Notes

  • 1. Algerian churches, NGOs wary as restrictive law comes into force WorldWatch Monitor, 10 January 2014, available at https://www.world- watchmonitor.org/2014/01/2944114/.
  • 2. Akshan de Alwis, Egypts Democratic Gains Strangled by NGO Law, Diplomatic Courier, 19 February 2015, available at http://www.diplo- maticourier.com/2015/02/19/egypt-s-democratic-gains-strangled- by-ngo-law/.
  • 3. See Joint Statement of 33 States delivered to the UN Human Rights Councils 30th session on 14 September 2015 by Switzerland on behalf of Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Botswana, Bulgaria, Chile, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, UK, USA, and Uruguay, which states that: ‘We are concerned about reports of harassment and imprisonment of persons exercising their rights to freedom of opinion and expression and of peaceful assembly and association, including human rights defenders; about the lack of sufficient guarantees of fair trial; by the detention of minors due to their participation in demonstrations and urge the government to look at alternatives to detention.’ Available at https://www.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2015/09/Joint-statement-on-Bahrain_13.09_with-list-of-states.pdf.
  • 4. Critics decry NGO bill as blow to Israeli democracy, Israel Times, 27 December 2015, available at http://www.timesofisrael.com/critics-decry- ngo-bill-as-blow-to-israeli-democracy/.
  • 5. The March 2010 issue of Global Trends in NGO Law reported that: ‘The NGO laws of most Middle East / North Africa (MENA) countries remain extremely restrictive. With very few exceptions most prominently, Lebanon, Morocco, Palestine, and with the passage of new legislation in 2010, Iraq most Arab governments have adopted NGO laws that constrain the formation and operation of NGOs and afford significant discretion to government officials in their oversight of them, thereby preventing NGOs from playing a role as full partners for social and economic development.’ Global Trends in NGO Law Volume 1, Issue 4, March 2010, available at http:// www.icnl.org/research/trends/trends1-4.pdf.
  • 6. See NGOs in Sub-Saharan Africa, Vol 3(3) Global Trends in NGO Law, June 2011, available at http://www.icnl.org/research/trends/trends3-3. pdf.
  • 7. See International Commission of Jurists Opinion on the Russian Federation Amendments to the NGO Law on Foreign Agents, 22 January 2014, available at http://icj.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/ 2014/01/Russian-NGO-law-final-formatted-ENG1 .pdf which concluded that: the Amendments to the NGO Law as they are currently elaborated impose excessive and illegitimate restrictions on rights protected in international human rights law instruments which are binding on the Russian Federation, including the ECHR and ICCPR.
  • 8. Russia censures Memorial rights group as ‘foreign agent’, BBC, 9 November 2015, available at http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe- 34767014.
  • 9. Russian court slams Kremlin bid to close Memorial human rights group, Deutsche Welle, 28 January 2015, available at http://www.dw.com/en/ russian-court-slams-kremlin-bid-to-close-memorial-human-rights- group/a-18220969.
  • 10. Russian Federation: Freedom under threat: the clampdown against freedoms of expression, assembly and association in Russia, Amnesty International, 24 April 2013, available at https://www.amnesty.org/en/ documents/EUR46/011/2013/en/.
  • 11. Belarus: the only registered regional human rights organisation under threat of dissolution, International Federation for Human Rights, 17 March 2015, available at https://www.fidh.org/en/region/europe- central-asia/belarus/belarus-the-only-registered-regional-human- rights-organisation-under.
  • 12. See Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus, Miklos Haraszti; A/HRC/29/43 of 29 April 2015 at para. 95.
  • 13. See the website of Human Rights House Network at http://humanright- shouse.org/.
  • 14. Belarus: Lawsuit dropped against Mahiliou Human Rights Center, International Federation for Human Rights, 3 April 2015, available at https://www.fidh.org/en/region/europe-central-asia/belarus/ belarus-lawsuit-dropped-against-mahiliou-human-rights-center.
