Connect with us

International Law

UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies Reforms: From Shuffling the Cards to Performing Global Constitutionalism

Dr. Nafees Ahmad

Published

on

The October-November 2017 are the delineating and defining months that present a constitutional moment in the pilgrimage of human rights when some human rights bodies of global and regional visage will sit in judgement at Geneva in Switzerland to assess the degree of States’ compliance with their human rights obligations through the States’ reports, civil society groups’ submissions, country visits, stakeholders’ hearings, webinars, individual representations and conference presentations.

Five UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies (HRTBs) are going to have their meetings throughout October 2017 to have stock-check of States’ observance with their HRTBs mandate on ICCPR-1966, ICESCR-1966, CEDAW-1979, CAT-1984, and CRC-1989. UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and its Social Forum will be in session and UNHRC will organize Seminars, Working Group Discussions and Thematic Panel Discussions on international human rights issues like refugees, migrants, displaced persons, climate change, transnational corporations, prevention of torture, custodial violence, fair trial guarantee, and gender justice and rights. At the regional level, the European Committee on Social Rights (ECSR), European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IACHR) and Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) will have their sessions too.

There are numerous bodies established under the UN Charter for promoting and monitoring compliance with international human rights, namely; the UN Human Rights Council, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Security Council (UNSC), the General Assembly (UNGA), the Secretariat (and the Secretary-General), and the International Court of Justice. Of these, the UN Human Rights Council and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights are the most active in enforcing and monitoring compliance with international human rights. UN System is a Charter-based bodies system that seeks to uphold international human rights in general; while UN  Human rights Treaty Bodies (HRTBs) address compliance with human rights in the particular human rights treaty under which they were established. Primarily, the UN human rights system is composed of two kinds of bodies; (a) Charter-based Bodies that includes the Human Rights Council and its subsidiary mechanisms and thematic mandate holder (e.g., the Human Rights Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous People and Human Rights. However, Treaty Bodies – created under the international human rights treaties and made up of independent experts that have the mandate to monitor States parties’ compliance with their treaty obligations.

Therefore, the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Treaty Bodies (HRTBs) are the substratum of global human rights framework whereunder the human rights commitments, and convictions of the national governments are accounted for implementation. The HRTBs system is a synthesis of ideality and reality based on dreams and desires of humanity and ideals and practical realization of fundamental purposes and core principles of the UN Charter. The HRTB system is an unprecedented attainment of the common good in the history of global gratification for human rights beyond the multitude of geopolitical structures in all the countries. The system of HRTBs stands at the heart of the international protection framework for human rights that translate the global standards, universal norms, and democracy of judicial remedies into affirmative action, the primacy of individual development, communitarian and collective welfare of the humanity. The HRTBs mechanism is a budding and promising contrivance that provides authoritative roadmap on human rights standards, makes recommendations how human rights treaties are invoked and applied in specific cases, and apprises the High Contracting parties of what they must do to make sure that all people are free and equal and enjoy the full realization of human rights.

But, there is a pivotal question as to what extent these HRTBs have been pragmatic in accomplishing the global vision of a world wedded with human rights from textual literalism to transformative functionalism that remains to be seen? Therefore, the UN Member-States (UNMS) contemplated and concluded a State-Led Reform Process (SLRP) to strengthen and enhance the effective functioning of the HRTBs system by adopting the Resolution 68/268 in the UN General Assembly on 9 April 2014. Thus, the SLRP is armed with the architecture of ten Expert Committees entrusted with the responsibility to monitor the enforcement of the obligations in the UNMS enunciated under the core human rights treaties with the additional protocols thereto. Primarily, the SLRP process has started by the states to appreciate the objections to fundamental countenances of the HRTBs’ work to surpass the current reform endeavours initiated by the UNHCHR (United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights). Despite the fact that HRTBs reform process ill-starred but its Final Resolution mostly sidesteps the adverse corollaries for their autonomy and independence and makes significant changes that are bound to affect their work in the long run. Nevertheless, there is a need to do a lot to enhance the efficacy of HRTBs in protecting, promoting, and preserving the human rights for all.

HRTBs: Realizations and Contestations

The HRTBs is an integral constituent of international human rights system that ensures the protection by doing an independent and impartial assessment of compliance and enforcement thresholds of human rights obligations on the part of high contracting parties. The HRTBs personnel contacts, coordinate, and conduct negotiations with plenipotentiaries of the high contracting states during Public Review of Periodic Reports of the states regarding implementation of the international human rights treaties in their respective jurisdictions. They also make public and publish all conclusions and recommendations based on the progress achieved by the countries in their human rights obligations. They come to decisions on individual and collective cases of human rights alleged violations, monitor the human rights and offer general comments interpreting the scope of the human rights commitments. The HRTBs outcomes are important to national governments, HRDs (Human Rights Defenders), NHRIs (National Human Rights Institutions), and NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations) who provide and share the information to HRTBs and cite their conclusions, findings, and recommendations in their reports. The HRTBs also disseminate the work of UN-UPR (UN-Universal Periodic Review), UNHRC (UN Human Rights Council), UN Special Procedures, Academics, and the Courts at national, regional and international levels.

