Survivors of Sexual Violence and the African Union: A Model to Follow?

(Delighted to welcome back alumna Doris Buss, who contributes this guest post)

Women’s civil society groups from across Africa met recently with state ambassadors in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, as part of a now-annual meeting of the Peace and Security Council of the African Union with civil society.
The March 28 meeting included addresses by the various ‘office holders’ below: Margot Wallström (middle), the UN Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict, Litha Musyimi-Ogana (left), the Director of the Women, Gender and Development Directorate of the African Union, and Dr. Mary Chinery-Hesse (right), from the AU’s Panel of the Wise.
But the real force of the meetings came from the “Survivors of Sexual Violence in Armed Conflict”, who had traveled from Côte d’Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guinea, Kenya, Somalia, South Sudan, Uganda and Zimbabwe. The meeting included time for “first-hand accounts” from the survivors, as well as discussion of different models of civil society initiatives for rehabilitation and community reintegration.
At the end of the event the survivors of sexual violence released a Statement, which is a moving testament to the urgent health needs of sexual violence sufferers in Africa. The Statement makes a number of recommendations relating to health care, including, a call for “comprehensive medical care, including emergency surgery services, and trained medical workers on trauma management” and a recommendation that AU member states “ increase their health budget for our sexual and reproductive health complications and trauma management”.
The frustration of civil society actors in ‘post’ conflict negotiations is also clearly evident in the Statement:

We are deeply saddened by the fact that our violators and their apologists are often seated on these tables deciding our fate. We are therefore not surprised that post conflict processes do not include the concerns and priorities of survivors of sexual violence. Instead, we are often urged to let bygones be bygones and look to the future. We cannot look to the future when we are hurting physically and psychologically, and are unable to pick up the pieces of our lives.

Among the recommendations made is a call for the AU to “adopt sexual violence as a disqualifying criterion for leadership” in line with UN Security Council Resolution 1960.
As an example of civil society and state interactions, this annual meeting between the AU and victims of sexual violence may be a model to consider in other contexts. I wonder, for example, what would happen if members of the Canadian Parliament (or US House of Representatives), agreed to meet each year with a representative group of poor single mothers to hear about their lives and experiences over the past year?

On April 5

On this day in ...
... 1986 (25 years ago today), a bomb exploded in a Berlin discotheque popular with American servicemembers and filled at the time with nearly 500 women and men. Killed as a result of the bombing of the club called La Belle were 2 U.S. soldiers and a Turkish woman. More than 200 persons, among them many Americans, were injured. (credit for photo of plaque commemorating tragedy) The bombing touched off tit-for-tat retaliations: an April 1986 U.S. bombing in Libya that claimed the life of the daughter of Libya's leader, Moammar Gadhafi, followed by the 1988 explosion over Lockerbie, Scotland, of a jet carrying many U.S. and British passengers. The incidents have garnered new scrutiny recently on account of Security Council-authorized action against Libya.

(Prior April 5 posts are here, here, and here, and here.)

Paris in America in Paris, today

A distinguished group will examine Paris in America in Paris this afternoon, at a session this 'Grrl regrets having to miss.
Featured will be 2 IntLawGrrls guests/alumnae -- Professor Mireille Delmas-Marty (below left), holder of the Chair of Comparative Legal Studies and Internationalization of Law at the Collège de France de Paris, where the colloquium will occur, and Pittsburgh Law Professor Vivian Grosswald Curran (below, near right) -- as well as U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer (bottom left).
The program will begin at 3:30 p.m. at Amphithéâtre Marguerite de Navarre at the Collège, located at 11, place Marcelin-Berthelot.
Inspiring the session is the English-edition title of an 1863 book by Édouard Laboulaye, Mireille (left) explained in an interview published at page 504 of n the February 17, 2011, edition of Recueil Dalloz. Published under the pseudonym René Lefebvre, Laboulaye's Paris in America went through 35 French and 8 English editions. It is a celebratory study of American constitutionalism -- no coincidence then that, as Mireille noted, Laboulaye, in his day an adminstrator of the Collège de France, "contributed actively, along with the sculptor Bartholdi, to the realization of the Statue of Liberty."
Mireille challenged her interviewer's implication that comparative law might not provide a useful platform for study of contemporary democracies (my translation):

I would not say that comparative law is a 'subaltern' discipline; to the contrary, I believe that it is indispensable in an era in which the interdependence of states has become so strong that the interactions among diverse national and regional systems lie at the heart of the phenomena of the internationalization of law. ... Even constitutional judges, presented with difficult or undecided questions, have a need for comparative law.

