About aikiharahunt

Ai Kihara-Hunt is Professor at the Graduate Program in Human Security, Director of International Law Training and Research Hub, and Director, Research Center for Sustainable Peace, the University of Tokyo. She also serves as Secretary at the Academic Council on the United Nations System (ACUNS). She is a Human Rights/Security Sector Reform Specialist. She has obtained PhD in Law at the University of Essex with her research on individual criminal accountability of UN Police personnel. She has worked for the United Nations (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights; UNHCR; Peacekeeping missions; Truth Commission; Mine Action Centre) in numerous countries including Nepal, East Timor/Timor-Leste, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Switzerland, UK and Japan.

My ACUNS speech on Security and Development

Summary of my presentation made at the Plenary II (Crime, Security and Development) the Academic Council on the United Nations System (ACUNS) annual meeting 2019, held on 19-21 July 2019 in Stellenbosch, South Africa, is as follows. Thank you very much for the opportunity.

Dr. Ai Kihara-Hunt, Associate Professor at the Graduate Program on Human Security, the University of Tokyo, presented at the Plenary Panel III, focusing on crime, conflict and development. The other panelists were Mr. Kwesi Aning, Director, Faculty of Academic Affairs & Research, Kofi Annan International Peacekeeping Training Centre, and Mr. Jean-Luc Lemahieu, Director Division for Policy Analysis and Public Information, UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).

The questions given to the speaker were: ‘where do crimes and conflict come in development, and more specifically in Sustainable Develpoment Goals (SDGs), and what are the roles of different actors?’ Dr. Kihara-Hunt addressed a slightly broader question of the relationship between security and development, and the roles of UN actors in the area between security and development. She first addressed what the relationship between development and development was and is before and after SDGs. Second, she discussed how the UN’s approach related to security fit in that, including actors involved. Last, she drew conclusion on SDG’s contribution to the link between security and development, remaining challenges and the way forward.

Until recently, security and development were treated as separate areas with inquiries into the impact of development on crimes and violence. Less inquiry was made on the impact of crimes and violence on development. One important thing to consider is the notion of development in modern terms. Development has a colonial origin based on asymmetric power relationship between its giver and taker. With the shift of the notion of development, with economic liberalization in the 1980s and capability approach in the 1990s, economic growth became something that is only desirable if it enhances ‘what people are effectively able to do and be, improved the quality of life, and remove any obstacles so that people have more freedom to conduct the kind of life that, upon reflection, have reason to value’. With this evolution, the idea of social justice and individual freedom flourished. This is the foundation that UNDP Human Development Report was launched, and that Millenium Development Goals (MDGs) were crafted. In this trend, the mutual influence between development and security started to be recognized, most notably in the Larger Freedom, where security, development and human rights were all interconnected. In the meantime, security started to be acknowledged to be not only State security, or hard security, but also human security. Of note is that human security has subjective measurement and a significant focus on vulnerable groups. At the same time, development actors started to be increasingly worried about securitization of development goals.

SDGs were drafted against that background. SDG 16, often called ‘peace goal’, aims to promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels. Its targets deals with all violence, inclusive of conflict and non-conflict violence, organized crimes and other crimes, and security issues in public and private spheres alike. These targets are measured by objective and subjective indicators, including individual feelings regarding safety and perception of public service. Violence and crimes in SDGs are not only in its Goal 16 but in multiple other goals, including sexual violence, environmental crimes and green criminology, wild life trafficking, illegal fishing and poaching. In achieving these goals, law enforcement would play a crucial role. Other goals address mitigation of forced labour and improving work environment, and in such areas, law enforcement can work as an important enforcer. In the same document, poverty reduction, inequalities, health and education are aimed. It is noticeable that SDGs talk of peace and development. In this context, would peace be security plus human rights, if one uses the language of In Larger Freedom? The language of SDGs seems to indicate both securitization of development and development actors’ concern about it. It does include major elements of human security, but explicit referral was carefully avoided.

