Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T23:59:18.331Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Elevating Cultural Rights Using International Criminal Law—The Asian Story

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2020

Raghavi VISWANATH
Raghavi VISWANATH*
Affiliation:
Leiden Law School, The Netherlands
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Codified in Articles 27 and 15(1)(a) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [ICCPR] and International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights [ICESCR], respectively, cultural rights are still read as distinct from linguistic and religious freedoms. The ICCPR vests cultural rights only in “persons belonging to minorities”, instead of groups. This paper attempts to analyze the reasons for the deficiencies in the ICCPR/ICESCR cultural rights regimes. In so doing, it unpacks the implications of these deficiencies for three current conflicts in Asia—the alleged persecution of Rohingyas in Myanmar, Uighurs in China, and Kashmiri Muslims in India—which are replete with cultural rights violations. It then tests whether the richer culture-based jurisprudence in international criminal law can offer lessons for the recalibration of cultural rights under the ICCPR/ICESCR. In particular, whether such cross-fertilization can trigger the jurisdiction of alternative forums to enforce state responsibility for these violations.

Type
Notes and Comments
Information
Asian Journal of International Law , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , January 2021 , pp. 1 - 12
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Advanced LLM in International Criminal Law Candidate, Leiden Law School (2019–20); BCL (Oxon.), B.A., LL.B. (Hons.).

References

1. Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, Case No. ICC-01/12-01/15, Witness MLI-OTP-P-0431 (on file with the author).

2. “US and Iran Must Protect Cultural Sites, Says UNESCO” Al Jazeera (7 January 2020), online: Al Jazeera <https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/01/iran-protect-cultural-sites-unesco-200106183016546.html>.

3. Sara C. BRONIN, “Destroying Cultural Heritage Sites Is a War Crime” Los Angeles Times (5 January 2020), online: Los Angeles Times <https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-01-05/iran-donald-trump-cultural-sites-war-crime>.

4. Situation in the People's Republic of Bangladesh/Republic of the Union of Myanmar, Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorization of an Investigation into the Situation in the People's Republic of Bangladesh/Republic of the Union of Myanmar, 14 November 2019, Case No. ICC-01/19; Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Gambia v. Myanmar), Order of 23 January 2020, I.C.J.

5. Amnesty International, “Joint Statement Calling for Xinjiang Resolution at the United Nations Human Rights Council” (4 February 2019), online: Amnesty International <https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/ASA1797892019ENGLISH.pdf>.

6. Josh ROGIN, “Ethnic Cleansing Makes a Comeback—in China” The Washington Post (3 August 2018), online: The Washington Post <https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/ethnic-cleansing-makes-a-comeback--in-china/2018/08/02/55f73fa2-9691-11e8-810c-5fa705927d54_story.html>.

7. William A. SCHABAS, Nancie PRUDHOMME, and Joseph POWDERLY, “Crimes against Humanity in Western Burma: The Situation of the Rohingyas”, National University of Ireland, Galway, Irish Centre for Human Rights (2010) at 25.

8. Report of the Detailed Findings of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar, UN Human Rights Council, UN Doc. A/HRC/39/CRP.2 (2018), at 166, para. 697, n. 1511, “K-112. Unofficial Translation of A Myo Pyaut Mhar Soe Kyaut Sayar”.

9. Kaladan Press Network, “Rape by Command: Sexual Violence as a Weapon Against the Rohingya” Kaladan Press (February 2018), online: Kaladan Press <https://progressivevoicemyanmar.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/RapebyCommandWeb3.pdf> at 9; Inter Sector Coordination Group, Situation Report: Rohingya Refugee Crisis, Cox's Bazar, United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs: Humanitarian Response (1 November 2018), online: UN OCHA: Humanitarian Response <https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/sites/www.humanitarianresponse.info/files/documents/files/iscg_situation_report_1_nov_2018.pdf>.

10. The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 2019.

11. The Jammu and Kashmir State Ranbir Penal Code, 1989.

12. “Decoding Centre's J-K Move on Article 370 in 9 Steps” Hindustan Times (6 August 2019), online: Hindustan Times <https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/decoding-centre-s-j-k-move-on-article-370-in-9-steps/story-VmKdC7c4HfTKDiROjzpdUI.html>.

13. The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019, s. 47.

14. Ibid., Fifth Schedule.

15. Government Order No. 251-JK (General Administration Department) 2019, annexure A.

16. YUPSANIS, Athanasios, “The Concept and Categories of Cultural Rights in International Law—Their Broad Sense and the Relevant Clauses of the International Human Rights Treaties” (2010) 37 Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commentary 207Google Scholar.

17. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 19 December 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171, 6 I.L.M. 368 (entered into force 23 March 1976), art. 27 [ICCPR]; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 16 December 1966, 993 U.N.T.S. 3, 6 I.L.M. 360 (entered into force 3 January 1976), art. 15(1)(a) [ICESCR].

