September 22, 2020

Planning for a Year of Activism with HLS Advocates for Human Rights

Posted by Marie Sintim

HLS Advocates for Human Rights (Advocates) is a student practice organization (SPO) at Harvard Law School (HLS). Many students first join the HLS human rights community through Advocates their 1L year. In the SPO, students work on human rights projects with partner organizations around the world. Over the last year, the organization has decided to formally renew its commitment to social justice by creating Executive Board roles to lead activism within the organization. Sondra Anton JD’22 is one of the new Directors of Activism for the 2020-2021 academic year; they are currently soliciting applications for a Co-Director to further assist with this work.

Originally from Chapel Hill, North Carolina, Sondra attended Washington University in St. Louis before receiving her master’s degree in politics from the University of Oxford. Sondra is interested in the field of international human rights law, particularly topics surrounding justice and accountability in post-conflict societies. After graduation, she hopes to use her law degree to represent victims and survivors of mass atrocity and severe human rights abuses in national courts or international tribunals. She is also very passionate about domestic social justice movements and the fight for racial justice in the United States.

Marie Sintim, Program Assistant in the International Human Rights Clinic, spoke with Sondra recently about her role and what she she envisions for activism with the organization this year.

A woman wearing a yellow romper smiles.
Sondra Anton JD’22
Continue Reading…

Share By Email

loading
Close

September 21, 2020

Mourning the Passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted by Gerald Neuman

Photo Credit: Tony Rinaldo.

With the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the nation and the world have lost a champion of human equality. At the Human Rights Program, we must mourn and remember while we persist.

Justice Ginsburg was a tireless defender of universal human rights. She initially gained fame as the strategist of constitutional reform for women’s equality, fighting legalized stereotypes and making clear the harm they imposed on everyone. As a judge of the D.C. Circuit (where I first met her) and as a Supreme Court Justice she kept attention on the rights of all – including women, racial minorities, religious minorities, LGBT persons, immigrants, the poor, prisoners. She sought to ensure the efficacy of antidiscrimination law and to preserve access to the courts. 

Justice Ginsburg expressed her openness to the world in such ways as her refusal to confine constitutional rights within the nation’s formal borders, her willingness to learn from foreign constitutional experience, and her acceptance of self-executing treaty provisions.  

Alas, as the Supreme Court shifted during her decades of service, her fidelity to a better constitutional understanding was increasingly shown in her eloquent dissenting opinions. Throughout her career, Justice Ginsburg’s dedication, skill and fortitude offered, and continue to offer, an inspiring example to all good lawyers, and especially so to human rights lawyers.

Gerald L. Neuman is the J. Sinclair Armstrong Professor of International, Foreign, and Comparative Law, and the Co-Director of the Human Rights Program at HLS. He teaches human rights, constitutional law, and immigration and nationality law.

Share By Email

loading
Close

September 17, 2020

Rethinking MSIS: MSIs and the Search to Cure the Global Governance Gap

Posted by Judy Gearhart

The phenomenon of multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) has spread rapidly across the globe since the 1990s, with governments and multinational corporations (MNCs) alike promoting them as the new solution to the global governance gap even before they were fully road-tested. Civil society organizations (CSOs) saw them as a way to engage MNCs on the environmental and social problems exacerbated by global trade. MNCs saw a means to inoculate their global reputations from the risks of doing business in places where human rights scandals were greater than at home. Just as MNC staff required vaccines against tropical diseases before departing, the corporation needed to guard against the risk of coming into contact with the plagues of corrupt governments and abusive employers.  

Yet MSIs, at least those focused on the impact of global supply chains, were only set up to address the symptoms, not the cause of these plagues. Most failed to recognize how MNCs were actually fueling corruption and employer abuse by constantly demanding lower prices and faster production times. Thus, the global governance gap grew wider as MNCs diversified their supply chains and effectively played one producer country against the other. When the scandals multiplied and children were found making clothing for Wal-Mart in Honduras or soccer balls for adidas and Nike in Pakistan, global brands sought help from MSIs.

The majority of MSIs are set up as public charities and their goals express the intent to protect a public good. This includes MSIs working with public sector institutions to improve accountability such as the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative (EITI), those covering workers’ rights such as Social Accountability International or the Fair Labor Association, and environmentally focused groups such as Rainforest Alliance and Marine Stewardship Council. What nearly all of them have in common is a mission to address a lack of regulation or the weak legal protections of national resources, the environment, or workers. Yet MSIs focused on supply-chain monitoring—as distinct from MSIs engaging the public sector—have been largely silent or disengaged on advocacy for legal reforms and rule of law, often turning a blind eye as member MNCs’ suppliers pursue multi-year legal battles against whistle-blowers or worker organizers

The recently released MSI Integrity report, Not Fit for Purpose, tracks the uptake of MSIs as a reference point for addressing gaps in global governance. MSI Integrity cites how the UN Guiding Principles (UNGPs) on Business and Human Rights extended MSIs legitimacy by directly referencing them, and the 23 countries that have referred to MSIs in their National Action Plans for implementing the UNGPs. Yet most MSIs are a weak stopgap for failing legal protections. They are also poor exemplars of good governance given the extent to which they have eschewed the key elements of transparency, accountability, and participation. 

