View previous stories
	Translating Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative into real accountability by Global Witness   New report highlights benefits of transparency, challenges of translating it into accountability and the scope of EITI.   Diarmid O"Sullivan, Open Society Foundation research fellow and ex-Global Witness campaigner has released a report on how transparency helps identify problems in the governance of natural resources, as well as the challenges in ensuring that this transparency leads to accountibility.   The report discusses the role the EITI should play in enabling citizens to use data about payments made by companies to governments to "follow the money".   The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) is a global effort to apply the theory that providing citizens with information about the workings of powerful institutions – in this case, the payment of revenues to governments by oil, gas and mining companies – can empower them to better influence the actions of these institutions in the public interest.   In the last decade, the EITI has become a fairly prominent part of the international community’s answer to the “Resource Curse”, a much-studied set of economic and political problems associated with entrenched poverty, corruption and instability in countries which depend economically on the production of natural resources.   * Access the report via the link below.   http://www.globalwitness.org/library/new-report-highlights-benefits-transparency-challenges-translating-it-accountability-and
	The Protection of the civilian population by International Committee of the Red Cross   According to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977, civilians and all persons not taking part in combat may under no circumstances be the object of attack and must be spared and protected. In fact, however, this principle has been undermined, because the civilian population, particularly since the Second World War, has suffered most of the consequences of armed violence.   In contemporary conflicts, the losses sustained by civilians are generally higher than those seen among weapon bearers. To make matters worse, control over the population is often one of the major issues at stake in confrontations. The development of this situation can be attributed to the rise of religious and ethnic hatreds, the collapse of State structures, the battle for control of natural resources, the vast availability of weapons, the proliferation of acts of terrorism, and the spread of so-called asymmetric conflicts.   The lack of protection of the population in armed conflicts and other situations of violence today is not due to the inadequacy of the legal framework laid down by international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law (IHRL). The main cause, unfortunately, resides in the lack of respect shown by weapon bearers and their political operatives for these fundamental rules.   The ICRC’s protection efforts are intended to benefit two categories of persons in particular:   civilians who are not or who are no longer participating in hostilities and violent confrontations. Special attention is paid to groups exposed to specific risks, such as children (recruitment of minors), women (sexual violence), and elderly, handicapped, and displaced persons.   Those who have been arrested and detained, particularly in the framework of an armed conflict or another situation of violence.   For the ICRC, protection in a broad sense is aimed at ensuring that authorities and other constituted groups comply with their obligations under IHL and IHRL. The right to life, respect for family unity, and respect for dignity and physical and psychological integrity are central to these obligations. The ICRC also seeks to ensure that civilians are not subject to discrimination and that they have access to health care, safe drinking water, and agricultural land.   Likewise, reminding the parties concerned of the rules governing the conduct of hostilities (such as distinguishing between the civilian population and military objectives, the principles of precaution and proportionality, and ensuring access to basic necessities for the population’s survival), as well as the rules relating to the use of force in law enforcement operations, is an integral part of the ICRC’s protection work. The ICRC is also involved at the highest diplomatic level when it is a matter, e.g., of advocating for the prohibition of certain weapons whose use is deemed contrary to the basic rules of IHL, such as anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions.   Most of the time, ICRC delegates, having documented abuses which they learned about in the field, inform the authorities of the existence of protection problems and ask them to take action to end these abuses and/or provide assistance to the victims. The solutions provided by the ICRC are not limited to making confidential representations to the authorities.   They may take multiple forms, from promoting rules of engagement and operation consistent with international standards for the armed forces and police, to evacuating persons trapped in combat zones, as well as facilitating agreements between the parties to a conflict that will contribute to safeguarding the fundamental rights of the population.   International humanitarian law (IHL) is the body of international law applicable when armed violence reaches the level of armed conflict, whether international or non-international. The best known IHL treaties are the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their two Additional Protocols of 1977, but there are a range of other IHL treaties aimed at reducing human suffering in times of war, such as the 1997 Ottawa Convention on landmines. IHL - sometimes also called the Law of Armed Conflict or the Law of War - does not provide a definition of terrorism, but prohibits most acts committed in armed conflict that would commonly be considered "terrorist" if they were committed in peacetime.   It is a basic principle of IHL that persons fighting in armed conflict must, at all times, distinguish between civilians and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives. The "principle of distinction", as this rule is known, is the cornerstone of IHL. Derived from it are many specific IHL rules aimed at protecting civilians, such as the prohibition of deliberate or direct attacks against civilians and civilian objects, the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks or the use of "human shields". IHL also prohibits hostage taking.   In situations of armed conflict, there is no legal significance in describing deliberate acts of violence against civilians or civilian objects as "terrorist" because such acts would already constitute war crimes.   Under the principle of universal jurisdiction, war crimes suspects may be criminally prosecuted not only by the state in which the crime occurred, but by all states.   IHL specifically mentions and in fact prohibits "measures of terrorism " and "acts of terrorism". The Fourth Geneva Convention (Article 33/Article 4 ) states that "Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited", while Additional Protocol II prohibits "acts of terrorism" against persons not or no longer taking part in hostilities.   The main aim is to emphasise that neither individuals, nor the civilian population may be subject to collective punishments, which, among other things, obviously induce a state of terror.   Both Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions also prohibit acts aimed at spreading terror among the civilian population. "The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited" (AP I, Article 51/Article 13 (2) and AP II,(2)).   http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/contemporary-challenges-for-ihl/index.jsp   * In the last 48 hours there has been attacks on civilians in Pakistan, Iraq, Mali, Somalia, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen and seemingly in Boston, Massachusetts. The right to life is the most fundamental human right. It is never permissable to target civilians on any occasion, in any circumstance, by any actor (state or non-state). Any such action that targets civilians are acts of murder and war crimes.   Kim Gleeson, Director, Universal Rights Network Visit the related web page
	View more stories