Human Rights / Peace & Justice

 

—————————————-

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

———————————————–

 

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

____

​                    ends.​

               –

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

 

—————————————————————————————————–

 

Helene Oord  Picture B Card Gray Ned Suri Flag

 

 

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

 

Comments are closed.