United Nations Human Rights Council

Study guide United Nations Human Rights Council

Table of content

The United Nations Human Rights Council 2 Topic A: Freedom of Speech and Expression on the Internet 4 Introduction to the topic 4 History of the Topic 5 Current situation 7 Bloc Positions 14 Questions a resolution must answer 22 Suggestions for further research 23 Topic B: Rights of Indigenous People 24

The problem 24 Current Situation 25 Timeline of significant events 332 Questions a resolution must answer 343 Suggestions for further research 354

The United Nations Human Rights Council The HRC is an inter-governmental body within the structure of the UN accountable for elevating and safeguarding human rights around the world. It is also mandated for tackling instances of human rights breaches and giving out recommendations. It has the power to direct discourse on all thematic notions and situations that require its consideration throughout the year. The Committee has 47 members which are elected by the United Nations General Assembly The Council came into being on 15 March 2006 by UNGA Resolution 60/251. The UNHRC adopted the famous ‘Institution Building Package’ in 2007 to monitor its doings and form rules, regulations and administrative procedures. One of them was the Universal Periodic Review mechanism which aids to evaluate the human rights circumstances in all UN member states. It also formed the Advisory Committee which assists as the Council’s “think tank” offering it with proficiency and guidance on thematic human rights issues and the Complaint Procedure which permits persons and establishments to bring human rights abuses to the knowledge of the UNHRC1

1 http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/AboutCouncil.aspx

The Chairs Sagar Kumar Jagani, 25 Dear Delegates, My name is Sagar Jagani and it’s a pleasure to be serving as chair for UNHRC at IsarMUN; the culmination of ten unforgettable years of ceaseless commitment and hard work, of rivalries and alliances, but most importantly, of friendship and life-changing experiences. The issues chosen as topic areas for the committee are agendas that not only the committee directors strongly feel about but are also of utmost importance to the global community today. I anticipate a high level of debate at this year’s conference and I look forward to hearing assorted opinions on the topic areas. Understandably, it might be difficult to assume the role of an ambassador of a country other than your own. However, that’s the very essence of a Model UN Conference and particularly IsarMUN. The theme for this year’s conference is one that embodies the very ideology behind what the conference has always strived to achieve. Indeed, ‘An Open World’ is an ideal that truly encapsulates the MUN experience- an experience that has evolved from merely participation in a Model UN Conference to being a vital aspect of an annual congregation of budding ideas, ideals, and idealists that transcend local, cultural and political boundaries. I hope you enjoy this learning process and become more cognizant of the pressing issues facing us today. Please feel free to contact the dais if you need any help along the way. I look forward to making these five winter days the most enriching ones of your lives.

Philippe Lefevre: 19 Dear Distinguished delegates, My name is Philippe Lefevre and I am incredibly honoured to be a chair in this committee for IsarMUNs 10th Anniversary conference. I am a 2nd year history and politics student currently at the Panthéon-Sorbonne in Paris on an Erasmus exchange year from the University of York. This is my 8th Conference and my first chairing role with many more to come! I have been from Edinburgh to Jerusalem with MUN and I look forward to making this a fantastic conference for you all. If there is some advice I could give to delegates it would be to really study the ROP (Rules of Procedure) and work out what can be used to your advantage, bonus points if I don’t spot it! Best of luck, if you want

any help the chairs are here for you, it’s not always easy getting used to the way MUN works but I assure you that you will have a great time nonetheless.

Topic A: Freedom of Speech and Expression on the Internet

Introduction to the topic Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. – Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights2

Without a doubt the internet has been one of the greatest achievements of our modern world, connecting people from across the globe in order to share their ideas and flourish. The ability to organise movements and encourage debate has become far easier through the use of the internet, with examples such as the Arab spring being the most potent in contemporary history.

The question of regulating the internet has existed since the Internet’s very inception. Social media has made such a question even more pivotal as online integration breeds division and tribalism at the same time. Hate speech and censorship are both reviled as breaches of human rights, yet both are required in balance for a functioning modern society. However, this Council does not hold sway with private actors nor states private initiatives to countering terrorism, and seeks the protection of Human Rights above all.

According to the freedom of the press report 2017, this year has been the worst year for freedom of the press and media, which affects peoples access to information and supresses their ability to claim other human rights. Governments have used digital media to suppress freedom of speech and expression for many under the portmanteau of national security whilst supporting their own agenda.3

2 http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ 3 https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/FOTP_2017_booklet_FINAL_April28.pdf

Under the guidance of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression access to the internet should be a basic human right. Many organisations such as the OSCE have gone far to protect this but no explicit resolution has secured this in international law.

This council convenes to address the role of the United Nations in this struggle to uphold the Human rights of freedom of speech and expression that people enjoy offline, on a digital platform that has, is and will change the world to come.

