Big Moments, Small Moments That Make Up A Year

Posted by Tyler Giannini

Big moments, small moments; during graduation week, we are often flooded with the memories we have created over the past year, working closely with students.  It seems like a natural time to reflect.  But where to start when there are so many good memories?

I think about the small moments in the field, like when a student makes a breakthrough.  Earlier this year, I was shadowing two students in Thailand as they interviewed a refugee through a translator, and the student leading the interview kept turning to me, asking for advice.  I told her to stop; I told her she could do this—I had seen her do it—and that she needed to work now with her partner, not me.  She finally got it, trusting herself and the talent and skills she already possessed.

I think about the seemingly small moments in advocacy work that do not get a lot of media attention but are major victories for the protection of civilians, like when Bonnie and her team of students joined a group of nongovernmental organizations in defeating a proposal that would have weakened the absolute ban on cluster munitions.  For the students in Geneva who opposed the proposal, the moment—indeed the precise minute—it was defeated is indelibly etched in their minds: 7:05pm on Friday, November 25, 2011. The students wrote about it here.

I think about the big moments that come together after years of effort with partners, like the groundbreaking work out of Latin America that Fernando and Deborah did this year with several crack teams of students.  In August, they obtained critical measures from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to protect prisoners at the largest detention center in Latin America. Then, within weeks, they turned around and, working with their local partners, helped strike a landmark settlement with the state of Brazil that promises large-scale reform within the infamous Urso Branco Prison.

Fact-Finding in Libya: Documenting Risks from a Revolution

Posted by Cara Solomon

Note: This story was originally published on the Harvard Law School homepage, where there is also a slideshow of the team’s trip.

There she stood, in northern Libya, a spread of explosive weapons before her: mortars and rockets and surface-to-air missiles almost 20 feet long. For all her work in post-conflict zones, senior clinical instructor Bonnie Docherty ’01 had never seen anything like it. The weapons stretched on for miles.

John McFarlane, technical field manager for Mines Advisory Group Libya, shows the team weapons that deminers have gathered for controlled destruction.

It was March, five months after the revolution had ended, and Docherty was supervising a team from the International Human Rights Clinic on a trip to assess the humanitarian risks of abandoned weapons. As the team traveled from city to city, the scale of the problem was startling.

“We saw huge quantities of weapons—particularly in bombed-out bunkers—many of which were inadequately secured,” said Docherty, a lecturer on law, as well as a senior researcher with the Arms Division of Human Rights Watch.  “In our view, these weapons represent a real threat to the safety and stability of Libyans.”

Over the course of eight days, the team traveled to Misrata, the focus of Col. Gaddafi’s bombing campaign; Sirte, where rebels finally defeated the dictator; and Zintan, where NATO bombing had destroyed a complex of more than 70 bunkers full of weapons. Their research will feed into a larger body of work on Libya by the nongovernmental organization CIVIC and the Center for American Progress.

The students prepared for weeks for the trip, researching the scattering of Gaddafi’s abandoned stockpiles, the efforts underway to deal with the weapons, and the relevant legal frameworks. Still, being there, post-revolution, was something else entirely.

“It felt momentous,” said Nicolette Boehland ’13, who is returning to Libya this summer with CIVIC, which promotes assistance for civilians victims of armed conflict. “It definitely felt like a place that was changing by the day.”

In their conversations with locals, the students said they sensed tremendous pride and enthusiasm for what had been accomplished in the revolution; the energy was palpable in the streets. But from the team’s perspective, there were also serious risks for civilians.

Supporting Public Interest Litigation in Mongolia

Posted by Bayartsetseg Jigmiddash, LLM ’08, Special Assistant to the President of Mongolia

A few weeks ago, the Office of the President of Mongolia and Open Society Foundation—Mongolia held a conference on public interest litigation.  In many countries, public interest litigation is commonly used to advance legal and social policy, but here in Mongolia, the concept is rather novel to most NGOs and lawyers alike.  There is growing interest in public interest litigation by our NGO sector, with human rights groups filing an increasing number of cases on environmental rights, but there are also significant challenges to gaining momentum.

The April 2012 conference on supporting public interest litigation in Mongolia.

We reached out to Harvard Law School—and in particular, to Mindy Roseman, Academic Director of the Human Rights Program—to bring a comparative and engaged perspective on using courts to advance the public interest, and to support those in Mongolia who are working to expand the use and effectiveness of public international law.

Susan Farbstein Appointed Assistant Clinical Professor and Co-Director of the International Human Rights Clinic

Posted by Martha Minow, Dean, Harvard Law School, and Tyler Giannini

As a teacher, a mentor, a clinician, and a colleague, Susan Farbstein has already made her mark on the Human Rights Program over the past four years. Today we have the privilege of announcing that she has been appointed as an Assistant Clinical Professor at Harvard Law School and will become a Co-Director of its International Human Rights Clinic. We look forward to many more years of her leadership, both within the Human Rights Program, and in the larger Law School community.

Susan Farbstein speaks with a student at the Human Rights Program orientation last autumn. Farbstein is a national leader in the area of Alien Tort Statute litigation.

Click here for the full story on the Harvard Law School homepage.

For the many blog posts written by Susan (and about Susan) click here.

Incendiary Weapons: Growing Support for Stronger Protections

Posted by Michael Jacobson, JD ’13, and Patricia Villa Berger, LLM ’13, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy At Tufts University

Support is growing for strengthening regulations of incendiary weapons, according to a new paper published by the International Human Rights Clinic and Human Rights Watch. In addition to analyzing countries’ positions, the paper highlights recent use, stockpiling, and production of incendiary weapons, which demonstrate the urgent need for better international law.

