Human Rights / Peace & Justice

.

 http://worldviewmission.nl/?page_id=14822

.

.

New York City  Statue of Liberty

New York City  Statue of Liberty, New York

.

.

Virginia Ginni Thomas Pics

Mrs. Ginni Thomas

 .

.

.

http://worldviewmission.nl/?page_id=72

.

.

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/IntOrder/Pages/mandate.aspx

.

.

WM-2015-Action-logo_crisp

.

.

  WM USA Obama free Colleage

WM USAx1x Obama free Colleage

WM USA1x Obama free Colleage

.

http://worldviewmission.nl/?page_id=72

.

http://worldviewmission.nl/?page_id=136

.

http://worldviewmission.nl/?page_id=6182

.

http://worldviewmission.nl/?page_id=5961

.

Human rights  Accountability 3 pager_200515 (1)

.

.

——————————————————————

.

.

Drs. Ruud Lubbers promotes the Earth Charter

Our Moving Borders

Our Moving Borders

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/27800473

 Drs Ruud Lubbers, Former Prime Minister Of The Netherlands & Ms. Helene H. Oord

Drs. Ruud Lubbers, Former Prime Minister Of the Netherlands & Ms. Hélène H. Oord

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FntRVRzwCu4b

.

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhMtjZxzGZY

.

.

—————————————————————-

.

.

 

Ginni & Clare Thomas Pics

Is Ginni Thomas’ Expanding Activism a Problem for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas?

 

 

Ginni & Thomas Pics

US, Supreme Court Justice,  Mr. Clarence Thomas & Wive Mrs. Ginni Thomas

 http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/07/ginni-thomas-groundswell-conflict-interest

.

  WM Logo Supreme Court USA. . Clarens thomas Pics USA JUDGE

.

Clarence Thomas,  Associate Supreme Court Justice

.

Supreme Court of the United States

.

.http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx

 .

http://www.law.yale.edu/intellectuallife/19376.htm

.

http://www.law.yale.edu/news/19337.htm

.

Religion in the Public Service: A Conversation with Clarence Thomas and John Danforth

.

Yale Law School Video       https://vimeo.com/119576573

.

.http://supremecourtreview.com/default/justice/index/id/

Clarens Thomas at the United Nations

.

https://www.google.nl/?gws_rd=ssl#q=clarence+thomas+united+nations

.

.

.http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29651

.

.

Yale Law School Video       https://vimeo.com/119576573   In God We Trust &  Bible

.

.

https://answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/

.

http://www.openbible.info/topics/reliouse_prisoners

.

http://www.openbible.info/topics/law_religion

.

http://www.openbible.info/topics/law_religion_prison

.

http://www.openbible.info/topics/prisoners

.

.

————————————————————————

.

.

Silvia Alejandra Fernández de Gurmendi PicsSilvia-Alejandra-Fernández-de-Gurmendi-Pics

Silvia Alejandra Fernández de Gurmendi ICC Int’l Criminal Court, The Haque

http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/Pages/default.aspx

 
http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/Pages/default.aspx

icc-international-criminal-court-logo

International Criminal Court, The Haque

https://www.hrw.org/topic/international-justice/international-criminal-court

.

——————————————————————————–

.

                                             Bouterse Government SURINAME:

Stop hands

 Justice 4 All

Hands of the judicial power

Handen af van de Rechterlijke Macht

 

SURINAME SIGN PETITION    

.

SURINAME PETITION

Bouterse government SURINAME:

- Stop the abuse of the Constitution

- Stop the destruction of the rule of law

- Stop the lie of the People

- Stop destroying our future and that of our children

Regering Bouterse SURINAME:

- Stop met het misbruiken van de Grondwet

- Stop met het vernietigen van de rechtstaat

- Stop met het voorliegen van het Volk

- Stop met het vernietigen van onze toekomst en dat van onze kinderen

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/handen-af-van-de-rechterlijke-macht

.

——————————————————————————-

.

From Marta to us… [WUNRN] Importance to Protect Civil Society Space/Engagement at the UN Human Rights Council – Primary for Women’s Rights – High Commissioner Report – Alert on Resolution

SALUDOS.. PLS SEE – PROMOTE AND SHARE.. SEE THE TWIT.. BEST..MARTA  @benavides_marta

@ACTION4SD @OliHenman @GlobalActionPW @UN_HRC @UNDP PROTECT CIVIL SOCIETY TO PROMOTE PEACE, SECURITY & DEVELOPMENT  https://www.ishr.ch/news/alert-human-rights-councils-32nd-session

                 From: WUNRN LISTSERVE <WUNRN_LISTSERVE@lists.wunrn.com>

Date: Tue, Jun 28, 2016
Subject: [WUNRN] Importance to Protect Civil Society Space/Engagement at the UN Human Rights Council – Primary for Women’s Rights – High Commissioner Report – Alert on Resolution +
To: WUNRN ListServe <wunrn_listserve@lists.wunrn.com>

WUNRN

http://www.wunrn.com

IMPORTANCE TO PROTECT CIVIL SOCIETY SPACE/ENGAGEMENT AT THE UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL – PRIMARY FOR WOMEN’S RIGHTS – HIGH COMMISSIONER REPORT – ALERT ON RESOLUTION +

UNHCHR on CS – Link to Full 19-Page 2016 UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Report:

Practical Recommendations for the Creation and Maintenance of a Safe and Enabling Environment for Civil Society,

Based on Good Practices and Lessons Learned  – Report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

ATTACHED IS THE CONCERNING HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL RESOLUTION & SUGGESTED CIVIL SOCIETY FOLLOW UP.

International Service for Human Rights - https://www.ishr.ch/news/alert-human-rights-councils-32nd-session

 

PROTECT CIVIL SOCIETY TO PROMOTE PEACE, SECURITY & DEVELOPMENT – STATEMENT FOR STATES & THE UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL

 

30.05.2016 - A major new report by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights spells out the essential ingredients to respect and protect civil society and ‘optimise its transformative potential’ when it comes to peace, security and development. The UN Human Rights Council and States must now respond.

 

(Geneva) – The global crackdown on human rights defenders and independent civil society is a threat to international peace and security and undermines sustainable development, ISHR said today.

By contrast, as demonstrated by a major new report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, respect for civil society contributes to social cohesion, reduced inequality, accountable government, responsive public policy, a conducive environment for business and investment, and the empowerment of marginalised and disadvantaged groups.

‘Countries where civil society space is protected reap significant dividends,’ says the High Commissioner in the report to be tabled at the forthcoming 32nd session of the UN Human Rights Council in June. ‘Conversely, the closing of civil society space, and threats and reprisals against civil society activists, are early warning signs of instability. Over time, policies that delegitimize, isolate and repress people calling for different approaches or legitimately claiming their rights can exacerbate frustrations and lead to instability or even conflict.’

Five essential ingredients

The High Commissioner’s report, to which ISHR contributed through a major joint submission with eleven national-level NGOs, identifies five ‘essential ingredients’ to ‘optimise civil society’s transformative potential’:

1.       ‘a robust legal framework compliant with international standards that safeguards public freedoms and effective access to justice’;

2.       ‘a political environment conducive to civil society work’, including accountability for attacks against human rights defenders and protection against reprisals;

3.       ‘access to information’ from both public and private actors;

4.       avenues for civil society participation in decision-making processes at the national and international levels; and

5.       ‘long-term support and resources for civil society’.

6.

Ingredient 1: Supportive legal framework and effective access to justice

As advocated by ISHR, the High Commissioner concludes that the legal recognition of the rights to freedom of opinion, expression, peaceful assembly, association and participation in public affairs, are essential to the protection, exercise and realisation of all human rights. Accordingly, States should enact specific laws on the protection of human rights defenders, ‘review and repeal or amend all legal provisions that impede the free and independent work of civil society actors’ and ‘ensure that all legislation affecting their ability to work complies with relevant international human rights laws and standards and with the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders’.

The report also emphasises that access to justice through an independent and effective judiciary, as well as access to national human rights institutions and to regional and international human rights mechanisms, ‘is integral to a supportive legal framework for civil society actors’.

Ingredient 2: Conducive public and political environment

As also emphasised in the ISHR submission, the High Commissioner notes that the legal recognition and protection of human rights defenders and other independent civil society actors ‘must be complemented by a political culture that recognises the value of civil society and encourages its engagement’.

According to the High Commissioner, ‘addressing threats and attacks targeting civil society actors’ is essential to ‘building a tolerant culture’.

The High Commissioner makes a range of concrete recommendations in this regard that were strongly advocated by ISHR and its partners, including that States should:

  • ‘demonstrate high-level political support for the independence and diversity of civic activity through public statements and public information campaigns’;
  • ‘develop and implement national action plans for the implementation of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights’; and
  • ‘ensure accountability for any acts of intimidation or reprisal against civil society actors by ensuring prompt, thorough and impartial investigations and bringing perpetrators to justice’.

Ingredient 3: Access to information, including from business enterprises and other private actors

As recognised in Article 6 of the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, access to information is both a fundamental human right and essential to the promotion and protection of other human rights and accountability for their violation. The High Commissioner’s report reflects evolving international and national law and good practice in this regard, recommending not only that States ‘enact clear laws, regulations and policies that guarantee the proactive disclosure of information held by public bodies’, but that such laws also ‘guarantee the right to access information held by private bodies where it is essential to the exercise or protection of human rights’.

This responds both to the fact that, increasingly, private actors are implicated in the promotion, protection, realisation and violation of human rights, and that national jurisdictions such as Kenya, Sierra Leone and South Africa have already enshrined a right to access human rights information from business enterprises and other private actors in their laws or constitutions.

Ingredient 4: Participation in policy development, planning and decision-making

Civil society participation in policy development and decision-making ‘enriches both the process and outcome’, the High Commissioner says. Importantly, in line with the ISHR submission, the High Commissioner is clear that this principle applies equally to civil society participation in international human rights mechanisms and processes as at the national level. He laments that the process for NGOs to obtain UN consultative status through the NGO Committee of ECOSOC can be ‘confusing or alienating’ and ‘a barrier to participation’.

‘The deferral of a large number of NGO applications for consultative status, sometimes for years and reportedly for arbitrary reasons, has deprived international debate of important civil society contributions,’ the High Commissioner says, recommending that regional and international entities should:

  • ‘ensure safe premises for civil society and provide advice in cases of threats, intimidation or reprisals’;
  • ‘provide for the effective participation of civil society, in conformity with international standards of non-discrimination, the freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly and the right to participate in public affairs’; and
  • ‘expand the transparency, through such means as webcasting, of public meetings, including, for example, meetings of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations of the Economic and Social Council’.

Ingredient 5: Long-term support and resources for civil society organisations

Investment in civil society is an investment in the promotion and protection of human rights and the realisation of peace, prosperity, security and sustainable development. Recognising this, the High Commissioner recommends to both States and other donors to provide long-term support and resources for civil society organisations, and to remove impediments to their functioning, including by:

  • ensuring that ‘civil society actors can seek, receive and use funding and other resources, whether domestic or foreign, without prior authorisation or other undue impediments’;
  • providing ‘core flexible funding to civil society organisations, with simplified procedures’;
  • adopting ‘tax exemptions for civil society organisations and tax incentives for donors’; and
  • integrating ‘human rights and civic education in curricula and training programmes at all levels’.

Next steps: A resolution at the 32nd session of the Human Rights Council

In response to the report, a core group of States – including Ireland, Chile, Japan, Sierra Leone and Tunisia – has announced that it will develop a resolution on the protection of civil society space at the 32nd session of the UN Human Rights Council in June.

Read together with recent reports of the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders (both in relation to restrictions on civil society actors and good practices for their protection), the High Commissioner’s new report provides the essential ingredients for a substantive and responsive resolution. ISHR and its many national-level human rights defender networks and partners look forward to working closely with the core group to achieve this.

Link to Full 19-Page 2016 UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Report: http://www.wunrn.org/pdf/cs_16.pdf

Type size larger for easier reading.

- To contact the list’s administrator, send an email addressed to: WUNRN_LISTSERVE-owner@lists.wunrn.com

ck our work at web sites..***web del MUSEO AJA LINK: http://www.museoaja.org.sv
The wikipedia page for SIGLO XXIII is up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siglo_XXIII,
The museo aha is already on Wikipedia as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Museo_Aja, in spanish:http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museo_Aja.marta benavides– SIGLO XXIII   EL SALVADOR — TEL 503-7904-9886

UN HumanRight Counsil.

Concerning Human Rights Council Pending Resolution on Civil Society Space

.

———————————————————————————

.

A Position Paper to Recommend the Integration of the Elimination of Racism into the Framework of the UN Sustainable Development Goals Agenda *** International Council of Women (ICW/ICF) “10km3x2 Map” SDGs UNGGIM UNSC (18 MARCH 2015 UN) Disaggregated Data

10km3x2xyzt  ???ISO???
SEEING LOCAL
http://worldviewmission.nl/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/WM-Tamra%C2%B4s-Doc.doc

ECOPLAY. N=10. Health cohorts. URCPP

Peace always, Tamra

www.eco-gstm.org/tamraraven/

TWEET @tamraraven

Geocoded Spatial Transparent Metric GSTM is a human spatial
think scale of ten kilometers cube stacked : 10km3/10km3
Unique locally 10km3x2:1m3GPS K12 and citizen science can use
MEMORY MEASURE MAP tool for data information.

.

—————————————————————————————

.

International Human Rights Education Conference in the Netherlands – Promoting a Culture of Peace

    .SGI.SGI Peace News
Newsletter introducing Soka Gakkai International (SGI)’s activities to promote a culture of peace ..

January, 2016 (Vol. 9)

..

January, 2016 (Vol. 9)
Sixth International Human Right Education Conference held in the Netherlands
Middleburg, Netherlands, December 17-19, 2015
Humanright eduThe three-day program attended by 222 participants was hosted by the University College Roosevelt in Middelburg, and was co-convened by the university’s Dean Prof. Dr. Barbara Oomen and Human Rights Education Associates (HREA) Executive Director Frank Elbers.
The conference was dedicated to the theme ‘Translating Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms to Today’s World. The aim was stated as being to discuss Human Rights Education (HRE) in a variety of settings, for a variety of audiences and through a range of methodologies.
Several themes emerged as the conference progressed including radicalisation and extremism and that HRE can contribute to civic skills and competencies. Another was that whilst there is a strong push to bring HRE into the formal education curriculum there is a value in non-formal education and embedding and mainstreaming a human rights perspective; the dignity and equality of all people, in all spheres should be an overarching goal of HRE. SGI participated in several panels including “Global Perspectives on HRE,” “Human Rights Pedagogy,” “Women’s Rights” and “The role of NGO’s”
Anti-Nuclear Weapons Exhibition held in Argentina
Rioja, Argentina, November 17, 2015
 Exhibition held in ArgentinaThe exhibition “Everything You Treasure–For a World Free From Nuclear Weapons,” (EYT) created by SGI and the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), was launched at the Castro Barros Culture Center in the province of Rioja.
The opening ceremony was attended by several government officials including the Walter Rafael Correa, Provincial Minister of Education, Science and Technology and Secretary of Environment Dr. Santiago Azulai who celebrated the occasion recognizing the importance of such nonformal education to promote the awareness of the danger of nuclear weapons.
2016 Potential Landmark Year for Women Leaders in US and UN
By Thalif Deen, Jan 12 2016 (IPS)
IPSThe United Nations is hoping 2016 will be a landmark year for gender empowerment – not only for the world body but also for the United States.
“The empowerment of women is real,” says UN Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson of Sweden. “It is a remarkable moment where key candidates for the next President of the United States (POTUS) and for the next Secretary-General of the United Nations (SGUN) are women.”
But will this be a political reality or a floating fantasy?
Asked about history-in-the-making, UN Assistant Secretary-General Lakshmi Puri, told IPS: “Yes, it will be historic and game changing -if and when that happens, because it would be the first time ever since the founding of the UN and the USA.”…more
This bimonthly SGI Peace News provides recent updates on SGI’s public educational activities to raise people’s awareness on issues such as nuclear disarmament, human rights, sustainable development, interfaith cooperation and humanitarian assistance.
Editorial Team, SGI Peace News
www.sgi.org
www.peoplesdecade.org
E-mail:contact@peacesgi.org

 .

.

——————————————————————————–

.

SDGs: The Example of DSF’s “Blue Dot movement” fighting for Canadian Environmental Rights (Science Matters – Environmental rights are human rights)

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

Worldwide the movement is growing to protect the planet, communities are creating solutions, others self determination, governance is being transformed into multi-levels of stakeholder engagement.  We continue to follow this interesting dimension of environmental education through various efforts but in particular the Blue Dot Movement created by the David Suzuki Foundation across Canada.  We have a plan to create lasting change for generations — To learn more, visit   [you may need to copy and paste into your browser.]
All the best,
Pam Puntenney and Bremley Lyngdoh
UNSD Education Caucus Co-Chairs
Co-Coordinators Climate Change
 __________________
Dr. P. J. Puntenney
Environmental & Human Systems Management
1989 West Liberty
 Ann Arbor, MI  48103  USA
Cell:  1-734-352-7429

Environmental rights are human rights

David Suzuki Foundation

 My grandparents came here from Japan at the beginning of the 20th century.  Although it would be a one-way trip, the perilous journey across the Pacific was worth the risk. They left behind extreme poverty for a wealth of opportunity.

But Canada was different then, a racist country built on policies of colonization, assimilation and extermination of the land’s original peoples. My grandparents and Canadian-born parents, like indigenous people and others of “colour”, couldn’t vote, buy property in many places or enter most professions. During the Second World War, my parents, sisters and I were deprived of rights and property and incarcerated in the B.C. Interior, even though Canada was the only home we’d ever known.

A lot has changed since my grandparents arrived, and since I was born in 1936. Women were not considered “persons” with full democratic rights until 1929. People of African or Asian descent, including those born and raised here, couldn’t vote until 1948, and indigenous people didn’t get to vote until 1960. Homosexuality was illegal until 1969!

In 1960, John Diefenbaker’s Progressive Conservative government enacted Canada’s Bill of Rights, and in 1982, Pierre Trudeau’s Liberals brought us the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, with equality rights strengthened in 1985.

We should celebrate those hard-won rights. I’m happy to have witnessed much of the progress my country has made. But there’s room for improvement. And in some ways Canada has gone backward.

When I was a boy, we drank water from lakes and streams without a thought. I never imagined that one day we would buy water in bottles for more than we pay for gasoline. Canada has more fresh water per capita than any nation, but many indigenous communities don’t have access to clean drinking water.
When I was growing up in Vancouver, Dad would take me fishing for halibut off Spanish Banks, sturgeon on the Fraser River and salmon in English Bay. Today I can’t take my grandchildren fishing in those places because the fish are gone.

As a boy, I never heard of asthma. Today, childhood asthma is as common as red hair. And half of all Canadians live in places with unacceptable air pollution.

I also remember when all food was organic. I never thought we’d have to pay more not to have chemicals in our food. Today we can’t avoid the toxic consequences of our industrial and agricultural activities. We all have dozens of toxic pollutants incorporated into our bodies.

We may think the highest rate of deforestation is in the Amazon but in 2014 Canada became the world leader in loss of pristine forests.

Surely, in a nation with so much natural wealth, we should expect better appreciation, treatment and protection of the air, water, soil and rich biological diversity that our health, prosperity and happiness depend on.

The right to live in a healthy environment is recognized by more than 110 nations — but not Canada. That inspired the David Suzuki Foundation and Ecojustice to launch the Blue Dot movement a little over a year ago.

It’s exceeded our expectations, with more than 100 municipalities passing environmental rights declarations and a number of provinces considering or committing to the idea. The next step is to take it to the federal level, by calling for an environmental bill of rights and, ultimately, an amendment to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The environmental rights campaign is also about human rights and social justice — something recognized by the United Nations, which has appointed a special rapporteur on human rights and the environment. A country and its values are measured not by the number of extremely wealthy people but by the state of its poorest and most vulnerable. Many environmental problems are tied to societal inequities — hunger and poverty, chronic unemployment, absence of social services, inadequate public transit and often conflicting priorities of corporations and the public interest — as people at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale are disproportionately affected by environmental hazards and toxic pollution.

Canada has come a long way, but we can’t be complacent. We must work to maintain and strengthen the rights of all Canadians, to build an even better Canada. That means giving all Canadians the right to a healthy environment.

By David Suzuki with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Senior Editor Ian Hanington.

Learn more about how DSF’s Blue Dot movement is fighting for Canadians’ environmental rights.

.

——————————————————————————–

.

Call to Action: Protect Human Rights, Stop TPP! on 2015, Dec 10

Dec 10
APRNMembers@aprnet.org
http://aprnet.org/mailman/listinfo/aprnmembers

The Asia Pacific Research Network (APRN) is a network of leading research NGOs in the Asia-Pacific. It is active in promoting exchange, coordination and capacity building support in research.

Any views or opinions presented herein are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of APRN.

This message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any disclosure, distribution, printing or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the webmaster (webmaster@aprnet.org) and delete this email message immediately.

.

——————————————————————————-

.

UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner Extractive Industires — Brazil’s Toxic Mud Diaster — Everyone Responsible

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

A major disaster has occurred in Brazil.  Many key questions arise around human rights, protection of the planet, and the integral role of environmental education.  Please share these articles with your colleagues and networks, a long over due conversation as the same situation exists in many countries around the world.
 This one in Portuguese written by UNSD Education Caucus member Suzana Padua, founder of IPE in Brazil.  http://www.oeco.org.br/colunas/suzana-padua/um-desabafo-por-mariana/
All the best,
Pam Puntenney and Bremley Lyngdoh
UNSD Education Caucus
 ========
In French:
6,613,395 Views

A l’aube de la COP 21 qui se tiendra à Paris, une catastrophe écologique majeure secoue en ce moment même, dans un silence quasi assourdissant, le Brésil.

3 weeks ago, a mining disaster in Brazil resulted in a massive mudslide that

Brazil Mine Dam Disaster-Dilma’s Katrina

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_l7dKLwI-6c

.

—————————————————————————–

.

SURINAME

Suriname waving flagJuspol Minister reads Alarming about Child Abuse in Suriname

.

