DOCSLIB.ORG

Confrontingcomplexity

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Confrontingcomplexity 106TH ANNUAL MEETING FINAL PROGRAM Confronting Complexity March 28-31, 2012 The Fairmont Washington, D.C. SIL is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, educational membership organization founded in 1906 and chartered by Congress in 1950. The mission of the American Society of International Law is to foster the study of international Alaw and to promote the establishment and maintenance of international relations on the basis of law and justice. ASIL holds Category II Consultative Status to the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations and is a constituent society of the American Council of Learned Societies. The Society’s 4,000 members from more than 100 nations include attorneys, academics, corporate counsel, judges, representatives of governments and nongovernmental organizations, international civil servants, students and others interested in international law. Through our meetings, publications, information services and outreach programs, ASIL advances international law scholarship and education for international law professionals as well as for broader policy-making audiences and the public. 2223 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20008 Phone +1 202-939-6000 Fax +1 202-797-7133 www.asil.org ©2012 ASIL Annual Meeting Dear Colleague, Contemporary reality is confoundingly complex: it is marked by rapidly evolving technologies, increasing global interconnectedness, rising population, and deepening understanding of science and the environment. New international actors; changes in social, economic, and political dynamics; a multipolar power structure; and novel security threats only add to the complexity. Amidst this confusion, international law can be a source of order and clarity. It can provide frameworks to peacefully resolve disputes, regulate relations between diff erent actors, and clarify rights and obligations. It can foster technological development and facilitate exchanges of knowledge and goods. It is no surprise that managing global fi nancial crises, protecting global commons, responding to confl icts spilling across borders, and guaranteeing public health and safety have all been added to international law’s purview. In our crowded, connected world, civil uprisings, fi nancial collapses, natural and human-caused disasters are no longer domestic crises: they are global crises. While international law has at times been quite creative in response to these problems, whether it is fully up to the task remains an open question. International law can actually exacerbate complexity with confl icting or unclear rules, uncertain enforcement, and overlapping and competing jurisdiction. International law must demonstrate the fl exibility to embrace new issues, to look beyond the State, and to integrate new players (who may not follow its rules). Transparency, accountability, and participation must be guaranteed in new private regulatory regimes, shorn from State control. Th e instruments and processes of international law must provide means for scientifi c evidence to be sift ed, understood, and translated into law. And yet, even as it adapts, international law must also remain a force for stability and predictability. Which problems is international law particularly well-suited to solve? Which seem to defy its regulation? What tools does international law have to manage this complexity? Where are best practices emerging? What has our profession learned in the last half-century? Is law, with its emphasis on rules and stability, conceptually and functionally capable of responding to the challenges of complexity? If not, how should law react? What do experts from outside the legal profession, from technology, fi nance, counterinsurgency, climate science, and risk, believe law can add? During the 2012 ASIL Annual Meeting we will address these questions and discuss how international law responds to complexity. Co-Chairs, Program Committee ASIL 106th Annual Meeting Harlan Cohen Chiara Giorgetti Cymie Payne 1 106th ASIL Annual Meeting Table of Contents 4 .................. Sponsors, Partners and Exhibitors 6 .................. Exhibitor Floor Plan 11 ................. Program at a Glance 15 .................. Annual Meeting Program Committee 16 ................ About ASIL 25 ................General Conference Information 27 ................ Speakers 35 ................ Main Program Agenda 71 .................Program by Track 73 ................ Meeting Floor Plan 2012 ASIL Sponsors & Partners ASIL would like to give thanks to the following sponsors of the 106th Annual Meeting – ANNUAL MEETING SPECIAL EVENT SPONSORS – The City of the Hague The Royal Netherlands Embassy American University,Washington College of Law Covington & Burling LLP George Washington University Law School Martinus Nijhoff (Brill) Publishers – 2012 LAW FIRM SPONSORS – – 2012 PUBLISHING PARTNERS – Leadership Circle Platinum Bronze President’s Circle Edward Elgar Publishing Sullivan & Cromwell Hart Publishing Intersentia Publishing Counselors Covington & Burling Justis Publishing Sidley Austin Springer Steptoe & Johnson William S. Hein & Company Troutman Sanders Wolters Kluwer Law & Business 4 – 2011-2012 ACADEMIC PARTNERS – American University, Washington College of Law Arizona State University, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law Boston University School of Law Case Western Reserve University School of Law Chapman University School of Law Columbia University School of Law Duke University School of Law George Washington University Law School Georgetown University Law Center Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva Indiana University Maurer School of Law Th e John Marshall Law School Loyola Law School Los Angeles New York Law School New York University School of Law Notre Dame Law School Pace University Law School Pennsylvania State University Dickinson School of Law Pepperdine University School of Law Santa Clara University School of Law Seton Hall University School of Law Southwestern Law School St. John’s University School of Law St. Th omas University School of Law Stanford University Stetson University College of Law Sydney Law School Th omas Jeff erson School of Law Tuft s Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy University of California, Berkeley School of Law University of California, Davis School of Law University of California, Los Angeles School of Law University of Denver College of Law University of Geneva Law University of Georgia School of Law University of Iowa College University of Miami School of Law University of Minnesota Law School University of San Francisco School of Law University of Southern California, Gould School of Law University of Tulsa College of Law Vermont Law School Washington & Lee School of Law Willamette University College of Law Yale Law School 5 Exhibitor Floor Plan 6 6ISIT"RILL\.IJHOլ ATTHE!SIL%XHIBITSTO2ECEIVE 3PECIAL$ISCOUNTSAND)NFORMATION ON.EW0UBLICATIONS )NTERNATIONAL#IVIL4RIBUNALS 4HE2ULES 0RACTICE AND .ECESSITYAND.ATIONAL AND!RMED#ONÏICT *URISPRUDENCEOF)NTERNATIONAL %MERGENCY#LAUSES %DITEDBY-ICHAEL*-ATHESON 'EORGE #OURTSAND4RIBUNALS 3OVEREIGNTYIN-ODERN4REATY)NTERPRETATION 7ASHINGTON5NIVERSITY,AW3CHOOL %DITEDBY#HIARA'IORGETTI 7HITE#ASE ,,0 $IANE!$ESIERTO 9ALE,AW3CHOOL È-ARCH È*ANUARY È*ANUARY È)3". È)3". È)3". È(ARDBACKXVI PP È(ARDBACKXXXII PP È(ARDBACKXX PP È)NTERNATIONAL,ITIGATIONIN0RACTICE È,ISTPRICE%52 53 È,ISTPRICE%52 53 È)NTERNATIONAL,ITIGATIONIN0RACTICE È)NTERNATIONAL,ITIGATIONIN0RACTICE .EW$IRECTIONSIN)NTERNATIONAL #ONTRACTSFORTHE)NTERNATIONAL )NTERNATIONALAND&OREIGN %CONOMIC,AW 3ALEOF'OODS ,EGAL2ESEARCH )N-EMORIAM4HOMAS7LDE !PPLICABILITYAND!PPLICATIONS !