To remind us of the situation in Kenya in December 2007 (which by all means continues today), I felt an irremediable urge to direct some of you to this brief recap by the Human Rights Tribune (April 18, 2008) of a statement made by the UN rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian Territories, John Dugard, on the ongoing fighting between the IDF and Hamas as he calls for the UN to assume its 'traditional' responsibility as a 'mediator':
http://www.humanrights-geneva.info/Statement-of-UN-rapporteur-on,3023
To borrow from John:
"The United Nations, acting through the Security Council or the Secretary-General, must do its utmost to protect the lives of both Palestinians and Israelis. Surely it is not too much to ask of the Security Council, and if it cannot act, the Secretary-General, to protect human life, even if it means talking to a group of which it may disapprove politically."
We should still hold hope that this "anti-semite" (for his criticism of [Israel's] policies", that is) who will succeed Dugard, will maintain this laudable resistance to the UN's current approach:
http://www.humanrights-geneva.info/A-controversial-expert-for,2947
Let us know about your thoughts.
Friday, 25 April 2008
Thursday, 24 April 2008
Egalitarianism Riposte
In a clear but I think wrong-headed rationalistic defense of multi-culturalism, Professor Toddington in a seminar on Rights Discourse at the Univesity of Westminster, School of Law, on April 23rd, 2008, argued for an ethical epistemology based on J.S.Mill's premise of freedom. Toddington's version of Mill's freedom is that it is actually "the responsibility of egalitarianism to maximize the scope of personal efficacy." His partner at the forum, Professor Henrik Olsen (Copenhagen) argued pro the title of the talk, "Why Multiculturalists Should Seek to Abolish the Right to Freedom of Religion". I found their combined arguments so awesome and dangerous that I feel compelled to write not so much a refutation (if that were even possible I would pay for it) but a special pleading for the one right which they argue should be abolished. This note should be considered a philosophical riposte to the concept of egalitarianism.
First, why am I against egalitarianism? I am against egalitarianism because it is an ideal born out of the quasi-statistical invention of sameness of equi-probable events. That is, its lineage comes from the misbegotten export of a very useful mathematical concept (i.e., randomness where each and every thing is the same) purchased for the realm of social control. Egalitarianism is one of those projected particular symmetry ideas that says, "Forget all the differences we see in the world, and let us imagine a world where everyone has the same of something or where everyone should be treated the same no matter what the special conditions." This universalistic essentialism forgets about 23 centuries of criticism that says, "If things are the same as each other, then any choice about one thing over another is just as arbitrary as any another." These arguments are pre-Socratic and hark back to Zeno and Parmenides. In other words, a choice in a egalitarian universe is a vote for chaos--the undifferentiated that defies order. Less abstractly, I am reminded of Evans-Pritchard's classic of Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande when the most rational of anthropologists decides to conduct a personal experiment where he goes all the way--that is, he decides one day to organize his daily life according to the belief-behaviour system of the Azande, throwing an hen-bone (?) oracle in the morning and conducting his life according to what the oracle dictates. His conclusion is that he felt that there was no difference at all in his life, and it was perfectly fine to conduct his life according to the oracle. Personal choice (the action) always destroys any egalitarianism (the idea).
Second, egalitarianism not only assumes an ideal distribution of something, but that it is also inexhaustibly so. Consider Toddington's version of Mill's freedom premise above. Let's call this the state of the world at time 1. If we have infinite resources and infinite time, then of course, we have egalitarianism. But if resources are limited and time is limited, then we have...queues! And queues translated into social action results in hierarchies. Queues and hierarchies are everywhere in time 2; they are a way of managing conflicts of limited resources over time. Although both Professors say they address hierarchies in their book, the evidence of social hierarchies should demonstrate how distant the notion of egalitarianism is from justifying the multi-culturalism that "allows" hierarchies. Hierarchies are because resources are short of infinite and because we never have enough time to do our groceries and watch our favourite tele. These choices made for us by forming a queue and establishing a hierarchy are anti-egalitarian.