18. CAPOTORTI, Francesco, “Are Minorities Entitled to Collective International Rights?” (1990) 20 Israeli Yearbook on Human Rights 351 at 353Google Scholar.

19. Poma Poma v. Peru, Views of the Human Rights Committee, UN Doc. CCPR/C/95/D/1457/2006 (2009); UN Office of the High Commissioner, “Status of Treaties—Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights”, online: UN Office of the High Commissioner <https://indicators.ohchr.org/> [Status of Ratification].

20. Status of Ratification, supra note 19.

21. International Criminal Court, “The State Parties to the Rome Statute”, online: ICC <https://asp.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/asp/states%20parties/Pages/the%20states%20parties%20to%20the%20rome%20statute.aspx>.

22. DENNIS, Michael J. and STEWART, David P., “Justiciability of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights: Should There Be an International Complaints Mechanism to Adjudicate the Rights to Food, Water, Housing, and Health?” (2004) 98 American Journal of International Law 462CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23. FLETCHER, George P. and OHLIN, Jens David, “Reclaiming Fundamental Principles of Criminal Law in the Darfur Case” (2005) 3 Journal of International Criminal Justice 539 at 561CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998, 2187 U.N.T.S. 90, 37 I.L.M. 1002 (entered into force 1 July 2002), art. 7 [Rome Statute].

25. Kevin Jon HELLER, “The Rome Statute's Flawed Amendment Regime—Starvation in NIAC Edition” Opinio Juris (7 December 2019), online: Opinio Juris <http://opiniojuris.org/2019/12/07/the-rome-statutes-flawed-amendment-regime-starvation-in-niac-edition/>.

26. SLIEDREGT, Elies Van, Individual Criminal Responsibility in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012) at 54–7Google Scholar.

27. van den HERIK, Larissa, “International Criminal Law's Blind Spot?” in RIEDEL, Eibe, GIACCA, Gilles, and GOLAY, Christophe, eds., Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in International Law: Contemporary Issues and Challenges (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 343Google Scholar.

28. Rome Statute, supra note 24, arts. 21, 22.

29. ARBOUR, Louise, “Economic and Social Justice for Societies in Transition” (2007) 40 International Law and Politics 1 at 16Google Scholar.

30. Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, SC Res. 827, UN Doc. S/RES/827 (1993), art. 3(d) [ICTY Statute].

31. Rome Statute, supra note 24, arts. 8(2)(b)(ix) and (e)(iv).

32. ICTY Statute, supra note 30, arts. 5(h), 4; Rome Statute, supra note 24, arts. 6, 7(h); Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, SC Res. 955, UN Doc. S/RES/955 (1994), arts. 2, 3(h); Law on the Establishment of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia for the Prosecution of Crimes Committed During the Period of Democratic Kampuchea, 27 October 2004, arts. 4, 5; Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, SC Res. 1315, UN Doc. S/RES/1315 (2000), art. 2(h).

33. Prosecutor v. Kordić & Čerkez, Trial Judgement, 26 February 2001, Case No. IT-95-14/2-T at para. 207.

34. UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Independent Expert in the Field of Cultural Rights, Farida Shaheed, 21 March 2011, UN Doc. A/HRC/17/38, at para. 2.

35. Shea ESTERLING, “Exploring Culture in International Criminal Law Through The Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi” Art and International Justice Initiative (4 July 2019), online: Art and International Justice Initiative <https://artij.org/en/blog.html#14>.

36. Prosecutor v. Brđanin, Appeal Judgement, 3 April 2007, Case No. IT-99-36-A, at para. 338, n. 693.

37. Prosecutor v. Prlić et al., Trial Judgement, 29 May 2013, Vol. 3, Case No. IT-04-74-T, at para. 1712.

38. Prosecutor v. Kupreškić et al., Trial Judgement, 14 January 2000, Case No. IT-95-16-T, at para. 588, n. 857; Chan v. Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1989) 169 CLR 379.

39. Statement of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Fatou Bensouda, at the Pre-Trial hearing phase in the case against Al Mahdi, 1 March 2016.

40. Marina LOSTAL, “Prosecutor v. Al Mahdi: A Positive New Direction for the ICC?” Opinio Juris (26 October 2016), online: Opinio Juris <http://opiniojuris.org/2016/10/26/prosecutor-v-al-mahdi-a-positive-new-direction-for-the-icc/>.

41. Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, Judgement and Sentence, 27 September 2016, Case No. ICC-01/12-01/15-171, Trial Chamber VIII, at para. 46.

42. Prosecutor v. Al Hassan Ag Abdoul Aziz Ag Mohamed Ag Mahmoud, 8 July 2019, Case No. ICC-01/12-01/18, Pre-Trial Chamber I.

43. Statement of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Fatou Bensouda, at the opening of the Confirmation of Charges hearing in the case against Al Hassan, 8 July 2019.