#OURSEBOOK3ECONDEDITION %DITEDBY4ODD7EILER )NDEPENDENT#OUNCIL OFTHE5NITED.ATIONS#ONVENTION -ARCI(OլMANAND-ARY2UMSEY AND&REYA"AETENS 'ROTIUS#ENTREFOR &RANCO&ERRARI .EW9ORK5NIVERSITY3CHOOLOF È-AY )NTERNATIONAL,EGAL3TUDIES ,AW È)3". È!UGUST È$ECEMBER È(ARDBACKPP È)3". È)3". È,ISTPRICE%52 53 È(ARDBACKXX PP È(ARDBACKVIII PP È,ISTPRICE%52 53 È,ISTPRICE%52 53 #OEXISTENCE #OOPERATION 3ELF $ETERMINATION $IGNITY !3ELECTIVE!PPROACHTO%STABLISHING AND3OLIDARITYVOLS AND%ND OF ,IFE#ARE A(UMAN2IGHTS-ECHANISM ,IBER!MICORUM2®DIGER7OLFRUM 2EGULATING!DVANCE$IRECTIVESIN)NTERNATIONAL IN3OUTHEAST!SIA %DITEDBY(OLGER0(ESTERMEYER $ORIS+¨NIG AND#OMPARATIVE0ERSPECTIVE 4HE#ASEFORA3OUTHEAST!SIAN#OURT .ELE-ATZ ,®CK 6OLKER2¨BEN !NJA3EIBERT %DITEDBY3TEFANIA.EGRI OF(UMAN2IGHTS &OHR 0ETER 4OBIAS3TOLLAND3ILJA6¨NEKY È&EBRUARY (AO$UY0HAN È.OVEMBER È)3". È&EBRUARY È)3". È(ARDBACKXII PP È)3". È(ARDBACK È,ISTPRICE%52 53 È(ARDBACKXXII PP 6OL)XXXIV PP6OL))XIV PP È1UEEN-ARY3TUDIESIN)NTERNATIONAL,AW È,ISTPRICE%52 53 È,ISTPRICE%52 53 È0ROCEDURAL!SPECTSOF)NTERNATIONAL,AW )NTERNATIONAL!RBITRAL*URISDICTION &ISHERIESAND3USTAINABILITY !N)NTRODUCTIONTO)NTERNATIONAL,AW #HITTHARANJAN&!MERASINGHE !,EGAL!NALYSISOF%5AND7EST!FRICAN!GREEMENTS "ENEDETTO#ONFORTIAND!NGELO,ABELLA È&EBRUARY %MMA6ICTORIA7ITBOOI È*ANUARY È)3". È.OVEMBER È)3". È(ARDBACKXXX PP È)3". È(ARDBACKPP È,ISTPRICE%52 53 È(ARDBACKXVI PP È,ISTPRICE%52 53 È)NTERNATIONAL,ITIGATIONIN0RACTICE È,ISTPRICE%52 53 È1UEEN-ARY3TUDIESIN)NTERNATIONAL,AW !VIATION,AW#ASES ,AWS %UROPEOF2IGHTS!#OMPENDIUM AND2ELATED3OURCES ONTHE%UROPEAN#ONVENTION %VOLVING0RINCIPLES 3ECOND%DITION OF(UMAN2IGHTS OF)NTERNATIONAL,AW 0AUL",ARSEN *OSEPH#3WEENEY %DITEDBY*AVIER'ARC A2OCA 3TUDIESIN(ONOUROF+AREL#7ELLENS AND*OHN'ILLICK AND0ABLO3ANTOLAYA %VA2IETERAND(ENRIDE7AELE È!PRIL È-ARCH È.OVEMBER È)3". È)3". È)3". È(ARDBACKPP È(ARDBACKPP È(ARDBACKXXVIII PP È,ISTPRICE%52 53 È,ISTPRICE%52 53 È,ISTPRICE%52 53 È1UEEN-ARY3TUDIESIN)NTERNATIONAL,AW -AJOR/NLINE2EFERENCE7ORKS
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chair of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (Ms
    GA65 Third Committee Subject to change – Status as of 8 October 2010 Special procedure mandate-holders, Chairs of human rights treaty bodies or Chairs of Working Groups presenting reports Monday, 11 October (am) Chair of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (Ms. Xiaoqiau ZOU, Vice-Chair, on behalf of Ms. Naela GABR, Chair of CEDAW) – oral report and interactive dialogue. Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, Ms. Rashida MANJOO – oral report Wednesday, 13 October (pm) Special Representative of the Secretary-General on violence against children, Ms. Marta SANTOS PAIS. Chair of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, Ms. Yanghee LEE - oral report. Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, Ms. Najat M’jid MAALLA Monday, 18 October (am) Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedom of indigenous people, Mr. James ANAYA Tuesday, 19 October (am) Chair of the Committee against Torture, Mr. Claudio GROSSMAN – oral report and interactive dialogue. Chair of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture, Mr. Victor Manuel RODRIGUEZ RESCIA – oral report and interactive dialogue. Wednesday, 20 October (pm) Independent Expert on minority issues, Ms. Gay McDOUGALL. Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, Mr. Tomas Ojea QUINTANA. Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Mr. Richard FALK. Thursday, 21 October (am) Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Mr. Olivier DE SCHUTTER. 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, Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Procedure Mandate-Holders Presenting to the Third Committee
    GA66 Third Committee Subject to change – Status as of 7 October 2011 Special procedure mandate-holders, Chairs of human rights treaty bodies or Chairs of Working Groups presenting reports Monday, 10 October (am) • Chair of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, Ms. Silvia Pimentel – oral report and interactive dialogue. • Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, Ms. Rashida MANJOO report and interactive dialogue. Wednesday, 12 October (pm) • Chair of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, Mr. Jean Zermatten, – oral report. • Special Representative of the Secretary-General on violence against children, Ms. Marta SANTOS PAIS. • Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, Ms. Najat M’jid MAALLA. Monday, 17 October (am) • Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, Mr. James