History of the Topic The Internet: The World Wide Web was created in 1989 and rolled out fully in August 1991, to this day 51% of the world uses internet according to the International Telecommunication Union, a UN specialized agency. 81% of people in developed nations use the internet, as opposed to 40% of the population of developing nations, in particular Africa where only 25% of the region contains internet users.4

In 1966 The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was signed, coming into force 1976. This is the most important document,

4 http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm - Statistics Backed by UN Telecommunications Body

from which much national legislation derives from, with many freedoms of speech legal cases stemming from this resolution.5

In 2003 the World Summit on the Information Society, convened with the UN, reaffirmed Human rights, particularly those of Freedom of opinion and expression, to be of the upmost important, though did not declare methods to ensure the protection of these rights.6

During the Arab Spring internet censorship and restriction of expression was widespread, especially in Egypt, Bahrain, Tunisia, Syria and Libya. The heavy involvement of the states coercing private actors into shutting down services has revealed the extent to which stats can abuse their regulatory power. Hackers have targeted news sites such as Al-Jazeera and BBC allowing for the lack of information to cause panic in ease government crackdowns. Whilst these events are nowhere near exhaustive, they give the strongest contemporary account for the power of the internet and freedom of expression. 7

UNHRC Involvement: Before this however, in 1993, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (Replaced later by the Human Rights Council) established the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Their mandate has been most recently updated in 2014 where Mr. David Kaye was appointed, and from his work we find this Councils most relevant information.8

Figure 1 Special Rapporteur David Kaye 5 http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx - CCPR Document (English)

6 http://www.itu.int/net/wsis/ - World Summit on the Information Society Website

7 http://globalconnections.champlain.edu/2015/11/23/government-censorship-of-the-internet-during- the-arab-spring/ - Overview of Arab Spring Censorship

8 http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/FreedomOpinion/Pages/OpinionIndex.aspx - Hub Page of HRC Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression

From the early 2000s the Special Rapporteur has been supplying reports from all over the globe on the state of Freedom of Speech and Expression and from 2002 references to the internet as a particular example where it needs to be conserved have arisen.

Freedom of expression online has only recently been on the forefront of the Councils mind, with the first UN resolution protecting it coming into play July 20129. 2016 is the most important year to date with the 31-33rd Session culminating in great advances in protection of freedom of speed on the internet. Furthermore organisations like the OSCE are pioneers in protecting freedom of speech online.10

Current situation Growing role of Private Actors: As the technology and importance of the internet grows in many parts of the world, governments have taken an interest in protecting their own agenda under the importance of national security. It is important to recognise that this interaction between state and private sector in regards to online connectivity remains new for many states and so regulation is not well developed. Furthermore although states are accountable to their people and international law, the increasing role private actors are facing does not necessarily mean increased responsibility. Whilst states might be the perpetrators of surveillance or censorship, the transparency between the role of the state and private actors in this regard is not strong enough.11

In regards to protecting human rights through private actors the UNs “Protect, Respect and Remedy” framework is the most promising, allowing

9 https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/G12/147/10/PDF/G1214710.pdf?OpenElement – 20th HRC Session Agenda Item 3, Promotion, Protection and Enjoyment of Human Rights on the Internet

10 http://www.osce.org/fom/250656 - Report from OSCE Stating Milestone in 2016 Resolutions

11 https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G17/077/46/PDF/G1707746.pdf?OpenElement – 35th Session of HRC Agenda Item 3, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Hereafter Referenced as the 35th Session, Report from Special Rapporteur

for breaches of Human rights to be quickly remedied.12 However, though these guiding principles may go far, the industry measures that are put forth to address these principles do not fulfil the commitments the framework entails. Furthermore through state pressure private actors may feel that they become complicit in human rights abuses, and the necessary measures are not present in these relationships to mitigate human rights impacts.

Internet Service Providers remain state-owned in most countries, yet in regions with the largest users, they are privately owned multinational companies. These companies face incredible pressure from governments, including threats to personnel and intimidation. Even in countries traditionally more liberal such as the US and UK, the level of law enforcement and Figure 2 Artists Rendition of the internet surveillance can go well beyond what is required by law.13

In the technical realm of the internet, producers are being forced to comply with specifications designed by law enforcement in order for “security” to be protected. This adaption of equipment and technology raises concerns with how far such companies are being pushed by governments to possibly breach human rights of freedom of expression. Whilst specific storing of data might seem innocuous, this allows for the targeting of “dissident” views and opinions which is often a first and vital step in discrimination and repression of freedom of speech.

12 https://business-humanrights.org/sites/default/files/reports-and-materials/Ruggie-protect-respect- remedy-framework.pdf - Protect, Respect and Remedy Framework 13 35th Session, Report of Special Rapporteur, Section III.A

Net Neutrality is another way that private actors might undermine freedom of expression and speech. Internet data must all be considered equal in order to allow for meaningful freedom of expression and speech. Some private actors are attempting to pass legislation that allows for the segregation of internet data, be it making some more costly, or faster, compared to others. This would realistically affect people’s access to information and fair reporting thus is restricting freedom of speech. Many states such as the Netherlands have banned this type of preferential treatment however this is quickly being undermined.14

States do indeed have a duty to uphold freedom of expression digitally; however the private actors that manage, create, maintain and operate digital access also have a major role to play in this regard.

State Interference, Shutdowns and Data access: States have access to a wide range of tools online that is misused lead to breaches of Freedom of Expression. Shutdowns are a growing tool that is being used by governments in order to cover up breaches, stop movements from gaining ground and generally avoiding dissident. The storage of data can also breach these freedoms as governments require complete access to past data in order to persecute people in the future. Other forms of state intervention on people’s digital lives are constantly being created and Figure 3 Rioting in India as Government shut downs mobile internet it is up to this council to make sure that frameworks exist to protect Human rights against the worrying passage of time.15

14 https://edri.org/dutch-ban-on-zero-rating-struck-down-major-blow-to-net-neutrality/