Acknowledging that consultation by Breyer and colleagues on the Court had provoked controversy within the United States, Mireille stated:

Paradoxically, this controversy demonstrated that, in this time of globalization, comparative law is on the front lines in democracies.

This afternoon's program thus will begin with a tribute marking the bicentennial of the birth of Laboulaye. It's on that subject that Vivian will speak. Joining her on the panel will be Professor Jean-Louis Halpérin of Ecole normale supérieure; and Professor Bénédicte Fauvarque-Cosson (far right), of Université de Paris II and secretary-general of the Société de législation comparée. Olivier Dutheillet de Lamothe, conseiller d’État and former member of the Conseil constitutionnel, will moderate.
Commenting on the transition from the 19th to the 21st century will be Columbia Law Professor George Bermann, President of the International Academy of Comparative Law.
Finally, a session titled "Le juge constitutionnel et la démocratie" will mark the French publication of Justice Breyer's latest book, titled La Cour suprême, l'Amérique et son histoire in French, and Making Our Democracy Work: A Judge's View in English. A central theme of the book, as Mireille described it to her Recueil Dalloz interviewer:

Even if he remains optimistic, Breyer recognizes that the support of the public is never guaranteed. The relation between the constitutional judge and democracy is always susceptible to reinvention.

Taking part in a discussion of the book's themes will be Justice Breyer; Mireille; Guy Canivet of the Conseil constitutionnel; and Antoine Garapon, secretary-general of the Institut des hautes études sur la justice. Senator Robert Badinter, formerly President of the Conseil constitutionnel, will moderate.
Admission is free and open to the public.

On March 6

On this day in ...
... 1836 (175 years ago today), Mexican troops stormed the Alamo, an old Spanish mission/fortress in San Antonio, in which supporters of an independent Texas had been under prolonged siege. Heavy casualties resulted; all the Texans died. (photo credit) The loss of the fort became a rallying cry in subsequent battles, and Texas became an independent republic a couple months later. It would become a constituent state of the United States in 1845.

(Prior March 6 posts are here, here, here, and here.)

The International Criminal Court and the Transformation of International Law? Maybe not quite yet . . .

(Delighted to welcome back alumna Leila Nadya Sadat, who contributes this guest post from Paris)

This week, unexpectedly, the Security Council voted unanimously to refer the situation in Libya to the International Criminal Court. That is cause for celebration; but celebration tempered with a strong dose of caution and even some real pessimism about the future.
On the plus side, the ICC is now becoming an international institution that is increasingly seen as a real partner in the maintenance of international peace and security.
Also, on the plus side, as Diane Marie Amann mentioned in an earlier IntLawGrrls post, the U.S. voted for the Resolution, rather than simply abstaining from vetoing it as the U.S. had done with Resolution 1593, referring to the Court the situation in Darfur.
Finally, I entitled this blog entry after my 2002 book of the same name, because one sees in the Resolution glimmers of change — that war is not the only answer to international conflict, that law is a relevant consideration in its resolution and that justice may be a possibility. That would be cause for celebration indeed.
At the same time, there are many worrisome elements in the Resolution which bode ill for the Court and for the referral. The Resolution itself retains two outrageous Bush-administration provisions (while admittedly discarding a third).
First, while deciding in paragraph 5 that the Libyan authorities “shall cooperate fully with and provide any necessary assistance to the Court and the Prosecutor” (even though Libya is not a State Party to the Court) the paragraph continues that “States not party to the Rome Statute have no obligation under the Statute. . . ” and, in paragraph 6, “decides, that national, current or former officials or personnel from a State outside [Libya] . . . shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of that State” for any acts they may commit relating to UN operations in Libya. What an extraordinary display of double standards, given that several members of the Council who voted for the Resolution are not parties to the Rome Statute! Can a rule of law be a rule of law if it applies to some but not all?
The Resolution also provides that the ICC, not the United Nations, shall bear all the expenses relating to the referral, apparently as a way of appeasing the U.S. Congress, many of whose members continue to threaten the Court. So the United States and other non-Party States (China, India, Russia) are using — but not paying for — the ICC as a tool of coercive diplomacy. This is not good news.
Finally, the ICC is already struggling to convince African states that it is not a Court directed at them. The first four referrals all seemed quite sensible; but the fifth, the situation involving Kenya, was far more troublesome, given that the Prosecutor undertook the case on his own initiative, and at least some questioned whether it met the legal standards necessary in terms of subject matter jurisdiction, gravity and complementarity to be pursued at the ICC rather than in Kenya or otherwise. (Prior IntLawGrrls posts available here.) There were also serious questions raised at last summer's ICC Review Conference at Kampala as to whether it would not be preferable to see a proprio motu referral of the Colombia or Afghan situations. A sixth referral involving an African state — even in a case involving the clear commission of atrocities — may encourage the ICC’s detractors in Africa, and the double standards evinced by the Resolution’s text do not assist in this regard.
In the view of this writer, the Libya referral, in and of itself, is a good thing. The atrocities taking place as reported in the media seem clearly to warrant ICC intervention. But the failure of the great powers to fully support this Court, and to use it cynically when and as they please, rather than committing their money, time, energy and political support to helping it grow strong and endure, feeds the perception that this Court is not about justice, but about power, undermining its legitimacy. Thomas Friedman recently opined that President Barack Obama’s 2009 speech in Cairo (above) strengthened the case for democracy in the Arab world as he led others through the salutary example of his own life. Would that Obama will find the same courage to champion the International Criminal Court, and to show the world that Americans believe in accountability too.