Nevertheless, HRTBs are confronted with considerable impediments in their efficacy and primacy in the absence of compelling machinery to implement the human rights mandate in the UNMS. The treaty obligations both substantive and procedural must be implemented by ensuring the conformity with human rights treaty standards inter-alia compliance of the HRTBs recommendations and submission of reports respectively. However, the majority of the UNMS and states parties to international human rights treaties do not submit their reports on time, and few of them do not report at all to UNHRC. But some states do prepare remarkable reports with the help of their domestic human rights expertise, internal HRDs and other stakeholders and countries also try to ensure significant implementation of HRTBs findings with varying degrees. The emplacement of four new HRTBs in the last ten years has posed a new set of challenges that include their ratification and mounting reporting. As of now, the HRTBs did not receive sufficient resources and wherewithal to monitor and regulate their slow functioning in disposing of backlogs of reports and communications. HRTBs experts are under tremendous pressure due to the mounting workload that strains their efficiency and efficacy. These experts and consultants are nominated and elected by the states parties to the human treaties. They are not paid and serve on the HRTBs in their personal capacities without getting adequate support from the Office of the OHCHR (UN High Commissioner for Human Rights). Therefore, the administrative functionalism in the HRTBs structure does not conform to the global standards that made it cynical and indifferent.

HRTBs Reform Peregrination

Having recognized these challenges, the Human Rights Treaty Body reforms have been initiated in 2009 by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay as a cycle of consultations involving the entire stakeholders to strengthen the HRTBs that has come to known as Dublin Process. These plans triggered significant ruminations among the present and past HRTBs academics, consultants, experts, NGOs, NHRIs, UNMS, UN Secretariat and other UN bodies. The Dublin Process completed its mandate in 2011, but a group of States led by Russian Federation raised objections that impugned process had not adequately addressed the concerns of many stakeholders. Consequently, the group successfully pushed the UN General Assembly to start the inter-governmental process based on SLRP structure. Therefore, UN General Assembly adopted a resolution in February 2012 whereunder process was created that was supported by the eighty-five States and sixty-six States abstained including the US from voting. On the Dublin Process, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights published her report in July 2012 and negotiations had started among the States and stakeholders including international civil society institutions and organizations. Consequently, in February 2014 States brokered an agreement that was adopted by the UNGA in April 2014 as a formal resolution.

The Aftermath of the SLRP

The Dublin Process intended to secure the maximum threshold of States compliance with their obligations about reporting and meeting to facilitate the HRTBs to review the UNMS reports in an agreed and stipulated time frame. The High Commissioner for Human Rights has mooted a proposal of adopting the mandatory Master Calendar to ensure the compliance of the States parties to the human rights treaties on every five years, but many States has resisted that. If accepted, the impugned proposal would have doubled the meeting time of the States parties to the human rights treaties, but during SLRP negotiations States raised legal, pecuniary and feasibility challenges and, ultimately, it resulted in a fiasco. Even so, the SLRP has increased the meeting time of the HRTBs by more than 20% during 2012-2015. The average workload of each HRTBs has been determined every two years based on a formula so that there would not be any arrear or accumulation of cases at the cost of other functions and priorities.

Even though the Resolution enhances the HRTBs meeting time, but it does not considerably enhance the total amount of resources reserved for HRTBs. The UN regular budget covers the global funding needs of the OHCHR at a rate of 40 percent approximately. The residue is covered by voluntary contributions from UNMS and other donors. The UN regular budget, approved by the UNGA every two years, is paid by the “assessed contributions” from each Member State that are decided and determined according to a formula that takes into account the size and strength of their respective national economies. The UN’s regular budget should finance all activities mandated by the General Assembly and its subsidiary organs, including the HRC. Further, on an annual basis, the resolution makes provision for creating a capacity-building programme under OHCHR that assists the States upon their request to salvage their problems.

Harmonization of Procedures and Methodologies

The UNHRC’s report impressed upon the HRTBs to harmonize their procedures and methodologies so that their working could be improved. The SLRP or Cross Regional Group (CRG) led by Russian Federation alleged that HRTBs had exceeded treaty briefs in their style of functioning, intangible methods, indulged in political castigation of States and allowing to reference information culled from the civil society institutions like NGOs, etc. Moreover, HRTBs officials resorting to iconoclastic and innovative techniques in developing new procedures to ascribe the States’ policies, general comments, recommendations and enforcement thereof. Consequently, states impressed upon the UNGA to insist on changes to the procedures of the HRTBs and to ensure bigger obsequiousness and primacy to the views of the States. However, many States asked for self-regulation on the part of HRTBs precisely to guarantee impartiality, independence, and honesty in their functions and operations.

