Cianna Term 2 GloPo Study Guide

Unit 2: Human Rights

—--------------------------------------------------------------------

Definitions:

Indivisible- different element cannot be separated or divided from one another

Universal- equally applicable to all people or countries

Interdependent- all elements rely on all other elements to make the whole thing work properly

Inalienable- a right or power that cannot be taken from you

Judicial- connected to or guaranteed by the legal parts of a government system

Negative Rights- rights that require individuals to be left alone and not interfered with by the government or other powers (e.g. freedom from torture)

Security Threat- a threat to the peace and safety of a state or group of people

Positive Rights- rights that require the government to take action and provide services (e.g. health or education) that allow certain rights to be enjoyed by individuals

Tribunal- a legally established panel with judicial powers to settle a criminal case or other dispute

Codified- written down in a legal form and agreed upon by a state or international organization

Rule of Law- the concept that no one, including the government, is above the law and that a state is ultimately ruled only by what is lawful

Civil Rights- rights that belong to a citizen by virtue of being a citizen of a particular country, including protection from racial discrimination

Political Rights- rights that allow citizens to participate in politics, for example by voting and having the freedom to demonstrate and join political parties

Public Services- the services, such as education and healthcare, which a government might choose to provide collectively for people in a state

Economic Rights- rights that enable individuals to enjoy economic prosperity and freedom

Social Rights- rights that enable citizens to enjoy access to basic social services such as health and education

Cultural Rights- rights that enable citizens to have their cultures and identity recognized and celebrated

Collective Human Rights- rights held by groups on the basis of identified group characteristics

Civil War- armed conflict between groups in a state

Injustice- a situation in which people are treated unfairly and not given their rights

Empowerment- the ability for citizens of a state to be involved in decision making

Dispute Resolution- mechanisms and systems for resolving disagreements

European Court of Human Rights- regional court which upholds the European convention of human rights, established in 1959

Sovereignty- the power that an independent country has to govern itself

Ratified- when an individual state’s decision to sign an international treaty or convention has been legally approved

African Union- a regional IGO of which most African states are members, focusing primarily on security and economic prosperity

UN Security Council- the most powerful decision making body in the United Nations, made up of five permanent members (US, China, Russia, France, UK) and ten rotating non-permanent members

Council of Europe- regional organization of 47 European states, established in 1949 (not be confused with the European Union)

NGOs- non-governmental organizations

UN Human Rights Council- part of the United Nations responsible for monitoring and upholding international human rights, established in 2006

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights- appointed official of the United Nations who leads efforts to uphold international human rights

Relativism- the argument that rights should be modified to take account of differences between states and cultures

Court of Last Resort- the court in which a final appeal against a decision of a lower court may be made

LGBT- lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people

Lobby- try to persuade the government or someone with political power that a law or situation should be changed

Separation of Powers- a system of government in which there is a clear separation between the executive, legislative, and judiciary, ensuring that none becomes too powerful and that all are subject to check and balances

Principal Violator- most likely to abuse human rights

Essential Protector- most responsible for protecting human rights

Responsible Sovereignty- the idea that states should govern their populations in a way that looks after and respect’s their populations best interests, respecting human rights

Responsibility to Protect- a legal definition of the circumstances under which a state can intervene in another state to protect people at risk of harm

Sanctions- official orders or laws stopping trade or communication with another state, as a way of forcing its leaders to make political changes

Cultural Relativism- the theory that ideas and other norms should reflect cultural practices and traditions, rather than universal principles

Universalism- the idea that rights should be equally applicable to all people or countries, and do not vary according to local cultures or religious beliefs

Values- widely accepted ideas about what is right and what is wrong, or what is important in life

Ideology- opinions or beliefs, often linked to a particular political system or culture

Politicization- when decision making is affected by political factors

—--------------------------------------------------------------------

Significance of the UDHR

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a milestone document in the history of human rights. Drafted by representatives with different legal and cultural backgrounds from all regions of the world, the Declaration was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 as a common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations. It sets out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be universally protected. The key concepts of justice, liberty and equality are all interwoven with the UDHR. Justice is the concept of fair treatment, usually based on an agreed and accepted set of laws that are applied equally, universally and with the right to a fair trial. Liberty is about the freedom of individuals to live a life without excessive interference from those in power, and with the freedom to flourish and make the most of opportunities. Equality is the idea that people are treated the same, without discrimination, and are allowed to enjoy the same opportunities.