(Cross-posted at Leila's An American in Paris blog)

On March 1

On this day in ...
... 1781 (230 years ago today), 16 months after sending it to individual states for approval, the Continental Congress of the United States ratified the founding charter known as the Articles of Confederation. The Articles would remain America's governing document until 1789, the year of effect of the U.S. Constitution, an instrument that, despite initial intentions, overhauled the structure of U.S. government.

(Prior March 1 posts are here, here, here, and here.)

ICC referral: sweet, or bittersweet?

Some sweet irony in the referral of the Gadhafi regime to the International Criminal Court.
As watchers of the Hague-based court at left well know, longtime Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi long has been a thorn in the ICC's side.
It's not just that Libya's not a party to the Rome Statute of the ICC. As the map below shows, the same holds true of many of its Arab neighbors -- and of certain very large states to the west and east of Libya.
Rather, Libya's particularly prickly relation to the ICC stems from Gadhafi's efforts to exerts his brand of leadership on the African continent.
To cite an example: It's no accident that, as Pittsburgh Law Professor Charles Jalloh, among others, has noted, the 1st African Union resolution condemning the ICC's pursuit of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir occurred at a meeting in Libya.
Libya also is a member of the Human Rights Council, formed in 2006 as a means better to promote human rights within U.N. member states and throughout the world.
The Human Rights Council broke with Libya on Friday, as we posted here and here. Reports that the Gadhafi regime had ordered aerial attacks and street-thuggery against its own, unarmed civilians compelled the Council unanimously to urge the General Assembly to suspend Libya's U.N. membership.
Last night the Security Council went giant steps further, not only imposing sanctions and an arms embargo, but also referring the Libya matter to the ICC. The vote was unanimous among the T-10 and P-5 alike: ICC nonparty China put aside earlier-reported misgivings, and the United States, another ICC nonparty, openly supported an ICC referral for the 1st time ever.
Here're the pivotal paragraphs of Security Council Resolution 1970 (February 26, 2011):

The Security Council,
....
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, and taking measures under its Article 41,
....
ICC referral
4. Decides to refer the situation in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya since 15 February 2011 to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court;
5. Decides that the Libyan authorities shall cooperate fully with and provide any necessary assistance to the Court and the Prosecutor pursuant to this resolution and, while recognizing that States not party to the Rome Statute have no obligation under the Statute, urges all States and concerned regional and other international organizations to cooperate fully with the Court and the Prosecutor;
6. Decides that nationals, current or former officials or personnel from a State outside the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya which is not a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of that State for all alleged acts or omissions arising out of or related to operations in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya established or authorized by the Council, unless such exclusive jurisdiction has been expressly waived by the State;
7. Invites the Prosecutor to address the Security Council within two months of the adoption of this resolution and every six months thereafter on actions taken pursuant to this resolution;
8. Recognizes that none of the expenses incurred in connection with the referral, including expenses related to investigations or prosecutions in connection with that referral, shall be borne by the United Nations and that such costs shall be borne by the parties to the Rome Statute and those States that wish to contribute voluntarily; ...