The intergovernmental process or SLRP vouches for UN High Commissioner for Human Rights’ proposed procedural reforms whereunder HRTBs are required to harmonize their procedures. SLRP impressed upon the HRTBs that they must conform to their Mandate and respect the positions of the state parties. Therefore, in achieving the larger harmonization, the resolution called for empowering HRTBs’ Chairs to take procedural decisions incommensurate with their prior deliberations with the fellow experts. Thus, the HRTBs’ Chairs have started the deliberations and discussions in this connection. At one fell swoop, the resolution does not put HRTBs member states in a supervisory control position over the HRTBs experts in ways that could have critically cast a shadow upon their inspection of States’ performance in preserving, promoting, and protecting the human rights. However, the resolution does not support a polemical proposal of CRG that contemplated a Code of Conduct for HRTBs experts while ensuring their accountability under a mechanism. As an alternative, it urges the HRTBs to review their Self-Regulatory Guidelines (SRGs) on accountability and independence while keeping in view the States’ concerns.

Improving the Execution and Openness

There is a requirement of enhancing, improving the existing threshold of execution and implementation of HRTBs with transparency in conformity with UN High Commissioner’s objectives to ensure the high quality reporting and enforcing the HRTBs’ recommendations in the municipal jurisdictions of the States parties. However, UNGA Resolution makes a sporadic mention that States to emplace “standing national reporting and coordination mechanisms” to compile reports in consultation with civil society institutions, NGOs, non-state actors and all stakeholders while appreciating and monitoring the HRTBs work and recommendations and their implementation. On the issue of accessibility and openness, UN High Commissioner advocated their enhancement and reflection in the functioning and operations of HRTBs. Further, UNGA Resolution envisages the UN webcasting of HRTBs meetings but, unfortunately, it has been perceived as rhetoric leaving it to OHCHR to arrange its funding. Moreover, it has also recommended that HRTBs should stipulate word limitations to reports and representations made by the NGOs and other civil society groups just to rationalize the cost incurrences. Similarly, UNGA Resolution begs off to entertain the recommendations of the UN High Commissioner regarding promotion and selection of HRTBs experts and consultants.

Conclusion

The ratification of human rights declarations, treaties, and optional protocols must be mobilized on the largest scale to improve upon human rights protection at all levels of nation-states, regional arrangements, and global commitments. Simultaneously, national constitutions, national legislations, public policies and lego-institutional response structure must conform to the HRTBs system. There are many challenges confronting the HRTBs like overstraining of resources due to the proliferation of human rights treaty bodies, States parties reluctance and irregularity in reporting, and mounting individual communications. However, there are some States both from developed and developing a world that is entirely compliant with their reporting obligations, but there is a backlog of reports with the HRTBs. However, if all the States parties start reporting in a disciplined manner and well-stipulated timeframe, HRTBs system might collapse as it is not well-equipped to handle the entire gamut of reporting submissions. The UNGA Resolution 68/268 has been adopted to reflect upon and strengthen the HRTBs system.

It is aptly be put forward that UN General Assembly has been attending, appreciating and addressing many of the HRTBs concerns regarding resources, functioning, and operations but much remain to be tackled to make HRTBs stronger and stouter in responding to emerging human rights violations. UNGA resolution seeks to make HRTBs system more sustainable and sturdier without incurring further UN resources while making optimum utilization of enhanced meeting time slots. However, the requirement for more resources would occur in future owing to the sustainability apprehensions and anxieties as there would be mounting workload of HRTBs disproportionate to the limits of the volunteer experts’ capacity. Thus, rights-holders and stakeholders of the HRTBs must be central to any review of the HRTBs system.

Therefore, currently contemplated reform agenda is insufficient and intangible to meet these challenges posed by the HRTBs. In a nutshell, all stakeholders to the HRTBs structure must pursue the substantive objectives identified in the Dublin Process along with UN High Commissioner’s Report. Hence, the visibility of HRTBs to larger public must significantly be enhanced, reporting quality and regularity of State reports submissions must be increased, proactive implementation of recommendations of the HRTBs, and strengthening the efficacy of HRTBs membership while upholding the accessibility, accountability, independence and transparency of the HRTBs system to all the stakeholders and civil society groups. HRTBs require these indispensable, inevitable and inescapable changes so that HRTBs could make a greater contribution to the protection, preservation, and promotion of human rights and civil liberties across the world.

