negotiating justice? human rights and peace agreements - summary
Post on 07-Apr-2018
228 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/6/2019 Negotiating Justice? Human Rights and Peace Agreements - Summary
1/16
Ngiaing Jusi?Human Righs and
Pa Agrmns
Summary
-
8/6/2019 Negotiating Justice? Human Rights and Peace Agreements - Summary
2/16
tHe PRoJect
Many recent peace agreements include specic commitments to human
rights. Some believe that such commitments are necessary i government
institutions, particularly law enorcement bodies, are to become air and
accountable and peace is to be sustained. Others argue, in contrast, that
human rights requirements can limit the hand o negotiators and make it harder
to bring all parties to the table, or explore all options including options that
may compromise justice or the sake o achieving a cease-re and peace
process.
This Summary presents the ndings o a report by the International Council that
examines the perceived clash between principled and pragmatic approaches
to peace negotiation. It lays out the dilemmas and trade-os that those involved
ace when they consider human rights and, based on country cases, suggests
how such diculties can be managed and sometimes resolved.
Tensions primarily arise because the same political and military actors who
waged a confict (and were usually responsible or human rights abuses) tend
to negotiate the peace and, as a result, to dene the post-war political order.
The balance o power between these actors, during negotiation and ater
settlement, infuences the scope and content o human rights provisions that
are included in a peace agreement, and how the agreement is implemented. At
the same time, however, human rights law has increasingly become a dominant
normative ramework, which lays down standards and obligations regarding
the responsibility carried by those who committed human rights crimes in the
past, or example that cannot be set aside or the purposes o negotiation.
The reports analysis suggests that human rights can make a practical and
positive contribution to many areas o confict resolution, during the negotiation
and implementation o peace agreements. Yet tensions certainly occur,
especially regarding accountability or past crimes. The report describes
the dierent roles that human rights provisions can play throughout peace
processes, and argues that no one single method deals perectly with these
tensions. Approaches that impose human rights standards on principle, or
jettison them or short-term negotiating purposes, are both unlikely to produce
lasting solutions. It may be more eective to view dilemmas between justice
and peace as ones that need to be managed as actors search or orms o
settlement that are just and sustainable.
-
8/6/2019 Negotiating Justice? Human Rights and Peace Agreements - Summary
3/16
Negotiating Justice? Human Rights and Peace Agreements
tHe ReSeARcH PRoceSS
The report examines human rights provisions and monitoring mechanisms in
the ollowing peace agreements, as well as the arguments or and against their
inclusion. The cases were:
Cambodia (Final Act o the Paris Conerence, October 99)
El Salvador(Peace Agreement in Mexico City, January 992)
Mozambique(General Peace Agreement, October 992)
Bosnia-Herzegovina (Dayton Peace Agreement, December 995)
Guatemala (Agreement on a Firm and Lasting Peace, December 996)
Northern Ireland(Good Friday/Belast Agreement, April 998)
Sierra Leone(Lom Peace Agreement, July 999)
Burundi(Arusha Peace and Reconciliation Agreement, August 2000)
These agreements were selected because they are geographically diverse, and
illustrate various orms o confict and approaches to international mediation. Itshould be noted that in most cases the agreements are still being implemented.
For this reason, and because many other actors are in play, the research did
not seek to draw conclusions about the impact o human rights provisions on
the long-term success o peace agreements. The reports purpose is to discuss
how human rights standards can be used constructively in peace processes.
The report develops three main themes in order to identiy areas o tension and
complementarity between human rights and confict resolution:
Frameworks for protection. What kind o human rights rameworks and mechanisms
or their implementation were included in peace agreements?
Repairing the past: forcible displacement. To what extent did peace agreementsprotect the needs o orcibly displaced people. In particular, were they able to return
to their homes and claim their rights to property?
Dealing with the past: impunity and accountability. To what extent did peaceagreements include measures to deal with past abuses?
In each case, the report examines whether the provisions that dealt with these
issues comply with international law and whether legal requirements advanced
or obstructed the progress o negotiations. It examines pragmatic arguments or
drawing on human rights as a tool or confict resolution, while acknowledging
that principled arguments exist.
Chapters end with detailed recommendations and a list o questions that those
involved in negotiations might use to assist them in addressing the issues.
