International Association of Democratic Lawyers

Home Page

Profile

XV^th Congress,
Havana,
October 2000
    • Themes
    • Declaration

IADL Resolutions
    • London Bombings
    • Iraq

Third Conference
of Lawyers of
Asia and the
Pacific (COLAP)

IADL Statement on the London Bombings

The International Association of Democratic Lawyers, (IADL) condemns the July 7, 2005 bombings in London, England. We express our solidarity with the victims, their families and the countless people whose lives have been forever shaken by these events. IADL opposes all acts of violence against civilians: bombs on public transportation in London, planes flying into buildings in New York City, or the armies of the United States and Great Britain waging illegal wars on Iraq and Afghanistan.

Unless we address the various forces which motivate people to turn to terror, we will not be able to eradicate it in the short or long term. When world leaders promote illegal wars; when they sanction the use of torture; and when they deny peoples the right to self-determination, as in the case of Palestine; then they promote terror and undermine respect for the rule of law. IADL will not tolerate any attempt to distinguish the deaths of countless civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan as a result of these illegal wars, and those killed by bombs placed on trains and buses. We condemn both.

IADL calls for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Afghanistan and Iraq; for an end to Israel's apartheid wall and illegal occupation of Palestinian territory; for an end to torture and the illegal practice of 'extraordinary rendition'; and for the prosecution and punishment of those guilty of promoting such crimes against humanity.

In 2003, IADL held a conference on the effects of anti-terrorist legislation passed following September 11, 2001. Such legislation tends to make peoples less safe and less free; it promotes fear, racism, religious fanaticism and intolerance; and it leads to a worsening cycle of violations of human rights and fundamental liberties. IADL notes with concern the wave of attacks in the UK, in the wake of the London bombings, on people and locations perceived as Islamic.

IADL calls on all governments:

* Not to use such bombings as an excuse to promote repressive legislation;

* Not to use such bombings as an excuse to criminalise Muslim communities, or to fail to protect Muslim communities from acts of violence;

* To end the illegal wars and actions which only have the effect of promoting groups who see terrorist tactics as the only solution to their problems;

* To promote dialogue, understanding and tolerance between people of different beliefs within their own borders and abroad.

JOINT DECLARATION OF THE EALDH AND IADL: WORLD TRIBUNAL ON IRAQ

On 24-26 June 2005 Fabio Marcelli, of the Italian Democratic Lawyers, and a member of the Administrative Council of EALDH, and Deputy Secretary General of IADL, participated in the World Tribunal on Iraq, a private initiative in the tradition of the Russell Tribunal and Permanent Peoples Tribunal.

The WTI took place in Istanbul, Turkey. A Jury of Conscience from 10 different countries heard the testimonies of 54 members of the Panel of Advocates who came from across the world, including Iraq, the United States and the United Kingdom. The session in Istanbul was the culmination of commissions of inquiry and hearings held around the world over the past two years. Sessions on different topics related to the war on Iraq were held in London, Mumbai, Copenhagen, Brussels, New York, Japan, Stockholm, South Korea, Rome, Frankfurt, Geneva, Lisbon and Spain. EALDH and IADL have played leading roles in a number of WTI events.

It will be recalled that Professor Bill Bowring, President of EALDH and former Treasurer of IADL, was the Chair of the Inquiry into Alleged Commission of War Crimes by Coalition Forces in the Iraq War in 2003, which took place in London on 8-9 November 2003, and reported in April 2004. The Inquiry was organised by Phil Shiner, of Peacerights and Public Interest Lawyers, and a member of the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers, who also took part in WTI in Istanbul. The Inquiry's conclusion, that there sufficient cause and evidence for the International Criminal Court Prosecutor to investigate members of the UK Government for breaches of the ICC Statute in relation to war crimes committed during the Iraq conflict and occupation in 2003, is now the subject of a preliminary investigation by the ICC Prosecutor. Furthermore, on 18-19 June 2004 the IADL participated in the International Peoples Tribunal on the Aggression Against Iraq at the Humboldt University in Berlin, for which Professor Lennox Hinds drafted an indictment. Prof Bowring and leading members of WTI participated in the hearing.

