Sexual Terrorism and the Quest for Justice for Conflict-Related Sexual Violence: The Digital Dialogue Series 

By Larissa Peltola, a Staff Writer at RightsViews and a graduate student in the Human Rights MA program.

Sexual terrorism committed by militant groups like ISIS/ISIL, Boko Haram, and Al Shabaab has gone largely unacknowledged in domestic and international courts, despite its rampant use. Sexual violence is a widespread, endemic issue in all conflicts around the world, affecting individuals, communities, and societies as a whole. 

The United Nations has identified that the extensive use of sexual violence perpetrated by terrorist groups globally has been used as an incentive for recruitment, a tool for financing, destroying, subjugating and controlling communities and societies, extracting information from detainees, forcing displacement, and as a means of controlling or suppressing women’s reproductive abilities. While the high numbers of sexual abuse have led to international calls to action by civil society, activists, the United Nations Security Council, and state governments, these crimes have still not been prosecuted before any national or international court.   

What Can (and Should) Justice Look like? 

Since sexual terrorism encompasses numerous crimes ranging from rape to human trafficking, to forced marriage, there has been a debate within the activist community about what justice for survivors looks like. For survivors who have endured violence at the hands of ISIS, Al Shabaab, and Boko Haram militants, justice consists of long-term medical and psychosocial services. “Their understandings of justice,” according to Azadeh Mohaveni of the International Crisis Group, “were quite different from those we think about in the West. They were not punitive or carceral. They didn’t associate justice with formal persecution or punishment.” Prosecution, or any legal actions against members of these groups, was not only unrealistic but was never even a consideration for these survivors. “No one really mentioned prosecution. It seemed to fall out of the realm of what any of these women imagined was possible.” 

Simply put, this idea of justice was, and is, shaped by the material realities of their worlds. Of the services that survivors identified as the most necessary included shelter, medical and psychological services, and the protection of legal status. In Iraq and Syria, women that chose to join ISIS, or were forcibly recruited, were stripped of their nationalities and rendered stateless, therefore unable to receive proper state support after leaving or escaping the group. According to Mohaveni, survivors must be “de-exceptionalized” and “destigmatized” and not only given legal status in the countries they have fled to, but also be provided with essential and often life-saving support services.

The difficulty with this form of justice is that countries rife with terrorism, and their neighboring states, often lack the infrastructure to address survivors’ needs and to provide lasting support for them. Psychosocial and medical services are virtually non-existent. Food insecurity is also a growing concern, and education and reintegration programs are either non-existent or severely underfunded. 

The Obstacles to Achieving “Justice”

In instances where survivors have identified justice within the legal framework, there are significant obstacles to prosecution. Domestic and international laws are full of shortcomings that make prosecution of sexual terrorism extremely difficult and often impossible. Anne Marie de Brouwer, co-founder of Team Impact, examined the domestic penal codes as they relate to sexual violence perpetrated by Boko Haram and Al Shabaab in Nigeria and Somalia. Her conclusion was that no domestic laws are fully equipped to address the harms stemming from sexual terrorism, primarily due to either lack of laws concerning sexual violence or outdated and vague provisions on what constitutes rape. “To date,” de Brouwer explains, “there are no convictions for sexual terrorism…so in the absence of a law, criminalizing the crime of sexual terrorism explicitly or even implicitly, access to justice by victims is severely curtailed.” 

Obstacles within legal fields are not the only ones that exist for survivors of sexual violence. Women are often re-victimized after experiencing trauma. In refugee and IDP camps, where survivors often end up, or upon return to their villages, they are shunned and seen as having consented to fraternize with the enemy, willingly engaging in sexual activity with armed actors. Often times, sexual violence does not end upon their return home. Women and girls are often revictimized and raped in the camps where they sought safety and shelter and are left with virtually zero legal recourse and little access to necessary psychosocial services. According to Rhoda Tyoden Moore,  President of International Women Lawyers in Nigeria, survivors have no confidence in their government to do anything for them: “even if they report [sexual violence], nothing can be done.” Access to justice is critically important in IDP and refugee camps and when women return home to their communities. 

Donations from MasLibres.com to buy food for the victims of Boko Haram, Nigeria. // HazteOir.org

Courts and States: Obligations and Failures 

Promoting laws on sexual terrorism and prosecuting perpetrators can raise awareness about how terrorist groups operate and how they can be held accountable. Since there have been no cases related to sexual violence tried in domestic or international courts thus far, initial cases will inform others, setting precedent and demanding justice for survivors. Experts believe that it is extremely difficult to amend international terrorism litigation as it stands now. The most effective way to do so is by setting precedent in domestic courts that will eventually translate to international action. 