-
8/6/2019 Negotiating Justice? Human Rights and Peace Agreements - Summary
4/16
2 Negotiating Justice? Human Rights and Peace Agreements
FRAMeWoRKS FoR PRotectIoN
Peace agreements oten include human rights rameworks (in the orm o bills o
rights or the incorporation o international conventions) and set out institutional
reorms designed to establish public institutions that meet key human rights
requirements, such as independence, equality, accountability, and ability to
protect.
The report poses three main questions:
What kind o human rights protections have been provided or in peace
agreements?
How were they to be implemented, and what institutional reorms were planned?
Whywere human rights protections provided? What role were they to ull?
Case studies suggest that adding human rights to a negotiating agenda helps
to address, or at least monitor, abuses; and in addition, may create opportunitiesto advance talks, as parties oten have an interest in protecting their own rights.
Peace settlements also need to create political and legal institutions that oer
parties non-violent ways to resolve their disputes: human rights rameworks and
mechanisms can help achieve this objective, because they restrain power and
promote air and accountable legal institutions.
Many actors infuence how peace agreements deal with human rights matters.
They include:
The role and nature o human rights abuses, and mechanisms designed to address
them;
The presence o international actors, particularly to monitor and report abuses;The degrees to which the conict spills across borders, or is internationalised;
The political attitudes towards human rights o the parties and civil society; and
The peace settlement, including its use o human rights mechanisms to hold authoritiesaccountable.
Peace agreements provide a unique opportunity to establish a broad human
rights ramework. Overall, experience suggests that the hardest choices or
negotiators concern the extent to which an agreement should describe in detail
institutional reorms and mechanisms to protect rights; or, how much this detail
should be let or the uture.
The dominant role that political and military lites play in peace talks means
that they may block or dilute essential reorms. It may be undesirable to insert
detailed provisions beore civil society and human rights organisations have
been consulted. On the other hand, ailure to be specic (on timetables and
mechanisms, or on sensitive issues like judicial reorm) can mean that parties
evade their commitments.
-
8/6/2019 Negotiating Justice? Human Rights and Peace Agreements - Summary
5/16
Negotiating Justice? Human Rights and Peace Agreements
Mediators usually ace ve choices when they incorporate a human rights
rameworks:
An aspirainal r judiiabl apprah. Human rights law establishes both
broad principles and detailed rights immediately enorceable in courts. When
negotiating an agreement, however, it is oten necessary to strike a balancebetween setting the highest possible standard or human rights protection, and
ensuring that the ramework chosen is realistic and can be implemented.
Inrnainal r ailrd sandards. International standards have obvious
legitimacy because they are internationally recognised, and use language
that is neutral with respect to the parties; in addition, the state concerned may
already be bound by them. However, they may not seem to address local
issues directly or appropriately. Moreover, in the end, human rights protections
must be locally-owned to be eective. For this reason, it may be appropriate to
tailor provisions or particular problems, taking into account local legal practice.
However, longer-term objectives can usually be signalled by reerring to morecomprehensive international standards.
Inrnainal r dmsi nrmn. The international communitys role
can be short-term and specic, or longer-term and developmental. International
organisations are rarely able to sustain commitment, however, and national
institutions must eventually take charge o reorm processes. For this reason,
international organisations have a duty to build local capacity.
oulin r dail. During negotiations it is easier to agree outlines, principles
and broad processes. Broad processes allow space or change and evolution,
and permit civil and human rights organisations to be consulted on emphasisand detail. On the other hand, parties may be unwilling to reach agreement
unless certain issues are claried, requiring a measure o detail.
Final r rvisabl rm. Agreement on broad principles may mask deep
disagreement over human rights. During implementation, parties to a peace
agreement nearly always try to renegotiate or reinterpret it to their advantage
and human rights provisions oten become an area o dispute precisely because
they constrain and reallocate power. On the other hand, the inclusion o precise
and mandatory human rights clauses can restrict institutional development later
on, and parties may reuse to discuss human rights matters that the agreement
did not address. It can be useul to state in the agreement that its provisionsdo not preclude the introduction o additional human rights standards and
mechanisms that are consistent with international law.
-
8/6/2019 Negotiating Justice? Human Rights and Peace Agreements - Summary
6/16
RePAIRING tHe PASt? DISPLAceD PeRSoNS, LANDAND PRoPeRtY
Confict requently causes orcible displacement and land dispossession; these
may even be military objectives (ethnic cleansing). Enabling displaced people
to return home oten involves dealing with clashing entitlements to land and
property between pre-war and post-agreement populations. Unair distribution
o land may also be a prime cause o confict when it causes inequity or deprives
people o a livelihood. In post-confict situations, willingness to return can be
an indicator o condence in the uture, and a test o the capacity o national
political and legal institutions to protect communities.