15 35th Session, Report of Special Rapporteur, Section II A,

Shutdowns are considered violations of human rights law and are often perpetrated with a combination of state and private parties, with a range and scale from towns and hours to countries and months. Many less developed countries block access to information during sensitive times such as elections or uprisings, as Chad and Gabon have during 2016, leading to inquests into the unlawful explanation for these shutdowns. Countries such as Tajikistan have passed controversial amendments that allow for ambiguous use of shutdowns. In the United States and many other western countries similarly ambiguous amendments exist that allow for state intervention, though not all in regards to shutdowns.16

Figure 4 Rioting in Caracas, Venezuela Other examples of Shutdowns are in Bahrain and Venezuela which coincided with demonstrations against the government. Disruptions with service have been recorded during elections in Cameroon, Gambia, India, Myanmar, Iran, Uganda and Montenegro. Even legally authorised shutdowns during exams, found in countries like Uzbekistan, India, Algeria, Ethiopia and Iraq allow for the possibility for exploitation by states. In Gabon for example when Unpopular President Ali Bongo won, the lack of network coincided with massive riots the next day. During the July Coup in Turkey, Facebook, Twitter and other major networks were shut down.17

16 http://www.un.org/africarenewal/magazine/august-november-2017/uproar-over-internet-shutdowns - Report on African Shutdowns and the toll they take 17 https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/FOTP_2017_booklet_FINAL_April28.pdf - Freedom of the Press Report 2017 – Hereafter referred to as FOTP 2017

In response to many of these shutdowns, the UNHRC in its 32nd session condemned the use of this practice as violation of international human rights law18

Laws regarding user data and how long they can be stored might not seem directly linked to freedom of expression but must be investigated to protect human rights. Vague laws that allow governments to force private actors into providing data allow for unrestricted surveillance which can easily be used to infringe on freedom of expression through targeting and discrimination of certain digital sections of the internet. In Qatar for example the mere suggestion of protecting national security allows for data to be taken, meaning users are not aware of when data is disclosed to authorities.19

Only when judicially authorised should such data be allowed to fall into government hands. However even then, what form of authorisation should be questioned. In Portugal a judicial order is required however in Bangladesh only executive branch approval is needed. In some countries like Kazakhstan and Russia, data must be stored locally and for years before being allowed to be deleted.2021

Finally Encryption has been an effective way to guarantee freedom of speech and expression but notable laws passed such as by the UK in 2016 could allow governments to force providers to allow a backdoor into the encryption. Many arguments relating to protecting national security and public order have been used to justify their creation.22

18 https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G16/195/99/PDF/G1619599.pdf?OpenElement – General Assembly 71st Session, 24th, 31st and 32nd Session of HRC

19 35th Session Special Rapporteur Report Section II. B

20 http://www.computerweekly.com/feature/Russian-personal-data-law-set-to-come-into-force- despite-fears

21 35th Session Special Rapporteur Report Section II. B

22 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/nsa-gchq-encryption-codes-security - Guardian report on UK and US systems for undermining Encryption

Censorship and Online Journalism: The independent media, and media as a whole, has been consistently attacked throughout 2017, leading to the shockingly low level of freedom of the press by the FOTP Report of 2017. The rise in both Authoritarian leadership, Figure 5 Free Speech Flag, created 2007 from unlikely sources in America, and rise in right-wing nationalism across the world, has led to an unhealthy level of suspicion of press whilst also an overwhelming need for independent press that is not being given.232425

The intensified crackdown on journalists has inevitably led to a decrease in independent media, especially as Chinese and Russian authorities spread their influence across borders. In intense political regions, such as in Ethiopia or Venezuela, unrest has been used to crack down on independent or opposition outlets which is a serious violation on freedom of speech.26

The Era of Fake news brought on by Donald Trump has swept across other democratic nations, leading to the liberating debate and movements that form online to be disrupted. In other countries Figure 6 Protests over Turkish Government arresting 2 British Journalists like Russia, state-owned journalism crush independent outlets aimed at expressing less “favoured”

23 FOTP 2017

24 https://rsf.org/en/ranking_list/analysis - Analysis from Reporters without Borders for 2017

25 https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2017 - Freedom House Report for Free media and speech 2017

26 FOTP 2017 p5

perceptions in Ukraine and Crimea in particular. Egyptian media has very recently taken over four independent media in an alarming take on nationalization, giving a signal that the iron grip that North African countries have taken in regards to journalism and freedom of expression will not stop.27

Even the EU Nations, who usually play a strong role in upholding journalistic freedom, have failed to respond to the crackdown by Hungary and Poland against independent media. Whilst states themselves may hold themselves up to their principles of freedom of expression, they cannot completely fill the void.28

Freedom of the Press is intricately intertwined with freedom of expression, and in an age where more news is digital, the wellbeing of journalists and safety from censorship is necessary to uphold the values this council has.

Question of Hate speech: Hate speech is a clear grey area (Oxymoron is recognised) in regards to freedom of speech and expression. It most scenarios when it is flagged, a human intermediary must judge its severity, but some clear definitions are set down in UN and international law. Freedom of expression protects unpopular ideas and statements which may shock or offend others. However, several human rights treaties allow for the censoring of Figure 7 Picture of Charlottesville Riots, a large gathering certain types of speech that incite of Right Wing Supremacists in the US

27 https://rsf.org/en/news/egyptian-regime-takes-over-four-independent-media

28 http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/07/europes-freedom-of-speech-fail/ - Foreign Policy Analysis

violent, hostility or discrimination.29

In particular, speech inciting genocide is a crime under international law, laid against defendants of the Rwandan genocide in 1994. One of the main conflicts legally is between Article 20(2) of the International covenant on civil and political rights “Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” And article 19 of the Universal declaration of Human rights (see introduction). The UNHRC has declared that these two are fully compatible, but when and what constitutes violation of either code is constantly tested.30

Lastly in 2001 the UN, OSCE and OAS have set out a number of statements that hate speech laws should adhere to, these points have been taken from the NGO Article 19s site on hate speech31 : • No one should be penalised for statements which are true • No one should be penalised for the dissemination of hate speech unless it has been shown that they did so with the intention of inciting discrimination, hostility or violence • The right of journalists to decide how best to communicate information and ideas to the public should be respected, particularly when they are reporting on racism and intolerance • No one should be subject to prior censorship • Any imposition of sanctions by courts should be in strict conformity with the principle of proportionality.