44. Case 002/02, Judgement, 16 November 2018, Case No. 002/19-09-2007/ECCC/TC, at para. 1695.

45. Prosecutor v. Nahimana et al., Appeal Judgement, 28 November 2007, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, at para. 700.

46. Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, supra note 41 at para. 79.

47. Ibid., at para. 81.

48. “Al Hassan case: ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I Confirms Charges of War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity and Commits Suspect to Trial” International Criminal Court (30 September 2019), online: ICC <https://www.icc-cpi.int/Pages/item.aspx?name=pr1483>.

49. Prosecutor v. Blaškić, Trial Judgement, 3 March 2000, Case No. IT-95-14-T, at para. 185.

50. Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 9 September 2002, rules 98(2) and 98(3), online: ICC <www.icc-cpi.int>.

51. Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Corrected Version of the “Decision Setting the Size of the Reparations Award for which Thomas Lubanga Dyilo is Liable”, 21 December 2017, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-3379-Red-Corr-tENG, Trial Chamber II.

52. Ibid.

53. Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Information Regarding Collective Reparations, 13 February 2017, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-3273, Trial Chamber II, at para. 132.

54. Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, Reparations Order, 17 August 2017, Case No. ICC-01/12-01/15-236, Trial Chamber VIII, at para. 76.

55. Ibid., at para. 67.

56. HOHFELD, Wesley Newcomb, “Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning” (1913) 23 Yale Law Journal 16 at 29CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

57. ICCPR, supra note 17, arts. 41–3; Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, GA Res. 117 (LXIII), UN Doc. A/RES/63/117 (2009), art. 10.

58. Statute of the International Court of Justice, 26 June 1945, U.S.T.S. 993 (entered into force 24 October 1945), arts. 36, 40 [Statute of the ICJ].

59. See list of declarations at <https://www.icj-cij.org/en/declarations>.

60. Statute of the ICJ, supra note 58, art. 40.

61. SCHMID, Evelyne, Taking Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Seriously in International Criminal Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015) at 452CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

62. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, 26 February 2007, [2007] I.C.J. Rep. 43 at 166.

63. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia), Judgment, 3 February 2015, [2015] I.C.J. Rep. 3 at 46–7.

64. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, 26 February 2007, Separate Opinion of Judge Tomka, [2007] I.C.J. Rep. 43 at 351.

65. SOARES, Patricia P. and KREUTZER, Gerhard, “Catalytic, Gap-Filling, or Retardant Effects of ICL on HRL: Quid Juris” in De HERT, Paul, SMIS, Stefaan, and HOLVOET, Mathias, eds., Convergences and Divergences Between International Human Rights, International Humanitarian and International Criminal Law (Cambridge/Antwerp/Poland: Intersentia, 2018), 3 at 9Google Scholar.

66. Babar Ahmad and Others v. United Kingdom, Judgement of 10 April 2012, ECHR, App. Nos. 24027/07, 11949/08, 36742/08, 66911/09, and 67354/09, at para. 140.

67. Vasiliauskas v. Lithuania, Judgement of 20 October 2015, ECHR Grand Chamber, App. No. 35343/05, at paras. 153–91.

68. Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries, Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its Fifty-Third Session (23 April–1 June and 2 July–10 August 2001), U.N.Doc. A/56/10 (IV.E.2) (2001), arts. 42(b)(i), 48.

69. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 8 July 1996 [1996] I.C.J. Rep. 226 at 257, para. 79; Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, 9 July 2004 [2004] I.C.J. Rep. 136 at 199, paras. 155, 157.

70. Fourth Report on Peremptory Norms of General International Law (jus cogens) by Dire Tladi, Special Rapporteur, International Law Commission, UN Doc. A/CN.4/727 (2019).

71. BELLAMY, Alex J., DAVIES, Sara E., and GLANVILLE, Luke, eds., The Responsibility to Protect and International Law (Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2011) at 91–2Google Scholar.

72. Ekkehard STRAUSS, “A Bird in the Hand Is Worth Two in the Bush: On the Assumed Legal Nature of the Responsibility to Protect” in Bellamy et al., ibid., at 49.

73. Joanne E. LEE, The Right to Self-Determination: An International Criminal Law Perspective, The University of British Columbia, Theses and Dissertations (2000), online: UBC <https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/831/items/1.0077436>.

74. Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, Advisory Opinion, 25 February 2019, I.C.J. G.L. No 169, I.C.G.J. 534 (ICJ 2019), at para. 180.

75. Conclusion derived from “Lynchistan: Mob Lynching Cases Across India” The Quint, online: The Quint <https://www.thequint.com/quintlab/lynching-in-india/>, and “The High Cost of Targeted Violence in Northeast Delhi: A List of the Deceased” The Polis Project (18 March 2020), online: The Polis Project <https://www.thepolisproject.com/the-high-cost-of-targeted-violence-in-northeast-delhi-a-list-of-the-deceased/#.XtzQ6GgzbIV>.