News archive: April 2012
13 April 2012
On April 06, 2012, on the 18th Anniversary of the genocide in Rwanda, the President of the U.S. Barack Obama issued a statement in which he refers to the ‘haunting’ memory of the extermination of about 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus. He further mentions a shared responsibility of all States to protect populations and to prevent the occurrence of genocide. More specifically, he affirms that the anniversary of the Rwandan genocide ‘reminds the nations of the world of our shared responsibility to do all we can to protect civilians and to ensure that evil of this magnitude never happens again’.
Source: The White House | Statement by the President on the 18th Anniversary of the Genocide in Rwanda
13 April 2012
Today, the Dutch Supreme Court affirmed the Hague Court of Appeal’s decision that it does not have jurisdiction to deal with the claim of the Mothers of Srebrenica against the United Nations. The Mothers of Srebrenica instigated proceedings before Dutch courts against both the Netherlands and the United Nations, claiming they had failed to prevent the genocide in Srebrenica.
The plaintiff’s submission that UN immunity should be set aside in order to ensure the right to a fair trial in Article 6 ECHR was rejected. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal erred in relying on the criteria in the ECtHR cases Beer and Regan and Waite and Kennedy in order to evaluate whether UN immunity should be set aside for the right to a fair trial. The Supreme Court held that the immunity of the United Nations is absolute, and that obligations under the UN Charter should prevail over obligations arising from other international agreements according to Article 103 UN Charter. In this context, the Supreme Court followed the ECtHR’s decision in Behrami and Saramati.
The plaintiff’s submission that in case of breaches of peremptory norms the UN is not entitled to immunity was also rejected. In order to support its decision that rules of ius cogens do not set aside rules on immunity, the Supreme Court referred to the ICJ’s recent judgment in the case Germany v. Italy.
The Mothers’ claim against the Netherlands is yet to be considered in first instance.
Source: Washington Post | Dutch court rules United Nations has immunity in Srebrenica massacre case
13 April 2012
The leader of the European Parliament’s delegation to the Rio de Janeiro summit on sustainable development has argued for the establishment of an International Court to enforce agreements on the natural environment. He submits that ‘like human rights, the right to a clean natural environment and the preservation of plants and animal life is universal. Only by enforcing these rights internationally can we transform those fine words on sustainability into deeds.’ The article does not clarify whether this plea reflects the Parliament’s institutional position.
Source: Trouw | 'Met een Milieugerechtshof kunnen we duurzaamheid afdwingen' (in Dutch only)
10 April 2012
An order of the Supreme Court of India has instructed the Indian government to proceed with a, long delayed, plan to link more than 30 rivers and divert the waters to areas that are water-stressed. If the project materializes it could have significant impact on Bangladesh, a downstream state. The project could benefit from the building of dams and reservoirs both in Nepal and/or Bhutan, two upstream states. Bangladeshi and Nepalese authorities claim that they have not been consulted with as yet while Bhutan claims that it has not appraised the project.
Source: BBC | Concerns over India rivers order
10 April 2012
In a special report entitled ‘Profit and Proliferation’ (Part I and II) in the New York Times’ At War blog, Belgium journalist Damien Spleeters reports how Belgium arms entered and were used during the conflict in Libya, and discusses the question ‘how much responsibility Belgium and other European countries may share in weapons proliferation in the region’.
Source: New York Times | Profit and Proliferation: A Special Report on Belgian Arms in the Arab Uprising, Part I
Source: New York Times | Profit and Proliferation, Part 2: Will Belgian Arms End Up in Syria?