How does the UN’s approach fit in it, then? The UN has largely been approaching security in two different parts: peace operations as response to conflicts, and crimes and organized crimes through agencies and offices including UN Development Programme (UNDP) and UNODC. In both streams, stopping crimes and violence was of a relatively short term, responsive nature, and building state institutions was of a longer term, preventive nature. Recently, though, the division became less rigid, and cross-cutting issues have started to be picked up. With the change of the type of conflicts, of violence and of security issues, as well as the change of approach from State security to human security, more comprehensive approach, combining force across sectors started to be more common. Peace operations address Security Sector Reform (SSR), institution building and deals with organized crimes, while UNDP steps in immediately after, or sometimes even during the conflict. In a more recent years, in particular in Africa, while the UN tries to focus on prevention, different reality was that the UN had to work on immediate response to stop violence, which can be seen in stabilization missions. Protection of Civilians (POC) in physical terms, while not the primary focus of the UN, has been very necessary on the ground.

What are actors in UN Peace Operations in all these activities? Within Peace Operations, often contribution of military contingents is discussed, but it is submitted that the police has a central role. The UN Police has about 30 percent of individual police that works on investigation, community policing, capacity building and prevention side of POC. The other 70 percent is deployed in the form of formed police units (FPUs), to work on tasks that require coordinated approach, including physical protection in the area of POC.

When one sees SDGs contribution in the link between security and development, the first thing that is noticeable may be that SDGs showed the complex dynamics of security to the world. As was already mentioned, SDGs discussed violence in conflict and non-conflict, organized and individual crimes, in public and private spheres, with objective and subjective indicators. Violence reduction was presented as a global goal and not just a problem of developing countries. SDG approaches these targets with best-practice approach, which managed to appeal to policy makers of various types of countries. SDGs are also sold as something for everyone with responsibility of everyone. Security and inequality issues are dealt with in the same document, as a global issue and not as a problem of countries and communities facing mass scale violence or inequality. SDGs are agreed as a shared goal, and one important shared goal is to bring security and development together.

However, SDGs have remaining challenges, too. One of them is that they are illustrated in the form of end goals and not means, which may leave the process requirement for equality behind. SDGs are framed as a declaration and responsibility by all, which could dilute accountability for non-delivery of commitments. Flexibility left in the document, understandably for getting agreement by maximum actors, can be detrimental to less powerful actors, depending on how that flexibility is implemented.

In order to address these challenges, it is all the more crucial that security and development work together. What is suggested is not securitization of development, or developmentization of security, but the cooperation between security and development with a conscious resort to human rights and the rule of law approach.

International Humanitarian Law Role Play Competition Japan Round

I am very happy to announce that we are hosting the very first International Humanitarian Law Role Play Competition, Japan National Round.

8 September 2019 at Komaba campus, the University of Tokyo.

Interested teams from Japanese universities, PLEASE APPLY BY 25 JUNE.

Please also note that there will be a seminar on 7 September on contemporary challenges of International Humanitarian Law. On that, details are coming up soon.

All details are below:

https://ihlroleplayjp.wixsite.com/competition-2019?fbclid=IwAR2E55LxuE_nfEtqoQF1jIoN98dhm0CwcUFiFZ4SdpUrVLkioyCc2od4-D0

Special thanks to the University of Tokyo’s student team – the last year’s team members.

12 April seminar: Why is the UN failing to mitigate sexual exploitation and abuse in Peace Operations?

 

The seminar on sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA) in UN Peace Operations – with my co-researcher Dr. Marsha Henry of the Centre for Women, Peace and Security, London School of Economics, was held on 12 April at the University of Tokyo’s Hongo Campus. The seminar is part of our project on sexual exploitation and abuse – prevention and accountability – myself as the primary researcher and Dr. Henry as co-researcher. We have been working together to cover both legal individual accountability side and prevention and mitigation of SEA from sociology, gender side of the issue.

 

The seminar had a great turn out and had a lot of people involved in similar issues in one way or another. We thank for those who participated in this seminar, the Humanities Center for its extensive support. We will reflect your comments and further research in the upcoming Roundtable on the same in New York later this year.

