After the Bombings, Boston Marathon Remains an Inspiration

Posted by Bonnie Docherty

The Boston Marathon has long held a special place in my heart.  In an earlier life, I covered the event for three years as a reporter for the Middlesex News, now known as the MetroWest Daily News.  My beat at the time encompassed two towns along the route—Hopkinton and Natick.

Beyond combining a challenging assignment and a festive atmosphere, the Marathon provided an annual source of inspiration.  In 1996, I stood at the starting line in Hopkinton for the 100^th running of the storied race, when record numbers of athletes set off with enthusiasm and determination.  The next year marked the 25^th anniversary of women’s official participation, and I had the honor of interviewing several of those who helped to break the gender barrier.

I dreamed of running the race myself, and although I never have, reporting on it was one of the highlights of my newspaper career.  I think fondly of the Marathon every Patriots Day.

First responders tend to the wounded at the finish line for the Boston Marathon. (Creative Commons-Licensed Flckr Photo by hahatango)

A week ago, uplifting memories from my years as a journalist collided with my current work as a human rights researcher.  Over the past 12 years, I have documented the effects of armed conflict on civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Gaza, Georgia, Libya, and elsewhere.

The news reports of horrific injuries and lost limbs at the Marathon’s finish line immediately conjured up images of war wounds I have seen.  Eyewitness accounts echoed those I have heard in far-away conflict zones.  And the red sidewalk on Boylston Street brought to mind the bloody ground in Lebanon where a cluster munition dud killed a 12-year-old boy two hours before I arrived.

The weapons that inflicted the injuries in Boston had an unnerving similarity to munitions I have investigated overseas.  The ball bearings packed in the homemade bombs closely resembled those used in rocket attacks in the Middle East.  I show samples of these steel spheres to my classes when explaining how they serve to maximize bodily harm.

Having such a vicious attack take place only a few miles away on an occasion I hold dear has resonated deeply.  The explosions hit home—literally and figuratively.

Nonetheless, the Boston Marathon retains its power to inspire me.  This year it was not just the runners in the race who attracted my admiration.  It was also medical personnel and spectators who ran to the scene immediately after the blasts to provide life-saving assistance.  Countless others gave of themselves as needed in the harrowing days that followed.

As a human rights advocate, I have taken from the event much more than the realization that even my hometown is vulnerable to attack.  I continue to be impressed by the acts of courage and commitment that the tragedy has called forth.  Such responses strengthen my conviction that good will not be cowed by evil and that individuals who stand firm against armed violence will ultimately succeed.

Today: Clinic Launches New Organization On Business and Human Rights

Event Notice

April 17, 2013

“MSI Integrity: A New Business and Human Rights Organization”

4:30-6:30 pm

Harkness South

Drinks will be served!

Join the International Human Rights Clinic for the launch of the Institute for Multi-Stakeholder Initiative Integrity, a non-profit organization the Clinic has helped get off the ground. MSI Integrity aims to strengthen the ability of multi-stakeholder initiatives, like Fairtrade and the Kimberley Process, to respect human rights, prevent violations, and remedy abuses.

U.S. Takes First Step on Fully Autonomous Weapons, but Stricter Controls Needed

Posted by Bonnie Docherty

Today we released a joint paper with Human Rights Watch advocating for stricter U.S. policy on fully autonomous weapons, sometimes known as “killer robots.” The paper critiques a new U.S. Department of Defense policy on these weapons, which represents a positive step but is not a panacea to the problem.

See below for the press release from Human Rights Watch, and stay tuned for news of the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, which launches in London next week.

For Immediate Release

U.S.: Ban Fully Autonomous Weapons

U.S. Policy on Autonomy in Weapons Systems is First in the World

(Washington, DC, April 16, 2013) – Temporary US restrictions on lethal fully autonomous weapons should be strengthened and made permanent. Fully autonomous weapons, sometimes called “killer robots,” would be able to select and attack targets on their own without any human intervention.

In acknowledgement of the challenges such weapons would pose, the US Department of Defense issued a directive on November 21, 2012, that, for now, requires a human being to be “in-the-loop” when decisions are made about using lethal force. This was the department’s first public policy on autonomy in weapons systems and the first policy announcement by any country on fully autonomous weapons.

“This policy shows that the United States shares our concern that fully autonomous weapons could endanger civilians in many ways,” said Steve Goose, Arms Division director at Human Rights Watch. “Humans should never delegate to machines the power to make life-and-death decisions on the battlefield. US policy should lay the basis for a permanent, comprehensive ban on fully autonomous weapons.”

The briefing paper by Human Rights Watch and the Harvard Law School International Human Rights Clinic reviews the content of the new directive and notes that it is a positive step. For up to 10 years, Directive Number 3000.09 generally allows the Department of Defense to develop or use only fully autonomous systems that deliver non-lethal force. In effect, it constitutes the world’s first moratorium on lethal fully autonomous weapons.

However, the directive contains significant loopholes and is not an adequate solution to the potential problems posed by fully autonomous systems, Human Rights Watch said. The policy can be waived by high-level department officials. It will also last for only up to 10 years unless renewed within five years. The department could alternatively cancel its policy within that same five-year period.

“The US policy is an important step in the right direction, but it clearly leaves the door open to future acquisition and use of lethal fully autonomous weapons,” Goose said.

Over the past decade, the expanded use of unmanned armed vehicles, or drones, has dramatically changed warfare, bringing new humanitarian and legal challenges. While not the subject of Human Rights Watch’s call for a ban on fully autonomous weapons, these semi-autonomous systems are evidence of rapid advances in technology. The US and other nations with high-tech militaries, including China, Israel, Russia, and the United Kingdom, are moving toward systems that would give greater combat autonomy to machines. If one or more countries choose to deploy fully autonomous weapons, others might feel compelled to follow suit.

“In light of the dangers fully autonomous weapons pose and the chilling prospect of a robotic arms race, all nations should impose an immediate moratorium, paving the way for a legal ban,” Goose said. “If global rules aren’t established, and other nations begin to develop these systems, the US may not stick with its policy.”

The US policy directive was released two days after Human Rights Watch and the Harvard Law School International Human Rights Clinic released “Losing Humanity: The Case Against Killer Robots,” a 50-page report outlining the organizations’ numerous legal, ethical, policy, and other concerns with fully autonomous weapons.

“Losing Humanity” found that fully autonomous weapons would be unlikely to meet the key provisions of international humanitarian law in the most common contemporary battlefield environments. In addition, their use could create an accountability gap, as it would be unclear who could be held legally responsible for a robot’s actions. The report also details how lethal autonomous robots would undermine other checks on the killing of civilians. Fully autonomous weapons could not show human compassion for their victims, for example, and autocrats could abuse them by directing them against their own people.

Human Rights Watch will be the initial coordinator of a Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, a new international coalition of nongovernmental organizations calling for a preemptive and comprehensive ban on fully autonomous weapons. The prohibition should be achieved through an international treaty, as well as through national laws and other measures.

The Campaign to Stop Killer Robots will be launched in London on Tuesday, April 23, with a 10:30 a.m. news briefing at the Frontline Club.

Human Rights Journal Symposium Tomorrow: Litigating the Right to Health

Event Notice

April 11, 2013

“Litigating the Right to Health: Comparative Perspectives from Across the Globe”

 A Harvard Human Rights Journal Symposium

12:00-4:00 pm

Wasserstein Hall 3019

Harvard Law School

Come join the Harvard Human Rights Journal and an illustrious group of experts for a symposium on how courts have treated the right to health and how its justiciability has affected access to healthcare and medicine across the globe.

Panelists include Prof. Katharine Young from the Australian National University College of Law, Prof. Julieta Lemaitre from the Universidad de los Andes Law School in Colombia, Prof. Colleen Flood from the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, and Prof. Frederick Abbott from Florida State University College of Law.

More information is available at: http://harvardhrj.com/2013-symposium/

Business and Human Rights in Ireland: A New Blog

Posted by Shane Darcy, Visiting Fellow, Human Rights Program

Lecturer in Law, Irish Centre for Human Rights

Over the past several years, the topic of corporate behavior has moved from the periphery of the human rights discussion to become an area of concerted focus for international organizations and human rights NGOs. States and companies are paying closer attention to calls for enhanced accountability for corporate activities that impact on human rights, from child labor to internet censorship.

As a lecturer at the Irish Centre for Human Rights, I have been teaching a course on business and human rights for the past few years, focusing on international developments but also exploring how Ireland fits into this trend.

Ireland was recently found to be the world’s third “most globalized economy,” after Singapore and Hong Kong. It is home to the European headquarters of some of the largest multinational corporations, including Apple, Facebook and Google, no strangers to human rights controversies. Shell’s gas pipeline in Mayo has probably been the most notable case recently of corporate activities clashing with community interests in Ireland. And yet, the topic of business and human rights in the country has not been given the attention it deserves.

With that in mind, last month I started a blog, Business and Human Rights in Ireland, which will track and analyze developments from an Irish perspective, with an eye also to the international context. I’ll address legal and policy issues in the blog, as well as highlight human rights concerns from the activities of Irish companies or multinational corporations based in Ireland.

I’ll also use this forum to highlight any developments arising from a 2012 Irish Centre for Human Rights report, ‘Business and Human Rights in Ireland,’ which I co-authored. That report drew on the UN Framework and Guiding Principles and made a list of recommendations for the Irish Government, companies and civil society. I hope that visitors enjoy the blog.

Coming Monday, April 8: “Women Attorneys Working with International Clients”

Event Notice

Monday, April 8, 2013

Women Attorneys Working with International Clients:

Challenges and Advantages

12- 1 pm

WCC 3018

Explore the challenges and advantages of working with international clients as a women attorney with practitioners from both the public and private sectors. Panelists include Susan Farbstein, Clinical Professor in the Harvard International Human Rights Clinic and co-counsel in In re South African Apartheid Litigation; Meeta Anand, an associate in the White & Case LLP project finance group with extensive experience working with Latin American clients, both as an attorney and an investment banker; and Carolina Walther-Meade, a partner in the Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy Project Finance and Latin American Practice Groups who spends a significant amount of time in the firm’s São Paulo office.

The attorneys will discuss issues ranging from the role that gender plays in client interactions, potential problems that may arise, and strategies for addressing these problems. Professor Fionnuala Ni Aolain, who has served as expert and consultant to the UN OHCHR and UN WOMEN and for the Office of the UN Secretary-General, will moderate.

Co-sponsored by the Milbank Tweed Student Conference Fund

Build the Future, Fix Our Schools

Posted by Jeanne Segil, JD ’14

Our partners in South Africa, Equal Education (EE) and Equal Education Law Centre (EELC), are at a critical point in their ongoing campaign to compel the South African government to establish minimum norms and standards for school infrastructure. The South African Schools Act of 1996 empowered the Minister of Basic Education to set minimum norms and standards for all schools. These regulations were never established and, as a result, many South African schools—particularly those in rural areas and townships—lack basic essentials such as running water, electricity, functioning toilets, libraries, laboratories, computer centers, and perimeter security. Binding norms and standards can help equalize the learning experience in a nation still suffering from the legacy of apartheid.

EE asked Minister Angie Motshekga to issue these regulations for years before eventually filing legal action in March 2012, represented by the Legal Resources Centre, to compel her to act. Last November, Minister Motshekga agreed to a settle the case and, as part of the settlement, to promulgate binding norms and standards. As a first step in this process, in January the Minister published Draft Minimum Norms and Standards for comment from interested parties.

Unfortunately, the draft is disappointingly vague on substance. Any school infrastructure, no matter how problematic, could meet its standards. For example, under the proposed guidelines, it could still be acceptable to have 70 students packed into a single classroom, or to provide three pit latrines and two water taps at a school of 3000 students. Equally troubling, the draft does not establish any timelines for implementation or any mechanisms for reporting or accountability.

EE responded to this weak draft by organizing public hearings across South Africa to ensure that the voices of those most impacted—learners, parents, and educators—will not be ignored. Hundreds of individual comments were gathered. EE and EELC have submitted their own critique of the draft, including a detailed appendix that summarizes and outlines specific areas of concern identified by learners, parents, and educators at these public hearings.

As one student from the Eastern Cape explained to the Minister in her submission: “[Y]ou have said that there must be administration spaces, basic safety, educational spaces, educational support spaces, and enrichment. I can not understand all of these things stated here because they are not specified.” Another student from the Eastern Cape stated plainly to Minister Motshekga, “We are children and for us to reach our goals or dreams, we need your support.” We hope that Minister Motshekga will hear and heed these calls for meaningful change and specificity when she releases the final norms and standards in May.

To learn more about the campaign for minimum norms and standards for school infrastructure, watch this:

Jeanne Segil, JD ’14, is a student in the International Human Rights Clinic who has worked all year on education-related issues in South Africa, under the supervision of Clinical Director Susan Farbstein and in partnership with EELC.