ANAYA. Tuesday, 18 October (am) • Chair of the Committee against Torture, Mr. Claudio GROSSMAN – oral report and interactive dialogue. • Chair of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture, Mr. Malcolm David Evans – oral report and interactive dialogue. • Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment, Mr. Juan MENDEZ Wednesday, 19 October (pm) • Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran, Mr. Ahmed SHAHEED. • Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, Mr. Tomas Ojea QUINTANA. • Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Mr. Marzuki DARUSMAN. Thursday, 20 October (am) • Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Human Rights Defenders a Global Crisis
    PoliCY BriEf EnvironmEntal Human rigHts DEfEnDErs A global crisis John H. Knox february 2017 PrEFACE Environmental human rights defenders (EHrDs) are in the past, human rights organisations may have seen individuals and groups who ‘strive to protect and promote environmental advocates as primarily focused on issues human rights relating to the environment.’1 they come that fall outside their mandate; and environmental from many different backgrounds and work in different organisations, while often cognisant of the threats faced ways. some are lawyers or journalists, but many are by EHrDs, have historically been less aware of the ‘ordinary people living in remote villages, forests or relevance of human rights law and institutions. mountains, who may not even be aware that they are acting as environmental human rights defenders.’2 in in recent years, a number of civil society organisations many cases, they are representatives of indigenous and un experts have taken steps to reverse this neglect peoples and traditional communities whose lands and and shine an increasingly bright light on the situation of ways of life are threatened by large projects such as EHrDs. global Witness and other ngos, together with dams, logging, mining or oil extraction. the un special rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, have begun to map and describe this What they all have in common is that they work to protect global crisis. in this report, we draw on and supplement the environment on which a vast range of human rights their work, with the aim of further increasing attention depend. We cannot fully enjoy our rights, including to the problem and identifying possible solutions.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Rights Are Essential Tools for an Effective Intercultural Dialogue
    Human rights are essential tools for an effective intercultural dialogue Statement by a group of United Nations experts* on the World Day for Cultural Diversity for Dialogue and Development 21 May 2010 On this World Day for Cultural Diversity, let us celebrate the richness of our common humanity embodied in cultural diversity which is as essential for humankind as bio-diversity is for nature and recognise the imperative of defending this diversity which cannot be dissociated from respect for the dignity of the individual and complete commitment to human rights and fundamental freedoms. Manifest in the manifold ways individuals, groups and societies express themselves, cultural diversity lies at the heart of contemporary debates about identity and social cohesion. Globalization processes, facilitated by the rapid development of new information and communication technologies, are often perceived to be eroding cultural diversity, making the preservation of diversity all the more important. Development, as a process ensuring a more satisfactory intellectual, emotional, moral and spiritual existence for all, requires that intercultural dialogue and harmonious interaction be promoted among individuals and groups with plural, varied and dynamic cultural identities as the best guarantee of peace and stability. Cultural diversity, however, can only thrive in an environment that safeguards fundamental freedoms and human rights, which are universal, indivisible, interconnected and interdependent. No one may invoke cultural diversity as an excuse to infringe on human rights guaranteed by international law or limit their scope, nor should cultural diversity be taken to support segregation and harmful traditional practices which, in the name of culture, seek to sanctify differences that run counter to the universality, indivisibility and interdependence of human rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Dafna Dror-Shpoliansky and Yuval Shany ABSTRACT: 'The Same