The Clinic and Human Rights Watch urge states to open diplomatic discussions on incendiary weapons as soon as possible and to move towards amending current international law with the goal of enhancing humanitarian protection.

An IHRC team found this white phosphorus munition at one of Qaddafi’s abandoned weapons depots in Libya in March.

The law in question is the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW), an international treaty regulating weapons that cause unnecessary suffering or have indiscriminate effects. Incendiary weapons pose a significant threat to civilians, causing severe burns, asphyxiation, and, in some cases, death. States adopted CCW Protocol III to regulate the weapons in 1980.

But according to the Clinic and Human Rights Watch, the protocol has multiple loopholes; for example, it does not cover use of dual-purpose weapons with incendiary effects, like white phosphorus munitions, which have been used since 2003 in Afghanistan. Protocol III also establishes inconsistent regulations for weapons that produce the same harm.

In letters as well as statements during meetings of the CCW, about 20 countries have expressed their concerns about the harm caused by incendiary weapons and the inadequacy of the protocol. A few states have already explicitly called for amendments, while many others have indicated openness to considering the issue in the CCW forum. Australia and Germany have called for a group of experts to begin discussions on strengthening the protocol, which would be the first step toward legal change.

The paper recently released by the Clinic and Human Rights Watch is the latest contribution to a joint campaign that advocates for greater regulation of incendiary weapons. In earlier papers, the team outlined the shortcomings of Protocol III, described the humanitarian suffering produced by incendiary weapons, and outlined various options for strengthening Protocol III.

The need for change is pressing. Over the past year, both the United States and insurgents have used white phosphorus in Afghanistan, endangering civilians there. In addition, the Clinic and Human Rights Watch separately documented white phosphorus shells abandoned after the recent conflict in Libya. These shells pose a high risk to civilians because they have been left unsecured and could also easily detonate in the summer heat, setting off a chain reaction of nearby weapons.

The Clinic and Human Rights Watch recommend that states adopt a definition of incendiary weapons that encompasses all weapons with incendiary effects. In addition, they argue that a ban on such weapons would have the greatest humanitarian benefits. At a minimum, states should eliminate the false distinction between ground- and air-launched incendiary weapons, as well as consider establishing a presumption that use is unlawful and prohibiting the targeting of combatants.

Michael Jacobson, JD ’13, Harvard Law School, and Patricia Villa Berger, LLM ’12, The Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy at Tufts University, compiled and analyzed the recent statements by parties to the CCW, researched current use and stockpiling of incendiary weapons in conflict zones, and drafted the paper that was presented and distributed at a conference of CCW States parties in Geneva in late April. Senior clinical instructor Bonnie Docherty supervised the project.

Renewed Threat to Freedom of Expression in South Africa

Posted by Susan Farbstein

In the forthcoming issue of the New York Review of Books, Nadine Gordimer writes about two disturbing pieces of legislation under consideration by the South African parliament: the Media Tribunal and the Protection of State Information Bill (or so-called “Secrecy Bill”). Both would significantly curtail freedom of expression and access to information.  Nearly twenty years after the end of apartheid, the acts are eerily reminiscent of the legal architecture that upheld the apartheid system itself—laws banning political parties, newspapers and books, and advocacy of political, economic, and social change.

Protesters show their opposition to the so-called “Secrecy Bill” at a candlelight vigil in Johannesburg, September 2011. Photo: Heather Mason at www.2summers.net.

If the Media Tribunal is established, journalists will be required to inform it about topics that they plan to investigate or write about; the Tribunal will then have the power to determine whether these subjects pose a threat to state security.  However, under a new plan recently proposed by the Press Freedom Commission, a compromise seems more likely.  The Commission has recommended a system of “independent co-regulation” between the public and press, without involvement of political parties or state officials, which may mitigate some concerns raised by critics of the Tribunal.

The Secrecy Bill may be the greater threat.  It has received heavy criticism from South African civil society and media, and would impose significant prison sentences on those who expose corruption in government and industry.   It lacks a public interest defense, meaning that journalists or whistle-blowers could be imprisoned for up to 25 years for sharing information deemed classified by the government, even in the face of a compelling public interest such as exposing corruption or malfeasance.  In addition, the Bill will insulate various intelligence agencies from public scrutiny, ensuring that ordinary constitutional checks and balances will not apply to the intelligence services.

The powerful Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), a traditional ANC ally, is strongly opposed to the Bill, as is Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who has said that it “makes the state answerable only to the state.”  The final hearing on the Bill is set for May 17th.  If passed into law, expect to see a Constitutional Court case challenging the Bill in the near future.

In many ways, this legislation contradicts the founding ideals that the ANC promised to a new South Africa.  Should the Secrecy Bill be enacted into law, former Constitutional Court Justice Albie Sachs’ warning may prove disturbingly prescient: “There is no guarantee that somebody who is a freedom fighter, who is willing to sacrifice his life for freedom, will not violate the rights of others when he takes over power.”

Gender Imbalance Persists at Law Schools

Posted by Susan Farbstein

I tried all weekend to craft a substantive response to this recent study by Yale Law Women, but each time I sat down to write, my anger and frustration got in the way.  The study confirms what many of us already know—gender imbalance persists at law schools, including our own, with significant consequences for law students and the legal profession.

Many of the problems identified in the Yale study mirror my own observations and anecdotal evidence here at Harvard.  But that’s not what is most upsetting. What I find most depressing is the study’s conclusion that little progress has been made over the past decade.

I wish I could offer some creative solutions to these issues.  Certainly we need more women in leadership positions who can serve as role models and mentors. I’ll keep trying to do that for my own students, male and female, and thinking about how we as a law school community can do better.  In the meantime, if anyone wants to chat about this, my door is always open.