View previous stories
	Bhopal: A lingering legacy of contamination and injustice by UN Office for Human Rights (OHCHR)   Forty years on from the Union Carbide chemical plant disaster in Bhopal, UN experts said today the hazardous waste that still affects hundreds of thousands of residents in and around the Indian city should not be seen as an issue of the past. In commemorating and paying tribute to the victims, the experts issued this statement:   “For over a decade, the Indian company controlled by Union Carbide Corporation, which is now owned by the Dow Chemical Company, dumped and mismanaged hazardous substances and wastes in its pesticide facility in Bhopal.   This has created a sacrifice zone, where pollution from the contaminated site continues to poison people, many living in poverty. The contamination has affected soils and the drinking water supplies of an estimated 200,000 people in 71 villages in Madhya Pradesh state.   Victims still struggle for clean-up, compensation, and adequate medical care. They also demand respect for their fundamental human rights, including their right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.   The Bhopal tragedy reflects the risks and harms resulting from the transfer of dirty or dangerous technologies to the countries in the Global South. The threats are aggravated where multinational companies apply lower safety standards in their overseas operations and outsource risks to their subsidiaries, as in this case.   On the night of 2 December 1984, 27 metric tonnes of methyl isocyanate gas and other still undisclosed chemicals were released into the air from Union Carbide’s factory. It is estimated that more than 570,000 people were exposed to the dangerous gas and have suffered chronic ill health and long-lasting impacts.   Within three days of the gas leak, more than 10,000 people died as a direct result of exposure. More than 22,000 people have died since, and the toll continues to rise.   The brunt of impacts has fallen on women, whose rates of infertility, miscarriage and adverse birth outcomes increased, resulting also in many children born with chromosome damage.   Compensation for victims has been inadequate, in blatant contravention of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.   Mechanisms to channel compensation have also been ineffective. Efforts by the Indian Government to provide medical care have been insufficient. Peaceful protests demanding adequate remedies have been heavily repressed.   After four decades, judicial proceedings are still ongoing in Indian courts, while the contaminated site continues to spread destitution, illness and death.   For years Union Carbide has evaded criminal trial, with the support of the United States Government that has failed to effectively cooperate with India.   Despite compelling evidence on how the US-based corporation supplied technology and conducted oversight of the Bhopal plant, American courts have denied justice to the victims of the gas leak and of the ongoing environmental contamination.   There are many lessons to be drawn from what may be the world’s worst industrial chemical disaster, including on industrial safety and corporate responsibility. There is also an urgent need for prompt and tangible action by India, the United States and Dow Chemicals to address the legacy of contamination and injustice in Bhopal.”   http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/12/bhopal-lingering-legacy-contamination-and-injustice http://www.ipsnews.net/2025/01/india-protests-erupt-over-hazardous-waste-disposal-of-bhopal-gas-tragedy/ http://www.downtoearth.org.in/topic/bhopal-gas-tragedy Visit the related web page
	Joint Statement in Support of Progress toward a Crimes Against Humanity Treaty by Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect   Apr. 2024   Joint Statement in Support of Progress toward a Crimes Against Humanity Treaty   The undersigned 600 organizations and individuals — with representation from multiple geographic regions — express our support for a global convention on crimes against humanity, and urge states to utilize the 2024 April Resumed Session of the UN’s Sixth Committee to express strong support for a procedure to be adopted at the 79th Session of the UN General Assembly to move the Draft Articles on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Humanity forward to negotiations for a treaty.   Throughout history, millions of people have been subjected to murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, persecution, and other atrocities that have shocked the conscience of humanity. Crimes against humanity continue unabated across the globe and the Draft Articles provide a timely and urgent opportunity for states to help end impunity.   Although crimes against humanity are among the most serious crimes in international law, there has yet to be a treaty regulating their prevention and punishment. A treaty on crimes against humanity would close a crucial gap in the current international framework on mass atrocities as well as clarifying states’ duties to prevent such crimes and means to cooperate with each other. A crimes against humanity treaty can also rightfully contribute to global affirmation of the gravity of these crimes.   