Not Fit for Purpose could have distinguished more among distinct MSI approaches, e.g. supply-chain versus public governance-focused MSIs, and those treating symptoms through risk mitigation among suppliers versus Fairtrade’s work to gain market access for small farmers. The report is very helpful though, especially in identifying patterns and quantifying how the majority of MSIs fall short on models of good governance: 

Continue Reading…

Share By Email

loading
Close

September 15, 2020

Clinic Intern Q&A: Edi Ebiefung JD’21


Edi Ebiefung JD’21 was one of three interns in the International Human Rights Clinic this summer, who worked on various human rights projects under clinical staff. He recently spoke with the Human Rights Program about his summer with the Clinic and how he sees it influencing his future trajectory. You can read about interns Sondra Anton JD’22 and Laura Clark JD’20 on our blog, and read below to find out about Edi.

A man wearing a plaid shirt poses for a headshot in front of a white wall.
Edi Ebiefung JD’21

Human Rights Program: What projects did you work on this summer? What work product were you most proud of?  

Edi Ebiegung: I worked on projects concerning the intersection of environmental issues and human rights in India, the impacts of the coronavirus in South Africa, the possible international legal responsibility for the coronavirus pandemic, and professional responsibility issues concerning the clinic here in the United States. 

A difficult question as everything was rather interesting, but if forced to choose perhaps the work related to the pandemic as there was a certain urgency and topicality to it. 

HRP: What was challenging about interning remotely? How did you work with your supervisors to overcome those challenges? 

EE: The hardest part was probably developing a rapport with colleagues and clinicians since everything was remote and we were not actually meeting. This was overcome with a regular and surprisingly successful balance of Zoom meetings and check-ins that were not long enough to be annoying but not so short that they were ineffective.

HRP: How do you think this internship will influence your law school career and beyond? 

EE: It reaffirmed my interest in the international impacts and significance of the law. I would very much aspire to have an international element in my future practice of the law. 

HRP: Outside of interning in the Clinic, how did you spend your time this summer?

EE: I tried to actively spend some time outside, even if just for short bicycle rides around my neighborhood or up and down Mass. Ave.

Share By Email

loading
Close

September 8, 2020

Clinic Intern Q&A: Laura Clark JD’20


This summer, the International Human Rights Clinic (IHRC) hosted three Harvard Law School interns. We recently spoke with intern Laura Clark JD’20, a 3L graduating in December, who started work as a student in the Clinic in Spring 2020 and returned for the summer. During law school, she also interned with the UNHCR in Turkey, the World Bank Group in Belgium, and the UNODC. She has also volunteered for the Mexican Permanent Mission to the UN, the International Law Journal, and PILAC. Learn more about Laura’s summer in the Clinic below.

A woman smiles in front of a tree. She wears a beige sweater and a floral tank top.
Laura Clark JD’20
Continue Reading…

Share By Email

loading
Close

September 3, 2020

Rethinking MSIS: Be Wary of the Fox(es), A Power Analysis of MSIs

Posted by Rebecca Tweedie JD'21 and Tyler Giannini

The opening blog in this series laid out two different paths MSIs could have taken:

The allure [of MSIs] was (and still is) obvious. If we bring the right players together, they can learn from each other and solve the given problem by setting up a democratic institution that can prevent future abuses and sanction violators, and governments will not have to pass hard laws and unnecessary regulations. The potential flaws were (and remain) just as obvious—the power imbalances amongst the players are acute and asking industry to voluntarily give up power and self-regulate is a fool’s errand that puts the fox in charge of the chicken coop.

Continue Reading…

Share By Email

loading
Close

August 31, 2020

Clinic Intern Q&A: Sondra Anton JD’22


This summer, the International Human Rights Clinic (IHRC) was lucky to host three Harvard Law School interns. Marie Sintim, IHRC Program Assistant, spoke with Sondra Anton JD’22 recently about her experience interning remotely in the Clinic. Sondra was also a Summer Fellow with the Human Rights Program, an opportunity that awards funding to students to intern at human rights organizations around the world.

Sondra Anton smiles with a blue background behind her. She wears a black tank top and her hair is on top of her head in a bun.
Sondra Anton JD’22
Continue Reading…

Share By Email

loading
Close

August 27, 2020

Rethinking MSIs: Are Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives Mere Lip Service for Local Communities?

Posted by Jaff Bamenjo, Coordinator of RELUFA/Cameroon

Multi-stakeholder Initiatives (MSIs) emerged in the 1990s as frameworks for engagement between governments, the private sector and civil society organizations (CSOs) to address human rights issues in business. There are currently several sector-specific MSIs around the world originally conceived to address problems, ranging from labor abuse to corruption, in agriculture, extractive industries, forests, the environment and beyond. After more than two decades, however, local communities are now questioning whether MSIs have proved relevant and effective in addressing these problems.