Ph. D., LL.M, Faculty of Legal Studies, South Asian University (SAARC)-New Delhi, Nafees Ahmad is an Indian national who holds a Doctorate (Ph.D.) in International Refugee Law and Human Rights. Author teaches and writes on International Forced Migrations, Climate Change Refugees & Human Displacement Refugee, Policy, Asylum, Durable Solutions and Extradition Issus. He conducted research on Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) from Jammu & Kashmir and North-East Region in India and has worked with several research scholars from US, UK and India and consulted with several research institutions and NGO’s in the area of human displacement and forced migration. He has introduced a new Program called Comparative Constitutional Law of SAARC Nations for LLM along with International Human Rights, International Humanitarian Law and International Refugee Law & Forced Migration Studies. He has been serving since 2010 as Senior Visiting Faculty to World Learning (WL)-India under the India-Health and Human Rights Program organized by the World Learning, 1 Kipling Road, Brattleboro VT-05302, USA for Fall & Spring Semesters Batches of US Students by its School for International Training (SIT Study Abroad) in New Delhi-INDIA nafeestarana[at]gmail.com,drnafeesahmad[at]sau.ac.in

Continue Reading
Comments

International Law

Legal framework of the Caspian Sea and the interests of Iran

Javad Heirannia

Published

on

Authors: Javad Heirannia and Omid Shokri Kalehsar*

In international law, the concept of power is inevitably alongside with the principles of the law.

In other words, since there is no judiciary reference in the international judiciary conflicts, the law is affected by the concept of power in international system. There are different opinions about the relationship between power and law.

Different legal schools of thought differ in their views towards the relativity of power and rights.

Realists believe that power is the main core of international law and takes the main role in the basic norms and principles of international law and relations. So; law should be in compliant with national interests and accordingly it takes prominence. Contrary to realists, scholars from the Yale University Law School do not accept power as the core of international law and emphasize global social commonalities instead of the traditional notion of power. But in general, we cannot ignore the role of power in creating international rules among governments.

Therefore, due to the importance of power in politics, when we want to determine Caspian Sea legal status, at the same time that we pay attention to previous legal contracts, including the treaties of 1921 and 1940 between Iran, Russia and the former Soviet Union, we have to also consider the political conditions. According to the text of an agreement between the presidents of Iran, Russia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan, signed on August 5 in Aktau, Kazakhstan, the five countries agreed on issues such as military, security, shipping and economic matters, but delineating seabed and sub-seabed postponed to bilateral agreements between countries. However, the announcement of the signing of an agreement between the government of Iran and the other four countries after nearly three decades of the collapse of the Soviet Union Led to the critical reactions of many Iranians, especially those saying that Iran had enjoyed 50% share of Caspian Sea during the former Soviet Union.

Russo-Persian Treaty of Friendship (1921), Treaty of Commerce and Navigation (1940)

The 1921 treaty is one of the agreements between Iran and Russia on the Caspian Sea. According to the treaty, the Caspian Sea is a common sea between Iran and Russia, both enjoying equal rights of free navigation. According to Article 40 of the treaty, 10 miles were considered as an exclusive fishing zone and the rest was shared between Iran and Russia. Of course, in this treaty, Iran was requested to surrender fishing privilege to Russia to help Russian livelihoods, and the privilege was awarded to them in 1925 for 25 years. But Iran’s Prime Minister, Mohammad Mosaddeq, did not extend the second period of 25 years, although the Soviets continued fishing in all areas and waters of the Caspian, but Iran was usually fishing only in the coastal zone. This continued, and although the fishing privilege for the Russians was not renewed, Russia and Iran both operated at the sea.

Before signing 1921 contract, only the Russians could have military naval forces in the Caspian on the basis of Treaty of Turkmenchay and Treaty of Gulistan, the privilege of which was awarded to Russians by two above-mentioned treaties. In fact, after the oppressive and one-sided Treaty of Turkmenchay and Gulistan between Iran and Tsardom in the first quarter of the nineteenth century, 1921 contract between Iran and the Russian government was the first formal agreement with almost equal status in the Caspian Sea. But the 1940 contract was a little different from the 1921 in which the Russians set to be in a higher position in the contract clinched during Stalin and Iran, the difference of which is totally clear by contrasting them. Parts of the 1940 treaty were on commercial and customs rights between the two countries and other clauses were about the shipping rights of the two sides over the Caspian Sea. The position of Iran in this contract was slightly better than the one in what were signed during the Tsardom of the Russian era.

Dividing the seabed and sub-seabed; ignoring Iran’s viewpoints

After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the founding of the Russian Federation, three other new countries around the Caspian Sea were created from the Soviet heritage, including Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. Although Iran and Russia at this stage were set for the Caspian Sea to treat a shared one, the Russians took a dual stance in this case. In this regard, Russia from one side stroke a bilateral deal with Kazakhstan in 1988 dividing the northern seabed and its resources and from the other side clinched similar contract with the Republic of Azerbaijan. It led to Iran’s protest maintaining that because both countries enjoy the joint ownership of the Caspian Sea, then any decisions have to be taken jointly in this regard.

