Course syllabus

DISCIPLINARY AREA OF POLITICS AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

POLITICS 750 International Relations and Human Rights

COURSE SYLLABUS 2018

Semester One 2018 -- Thursdays  9am - 11 am

Associate Professor Stephen Hoadley, Convenor and Principal Lecturer
Human Sciences Building, Room 511
(09) 373 7599 extn 87031
s.hoadley@auckland.ac.nz
Office Hours: Tuesdays 1 pm - 2 pm, Wednesdays 1 pm - 3 pm, Thursdays 11 am- 12 noon. Or by appointment.

COURSE DESCRIPTION

• This course explores the policies of states towards each other and towards international organisations, non-state entities, and individuals in fulfilment of their obligations under domestic and international law to protect human rights. Instruments of statecraft ranging from diplomacy, monitoring and mediation to peacekeeping and military intervention are described and assessed in light of case studies.
• Broadly, this course juxtaposes the traditional claims of states to impose order against more recent claims by individuals to freedom, rights, justice and humane treatment. It places these conflicting claims in the modern international context, characterised by international organisations, law, politics, and public opinion mobilised by NGOs.
• A recurrent theme is the primary responsibility individual states bear for the implementation of international human rights ideals and agreements. A related theme is the impact of states’ domestic politics and foreign policy decision-making institutions as they affect, and are affected by, states’ international human rights obligations, goals and policies. Country case studies may include the US, NZ, or others chosen by students in which the politics of the formation of HR policy by particular governments may feature.
• While common lectures and readings are presented, students will have a wide choice of essay and oral report topics to make best use of their interests, skills and experiences. Students will be encouraged to master not only traditional academic research and writing techniques but also Internet search and downloading capabilities and use of electronic information sources and presentation techniques to support their essays and oral reports.
• This is the core course of the interdisciplinary degree of Master of Professional Studies in International Relations and Human Rights (MPSTD-IRHR), of which Hoadley is the Coordinator. This course may also be taken in pursuit of the BA (Hons), two-year MA, MCTS, MPP, PGDipA  or other graduate degrees.

 

PURPOSES AND OBJECTIVES

This course has the following aims:
• To provide a common core of ideas, information, and academic credit for the degree of Master of Professional Studies in International Relations and Human Rights (MPSTD-IRHR).
• To stimulate interest and background in topics that can be researched for Politics 737, Politics 780, Politics 789, and other research essays, dissertations and thesis.
• To prepare students for other courses in international relations and human rights and for eventual career work in governments, international organisations, NGOs, media, and other professions.
• To sharpen skills and deepen experience in efficient research, discriminating analysis, critical thinking, accurate writing, effective oral presentation, and human rights advocacy.
• In particular, to orient students to and inform them regarding the origins, structures, processes, and political issues surrounding key international human rights institutions, including international human rights law, the International Bill of Rights, the United Nations Charter, the UN human rights bodies, the ad hoc international criminal tribunals, the International Criminal Court, and related institutions and events, and how these can be deployed in the enhancement of international human rights.

THEMATIC OVERVIEW -- HOW TO PROTECT HUMAN RIGHTS INTERNATIONALLY.

The following is a simplified overview of how human rights reforms progress. It may be used as an analytical template to contextualise successful episodes of human rights (HR) protection, to criticise failed reforms, or to prescribe new initiatives. This course will touch on all these ten phase themes but focus more on the latter phases (5-10) than the initial phases, that is, we will focus more on the actions of states and international institutions and their political drivers and limits than on non-official diagnosis and advocacy. Also see Buergenthal’s four stages in Human Rights Q Vol 19 no 4 (Library e-resource).

Ten Phases in the Protection of International Human Rights (HR)

1. HR idealists, opinion leaders and investigators identify, diagnose and deplore brutality or discrimination and devise visions of better or more equitable treatment of victims.

2. Thoughtful advocates distil and assert principles and specify minimum standards of HR treatment.

3. NGOs and other activists negotiate deeper consensus on HR standards and organise wider support coalitions around that consensus.

4. Opinion leaders and NGOs mobilize, publicise, and lobby to exert influence on the public, journalists, political party and group leaders, legislators, government leaders, and international organisation delegates.

5. Governments, responding to either domestic demand, new international standards and best practices, or pressure, individually adopt human rights standards in legislation, policy, administration and justice systems .

6. Governments negotiate international agreements on HR standards and prescriptions, usually in the form of HR treaties, then refine them, e.g. with declarations, amendments, protocols or supplemental treaties.

7. Governments acting through international organisations delegate to states the responsibility of adopting and implementing HR treaties within their boundaries.

8. Governments, UN bodies, HR treaty committees, and NGOs monitor compliance and report publicly, ‘naming and shaming’ violators.

9. Governments create national or international courts to prosecute individual violators of HR treaties, with the resources and enforcement assistance of relevant states-parties, for example the International Criminal Court.

10. Governments act, unilaterally or multilaterally, with or without UN Security Council mandate, to intervene diplomatically, economically, or militarily in violating states to protect victims of severe HR violations, changing culpable regimes by force as a last resort. This is called humanitarian intervention (HI).

COURSE STRUCTURE

Initially, students will participate in an exercise and write a report to illuminate a human rights violation, due Week 2, worth 10% of the final grade. The report will be used for a diagnosis of academic skills. See guidelines below under Week 1.  Then students will write a critical book review, due in Week 4.

Then each student will research a major topic and report orally on it. The presentation will be worth 30% of the final grade. Use the Discussions Questions as focal points. Students will volunteer and the lecturer will compile a topic roster and schedule. Broadly, topic options are:
1) an aspect of the evolution of international relations theory in relation to human rights concepts, or a philosophical school, theorist, event, or agreement with relevance to current international human rights issues;
2) an analysis of the evolution of United Nations conventions, institutions and policies on human rights, or on UN humanitarian intervention, and U.S. policies towards the UN;
3) a discussion of the legal institutions attempting to govern the use of war and the morality, law and politics of military intervention to protect human rights or suppress terrorism, or the human rights of terrorists or asylum-seekers; and
4) a review and analysis of the laws of armed conflict and remedies for their violation, including national, regional and international war crimes tribunals, the new International Criminal Court, new courts for new situations, and an old court -- the International Court of Justice -- adapted to new purposes.

Students will write a term essay of up to 2500 words worth 35% of the final grade. Choose from Essay Topics below or adapt a Discussion Question. Other topics may be accommodated upon consultation with the lecturer.

Late in the course there will be a short-answer quiz, worth 10% of the final grade, details TBA.

COURSE ASSESSMENT

EXERCISE REPORT
Value 10% of Final Grade
Due In class, Week 2
Length: 650 words 
Topic Chosen from Exercise Guidelines

 

BOOK REVIEW

Value: 15% of Final Grade

Due in class, Week 4

Length: 850 words

Book chosen from Syllabus

Please submit to Turnitin via Canvas below and also in print version to Arts Assignment Centre or in class

 

ORAL REPORT
Value: 30% of Final Grade
Due: To be volunteered and scheduled on a roster
Length: 10-15 minutes plus Q&A = 25 minutes max.  Words equivalent = 1600.
Topic: Chosen from Discussion Questions in the Syllabus. The oral report must be on a topic different from your exercise report or essay.

QUIZ
Value: 10% of Final Grade
Due: In class on a date near the end of term to be announced 
Length: 15-20 minutes of abbreviations, identifications, short fill-ins.  Words equivalent = 650
Topic: Course material to date.

ESSAY
Value: 35% of Final Grade
Due: Monday 21 May by 2 pm.    Please submit your text to Turnitin via Canvas Assignments and the print version to Arts Assignments Centre. 
Length: up to 25000 words
Topic: Chosen from Discussion Questions or list of essay topics in this Syllabus, or consult with the lecturer for an alternative. The essay must be on a topic different from your oral report.