 

Civil and Political Rights in Japan – A Tribute to Nigel

Our book ‘Civil and Political Rights in Japan – A Tribute to Sir Nigel Rodley’ is out from Routledge.

The book project was initiated by myself, later edited by Saul.

The book is a tribute to Sir Nigel Rodley, or more appropriately, to Nigel. What I remember so clearly is Nigel at the time I made a presentation about my PhD research at the University of Essex – that was almost 10 years back now. By then Nigel was of course a world famous human rights giant, and this giant was the first one to be there, even before me, in the front row, to listen to what I had to say about individual criminal accountability of the United Nations Police personnel. There was no Sir Nigel Rodley in front of me, but a person who just cared about what was going on in the world. When he was charing the Human Rights Committee, he commented that Japan was following procedural obligations but many of the Committee’s recommendations go ignored – which was, ‘to put it mildly’, a waste of resource.

The book is intended to contribute to changing that.

My own chapters are on the use of force by law enforcement officials in Okinawa against protesters, and on discrimination against women in the sphere of marriage and family life.

I will have a module at my university – the University of Tokyo – based on this book in the upcoming semester.

https://www.crcpress.com/Civil-and-Political-Rights-in-Japan-A-Tribute-to-Sir-Nigel-Rodley/Takahashi/p/book/9780815385844

 

 

Joint Research Project on Sexual Exploitation and Abuse in UN Peace Operations

I am happy to announce the launch of a joint research project on prevention and accountability of sexual exploitation and abuse in United Nations Peace Operations. The project is funded by LIXIL Humanities Centre, and started on 1 October 2018, and will be completed on 30 September 2019.

Researchers:

Dr. Ai Kihara-Hunt, Associate Professor, the University of Tokyo

Dr. Marsha Henry, Associate Professor, London School of Economics (LSE)

 Project Plan 

1. Subject

Prevention and Accountability of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse in United Nations Peace Operations

2. Aim and Objects

This project aims at conducting a comprehensive analysis on the prevention and accountability of sexual crimes committed by UN Peace Operations personnel. This issue has been reported since the 1990s, but the UN has not managed to address it effectively. The results of this project will not only contribute to academia but also to reform of related policies and internal mechanisms in the UN.

3. Project Plan

Dr. Kihara-Hunt has been researching the criminal prosecution of crimes committed by UN Peace Operations personnel. She intends to conduct an additional research into the UN’s internal machinery and the implementation of internal rules, which are currently undergoing major reform. Her scope is also widened to sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA), which includes misbehavior not amounting to crimes.

Dr. Henry will look into the prevention of SEA from the perspectives of social science and women’s studies. She will analyze the possible factors that contribute to SEA directly and indirectly, and examine how effective the UN and member States’ efforts of prevention is.

By having these two angles, the project aims to conduct a more holistic analysis into the prevention and accountability of SEA committed in UN Peace Operations.

4. Events and Publications

There will be two public seminars in Tokyo, Japan: on 19 April 2019 and 13 September 2019. In September, the researchers are planning to have a round table consultation in New York with stakeholders. Final findings will be published on websites of the researchers.

Related site

Regional International Humanitarian Law Role Play Competition

A few months ago, International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Japan Office asked me if I would be interested in sending in a team from the University of Tokyo to compete in the Regional International Humanitarian Law (IHL) Role Play Competition.

After asking around in all the classes I conduct at the University, we managed to form a team of three members to enroll in this competition. They are first and second-year students without international law background. Coaching them also faced the wall of finding a suitable time for all. The last two weeks prior to the competition was intense!

The team has done a tremendous job in obtaining courage and trying to make logic, as well as to play any roles given. Shy members have turned into great speakers, and the team has become a team, not a collection of individuals just on the day of the competition.

 

And on the day of the competition, 6 October, at UKM in Malaysia, they did it! They won the second prize in the Asian Regional competition. Great to see them eventually gaining courage and enjoying the learning process. Very proud of the team. Good experience for me to be a coach as well.