And on 27 June 2004 Prof Bowring participated in the International Criminal Tribunal for Iraq (ICTI) public hearing in Nagoya, Japan. The WTI's Jury of Conscience established the following charges against the Governments of the UK and US, based on the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, and other legal instruments:

- Planning, preparing, and waging the supreme crime of a war of aggression in contravention of the United Nations Charter and the Nuremberg Principles.

- Targeting the civilian population of Iraq and civilian infrastructure. Using disproportionate force and indiscriminate weapon systems. - Failing to safeguard the lives of civilians during military activities and during the occupation period thereafter.

- Using deadly violence against peaceful protestors. Imposing punishments without charge or trial, including collective punishment. - Subjecting Iraqi soldiers and civilians to torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. Re-writing the laws of a country that has been illegally invaded and occupied. - Wilfully devastating the environment.

- Actively creating conditions under which the status of Iraqi women has seriously been degraded. - Failing to protect humanity's rich archaeological and cultural heritage in Iraq. - Obstructing the right to information, including the censoring of Iraqi media.

- Redefining torture in violation of international law, to allow use of torture and illegal detentions.

The EALDH and IADL place on record their support for the work of the WTI, and make the following recommendations for their members and for all progressive lawyers:

1. To urge the Prosecutor of the ICC to complete his investigation into the evidence of war crimes committed by the members of the UK government in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, including crimes committed by virtue of joint enterprise with the government of the United States.

2. To give full support to Phil Shiner and Public Interest Lawyers, and other lawyers in their courageous initiatives in the UK courts on behalf of Iraqi victims of the actions of the UK.

3. To urge all progressive lawyers to take concrete steps at every opportunity to declare the illegality of the invasion and ongoing occupation of Iraq, to seek effective remedies for the wrongs suffered by the people of Iraq and all other victims of the aggression, and to investigate and prosecute all crimes committed during the invasion and occupation.

4. To lobby for the immediate completion of the Statute of the ICC so as to make provision for the crime of aggression, and to make the crime of aggression to cover the actions of the UK (with the US) from 2002 onwards.

5. To campaign for the immediate withdrawal of all foreign forces from Iraq, laying the basis for the restoration of full Iraqi sovereignty and the drafting of a new democratic constitution.

6. To urge all democratic Iraqis to ensure, following the end of occupation, to ensure the full implementation of the UN human rights treaties already ratified by Iraq (ICESCR, ICCPR, CERD, CEDAW, CRC), and to ratify as soon as possible the UN Convention Against Torture, making all necessary additional declarations and ratifications to enable Iraqis to complain to UN treaty bodies.

7. To urge the United Nations to demand an end to the occupation, to give maximum support to creating democracy and rebuilding Iraq’s economy when the occupation ends, and to encourage Iraq to claim in full for the damage suffered during the invasion and occupation.

STATEMENT ON THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 1422 OF JULY 12,2002 ON EXEMPTION OF PEACE-KEEPING FORCES FROM INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT [ICC]

July 22, 2002

On July 12, 2002, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1422, which requests, consistent with the provisions of Article 16 of the Rome Statute, that the ICC, if a case arises involving current or former officials or personnel from a contributing State not a Party to the Rome Statute over acts or omissions relating to a United Nations established or authorized operations, shall for a twelve-month period starting 1 July 2002 not commence or proceed with investigation or prosecution of any such case, unless the Security Council decides otherwise" (Paragragh 1). The Resolution also expresses the "intention" to renew the request under the same conditions each 1 July for further 12-month period for as long as may be necessary (Paragraph 2).

Whereas the resolution is more attenuated in tone than previous proposals by the US for blanket immunity for peacekeepers, it nevertheless puts an obstacle in the way of realizing a long-cherished dream of humanity to plug an impunity hole of the most heinous crimes of international concerns.

First, the resolution is inconsistent with the words and intent of Article 16 of the Rome Treaty, which has already been entered into force. Article 16, which itself is a compromise provision, is intended to respect the SC's Chapter VII powers and defer investigations of or prosecutions in specific situations which the SC is addressing in its mandate. No where does Article 16 state that it applies to individual persons. Thus, the resolution's reference in Paragraph 1 to cases involving individual officials or personnel is not only sharply different than Article 16 but is wholly misconceived.

Secondly, Article 16 states that the SC can request that an investigation or prosecution be deferred for a 12 month period, and that this request "may be renewed". The implication is that the request is made on a case-by-case basis, and is not a blanket request. The language of Article 16, "may be renewed", does not assume that there wil be an additional renewal and certainly does not provide for an "automatic renewal". In contrast, the language of the resolution which provides for renewals "for as long as may be necessary (Paragraph 2)", while falling short of "automatic renewal" is, at best, amibiguous and seeks to achieve the same purpose. The resolution opens the door for lengthy battles over the venue for resolving violations of crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide.

The purpose of Article 16 was never to grant automatic deferrals, which could effectively amount to immunity from prosecution to individual perpetrators whose crimes are under the jurisdicition of the ICC. The Resolution 1422 seeks to pave the way for this.

It is a matter of great regret that the Security Council abuses its power enshrined in Chapter VII of UN Charter in the very moment of entry into force of the Treaty for Establishing the International Criminal Court [ICC]. The SC Resolution threatens the integrity of the Rome Treaty, which is now part of international law and the ability of the ICC to independently fulfill its mandate as outlined in the Treaty.

It is also regretful that the resolution disproportionately emphasizes the importance of peacekeeping operations, among other international activities. The likelihood of acts of commission or omission of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes by officials and personnel alike, including the highest authorities in command from a contributing State not a Party to the Rome Statute, cannot be denied. Yet, it must also be recognized that these crimes can also be committed by individuals who are involved in other international efforts, which are not under the arm of peace-keeping.

The International Association of Democratic Lawyers [IADL], in consultative status with UN ECOSOC, UNESCO and UNICEF, while reiterating its earlier statement released on July 1st, 2002, expresses, once again, its protest against the United States serial persistent proposals, which have been made in an effort to erode the integrity of ICC. It is, however, a matter of some satisfaction that the US government failed in its efforts to gain immunity to its personnel in operations of peacekeeping forces established or authorized by the Security Council. It has to be noted, also, that any personnel of US forces in other operations than peacekeeping will remain under the universal jurisdiction of ICC, if they commit crimes on soil within the court's jurisdiction.

IADL calls upon lawyers and citizens the world over to continue to remain ever vigilant against even slightest deviances or attempts to move away from the ICC statute, and to report them at length to the world public, and, if appropriate, to expose them to the domestic courts, which the US government believes as the sole legitimate jurisdiction to carry out criminal investigation and prosecution against its nationals, officials and personnel alike, of peacekeeping forces overseas, for their any commission or omission of crimes similar to genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes as prescribed in Rome Statute.

Again, IADL calls upon every lawyer and citizen all over the world to assume his or her moral obligation to cooperate with investigation and prosecution of the newly born sole universal jurisdiction of the international entity of justice, the International Criminal Court.

A STATEMENT AGAINST A DRAFT RESOLUTION OF THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL TABLED BY THE UNITED STATES ON THE IMMUNITY OF PEACEKEEPING FORCES

July 1, 2002

Today is a historic day, the Treaty for Establishing the International Criminal Court has come into force. This is an important milestone in the move towards the establishment of a permanent judicial mechanism by next year. IADL joins the lawyers and citizens all around the world in welcoming the birth of ICC and reiterates its earlier statement of June 24, 2002 on ICC. However IADL considers it necessary to urge the lawyers and the citizens to be extremely vigilant as attempts to nullify the Rome Treaty and not to allow the establishment of ICC are being vigorously made. The so-called unsigning of the Treaty and thus seeking to withdraw from the Court is just one of the attempts to nullify the Treaty. With the same objective the United States Government has on June 19, 2002 submitted a draft resolution to the UN Security Council, seeking to claim immunity of peacekeeping forces over any of the crimes under the international jurisdiction of the upcoming International Criminal Court [ICC]. It is astonishing that the United States never ceases its attempts of putting obstacles in a seemingly thorny way to international peace and justice, as is the first international judicial entity with universal jurisdiction over the gravest crimes of international concerns.

The International Association of Democratic Lawyers [IADL] in consultative status with the United Nations, UNESCO and UNICEF, and having members in over 90 countries urges upon every Member States of the Security Council to be in full aware of dangerous nature of the proposed resolution, to examine it in the light of international law and international humanitarian law, and to reject it as being clearly violative of international law. This in IADL's view is further established by the undermentioned remarks, article by article, to the draft resolution.

Firstly, the draft resolution demands the Security Council to decide that Member States contributing personnel participating in operations established or authorized by the UN Security Council to promote the pacific settlement of disputes or to maintain or restore international peace and security shall have the responsibility to investigate crimes with respect to which they have jurisdiction and, as appropriate, prosecute offenses alleged to have been committed by their nationals in connection with the operation. It is clear, however, that any operations established or authorized by the UN Security Council shall be, as a matter of course, taken in the name of and under the flag of the United Nations. It is also clear that any claim of national jurisdiction over international crimes will betray or weaken the very nature of international cooperation for the sake of international peace and security.

Secondly, the draft resolution demands the Security Council to decide that persons of or from contributing states acting in connection with such operations shall enjoy in the territory of all Member States other than the contributing State immunity from arrest, detention, and prosecution with respect to all acts arising out of the operation and that this immunity shall continue after termination of their participation in the operation for all such act. It is clear here that the United States persistent zeal for widening coverage of state immunity is an attempt to create a global union against the universal jurisdiction of the new, yet to be set up international entity of justice. If the Security Council approves this resolution, ICC will cover only a few residual part of the globe other than any territory of sovereign States. In terms with peacekeeping forces coming from Member States including USA, they will surely enjoy holy privileges out of ICC, while they are acting or have acted in the name of and under the flag of the United Nations. The ICC will thus stand humiliated and disrespected even by the most heinous perpetrators of crimes.

Thirdly, the draft resolution demands the Security Council to decide that the contributing state may waive such immunity whenever and to the extent that, in its judgment, the interests of justice will be served. It is clear then that a seemingly benevolent waiver of the contributing state gives a slight touch of irony against a blatant denial of universal jurisdiction of the ICC. No one has any doubt that the USA will be the last State to waive such immunity. It is shocking that the hard framework of the Rome Statute of ICC is sought to be revoked by a single resolution of the Security Council together with a refusal of waiver of immunity given by any Member States. Any honest diplomat would vouch for the fact that such a resolution will constitute a breach of the obligation not to defeat the object and purpose of a treaty prior to its entry into force under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1980 (Article 18).

Fourthly, the draft resolution demands the Security Council to decide that in the absence of a waiver by the contributing state, the Security Council shall have the exclusive authority to waive the immunity in the interests of justice. Again it is clear that under the guise of being a protector of justice, the Security Council will take a new role to interfere with universal jurisdiction of the ICC, such role is never considered legitimate in the UN Charter. It is furthermore clear that when the United States refuses to waive the immunity, such a mechanism as prescribed by the draft resolution will never function in the face of veto given to the Permanent Five.

Lastly, the draft resolution demands the Security Council to note that the immunity refered in the above paragraphs is without prejudice to any other privileges or immunities the individual may otherwise enjoy. It is clear that even an elaborate mechanism as demanded by the draft resolution will not bind the Super Power, while the draft resolution itself confesses a willing subjection to the will of a sovereign State. It should be noted that any kind of immunity will be free to multiply until at last the end of universal jurisdiction of the ICC over the most heinous international crimes. Here we will see, according to the draft resolution, an entrance of abyss of never-ending use of force in the name of peacekeeping. While the Rome Statute tries to plug a long-annoying hole of immunity, it will grow bigger by the draft resolution, just as if the US government will not cooperate to cut off the carbonic acid gas and to leave the ozone hole grow by a sheer refusal of signature in the Kyoto Protocol.

IADL Calls upon the lawyers and the people the world over to build a massive campaign to expose these attempts that are being made to prevent establishment of ICC and to build pressure on the members of the United Nations and more particularly of the Security Council to thwart all such attempts of the United States and its allies.

A STATEMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DEMOCRATIC LAWYERS ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

June 25, 2002

On the First of July, 2002, humanity will turn a new page in its battle against atrocities and hostilities, and for international peace and justice. The Treaty for Establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC) will come into force, so that a permanent judicial mechanism may come into existence by next year.

The International Association of Democratic Lawyers, [IADL], in consultative status with UN ECOSOC, UNESCO and UNICEF calls upon every lawyer and citizen in the world to celebrate the birth of ICC, and to assume his or her moral obligation in cooperation with this new international entity of justice.

IADL also calls upon all signatory States of the Treaty in the world to ratify it as soon as possible with a view to widening and strengthening a basis of the world jurisdiction over crimes of genocide, against humanity and war crimes. It is an urgent necessity for the Party States of the Treaty to nominate candidates for judges and prosecutors for ICC from among qualified and competent lawyers having a firm commitment to independence and democracy, so as to avoid any political administration of justice or of prosecution.

Finally, IADL strongly condemns the US government's recent withdrawal from the Court in the form of revoking its signature in the Treaty. The U.S. 'unsigning' is a declaration against international law. As the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1980 in which the USA joins, puts it, a State is legally bound by a treaty through some ways as defined in the Convention including the signature of a State representative. The Convention also prohibits a State to defeat the object and purpose of a treaty even prior to its entry into force, once the State has signed the treaty. IADL also declares that under the principle of bona fide or good faith, which constitutes a core of the customary international law, a signatory State is obliged to refrain from any intentional or negligent practice to defeat the object and purpose of the treaty. It is essential for the lawyers the world over to remain vigilant and fight against attempts to undermine and nullify the Treaty and the ICC.

IADL STATEMENT ON INDIA-PAKISTAN CONFLICT

June 5, 2002

The threat of war between India and Pakistan has assumed dangerous proportions. It is a matter of grave concern for the peace loving people the world over. The massive deployment of armed forced on the borders by the two countries has occurred with apparent lack of concern of the leaders of both the countries towards the death, misery and destruction to the life and property that such a war will cause on the innocent people.

Both countries are indulging in creating a war phobia. The threat of use of nuclear weapons are being made with utter irresponsibility. Any use of nuclear weapons threatens to deteriorate into a major military clash causing an unprecedented scale of damages among the peoples of the two countries and could even trigger a world war nuclear catastrophe.

The International Association of Democratic Lawyers [IADL] in consultative status with UN ECOSOC, UNESCO and UNICEF and having Member-Associations in 96 countries, including India and Pakistan, calls upon both the Governments, India and Pakistan, to refrain from any threat or use of force for the sake of peace and security in this very crucial region.

Considering that the UN Charter, to which both countries adhere, declares the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity is prohibited in the international relations and urges respect of principle of non-interference in each others domestic matters;

Recalling the 1996 historic Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice holding that threat or use of nuclear weapons is an infringement of international law, especially the humanitarian law and international norms of human rights.

Considering that any use of force in this crucial situation would constitute a crime of aggression or a crime against humanity, if other elements of such crime were met as defined in the Rome Statute of 1998 on International Criminal Court.

Consequently, IADL urges both India and Pakistan:

[a] to immediately stop all military maneuvers, troop movements, weapon tests, threat of use of nuclear weapons, or any other step towards use of force or a threat of war.

[b] to effectively control the terrorist activities and stop interference in each others affairs and also to effectively curb terrorists and religious fundamentalist organisations or any other force provoking conflict and endangering peace and tranquility in the region.

[c] to withdraw troops from the borders on both sides for creating a conducive atmosphere for initiating dialogues.

[d] to declare as a first step, a firm commitment to 'no-first use' of nuclear weapons.

[e] to forthwith initiate bilateral negotiations to settle all disputes between the two countries.

[f] to create a climate of peace and friendship between the people of the two countries by restoring trade and travel facilities.

To this end, IADL also urges the United Nations to immediately call the Security Council in order to take every necessary measure permissible under the UN Charter and to encourage and assist the process of effective dialogue between the two countries.

Finally, IADL, urges the UN Secretary General to make direct and personal intervention into the matter in an effort to bring peace to this important yet highly volatile region.

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DEMOCRATIC LAWYERS CONDEMNS TERRORIST ATTACKS IN UNITED STATES AND THE SITUATION THEREAFTER

September 26, 2001

The International Association of Democratic Lawyers, (IADL) condemns the September 11th terrorist attacks perpetrated on the United States of America. We express our solidarity with the victims and their families, and join with the world community in stating that nothing can justify such directed acts of barbarism against a civilian population. We recognize that these attacks represent a tragedy of proportions not fully realized. Those responsible have committed crimes against humanity and must be brought to justice.

The IADL, an organization of lawyers and jurists around the world, is united by many key principles including a recognition that lawyers and jurists have a role to play through International law to promote both the realization of human rights and peaceful resolution of conflicts. IADL believes that achieving full human rights can best occur when peace prevails, but it is the denial of human rights which creates the fertile soil for conflict and war.

While we condemn terrorism, used by states or individuals, the way leaders of the United States and the leaders of the rest of the world react to these attacks must now be the focus of our attention, and it is the focus of this statement.

The IADL is committed to achieving the principles set forth in the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the many conventions aimed at promoting peace and human rights. We are committed to democracy and to encourage the maintenance of peace and cooperation among nations.

The IADL recognizes that it is natural for a population and a country, which has been attacked, to become enraged, and to strike back in anger hoping that the target of the attack is the responsible party and hoping that the attack will "teach them a lesson once and for all".

The IADL also recognizes that given the nature of this terrorist attack, there is a legitimate fear that if some decisive action is not taken the terrorists will be encouraged to take more action. On the other hand, unless we recognize the various forces which have attracted people to turn to terror, we will not be able to eradicate it in the short or long term.

The IADL further recognizes that it is easy to try to pin blame on certain individuals, countries which support them or a religion, but history tells us that use of indiscriminate retaliation or collective punishment only promotes escalation in violence and creates a real danger of ongoing cycles of attach and retaliation which will only cause more instability in the world. While the September 11th attacks have resulted in a profound pulling together of Americans, so a counter attack will result in a similar pulling together of those attacked, especially if those attacked have no or tenuous links to those responsible and are considered merely "collateral damage" by the attackers.

The IADL knows that terrorism cannot be eradicated by calling for a suspect's head, "dead or alive". Military action should not take the place of pursuing justice within a framework which respects human rights and the rule of law. Fundamental rights of civilian populations should not be ignored in the effort to bring the perpetrators to justice. The United States and leaders of the world will be different from the accused only if they proceed within the framework of well-established international law and recognized human rights.

The Nations of the world adopted the United Nations Charter to regulate such threats to peace and it is through the United Nations that we must act. Under Article 51, the right of self defense is limited to measures which are reported to the Security Council and are not to affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council to take such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. Under Article 39 of the UN Charter it is the Security Council which is empowered to determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

The IADL urges the United States to follow the UN Charter in its efforts to develop an appropirate response to this attack, and a strategy that will promote peace not war, and which will abide by the dictates of the UN Charter.

Furthermore, the IADL believes this tragedy also presents us with an opportunity of tremendous proportions to take bold initiatives to promote peace and stability rather than to escalate violence.

The IADL believes that a peaceful resolution of the Israel/Palestine conflict will go a long way to reducing the conditions giving rise to terrorist activity and the world community should take bold action to assist the Israelis and the Palestinians to find a fair and appropriate framework for a resolution of the conflict.

To this end the IADL intends to send a Mission to Israel-Palestine and has called for a Conference on Solidarity with Palestine in Paris on November 24th and 25th to assist in the development of a framework for peace.

We call upon all countries of the world to endorse this effort and to demand that the United States and all of the allies being called to develop a coalition against terrorism and to take actions consistent with the UN Charter.