Many agreements give attention to the return o reugees and displaced persons
because:
It is an important indicator o peace and the end o conict.
High rates o return can validate the post-conict political order, or example, bylegitimising elections.
Return o reugees is sometimes a precondition or peace, i the reugees are politically
and militarily active.
Return o displaced populations can contribute signifcantly to economic recovery.
To avoid uture conict, it may be vital to deal with land disputes.
At the same time, return can sometimes be argued to put stability at risk
because:
Land claims by returnees can rewrite territorial compromises at the heart o an
agreement.
The treatment o reugees and displaced persons, and management o land disputes,can cause instability.
In many instances, it is dicult to establish a connection between the rate o
return and the presence o provisions on return in a peace agreement. Broader
political circumstances and levels o violence are the most important actors.
Return may thereore happen even where a peace agreement omits reerence
to it, or ail to happen when provided or. Nevertheless, the inclusion o such
provisions can encourage parties to create sae conditions and respect the
human rights o returnees.
Negotiating Justice? Human Rights and Peace Agreements
-
8/6/2019 Negotiating Justice? Human Rights and Peace Agreements - Summary
7/16
A righttoreturn?
Under international human rights law, states should not prevent people rom
returning to their country o origin, or their ormer homes or home areas. States
have a duty to ensure that return can take place in saety and with dignity. In
practice, however, state policies oten prevent return indirectly particularlywhere political or economic conditions make return unsae.
Recent peace agreements have armed that reugees and displaced persons
are entitled to return specically to their ormer homes. They usually emphasised
the voluntary character o return, under conditions o saety and security, and
some created mechanisms to monitor respect or these provisions.
A rightnottoreturn?
Under international customary law, no state (whether or not it is party to specicinternational instruments) may return individuals to another state where they
would be at risk o persecution (prohibition against reoulement). Furthermore, it
is increasingly argued that as time passes reugees can claim rights in the place
o reuge. When local integration is not a viable option, those in continuing need
o protection should be given the opportunity to resettle in a third country.
Similarly, human rights standards seem to prohibit states rom moving internally
displaced persons against their will, to places where their rights would be
violated by either ocials or non-state actors.
ProPertyrights?
The right to be protected against arbitrary deprivation o property says little
about how to resolve clashes o rights that occur when, as a result o prolonged
confict, several owners may claim that they have a legal and valid title to the
same property. Many peace agreements assert that property lost because o
displacement must be restituted, or that the owner should receive compensation.
Compensation however, should not be an alternative to restitution, but should
be available when restitution is not possible.
A righttocomPensAtion?
The right to a remedy or human rights violations implies a right to reparation
or compensation or orcible displacement. Restitution should thereore include
return to ones place o residence and return o property; and when restitution
is not possible, compensation ought to cover, among other things, material
damages.
Negotiating Justice? Human Rights and Peace Agreements 5
-
8/6/2019 Negotiating Justice? Human Rights and Peace Agreements - Summary
8/16
6 Negotiating Justice? Human Rights and Peace Agreements
DeALING WItH tHe PASt: IMPUNItY ANDAccoUNtABILItY
During a political transition, how should gross human rights violations that
were committed in a confict be dealt with? International standards establish
procedures and principles or holding to account individuals who committed
serious abuses. Is compromise on such matters sometimes justied in order to
secure peace?
In addition to arguments that international standards must be respected
because o their legally binding nature, there are several practical reasons to
hold individuals accountable or past crimes:
Accountability strengthens, whereas impunity undermines, the legitimacy and
authority o new political arrangements.
At the end o conicts, prisoners who have not committed serious crimes need to be
released.Society needs to come to terms with its past.
Institutional reorms to establish the rule o law will be ineective i impunity is
tolerated.
Vetting (removal o human rights abusers rom public positions) cannot take place
without an accountability process.
Individual victims cannot orgive and communities cannot reconcile in the absenceo accountability.
Accountability provides a deterrent against uture abuse.
At the same time, eorts to end impunity can also destabilise a peace process
because:
Investigations, prosecutions and punishment may block negotiation or reignite
conict.
They raise complex issues o due process (related to the nature o crimes committed)
that new and ragile democracies cannot satisactorily deal with.