According to de Brouwer, courts should implement survivor-centered “evidentiary and procedural rules” that should guide any and all legal proceedings. “Effective prohibitions against sexual terrorism” de Brouwer articulates, “are insufficient without amendments to procedural and evidentiary rules that do not really support or protect victims.” There is an urgent need for protective measures to prevent re-victimization while in the courtroom. These include ensuring the safety of survivors who choose to testify, psychological services for before and after the trial, protections against victim intimidation in court settings, and if possible, financial assistance for the victim. 

States, likewise, have failed in their obligations to survivors of sexual terrorism. In a majority of countries where terrorists are based, women are considered and treated as second class citizens and are not afforded the same projections as men. Moore articulates that states play a large role in whether survivors report their assaults. “What we need,” the Nigerian based attorney explains, “is for governments to take proactive measures to improve [response] to these incidences. And to do that, we need gender-based violence structures on the ground.” This means that governments should establish laws to easily prosecute gender-based violence, put in place safeguards for victims of sexual violence, and make the legal field accessible to survivors so that they may be encouraged to seek redress. “These perpetrators must be punished so that these women will now build up confidence in the system,” Moore emphasized. 

Crimes of sexual terrorism should not solely be dealt within the legal arena. States have an obligation to advocate for and protect victims of sexual violence. The role of the state government is complex and multifaceted, according to Chioma Onuegbu, Deputy Director of the Department of Public Prosecution for the Attorney General in Nigeria. To effectively protect survivors and prosecute perpetrators, it is imperative that states establish gender-sensitive training, collect and share evidence with relevant departments, engage expert prosecutors trained in gender-based violence collection, and create a specialized unit to deal with gender-related crimes.     

Addressing sexual terrorism will continue to require a holistic approach by state and non-state actors and within domestic and international courts. Special measures must be taken in order to protect survivors of sexual terrorism and end the culture of silence around the topic. 


This is the third installment of the Digital Dialogue Series which brings together authors and scholars, practitioners, and experts to reflect on the progress and challenges of addressing conflict-related sexual violence. This series is hosted by the United Nations Team of Experts of Rule of Law and Sexual Violence in Conflict and in partnership with Institute for Public Health, Washington University in St. Louis; Harvard Humanitarian Initiative, Harvard University; the  School of Transnational Governance, European University Institute; and the Institute for the Study of Human Rights, Columbia University. 

The following is a list of all participants in this discussion: 

Fionnuala Ni Aolain: Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the context of terrorism 

Anne Marie de Brouwer: Cofounder of Team Impact  

Azadeh Mohaveni:  Director of the Gender and Conflict Project, International Crisis Group 

Chioma Onuegbu: Deputy Director of Department of Public Prosecution and Head of Complex Cases for the Office of the Attorney General (Nigeria)

Rhoda Tyoden Moore: President of FIDA: International Women Lawyers in Nigeria

“Abort the Government”: Polish Citizens Challenge Poland’s Retreat to Autocracy

By Ali Cain, RightsViews staff writer and a graduate student in the European History, Politics, and Society  MA Program

Over the last three weeks, Polish citizens have ignited the country’s biggest protests since the 1989 pro-democracy movement in response to the passing of a de facto abortion ban. Although Poland already had the most restrictive abortion laws in Europe, its highest court, the Constitutional Tribunal, concluded that performing abortions, even in situations where a baby would be born sick or disabled, violates the Constitution’s guarantee to the protection of life. This ruling poses immense infringements on women’s rights and pushes the country into deeper democratic backsliding. 

Despite Polish President Andrzej Duda announcing that the ban would be delayed indefinitely, protests have developed into a larger retaliation against the ruling far-right Law and Justice Party (PiS). Since its rise to power in 2015, the Party maintains support by enflaming cultural tensions over LGBTQ+ rights, migration, and abortion. Prior to the Tribunal’s ruling, women were only allowed to get abortions in cases of rape, incest or fetus abnormalities. According to The New York Times, the majority of legally terminated Polish pregnancies in 2019 were because of fetus abnormalities. Doctors are also able to use religious beliefs to justify not performing abortions or prescribing contraception. Poland’s restrictions led many women to seek abortions in other countries or illegally. 

Since the decision, thousands of Poles in 150 towns and cities have turned out to protest. Demands include access to abortion, non-religious sex education, and the transfer of Church funds to groups fighting violence against women. As the protests grow, President Duda proposed an exception to the Tribunal’s ruling that would allow abortions when there is “high probability” of the fetus being stillborn or being born with a condition “leading inevitably and directly to death.” He later announced that the new laws would be delayed indefinitely and is currently attempting to find a compromise between the far-right wing of PiS and its less extreme parliament members. However, the protests are now past the issue of abortion as various groups with grievances against PiS are heightening calls for the government’s resignation. 