Third, to abolish the freedom of religion for the right to (suffer?!) multi-culturalism is a bit much to swallow. Toddington and Olsen have a non-mystical very rationalistic idea of what constitutes religion which is frankly...egalitarian, de-personalised and rather, dismissive, with a big value judgment. I suggested in open forum that perhaps we should consider the freedom of religion as the freedom to darkness. That is, instead of the freedom of expression, assembly and so forth. The deepest, superiorly & meekly mystical, and anti-rationalistic freedom is totally private. I can hear Professor Toddington and Olsen retort, "But then this is already covered by the right to privacy..." No, it is not. The freedom of religion is beyond privacy. Again, I can only compare it to a classical reference. Julius Cesar was called to bear witness against his wife for sacrilege--apparently, she had had sex with a guard during a particular religious festival on sacred vestal virgin ground no less, violating one of the sacred laws of Rome, punishable by death. Even her mother testified against her. When it was time for Cesar to give testimony, his response was, "You may not ask Cesar." Legal scholars have interpreted this remark as Cesar's arrogance of being above and beyond the law. However, I like another interpretation of this event and that is, that Cesar understood the heart of what it meant to be a Roman citizen--which in one rule was simply this: "As a Roman citizen, no one has the right to interfere with my body." He took this legal concept to another level. By his words, he jumped a couple thousand years, as if to say, "Not only do you not have the right to interfer with my body, but you also may not interfer with my mind." To abolish the freedom to religion is to provide the state with its ultimate compulsion not only over body and mind, but of spirit.
First, why am I against egalitarianism? I am against egalitarianism because it is an ideal born out of the quasi-statistical invention of sameness of equi-probable events. That is, its lineage comes from the misbegotten export of a very useful mathematical concept (i.e., randomness where each and every thing is the same) purchased for the realm of social control. Egalitarianism is one of those projected particular symmetry ideas that says, "Forget all the differences we see in the world, and let us imagine a world where everyone has the same of something or where everyone should be treated the same no matter what the special conditions." This universalistic essentialism forgets about 23 centuries of criticism that says, "If things are the same as each other, then any choice about one thing over another is just as arbitrary as any another." These arguments are pre-Socratic and hark back to Zeno and Parmenides. In other words, a choice in a egalitarian universe is a vote for chaos--the undifferentiated that defies order. Less abstractly, I am reminded of Evans-Pritchard's classic of Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande when the most rational of anthropologists decides to conduct a personal experiment where he goes all the way--that is, he decides one day to organize his daily life according to the belief-behaviour system of the Azande, throwing an hen-bone (?) oracle in the morning and conducting his life according to what the oracle dictates. His conclusion is that he felt that there was no difference at all in his life, and it was perfectly fine to conduct his life according to the oracle. Personal choice (the action) always destroys any egalitarianism (the idea).
Second, egalitarianism not only assumes an ideal distribution of something, but that it is also inexhaustibly so. Consider Toddington's version of Mill's freedom premise above. Let's call this the state of the world at time 1. If we have infinite resources and infinite time, then of course, we have egalitarianism. But if resources are limited and time is limited, then we have...queues! And queues translated into social action results in hierarchies. Queues and hierarchies are everywhere in time 2; they are a way of managing conflicts of limited resources over time. Although both Professors say they address hierarchies in their book, the evidence of social hierarchies should demonstrate how distant the notion of egalitarianism is from justifying the multi-culturalism that "allows" hierarchies. Hierarchies are because resources are short of infinite and because we never have enough time to do our groceries and watch our favourite tele. These choices made for us by forming a queue and establishing a hierarchy are anti-egalitarian.
Third, to abolish the freedom of religion for the right to (suffer?!) multi-culturalism is a bit much to swallow. Toddington and Olsen have a non-mystical very rationalistic idea of what constitutes religion which is frankly...egalitarian, de-personalised and rather, dismissive, with a big value judgment. I suggested in open forum that perhaps we should consider the freedom of religion as the freedom to darkness. That is, instead of the freedom of expression, assembly and so forth. The deepest, superiorly & meekly mystical, and anti-rationalistic freedom is totally private. I can hear Professor Toddington and Olsen retort, "But then this is already covered by the right to privacy..." No, it is not. The freedom of religion is beyond privacy. Again, I can only compare it to a classical reference. Julius Cesar was called to bear witness against his wife for sacrilege--apparently, she had had sex with a guard during a particular religious festival on sacred vestal virgin ground no less, violating one of the sacred laws of Rome, punishable by death. Even her mother testified against her. When it was time for Cesar to give testimony, his response was, "You may not ask Cesar." Legal scholars have interpreted this remark as Cesar's arrogance of being above and beyond the law. However, I like another interpretation of this event and that is, that Cesar understood the heart of what it meant to be a Roman citizen--which in one rule was simply this: "As a Roman citizen, no one has the right to interfere with my body." He took this legal concept to another level. By his words, he jumped a couple thousand years, as if to say, "Not only do you not have the right to interfer with my body, but you also may not interfer with my mind." To abolish the freedom to religion is to provide the state with its ultimate compulsion not only over body and mind, but of spirit.
Tuesday, 22 April 2008
obliteration
Tuesday, 22 of april, and Hilary Clinton answered the ridiculous question of what the US would do if in 10 yrs time Iran were to bomb Israel, in this erudite way: "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them." Clinton's understanding of 'them' is that it is obviously something that can be obliterated. Obliteration of course is an act of violence (not unlike a split infinitive) because it effaces the creation, the text, the writing: ob+littera="against the letter". It would be quite interesting to observe how a state of generally substandard literacy, ultimately deprived of metaphysics (and thus frightfully unable to comment on why metaphysics should be left behind), and suffocatingly given to identity considerations and improper use of pronouns, how this kind of state would attempt to obliterate a state whose literary output remains immeasurable even at these times of obsessive blogging.
US elections are probably the most irritatingly banal topic that at the same time seems to be attracting an irritatingly disproportionate amount of coverage. Far from me to get unduly excited about him, her or other mysterious apparitions. What is rather relevant however, although still not quite avoiding banality, is the reiteration of the american cliche: they like their guns, they thrive on segregation and classism, and they still believe that they can seriously use the term 'obliterate' in a political way.
US elections are probably the most irritatingly banal topic that at the same time seems to be attracting an irritatingly disproportionate amount of coverage. Far from me to get unduly excited about him, her or other mysterious apparitions. What is rather relevant however, although still not quite avoiding banality, is the reiteration of the american cliche: they like their guns, they thrive on segregation and classism, and they still believe that they can seriously use the term 'obliterate' in a political way.
Tuesday, 25 March 2008
A secret marriage: Saadi and national terrorist legislation
After a very tiresome attempt by the UK to manipulate what has been clearly established law, Strasbourg reasserts (On February 28, 2008) the following:
"Article 3, which prohibits in absolute terms torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, enshrines one of the fundamental values of democratic societies. Unlike most of the substantive clauses of the Convention and of Protocols Nos. 1 and 4, Article 3 makes no provision for exceptions and no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15, even in the event of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation...as the prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is absolute, irrespective of the victim's conduct...the nature of the offence allegedly committed by the applicant is therefore irrelevant for the purposes of Article 3" (para. 127).
A number of intriguing discussions have taken place in the blog-world (see invisiblecollegeblog.com) over the ECHR's judgment in the case of Saadi v Italy (following the jurisprudential practice over Article 3 and the absolute prohibition on torture and the absolute obligation of non-refoulement upheld in Soering v United Kingdom). I was amused by the possibility of marrying these forces for the protection of a terrorist's right to life and the right not to be tortured in the present climate that Western societies are experiencing, with the ongoing elaboration of anti-terrorist legislation (both directly and indirectly speaking, i.e. administrative detention, restrictions on immigration and asylum law, etc) and the discussion I have already undertaken in the context of the AG's opinion on Kaadi in a previous post. This includes equally theoretical questions on objects and subjects (identity and the other) in terms of the 'securing humanity' discourse.