In 2013, the UN’s International Law Commission approved crimes against humanity to be included in its programme of work. The Commission, in 2019, recommended the elaboration of a convention by the UN General Assembly or by an international conference.   In 2022, the UN’s Sixth Committee adopted resolution 77/249 to take forward steps for a treaty on crimes against humanity, including two interactive sessions in 2023 and 2024 on the Draft Articles, and a plan to take a decision on the ILC’s recommendation that a treaty go forward in the 79th session of the General Assembly.   We believe the International Law Commission’s Draft Articles represent a strong starting point to open negotiations on a treaty. There is broad agreement that the Draft Articles contain a number of positive elements, and differences in perspectives on the existing Draft Articles should not be used to perpetuate inaction.   Accordingly, we urge states to follow the Commission’s recommendation that a treaty on crimes against humanity should be negotiated, either by the General Assembly itself or in a Diplomatic Conference convened for that purpose.   Our organizations also urge states at the April resumed session to identify important areas for further strengthening the Draft Articles. A variety of civil society groups have developed proposals toward this end. These include strengthening the proposed treaty by a variety of means.   We urge states at the April resumed session also to express overall support for an approach to the development of a crimes against humanity treaty that is gender-competent, survivor-centric, and deploys an intersectional lens. This includes ensuring the inclusion of a non-discrimination provision to apply and interpret the treaty’s provisions consistent with international human rights law.   We believe it is equally essential that the treaty-making process itself is inclusive. States should facilitate meaningful, inclusive, and safe public and civil society participation from across all regions, in all stages of the treaty-development process.   http://cahtreatynow.org/joint-statement-in-support-of-progress-toward-a-crimes-against-humanity-treaty/ http://cahtreatynow.org/news-updates/ http://www.justsecurity.org/105242/podcast-cah-treaty-breakthrough/ http://press.un.org/en/2024/gal3738.doc.htm http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/11/states-must-negotiate-robust-treaty-crimes-against-humanity-after-resolution/ http://www.hrw.org/news/2025/01/09/moving-ahead-crimes-against-humanity-treaty http://reliefweb.int/report/world/justice-children-future-convention-prevention-and-punishment-crimes-against-humanity http://www.hrw.org/news/2024/09/24/why-urgent-action-needed-crimes-against-humanity-treaty http://redress.org/publication/briefing-paper-victims-and-survivors-rights-in-a-convention-on-the-prevention-and-punishment-of-crimes-against-humanity/   http://www.globalr2p.org/publications/joint-statement-in-support-of-progress-toward-a-crimes-against-humanity-treaty/ http://www.globalr2p.org/publications/expert-voices-on-atrocity-prevention-episode-32-leila-sadat http://cahtreatynow.org/ http://cahtreatynow.org/resources/ http://www.globaljusticecenter.net/press/650-civil-society-organizations-and-experts-urge-governments-to-advance-draft-crimes-against-humanity-treaty-to-negotiations http://globalrightscompliance.com/2024/03/28/joint-statement-in-support-of-progress-toward-a-crimes-against-humanity-treaty/   May 2023   The U.N. Process for a Crimes Against Humanity Treaty has finally started. Will it account for Persons with Disabilities?, by Janet Lord, Rosemary Kayess, William Pons and Michael Ashley Stein.   Four years after the International Law Commission – the United Nations body charged with progressively developing international law – first submitted draft articles on a crimes against humanity treaty progress is finally underway.   Last November, the U.N.’s legal arm, the Sixth Committee, adopted a resolution that has kickstarted a historic effort to draft an international treaty on crimes against humanity.   April 2023 marked the start of a two-year process of debate and discussion on the draft articles within the Sixth Committee. For all its potential, the Sixth Committee’s review process is a critical opportunity for States to ensure that at-risk groups – including persons with disabilities – are not left behind.   The Need for a New Crimes Against Humanity Treaty   The core aim of this process is to draft a treaty that could require States Parties to take on specific obligations to prevent and punish crimes against humanity, duties which are not imposed by existing legal regimes.   This includes incorporating a unified definition of crimes against humanity in domestic law and taking steps to prosecute them in national courts.   Such crimes include acts of murder, rape, torture, apartheid, deportations, persecution, and other offenses committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population based on a government or organizational policy.   Notably, crimes against humanity may be committed at any time, not only in situations of internal or international armed conflict.   