Bloc Positions As the topic is relatively new, and possibly more importantly states have often wished to hide their involvement with online freedom of speech and

29 http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/Strikingabalancebetweenfreedomofexpression.aspx - Report on Striking a balance between freedom of expression and prohibiting hate speech 30 https://www.article19.org/pages/en/hate-speech-more.html - In-depth report on Hate speech by Article 19 NGO

31 https://www.article19.org/pages/en/hate-speech-more.html

expression, delegates are encouraged to research how favourable their country is to free speech and journalism in general. Some states might be bastions of free speech, but legislation covering hate speech or protection of online rights may be lacking.

United States and Western Europe: The United States and most of Western Europe have been bastions of free speech for a significant number of years. The outlook of their governments is different to their liberal outlook of their societies. Delegates should be aware of the criticism countries such as Germany have wrought over the concept of “Illegal ideas” and suppression of freedom of speech online, most notably in regards to any Nazi references. The United Kingdom has been approaching the idea of legislating against encryption and Portuguese laws on access to user data are relatively ambiguous. 32

Furthermore the rise in right wing nationalism across Western States has brought a precarious balance between the need to protect expression and the suppression of speech that could be deemed inflammatory.33 For example the Figure 8 Far right wing protesters in Germany German government passed an act July 2017 that enforces criminal laws targeting hate speech to a questionable extent. Examples of this can be found across Europe, especially further east, yet it is still a problem in the traditionally liberal west.34

32 FOTP 2017 p8, p23-4

33 http://harvardpolitics.com/world/rise-of-far-right/ - Interesting Review on Right Wing Rise in Europe

34 https://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/38861/en/germany:-repeal-new-law-on- %E2%80%9Chate-speech%E2%80%9D-and-social-networks

The role of private actors in such countries is mixed, as technology and competition has advanced, there is less threat from monopolies that states can exploit. However, this also means more sinister methods of surveillance; censorship and undermining of legislation (for example the attempt in the US to promote Net Neutrality) are more common. 35

55% of the internet is in English36 which means that industry standards across the board are mostly set in these countries, meaning it is vital to research and debate to what extent this unequally affects freedom of expression and speech when foreign values are transmitted digitally to less than receptive peoples.

South America: Traditionally South America has been a relatively good country for freedom of expression. However, setbacks have occurred in recent memory that disrupt this once free(er) region. The many political crises in the area have allowed for the backsliding of the protection of Human Rights, especially Freedom of Speech and Expression. The Internet is viewed as an alternate and vital form of communication in Latin America, meaning that it is one of the first things to go during sensitive Figure 9 Brazilian Anti-Corruption Protest times. Make no mistake, there is always violence against journalists, but in regards to surveillance or censorship, in the past it has been hailed as a good place to express online.37

35 https://www.privacyinternational.org/node/103 - Article on Private Actors, right to privacy and freedom of expression, built on reviews by Frank De la Rue, previous Special Rapporteur

36 https://unbabel.com/blog/top-languages-of-the-internet/ 37 FOTP 2017, p23

Brazil has always had a violent history with journalism, and the political crisis and corruption has only culminated in the further persecution of online journalism and freedom of expression. For example nearly 50 lawsuits were filed against reporters who worked on the high earnings of judicial members in Paraná state.

In Venezuela the collapse of the economy and the questionable political legitimacy has led to huge shortage of independent media, expression and general regard for human rights. The government holds a tight control of the media as it attempts to pass controversial legislation allowing for the rewriting of the constitution, which ultimately gives all power to an unchecked executive branch. 38

Across the Caribbean however, the liberating markets of countries such as Cuba has led to an increased tolerance for freedom of expression. Whilst the state still cracks down on independent journalists, the quality of freedom of expression has increased.39

Eastern Europe: The European Union holds protection of freedom of expression and speech very high on its agenda. However, its commitment to this in Eastern Europe has declined due to crises that it has faced. Hungary and Poland in particular have placed high pressure on private actors and independent media into censorship and pro-state media. The Right wing surge has affected the region in regards to freedom of expression markedly.40

38 https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/25/venezuela_increases_censorship_surveillance/ - Report on Venezuela’s increased censorship

39 http://informacioncivica.info/mexico/internet-censorship-and-freedom-of-expression-in-latin-america/ - Overview on Freedom of Expression in Latin America

40 FOTP p12, p24

The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) considers internet freedom to be a great responsibility and often convenes to protect it internationally and within Europe itself.41

Russian state controlled media is embarking on a program of exporting its restriction on freedom of expression, especially into Ukraine and the Balkans. This trend mostly revolves around restricting NGO activity that analyses the extent to which Human rights are protected.42 Hungary has passed in 2017 legislation restricting NGO funding, as is currently being drafted in Poland.

