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.

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.

Finding Momentum: Human Rights and the Environment

Posted by Tyler Giannini

Earlier this month, the recently appointed UN Independent Expert on Human Rights and the Environment, John Knox, presented his preliminary report to the Human Rights Council. For those of us who have worked in the field of human rights and the environment since the early 1990s, the fact that this report is even being presented to the Council is a major advance.

In the early 1990s, the mention of a link between human rights and the environment raised eyebrows in many circles. Today, that’s no longer the case. Instead, the international community and the Independent Expert have moved on to other questions, such as: what is the precise legal relationship between human rights and the environment? In his comments before the Human Rights Council, Knox described an urgent need for such clarification, saying it was necessary “for States and others to better understand what those obligations require and ensure that they are fully met, at every level from the local to the global.”

Within the arena of human rights and the environment, we have seen specific issues gain major traction over the past two decades. Take the right to water. A recent seminar organized with Prof. Mathias Risse of Harvard Kennedy School and Sharmila Murthy of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy shows just how many disciplines (law, philosophy, urban planning, geography, engineering, public health and economics) today think about the right to water. We designed the seminar to provoke debate and discussion around four themes: nature of the rights to water and sanitation; content of the human rights to water and sanitation; strategies for accountability; and community perspective and bottom-up critique of human rights. It did just that. Our final report from the seminar shows just how far the discourse around human and the environment has come.

Clinic and Human Rights Watch: Obama Should Urge Jordan to Stop Sending Asylum Seekers Back to Syria

Posted by Meera Shah

In a joint press release with Human Rights Watch today, the International Human Rights Clinic called on President Obama to use his visit to Jordan as an opportunity to urge the Jordanian government to stop returning asylum seekers to Syria.

While Jordan has accommodated more than 350,000 refugees since the start of the Syrian conflict in March 2011, it is routinely and unlawfully rejecting Palestinian refugees, single men, and undocumented people seeking asylum at its border with Syria. Based in part on the Clinic’s field research conducted in Jordan and Lebanon over January term, the extended press release documents the difficulties faced by asylum seekers in these categories as they attempt to flee the fighting in Syria.

Below you’ll find the first part of the press release. Here is the full document.

For Immediate Release

Jordan: Obama Should Press King on Asylum Seeker Pushbacks

Palestinian Refugees, Single Men, and Undocumented Unlawfully Forced Back to Syria

(New York, March 21, 2013) – Jordan is routinely and unlawfully rejecting Palestinian refugees, single males, and undocumented people seeking asylum at its border with Syria, Human Rights Watch and Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic (the Harvard Clinic) said today.

While attention during U.S. President Barack Obama’s visit to Jordan on March 22, 2013 will focus on the large number of Syrian refugees that Jordan has welcomed and accommodated since the start of the Syrian crisis in March 2011, its rejection of these categories of asylum seekers fleeing the violence should not be ignored, Human Rights Watch and the Harvard Clinic said.  President Obama should seek assurances from King Abdullah that Jordan will not reject any asylum seekers at its border with Syria. The risks to their lives in Syria are too serious to send anyone back at the present time.

“King Abdullah’s support for 350,000 Syrian refugees deserves President Obama’s praise, but Obama should not give Jordan a free pass to force Palestinian refugees and asylum seekers back to Syria,” said Bill Frelick, refugee program director at Human Rights Watch. “Jordan should recognize that everyone —  and that includes Palestinian refugees, single men, and undocumented people — has the right not to be forcibly sent back to Syria to face the risk of death or serious harm.”

In two separate trips to Jordan and Lebanon, in January and February, Human Rights Watch and the Harvard Clinic conducted in-depth interviews with more than 120 Syrian and Palestinian refugees from Syria. Human Rights Watch and the Harvard Clinic documented that, as a matter of policy, Jordan is turning back people from Syria at its border without adequately considering the risk to them. Such a policy violates the international law principle of nonrefoulement, which forbids governments from returning refugees and asylum seekers to places where their lives or freedom would be threatened.

SAVE THE DATE: Special Event to Mark the 10th Anniversary of the U.S. Invasion of Iraq

Event Notice

March 26, 2013

“For Us, The Wars Aren’t Over: The Right to Heal Initiative”

7:00 – 9:00 p.m.

Wasserstein 2012

Food will be served

Ten years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the Human Rights Program and organizations from across the Harvard and Boston communities mark the anniversary with speakers from two groups still living with the consequences of the last decade of U.S.-led wars: Iraqis and U.S. veterans and service members.  Members of the Organisation of Women’s Freedom in Iraq and Iraq Veterans Against the War will speak about the costs of war they share.  Together with attorneys from the Center for Constitutional Rights and Harvard Law School, they will discuss the Right to Heal Initiative, the partnership they have formed to fight for redress.

Speakers:

Yanar Mohammed, President, Organisation of Women’s Freedom in Iraq
Ms. Mohammed is the founder of OWFI, a nongovernmental organization that promotes women’s rights and interests in Iraq.  She will speak about OWFI’s work in an Iraqi town near a U.S. military base that has seen dramatic increases in the incidence of birth defects, cancers, and other severe health ailments.

Matt Howard, Member, Iraq Veterans Against the War
Mr. Howard served two tours in Iraq with the Marine Corps.  He will discuss the costs of war for U.S. service members and veterans, particularly the obstacles that prevent too many from receiving proper medical and mental health care.  IVAW and its subcommittee, Afghan Veterans Against the War, have advocated for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, and for reparations to Iraqis for the costs of war.

Pamela Spees, Senior Staff Attorney, Center for Constitutional Rights

Ms. Spees will discuss CCR’s role as a support player in the Right to Heal’s collaborative project to ensure the U.S. takes concrete steps for health care, accountability, and reparations.

Moderator: Deborah Alejandra Popowski, Lecturer on Law, Harvard Law School

This event is being co-sponsored by: HLS Advocates for Human Rights, Harvard National Security and Law Association, Islamic Society of Boston, National Lawyers Guild (Mass. Chapter), Veterans for Peace (Ch. 9, Smedley D. Butler Brigade), BC Law Holocaust/Human Rights Project, HKS Human Rights Professional Interest Council, HLS American Constitution Society, HLS Democrats, HLS Human Rights Journal, Harvard International Law Journal, HLS Muslim Law Students Association, Harvard Women’s Law Association, HSPH Muslim Student Group, MIT Amnesty International, MIT Center for International Studies, MIT Muslim Student Association, Northeastern Univ. Arab Student Association, Human Rights Caucus at Northeastern Univ. School of Law, Tufts Univ. New Initiative for Middle East Peace, Tufts Univ. Fletcher School Human Rights Project

Tomorrow: Clinicians Moderate Panels on Human Rights and the Environment; Syrian Refugees

Posted by Cara Solomon

For those of you in need of an end-of-the-week intellectual treat, tomorrow our clinicians are stepping in to moderate discussions on some of the most pressing issues of the day:

Tyler, our Clinic’s co-director, will moderate a panel at the International Law Journal Symposium on “Addressing Environmental, Human Rights and Development Issues in International Investment Arbitration.” That panel, which runs from 4:15- 5:30 p.m. in Wasserstein 204, will feature Laurence Boisson de Chazournes, Professor of International Law at the University of Geneva; Joost Pauwelyn, Nomura Visiting Professor of International Financial Systems at Harvard Law School, Professor of International Law at Graduate Institute of International & Development Studies at Geneva; and Enrique Gomez-Pinzon, Partner at Holland & Knight LLP; and Attila Tanzi, Professor of International Law at the University of Bologna.

And Meera, our Clinical Advocacy Fellow, will moderate an American Bar Association tele-conference entitled “The Syrian Refugee Crisis: Perspectives from the US, UN, and Civil Society.” That panel, from 12- 1:30 p.m., will feature Zaid Hydari, of the Helsinki Citizens Assembly; Jana Mason, of the United Nations High Commission on Refugees; Jennifer Williams, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, U.S. Department of State; and a Syrian refugee activist TBA.

Clinic’s Co-Director Celebrates Justice Ginsburg

Posted by Cara Solomon

Last month, in the rush of the start of the semester, I neglected to mention a very big honor bestowed upon Susan: She was one of several Harvard Law School faculty invited by Dean Minow to write an essay exploring the work of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Justice Ginsburg received the book of essays while on campus for a celebration of her years on the Court.  Dean Minow read aloud from the essays during the event.

“It was truly an honor to be asked to contribute this piece in celebration of Justice Ginsburg’s twenty years on the Court,” Susan said. “To say that I admire her would be a huge understatement; she is a trailblazer and one of my personal heroes.”

You can read Susan’s essay, entitled Justice Ginsburg’s International Perspective, here.

The Clean Whiteboard (or, Welcome to Spring Semester)

Posted by Cara Solomon

As we round the corner on the first week of Spring semester, here’s an iconic image: our clinicians writing down their commitments for the next few months.

Yes, they were writing those commitments on the wall of a Harvard Law School facility. But it’s a very special wall. It’s a whiteboard wall!

It’s new, and we’re pretty excited about it.

 

Happy Friday!!!

A Question of Accountability: The Clinic’s Take on the Alien Tort Statute

Note: this article was written by Cara Solomon and originally published in Harvard Law Bulletin

A Question of Accountability

In a Supreme Court case, the International Human Rights Clinic argues that the Alien Tort Statute applies to corporations

It started off with an insult: A French adventurer, standing in the streets of Philadelphia, called the ambassador of France a nasty name. And perhaps if it had ended there, the Alien Tort Statute might never have come to be.

But language was not enough for the Chevalier de Longchamps, who was nursing a grudge. He lunged toward the ambassador. He hit the ambassador’s cane with his own. And in assaulting a foreign ambassador, Longchamps committed a violation of the law of nations.

It was 1784. The incident in Philadelphia drew international attention; then condemnation; then ridicule, as the Continental Congress lacked the power to take meaningful action in response.

Five years later, as part of the First Judiciary Act, the founders sent a strong message with what they called the Alien Tort Statute: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.”

It was an important gesture to the international community—a symbol of solidarity, historians would say: We will open up our new federal court system to victims of violations of the law of nations. The United States had arrived.

Part I

On the morning of Feb. 28, 2012, a team from Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic took their seats in the U.S. Supreme Court. Sitting directly behind petitioners’ counsel were Clinical Professor Tyler Giannini and Assistant Clinical Professor Susan Farbstein ’04, nationally recognized leaders in Alien Tort Statute litigation, and co-directors of the clinic.

They had waited months to hear oral arguments in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., a case that would test the limits of the centuries-old ATS. It was the highest-profile human rights case to come before the Supreme Court in years.

Even before the Court granted certiorari, Kiobel had become an international flash point for the debate on corporate accountability, generating nearly 40 amicus briefs analyzing the ATS from every angle—foreign policy, the global economy, the international human rights movement. HLS staff, students and alumni were involved on both sides of the issue. For its part, the clinic filed a brief on behalf of legal historians, in support of petitioners.

Illustration by Justin Renteria, courtesy of Harvard Law Bulletin

“What’s at stake in Kiobel is the future of the ATS itself, and whether it will remain an example of how the United States takes its international legal obligations seriously,” said Farbstein.

Kiobel began like any other ATS case in recent memory—with allegations against a company or an individual for violations of international law. Esther Kiobel and 11 other members of the Ogoni people in Nigeria filed suit

against Shell in 2002, alleging crimes against humanity, including complicity in torture and extrajudicial executions. At issue: the company’s actions from 1992 to 1995, when the Ogoni were protesting oil development activities on their land.

Because Shell does much of its business in the United States, the courts agreed to hear the case. But on appeal, the 2nd Circuit turned its attention away from the case and toward the statute itself, dismissing Kiobel on the grounds that corporations could not be held liable under the ATS.

For observers of the ATS, this came as a surprise: For years, courts had allowed cases to proceed on the presumption that corporations were as liable as individuals for violations of international law.

“No one had really questioned it,” said Jenny Martinez ’97, a professor at Stanford Law School and one of the amici represented by the clinic. “It did seem rather obvious.”

After the 2nd Circuit’s ruling, other appellate courts went in the opposite direction, finding corporate liability perm

issible under the ATS—in cases against Exxon Mobil Corp. for violence in Indonesia, the Rio Tinto mining group for violence in Papua New Guinea, and Firestone tire company for child labor in West Africa.

“It was clear from the split in the lower courts that the question in Kiobel—whether a corporation could be held liable—was a central and fundamental threshold question that had to be clarified,” said Giannini.

Sooner or later, he said, the issue was headed to the Supreme Court.

HRP Open House: Tonight!

Posted by Cara Solomon

Please join the faculty, staff and students of the Human Rights Program (and its International Human Rights Clinic) for… an OPEN HOUSE!

It’s happening tonight from 5-7 pm in the HRP lounge, on the third floor of the clinical wing. All students are welcome to come learn more about the seminars, clinical work and academic offerings by HRP.

If that’s not incentive enough, there’s this: light refreshments will be served!

Hope to see you soon!