racial discrimination in the United States of America, although more remains to be done for Native American, Latino, and women farmers.
Side Events
Side events on the first day of the Forum included a “Panel on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights and the Application of the Minorities Declaration” organized by the Indigenous Peoples and Minorities Section of the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. A panel on “Minorities and Natural Resources” was co-sponsored by the Underrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO) and Minority Rights Group International.
A preparatory workshop organized on 13 December by the UN Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights and the Minority Rights Group, included several moving presentations on national conditions for minority groups from Uganda, Iraq, Lebanon, Ireland, the United States, and Pakistan.
Formal presentations at the Forum itself were followed by a series of brief interventions by other participants.

Minority groups from Asia, Africa, Europe, and the Americas highlighted concerns or made comments on issues to be addressed by the Draft Recommendations, including
►The status of women pastoralists in Uganda;
►Access to economic participation, land, and employment for Palestinian minority groups;
►Evictions and demolition of public housing, mortgage abuses, violations of land rights, gentrification, and unemployment disproportionately affecting African-Americans and other minority groups in the United States;
►Deportations, displacement, lack of access to employment, education, and health care among Roma peoples in Europe;
►Displacement and other abuses against Ahwazi Arabs, the Oromo and the Degar (Montagnards) (see UNPO report here).
Outcomes
As chair of the Forum, Dr. Sen is responsible for preparing a summary of the proceedings and submissions that will be made available to the participants and members of the public early in 2011. Independent Expert McDougall will present the Forum’s final recommendations to the UN Human Rights Council in March 2011.
The first photo below shows 3 U.S.-based participants during a break (from left) Dr. Carol Anderson, Professor of African-American Studies and History, Emory University, Ms. Kaleema Haidera Al-Nur, Director, Kindred Afro-American Alliance (Kaleema@kindredonline.org ), and (spending too much time with her nose in her computer) yours truly, IntLawGrrl Hope Lewis , Professor of Law and Chair, Committee on Global Law Programs, Northeastern University School of Law. Pictured below (and very much involved in the consultations) is colleague Margaret Burnham, Professor of Law and Director, Civil Rights and Restorative Justice Project, Northeastern University School of Law.

Minority rights & conflict prevention

(It’s IntLawGrrls’ great pleasure to welcome back alumna Gay McDougall, who contributes this guest post)

The Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities states in its preamble that the promotion and protection of the rights of minorities contributes to the political and social stability of States in which they live.
Last month I discussed this statement with the body that had endorsed it in 1992. It was my 1st address to the U.N. General Assembly since my appointment 5 years ago as the United Nations' Independent Expert on minority issues.
This post reprints that address, also available in full here.