The PiS’ control over the Tribunal is one of many examples of how the Party has infringed on the rule of law. Since coming to power, PiS has slowly eroded judicial independence; in 2017, the Party mandated a lower retirement age that dismissed half of the Polish Supreme Court’s justices. It then took over the National Council of the Judiciary which appoints judges and made it illegal for judges to complain about the PiS. The Tribunal is packed with judges that support the PiS as the Party attempts to use the judicial system, instead of the parliament, to encroach on human rights and create a state that is reflective of a strong nationalist, pro-Catholic identity. 

The European Union (EU) has yet to respond to the Tribunal’s ruling or the protests in Poland. Nonetheless, Poland’s democratic backsliding has not gone unnoticed as the rule of law is one of the EU’s core values.

For the first time in EU history, Article 7 of the Treaty of the European Union was triggered in response to the 2017 judicial overhaul. This article, which is used when a member state violates the Union’s main tenants, allows the European Council to give a formal warning to a country,  issue sanctions and revoke a member state’s voting rights in the Council if the country fails to reform. In 2017, the European Commission released recommendations for Poland on how it could address its rule of law breaches by reversing many of its judicial policies. Not surprisingly, these recommendations went ignored. 

The EU has recently expressed concern at two other developments in Poland: the creation of “LGBTQ+ free” zones in cities and towns, and President Duda’s re-election. When the EU responded to the “LGBTQ+ free” zones by cutting off funding to 6 of the 100+ towns with zones, Poland supplemented the lack of EU funding with state support. The June 2020 election, which Duda won narrowly, came under scrutiny due to difficulties in voters receiving absentee ballots and pro-PiS news coverage by media groups supportive of the government. 

European institutions, especially the Commission, have desperately tried to develop mechanisms to hold Poland accountable. The Commission released its first report on the rule of law in October 2020 and the Council is tying COVID-19 aid to respect for the rule of law. The Polish government openly rejected the Commission’s rule of law report and argued the EU was infringing on its sovereignty. On November 16, Poland and Hungary vetoed the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), which is the EU’s 2021-2027 €1.8 trillion budget that includes the EU Economic Recovery Plan, over the inclusion of a rule of law mechanism. It took member states months to negotiate both the Economic Recovery Plan and MFF; the veto has already  garnered immense criticism from many member states desperately in need of aid. It will likely cause outrage among Polish and Hungarian citizens who are financially struggling due to the pandemic.

Although PiS tends to invoke Eurosceptic rhetoric, it has more to lose in fighting with the EU than to gain. According to The Guardian, no country has seen greater financial benefits from EU membership than Poland. Besides the benefits in trade, agricultural subsidies, and infrastructure funds that the country receives from the EU, Poland also expects to receive over €139 billion in grants from the EU’s upcoming budget. The government has already started public consultations on projects to spend its recovery funding on. Additionally, the majority of Polish citizens support the EU; a 2019 Pew Research poll found that 84% of Poles had a favorable opinion of the EU. It would be unwise for the Duda regime to continue challenging the EU when it has benefitted significantly from its membership.

Human rights in Poland are now at a crossroads. The abortion ban shows how far PiS has gone in influencing and reshaping the Polish judiciary to discard the rule of law. However, the government’s delay in imposing the ban due to the massive protests demonstrates that Duda and PiS are not above public opinion. Now is the time for the EU to both step up its public support of the protests and find new ways to hold Poland accountable. . In early November, the European Parliament agreed to a deal with Germany that would require a qualified majority vote in decisions on cutting member state’s funds. Usually, Council decisions must be approved by unanimity, posing an accountability challenge as Hungary consistently vetoes sanctions against Poland. Even though the bar remains high in achieving a qualified majority, more states are expressing concern that their citizens’ tax-dollars are going to other member states who do not respect the rule of law. As a result of this agreement, states were able to use qualified majority voting to include the rule of law mechanism in the budget.

Although the introduction of qualified majority voting wasn’t enough to block Hungary and Poland’s vetoes, it lays the foundation for further discussions of how to change the EU’s voting rules to hold countries accountable. If Poland and Hungary insist on continuing to block the MFF, the EU should start considering treaty changes or other agreements that would allow for more flexibility in voting in order to bypass vetoes.  

As president of the European Council, Germany should take the lead in using its diplomatic and negotiation finesse to pressure Hungary and Poland to allow the budget to go forward as any further delays in aid distribution will impose greater short term and long term economic challenges for EU member states. The abortion protests, Duda’s narrow re-election, rising COVID-19 cases, and World Bank projections that forecast a recession in Poland puts PiS in a precarious position. The current protest movement is providing a genuine challenge to the government and the EU must use this opportunity to continue to prevent further democratic backsliding.

Sudan: On the Path to Transition?

By Reem Katrib, a RightsViews staff writer and a graduate student in the Human Rights MA Program.

After a 30-year conflict over its autonomy, South Sudan gained its independence from Sudan through a referendum in 2011. The Enough Project explains that this secession “caused a severe economic shock in Sudan, as the country lost nearly 75 percent of its oil reserves and 95 percent of its foreign currency reserves.” Since then, the Sudanese government has repressed political opposition, often using violence against civil society and opposition groups who have expressed their dissent at the mismanagement of the economy. 

Prior to secession, Sudan had been plagued by conflict with continuing human rights violations that has meant a distrust of the judiciary in the present. In April 2019, a military council replaced Omar al-Bashir when he was forced out of office. The military leaders and opposition members negotiated to form a “sovereign council” the following August. This council acts  as a transitional government and calls for holding the previous government accountable for human rights violations.    

Institutional Reform and the Transitional Justice Draft Law  

While Omar al-Bashir was ousted from his position in 2019, protests have continued in the face of the economic crisis, doubling of food prices, and the sanctions imposed on Sudan by the United States. The beginning of October 2020, however, saw a peace agreement that would end fighting in the west and south of Sudan and end U.S. sanctions on Sudan. This peace deal was drafted by the transitional government and rebel groups. The drafting of this transitional justice law necessitates these advancements; that is, the lack of active conflict and an end of sanctions on Sudan.

With this drafting process, it is important to note the significant roles women have held throughout the protests, at the forefront of sit-ins and as symbols of the revolution. These protests started as a result of the increase in the prices of bread and fuel after subsidies were cut.  Many groups, namely women and victim activist groups, believe they ought to be more involved in this transitional period, both in government and in the drafting of a law on transitional justice.

In the third week of October, the Ministry of Justice claimed that the Justice Chamber is concerned about the compensation of victims in the transitional justice file. Significantly, the undersecretary of the Ministry of Justice, Siham Osman, “called for reform to the judicial institutions.” These reforms would include providing assistance to the Transitional Justice Commission and representatives of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Her concerns are shared by many people in Dabanga Sudan who are worried that despite previous purging of officials affiliated with al-Bashir’s regime in the judiciary, judges who are affiliated with the regime remain in the system. More so, there is a recognition that laws need to be revised and new ones created in order to prosecute crimes not currently in legislation marking another concern for institutional reform.

The crimes that will be looked at in the transitional justice draft law include war crimes, crimes against humanity, torture, and genocide. The trials to be head in the Sudanese case are meant to allow for reparations, and remedies; specifically, compensation to those affected both materially and morally by the perpetrators. Siham Osman says “that the ministry attaches special attention… to fulfill the rights and rehabilitate the victims and people affected.” She also argues that it is essential that perpetrators confess to the crimes committed. 

With the creation of the transitional justice draft law, numbers of women’s and victim’s rights activists have emphasized the importance of including victims and women in the transitional justice process. These groups signed a petition that calls for a victim-centered and gender-sensitive approach to transitional justice that ought to be restorative. Their demands emphasize the importance of understanding the needs of those most affected in transitional justice processes. 

Transitional Justice, Victim-centered, and Gender-sensitive Approaches 

The concerns raised by the victim’s and women’s rights activists are well-founded in the field of transitional justice. This is especially true when it comes to a court or commission’s formation of a metanarrative of victimhood; a narrative that serves as a telling of the conflict and the commonalities between targeted victims. While usually done to highlight the atrocities of certain crimes, this often disregards the complexities of being an individual affected by these crimes. 

In fact, metanarratives often do not account for intersectionality and dynamics of class, race, and gender, which expose the systems of oppression in place. The inclusion demanded by activists extends discourse on sexual violence and refuses to settle for brief meetings on gender-related issues. The victim-centered and gender-sensitive approach demands a reclamation of women’s and victim’s agency; they want to be at the table, discussing restorative means of justice. 

While the Sudanese Ministry of Justice has only recently discussed the drafting of a transitional justice law, much of the discussion thus far has been related to prosecution of perpetrators, and the compensation of those affected by the conflict. 