The role of private actors and state manipulation in this region is of particular concern, with a recent Russian bill filling in all gaps in circumnavigating censorship. Furthermore it restricts messaging services which are the hallmark of freedom of speech on the internet. These bills pressure services and companies to huge fines, roughly 1 million roubles, for not accepting them. Whilst not all countries follow this authoritarian program, it is becoming successfully exported to neighbouring states.43 However, this trend loses its potency the farther into central Europe with states like Slovenia facing relatively high levels of freedom of speech.44

Asia and Southeast Asia: China is without a doubt one of the strictest and censored states to participate fully in the United Nations. It holds some of the harshest penalties for online criticism and has for many years now completely blocked some social media sites. Its treatment of journalists and bloggers

41 https://www.coe.int/en/web/freedom-expression/internetfreedom2016-description - Council of Europe description of conference on Internet Freedom, gives idea of what they seek to overcome

42 https://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/38824/en/ukraine:-drop-government-proposals- that-restrict-ngo-activity – Report on Ukraine proposal to restrict NGOs, similar to Russian Proposals

43 https://rsf.org/en/news/last-nail-coffin-russian-internet-freedom - Review of all the recent Russian proposals to undermine internet freedom

44 https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2017/slovenia - Freedom House Report on Slovenia

has always been shocking, and the suppression of the Umbrella Revolution in Hong Kong shows how effective social media and online critics threaten the state. China holds great importance in its Political party and society, and understands that to keep their system running smoothly all forms of dissent must be at least monitored. This model has allowed the country to become incredibly productive and powerful, but the regard for Human rights has been lax as the states control over people has become stronger. Other states in the region have cracked down on media, with a rise in monitoring of social media, but largely remain closed or partially free. 4546

The surge in right wing nationalism remains true for Japan and South Korea, especially as the North Korean situation Figure 10 Picture of the Umbrella Revolution in Hong Kong escalates. This threatens freedom of speech through overly nationalistic tendencies which encourage self-censorship, further exacerbated by social media pressures. A similar case can be found in India, where Hindu nationalists threaten journalists, especially in regions of contention like Kashmir where internet shutdowns have been used against protesters. In Indonesia in particular the protection of human rights does not fully extend to West Papua where the government uses various forms of intimidation to stop expression and speech from proliferating.47

45 https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2016/china - Freedom House Report on China

46 https://rsf.org/en/china - Reporters without Borders report on China 47 FOTP p20.

Middle East and North Africa: The Middle East and North Africa is one of the worst regions for press freedom and freedom of speech in general. The arrest of journalists remains a political tool across the board, with particular use in Egypt and Jordan in recent years. Furthermore the security concerns and ongoing conflicts in Syria, Iraq and Yemen have made protecting freedom of expression particularly difficult. Even if delegates do not represent countries that have ongoing conflicts, they should be well aware that neighbouring countries heavily control state media and would do anything to avoid uprisings.48

During the Arab Spring intense internet shutdowns and crackdown on independent media occurred across the region. Delegates would do well to understand the fallout of this and how things have progressed 6 years afterwards. Whilst countries like Tunisia stand out for attempting to restore freedom of expression following the Tunisian Revolution, security threats have meant this is particularly difficult. 49

Unlike other states, research into online freedom of expression is not as common, but delegates are encouraged to look at the extent freedom of expression in real life is protected. They will find that for more fundamentalist states such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, freedom of speech and expression is almost impossible, whilst in states like Qatar which are relatively free for the region, with the flagship channel Al- Jazeera coming from this country, journalism remains criticized.50

The divide between Shia and Shiite Muslims also causes many countries in the region to restrict heavily the sect not in power, leading to intense crackdowns; especially following the Arab Spring.

48 FOTP p19

49 http://globalconnections.champlain.edu/2015/11/23/government-censorship-of-the-internet-during- the-arab-spring/ - Short report of Government Censorship during Arab Spring

50 Freedom House reports on Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain

Sub-Saharan Africa: Due to key elections and constitutional crises, the region has experienced a difficult and deteriorating situation in regards to freedom of speech. Already the region has the lowest amount of online users, and also has far less digital infrastructure, allowing states to exploit private actors with an iron fist. Legislation relating to cybercrimes and censorship is often passed without proper approval as was the case in Tanzania where 10 people have been charged for insulting the president and popular online forums have been disrupted. In Ethiopia internet shutdowns and disconnections were rife during 2016, furthermore in the state of emergency declared Ethiopians were banned from looking at certain media, restricting any possibility of freedom of expression. 51

The relationship between private actors and the state in this region is blurred, allowing for transparency void and Figure 11 South African Anti-Immigrant Riots accountability null. The African Commission on Human and peoples’ Rights have adopted declaration on freedom of Expression; however the same commission notes the lack of these freedoms currently.52

The political culture of many states in sub-Saharan Africa is not suited to swift protection of human rights. Prosecution of dissidence is committed with worrying ease and the precarious nature of many governments in the region does not hold much hope for the restoration of freedom of expression in the near future.53

51 FOTP p22.

52 http://southernafricalitigationcentre.org/2015/05/26/the-challenge-of-freedom-of-expression-in- africa/ - Review of African attempts at securing freedom of expression and speech

53 https://qz.com/696552/more-african-countries-are-blocking-internet-access-during-elections/ - More general review on elections and restricting internet access, yet gives idea of political tension

Antarctica: Traditionally, penguins have not had much difficulty with expressing themselves online, nor have there been international treaties protecting their rights to freedom of speech. This must be addressed.