The question is whether the clash between Article 3 ECHR (that of the person subjected to a deportation order) and Article 2 ECHR (that of the population of any of the European capitals that could become the victims of a terrorist attack) has hereby been resolved? The Court asserts that "the prospect that [a person] may pose a serious threat to the community if not returned does not reduce in any way the degree of risk of ill-treatment that the person may be subject to on return" (para 139). A fortiori, there no "balancing exercise" (between the obligation of non-refoulement and the "risk" or "dangerousness" of the person) to be admitted, not at the level of asserting the facts and indisputably not at that of applying the law. However if this is the case, I would ask whether these examinations are not made futile by the ongoing developments in national terrorist legislation? One could also observe this parallel by asking whether this not just another incident of 'the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing'?
The ramifications that could logically be expected are nuclear; namely, a call to review all existing and developing national terrorist legislation (or even a drafting of a more detailed common anti-terror legislation and Brussels-based enforceability mechanisms) and a reconsideration of a notable number of ongoing cases for the deportation of those persons responsible for a "public emergency threatening the life of the nation."
There is a clear lack of legislation in the form of directives or regulations that specify the requirements or limitations on the substantive scope of the provisions. Inoperative traits on the political and social levels are doomed to continue at this pace. A number of penetrative conclusions have come out of recent research in the field of comparative law and the law of the European Union pointing to the fact that the national interpretation, transposition, and implementation of EU legislative measures shows an unspeakable number of discrepancies and divergences amongst member states (even, and predominantly, between the civilists). In light of these growing divergences, and an absence of an action plan for reconciliation, it may be difficult to ensure, if such legislation were issued by the Community in the future, that it is implemented in an effective and unified manner.
I would be intrigued to hear from those that perceive the current state of the law (both nationally in theUK and regionally) as sufficiently descriptive and instructive for curtailing the tendencies that characterize emerging anti-terrorist legislation. I would also be interested to digest some new interdisciplinary perspectives on the developments of this legal framework and the preventative mechanisms that we aspire to construct in order to accommodate these actors in the current national, regional and international legal orders.Without further pontification, I concede that it is a very burdensome and extended endeavor.
"Article 3, which prohibits in absolute terms torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, enshrines one of the fundamental values of democratic societies. Unlike most of the substantive clauses of the Convention and of Protocols Nos. 1 and 4, Article 3 makes no provision for exceptions and no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15, even in the event of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation...as the prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is absolute, irrespective of the victim's conduct...the nature of the offence allegedly committed by the applicant is therefore irrelevant for the purposes of Article 3" (para. 127).
A number of intriguing discussions have taken place in the blog-world (see invisiblecollegeblog.com) over the ECHR's judgment in the case of Saadi v Italy (following the jurisprudential practice over Article 3 and the absolute prohibition on torture and the absolute obligation of non-refoulement upheld in Soering v United Kingdom). I was amused by the possibility of marrying these forces for the protection of a terrorist's right to life and the right not to be tortured in the present climate that Western societies are experiencing, with the ongoing elaboration of anti-terrorist legislation (both directly and indirectly speaking, i.e. administrative detention, restrictions on immigration and asylum law, etc) and the discussion I have already undertaken in the context of the AG's opinion on Kaadi in a previous post. This includes equally theoretical questions on objects and subjects (identity and the other) in terms of the 'securing humanity' discourse.
The question is whether the clash between Article 3 ECHR (that of the person subjected to a deportation order) and Article 2 ECHR (that of the population of any of the European capitals that could become the victims of a terrorist attack) has hereby been resolved? The Court asserts that "the prospect that [a person] may pose a serious threat to the community if not returned does not reduce in any way the degree of risk of ill-treatment that the person may be subject to on return" (para 139). A fortiori, there no "balancing exercise" (between the obligation of non-refoulement and the "risk" or "dangerousness" of the person) to be admitted, not at the level of asserting the facts and indisputably not at that of applying the law. However if this is the case, I would ask whether these examinations are not made futile by the ongoing developments in national terrorist legislation? One could also observe this parallel by asking whether this not just another incident of 'the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing'?
The ramifications that could logically be expected are nuclear; namely, a call to review all existing and developing national terrorist legislation (or even a drafting of a more detailed common anti-terror legislation and Brussels-based enforceability mechanisms) and a reconsideration of a notable number of ongoing cases for the deportation of those persons responsible for a "public emergency threatening the life of the nation."
There is a clear lack of legislation in the form of directives or regulations that specify the requirements or limitations on the substantive scope of the provisions. Inoperative traits on the political and social levels are doomed to continue at this pace. A number of penetrative conclusions have come out of recent research in the field of comparative law and the law of the European Union pointing to the fact that the national interpretation, transposition, and implementation of EU legislative measures shows an unspeakable number of discrepancies and divergences amongst member states (even, and predominantly, between the civilists). In light of these growing divergences, and an absence of an action plan for reconciliation, it may be difficult to ensure, if such legislation were issued by the Community in the future, that it is implemented in an effective and unified manner.
I would be intrigued to hear from those that perceive the current state of the law (both nationally in theUK and regionally) as sufficiently descriptive and instructive for curtailing the tendencies that characterize emerging anti-terrorist legislation. I would also be interested to digest some new interdisciplinary perspectives on the developments of this legal framework and the preventative mechanisms that we aspire to construct in order to accommodate these actors in the current national, regional and international legal orders.Without further pontification, I concede that it is a very burdensome and extended endeavor.
Friday, 21 March 2008
Boycott the Beijing 2008 Olympics
China has not learnt any lessons from the 1989 massacre in Tiananmen Square, except to cover its tracks more cleverly and attempt to exclude the media from covering risings no matter how small.
We now see the same behavior in Tibet. Since 1950 when China invaded and captured Tibet is has oppressed the country and denied its people fundamental human rights. It has flooded the country with Han Chinese in a Sinification attempt.
Now Tibetans are protesting Chinese oppression and demanding independence. China has retaliated brutally killing many demonstrators and imprisoning others. And crudely, the Chinese authorities have tried to blame the Dalai Lama.
Tibet is part of the Olympic flame route.
For its abuses of human rights and oppression of Tibet, the Olympic Games in Beijing should be boycotted. China should not be permitted to pretend to the world that it is a true member of the civilized world community. China must be condemned for its aggression to a peaceful people.
We now see the same behavior in Tibet. Since 1950 when China invaded and captured Tibet is has oppressed the country and denied its people fundamental human rights. It has flooded the country with Han Chinese in a Sinification attempt.
Now Tibetans are protesting Chinese oppression and demanding independence. China has retaliated brutally killing many demonstrators and imprisoning others. And crudely, the Chinese authorities have tried to blame the Dalai Lama.
Tibet is part of the Olympic flame route.
For its abuses of human rights and oppression of Tibet, the Olympic Games in Beijing should be boycotted. China should not be permitted to pretend to the world that it is a true member of the civilized world community. China must be condemned for its aggression to a peaceful people.
Wednesday, 19 March 2008
Military residents and a reinterpreted principle of 'distinction'
Another series of armed exchanges are taking place in the Gaza strip and we are once against appalled by the non-application and utter (non-gymnastic) defiance of the most fundamental principles of the law of war(forgetting only for a second about its misapplications and misinterpretations).
"Many areas of international law are vague. They can be interpreted in different ways. The situation in Gaza, for example, has no parallel anywhere else in the world. It's all open. So there are interpreters who want to interpret the law in such a way as to limit us as much as possible, and there are interpreters who are more convenient for us," says Israeli Justice Minister Friedmann, when asked about the perceived legality of attacking military targets in densely populated residential areas.
It seems not only that the Israeli government has yet to discern the actual purpose of its offensive or the moralist questions that surrounds the bad, good and evil (I turn you to a remarkably 'interesting' piece by David Horovitz, the Jerusalem Post's editor-in-chief who holds that the misconceptions of the international media are "an aberration that highlights how poorly 'our' complex conflict is understood") (emphasis added), but neither has it had enough time to position itself in relation to the relevant interpretational discourses surrounding the relevant jus in bello provisions.