All students are expected to have read and understood the latest version of the Department’s Coursework Guide. The latest edition is available free-of-charge from the Department Office or via the Department website www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/pol

Students are advised to consult the following people (in this order) at the earliest possible opportunity if, for any reason, they experience problems in completing an assessment:
- The Lecturer Stephen Hoadley who is also Coordinator of the degree of MPSTD-IRHR
- The Graduate Advisor AP Stephen Hoadley
- The Head of Disciplinary Area Prof Martin Wilkinson
- The Head of School of Social Sciences Professor Simon Holdaway

CORE READINGS

Short-title abbreviation is in bold font.  Hass and Normand are on E-resourse.

• NZH = NZ Handbook on International Human Rights (2008)  E-resource or Davis Law Library (KM258 FOR hi 2003 or earlier edition is ok).  Note useful Internet sources on page 247 and Glossary page 249.
• Goodhart = Michael Goodhart, Human Rights Politics and Practice (2013). 323 G65
• Hass = Michael Hass, International Human Rights (2008) in SL 341.48 H11. E-resource.
• Lauren = Paul G. Lauren, The Evolution of International Human Rights (1998 in SL 341.48109 L37.
• Buerg = Thomas Buergenthal, International Human Rights in a Nutshell (1995) in SL 341.481 B92.
• Normand = Roger Normand and Sarah Zaidi. Human Rights at the UN (2008) Law and E-resource.

Background sources for newcomers-- Three good starting points:
Four reliable, accessible and widely used textbooks (with useful glossaries of IR terms) are

• Mansbach and Johnson, Global Politics (2017)
•  Goldstein, Joshua S. International Relations (7th ed 2006 or later editions by Pevehouse & Goldstein)
•  Blanton, Shannon & Kegley, Charles W. World Politics: Trend and Transformation (2016-17 or earlier eds) several copies in shelves
• Baylis, John and Steve Smith (eds) The Globalization of World Politics (4th ed but 3rd and 2nd editions are useful too)

A few more suggested general IR books and journals
Alston, Philip ed. The Future of UN Human Rights Treaty Monitoring (2000) SL 341.481 A46f

Amstutz, Mark R. International Ethics: Concepts, Theories, and Cases in Global Politics (2008)
Barnett, M. and R. Duvall (eds). Power in Global Governance (2005)
Brown, Chris. Understanding International Relations (2005)

Devetak, Richard ed. An Introduction to International Relations (2017)

Hoffman, Peter J. Humanitarianism, War, and Politics: Solferino to Syria (2018)
Jackson, Robert & Georg Sorensen, Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches (2003)
Karns, M. P.& K. A. Mingst. International Organizations: Politics and Processes of Global Governance (2004)
Larner, W. ed. Global Governmentality: Governing International Spaces (2004)
Little, Richard and Michael Smith, Perspectives on World Politics. (2006)

Mingst, Karen A. Essentials of International Relations.(7th ed 2017).
Papp, Daniel A. Contemporary International Relations (Longman 6th ed 2002).
Viotti, Paul R & Mark V Kauppi, International Relations and World Politics (2007 or earlier ed)
White, Brian, Richard Little and Michael Smith (eds) Issues in World Politics (2005)

 Recommended IR and Foreign Policy Journals
Many journals carry articles on various aspects of international politics, and these are particularly useful for recent and current developments. Most are available electronically in full-text via LEARN or Library course pages (below). The principal journals include:

Foreign Affairs
Foreign Policy
Global Governance
Human Rights Quarterly
International Affairs (London)
International Journal of Human Rights
International Organisation
Internationale Politik (English edition)
International Security
Journal of Conflict Resolution
Journal of Peace Research
Orbis
Review of International Studies
Security Dialogue
Strategic Survey
Survival
The Military Balance
The World Today
Washington Quarterly
World Politics

Electronic sources of information

Library Search at:  http://www.library.auckland.ac.nz   for books, articles, e-data bases, and Short Loan items, many downloadable.

Internet sources

 • Definitions of IR terms may be found at http://www.peace.ca/glossaryoftermsforir.htm.

o See country-by-country human rights and civil liberties assessments at (adjusting for latest year)
      https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/#wrapper
      https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2018

o Useful resources are full text articles found in Human Rights Quarterly
o Find useful Internet addresses on p 247 of the NZ Handbook on International Human Rights.
o Access Google Scholar and try various search words and phrases.

ESSAY PRESCRIPTION AND TOPICS

1. In your essay please employ material (concepts, examples, sources, etc) from our study in POLS 750 on the intersection of international relations and human rights. The topic must be distinct from your oral report.
2. Feel free to include tables, boxed excerpts, photocopied illustrations or appendices, but label them clearly and in your text denote clearly their significance to your line of argument.
3. Copy from the Syllabus your chosen question and insert it at the top of the title page in small font. Then compose an accurate and interesting title and insert it, in large font, followed by your name and the date.
4. Then compose a 100 word Abstract [I want not introductory promises but your findings and conclusions] and put it in a box on your title page below the other information. Then begin your text on the next page (numbered 1).
5. Maximum length is 2500 words exclusive of footnotes and bibliography; 2000 is satisfactory if succinct.
6. Otherwise, follow the style and format of the Political Studies Coursework Guide. Chicago (footnoting at bottom of page) style is preferred.  See Files, top of the list, for Chicago style sheet. Be sure to include page numbers of quotes and details if in-text style used.
7. Submit your essay to Turnitin via link in Canvas Assignments and attach the receipt to the back of your essay.
8. Print and attach your Cover Sheet (from Canvas menu at left) .   Staple once at upper left corner. Don’t enclose your essay in plastic or fold it. Submit your essay to Arts Assignment Centre by deadline day and time.

Statement of University Policy:
'The University of Auckland will not tolerate cheating, or assisting others to cheat, and views cheating in coursework as a serious academic offence. The work that a student submits for grading must be the student's own work, reflecting his or her learning. Where work from other sources is used, it must be properly acknowledged and referenced. This requirement also applies to sources on the world-wide web. A student's assessed work may be reviewed against electronic source material using computerised detection mechanisms. ' Pol 750 students are required to submit their essays to TURNITIN and attach a receipt to the hard copy upon submission to the lecturer.

TOPICS
1. Argue, with examples, the theme that that despite three millennia of religious and philosophical assertions of the worth of human beings, not until recent political action was initiated did a viable international legal regime to protect human rights emerge.

2. Show by whom and why human rights are thought to be universal and defend that view in the face of challenges by proponents of
• EITHER a) the doctrine of sovereignty,
• OR b) cultural relativism or communitarianism or Asian, Islamic, or African values.
• OR c) the need for international harmony between states or between North and South
• OR d) terrorism or militant jihadism
• OR e) a combination of these.

3. EITHER a) Argue that governments these days should feel obliged to integrate human rights concerns with their security, trade, and diplomatic policies, but then note the costs and risks of doing so. OR b) Critically assess the alleged Realist contention that it is misguided and sometimes harmful to base foreign policies on human rights and related moral concerns.

4. Describe the institutional context of, assess the political influences on, and point out the compromises that shaped the drafting of
• EITHER a) the human rights passages of the United Nations Charter
• OR b) the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
• OR c) the ICCPR or another significant international human rights agreement,
• OR d) some combination of these.
Then discuss whether it was worth the international effort after all.

5. Show that US political leaders had legitimate reasons for scepticism about the United Nations and international human rights institutions from their origin to the present but also had reasons to continue participating in UN activities and respecting major human rights treaties. (avoid overlap with ICC question)

6. After tracing how the Human Rights Council and other UN human rights institutions (mainly the HRCOM and UNHCHR) assumed their current shapes, functions and procedures, assess why they are ineffective in protecting human rights, what reforms are needed, and what are the political obstacles to achieving them.

7. Why is the human rights discourse surrounding migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers -- particularly interception, deflection and detention -- controversial and politically muddled? What reforms are needed, and what are the political prospects for achieving them?

8. Why is the deprivation of the rights of women or children (e.g. trafficking, slavery, child soldiers) still widespread? From an international political perspective, and citing relevant international agreements. suggest an approach to remedy this deprivation, noting the political difficulties your remedy might face.