Questions a resolution must answer

1. Should access to the Internet be a basic human right under the need to protect freedom of speech and expression?

2. Should Net Neutrality be protected under international law?

3. What needs to be done to stop the use of internet shutdowns by states?

4. How should the role between Private Actors and States be investigated or regulated?

5. How should private actors be protected from the pressures they may face by states?

6. How should the UN balance freedom of speech with the need to protect National Security?

7. How accountable should states be to the digital tools they use to protect national security?

8. To what extent should Hate Speech be defined and regulated by the UN?

9. Should online Hate Speech be considered differently to physical hate speech?

10. How should the UN make sure that freedom of expression digitally is protected as much as freedom of expression in real life?

Suggestions for further research http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/FreedomOpinion/Pages/Issues.aspx - List of UNHRC documents on issues in focus, look at Internet and Freedom of Expression for specific reports on this however don’t be afraid to look around https://cyber.harvard.edu/ilaw/Speech/ - Western Study of freedom of speech on the internet http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ - Just give it a read

Lageson, Sarah Esther. 2017. “Crime Data, the Internet, and Free Speech: An Evolving Legal Consciousness.” Law & Society Review 51 (1): 8–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12253 https://rsf.org/en/ranking - Reporters without borders Press Freedom Index http://www.theopeninter.net/ - Simple explanation for Net Neutrality https://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=225 – State of Internet Freedom in Africa 2016 https://www.article19.org/data/files/pdfs/publications/striking-a-balance.pdf - Very comprehensive review on striking a balance between Hate Speech, Freedom of Expression and Non-discrimination https://www.accessnow.org/laws-let-internet-shutdowns-happen/ - Review on the ambiguous laws that allow states to authorise shutdowns

Topic B: Rights of Indigenous People

The problem Who are indigenous people?

istory is testament to the fact that many civilizations always strived to enlarge the areas under their control via colonization. During, and after H this process of taking over, the primary inhabitants of that land, or the indigenous people, face the peril of seeing their distinct culture and tradition become extinct.

It is estimated that there are more than 370 million indigenous people spread across 70 countries worldwide. Practicing unique traditions, they retain social, cultural, economic and political characteristics that are unique to those of the dominant societies in which they live. Spread across the world from the Arctic to the South Pacific, they are the descendants - according to a common definition - of those who inhabited a country or a geographical region at the time when people of different cultures or ethnic origins arrived. The new arrivals later became dominant through conquest, occupation, settlement or other means. Among the indigenous peoples are those of the Americas (for example, the Lakota in the USA, the Mayas in Guatemala or the Aymaras in Bolivia), the Inuit and Aleutians of the circumpolar region, the Saami of northern Europe, the

Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders of Australia and the Maori of New Zealand. These and most other indigenous peoples have retained distinct characteristics which are clearly different from those of other segments of the national populations54.

By the end of World War II, global organizations started to further the notion of decolonization, but independent governments started to assimilate indigenous population on their own. Although these groups have opposed such ideas, they have lost property, belongings and thus jurisdiction on their own ways of life. The advent of the 21st century has augmented the plight of the indigenous people. Rapid urbanization and industrialization has caused massive displacement due to erosion of their lands via deforestation and deterioration of surrounding natural habitat. Consequently the global phenomena of climatic changes have impacted their sources of food as they have complete reliance on natural means and climate for food production.

Indigenous peoples are often socially discriminated against or perceived as less than human by the rest of the masses because of their distinctive cultural traditions. As a result of bias and the language barrier, often indigenous groups are deprived of job opportunities, and healthcare. Lastly, several of these groups are routinely raided for minerals, timber, farmland, oil and other highly desired natural resources. Many times the national government allows industries to develop an area, without consulting the indigenous groups that live in the said region. The lack of political representation is apparent as some governments refuse to recognize the laws or codes of conduct of an indigenous group55 56 57.

Current situation

Indigenous peoples’ rights under international law have progressed from existing international law, including human rights treaties, to tackle the precise circumstances facing indigenous peoples as well as their priorities, such as rights to their lands, territories and resources, and self-determination.

54 (United Nations) 55 Indigenous Peoples: valuing, respecting, and supporting diversity 56 Amnesty International: http://www.amnesty.org/en/indigenous-peoples 57 Who are Indigenous Peoples: http://www.culturalsurvival.org/node/10275

Regrettably, many indigenous peoples are still exposed to numerous human rights issues. In fact, the execution of their rights is far from perfect. Some of the most challenging human rights issues for indigenous peoples stem from pressures on their lands, territories and resources as a result of activities associated with development and the extraction of resources. Their traditions continue to be susceptible, and the protection and promotion of their rights resisted58 , despite international recognition and acceptance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. To properly address the issue, their rights and the root of the entire situation must be identified:

The Right to Self Determination

The right to self-determination is perceived as the right to regulate one’s way of life and destiny based on his/her own terms, without intervention from other people. In the case of indigenous people, the right of self-determination is defined as the autonomy to make political choices without interference by the state; to be regarded as equal citizens and having the power to live their lives according to their own values59

The right to self-determination is affirmed in Article 3 of the UN Declaration, which states that “Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” This Article is connected to Article 4, which states that indigenous peoples, “in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions”.60

Due to being classified as a minority, Indigenous people are victims of oppression and this self-determination is seen a s as solution of join the rest of

58 Indigenous People and the United Nations Human Rights System: Fact Sheet No.9: Rev2 59 https://www.academia.edu/6434014/Indigenous_Peoples_in_Asia_Indigenousness_and_Self- Determination 60 (Implementing the UN Declaration the Rights of Indigenous People 16)

the society as equal individuals. In many cases, indigenous peoples are forbidden from participating in political decisions, which has only perpetuated economic, social, cultural, and physical burdens61. One such example is that of the ‘Hill Tribes’ in Thailand, who are not considered people. This has caused them to be not recognized under the laws of the state and thus not be applicable for receiving the right to self-governance.