Congratulations!

Symposium on International Relations in the Nuclear Era

 On 28 August 2018, I was invited by International Student Conference to speak at its symposium on International Relations in Nuclear Era – with focus on human dignity.

The life story of a survivor of Hiroshima, Mr. Miyake, was still incredibly powerful after more than 70 years. Mr. Kawasaki from ICAN spoke about ICAN’s movement and the recent progress on Nuclear Weapons Convention. His story carried a message that such an important movement was completely people-led and is a product of  every person involved in the movement to push it forward. Below is my part.

Nuclear Weapons under International Security

There are three themes that I am asked to deliver today. The first one is on nuclear weapons from security perspective, the second one is nuclear weapons under international law, and the third one is on the inhuman nature of nuclear weapons. I will speak about these three themes in turn, but my expertise lies in the second one: international law and nuclear weapons.

 

First, on nuclear weapons from security perspective, normally this means state security. This is, in international relations, states consider protecting their territories and political independence through restraining threats by military means. Nuclear weapons can be part of this means.

 

This means that achieving security through nuclear umbrella, i.e. through a state appealing to other states that it has nuclear weapons and thereby deterring attacks. As you know, Japan is under the umbrella of the US. This tool is the main tool used, together with economic sanctions, against North Korea.

 

There is dilemma in security based on the threat of nuclear weapons. This dilemma exists in collective self defence. If a state feels threatened by another state, that state tends to expand armament, to strengthen relationships with allies or to find new allies. That further threatens the other state and that state also resort to expanding armament or strengthening alliance. This makes a negative spiral, fuels the competition of armament expansion and strengthening alliance. This spiral is not limited to nuclear weapons, but in the case of nuclear weapons, the damage that they can cause is enormous, and therefore it takes a significant risk.

 

There are, of course, as Mr. Kawasaki said, disarmament and antinuclear movements, but states have different interests, and the processes are slow. There are largely two streams of antinuclear movements. One is to leave the states with nuclear weapons as they are and to prevent nuclear weapons proliferating. This is represented in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. This year is its 50th anniversary, and 190 states including those armed with nuclear weapons have ratified it. Japan has been submitting draft resolutions to the UN General Assembly’s First Committee on disarmament, jointly with many other states, 24 times consecutively since 1994. The other movement is to ban nuclear weapons. This is represented by the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty: CTBT and Nuclear Weapons Convention. CTBT has 188 signatories and 166 ratifications, but has not entered into force as eight of the states, whose participation was set to be a prerequisite for the Treaty to enter into force. Nuclear Weapons Convention was adopted in July last year. The central concept is the inhuman nature of nuclear weapons, and the Convention legally bans nuclear weapons as such. Japan has not attended the meeting, and has made its intension of non-participation clear.

 

 

Here, if we consider human dignity, as is in the theme today, human security, with people in the center, may be important.

 

Human security is a concept that emerged in the 1990s. It focuses on individual persons, not states, and aims at individual persons enjoys security. How they feel secure, that is subjective aspect, and to ensure security, that is objective aspect, both exist. For people to feel secure, it is not enough to sustain the existence of the state, but to guarantee a number of elements under the three pillars: freedom from want, freedom from fear and human life with dignity. This concept deals with security in a comprehensive way. To look into how individuals feel secure, in many occasions, means to focus on vulnerable and disadvantaged groups. In relation to nuclear weapons, the threat of nuclear weapons may affect different people and groups differently. By paying attention to vulnerable groups, human security delivers fairer and more comprehensive policy and to consider steps for all. At the same time, this means to safeguard physical security of all members of the society, and to ensure water, food, medical care, education and other social rights, and by doing so, to build a more stable and sustainable peace.

 

Nuclear Weapons under International Law

Now, on international law regarding nuclear weapons, there are two particularly relevant international law branches. The first one is what is called jus ad bellum, which determines the condition that allows the use of force. The other is international law that determines the means and methods of combat, as well as who should be protected from effect of it, once an armed conflict occurs. This branch of international law is called International Humanitarian Law, or the Law of Armed Conflict.