9. Point out the contributions to the refinement and application of the law of armed conflict made by two or more of the following. Acknowledge also their shortfalls. Draw lessons for future such conventions or institutions.
a. Hague Conventions
b. Geneva Conventions
c. Nuremberg trials or Tokyo trials
e. International Criminal Tribunal on Former Yugoslavia
f. International Criminal Tribunal on Rwanda
g. International Criminal Court (based on the Rome Statute and subsequent discussion)
h. Sierra Leone court
i. Cambodia court
j. Lebanon court
k. Another convention, court or tribunal of your choice [check with Hoadley].

10. Identify the anomalies, gaps, and political stalemates that make the laws of armed conflict less effective, then assess the political drivers, and obstacles, bearing on how to raise the effectiveness of such laws, concluding with practical suggestions for reform.

11. Analyse the international context and political controversies that surrounded the conception, drafting, signing, ratifying, and implementation of the Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court. Include a contrast of two or more governments’ positions. Then show why these controversies did not fundamentally impair the Rome Statute.

12. Analyse the current US posture on the ICC and speculate (intelligently and realistically) on how the positions of the US on the one hand and Rome Statute signatories (e.g. New Zealand) on the other could be brought closer together and what motivations and obstacles might arise in that endeavour.

13. Choose a country, e.g. Chechnya, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Gaza, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Libya, Mali, India [or other, check with Hoadley] where serious violations of human rights have occurred recently and speculate about why, how, and at what cost, risk, and benefit an international tribunal might be set up to deal with these. Then speculate whether a non-tribunal alternative might be preferable.

14. Discuss the evolution of the concept of armed humanitarian intervention in international relations and international law writings of the past couple of decades, then assess a human rights crisis of your choice as to whether humanitarian intervention is necessary, legal, legitimate, and feasible. (Hint: see list of countries in Q 13 or in Syllabus p. 16).

15. EITHER a) Make a case, with critical qualifications, that the War on Terrorism has been detrimental to international human rights principles and institutions, then suggest how this can be remedied. OR b) Make a case that the extent to which the counter-terrorism laws and policies of Great Britain, the United States, Australia, New Zealand or another state [check with Hoadley] have jeopardised civil liberties has been exaggerated by the media and human rights NGOs and lawyers, then set the record straight with facts.

16. Identify a new category of human rights (see Week 3 Discussion Q 1, p. 10 below, for examples) and apply the 10-Phase reform process from p. 2 above, supplemented by examples from analogous rights protection treaties and existing government reforms, to propose an agenda for action to protect the right you have chosen.

17. Choose a topic from the Discussion Questions OR fabricate one from two or more existing questions OR devise a topic not covered in this syllabus but relevant to IR & HR. Give it a title, add a one-paragraph summary and a brief list of sources, and submit it to Hoadley for suggestions and approval as your essay topic.

 

 LECTURE SCHEDULE

Week 1 Thursday 1 March

1st hour. Introduction to the course. Briefing on requirements and resources. Assignment of oral reports and essays. Lecture on the state, the Westphalian system, and the Realist theory of international relations and international law.

Discussion questions: 1) Identify which of the main IR theories (realism, liberalism, constructivism, foreign policy analysis) is most compatible with a) EITHER the normative project of raising international human rights standards OR b) the analytical project of studying the rise of international human rights standards OR c) both. 2) After sketching what a state is, show why states are essential to the protection of human rights despite their tendency to be authoritarian. 3) What is the basis and character of international law and how can it be employed to enhance the protection of human rights despite its manifest weaknesses? 4) Argue that basing the foreign policies of states based primarily on international law in general and protection of human rights in particular would be counterproductive.

READINGS: Realism and FPA by SH 2010.ppt  HR and diplomacy.pdf ; NZH Ch 2 and Legal Terms 249-50; Lauren pp 21-28 & Index entries “national sovereignty” and “national self-interest”; Goodhart Glossary; Dictionary of IR REF 327.03 E92; Int’l Orgs and World Order Dictionary REF 341.203 A39; The Dictionary of World Politics: A Reference Guide to Concepts, Ideas, and Institutions (1990) REF 320 E92. Consult Voyager- Course Material Search- Politics 106 and Politics 318 for IR books in Short Loan by Goldstein (esp Ch 2, 7) Papp, Jackson, Baylis & Smith, Kegley, Mingst. Find definitions and other basics on line at www.internationalrelations.net

 2nd hour Lecture on the history and philosophy of human rights and international law from biblical times through the Covenant of the League of Nations. Milestones including enhancement of civil liberties (English Revolution 1689 & US 1776 & Bill of Rights), anti-slavery movement (UK) , laws of war (Switzerland), women’s suffrage (UK), workers’ rights (US), minority rights (post WWI Europe).

Discussion question: 1) Debate the assertion, with at least three examples [see above], that political action was more important than religious or philosophical reasoning in raising international human rights standards in the pre-United Nations era. (hint: see the Ten Steps on p. 2 above )

READINGS: Humanitarian norms 2008.pdf   International Law & HR by SH 2010.ppt  NZH Ch 1; Goodhart Ch 1 & 4; Haas Ch 2 & 3; Lauren Ch 1-4; Normand Ch 1.   Historical Dictionary of HR and Humanitarian Organisations REF 323.025 G67. Human Rights Q Vol 20 (2) p 201-34.
Access electronic version of ‘International Human Rights’ chapter at Library Search -> Course Material Search-> Politics 750 on IR theory and rise of HR. Insert Asian values in the Google search box or see a thoughtful article at: http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/viewMedia.php/prmTemplateID/8/prmID/254

Useful reference books on international human rights
• Bell, Duncan. Ethics and World Politics (2010)
• Brown, Chris. “Human Rights” in Baylis and Smith, The Globalization of World Politics, above.
• Bullard, Alice, ed. Human Rights in Crisis (2008)
• Callaway, Rhonda L. & J Harrelson-Stephens, eds. Exploring International Human Rights: Essential Readings (2007)
• Chong, Daniel P.L. Debating Human Rights (2014)
• Donnelly, Jack. International Human Rights. 3rd ed. (2007)
• Evans, Tony. Human Rights in the Global Political Economy (2011)
• Forsythe, David P. Human Rights in International Relations (2012). LAW Library.
• Freeman, Mark, International human rights law (2004)
• Goodhart, Michael. Human Rights: Politics and Practice (OUP, 2nd ed, 2013).
• Haas, Michael. International Human Rights: A Comprehensive Introduction (2008).Short Loan. LAW.
• Hannum, Hurst, ed. Guide to International Human Rights Practice (2004).
• Head, Tom. Civil Liberties: A Beginner’s Guide (2009). Glossary and HR web addresses.
• Human Rights Quarterly (Library Search e-resource) for topical articles.
• Human Rights Reference Handbook (Jan 1999) in Short Loan 323 H91.
• Kolb, Robert ed. Research Handbook on HumanRights and Humanitarian Law (2013)
• Maffetone, S ed. Global Justice: Critical Perspectives (2012)
• Marks, Susan & Clapham, Andrew. International human rights lexicon (2005)
• Mertus, Julie. The UN and Human Rights (2005 or 2009 edition), Ch2 on OHCHR, Ch3 on HRC, Ch4 on HRCOM, Ch 5 on UN Security Council and HI and R2P.
• Mihr, Anja & Mark Gibney,eds. SAGE Handbook of Human Rights (2014) two volumes
• Nash, Kate. Political Sociology of Human Rights (CUP, 2015)
• Normand, Robert & Sarah Zaidi. Human Rights at the UN (2008) E-resource and LAW Library.
• Nowak, Manfred. Introduction to the International Human Rights Regime (2003). LAW library.
• Oberleitner, Gerd. Global Human Rights Institutions (2007)
• O’Brien, Darren J. Human Rights: An Introduction (2003)
• Pedersen, Morten B ed. Principled Engagement: Negotiating Human Rights (2013)
• Provost, René International human rights and humanitarian law [e-Resource] (2002)
• Quataert, Jean H. Advocating Dignity: Human Rights Mobilizations in Global Politics (2009)
• Robertson, David Dictionary of human rights (2004)
• Sen, Purna, ed. Human Rights in the Commonwealth (2008)
• Symonides, Janusz. Human Rights: International Protection, Monitoring, Enforcement (2003)
• Smith, Rhona. Textbook on International Human Rights ((2014). LAW Library.
• Wilmer, Franke. Human Rights in International Politics (2015)

On international law check out and browse one of these:
Barker, J. Craig. International law and international relations.(2002)
Boczek, Boleslaw A. International law : a dictionary .(2005)
Cassese, Antonio. International law (2005)
Joyner Christopher C. International law in the 21st century : rules for global governance
Scott, Shirley V. ed. International law and politics: key documents (2006)
Wilson, George Grafton. International Law (2005)

 130 - 2 pm Role-playing exercise on current HR violations.

