English for Lawyers (ENGSEMJ) - Universitetet i oslo...Richard Hustad, Norwegian Centre for Human Rights, [email protected] English for Lawyers (ENGSEMJ) Topics in Int’l Law

Richard Hustad, Norwegian Centre for Human Rights, [email protected]

English for Lawyers (ENGSEMJ)

Topics in Int’l Law and Human Rights

Chapter #2

The Obligations of States

”Peace”

Richard Hustad, Norwegian Centre for Human Rights

The Primary Obligation of States: ”Peace”

• Montevideo Convention (1933)• Art. 10: ”the primary interest of states is the conservation of peace”

• UN Charter (1945)– Art. 2 (3): ”All members shall settle their international disputes by

peaceful means…”

– Art. 2 (4): All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or politicalindependence of any state…”

– Art. 39-50: Only the UN Security Council can use force ”to restoreinternational peace and security.”

• Declaration on the Right of Peoples to Peace (UNGA Res. 39/11, 12 Nov 1984)

– ”Ren[ounce] the use of force in international relations”

– “Convinced that life without war serves as the primary international prerequisite for the material well-being, development and progress ofcountries, and for the full implementation of the rights and fundamental human freedoms proclaimed by the United Nations”


What is Peace?


Two Types of Peace?

LIFE – WAR =

NEGATIVE PEACE

(Life without war)

LIFE + SUBSTANCE =

POSITIVE PEACE

(Life with quality)


Is this peace?If State Conflict ≠ Negative Peace, then

No State Conflict = Negative Peace

Iran vs. Iraq War,

1980-1988


Bombing of the ’White House of Russia’ (Supreme Soviet)

by Russian Military (4 October 1993)

Is this peace?Is negative peace only about international conflict?

Declaration on the Right of Peoples to Peace (UNGA Res. 39/11, 12 Nov 1984):

“... the right of peoples to peace ...”


Kurds fleeing ’The Repression’

in Iraq (1991)

Ca. 200,000 to 400,000 dead

Is this peace?Is negative peace only about two parties at ’war’?

Genocide in Rwanda (1994)

Ca. 800,000 dead

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:

Art. 6 (1): ”Every human being has the inherent right to life.”

”No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”

Art. 9: ”Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.”


Is this peace in ’the West’?If No War = Life with Substance (Development),

then Negative Peace = Positive Peace

Earth by Night


World War II

Battle of Normandy

6 June 1944

Is this peace?What is the purpose of the conflict?

If Life with Substance = War, then (arguably in this occasion)

Positive Peace ≠ Negative Peace



- Is the conflict in self-defense?

- Did an ”armed attack” occur?

- Was an ”armed attack” ”imminent” & ”significant”

If Life with Substance = Self-defense Conflict,

then Positive Peace ≠ Negative Peace

Israeli-Lebanon War (2007)


Gulf War I (1991)

Highway 80 from

Kuwait City

”The Mile of Death”


What is the purpose of the specific attack?

-Is the attack proportional to obtain the objective of positive peace?

If Life with Substance = An Act within a War (disaggregated war), then

Positive Peace ≠ Negative Peace


The Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima, Japan (1945)


What is the purpose of the specific attack?

- Is the attack proportional to the objective of positive peace?

- Is the attack necessary to the objective of positive peace?

If Life with Substance = An Act within a War (disaggregated war),

then Positive Peace ≠ Negative Peace


Poverty kills an estimated

20,000 to 50,000 people per day!

Is this peace?Is peace only linked to war? Or is it linked to life?

Do states have obligations for positive peace?

Is there a difference?

War causes death.

Poverty causes death.


The ’Right to Positive Peace’

• Declaration on the Right of Peoples to Peace (UNGA Res. 39/11, 12 Nov 1984)

– “...life without war serves as the primary international prerequisite for the […] full

implementation of the rights and fundamental human freedoms proclaimed by

the United Nations”

– States should “adopt[... appropriate] measures at both the national and the

international level.”

• Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Art. 2 (1):

– ”Each State Party […] undertakes to take steps […] to the maximum extent of its

available resources […].”

• Take steps: To do something. To take ”positive measures.”

• Maximum extent: Use of resources wisely and productively

• Available resources: Use of all potential sources of funding (international

aide, loans, natural resources, etc.)

• CESCR, General Comment 3

– ”Minimum core:” States must prioritize the most vulnerable by immediate

fulfillment of basic necessities (food, housing, shelter, medical care, education…)


What is a Violation of a ’Right to Positive Peace’?Preventable conditions of poverty? Steps taken? Use of resources?

Zimbabwe under

the rule of Robert

Mugabe (hyper-

inflation,

widespread

poverty, and food

shortages)



Poverty in the United

States of America, the

aggregate wealthiest

state on Earth


• Supreme Court of India (Municipal Council, Ratlam

v. Vardichand, 4 SCC 162 (1980)):– “The [law] has no saving clause when the municipal council is

penniless. Otherwise, a profligate statutory body or pachydermic

governmental agency may legally defy duties under the law by

urging in self-defense a self-created bankruptcy or perverted

expenditure budget. That cannot be. [...] The law will relentlessly

be enforced and the plea of poor finance will be poor alibi when

people in misery cry for justice.”



Discussion ExercisesNow until 17:00: discussion within groups

17:00 – 17:15: Break (or informally continue group discussions)

17:15 – 17:30: Continue discussion within groups

17:30 – 17:45: Exercise A (5-minute intro for each group)

17:45 – 18:00: Exercise B (5-minute intro for each group)

• Exercise A: Consider the embargo of Cuba by the United States.

– Team 1: On behalf of the United States, argue that the embargo is

not a violation of the ’right’ to peace.

– Team 2: On behalf of Cuba, argue that the embargo is a violation of

the ’right’ to peace.

• Exercise B: Consider the recent war in Gaza.

– Team 3: On behalf of Israel, argue that the military action was not a

violation of a ’right’ to peace.

– Team 4: On behalf of the territory commonly referred to as Gaza,

argue that the Israeli military action was a violation of the ’right’ to

peace.


Discussion Exercise A

Team 1 (USA) & Team 2 (Cuba)

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

V.

THE REPUBLIC OF CUBA


Discussion Exercise A

Team 3 (Israel) & Team 4 (’Gaza’)

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

Acting under advisory jurisdiction

THE MATTER OF CERTAIN MILITARY

ACTIONS IN AND AROUND THE

TERRITORY KNOWN AS GAZA

Documents

English for Lawyers (ENGSEMJ) - Universitetet i oslo...Richard Hustad, Norwegian Centre for Human Rights, [email protected] English for Lawyers (ENGSEMJ) Topics in Int’l Law