  • 15. UN HRC: Civic Space Restrictions in Central Asia and Eastern Europe must be addressed, Article 19, 22 June 2015 statement to the UN Human Rights Council, available at https://www.article19.org/resources.php/ resource/38010/en/un-hrc:-civic-space-restrictions-in-central-asia-and- eastern-europe-must-be-addressed.
  • 16. On his UK visit, Narendra Modi must be held accountable for his record on human rights in India, The Guardian, 11 November 2015, available at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/11/on-his-uk-visit- narendra-modi-must-be-held-accountable-for-his-record-on-human- rights-in-india. See also G. Pramod Kumar, 13,000 in 2 months: NGO crackdown unleashed by the Modi government will create a human rights crisis, Firstpost, 13 June 2015, available at http://www.firstpost.com/ politics/13000-in-2-months-ngo-crackdown-unleashed-by-the-modi- govt-will-create-a-human-rights-crisis-2294140.html.
  • 17. See Li (2011).
  • 18. See Chin (2015).
  • 19. See Carothers and Brechenmacher (2014).
  • 20. Ibid. at 2.
  • 21. See Sunga (2007).
  • 22. Global Trends in NGO Law, produced by the International Center for NonProfit Law, Washington D.C., 2009, available at http://www.icnl.org.
  • 23. See e.g. Freedom under Threat: Clampdown on Freedoms of Expression, Assembly and Association in Russia, Amnesty International, 2013, available at http://www.amnestyusa.org/sites/default/files/eur460112013en.pdf.
  • 24. See e.g. Uganda: Stranglehold on Independent Groups: Parliament Should Reject Bill’s Repressive Measures, Criminal Sanctions, Human Rights Watch, 2015, available at https://www.hrw.org/nl/node/278815.
  • 25. See e.g. International Commission of Jurists Opinion on the Russian Federation Amendments to the NGO Law on Foreign Agents, International Commission of Jurists, available at http://icj.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/ wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Russian-NGO-law-final-formatted- ENG1.pdf 2014.
  • 26. See e.g. the report of Mr. Yves Cruchten to the Council of Europes Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights on How to Prevent Inappropriate Restrictions on NGO Activities in Europe, AS/Jur (2014) 18 Rev 26 September 2014; ajdoc18 Rev 2014, available at http://www. assembly.coe.int/CommitteeDocs/2014/ajdoc18-2014.pdf.
  • 27. See e.g. Kai Koddenbrock, The practice of humanitarian intervention: aid workers, agencies and institutions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. New York: Routledge (2016); Reza Hasmath and Jennifer Y.J. Hsu, eds. NGO governance and management in China. Oxon: Routledge (2016); Susumu Nejima, ed., NGOs in the Muslim world: faith and social services. Oxon: Routledge (2015); Gregory Mann, From empires to NGOs in the West African Sahel: the road to nongovernmentality. New York: Cambridge University Press (2015); Jennifer C. Rubenstein, Between Samaritans and states: the political ethics of humanitarian INGOs. Oxford: Oxford University Press (2015); Alex de Waal et al., eds., Advocacy in conflict: critical perspectives on transnational activism. London: Zed Books (2015); Jennifer Mize Smith and Michael W. Kramer, eds., Case studies ofnonprofit organizations and volunteers. New York: Peter Lang (2015); Helen Yanacopulos, NGO activism, engagement and advocacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan (2015); Molly A. Ruhlman, Who participates inglobal governance: states, bureaucracies, and NGOs in the United Nations. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge (2014). One could mention dozens of other books, articles, and book sections produced on the role of NGOs over the last few years.
  • 28. New restrictions on NGOs are undermining human rights: Pillay, News Release of 25 April 2012, available at http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=12081.
  • 29. See Sunga (2015).
  • 30. See Fact Sheet: Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in the United States; US Department of State; 1 December 2012, available at http:// www.humanrights.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/factsheet- ngosintheus.pdf.