Guidelines for Exercise and Report on a Human Rights (HR) Violation Situation

1. Students are to assume roles as HR investigators and opinion leaders (see Phase #1 above).
2. Divide into groups, discuss selected HR violation situations (below) and decide on the three most in need of investigation. Cite a specific case or victim if possible. Each group is to turn in their lists at the end of the period and summarise them on the whiteboard or doco-projector for class comparison and discussion.
3. Each student is then to choose one HR situation or case to research and report on in writing.
4. Reports are to be done in 12 pt Times font, 1 1/2 spaced, about 650 words of text long, with a title page with title, abstract, name, and date, and supported by five sources, formally footnoted and listed in a Bibliography. Chicago footnoting style is preferred.  Use of essay format with section titles (such as those below)is encouraged. Numbering and sub-numbering of sections (e.g. Law or Sociology style) and in-text source referencing are discouraged.
5. Suggested format for section titles: (a short paragraph on each, but more on the final two sections).
     o Whose HRs are being violated?
     o Which rights are being violated? (refer to the UDHR or other HR treaty)
     o Which government(s) is (are) responsible, directly...or indirectly?
     o Why is this violation of international rather than just local significance?
     o What remedial action(s) do you propose? (refer to the 10 Phases on p. 2 of this Syllabus)
     o Who should initiate action, and what kind of action, to achieve the remedy you want?
     o What difficulties or obstacles might the actor or the action face?
6. Reports are to be turned in at class the following week, in class. No cover sheet, no plastic, no folding.

A partial inventory of HR violation situations you may discuss and choose cases from
• Any indigenous group or ethnic minority in any country, e.g. Maori, Aborigines, Inuit, Suomi, Roma, Rohingya, African-Americans, Native-Americans, Amer-Indians, Serbs in Bosnia or Kosovo, Tamils in Sri Lanka.
• Any Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Christian, Hazara, Bahai, or other religious minority.
• Any politically oppressed group or population, e.g. in Zimbabwe or Fiji or in a communist or authoritarian state
• Palestinians, Kashmiris, South Ossetians or other occupied or surrounded populations
• Victims of terrorism e.g. Israelis, Afghans, Baghdadis, Indians, Sri Lankans or Indonesians.
• Victims of discrimination such as gays, AIDS sufferers, elderly, physically or mentally disabled and their caregivers, the comatose, women, children, younger siblings, unborn children, uneducated, poor, homeless, ugly and untalented, whistle-blowers, social misfits, prisoners, immigrants.
• Involuntary migrants resulting from natural or man-made disaster, or smuggled or trafficked or enslaved persons.
• Soldiers: wounded, captive, deserted, or charged with war crimes while on duty
• Victims of abduction (Australia’s stolen generation, British child migrants), forced marriage, honour killing, or religious ritual, servitude or indoctrination, mutilation, clothing requirements or prohibitions (hejab, burqa, turbans).
• Migrant workers or bonded or redundant workers abroad or Asian fishing crew in NZ waters.
• Insurgents, mutineers, revolutionaries, freedom fighters, Guantanamo detainees, or criminal prisoners.
• Heads of state and government officials e.g. presidents of Sudan, Zimbabwe, Syria, Israel, or USA.
• Owners of intellectual property, real property, or business; media owners and professionals; Google-users in China.
• The freedom, security or dignity of you or your family or your identity group.
• For inventory of issues and countries see http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.htm#wrapper

Week 2 Thursday 8 March. Student oral reports.   Exercise report due in class.

1st lecture topic. The politics of human rights in the United Nations Charter.

Discussion questions: 1) Why was the United States both the facilitator and the restrainer of the development of the UN 1940-1945, particularly with regard to human rights protections? 2) What role did New Zealand along with small states and NGOs play in tilting the Realism of the draft UN Charter towards a Liberal-Internationalist (or Idealist) direction? 3) Show how, and why, a fundamental contradiction is embedded in the UN Charter, with particular reference to its protections of human rights.

READINGS:    Haas pp. 73-76; Lauren pp 160-204; Murphy Ch 3; Normand Ch 3 & 4. See The Charter of the UN at REF 341.232 G65 Intro & Ch 1 & pp 370-380 on Art 55. On NZ role see NZ as an International Citizen (1995) Chapter II and Hoadley NZ US Relations (2000) Chapter 7 in Short Loan for Politics 241. On US role see Ruth Russell, History of the UN Charter (1958). Consult website www.un.org

2nd lecture topic. United States disputes with the UN over human rights, 1944-present

Discussion questions: 1) Why have many US political leaders been uneasy with the UN since its conception and why, then, does the US remain active in the UN? 2) Why did the US withdraw from the ILO, UNESCO, and UNIDO and refuse to pay its UN dues? 3 Are the policies of the Obama Administration towards the UN fundamentally different from those of the GW Bush Administration? Discuss.

READINGS: W2 sample oral Clinton&UN Pierce.08.ppt   US & UN 750 outline.05.doc  Haas Ch 11; Lauren pp 165-174 & 184-204; Buerg Ch 7; book Charter of the UN at REF 341.232 G65 esp. index entries for United States; Normand Ch 7. See books by Gary Ostrower, UN and US (1998) and Stewart Patrick, Multilateralism and US Foreign Policy (2002) and Tony Evans, US Hegemony....(1996). Also RB Ripley, US Foreign Policy after Cold War,(1997), Ch 11 on HR; Moravscik chapter in S Patrick, Multilateralism & US Foreign Policy (2002); Julie Mertus, Bait and Switch: Human Rights and US Foreign Policy (2004). US policy on HR is found at http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.htm#wrapper Hoadley’s analysis ‘The US and the UN in the Bush Era’ in CECIL. US scepticism is expressed by John Bolton in Brett D. Schaffer ed ConUNdrum: Limits of UN... (2009).

Week 3 15 March   Student oral reports.

1st lecture topic. The drafting and adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Discussion questions: 1) Show that the drafting of the UDHR was a political debate as much as it was a philosophical deliberation, resulting in ingenious ambiguities, compromises and contradictions. 2) Defend the UDHR against the charge that it is only a Western manifesto without universality. In your answer discuss the Asian values and Muslim critiques and the 1993 Vienna Declaration.

READINGS:  W3 - HR as Western.pdf   W3 sample oral indigenous rights .08.ppt   W3 sample oral UDHR .08.ppt NZH pp 13, 45-46, 109-13. Roger Normand Human Rights at the UN (2008) e-resource Ch 5-6 on UDHR, also Ch 9 on right to development and pp. 272-7 on indigenous peoples; Lauren Ch 5-7 & pp 299-303; Buerg pp 21-38; R & M pp.26-29. Johannes Morsink, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights : origins, drafting and intent (1999). Also AH Robertson’s Human Rights in the World (1996) especially pp. 26-29. Evans Ch 4 (above) on Muslim & Asian values and ISSUES Ch 10 on China’s HR. Search Google: UDHR.

2nd lecture topic. The drafting and adoption of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and its Optional Protocols, the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), and other international agreements on human rights: ICERD, CEDAW, ICPROC, CAT, CMW. The US approach to international human rights agreements and the use of RUDDOS by US and other governments.