The extent to which autonomy should be granted and the degree of government influence needs to be discussed and reached a consensus upon.

Right to Decision Making:

A major concern of indigenous peoples is that governments continue to make decisions that affect them while not involving them. The UN Declaration therefore clarifies international standards on the right to participate in decision- making on a wide range of matters that affect the lives of indigenous peoples.

Article 18 of the UN Declaration states that “Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures.” The distinction between internal and external spheres of decision- making are also reflected in Article 5 of the UN Declaration, which states “Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions while retaining their right to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State.” This is especially important since indigenous peoples can also be decision makers in affairs of the State.

However, the progress in this phase has been limited due to a dearth of established systems embedded in state policies to allow for the voices of indigenous people to be heard.

61 http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/IPeoples/UNDRIPManualForNHRIs.pdf

Adequate representation of indigenous peoples in policy and decision-making is instrumental in breaking the cycle of discrimination and exclusion suffered by indigenous peoples in a number of countries. Voices of diversity with different perspectives and world views must be included to enable better law-making and improve governance that affects indigenous peoples62.

Rights to lands, territories and resources:

The right to land, territories and resource is vital due to 2 main reasons. Firstly, these lands form an important part of the social fabric of the indigenous people as it is woven into their identity and culture creating a sense of belonging. Secondly, the resources of the lands and the requisite knowledge that the people have about them is what they use to earn their livelihood and in turn build their economies and augment their socio-economic status63.

In the 21st century, a period marked by constant development, indigenous people are stripped of their possession of their lands. Regrettably, state and international regulations do not regulate total possession of land by indigenous people. According to Article 12.1 of the ILO Convention 107, Indigenous populations “shall not be removed without their free consent from their habitual territories” – unless their government mandates otherwise64.

62 (Implementing the UN Declaration the Rights of Indigenous People) 63http://iilj.org/aboutus/documents/IndigenousPeoplesinInternationalLawAConstructivistApproachtothe AsianControversy.Kingsbury.pdf 64 http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/home/global-indigenous-issues/ilo-convention-107.html

In addition to this, there are an increasing number of situations involving social unrest and conflict about the use of lands, territories and natural resources. Some social unrest between indigenous peoples, the State and corporations is a result of mining for iron ore, bauxite, gold and other precious minerals. In other instances the logging of forest areas in which indigenous peoples reside has also created serious disturbances and indigenous peoples often face violence from State and non- State actors. Many indigenous peoples are also displaced from their lands and Figure 12: Picture Credit:Reuters/ WB/JIR/WS, 1998 territories as a result of the activities of extractive industries, development and infrastructure projects involving dams, roads and the acquisition of land for special economic zones. In many situations, indigenous peoples are neither consulted nor informed until the final stage of a project or process. If not informed from the outset, these consultations may be inadequate, coercive or without representation from the broader community. Further, social and environmental impact assessments may not involve indigenous peoples or adequately reflect the human rights impact of potential projects65.

According to Article 32(2) of the UN Declaration it is imperative that:

“States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources.66”

Although advances have been made in the regard of ascertain the possession that indigenous people have on their native lands the impact has been limited.

As a matter of fact ten years after its adoption, and in spite of the reaffirmation of the commitment to the Declaration made at the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples in 2014, the Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council on the rights of indigenous peoples concluded that there has been limited progress in the actual implementation of the rights of indigenous peoples

65 (Implementing the UN Declaration the Rights of Indigenous People) 66 (Implementing the UN Declaration the Rights of Indigenous People)

in particular with regard to the core rights of indigenous peoples to self- determination and their rights to their lands, territories and resources67.

Preservation of Culture and Traditions:

Cultural rights are essential to the identity and existence of indigenous peoples, and are invaluable to common humanity. As set out in pre- ambulatory Paragraph 3 of the UN Declaration, “all peoples contribute to the diversity and richness of civilizations and cultures, which constitute the common heritage of humankind.” Cultural rights permeate the UN Declaration, and are interrelated with and indivisible from other rights, such as the right to self- determination and rights to lands, territories and resources, as outlined above. For example, the UN Declaration clearly supports indigenous peoples’ autonomy over their cultural affairs68.

Indigenous masses have preserved their cultures by inheriting their knowledge, traditions etc. from their predecessors and forefathers. However due to their exclusion from policy making, they have been a victim of discrimination and bias. Indigenous cultures are often considered as inferior, antediluvian, irrelevant, and something to be eliminated. Much of this comes from social intolerance by society and its urge for globalization69.

Although discriminatory policies have long been eliminated, cases of prejudice are still widespread to this date. In certain situations, bias has gone beyond simply societal and Administrative segregation and has involved violence.

