JBI Human Rights

Burma: New Publication Outlines Needed Law Reforms

The Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights (JBI), together with partners Perseus Strategies and New Perimeter, launched a new report presenting an in-depth assessment of rule of law reform needs in Burma.  Key Burma experts, U.S. and other policymakers attended the launch at a meeting in Washington DC on March 5.  As noted in The Irrawaddy and Trust Law, the discussion focused on reforming Burma’s Constitution, and the incorporation of international human rights standards and civil society participation in the rule of law reform process.  In line with these recommendations, on March 20 the Burmese parliament agreed to create a commission to review the controversial 2008 Constitution.

Burma is transitioning from 50 years of military rule marked by rights abuses to a more democratic government.  In the past two years, Burma has released Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest and registered her National League for Democracy political party, which won 43 of 45 available seats in April 2012 parliamentary by-elections.  Other reforms include the release of approximately 800 political prisoners (although many were conditionally released); decreased restrictions on the internet and media; the establishment of a new National Human Rights Commission; and signing of preliminary ceasefire agreements with several ethnic armed groups. 

The Rule of Law Assessment Report (the “Assessment”) identifies needs and responses that would expedite the rule of law reform process required in Burma to ensure that transition continues.  It presents an overview of initial and needed reforms, encouraging integration of universal human rights principles in the rule of law reform process, and providing guidance and recommendations to all those who will engage with local actors in Burma.  This will allow international actors to help move the law reform process from the current state where promises are made by Burma to the international community to one where reforms are implemented in Burma both on paper and in practice.  

Country-specific scrutiny by the UN Human Rights Council: Changes documented since US membership began

The 22^nd regular session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva marks the beginning of the United States’ second consecutive three-year term as a member of the intergovernmental body created in 2006 to replace the Commission on Human Rights.  In an effort to review the effect that US membership on the Council has had to date, the Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights has reviewed of the “country-specific” resolutions adopted by the Council, the country-specific special sessions held by the Council, and the number of country-specific and thematic special procedures created by the Council since its establishment.  This is one of a number of areas to which the US has devoted substantial attention during its first term on the Council.

The findings of this review are that in the three years that the US has served on the Council, the body’s criticism of countries by name on human rights grounds has substantially increased.  The Council’s criticism of an increasing number of violator States has not only strengthened its legitimacy; it has decreased to a certain degree the Council’s highly disproportionate focus on the conduct of a single UN Member State, Israel. 

While there remain many aspects of the Council’s performance that States should continue to work to improve, and while the Council still devotes a disproportionate degree of its country-specific action to Israel, JBI’s review finds that US engagement has had beneficial effects on the Council’s performance.  JBI concludes that the United States should continue its efforts in its second term of membership, by pressing Council members to convene special sessions on emerging human rights crises and by proposing and encouraging the tabling of resolutions that identify the perpetrators of serious human rights violations worldwide by name.  It should also devote further efforts to ensure the Council’s credibility and professionalism, including with respect to Israel.

JBI’s detailed documentation and analysis of trends over time, as well as background information, can be found in the full analysis below.