Moderator: Karen Knop, University of Toronto
Speakers: Lea Brilmayer, Yale Law School; Valerie C. Epps, Suffolk University Law School; Deng Deng Nhial, Deputy Head of Mission, Embassy of South Sudan; Paul R. Williams, American University; Temur Yakobashvili, Ambassador of Georgia to the United States
Introduction by Karen Knop
“What makes a State?” is the perfect topic for this conference. “Statehood” is the quintessential example of a simple definition that does not apply simply. Of course, we have the four factors under the Montevideo Convention; however, we also know that there a number of exceptions to these factors in practice. In addition, the debate between the constitutive theory of state recognition and the declaratory theory thereof only complicates matters further. Thus, statehood is by no means a simple prospect.
Remarks by Paul Williams
Known for the idea of “earned sovereignty.”
Will blend “what makes a State” and self-determination in the discussion.
What makes a State? Territory. Full-stop.
You can always find a population. You can always find a government. As for sovereignty or capacity to enter into foreign relations, this is primarily political, not legal; therefore, it is not, or should not be, a factor for statehood.
So why the focus on territory? Because of the interrelationship between statehood and self-determination.
There are two ways to become a State: fight your way out of an existing a State and form your own, or suffer terrible atrocities until the international community takes pity on you and recognizes you as a State (i.e. Kosovo).
What about consent? Oftentimes, State consent is either involuntary or fallacious.
What about R2P? States have the right to territorial integrity, and the duty to protect the civilian population.
What about the ICC? The ICC adds moral clarity to these conflicts.
“Earned Sovereignty” refers to the engagement of the international community with a population over a period of time until it is ready to stand on its own. Examples: East-Timor and Kosovo.
Encourages international lawyers to look at this development when trying to answer the ultimate question.
Remarks by Valerie Epps
Known for her strong critique on the ICJ’s Kosovo Advisory Opinion, “foam on the tide of time.”
Three themes: First, the clashing norms in international law that are enmeshed in topic of statehood. Second, why we are stuck in a rut as international lawyers on this topic. And third, what it will take to get out of this rut.
(On a side note, James Crawford has penned one of the greatest books on the topic of statehood.)
With respect to the first theme, what two contradictory norms come into play when discussing statehood? First, sovereignty, territorial integrity, non-intervention, etc.; and Second, the human rights movement (in particular individual rights and obligations, such as the right to engage in the political process, the right not to be discriminated against, the right not to be tortured, the right to due process, etc.) and R2P.
With respect to the second theme, why are we stuck in a rut? Kosovo Advisory Opinion: there is no rule under international law that prohibits ad hoc groups from declaring independence. The ICJ’s decision was terribly unhelpful in answering the question, “What makes a State?” Italy v. Germany: the ICJ “stoically upheld State sovereignty,” even in the face of claims of egregious human rights violations. In both cases, the dissenting opinions offered helpful critiques of the arguably antiquated notions of statehood.
With respect to the third theme, what will it take to get out of this rut? We need a clearer definition of “peoples.” We need more clarification on the ideas of internal and external self-determination. We need to work on forms of autonomy (e.g. Scotland, Wales, etc.). If a people wants to be independent, they should be allowed to form their own State, and the notion that the parent State must first consent is outmoded. Finally, we should not worry about so-called micro-states (See e.g. Luxembourg).
Remarks by Temur Yakobashvili
We have enjoyed 3,000 years of statehood, and look forward to 3,000 more. The fact that “Georgia is a State” is not the result of the Soviet Union; it is the result of 3,000 years of statehood, as previously mentioned.
Independent v. “Fake” States
Since WWII, it has been very difficult to define “victory.” As it relates to Georgia, Russia has occupied two areas of Georgia and has claimed “victory” as a result of this occupation. That “victory” is Russia’s claim that South Ossetia and Abkhazia are independent States; “States” which consist of territory that Russia has ostensibly annexed from Georgia under the guise of independence. As a result, South Ossetia and Abkhazia are “Fake States.” Making matters worse, these “Fake States” are the product of ethnic cleansing and other crimes against humanity. Therefore, the international community should not accept these “Fake States” as real States under international law; it should not allow Russia to use international terms to illegally retake land under a desperate attempt to reclaim the “glorious past” – and size – of the former Soviet Union.