As a civil society actor who works closely with communities affected by resource extraction in Cameroon, I have closely followed the implementation of two MSIs: the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS) and the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) for close to a decade. The KPCS and EITI were both created in the early 2000s and received with a lot of enthusiasm by some CSOs as tools to promote transparency and accountability in the extractive sector and prevent diamond-fueled conflicts, respectively. Though almost twenty years later, it is quite telling how these MSIs are oblivious to the concerns of the local communities that were the intended beneficiaries of their creation.


The Kimberley Process Certification Scheme: Sidelining civil society and not addressing key issues


Formed in 2003 by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly, the KPCS is a joint government, industry and civil society initiative aimed at eliminating the trade in conflict diamonds. The KPCS was created in response to public outcry at the end of the 1990s over diamond-fueled conflicts in certain African countries. Today, the KPCS takes credit for eliminating about 98.8% of conflict diamonds in the world.

The commonly used definition of conflict diamonds, however, is incredibly narrow: “rough diamonds used by rebel groups or their allies fighting to overthrow a legitimate government.” While it can be argued that, apart from in the Central African Republic, there are no rebel movements currently using diamonds to fund wars to overthrow legitimate governments, human rights violations and massacres have reportedly continued in diamond mines around the world. And in turn, they disproportionately impact local communities near the mines.

Per the narrow definition of conflict diamonds, KPCS pays little attention to such human rights violations. Instead, they classify them as outside their scope. But such neglect by the KPCS to include other forms of abuse committed by the military or private security agents is incomprehensible to those most affected. In the Marange diamond fields of Zimbabwe, some CSOs have reported security agents for private mining companies unleashing dogs on and shooting defenseless local artisanal miners. Yet diamonds sourced from these fields are certified and allowed to enter the international market.

Continue Reading…

August 27, 2020

Learning About Business and Human Rights with MSI Integrity


Q&A with Rebecca Tweedie JD’21


Last month, the Institute for Multi-Stakeholder Initiative Integrity (MSI Integrity) reflected on 10 years of trying to make the world better for workers and rights-holders in the business world in a new report, “Not Fit-for-Purpose.” MSI Integrity, an organization Amelia Evans LLM’12 and Human Rights Program and International Human Rights Clinic Co-Director Tyler Giannini co-founded in 2013, has spent the last decade dedicated to understanding the human rights impact and value of voluntary multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs). MSIs are collaborations between businesses, civil society, and other stakeholders that were originally piloted to give rights-holders a seat at the table with corporations. The new report explains in detail how, after years of trial and error, MSIs have failed to deliver on their promise and ensure best practices in the business and human rights landscape. The organization has promised a new way forward for their organization: exploring a world beyond corporations.

Over the years, International Human Rights Clinic students and staff have contributed dozens of hours of research and writing to projects with MSI Integrity. Rebecca Tweedie JD’21 worked closely with Giannini and Evans this year on the report and spent January Term 2020 interning with MSI Integrity. We recently spoke with her to learn more about what she learned on the project and her interest in human rights.


Continue Reading…

August 27, 2020

The Supreme Court’s Attack on Habeas Corpus in DHS v. Thuraissigiam


Gerald L. Neuman, Human Rights Program Co-Director and J. Sinclair Armstrong Professor of International, Foreign, and Comparative Law, contributed a piece to the Just Security blog this week to discuss the recent Supreme Court decision in DHS v. Thuraissigiam. Neuman previously filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court on the case, which involves a Tamil individual who tried to claim asylum in the United States after fleeing Sri Lanka in fear of persecution.

Neuman writes:

“At a time when the rule of law is under threat and xenophobic incitement has become a central government policy, a five-Justice majority of the Supreme Court has called into question the Constitution’s fundamental guarantee against executive detention. Refugees are the primary target of the Court’s decision in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, but the immediate implications of Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion are much wider, and the opinion endangers everyone – U.S. citizens included – by reopening settled questions about the Habeas Corpus Suspension Clause of the Constitution.

This important case has gotten less public attention than it deserves.   The opinions may be hard for non-experts to follow, because they arise in a technically complex area of immigration law, and because Alito mischaracterizes some of the issues. The case arose when Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam fled Sri Lanka in the hope of being protected by the United States and was arrested by immigration officials in 2017 at a short distance from the southern border. He was placed in rudimentary “expedited removal” proceedings, where his claims for protection were quickly rejected. The statutory provisions on expedited removal clearly preclude anyone in his position from obtaining judicial review, including by habeas corpus, of the legality of the removal decision. The central issue raised by the case was whether this total preclusion of habeas corpus for a refugee within the United States violated the Suspension Clause.

Once the Supreme Court granted certiorari, it was likely that five Justices would rule against the refugee’s right to have his particular claims reviewed; the more urgent question was how broadly they would uphold preclusion of judicial review.”

Read the full article at Just Security.

Share By Email

loading
Close