JBI Human Rights

JBI Critiques the Draft Report of the Commission on Unalienable Rights, Calls for U.S. Foreign Policy to Uphold the Universality of Rights

In a public comment submitted on July 24, JBI called on the "Commission on Unalienable Rights" to substantially amend its draft report. The comment expresses alarm that the report will be used to support radical changes to the traditional U.S. approach to promoting human rights in its foreign policy, and particularly to encourage U.S. diplomats to provide tacit support and encouragement to governments that violate the human rights of members of certain historically marginalized groups, including women, LGBTQ people, and racial minorities.

The Commission, an independent advisory body established by U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in 2019, published its draft report on July 16. Among other shortcomings, the Commission's report subtly but clearly encourages the U.S. to reverse its longstanding position on the universality of human rights, as set out in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (VDPA). It justifies this by claiming that countries’ “particularities” and “backgrounds” allow them some “leeway” in the implementation of their human rights commitments and suggests that human rights claims lacking a “clear consensus across a broad plurality of different traditions and cultures” might be illegitimate.

JBI's Comment draws particular attention to the Commission's very troubling treatment of the second sentence of paragraph 5 of the VDPA, which reads:

“While the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

The first part of this sentence is a legacy of what is known as the “Bangkok Declaration,” the Final Declaration of the Regional Meeting for Asia that preceded the 1993 Vienna World Conference, which was reportedly particularly influenced by the governments of Malaysia and China. These words of the VDPA, and the Bangkok Declaration as a whole, are generally interpreted as aimed at repudiating the universality of human rights in favor of "cultural relativism." The U.S. strongly opposed this language at Vienna and insisted successfully on the inclusion of other language in the VDPA that reaffirms that “the universal nature of these rights and freedoms is beyond question.” The U.S. also insisted that the sentence be read together with the sentence of paragraph 5 that precedes it, which proclaims that “All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated.”

Yet rather than stressing these latter aspects of the VDPA, the Commission's report instead places great weight on the first part of the sentence as evidence of the existence and importance of the principle of "subsidiarity" - the notion that States must be given a degree of "leeway" in upholding their human rights commitments. As often done by States that seek to justify departures from universal rights standards, the draft report then suggests that the U.S. should generally refrain from endorsing or supporting “new” human rights claims made by “competing groups in society over political priorities,” and should leave such issues to be resolved through “ordinary democratic processes.” An earlier reference in the report to “abortion, affirmative action, [and] same-sex marriage” as examples of “divisive social and political controversies” in the U.S. in which “both sides couch their claims in terms of basic rights” suggests that the report is intended to be read as recommending that U.S. should not engage on these or similar human rights issues – particularly claims about laws and policies that discriminate against women, racial minorities, and LGBTQ people – in its foreign policy.

Since 1993 the U.S. has repeatedly invoked the VDPA to reject attempts by governments – including but not limited to Iran – to cite religious or cultural traditions of the majority of their citizens as a justification for denying equal treatment to individuals belonging to marginalized groups. The Commission's report, on the other hand, would seem to urge U.S. officials to exercise caution and be silent in the face of human rights violations justified by their perpetrators with reference to their cultural or religious background, and to expressly rely on the VDPA in support of such a position.  As JBI's comment points out, the Commission's report thus urges the U.S. to completely reverse the approach that it traditionally has taken with respect to the principle of universality, and its precise articulation in the VDPA. 

JBI's comment urges the Commission to amend the text of its draft report to more accurately describe the principle of universality of human rights, reaffirm the approach that the U.S. traditionally has taken with respect to the principle of universality, acknowledge more fully the significance of international human rights treaty obligations the U.S. has voluntarily assumed, and refrain from encouraging the U.S. to reverse its longstanding foreign policy position on the fundamental importance of the universality of rights. It urges the Commission to instead encourage the U.S. to conduct its foreign policy in a manner that promotes equal respect for the human rights of all persons.

The full text of the comment is available here: https://www.jbi-humanrights.org/JBI%20Comment%20on%20Commission%20on%20Unalienable%20Rights%207-24.pdf

AJC and JBI Oppose Proposed Changes to U.S. Asylum System that Violate U.S. International Obligations

In an official comment, AJC and its Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights have called on the U.S. Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to withdraw a sweeping set of changes they have proposed to implement to the U.S. asylum system and which appear to contradict important international obligations that the U.S. has voluntarily assumed and that AJC and JBI have long championed.

The agencies' proposals, entitled “Procedures for Asylum and Withholding of Removal; Credible Fear and Reasonable Fear Review,” are open for public comment until 11:59 pm on July 15. The comment expresses opposition to a number of the agencies’ specific proposals, including those that would:

• alter the definition of key legal terms to bar asylum claims made by people fleeing criminal gangs and gender-based violence, contradicting guidance on who can qualify as a refugee pursuant to the Refugee Convention issued by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR);
• discourage the granting of asylum claims from anyone who transited through another country on their way to the U.S., without any regard to whether they would have faced persecution or torture in the countries through which they traveled, again contradicting UNHCR;
• change the asylum determination process in ways that would deny applicants a “fair” proceeding, as defined by UNHCR;
• bar claims for protection from people fleeing a risk of torture by a “rogue official,” though the UN Committee Against Torture’s interpretation of the definition of torture recognizes no such distinction.

The comment expresses AJC's and JBI's serious concern that if implemented, the proposed regulations would effectively deny many people fleeing for their lives and livelihoods their right to seek asylum and would put them at risk of being returned or expelled to countries where they face a substantial risk of persecution, torture, or other serious harm. It calls on the agencies to withdraw their proposed regulations and instead pursue alternative ways to accomplish their policy aims, such as providing clarification for adjudicators and increasing efficiency and consistency in the handling of asylum claims, in ways that would not give rise to such a serious risk of harming asylum-seekers.

On the UN Charter's 75th Anniversary, JBI's New Publication Recounts AJC's Advocacy for Human Rights & High-Level Event Explores the UN's Place in U.S. Foreign Policy Today

On June 26, the 75th anniversary of the signing of the UN Charter, JBI published a new report recounting AJC's role in ensuring the inclusion of human rights as a principal purpose of the UN and led an AJC Advocacy Anywhere event with two former U.S. Ambassadors to the UN examining the organization's enduring role in U.S. foreign policy.

The new JBI publication, Making a Difference: AJC's Advocacy for Human Rights in the United Nations Charter, details the efforts made by AJC leaders Judge Joseph Proskauer, AJC President, and Jacob Blaustein, Chair of AJC’s Executive Committee, to ensure that the preeminent multilateral organization to emerge from the ashes of the Holocaust would have human rights at its core.

Authored by Felice Gaer, Director of AJC's Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights (JBI), the report details the essential contributions of AJC and other non-governmental organizations which were invited to send representatives to serve as "consultants" to the U.S. delegation to the 1945 Conference on International Organizations in San Francisco, where the UN Charter was finalized.

The NGO consultants engaged with the U.S. delegation on a number of issues, especially on the need to ensure that human rights would be a central purpose of the UN and a body dedicated to addressing human rights would be created. Among the consultants, Proskauer and Blaustein played a particularly decisive role in persuading the American delegation to seek the key human rights-related amendments to the draft UN Charter. With the U.S taking the lead among all 50 countries participating in the San Francisco conference, the consultants’ proposals on human rights were incorporated in the UN Charter signed on June 26, 1945.

An abbreviated version of the report, also published on June 26 on the Universal Rights Group's URG Insights blog series, is available here.

Also on June 26, AJC convened a virtual event as part of its Advocacy Anywhere series entitled "The United Nations at 75: What Role in U.S. Foreign Policy?" The event featured former U.S. Ambassadors to the UN John Negroponte and David Pressman, in conversation with Ms. Gaer about the UN's enduring value as a forum to advance U.S. interests - including promotion of human rights - globally.

A recording of the event can be viewed here:

 

JBI Statement on the Six-Month Anniversary of Dr. Shaheed's UN Report on Global Antisemitism

Six months ago, Dr. Ahmed Shaheed, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, presented an unprecedented report to the UN General Assembly expressing alarm about the significant increase, beginning in 2017, in reports of hostility, discrimination and violence motivated by antisemitism in many parts of the world. Dr. Shaheed’s report was particularly notable for its global scope – expressing concern about the prevalence of antisemitic attitudes in countries with significant Jewish populations and no Jewish inhabitants alike – and its conclusion that antisemitism is a universal threat, in that it not only denies Jewish individuals and communities worldwide the ability to enjoy their human rights but also “threatens the rights of all people in societies in which this insidious hatred is unaddressed.”