While the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has made great headway in helping to define crimes against humanity, there is a strong rationale for advancing a specific treaty on crimes against humanity: a treaty will help to harmonize existing but inconsistent national laws; fix shortcomings of the Rome Statute by expanding the definitions of existing crimes and adding new ones; enlarge the grounds of persecution; include an obligation of prevention; and strengthen the legal regimes addressing these egregious crimes by establishing an obligation to prosecute or extradite when the alleged offender is present on a State’s territory. It can also stimulate trials at the domestic level.   The Sixth Committee’s Process should embrace efforts to make At-Risk Groups Visible   The draft treaty raises several concerns. Rather than incorporating existing treaty language wholesale, States should seize the opportunity to create a more progressive legal instrument that reflects developments in both international human rights law and dynamics at the U.N. Security Council. Doing so will build a stronger treaty that embraces the realities and experiences of at-risk groups when atrocities occur.   The Definition of Crimes Against Humanity   Let’s start with the text itself. The ILC draft articles adopt verbatim the language of Article 7 of the Rome Statute into Article 2 of the ILC draft articles, which defines “crimes against humanity.” Article 2 accordingly references, within that definition, “persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law.”   While the catch-all phrase “or other grounds” is included, it nonetheless permits non-enumerated groups for whom international law, and its protection remit, has developed since 1998 to remain anonymously lumped together.   Without the disaggregation, which is essential to amplify and elevate protection needs of highly at-risk groups, many persons remain invisible. This is particularly true for groups that receive specific protection under international law due to enhanced risk such as women, children, and persons with disabilities.   Much work has been done to amplify and render more visible the victims of serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law in the years since the Rome Statute was adopted. Advancements such as the development of policy papers by the Office of the Prosecutor for the ICC on the topics of Gender Persecution, Children, and Sexual and Gender-Based Crimes demonstrate that international criminal law is not static nor siloed, but instead a responsive and evolving framework that must actively seek to include those groups who are often forgotten.   These progressive developments are relevant for the upcoming treaty process and should be borne in mind by the States debating and discussing the provisions of the draft articles.   Since the adoption of the Rome Statute, the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) – a core human rights convention approaching universal ratification – was adopted. Of note, it contains an innovative provision (Article 11), which addresses accounting for the protection needs of persons with disabilities in situations of risk, including armed conflicts, humanitarian emergencies, and natural disasters, and incorporates international humanitarian law, international human rights law, and other international legal domains (including international criminal law, international refugee law, and international environmental law) with relevance for protection.   Specific Protection Mandates adopted by the U.N. Security Council   Other developments within the U.N. system regarding protection are important to note. Action by the U.N. Security Council has substantially elevated specific protection mandates through the adoption of Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000) on women, peace and security, Security Council Resolution 1612 (2005) on children and armed conflict and, more recently, Security Council Resolution 2475 (2019) on the protection of persons with disabilities.   Efforts are being made across the U.N. system to adopt intersectional approaches and to move away from superficial and primarily symbolic references to protecting an undefined and generalized “vulnerable” groups to a more direct and meaningful inclusion of persons with disabilities in all aspects of U.N. operations.   This marks a significant shift away from the previous charity and medical approaches to disability, which all but render persons with disabilities invisible. Those models viewed persons with disabilities as objects who deserve pity or consider disability as something to be “cured,” rather than simply part of a person’s identity.   Research released just prior to the CRPD’s drafting demonstrates how those approaches were, and in some ways still remain, prevalent within the U.N. human rights system.   By contrast, the CRPD’s approach to disability – the social model – focuses on how an individual interacts with an environment that fails to accommodate them. Using the social model, it is a lack of ramps or large print books, not a person’s mobility impairment or low vision, that are disabling. This movement towards fuller recognition of the rights of persons with disabilities necessarily extends to the right to seek justice for violations of their rights, a right that is frequently denied.   