Discussion questions: 1) Show why and how the ICCPR and ICESCR and subsequent HR treaties emerged separately from the UDHR, then propose one or more additional convention that you think are necessary (e.g. indigenous peoples’ rights, grey rights, student rights, G&L rights, parents’ rights, hijab or turban wearers’ rights, climate change sufferers’ rights, or rights to development) and the necessary steps to their adoption (see p. 2 above). 2) Make a case that the sceptical posture of the US towards international human rights agreements and US use of reservations, understandings, declarations, derogations, objections and statements (RUDDOS) and non-ratification actually facilitates human rights protections.

READINGS: NZH pp. 47-57, skim Ch 9, 10, 11, 14, 15 and Section Three texts; Goodhart Ch 14; Haas Ch 5 & 6; HRRH
pp 15-28,183-87;Lauren Ch 8 to p 257; Buerg pp 38-78 & skim Ch 3-5; R & M pp. 30-36, 274-281. AH Robertson’s Human Rights in the World (1996) and R Normand Human Rights and the UN (2008) Ch 7. Consult Encyclopedia of Human Rights Issues REF 323.03 L28; Voyager keyword International Human Rights. Find thoughtful article on ICESC by Paul Hunt at www.waikato.ac.nz/law/wlr/1993/article6-hunt Search Google and Voyager under Indigenous Peoples Rights. See Bard A. Andreassen, ed., Development as a Human Right (2006). For RUDDOS by USA [or any other state e.g. NZ] see http://www.bayefsky.com/bystate.php and click on USA, then on a particular treaty, e.g. CRC.

Week 4   22 March   Student oral reports.   Book reviews due in class.

1st lecture topic. United Nations human rights institutions. Charter bodies and treaty bodies.

Discussion questions: 1) What are the human rights functions and procedures of the HRCOM and the other treaty bodies, and how have they enhanced the protection of individual human rights despite their limitations? 2) Debate the validity of the US criticisms of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) and its replacement, the Human Rights Council (HRC). 3) After sketching how NZ complies procedurally with its obligations to the UN human rights institutions, defend NZ human rights policies against international critics.

READINGS: W4 - UN HR institutions.08.pdf     NZH Ch 3 and 4 and esp diagram p. 26; Haas Ch 9 & 10; HRRH pp 32-40, 107-135; Lauren pp 257-280; Buerg pp 78-101; John F. Murphy Evolving Dimensions of IL (2010) pp 226-233 on OHCHR, pp 57-65 on HRC; Normand pp 336-339; Alston pp 6-7 skim Ch 2-8, 16; Alston2 skim; ISSUES Ch 1. Consult http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRbodies/Pages/HumanRightsBodies.aspx See Rhona K.M.Smith Textbook on Int’l Human Rights (2003) Ch 5 & 10; PJ Flood Effectiveness of UN HR Institutions. Ch 3, Ch 8; Julie Mertus, The UN and Human Rights (2005 or 2009 edition), Ch2 on OHCHR, Ch3 on HRC, Ch4 on HRCOM; Mary Robinson, A Voice for Human Rights, pp. 209-248 & Appendix 2; and M O’Flaherty, HR and the UN (Law KC 405 OFL). On Cecil you can find a review of institutions and special procedures responding to HR violations from Burns H Weston ed The Future of International Human Rights (1999). A specialist book is Defining Civil and Political rights: the Jurisprudence of the United Nations Human Rights Committee by Alex Conte et al. 2004. A comprehensive source of reports by the committees of the treaty bodies on each state [US, NZ, etc] may be found at http://www.bayefsky.com/bystate.php Consult websites www.unchr.ch, and www.unhchr.ch A succinct fact sheets on how the ICCPR Committee on Human Rights works is available at http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FactSheet15rev.1en.pdf and http://www.ohchr.org/EN
/HRBodies/CCPR/Pages/CCPRIndex.aspx See also B G Ramcharan’s book on the U N Human Rights Council (2011). Kirsten A Young’s Law and Process of the UN HRC (2002) good on evolution of HRC procedure. Further discussion of remedies is available in Gerd Oberleitner, Global Human Rights Institutions (2007), Ch 4 and J. Symonides, ed., Human rights: International Protection, Monitoring, Enforcement (2003), Ch 1. A sceptical view is found in Brett D. Schaefer ed Conundrum: Limits of UN etc...(2009) esp Ch 5 on ‘Human Wrongs’.

2nd lecture topic. Human rights NGOs and links to the UN.
Discussion questions: 1) Show why putting faith in NGOs in lieu of governments as protectors of human rights might be tempting but unwise and ineffective. 2) Rebut the assertion of Q 1).

READINGS:  W4 - sample oral NGOs and UN.ppt  NZH Ch 7 & p. 44; Goodhart Ch 9; HRRH pp 170-171; Buerg Ch 8; follow Lauren index to “non-governmental organizations”; Amnesty International website www.io.org/amnesty; Human Rights Watch website www.hrw.org; website of NGO websites on human rights www.soros.org/fmp2 .
See books by Paul J. Nelson New rights Advocacy: Changing Strategies of HR NGOs (2008); Philip Alston, ed, Non-state actors and human rights (2005); J. Symonides, ed., Human rights: International Protection, Monitoring, Enforcement (2003), Ch 12, Helmut Anheier, ed., Global Civil Society (2001); Sudipta Kaviraj ed Global Civil Society (2001); Margaret Keck & K Sikkink Activists Beyond Borders (1998) and Claude Welch, NGOs and Human Rights (2001), and P.J.Simmons article in Foreign Policy (Fall 1998). For critical views see: Mutua in Welch above; The Economist (Jan 29, 2000), p. 25-27; Foreign Policy (March 2002); International Security Vol 27 2002, pp. 5-39; Chinkin in Michael Byers, ed.The Role of Law in International Politics (2000) and Alan Boyle and Christine Chinkin, The Making of International Law (2007), Ch 2. Also a critical view by Monika Krause, The Good Project: Humanitarian Relief NGOs (2014) Ch 6 on human rights.

Week 5   29 March    Student oral reports.

1st lecture topic. Immigration and rights of migrants.

Discussion questions: 1) Show that the human rights enjoyed by an immigrant, a migrant worker, and an illegal migrant are quite distinct, but that they enjoy some rights in common. 2) Has the rise of anti-immigration parties and policies in Europe had adverse consequences for the human rights of migrants? OR answer this question with regard to another region or state of your choice.

READINGS:  W5 - Hoadley on irreg migration.06.pdf  W5- sample oral Migrants Rights .08.pptx    W5 - PPT People Smug & Traff Tamara ed Stephen.08.ppt   NZH pp. 43, 54, 87. Goodhart Ch 13. For UNHCHR views on migrants and human rights see http://www.ohchr.org/english/issues/migration/taskforce/index.htm
Search GOOGLE with key phrases ‘Immigration and uman Rights’ and ‘Human Rights and Immigration’ and ‘Guest workers’ and ‘Irregular (or Illegal or undocumented) Migration’.
‘Living in the Shadows: A primer on the human rights of migrants’ at http://web.amnesty.org
‘International Migration and Human Rights’ at http://www.gcim.org
See also The UNHCR and world politics: a perilous path by Gil Loescher.Loescher (2001) 362.8756 L82 and E-version, and Wouter van der Brug ed. The Politicisation of Migration (2015).

2nd lecture topic. Refugees and asylum seekers.

Discussion questions: 1) Show how, despite the requirements of the Refugee Convention and UNHCR protocols, states retain considerable discretion in dealing with a) refugees and b) asylum-seekers. 2) Defend the Government of Australia’s detention or deflection of overstayers and “undocumented arrivals” as legal, humane, and politically prudent despite the protest of Australian human rights advocates. 3) With reference to the rights, and remedies, of asylum-seekers, or ‘boat-people’, in NZ, and the political context, debate whether Ahmad Zaoui (or another applicant of your choice) was treated appropriately.