Mechanisms oten ail to achieve the moral, legal or political objectives that processeslinked to eorts to hold accountable those who committed abuses were expected to
achieve.
Traditional orms o legal actions and punishment may not always be appropriate tothe conict or the culture in which they take place.
When guilt and responsibility are shared by a large proportion o the population, truth-
telling and acknowledgement that abuses have occurred may be more successul atenabling all sides to participate in the new political order.
The report argues that it is best to analyse such tensions in terms o dierent
actions required in the short-term to sustain the cease-re (which may justiy
some orms o amnesty) and actions required in the long-term to create a
stable and democratic society based on rule o law principles. The question
then becomes: under what circumstances, and or what crimes, are amnesties
permissible?
-
8/6/2019 Negotiating Justice? Human Rights and Peace Agreements - Summary
9/16
Negotiating Justice? Human Rights and Peace Agreements
The report analyses grey areas in international law with respect to amnesties, and
discusses compromises that peace agreements have made between blanket
amnesty and no amnesty, and the extent to which these are compatible with
international law. These include:
Truth or amnesty/investigation without prosecution. Reconciliation, institutional reorm
and vetting can become easier when a ull and accurate record has described theabuses, those responsible and victims.
Forgoing punishment. Pardons and other measures, such as vetting, may ollow
investigation and prosecution. International law does not speciy what punishmentrequires or, in the case o imprisonment, the length o sentence.
Proportionate accountability based on responsibility. Peace processes suggest
this is emerging practice, though humanitarian law clearly states that individuals
are responsible or their actions even i they ollowed orders, just as ocers areresponsible or the actions o those they command.
Accountability or the past may be dicult to discuss early in a negotiation,
but may be accepted later. The question then arises: how much to provide or
at what stage? The ollowing peace agreement innovations may be ruitul or
mediators to consider urther:
Creative wording. Amnesties can be conned to permissible crimes or may be
temporary. However, emerging international law provisions against impunity, together
with the principle o universal jurisdiction and the International Criminal Court (whoseprosecutorial discretion is not ettered by peace agreement provisions), limit the
scope o such amnesty provisions.
Dierent mechanisms or dierent purposes at dierent times. Various mechanismsare used, sometimes simultaneously, to deal with past crimes. They include domestic
courts, inquiry and truth commissions, international tribunals, and hybrid tribunals
with international and domestic participation.
Focus on victims needs. Some agreements distinguish delivery o services to
victims rom reparation. In practice this can help to make reparation or victims less
contentious and means that their needs can oten be met more quickly. Reparations
can still ollow or relevant victims.
Amnsis undr inrnainal law
Imprmissibl:
Blanket amnesties covering minor and serious international crimes, including
genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches o humanitarian law, war
crimes, torture and enorced disappearances.
Prmissibl:
Amnesties applied to insurgent orces simply or belonging to, or ghting
with, insurgent orces, or or related oences such as carrying arms or alse
identication.
Possibly minor crimes associated with rebellion.
The exercise o human rights cannot be a crime; crimes o this sort should be
considered null and void rather than amnestied.
-
8/6/2019 Negotiating Justice? Human Rights and Peace Agreements - Summary
10/16
8 Negotiating Justice? Human Rights and Peace Agreements
IMPLeMeNtAtIoN
It is dicult to implement peace agreements. The involvement and support o
international organisations or external actors is oten necessary initially, though
in the longer-term national institutions must take responsibility i peace is to be
sustained.
Dierent scenarios may occur:
The peace agreement does not hold and conict reignites. I mechanisms or protectinghuman rights operate independently o political institutions, they can continue to help
limit violence and keep space open or a new peace process.
The implementation o human rights provisions reallocates power and is resisted.Human rights provisions are oten ramed in general language that masks dierences
between the parties, which can re-emerge when the agreement is implemented.
Core issues, such as impunity, are not dealt with and human rights become thesubject o new negotiations.
Socio-economic rights are not dealt with. Peace agreements rarely cover socio-economic issues in detail, although they are central to post-war reconstruction.
External processes o monitoring and verifcation are weak, or external actors operate
to undermine the peace agreement. To achieve eective implementation o human
rights provisions, oversight and monitoring by international institutions, or theirparticipation in local institutions, may be necessary.
Civil society is weak, restrained, or made dysunctional by the peace process. Civil
society organisations play a vital role in monitoring and implementing human rights.More generally, their work gives legitimacy to human rights in the wider society.