The resolution zeroes in on Gadhafi -- and what little seems left of his regime in the wake of many ministerial defections to the antigovernment side.
Worth noting: The caveat concerning a national of a nonparty state present at the scene by authorization of the Council -- presumably, a person deployed as a U.N. peacekeeer. Evidence that such a person took part in criminal behavior must be referred to the state of nationality; by the terms of ¶6, absent a waiver the ICC would have no jurisdiction over such a malefactor. (Thanks to our colleague Kevin Jon Heller (his OJ post here) for pointing out my initial, erroneous interpretation.)
Some cause for concern: The foisting of the costs of ICC investigation onto the ICC and states that choose to contribute. That provision in ¶8 hints at certain lingering reluctances, and serves to remind of the deaf ear that the Security Council has turned to the ICC Prosecutor's pleas for aid in effecting the arrest of international fugitive and still-incumbent President Bashir.
It's to be hoped the Security Council's newfound spine will translate into helping the ICC as it endeavors to respond responsibly to yet another weighty referral. It's also to be hoped that the ICC will rise to the "test," to quote our colleague William Schabas; that is, it "must inspire confidence in its ability to provide a meaningful, significant and above all prompt response to the crisis."
If not, today's irony may prove more bitter than sweet.

(Credit for 2010 map indicating: in grey, states, like Libya and China, that have neither signed nor ratified the ICC Statute; in orange, states, like the United States, Sudan, and Russia, that at one time signed but never ratified; and in green, full states parties to the ICC Statute. Though slightly out of date -- it shows 111 rather than the current 114 states parties -- the map is accurate with regard to the states discussed in this post, a version of which is cross-posted at The Huffington Post.)

On February 10

On this day in ...
... 1983, governmental officials signed an agreement that permitted the United States to test, in Canada, its military equipment, including cruise missiles, which may carry nuclear warheads. As a result, "protest demonstrations broke out in numerous cities" in Canada, "and a women's peace camp was established near the cruise test range in Cold Lake, Alberta." (map credit)

(Prior February 10 posts are here, here, and here.)

Climate consensus-building

(My thanks to IntLawGrrls for the opportunity to contribute this guest post)

Sustained cooperation on climate change is within political reach, this I believe.
International treaties are seldom accomplished inside a day. At its core, the Cancun Agreements adopted during the recent 2-week conference in that Mexican city (prior IntLawGrrls post) set forth these objectives:
► Greenhouse gas mitigation by all countries;
► An Adaptation Framework;
► A Technology Transfer Mechanism to facilitate environmentally sound technology- and capacity-building;
► A new U.N. Green Climate Fund;
► Measurable, reportable, and verifiable inspections for the United States, China, and other major emitting countries;
► Scientific review after five years; and
► Forestry consensus to fund countries to avert deforestation.
There could not have been a greater contrast between Cancun and Copenhagen, the 2009 conference on which IntLawGrrls posted here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
In the frozen northern city creativity abounded -- gaining the spotlight. Civil society spelled out "350" holding blazing torches in the snow.
In the southern city, demonstrations were displaced by armed forces, keeping the most recent U.N. climate change conference – known by its acronym COP 16 – a high-end diplomatic affair. Surreal resorts along Cancun's Maya Riviera hosted subdued forums patching back together trust in multilateral climate cooperation. Countries are "now walking in the right direction, but they need to start running," Tim Gore of Oxfam International noted.
U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called upon the international community to "think big, connecting the dots between poverty, energy, food, water, environmental pressure and climate change."
The floods in Pakistan and fires in Russia are the latest bells tolling an alarming wake-up call. It brings to mind these famous words, written by the poet John Donne in 1624:

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

The spoken and unspoken calls of children, women, and men – of terrestrial and marine life are coalescing. Time will not gain patience – we must channel the urgency into collective action to address climate change. "You have been negotiating all my life. You cannot tell us that you need more time," Christina Ora of the Solomon Islands, challenged a collection of 193 countries. (credit for photo of Ora speaking during COP 15)
I have participated in these negotiations since 1991, helping to draft the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. The goal is still elusive, but this 1992 Convention has 194 parties, who meet annually.
All eyes are on Durban, South Africa, where COP 17 will be held from November 28 to December 9, 2011. (image credit) There we may yet weave together international consensus for a post-2012 framework to mitigate, adapt, innovate, and fund a meaningful transnational climate response.

As Gandhi noted, we must be the change that we wish to see in the world.