The set of rules governing the attack strategies of a militarised territorial entity (outlined in Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions (AP I)) against another are a self-applicable and clear framework. Suggesting a degree of complexity, in order to brush matters aside, the applicability (or rather malleability) of the existing law to wars against terrorist organizations is put at doubt.
The matter should be very simple, and action should commence with the adherence to and non-violation of the most fundamental of all principles - civilian immunity and the principle of distinction (the 'basic rule' in Article 48, AP I, to distinguish between civilians and combatants and to target only the latter). These questions remind us of the ones asked before, during and after the American aerial attacks on railways and television towers in Kosovo (granted these were cases of Aerial bombardments and the standards, it has been conceded, are different). These elaborate debates brought us to (un)clear conclusion that each case, and each target, needs to be considered on its own merits - namely, the end achieved by the action must outweigh the damage caused by it. This balancing of facts is to be done in accordance with the second most fundamental tenet of the laws of war, the basic principle of proportionality (Art 51(5)(b) AP I). The problematic is inherent to the definition of a "military target", the question of precision, the precautionary measures (Art 57, AP I) undertaken before and during the attack, etc.
We are faced by a recurring dilemma of IHL, exemplified similarly in the morbid 'one-ton bomb' incident of the house of Saleh Shehadeh in Gaza, which killed 14 civilians, including 8 children. In other words, considering the problematic of evidencing each and every attack in the current conflict frenzy and the hopeless reliance on post-conflictual accountability proceedings (a good example taken from Winograd, see earlier post), it is arguable that these targeting considerations need to be institutionalised as a procedural aspect of the earlier stages of the military decision-making processes. This will unquestionably be the only effective means for assuring that these provisions are at least considered, if not properly implemented. At the same time, this appears absolutely unfathomable in practice.
I suggest (as many international NGOs have done before) that the question to be asked should be much cruder. If we (i.e. laymen), and specifically the media, is able to distinguish (when numbering the casualties) between the civilian and the armed 'combatant', why and how is the legal norm so 'very' dynamically instrumentalised (or altogether ignored)to justify what are, prima facie, clear violations of the most basic and fundamental tenet of international humanitarian law, the principle of distinction?
"Many areas of international law are vague. They can be interpreted in different ways. The situation in Gaza, for example, has no parallel anywhere else in the world. It's all open. So there are interpreters who want to interpret the law in such a way as to limit us as much as possible, and there are interpreters who are more convenient for us," says Israeli Justice Minister Friedmann, when asked about the perceived legality of attacking military targets in densely populated residential areas.
It seems not only that the Israeli government has yet to discern the actual purpose of its offensive or the moralist questions that surrounds the bad, good and evil (I turn you to a remarkably 'interesting' piece by David Horovitz, the Jerusalem Post's editor-in-chief who holds that the misconceptions of the international media are "an aberration that highlights how poorly 'our' complex conflict is understood") (emphasis added), but neither has it had enough time to position itself in relation to the relevant interpretational discourses surrounding the relevant jus in bello provisions.
The set of rules governing the attack strategies of a militarised territorial entity (outlined in Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions (AP I)) against another are a self-applicable and clear framework. Suggesting a degree of complexity, in order to brush matters aside, the applicability (or rather malleability) of the existing law to wars against terrorist organizations is put at doubt.
The matter should be very simple, and action should commence with the adherence to and non-violation of the most fundamental of all principles - civilian immunity and the principle of distinction (the 'basic rule' in Article 48, AP I, to distinguish between civilians and combatants and to target only the latter). These questions remind us of the ones asked before, during and after the American aerial attacks on railways and television towers in Kosovo (granted these were cases of Aerial bombardments and the standards, it has been conceded, are different). These elaborate debates brought us to (un)clear conclusion that each case, and each target, needs to be considered on its own merits - namely, the end achieved by the action must outweigh the damage caused by it. This balancing of facts is to be done in accordance with the second most fundamental tenet of the laws of war, the basic principle of proportionality (Art 51(5)(b) AP I). The problematic is inherent to the definition of a "military target", the question of precision, the precautionary measures (Art 57, AP I) undertaken before and during the attack, etc.
We are faced by a recurring dilemma of IHL, exemplified similarly in the morbid 'one-ton bomb' incident of the house of Saleh Shehadeh in Gaza, which killed 14 civilians, including 8 children. In other words, considering the problematic of evidencing each and every attack in the current conflict frenzy and the hopeless reliance on post-conflictual accountability proceedings (a good example taken from Winograd, see earlier post), it is arguable that these targeting considerations need to be institutionalised as a procedural aspect of the earlier stages of the military decision-making processes. This will unquestionably be the only effective means for assuring that these provisions are at least considered, if not properly implemented. At the same time, this appears absolutely unfathomable in practice.
I suggest (as many international NGOs have done before) that the question to be asked should be much cruder. If we (i.e. laymen), and specifically the media, is able to distinguish (when numbering the casualties) between the civilian and the armed 'combatant', why and how is the legal norm so 'very' dynamically instrumentalised (or altogether ignored)to justify what are, prima facie, clear violations of the most basic and fundamental tenet of international humanitarian law, the principle of distinction?
Friday, 14 March 2008
The 'murky relationship' revisited
Although considerably short and slightly fragmented, this is a very symbolic sampling of what was the workshop titled 'A Murky Relationship: Human rights and UK Immigration and Asylum Policy' hosted by the Centre on February 21, 2008. With a splendid turnout of 70 attendees and an unmistakably challenging lineup of speakers, who managed to tackle the questions from a remarkable number of angles, both academic and practical, it was an event that was able to emphasize most strikingly the inconsistency and inadequacy of the current state of the law in relation to, or when confronted by, the realities of the practice.
The workshop presented the following programme:
Pierre Makhlouf, Bail for Immigration Detainees
‘Discouraging Immigration’
This is part 1, out of 6, of the footage:
Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRtsf-Q3Fto&feature=related
Part 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ipFRTvCoac&feature=related
Part 4:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3hkgqtcTMk&feature=related
Part 5:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8j6TzzAgr2o&feature=related
And the very penetrating, Part 6:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYIXdKsyFS0&feature=related
The workshop presented the following programme:
Session I
Method versus doctrine: The legal framework
Mark Symes, Garden Court Chambers
‘Old Wine in a New Bottle? Or a New Dimension in Subsidiary Protection? Article 15C of the Refugee Qualification Directive - Protection for Civilians fleeing Internal Armed Conflict’
Dr. Helene Lambert, Westminster University
‘A Common European Asylum System: Harmonisation by the Judges’
Patricia Tuitt, Birkbeck College
‘The Time of the Refugee’
Session II
Instrumentalising interpretative choices: A social conception of law
Dr. James Sweeney, Durham University
'You are disbelieved': Credibility in the Asylum Process’
Method versus doctrine: The legal framework
Mark Symes, Garden Court Chambers
‘Old Wine in a New Bottle? Or a New Dimension in Subsidiary Protection? Article 15C of the Refugee Qualification Directive - Protection for Civilians fleeing Internal Armed Conflict’
Dr. Helene Lambert, Westminster University
‘A Common European Asylum System: Harmonisation by the Judges’
Patricia Tuitt, Birkbeck College
‘The Time of the Refugee’
Session II
Instrumentalising interpretative choices: A social conception of law
Dr. James Sweeney, Durham University
'You are disbelieved': Credibility in the Asylum Process’
Sarah Cutler, Refugee Council
‘The fight for asylum in the UK’
‘The fight for asylum in the UK’
Pierre Makhlouf, Bail for Immigration Detainees
‘Discouraging Immigration’
This is part 1, out of 6, of the footage:
Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRtsf-Q3Fto&feature=related
Part 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ipFRTvCoac&feature=related
Part 4:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3hkgqtcTMk&feature=related
Part 5:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8j6TzzAgr2o&feature=related
And the very penetrating, Part 6:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYIXdKsyFS0&feature=related
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)