Other Issues

Access to justice and acknowledgement of indigenous justice systems:

67 (Report of the Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council on the rights of indigenous peoples) 68 (Implementing the UN Declaration the Rights of Indigenous People) 69 http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/SOWIP/en/SOWIP_web.pdf

Many of the obstacles indigenous peoples face in the recognition of their rights to land and resources are linked to undue delays in the existing procedures and their inability to access justice, particularly when rights of third parties are involved. Access to justice remains elusive for indigenous peoples, both because of the numerous obstacles they face to effectively access the general justice systems and for the lack of adequate recognition of their own customary laws and jurisdiction70 71.

An important component of the international standard of access to justice applicable to indigenous peoples is the due consideration of their customary norms and governance as well as of the potential barriers they might face due to language and cultural differences, geographical distance and their social and economic situation. Among these obstacles are insufficient resources to hire lawyers, absence of interpretation in their languages during court hearings, and the inaccessibility of courts as these are usually located in urban centres72.

Is there a need to form a universally acceptable definition for Indigenous People?

Considering the diversity of indigenous peoples, an official definition of “indigenous” has not been adopted by any UN-system body. Instead the system has developed a modern understanding of this term based on the following: • Self-identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member. • Historical continuity with pre-colonial and/or pre-settler societies • Strong link to territories and surrounding natural resources • Distinct social, economic or political systems • Distinct language, culture and beliefs • Form non-dominant groups of society • Resolve to maintain and reproduce their ancestral environments and systems as distinctive peoples and communities73.

Delegates need to review the criteria in order to ascertain whether a definition is needed for the purpose or does the currently used criteria suffices the need.

Past international action

70 (Report of the Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council on the rights of indigenous peoples) 71 http://unsr.vtaulicorpuz.org/site/index.php/en/statements/116-indigenous-jurisdiction. 72 (Report of the Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council on the rights of indigenous peoples) 73 (United Nations)

The notion of the rights for indigenous people goes back as far as the League of Nations. The body in Article 22 of its covenant vowed to protect the wellbeing of indigenous people. However, the definition of indigenous people as used by the league of nations has evolved over time.

Following the League of Nations, its successor, i.e. the United Nation continued to look after the interests of Indigenous People. In 1945, the UN Charter included a Declaration regarding Non-self-governing territories. Later, in 1981, the United Nations shaped the Working Group for Indigenous Populations of the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. The group permitted representatives of indigenous peoples to contribute in forming the declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples74.

The rights of indigenous peoples have, over the past three decades, become an important component of international law and policy, as a result of a movement driven by indigenous peoples, civil society, international mechanisms and States at the domestic, regional and international levels. The United Nations human rights system - its mechanisms, laws and policies- have been at the heart of these developments with bodies such as the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations playing a groundbreaking role, which is continued by the Human Rights Council and its mechanisms, in cooperation with other key actors, including the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. One of its main achievements was the General Assembly’s adoption in 2007 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which, by 2010, was supported by the vast majority of United Nations Member States and opposed by none. It was the result of decades of negotiation between States and indigenous peoples, coming together in a spirit of partnership to endorse the Indigenous Declaration. It applies human rights to indigenous peoples and their specific situations, thereby helping to reverse their historical exclusion from the

74 (United Nations)

international legal system75. International activity on indigenous peoples’ issues has been expanding also in regional human rights bodies, such as the African and inter-American human rights systems, and into international law and policy areas as diverse as the environment (including climate change), intellectual property and trade76.

Timeline of significant events 1923 – Aboriginal rights to self-autonomy, religion and land possession defended in the League of Nations Conference.

1957 – International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention No. 107 on Indigenous and Tribal Population is instituted to protect and integrate tribal populations in independent countries77.

1982 – The UN Economic and Social council formulates The Working Group on Indigenous People

1994 – The UNGA brings forth the International Decade of the World’s Indigenous Peoples (1995-2004) to fortify UN’s pledge to endorsing and safeguarding indigenous rights worldwide.

2000 – The Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues is founded as a support body to the Economic and Social Council.

2001 – The Special Rapporteur on the right of Indigenous peoples is established by Human Rights Council to collect information on relevant sources on alleged violation of human rights and promote better protection of rights78.

2007 – The United Nations adopts the UN Declarations on the Rights of Indigenous People after a long delay.

2014 – A white paper/brief on SDGs & Post2015 development objectives is created by The Indigenous Peoples Major Group (IPMG).

75 (Indigenous Peoples & the United Nations Human Rights System ) 76 (Indigenous Peoples & the United Nations Human Rights System ) 77 http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO:12100:P12100_ILO_CODE:C107 78 http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/IPeoples/UNDRIPManualForNHRIs.pdf

2017 – Report of the Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council on the rights of indigenous peoples presented.

Questions a resolution must answer

The resolution should answer questions including, but not limited to, the following:

1. Should there be an international accepted definition for indigenous people? If yes, what should it be? If no, then is the currently criteria acceptable? Does it need amendments?

2. How should the governments protect Indigenous peoples’ rights? To what extent?

3. What should be the level of autonomy granted to Indigenous People by the governments?

4. Do indigenous people have inherited rights to their land?

5. What can be done to augment the political representation of indigenous people?

6. How to integrate them in the modern society? How can their traditions be preserved alongside this integration?

7. What are the different ways to grant them better access to justice systems?

8. Is an international approach required for the matter? Or a culturally nuanced and tailored one?

Suggestions for further research http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/declaration-on-the-rights-of- indigenous-peoples.html http://www.globalissues.org/article/693/rights-of-indigenous-people https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/ http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/edumat/studyguides/indigenous.html https://www.culturalsurvival.org/issues https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/reports-by-the-special-rapporteur- on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples.html