Search

To a part of Brazil’s southern and south-eastern population, the 2014 presidential election was about two irreconcilable projects for the country. To them, the victory of the Workers Party contender meant the unacceptable maintenance of the current economic policy and distribution of state's benefits. In response to this outcome, they publicly called for the secession of the south and south-east regions. Even though not a new phenomenon in Brazil, the current calls for secession are made under a distinct international legal scenario. The rise of self-determination as a right could serve as a legal basis for such claims. By looking at said right, the present article endeavours to establish the legal validity of the current calls for secession coming from south and south-east Brazil. After demonstrating that these claims are economic in nature, the present work demonstrates that those from the south and south-east seeking secession cannot be classified as a people and, therefore, could not legitimately clai...

By examining legal documents, doctrine and experts’ opinions and the ICRC’s position on the matter, the present article demonstrates that child soldiers do not bear the necessary requisites to be legally capable of directly participating in hostilities, as these children lack the intent that must be considered a conditio sine qua non for such acts to be carried out. By demonstrating this, the article shows that all children associated with armed forces or groups must be considered as victims, exploited by the adults that welcome or force them into joining belligerent parties. This conclusion, while not preventing belligerents from seeking a military victory, calls on them to take into account the specific situation of these children as they should be computed as potential collateral damage in targeting operations and treated as victims in need of special care for their rehabilitation when captured. The final sections of the article analyze in detail such consequences for belligerents that capture child soldiers or target forces with children in their ranks.

United States (us) government officials disclosed, in 2010, that Anwar Al-Aulaki, a dual us-Yemeni citizen alleged to be a leader of the terrorist group Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, had been added to a list of individuals that the Central Intelligence Agency (cia) and the Joint Special Operations Command (jsoc) were authorised to target for death. It is clear that the right to life is affected by targeted killing actions, as the objective of the practice is to kill the targeted individual. For such a practice to be lawful, it has to be considered non-arbitrary according to international standards. The two main instruments of universal scope that provide a legal protection for this right are the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The use of lethal force by a State would be legally justified by: (1) the carrying out of a lawfully imposed death penalty; (2) during an armed conflict, under international humanitarian law; and (3) if the force used was necessary, proportional and not the first option. This article examines the question of whether adding names to kill list remains legal under international human rights and humanitarian law, and if so, under what circumstances?

In June 2011 the license to build Belo Monte—what the Brazilian government claims to be the third largest dam in the world in terms of electric power generating capacity—was granted. Since the 1970s, when the plans to build the dam were first made public, the project has encountered great opposition. Indigenous peoples and others who would adversely be affected by the construction of the Belo Monte Dam were supported by national and international NGOs that tried to halt the project through numerous strategic paths, one of which was by filing a case before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Finally, in April 2011, the Commission granted an injunction in favor of the indigenous peoples of the Xingu River Basin that would be impacted by the dam, requesting the government to stop Belo Monte’s construction. However, Brazil argued that these peoples would not be affected and disregarded the request. This article, by looking at indigenous peoples’ substantive and procedural rights, assesses the possible adverse impacts on the indigenous peoples. Special attention is given * Vinodh Jaichand B.A., S.T.D. (UD-W); LL.B. (Natal); LL.M. (Miami); LL.M. (magna cum laude), S.J.D (summa cum laude) (Notre Dame). Professor and Director of the International Human Rights Exchange School for Social Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, former Deputy-Director of the Irish Centre for Human Rights at the National University of Ireland Galway and National Director of Lawyers for Human Rights, South Africa. ** Alexandre Andrade Sampaio is a Brazilian lawyer and holds an LL.M. (first class honors) in International Human Rights Law from the National University of Ireland, Galway. He is an active member of the Human Rights Commission of the Brazilian BAR Association of Campinas and has contributed to the work of the Special Procedures Branch of the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Center for Justice and International Law. He is currently the Right to Information Programme Officer of Article 19 South America. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, the aformentioned organizations. Human Rights Quarterly 35 (2013) 408–447 © 2013 by The Johns Hopkins University Press 2013 Dam and Be Damned 409 to the profound connection indigenous peoples have with their lands and how this connection impacts on their unique rights to self-determination, property, and culture. Considering the analysis of these rights, indigenous peoples’ right to be consulted in a free, prior, and informed manner is assessed. This article concludes that the adverse impacts that would result from Belo Monte’s construction are evident and the State’s conduct in carrying on with the project is in violation of national and international law. “God only makes a place like Belo Monte once in a while. This place was made for a dam.”1 Engineer involved in the planning of Belo Monte Dam “This dam kills the river. In killing the river, it kills us with it. So, we will die fighting.”2 Indigenous Kaiapo leader who objects to the building of the dam