October 2022

International Justice in the News is a monthly e-newsletter about the people involved in the work of international courts and tribunals, significant developments in international justice, and publications and resources of interest. This issue is edited by Leigh Swigart, director of Programs in International Justice and Society.

To comment or to subscribe, please complete this form.

Spotlight on Language, Culture and Justice

"The Global Coalition for Language Rights"

This month’s feature is contributed by the co-chairs of the Global Coalition for Language Rights, Lucio Bagnulo, Veronica Costea, and Gerald Roche. They introduce our readers to an exciting and much needed initiative.

The early period of the covid pandemic was a strange time of simultaneous isolation and connectivity, as we all bunkered down at home and shifted our lives online. It was during this time that a group of language advocates got together (virtually of course) to form the Global Coalition for Language Rights (GCLR), with the simple mission of promoting language rights for all people.

The early period of the covid pandemic was a strange time of simultaneous isolation and connectivity, as we all bunkered down at home and shifted our lives online. It was during this time that a group of language advocates got together (virtually of course) to form the Global Coalition for Language Rights (GCLR), with the simple mission of promoting language rights for all people. 
GCLR pursues this mission by raising awareness of language rights in general, and of the specific challenges that people and communities in different places face in relation to language rights. And, since our coalition members already aim to promote language rights in their own work in various ways, we also aim to support each other by sharing our knowledge and skills with one another. 
Coalition members currently include a wide range of individuals and organizations: professional translators, activists, advocates, and academics whose work intersects with language in a variety of ways. This diversity of membership—crossing a range of sectors and bringing together people with very different approaches, experiences, and skills—enables us to support and learn from each other. 

logoOne of the coalition’s key activities is the Global Language Advocacy Day (GLAD). We held our first Global Language Advocacy Day on February 22nd, 2022, aiming to boost a simple message: 'language rights are human rights.' Coalition members organized thirteen different local events in six countries, bringing people together to discuss language rights. We also coordinated a social media campaign across Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram, and got our message out through traditional media and online forums, including the coalition’s own blog, helping to bring awareness of language rights to thousands of people. Currently, we are planning the 2023 Global Language Advocacy Day under the theme of ‘language rights save lives.’ 
GCLR also raises awareness of language rights throughout the year by participating in other public events, such as RightsCon and International Translation Day. Any member of the coalition can propose initiatives that contribute to the coalition’s goals, and we then pursue these by forming temporary working groups that disband once their task has been completed. 
To give some idea of our activities, one of these working groups is currently working on a declaration of language rights: a short statement outlining what language rights are in clear, accessible language. Our aim is to translate this declaration into as many languages as possible for the Global Language Advocacy Day in 2023. Having worked out a draft of the declaration, we have now translated it into eleven languages, and will soon begin road-testing it on social media, so we can collect feedback and revise the declaration before formally launching it on the Global Language Advocacy Day 2023. 
As part of our broader efforts to raise awareness about the importance of language rights, in 2022 we started issuing public statements in response to pertinent events. We released our first statement following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Members of the coalition were concerned with how the invasion was being justified with reference to language rights: Russia claimed to be protecting the rights of Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine. We therefore issued a trilingual statement, in Russian, Ukrainian, and English, expressing our stance that language rights should never be used to justify state violence. We also collated and published translation resources for people impacted by the war in Ukraine. The coalition has since issued a second statement, again in multiple languages, in response to news that prisons in the US state of Michigan were denying prisoners access to printed materials in languages other than English. 
Our work to promote and raise awareness of language rights is growing as the coalition grows, and new members bring new ideas for how we can and should work. One of the key challenges we are currently working on is how to embed our mission within the organization itself: how can we promote language rights within the coalition and move beyond an English-only model? We are also working to ensure that we live up to the ‘global’ part of our name by recruiting members from a wide range of locations and contexts. 
We are always happy to welcome new members to the coalition, and invite you to join us and help contribute to our mission of language rights for all people. 

People in the News

Judge O'Leary

Photo Credit: European University Institute

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has elected Síofra O’Leary of Ireland as its new President. Judge O’Leary, who succeeds President Robert Spano of Iceland, will be the first female President of the  Court since it opened its doors in 1959. She will take up office on 1 November 2022. President O’Leary received her PhD in 1993 from the European University Institute. A book based on her doctoral thesis, The Evolving Concept of Community Citizenship: From the Free Movement of Persons to Union Citizenship, was published in 1996 by Kluwer Law International. She has been an ECtHR judge since 2015.  Read more about President O’Leary

Bosco Ntaganda

Photo Credit: ©Getty Images/AFP/ANP/B Czewinski

Several individuals associated with the International Criminal Court (ICC) have recently been making headlines. 