Remarks by Lea Brilmayer
Importance of State Recognition: There are certain kinds of benefits that are available only to recognized States. For example, financial assistance from the World Bank, UN, or bilateral and multilateral aid donors; security assistance from other States recognizing the entity as a State; political power that allows an entity to sign certain agreements and to enter into certain international organization; and juridicial rights that are extended only to States.
Importance of Statehood: In order to enjoy the full protections of international law for you and your peoples, you must be a State. As mentioned above, small States or micro States are not a problem.
PANEL QUESTIONS
Question by Paul Williams: We all agree that the Montevideo Convention is antiquated, but what should we do to update the Montevideo Convention to reflect reality without increasing instability?
Answer by Valerie Epps: The real problem is that State power trumps all, and that the law accommodates itself to State power. Thus, we must not allow State power to dictate law.
Answer by Temur Yakobashvili: In addition to the Montevideo Convention factors, we must first have security guarantees. Second, we must deal with the refugee problem by providing for repatriation of displaced persons. Third, the rights of the persons who reside on the territory must be preserved and protected. These three elements are vital for finding a practical solution.
Answer by Lea Brilmayer: Third States should base their support for either a State or a break-away State based on which State is “right” legally speaking.
Additional remarks by Paul Williams: Kosovo is the case study for how many recognitions you need to be a State. Currently, they have 78, and by their own standards, they need 100. Nevertheless, in my personal opinion, I believe Kosovo is a State.
Additional remarks by Temur Yakobashvili: Kosovo is not the case study; it is the exception.
ASIL Live-Blogging, “Limitations on Freedom of Opinion and Expression: Growing Consensus or Hidden Fault Lines?”
Moderator: Charlotte Ku, University of Illinois
Speakers: Michael O’Flaherty, UN Human Rights Committee; Paula Schriefer, Freedom House; Tad Stahnke, Human Rights First; Christopher Wolf, Hogan Lovells Privacy and Information Management practice group
Remarks by Michael O’Flaherty
While we don’t talk about a hierarchy of human rights, freedom of expression is nevertheless one of the most important. As a result, the regulation of freedom of expression requires close scrutiny.
Typical issues: journalistic space; blasphemy laws; defamation laws; protection of political speech space; and the internet.
The UNHRC has been concerned with freedom of expression for quite some time. As a result, the HRC has considerable jurisprudence with respect to Article 19 of the ICCPR. In light of this jurisprudence, the HRC determined that it was imperative to issue General Comment No. 34, which, after nearly 30 years, finally updated the interpretation and implementation of Art. 19 by not only the HRC but also the State parties. Article 40 authorizes the HRC to issue General Comments to offer assistance to States in implementing and complying with the ICCPR. The General Comments are widely accepted by the States, and they are given considerable weight and authority on matters falling under the ICCPR.
General Comment No. 34 was opened for public comment last year. The HRC received 80 separate submissions containing over 350 suggested changes to the General Comment. Twenty States from across the world entered submissions, including the US – the only time the US has commented on a draft General Comment before the final product. This seems to be a change in the US approach to General Comments produced by the HRC. In addition to these twenty States, scholars, NGOs and human rights organizations submitted briefs, which were quite helpful. After all this input, the General Comment was published in July 2011.
The scope of the General Comment is divided into three parts. First, the breadth of “expression” was expanded: every manifestation of every form of expression is covered under Art. 19. This was important because of the changes in which the manifestation of expression have occurred over the years. Second, the General Comment considers the technological development in the modes of expression, in particular social media. Third, the Comment confronted the right of access to information and concluded that States have a proactive duty to publish information on matters of public concern.
Restrictions noted by the Comment: Art. 19(3), which provides for limitations on speech, are limited in scope. The test for limitations on expression were clearly laid out in the General Comment. The ements of the test are as follows: (1) legality – the limitation must be expressed in secular law; (2) restriction must be for the specific purposes itemized in Art. 19 – no other purpose may be invoked (while the Comment did not expound those specific purposes, it did address what constitutes “morals” and stated that the “moral” restriction must be compatible with universal values of human rights); (3) restrictions on expressions must be necessary and proportional; and (4) there must be a direct nexus between the speech sought to be regulated and the “good” sought to be protected.
Weaknesses in the Comment: the Comment is not the last word on freedom of expression; however, it can never be that. The jurisprudence on freedom of expression is constantly evolving; therefore, a “final word” on such a right is not tenable. Moreover, it is not always wise to overly emphasize the content of certain terms. And finally, the General Comment’s status under customary international law is open for debate.
Remarks by Christopher Wolf*
Focus: hate speech; in particular, on the internet. There is a lot of violent content on the internet, especially Holocaust denial and a racist speech directed towards children. Internet hate speech is basically pollution in the market place of ideas. “The Lesson from Rutgers,” a piece written for CNN last week, addressed hate speech directed towards homosexuals. Ironically enough, the comments to this piece online were filled with the most vile form of hate speech.
There is an epidemic of internet hate speech, from Facebook to YouTube to other websites. So what about regulation of this hate speech? While this speech is vile, laws in this area have proven largely ineffective (notwithstanding the First Amendment concerns as well). For example, the laws regarding hate speech in Europe are largely symbolic. In practice, the reflexive use of the law in this area generally results in an even worse response. The best response to hate speech is often counter-speech in protest.
(Cites Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act)
What is the recommended approach? Providing intermediaries a larger role in educating the public in engaging in counter-speech, or, as in the case of YouTube, reporting hate speech that is in direct contravention of YouTube’s terms and conditions. In addition to YouTube, many companies, such as Google, enforce restrictions on hate speech uttered by its users. But are there standards that these companies use in eliminating such hate speech? This is hard to tell from the information available. Nevertheless, in the case of Google, the elimination of hate speech is up to the discretion of the person who is charged with regulating such speech in accordance with its terms and conditions.
In conclusion, while government regulation of hate speech is not the way, these “softer,” self-governing approaches are already being used and have been, for the most part, effective in eliminating the most vile forms of hate speech.
Remarks by Paula Schriefer
The purpose of this address is not to defend hate speech; it is to raise and discuss the legal problems associated with punishing persons who have engaged in hate speech, in particular blasphemy. In Indonesia, blasphemy is considered hate speech, and as such, persons who engage in blasphemy are regularly punished. In Pakistan, persons guilty of blasphemy can be executed; however, no one, thus far, has been executed for blasphemy in Pakistan.
The effect of these anti-hate speech laws has actually encouraged attacks on minority groups protected by such laws.
Side Note: A recently promulgated Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Resolution attempted to balance religious liberties and free speech.
So how do we move forward? Blasphemy laws are counter-productive and, in fact, constitute hate speech in and of themselves. They radicalize the local population and encourage attacks on more moderate voices, which, as a result of such laws, have been largely silenced. Thus, international law should take these practical consequences in mind, and not be driven solely by good intentions.
Blasphemy laws are vague and therefore abused. They also infringe other human rights in undeveloped States. Moreover, governments have used blasphemy laws to silence opposition groups. Individuals have used blasphemy laws to settle personal scores. And finally, blasphemy laws have often served as justification for violent groups to exterminate those groups with whom they disagree. As such, blasphemy laws affect both minorities and majorities in equal measure.
The General Comment is good for two reasons: first, it establishes the international community’s approach to hate speech; and second, it has encouraged dialogue on the issue.
Remarks by Tad Stahnke
Free speech is good; hate speech is bad – but how do we deal with the tensions between the two? Hate speech underpins much violence, but where do you draw the line between lawful free speech and unlawful hate speech?
Solutions: the General Comment is a step in the right direction. While States should incorporate the proposals in the General Comment into their domestic laws, they can already use “softer” measures to dissuade hate speech, as discussed above. In addition, UNHRC Resolution 16/18 is a positive development on the matter. Nevertheless, the implementation of Resolution 16/18 is proving to be problematic.
Ultimately, education about tolerance and freedom is absolutely essential in preempting hate speech and its tragic consequences.
Leave a comment
Filed under International Criminal Law, International Human Rights, News and Events
Tagged as free speech, General Comment, hate speech, Human RIghts Committee