First generation rights

1 – All human beings are born free and equal (Equality)

2- No discrimination (Equality)

3- Right to life, liberty, and security (Equality and Liberty)

4- Slavery is a violation of human rights (Justice)

5- Torture is a violation of human rights (Justice)

6- Recognition as a person (Justice and Equality)

7- Rule of Law (Equality)

8- Right to call for a trial (Justice)

9- Fair arrest (Justice)

10- Right to a fair trial (Justice)

11. Innocent until proven guilty (Justice)

12- Right to Privacy (Liberty)

13- Open borders (Liberty)

14- Rights to asylum (Equality and Liberty)

15- Right to nationality (Liberty)

16- Right to marriage and family (Liberty and Equality)

17- Right to property (Liberty and Equality)

18- Freedom of religion (Equality and Liberty)

19- Freedom of expression (Liberty and Equality)

20- Freedom to protest (Justice)

21- Right to take public affairs (Liberty, Justice, and Equality)

Second generation rights

22- Right to social security (Equality)

23- Right to war (Equality and Liberty)

24. Right to rest and leisure (Equality)

25- Standard of Living (Equality)

26. Right to Education (Equality)

27. Right to culture (Equality and Liberty)

Third generation rights

28. Right to your rights (Equality)

29. Duty to your community (Justice)

30. One right must not impede on another (Liberty, justice, and

equality)

Case Study on UDHR:

—------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cultural Relativism

Definition: The view that ethical and social standards reflect the cultural context from which they are derived. Cultural relativists uphold that cultures differ fundamentally from one another, and so do the moral frameworks that structure relations within different societies.

Break Down: 1. How could it be argued that some discussions and legislation on human rights are examples of ethnocentrism?

Any type of discussion and legislation that puts one culture at a higher ground than another proves ethnocentrism. Take the Nuremberg laws for example. The Nuremberg laws put the “Aryan”race/culture above every single other culture (evidenced through the consistent emphasis and racial purity) and put other cultures down as inferior and unworthy (Jews, Roma, Colored people, ect). This led to the justification of denying people human rights on the basis that there are some people who are

less than humans because of their culture/race. A more recent example can be seen in the Myanmar citizenship laws in 1982 that deny the citizenship of Rohingya Muslims on the basis that they are Rohingya Muslims and are therefore considered less than. The laws were also used with the aim of increasing Burmese ethnic power since the government’s belief was an ethnocentric view of Burmese culture and race being better than any other.

2. To what extent should cultural relativism be taken into consideration when it comes to the universality of human rights?

Cultural relativism should only be taken into consideration in human rights when it doesn’t put one group of people above or below another. Laws that do not discriminate against a certain group of people (like gun laws or alcohol laws), some cultures and governments may consider these human rights issues and some may not and this can be justified by cultural relativism. On the other hand, things like Sharia law, which places a big emphasis on women being less than men and belonging to men cannot be justified. This is due to the amount of suffering it inflicts on a person. The universality of human rights is justified when the goal is to limit the amount of suffering a person endures. Anything that increases suffering against a specific group should never be justified by cultural relativism.

In Class Case Study: Uganda’s Ban on Prominent LGBTQ Rights Groups:

Summary of https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/08/12/uganda-bans-prominent-lgbtq-rights-group?authuser=2

• Uganda's National Bureau for Non-governmental Organizations banned Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG) for not being officially registered.

• SMUG provided education on sexuality and advocated for health services for LGBTQ people since 2004.

• The Uganda Registration Services Bureau (URSB) refused to approve SMUG's name for registration, citing it as "undesirable and un-registrable."

• Harassment and restrictions against Ugandan rights groups, especially LGBTQ rights organizations, have been increasing.

• Police have raided gay-friendly bars and shelters for homeless LGBTQ youth and subjected activists to forced anal examinations.

• The Children of the Sun Foundation, a shelter for homeless LGBTQ youth, was raided in March 2020, resulting in beatings and arrests.

• In May 2021, police raided a private celebration at another youth shelter and arrested 44 people, subjecting 17 of them to forced anal examinations.

• In August 2021, 54 civil society groups were indefinitely suspended without due process.

• The Ugandan government should allow SMUG to operate and create an environment that supports LGBTQ rights organizations.

• Respect for their right to free association in line with international standards is essential.