Human rights are narrowly understood to include only matters and groups relevant
to the conict. Peace processes should include excluded groups and addresstheir needs. Womens rights and the rights o minorities are oten not adequately
considered.
The report discusses challenges associated with rule o law reorm, and building
eective law enorcement institutions. Institutional reorm involves a wide range
o tasks, rom drating new law codes to training ocials in human rights, or
constructing courts and prison inrastructures. Not only is it dicult to change
the practices o such institutions (even in stable democratic societies), but
during the confict they have oten been weakened, corrupted, or implicated in
abuses making transormation even more dicult. Few o the changes required
can be accomplished quickly, and many require expertise and resources rom
outside, as well as local commitment and investment.
-
8/6/2019 Negotiating Justice? Human Rights and Peace Agreements - Summary
11/16
Negotiating Justice? Human Rights and Peace Agreements 9
coNcLUSIoNS
comPlementArity
Experience gathered rom past agreements suggests that human rights otenmake a positive contribution to confict resolution. Human rights abuses are both
a cause as well as a symptom o conficts, and action to tackle them is oten
a vital component o policies to bring about peace. Action to protect human
rights may also convince parties to confict that their ears o discrimination,
domination and annihilation can be addressed by means other than violence.
Human rights standards use mandatory language. At the same time,
governments have some fexibility as to how to implement them. This creates
opportunities to advance human rights in negotiations. International human
rights law suggests good practice or reorm in public institutions, in particular or
those responsible or law enorcement. It provides internationally accepted andimpartial language or setting norms and benchmarks, which can help parties
to distinguish legitimate rom illegitimate demands. Because parties may have
a common interest in protecting human rights (albeit oten or dierent reasons),
agreement over human rights protections can help to create the conditions or
urther talks, or unblock stalemates.
Human rights are relevant at dierent phases o negotiation. Beore negotiation
begins, preliminary human rights rameworks can help to contain the confict.
During negotiation, measures to protect human rights can build condence and
set baselines or institutional and legal reorm. During implementation, human
rights monitoring can strengthen compliance with the agreement as a wholeand, more generally, generate public condence in it.
Furthermore, the development o human rights mechanisms provides an
opportunity to involve civil society. The report argues that it is vital to consult
NGOs and public opinion in the course o negotiating and implementing
national reorm plans. Their involvement helps to ensure that reorm is relevant
and legitimate, and that the peace process does not remain under the exclusive
control o political and military lites.
Finally, the adoption o a human rights ramework and mechanisms or its
implementation creates space or international institutions to play a continuingrole in monitoring and implementing an agreement. This can be essential
during the initial phase. Though ultimately, international agencies should pay
attention to their own legitimacy and accountability, and work to devolve their
direct responsibilities to national institutions as soon as it is easible.
-
8/6/2019 Negotiating Justice? Human Rights and Peace Agreements - Summary
12/16
0 Negotiating Justice? Human Rights and Peace Agreements
tensions
Tensions do arise in relation to human rights in the course o negotiating
peace agreements. The report concludes, however, that there is no intrinsic
incompatibility between those who seek justice and those who seek peace.
The challenge is not to eliminate discordance, but to reconcile long- and short-term objectives o a peace process, and to promote understanding between
dierent approaches.
The case studies suggest that the approaches o specialists in human rights
and in confict resolution are oten mutually supportive. The latter oten nd
human rights standards help them to identiy basic needs and understand the
causes o conficts. Human rights activists are oten skilled in processes o
problem solving and negotiation. While dierences o approaches should be
acknowledged, their interaction extends the range o skills and techniques that
can be applied to peace processes.
FActorsAFFectingtheroleoFhumAnrightsinPeAceAgreements
Whether the process is internally or externally driven . Where peace processes ocus
exclusively on military and political lites, international representatives may be the
only participants to raise a human rights agenda; in such cases, continued external
pressure may be vital during implementation. Elsewhere, human rights measuresare oten raised by at least one party to the confict; but dicult aspects are oten
postponed and reappear during implementation.
The extent to which bottom-up processes impact on top-down ones. The extent towhich civil society and mediators are involved infuences the choice o human rights
measures in an agreement as well as plans to implement them. Where agreements
are essentially negotiated by a political lite, human rights measures tend to be
drated in general terms.
The nature o constitutional arrangements. Overarching political and territorial
decisions about the reallocation o power aect the strategic role that human rights
measures play, and the degree to which parties have an interest in implementing
those measures.