 

The first part, on jus ad bellum, is founded on Articles 2-4 and 2-7, as well as Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter. Under these provisions, use of force is prohibited with two exceptions: self defence including collective self defence, and use of force based on a Security Council resolution. This non-use of force principle also forms part of customary law, and thus all states, even non-UN member states must abide by it. This means, in relation to nuclear weapons, that no state is allowed to use nuclear weapons to attack another state. However, some argue that preemptive self-defence is contained within the right to self defence, if there is an imminent threat. Even in that case, the action taken to defend the state must be proportionate to the threat posed in the first place. Therefore it maybe only threat of imminent attack by nuclear weapons that may be relevant to consider.

 

International Humanitarian Law sets limit on weapons that can be used in combats. There is a principle of distinction, which demands civilians not participating in hostilities, as well as combatants or fighters who laid down their arms must not be intentionally killed. Another principle is one of proportionality. This principle requires that the casualties among civilians do not exceeds the concrete military advantages anticipated. The principle of precaution means that those participating in hostilities must make precautions not to affect civilians and to give advance warning to civilians if they attack an area with civilians. Another important principle prohibits them to cause unnecessary human suffering. According to these principles, some weapons are prohibited as such.

 

One of the examples is Cluster munitions. Cluster munitions have hundreds of small explosives within a large bomb, and when they explode, the pieces of small explosives go everywhere covering a wide area. As such, it is impossible to distinguish whom the weapon is targeting.

 

Other examples are gas, chemical weapons and dumdum bullets, which expands once they hit the target.

 

Regarding nuclear weapons, the advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice is the most authoritative. In the advisory opinion on the legality of the use or threat of nuclear weapons, the Court stated that the use of nuclear weapons, especially taking into account their destructive nature, their ability to cause unspoken human suffering, and their capacity to cause injuries to generations, in fact seems ‘scarcely reconcilable with respect for the requirements of the law applicable in armed conflict’. It concluded, nevertheless, that it did not ‘have sufficient elements to enable it to conclude with certainty that the use of nuclear weapons would necessarily be at variance with the principles and rules of law applicable in armed conflict in any circumstance’, particularly considering the state’s fundamental right to survive. Furthermore, the Court said it could not ignore the practice referred to as ‘policy of deterrence’. One can see that many of the judges found this conclusion undesirable even if legally correct. This is indicated by the majority’s opinion, which added at the end the desirability of complete disarmament of nuclear weapons. That seven out of fifteen judges opposed to the majority judgement is also indicative of the fact.

 

If one considers that it is virtually impossible to limit the killing to combatants, that victims continue to suffer for generations, and that victims appear to suffer unnecessary suffering through exposure to radiation, I would think it is more accurate to consider that the use of nuclear weapons would infringe International Humanitarian Law. How about possessing nuclear weapons and use them as a deterrent? The ICJ’s majority opinion explained that the threat of a weapon, the use of which is against the law, would be against the law. According to this argument, the threat of nuclear weapons would contradict the law.

 

I consider that, because of the characteristics of nuclear weapons, especially the extent of destruction they can cause, their inhuman effects and the impossibility to distinguish combatants and civilians, nuclear weapons should be banned all together. It is also because of the system of the international community, which works with states as supreme bodies. It is difficult to control how states should make decisions. It is also difficult to limit the ways to keep and manage nuclear weapons.

 

Under another branch of international law, Human Rights Law, there may be many rights that can be affected: the right to life, freedom from torture and ill-treatment, the right to health and many more. However, Human Rights Law deals with how state A deals with nationals of its own state and others under state A’s jurisdiction. Therefore, it is not useful to determine the relationship between state A against people in state B. International law works on lex specialis, which means that more specific law prevails. This means, during an armed conflict, International Humanitarian Law prevails. In such a case, International Humanitarian Law can help determining the scope of rights.