Dr. Shaheed’s UN report was welcomed by governments, several of which have taken important steps to combat antisemitism in line with his recommendations.  One notable example is the increasing number of States that have recognized the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA’s) Working Definition of Antisemitism, which Dr. Shaheed recommended that States “adopt…for use in education and awareness-raising and for monitoring and responding to manifestations of antisemitism.” Since October 2019, Cyprus, Italy, Sweden, and Uruguay have all adopted the Working Definition, bringing the total number of States that have done so to 22.  States including Italy, Romania, and Sweden have also followed Dr. Shaheed’s recommendation that governments should assign senior government officials to oversee efforts to monitor, document, and combat antisemitism. Similarly, in a number of cases, key non-governmental actors, including social media companies like Facebook and Twitter, have followed Dr. Shaheed’s recommendation to them to “enforce terms of service and community rules that do not allow the dissemination of hate messages,” by taking down posts, pages, and tweets and suspending accounts in cases where users have published particularly egregious antisemitic content online.

Nevertheless, events over the last six months have made it clear that more effort is needed to combat the pernicious threat of antisemitism, and that the need to do so is more urgent than ever. Not only have Jewish communities continued to face deadly attacks, but antisemitic rhetoric has also continued to proliferate, espoused by speakers ranging from high-profile political and religious figures in traditional media outlets to white supremacists communicating online.  Particularly alarmingly, antisemitic rhetoric appears to have increased as the COVID-19 pandemic has emerged in the first months of 2020, causing widespread fear and provoking an unprecedented increase in rhetoric scapegoating Jews for the global public health emergency.  Reports of such antisemitic rhetoric have come from countries around the world – from the United States and Europe to Iran, Yemen, Turkey and Venezuela – and from individuals aligned with right-wing extremist groups as well from those with Islamist and left-wing views. In the United States, at least one individual affiliated with Neo-Nazi groups on social media and who had blamed Jews for the pandemic nearly attempted to commit mass violence, and the risk of additional such cases in the future is high.

These recent cases of antisemitic violence, discrimination, and rhetoric worldwide demonstrate that antisemitism remains a pernicious global challenge. It is imperative that governments, social media companies, and United Nations experts and officials devote more action and attention to meeting this challenge in the months ahead.

As the UN Marks International Holocaust Remembrance Day, JBI Hosts Renowned International Jurist Judge Theodor Meron for In-depth Discussion on International Criminal Justice

To mark the 75^th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz Nazi death camp, Judge Theodor Meron, former President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) addressed members of the Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights (JBI) and an audience of 100 guests for a wide-ranging discussion of the legacy of the Nuremberg trials and international criminal justice.

JBI Facilitates Historic UN Report on Antisemitism: A Conversation with UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, Dr. Ahmed Shaheed, Deborah Lipstadt, and JBI

 

In September 2019, the UN published a first-ever stand-alone human rights report dedicated solely to antisemitism, authored by Dr. Ahmed Shaheed, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief. It documents rising antisemitic violence and hate speech around the world and identifies it as a threat to Jews and as “toxic” to democratic societies.

The Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights (JBI) convened two expert consultations – one in Geneva involving global antisemitism monitors to share insights into the state of antisemitism around the world and best practices, and one on antisemitism in the United States – that informed the Special Rapporteur’s report. Additionally, JBI helped provide Dr. Shaheed with contacts in smaller Jewish communities that he would otherwise have had difficulty accessing.

Dr. Shaheed recommended for all States to adopt the Working Definition of Antisemitism, another first for a UN report. AJC and JBI support Dr. Shaheed’s additional recommendation for an appointment of a UN focal point on antisemitism.

At AJC headquarters in New York, Dr. Shaheed addressed AJC and JBI leaders about his groundbreaking report. Dr. Deborah E. Lipstadt offered comments. A recording of the presentation can be found in the video above.

JBI Urges Administration to Reverse Cuts in U.S. Refugee Program and to Protect Victims Fleeing Persecution

The Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights (JBI) is deeply disappointed by the U.S. administration’s decision to severely reduce the number of refugees accepted into the United States. For FY 2020 the cap will be 18,000, down from 30,000 in FY 2019 and 45,000 in FY 2018.

“The severe diminution of the U.S. refugee program undermines a commitment to protect those fleeing from atrocious human rights abuses and contravenes core American values,” said JBI Administrative Council Chair, Jerry Biederman. “The Administration’s new cap is especially egregious when the number of refugees around the world has increased to the greatest levels seen since World War II, and people who have fled for their lives need protection.” According to the UN Refugee Agency, there are nearly 26 million refugees worldwide, and another 41.3 million internally displaced in their own countries.