Put simply, cutting and pasting Article 7 of the Rome Statue into a new treaty on crimes against humanity does not provide for the full incorporation of international human rights norms that have developed after the Rome Statute’s adoption, including those reflected in the CRPD such as the social model of disability, into the definition of crimes against humanity.   To this end, the 4th Report of Professor Sean Murphy, the ILC Special Rapporteur for the ILC drafting process, noted that a group of U.N. special rapporteurs and independent experts urged during the ILC drafting process that persecution should be broadly delineated to include “persecution on grounds of language, social origin, age, disability, health, sexual orientation, gender identity, sex characteristics and indigenous, refugee, statelessness or migration status.”   It is imperative that this more inclusive definition be reflected in the text of a treaty on crimes against humanity. And this is particularly important for persons with disabilities given the CRPD’s protection obligations on State Parties.   Further,efforts to make visible gender-based crimes and crimes against children, which correspond to actions to account for these crimes by international criminal tribunals, demonstrate that it is possible to account for persons with disabilities in a similar manner.   Adopting a Progressive Human Rights Framework in the Crimes Against Humanity Treaty   The omission of an explicit mention of persons with disabilities and indeed other groups recognized as specifically protected under international law and under U.N. Security Council resolutions overlooks the history of abuse they have faced.   For individuals with disabilities this lurid history, includes mass murder, and targeted killing; forced sterilization; involuntary medical and scientific experimentation; use of persons with disabilities as human shields, suicide bombers and booby-traps; institutionalization, sexual violence, human trafficking and forced disappearance; and attacks against buildings dedicated to the education, health care and rehabilitation of persons with disabilities.   In the light of this, disability merits direct reference as part of Article 2(h) regarding persecution, thereby acknowledging that persons with disabilities and atrocities committed against them must be accounted for by the international criminal law framework. The inclusion of provisions specifically protecting other at-risk groups, whether children or women who fall under specific protection mandates, also must be acknowledged.   We know from prior experience that assuming intersectional interpretations, of norms designed to accord protection to the most at-risk populations, is simply not enough. This is especially true when those underlying marginalized populations are further marginalized by being designated within an “other” category.   There is ample room to acknowledge hard-won advances in international law since the adoption of the Rome Statute and to maintain visibility of groups that have, if only relatively recently, been accorded specific protection based on specific and differentiated needs.   Any move that does not advance an inclusive understanding of crimes against humanity – in an attempt to avoid conflict with the Rome Statute and existing international criminal law – will be a disservice to survivors and a major step backwards in the Sixth Committee’s current efforts to ensure more inclusive justice.   * WHO: An estimated 1.3 billion people experience significant disability. This represents 16% of the world’s population, or 1 in 6 of us. http://tinyurl.com/mr2tw2pk   * Michael Stein is the Co-Founder and Executive Director of the Harvard Law School Project on Disability and Visiting Professor of Law at the Harvard Law School. Janet Lord is a senior fellow at the Harvard Law School Project on Disability and a senior Legal Advisor to the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. William Pons is Research Associate at the Harvard Law School Project on Disability and serves as Senior Legal advisor to the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Rosemary Kayess is Vice Chair of the U.N. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.   http://www.justsecurity.org/86724/the-u-n-process-for-a-crimes-against-humanity-treaty-has-finally-started-will-it-account-for-persons-with-disabilities/ http://www.justsecurity.org/tag/proposed-crimes-against-humanity-treaty/ http://www.globaljusticecenter.net/files/20230406_CAHtreaty_Factsheet.pdf   * Leila Sadat, a professor at Washington University and a special adviser on crimes against humanity to the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, offers a simple explanation of the Draft Crimes Aaginst Humanity Treaty: http://tinyurl.com/4f4mufjd   * On 18 November 2022, the U.N. General Assembly’s Sixth Committee adopted a draft resolution on the International Law Commission (ILC)’s 2019 Draft Articles on Crimes Against Humanity. Co-sponsored by 86 States, the resolution establishes a two-year time frame for the exchange of ‘substantive views’ on ‘all aspects’ of the draft articles, including two convenings of the Sixth Committee in April 2023 and 2024. Civil society experts in international law discuss recent developments: http://tinyurl.com/mphh2krs   http://www.globaljusticecenter.net/press-center/events/1686-draft-articles-on-crimes-against-humanity-takeaways-and-next-steps-for-civil-society http://www.globaljusticecenter.net/gendering-the-draft-treaty-on-crimes-against-humanity/ http://www.justsecurity.org/90024/continued-positive-momentum-on-crimes-against-humanity-treaty   Dec. 2023   Fulfilling the promises of dignity, protection and justice for all, from the Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect   Statement by the International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect regarding the 75th anniversaries of the Genocide Convention and Universal Declaration of Human Rights:   On 9 and 10 December the international community will mark the 75th anniversary of two of the world’s most important global commitments: the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These landmark documents advanced a promise of dignity, protection and justice for all people for the first time.   Through the Declaration, the international community framed a set of fundamental human rights to be universally protected, providing a common global standard of freedom and equality for humanity.   Through the Genocide Convention, the international community defined and outlawed the crime of genocide, placing obligations on states to prevent such conscious-shocking acts.   Despite the convictions of “never again” that guided the creation of these two documents, throughout the past 75 years the international community has struggled to uphold universal human rights and prevent genocides and atrocities – from Cambodia, Rwanda, and Srebrenica, to Syria, Sudan, Iraq, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Myanmar, China and elsewhere.   The international community has equally struggled to end impunity and ensure accountability for those who violate the principles and obligations codified in both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Genocide Convention.   At the same time, situations of grave violations of human rights around the world – often perpetrated by states themselves and which serve as key early warning indicators of potential atrocity crimes – increasingly paralyze the international community in terms of both prevention and response.   The capacity of states and the international community to identify risks and rapidly respond is further exacerbated by growing global challenges such as climate change, artificial intelligence, and hate speech.   Civil society and affected populations, including survivor communities, have been resolute defenders of the rights and responsibilities set out in the Genocide Convention and Universal Declaration of Human Rights.   Through extensive documentation, advocacy, campaigning, demonstrations, lobbying, localized programming, capacity-building, human rights education, and countless other avenues, the work and efforts of civil society and affected populations have been critical in the realization of the protections and obligations enshrined in both documents.   Through international, national and local human rights movements, civil society and affected populations have consistently and robustly carried the torch of universal human rights and freedoms, speaking truth to power and demanding the promotion and protection of their enshrined civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights.   Even in the face of shrinking civic space as well as targeted violations and abuses against them, including attacks, threats, and harassment, civil society has remained resilient in working to ensure that the Genocide Convention and Universal Declaration of Human Rights are upheld without exception.   In this context, we urge all stakeholders to meaningfully support and engage with civil society and affected populations, including survivor communities, as critical partners in the fulfillment, realization and universalization of both the Genocide Convention and Universal Declaration of Human Rights.   The current global context demands an urgent recentralization of human rights and the rule of law – we urge all UN member states to recommit to the rights, protections and obligations enshrined in both documents.   We further encourage member states to strengthen their early warning systems for identifying risk factors for atrocities, as well as to implement comprehensive educational programs to promote understanding, respect, and adherence to the principles of both documents from an early age.   On the occasion of this historic anniversary, the international community must seize the momentum sustained by civil society and ensure that these solemn commitments are not simply abstract words but rather tangible acts that fulfill the promises of dignity, protection and justice for all.   http://www.globalr2p.org/publications/icr2p-statement-regarding-the-75th-anniversaries-of-the-genocide-convention-and-universal-declaration-of-human-rights/ Visit the related web page
	View more stories