 

Inhuman Nature of Nuclear Weapons

Finally, inhuman nature of nuclear weapons relates to the capacity of destruction, the level of cruelty that nuclear weapons can cause, and unnecessary suffering suffered by victims. It is more than likely that a nuclear weapon will victimize civilians if it is used, as it can not target at specific targets. One nuclear weapon can cause hundreds of thousands of victims, environment gets destroyed for many years, and radiation haunts generations to come. These elements as a whole do appear to sufficiently indicate the inhuman nature of nuclear weapons.

 

As the Nuclear Weapons Convention is being agreed by many States, with the very nature of nuclear weapons are being questioned by more and more States, the legality of the use or threat of nuclear weapons may have moved a few decades after the ICJ Advisory Opinion.

Discussion with the Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights

The brief record of the discussion between East Asian scholars and the Deputy High Commissioner and officials at the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, conducted on 17 July 2018, is now cleared by the Deputy High Commissioner’s office. It will also be published on the ACUNS (Academic Council on the United Nations System) site.

Human Rights is NOT in Retreat insisted the Deputy UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Kate Gilmore, while Importance of Universal Periodic Review emphasized by UPR Chief Mr. Gianni MAGAZZENI

 

Deputy High Commissioner Gilmore saw real benefit in the academic collaboration with East Asian scholars and first opened the floor for the commentators.

 

Prof. Ai Kihara-Hunt of the University of Tokyo, Japan, inquired with the Deputy High Commissioner how the UN-OHCHR was dealing the global trend of retreat of human rights, and what its strategy is in tackling the issue of globally shrinking space to speak up for human rights. In particular, the speaker asked if there was a way of collaborating with the group, who share two common features: they are East Asians, and they are academics.

 

In presenting the trend of retreat, Prof. Kihara-Hunt mentioned that examples of the rise of populism needed no mention among the informed participants. In more States, vindictive and xenophobic rhetoric of populism were more apparently and bluntly in the face of the general population. It was at multiple levels, from the government policies to the public’s attitude toward outsiders, and worryingly, this trend was even in the laws and regulations, through which more discrimination appears to be legitimized.

 

In the case of Japan, too, the government’s survey on the public awareness of human rights, suggested that the vast majority of the Japanese population are aware of human rights, noting that the topics that they inquired about were mostly concerning categories of persons who may face discrimination but did not other substantive topics, such as death penalty, freedom of opinion and expression, sexual violence, ill-treatment against foreign workers, immigration. Rights and freedoms are necessary to create democratic space for everyone’s human rights.

 

She encouraged East Asian scholars to contribute to the endeavor of maintaining and regaining space for human rights.

 

Prof. Sheng of China asked if there is a gap between the Office and the people in the field, referring to the human rights situation of women and children in Central African Republic. He also asked how much impact the US’s withdrawal from the Human Rights Council has.

 

Professor Changrok Soh of Korea University thought there should be an East Asian dialogue about human rights, even if this does not happen at the State-level. He recommended that Universal Periodic Review (UPR) be used as a topic of discussion among the East Asian scholars.

 

Mr. Inuzuka, former member of the Japanese Diet, wondered what the Responsibility to Protect concept would be in relation to peacekeeping in the era of President Trump.

 

Deputy High Commissioner questioned whether human rights are really in retreat, and if so, by what measure would we assess this to be the case? After all, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed 70 years ago, has since been included in almost every new national constitution established subsequently; the majority of UN member states being constituted post-WW2. There are now laws in countries all over the world that reference the contents and/or values and/or purposes of the Declaration enabling the cascade of human rights from the universal and the global to the national and the local.

 

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is concrete evidence of this universal engagement in human rights, having now passed through two cycles with which all States cooperated while, for example, the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court with jurisdiction over international crimes, is further evidence that never before has the world been so aware of human rights; of those who are lost to human rights violations and of States’ potential for abuse of power and their obligations to relative powerlessness.  Never before have we known so much about the nature and causes of preventable human suffering; never before has so much evidence been collected about the violations/abuses of human rights; never before has there been so many forums in which evidence of these matters can be put before member states. These are not the circumstances of defeat or of retreat. That being said, there is no question that political discourse has deteriorated: political narrative about universal rights has worsened as has the moral character of that political discourse.