On February 4

On this day in ...
... 1973, teams of inspectors known as the International Commission of Control and Supervision began monitoring a truce in the U.S.-Vietnam War, pursuant to an agreement reached a few days earlier at peace talks in Paris. The commission included delegates from Hungary, Poland, Canada and Indonesia. Sporadic fighting would continue, ending "with the fall of Saigon in April 1975 and the reunification of the country under communist rule."

(Prior February 4 post is here, here, and here.)

Whither now the United States & the ICC?

(My thanks to IntLawGrrls for the opportunity to contribute this guest post)

The relationship between the United States and the International Criminal Court has recently come full circle. The United States has transitioned from being an ICC supporter to opponent, and back again, in little more than a decade. The current climate -- of “positive and principled” U.S. engagement with the Court -- represents a dramatic change from the United States’ formerly hostile position. (credit for June 2010 photo of U.S. State Department briefing on ICC) The new reality includes:
► Active involvement with the Court’s Assembly of States Parties;
► U.S. promises to assist with ICC prosecutions; and
► An ICC President who is now “very optimistic and hopeful” about the prospect of the United States ultimately joining the Court.
How likely is the possibility of U.S. accession to the ICC Statute?
This is the question that I address in my new article, "The United States and the International Criminal Court Post-Bush: A Beautiful Courtship, but an Unlikely Marriage," forthcoming in the Berkeley Journal of International Law. My conclusion, evidenced in the article’s title, is unlikely to surprise. What may prove unexpected, however, is the reasoning behind it.
The crux of my argument does not turn upon any of the concerns historically raised by U.S. opponents of the Court. To the contrary, I first illustrate why much of the early anti-ICC rhetoric has been neutralized by the Court’s work to date. For example:
► The Prosecutor: The standard contention that the ICC Prosecutor is likely to target U.S. nationals is difficult to sustain when viewed through the lens of current practice. The reality is ICC investigations have thus far—and not coincidentally—aligned with U.S. foreign policy interests. ICC Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo (right) has likewise demonstrated a noticeable hesitancy to employ his power to trigger the Court’s jurisdiction, the would-be tool for those oft-anticipated “politicized prosecutions.”
Instead, the Prosecutor has embraced the sovereignty-friendly practice of self-referrals (referrals made by states of situations on their own territories). He has only once triggered the Court’s jurisdiction himself, and only then with the apparent support for this proprio motu exercise from both the territorial state (the Republic of Kenya) and the United States.
► Aggression: Another source of U.S. anxiety—the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the crime of aggression—was put to rest during this year’s Review Conference of the Rome Statute, about which many IntLawGrrls have posted. Noting U.S. dissatisfaction with the recently adopted definition of the crime (prior IntLawGrrls post), I explain why these perceived flaws are ultimately of little significance to U.S. interests. The Court’s ability to exercise its jurisdiction over alleged acts of aggression is the crucial factor.
In this respect, the United States has found a friend in new Article 15 bis. The provision both insulates nationals of non-member states from the Court’s aggression prosecutions and allows state parties to opt out of the Court’s aggression jurisdiction (which, presumably, the United States would do, should it ultimately ratify the Rome Statute). As such, a U.S. national can be tried for aggression at the ICC only through a U.N. Security Council referral, an unlikely possibility that would require at least tacit U.S. approval.
These and other developments help to account for the present U.S. position and illustrate why, assuming status quo, U.S. support for the Court will likely continue.
What, then, is the barrier to the burgeoning U.S.-ICC relationship?
Simply put, it is that the ICC does not appear poised to fulfill its intended and self avowed role as a “court of last resort.”
Contrary to the United States’ longstanding and clear preference for justice at the national level, the Court’s jurisprudence makes clear that the ICC is in no way limited to acting only when there is no alternative forum for investigation or prosecution.
At the heart of the cases I consider is the principle of complementarity, a fundamental aspect of the Court’s Statute commonly thought to mean that the ICC can intervene only if a state with jurisdiction is unwilling or unable to carry out an investigation or prosecution. This definition of complementarity is so prevalent it appears in the latest edition of Black’s Law Dictionary.
A 2009 ICC Appeals Chamber decision, however, definitively rejects this interpretation. According to this Appeals Chamber decision in the case of Prosecutor v. Katanga and Chui, the Court’s ability to act is limited by the principle of complementarity only if national proceedings are being (or have been) conducted. In the absence of any domestic activity, there is, in the Chamber's view simply no impediment to case admissibility.
As I explain in the article, “inaction admissibility” has many sides. Among them:
►The Good: Recalcitrant states cannot, by doing nothing, shield perpetrators of atrocities from ICC prosecutions.
►The Bad: As applied thus far, inaction admissibility may discourage otherwise “willing and able” states from fulfilling their responsibility to investigate and prosecute international crimes. States that prefer for the Court to do the heavy lifting can make this happen by simply referring a situation and then doing nothing.
►The Ugly: The Appeals Chamber in Katanga and Chui, a case arising out of the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo, has given the ICC Prosecutor a veritable blank check to target individuals who are already the subject of relevant (perhaps even identical) national proceedings. Provided that the domestic proceedings are terminated in a timely fashion, and in favor of the ICC prosecution, a case is considered admissible due to “inaction.”
Quite obviously, the second and third points (combined with other factors discussed in the article) spell trouble for the prospect of U.S. ratification.
The absence of any limitations on inaction admissibility means that the Court may address, and perhaps is presently addressing, matters that could be prosecuted at the national level. As long as inaction admissibility remains ripe for abuse in this way, the United States will have a compelling reason not to assume the role of the Court’s leading funder.
Accordingly, the article concludes by isolating the factors that have brought this problem to the fore and discussing what can be done to remove this new impediment to U.S. accession.
The full paper is posted here. I welcome your comments!

