Search

After belatedly apologizing for the cholera epidemic in Haiti, the 'New Approach to Cholera in Haiti' by the UN and the promise of material assistance to victims through a 'victim-centred approach' highlight how the victims turn and the socio-economic turn are increasingly pivotal in the field of transitional justice. In light of these growing calls, we suggest a matrix to clarify the debate made of two separate dimensions: the focus of reparations – collective versus individual – and the means of reparations – symbolic versus material. Based on fieldwork conducted in March 2017 in the communities most affected by the cholera outbreak, this article demonstrates how the tensions between reparations offered by the UN (with a preference for collective symbolic reparations) and the reparations demanded by the victims (individual material reparations) can help understand the current stalemate in Haiti, and hopefully inform the next steps in the process of remedy for the victims. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the international standards in safeguarding children by the organisation. Topics discussed include imbalance of power between humanitarian aid workers and peacekeeping personnel; comprehensive process strengthening child safeguarding policy; and importance of code of conduct to have professional boundaries with acceptable behaviour. It also mention that the child abuse means intentionally harming the children.

National courts have long understood the UN to have absolute immunity from their jurisdiction, based upon provisions in the UN Charter and the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the UN. While state immunity has evolved over recent decades, allowing restrictive immunity that distinguishes between acts jure imperii and those jure gestionis, questions have arisen as to whether that doctrine applies to international organizations and, specifically, the UN. The counterbalance to the UN’s absolute immunity is the requirement that it provide alternative mechanisms for resolving disputes. This raises concerns about accountability and internal review. Case law from various courts demonstrates an increasing willingness to attempt to challenge absolute immunity on the basis that the bar to jurisdiction violates claimants’ rights to access a court and to a remedy. In all of those cases, individuals’ ability to access alternative mechanisms for dispute resolution has been used to show that their rights have been realized. Recent events concerning the 2010 cholera outbreak in Haiti may lead to a challenge to the UN’s absolute immunity. The UN has deemed those claims to be ‘not receivable’, which denies the claimants their rights to access a court and to a remedy. In October 2013, lawyers for the Haiti cholera victims filed a class action in the Southern District of New York, seeking to challenge the UN’s immunity by bringing the Organization before a national court. This article explores whether the events in Haiti may provide the first successful, human rights-based challenge to the UN’s absolute immunity. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The United Nations Human Rights Council was established in 2006 following the disbanding of its predecessor, the Commission on Human Rights. One of the main criticisms leveled against the Commission was the perceived politicisation, selectivity and bias the took place at the body during its final years. The Council's mandate and founding principles were designed, in theory, to overcome the Commission's flaws. In practice, however, the new body greatly resembles its predecessor. Politicisation, selectivity and bias remain endemic at the UN's principal human rights body. Those issues are most clearly illustrated by reference to the Council's relationship with Israel. During the Council's first six years the body disproportionately focused on Israel and lacked even-handedness in its treatment of that country. In May 2012, Israel announced that it would no longer engage with the Council or its mechanisms, including refusing to attend the Universal Periodic Review. Although Israel reversed that position within 18 months -attending its rescheduled review session in October 2013 - its disengagement demonstrates the degree to which the Council had isolated and ostracised that country. This article explores the Council's treatment of Israel, from the outset, exploring the extent to which the body has adhered to its mandate and founding principles in relation to that country. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the author's view on the position of the U.S. in the policies and guidelines of United Nations Human Right Council. The author examines the historical stance of the country from the inception until after the General Assembly vote on its establishment. He also scrutinizes the human rights in the country and the Americans' response.