 

She further emphasized that claims for rights to be upheld were not in retreat. Human rights defenders continued to demand for human rights. The number of people documenting human rights evidence has increased.  There is a broader based clash between people’s demand for rights and the State’s efforts to “supply rights”. She expressed her opinion that it was important to challenge current negative political narratives, by building coalitions to amplify the demand for rights. She noted specifically that what is under assault are not only values, but also the place of fact and of evidence. The norm that public policy should be based on evidence and on impartial standards was under assault.

 

How this retreat from the disciplines of standards, norms and evidence-based policy making has an impact is clear in peacekeeping. The UN is overdependent on certain donors; it has its political economy that affects its policy making including in respect of fulfilling its mandate in times of conflict.

 

Times are changing.  There are more people than ever on the move. Climate change is a local problem with only global solutions. Inequality is the gravest threat to enduring peace. There are alive today more young people than ever before in human history. All of these – and many more – directly concern people and where ever people are concerned there are inevitably human rights concerns.  We all must do more to elevate the demand for rights, including in East Asia. Geneva itself – alone – is not the answer. The answer will always involve a key role for local social movements. She concludes that we all have rights – without exception – but that not everyone has the same degree of responsibility for rights. The more power one has, the more responsibility we have to defend, protect and uphold rights.

 

Concerning the Universal Periodic Review, Mr. Gianni MAGAZZENI, Chief of the UPR Branch, Council and Treaty Mechanisms Division (CTMD), explained that while the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) takes place in Geneva its main objective is to improve the human rights situation at country level. It is a peer review of every member state, which benefits from the contribution of other stakeholders as well, including independent national human rights institutions and human rights associations active in country as well as regional organizations, if they  submit  information within given deadlines. For the UPR, hundreds of pages are considered and then summarized in a report of maximum 10 pages. In addition, OHCHR prepares also a compilation of UN documentation, received from UN Treaty Bodies, Special Procedures Mandate Holders, which complement state reports. The UPR has entered its third cycle in May 2017. On average, each delegation is led by one or more ministers with an average number of 20 state officials, and about 100 states making an average of 2.4 recommendations (i.e. more than 200) for each review. The review takes place in Geneva but the UPR focuses on the implementation and follow up of recommendations – especially those that are accepted – in each Member State. By strengthening national coordination and follow up mechanisms and enhancing the links between human rights requirements and the SDGs States will be able to better address root causes and prevent emergency situations. The UPR has 100% participation record so far: i.e. it is a mechanism accepted by all member states, which come to Geneva for the review. The main challenge in this third cycle is implementation which – if systematically ensured – will greatly enhance prevention and the success and sustainability of the Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The entire UN system, in addition to OHCHR needs to work more with Governments and other national stakeholders in order to support at least accepted UPR recommendations leading to the strengthening of the national protection system and relevant changes in laws and practices. Thus, if human rights are at the core of efforts at the SDGs, all the three pillars of the UN Charter (peace and security, development, and human rights) will be significantly strengthened.

 [Report drafted by Mr. Simon Panchaud and Ai Kihara-Hunt, edited by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights]

July 2018 ACUNS Tokyo Office and UNOG Director-General’s Office: East Asian Scholars’ Dialogue with Heads of International Organizations – with Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights

On 16-17 July, Academic Council on the United Nations System (ACUNS) Tokyo Office, jointly with the United Nations Office in Geneva Director-General’s Office, organized a dialogue between heads of international organizations based in Geneva and East Asian scholars. As Deputy at the ACUNS Tokyo Office, I was part of the organizing committee for this big event. Today I upload part of the dialogue: the one with Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, held on 17 July at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Ms. Gilmour opened up the floor for comments and interventions before making a wonderful speech. I was the first commentator. Below is my part, from the report I am drafting.