Violence Against Women: UN Fact-finding Visit to U.S.

As reported by IntLawGrrls Johanna Bond, Beth Van Schaack, and yours truly, Hope Lewis in posts here, Rashida Manjoo (pictured), a former South Africa Gender Commissioner, is the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, its Causes and Consequences.

Now, there's welcome news that Manjoo will be conducting a fact-finding visit to the United States of America beginning on Monday, 24 January and running through 7 February 2011. (See UN Press Release here.)
The visit is an important opportunity for organizations working to end gender-based and family violence as well as the individual women and girls who are at risk of such violence to be heard in an international context. At informal meetings sponsored by NGOs, women and girls will be able to talk with the rapporteur directly in order to identify failures or successes in state compliance, spread the word about best practices, and, most importantly, discuss specific effective strategies to prevent and remedy violence against women at local, national, and international levels.
Intersectionality and Interdependence
As Johanna Bond discusses in her post, Manjoo and some other special rapporteurs take an “intersectional” approach. Intersectionality recognizes the multiple aspects of identity (including dimensions like gender, race, culture, class, sexual orientation, and disability) that influence human experience. Manjoo has also reaffirmed the importance of the interdependence of civil, political, economic, social, and cultural human rights in preventing and remedying violence against women.
Plans for the Visit
An excerpt from the press release appears below:

GENEVA – The United Nations Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, Rashida Manjoo, will conduct an official fact-finding mission to the United States from the 24th of January to the 7th of February 2011. “During my visit, I intend to meet with national stakeholders involved in fighting all aspects related to violence against women, with a view to appreciate the phenomenon in the United States,” said the human rights expert, who will visit the country at the invitation of the Government. The Special Rapporteur will travel to Washington D.C., North Carolina, Florida, California, Minnesota and New York City, where she will discuss the issue with government authorities at both the federal and the state levels, and with representatives of civil society. The Special Rapporteur will also visit shelters and detention centers and she will meet with individual victims of gender-based violence. A press conference on the initial findings of the visit will be held at the United Nations Information Center in Washington (1775 K ST NW, Suite 400, Washington DC) on Monday February 7 at 1 p.m. Based on the information obtained during the visit, Ms. Manjoo will present a report with her final findings and recommendations to a forthcoming session of the Human Rights Council.
Ms. Rashida Manjoo (South Africa) was appointed Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences in June 2009 by the UN Human Rights Council, for an initial period of three years. As Special Rapporteur, she is independent from any government or organization and serves in her individual capacity. Ms. Manjoo is also a Professor at the Department of Public Law at the University of Cape Town.
Additional information on the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, is available here and the OHCHR Country Page for the United States is available here.

On January 22

On this day in ...

... 1946 (65 years ago today), President Harry S. Truman established the forerunner of today's CIA, or U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. Then called the Central Intelligence Group (image credit), it was established by means of a Presidential directive addressed to the Secretaries of State, of War, and of the Navy. It was situated within an agency then called the National Intelligence Authority. The group's purpose, in Truman's words, was that

Federal foreign intelligence activities be planned, developed and coordinated so as to assure the most effective accomplishment of the intelligence mission related to the national security.