There is an end to the sexual abuse of children on Apoera/Suriname announced the Minister of Justice and Police (JusPol), Jennifer van Dijk-Silos on. Some of the children are victims of incest and others offered by parents to entrepreneurs for sexual services.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tbC11zL0Xc

Suriname

Juspolminister luidt alarmklok over kindermisbruik

Er komt een eind aan het seksueel misbruik van kinderen op Apoera kondigt de minister van Justitie & Politie (JusPol), Jennifer van Dijk-Silos aan. Een deel van de kinderen is slachtoffer van incest en anderen worden door ouders aangeboden aan ondernemers voor seksuele diensten.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tbC11zL0Xc

.

http://www.unicef.org/easterncaribbean/ECAO_Sexual_Violence_againstChildren_in_the_Caribbean.pdf

.

 http://www.undp.org/content/dam/suriname/docs/UNDP_Suriname_Documents/Unite_Workshop_ENG.pdf

.

Alarming development sexual abuse cases in-Suriname

.

 

https://schrijfsterushamarhe.wordpress.com/tag/seksueel-misbruik/

.

https://schrijfsterushamarhe.wordpress.com/2011/10/23/zorgwekkende-ontwikkeling-zedenzaken-in-suriname/

.

Stop It Now!

Stop It Now!

 https://twitter.com/stopitnow

.

http://www.stopitnow.org/ohc-content/clearing-up-common-misunderstandings?_kk=sex%20abuse&_kt=00a732c6-d30d-4398-9301-7b390833527f&gclid=COzJiYmVqskCFWT3wgodazcK7w

.

   .

———————————————————————————

.

This Human Rights Day, it’s time multinationals pay their fair share

 

This Human Rights Day, it’s time multinationals pay their fair share

Blog by Niko Lusiani, Director of CESR’s Human Rights in Economic Policy Program

Not long ago, speaking of tax as a matter of human rights would lead to, at best, strained looks, and at worst, outright antagonism.

Soaring inequality has become one of the defining social ills of modern times

Yet today, on Human Rights Day 2015, the tax justice and human rights movements are more in sync than ever before in the fight to ensure sufficient, equitable and accountable resource mobilization for human dignity and a zero-carbon future. This week all over Latin America and the Caribbean, advocates have come together to reclaim and promote tax and climate justice.

Almost every day, news reports emerge which show how corporate tax avoidance and evasion deprive countries around the world of billions of dollars in public revenue – money that could have been used to fund quality health and education for all, or for the public investments necessary to prevent catastrophic climate change. While all of us are affected, developing countries are the ones paying the highest burden for these harmful practices. But this loss of precious financing is not just a threat to governments’ starving revenue base, but also undercuts their redistributive capacities to reverse growing economic and gender inequalities. Corporate tax abuses also deepen mistrust in how fiscal policy is governed and thus how effective it can be, especially for the most disadvantaged. And crucially, these abuses limit governments’ ability to regulate companies for their environmental and climate impacts.

On this Human Rights Day, the interwoven challenges of climate change and deepening economic inequality are two of the most important threats to human rights in the 21st century. It is no coincidence that the industries serving the wealthiest sectors of the wealthiest economies bear the lion’s share of responsibility for carbon emissions today. Over 50% of the world’s carbon emissions come from the wealthiest 10% of the global population, and just 90 multinational companies reportedly caused two-thirds of the world’s carbon emissions. Theaverage carbon footprint of the richest 1% of people globally could be as much as 175 times that of the poorest 10%. Meanwhile, deepening economic inequalities within and between countries disproportionately expose the poor and most disadvantaged to the harmful effects of climate change, even though the poorest half of the global population – around 3.5 billion people – are responsible for only 10% of total global emissions attributed to individual consumption.

Fair taxation – especially fair corporate taxation – is a key element in addressing both human rights threats. Perhaps more important than any other social responsibility a company bears is its duty to pay its fair share of taxes. Yet, many multinational companies continue to profit from astounding levels of tax abuse. Between 2004 and 2013, $6.5 trillion of illicit flows stemmed from company trade fraud. In parallel, developing countries are estimated to lose $212 billion per year in direct revenue from various cross-border tax avoidance techniques.

How has this occurred? A large industry of facilitators – tax lawyers, accountants and auditing firms – has emerged over recent decades enabling multinationals to shield themselves from their national tax liabilities, out-compete domestic companies and operate where there might not otherwise be a feasible business model.

So what can be done? In simple terms, governments should ensure corporate tax practices respect human rights law. Indeed, high-profile UN officials and bar associations are increasingly invoking human rights norms and principles to challenge unjust tax policy, and company tax abuse in particular. The measures governments should take are manifold – from tax transparency to stronger enforcement against tax crimes. Most importantly, perhaps, is to confront the enabling conditions of corporate tax abuse. Among the most important external factors is the availability of offshore financial secrecy – both in traditional tax havens but also in countries like the United States. Some modest proposals for how human rights law should be adhered to in these financially secretive countries are listed here:

First, countries are obliged to respect human rights that may be put at risk due to corporate tax abuse. This would imply that those countries:

i. Implement corporate tax and financial transparency, including public registries of ultimate beneficial ownership, country-by-country reporting, and automatic exchange of tax information;

ii. Conduct systematic human rights impact assessments to monitor the spillover effects of their tax policies and agreements overseas, as the Netherlands and Ireland have already done. These should be periodic and independently-verified, with public participation in defining the risks and potential extraterritorial impacts. These impact assessments should analyze not only the revenue implications, but also the distributive and governance spillover effects of a country’s tax regime abroad.

iii. Address any harm found. If and when the main problems are identified, these impact assessments should trigger legal and policy action by including explicit recommendations for responsible parties, and clear deadlines for remedies and redress of any negative impacts discovered.

iv. Put in place robust whistleblower protections to ensure that individuals who want to share information about corporate tax practices which harm human rights are allowed to do so free of fear or recrimination.

Second, countries have a legal duty to protect against human rights harms stemming from corporate tax abuse. This would imply that, at a minimum, they mandate integrated reporting guidelines for large companies, including due diligence requirements on the human rights risks of their tax and financial arrangements. These due diligence requirements should include the users, but also the market makers and suppliers of tax abuse schemes (tax lawyers, accountants, financial intermediaries). This would simultaneously provide greater transparency and access to information for tax authorities to better do their jobs. These requirements could bestreamlined into governments’ national action plans on business and human rights.

In a fairer world, companies should compete in the global economy on the merit of their innovation, product quality and ability to improve people’s lives, rather than on the ingenuity of their tax attorneys, the opacity of their financial intermediaries, and the impunity afforded them by their governments.

  • To learn more about CESR’s work on human rights in tax policy, click here.
  • For updates on events taking place across Latin America and beyond as part of the tax justice campaign, click here

CES -R logo

The Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR) works to promote social justice through human rights. In a world where poverty and inequality deprive entire communities of dignity, justice and sometimes life, we seek to uphold the universal human rights of every human being to education, health, food, water, housing, work, and other economic, social and cultural rights essential to human dignity.

Center for Economic and Social Rights | 162 Montague Street, 3rd Floor, Brooklyn, NY 11201 | +1 718 237-9145info@cesr.org

.

———————————————————————————-

.

South Bulletin: Business and Human Rights: Commencing discussions on a legally binding instrument

View this email in your browser

.

———————————————————————————

.

.

Report de Zayas UN Independent Expert: human rights impacts of international investment agreements, bilateral investment treaties and multilateral free trade agreements

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=16461&LangID=E

Report and Statement UN Independent Expert de Zayas: human rights impacts of international investment agreements, bilateral investment treaties and multilateral free trade agreements

“In this report, I address the challenge to the international order posed by certain activities of investors and transnational corporations that entail much more than interference in the regulatory space of States but actually constitute an attack on the very essence of sovereignty and self-determination, which are founding principles of the United Nations.

The paradox must be confronted and resolved that whereas States have ratified human rights treaties with immediate application such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and agreed on the progressive implementation of economic and social rights, they have also entered into trade and investment agreements that hinder, delay or render impossible the fulfillment of their human rights treaty obligations, thus violating the rule pacta sunt servanda.

A solution to this paradox lies in the application of article 103 of the UN Charter that stipulates that in case of conflict between the provisions of the UN Charter and any other treaty, the Charter prevails. This recognition should be strengthened and its implications further elaborated in an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice stating that the international human rights regime prevails over other treaties and requires that all courts and arbitration tribunals interpret other agreements in the light of the erga omnes obligations ensuing from human rights treaties. An advisory opinion by the World Court should make explicit that the rule pacta sunt servanda requires that human rights treaties be fulfilled and that the principle of good faith entails an obligation on States and tribunals to interpret other treaties, including free trade and investment agreements, in a manner consistent with human rights obligations.  The ICJ should further clarify which provisions of trade and investment agreements must be considered contra bonos mores and therefore invalid pursuant to article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and removable pursuant to the doctrine of severability.  The Opinion should reaffirm the principle that national and international tribunals must not give effect to judgments or arbitral awards that violate international ordre public and entail violations of human rights. The present report examines the adverse human rights impacts of free trade and investment agreements and the urgent need to reform the international investment regime, as recognized in UNCTADs Trade and Development Report and World Investment Reports for 2014 and 2015.

My forthcoming report to the General Assembly addresses the impacts of investor–State dispute settlement arbitrations. I have relied on the advice of economists and given attention to the reports of other Special Procedures mandate holders including the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises. I strongly endorse the 2011 Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework. I also rely on pertinent general comments and concluding observations of treaty bodies including the Human Rights Committee, and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.”

This report addresses adverse human rights impacts of international investment agreements, bilateral investment treaties and multilateral free trade agreements on the international order, both from the procedural aspect of their elaboration, negotiation, adoption and implementation, and from the substantive side, focusing on their constitutionality and effects on democratic governance, including the exercise of the State’s regulatory functions to advance the enjoyment of civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights. It calls for ex ante and ex post human rights, health and environmental impact assessments, and proposes a plan of action for systemic change.
Because all States are bound by the Charter of the United Nations, all treaties must conform with it, in particular with Articles 1, 2, 55 and 56. While recognizing that globalization may contribute to human rights and development, experience suggests that human rights have frequently been subordinated to dogmas of market fundamentalism with a focus on profit rather than sustainable development. Article 103 of the Charter of the United Nations stipulates that “[i]n the event of conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail”. Accordingly, international investment agreements and investor–State dispute settlement agreements must be tested for conformity with the Charter of the United Nations and never undermine the ontological State function to ensure the welfare of all persons under its jurisdiction, nor lead to retrogression in human rights. Conflicting agreements or arbitral awards are incompatible with international ordre public, and may be considered contrary to provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and invalid as contra bonos mores.

.

———————————————————————————-

.

TWN FTA Info: Terminate BITs and FTAs that Conflict with Human Rights

TWN FTA Info: Terminate BITs and FTAs that Conflict with Human Rights
Date : 22 September 2015

Contents:

Terminate BITs and FTAs that conflict with human rights
Published in SUNS #8096 dated 21 September 2015

Geneva, 18 Sep (Kanaga Raja) — States should test their existing bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and free trade agreements (FTAs) for compliance under their respective Constitutions, and revise or terminate said agreements pursuant to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties when they conflict with human rights obligations, a United Nations rights expert has said.

This is one of the main recommendations made by the Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, Mr Alfred de Zayas (of the United States), in his report to the Human Rights Council, which began its regular thirtieth session on Monday.

In his report, Mr De Zayas drew attention to the adverse human rights impacts of international investment agreements, bilateral investment treaties and multilateral free trade agreements on the international order, and called for ex ante and ex post human rights, health and environmental impact assessments of these instruments.

The rights expert observed that international investment agreements are not new phenomena in the international arena. Bilateral investment treaties currently number over 3,200, he said.

After years of experience with investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS), the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and other arbitrations, it has become apparent that the regulatory function of many States and their ability to legislate in the public interest have been compromised, Mr De Zayas further said.

“The problem has been aggravated by the chilling effect of certain awards that have penalized States for adopting regulations to protect the environment, food safety, access to generic medicine and reduction of smoking, as required under the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. The legality of such awards is questionable as contrary to domestic and international ordre public, and may be considered, in some cases, contra bonos mores [against good morals].”

According to the UN report, observers have noted retrogression in the protection of rights including the rights to life, food, water and sanitation, health, housing, education, culture, improved labour standards, an independent judiciary, a clean environment and the right not to be subjected to forced resettlement.

Moreover, there is a legitimate concern that international investment agreements might aggravate the problem of extreme poverty, foreign debt renegotiation, financial regulation and the rights of indigenous peoples, minorities, persons with disabilities and older persons and other vulnerable groups.

“Accordingly, all international investment agreements under negotiation should include a clear provision stipulating that in case of conflict between the human rights obligations of a State and those under other treaties, human rights conventions prevail,” Mr De Zayas stressed.

The report said that the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is an example of an agreement that has led to relocation of manufacturing industries, resulting in loss of employment in the United States (estimated at 850,000 jobs) and the proliferation of assembly centres in Mexico, known as maquiladoras, where labour costs are lower and social protection below ILO standards.

The rights expert noted that several international investment agreements are currently being negotiated, mostly in secret, including the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA, outside the WTO), the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership.

Observers have noted grave democratic deficits with international investment agreements and investor-State dispute settlement tribunals and wondered why States continue to engage in negotiations, based on partisan studies and overly optimistic forecasts about gross domestic product (GDP) growth and employment, he said.

He noted: “Not only is there a failure of States to proactively disclose information about the agreements, but key stakeholders are excluded from the negotiating table, where mostly corporate lawyers and lobbyists participate. There is even an attempt to circumvent parliaments by ‘fast-tracking’ the adoption of these agreements, manifesting a gross absence of due process and hence of democratic legitimacy.”

INVESTOR-STATE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT (ISDS)

The rights expert said among the major threats to a democratic and equitable international order is the operation of arbitral tribunals that act as if they were above the international human rights regime. Investor-State dispute settlement tribunals are made up of corporate arbitrators whose independence has been repeatedly questioned because of conflicts of interest.

The investor-State dispute settlement system entails a completely separate system of dispute settlement, not only outside the domestic court system, but above it, and without appeal.

“Can a democracy call itself democratic if it allows the creation of separate, non-transparent and non-accountable systems of dispute settlement,” he asked.

He said that observers question the legitimacy of tribunals where the investor can sue the State but not vice versa, and that interpretations of terms such as “investment”, “expropriation” and “fair and equal treatment” have been expansive and difficult to reconcile with the interpretation rules under articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

Indeed, said Mr De Zayas, it is disturbing that arbitrators can disregard basic principles such as respect for the “margin of discretion” of States, State legislation and even the judicial pronouncements of the highest domestic courts.

“The one-way street of investor protection has not contributed to a culture of investor-State cooperation but fuelled an aggressive tendency to litigate and demonstrably generated a ‘regulatory chill’”.

He noted that arbitration may take place in Washington under the auspices of the World Bank’s ICSID, but there is a worrisome degree of forum-shopping, and tribunals may meet before the London Court of International Arbitration, the International Chamber of Commerce, the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre or the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).

The Independent Expert went on to flag a few cases in order to illustrate litigation practices and their human rights implications.

He said that one of the most egregious ICSID arbitrations concerned the case by United States-based Occidental Petroleum against Ecuador concerning the termination of an oil production site in the Amazon, and resulting in an award of $1.76 billion to Occidental ($2.4 billion with interest), which Ecuador accused of multiple human rights violations and environmental destruction.

“Only gradually are governments and parliamentarians beginning to counter the corporate move against the fundamentals of State sovereignty.”

In the European Parliament, the issue of corporate blackmail has been raised in connection with the debate on the TTIP, arguing on the basis of Vattenfall and Veolia that multinational companies are using investor protection rules to achieve corporate aims, increasing the cost to the taxpayer of defending public policy and rules.

“In this context, it must be stressed that the possibility that arbitrations may find for the State and against the investor does not remove the danger nor legitimize the investor-State dispute settlement model, since the mere threat of such arbitration has dissuaded even developed States like Canada from adopting social legislation. Developing countries are even more vulnerable to the threat, since they lack the resources to defend themselves against major transnational enterprises.”

The rights expert underlined that the manifest abuse of rights by investors is so brazen that one could imagine that one day the military-industrial complex might invoke investor-State dispute settlement when a country decides to reduce or terminate the production of anti-personnel landmines or cluster bombs because they are contrary to international humanitarian law, thus “expropriating” expected profits of the arms industry.

It is not just a question of reforming the investor-State dispute settlement system for the future, but imperative to review and revise existing bilateral investment treaties and free trade agreements, which were never intended to become prisons for States.

“If investor-State dispute settlement and ICSID have since mutated into institutions of economic coercion, they must be dismantled and reinvented through the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.”

The report said although bilateral investment treaties and free trade agreements have been on the international agenda for decades, their human rights impacts have been under-reported.

“Apparently the siren call of potential profit and the over-optimistic forecasts promising GDP growth and significant creation of jobs have been so seductive to some governments that human rights considerations have been neglected and State functions compromised.”

The rights expert said that the large body of existing human rights treaties, protocols and declarations create a constitutional framework that must be taken into account whenever a State enters into agreements with other States and/or private-sector actors, including financial institutions and transnational enterprises.

“The human rights regime, including international and regional human rights treaties and the relevant ILO and WHO Conventions, must be treated as superior to other agreements, including bilateral investment treaties and free trade agreements. National courts and international tribunals and arbitration instances must be subordinated to this regime.”

The report said among the rights that States must ensure are the rights to life, security of person, participation in the conduct of public affairs, homeland, movement, health, education, employment and social security. These commitments are enshrined, inter alia, in articles 1, 2, 6, 9, 12, 17, 25, 26, 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and articles 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The process of elaboration, negotiation and adoption of bilateral investment treaties and free trade agreements must conform with the requirement of article 25 (a) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to ensure participation by all stakeholders.

This entails a proactive obligation on the part of Governments to disclose the necessary information and facilitate public participation. Access to information is an essential condition for the exercise of the right of freedom of opinion and expression under article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The report said: “Trade negotiations conducted in secret (although not a matter of national security!) and excluding key stakeholders entail prima facie violations of articles 19 and 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”

Mr De Zayas said democracy is not exercised only once in a while, but entails a continuing dialogue between representatives and constituents. Had it not been for Wikileaks publishing several chapters of the free trade agreements under discussion, the necessary public debate could not even have gotten started.

BOLD SOLUTIONS NEEDED

The report said extraordinary problems require bold solutions. Anti-democratic investor-State dispute settlement paroxysms can be neutralized by revision or termination of such dispute settlement.

It added that if States can adopt extraordinary measures such as bailing out delinquent banks, a fortiori they can adopt measures to protect the welfare of the population.

“Protective actions by a State whose economy, agriculture or industry is in danger of failure because of the sometimes unpredictable effects of bilateral investment treaties and free trade agreements may be justifiable under the force majeure principle.”

The validity of bilateral investment treaties and free trade agreements should be tested under the rules of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

For instance, a treaty may be void if it can be established that there was a manifest violation of the State’s Constitution, errors relating to a fact or situation which was assumed to exist at the time the treaty was concluded and which formed an essential basis of its consent to be bound to the treaty (art. 48), fraudulent conduct by a negotiating party (art. 49), deliberately misleading or spurious claims, corruption (art. 50), coercion (arts. 51-52) or conflict with a peremptory norm of international law (art. 53).

Treaties may also be terminated or their application suspended pursuant to the doctrine of material breach (art. 60), subsequent impossibility of performance (art. 61) or fundamental change of circumstances (art. 62).

Normally, treaties contain provisions for denunciation or withdrawal. In the absence of such provisions, such a right may be implied by the nature of the treaty (art. 56).

“To the extent that bilateral investment treaties and free trade agreements lead to violations of human rights, they should be modified or terminated,” said the rights expert.

“Are States or some transnational corporations guilty of ‘conspiracy’? Actions in pursuance of such conspiracy could include deliberately giving false information; issuing false forecasts of GDP and employment growth; engaging think tanks, economists, universities or foundations in preparing ‘teleological reports’; and colluding with media conglomerates to ensure that only the ‘sunny’ side of bilateral investment treaties and free trade agreements is presented and contentious issues are suppressed or minimized.”

Thus, to the extent that there was inadequate disclosure of the risks, false representations and overly optimistic growth forecasts, there was no informed consent and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides grounds for modification or termination, said the report.

Substantively, it added, investor-State dispute settlement tribunals cannot immunize investors from responsibility to make amends for damage caused, and the “polluter pays” principle cannot be trumped by a claim that paying fines is tantamount to an “expropriation”. Such a claim would be rejected by any independent tribunal as blatantly frivolous and contrary to ordre public.

“Pursuant to this analysis, the denunciation of international investment agreements is not only legitimate but also legal and their ‘survival clauses’ must be seen as null and void when they are intended to perpetuate a system that violates human rights.”

Bearing in mind that the essence of capitalism and investment is risk taking, States must insist that investors accept the risk and subject themselves to national legislation in a manner similar to the Calvo doctrine, which holds that jurisdiction in international investment disputes must lie with the country in which the investment is made.

“This doctrine has been adopted into the Constitutions of many Latin American States, and merits being used as a model for international investment agreements.”

For decades, investor-State dispute settlement arbitrations have de facto upset the international order, but they cannot trump the Charter of the United Nations. Just as other economic paradigms were abandoned, eventually investor-State dispute settlement will be recognized as an experiment gone wrong, an attempted hijacking of constitutionality resulting in the retrogression of human rights.

Mr De Zayas said it would be appropriate to reaffirm that while free trade and investment agreements have their raison d’etre, the primary role of the State is to act in the public interest.

There are ample opportunities for corporations and investors to make legitimate profits and enter into genuine “partnerships” with States and not into asymmetrical relationships. The rule of thumb should be to: (a) give to corporations what belongs to them – an environment in which to compete fairly; (b) give back to States what is fundamentally and inalienably theirs – sovereignty and policy space; (c) give parliaments what belongs to them – the faculty to consider all aspects of treaties without undemocratic secrecy and fast-tracking; and (d) give to the people what is theirs: the rights to public participation, due process and democracy.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The rights expert called on States, amongst others, to ensure that all trade and investment agreements – existing and future – represent the democratic will of the populations concerned. Negotiations on current drafts must not be secret or “fast-tracked”, but, on the contrary, must be subject to public participation on the basis of independent human rights, health and environmental impact assessments.

States must ensure that all trade and investment agreements recognize the primacy of human rights and specify that, in case of conflict, human rights obligations prevail. States must uphold their erga omnes (towards everyone) obligation to implement human rights treaties and observe ILO and WHO Conventions.

States must ensure that international investment agreements do not undermine their ability to implement the industrial and macroeconomic policies needed for development, which is an essential objective of United Nations ‘constitutional’ law, and take steps to revise promptly existing bilateral investment treaties and free trade agreements with negative effects on human rights.