According to the joint ownership principle, resources are considered jointly and therefore would have to be divided equally based on an agreement signed by all the Caspian coastal countries. Hence, what the Russians did in dividing Caspian seabed and its resources bilaterally ran contrary to joint ownership principle. In fact, when we consider the Caspian Sea as a common sea, all the resources of this sea are divided equally among all members. Therefore, the Russians’ attempts to conclude bilateral agreements and the division of the continental shelf is contrary to the being common sea of the Caspian.

Under Mohammad Khatami, the then president of Iran, it was proposed that the Caspian Sea be divided equally having 20% share by each coastal country, but four others did not accept the offer, after which Iran declared that it will not allow any interference by other countries in 20% of its adjacent waters So, the Russian vessel left waters of Iran. Since that time, Iran has emphasized its 20% share, but Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan were dissatisfied with this situation, especially in the Alborz field with oil resources, making it a dispute and the disagreement has prolonged so far.

After Kazakhstan’s Aktau agreement on the Caspian Sea, Iran declared to continue governing its 20% share of waters as long as its share with Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan is not determined well.

After the meeting, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani stated: “There are still issues in the southern part of the sea between Turkmenistan, Iran and Azerbaijan. We had good agreements with Azerbaijan that are in operation, but some of these issues have not been resolved yet. At the recent Caspian Summit, some serious issues concerning Iran and many other countries were resolved the most important of which was security in the Caspian Sea.

)https://www.mehrnews.com/news/4375492(

The talks between Iran and Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan on the Caspian Sea have been Unsuccessful. Recently, Russia has announced a new plan with coastal states accepting it with the exception ofIran. According to the Russian plan, 15 miles would be considered as the territorial sea and 10 more miles as the exclusive fishing zone. The surface water would be for shared shipping, but seabed and sub-seabed resources are divided according to the 1998 contract.

In Kazakhstan’s Aktau agreement, Caspian Sea navigation was calculated according to the Convention on the Law of the Sea(1982). According to the Convention, 15 miles considered as coastal waters and 10 miles as the exclusive fishing zone putting the rest as a common area. This means that the sovereign right of Iran in the Caspian will be less than 13%.

Because the Caspian Sea doesn’t have any link to open waters, it is in fact considered as a great lake the rules of which are regulated on the basis of the coastal states multilateral agreements.

Based on Kazakhstan’s Aktau agreement, the baseline of the Caspian Sea has been identified; therefore, it is impossible for Iran to determine its share of the seabed and sub-seabed resources in upcoming negotiations. Also, since the deeper part of the Caspian Sea is located in the southern part, the Iranian side, Iran’s share of internal waters will be much less. In the other words, Iran’s baseline in Caspian Sea will not be so distant from the coast, something that can bring about security consequences for the country.

Sharing seabed and sub-seabed in accordance with bilateral agreements among other countries expect for Iranis detrimental to Tehran. However, when the rule over a sea is deemed as joint ownership, its mineral resources, oil and gas are to be taken into consideration fully and then the achieved interests are divided among 5 countries. According to the Convention on the legal status of the Caspian Sea, the areas beyond the territorial waters and exclusive fishing zone of each country are to be known as a common or joint zone. In this case, the use of seabed resources in the Caspian Sea remains unclear.

This is especially true in the southern part of the Caspian Sea, because the fate of the resources in the northern part of the Caspian Sea is determined in the bi-and-trilateral agreements of Russia, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan. So, the existing disputes are only among Iran with two countries including Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. As a result, declaring the area beyond the territorial waters and the exclusive fishing zone as a joint ownership means destroying the sovereignty of Iran over the energy field of the Alborz in the Caspian Sea. Based on bilateral agreements signed between Russians with Kazakhstan and then with Azerbaijan and also between Kazakhstan with Turkmenistan in 1998, seabed and sub-seabed resources were divided between themselves, making the share of Iran negligible.

Russia, in fact, by signing the above bilateral contracts violated the joint ownership agreed upon with Iran and the case ended in Tehran’s detriment. Since the presidency of Khatami, Iran has emphasized that it has 20% share in Caspian Sea and announced not to allow others to do any kind of activity in its territorial waters. That’s why the Azerbaijani oil operation in the joint oil field with Iran was stopped. While before Kazakhstan’s Aktau agreement, Iran rejected the joint exploitation with Azerbaijan, Tehran approved 50-50 division of the oil field of Alborz with the country in this convention.

One of the criticisms leveled against Aktau convention is that the determination of the share of each Caspian coastal state in the seabed and sub- seabed and put to future bilateral negotiations.