    DRAFT: Do not copy, cite, or distribute without permission of the authors IT'S THE END OF THE (OFFLINE) WORLD AS WE KNOW IT: FROM HUMAN RIGHTS TO DIGITAL HUMAN RIGHTS – A PROPOSED TYPOLOGY Dafna Dror-Shpoliansky and Yuval Shany ABSTRACT: 'The same rights that people have offline must also be protected online' is used as a prevailing concept in international fora in recent years. But does this "normative equivalency" between 'offline' and 'online' afford fully effective protection for the rights of online users? This is the question at the heart of this Article. We first review the development of human rights in cyberspace as conceptualized in international fora, and critically evaluate the normative equivalency paradigm adopted by international bodies for the application of human rights online. In the latter part of this Article, we attempt to describe the contours of a new digital human rights framework, which goes beyond the normative equivalency paradigm. We propose such a framework should be conceptualized as built upon existing human rights norms, but containing additional protections corresponding to unique features and challenges of actors and activity in cyberspace. After laying down the normative justifications, for recognizing new digital human rights, we offer a typology of three generations in the evolution of digital human rights. I. INTRODUCTION The Cambridge Analytica incident,1 and other high profile incidents2 involving harmful online practices, such as online hate speech,3 propagation of ‘fake news’,4 intrusive 1Rob Price, The UK's privacy watchdog has fined Facebook £500,000 — the maximum amount — over Cambridge Analytica, BUSINESS INSIDER (Jul.
    [Show full text]
  • Motion for Leave to File Brief Amici Curiae As Filed
    USCA Case #16-7081 Document #1644084 Filed: 11/01/2016 Page 1 of 9 Oral Argument Not Yet Scheduled No. 16-7081 __________________________________ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT __________________________________ John Doe, a.k.a. Kidane, Plaintiff / Appellant v. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Defendant / Appellee. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF THE UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS EXPERTS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF- APPELLANT URGING REVERSAL United Nations human rights experts David Kaye, Maina Kiai and Michel Forst move for leave to file the accompanying amici curiae brief in support of Appellant. Appellant Kidane consents to this filing; Appellee Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia has not provided consent. Amici herein request leave to inform the Court of the potential implications of its ruling for the United States’ compliance with its obligations under international human rights law. Amici come before the Court with significant expertise on the scope and implementation of 1 USCA Case #16-7081 Document #1644084 Filed: 11/01/2016 Page 2 of 9 relevant international human rights norms, which will assist the Court’s decisionmaking. I. Interest of Amici Special Rapporteurs are appointed by the United Nations (“U.N.”) Human Rights Council, the central human rights institution of the U.N. and a subsidiary organ of the U.N. General Assembly. Special Rapporteurs examine, monitor, advise and report on the category of rights with which their mandates are concerned. They do this by receiving individual complaints, conducting country visits, issuing thematic reports, providing technical assistance to governments, and engaging in public outreach and promotional activities – all with the ultimate goal of promoting and protecting the relevant category of rights worldwide.
    [Show full text]
  • Ponència Del Prof. Dr. Alfred-Maurice De Zayas
    Ponència del Prof. Dr. Alfred-Maurice de Zayas “El desenvolupament progressiu del Dret Internacional: la realització del dret a a l’autodeterminació com a estratègia per al manteniment de la pau”. PONÈNCIA: “El desenvolupament progressiu del Dret Internacional: la realització del dret a a l’autodeterminació com a estratègia per al manteniment de la pau”. Prof. Dr. Alfred-Maurice de Zayas Expert Independent de les Nacions Unides per a la promoció d’un ordre internacional democràtic i equitable Palma, Mallorca, 11 de març de 2016 Qüestió de l’aplicació del dret d’autodeterminació com a clau per a l’ordre internacional previst per la Carta de les Nacions Unides (document A/69/272) Informe presentat a l'Assemblea General de les Nacions Unides a Nova York el 7 d’agost de 2014 “In its essence, the right of self-determination means that individuals and peoples should be in control of their destinies and should be able to live out their identities, whether within the boundaries of existing States or through independence. More than an outcome, self-determination should be seen as a process subject to revision and adjustment, and its outcome must correspond to the free and voluntary choice of the peoples concerned, within a framework of human rights protection and non-discrimination.” (“En la seva essència, el dret d’autodeterminació vol dir que individus i pobles haurien de poder viure plenament llurs identitats, ja sigui dins de les fronteres dels Estats existents o mitjançant la independència. Més que un resultat, l’autodeterminació hauria de
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Neo-Extractivism, Development Pathways and Contestation in Recent Years There Has Been, What Commentators Call
    RAPOPORT CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND JUSTICE READING GROUP NATURAL RESOURCE GOVERNANCE, INEQUALITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS Neo-extractivism, Development Pathways and Contestation In recent years there has been, what commentators call, "a global surge in raw materials and the resulting dynamics of development"1 where "due to international demand for raw materials, a resource-dependent development path is gaining momentum in ... regions of the global South".2 In particular, the electronic sector is driving new demand for metals and minerals that were previously much less exploited. The term "(neo-)extractivism" (or even "extreme extraction"3) is becoming more widely used to describe growth-orientated development paths that are "economic models and sectors such as mining that revolve around the extensive extraction of raw materials and their export".4 The readings for this week examine a recent discussion of (neo-)extractivism in Latin America, and a discussion of the ways in which the extraction and export or raw materials may provide revenue to improve living conditions. • Burchardt, Hans-Jürgen and Kristina Dietz, '(Neo-)extractivism – a new challenge for development theory from Latin America' (2014) 35(3) Third World Quarterly 468. • Thea Riafrancos “Beyond the Petrostate: Ecuador’s Left Dilemma” Dissent, Summer 2015, https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/riofrancos-beyond-petrostate-ecuador-left-dilemma Human Rights and Climate Change Climate change is increasingly recognized as raising multiple human rights concerns. This week, we look at this question, whilst also interrogating the representational problems in grappling with problems--such as climate change--that have multiple diffuse causes, where causality cannot be directly determined, and the violence of its effects is often naturalized.
    [Show full text]
  • The National Congress of American Indians Resolution #REN-13-005
    N A T I O N A L C O N G R E S S O F A M E R I C A N I N D I A N S April 18, 2014 Secretary John Kerry U.S. Department of State Attn: Office of the Special Representative for Global Intergovernmental Affairs E XECUTIVE C OMMITTEE 2201 C Street NW PRESIDENT Washington, D.C. 20520 Brian Cladoosby Swinomish Tribe Email: [email protected] FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT Michael Finley Colville Tribes Re: United Nations Inquiries Concerning American Indigenous Prisoners’ RECORDING SECRETARY Religious Freedoms Robert Shepherd Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate TREASURER Dennis Welsh, Jr. Dear Secretary Kerry: Colorado River Indian Tribes R EGIONAL V ICE- We understand from papers recently published by the Honorable James Anaya, the P RESIDENTS United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, that the ALASKA Jerry Isaac U.S. State Department has yet to respond to a June 5, 2013 inquiry regarding the Native Village of Tanacross “increasing number of state-level regulations that restrict the religious freedoms of EASTERN OKLAHOMA S. Joe Crittenden Native American prisoners, including their participation in religious ceremonies and Cherokee Nation possession of religious items.” That inquiry was submitted to the State Department GREAT PLAINS Leander McDonald by Special Rapporteur Anaya and the Honorable Heiner Bielefeldt, UN Special Spirit Lake Nation MIDWEST Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, and respectfully requested your Aaron Payment Sault Ste. Marie Band of Chippewa agency’s response within 60 days. Indians of Michigan NORTHEAST Randy Noka We hereby urge the United States’ earliest possible response to the Special Narragansett Tribe Rapporteurs.
    [Show full text]
  • Conference on Implementing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the United States
    Conference on Implementing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the United States March 15-16, 2019 University of Colorado Law School Boulder, Colorado CONFERENCE INTRODUCTION In 2007, following decades of advocacy by indigenous peoples, the UN General Assembly adopted the Declaration, acknowledging indigenous peoples’ rights to self-determination, equality, property, culture, and other human rights. The United States, along with Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, have pledged their support for the Declaration, and 148 nations worldwide now accept a set of agreed-upon norms for the just treatment of indigenous peoples. The Declaration provides an impetus to redress historic wrongs committed against indigenous peoples and advance the arc of justice. The Declaration sets forth a remedial scheme to address the legacy of land dispossession, physical violence, cultural disruption, economic deprivation, and other harms experienced by indigenous peoples during the experiences of conquest, colonization, and settlement. However, it will take comprehensive law and policy reform, as well as structural and conceptual change, to begin the process of redress and reconciliation for indigenous peoples in domestic legal systems. On March 15-16, 2019, the University of Colorado Law School and Native American Rights Fund will host a conference to advance the promises of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and develop a strategy for its implementation in the United States. This event will be a transformative gathering of critical thinkers and committed advocates, toward the true flourishing of indigenous peoples, healing, and justice for all. Attorneys, legal scholars, and tribal leaders will discuss challenges in Federal Indian Law and the role of international human rights in advocacy efforts.
    [Show full text]
  • Barroblanco Appeal 1
    February 18, 2014 To: Ms. Raquel Rolnik, Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context Mr. James Anaya, Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples Mr. Olivier de Schutter, Special Rapporteur on the right to food Ms. Catarina de Albuquerque, Special Rapporteur on the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation Ms. Magdalena Sepúlveda Carmona, Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights Mr. Kishore Singh, Special Rapporteur on the right to education cc: Mr. John Knox, Independent Expert on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment Ms. Alexandra Guaqueta, Chair of the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises Via: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Re: Imminent Forced Evictions of Indigenous Ngöbe Families due to Barro Blanco Dam in Panama Dear Special Rapporteurs Rolnik, Anaya, de Schutter, de Albuquerque, Sepúlveda, and Singh: The Movimiento 10 de Abril para Defensa del Rio Tabasará (M10), the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), and Earthjustice respectfully submit this urgent appeal to United Nations Special Procedures on behalf of members of the indigenous Ngöbe community who imminently face forced eviction from their land due to the Barro Blanco hydroelectric dam project in western Panama.
    [Show full text]
  • Cyber Attacks and Cyber (Mis)Information Operations During a Pandemic
    Cyber Attacks and Cyber (Mis)information Operations During a Pandemic Marko Milanovic* & Michael N. Schmitt** INTRODUCTION . 247 I. STATE CYBER OPERATIONS AGAINST HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS DURING THE PANDEMIC. 250 A. Violation of Sovereignty ............................ 252 B. Violation of the Prohibition of Intervention .............. 256 C. Violation of the Prohibition on the Use of Force .......... 258 D. Violation of Human Rights .......................... 261 II. STATE MISINFORMATION DURING THE PANDEMIC . 266 A. Violation of Human Rights Law When Directed Against A State’s Own Population............................. 267 B. Violation of Human Rights Law When Directed Against Individuals in Other States .......................... 268 C. Violation of General International Law When Directed Against Other States ............................... 269 III. STATE OBLIGATIONS REGARDING CYBER OPERATIONS AND MISINFORMATION BY NON-STATE ACTORS AND THIRD STATES DURING THE PANDEMIC. 270 A. Positive Due Diligence Obligation under Human Rights Law to Protect the State’s Own Population Against Hostile Operations by Other States and by Non-State Actors. ..... 270 B. Constraints under Human Rights Law When Combatting Hostile Cyber Operations and Misinformation ........... 274 C. Positive Due Diligence Obligation under General International Law and Human Rights Law to Stop Hostile Operations Against Other States . .................... 279 CONCLUSION. 282 INTRODUCTION The COVID-19 pandemic has been accompanied by reprehensible cyber opera- tions directed against medical facilities and capabilities, as well as by a flood of * Professor of Public International Law, University of Nottingham School of Law. The discussion on misinformation draws on my earlier three part series on Viral Information and the Freedom of Expression on EJIL: TALK!, Apr. 13-14, 2020, https://perma.cc/9YLR-YE94. © 2020, Marko Milanovic and Michael N.
    [Show full text]