“States should test existing bilateral investment treaties and free trade agreements for compliance under their respective Constitutions, and revise or terminate said agreements pursuant to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties when they conflict with human rights obligations.”

All future international investment agreements should provide for the settlement of disputes not by investor-State dispute settlement but by the national courts or a special international investment court, explicitly bound by the recognition of the primacy of human rights, public interest and national sovereignty.

States must deny effect to investor-State dispute settlement and ICSID awards that violate human rights, practice solidarity with States seeking to modify or terminate bilateral investment treaties, free trade agreements or investor-State dispute settlement agreements or that deny effect to arbitral awards, and take measures vis-a-vis investors and transnational corporations violating international human rights law.

The rights expert called on UNCTAD (UN Conference on Trade and Development) to consider convening a conference to explore the possibilities of revising or terminating existing bilateral investment treaties and free trade agreements that contain provisions that have interfered with the State’s duty to legislate human rights, implement economic policies and regulate in the public interest.

“Such a conference should advance the UNCTAD ‘action menu’ and ‘road map’ for reform,” Mr De Zayas said.

(See also the two-part article on investment accords by Andrew Cornford of the Observatoire de la Finance in SUNS #8094 dated 17 September 2015 and #8095 dated 18 September 2015.) +

Copyright Third World Network – www.twnnews.net All Rights Reserved

.

———————————————————————————

.

Report on the World Bank and Human Rights by UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston

Dear all,

Please find attached a report by the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston. The report will be presented to the UN General Assembly on 23 October 2015.

The report analyzes the confusing approaches to human rights taken by the World Bank in its legal policy, public relations, policy analysis, operations and safeguards. The Special Rapporteur then seeks to explain why the Bank has historically been averse to acknowledging and taking account of human rights, argues that the Bank needs a new approach and explores what difference that might make.

The report concludes that the existing approach taken by the Bank to human rights is incoherent, counterproductive and unsustainable. For most purposes, the World Bank is a human rights-free zone. In its operational policies, in particular, it treats human rights more like an infectious disease than universal values and obligations.

The biggest single obstacle to moving towards an appropriate approach is the anachronistic and inconsistent interpretation of the “political prohibition” contained in its Articles of Agreement. As a result, the Bank is unable to engage meaningfully with the international human rights framework, or to assist its member countries in complying with their own human rights obligations. That inhibits its ability to take adequate account of the social and political economy aspects of its work within countries and contradicts and undermines the consistent recognition by the international community of the integral relationship between human rights and development. It also prevents the Bank from putting into practice much of its own policy research and analysis, which points to the indispensability of the human rights dimensions of many core development issues.

The report argues that what is needed is a transparent dialogue designed to generate an informed and nuanced policy that will avoid undoubted perils, while enabling the Bank and its members to make constructive and unproductive use of the universally accepted human rights framework. Whether the Bank ultimately maintains, adjusts or changes its existing policy, it is essential that the policy should be principles, compelling and transparent. The recommendations that follow provide some indication as to what a World Bank human rights policy might look like in practice.

Christiaan van Veen

Senior Advisor to the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights

Center for Human Rights and Global Justice
New York University School of Law
139 MacDougal Street, 5th floor
New York, NY, 10012 USA
Tel.: + 1 (212) 998-6196

.

————————————————————————————

.

DIHR comments on the proposed global priority indicators for the SDGs Human Rights

 

Comments on the proposed global priority indicators for the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
Submitted by the Danish Institute for Human Rights to the open consultation on the global indicator framework of the Inter-agency and Expert Group on SDG Indicators (IAEG-SDGs)
 
It is explicitly affirmed in the Outcome Document for the 2030 sustainable development agenda that the SDGs should contribute to the realisation of human rights – while human rights instruments should guide the strategies for their implementation. However, it is not well understood what the concrete linkages are between human rights instruments and the 17 goals and the 169 targets.
The Danish Institute for Human Rights (DIHR) has undertaken a comprehensive mapping of the human rights references implicitly or explicitly embedded in the SDG targets. Based on this mapping, DIHR has further undertaken a review of the proposed priority indicators, in order to assess their reference and relevance to human rights, as well as the correspondence between indicators and targets.
The review can help:
·         Identify gaps where proposed indicators do not capture relevant human rights references of the targets;
·         Provide guidance to align the proposed indicators with international human rights standards;
·         Identify priorities for additional global or national indicators to ensure a human rights-based approach to monitoring of the SDGs.
The full mapping of targets and human rights references as well as the review of indicators is available on our website:www.humanrights.dk/sdg-guide

Kind regards

HUMAN RIGHTS & DEVELOPMENT
WILDERS PLADS 8K | DK-1403 COPENHAGEN K

 If you are not pjpunt@umich.edu

———————————————————————————-

.

JOIN! Days of Action for Justice

Stop the War on the Poor!  Time for Justice and System Change!

UN Flyer Revised

https://www.facebook.com/events/743323195795134/

.

—————————————————————————–

.

UNEP REPORT ON OGONI-4 YEARS AFTER

From our colleague in Nigeria:

Comrades,
Exactly four years ago today, UNEP presented an audit report on the devastated Ogoni environment to former President Goodluck Jonathan who received it on behalf of the federal government of Nigeria. That report which merely confirm our worst fears that our God given environment was dying, has been on the desk at the Presidency ever since while our people, continue to die in their numbers from causes that we are yet to identify.
Coincidentally,in November this year,  we would be marking the 20th anniversary of the murder of Ken Saro Wiwa who was killed for raising alarm over the atrocities sHELL and the government of Nigeria were committing against the Ogoni environment.
Below, is link to a 52 minutes interview I did with a local online community television based in Port Harcourt, Niger Delta Nigeria on the subject and the way forward as we  commemorate this 4th anniversary. Later tonight, I will be on African Independent Televison (AIT} as Guest on the “O & M”show to discuss this whole issue and the 20th anniversary.
Our dead environment, makes some Ogoni, walking corpses CELESTINE AKPOBARI  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpdiU_Pzbsc
Feel free to share on your networks.
AkpoBari Celestine Nkabari
National Coordinator
Ogoni Solidarity Forum-Nigeria Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Nigeria Cell No.: +234-803-2733 965 Email: celestine@saction.org Skype ID: celestine.rights http://www.facebook.com/celestine.akpobari Twitter @GreatOgoni

There are walking corpses in Ogoni – CELESTINE AKPOBARI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpdiU_Pzbsc

 ”Don’t Let Shell Kill Again”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9Gwf8UcgS0 .

.

————————————————————————

Dear friends and colleagues, As the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) is being rushed to finalization this week, we are pleased to share with you a report on the “Potential human rights impacts of the TPP” by Sanya Reid Smith of Third World Network. She has followed the negotiations closely over the past few years. The 152-page report with extensive references summarises some of the ways in which the TPP can harm human rights. The analysis only examines the impact on recommendations and comments by United Nations (UN) Special Procedures mandate-holders and other UN human rights bodies, and so there are other human rights which are likely to be adversely affected by the TPP which are not covered here. In a statement on the TPP and other free trade agreements, 10 UN Special Rapporteurs/Independent Experts expressed concern about the secret way in which they have been negotiated and their potential adverse impacts on human rights (including the rights to life, food, water and sanitation, health, housing, education, science and culture, improved labour standards, an independent judiciary and a clean environment). The relevant TPP provisions which go beyond the World Trade Organization (WTO) rules are outlined in Annex 1 of the report. Since the TPP governments have refused to release the text, this assessment is based on other publicly available documents. While other WTO, free trade agreement and bilateral investment treaty disputes are unlikely to set precedents for TPP interpretation, they are often likely to be followed, so some of these interpretations have been noted. The full report is available here: http://twn.my/title2/FTAs/General/TPPHumanRights.pdf With best wishes, Third World Network – www.twnnews.net .

————————————————————————-

.

SouthNews: Towards a New Binding Instrument on Human Rights and Transnational Companies

View this email in your browser

SOUTHNEWS

No. 94, 16 July 2015

SOUTHNEWS is a service of the South Centre to provide information and news on topical issues from a South perspective.

Visit the South Centre’s website: www.southcentre.int.

Towards a New Binding Instrument on Human Rights and Transnational Companies

.

————————————————————————

.

Only 4 more days to Stop Corporate Lawsuits Against Human Rights

Greetings from Asia Pacific forum on Women, Law and Development! Thank you for signing APWLD’s “Stop Corporate Lawsuits Against Human Rights” petition. It is because of your support that the petition is gaining momentum at 312 signatures. Our target is 500 signatures in order to present our petition at The Third Financing for Development Conference. Please join the community of individuals and civil society members who are petitioning to re-instate a clause that would regulate corporate power in the interest of human rights. Some of you have said “Investor State Dispute Settlement seriously weakens governments….huge public funds go to corporations as payouts further creating poverty and inequalities.” Others have commented that ISDS is “anti-democratic…and trade liberalization requirements will exacerbate poverty and undermine local and national sovereignty.”  We share your outrage but we need more support! We only have 4 more days to collect these signatures before July 13th. Please continue to support the fight against corporate profit over people by forwarding this e-mail to your networks and friends. You can also post it on social media including Facebook and Twitter In solidarity, Nadia Maki www.apwld.org

.

————————————————————————

.

TWN Info Service: UN Body to Elaborate Treaty on TNCs/Human Rights Holds First Session

UN body to elaborate treaty on TNCs/human rights holds first session Published in SUNS #8058 dated 8 July2015 Geneva, 7 Jul (Kanaga Raja) — The open-ended intergovernmental working group in charge of elaborating an international legally binding instrument on transnational corporations (TNCs) and other business enterprises with respect to human rights convened its first session here on Monday. The inaugural session of the Working Group (6-10 July) appointed Ambassador Maria Fernanda Espinosa of Ecuador as its Chairperson-Rapporteur. The session opened with a video message from the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Mr Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein. It also heard some opening remarks by its keynote speaker, Ms Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, who told the delegates that an international legally binding instrument on business and human rights could contribute to redressing gaps and imbalances in the international legal order that undermine human rights, and could help victims of corporate human rights abuse access remedy. (See below.) In a resolution (26/9) adopted at its twenty-sixth session on 26 June 2014, the United Nations Human Rights Council decided to establish “an open-ended intergovernmental working group on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights; whose mandate shall be to elaborate an international legally binding instrument to regulate, in international human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises.” It also decided that the first two sessions of the open-ended intergovernmental working group shall be dedicated “to conducting constructive deliberations on the content, scope, nature and form of the future international instrument, in this regard.” The Council further decided that the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the working group “should prepare elements for the draft legally binding instrument for substantive negotiations at the commencement of the third session of the working group on the subject, taking into consideration the discussions held at its first two sessions.” The working group will be holding a series of panel discussions on related issues as well as several side events during its week-long first session. According to a Concept Note proposed under the responsibility of the designated Chairperson-Rapporteur, resolution 26/9 stresses that the obligation and primary responsibility to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms lies with the State, and that States must protect against human rights abuse within their territory and/or jurisdiction by third parties, including transnational corporations (TNCs). It noted that while the obligation of States to regulate business activities within their territorial jurisdiction is clear, on the other hand, States’ obligations regarding corporate conduct acting abroad remain unclear. “Member States’ discussions during the process of preparation of the resolution underlined that there are gaps in the international legal framework related to the duty to protect human rights in respect of business activities, and that related instruments are concentrated in soft law.” Furthermore, said the Concept Note, the international legal system reflects an asymmetry between rights and obligations of TNCs. While TNCs are granted rights through hard law instruments, such as bilateral investment treaties and investment rules in free trade agreements, and have access to a system of investor-State dispute settlement, there are no hard law instruments that address the obligations of corporations to respect human rights. Noting that the role of TNCs has exponentially expanded over the last few decades and that value chains are shaped by TNCs that account for around 80 per cent of global trade, the Note said that it is clear that the role of corporations has evolved in a way that transcends national laws. Yet, TNCs still lack international legal responsibility commensurate with their role and influence in international and domestic affairs. While it is important to strengthen national legal frameworks and mechanisms for access to remedy in cases of human rights violations, there is an increasing need for international cooperation between States to ensure that victims of corporate human rights abuse have access to remedy, it said. OPENING REMARKS BY KEYNOTE SPEAKER In her opening remarks at the first session, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples Ms Victoria Tauli-Corpuz noted that indigenous peoples have been at the forefront of discussions regarding the human rights abuses committed by corporations since the 1970s. For decades, indigenous peoples have been victims of corporate activities in or near their traditional territories, which have depleted and polluted their traditional territories without their consent, putting many peoples at the verge of cultural or physical extinction. “Today, little has changed in relation to this situation,” she said, pointing out that indigenous peoples and other local communities continue to suffer disproportionately the negative impact of corporate activities, while community leaders and activists suffer a true escalation of violence at the hands of government forces and private security companies. “Many of the displacements of indigenous peoples from their ancestral territories and the extrajudicial killings of indigenous activists usually happen in communities where there are ongoing struggles against corporations.” The Special Rapporteur recalled her predecessor in the mandate, Professor James Anaya, as concluding that extractive and other large-scale corporate activities constitute today “one of the most important sources of abuse of the rights of indigenous peoples’ in virtually all parts of the world.” The adoption by the Human Rights Council of resolution 26/9, establishing this Working Group, represents a significant development, said Ms Tauli-Corpuz. The United Nations responded to calls from around the world, including the persistent appeals of indigenous peoples, to strengthen the architecture of international human rights law in order to adapt further to the challenges posed by corporate-related human rights abuses. “While the global economic trends are increasingly characterized by dominance of corporations, their role extends beyond the capacities of any one national system to effectively regulate their operations. The issues at stake are global, and so should be the response.” Too often those whose human rights are affected by the operations of businesses (for too long considered the externalities of business activity) are left without any real access to effective remedies, and often States themselves are without the requisite tools to hold corporations’ accountability where needed. According to the Special Rapporteur, this is a matter which concerns her the most because the weaknesses of States, corporations and the United Nations in providing effective remedies creates desperation and hopelessness, which provide a fertile ground for the operations of criminal transnational syndicates. “An international legally binding instrument on business and human rights could contribute to redressing gaps and imbalances in the international legal order that undermine human rights, and could help victims of corporate human rights abuse access remedy.” The rights expert acknowledged that some progress has been achieved in the area of human rights and business in recent years. Notably, the adoption by the Human Rights Council in 2011 of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights marked a significant step forward, particularly by clarifying many elements of the State’s duty to protect human rights from business-related human rights violations, and acknowledging also that businesses themselves have responsibilities to respect human rights. The rights expert underlined that the search for a new international legal instrument and the implementation of the Guiding Principles should not be seen as contradictory, but rather complementary objectives. She said that the mandate established by resolution 26/9 is highly relevant and necessary. Corporations are key actors in shaping and influencing economic, as well as political, social and cultural issues, activities and frameworks all over the world, including production and consumption patterns and livelihoods of communities. While global economic trends are increasingly characterized by the dominance of corporations, their role extends beyond the capacities of any one national system to effectively regulate their operations. As foreign investors, corporations are benefiting from an international protection regime that is consolidated through rules under bilateral investment treaties and/or free trade agreements and other regional arrangements. This system is enabled through an investor-State dispute settlement mechanism and far-reaching rules for recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. According to the Special Rapporteur, reform of the international investment protection regime, including the substance of the treaties and the investor-State dispute settlement mechanism, is emerging as an issue of concern for both developing and developed countries. “What we see more and more is that foreign investors and transnational corporations are provided with very strong rights and extremely strong enforcement mechanisms. On the other hand, global and national rules dealing with the responsibilities of corporations and other forms of businesses are characterized by the form of soft law.” They fall short of legally binding instruments that allow for achieving balance in the rights and responsibilities of these actors. The rights expert said: “We face a context where corporations still lack international legal responsibility commensurate with their role and influence in international and domestic affairs. At the same time, there are gaps in the international legal framework in regard to the duty to protect human rights and access to remedy.” An international legally binding Instrument would significantly help in establishing the much needed balance in the international system of rights and obligations with regard to corporations and host governments, she added. Resolution 26/9 takes us one step further along the pathway toward strengthening the system of human rights law, and this opportunity for the Intergovernmental Working Group must be seized upon to address two urgent global realities – the first being access to remedies and the second relating to the need to uphold the primacy of human rights in the context of business activities. At the present time, said the rights expert, the ability for communities and people affected by corporate human rights violations to access remedies is very weak and such remedies do not even cut across all jurisdictions. At the same time, in many cases corporate human rights violations touch upon the interests of more than one country’s jurisdiction. “In this sense, for the Intergovernmental Working Group to make real advances in providing access to effective remedies, the future legal instrument must clarify the extraterritorial obligations of states to ensure access to effective remedies within all states that are connected to the corporations in question.” Fortunately, the Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Obligations of States in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights go a long way to clarifying the application of law in this context, and will provide a powerful resource for the Intergovernmental Working Group to call upon for guidance. Ms Tauli-Corpuz said that a second key opportunity for the Intergovernmental Working Group concerns the possibility for a new international instrument, within the context of business activities, to reinforce the fundamental principle of international law which recognizes the primacy of human rights above all other systems of law. As recognized by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in its 1998 Statement on Globalisation “the realms of trade, finance and investment are in no way exempt from these general [human rights] principles”. The global reality for many communities, as well as States from all parts of the world, is that corporations today have the ability under international trade and investment law to sue States when they pass laws that aim to improve human rights and environmental protections. In this context, said the rights expert, the international community is failing to realise the guarantees of the international human rights regime. The work of the Intergovernmental Working Group can also benefit corporations by producing a level playing field for investment across all States. In this sense, the Working Group has the opportunity to develop standards for all States that codify within international law the regulatory advances being made within some jurisdictions on a piecemeal basis. “Providing this type of regulatory clarity and certainty, within international human rights law, provides a uniform approach which will benefit all corporations.” This advance would also undermine the practice of some corporations to seek out investment jurisdictions with weak regulatory environments, thereby creating negative incentives for other corporations to do likewise, resulting in what some refer to as the race to the bottom. “Similarly, for States, this advance in international law would also undermine the ability of their counterpart States weakening their regulations, at the same time exposing their populations to human rights violations, in the process of attracting investment.” The Special Rapporteur underlined that any discussion on an international legal instrument regulating the responsibility of corporate actors in relation to human rights should not divert the attention of the important responsibilities that pertain to States in fulfilling their obligation to protect their own citizens against corporate activities. Unfortunately, more often than ever, States are silent witnesses or victims of corporate abuse, but they are all also, either by action or by omission, responsible to a certain extent in these abuses. The line that separates corporate interest from State policy is sometimes blurred. The rights expert said that an international legally binding instrument would go some way to establish balance in the international system of rights and obligations with regard to corporations and host governments. It would benefit States in their human rights obligations in relation to corporate activities. Businesses that already respect human rights and are engaged in best practice development would also benefit and have a clear interest in supporting and helping develop this instrument, she added. In this connection, the Special Rapporteur expressed hope that the discussions in this forum will also contribute to make concrete progress in this regard. She reminded the audience that “we should not lose sight of the ultimate objective of this exercise, which should not be other than strengthening the protection of human rights against abuses committed in the context of corporate activities. For indigenous peoples, as well as for many other human communities of this world, the issues at stake are just too high.” + SRRIPs FINAL Opening Statement at IWGBHR

.

————————————————————————

.

Lula: Freedom of Association and the Right to Strike

Dear friends, We are honoured to publish this week an article by the former President of the Federal Republic of Brazil, Luis Inacio Lula da Silva (“Lula”), on ‘Freedom of Association and the Right to Strike’. In the context of the International Labour Conference (held in Geneva at the moment), he takes issue with attempts at limiting the right to strike by suggesting it is not covered by Convention 87 of the ILO on freedom of association, as well as with pressures to reduce the ILO’s character from an international (tripartite) organisation to a UN agency. As Lula puts it, rather than a fair reflection of ‘new realities’, this push reflects “an attempt to weaken a fundamental ILO standard, namely freedom of association, and hence the other ones too”. Recalling how international solidarity using this Convention helped him and other unionists when they were imprisoned for leading a metalworkers’ strike in 1980, he reminds us that “throughout history, higher, more justly distributed incomes and the promotion of social rights have never been won without workers’ organizing in unions and holding strikes”. Please find the article attached to this email and on our Global Labor Column: http://column.global-labour-university.org/ Best regards, Frank  Hoffer ILO Bureau for Workers’ Activities International Labour Organization

.

————————————————————————-

.

 UN human rights experts welcome Greek referendum and call for international solidarity
 
UN human rights experts welcome Greek referendum and call for international solidarity GENEVA (30 June 2015) – Two United Nations human rights experts today welcomed the holding of a referendum in Greece to decide by democratic process the path to follow to solve the Greek economic crisis without deterioration in the human rights situation. The UN Independent Experts on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, Alfred de Zayas, and on human rights and international solidarity, Virginia Dandan, stressed that there is much more at stake than debt repayment obligations, echoing a warning* issued earlier this month by the UN Independent Expert on foreign debt and human rights, Juan Pablo Bohoslavsky.  “All human rights institutions and mechanisms should welcome the Greek referendum as an eloquent expression of the self-determination of the Greek people in conformity with article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in pursuance of article 25 ICCPR on public participation. Indeed, a democratic and equitable international order requires participation by all concerned stakeholders in decision-making and respect for due process, which can best be achieved through international solidarity and a human rights approach to the solution of all problems, including financial crises. It is disappointing that the IMF and the EU have failed to reach a solution that does not require additional retrogressive austerity measures. Some leaders have expressed dissatisfaction with the idea of holding a referendum in Greece. Why? Referenda are in the best traditions of democratic governance. No one can expect the Prime Minister of Greece to renounce the commitments he made to the people who elected him with a clear mandate to negotiate a fair solution that does not dismantle Greek democracy and lead to further unemployment and social misery. Capitulating to an ultimatum imposing further austerity measures on the Greek population would be incompatible with the democratic trust placed on the Greek Prime Minister by the electorate. By nature, every State has the responsibility to protect the welfare of all persons living under its jurisdiction. This encompasses fiscal and budgetary sovereignty and regulatory space which cannot be trumped by outside actors, whether States, inter-governmental organizations or creditors. Article 103 of the UN Charter stipulates that the Charter provisions prevail over all other treaties, therefore no treaty or loan agreement can force a country to violate the civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights of its population, nor can a loan agreement negate the sovereignty of a State. Any agreement that would require such a violation of human rights and customary international law is contra bonos mores and hence null and void pursuant to Art. 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. A democratic and equitable international order requires a commercial and financial   regime that facilitates the realization of all human rights. Inter-governmental organizations must foster and under no conditions hinder the achievement of the plenitude of human rights. Foreign debt is no excuse to derogate from or violate human rights or to cause retrogression in contravention of articles 2 and 5 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. In 2013, the Independent Expert on foreign debt and human rights stated that the policy of austerity measures adopted to secure additional financing from the International Monetary Fund, the European Commission and the European Central Bank had pushed the Greek economy into recession and generally undermined the enjoyment of human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights. This is the moment for the international community to demonstrate solidaritywith the people of Greece, to respect their democratic will as expressed in a referendum, to proactively help them out of this financial crisis, which finds a major cause in the financial meltdown of 2007-08, for which Greece bears no responsibility. Indeed, democracy means self-determination, and self-determination often calls for referenda – also in Greece.” (*) Read the statement by the UN Independent Expert on foreign debt and human rights (2 June 2015) – “Greek crisis: Human rights should not stop at doors of international institutions, says UN expert”http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=16032&LangID=E ENDS The Independent Experts are part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. Special Procedures, the largest body of independent experts in the UN Human Rights system, is the general name of the Council’s independent fact-finding and monitoring mechanisms that address either specific country situations or thematic issues in all parts of the world. Special Procedures’ experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity. Learn more, log on to:  International solidarity: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Solidarity/Pages/IESolidarityIndex.aspx  International order:http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/IntOrder/Pages/IEInternationalorderIndex.aspx See the 2014 report on Greece by the Independent Expert on foreign debt: (A/HRC/25/50/Add.1): http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Development/IEDebt/Pages/CountryVisits.aspx
Alfred de Zayas United Nations Independent Expert on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order www.alfreddezayas.com

.