The new cap is a 40% cut from the current year allocation of 30,000, and only one of a series of dramatic reductions in refugee cap numbers including a reduction from 75,000 to 45,000 in FY 2018 and to 30,000 in FY 2019. Additionally, even with decreasing caps in refugee admissions, the U.S. has not reached those targets in recent years coming to only about half in FY 2018 and resettling just over 28,000 as of August 31, 2019. The newly announced number is the lowest since 1980, when Congress passed the Refugee Act and set up the US Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP). That year 207,000 refugees were admitted to the U.S.

JBI strongly urges the administration not to turn its back on the enormous and growing population of vulnerable refugees in dire need of protection, and encourages a swift reversal to these drastic cuts to the U.S. Refugee Program.

As UN Gathers to Condemn Violence on the Basis of Religion or Belief, More Action Needed to Protect Minorities Worldwide

 

On the first International Day Commemorating the Victims of Acts of Violence Based on Religion or Belief, on August 22, 2019, the Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights calls on all governments to take concrete action to protect members of religious minority communities from harm. UN experts recently have warned that religious minorities in a number of countries around the world continue to face violent persecution, at the hands not only of non-State actors, but also of government authorities.

UN General Assembly resolution 73/296, adopted unanimously by UN member states, established August 22 as the International Day. This action was approved after the heinous massacres of members of religious minority communities by private individuals – the attacks on of Muslim worshippers at mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand and of Christian worshippers at churches in Sri Lanka – in March and April 2019.

As they adopted the resolution, diplomats from Member States expressed alarm about these and other examples of violence against individuals on the basis of their religion or belief worldwide, including:

• the attack by a private individual on Jewish congregants at the Poway synagogue in San Diego, California in the U.S., coming just months after the deadly attack on the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;
• the commission of crimes against humanity and genocide by members of the Islamic State in Iraq against Yezidis;
• the commission of crimes against humanity and genocide by military and other forces in Myanmar against Rohingya Muslims;
• the execution of Sunni Kurds by authorities in Iran; and
• the arbitrary detention of over one million members of minority Muslim groups, predominately Uighurs, by the Chinese authorities.

Available now: JBI Human Rights Lecture "Why We Stand for Human Rights" by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights

“Why We Stand for Human Rights,” delivered by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein was the third Jacob Blaustein Institute Human Rights Lecture, presented at an event in New York City.

In the lecture, available here, the High Commissioner asks “What is happening to us?” and expresses dismay about the global retreat from human rights. He criticizes a number of world leaders, including presidents of Russia and China. He cites particular alarm at rhetoric from various Western officials and responds to the remarks by the US president before the UN General Assembly. Zeid characterizes the latter speech as “One part chauvinistic nationalisms. One part balance-of-power swordplay and a crumbling adherence to law…” Recalling that “we have been here before,” the High Commissioner suggests that limiting international and domestic policy to security and sovereignty, and failing to include human rights considerations, will lead to calamitous results.

The High Commissioner concludes with a compelling response to the threats facing human rights today: “What would change the trajectory, would be the existence of a world-wide wave of popular support for universal human rights – pushing, prodding, holding their governments to the mark, and shaking-up the slumbering politicians. We must now intensify, greatly, our advocacy and expand our reach in a manner that is without precedent.”

The publication of Zeid’s lecture also contains a brief introduction by JBI Director Felice Gaer. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the lecture, please contact us at [email protected].

Groundbreaking Joint Statement Declares Abuse of Human Rights Defenders Violate Human Rights Treaties

The UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders, together with representatives from each international human rights treaty body, issued a joint statement at the outset of the 30^th annual meeting of Treaty Body chairs this summer, affirming that abuse and undue limitation of human rights defenders violates State party obligations delineated in the treaties. JBI’s Director, Felice Gaer, who is vice chair of the UN Committee against Torture, was one of the signatories.

The joint statement emphasizes the importance of human rights defenders in the application of the rights included within the treaties and the UN Declaration on human rights defenders, marking its 20^th anniversary. In addition, the statement affirms that all individuals should be able to engage with the UN treaty body system without risk of discrimination, reprisals, or retaliation. It includes a list of recommended measures States may adopt to ensure the protection of human rights defenders.

The full text of the joint statement can be found here.