Human rights needs. The human rights provisions in an agreement, and their ability
to generate change, are aected by: the types o human rights abuses that occurred
during the confict; the responsibilities o state and non-state actors or them; theextent to which they were a cause o the confict; the political and legal culture o the
society; public condence in law-based solutions and institutional reorm; and the
capacity o key institutions such as the police and judiciary.
-
8/6/2019 Negotiating Justice? Human Rights and Peace Agreements - Summary
13/16
Negotiating Justice? Human Rights and Peace Agreements
cHoIceS FoR MeDIAtoRS
The report argues that the best approach to drating peace agreements might be
an incremental one combining immediate delivery o basic protection, supported
by temporary monitoring and enorcement measures (using international actors
where necessary), with longer-term reorm plans that build institutions and
institutional capacity and establish an eective legal environment based on
respect or human rights. It is necessary to ensure that parties who sign the
agreement are committed to it: in practice this oten implies establishing core
general principles while leaving much detail to be lled in ater a more inclusive
process o national consultation.
Mediators should be aware o the importance o their role to the inclusion o
human rights. Experience suggests that they have considerable scope to raise
human rights issues during a peace process, and may be the only ones able
to do so. Where possible such opportunities should be taken, on pragmatic
grounds as well as on principle, since their overall objective should not merely
be to stop violence, but to create the conditions or sustained peace.
Rmmndains
Human righs mniring shuld b a pririy during prids nasn ni
r whn nis sala.
Human righs prvisins in pa agrmns shuld b nsisn wih
inrnainal human righs sandards and shuld prvid apprpria mhanisms
implmn and nr hm. However, there remains some room within which to
negotiate, given the need to apply these standards domestically, and the possibility osequencing their implementation.
Ngiars shuld hav ass human righs advi (in pariular, n gndr
qualiy and h righs minriis), and nmpla appinmn ull-im
human righs advisrs.
Mdiars shuld hav a las basi raining in human righs and humaniarian
law rquirmns, and qualiy issus.
ths invlvd in ngiain shuld ngag wih ivil siy, pariularly r
h purps idniying and mniring human righs abuss, and dfning
and implmning insiuinal rrms. Wmn and minriis shuld als b
inludd during ngiains.
Inrnainal dnrs shuld aivly suppr pa prsss, and insiuinal
rrms whih hy giv ris, shuld nurag h paris invlvd ngag
wih ivil siy. Inrnainal ars shuld dvlv nainal auhriis any
dir rspnsibiliis hy undrak, as sn as asibl.
Whil aknwldging hir dirn rls and xpris, spialiss in human
righs and in ni rsluin shuld larn mr rm n anhrs apprahs
pa agrmns.
-
8/6/2019 Negotiating Justice? Human Rights and Peace Agreements - Summary
14/16
2 Negotiating Justice? Human Rights and Peace Agreements
AcKNoWLeDGeMeNtS
This report was written by Christine Bell, Director o the Transitional Justice
Institute and Proessor o Public International Law at the University o Ulster.
Catherine ORourke, Research Assistant in the Transitional Justice Institute,
provided research support. The project was co-ordinated by Jean-Nicolas
Beuze, Research Director at the International Council. Fairouz El Tom, Research
and Publication Ocer, sub-edited and produced the report.
The ollowing researchers prepared case studies: Adrian Edwards (Cambodia);
Ingrid Kircher and Martha Doggett (El Salvador); Marcie Mersky (Guatemala);
Andrea Bartoli and Rati Jebashvili (Mozambique); Jasna Baksic Mutic (Bosnia-
Herzegovina); Fionnuala N Aolan (Northern Ireland); Michael OFlaherty (Sierra
Leone); and Fabienne Hara (Burundi). Thematic papers were also prepared by
the ollowing researchers: Naomi Roht-Arriaza (transitional justice); Catherine
Phuong (orcible displacement); Bill ONeil (reorm o the judiciary); and Michelle
Parlevliet (national human rights institutions).
All papers are available on www.ichrp.org
The researchers worked under the supervision o the ollowing Advisory Group:
Maggie Beirne, Director o the Committee on the Administration o Justice in
Belast; Ian Martin, then Vice-President o the International Center or Transitional
Justice, New York, and Board Member o the International Council; Francesc
Vendrell, EU Special Representative in Aghanistan; Suliman Baldo, Director o
the Arica Programme, International Crisis Group; and Frank La Rue, Special
Adviser on Human Rights to the President o Guatemala.