* * *

The report which I present to you today builds upon this important statement and considers the role of minority rights protections in conflict prevention. I believe that attention to minority issues and minority rights violations at an early stage – before they lead to tensions and violence – would make an invaluable contribution to the culture of prevention within the United Nations, save countless lives and promote stability and development.
My report highlights that among the essential elements of a strategy to prevent conflicts involving minorities are respect for minority rights; dialogue between minorities and majorities within societies; and the constructive development of practices and institutional arrangements to accommodate diversity within societies.
The link between minority rights and conflict prevention and resolution is clear and has been made by many. The basic assumption contained in the Declaration – that the implementation of minority rights contributes to the stability of States – has been taken up and developed in successive resolutions of the General Assembly, the Commission on Human Rights, its successor the Human Rights Council, reports of the UN Secretary-General and outcome documents of a number of conferences and policy processes, including the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. It has also been recognized by regional inter-Governmental organizations, the donor community, and respected academic and research institutions and NGOs globally.
According to a recent survey, over 55 per cent of violent conflicts of a significant intensity between 2007 and 2009 had violations of minority rights or tensions between communities at their core. In a further 22 per cent of conflicts, minority issues were raised in the course of the conflict. This evidence indicates that Governments, donors and intergovernmental organizations need to allocate significant attention and resources to minority issues as sources of conflict.
II.Substantial steps have been taken over recent years to reposition international engagement with conflict situations from the point of reaction to a point of identification of early warnings. The evidence indicates that incorporating minority rights indicators into early warning systems is essential to enable an earlier identification of potential conflicts. Minority rights violations are often among the root causes of conflicts that have long gestation periods--root causes grounded in grievances that may simmer under the surface for years, or even decades, before violence actually breaks out.
More typical early warning indicators, such as small arms flows and movements of displaced peoples, tend to reflect a situation that is already rapidly spiralling into violence. By the time those indicators trigger attention, grievances may have festered for decades, perhaps generations — generations of lost opportunities to heal rifts, to avert conflict and to build a cohesive society.
There is mounting evidence that some of the earliest indicators of potential violence are chronic disregard of minority rights. Early warning systems must have the necessary expertise to be alert to these indicators. Better insight is needed into why certain situations of systematic exclusion escalate from chronic grievances to violent conflict. Early warning systems need to combine the collection of disaggregated quantitative data with more in-depth qualitative analysis to enable the identification of complex interactions between political, social and economic factors that help decide whether violent conflict will break out, and if so, when.
Foremost among my recommendations to the UN is that minority rights expertise should be strengthened and integrated comprehensively across the United Nations system. Given the prevalence of conflicts involving identity issues, permanent in-house expertise on minority issues within the principal agencies and departments working on conflict prevention would be highly beneficial, in a broader context than solely that of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. While there is already a substantial flow of information to early warning mechanisms within the UN system, a focus on minority rights should be strengthened.
III.Governments should take a proactive approach to minority rights, putting protections in place long before tensions erupt. Societies in which mechanisms are in place allowing minorities to freely use their language, practice their culture and religion, and participate in political and economic life on an equal footing with the rest of the population, are less likely to be societies in which tensions emerge and deteriorate into violent conflict.
Many States are engaged in on-going efforts to accommodate the interests of diverse communities and many positive practices exist. What is important is to ensure that the State provides channels to raise minority issues and to allow minorities to participate in decision-making; that it constantly re-assesses the success of efforts to accommodate diversity; and that it is aware of the different options available. It is critical that this process be guided by the principles of non-discrimination. Minority rights must be prioritized, enabling members of all minority groups to participate effectively in decisions affecting them and in all aspects of society.
The effective and meaningful participation of minorities in the political arena can be a pivotal element in avoiding violent conflict; however the reality is often quite different. Minorities are greatly underrepresented in the political processes and governing institutions of most countries because they are either intentionally restricted from participation, inadvertently disadvantaged by facially-neutral laws or policies, or because there is a lack of political will to dismantle structural barriers to the full and equal participation of minorities. States have significant leeway to decide the modalities by which political participation can be achieved, however, those modalities for inclusion must afford minorities genuine influence and should always ensure ample representation of minorities at all levels of the civil service, including the police and the judiciary.
At the core of minority rights are protection and preservation of culturally distinctive identities within societies. The denigration or suppression of a person’s or groups’ defining identity or forced assimilation, can be powerful factors in generating conflict. Language, in particular, is a potent vehicle of culture. The imposition on minority communities of a majority language – either through teaching in public schools or formal prohibitions on the use of minority languages – has been a spark that has ignited many violent clashes in every region of the world. The Declaration on Minorities establishes positive obligations requiring that “States shall take measures to create favourable conditions to enable persons belonging to minorities to express their characteristics and to develop their culture, language, religion, traditions and customs”.
The reality, and often even the perception of discrimination in access to any kind of resources – whether it is jobs, land ownership, political power, or natural resources – is a strong driver of conflict. Economic exclusion is a cause, a manifestation and a consequence of discrimination against persons belonging to minorities. Many minorities have historically been excluded from full and effective participation in economic life, both in the developed and in the developing world.
Minorities are often discriminated against when they seek employment and are often poorly represented even in public sector employment. They may face barriers in accessing credit or loans and may live in the poorest or remote regions that offer only limited prospects for their economic development. Equally, large scale economic development projects or commercial activities carried out on the lands and territories where minorities live, without their prior consultation, has had negative impacts, including displacement, the perpetuation of poverty and, in some cases, violence.
The rights of minorities to participate effectively in economic life must be fully taken into account by governments seeking to promote equality. Economic exclusion and denial of access to quality education can generate a sense of despair and destroy hopes of upward mobility. As such they are often a central grievance and a source of tensions. International standards on non-discrimination, including the Declaration on Minorities, place an obligation on States to institute affirmative action policies in order to correct historical patterns of exclusion and enable members of minorities to achieve equality. Many States have recognized the corrosive nature of inequalities and have implemented such measures.
In my report I propose a series of recommendations to States to fulfil their human rights obligations, to increase political and social stability and to contribute to the prevention of violent conflicts.
IV.I would like to conclude by noting the work of the Forum on Minority Issues. In my capacity as Independent Expert, I have been honored to guide the work of the Forum and prepare its annual meetings since it was established in 2008. The Forum has provided an important UN platform for minorities and the discussion of key global minority issues. It seeks to provide concrete and tangible outcomes in the form of thematic recommendations of practical value to all stakeholders. The inaugural Forum in December 2008 considered minorities and the right to education. The second annual session considered minorities and effective political participation. The third Forum will take place in December 2010 and will be dedicated to the issue of minorities and effective participation in economic life. I believe that the recommendations of the Forum offer States and others a hugely important resource in their efforts to implement fully the UN Declaration on the Rights of Minorities.
Distinguished delegates, societies flourish when all voices are heard, when all opinions are considered; when all citizens participate; and when the talent that exists in all communities is enabled to contribute to political institutions and all aspects of society. Inclusion is good for societies as a whole, not just for those previously left out. So, creating the conditions for the effective participation of minorities in all walks of life should be considered by States as an integral aspect of good governance and a key priority in their efforts to ensure equality, non-discrimination and stability. Thank you.

Minorities in Viet Nam

(It’s IntLawGrrls’ great pleasure to welcome back alumna Gay McDougall, who contributes this guest post)

This month I conducted a 10-day official visit to Viet Nam. My objectives for this, my 10th such country visit, were to hold consultations on minority issues and to examine the human rights situation of Viet Nam’s numerous minority groups. These goals conform with my mandate as the Independent Expert on Minorities for the United Nations: to promote implementation of the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, and to identify challenges, as well as successful practices, in regard to minority issues.

I would first like to thank the Government of Viet Nam for extending an invitation to me and for the high level of importance that it attached to my visit, apparent in the assistance and access provided to me, at both national and provincial levels. My preliminary comments, excerpted in this post, will be followed by a report containing my full findings and recommendations to the U.N. Human Rights Council next March.

I began my visit in Hanoi before travelling to regions of significant minority populations, including the provinces of Dien Bien in the Northern Highlands, Tra Vinh in the Mekong Delta region, and Gia Lai and Kon Tum provinces in the Central Highlands. (map credit) I met with senior Government officials, representatives of non-governmental organizations, community members, academics, and others working in the field of minority issues, social inclusion and promotion of equality and non-discrimination.

Overview

Viet Nam is a country of great diversity. The majority population consists of those who identify themselves as part of the “Kinh” ethnic group. There are 53 other ethnic groups as well, with unique religious, linguistic and cultural characteristics, and identities. Viet Nam recognizes its minority populations as important constituent parts of its nation, and it understands many of the challenges that it faces to ensure that the rights of minorities are respected, protected and promoted in every sphere of life. The establishment of dedicated Governmental bodies with responsibilities for minorities, including the Committee on Ethnic Minority Affairs, is a positive practice that is replicated on provincial and district levels.
Viet Nam has witnessed a remarkable period of economic growth, progress towards the United Nations' Millennium Development Goals, and highly positive results in respect to poverty alleviation and economic development in general. The Government readily acknowledges that despite these achievements, most minority groups remain the poorest of Viet Nam’s poor.

The acknowledgment of the economic and social gaps that exist between the minority communities and the majority population is an important step towards putting in place the measures required to close those gaps.

Government programs over the past several years have established important initiatives to close those gaps through infrastructure projects, social protection programs and developments in the fields of health and education. The government should be commended for these programs and for the improvements that the programs have made in the lives of minorities.

I understand the challenges facing the government in achieving the rights of non-Kinh ethnic communities, particularly those in the most geographically remote areas. I welcome the government’s affirmation of its commitment to tackling those challenges as a matter of high priority. It is critical that:

► The Government ensures that its economic growth is achieved without negatively impacting on the lives of minorities or deepening their poverty; and

► Minorities share fully in the benefits of growth and prosperity, while maintaining their distinct cultures and identities.

Education

Access to quality and appropriate education is a gateway to development and poverty eradication for minorities. It is equally essential for the preservation and promotion of minority cultures, languages and identities. Education helps minorities to take control of their lives and to fulfill their potential as equal stakeholders in the development of the State. (photo credit)

Viet Nam has made significant progress in the provision of school structures to most Communes, in the option of boarding schools for students from remote villages, and in access to secondary schools for minority children. Nonetheless, I am concerned that minorities are achieving poor results in education relative to Kinh students.

One of the problems that has been identified is that minorities lack adequate opportunities to be taught in their own minority languages from the earliest years of education. They struggle with being taught only in Vietnamese.

With the ultimate goal of fluency in Vietnamese, bilingual education helps minority children to make better early progress in education and provides a strong and culturally appropriate foundation for their future schooling. I look forward to the results of a pilot programme of Mother-Tongue-based bilingual education currently being implemented by the Ministry of Education and Training and UNICEF, including in Gia Lai and Tra Vinh, 2 provinces I visited. Studies done worldwide endorse this approach. It is not sufficient that the Mother-Tongue language is taught as a subject. In preschool, and the first 3 years, it should be the language of instruction, which then transitions to be Vietnamese.

Enjoyment of rights
As in many countries with such diversity, numerous challenges exist to ensuring that members of minority groups can fully realize all their economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights and live in conditions of equality. The rights of minorities include:

► Freedom to practice their religions without restriction;

► Freedom of association and expression;

► Right of peaceful assembly;

► Equal right to own and use land; and

► Right to participate fully and effectively in decisionmaking regarding issues that affect them, including economic development projects and resettlement issues.

(photo credit) Concerns relating to these rights have been raised with me in the context of my visit; in turn, I have raised these issues directly with the Government of Viet Nam at national and provincial levels. I will study closely the information that I have gathered and the responses of the Government before commenting on these issues in my final report.

Conclusion
I believe that my visit marks an important step by the Government of Viet Nam to engage with the human rights bodies and mechanisms of the U.N. system. I welcome the Government’s undertaking to extend further invitations to other U.N. human rights experts in the months ahead, and I hope that these will include invitations to a wide range of mandate holders, including those with mandates in the area of civil and political rights.

Raising Arizona

If the polls are to be believed, a significant majority of Americans support Arizona's harsh new immigration law, signed by Gov. Brewer three weeks ago today. The significant minority of Americans opposed to the law has pushed back fairly powerfully, including through criticism from governors of other border states (California, New Mexico, and Texas) and boycotts by several cities, including most recently, Los Angeles. Perhaps even more striking has been the strong opposition to the law from outside our borders, from Mexican President Felipe Calderon (who stated that the law infringes basic human rights) to the Mexico-based World Boxing Council (which called the law shameful, inhuman, and discriminatory) to Secretary General Jose Miguel Insulza of the Organization of American States (who called the law discriminatory) to the Union of South American Nations (which expressed concern over the law's racist consequences that undermine respect for human rights), much of it leveraging the language of human rights.
The most comprehensive international human rights critique of the law, however, was offered by a group of six independent United Nations experts -- an unusually large team of human rights superheroes -- on Tuesday. Their statement, which also addresses the bill banning ethnic studies courses in Arizona schools that Brewer signed the into law the following day, raises interesting questions about the role of international human rights law in protecting immigrants' rights. Most obviously, if laws that violate human rights are consistent with a country's social norms, as the poll results suggest in the case of Arizona's law, will international pressure help to shift those social norms or will it simply entrench anti-immigrant attitudes and opposition to "foreign meddling" in domestic affairs?
In her own rather confused way, Governor Brewer presents another interesting question about the application of international human rights law in federal systems of government. Her response to the UN experts statement places the responsibility for enforcement of international human rights law squarely on the federal government, arguing that "[i]f the Arizona law violates the international standards, then so does the federal law upon which it is based." Though perhaps not the most compelling argument, it does give rise to questions about whether the federal government should be responsible for challenging state laws that violate international human rights law. While sub-state actors may in some cases be more effective enforcers of international norms, central governments still have an important role to play in keeping rogue sub-state actors in line.
Finally, the statement takes a step towards enforcement of positive rights, a move that highlights the predominance of negative rights in the human rights discourse. At first read, I questioned the existence of binding legal authority to support the claim that "[s]tates are obligated to not only eradicate racial discrimination, but also to promote a social and political environment conducive to respect for ethnic and cultural diversity.” But there it is, clear as day, in the text of Article 7 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination:

States Parties undertake to adopt immediate and effective measures, particularly in the fields of teaching, education, culture and information, with a view to combating prejudices which lead to racial discrimination and to promoting understanding, tolerance and friendship among nations and racial or ethnical groups. . .

A good reminder that the "spirit" of human rights treaties is sometimes spelled out right there in the text, and that we shouldn't allow the enforcement of negative rights, though unquestionably important, to overshadow legally binding claims to positive rights. (For those interested in further readings on Article 7, here's an excellent short piece by IntLawGrrl Stephanie Farrior.)

Happy 3d birthday to us! Again.

Today we IntLawGrrls celebrate our 2d 3d birthday.
Huh?
Well, in an unintended display of math anxiety, this founder/'Grrl declared it our golden birthday on this day a year ago -- that is, said then that we'd juist turned 3 on the 3d day of the 3d month. In fact, though we were entering our 3d year, it had only been 2 years since the launch of this blog on "international law, policy, practice." But no one called us on the arithmetic error, and so today we get to celebrate gold all over again.
Since we announced our birth on what folks in Japan marked as Girls Day 2007, we've grown like Topsy.
We're proud cosponsors of 2 autumn conferences -- 2009 and, yet to come, 2010.
We're proud that 'Grrls have been invited to speak at other conferences, to contribute scholarship, blog posts, and op-eds, on account of their work here.
Contributing more than 3,000 posts have been nearly 3 dozen permanent IntLawGrrls voices, plus more than 100 women who've joined us as guests. 'Grrls and guests/alumnae have ties to nearly 2 dozen countries in our world. As listed in full in our righthand column, we include, to name a very few, distinguished presidents Lucy Reed and Hélène Ruiz Fabri, distinguished scholars like Mireille Delmas-Marty and Hilary Charlesworth (and so many others), distinguished diplomat Diane Orentlicher, distinguished judges Patricia M. Wald and Marilyn J. Kaman, and distinguished U.N. expert Gay McDougall. And we've been proud over the years to honor no fewer than 70 transnational foremothers -- women who've inspired us, from "A" (Alice Paul) to "V" (Virginia Leary).
To all our contributors and all our readers -- today we will pass the milestone of 400,000 viewings since our founding! -- heartfelt thanks. We look forward to a Year 4 future of sharing lots more good things.

Afro-Colombians' plight

(It’s IntLawGrrls’ great pleasure to welcome back alumna Gay McDougall, who guest-posts on her current work as U.N. Independent Expert on Minorities)
　
During my official visit this month to Colombia (flag at left), I had an opportunity to meet with both President Álvaro Uribe and numerous senior government officials and to consult with persons from Afro-Colombian communities. This dialogue was in keeping with my mandate on minority issues, and helped to promote implementation of the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic minorities.
Focusing on communities who identify as Afro-Colombian, Black, Raizal and Palenquero, I visited cities and regions where these communities are prominent.
This post summarizes the preliminary views I set forward here; my findings and recommendations will be fully developed in my report to the U.N. Human Rights Council.

Overview
The story of Afro-Colombians begins with slavery and the massive and gross violations of the rights of African descendants that terrible chapter in history entailed. In Colombia, as slaves escaped, they were forced to find refuge in nearly uninhabitable, geographically remote regions of the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, shown in the darkest color at right. (map credit) There they built communities and livelihoods under conditions of extreme isolation, harsh climate, and often extreme poverty.
As in many other countries, the legacy of slavery endures and is manifested in communities that are socially and economically marginalized, facing racist attitudes and structural discrimination. The Colombian government has made efforts to address certain aspects of the disparities faced by Afro-Colombians, but the legacy of slavery continues to have a profound impact.
New challenges also have emerged.
Afro-Colombian settlements, in rural areas and town ghettos, rival only the reservations for Indigenous peoples as the very poorest in Colombia, with extreme poverty rates of over 60%. Surveys suggest that 80% of Afro-Colombians do not have basic needs met. Infant mortality rates in Chocó and Cauca are 54 per 1,000 of the population. Life expectancy in Afro-Colombian regions is only 55. Illiteracy rates for Afro-Colombians are estimated to be twice the national average. The responses of the national Government and regional authorities have been inadequate and must be addressed as a matter of urgency.
The recent census failed to capture the full demographic and socio-economic picture of the Afro-Colombians, estimated at between 10% and 25% of Colombia’s population. Additionally there is virtually no disaggregation of socio-economic data by race, so government policies are based on faulty data. I often heard from Afro-Colombians that they feel statistically "invisible", and that consequently their issues are ignored, their lives are less valued and that government policies dedicated to their needs are not achieving the desired improvements to their situations.

Legal Framework
Colombia has an impressive and commendable legislative framework that recognises many rights of Afro-Colombians, starting with the Constitution of 1991 which recognizes not only the right to non-discrimination but also the right to equality for all citizens. It also pledges to protect the ethnic and cultural diversity of the country and it promotes the political participation of minorities by establishing two reserve seats in the House of Representatives for Afro-Colombians.
Law 70 of 1993 recognises the right of black Colombians to collectively own and occupy their ancestral lands, and also reinforces rights to education, health and political participation.
While such measures are praiseworthy, the vast majority of communities and organizations that I consulted complain that implementation remains woefully inadequate, limited and sporadic. And where steps have been taken, no real enforcement has followed. As one woman told me:

‘The laws say all the right things but still, nothing has happened.’

Displaced & dispossessed
Displacement was highlighted as the highest priority issue for many Afro-Colombians. Those lands onto which runaway slaves were forced to retreat, while isolated and neglected for centuries, have in recent years been identified as the most fertile and resource rich of Colombia’s territory. This has placed these once isolated, largely self-sufficient communities directly in harm’s way.
These are also some of the most strategically important regions for guerrillas, former paramilitaries and other armed groups currently involved in narcotics production and trafficking. While the government has adopted a political position that the armed conflict has ended and paramilitary groups have demobilized, in many rural black communities that I visited I heard emotional and credible stories of murders and threats to the lives of community leaders.
The number of internally displaced persons ranges from an official tally of 3.073 million to civil society estimates as high as 4 million -- constituting the world’s second largest internal displacement situation. Those few who returned have found that others have claimed ownership or rights of usage in their absence.
Victims and communities believe that there is complete impunity for all of those who commit crimes against them.
I was pleased to meet with the Vice Minister of Defense and representatives of the police and the military during my visit. I was told of important steps being taken to build armed services that are aware of and responsive to the rights of Afro-Colombian communities and to break with the pattern of past violations. These efforts are welcome. However, more must be done to protect vulnerable communities and their leaders.
I would like to commend the work of the Ombudsman’s office in establishing a system of early warning and risk assessment for communities and leaders under threat. But the office’s alerts must be assessed by a committee of the security forces and civil institutions at the national level, which has frequently discounted the credibility of the alerts.
Displacement has particularly affected women, who have been displaced to urban areas in greater numbers than black men, and who suffer extreme vulnerability when they are. Ancestral lands from which Afro-Colombians are displaced are not only the source of livelihood and survival for communities, they are also essential for the preservation of Afro-Colombian culture, livelihood, language, tradition and for maintaining the social fabric of communities. (credit for 2007 Fiesta Palenque photo) The effects of displacement require solutions for both rural and urban communities, as recognized in a landmark decision of the Constitutional Court, Order 005 of 2009. The Court concluded that Government must act comprehensively to address the rights and needs of Afro-Colombians who are displaced and ordered specific measures; to date these have not been effectively implemented.
I welcome the establishment of the Intersectoral Commission for the Advancement of the Afro-Colombian Population, and hope that its recommendations will quickly move from the planning phase to the phase of actually impacting the lives of those who are suffering.


Women & violence
Afro-Colombian women spoke to me of their experiences, the violence committed against them, including sexual violence, the fear and trauma that they have endured on a daily basis and the challenges of their lives as women and mothers living under conditions of conflict, displacement and poverty. The rights of women to return to their community lands in security must be considered a priority.
When men have been killed, disappeared or forced to flee, women have assumed leadership roles in their communities and have shown remarkable resilience and resistance. However they do not receive the necessary recognition as community leaders and are not afforded the protection measures that they require. Mothers also spoke of losing children to forced recruitment into guerrilla and illegal armed groups.

Economic interests & "inconvenient rights"
Many Afro-Colombians have been displaced by "megaprojects", large-scale economic operations, often involving national and multinational companies, promoted by the government as bringing development and economic gain to the whole of Colombia. The communities have grave concerns about encroachment on their land rights and adverse environmental impacts; however, in the face of such economic interests and megaprojects it appears that the rights of communities are "inconvenient rights" and that the laws put in place to protect them are equally inconvenient.
Decree 1320 of 1998 requires that "prior informed consultation" must take place with Afro-Colombian and indigenous communities for the exploitation of natural resources within their territories. However I was informed that projects have been implemented without consultation or with consultations held with people who do not legitimately represent communities. Consultations must be meaningful and effective; importantly, International Labour Organisation Convention No. 169 Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, which this decree purports to incorporate into domestic law, requires that prior and informed consent of communities before projects are implemented on their lands.



Participation in decision-making
Despite the importance of political participation (prior post), Afro-Colombians are extremely poorly represented in political structures and institutions in Colombia and consequently the voices and issues of Afro-Colombians are not being sufficiently heard or given the attention that they deserve.