Institutional reform has also been brought to the forefront with regards to the judiciary system in particular, and the judges that uphold that system. This begs the question whether other transitional justice mechanisms will also be considered throughout this process, such as memory and memorialization. The aforementioned mechanism could be essential to opening discourse and transparency, especially on a governmental level, with the recognition of the atrocities of human rights violations. It also recognizes the power of those who pushed for democracy. 

Another concern in this push towards a transition is the demobilization, disarmament, and reintegration of armed groups. With the peace agreement in place, it has been agreed that the security sector in Sudan must be modernized and a cohesion between different groups established. With these concerns in mind, one may then ask, what does a grassroots transitional justice process look like, particularly one that adopts a gender-sensitive and victim-centered approach?  More precisely, moving forward, how would the Sudanese transitional justice process ensure the inclusion of some of these voices that need to be heard most, and that are essential to sustainable change and reform? 

Deconstructing White Supremacy (in a workshop and real life)

By Anna Miller, a staff writer at RightsViews and a graduate student in ISHR’s Human Rights MA Program.

Note: This blog post addresses white supremacy in the United States only, though the ideology is alive globally. 

On October 27, Dean Melanie Pagán and Dean Samantha Shapses, both of the School of International and Public Affairs, hosted a Deconstructing White Supremacy Workshop via Zoom. The workshop was open to the Columbia University community and fulfilled the Community Citizenship Requirement for Inclusion and Belonging for new Columbia students.

To kick off the workshop, the group screened Understanding White Supremacy (And How to Defeat It). This video explained how the roots of white supremacy are linked to colonization and racial biology. White colonizers assumed that people of color were inferior because they were “so easily conquered” and then presumed that “white skin people were perhaps more evolved than dark skin people.” While these ideas are objectively nonsensical, they did help form modern-day white supremacy and as such are important to understanding the roots of this ideology. The video also included a call to action and critical thought: “white supremacy is a part of American history and we need to own it and fully understand it before we can eradicate it.” 

Next, Dean Pagán and Dean Shapses further defined white supremacy by offering a list of traits that are present in white supremacy culture. See a summary list below and learn more about the definitions of these terms

Jones, Kenneth and Okun, Tema. “Dismantling Racism: A Workbook for Social Change Groups.”

Dean Pagán and Dean Shapses challenged the attendees to consider how these traits show up in everyday life, opening up the floor to discussion from participants. A key aspect of the workshop was taking the theory shared about white supremacy and applying it to our own lives. As such, I am going to detail how this workshop, and ideas of white supremacy culture, challenged me. 

Two traits of white supremacy culture that I had a hard time reckoning with were the ones that were taught to me at a young age: perfectionism and sense of urgency. In my American Jewish family, success – particularly academic and career success – was held highest of all. To achieve success there was no room for inadequacy (perfectionism) and a high desire for quick results (sense of urgency). At first glance, these may seem like harmless characteristics. Yet, when the layers are peeled back it is clear that these traits stem from a fear of not measuring up to the white, American dream. 

Like many Jews living in the U.S. post-Holocaust, my grandparents subdued their Jewish identity in search of American assimilation. By 1950, the U.S. was home to more than five million Jews and those individuals successfully made their way into the economic, political, academic, and cultural spheres. It is important to remember, though, that upward mobility was often used as a way to escape the persecution of white people. Surely, they can’t hate us if we are well-educated, rich, and pass as white people in society. Yet with acts of antisemitism at an all-time high in 2019, it is evident that striving for whiteness is not an antidote to the ongoing struggle of Jewish Americans today. Nor does the worship of whiteness ensure a safe, prosperous future for Black Americans. The White supremacy ideology is still at large, suppressing minority voices in order to enforce its omnipresence. 

When it comes to white supremacy, law and policy is critical, but it will only take us so far. It is up to each one of us to examine our thoughts and actions for characteristics of white supremacy. If you have not already read Peggy McIntosh’s “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack” – start there. Next, it is critical to stay aware of our environment and combat white supremacy by calling it out in class, in your social groups, and at home. As white supremacy is rooted in American culture, do not be surprised when you find it coming from the mouth of a loved one or the President of the United States. Once you have the education and resources, vigilance is required to work toward a country free from the clench of white supremacy.

Feature photo credit: Creative Commons // Backbone Campaign.

The Scope of Justice: Comparing Two Distant Criminal Justice Systems

By Donggeun Lee, RightsViews Staff Writer and a second-semester junior majoring in Human Rights.

“Comparison is in many ways a useful mirror into which we look, and by looking we notice things about ourselves and our own country and our systems that sometimes might please us [and] that sometimes might give us pause and even cause us disappointment and dismay.” – Professor David T. Johnson

On October 12th, the Columbia Law School hosted an event entitled “Criminal Justice in Japan – A Comparative Perspective” addressing the question of what we can learn from differences between criminal justice in Japan and the United States. The event was moderated by the executive director of the Center for Japanese Legal Studies, Nobuhisa Ishizuka, and featured two speakers: David T. Johnson, a professor at the University of Hawaii, and Kiyo A. Matsumoto, a United States District Judge at the Eastern District of New York. 

Differences between Japan and the United States

According to Franklin E. Zimring, the author of the book, “The City That Became Safe,” America’s crime rate has been in decline  since the 1990s. The largest and longest sustained drop in street crime ever experienced by a big city in the developed world is in New York City. However, when one compares NYC to Tokyo, one can conclude that, in terms of crime,such as homicide, NYC is still not as safe compared to Tokyo as Professor Johnson said. Additionally, other East Asian cities are far safer than NYC.

When it comes to criminal justice, the incarceration rate, and killings by police in the US are by far higher than they are in Japan. Professor Johnson believes the availability of guns might partly explain the lower rates of homicide and killings by police in Japan, as guns make homicide easier and policing more dangerous. In addition, the professor argues, Japan uses criminal sanctions far less and more carefully  than the United States. 

The conviction rates

Interestingly, the conviction rate is higher in Japan. However, the direct comparison in the conviction rates between the US and Japan also has a flaw; plea bargain cases do not go to trials in the States, unlike in Japan where they do. In addition, Japan’s version of plea bargaining provides leniency in exchange for information for someone else’s crime, not in exchange for confession. The Japanese Constitution provides protection against self-incrimination. If one were to add the plea bargain into calculation in the conviction rate in the US, the conviction rate goes up to nearly 99%, which is then similar to that of Japan. Both countries rely on admissions of guilt to secure a conviction; however, the employed pressures are different.

The role of admission of guilt

In the US, the significant trial tax and the high chance of receiving a longer sentence if someone loses in a trial make it nearly impossible for many defendants to reject the offers made by prosecutors. In Japan, however, suspects of crimes have the right to remain silent, but they are not entitled to have a lawyer present during interrogation nor can they request that their testimony be registered in a dossier. In addition, interrogations tend to be long. These characteristics of the Japanese “Hostage Justice” system may lead defendants to admit guilt regardless of whether that is a lie or truth. They do so to get out of the interrogation, explained Professor Johnson. 

The number of cases that go to trials is significantly lower in Japan than in the US, added Executive Director Ishizuka. This might suggest that prosecutors are less interested in exercising their power. Professor Johnson believes the conviction rate, excluding plea bargain numbers in the States, is lower in Japan because prosecutors in Japan are more cautious, only bringing cases to trial when acquittals are not likely to happen. 

This cautiousness, which Professor Johnson referred to as “shinsho”(しんちょう []), in Japan leads to several questions. First, perhaps Japan is failing to prosecute ‘all’ cases, even necessary ones. Second, going further with the first question, deterrence might not be the primary goal in Japan as it is in the States. Third, the high conviction rate discourages the supply of defense lawyers. Fourth, judges in Japan might be longing to see a case where they can adjudicate, or they might assume that the trials are beyond a reasonable doubt only by knowing that trials have been brought, Professor Johnson said.

Differences in the Exercise of Prosecutorial Discretion

Despite these questions, Professor Johnson stated that the main reason for the high incarceration rate in the US is “prosecutor-driven prison admissions.” Additionally, the plea bargaining is not well-protected by international laws, said Professor Johnson.

Judge Matsumoto, a District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, explained the processes of the US justice system before a trial. Before a trial, a grand jury must agree to the indictment. There are regulations to protect a suspect’s rights in the US grand jury, such as only admitting legally obtained evidence. For example, any evidence gathered without a lawyer’s presence after a suspect requested a lawyer must be suppressed in the US. The grand jury does not exist in Japan, and unlawfully obtained evidence may be used.  There are exceptions in both countries. This “fruit of the poisonous tree” concept, which describes a doctrine that extends the exclusionary rule to suppress illegally obtained evidence, exists in Japan. In practice, however, it is frequently ignored. The concept tends to be  interpreted as a right to remain silent while enduring questions.

Professor Johnson added that by no means is the Japanese criminal system perfect. However, from a strictly comparative perspective, more things could be improved in the American justice system. Judge Matsumoto points out the higher incarceration rates of people of color and the privatization of prisons, which is a highly controversial topic. However, the judge also pointed out that hope is not lost in the US. For example, the federal government has released a sentencing guideline, which is now mandatory to reduce disparity of criminal sanctions among the states and reform the justice system. There has been some progress especially for the treatment of non-violence drug crimes, said Matsumoto. 