—————————————————————————

.

The U.N. Charter was signed in San Francisco on June 26, 1945 FOR PEACE?

SALUD. LET US MAKE SURE THIS INSTRUMENT for PEACE, THE UN .. WALKS ITS TALK.. IN ALL WAYS, ALWAYS for the good of planet, our Pachamama, and humanity.

The U.N. Charter was signed in San Francisco on June 26, 1945 at Veteran’s Memorial Hall. The charter took effect in October of that year. Seventy years ago, representatives from 50 war-weary countries gathered in San Francisco to create an international organization aimed at saving future generations from the “scourge of war:” the United Nations. ABRAZOS..MART

Invitación a participar de Consulta Regional de Rumbo a Tercera Conferencia Internacional de Financiación para el Desarrollo (FpD3)

Imagen de Encabezado Consulta FpD3 (1)

https://www.worldwewant2015.org/node/491203

Nuestro Norte Es El (SUR)

ck our work at web sites..***web del MUSEO AJA LINK: http://www.museoaja.org

.

————————————————————————-

.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon Speaks in SF as U.S. Supreme Court affirms:“Same –Sex Marriage is a Right”,

I had registered to attend this event awhile ago–

and what a historic moment as all of us gathered  on this historic day  at SF City Hall to hear UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon speak along with other dignitaries (Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, Gov. Jerry Brown & SF Mayor Ed Lee)  on the occasion of commemorating the 70th anniversary of the signing of the UN Charter.

And of course the electric excitement  was in the air as the Supreme Court Decision “Same-Sex Marriage is a Right” reverberated throughout the hall– where in  2004, Mayor Gavin Newsom gained national attention when he directed the San Francisco city–county clerk to issue marriage licenses in this very building.

Across  the hall from me up on the top balcony was Malala Yousafzai, Nobel Peace Prize winner from Pakistan.

​  ( I do miss working at the U.N. with other NGO’s).​

SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) — U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon is in San Francisco to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the signing of the United Nations Charter. He spoke exclusively with ABC7 News Anchor Cheryl Jennings before attending a series of events. “I whole-heartedly welcome this historic decision. This is a great step forward for human rights in the United States,” Moon told Jennings. The U.N. Charter was signed in San Francisco on June 26, 1945 at Veteran’s Memorial Hall. The charter took effect in October of that year. Moon has a deep connection to the Bay Area. He was an exchange student with the Red Cross, coming from war-torn Korea and stayed with a family in Novato. Seventy years ago, representatives from 50 war-weary countries gathered in San Francisco to create an international organization aimed at saving future generations from the “scourge of war:” the United Nations.   Mary Rose KaczorowskiConnect with me on: http://www.linkedin.com/in/mrk2008 mrkaczorowski@gmail.com @mrk46
" We are called to assist the Earth to heal her wounds and in the process heal our own - 
indeed to embrace the whole of creation in all its diversity, beauty and
 wonder. Recognizing that sustainable development, democracy and peace 
are indivisible is an idea whose time has come."-- Dr. Wangari Muta Maathai, 1 April 1940 - 25 September 2011
Mary Rose Kaczorowski

Connect with me on: http://www.linkedin.com/in/mrk2008 mrkaczorowski@gmail.com redwoodmary@gmail.com

.

.

———————————————————————————

.

WM UN News Centre Logo imagesO31Z6WEO

  Special event on the occasion of the International Day of Non-Violence – 2 Oct ’14

.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=48986#.VITNko10zZ4

.

 ———————————————————————————–

.

UN SR Extreme Poverty Report to UN HR Council 2015 – Gender-Based Discrimination & Economic Inequalities

WUNRN LISTSERVE <wunrn1@gmail.com> Date: Thu, Jun 18, 2015 Subject: [WUNRN] UN SR Extreme Poverty Report to UN HR Council 2015 – Gender-Based Discrimination & Economic Inequalities To: WUNRN ListServe <wunrn_listserve@lists.wunrn.com> WUNRN http://www.wunrn.com UN SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON EXTREME POVERTY REPORT TO UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL 2015  Gender-Based Discrimination and Economic Inequalities To access FULL 20-Page Special Rapporteur Report, go to http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session29/Pages/ListReports.aspx. Scroll down to A/HRC/29/31 and click on language translation of choice.

United Nations

A/HRC/29/31

 General Assembly Distr.: General

27 May 2015     Original: English Human Rights Council Twenty-ninth session Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development

               Report of the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston*

Summary

In the present report, the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights focuses on the relationship between extreme poverty and extreme inequality and argues that a human rights framework is critical in addressing extreme inequality. In the report, the Special Rapporteur provides an overview of the widening economic and social inequalities around the world; illustrates how such inequalities stifle equal opportunity, lead to laws, regulations and institutions that favour the powerful, and perpetuate discrimination against certain groups, such as women; and further discusses the negative effects of economic inequalities on a range of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. The Special Rapporteur also analyses the response of the international community, including the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, to the challenge of extreme inequality, finding that human rights are absent in the inequality debate and little has been done to follow up on any of the studies or recommendations emerging from the United Nations human rights system. To conclude, the Special Rapporteur proposes an agenda for the future for tackling inequality, including: committing to reduce extreme inequality; giving economic, social and cultural rights the same prominence and priority as are given to civil and political rights; recognizing the right to social protection; implementing fiscal policies specifically aimed at reducing inequality; revitalizing and giving substance to the right to equality; and putting questions of resource redistribution at the centre of human rights debates.

 25. Although many forms of discrimination are inherently unjust, the correlation between gender-based discrimination and economic inequalities deserves special mention since it potentially affects half of the world’s population. While both men and women may experience myriad inequalities, based on factors such as their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or disability, gender-based discrimination is too often seen to be almost exclusively a women’s problem. In its World Development Report 2012, the World Bank describes the forms of discrimination that still exist in many countries and that directly affect economic inequality between men and women. According to the World Bank, men and women still have different ownership rights in at least nine countries, and in many countries, women and girls still have fewer inheritance rights than men and boys.[1] In addition, women continue to fare badly in the labour market generally. A stocktaking by the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN-Women) shows that almost 80 countries maintain restrictions on the types of work that women are permitted to undertake. Also according to UN-Women, at the global level, women’s labour force participation rates have stagnated since the 1990s. Currently, only half of women are in the labour force compared to more than three quarters of men. Despite considerable regional variations, nowhere has this gender gap been eliminated: globally, women earn on average 24 per cent less than men. In one study of four countries, lifetime income gaps between women and men were estimated to be between 31 and 75 per cent.[2]

*   Late submission.

                     [1]   World Bank, World Development Report 2012: Gender Equality and Development, p. 159.
                     [2]   See United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women, Progress of the World’s Women 2015–2016: Transforming Economies, Realizing Rights (2015), p. 71.

======================== – To contact the list administrator, send a message to WUNRN_LISTSERVE-owner@lists.wunrn.com

.

———————————————————————————–

.

“Universal Rights, Differentiated Responsibilities: Safeguarding human rights beyond borders to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals”

Dear friends,

As we enter into the most intensive period of the FfD negotiations, you may be interested in this new briefing from CESR and TWN, which argues that human rights obligations can provide a fresh lens on one of the most entrenched stalemates in the negotiations: the respective responsibilities of governments North and South to achieve and to finance sustainable development.

We hope it can be a useful tool in showing how existing international law affirms that states have certain human rights duties which extend outside of their own territory. Though rarely invoked in post-2015 debates, these extraterritorial human rights obligations can provide normative grounding for the commitment to ‘policy coherence’ under the SDG goal on the global partnership for sustainable development,  while buttressing the principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities. Feel free to disseminate broadly.

Best,
Nicholas Lusiani
Director, Human Rights in Economic Policy
Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR) Centro por los Derechos Económicos y Sociales 162 Montague St Brooklyn, NY 11201 USA Email: nlusiani@cesr.org Skype: nicholas.lusiani Tel: +1 917 703 4963

Twitter: @NikoLusiani

Responsibilities beyond borders: unlocking the post-2015 stalemate on international cooperation As the UN holds two seminal, simultaneous meetings this week to determine the future of the post-2015 and the financing for development(FfD) agendas, the Center for Economic and Social Rights and the Third World Network are launching a new briefing which argues that human rights obligations can provide a fresh lens on one of the most entrenched stalemates in the negotiations: the respective responsibilities of governments North and South to achieve and to finance the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Click here to download the  briefing in pdf format

“Universal Rights, Differentiated Responsibilities: Safeguarding human rights beyond borders to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals” sets out how human rights provide a normative framework that can help delineate the duties states have to cooperate with each other in the achievement of sustainable development commitments. In particular, the obligations of states to respect, protect and fulfil human rights extraterritorially as well as domestically offer a clear set of common standards to assess whether governments are upholding their common but differentiated responsibilities relating to sustainable development, including those of wealthier countries regarding SDG financing and means of implementation. In an interconnected and interdependent world with vast disparities in power, capacity and means, states exert significant influence on sustainable development beyond their borders in a plethora of ways—be they through the cross-border spillover effects of national policy decisions, via their bilateral and multilateral policies on tax, trade, investment and finance, through their capacity to regulate multinational corporations over whom they have jurisdiction, or as voting member states in international financial institutions. The experience of the last fifteen years has shown how profoundly these factors limit the capacity of other national governments to realize their human rights and development commitments. International law—anchored in the UN Charter and various international human rights treaties and jurisprudence—affirms that states have certain human rights duties which extend outside of their own territory. Though rarely invoked in post-2015 debates, extraterritorial human rights obligations can shed useful light on current discussions around international cooperation and financing. They provide normative grounding for the commitment to ‘policy coherence’ under the SDG goal on the global partnership for sustainable development,  while buttressing the principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR), reaffirmed since the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, but whose scope has been hotly contested by some states in the context of the post-2015 and FfD negotiations. CESR and TWN’s joint briefing elucidates the legal sources for these extraterritorial obligations, their policy relevance for the post-2015 and FFD processes, and illustrates various good practices of governments in examining and addressing their impacts on human rights and sustainable development beyond their borders. It also proposes ten concrete ways in which states should align their sustainable development and financing commitments with these existing international duties. These include:

  1. Conducting sustainable development impact assessments of tax, trade and investment policies
  2. Ensuring mandatory human rights reporting by large businesses
  3. Establishing ex ante eligibility criteria for private sector partnerships
  4. Regulating financial markets more effectively
  5. Fulfilling development assistance commitments
  6. Diversifying public financing measures
  7. Establishing a debt workout mechanism
  8. Monitoring extraterritorial impacts as part of post-2015 and FfD review processes
  9. Promoting equitable and meaningful participation in the global partnership for sustainable development
  10. Ensuring transparent global governance

This timely contribution to the post-2015 and FfD negotiations is relevant to government negotiators and advocates seeking to break through the stale geo-political deadlock at the UN, and to bring to bear a more holistic and globally balanced perspective on human rights in the definition, implementation, financing and monitoring of these new sustainable development commitments.

  • To learn more about CESR’s work on the Sustainable Development Goals, click here.
  • To learn more about CESR’s work on tax justice and human rights, click here.
  • For media contacts and to arrange interviews, contact Luke Holland at lholland@cesr.org

.

———————————————————————————-

.

TWN Info Service: Shaping the treaty on business and human rights views from Asia and the Pacific

Title : TWN Info Service: Shaping the treaty on business and human rights – views from Asia and the Pacific Date : 11 May 2015

Contents: Dear friends and colleagues, We are pleased to share with you a posting by the Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development (APWLD) on the regional civil society consultation held on 1-3 May 2015 in Chiang Mai with regard to the process underway at the UN Human Rights Council to develop a binding instrument “to regulate, in international human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises”.  This was the first of three Regional Consultations with civil society. The Intergovernmental Working Group established under the Resolution will meet for the first time in July to begin its work of defining the content and form of the treaty. With best wishes, Third World Network


Shaping the treaty on business and human rights: views from Asia and the Pacific In Bougainville, Papua New Guinea, the catastrophic environmental damage and social upheaval caused by the Panguna copper mine sparked a decade-long civil that claimed thousands of lives, unleashed waves of gender-based violence, and tore apart the social fabric of the island. Talks are now underway to re-open (www.theaustralian.com.au/business/bougainville-mine-now-in-play-government-says/story-e6frg8zx-1227310920825) that mine. In Bangladesh, two years after 1100 people were killed by the collapse of Rana Plaza, garment workers continue to experience violence and intimidation (www.hrw.org/news/2015/04/22/bangladesh-2-years-after-rana-plaza-workers-denied-rights) for attempting to form unions and claim their right to decent work. Survivors and families of victims are still waiting for financial contributions from European and American companies that sourced their clothes from Rana Plaza to cover their medical expenses and mitigate the loss of their livelihoods. In the Philippines, the government continues to deploy military and paramilitary units long associated with human rights violations as part of an Investment Defence Force that ‘secures’ large-scale development projects—usually against resistance by indigenous peoples whose rights are routinely ignored. And across south-east Asia, foreign investors are free to avail themselves of Investor-State Dispute Settlement clauses when governments take measures in the public interest that are perceived to reduce their profits. Given the impunity with which corporations in Asia and the Pacific operate, the adoption by the UN Human Rights Council of a Resolution(http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/26/L.22/Rev.1) last year to elaborate a binding instrument “to regulate, in international human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises” provides a critical opportunity to advance corporate accountability. From 1-3 May, civil society gathered in Chiang Mai, Thailand, to discuss how to ensure that the process of developing a treaty responds to the needs of communities that experience human rights violations caused by businesses. The Consultation(http://www.escr-net.org/node/365756), which was co-convened by ESCR-Net, FIDH and the Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development, brought together affected communities from the region with an expert legal group (http://www.escr-net.org/node/365894) who will work collectively to develop proposals on how best to address gaps in corporate accountability. It is the first of three Regional Consultations with civil society to be convened over the next year as the Intergovernmental Working Group established under the Resolution begins its work of defining the content and form of the treaty. Civil society participants in Chiang Mai discussed the nature of human rights violations they have experienced as a result of corporate activity, the challenges they face in seeking a remedy, as well as the remedies and mechanisms that would be necessary to protect and fulfil their human rights. The legal group considered how these might shape proposals for State and corporate obligations under the treaty, including different theories of civil and criminal liability, as well as for effective means of redress at local, national and international levels. The Consultation also yielded strategies for networks and social movements in the region to use the treaty process to strengthen their own work around corporate accountability. Civil society participants are now working towards developing a unity statement setting out their key demands for the treaty. As the private sector’s anticipated role in financing and implementing the next development agenda continues to expand, the process of elaborating a new framework is an opportunity for civil society to challenge the narrative that assumes that corporate actors can be trusted—in the absence of binding regulation—to act in alignment with the objectives of equitable, sustainable development and human rights. The Intergovernmental Working Group established under the Resolution will meet for the first time in Geneva in July, beginning the next phase in this critical new process. For more information about this process, visit the treaty initiative website. (http://www.escr-net.org/node/365756) For more on APWLD’s work on extraterritorial obligations, visit their website.  (http://apwld.org/extraterritorial-human-rights-obligations/)

Copyright Third World Network - www.twnnews.net All Rights Reserved To unsubscribe, please CLICK HERE!

.

————————————————————————————-

.

UN Experts Say TPP and Fast Track Threaten Human Rights

.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/05/how-tpp-and-fast-track-threaten-human-rights

May 7, 2015 | By Maira Sutton

UN Experts Say TPP and Fast Track Threaten Human Rights

Prominent experts at the United Nations have now indicated that secretive trade agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) undermine human rights around the world, both because of the secretive, corporate-dominated process, and due to the substantive content of the provisions that arise out of these opaque negotiations.

Last week, an independent UN expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, Alfred de Zayas, said that thesecrecy surrounding trade negotiations is a threat to human rights because it disenfranchises and excludes the public from “the right and opportunity to take part in the conduct of public affairs.” He urges human rights impact assessments be undertaken immediately as part of the negotiation process, and goes on to say that fast tracking these deals to approval has a detrimental impact on a democratic, equitable world order.

We agree, and have been fighting Fast Track legislation in the U.S. to stop back-room negotiations that led to the TPP’s provisions become legitimized by the bill’s passage.

In his statements, he particularly singles out trade agreements’ investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions.

[...]

-- 
Maira Sutton
Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation - www.eff.org
maira@eff.org
Tel: 415.436.9333 x175

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/02/10/mairakey_0.txt
Fingerprint: 2F7D A3AE 708F 9560 C651 9FE6 3806 1A6A 2F37 ACED

Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en

——————————————————————————————— .

MARTA – CK : IMPORTANT INFO : [GlobalG8-G20] Investor vs Human Rights: Remember the MAI?

SALUDOS.. PLS SEE IMPORTANT INFO.. SHARE..MARTA

From: Nancy Alexander <Nancy.Alexander@us.boell.org> Date: Sun, May 3, 2015 Subject: [GlobalG8-G20] Investor vs Human Rights: Remember the MAI?
Dear Colleagues,
At the IMF-WB Spring meetings, 7 international financial institutions disclosed a plan for financing the SDGs entitled “FROM BILLIONS TO TRILLIONS: TRANSFORMING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE POST-2015 FINANCING FOR DEVELOPMENT: MULTILATERAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE”:
Paul Quintos of IBON International wrote an excellent commentary on the document, saying among other things that governments are outsourcing the “means of implementation” (MOI) of the SDGs to the private sector:
Meanwhile, little attention is being given to the reconstruction of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI).  In 1994-95, CSOs rose up in almost unprecedented numbers to organize and defeat the OECD’s MAI:
The update of the OECD’s Policy Framework on Investment (PFI) (equivalent to the MAI?) is being finalized next month:
The G20 is also finalizing its investment codes.  No doubt, such measures are seen as a necessary precondition to creating infrastructure as an “asset class”.
Could this also “grease the tracks” for international adoption of the PFI, as an MAI-like enforcable investment agreement, and broaden acceptance of investor protection provisions in other trade & investment agreements.
There is a lot of CSO activism on TTIP and TPP (although other agreement such as the Continental Free Trade Area (CFTA) of Africa are less watched:
http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/bridges-africa/news/the-continental-free-trade-area-whats-going-on).  But, for those of you that have an “eagle’s view” of civil society, is it the case that — while there is important work on strengthening the enforceability of human/earth rights –there is less collective work to slow/stop the evolution of investor protections that could override these human/earth rights?
We would welcome input as to how civil society is engaging with the update of the OECD’s PFI, implications of the PFI for the future of development, and points of leverage to affect whether or how investor protections are written into international law.
Looking forward to guidance on such questions,
Nancy
Nancy Alexander
Director, Economic Governance Program
Heinrich Boell Foundation
1432 K Street, #500
Washington, DC  20005-2540
WEB Page:
TWITTER: NanAlexanderHBS
MOBILE: 202-460-4588

.

——————————————————————————————- . No more Mary Janes: Justice for all migrant workers! This statement can also be found at: http://aprnet.org/?p=267 APRN Statement on the latest developments on Mary Jane Veloso’s case 1 May 2015 ‘Collective action can indeed move mountains, serve justice for the marginalized.’ As we celebrate the International Workers’ Day, the Asia Pacific Research Network join CSOs and people’s movements around the world in rejoicing over the Indonesian government’s decision to delay the execution of Mary Jane Veloso, a 30-year old migrant worker convicted of smuggling drugs to Indonesia. This is a leap towards delivering justice to her case. APRN lauds the untiring advocacy of the activists and peoples movements in the Philippines, Indonesia, Hong Kong and various other countries to save Mary Jane’s life. We are grateful and inspired by the outpour of international solidarity extended by people from all walks of life from all over the world, who did not give up even when it seems there was no more hope. We are Mary Jane Mary Jane Veloso is the daughter of sugarcane workers in Hacienda Luisita, a plantation in the Philippines owned by the President’s family. Having been raised in a poor, peasant family, Mary Jane married at the age of 17. To provide for her two sons, she was forced to work as a domestic helper in Dubai in 2009, where she stayed only for 10 months. She returned to the Philippines after her own employer attempted to rape her. After months of not being able to find employment in the Philippines, a family friend took Mary Jane with her to Malaysia under the promise of employment as a domestic worker, only to be told upon arrival that the job was not available. Mary Jane’s recruiter then sent her to a 7-day holiday to Indonesia. She discovered that she was tricked into bringing 2.6 kilograms of heroin when the Yogyakarta airport found the drugs sewn into the lining of her luggage that was bought for her. Mary Jane was convicted of drug smuggling in that same year and was sentenced death by firing squad. Like others coming from poor families in developing countries, Mary Jane is a victim of the unjust development paradigm that breeds structural inequality and enriches a few at the expense of the larger portion of society. Like other women migrant workers, she is a victim of the neoliberal economic model that systematically disposes marginalized communities and families, turning them into cheap, disposable labor, and pushing them out of their own countries to find means of survival away from their loved ones. In Mary Jane’s case, her family’s landlessness and the lack of jobs in the Philippines forced her into migration. Like other Filipino migrant workers, she is a victim of the country’s labor export policy, which systematically disposes people to work as domestic helpers, or skilled laborers, whose billions of remittances keep the Philippine economy afloat. Integration for Whom? What does the future hold for migrant workers like Mary Jane in an integrated ASEAN? The ASEAN Economic Community blueprint for integration is a recipe for heightened trade liberalization and increase of corporate power, which can destroy local economies and people’s sovereignty over their country’s resources. With the proposed free flow of goods, labor, capital and investments, corporations can easily replace local labor with cheap foreign goods and/or move their operations to other countries with lower wages, weaker labor laws and less strict environmental regulations. This can depress wages, cause job losses and fuel forced migration among workers especially in developing ASEAN countries. Low-skilled migrant workers can face discrimination and abuse in a country where there is a growing need for skilled workers. In the bid to attract more TNC investments, ASEAN member states are giving corporations stronger protection such as stronger intellectual property rights, investment defense forces, and the investor-state dispute settlement, which gives corporations the right to sue governments if their profits are in danger because of certain legislation even if they uphold people’s rights and welfare. This can spell grave consequences for labor rights and the people’s welfare in general. For example, French company Veola sued Egypt for increasing the country’s minimum wage. The Fight Continues The global push to save Mary Jane earned her a temporary lease on life. The new challenge for CSOs and peoples movements is to ultimately acquit Veloso and serve justice not only for her but also for other victims of human trafficking and illegal recruitment. The bigger challenge is to push for Development Justice to do away with the current model of economic development and integration which do not respect the people’s sovereignty and human rights.  Development Justice is a transformative framework for development that aims to reduce inequalities of wealth, power, and resources between countries, between rich and poor, and between men and women. The International Workers’ Day reminds us that the indeed, collective struggle can bring positive, tangible change for the people and that the victories that were gained for workers all over the world need to protected from the neoliberal onslaught. Together with people’s movements and CSOs across Asia and the Pacific, APRN calls to: -        Abolish labor export policies -        Respect human rights and protect migrant workers and their families -        Push for economic development that will benefit the people instead of corporations -       Development Justice now!