Prof. Ai Kihara-Hunt of the University of Tokyo, Japan, inquired with the Deputy High Commissioner how the UN-OHCHR is dealing the global trend of retreat of human rights, and what its strategy is in tackling the issue of globally shrinking space to speak up for human rights. In particular, the speaker asked, if there is a way of collaborating with the group, who share two common features: they are East Asians, and they are academics.

 

In presenting the trend of retreat, Prof. Kihara-Hunt mentioned that examples of the rise of populism need no mention among the informed participants. In more States, vindictive and xenophobic rhetoric of populism are more apparently and bluntly in the face of the general population. It is at multiple levels, from the government policies to the public’s attitude toward outsiders, and worryingly, this trend is even in the laws and regulations, through which more discrimination appears to be legitimized.

 

In the case of Japan, too, it appears that human rights is being pushed away from the mainstream. She questioned, in particular, if the idea and protection mechanism of human rights in Japan is appropriately presented. To give concrete examples, she referred to the public statement by the Japanese government official regarding the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression. After he made critical comments about Japan’s legislation, it was ‘clarified’ that Special Rapporteur’s ‘opinion does not reflect the view of the UN as a whole’. In the government’s survey on the public awareness of human rights, the result was presented that the vast majority of the Japanese population are aware of human rights. However, the topics that they inquired were mostly on categories of persons who may face discrimination, and do not have substantive topics, such as death penalty, freedom of opinion and expression, sexual violence, ill-treatment against foreign workers, immigration. These rights and freedoms are necessary to create a democratic space with respect for everyone’s human rights.

 

She questioned how OHCHR is tackling the now seemingly a general trend of lessened respect for human rights. She asked ways for East Asian scholars to contribute to the endeavor of regaining space for human rights.

 OHCHR (2)

Summary: UN ASG Fabrizio Hochschild lecture

【Summary】

“Future of Human Security: Its Increased Importance in the Struggling World
 – from the United Nations Perspective”

by Mr. Hochschild, United Nations Assistant Secretary-General for Strategic Coordination

 

On 8 March, the Graduate Program on Human Security, the University of Tokyo, hosted a special lecture by the UN Assistant Secretary-General for Strategic Coordination, Mr. Fabrizio Hochschild.
He questioned if our generation could hope for a better world for the next generation while highlighting seven major challenges today: i) climate change, ii) growing inequality, iii) lack of clarity in  geopolitical power relations leading to  greater unpredictability, iv) increasing number and complexity of armed conflicts, v) global threat of terrorism, vi) reduction of space in human rights promotion and protection, and vii) uncertainty of frontier technology.
These threats are taking place simultaneously and are mutually reinforcing. For example, increasing inequality can push marginalized people to further alienation, give rise to nationalism and isolationalism, and create an opportunity for recruitment by extremist groups. The rise of terrorism comes with the absence of the rule of law and many terrorist-related activities operate in developing countries.
It is therefore important to have a comprehensive measure to address the root causes of terrorism. Technology advancement is moving at a speed that outstrips public scrutiny so much so that policy makers cannot keep up. When the internet was created, people hoped that it would make the world better, but such technology is also susceptible to new forms of manipulation in which it is used as a tool for warfare.

Currently, there is mistrust for multilateral organization including the UN. This is paradoxical, given the challenges that we are facing are transnational in nature, and require solutions through cooperation. The UN’s relevance is ever more vital.

The UN is under a major reform to make itself more effective, to tackle discrimination, to reduce bureaucracy, and to have better coherence in its approach. The emphasis of the reform is on prevention, anticipating crisis and building resilience.

On the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), Mr Hochschild described them as a comprehensive tool in addressing contemporary issues. Japan has been leading  on the human security approach, which echoes the Secretary-General’s vision. Both concepts  focus on the most vulnerable people. By taking an integrated, needs-based and comprehensive approach, and by addressing the root causes of issues, human security can bring results.

(Unofficial summary by Haruka Mizobata and Ai Kihara-Hunt)

 

It was great to meet my former boss at the UN-Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Hope to have further cooperation in the near future.

FabrizioKiharahunt