Showing posts with label Beth Van Schaack. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Beth Van Schaack. Show all posts

Transitional Justice in Cambodia

One final post on my recent trip to Cambodia (flag at left) to observe the proceedings before the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia. A challenge to the tribunal will be making its legal proceeding accessible to ordinary Cambodians, who may have only a rudimentary formal education.
Researchers and lawyers with the Documentation Center of Cambodia (DC-Cam) are travelling around the country (map, right) to interview survivors and former members of the Khmer Rouge and document their stories. These interviews will provide opportunities for Cambodians to participate in the upcoming trials before the Extraordinary Chambers of the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC). Part of this work has involved updating a set of complaints (the so-called Renakse Petitions) that were solicited in the early 1980s by the Vietnamese-backed People’s Republic of Kampuchea, which was placed in power after Vietnam invaded Cambodia (Kampuchea) in 1979 to oust the Khmer Rouge. DC-Cam is tracking down the authors of the Renakse Petitions to help them update their complaints and package them for submission to the ECCC, which will try surviving members of the Khmer Rouge (see photo below left—photo credit). For more on the origins of the Renakse Petitions, see here. This rolling work is the closest thing to a truth commission that Cambodia has ever had. Other transitional societies emerging from situations of mass violence and repression have staged truth commissions in order to provide an opportunity for victims to bear witness to the violence they survived under the prior regime.
The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission also invited the participation of perpetrators, who could receive amnesty from prosecution if they met certain criteria and revealed details of the crimes they committed or to which they contributed. Our own IntLawGrrl Jaya Ramji-Nogales (below right) has been a longstanding advocate for a truth commission for Cambodia to complement the work of the ECCC. See Jaya Ramji(-Nogales), Reclaiming Cambodian History: The Case for a Truth Commission, 24 Fletcher Forum Of World Affairs 137 (2000). Regrettably, however, it is unlikely that the Royal Government of Cambodia or the international community will push for the establishment of a formal truth commission for Cambodia.
This makes the work of DC-Cam and other local organizations particularly important to personalize the quest for justice & accountability, as it will be impossible for the vast majority of the Khmer Rouge’s victims to participate in any meaningful way in the work of the ECCC. Moreover, only five individuals have been charged. With jurisdiction over only “senior leaders of Democratic Kampuchea [the Khmer Rouge] and those who were most responsible for the crimes,” the tribunal will not prosecute low to mid-level Khmer Rouge cadre who may have committed international crimes. The work of DC-Cam is thus necessary to dispel any misconceptions that only the top leaders were responsible for abuses. In fact, as research by Cambodian expert Steve Heder and others has shown, Khmer Rouge cadre were given considerable discretion to implement the sometimes cryptic directives from the Khmer Rouge Standing Committee, so some provinces suffered more than others. See Steve Heder, Reassessing the Role of Senior Leaders and Local Officials in Democratic Kampuchea Crimes: Cambodian Accountability in Comparative Perspective 377, in Bringing the Khmer Rouge to Justice: Prosecuting Mass Violence before the Cambodian Courts (Jaya Ramji & Beth Van Schaack 2005).
These stories are equally as vital to building a shared national history of life under the Khmer Rouge and to further understand the patterns of obedience and violence during that fateful time. For many years, students in Cambodia were taught very little about the Khmer Rouge era. History courses simply skipped over the years 1975-79 with a mere mention of the Khmer Rouge. To rectify this, DC-Cam has recently released a hard copy and online textbook that can be used in high school classes around the country (right). The center has also embarked on a 3-year project to develop human rights curricula for the primary, high school, undergraduate, and graduate levels that will consider the causes and consequences of genocide and mass violence in a number of different settings, including in Cambodia.
In addition to the standard goals of the criminal law—achieving retribution, promoting deterrence, and expressing a community’s opprobrium about disruptive acts—international tribunals are often established with a host of ambitious objectives that include achieving national reconciliation, rehabilitating victims and perpetrators, creating a definitive collective history, and repairing broken societies. Like domestic criminal proceedings, trials before international tribunals do well at ascribing individual criminal responsibility to individual perpetrators, particularly from a “top down” perspective. They can also engage in useful norm enunciation, which can inform domestic efforts to legislate against and prosecute international crimes. Ongoing research on the results of the ad hoc criminal tribunals suggests that international tribunals may be less effective at achieving these other ambitions.
Given the limitations of international trials, the international community must be more active about promoting (and funding) alternative mechanisms within societies to address the crimes of a prior regime. These initiatives can reflect the particular socio-cultural, historical, artistic, religious, and legal culture and promote reconciliation, rehabilitation, reparation, and accountability on the community level. In Cambodia, such an effort could tap into the widely held Buddhist beliefs of the populace (the vast majority of Cambodians practice Therāvada Buddhism), the high levels of respect felt for Buddhist monks and nuns (photo left—credit), and the existing network of monasteries and nunneries. While the work of the ECCC is important and deserves international support, a broader response to the massive crimes of the Khmer Rouge is merited.

On February 4, ...

... 2008 (today), the World Health Organization marks World Cancer Day, designed to raise awareness about the malady that, absent intervention, is expected to kill 84 million persons this decade. The focus this year is on children; specifically, on the risk to children when adults around them smoke. WHO states:

Around 700 million children - almost half of the world's children - breathe air polluted by tobacco smoke, particularly at home. ... [A] simple message to parents: 'Second-hand smoke is a health hazard for you and your family. There is no safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke. Give your child a smoke-free childhood.'
... 1946, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Japanese General Tomoyuki Yamashita for war crimes committed by his troops in the battle for the Philippines, won by the United States shortly before the end of World War II. The Court did so over the vociferous dissents of Justices Wiley B. Rutledge and Frank Murphy. Yamashita -- convicted on a command responsibility theory, as IntLawGrrl Beth Van Schaack has written here -- was hanged soon after. The case drew new interest 40 years later. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), the Court gave credit to the dissents; a majority agreed that "[t]he force of" Yamashita 's approval of military commission procedures "has been seriously undermined by post-World War II developments." Author of the opinion was Justice John Paul Stevens who, as I've written here, had begun a yearlong clerkship for Rutledge 18 months after the Yamashita decision.

Gitmo, round 3

Today the U.S. Supreme Court embarked on its 3d voyage in 3 years to Guantánamo Bay.
Justices convened at 10 to hear an hour of oral argument in Boumediene v. Bush, the title for consolidated cases brought by many of the noncitizens whom executive officials seized abroad in the years since 9/11 and then transported to the naval base that the United States has operated for more than a century at the southeastern corner of the island of Cuba.
Arguing on behalf of detainees were Seth P. Waxman, who served as Solicitor General, the United States' chief appellate attorney, from 1997-2001 and is now a D.C.-based private practitioner. Arguing on behalf of the government was Paul D. Clement, the current Solicitor General.
As detailed in briefs about which IntLawGrrl and amicus author Beth Van Schaack* has posted, discussion promised to cover both jurisdictional and merits issues. Preargument, these seemed like likely key concerns:
1st, may U.S. courts consider legal challenges brought by these detainees? In Rasul v. Bush (2004), 1 of 3 judgments in the 1st round of Gitmo litigation, the Court ruled that nothing in the federal habeas statute precluded so extending the "privilege of litigation." Congress responded by rewriting the statute, not just once but, after the Court rebuffed the 1st attempt in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006) -- Gitmo, round 2 -- twice. With regard to that 2d effort, contained in the Military Commissions Act, the Court will determine whether Congress indeed intended to curtail federal litigation and, if so, whether the Constitution permits such curtailment.
2d, assuming that the litigation may go forward, do the special military panels set up in the wake of the 2004 judgments satisfy legal requirements for reviewing the lawfulness of detention? Evidence supporting petitioners' contention that the panels are procedurally deficient and unduly skewed toward the government's side have come from a number of sources, among them the Denbeaux studies of CSRT transcripts and, at the appendix to this filing, an affidavit from officer who served on those panels.
UPDATE: The Court's now released to the internet both an audio tape and written transcript of this morning's argument. For a roundup on commentary so far, see SCOTUSblog.

* Other IntLawGrrls with a hand in today's arguments: Amicus author Jenny S. Martinez, and Kristine A. Huskey, whose representation of certain detainees is described here. Have I forgotten anyone?

Hot Off the Presses

Heartfelt congratulations to IntLawGrrls' own Connie de la Vega (below), who joins 2 other IntLawGrrls, Elizabeth Hillman and Beth Van Schaack, as authors of just-published books.
Connie's contribution is International Human Rights Law (2007).
Along with co-author David Weissbrodt, she's produced what the publisher, University of Pennsylvania Press, calls "a comprehensive introductory treatise, intended for all concerned about this critical area of international law, including students, lawyers, other advocates, teachers, and academics." Within the book's 3 sections may be found:

► Discussions of the development of human rights as a field within international law;

► Summaries of each rights set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and subsequent instruments; and
► Examination of national, regional, and international implementation processes.

You go, 'Grrl!

Hot Off the Presses

Our very own "Eleanor Roosevelt," aka Beth Van Schaack, has just published (along with co-author Ron Slye) a new textbook -- International Criminal Law and Its Enforcement: Cases and Material (Foundation Press). An examination copy landed on my desk this morning, although I had the pleasure of reading some excellent chapters before publication. A timely contribution to a burgeoning field with few comprehensive texts thus far, the book explores the jurisprudence of international and hybrid criminal tribunals, United Nations legal bodies, regional human rights fora, domestic courts, and alternative accountability institutions. It compiles seminal cases as well as leading law review articles, and provides thought-provoking notes and questions after each section. You go, Grrl!
 
Bloggers Team