(Prior January 22 posts are here, here, and here.)

On January 17

On this day in ...
... 1861 (150 years ago today), despite freezing weather, hundreds rallied in Montreal to protest a Toronto court's acquiescence to American demands for the return of an escaped slave accused of killing a man. The accused, John Anderson (left), was among the estimated 20,000 escapees who'd fled to Canada since the 1850 enactment of a strict U.S. requiring northern states to return slaves. (photo credit) On appeal, another court would permit Anderson to remain in Canada.


(Prior January 17 posts are here, here, and here.)

On January 12

On this day in ...
... 1976 (35 years ago today), at the United Nations' headquarters in New York, the Security Council voted 11-1-3 to let the Palestine Liberation Organization take part in a debate on the Middle East. Abstaining were Britain, France, and Italy; the lone dissenter was the United States. The U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Daniel P. Moynihan, complained both that the PLO did not recognize Israel and that the PLO

is not a state, does not administer a defined territory, does not have the attributes of a state and does not claim to be a state.

(Prior January 12 posts are here, here, and here.)

On January 11

On this day in ...
... 1943, in what The New York Times called a "first concrete step toward the new era that is expected to follow the war in the Far East, with full restoration of China's sovereignty over her own soil," United States, Britain, and China signed treaties that ceded extraterritoriality and other special privileges that the 1st 2 countries had claimed over China (then flying the Republic of China/Nationalist flag at left) for the preceding hundred years. The Chinese-American treaty was signed in Washington; the Chinese-British treaty, by which Britain held on to its claims over Hong Kong, was signed in Chungking (today, the Sichuan province city of Chongqing).

(Prior January 11 posts are here, here, and here.)

On January 3

On this day in ...
... 1961 (50 years ago today), the United States broke off diplomatic relations with Cuba, and thus closed the U.S. embassy in Havana. Taking this action was President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who would leave office later in the month. The break reflected tensions that had been mounting since Fidel Castro, whom U.S. officials deemed "too anti-American to be trusted," had become Cuba's leader 2 years earlier. Diplomatic relations between the 2 countries have not since been restored.

(Prior January 3 posts are here, here, and here.)

On December 31

On this day in ...
... 1980 (30 years ago today), Radio Tehran threatened that 52 American hostages could face execution. As posted (and see here), the hostages had been seized during the takeover of the U.S. embassy on November 4, 1979. (credit for 2004 photo of defaced U.S. seal at the former embassy building) Earlier that same year, revolutionaries had ousted Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, who'd been the Shah of Iran since 1941. On this same day 3 years earlier, in 1977, President Jimmy Carter had given a New Year's toast in Tehran, "reiterating American support" for the shah, "and calling him 'an island of stability' in the troubled region." The hostages would be released the following month, minutes after Ronald Reagan was sworn in as Carter's successor.

(Prior December 31 posts are here, here, and here.)

On December 29

On this day in ...
.... 1890 (120 years ago today), in South Dakota, U.S. cavalry troops entered an encampment of Lakota Sioux. A shot was fired and a gunfight ensued. When the Wounded Knee Massacre was over, more than 150 Lakota children, women, and men were dead -- indeed, the actual death toll may have been twice that; another 47 children and women, plus 4 men, were wounded. (credit for 2003 photo of tombstone marking mass grave, on Pine Ridge reservation) U.S.military casualties: 25 dead, 39 wounded. Eyewitness accounts may be found here.

(Prior December 29 posts are here, here, and here.)

'Nuff said

(Taking context-optional note of thought-provoking quotes)

Leaders from Britain, the United States, France and China -- along with Russia, the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council -- have all visited India in the last six months, securing contracts worth a total of around $50 billion.

-- A Reuters report today from New Delhi, where Dmitry Medvedev, President of one of the P-5 countries listed in the snippet, declared Russia's support for giving India a permanent seat on the Security Council of the United Nations. (image credit) Medvedev's announcement follows the New Delhi statement earlier this month, when President Nicolas Sarkozy said France too now supports adding India as a "P-6" -- not to mention President Barack Obama's announcement in November, as we then posted, that "a reformed U.N. Security Council that includes India as a permanent member" is the United States' goal as well. The lining up of these ducks in a row makes for a fascinating study in politico-market emergence.