  • 31. Dhananjay Mahapatra, Two NGOs per policeman in India: CBI tells SC, Times ofIndia, 19 September 2015, available at http://timesofindia.mdia- times.com/india/Two-NGOs-per-policeman-in-India-CBI-tells-SC/arti- cleshow/49019832.cms. See also Dhananjay Mahapatra, India witnessing NGO boom, there is 1 for every 600 people, Times ofIndia, http://time- sofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-witnessing-NGO-boom-there-is-1- for-every-600-people/articleshow/30871406.cms.
  • 32. Number of NGOs in China grows to nearly 500,000”, China Daily, 20 March 2012, available at http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2012- 03/20/content_14875389.htm.
  • 33. The Economic and Social Council is made up of 54 member states which the General Assembly elects for overlapping three-year terms based on the following geographical representation: Africa (14 seats), Asian States (11 seats), Eastern European states (6 seats), Latin American and Caribbean States (10 seats), and Western European, and other states (13 seats).
  • 34. Chiang, Pei-heng. Non-Governmental Organizations at the United Nations: Identity, Role and Function. New York: Praeger (1981) at 35.
  • 35. Ibid.
  • 36. Op. cit. Chiang at 250-251.
  • 37. Article 62(4) of the Charter of the United Nations on the Functions and Powers of ECOSOC.
  • 38. Economic and Social Council resolution 1996/31 entitled Consultative Relationship between the United Nations and Non-Governmental Organizations, adopted on 25 July 1996 at ECOSOCs 49th plenary meeting, updated ECOSOC resolution 1296 (XLIV) of 23 May 1968 to guide which NGOs could participate in UN conferences and how.
  • 39. At the time ofwriting, the Committees membership from 2015 until 2019 comprised Azerbaijan, Burundi, China, Cuba, Greece, Guinea, India, Iran, Israel, Mauritania, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Russian Federation, South Africa, Sudan, Turkey, United States, Uruguay, and Venezuela. The Committee make recommendations in the form of draft decisions to ECOSOC on whether or not to grant consultative status, suspend or withdraw a particular NGO. NGOs applying for consultative status have the right to respond to any objections the Committee raises before it makes its recommendations to ECOSOC. In its June 2015 session, the Committee considered 388 applications before it, some of which had been deferred from earlier sessions, recommending 160 for consultative status, deferring another 200 for later consideration, and closing consideration without prejudice of 27 others. See Report ofthe Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations on its 2015 resumed session (New York, 26 May-3 June and 12 June 2015); E/2015/32 (Part II) of 17 June 2015, available at http://www. un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=E/2015/32%28PartII%29.
  • 40. Working with ECOSOC: An NGOs Guide to Consultative Status, United Nations, New York (2011) at 2, available at http://www.un-ngls.org/ IMG/pdf/ATTCPCS7.pdf.
  • 41. The full list can be easily found on the UNs website. See https://esango. un.org/civilsociety/getByAllHavingStatus.do?method=getByAllHavingSt atus&searchType=csSearch.
  • 42. See Report of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations on its 2015 resumed session (New York, 26 May-3 June and 12 June 2015); E/2015/32 (Part II) of 17 June 2015 at paras. 23-29.
  • 43. Report of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations on its 2014 resumed session; E/2014/32 (Part II) of 12 June 2014.
  • 44. Report of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations on its 2014 resumed session; E/2014/32 (Part II) of 12 June 2014 at paras. 7-16.
  • 45. See William Korey, NGOs and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: A Curious Grapevine (1998) at 288.
  • 46. Adopted by the Fourth World Conference on Women (Report of the Fourth World Conference on Women), Beijing, 4-15 September 1995; UN Sales No. E.96.IV.13.