In other words, the convention only discusses surface water and since the convention has determined the baseline, Iran cannot determine its share in seabed and sub-seabed.

Of course, the Kazakhstan’s Aktau agreement calls for a revision of the previous bilateral agreements between 4other Caspian Sea states, which can be in Iran’s favor. The review not to be based on the length of the beaches, since the contracts of 1921 and 1940 were not based on the length of the coasts, but all the sea was reckoned as common. Therefore, Iran’s share in Seabed and sub- Seabed resources should be more than what is now mentioned in the Aktau convention. Accordingly, if there is a review in the agreement, it can make a revision in Iran’s right and share in the Caspian Sea. While, due to the ordinary practice that making any decision is based on bi-and-multilateral negotiations, bilateral agreements clinched between some coastal countries have led to the violation of Iran’s rights in the Caspian Sea.

“Taking dual role, unfriendly and sensitive-inducing of Russia in the issue as well as sharing method of seabed based on bilateral agreements with new adjacent neighbors is one of the most important reasons Iran encounters a crucial problem in the Caspian Sea whereof”, Mohsen Aminzadeh, former deputy for foreign minister of Iran during the presidency of Mohammad Khatami, believes. In reaction to Russia on dividing the resources of the Caspian sub-seabed without any coordination with Tehran, Iran announced that the final acceptance of the Caspian Sea enjoying joint ownership in the legal regime is conditional to determine the Caspian sub-seabed resources. This is while Iran for the first time formally abandoned the condition at the second meeting of the Caspian Sea in Tehran accepting the joint ownership of everything in the Caspian Sea but the sub-seabed tacitly.

Iran also accepted the crossing of the pipeline and energy transmission through the Caspian Sea in the Aktau agreement. This is while the crossing from Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan could have been done through Iran instead. Consequently, from one hand, Iran lost this opportunity and on the other hand, accepting the crossing of the pipeline through the Caspian Sea will have environmental risks. Regarding security issues, The Kazakhstan’s Aktau agreement says that the Caspian Sea is not a military one, resolving Iran and Russia’s concerns over the presence of NATO in the sea. Of course, the very issue was in the previous treaties, but it was discussed more extensively in the Kazakhstan Convention. So, foreign powers cannot run for any military and naval bases on the Caspian shore and making any threats against other coastal states.

Prior to the Aktau agreement, When Iran had any disagreement over the Caspian Sea, it relied on both historical background and the 1921 treaties with Russia and 1940 treaties with the Soviet Union. Iran has always put emphasis on this historical background making its status one of two historical claimants of the Caspian Sea. Iran ignored these two historical contracts in Aktau convention by giving them up in its text.

Earlier, during the formal declaration of Tehran Summit, being the first joint document of the five leaders, no reference was made to the above-mentioned historical background and contracts.

The President of Kazakhstan formally stated in his speech that the previous treaties over the Caspian Sea have become null and void making it deemed accepted indirectly by Iran’s silence.

The newly independent coastal states are not interested in the historical background of the Caspian Sea, so they are trying to forgo the historical claimants of the two countries -Iran and the Soviet Union. They are more willing to Institutionalize the trends of the five countries instead of the historical background, but this doesn’t justify Iran’s withdrawal from its substantiated claims on the Caspian Sea.

“Iran could at least register its own stance alone concerning the historical background of its claims on the Caspian Sea in Tehran Summit putting emphasis on it. Therefore, it is really unclear why such a negligence was made in spite of the great importance of these backgrounds over Iran’s endless legal disputes over the Caspian Sea.” Mohsen Aminzadeh, former deputy for foreign minister of Iran during the presidency of Mohammad Khatami, believes.

*Omid Shokri Kalehsar, Senior Energy Security Analyst

Continue Reading

International Law

UN Global Compact on Migration: Toward a Resurrection of International Refugee Law

Dr. Nafees Ahmad

Published

on

International Refugee Law (IRL) stands on a humanitarian platform that is, unfortunately, derisory and insufficient for the contemporary time, but one, which remains a terra incognita despite the frequency and enormity of current refugee crises. The problem of the refugee is today profoundly different. The persecutors are not defeated and defunct regimes.  Instead, persecutors are existing governments, able to insist on the prerogatives of sovereignty while creating or helping to generate refugee crises.  When labeled as persecutors, they react as governments always react. They assert their sovereignty and castigate as politically motivated the human rights claims made against them.  To criticize these governments as persecutors are often the surest route to exacerbating a refugee crisis because it shrinks the opportunity to garner their requisite cooperation. In the face of dramatically and cataclysmically changed social and economic conditions, States felt obliged to abandon the centuries-old practice of permitting the free immigration of persons fleeing dangerous circumstances in their home countries. To limit the number of persons to be classified as refugees while still offering sanctuary to those in greatest need, international legal accords were enacted which imposed conditions requisite to a declaration of refugee status.

The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and the Regular Migration (GCM) is slated to be unprecedented inter-governmental agreement secured by the United Nations Organization (UNO) addressing all dimensions of international migration. It provides an extraordinary occasion to enhance the Global Governance of International Migration within the Framework of Sovereignty, Safety, and Sustainable Development. In the contemporary international migration patterns, migrants have become a resource to sustainable development. The idea of GCM mooted in April 2017 would be crystallized at the end of 2018 by adopting the GCM at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) sponsored inter-governmental conference on international migration.

GCM Genesis: The New York Declaration

On 19 September 2016, Heads of State and Government congregated to regurgitate at the global level within the UNGA, challenges presented by the international migration and refugees’ flows across the globe. It evolved a political understanding that international migration and refugee issues must have visible priority in the global agenda. Thus, 193 UN nation-states have committed and recognized the necessity for greater cooperation coupled with a holistic and consolidated approach to address the human mobility and adopted the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants (NY-DRM). The NY-DRM envisages the protection, safety, dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of all migrants irrespective of their migratory status at all times by supporting nation-states who are receiving, rescuing and hosting large populations of migrants and refugees. It undertakes to integrate migrants with the host communities by addressing the requirements and capabilities of both migrants and host states within the framework of sovereignty, safety, and sustainable development. It requires combating xenophobia, abolishing the racism and eliminating discrimination towards all migrants by developing a state-driven process of non-binding principles and voluntary guidelines regarding the treatment of migrants in vulnerable situations. The NY-DRM stipulates the strengthening the global governance of international migration, including by bringing International Organization of Migration (IOM) into the UN orbit and through the accelerated development of a Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration.

GCM Aims: Agenda For Sustainable Development

The NY-DRM under its Annex II has commenced an inter-governmental process of consultations and parleys culminating in the scheduled adoption of the Global Compact for Migration at an intergovernmental conference on international migration in 2018.The GCM has been contemplated consistent with Target 10.7 of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in which UN Member States pledged to have global cooperation to enable safe, orderly and regular migration as per the mandate enunciated in Annex II of the NY-DRM. The Annex II proposes to address all dimensions of international migration, including the developmental, environmental, human rights-oriented, humanitarian, and other dimensions. It is bound to contribute to global governance and improve coordination on international migration by envisaging a framework for comprehensive international cooperation on human mobility and migrants. The impugned GCM framework would have a range of actionable commitments that might ensure the implementation, follow-up structure, and review among the UN Member States regarding international migration in all its dimensions propelled by the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Further, the Addis Ababa Action Agenda and the Declaration of the 2013 High-Level Dialogue on International Migration and Development would create an informed international community.

GCM Development: The Rule of Law, Transparency and Inclusion Process

The place of the rule of law in the global governance of international migration has been duly identified as an appropriate lego-institutional response to migratory movements. However, the rule of law required its application and interpretation in the municipal jurisdiction and as well as international courts and tribunals particularly in the context of human rights of migrants and refugees and forcibly displaced persons. Therefore, the rule of law must also be reflected in the reception policies of migrants, refugees, and forcibly displaced persons. The role of international and regional organizations like SAARC in supporting the incorporation the rule of law in municipal legal, administrative and judicial processes in the wake of global migration governance issues. Consequently, the process of consultations and negotiations for developing the GCM is being evolved with elements of openness, transparency, and inclusion. GCM subscribes to the active participation of all the stakeholders in its process such as civil society organizations, NGOs, the private sector, academic institutions, legislative bodies, diaspora communities, and migrant organizations. These elements have been postulated in the Modalities Resolution for GCM inter-governmental parleys.

Conclusion

The GCM is slated to explore the multi-layered dimensions of protection that international human rights law (IHRL), international humanitarian law (IHL), and customary international law (CIL) along with IRL offer to asylum-seekers, refugees, and the forcibly displaced migrants. The ambition of the GCM framework is to guarantee a defined range of protection to all human beings, and thus resurrect the IRL foundation from normative entitlement on the ground of exclusive reliance on national membership to substantive architecture of Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration Governance with a vision of common humanity. The GCM is a comprehensive initiative of international perspective that should not remain formally tied to States rather it must operate as a collective regarding its inception and implementation. The GCM norms must visualize the integration threshold with the empirical world while crystallizing the responsibilities for practical delivery. The GCM should remain predictable that the expectations raised by the normative reach of the IRL are often dashed in the multifaceted and problematic human world of contributory power, politics, and conflict. The mandate of the GCM ought to adumbrate the IHRL, IHL, CIL and IRL context, and allude the laxities and limitations for the resurrection of the IRL for ensuring the protection of refugees and asylum-seekers and to enhance the global governance of international migration.

Continue Reading

International Law

Celebrate United Nation’s Anniversary Today

Published

on

Human history is full of wars, invasions, disasters, injustice and biases among human beings. However the World War I and II are the major disasters for human kind. But there was always a desire for peace, justice, equality and mutual respect. To achieve such goals, many efforts have been witnessed in the history such as the creation of “International Committee of the Red Cross” and “The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907”. Following the catastrophic loss of life in the First World War, “the Paris Peace Conference” established the “League of Nations” to maintain harmony between countries. But all efforts were in vain and peace could not be achieved. World War II, was a major catastrophe and number of loss of human life crossed all the records.

United nation was established on 24 October 1945, with its headquarters at New York, USA and further main offices in Nairobi and Geneva and Vienna. It has following six principal organs : the General Assembly (the main deliberative assembly); the Security Council (for deciding certain resolutions for peace and security); the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC; for promoting international economic and social co-operation and development); the Secretariat (for providing studies, information, and facilities needed by the UN); the International Court of Justice (the primary judicial organ); and the UN Trusteeship Council (inactive since 1994). UN System agencies include the World Bank Group, the World Health Organization, the World Food Programme, UNESCO, and UNICEF.

UN charter was drafted very well, it covers almost all possible aspect of human protection and was based on mutual consultation. It was agreed upon and accepted by all major powers of that time.

The UN is led by Secretary-General, which is tenure post and keep on rotation among the member states based on merit and vote. Currently the post is held by Portuguese politician and diplomat António Guterres since 2017.

UN has few success stories and major achievements in its credit like the role of UN in providing Food Aid to famine hit area, looking after the refugees, protection of children, peace keeping among the warring factions & nations, running free & fair elections, re-productive health & population management, war crimes prosecution, fighting AID, and bringing invisible ignored issues in forefront. No doubt, these are big achievements and UN performed very well.

However, there are so many issues not solved yet. UN failed to narrow down the gap between the rich and poor, small and big nations. It failed to stop wars and invasion by strong countries like: Iraq War, Libya War, and Afghanistan and Syrian issues. UN also failed to implement its resolution of Palestine and Kashmir yet. Although Millennium development goals were defined very well, but still not achieved as per scheduled.

With the changes occurred in the 7 decades, the nature of issues and complication of problems has also changed to a large extent. With creation of new knowledge and new technologies, the world has become more complex. The awareness among human kind has enhanced and they are demanding much more. It might be appropriate that the UN may under-go a comprehensive revision and reforms. There may an open debate and news ideas to make UN more effective should be encouraged. Any reforms backed by masses and intellectuals may be welcomed. Especially the five permanent members of the Security Council may under-goes major structural reforms. As it does not represent Africa, the major continent by population as well as resources. Middle East was ignored, it may be compensated by providing a permanent seat in Security Council. European Union is already very well developed and very strong, but enjoying 2 seats in Security Council permanently. I am not biased and may not give any specific suggestion and do not want to offend any country or nation. But, rather recommend to open a debate and try to find the ways and means to strengthen UN and make it so powerful that, no single country or nation dare to violate its Charter. The objective is to make our world more peaceful and protected.

However, we are elder generation and have a moral obligation to hand-over the world to our young generation, where they can live respectfully, peacefully and fearlessly. Let’s celebrate the UN Day with a wish to make UN more powerful and fruitful.

Continue Reading

Latest

Tech7 hours ago

Deloitte Unveils 2018 North America Technology Fast 500™ Rankings

Deloitte today released the “2018 North America Technology Fast 500,” an annual ranking of the fastest-growing North American companies in...

Culture8 hours ago

Culture – the “X Factor” for Building Back Better after Conflict and Disasters

Culture is the foundation upon which cities are built.  Cities are not just a collection of buildings but are people,...

Reports9 hours ago

Despite increasing trade tensions business confidence in Asia Pacific remains high

Business leaders across Asia Pacific remain confident that their companies revenues will grow over the next 12 months despite increasing...

Green Planet9 hours ago

Why This Planet Is Becoming Uninhabitable

There are now overt indications that this planet is becoming uninhabitable. Not only are increasing numbers of humans migrating from...

Americas10 hours ago

Donald Trump and America’s People

The American mid-term elections in the current situation can be considered one of the most sensitive elections in American history;...

Southeast Asia10 hours ago

Letter to heaven: An eulogy to Luang Poo Boonyarith Bundito

Everyone knows him as a great monk who was an exceptional teacher of meditation. From the royal family to a...

South Asia11 hours ago

Pakistan PM’s Saudi affair likely to backfire

Pakistan’s relations with Saudi Arabia flourished during the previous government headed by Nawaz Sharif, primarily due to his personal business...

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy