Andrew Byrnes

Human Rights, Health and Development

Human rights, health and development represent interdependent sets of values, aspirations and disciplines. Drawing on these domains, this article offers a theoretical and practical framework for the analysis, application and assessment of health, justice and progress. It provides a simple conceptual framework illustrating the interdependence of these domains and highlights their key features and underlying principles. It then describes the reciprocal interactions between health, development and human rights and suggests how these linkages can be analysed and applied in practice. A health, human rights and development impact assessment approach is proposed to guide and monitor policies and programs towards maximising synergy.

Joining the Club: The Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions, the Paris Principles, and the Advancement of Human Rights Protection in the Region

The Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions (APF) is a membership organisation of national human rights institutions (NHRIs) from across the Asia Pacific region. As at the end of 2008, there were 14 full members and three associate members. The underlying eligibility criterion for membership is compliance with the United Nations Principles Relating to the Status and Functions of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (the Paris Principles). Full membership is open to those NHRIs which comply with the Paris Principles, candidate membership is available to those which do not do not fully comply with them but which could do so within a reasonable period of time, and associate membership is available to those NHRIs which do not comply with the Paris Principles and are unlikely to do so within a reasonable period. This article explores the way in which APF membership criteria have been applied by the Forum in its assessment of applications for membership and for upgraded membership (and in its other activities), and considers whether this has resulted in greater compliance by potential and existing members of the APF with the Paris Principles. It examines the APFs activities in relation to its membership procedures within the framework of writing about transnational government networks as a form of international governance.

International Peoples’ Tribunals in Asia: Political Theatre, Juridical Farce, or Meaningful Intervention?

Since the 1960s, over eighty international peoples’ tribunals have been established outside formal state and international structures. Many have drawn on the forms and procedures of state-sponsored international tribunals and investigated whether states, international organizations, and transnational corporations have violated established norms of international law, while also seeking to infuse it with more progressive values. This paper first provides an overview of the history of international peoples’ tribunals in Asia, then examines three tribunals that have focused on situations in Asia. We argue that not only do peoples’ tribunals respond to a perceived gap in official structures of accountability, but they also perform other functions. These include building solidarity and networks, and recording and memorializing otherwise unacknowledged experiences. Further, such tribunals not only engage in holding states and others accountable informally but also articulate claims about the right of civil society to “own”, interpret, and develop international law.

Testing the mettle of National Human Rights Institutions : a case study of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia

In April 2008, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) was informed of the possible downgrading of its ‘‘A’’ status within the UN system, due to its apparent failure to comply with the Paris Principles relating to the status of national human rights institutions. This article explores this threat to downgrade SUHAKAM and the actions which it stimulated on the part of the Malaysian government and SUHAKAM itself. It argues that despite expectations by government and civil society at the time of its establishment, SUHAKAM has directly challenged government on major human rights issues on a number of occasions. At the same time, it has had difficulty persuading government to give effect to its recommendations and has as a consequence drawn strong criticism from civil society for failing to protect human rights that are within the government’s power to rectify. In April 2008, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suruhanjaya Hak Asasi Manusia—SUHAKAM) was informed by the Sub-Committee on Accreditation of the International Co-ordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (ICC), that it was considering downgrading SUHAKAM from an ‘‘A’’ to a ‘‘B’’ status institution. The Sub-Committee gave * Research Fellow; Director, Project on National Human Rights Institutions in the Asia Pacific Region, Australian Human Rights Centre, Faculty of Law, University of New South Wales. The research on which this article is based forms part of an Australian Research Council Linkage project between the Australian Human Rights Centre and the Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions (LPO776639). In July and August 2008, the authors conducted interviews with SUHAKAM commissioners, members of civil society, and government representatives, in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. These interviews form part of the research presented in this article. We are grateful to Francesca Erts and Eleanor Bath for their assistance with the preparation of this article, to Jono Lusthaus for his research assistance in Sydney and Kuala Lumpur, and to Greg Heesom and Suraina Pasha for their comments on earlier drafts of this article. We are also grateful to Amanda Whiting who provided us with contacts in Malaysia. y Professor of Law; Chair, Australian Human Rights Centre, Faculty of Law, University of New South Wales. z Associate Professor of Law; Director, Australian Human Rights Centre, Faculty of Law, University of New South Wales.

Justice for All? Ten Years of the International Criminal Court

On 17 July 1998, the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) was adopted by an overwhelming majority of states participating in the diplomatic conference held in Rome to finalise the treaty.1 With the entry into force of the Statute2 on 1 July 2002, a new era in international criminal justice was launched: a permanent international criminal tribunal was established with jurisdiction to investigate and put on trial individuals alleged to have committed war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity (these to be later augmented by the addition of the crime of aggression3). The Statute, a culmination of decades of work and negotiation, embodies a vision of the international rule of law under which those responsible for the most serious international crimes should be brought to justice before international or national tribunals, rather than enjoy impunity. A related hope is that the existence of an effective forum for bringing those accused of such crimes to account might inhibit the commission of such offences. An essential element of the ICC regime is the principle of complementarity, which creates a residual jurisdiction for the court, to be exercised only if individual states are unwilling or unable to investigate and prosecute cases that fall under both national jurisdiction and the ICC Statute.