  • 47. Tamlyn Hunt, ‘People or Power: A Comparison of Realist and Social Constructivist Approaches to Climate Change Remediation Negotiations’, 6 (Spring/Summer) UCLA Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs (2001) 265. Already in 1984, Weissbrodt noted the activities of NGOs at the Stockholm Conference on the environment: The Stockholm environmental conference is often viewed as a watershed of NGO involvement. There were 113 governments and at least 225 accredited NGOs. NGOs were permitted to make a formal statement to the conference. NGOs also distributed a daily newspaper, a practice regularized at subsequent global conferences. See David Weissbrodt, ‘The Contribution of International Nongovernmental Organizations to the Protection of Human Rights’, in 2 Human Rights in International Law: Legal and Policy Issues, ed. Meron (1984), at 403.
  • 48. See Pace adn Thieroff (1999).
  • 49. See Sunga (2009).
  • 50. Established by General Assembly resolution A/RES/60/251 of 3 April 2006.
  • 51. Established under Human Rights Council resolution 6/36 of14 December 2007 as a subsidiary body of the Council.
  • 52. Established by General Assembly resolution A/HRC/RES/19/23 of 10 April 2012.
  • 53. Established by Human Rights Council resolution 6/13 of 28 September 2007.
  • 54. Established by Human Rights Council resolution A/HRC/RES/17/4 of 6 July 2011.
  • 55. These are the: Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) monitoring implementation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965), the Human Rights Committee (CCPR) monitoring implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) and its optional protocols; Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) monitoring implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966); Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) monitoring implementation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1979) and its optional protocol (1999); Committee against Torture (CAT) monitoring implementation of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (1984); Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) monitoring implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) and its optional protocols (2000); Committee on Migrant Workers (CMW) monitoring implementation of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (1990); Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) monitoring implementation of the International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006); Committee on Enforced Disappearances (CED) monitoring implementation of the International Convention for the Protection ofAll Persons from Enforced Disappearance (2006); and the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (SPT) established under the Optional Protocol of the Convention against Torture (OPCAT) (2002) visits places of detention in order to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
  • 56. In any case, a communication concerning a violation of one of the rights set out in the relevant convention can be brought only where all the admissibility requirements have been fulfilled, namely, that all domestic remedies have been exhausted, the communication is not anonymous, the commu?nication itself does not constitute an abuse of process, and it is not the subject of another international procedure. See e.g., Article 5 of Optional Protocol 1 to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted 16 December 1966; entered into force 23 March 1976; U.N.T.S. No. 14668, vol 999 (1976) at 171.
  • 57. A new European Court of Human Rights system came into operation on 1 November 1998 with the entry into force of Protocol No. 11 which terminated the European Commission of Human Rights on 31 October 1999. Protocol 11 establishes that NGOs enjoy locus standi directly before the Court.
  • 58. As per Article 25 of the European Convention on Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights, adopted 4 November 1950 in Rome, entered into force 3 September 1953 as revised.
  • 59. Adopted on 24 April 1986, entered into force on 1 January 1991. The Convention had been ratified by 9 States as of 2 November 2003.
  • 60. See generally Mayer (2011).
  • 61. Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human Rights and Peoples Rights, adopted 9 June 1998, entered into force, 25 January 2004.
  • 62. ASEAN has the following members: Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.
  • 63. See Sunga (2011).
  • 64. Article 15(2) of the Rome Statute explicitly provides that the Prosecutor can seek information from NGOs: The Prosecutor shall analyse the seriousness of the information received. For this purpose, he or she may seek additional information from States, organs of the UN, intergovernmental, or non-governmental organizations, or other reliable sources that he or she deems appropriate, and may receive written or oral testimony at the seat of the Court. Finally, Article 44(4) of the Rome Statute provides that: ‘The Court may, in exceptional circumstances, employ the expertise of gratis personnel offered by States Parties, intergovernmental organizations or non-governmental organizations to assist with the work of any of the organs of the Court’.
  • 65. See Naim 2009.
 
Source
< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >