 |
|

Legal news from Wednesday, July 20, 2005 |
 |
|


International brief ~ Bundestag calls for ICC investigation of Zimbabwe evictions
D. Wes Rist on July 20, 2005 2:26 PM ET

[JURIST] Leading Wednesday's international brief, in the strongest statement so far by a European governmental body, the German Bundestag [government website] has called on the German government to take several strong steps against the administration of Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe [Wikipedia profile], including measures to ensure that the relevant "masterminds" behind Operation Murambatsvina [Wikipedia backgrounder] are referred to the International Criminal Court [official website] by the UN Security Council [official website]. The resolution also included a call for German officials to enforce all possible sanctions against Zimbabwe, to expand those if necessary, and to encourage the African Union to emphasize to Zimbabwe that all "pledges of assistance for Africa are firmly linked to respect for human rights and the rule of law." JURIST's Paper Chase has continuing coverage of Zimbabwe [JURIST news archive]. ZimOnline has local coverage.
In other international legal news ... - Kenyan Attorney-General Amos Wako [official website] has voiced his opposition to the creation of a legislative shield for American military personnel that would exempt them from investigation and prosecution by the International Criminal Court [official website] while within Kenya's territorial borders. Wako said that the International Crime Bill, Kenyan legislation designed to implement the responsibilities assumed by Kenya's ratification of the ICC's Rome Statute [official PDF text], was designed to aid the ICC in the investigation of all possible war crimes committed within Kenya, and that any shield or special exception defeated the purpose of the Bill and the ICC. The United States has requested special exemption status from the Kenyan government under an Article 98 agreement [US State Dep't backgrounder], and has threatened to withdraw significant amounts of financial support [JURIST report] from Kenya's military should the legislature not approve the immunity clause. Wako argued that the wording of the International Crime Bill would prohibit Kenya from entering into any immunity agreement once it has been passed by Parliament [official website]. JURIST's Paper Chase has continuing coverage of Kenya [JURIST news archive]. Kenya's Daily Nation has local coverage.
- Sudanese Interim President Omar al-Bashir [Wikipedia profile] has lifted the publishing ban on the Khartoum Monitor, the only independent, English-language, daily newspaper in Khartoum, following consultations with his legal advisor and the Sudanese Minister of Justice. The Monitor has been the focus of repeated attempts by the government to stop its presses permanently under the emergency laws that penalized publication of materials critical of the central government. After al-Bashir lifted the emergency laws [JURIST report] earlier in July, he promised no more government censorship of the media would occur. Pro-media rights groups praised the move, but warned that Sudan still had a long way to go towards true journalistic freedom. JURIST's Paper Chase has continuing coverage of Sudan [JURIST news archive]. The Sudan Tribune has local coverage.
- Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi [Wikipedia profile] successfully manipulated the parliamentary rules of procedure in Italy's Chamber of Deputies [government website in Italian] to ensure the passage of his controversial Justice Reform Bill. Berlusconi used a provision allowing for an affirmative vote of confidence to cut off all debate and pass legislation to ensure its acceptance, winning the motion with a coalition vote of 312 to 225. The bill, an earlier version of which had been essentially vetoed by Italian president Carlo Azeglio Ciampiis [JURIST report], is designed to speed up the legendary lethargy of Italy's criminal justice system, as well as civil suits, but opponents are harshly critical of its provisions, alleging that many of the reforms proposed by Berlusconi are unconstitutional. JURIST's Paper Chase has continuing coverage of Italy [JURIST news archive]. BBC News has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Thai human rights group presses PM to drop security decree
Kate Heneroty on July 20, 2005 10:51 AM ET

[JURIST] Thailand's National Human Rights Commission [official website] said Wednesday that a security decree passed by the Cabinet Tuesday giving Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra [profile] new power to deal with an insurgency in the country's Muslim south should be abolished. The group argues that the law violates United Nations human rights covenants and infringes on rights and liberties secured by Thailand's constitution. Under the decree, three southern, primarily Muslim provinces - Pattani, Yala and Narathiwat - were declared "severe emergency zones," allowing the government to impose curfews, censor news, ban public gatherings, tap phones, and hold suspects without bringing charges. Former Prime Minister and current head of the National Reconciliation Commission [organization backgrounder], Anand Panyarachun [profile] cautioned that "giving the government broader power could lead to increased violence and eventually a real crisis." Reuters has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Draft of Iraqi constitution harsh on women's rights
David Shucosky on July 20, 2005 9:36 AM ET

[JURIST] According to a working draft of the new Iraqi constitution obtained Tuesday by the New York Times, Islamic law would play a strong role in the Iraqi legal and political system and women's rights would be cut back. Under the text, equality for women would be allowed only insofar as it did not conflict with Islamic Shariah [BBC backgrounder], or Koranic Law, on marriage, divorce, and inheritance; women would be required to obtain their families' permission to marry, and under some interpretations a husband could be allowed to divorce his wife by simply telling her three times that he wished to do so. Court cases involving these issues would also be governed by laws of the parties' religious sect. From a rights perspective the draft provisions represent rollback both from Iraq's relatively-progressive 1959 personal status law that applied during the Saddam era and principles enshrined in Iraq's interim constitution, the Transitional Adminstrative Law [text], composed under the aegis of the US Coalition Provisional Authority. A clause co-written by the US that would require that women make up 25% of parliament [AFP report] is also apparently still up for debate as the August 15 deadline for a final draft approaches.
American and Iraqi officials insist that there are several drafts of the new constitution in circulation and no final version has been agreed upon. On June 30 the Iraqi al-Mada newspaper published what it said was a draft version of the Iraqi bill of rights that bears some resemblance to the document described by the Times; the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace later posted an English translation, with commentary [PDF]. The New York Times has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Chalabi purging Baathists from Saddam tribunal in run-up to trial
David Shucosky on July 20, 2005 9:11 AM ET

[JURIST] Nine senior staff members of the Iraqi Special Tribunal [JURIST news archive], each former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party [Wikipedia backgrounder], were dismissed on Tuesday, apparently at the instance of Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister and former Iraqi exile leader and Pentagon favorite Ahmad Chalabi [JURIST news archive], currently in charge of the Iraqi government's "de-Baathification" program. The dismissals are technically in accordance with the Tribunal's governing statute [text], which bans Baathists, but the provision had up to now been loosely enforced as membership in the Baath party was required of all senior legal figures during the Saddam era. Sources close to Chalabi say nineteen other tribunal officials have been threatened with dismissal, including Raid Juhi, the chief investigating judge, but those dismissals have not been carried out because of concern over disrupting the court's apparent plan to start Saddam Hussein's trial in September. Other sources, however, say Juhi is actually pressing for the tribunal's de-Baathification himself [FT report], and is seeking changes in the tribunal's statute to accomplish that more effectively.
Relations between Chalabi and the Iraqi Special Tribunal have been cool since Chalabi's nephew Salem Chalabi was dismissed [JURIST report] as executive director of the IST in 2004 at the instance of Interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawai, an estranged cousin and rival secular Shiite leader. Salem Chalabi's replacement is one of the officials said to have been dismissed, along with the court's head of security and the chief of its witness protection program. US officials are reportedly upset with the ongoing political interference in the work of the IST, and an unnamed American is even said to have threatened to have the Saddam regime trials removed to The Hague. At the same time, concern about Baathists has affected other Iraqi institutions, including Iraq's constitution-drafting committee [JURIST report]. The New York Times has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Interest groups weigh in on Roberts nomination
Kate Heneroty on July 20, 2005 8:22 AM ET

[JURIST] Interest groups from across the political spectrum are weighing in with their reactions to the White House nomination of Judge John G. Roberts to the US Supreme Court [JURIST report]. Conservative groups have largely welcomed the announcement. C. Boyden Gray, chairman of the Committee for Justice which promotes constitutionalist judicial nominees, said in a statement Tuesday evening that John Roberts has had one of the most distinguished legal careers in modern times... His outstanding education and career, high character, and faithfulness to the Constitution make him an excellent fit for the court at this moment. His nomination is a solid first step towards returning the federal judiciary to its proper role in our system. The National Pro-Life Action Center has also applauded the choice [NPLAC press release], stating that "it is not the duty of a Supreme Court nominee to unify our nation." The Christian Coalition, which has vowed to support strict constructionist candidates, stated "we are trusting that Judge Roberts is in the mold of Supreme Court justices who President Bush promised to appoint to the Supreme Court: such as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas." Progress for America [website], a conservative grassroots organization, has vowed to spend $18 million or more in a media blitz to promote support for Roberts. CNSNews.com has additional coverage of conservative [CNS reports] and pro-life [CNS reports] group reactions.
Some liberal groups have denounced the appointment as divisive, while others have argued for caution and a careful investigation of Roberts' record. Pro-choice groups fear Roberts because of statements made while he was Deputy US Solicitor General that Roe v. Wade was "wrongly decided and should be overruled." National Organization of Women President Kim Gandy said in a statement Roberts' background shows a political ideology that is inconsistent with the independence we have a right to expect from the Supreme Court. He does not have a commitment to the basic values of fairness and equality, and our hard-won rights will be in jeopardy if he is confirmed. NARAL Pro-Choice America [press release] has sent an electronic alert to 800,000 contacts urging them to contact senators to oppose the Ronberts confirmation [press release]. Political action group MoveOn.org [website] has called Roberts a "right wing corporate lawyer and ideologue" [press release] and is organizing a mass petition to oppose his confirmation. The Washington Post has more. US Newswire maintains a running list of press releases on the Roberts nomination.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Parties split on Roberts as confirmation process begins
Kate Heneroty on July 20, 2005 7:30 AM ET

[JURIST] President Bush's Tuesday evening nomination [JURIST report] of conservative federal appeals court judge John G. Roberts to the US Supreme Court has predictably drawn praise from Republicans and calls for caution from Democrats, who vow to examine Robert's record carefully during the confirmation process. In preparation for the confirmation hearings, which will likely begin in late August or early September, the US Senate Judiciary Committee [official website] will conduct its own investigation of Roberts and make a recommendation to the Senate. Nominees require a simple majority - 51 of 100 votes - to be confirmed, but if a filibuster were to occur, 60 votes would be needed to break it. Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Democratic Member Patrick Leahy [official profile] promised Roberts would receive a thorough and careful investigation [Leahy statement], but that no candidate would receive a "free pass to a lifetime appointment." Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, the only woman on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said somewhat more cautiously that "I will keep my powder dry until the due diligence is completed." GOP Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter is scheduled to hold a news conference on the Roberts nomination later today as the nominee begins to make get-acquainted rounds on Capitol Hill.
Off the Hill, Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman applauded the choice [RNC statement] of Roberts to fill the O'Connor vacancy, citing his unanimous approval by the Senate when he was appointed to the DC Circuit in 2003 as evidence of his "wide breadth of support." Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean meanwhile expressed disappointment [DNC statement] that the President had chosen a candidate with "sharp partisan credentials." AP has more reaction to Roberts' nomination.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|
| For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...
|
|
|