CONSULT:   W5 - Asylum, Detention in Australia by Hoadley.02.doc    and ISSUES Ch 4; Goodhart Ch 13.
On the human rights of refugees see comprehensive analysis by Brian Gorlick at www.unhcr.org
Also try www1.umn.edu/humanrts and HR NGO websites.
Use search word “refugees” or “asylum” to find UNHCR, IOM, and NGO commentaries.
Books critical of Australian Government policies include Don McMaster, Asylum Seekers; Peter Mares, Borderline; and David Marr, Dark Victory (on the Tampa affair); and Jane McAdam Refugees (2014). .
Useful websites on Australia and NZ include:
www.minister.immi.gov.au [for official rationale]
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/ [critique of ‘Pacific solution’]
http://www.immigration.govt.nz
http://www.refugee.org.nz/council.htm
http://www.supportfind.com/rcnz/

 

Easter and mid-semester break, no class 5 April or 12 April.

 

Week 6     19 April.   Student oral reports.

1st lecture topic People Smuggling and Human Trafficking

Discussion questions: 1) Show why it is not only ignorant but also pernicious to conflate people smuggling and people trafficking, then speculate why this is often done anyway. 2) Distinguishing between the two, discuss how governments can minimise human rights violations when curbing people smuggling and human trafficking.

READINGS: W6 - People Smuggling and Trafficking Australia SH .08.ppt NZH Ch 12   W6 - sample oral Smuggling and Trafficking 2014.pptx       Get a gripping movie ‘Human Trafficking’ on DVD from video shop
Goodhart Ch 15 and .ISSUES Ch 6 (from list above)
Martin, Susan. International Migraton. (2015), Ch 5 on Trafficking in Persons & Ch 6 on Security.

Chong, Natividad Gutierrez and J.B.Clark, eds, Human Trafficking (2016)

Foot, Kirsten. Collaborating Against Human Trafficking (2016)
Hoang, K. K. ed Human Trafficking Reconsidered (2014)
Holmes, Leslie ed. Trafficking and human rights : European and Asia-Pacific perspectives (2010)
Kyle, David ed. Global Human Smuggling (Johns Hopkins UP 2001)
Bhattacharyya, Gargi. Traffic: The Illicit Movement of People and Things (2005).
Stoecker, Sally. Human Traffic and Transnational Crime (2005).
US State Department annual reports on human trafficking are available at www.state.gov.
OSCE Report on Combating Trafficking in South East Europe may be found at http://www.osce.org/documents/pdf_documents/2004/07/15241-1.pdf

2nd lecture topic Modern Slavery and the Rights of Women and Children

Discussion questions: 1) What new international agreements and national policies are needed to curb modern slavery and why aren’t they already in effect? Answer with regard to EITHER a) child soldiers OR b) NZ-chartered fishing boats from Asia OR c) another slavery situation.

READINGS:  W6 - sample oral Modern Slavery.08.ppt  NZH pp. 11, 16, 20, 55. 5 & 98-115. ISSUES Ch 5 & 6 & 9. See NZH pp. 82-93 on the rights of women and children and also the CEDAW and CRC conventions. Goodhart Ch 12 & 2. GOOGLE search with key phrases ‘modern slavery’ and ‘child soldiers’. Consult websites of human rights NGOs e.g. Free the Slaves http://www.freetheslaves.net On child soldiers see DVD movie ‘Blood Diamond’.

 

Week 7  26 April     Student oral reports.

1st lecture topic. Evolution of laws in war jus in bello. Dunant and ICRC. Hague and Geneva Conventions. The Nuremburg Trials and Principles. The Geneva protocols. Current status of law of armed combat [LOAC] and war crimes.

Discussion questions: 1) By noting the political debates and compromises in the evolution of the laws of armed combat, show that the Geneva Conventions and their two Additional Protocols are political documents. 2) What rights in war situations do civilians and persons in occupied territories have, e.g. the West Bank, and why is the answer not so straightforward? 3) Is use or possession of WMDs a war crime? Answer with regard to the human rights principles and instruments enunciated by the International Court of Justice 1996 advisory opinion on the legal status of nuclear weapons. [ Consult: http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/decisions and ASIL analysis at http://www.asil.org/insights/insight6] 4) Is aerial or artillery bombardment conducted by sovereign governments a war crime? Discuss the international political debate on this issue, making mention of London, Hiroshima, Dresden, Kosovo, US-Afghanistan/Pakistan drone attacks, Israeli intervention in Gaza, Palestinian rockets, Assad’s shelling of Syrian cities, or some combination of these controversial bombings.

READINGS:  W7 - Declarations of Principles on Aerial Bombardment .doc     W7 - sample oral Laws of War 2008.ppt      W7 - sample oral on Geneva IV Law of Occupation.08.ppt     NZH Ch 13; Haas Ch 7; Buerg pp 270-272; Voyager and Google keywords War Crimes, International Humanitarian Law and Law of War. On web consult: www.icrc.org; www.asil.org; www.hrw.org and www.crimesofwar.org
Axinn, Sidney. A Moral Military (2009)
Benvenisti, Eyal. The International Law of Occupation. (Princeton: Princeton U.P., 1993).
Biggar, Nigel. In Defence of War (2013).
Brahimi, Alia. Jihad and Just War in the War on Terror (2010)
Chuter, David. War crimes : confronting atrocity in the modern world (2003).
Coker, Chris. Ethics and War in 21st Century (2008)
Frowe, Helen. The Ethics of War and Peace (2011)
Frowe, Helen. Why we Fight: Ethics in War (2014)

Galliott, Jai.  Military Robots: Mapping the Moral Landscape (2015) especially the chapter on principles of just war (ius in bello)
Greville, Brigadier P. J. ‘Why Australia Should Not Ratify the New Law of War’. Canberra: ANU Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Jan 1989. Borrow from Hoadley.
Malone, Linda. International Law. (Larchmont: Emanuel Law Outlines, 1995).
May, Larry. War crimes and just war (2006)
Nabulsi, Karma. Traditions of War: Occupation, Resistance, and the Law. (Oxford U.P., 1999).
Rhodes, Bill. An Introduction to Military Ethics (2009). Ch 5.
Sassoli, Marco. How Does Law Protect in War? (Geneva: ICRC, 1999).
Slim, Hugo. Killing Civilians: Method, Madness and Morality in War (2007).
Tanaka, Yuki ed. Bombing Civilians: A Twentieth Century History (2009) esp ch on intl. law.
Watkins John C. War crimes and war crime trials: from Leipzig to the ICC and beyond (2006).
Wilson, Heather A. International Law and the Use of Force by National Liberation Movements (1988)

Optional 2nd topic. The Nuremburg and Tokyo trials, precedents, and principles.
Discussion questions: 1) On what authority and legal principles was the Nuremberg tribunal instituted, what did it accomplish in human rights protection, and why is it still controversial? 2) Answer 1 with regard to the Tokyo trials. 3) Should aged Nazi and Japanese war criminals be prosecuted today?

CONSULT:http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/nuremberg and http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/macarthur/peopleevents/pandeAMEX101
Cooper, Belinda editor. War crimes : the legacy of Nuremberg
Taylor, Telford. Nuremberg and Vietnam (NY: Bantam, 1971).
Sands, Philippe. From Nuremberg to The Hague : The Future of Int’l Criminal Justice (2003)

Week 8   3 May.   Student oral reports.

1st lecture topic: the ICTY and ICTR

Discussion questions: 1) Defend the setting up of the ICTY in the face of its political compromises, delays, and costs. 2) Defend the setting up of the ICTR in the face of its political compromises, delays, and costs. 3) Debate whether international human rights have been enhanced by the ICTY and ICTR or if they have, it still wasn’t worth the trouble and cost.

READINGS: W8 - International Tribunals outline 2017.doc    W8 - sample oral on ICTR.08.ppt  NZH pp 100-101; Haas pp. 222-224; Buerg pp 270-272; browse Coalition for International Justice www.cij.org; www.icty.org and www.ictr.org
Further reading:
Armata, Judith. Twilight of Impunity: The War Crimes Trial of Slobodan Milosevic (2010).