——————————————————————————————————– . Video of statement on Trade Agreements Dear friends, Sharing with you the video of a short statement made by Tessa Kahn of APWLD on trade agreements during last week’s post-2015 negotiation session on behalf of APWLD, the Women’s Major Group, and the Women’s Working Group on Financing for Development. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4o9ibsXUQk It would be great if you could share the video widely! Warmest wishes, — You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Campaign for People’s Goals for Sustainable Development

———————————————————————–

 .

Forthcomin​g Young Leaders Forums for 2015

 .

Ruud Lubbers, Former Prime Minister of the Netherlands

Youtube Interview 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1ksYTdeRSE&feature=youtu.be

.

.

WM Pics EU Ruud-Lubbers

<a href="/channel/UC-h_GVWc9uHRzyLFJtiTwgw" data-sessionlink="ei=FHeEVNe6PMyCcoWqgcAC" data-name="" data-ytid="UC-h_GVWc9uHRzyLFJtiTwgw">Institute for Cultural Diplomacy</a>

.

———————————————————-

.

Recommend the Integration of the Elimination of Racism in the Framework of the UN SDGs Agenda – A Position Paper

10km3x2. GEOCODED spatial transparent metric

FYI…
Contact: Tamra Raven <tamraraven@me.com>

———————————————————————–

.

Thanks for adding your name! Now, can you make sure your friends have a chance to send a message to Gov. Pence, too? Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Or forward this link: http://my.democrats.org/Discrimination-is-Unacceptable Thanks.

————————————————————————-.

 .

NAN Logo

National Action Network

https://www.facebook.com/nationalactionnetwork

 

http://nationalactionnetwork.net/

http://nationalactionnetwork.net/events-2/

http://nationalactionnetwork.net/convention-2015/

.

.

Rev. Charles White

http://nationalactionnetwork.net/about/staff/rev-charles-l-white-jr/

.

——————————————————–

.

 Migrant Domestic Workers and SDGs

Hi all,
Eni Lestari, who spoke in the February negotiations, has an   opinion piece in the Jakarta Post today that calls for          indicators on domestic work, unpaid care work and living wages within a broader call to dismantle the current economic model  and deliver Development Justice.

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015/03/31/value-our-labor-and-rights-domestic-workers.html

        –Kate Lappin

Regional Coordinator
Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development (APWLD)
Ph: 66 53 284 527
Skype: apwldsec
APWLD: 25 years of women’s rights advocacy and activism
To post to this group, send email to Women_Major_Group@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

——————————————————————————

. .

.

Pics maya-angelou httpdreamz-newz.commaya-angelou-overleden

Dr. Maya Angelou – I Am Human

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePodNjrVSsk

.

Facing Evil With Dr. Maya Angelou

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewvcTjTejZ4

.

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PXdacSqvcA

 .

http://dreamz-newz.com/maya-angelou-overleden/

 

————————————————————————

Urgent Appeal for Action: Stop political vilification and harassment of HR and IP Rights Defenders in Ifugao, Cordillera, Philippines

March 19,        2015Urgent Appeal for  Action:         Stop        political vilification and harassment of human rights and indigenous        peoples’ rights defenders in Ifugao, Cordillera, Philippines

Dear      friends, We      are      appealing for your support to raise concern and denounce the      heightened      incidents of political vilification, surveillance and harassment      against      members and leaders of the Ifugao Peasant Movement (IPM), barangay[i]    officials, local organizations and indigenous people’s rights      advocates. As      peace loving      citizens, we firmly believe that political vilification is an      outright      violation      of the basic rights of individuals to freely express their      political      beliefs      and to join organizations advancing people’s and sectoral rights.      Moreover, political      vilification is a real threat to the lives and security of the      people      subjected      to it. We      are alarmed      and convinced that the intensity of threats and political      vilification      are      serious warnings of actual arrest, detention and even graver forms      of      human      rights violations. The Philippine government’s counter-insurgency      policy called      Oplan Bayanihan deliberately associates human rights defenders,      activists and      civilians as members or supporters of the revolutionary armed      group New      Peoples      Army (NPA) to condition the public that they are “enemies of the      State”       or       “terrorists” and thus serves as a prelude or justification to      illegal      arrests      based on trumped up charges or even extrajudicial killings and      enforced      disappearance. Serious concern has to be raised against this. ·                Starting from      the last quarter of 2014 up to the present, several political      vilification      materials were posted on social media groups, such as Facebook, in      Ifugao      province labeling the staff of IPM, barangay officials and members      of      local      people’s organizations and advocates of indigenous peoples rights      as      members of      the NPA. Among the      IPM members and staff      tagged as members of      NPA are: Nestor Peralta, Claudine Panayo, Billy Karty, Ben      Calingayan,      and      Brandon Lee. Active barangay officials and local members of      people’s      organizations are also vilified, including Edwin Bumolyad,      barangay      captain of      Montabiong, Lagawe, Ifugao; Nonoy Bangtiwen, a member of the      barangay      council      of Tulludan, Tinoc; and Dick Tangid, a member of the barangay      council      of Tupaya,      Lagawe and the current vice chair of IPM; Ricardo Mayumi and      several      others.      Engr. James Tayaban, a human rights defender, is also included in      the      vilification materials. The      materials also lump almost      all party lists,      peoples organizations and non-government organizations working and      serving the      province of Ifugao as communist fronts. Among the listed      organizations      are:      Bayan Muna, Anakpawis, Alliance of Concerned Teachers, Cordillera      People’s      Alliance, Center for Development Programs in the Cordillera,      Montanosa      Research      and Development Center, Amianan Salakniban, Katinnulong Dagiti      Umili      iti      Amianan, Tebtebba, Igorota Foundation and more. ·                This is      not the first time that intense surveillance, harassment and      political      vilification happened in Ifugao targeting activists and      development      workers. In      October 2012, the 86th IBPA based in Tinoc, Ifugao      released      a copy      of their so-called “Target List”. This document listed 28      individuals –       development workers, activists and government employees. William      Bugatti was      then no. 21 in the list. He was extrajudicially killed on March      25,      2014. On 26      February 2014, posters      with the heading “Rupa      Ken Nagan ti NPA nga Agsusuweldo” (Faces and Names of the New      People’s      Army      Receiving Salaries) were posted by State security forces and their      agents in      the market and waiting sheds of various municipalities/towns in      Ifugao      province.      These posters unjustly tagged some of the staff of the Cordillera      People’s      Alliance and party lists as enemies of the state. The      labeling      and tagging of these organizations and individuals are malicious,      baseless and      unfounded. It is unjust that those who bring services to far-flung      communities      of farmers and indigenous peoples are vilified and their lives      threatened. Activists,      development workers, non-government organizations and people’s      organizations assist      in providing the much needed social services and livelihood      assistance      to local      communities and sectors suffering from severe poverty and      government      neglect.      It is condemnable that human rights workers are being silenced by      the      State      whose mandate is to uphold and defend human rights. Recommended Actions: Please      send      letters      of concern, emails or fax messages calling for: 1.      An      independent investigation of the surveillance, threats and      harassment      against      human rights workers and activists in the Cordillera region,      particularly in      Ifugao province. 2.      An end to      political vilification of people’s organizations, activists,      development      workers, and human rights defenders maliciously tagged as “enemies      of      the      State” or “terrorists” in the Cordillera region and the      Philippines.       3.      The Aquino      administration to withdraw its counter-insurgency program Oplan      Bayanihan which      targets innocent and unarmed civilians and activists.       4.      The resumption      of peace negotiations between the Republic of the Philippines and      the      National      Democratic Front as a means to achieve just and lasting peace. 5.      The Aquino      administration to implement and uphold the Universal Declaration      of      Human      Rights, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples      (UNDRIP), and various      human rights treaties and instruments that the Philippine      government is      a party      or signatory of. Please      send      your      communications to: H.E.        Benigno C. Aquino III       President      of      the      Republic           Malacañang Palace,           JP Laurel St., San Miguel       Manila       Philippines       Voice:      (+632)      564      1451 to 80       Fax:      (+632)      742-1641      / 929-3968       E-mail:       op@president.gov.ph Sec. Teresita Quintos-Deles       Presidential      Adviser      on      the Peace Process       Office      of      the      Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (OPAPP)       7th       Floor         Agustin Building      I       Emerald      Avenue           Pasig City 1605       Voice:+63      (2)      636      0701 to 066       Fax:+63      (2)      638      2216 stqd.papp@opapp.gov.ph Ret.        Lt. Gen. Voltaire T. Gazmin       Secretary,      Department      of      National Defense       Room      301       DND Building,       Camp         Emilio      Aguinaldo,       E. de      los Santos Avenue, Quezon City       Voice:+63(2)      911-6193      / 911-0488 / 982-5600       Fax:+63(2)      982-5600       Email:       osnd@philonline.com, dnd.opla@gmail.com Atty. Leila De Lima       Secretary,      Department      of      Justice           Padre Faura St., Manila       Direct      Line      521-1908       Trunkline      523-84-81      loc.211/214       Fax:       (+632) 523-9548       Email:       lmdelima@doj.gov.ph, lmdelima.doj@gmail.com,       lmdelima.doj2@gmail.com Hon. Loretta Ann P. Rosales       Chairperson,      Commission      on      Human Rights       SAAC      Bldg.,      UP      Complex           Commonwealth Avenue       Diliman,       Quezon City, Philippines       Voice:      (+632)      928-5655,      926-6188       Fax:       (+632) 929 0102       Email:       chair.rosales.chr@gmail.com,     lorettann@gmail.com Hon. Denis Habawel       Governor,      Province      of      Ifugao       Capitol      Plaza,      Lagawe,      Ifugao, Philippines       Email: denisbhabawel@yahoo.com Hon. Teodoro Baguilat       Congressman             Ifugao      Lone      District      Representative       Rm.      N-315,      North Wing, Constitution Hills 1126       Quezon      City,      Philippines       Telefax :      (+632)      931 5106       Email :       gstring_teddy@yahoo.com Rep.        Guillermo        Romarate Jr.       Chair       Committee on      Human Rights       House of      Representatives         3/F Ramon V. Mitra Buillding, House of Representatives,        Quezon City           Telephone          no.          9315001 local 7157, Telefax:          9324803 Rep.        Nancy Catamco       Chair       National Cultural Communities      Committee       House of Representatives         3/F Annex Building, House of Representatives, Quezon City           Telephone          no.          932-3909

 This            APPEAL FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION is prepared by the CORDILLERA            PEOPLES            ALLIANCE. Please        send        a copy of your email/mail/fax        to the above-named government officials to our address below: Cordillera          Peoples Alliance         Postal Address: 3F 55 Ferguson Road, Baguio City 2600,        Philippines         Telephone No. +6374 4229754         Fax No. +6374 4437159         Email: cpa@cpaphils.org         Webpage: www.cpaphils.org         Facebook: Cordillera Peoples Alliance Cordillera Human          Rights          Alliance         2F 55 Ferguson        Road Baguio        City 2600         E-mail:         chra.karapatan@gmail.com    Urgent Alert- Stop political vilification and harassment of HR and IP rights defenders in Ifugao, Cordillera, Philippines . .

——————————————————————————-

.

Urgent Appeal for Action: Stop political vilification and harassment of HR and IP Rights Defenders in Ifugao, Cordillera, Philippines

March 19, 2015  Urgent Appeal for Action: 

Stop political vilification and harassment of human rights and

indigenous peoples’ rights defenders in Ifugao, Cordillera, Philippines

  Dear friends, We are appealing for your support to raise concern and denounce the heightened incidents of political vilification, surveillance and harassment against members and leaders of the Ifugao Peasant Movement (IPM), barangay[i] officials, local organizations and indigenous people’s rights advocates. As peace loving citizens, we firmly believe that political vilification is an outright violation of the basic rights of individuals to freely express their political beliefs and to join organizations advancing people’s and sectoral rights. Moreover, political vilification is a real threat to the lives and security of the people subjected to it. We are alarmed and convinced that the intensity of threats and political vilification are serious warnings of actual arrest, detention and even graver forms of human rights violations. The Philippine government’s counter-insurgency policy called Oplan Bayanihan deliberately associates human rights defenders, activists and civilians as members or supporters of the revolutionary armed group New Peoples Army (NPA) to condition the public that they are “enemies of the State” or “terrorists” and thus serves as a prelude or justification to illegal arrests based on trumped up charges or even extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearance. Serious concern has to be raised against this.

  • Starting from the last quarter of 2014 up to the present, several political vilification materials were posted on social media groups, such as Facebook, in Ifugao province labeling the staff of IPM, barangay officials and members of local people’s organizations and advocates of indigenous peoples rights as members of the NPA.

Among the IPM members and staff tagged as members of NPA are: Nestor Peralta, Claudine Panayo, Billy Karty, Ben Calingayan, and Brandon Lee. Active barangay officials and local members of people’s organizations are also vilified, including Edwin Bumolyad, barangay captain of Montabiong, Lagawe, Ifugao; Nonoy Bangtiwen, a member of the barangay council of Tulludan, Tinoc; and Dick Tangid, a member of the barangay council of Tupaya, Lagawe and the current vice chair of IPM; Ricardo Mayumi and several others. Engr. James Tayaban, a human rights defender, is also included in the vilification materials. The materials also lump almost all party lists, peoples organizations and non-government organizations working and serving the province of Ifugao as communist fronts. Among the listed organizations are: Bayan Muna, Anakpawis, Alliance of Concerned Teachers, Cordillera People’s Alliance, Center for Development Programs in the Cordillera, Montanosa Research and Development Center, Amianan Salakniban, Katinnulong Dagiti Umili iti Amianan, Tebtebba, Igorota Foundation and more.

  • This is not the first time that intense surveillance, harassment and political vilification happened in Ifugao targeting activists and development workers. In October 2012, the 86th IBPA based in Tinoc, Ifugao released a copy of their so-called “Target List”. This document listed 28 individuals – development workers, activists and government employees. William Bugatti was then no. 21 in the list. He was extrajudicially killed on March 25, 2014.

On 26 February 2014, posters with the heading “Rupa Ken Nagan ti NPA nga Agsusuweldo” (Faces and Names of the New People’s Army Receiving Salaries) were posted by State security forces and their agents in the market and waiting sheds of various municipalities/towns in Ifugao province. These posters unjustly tagged some of the staff of the Cordillera People’s Alliance and party lists as enemies of the state. The labeling and tagging of these organizations and individuals are malicious, baseless and unfounded. It is unjust that those who bring services to far-flung communities of farmers and indigenous peoples are vilified and their lives threatened. Activists, development workers, non-government organizations and people’s organizations assist in providing the much needed social services and livelihood assistance to local communities and sectors suffering from severe poverty and government neglect. It is condemnable that human rights workers are being silenced by the State whose mandate is to uphold and defend human rights. Recommended Actions:  Please send letters of concern, emails or fax messages calling for: 1. An independent investigation of the surveillance, threats and harassment against human rights workers and activists in the Cordillera region, particularly in Ifugao province. 2. An end to political vilification of people’s organizations, activists, development workers, and human rights defenders maliciously tagged as “enemies of the State” or “terrorists” in the Cordillera region and the Philippines. 3. The Aquino administration to withdraw its counter-insurgency program Oplan Bayanihan which targets innocent and unarmed civilians and activists. 4. The resumption of peace negotiations between the Republic of the Philippines and the National Democratic Front as a means to achieve just and lasting peace. 5. The Aquino administration to implement and uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), and various human rights treaties and instruments that the Philippine government is a party or signatory of,. Please send your communications to:   H.E. Benigno C. Aquino III President of the Republic MalacañangPalace, JP Laurel St., San Miguel Manila Philippines Voice: (+632) 564 1451 to 80 Fax: (+632) 742-1641 / 929-3968 E-mail: op@president.gov.ph   Sec. Teresita Quintos-Deles Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (OPAPP) 7th FloorAgustinBuilding I Emerald Avenue PasigCity 1605 Voice:+63 (2) 636 0701 to 066 Fax:+63 (2) 638 2216 stqd.papp@opapp.gov.ph   Ret. Lt. Gen. Voltaire T. Gazmin Secretary, Department of National Defense Room 301 DNDBuilding, CampEmilio Aguinaldo, E. de los Santos Avenue, Quezon City Voice:+63(2) 911-6193 / 911-0488 / 982-5600 Fax:+63(2) 982-5600 Email: osnd@philonline.com, dnd.opla@gmail.com   Atty. Leila De Lima Secretary, Department of Justice Padre Faura St., Manila Direct Line 521-1908 Trunkline 523-84-81 loc.211/214 Fax: (+632) 523-9548 Email: lmdelima@doj.gov.ph, lmdelima.doj@gmail.com, lmdelima.doj2@gmail.com   Hon. Loretta Ann P. Rosales Chairperson, Commission on Human Rights SAAC Bldg., UP Complex Commonwealth Avenue Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines Voice: (+632) 928-5655, 926-6188 Fax: (+632) 929 0102 Email: chair.rosales.chr@gmail.com, lorettann@gmail.com   Hon. Denis Habawel Governor, Province of Ifugao Capitol Plaza, Lagawe, Ifugao, Philippines Email: denisbhabawel@yahoo.com   Hon. Teodoro Baguilat Congressman Ifugao Lone District Representative Rm. N-315, North Wing, Constitution Hills 1126 Quezon City, Philippines Telefax : (+632) 931 5106 Email : gstring_teddy@yahoo.com   Rep. Guillermo Romarate Jr. Chair Committee on Human Rights House of Representatives 3/F Ramon V. Mitra Buillding, House of Representatives, Quezon City Telephone no. 9315001 local 7157, Telefax: 9324803 Rep. Nancy Catamco Chair National Cultural Communities Committee House of Representatives 3/F Annex Building, House of Representatives, Quezon City Telephone no. 932-3909 This APPEAL FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION is prepared by the CORDILLERA PEOPLES ALLIANCE. Please send a copy of your email/mail/fax to the above-named government officials to our address below: Cordillera Peoples Alliance

Postal Address: 3F 55 Ferguson Road, Baguio City 2600, Philippines
Telephone No. +6374 4229754
Fax No. +6374 4437159
Email: cpa@cpaphils.org
Webpage: www.cpaphils.org
Facebook: Cordillera Peoples Alliance

Cordillera Human Rights Alliance 2F 55 Ferguson Road Baguio City 2600 E-mail: chra.karapatan@gmail.com [i] Barangay – smallest government administrative body in the Philippines

-- 

Cordillera Peoples Alliance
No. 55 Ferguson Road
Baguio City 2600, Philippines
Telephone No. +6374 4229754
Fax No. +6374 4437159
Email: cpa@cpaphils.org
Webpage: www.cpaphils.org
Facebook: Cordillera Peoples Alliance

 Urgent Alert- Stop political vilification and harassment of HR and IP rights defenders in Ifugao, Cordillera, Philippines

.

———————————————————————————-

.

URGENT APPEAL TO STOP BLOCKING OF THOUBAL RIVER/FILLING UP OF MAPITHEL DAM & TO DESIST FROM FORCED EVICTION IN MAPITHEL VALLEY,MANIPUR

1)      Honorable Prime Minister South Block, Raisina Hill, New Delhi-110011 Phone +91-11-23012312/+91-11-23012312
      Fax +91-11-23019545/23016857
2        Mr. Okram Ibobi Singh Chief Minister of Manipur New Secretariat Building Bapupara, Imphal, Manipur INDIA Fax + 91 385 2451398 E-mail: cmmani@hub.nic.in
3)      Chairperson, National Human Rights Commission
Faridkot House, Copernicus Marg,
New Delhi – 110001.
4)      Governor of Manipur, Raj Bhawan,
Imphal 795001, India Fax: +913852441812 Email: govmani@hub.nic.in
5)      The Minister,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
New Delhi, Government of India
Fax: 011- 23070577, 24625800
6)      The President,
Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)
Nibancho Centre Building 5-25
Niban-Cho, Chiyoda – KU
Tokyo, Japan 102 8022
Tel – 81 3 5226 6660 / 61 / 62/63
 
 
URGENT APPEAL TO STOP BLOCKING OF THOUBAL RIVER / FILLING UP OF MAPITHEL DAM RESERVOIR AND TO DESIST FROM FORCE EVICTION IN MAPITHEL VALLEY, MANIPUR
 
INCIDENT:  Displacement and survival threats due to filling up of Mapithel Dam Reservoir by blocking Thoubal River by IFCD, Government of Manipur
PERPETRATOR:  Irrigation and Flood Control Department, Government of Manipur
IDENTIFICATION OF VICTIMS:  Tangkhul Naga, Kuki and Meitei people of Manipur
DATE/TIME OF INCIDENT:      January 2015 and continuing        
SOURCE OF INFORMATION:  Mapithel Dam Affected Villages Organization, Citizens Concern for Dams and Development, Centre for Research and Advocacy, Manipur
EVENT DESCRIPTION:  The Irrigation and Flood Control Department, Government of Manipur commenced blocking the Thoubal River and filing up of the Mapithel Dam Reservoir from January 2015 onwards in a forceful attempt to commission the Mapithel dam of the Thoubal Multipurpose Hydroelectric Project, tentatively scheduled at March 2015. The filling up of Mapithel dam reservoir already submerged an extensive portion of the agriculture land, grazing ground, forest areas of Louphong and Chadong villages respectively. The entire Chadong Village, Lamlai Khunnou and other villages along Mapithel Hill range will be submerged once the water level rises. The filling of the dam reservoir without addressing the plights of affected communities and in an absence of holistic impact assessment of the Mapithel dam has already led to mental harassment and insecurity over the livelihood and survival of affected communities, belonging to the Tangkhul Naga and Kuki people, who will lose their agriculture land and survival sources.
The blocking of Thoubal River for filling up of Mapithel dam already led to drying up of Thoubal river in immediate downstream of Mapithel dam, such as Tumukhong, Itham, Moirangpurel and further down in Thoubal District. The villagers of immediate downstream villages, belonging to the Meitei people, are worried of extreme water shortage, for basic household communities. The villagers can no longer fish and collect sand stone brought down by the Thoubal River both in upstream and downstream portion of the River, which has been their main economic mainstay. Collection of firewood and seasonable food sources from nearby hills is disturbed as the forest areas has been destroyed for filling up the Mapithel dam and also due militarization. The Mapithel dam site is located in high seismic area and villagers in downstream areas of worried of dam break.
The ongoing filling up of the Mapithel dam reservoir is accompanied with full scale deployment of security forces of Government of India while subduing all affected peoples’ call and resistance against the blocking of the Thoubal River. Villagers strongly opposed the forceful filling up of Mapithel dam reservoir as a clear instance of undemocratic and anti indigenous peoples of development and has created a fear psychosis among the affected villagers.
The ongoing effort to finalize Mapithel dam construction is despite the fact that the National Green Tribunal is still considering the violation of Forest Rights under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and the Forest Rights Act, 2006.In clear procedural violations, the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF), Government of India accorded final Stage II Forest Clearance for Mapithel Dam only on 31st December 2013 after more than thirty years of project approval in 1980 without conducting any site visits into affected areas.
The ongoing move to complete Mapithel dam construction is amidst controversial and manipulative rehabilitation and resettlement process that has caused confusion, division and violation of affected indigenous communities’ rights. The Rehabilitation and Resettlement is being carried out in a piecemeal and divisive approach and already caused much controversy and human rights violations.
Due to the failure of the agreement on RR in 1993 and also due to the acknowledgement of the lapses and failure, the Government of Manipur constituted the Expert Review Committee (ERC) in 18 January 2008. However, the Government withdrew from the ERC process after seven rounds of talks, the last talk held in February 2011. The Government of Manipur forcefully began verification at Lamlai Khunou and Chadong Village from 29th October 2012 with security despite community objections. The verification based on Ukhrul District DC’s order dated 28 September 2012 and 26 March 2013 is a direct violation of the stay order of the Gauhati High Court on 25 April 2012.
The construction of Mapithel Dam is still fraught with the absence of a detailed impact assessment on communities with their rightful participation, especially impacts on forest land and other livelihood sources and further down in the downstream portion of Thoubal River. The Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA) is preparing to finance a Water Supply scheme for Imphal Town from the Mapithel dam. JICA’s support will only facilitate causing more inconveniences, harassment and human rights violations on communities affected by Mapithel dam.
The plight of the affected communities continues to remain uncertain as the project authorities continue to fill the Dam Reservoir with militarization of their land and suppression of their democratic rights. Mapithel dam today, represents a clear symbol of development injustice.
Background:  Manipur witnesses series of mega dams commissioned in 1980’s and 1990’s which are either failed or seriously underperforming. The Khuga Dam, the Singda Dam, the Khoupum and the Loktak Project have all failed to fulfil its objectives. Indeed, some of the dams like Khoupum dam failed to provide irrigation and power.  The Singda dam failed to generate a single unit of its intended 750 KW of power. Similar is the case with Khuga Dam, which failed to generate single unit of power, despite its component to generate 4.5 MW of power. The Government of Manipur instead pursued for construction of more hydroelectric power projects under the controversial Manipur Hydroelectric Power Policy, 2012. Of late, International Financial Institutions like the Asian Development Bank, the World Bank and the Japanese Bank for International Cooperation etc are financing energy and allied infrastructure projects, and thus facilitating development injustice.
Demands: The Mapithel Dam Affected Villagers Organization, the Citizens Concern for Dams and Development and the Centre for Research and Advocacy, Manipur would like to request your good office to kindly intervene in the following demands to urge upon the Government of Manipur and the Government of India to:
1)      Stop blocking the Thoubal River and filling up of the Mapithel Dam reservoir
2)      To stop Mapithel dam construction till all rehabilitation process acceptable to affected communities and their free, prior and informed consent is taken with.
3)      Resume the Expert Review Committee set up in the year 2008 by Government of Manipur
4)      All militarization process that support Mapithel dam construction should halt immediately.
5)      Stop all forms of involuntary displacement of indigenous peoples affected by Mapithel Dam in Manipur as per UN Declaration on Indigenous Peoples Rights, 2007 and recommendations of the World Commission on Dams, 2000
6)      Further, to urge the Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA) not to finance the Integrated Water Supply Scheme, to draw water from Mapithel dam for Imphal Town.
Thanks
Ayodele Akelel
Executive Director Labour,Health and Human Rights Development Centre Not-For-Profit,Non Governmental Organisation
Registered as Incorporated Trustees in Nigeria
An Organisation in Special Consultative Status with United Nations Economic and Sociakl Council.ECOSOC,since 2014

Email:lhahrdev@yahoo.com

Appeal_Stop Mapithel Dam construction_stop blocking Thoubal River 20 Feb 15

—————————————————————————————

WM Peace Campaign CPGSD logo 2015: Time to End the Corporate War on the Poor. Time for Development Justice – See more at: http://peoplesgoals.org/2015-time-to-end-the-corporate-war-on-the-poor-time-for-development-justice/#sthash.LE3CpNoV.dpuf   WM Campaigne calendarPics 2015 War on the Poor

.

2015 CPGSD Calendar for Download

. Good day everyone!

Our 2015 calendar and graphics are now available for download at http://bit.ly/1IhrWEJ. We encourage you to translate the calendar to your languages and disseminate them among your networks and post on your websites. Likewise, please check our Facebook Album page for our graphics and memes and share them on your social media pages and personal accounts.
Feel free to send us an email should you have comments and suggestions. Sincerely,
Ivan Phell Enrile

 

——————————————————————————

.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ja-suYC1as

.

—————————————

.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrAacgyts40&feature=c4-overview&list=UU5_HpKvZl7Oxr_UimTfC2Jg

                 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f59myTReFnE&feature=c4-overview&list=UU5_HpKvZl7Oxr_UimTfC2Jg

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAUt89FxAFM&index=274&list=UU5_HpKvZl7Oxr_UimTfC2Jg

http://www.denhaagvrederecht.nl/vrede-en-recht.htm

http://www.justpeacethehague.com/nl/#/home

—————————————————————————————

  Ms. Shamina de Gonzaga Chair, 61st Annual DPI/NGO Conference & Former Special Advisor on NGO relations – ECOSOC to the President United Nations General Assembly 2005-2008 Co-founder, what moves you?

 

http://whatmovesyou.net/artwork/687366_Human_Rights_Conference.html

www.whatmovesyou.net   /   www.indocumentales.com

 

—————————————————————————————-

  [APMM Statement on Erwiana’s victory (10/02/2015)

Congratulations to Erwiana and  migrant workers fighting for    justice!

 WM UN Justice Erwiana APMM

10 February                  2015 Press Statement For                  reference: Aaron Ceradoy, program officer Contact                  number: (852)27237536   Erwiana’s                win is the victory of the migrant movement   A victory for Erwiana, a                victory for all migrant                workers.  The Asia Pacific Mission for                Migrants congratulates                Erwiana Sulistyaningsih as the Wanchai District Court                has given her employer                the guilty verdict on 18 charges, including assault,                inflicting bodily harm,                criminal intimidation, failure to pay wages on time, and                failure to give rest                day and statutory holidays.  We are happy for Erwiana                because she deserves                justice. We have seen how she has risen from being a                victim to becoming a                survivor, to stand up and fight for her case. She has                also agreed to become an                active part of a campaign that calls for justice not                only for Erwiana but also                for other abused and exploited migrant workers.  Erwiana’s victory is the                victory of everyone who                led, joined and participated in the campaign, service                providers like the                Mission For Migrant Workers and Bethune House Migrant                Women’s Refuge who helped                her throughout her case, and many people who in their                own little way expressed                support to the campaign and made Erwiana’s fight their                fight.  The Justice for Erwiana,                Justice for All Migrant                Workers campaign is the expression of the collective                effort of many migrant                organizations as well as institutions and supporters in                Hong Kong to raise                awareness, support and active participation among the                people to call for                justice for Erwiana. This only shows that the collective                struggle is indeed apt                and correct. In a global system that means to exploit                rather than to empower,                to prioritize business profits over the interests and                rights of peoples, to                struggle and to fight is justified.  Erwiana is among the many                who are fighting                exploitation and oppression caused by neoliberal                globalization. It is the                imposition of policies under neoliberal globalization                that cause poverty,                unemployment, landlessness and many other problems that                force Erwiana and many                others to migrate to look for work. It is the same                policies and framework that                cause the commodification and exploitation of migrant                workers like Erwiana. It                is for this reason that the likes of Erwiana join the                growing migrant movement                and fight.  Erwiana’s victory will add   to the many victories of   the growing international migrant movement and will   serve as an inspiration to   the heightening resolve of many migrant workers to collectively struggle for   protection of rights, for justice, and an end to   modern-day slavery. #

  Mr. Ramon Bultron               Managing Director Asia Pacific Mission for Migrants (APMM)               Office Address: G/F, No. 2 Jordan Road, Kowloon, Hong Kong              SAR               Telephone: +852-2723-7536               Fax: +852-2735-4559               Email: apmm@apmigrants.org, ramon@apmigrants.org

 

 

—————————————————————————————-

Faiths United Against Nuclear Weapons

SGI Peace News Newsletter introducing Soka Gakkai International (SGI)’s activities to promote a culture of peace

WM SGI Peace green logo

December, 2014 (Vol. 4)

Faiths United Against Nuclear Weapons  Vienna, Austria, Dec 6, 2014

SGI, together with ICAN (International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons) and the World Council of Churches, in cooperation with Religions for Peace, organized an interfaith panel discussion titled “Faiths United Against Nuclear Weapons: Kindling hope, mustering courage” as part of the ICAN Civil Society Forum held prior to the Vienna Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons. Panelists included individuals from Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism who exchanged their respective views on the theme. A joint statement calling for a nuclear-weapons-free world was issued as an outcome statement representing moral and ethical voices from the faith communities which was later officially announced at the intergovernmental conference ….more  *Joint statement can be accessed from here:  http://www.bmeia.gv.at/fileadmin/user_upload/Zentrale/Aussenpolitik/Abruestung/HINW14/Statements/HINW14_Statement_Faith_Communities.pdf *See also “Faiths United Against Nuclear Weapons” by IPS:  http://www.ipsnews.net/2014/12/faiths-united-against-nuclear-weapons/Promoting ESD at UNESCO World Conference  Nagoya, Japan, Nov 10-12, 2014

SGI organized a showing of the exhibition “Seeds of Hope: Visions of sustainability, steps toward change” at the UNESCO World Conference on Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) at the Nagoya Congress Center.  SGI also supported a workshop “Looking back to forge the future: Lessons learned from values-based ESD experiences” sponsored by Earth Charter International (ECI) as a side event. ….moreForum on Global Citizenship  New York, US, Nov 18, 2014

SGI, together with the UN Alliance of Civilizations (UNAOC) and the Permanent Mission of Sri Lanka to the UN supported a Forum on Global Citizenship organized by Inter Press Service (IPS). Held in New York, the forum focused on two themes–global citizenship as a pathway to the culture of peace and the integration of global citizenship in international relations. …more  SGI also participated in the conference “Toward a World Citizens Movement: Learning from the Grassroots” in Johannesburg which highlighted the need for new ways of learning and thinking on global citizenship …moreOn Eliminating Gender-based Violence  Madrid, Spain, Nov 14, 2014

SGI-Spain held a lecture titled “Theory and Practice: The daily struggle against gender-based violence” in commemoration of the UN International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women (November 25). Professor Concha Roldán of the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) spoke on gender-based violence from a historical perspective and highlighted that factors influencing violence against women have become more complex today. The roots of modern-day gender-based violence can, she said, be found in the historical subjugation and exclusion of women from civil and political arenas ….moreNGO Forum on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality  Geneva, Switzerland, Nov 3-5, 2014

In preparation for the upcoming 20th anniversary of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action (Beijing+20) in 2015, regional reviews were held globally, preceded by NGO gatherings. At the Geneva NGO Forum for Beijing+20, SGI and Soroptimist International co-organized an interactive roundtable on the education and training of women.  The roundtable was conducted in 3 groups with different topics: literacy and access to education, the training and continuation of education, and non-discrimination in education and training. Recommendations from the discussions were incorporated into the Geneva NGO Forum’s Report to Member States ….moreThis bimonthly SGI Peace News provides recent updates on SGI’s public educational activities to raise people’s awareness on issues such as nuclear disarmament, human rights, sustainable development, interfaith cooperation and humanitarian assistance.

Editorial Team, SGI Peace News

 

www.sgi.org  www.peoplesdecade.org  E-mail:contact@peacesgi.org

—————————————————————————————-

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

WM Martin Luther King usa flag foto photo7730

WM MLK have A Dream images90TNUM8G

WM Martin Luther King I Have a dream imagesWJVN48ZF

http://www.biography.com/people/martin-luther-king-jr-9365086#synopsis

   03-12-2014 Press Release                                     24-11-2014 Press Release

INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR THE ELIMINATION OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Violence against women and girls is one of the most widespread violations of human rights. Young women around the globe possess the collective power to change their lives, their communities and the world we live in. As they face daily challenges, young women are continually developing innovative, effective ways to… Read more

INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR TOLERANCE

17-11-2014 Press Release

INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR TOLERANCE

On this International Day of Tolerance, I call on all people and governments to actively combat fear, hatred and extremism with dialogue, understanding and mutual respect. Let us advance against the forces of division and unite for our shared future.  -UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon Tolerance is the foundation for mutual respect… Read more  WM Marin Luther King Pics MTE5NTU2MzE2MjgwNDg5NDgz

Martin Luther King Jr. Biography

Civil Rights Activist, Minister (1929–1968)

Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Monday January 19, 2015

BIO: http://www.biography.com/people/martin-luther-king-jr-9365086#synopsis  http://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/us/martin-luther-king-day http://www.biography.com/news/black-history-civil-rights-activists-alabama-video   http://www.njmomsguide.com/fun-things-to-do-on-martin-luther-kings-day-january-20-2014

 —————————————————————

 WM Miles Monroo Pics

Myles Munroe – The Power Of Purpose (Azusa ’90) – Full Video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yl-8CN0KaPQ

——————————————————————————-

-

WM USA M. Hgandi Lessons images0NYOYL4K

WM UN Ghandi Jr. imagesSQATSULY

 

Honouring Gandhi’s legacy, Deputy Secretary-General reaffirms power of peaceful protest

WM GandhiTour_TV

 https://www.facebook.com/Gandhitour/app_142371818162

    http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/un-chief-invokes-gandhi-s-message-for-peace-and-nonviolence-604683

http://www.in.one.un.org/who-we-are/mahatma-gandhi-institute-of-education-for-peace-and-sustainable-development-mgiep

.

———————————————————————————–

 

December 8, 2014

United Nations Student Conference on Human Rights 2014 Youth Activists for Human Rights – Volunteering for a Better World

http://gem-ngo.org/UNSCHR_Day_1.html

 ————————————————————————————————— Dear everyone, Please find below our network’s statement for commemoration of        the International Human Rights Day on Dec. 10th. The statement        highlights the need to uphold human rights in the post-2015        agenda amid increasing corporate attacks  to people’s rights and        creeping influence in development processes and negotiations.        Please widely circulate among your networks and share on your        websites and social media accounts. The statement is available        at       http://peoplesgoals.org/address-corporate-wrongs-and-uphold-human-rights-in-the-post-2015-agenda/   Address Corporate Wrongs and Uphold Human Rights in the        Post-2015 Agenda See more at: http://peoplesgoals.org/address-corporate-wrongs-and-uphold-human-rights-in-the-post-2015-agenda/#sthash.IdRCtmDj.dpuf     —————————————————————————————————–

 OPINION: On Reproductive Rights, Progress with Concerns

Click here for the online version of this IPS newsletter    Click here for the online version of this IPS newsletter

————————————————————————————————–

  CFS calls to uphold human rights in Manipur  Dear Colleagues, Our colleagues in Manipur are currently experiencing harassment, illegal arrests and killings from the military and police troops deployed as they protest against the militarization of their villages. Please see below the PCFS statement calling to uphold human rights in Manipur.  APVVU, TVVVU, National Center for Labour, NAPM, and AP Matya Karual Union (Fisher Federation) have already endorsed the statement. The statement will also be sent to different actors in the Indian Government and Human Rights Commission. Please read and circulate widely. Also looking forward to your endorsements. Thank you very much. Best regards, April   PCFS calls to uphold human rights in Manipur   Dear Colleagues, Our colleagues in Manipur are currently experiencing harassment, illegal arrests and killings from the military and police troops deployed as they protest against the militarization of their villages. Please see below the PCFS statement calling to uphold human rights in Manipur.  APVVU, TVVVU, National Center for Labour, NAPM, and AP Matya Karual Union (Fisher Federation) have already endorsed the statement. The statement will also be sent to different actors in the Indian Government and Human Rights Commission. Please read and circulate widely. Also looking forward to your endorsements. Thank you very much. Best regards, April 15 September 2014  The People’s Coalition on Food Sovereignty (PCFS) strongly condemns the brutal dispersal which led to the firing by the Manipur Police to the protesters against the imposition of Section 144 of the CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure) and to end militarization at Ukhrul District headquarters last August 30. The police have opened fire and tear gas to the protesting crowd killing at least two and about ten were injured.   The two casualties were named Ramkashing Vashi (26) and Mayopam Ramror (31), both protesting against the heavy militarization in the area.   The Centre for Research and Advocacy in Manipur (CRAM), a member of PCFS, has condemned the incident and the brutality of the military and the police to their people. “The unfortunate incident at Ukhrul Town on August 30 is just an extensive of the barbarism and despotic rule unleashed by the law enforcing agencies of the Government of Manipur,” said by Sanaton Laishram, CRAM President.   The Section 144 of CrPC was imposed by the state government after the killing of Ukhrul Autonomous District Council (ADC) vice chairman Ngalangzar Malue (60), by the militant outfit last July 12. The state government has imposed CrPC to further add military presence in the area.   The imposition of the Section 144 of CrPC has led to heavy militarization in the area. The heavy militarization has not only created fear among the public but also hindered them from their daily work in the area. The conflict will not just tolerate brutality to the people, but will also hinder them from their basic rights and more importantly, their access to basic services and a threat to their food security.   Just recently, Mr. Phulindro Konsam, Convenor of the Committee on Human Rights and about thirty (30) leaders from students and women’s  organizations were arrested on 8th, 11th and 12th  September 2014 by the Manipur police. They are human rights defenders fighting for the rights to self-determination and liberation of the indigenous peoples of Manipur.   In this regard, PCFS would like to call to the Government and Human Rights Commission of India to investigate the situation and uphold human rights of the people of Manipur. This will include pulling out of military and police troops in the area and the immediate release of the following human rights defenders:  Mr. Phulindro Konsam (54), Convenor, Committee on Human Rights (COHR) in Manipur Ms. Ph Sakhi, President, AMKIL Ms. Th Ramani, General Secretary, Nupi Samaj Ms. Longjam Memchoubi, President, Poirei Leimarol Meira Paibi Apunba Manipur Ms. L Gyaneshori, General Secretary, AMKIL Ms. Ch Janaki, Vice-president, Nupi Samaj Ms. RK Guni, Executive Member, Poirei Leimarol Meira Paibi Apunba Manipur Ms. Khumukcham (n) Naosekpam (o) Rashesori Devi (55) Moirangthem Angamba (34) Johnson Nongmaithem (29) Sumanta Monoharmayum (23) Elangbam Bijendra Meitei (22) Longjam Abothe Meitei (24) Md Sajad Buya (19) Sarangthem William Milton (25) Okram (n) Khomdram (o) Gunabati Hijam Ibema Devi (42) Nameirakpam Ibemcha (55) Sarangthem Manjit (27) Pukhrambam Arjun (45), Oinam Premjit (37) Yengkokpam Langamba (36) Soubam Rajendra (50) Wahengbam Sunil (28)  The people of Manipur have the right to protest and assert their rights.  Uphold human rights in Manipur! Fight for liberation, self-determination and food sovereignty of the people of Manipur! Long live international solidarity!  The People’s Coalition on Food Sovereignty (PCFS) is a global network of various grassroots groups of small food producers particularly of peasant-farmer organizations and their support NGOs that work towards a People’s Convention on Food Sovereignty.   Related articles: PCFS calls for protection of human rights defenders in Manipur

——————————————————————————————

Conference Highlights

Making HealthGlobal  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osV2bktvrbk http://www.un-ngls.org/spip.php?page=article_s&id_article=2818 http://unu.edu/ http://www.un.org/news/   62nd Annual DPI/NGO Conference: For Peace and Development: Disarm Now!  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDqecr1yZ_o   United Nations University for Peace (UPEACE) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2vXR2gzOtc

—————————————————————————————

Side event: Human rights for all in sustainabl​e developmen​t: Is the post-2015 process really delivering​?

Human rights for all in sustainable development: Is the post-2015 process really delivering?