On 12 September, the ICC Appeals Chamber issued its judgment in the appeals presented by the Defence of Bosco Ntaganda, along with the Legal Representative of one of the two groups of victims, against the order on reparations delivered by the Trial Chamber in March 2021. The Appeals Chamber decided to remand several issues for the Trial Chamber to address in a new reparations order. Mr. Ntaganda was convicted in 2019 on multiple counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity, committed in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2002-2003. Read more about the new reparations order from the ICC.

Mahamat Said

Photo Credit: Credit: ©ICC-CPI

The trial of Mahamat Said Abdel Kani, a top-ranking leader of the Séléka militia in the Central African Republic (CAR), opened on 26 September. Mr. Said is accused of carrying out or ordering crimes against humanity and war crimes in CAR in 2012-2013. These included gang rapes, looting, torture and murder. He pleaded not guilty to all charges. Read more at UN News
Paul Gicheru

Photo Credit: Credit: ©ICC-CPI

Kenyan lawyer Paul Gicheru, accused by the ICC of offences against the administration of justice through corruptly influencing witnesses of the Court , died suddenly on 27 September. Mr. Gicheru had surrendered to the ICC in November 2020, pursuant to an arrest warrant issued on 10 March 2015 by a Pre-Trial Chamber of the ICC. He was accused of tampering with witnesses in an ICC case against William Ruto and another defendant in connection to post-election violence in Kenya in 2007-08. The case  subsequently fell apart and was terminated in 2016. Mr. Ruto was recently elected as president of Kenya and was sworn in just two weeks ago. The ICC concluded its hearings in the case against Mr. Gicheru in June 2022 and he was awaiting a verdict in his home outside of Nairobi. According to The New York Times, his death is “the latest twist in a decade-long legal journey at the International Criminal Court, punctuated by collapsed trials, disappearing witnesses and accusations of meddling, that has drawn in Kenya’s leaders and framed its politics.”
Disappeared students
The 43 students from a teacher-training college in Ayotzinapa, Mexico who went missing in September 2014 are back in the news. They were known to have been abducted by local police in Iguala due to their radical views, and while their fate was uncertain for years, it was suspected that the army was involved. In August, a truth commission investigating the situation said that military personnel indeed bore responsibility, either directly or through negligence, and that this constitutes a “state crime.” Mexican Interior Undersecretary Alejandro Encinas also revealed that six of the students were detained by the army for a number of days after their abduction before being killed, thereby directly tying the military to one of Mexico's worst human rights scandals.

National Public Radio fills in some of the details: “The role of the army in the students' disappearance has long been a source of tension between the families and the government. From the beginning, there were questions about the military's knowledge of what happened and its possible involvement. The students' parents demanded for years that they be allowed to search the army base in Iguala. It was not until 2019 that they were given access along with Encinas and the Truth Commission.”

The latest development in this long saga is the resignation of the prosecutor leading the investigation since 2019, Omar Gomez Trejo. According to the Miguel Agustin Pro Juarez Human Rights Center, a nongovernmental organization representing the students’ families, this resignation signals unjustified interference by superiors in the Attorney General’s Office, including rushed accusations and cancelled arrest orders. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has called for an investigation into the disappearances to be carried out with independence and integrity.

Developments in International Justice

inundated coastal scene

Rising sea levels in the Torres Strait Islands

Photo Credit: greenleft.org

In recent days, there have been important developments around how states respond to and take responsibility for the effects of climate change. 
The Guardian reports that Denmark is the first central government of a developed country to propose funding for poorer countries to compensate for “loss and damage,” a term referring to the “the ravages of climate-related disasters which are so extreme that no protection against them is possible.” The Danish government announced its intention at the UN General Assembly meeting. Although the amount of funding offered is small, some environmental experts believe that Denmark’s pledge “sends the right political signal and could incentivise other countries to follow.”

Around the same time, the UN Human Rights Committee issued a decision that Australia’s failure to adequately protect indigenous Torres Islanders against climate change impacts has “violated their rights to enjoy their culture, free from ‘arbitrary interference’ with their private life, family and home.” Committee member Hélène Tigroudja noted, “[t]his decision marks a significant development as the Committee has created a pathway for individuals to assert claims where national systems have failed to take appropriate measures to protect those most vulnerable to the negative impacts of climate change on the enjoyment of their human rights.” The UN has asked Australia to compensate the Islanders for harm suffered, consult with them to assess their needs, and take measures to continue to secure the communities’ safe existence.

While the developments above would appear to be a step in the right direction, environmental scholars Prakash Kashwan and Jesse Ribot assert that such actions do not acknowledge all the sources of environmental injustice. In their recent article entitled “Violent Silence: The Erasure of History and Justice in Global Climate Policy,” Kashwan and Ribot note that technocrats and climate scientists too often ignore the history of extractive relations that marginalized and impoverished the populations that now find themselves the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

cover of journal“In international climate change negotiations, countries in the global South demand that the global North pay to address the climate-related crisis that it caused," they write. "Unfortunately, these demands for reparations are about funding only the ‘adaptations’ required to avoid additional damage associated with increased climate hazards. Invoking the Polluter Pays Principle (PPP), they neglect to demand reparations for the vulnerabilities also produced by the long history of Northern domination and extraction—let’s call it the Exploiter Pays Principle (EPP).”

Kashwan and Ribot conclude that effective climate-related adaptation requires addressing the full range of both immediate and root causes.

Erik Mose

The UN’s Independent International Inquiry on Ukraine, chaired by Judge Erik Møse (a frequent participant at the Brandeis Institute for International Judges), delivered a report on investigators’ findings at a recent meeting of the Human Rights Council. Judge Møse declared unequivocally, “Based on the evidence gathered by the Commission, it has concluded that war crimes have been committed in Ukraine.” Read his full remarks to the Council and watch an interview with Judge Møse from the PBS NewsHour.

The question of what the world does in response to the Commission of Inquiry’s findings is a burning one. International legal scholar Oona Hathaway, in a recent radio interview with National Public Radio, outlines several types of meaningful action that could assist Ukraine. These include symbolic denunciations of Russia’s aggression by the UN General Assembly and the call to Russia by the International Court of Justice to suspend its military operations. Hathaway believes such symbolic actions are important as they “legitimate the unprecedented global sanctions against Russia and the really, truly unprecedented marshalling of resources to support Ukraine in opposing the war of aggression by Russia.” Hathaway also references as significant the ongoing investigations by the International Criminal Court into Russian acts of aggression in Ukraine, as well as war crimes trials taking place in Ukraine’s own courts.

Learn more about the case brought by Ukraine against Russia before the ICJ (Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide) in a recent podcast in The Hague Courts Dialogue series with Prof. Ingo Venzke. Read the  “declaration of intervention” filed in September by the United States, whereby it joins a number of other intervening states from Europe and beyond that consider that they have an interest of a legal nature in the case.

cover of reportAs this newsletter goes to press, Russian President Vladimir Putin has just announced “accession treaties” that formalize Russia’s illegal annexation of four occupied regions in Ukraine, after referenda of questionable validity held between 23 and 27 September. According to The Guardian, these annexations mark “the largest forcible takeover of territory in Europe since the second world war.” Read a white paper prepared by the Public International Law and Policy Group and Ropes & Gray LLP that explores the legality and impact of these referenda. 

EU logo
A European Union regulation that requires hosting service providers to take down online terrorist content within one hour of receiving a removal order is now in force. Regulation (EU) 2021/784 defines terrorist content as material that: 

• Incites the commission of a terrorist offense, such as kidnapping with the aim to seriously intimidate a population.
• Solicits a person or a group of persons to participate in the activities of a terrorist group.
• Commits or contributes to the commission of a terrorist offense.
• Provides instruction on the making or use of explosives, firearms, or other weapons or noxious or hazardous substances, or on other specific methods or techniques for the purpose of committing or contributing to the commission of a terrorist offense.
• Constitutes a threat to commit a terrorist offense. (Art. 2, para. 7.)
      The hosting service provider is not obligated to search its websites for terrorist content or put an upload filter in place. Instead, the member states must designate an authority competent to issue, scrutinize, oversee, and impose “removal orders.”  Read more from the Global Legal Monitor
screen shot of youtube video
In its 50th session, the Permanent Peoples' Tribunal issued a judgment about the murder of journalists around the world, with a particular focus on Mexico, Sri Lanka and Syria. On its website, the Permanent Peoples' Tribunal describes itself as “one of the most active expressions within opinion tribunals which can now be considered a consolidated reality of the so-called ‘informal’ international jurisdiction. These tribunals are set up to bring to light unheard cases of human rights violations and are activated at the request of social movements which, in the absence of initiatives by national, regional, or international courts, promote the establishment of bodies considered as more accessible forms of justice.” 
The impetus to create a tribunal in response to the murder of journalists emerged from widespread frustration with the pervasive impunity around such acts and the lack of action from states to investigate and prosecute these crimes despite their international legal obligation to do so. The legal framework of the Tribunal is based on international human rights law, particularly the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Read the documentation for this case around the murder of journalists, including the indictment, case files and judgment. Watch video of the delivery of the judgment from the closing hearing of the Tribunal on 19 September 2022. Learn more about the Peoples' Tribunal on the Murder of Journalists at its FAQ page
Khieu Samphan

Photo Credit: Reuters-ECCC

The final judgment of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) has been rendered, upholding the conviction of Khieu Samphan, on charges of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. He is the last surviving senior leader of Cambodia's Khmer Rouge regime, which held power from 1975-79. During this time, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation reports, “an estimated 2 million people died due to mass starvation, political persecution and mass killings, a catastrophic forced evacuation of the capital Phnom Penh, and the establishment of forced labour cooperatives in an effort to build a classless agrarian society.” 
This ECCC judgment marks the end of the long and sometimes contentious judicial work carried out by this court, composed of both Cambodian and international judges, which was established in 2003. Trials began sixteen years ago and a total of three persons have been convicted. Several indictees died along the way and one was decreed unfit to stand trial due to senile dementia. According to JusticeInfo.net, the last judgment “does not bring any surprises or new facts. The conviction of Khieu Samphan on appeal confirms, four years later, the judgment of the trial court and seals for history this court’s legacy.” This legacy is, however, a mixed one, there being a general feeling among Cambodians that justice has not been served by the ECCC. “This feeling will be compounded by the fact that, despite much rhetoric from international justice experts and activists, the hoped-for impact of the ECCC on the functioning and independence of the national judiciary and strengthening of rule of law has not materialised.”

Publications and Resources of Interest

ICJ logo
Interested observers have the chance to follow the recent public hearings, via on-demand video recordings, in an International Court of Justice (ICJ) case between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America. The case focuses on assets seized by the US from the Iranian national bank, Bank Markazi, for the purpose of compensating victims of terrorist activity tied to Iran. That country has argued in the case that, among other things, the United States has failed to accord Iran and Iranian state-owned companies, and their property, sovereign immunity, and failed to recognize the juridical separateness of Iranian state-owned companies. The US has argued that Iran cannot complain about US courts confiscating assets because the actions that led to the asset freeze were the result of Iran's own illegal conduct. Each country claims that the other has violated, in one way or another, their 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights. (A separate ongoing ICJ case between the two countries focuses specifically on alleged violations of the 1955 Treaty.) The public hearings, which lasted four days in September, covered two days of oral arguments by both parties. Read a summary of the parties’ arguments in an ICJ press release
cover of journal
A recent issue of the Journal of International Economic Law (Volume 25, Issue 2, June 2022) features articles on the theme of “racial capitalism and international economic law.” Editors James Thuo Gathii and Ntina Tzouvala present their approach in an open-access introductory article. “The premise of this special issue is that while race and racism are central to the constitution of international economic law (IEL), race and racism have seldom been analytical categories for understanding IEL and its operations historically or in the contemporary moment. Racism is often considered to be a cultural or political phenomenon unrelated to the global political economy. Racism is also considered a stranger to IEL. To correct both gaps, this special issue places the intersection between race and political economy at the heart of IEL scholarship and practice.”
The issue includes articles on a variety of topics, including: protection and security for racial capitalism; markets, sovereignty and racialization; indebted impunity and violence in a lesser state; and refiguring slavery through international law.


The Durham University Comparative Criminal Judgments Project, under the direction of Prof. Michael Bohlander, is looking for contributions. This practice-facing, decolonisation-minded and best-practice sharing project will create a valuable resource of criminal judgments, drafted by experts on criminal law and procedure from a number of jurisdictions. A comprehensive factual case scenario will form the basis of the judgments, which will be based on the law and practice of each jurisdiction, written in English, but in the style of the relevant court in each jurisdiction. 

Read more about the project here. Send an email to michael.bohlander@durham.ac.uk if you would like to contribute.