Meernik, James.  International Tribunals and Human Security (2016)
Askin, Kelly Dawn. War crimes against women : prosecution in international war crimes tribunals. 1997.
Birdsall, Andrea. The International Politics of Judicial Intervention (2009).
Durham, Helen ed The Changing Face of Conflict and the Efficacy of International Humanitarian Law (1999), especially the chapters by Triggs, Durham, and Skillen.
Ferencz, Benjamin. “A Prosecutor’s Personal Account: From Nuremberg to Rome”,
J Intl Affairs (Spring 1999).
Forsyth, David. Human Rights in International Affairs. (Cambridge UP, 2000). Ch 4
Hagan, John. Justice in the Balkans.
Jones, John R W D The Practice of the ICTFY (Yugoslavia) and Rwanda (2000)
‘Judging Genocide’, The Economist (16 June 2001)
Kerr, Rachel. The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia : An Exercise in Law Politics and Diplomacy (2004) E-book; access from Voyager by hyperlink.
Roht-Arriaza, Naomi. “Institutions of International Justice”, J Intl Affairs (Spring 1999).
Romano, Cesare P.R. ed Internationalised Criminal Courts (2004)
Schabas, Wm A Slobodan Milosevic on Trial (Continuum, 2002)
Schabas, Wm A. ed Truth Commissions and Courts (2004)
Sheffer, David J. All the Missing Souls: A Personal History of the War Crimes Tribunals (2012).
Yugoslav and Rwanda courts websites: www.icty.org and www.ictr.org

2nd lecture topic. Hybrid courts: Sierra Leone, Cambodia, East Timor, Lebanon.

Discussion questions: 1) In what respects was the creation and conduct of the Special Court for Sierra Leone an improvement over the ICTY/ICTR model and a useful precedent for the future? 2) Answer this question for the Cambodia court, the East Timor court, the Lebanon court, or other hybrid national court. 3) Speculate on what other grave HR violation requires a new national court, who should set it up, on what principles and authority, and what are the political requirements and obstacles?

READINGS (in addition to those above):

W8 - sample oral on the Cambodia court 2008.ppt

Haas pp. 224-226.
For survey of war crimes issues see The Economist March 9th 2006.
Meernik, James.  International Tribunals and Human Security (2016)

Birdsall, Andrea. The International Politics of Judicial Intervention (2009)
Coalition for International Justice update on several courts www.cij.org
Schabas (2004) cited above, on Sierra Leone. Also movie ‘Blood Diamond’ in AV Library.
Sheffer, David J. All the Missing Souls: A Personal History of the War Crimes Tribunals (2012).
Fawthorp, Tom. Getting Away with Genocide: Elusive Justice and the Khmer Rouge Tribunal.
Sands, Philippe. From Nuremberg to The Hague : The Future of Int’l Criminal Justice (2003)

Week 9   10 May.   May Student oral reports

1st lecture topic. The International Criminal Court.

Discussion questions: 1) Show how the Statue of Rome was shaped by a series of political compromises, then assess it EITHER favourably OR unfavourably with respect to human rights enhancement. (avoid overlap with Q 4. 2) Taking Washington’s point of view initially, debate the legality, political rationale, feasibility and consequences of US policy towards the ICC. 3) Rebut, with facts, the charge that the ICC infringes the authority of the UN, the sovereignty of UN member and non-member states, and the prerogatives of other courts and tribunals. 4) Assess the accomplishments of the ICC so far, and in prospect, from an international peace and human rights enhancement perspective.

CONSULT WEBSITES: Google-search and Voyager search keyword International Criminal Court and ICC...numerous books and articles are available. Consult www.un.org/law/icc and MFAT websites. US State Dept Fact Sheet on ICC 2002 (or more recent year) www.state.gov/t/pm/rls/fs/2002/23426; Article 98 agreements 2005 www.state.gov/t/pm/art98; FAC 2003 www.state.gov/t/pm/rls/fs/23428.htm
Coalition of the ICC at www.iccnow.org
Human Rights First (formerly LCHR) page on ICC www.humanrightsfirst.org/international_justice/icc/icc.
Human Rights Watch page on ICC at http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/icc/
ICC official documents website at http://www.un.org/law/icc/index.html
Recommended site: http://www.leitnercenter.org/files/International%20Criminal%20Tribunals_Reduced.pdf

READINGS:   W9 - Hoadley lecture outline on ICC 2014.doc  NZH pp. 39-40, 54, 101; Haas pp 226-228.

Meernik, James.  International Tribunals and Human Security (2016)

Birdsall, Andrea. The International Politics of Judicial Intervention (2009)
Broomhal, Bruce. International Justice and the ICC: Between Sovereignty and the Rule of Law (2004)
Cerone, John P. ‘Dynamic Equilibrium: The Evolution of US Attitudes toward International Criminal Courts and Tribunals’ European J Int’l Law Vol 18 no 2, 2007.
Driscoll, Wm ed The ICC: Global Politics and the Quest for Justice (2004)
Ellis Mark S. and Richard J. Goldstone, editors. The International Criminal Court (2008).
Glasius, Marlies. The ICC: A Global Civil Society Achievement (2006)
McGoldrick, Dominic et al eds. The Permanent ICC: Legal and Policy Issues (2004).
Paris, Erna. The sun climbs slow : the International Criminal Court and the search for justice (2009)
Sands, Philippe. From Nuremberg to The Hague : The Future of International Criminal Justice (2003)
Sheffer, David J. All the Missing Souls: A Personal History of the War Crimes Tribunals (2012).
Sewel, Sara. The US and the ICC (2000)
Shabas, Wm. A. An Introduction to the ICC (2nd ed 2004)
Triffterer, Otto ed. Commentary on the Rome Statute of the ICC article by article (2008):

Week 10  17 May.   Student oral reports

1st lecture topic. Just War and the laws of war. War and the UN Charter.

Discussion questions: 1) Discuss how the concepts of ‘just war’ and ‘human rights’ can be related in the abstract but divergent in practice. 2) Assess the UN Charter’s limits and ambiguities regarding the authorisation of armed force for humanitarian or human rights purposes and argue that the prerogatives and responsibilities of member states remain unimpaired by, and at times superior to, the Charter. [Hint see Article 2 (4) and 2(7), but also Art 1 and 55.]

READINGS: Haas pp 167-169; Murphy Ch 2; Buerg Ch 6 to p 270; Google keywords Just War; War
CONSULT: http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/j/justwar.htm
Baker, Deane-Peter, ed., Key Concepts in Military Ethics (2015)
Biggar, Nigel. In Defence of War (2013)
Brahimi, Alia. Jihad and Just War in the War on Terror (2010)

Burkhardt, Todd.  Just War and Human Rights: Fighting with Right Intention (2017)
Corten, Olivier. The Law Against War (2010) Law library.
Downer, Nigel. The Ethics of War and Peace (2009).
Fisher, David. Morality and War: Can War be Just in the 21st Century? (2011)
Frowe, Helen. The Ethics of War and Peace (2011)
Guthrie, Charles. Just War Tradition: Ethics in Modern Warfare (2007).
Johnson, James Turner. The War to Oust Saddam Hussein: Just War & New Face of Conflict (2005).
Orend, Brian. The Morality of War. (2nd ed 2013)
Regan, Richard J. Just War: Principles and Causes (Catholic UP 1996).
Rhodes, Bill. An Introduction to Military Ethics (2009). Ch 2, 4.
Tripodi, Paolo ed. New Wars and New Soldiers: Military Ethics.... (2011), Ch 1, 2, 3.
Walzer, Michael. Arguing about War (Yale UP 2004).
White, Craig M. Iraq, The Moral Reckoning: Applying Just War Theory (2010).

For an alternative perspective: Ping-cheung Lo, ed. Chinese Just War Ethics (2015). 

2nd lecture topic. Motives and politics of Humanitarian Intervention (HI).

Discussion questions: 1) Debate whether a viable doctrine of armed humanitarian intervention exists yet. 2) Discuss critically whether the formulation of The Responsibility to Protect is only an elaboration of ‘just war theory’ and little substantial improvement over it, then speculate on why it has enjoyed popularity among commentators but is avoided by political leaders. 3) Should the UN or a ‘coalition of the willing’ intervene in Chechnya, Tibet, the West Bank, West Papua, Fiji, Congo, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Sri Lanka, North Korea, or Syria or anywhere that human rights, civil liberties or democracy are under severe stress? Discuss goals, means, and constraints in one or more cases. (Hint: use the criteria of necessity, legality, legitimacy, and feasibility.)
READINGS: Goodhart Ch 16 & 17; Haas pp 165-167; Murphy Ch 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & pp 116-144; Ch VII; ISSUES Ch 2 & 11 & 12. Google and Voyager keyword Humanitarian Intervention. CSS:NZ Strategic Briefing Paper on HI at http://www.vuw.ac.nz/css; Journal of Humanitarian Intervention www.jha.ac; International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) The Responsibility to Protect at www.idrc.ca. Summary chapter by Steven Haines ‘Humanitarian Intervention...' W10 - Haines on humanitarian intervention 2010.pdf   W10 - sample oral on Humanitarian Intervention in Burma 2008.ppt   W10 - sample oral on R2P in Sudan 2010.ppt
Selected books and articles (in addition to those listed above):
Alston, Philip ed. Human rights, intervention and the use of force (2008)
Bellamy, Alex J. ‘Responsibility to Protect or Trojan Horse? Crisis in Darfur and Humanitarian Intervention After Iraq’ Ethics and International Affairs, Vol 19, No. 2, 2005.
Bellamy, Alex J. Global Politics and the Responsibility to Protect (2011).
Coady, C.A.J. The Ethics of Armed Humanitarian Intervention (2002) at www.usip.org
Davis, Michael et al eds, International Intervention in the Post-Cold War World (2004).
Finnemore, Martha. The Purpose of Intervention: Changing Beliefs about the Use of Force ( 2003).
Fisher, David. Morality and War: Can War be Just in the 21st Century? (2011), Chapter 11.
Foley, Conor. Thin Blue Line: How Humanitarianism Went to War (2008) see country case studies.
Gibbs, David N. First Do No Harm: Humanitarian Intervention and Destruction of Yugoslavia (2009)
Glanville, Luke. Sovereignty and the Responsibility to Protect: A New History (2014)
Holzgrefe, J L & RO Keohane, eds. Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal and Political Dilemmas (2003).

Jenkins, Simon.  Mission Accomplished? The Crisis of International Intervention (2015)
Lang, Anthony ed. Just Intervention (Georgetown UP, 2003).
May, Larry. War crimes and just war (2006).
MacQueen, Norrie. Humanitarian Intervention and the UN (2011) Useful case study chapters.
Mani, Rama & Thomas Weiss, eds, Responsibility to Protect (2011). Cases on Rwanda, Kosovo, Nepal.
Murphy, Ray. Ed. Peace Operations and Human Rights (2008). LAW library. On Kosovo. Wills essay on R2P.
Oxford, Anne. International Authority and the Responsibility to Protect (Cambridge UP, 2011).
Sampford, Charles ed. Responsibility to Protect and Sovereignty (2013)
Sidahmed, Abdel Salam et al The Responsibility to Protect in Darfur: Role of Mass Media (2010)
Silander, Daniel & Don Wallace, eds. International Organisations and the Implementation of the Responsibility to Protect: The Humanitarian Crisis in Syria ( 2015)

Snow, Donald.  The jCase Against Military Intervenion: Why We Do It and Why It Fails  (2016)
Teson, Fernando R. Humanitarian Intervention: An Enquiry into Law and Morality (1997).
Thakur, Ramesh & Wm Maley, eds, Theorising the Responsibility to Protect (CUP: 2015)
Tripodi, Paolo ed. New Wars and New Soldiers: Military Ethics.... (2011), Ch 4, 5.
Vik, Cathinka. Moral Responsibility, Statecraft and HI: Rwanda, Darfur, Libya (2015).
Weiss, Thomas. Military-Civilian Interactions:Humanitarian Intervention and Responsibility to Protect (2005).
Welch, Jennifer, ed. Humanitarian Intervention and International Relations (Oxford 2004).
Williams, Paul. ‘The Responsibility to Protect and the Crisis in Darfur’, Security Dialogue Vol 36 No 1 2005.

Essay due Monday 29 May 2 pm

Week 11  24 May.   Student oral reports.

1st lecture topic. Counter-terrorism and civil liberties in international and national context.

Discussion questions: 1) Debate whether the counter-terrorism resolutions and institutional initiatives of the UN Security Council are compatible with international human rights treaties, taking into account the actions of some member governments. 2) Argue that the US government can conduct vigorous counter-terrorism initiatives including surveillance and also protect civil liberties. 3) On what grounds does the Obama Administration continue to detain Taliban and al Qaeda suspects, interrogate them, and try them in Military Commissions, and what is the response by the Supreme Court and international HR experts? 4) Show that recent British counter-terrorism legislation and government actions have generated as much political controversy and infringed as many civil liberties as the US government. OR answer this question for France, Germany, Canada, Australia, NZ, or another government.

READINGS: W11 - Hoadley lecture outline on Counter-terrorism and HR 2011.doc   W11 - C-T policy in the EU by Hoadley 2008.ppt   W11 - sample oral on Ethnic Profiling 2010.ppt   W11 - sample oral on Preventive Detention in UK 2010.ppt   W11 - US Counter-terrorism and the Supreme Court 2010.ppt  NZH pp. 16. 20, 52, 168-79 on CAT. Goodhart Ch 18. Haas pp 169-172. ISSUES Ch 7 & 8. Voyager keyword and internet search word: terrorism, counter-terrorism and particular countries. Also www.state.gov. On Middle East see http://www.ict.org.il Also Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch websites. On CT and HR in NZ see http://www.arena.org.nz/ternewb.htm and government webpages. Also www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/loss/assessing/assessingnewnormal
For comprehensive up-to-date reports on US [and all other states’] compliance with e.g. Convention Against Torture (CAT) consult http://www.bayefsky.com/bystate.php
On US detainees see: http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/loss/assessing/assessingnewnormal.htm and http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/NewsRoom?OpenFrameSet
Also see USG’s 2005 report to CAT replying to detainee and torture allegations at http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/cats36
See a realist view by Michael Hoffman, ‘Rescuing the Law of War’ Parameters (Summer 2005) and a civil liberties reply by Kenneth Roth, ‘Law of War in War on Terror’. Foreign Affairs (Jan 2004).
Axinn, Sidney. A Moral Military (2009) see pp 137-9 on terrorism, Ch 10 on torture.
Bianchi, Andrea ed Enforcing International Law Norms Against Terrorism (2004) esp Ch 3, 4, 5.
Christie, Kenneth. America’s War on Terrorism (2008), esp Ch 1, 3, 6.
Conte, Alex. Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights in New Zealand (2007).
Evans, Mark ed. War, Terror, and Ethics (2008).
Frowe, Helen. The Ethics of War and Peace (2011), esp. Ch 8 & 9.
Goodheart, Michael (ed) Human Rights in 21st Century: Continuity & Change since 9/11 (2011)
McDonald, Thomas Michael. The US, International Law, and Struggle Against Terrorism (2010).
Murphy, John F. Evolving Dimensions of IL (2010), pp 216-226
Romaniuk, Peter. Multilateral Counter-Terrorism 2010. NB declarations on HR protection.
Welch, Michael. Crimes of Power and States of Impunity: US Response to Terror (2009).
Wilson, Richard Ashby, ed. Human Rights in the ‘War on Terror’ (2005) esp. Ch 7, 8, 10, 12, 16.

Week 12  31 May .  Completion of remaining oral reports. What we have accomplished in this course. Briefing on final examination format. Evaluation of the course.