In addition, the ollowing persons participated in a review meeting that was
convened by the International Council and the Transitional Justice Institute,
Belast, in March 2005 to discuss the background papers: Wolgang Amadeus
Bruelhart, Thomas Bundschuh, Colm Campbell, Tibil Dram, Jrmie Gilbert
and Tamrat Samuel.
The International Council thanks the Swiss and Norwegian governments or
their nancial support to this project. We also thank the Netherlands Ministry o
Foreign Aairs, the Swedish International Development Co-operation Agency
(SIDA), the British Department or International Development (DFID), and the
Ford Foundation, New York, or supporting the Councils work.
-
8/6/2019 Negotiating Justice? Human Rights and Peace Agreements - Summary
15/16
ABoUt tHe coUNcIL
The International Council on Human Rights Policy was established in 998ollowing an international consultation that started ater the 99 World
Conerence on Human Rights in Vienna. It conducts practical research intoproblems and dilemmas that conront organisations working in the eld ohuman rights.
The Council starts rom the principle that successul policy approaches will
accommodate the diversity o human experience. It co-operates with all thatshare its human rights objectives, including voluntary and private bodies,national governments and international agencies.
The Councils research agenda is set by the Executive Board. Members o the
International Council meet annually to advise on that agenda. Members helpto make sure that the Councils programme refects the diversity o disciplines,regional perspectives, country expertise and specialisations that are essential
to maintain the quality o its research.
To implement the programme, the Council employs a small Secretariat o sixsta. Based in Geneva, its task is to ensure that projects are well designed andwell managed and that research ndings are brought to the attention o relevant
authorities and those who have a direct interest in the policy areas concerned.
The Council is independent, international in its membership, and participatoryin its approach. It is registered as a non-prot oundation under Swiss law.
Hw rdr cunil publiains
All Council publications can be ordered through the Secretariat at:International Council on Human Rights Policy8, chemin du Grand-MontfeuryP. O. Box , 290 Versoix
Geneva, SwitzerlandPhone: (+ (0) 22) 5 00Fax: (+ (0) 22) 5 0
All our publications can also be ordered through our web site at www.ihrp.rgA link on the home page will direct you to a list o all the publications, thensimply ollow the instructions. The publications can also be accessed in PDF
ormat on the web site.
For more inormation about the International Council and its work, please
contact us at in@ihrp.rg
2006 International Council on Human Rights Policy. ISBN 2-90259-2-0.All rights reserved. Cover illustration: The Trustees o the British Museum. Chilkat blanket,detail. Worn as ceremonial regalia by chies. Twined rom a mixture o nely shredded cedar barkand mountain goat wool. Tlingit Indians o south-east Alaska, 9th century.Design and layout by Fairouz El Tom, Research and Publications Ocer at the InternationalCouncil on Human Rights Policy.Printed by ATAR Roto Press, SA, Vernier, Switzerland.
-
8/6/2019 Negotiating Justice? Human Rights and Peace Agreements - Summary
16/16
Are peace agreements negotiated more easily i they include reerences to
human rights? I so, is peace more durable as a result? Negotiating Justice?,
summarised here, examines eight recent peace agreements to assess how they
addressed issues such as impunity and orcible displacement. It concludes that
human rights can make practical and positive contributions to many areas o
confict resolution. Each chapter ends with recommendations and questionsthat can help negotiators, mediators and human rights advocates to address
dilemmas that arise during the negotiation o peace agreements and when the
latter are implemented.
Foreword by Thomas Greminger, Head o the Human Security Division at the
Swiss Federal Department o Foreign Aairs, and Petter Wille, Deputy Director
General at the Norwegian Ministry o Foreign Aairs.
an excellent, comprehensive and thorough report on anextremely important subject, bringing together a wide range
o inormation and recommendations
Dr Pierre-Michel Fontaine
Former Senior Ofcial, UNHCR and OHCHR
thoughtul, well-considered and well-documented ...
a pleasure to read
Dr Peter R. Baehr
Honorary Proessor o Human Rights, Utrecht University
IcHRP48, chemin du Grand-Montfeury
P. O. Box 147, 1290 Versoix
Geneva, Switzerland
Phone: (+41 (0) 22) 775 3300
Fax: (+41 (0) 22) 775 3303
ichrp@ichrp.org
www.ichrp.org
top related