2. In what ways are the LGBTQ+ rights being violated in Uganda?

LGBTQ+ organizations were banned due to not registering with the government, after the

government wouldn't allow them to register due to “their name”. This effectively limits the

acceptance and education of LGBTQ+ issues and people. The government also attempted to pass

the Anti-Homesexuality act in 2014 that was signed by the president, which is “An Act to

prohibit any form of sexual relations between persons of the same sex; prohibit the promotion

or recognition of such relations and to provide for other related matters.” Offenders would be

liable to extradition. It was later deemed unconstitutional by the court, but in March 2023,

“Ugandan lawmakers introduced a new bill, which would impose draconian punishments for

same-sex sexual acts and aims to limit public support for queer Ugandans by banning the so-

called the promotion of homosexuality.” Again, attempting to criminalize anything homosexual by

using harsh punishments, including death.

3. What factors are driving homophobia?

Some of the factors driving homophobia are extreme beliefs from born-again christians and

majorly the belief that homosexuality is a western concept that needs to be opposed in order to

return to traditional African values.

4. Are states right to withhold aid for states that do not uphold human rights universally?

States are both right and wrong for withholding aid for states that do not uphold human rights

universally. On one hand, it can help promote human rights being used as bargaining chips to

gain citizens more rights, but on the other hand withholding the aid often disproportionately

affects the vulnerable population. Take Israel and Gaza for example, on one hand an argument

can be made for withholding aid to Gaza due to the fact that Hamas has been taking the aid and

using it for its own benefit, selling it at a high price to civilians, and killing civilians who attempt

to interfere and take aid for themselves. On the other hand, any aid that is able to get to the

civilians even if it is sold at a ridiculously high price still helps the people and anything that

decreases starvation and human suffering can be seen as necessary. Therefore, the answer to

this largely depends on one’s personal views and if the individual state’s priority lies on

defeating/debilitating the oppressive government/regime or helping the civilians as much as

possible even if that means helping the regime.

5. How can this issue be viewed through a postcolonial lens?

Cultural Relativism can be used to view this issue through a postcolonial lens as it asserts that

Western countries impose Western ideas through what they consider rights and is another form of

colonialism. Cultural relativists would argue that withholding aid due to a western belief of right and

wrong is simply imposing an ethnocentric and colonialist mindset and should never be done no

matter the situation.

Individual Case Study 1: Burning Widows: A Case Study Against Cultural Relativism

Summary of https://thebensmartblog.com/2017/04/12/burning-widows-a-case-study-against-cultural-relativism/

• Cultural relativism: Each culture determines what is right or wrong.

• No right to judge cultural practices: No person has the right to say that someone else's cultural practices are wrong.

• Absence of absolute truths: Cultural relativism stems from the belief that there are no absolute truths or objective morality.

• Different cultures have different moral standards: What is considered wrong in one culture may be considered right in another.

• All cultural practices are equally valid: According to cultural relativism, all practices of every culture are equally good and valid.

• Sati: Hindu widow-burning custom in India.

• William Carey: Christian missionary who campaigned against Sati.

• Carey's opposition to Sati: Despite cultural relativism, Carey spoke out against Sati and campaigned for its abolition.

• Secular dilemma: Cultural relativism poses a dilemma for secular individuals.

• Child marriages as an example: The conflict between feminism and cultural relativism in addressing harmful practices like child marriages.

• Undermining universal human rights: Cultural relativism undermines the possibility of universal human rights if there are no absolute truths transcending culture.

• Real-life examples challenge cultural relativism: Practices like Sati, child marriages, and Female Genital Mutilation expose the limitations of cultural relativism.

• Absolute truths and morals: There are moral standards that transcend culture.

• Challenging immoral cultural practices: There is a basis for challenging and opposing immoral cultural practices, even within one's own culture.

—-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The ICC

YouTube Explanation Transcript: The ICC in 3 minutes

"How can the victim of mass crimes have recourse to justice and how can we prevent the truest crimes now and in the future? The role is taking action against atrocious crimes with support of the international community, including civil society groups, countries worldwide, creating an international treaty. In 1998, the country's ratifying the treaty started to grow, and it took effect in 2002, officially establishing the International Criminal Court or ICC.

The court is unique in that it was created by a treaty and not by the United Nations, which it cooperates with but remains independent from. The ICC tries individuals, not countries or organizations, for crimes: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and once the 2010 amendments to the Rome Statute take effect, the crime of aggression.

Since the ICC was established in July 2002 and does not have retroactive jurisdiction, the ICC cannot address crimes committed before July 2002. The ICC has jurisdiction in these locations: first, on the territory of states parties or countries that have accepted the ICC's jurisdiction; second, in other countries if the crimes are committed by nationals of states parties or countries that have accepted the court's jurisdiction; third, in other countries if the crimes were referred to the ICC prosecutor by the United Nations Security Council pursuant to a resolution adopted under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter.

The ICC does not try every case in these locations; countries have the primary responsibility to do so. The ICC does not replace national courts but complements them as a court of last resort. It only prosecutes cases when a country is unwilling or unable to do so genuinely.

The ICC conducts work both in the courtroom and in the field and relies on cooperation with countries in order to fulfill its mandate, particularly for making arrests, transferring arrested persons to the ICC detention center in The Hague, freezing suspects' assets, and enforcing sentences.

The Rome Statute created three bodies: the court, the trust fund for victims, and the Assembly of States Parties, which provides oversight management. The ICC has four organs: first, the presidency; then, the judicial divisions with 18 judges divided into three divisions—pretrial, trial, and appeals; third, the office of the prosecutor, which is an independent organization and brings cases before the court; and finally, the fourth organ is the ICC's registry, which provides support so the court's work runs smoothly.

The ICC exists to hold people accountable if they commit atrocious crimes, thus helping to prevent such crimes from happening again."

Summary of Pro ICC Resources:

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/12/11/do-we-need-the-international-criminal-court

• The dismissal of the case against Kenya's president has raised concerns about the International Criminal Court (ICC) being influenced by politics rather than serving as a legitimate force for global justice.

• Despite debates about its legitimacy, it is premature to give up on the ICC.

• The ICC has gained support from the majority of the world's states, conducted numerous investigations, and concluded several trials.

• Its mandate is to end impunity for the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole.

• The court relies on the cooperation of states, even though state actors are often implicated in the crimes it investigates.

• Many skeptics initially doubted that the ICC would become a functioning institution, but it has achieved significant progress in its relatively short existence.

• The ICC has prosecuted cases involving the recruitment of child soldiers and crimes of sexual violence, sending a strong message of condemnation for such offenses.

• While arrest warrants against two sitting heads of state have not resulted in convictions, they have promoted the principle that no one should be immune from prosecution for genocide and crimes against humanity.

• There is emerging evidence that the ICC's work helps prevent the commission of serious crimes.

• The road to ending impunity for genocide and crimes against humanity is long and challenging, but the ICC and its mission deserve support rather than condemnation.

https://coalitionfortheicc.org/explore/20-icc-benefits

• 1. It is a Global Court for the powerless - Around the globe, victims of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes are demanding justice and redress. By making the ICC and Rome Statute system of international justice truly GLOBAL, individuals suspected of committing these universally abhorred crimes can be held to account in courts of law around the world.

• 2. It is a Court of last resort - The ICC prosecutes individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. But only if governments don't do so first.

• 3. It gives us a path to global peace - Grave crimes threaten the peace, security and well-being of the world.

• 4. It is a symbol of hope – Throughout history, millions of children, women and men have been victims of unimaginable atrocities. In the 20th century alone, an estimated 200 million people died as a result of conflict, massacres and oppression. That’s around 1 in every 27 deaths.

• 5. It is independent and impartial - One of the main achievements and pillars of the Rome Statute is the independence of the ICC, including the prosecutor and judges, from governments and from the United Nations Security Council. The ICC Rome Statute carries with it safeguards against politically motivated investigations and prosecution.

• 6. It is mandated by the international community - By existing, the ICC is implementing its mandate as laid out in the Rome Statute, bravely fought for by the like minded group of states. This is one of the most remarkable human rights and diplomatic achievements in history. 124 states are now members of the Assembly of States Parties. They must continue to defend the Court and provide it with support in difficult times.

• 7. It supported states and civil society – The push for the ICC was driven by a ground-breaking alliance between states and civil society around the world. This is a movement to end impunity that has defied all the odds.

• 8. It is making progress - The ICC has made significant progress in holding high-level suspected perpetrators of atrocities to account. The Court has issued its first verdicts and thousands of victims are receiving reparations. It is true that the Court is not there yet - but it was only set up in 2002. We believe that by making the ICC stronger and ensuring states can fairly and genuinely investigate and prosecute crimes in their own courts.

• 9. It is a court for future generations - The ICC may stumble, but its full potential will be realized in the generation of our children.

• 10. It can contribute to preventing crimes - ICC investigations and prosecutions can contribute to a global effort to prevent genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes from happening in the first place.

• 11. It stands for equality of all before the law - Because of the cornerstone Rome Statute prohibition of immunity, for the first time in history, we can bring all individuals - including presidents, generals and rebel leaders - to justice for grave international crimes.

• 12. It is a victim-centered Court - Victims of grave crimes are the reason the ICC exists. In this unique system, they can participate in ICC proceedings and receive reparations, including through the Trust Fund for Victims, to help rebuild their lives.

• 13. It is responding to the calls of victims - Victims of grave crimes have said time and again they want justice, either through national judicial systems or through the ICC.

• 14. It sets justice standards – Through fair, effective and independent justice, the ICC’s investigations, trials and staff must set the standard for justice for grave crimes.

• 15. It protects women and advances gender justice – The ICC is leading efforts to develop an international framework to prosecute those responsible for horrific sexual and gender-based crimes around the world.

• 16. It protects children and advances justice for children - Children suffer terribly by crimes under ICC jurisdiction. Hundreds of thousands of children are also forced to take part in these wars. The ICC's very first verdict was against Congolese militia leader Thomas Lubanga for enlisting and recruiting children under the age of 15 to actively participate in hostilities.

• 17. It is a sound investment in peace – International justice is certainly not cheap in a world of ever rising prices. But consider this: the ICC $170 million yearly budget is a fraction of the costs of the conflicts that make justice and redress necessary. In 2015, governments spent $14 trillion on war.

• 18. It builds stable societies – Ratifying the Rome Statute brings states into a framework of international support to develop national laws and capacities to prosecute war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.

• 19. It increases access to justice – Access to justice is goal 16 of the new United Nations Global Goals, agreed to by all UN member states.

• 20. It involves states in its governance – Through its governing body, the Assembly of States Parties, the ICC provides a forum for states to shape the future of international criminal justice and to advocate for reform. Each state has one equal vote.

Summary of Resources Opposing the ICC:

• The International Criminal Court (ICC) has predominantly focused on African situations, raising questions about the selectivity of international criminal justice.

• The Court's focus on Africa has stirred sensitivities about sovereignty and self-determination, particularly due to the continent's history of colonization and decisions made by outsiders.

• The ICC has indicted 27 Africans from seven countries, leading to inquiries about the reasons behind this focus on Africa.

• The article suggests that Europe, through the ICC, is attempting to "steal Africans" from Africa to conduct show trials in Western Europe, potentially destabilizing the African continent.

• Critics argue that the ICC's actions have had a negative impact on political, social, and economic development in African states and their international relations.

• There are debates surrounding the Court's potential impact, its exclusive focus on Africa, case selection, and the effect of its indictments on peace processes in Africa.

• Concerns have been raised about the political nature of international criminal tribunals, including the ICC, and the selective application of international justice.

• Some argue that powerful nations and their interests may influence the decisions and investigations of the ICC.

• The author mentions instances where the UN Security Council has selectively decided on cases to be prosecuted, indicating political considerations.

• There is a perception of mutual accommodation between the United States and the ICC, as investigations by the Court have not raised objections from the US in certain countries.

• The ICC has charged the leadership of the LRA rebel group in Uganda but not the leadership of the pro-US government led by President Museveni.

• In Sudan, the ICC has charged officials of the Sudanese government.

• The ICC has not addressed the links between the armies of Uganda and Rwanda, both pro-US, and the ethnic militias responsible for civilian killings in the DRCongo.

• The ICC's actions indicate a selective approach, targeting governments adversarial to the US while ignoring US allies, granting them impunity.

• The timing and nature of the ICC's indictments suggest external influences on its intervention in ongoing conflicts.

• The ICC's indictment of Muammar Al Gathafi during the NATO war in Libya contrasts with its silence on presidents of Syria, Yemen, and the King of Bahrain, where similar alleged war crimes have occurred.

• The ICC's actions in Sudan regarding Darfur have been controversial as Sudan is not under the ICC's jurisdiction.

• The ICC's focus on Africa has led to a rejection of European and ICC attempts at regime change, contributing to a perception of the ICC as a European court serving Western interests in Africa.

• Geopolitical pressures and Western foreign policy are alleged reasons for the ICC's limited investigations in Africa.

• Rwandan President Paul Kagame criticizes the ICC as a tool of Western imperialism targeting African and poor countries.

• The ICC's selective justice is seen as an instrument of power against vulnerable countries, deviating from its intended purpose of universal justice.

• The Rome Statute allows individuals and organizations to submit information on crimes to the ICC.

• These submissions are called "communications" or complaints.

• By February 2006, the ICC had received 1,732 communications alleging crimes worldwide.

• As of October 4, 2007, the ICC had received 2,889 communications about alleged crimes in at least 139 countries.

• In February 2006, 60% of the communications originated from the USA, UK, France, and Germany.

• As of July 2009, the ICC had received over 8,137 communications from more than 130 countries.

• The ICC has started investigations in seven countries, all of them African.

• The ICC has indicted 27 individuals, all of them African.

• The ICC has been criticized for its focus on Africa.

• The ICC claims that its African cases are "self-referrals" by African countries or referrals by the UN Security Council.

• However, there is evidence that the ICC pressured Uganda and DRCongo to refer themselves.

• The ICC's actions in Uganda have been criticized for selectivity, damaging the peace process, and imposing a European model of justice on Africans.

• The ICC received 240 communications regarding the invasion of Iraq, but no investigation was initiated.

• The ICC has ignored crimes committed by Western security companies in Iraq.

• The ICC has not pursued cases in Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza, or the Occupied Territories in Palestine.

• The ICC's impartiality has been questioned in Uganda.

• The ICJ found Ugandan government involvement in war crimes and crimes against humanity in DRCongo, but the ICC indicted Thomas Lubanga for using child soldiers instead.

• The ICC has not indicted any Ugandan officers or officials for crimes against humanity committed within Uganda.

• The ICC has turned a blind eye to alleged crimes against humanity committed by the Congolese government.

• The ICC has targeted Africa because Western European states and NGOs see it as a "freefire zone" to experiment with their legal model.

—-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Norwegian Refugee Council & Human Rights (In Class)

—-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REDRESS (Individual)

“Fighting for a world without torture”

Recent Facts and Updates:

• UN calls on UK to take to torture seriously, adopts recommendations endorsed by REDRESS

• Working to halt atrocities and torture in Sudan

• Argues for survival centered reparation processes

• Launched the “United Against Torture Consurtium’s Innovative Lawyers Awards”

Common Criticisms:

• REDRESS has funding and staffing resource constraints

• The organization focuses on individual cases and not the further systemic legal reasons behind it leading to a limited scope of impact

• It focuses on specific regions, neglecting torture and human rights abuses in certain areas

• Some critics argue that its collaborations with governments and the UN lessen its independence and heighten its bias levels

• Some argue it is more advocacy focused rather than action focused

Successes of REDRESS

• Aksoy V. Turkey Case; REDRESS assisted a Turkish national in bringing a case before the European Court of Human Rights, which resulted in a judgment condemning Turkey for the systematic use of torture.

• Contributed to the development of the UN OPCAT act

• Provides “capacity strengthening initiatives” to inform those like lawyers, activists, and civil society organizations about torture related issues

—-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doctors Without Borders (Médecins Sans Frontières, or MSF) (Individual)

Criticisms of Doctors Without Borders:

• Some people criticize MSF over its political neutrality and argue that providing aid to all parties involved in a conflict inevitably contributes to the continuation of a conflict

• Due to limited resources, MSF is forced to be selective in its operations and some argue that this leads some regions and communities to be neglected

• MSF doesn’t take enough action regarding safety of their workers; there have been instances where their workers were subjected to violence, kidnapping, and targeted attacks

• Some argue that MSF’s interventions can lead to a cycle of dependency

• There is a lack of transparency within the organization,especially within the financial management sector

Successes of Doctors Without Borders:

• MSF’s efforts in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone were pivotal during the 2014-2016 Ebola outbreak in west Africa

• The successful implementation of AIDS/HIV programs (ART) in countries like South Africa, Mozambique, and India

• MSF’s 2005 large-scale intervention of malnourishment in Niger

• Surgical interventions in places like Syria, Yemen, and Afghanistan

• Mass immunization campaigns against measles, meningitis, and cholera

—-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------