Side Event hosted by the Post-2015 Human Rights Caucus at the President of the General Assembly’s High-level Stocktaking Event on the Post-2015 Development Agenda (download pdf here)

Thursday 11 September 2014 United Nations Headquarters, Conference Room 1 (CR1) Conference Building. Last year, the UN Secretary General—in his report, “A life of dignity for all”—endorsed a sustainable development “vision of the future firmly anchored in human rights,” echoing widespread support from governments, civil society, and the UN Task Team that a holistic human rights framework must lie at the heart of the SDGs themselves, how they are financed, and in their monitoring and accountability infrastructure. At this liminal point in the debate over what will succeed the Millennium Development Goals, various members of the Post-2015 Human Rights Caucus—a cross-constituency coalition of development, environment, trade union, feminist and human rights organizations worldwide—will come together to evaluate whether the post-2015 process and the new proposal for sustainable development goals deliver on this vision. How do the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGS) and targets proposed by the Open Working Group stand up to the human rights litmus test? Are the SDGs “consistent with international law,” as member states agreed they would be in Rio+20? How well do they ensure the rights of indigenous peoples and other groups marginalized from economic and social development? Will the Goals—and the envisioned monitoring and accountability infrastructure—hold public and private actors to account for their human rights and right to development responsibilities? And how will these Goals be paid for in human rights-sensitive ways? Participants will debate these keystone questions, and in so doing lay out a blueprint for embedding human rights into the core of the post-2015 sustainable development agenda. Panelists include: Myrna Cunnigham, UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues Savio Carvalho, Amnesty International Nerea Craviotto, Association for Women’s Rights in Development (AWID) Paul Quintos, IBON International Amanda McRae, Center for Reproductive Rights Reflections from Mac Darrow, UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Moderated by Niko Lusiani, Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR) and co-convener of the Post-2015 Human Rights Caucus For enquiries about this side event, please contact Luke Holland at lholland@cesr.org   The Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR) works to promote social justice through human rights. In a world where poverty and inequality deprive entire communities of dignity, justice and sometimes life, we seek to uphold the universal human rights of every human being to education, health, food, water, housing, work, and other economic, social and cultural rights essential to human dignity. Center for Economic and Social Rights | 162 Montague Street, 3rd Floor, Brooklyn, NY 11201 | +1 718 237-9145 | info@cesr.org

————————————————————————————————–

Equity, Justice:LG​B Parents and Their Children Functionin​g Well Despite Confrontin​g Discrimina​tion

View it in your browser.

—————————————————————————————————

ACTION ALERT: SDGs and the human rights to water and sanitation

1.png

ACTION ALERT:  LETTER TO THE UN SECRETARY-GENERAL! Dear All, As you are aware, the Mining Working Group at the UN and the Blue Planet Project have spearheaded the recent sign-on letter​ ​ regarding the need for the Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals to include an explicit mention of the human right to water and sanitation. The letter has garnered more than 300 sign-ons – we thank you for your support and for your advocacy efforts to join this important fight.  Despite our call, the latest “zero draft” of the SDGs text (30 June, 2014) has failed to include explicit mention of the human right to water and sanitation. Time is running out to influence the Open Working Group, as its 13th and last official session will be held July 14-18, with informals preceding it starting July 9. It is therefore essential that we unite in one last push to include the human rights language in the OWG report, particularly around the human right to water and sanitation.  As a final step, we encourage you and your organizations to write to the office of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, through the online petition available ​ here:​  [English] [Spanish]. In this pivotal moment, we must show the UN that we have not given up on human rights in the SDGs, and that they must ensure the inclusion of this language to ensure that the SDGS, and the post-2015 agenda, truly deliver for people’s human rights and the sanctity of our planet.   Thank you for your support.  Sincerely,  The Mining Working Group and the Blue Planet Project  ALERTA DE ACCIÓN – CARTA AL SECRETARIO GENERAL DE LA ONU!  Estimadas y estimados, Como ustedes saben, el Grupo de Trabajo sobre Minería en la ONU y el Proyecto Planeta Azul han encabezado la reciente carta, y pidieron firmas,  sobre la necesidad de que el Grupo de Trabajo Abierto (GTA) sobre los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible (ODS) para que se incluya una mención explícita de la necesidad de garantizar el derecho humano al agua y al saneamiento. La carta ha recibido más de 300 firmas complementarias – le damos gracias por su apoyo y por sus actividades de promoción al unirse a esta importante lucha.  A pesar de nuestro esfuerzo, el último “borrador cero” del texto ODS (30 de junio de 2014) no ha logrado incluir una mención explícita del derecho humano al agua y saneamiento. El tiempo se agota para influir en el Grupo de Trabajo Abierto (GTA), como la 13ª y última sesión oficial se llevará a cabo del 14 al 18 de julio con los informales precedentes a partir del 9 de julio.Por tanto, es esencial que nos unamos en un último esfuerzo para la inclusión de lenguaje específico sobre los derechos humanos en el informe GTA, especialmente en torno al derecho humano al agua y al saneamiento.  Como paso final, le animamos a usted y a sus organizaciones a escribir a la oficina del Secretario General de la ONU Ban Ki-moon, a través de la petición en línea disponible [aquí]. En este momento crucial, debemos mostrar a la ONU que no hemos renunciado a los derechos humanos en los ODS, y que deben garantizar la inclusión de este lenguaje para asegurar que los ODS, y el programa posterior al 2015, realmente entregan los derechos humanos y la santidad de nuestro planeta a la gente.  Muchas gracias por su apoyo.  Sinceramente,  El Grupo de Trabajo sobre Minería y el Proyecto Planeta Azul  Kathryn (Katie) Tobin territoryunchartered.blogspot.com @uncharteredKT   —————————————————————————————————–

Human Rights Standards for Conservati​on-Call for Comments

Dear Community of Educators,
Despite increased recognition that conservation initiatives can violate the human rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities, addressing ‘unjust’ conservation remains a contemporary problem. The International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) and Natural Justice ((http://naturaljustice.org/) are seeking feedback on a series of technical reports that aim to provide clear guidance about the human rights obligations of conservation actors, and specific details of the rights and forms of redress available.
Please visit: http://www.iied.org/human-rights-standards-for-conservation-part-i for more details and to download the reports.
Ahead of the World Parks Congress in Australia in November 2014, they are systematically working to review and analyse relevant international law to answer the following three questions:
  • Which actors bear human rights obligations and responsibilities in the context of conservation initiatives?
  • What are their obligations and responsibilities? 
  • What are the grievance mechanisms available to peoples and communities in cases of violations of their human rights?
The results will be published in a three-part series of discussion papers and technical reports that will serve as an empirical basis for developing an accessible “Guide to Human Rights Standards for Conservation”. They are keen to receive feedback on their conclusions and comments on their implications, from a range of interested parties including the following non-exclusive groups: lawyers, conservationists, Indigenous peoples, and local communities.

To contribute to these important reports, please email Natural Justice’s Harry Jonas (harry@naturaljustice.org) or IIED’s Dilys Roe (dilys.roe@iied.org). Please feel free to forward this email to others who may be interested.

Many thanks,
Helen Brunt
Malaysia mobile: (+60)12-836-2902
skype ID: helensnake1519

——————————————————————————————————-

TWN Info: Human Rights Council  Historic resolution adopted for a legally binding instrument on TNCs

Subject: TWN Info: Human Rights Council Historic resolution adopted for a legally binding  instrument on TNCs Title : TWN Info: Human Rights Council – Historic      resolution adopted for a legally binding instrument on TNCs Date : 30 June 2014 Contents: Human Rights Council: Historic resolution adopted for          a legally binding instrument on TNCs Geneva, 30 June (Kinda Mohamadieh*) – The United Nations Human        Rights Council (HRC) adopted, through a vote, a historic and        significant resolution to start a process for an international        legally instrument on transnational corporations. Officially entitled “Elaboration of an international legally        binding instrument on Transnational Corporations and other        Business Enterprises with respect to Human Rights”         (A/HRC/26/L.22) the resolution was adopted on 26 June at the        26th session of the HRC. The resolution was co-sponsored by Ecuador and South Africa,        and also supported by Bolivia, Cuba and Nevezuela. In the vote        on the resolution, 20 Members of the HRC supported the        resolution, while 13 Members abstained, and 14 Members voted        against it. Countries that supported the resolution include: Algeria,        Benin, Burkina Faso, China, Congo, Cote D’Ivoire, Cuba,        Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Morocco, Namibia,        Pakistan, Philippines, Russian Federation, South Africa,        Venezuela, Vietnam. Countries that abstained include: Argentina,        Botswana, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Gabon, Kuwait, Maldives,        Mexico, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, and United Arab        Emirates. Countries that voted against the resolution include:        Austria, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Ireland,        Italy, Japan, Montenegro, Republic of Korea, Romania, the former        Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom, and United        States of America. The resolution provides for the establishment of an open-ended        intergovernmental working group (IWG) that is mandated with        elaborating an international legally binding instrument to        regulate, in international human rights law, the activities of        transnational corporations and other business enterprises. The resolution provides that the IWG shall hold its first        session for five working days in 2015, before the 30th session        of the HRC. The resolution also provides that the first two        sessions of the working group shall be dedicated to conducting        constructive deliberations on the content, scope, nature and        form of the future international instrument. The resolution mandates the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the IWG        to prepare elements for the draft legally binding instrument for        substantive negotiations at the commencement of the third        session of the working group, taking into consideration the        discussions held at its first two sessions. It recommends that the first meeting of the IWG serve to        collect inputs, including written inputs, from States and        relevant stakeholders on possible principles and elements of        such an international legally binding instrument. The resolution requests the IWG to submit a report on progress        made to the HRC for consideration at its thirty-first session. The resolution explains in a footnote that the reference to         ‘other business enterprises’ denotes all business enterprises        that have a transnational character in their operational        activities, while it does not apply to local businesses        registered in terms of relevant domestic law. The resolution also makes reference as well to the important        role of civil society actors in promoting corporate social        responsibility and in preventing, mitigating, and seeking remedy        for adverse human rights impacts of transnational corporations        (TNCs) and other business enterprises. In presenting the resolution to the HRC, Ambassador          Luis Gallegos Chiriboga of Ecuador stressed        that the Council owes its existence to those who tirelessly        fight to protect human rights and the victims of human rights        violation, including those that are most needful for protection        and support. He called upon the Council to correct injustices,        including the lack of protection for victims of violations of        human rights abuses carried out by TNCs. He noted that these        corporations benefit from binding international protections.        However, victims of harmful corporate activities lack access to        legal protection, while only having available voluntary norms. Ambassador Chiriboga focused on the importance of protecting        victims, noting that victims of disasters, such as that by Union        Carbide in Bhopal (India), Shell in the Niger Delta (Nigeria),        and Chevron in Ecuador, among others, are still waiting for        remedy and fair compensation. He underlined the support of more        than 500 civil society organizations from around the world,        European Parliamentarians, and the Vatican to the initiative        towards elaborating a legally binding instrument on TNCs and        other business enterprises with respect to human rights. Ambassador Chiriboga also stressed Ecuador’s support for        implementation of the United Nations Guiding Principles on        Business and Human Rights. [On 16 June 2011, the UN HRC endorsed by consensus the        “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing        the United Nations ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ Framework”        proposed by UN Special Representative John Ruggie (Resolution        17/4). More information available at: http://www.business-humanrights.org/SpecialRepPortal/Home/Protect-Respect-Remedy-Framework/GuidingPrinciples.        At its 17th session, in resolution A/HRC/17/4, the HRC decided        to establish a Working Group on the issue of human rights and        TNCs and other business enterprises, consisting of five        independent experts, with the mandate to promote the        dissemination and implementation of the Guiding Principles. More        information available at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Business/Pages/WGHRandtransnationalcorporationsandotherbusiness.aspx. In a statement at the 17th session of the HRC in June 2011,        the delegation of Ecuador noted its conviction that the United        Nations should continue to work on the issue of establishing        binding international standards on the activities of TNCs.        Ecuador’s statement underlined that the Guiding Principles are         “not binding standards”, “are just a guide”, and thus “are not        mandatory”. At the September 2013 session of the HRC, the        delegation of Ecuador delivered a statement on behalf of more        than 85 countries stressing the need for a legally binding        framework to regulate the work of TNCs. More on this statement        is provided below.] Speaking on behalf of South Africa, Ambassador Abdul          Samad Minty noted that the government of South        Africa accords special priority in regard to issues of TNCs,        business, and human rights. He highlighted that the South        African government holds a strong view that these entities,        which are the primary drivers of globalization, cannot operate        in a void. He added that TNCs and other business enterprises        often operate in an environment where appropriate national        legislation to effectively regulate their operations, or        mitigate the propensity for their violation of human rights, is        either absent or very weak. Experience shows that in countries of the North, where there        are strong binding laws and regulations promulgated by national        parliaments, the violations of human rights by corporations are        significantly minimized, according to Ambassador Minty. He stressed that a universal regulatory framework in the form        of a binding instrument to provide legal protections, effective        remedies, as well as a range of other measures in quest for        protections of victims, is desirable and imperative. He also        recalled that global mass mobilizations by over 500 civil        society organizations calling for such an instrument. Countries take the floor to explain their vote China expressed its support for joined        efforts by the international community to promote better        protection and respect of human rights. It added that it is in        favor of pursuing dialogue and cooperation to implement the        United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights        and to ensure their actual effects. China noted that the        formulation of an international legal instrument is a complex        issue, highlighting the disparities among countries in terms of        economic development, judicial systems, systems of enterprise,        as well as historical and cultural backgrounds. China underlined        the importance of being gradual towards gathering consensus. India noted that the issues of TNCs and        other business enterprises is an area where the international        community must work together, not only to encourage businesses        to respect human rights, but also to hold them accountable for        violations arising out of their business operations. India added        that the work of the existing expert working group on the issue        of human rights and TNCs and other business enterprises during        the last three years provided guidance to States and businesses        and shed light on glaring gaps in available protections.        However, India underlined, the Guiding Principles on Business        and Human Rights have their own limitations and carry little        impact in the case of victims whose human rights have been        violated by operations of TNCs. India added that the resolution seeks to open an opportunity        for States to discuss, in a focused manner, the issues of TNCs,        and provides an acceptable road map to move forward in this        direction. As States promote the integration of the world        economy and capital flows across borders, it is important to        plug possible protection gaps that may arise due to business        operations, it added. When States are unable to enforce national        law with respect to gross violations committed by businesses, or        to hold them accountable due to the sheer size and clout of        TNCs, the international community must come together to seek        justice for the victims of violations committed by TNCs, India        stressed. The United States, the European Union, Japan, the          United Kingdom and Ireland spoke        against the resolution. The United States focused in their remarks        on the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human        Rights, noting that they consider them a success, despite the        limited three years since they have been endorsed.  While        agreeing that more needs to be done to improve access to remedy        for victims of business-related human rights abuses, the United        States raised concern that the resolution on a legally binding        instrument is not complementary to the work on promoting the        implementation of the United Nations Guiding Principles. The United States added that they perceive that the proposed        intergovernmental group would create a competing initiative that        would undermine efforts to implement the Guiding Principles. It        expected that focus would turn to the new instrument, while        companies, States, and other actors would unlikely invest        significant time and money in implementing the Guiding        Principles. The United States cautioned that a one-size-fit-all        instrument would be unlikely able to address concerns related to        the complex issues of regulating business, noting that such an        instrument would be binding only on States that become party to        it. It also raised few practical questions concerning the        application of the proposed international instrument to        corporations, which are not subject to international law. The        United States expressed its unwillingness to participate in the        proposed intergovernmental working group. Italy, speaking on behalf of the European          Union (EU) Member States, focused on the efforts        undertaken since 2011 to disseminate and implement the United        Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Italy        referred to national action plans elaborated by several EU        Member States to reflect the Guiding Principles. It added that        the Guiding Principles do not exclude further legal        developments, while reaffirming their understanding that what        has been done so far is not enough to prevent abuses and enable        access to remedy when abuses occur. The EU stressed that no        international mechanism could replace robust domestic        legislation and processes involving all stakeholders, calling        for additional focus on implementation of the Guiding Principles        on Business and Human Rights. The EU also noted that the        resolution focuses on TNCs, while many abuses are committed by        enterprises at the domestic level. The United Kingdom (UK) was of the opinion        that issues of business and human rights should be addressed        through national rule of law at individual state level, and        through the application of fair, just, and independent legal        systems that can protect victims and ensure that business        activity can thrive. The UK added that focusing on the United        Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights would be        the best way forward in dealing with these important issues. Japan underlined their commitment to the        Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, noting that the        resolution could undermine efforts undertaken in regard to their        implementation. The Guiding Principles provide guidance on how        States could fulfill their obligations in the area of human        rights, while respecting business-related international legal        obligations, according to Japan. The international community        could deepen its understanding in regard to an international        legally binding instrument through examining best practices in        this regard in the course of implementing the Guiding        Principles, Japan added. Ireland aligned itself with the views        expressed by the EU, underlining its commitment to the Guiding        Principles on Business and Human Rights, while noting that the        resolution could undermine the process of their implementation.        While noting the importance of addressing barriers to access to        judicial and non-judicial remedies, Ireland was of the opinion        that an intergovernmental working group would not be the        appropriate fora for such a discussion. The 26th session of the HRC also adopted, by consensus,        another resolution entitled “Human rights and transnational        corporations and other business enterprises” (A/HRC/26/L.1)        co-sponsored by Norway, Russia, and Argentina. The resolution        extends for a period of three years the mandate of the existing        expert Working Group on the issue of human rights and TNCs and        other business enterprises, as set out in HRC resolution 17/4. Background on the process towards resolution            A/HRC/26/L.22/Rev.1 In September 2013, the delegation of Ecuador, speaking        on behalf of more than 85 countries, including the African        Group, the Arab Group, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Kyrgyzstan, Cuba,        Nicaragua, Bolivia, Venezuela, Peru, and, Ecuador, underlined        the need for a legally binding instrument in a statement        delivered at the 24th session of the HRC. States subscribing to the statement stressed that “the        increasing cases of human rights violations and abuses by some        TNCs reminds us of the necessity of moving forward towards a        legally binding framework to regulate the work of transnational        corporations and to provide appropriate protection, justice and        remedy to the victims of human rights abuses directly resulting        from or related to the activities of some transnational        corporations and other businesses enterprises”.  The statement        noted that an “international legally binding instrument,        concluded within the UN system, would clarify the obligations of        transnational corporations in the field of human rights, as well        as of corporations in relation to States, and provide for the        establishment of effective remedies for victims in cases where        domestic jurisdiction is clearly unable to prosecute effectively        those companies”. In pursuit of the discussion on TNCs, human rights, and a        legally binding instrument in this area, the Permanent Missions        of Ecuador and South Africa to the United Nations in Geneva        co-organized a workshop during the week of the 25th ordinary        session of the HRC to explore this issue. The workshop aimed at contributing to clarifying the ways in        which a legally binding instrument on business and human rights        would provide a framework for enhanced State action to protect        rights and prevent the occurrence of human rights abuses. It        also aimed at discussing the difficulties faced by developing        countries when trying to hold transnational corporations        accountable, as well as the gaps under the current soft law        framework. In this regard, the discussion tackled the extraterritorial        duties of States, obstacles that victims of human rights        violations face when trying to access justice and adequate        remedies, including national, regional and international courts        and non-judicial mechanisms. According to the report resulting from the meeting, some of        the main elements highlighted during the discussion focused on        the importance of recognizing that there are gaps in the        international legal framework related to the duty to protect        human rights in respect to business activities, and the        concentration of related instruments in soft law. The report        noted as well the recognition of the asymmetry between rights        and obligations of TNCs; while TNCs are offered rights through        hard law instruments, such as bilateral investment treaties and        investment rules in free trade agreements, and have access to a        system of investor-state dispute settlement, there are no hard        law instruments that address the obligations of corporations to        respect human rights. Furthermore, the report noted that the obligation of States to        regulate business activities within their territorial        jurisdiction is clear, but on the other hand their obligation        regarding corporate conduct acting abroad is not clear. The        report noted as well the importance that participants accorded        to building on lessons learned from the history of addressing        the issues of business and human rights, including the        experience of discussing the “Norms on the Responsibilities of        Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with        Regard to Human Rights”. Mobilization by civil society groups The months before the 26th session of the HRC witnessed        mobilization by international networks, organizations, and        social movements from various regions, organized under the        umbrella of an alliance calling for binding international        regulation to address corporate human rights abuse. A statement        calling for an international legally binding instrument has been        signed by 610 civil society organizations and social movements        as well as 400 individuals from 95 countries. The signatories call upon States to elaborate an international        treaty that “affirms the applicability of human rights        obligations to the operations of transnational corporations and        other business enterprises”. They add that the treaty should         “require States Parties to monitor and regulate the operations        of business enterprises under their jurisdiction, including when        acting outside their national territory, with a view to prevent        the occurrence of abuses of human rights in the course of those        operations”. They underline that the treaty should “require States Parties        to provide for legal liability for business enterprises for acts        or omissions that infringe human rights and to provide for        access to an effective remedy by any State concerned, including        access to justice for foreign victims that suffered harm from        acts or omissions of a business enterprise in situations where        there are bases for the States involved to exercise their        territorial or extraterritorial protect-obligations”. The        statement stresses as well the importance of providing for “an        international monitoring and accountability mechanism” and for         “protection of victims, whistle-blowers and human rights        defenders that seek to prevent, expose or ensure accountability        in cases of corporate abuse and guarantees their right to access        to information relevant in this context” (The call is available        at the following website: http://treatymovement.com). In a press release commenting on the adoption of the        resolution initiating a process to develop a legally binding        instrument on TNCs, other business enterprises, and human        rights, the Treaty Alliance emphasized that “the establishment        of a binding instrument is complementary to the implementation        of the Guiding Principles and necessary to ensure glaring gaps        in protection are addressed”. The Alliance explained in the        press release that, “some States opposing the resolution made        attempts to come to a compromise, but were not willing to        provide a concrete path towards the drafting of a binding        instrument to prevent human rights abuses by TNCs and other        business enterprises and allow for the provision of remedy to        victims”. The Alliance added that, “while companies must respect all        human rights, as reaffirmed in the UN Guiding Principles on        Business and Human Rights, they currently are not held        accountable under international human rights law. Thus, the        implementation of the Guiding Principles at the national level        has been slow and the Guiding Principles remain insufficient to        prevent human rights violations. In the meantime, many victims        around the world continue to suffer without access to justice”. The Alliance further noted that “an intergovernmental process        will contribute to addressing current imbalances under        international law, particularly in light of protections        companies can obtain under Bilateral Investment Treaties and        Free Trade Agreements, which have allowed corporations to sue        States”. (Kinda Mohamadieh is with the Arab NGO Network for Development).

——————————

 
Copyright Third World Network -www.twnnews.net   All Rights Reserved
  —————————————————————————————————

A world without forced migration; Why migrants should support the call for developmen​t justice

Apologies for cross-posting

Dear Friends,
Greetings!
We are happy to share with you the attached brief that the IMA and the Campaign for People’s Goals for Sustainable Development prepared on migration and development justice. With this paper, we aim to make more widespread the discussions among migrant organizations on the relationship of migration, the condition of migrants and the post-2015 development agenda.
Feel free to also circulate this to your networks.
In solidarity,
Ramon Bultron
Managing Director
—————————–
A world without forced migration
Why migrants should support the call for development justice
International Migrants Alliance (IMA)
Campaign for People’s Goals for Sustainable Development
Currently, there are 232 million international migrants in the world and this is projected to increase in the coming years. This includes migrant workers and immigrants who are mainly in agriculture, industries and the service sector. This number does not yet include the millions more irregular (or undocumented) migrants, as well as refugees.
Present-day migration is a result of inequities existing in the world perpetuated by policies of neoliberal globalization.
Migration pattern is mainly characterized by migration from less developed countries to the more developed ones such as the migration of people from Latin American and the Caribbean to North America, from Southeast Asia to the richer countries of East Asia, from South Asia to the Middle East, or Eastern Europe to Russia and to Western Europe.
The past four decades of implementing neoliberal globalization policies has deepened the maldevelopment of third world countries.  The destruction of agriculture, deindustrialization, and contraction of public social services in the country of origin of migrants has led to mass displacement, dislocation and forced migration.
It has also heightened the need for a more “flexible” – skilled, cheap, disempowered – labour force that are sourced from the less developed countries always on the lookout for labour markets to absorb its ever expanding labour force that its regressive economy cannot absorb.
Within countries of origin, neoliberal economics only benefit the ruling elites that include the big traders of imported goods, exporters of raw materials and agricultural produce, local partners of giant multinational mining corporations, and the local land-owning classes. Through the labour export program used to prop up the constantly flagging economy and diffuse the social volcano created by an impoverished majority, the local elites not only maintain the status quo but even profit further from the labour export-related businesses – recruitment agencies, financing agencies, medical facilities, and even real estates.
In receiving countries, migrants and immigrants are used as bargaining chips for capitalists to depress the wage of all workers, erode labour rights and even destroy unions. Migration ensures profits while the local working class and their families struggle for survival.
Current migration also demonstrates the inequities existing between men and women. For the past decades, female migration has shoot up and even surpassed male migration in some areas. This so-called “feminization” of migration is not an indication of uplifting the economic participation of women but is an indication of the worsening condition of women in sending countries. It also shows the contraction of overseas labour market that is now focused more on jobs perceived to be for women – domestic work, care industry, and jobs in the service sector.
With a nominal recognition that neoliberal globalization has not brought development for the people, the United Nations, in 2000, formulated the Millennium Development Goals that consisted of concrete targets on major development themes.
Now, with just over a year before the target completion of the MDGs on 2015 comes, confidence on the delivery of the MDGs – in the context of worsening and protracted economic, food, financial and climate crisis – is not high.
When the MDGs were formulated, migration was not discussed as a context or as a theme to be addressed. In fact, even the 2013 Report on the MDGs did not mention the condition of migrants, immigrants and families as a measure of how the development goals are faring.
While the UN remains optimistic of the MDGs, the fact remains that since the MDG was formulated, international migration increased from 175 million to 232 million. In 1990 when conferences that served as bases of the MDG started, there were 154 million international migrants.
If development is indeed getting propelled, why is migration – that even UN member states recognize as a forced one – still very much on the rise?
Ironically, instead of treating migration as a development problem, it is now being considered as a development opportunity. The World Bank, various UN agencies and other multilateral and multi-stakeholder bodies such as the Global Forum on Migration and Development, all choose to emphasize the enormous contribution of migration for development. They are advancing the flawed strategy of using remittance as a motor for development: be it as part of the GDP, as a credit-rating booster, or as a means to increase social capital through economic capacity given to households of migrants.
Remittance – that is even greater than official development aid and second only to foreign direct investments –  is targeted as a source of “new and additional” financing for sustainable development.
It is disturbing that current discussions on the Post-MDG agenda are geared towards developing and further systematizing migration and labour export programs. Migrant-sending countries are markedly pushing for an increase in migration flows and the lowering of restrictions in destination countries. Host countries, meanwhile, are pushing to attract skilled workers and professionals – an agenda they’ve had since the GATS Mode 4 was introduced and is now being continued in the TISA negotiations – and are perfecting their temporary workers/ guest workers programs.
The myth of migration for development is set to be perpetuated and further reinforced by its integration into the so-called Post-2015 development agenda.
The UN Global Migration Group (GMG) writes,
“The post-2015 UN Development Agenda provides a unique opportunity to remedy this omission [of migration in the MDGs]. Now that migration has become a global phenomenon affecting almost all countries in the world, and in view of its crucial links with development, the GMG believes that migration must become an integral part of the post-2015 UN Development Agenda, including through its integration in goals and targets, monitored by specific and appropriate indicators.”
Based on the ongoing deliberations in the inter-governmental Open Working Group (OWG) tasked to come up with a new set of global sustainable development goals (SDGs), there are three ways in which migration is being incorporated in the Post-2015 development agenda.
First is encouraging more migration. Pakistan, for instance has proposed increasing global migration flows by 10% by 2030, particularly of skilled labour from lower income to higher income countries supposedly to reduce inequality between countries.  The Group of Least Developed Countries (LDCs) likewise calls to remove restrictions on labor migration and deepen short-term, circular migration, particularly for migrant workers from LDCs.
Second, there are numerous proposals to increase remittance flows including reduction of transactions costs associated with these flows.
Third, there are a number of proposed targets meant to protect the rights of migrants, provide social protection, end discrimination and violence against migrants and refugees among other vulnerable groups.  These also include proposals to end illegal trafficking.
It is becoming apparent that integrating migration into the Post-2015 development agenda is not about ensuring the end of forced migration and the conditions that perpetuate the super-exploitation of migrants. It is about facilitating, systematizing and legitimizing labor export that adheres to the neoliberal globalization prescriptions of labour flexibilization, justifying government cutbacks on social spending, and ostensibly protecting the rights of migrant and refugees without addressing the repressive measures in place in receiving countries.
While the UN GMG and their civil society partners, at best, profess to address the particular needs and problems of migrants as a growing demographic segment of the population that is vulnerable and marginalized, they also serve to instrumentalize migration for global capitalist accumulation.
Neoliberal globalization as a framework has only worsened the condition that forces people to migrate for survival and transgresses on the dignity of migrants. Radical shifts are needed if the Post-2015 development agenda are to induce a just, equitable and sustainable development for the people.
Development justice is the transformative development framework that aims to address the inequities – between countries, between the rich and poor within countries, and between men and women – that maintain the current nature of migration and the exploitation of migrants.
Through the following foundational shifts composing development justice, the condition for a development that shall address forced migration can be created:
1. Redistributive Justice will ensure that in countries of origin, resources and opportunities can be accessed by the people, and they will not be forced to seek them overseas
2. Economic Justice will ensure decent living including decent living for immigrants and their families in countries of destination
3. Social Justice eliminates all forms of discrimination and marginalization including the economic, political and social exclusion of migrants and immigrants in the host countries
4. Environmental Justice presses countries and elites historically responsible for climate degradation to own up to their greater responsibility to stop environmentally damaging production and consumption
5. Accountability to the People that will ensure that migrants are part of free, prior, and informed decision making in all stages of development processes.
Migrants should be present in the development discussions. We were left behind when development goals were set. We were still left behind when actions to achieve the set goals were implemented.
We shall make sure that in the post-2015 development agenda, migrants as stakeholders are involved and migration as a problem of maldevelopment is addressed.

Asia Pacific Mission for Migrants (APMM) Office Address: G/F, No.2 Jordan Road, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR Tel. no.: (852) 2723-7536      Fax no.: (852) 2735-4559 General E-mail:  apmm@hknet.com Other Email Addresses: Managing Director :             rbultron@gmail.com Marriage Migrants Program :  ammoresect08@gmail.com

Faith Communities Witnessing with Migrants: pastorjoram@ymail.com
Research and Publication:  publications@apmigrants.org / ahc@hknet.com FDWs & Women’s

Undocumented Migrants: reyasis@gmail.com

Migrants Trade Unionism: jnatividad70@gmail.com 
“We dream of a society where families are not broken up by the urgent need for survival. We dream and will actively work for a homeland where there is opportunity for everyone to live a decent and humane life.”

CPG4SD@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/CPG4SD.

Briefer for Migrants.pdf
160 KB

Briefer for Migrants ————————————————————————————————

New Working Paper: Corporate Influence on the Business and Human Rights Agenda of the UN

http://www.globalpolicy.org/images/pdfs/GPFEurope/Corporate_influence_in_the_Post-2015_process_web.pdf   http://www.globalpolicy.org/images/pdfs/GPFEurope/Corporate_Influence_on_the_Business_and_Human_Rights_Agenda.pdf

New Working Paper: Corporate Influence on the Business and Human Rights Agenda of the UN

Download the Working Paper here. Efforts to create an          international legally binding instrument to hold transnational          corporations accountable for human rights abuses have recently          gained new momentum. In September 2013 the Government of          Ecuador delivered a statement on behalf of 85 member states of          the UN at the Human Rights Council asking for a legally          binding framework to regulate the activities of transnational          corporations. Many civil society organizations called on the          Human Rights Council to take steps towards the elaboration of          a binding Treaty on Business and Human Rights. These efforts are          only the latest link in a chain of initiatives at the UN to          hold corporations accountable to the public. They started in          the 1970s with the discussions about a Code of Conduct for          Transnational Corporations (TNCs) and continued in the late          1990s with the attempt to adopt the UN Norms on the          Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other          Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights. All these efforts met          with vigorous opposition from TNCs and their business          associations, and they ultimately failed. At the same time,          corporate actors have been extremely successful in          implementing public relations strategies that have helped to          present business enterprises as good corporate citizens          seeking dialogue with Governments, the UN and decent concerned           ‘stakeholders’, and able to implement environment, social and          human rights standards through voluntary Corporate Social          Responsibility (CSR) initiatives. The UN Global Compact          and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights          became prime examples of an allegedly pragmatic approach based          on consensus, dialogue and partnership with the corporate          sector – in contrast to regulatory approaches to hold          corporations accountable. The working paper          gives an overview of the debate from the early efforts to          formulate the UN Code of Conduct to the current initiative for          a binding Treaty on Business and Human Rights. It particularly          focuses on the responses by TNCs and their leading interest          groups to the various UN initiatives, specifies the key actors          and their objectives. In this context it also highlights          features of the interplay between business demands and the          evolution of the regulatory debates at the UN. This provides          an indication of the degree of influence that corporate actors          exert and their ability – in cooperation with some powerful UN          member states – to prevent international binding rules for TNCs at the UN. The working paper ends with remarks on what could be done to counteract and reverse corporate influence on the UN human rights agenda.          This constitutes an indispensable prerequisite for progress towards effective legally binding instruments on business and human rights.

Corporate  Influence on the Business and Human Rights Agenda of the United Nations

Author: Jens Martens   Working Paper, June 2014  Published by Brot für die Welt/Global Policy Forum/MISEREOR Aachen/Berlin/Bonn/New York ISBN: 978-3-943126-16-7 Download  the Working Paper here.

-- 
Wolfgang Obenland
Global Policy Forum
Königstr. 37a
53115 Bonn
Germany
Tel. +49 (0)228 96 50 707
wolfgangobenland@globalpolicy.org
www.globalpolicy.org

———————————————————————————————–

Human Rights Council – Historic resolution adopted for a legally binding instrument on transnatio​nal corporatio​ns

Subject: Human Rights Council – Historic resolution adopted for a legally binding instrument on transnational corporations

Dear Colleagues The United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) adopted, through a vote, a historic and significant resolution to start a process for an international legally instrument on transnational corporations. 
Officially entitled “Elaboration of an international legally binding instrument on Transnational Corporations and other Business Enterprises with respect to Human Rights” (A/HRC/26/L.22) the resolution was                              adopted on 26 June at the 26th session of  the HRC.
The resolution was co-sponsored by Ecuador and South Africa, and also supported by Bolivia, Cuba and Nevezuela. In the vote on the resolution, 20 Members of the HRC supported the resolution, while 13 Members abstained, and 14 Members voted against it. Countries that supported the resolution include: Algeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, China, Congo, Cote D’Ivoire, Cuba, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Morocco, Namibia, Pakistan, Philippines, Russian Federation, South Africa, Venezuela, Vietnam. Countries that abstained include: Argentina, Botswana, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Gabon, Kuwait, Maldives, Mexico, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, and United Arab Emirates. Countries that voted against the resolution include: Austria, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Montenegro, Republic of Korea, Romania, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom, and United States of America. The resolution provides for the establishment of an open-ended intergovernmental working group (IWG) that is mandated with elaborating an international legally binding instrument to regulate, in international human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises.
The resolution provides that the IWG shall hold  its first session for five working days in 2015, before the 30th session of the HRC.  The resolution also provides that the first two sessions of the working group shall be dedicated to conducting constructive                            deliberations on the content, scope, nature and form of the future international  instrument.
The  resolution mandates the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the IWG to prepare elements for the draft legally binding instrument for substantive negotiations at the commencement of the third session of the working group, taking into consideration the  discussions held at its first two sessions. It recommends that the first meeting of the IWG serve to collect inputs, including  written inputs, from States and relevant stakeholders on possible principles and elements of such an international legally binding instrument.
The resolution requests the IWG to submit a report on progress made to the HRC for consideration at its thirty-first session.The resolution explains in a footnote that the reference to ‘other business enterprises’ denotes all business enterprises that have a transnational character in their operational activities, while it does not apply to local businesses registered in terms of relevant domestic law.
 The resolution also makes reference as well to the important role of civil society actors in promoting corporate social responsibility  and in preventing, mitigating, and seeking remedy for adverse human rights impacts of transnational corporations (TNCs) and other business enterprises.
In presenting the resolution to the HRC, Ambassador Luis Gallegos Chiriboga of Ecuador stressed that the Council owes its existence to those who tirelessly fight to protect human rights and the victims of human rights violation, including those that are most needful for protection and support. He called upon the Council to correct injustices, including the lack of protection for victims of violations of human rights abuses carried out by TNCs. He noted that these corporations benefit from binding international protections. However, victims of harmful corporate activities lack access to legal protection, while only having available voluntary norms.
Ambassador Chiriboga focused on the importance of protecting victims, noting that victims of disasters, such as that by Union Carbide in Bhopal (India), Shell in the Niger Delta (Nigeria), and Chevron in Ecuador, among others, are still waiting for remedy and fair compensation. He underlined the support of more than 500 civil society organizations  from around the world, European Parliamentarians, and the Vatican to the initiative towards elaborating a legally binding instrument on TNCs and other  business enterprises with respect to human rights. Ambassador Chiriboga also stressed Ecuador’s support for implementation of the  United Nations Guiding Principles on  Business and Human Rights. [On 16 June 2011,   the UN HRC endorsed by consensus the “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ Framework” proposed by UN Special Representative John Ruggie (Resolution 17/4). More information available at: http://www.business-humanrights.org/SpecialRepPortal/Home/Protect-Respect-Remedy-Framework/GuidingPrinciples. At its 17th session, in resolution A/HRC/17/4, the HRC decided to establish a Working Group on the issue of human rights and TNCs and other business enterprises, consisting of five  independent experts, with the mandate to  promote the dissemination and implementation of the Guiding Principles. More information available at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Business/Pages/WGHRandtransnationalcorporationsandotherbusiness.aspx.
 In a statement at the 17th session of the HRC  in June 2011, the delegation of Ecuador noted its conviction that the United Nations should continue to work on the issue of  establishing binding international standards on the activities of TNCs. Ecuador’s statement underlined that the Guiding Principles are “not binding standards”, “are just a guide”, and thus “are not mandatory”.  At the September 2013 session of the HRC, the delegation of Ecuador delivered a statement on behalf of more than 85 countries stressing the need for a legally binding framework to regulate the work of TNCs. More on this statement is provided below.]
Speaking on behalf of South Africa, Ambassador Abdul Samad                              Minty noted that the government of South Africa accords special priority in regard to issues of TNCs, business, and human rights. He highlighted that the South African government holds a strong view that these entities, which are the primary drivers of globalization, cannot operate in a void. He added that TNCs and other business enterprises often operate in an environment where appropriate national legislation to effectively regulate their operations, or mitigate the propensity for their violation of human rights, is either absent or very weak. Experience shows that in countries of the North, where there are strong binding laws and regulations promulgated by national parliaments, the violations of human rights by corporations are significantly minimized, according to Ambassador Minty. He stressed that a universal regulatory framework in the form of a binding instrument to provide legal protections, effective remedies, as well as a range of other measures in quest for protections of victims, is desirable and imperative. He also recalled that global mass mobilizations by over 500 civil society  organizations calling for such an instrument. Read more:                           http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/unsd/2014/unsd140605.htm Best regards, Kinda Mohamadieh
Researcher, Trade for Development Programme The South Centre

Noelene Nabulivou, Fiji

Programme Advisor, Diverse Voices and Action (DIVA) for Equality, Fiji  
Associate, Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (DAWN), Global www.dawnnet.org
Other affiliations/roles:
Skype: ’nabulivounn’

–       The Women’s Major Group (WMG) was created as one of nine Major      Groups after the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development      held in Rio de Janeiro. This list serve is for members of the      Women Major Group following the Post Rio+20 process (Financing SD,      SDGs-post2015) as well as for members of the Women Major Group      following Environment processes (UNEP). The Organizing Partners      (OPs) of the Post Rio+20 process that coordinate the group rotate      periodically. The current WMG OPs are Women in Europe for a Common      Future (WECF) and the Women’s Environment and Development      Organization (WEDO) and Global Forest Coalition (GFC). The      co-facilitators of the WMG at UNEP are currently Niger Delta      Women’s Movement, Soroptomists Kenya, WECF International and GFC,      and focal points APWLD and Earth Care Africa. —————————————————————————————————   Restless Development(In)visible

Restless Developmen​t News – ECOSOC Forum, End Sexual Violence in Conflict Summit and more

OPENING THE ECOSOC FORUM Our Chief Executive Nik Hartley spoke at the United Nations as the opening address, alongside Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, the President of the UN Economic and Social Council, and the President of the UN General Assembly. This is a summary of his speech >> READ MORE MAKING AN IMPACT AT END SEXUAL VIOLENCE IN CONFLICT SUMMIT Our discussion at Fringe Event saw some of our international volunteers who went to Sierra Leone speaking about their work on sexual reproductive health. We also premiered a film from Sierra Leone that made a big impression on UNHCR Special Envoy Angelina Jolie.  >> READ MORE YOUTHMAP PROGRAMME IN UGANDA SEES 100 GRADUATES ON INTERNSHIPS  The YouthMap programme in Uganda has placed 100 graduates on internships so far, of which 42 already secured full time emplotment or stared a business. >> READ MORE TANZANIA GOVERNMENT AWARDED FOR OUR “GIRLS LET’S BE LEADERS” PROGRAMME Tanzanian Government awarded thanks to its role in promoting the “Mabinti Tushike Hatamu!” (Girls, Let’s be Leaders!) programme, delivered by Restless Development, TACAIDS and UNICEF. >> READ MORE Restless Development / Join us on      www.restlessdevelopment.org 7 Wootton Street London SE1 8TG UK ————————————————————————————————– .

Guide to International Organizations, The Hague. 

.

http://www.denhaag.nl/en/residents/International-The-Hague/international-organisations.htm http://www.thehaguepeacejustice.com/static/projectsites/vrede-en-recht/downloads/en/corporate-brochure.pdf Information The Hague internationale: http://www.denhaag.nl/home/bewoners/gemeente/internationale-stad.htm http://www.denhaag.nl/en/residents/International-The-Hague.htm http://www.denhaagvrederecht.nl/vrede-en-recht.htm http://www.thehaguepeacejustice.com/peace-and-justice.htm http://www.internationalefuncties.nl/#ref-minbuza Contact: Mrs. Winny van Willigen Gemeente Den Haag Bureau Internationale Zaken Postbus 12.600 2500 DJ Den Haag tel. 070 – 353 2298 / 06 11341036 fax 070 – 353 2013 winny.vanwilligen@denhaag.nl   /  maandag, dinsdag en donderdag Municipality of The Hague Department of International Affairs PO Box 12.600 2500 DJ  The Hague The Netherlands tel. +31 70 353 2298 / +31 6 11341036 fax +31 70 353 2013 Contact: winny.vanwilligen@denhaag.nl   /   Monday, Tuesday and Thursday   —————————————————————————————————–

WM WFUNA Logo

  . November 2014, Vol. 3,  No. 9  WFUNA November Spotlight: Freedom from Violence Team Shares Lessons Learned  www.wfuna.org. Is this email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.  

web@wfuna.org To: worldviewmission@hotmail.com Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 Subject: WFUNA November Spotlight: Freedom from Violence Team Tackles Peace in Post-2015

.

——————————————————————————————————     Helene Oord  Picture B Card Gray Ned Suri Flag  

. Worldview Mission, Headquarter, “Kingdom of the Netherlands” Worldview Mission, Suriname  http://worldviewmission.nl/?page_id=13883 Contact:  Ms. Helene H. Oord Em: info@worldviewmission.nl   /    worldview.mission@gmail.com Address: Beemsterhoek 14,  2905 XA, Capelle A/D IJssel, Rotterdam Mob: +31(0) 636108563    /   +31(0) 107857863  Tel/Fax (Netherlands-EU) , Registered: RSIN, ANBI 851082403 B01 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE  K.v.K. 53.94.11.36 SEPA: Bank Account nr.:  NL08 ABNA 0506 0822 02 https://www.geef.nl/externalMod.php?gd=5052&taal=nl_NL Mapping  http://worldviewmission.geef.nl/kaart     .

http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/

.

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCG73AhrHfyq9KkqQtmSEsnw

.

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYGi5G1WSObsWLzx_kbp6Pg

  WM-2015-Action-logo_crisp

http://www.action2015.org/

*Worldview Mission  is Standing Up ,* Taking Action* , **Making Noise for the United Nations MDGL’s !!!**

 

https://www.geef.nl/externalMod.php?gd=5052&taal=nl_NL

 

http://www.geef.nl/doel/worldviewmission/transparantie? campaign=transparantie

 ——————————–

Comments are closed.