Takeaways and Reflection

From a comparative perspective, both countries’ problems in criminal justice become amplified, especially the incarceration rate in the States. However, too many factors play important roles in two justice systems on top of pre-existing cultural differences: plea bargains, regulations on interrogations, presence or absence of a grand jury, laws in practice, and statistical differences. 

This makes it hard to claim that the Japanese system is “better” on face value. Many regulations, which do not exist in Japan, might be the reason for the United States’ lower conviction rate, excluding the number of plea bargain cases. Existing racial biases and inequality in wealth are also factors in the American justice system. Plea bargaining prosecutors incarcerate people without trials, and vigorous adversarial defense lawyers may charge higher rates and may then be available only to wealthy people.

The story of Kalief Browder shows that the problem in the US is real, not theoretical. Browder spent 3 years in the Robert N. Davoren Center, without a trial, after being charged for robbery in the second degree and other crimes. Browder’s trial was delayed 31 times by a request of the prosecutor and neither him nor his family were too poor to pay ransom or afford a defense lawyer. The appointed lawyer was overwhelmed with other cases and failed to take effective measures for Browder. The latter never accepted any offer from the prosecutor because he wanted to seek justice and prove innocence. In the meantime, Browder had to suffer from physical and sexual violence in jail, in addition to spending 800 days in solitary confinement, out of 1110 days of imprisonment. Later it was found that the prosecutor did not have any good evidence for this case; it was clear that the prosecutor’s main goal was to keep Browder in jail by delaying his trial and breaking his will so he would have no choice but accept the off After the prosecutor dropped the case without any compensation or even an apology, Browder was released from prison but killed himself two years later. 

Almost every problem in the American justice system can be found in Browder’s blood-boiling story. Presumption of innocence was ignored in the name of plea bargain, an innocent adolescent had to suffer from incarceration, violence, and solitary confinement, and seeking justice was impossible due to lack of financial means. 

In the US, the suspects who lack sufficient legal knowledge and help can easily be turned into criminals. Thus, the prosecutors and police – the law enforcement agency – can abuse plea bargaining as a means to gloss over their misjudgment, bringing criminal charges against innocent suspects. The justice of the legal system can be threatened, as in Browder’s case,  by the fact that the suspect is from a low-income household and is black, a target of racial discrimination.

Getting back to a comparative perspective, one thing that ties the two countries together is that reformation is hard to achieve. However, the challenge of reform must be taken on for the sake of the human rights of those involved in either country’s criminal justice system. 

“It’s Not Living, It’s Surviving:” Venezuelan Refugees in Colombia and the COVID-19 Crisis

By Larissa Peltola, a staff writer for RightsViews and a graduate student in the Human Rights MA Program

The political and economic crises which have plagued Venezuela since 2014 have resulted in the mass exodus of over 5 million Venezuelans, the largest migrant crisis in the history of the Western Hemisphere. Of the over 5 million people that have fled their home country of Venezuela, over 1.6 million have settled in neighboring Colombia, resulting in a refugee crisis made increasingly worse by the COVID-19 pandemic. Dr. Milena Gomez Kopp, Visiting Research Scholar at School of International and Public Affairs, engaged with students during the October 28, 2020, Food for Thought speaker series and discussed her analysis of the growing refugee crisis.

Background 

Venezuela was once considered the wealthiest and most resource-rich country in Latin America. With the largest oil reserve in the world, the economy grew rapidly, and Western countries looked for ways to engage in trade with Venezuela. This changed with the rise of former President Hugo Chavez, who cut off the country to the rest of the world. The Chavez era was marked by the widespread emigration of what Professor Kopp explains as the “executive immigrants,” the highly educated and trained, land-owning, and upper class Venezuelans who fled their country, mainly to Colombia and the United States, for fear of economic insecurity and political repression.

Matters were made worse by the death of Hugo Chavez and the 2013 succession of the current contested President Nicolas Maduro. His presidency has been marred by controversy, bloodshed, political persecution of opposition leaders, suppression of the free press, state-sponsored human rights violations and crimes against humanity, and an overwhelming exodus of Venezuelans who can no longer find food, medicine, and other basic necessities in their home country.  

“No es vivir, es sobrevivir” /  “It’s not living, it’s surviving” 

As the situation deteriorated in Caracas, the capital of Venezuela, poor and desperate Venezuelans poured into Colombia seeking asylum and refuge. According to Dr. Kopp, the number of migrants grew from 140,000 in 2015 to over 1.6 million in 2019 alone. The dramatic increase in the number of asylum seekers in Colombia has overwhelmed Colombia’s capacity to settle them.

Making matters worse, in 2015 President Maduro closed the Venezuelan/Colombia border, effectively separating families, preventing the flow of resources into Venezuela, and labeling any Venezuelans who fled to Colombia as traitors, many of whom could be jailed, tortured, or killed upon return to their home country.  

The Impact of COVID- 19 

Colombia, like many countries around the world, faces an urgent crisis with the COVID-19 pandemic. Migration from Venezuela only increased in 2020 as political repression and violence intensified under the Maduro regime. Despite receiving aid from international organizations like the UNHCR, fiscal restraints drastically limit the Colombian government’s capacity to administer necessary public services to the rapidly increasing migrant population. Beyond this, Dr. Kopp explained, this refugee crisis has only garnered a fraction of the attention of other refugee crises such as those happening in Syria and Myanmar. According to the Organization of American States (OAS), Syrian refugees have received an estimated $33 billion in donations, South Sudan, $9.4 billion, and Myanmar which received roughly $1.2 billion. Comparatively, international donations for Venezuelan refugees total $600 million. 

COVID-19 has put Venezuelan migrants in Colombia in even more dire straits as a majority have lost their jobs due to government lockdowns in order to prevent further spread of the virus. Because many of the migrants in Colombia are low-skilled and held jobs in the construction sector, the service industry, and in domestic work, the lockdown triggered a drastic wave of unemployment in the country. According to the National Administrative Department of Statistics in Colombia, since the pandemic economic activity in the country shrank to just 15.7% and unemployment reached 21%. Furthermore, poverty levels are expected to rise and in addition to the lack of access to health services and forced evictions, many Venezuelan refugees are facing urgent and life-threatening situations in the country where they sought safety and refuge. 

Due to the lack of community support and work opportunities in Colombia, over 100,000 Venezuelans were forced to return home to confront the poverty, hunger, violence and repression they had fled, only to now also deal with high COVID infection rates.  

What Does the Future Hold? 

It may be difficult to feel much optimism with the current economic, health, and political crises plaguing much of the Americas. COVID is far from over, meaning that continued migration from Venezuela to Colombia will continue to rise and will eventually stabilize. The refugee crisis, however, will continue long after the end of the pandemic. According to the OAS, the total number of Venezuelan emigrants could reach up to 7.5 million which will further pose a great challenge for the international community.

Despite increasing numbers of refugees and asylum seekers pouring into other countries in Latin America and into the US, little action is being taken, especially when compared to the plight of other international refugees. According to Dr. Kopp, geographical location and political contexts play a large role in the lack of attention and inaction: “Europeans fear the presence of millions of refugees at their doorstep and, for this reason, the European Union have actively supported the plight of Syrian refugees by outsourcing their problem to Turkey, for example, in exchange for billions of dollars.” This is not the case with Venezuela, argues Dr. Kopp, “The United States has pledged millions, not billions of dollars because desperate Venezuelans refugees are not a priority in the country’s foreign policy objectives.” Instead, the Trump administration is fixated on defeating President Maduro and the drug trade in the region. “Low-income migrants,” she explains, “are no threat as they are too poor to attempt to cross the Darien [gap] in order to arrive to the US/Mexican border.”

Until there is a change in regimes in Venezuela, and  native Venezuelans feel safe enough to return home, the only solution to this growing problem is to provide the necessary funds to support refugees and take some of the burden off of Colombia and other countries that have resettled Venezuelan migrants.  

Food for Thought is a speaker series that welcomes a distinguished lineup of EMPA Faculty approaching the Covid-19 crisis and social justice reform. Each week a speaker will present their recommendation paper, highlight their perspective on the crisis, and engage in a dialogue with EMPA students, alumni, and other faculty members.

Milena Gomez Kopp was previously Chargé d’ Affairs/ Minister Plenipotentiary at the Embassy of Colombia in Turkey. She has taught at SIPA, the Universidad Externado de Colombia, the Middle East Technical University (METU) in Ankara and the Universidad Tecnológica de Pereira. She holds a Ph.D. from Columbia University.

Disempowered Development: A Conversation on Corporate Conquests in Southwest China with author Pat Giersch

By Kelly Dudine, a staff writer at RightsViews and a graduate student in the Human Rights MA Program

Over the decades, China has implemented aggressive and tailored plans to catalyze economic development across its vast regions. Driven in part by a desire to modernize industries and join a growing global marketplace, these plans led to periods of rapid growth and prosperity, while simultaneously straining local communities and exacerbating inequalities. Today, poverty in China’s ethnically diverse West is still prevalent

During a virtual lecture held earlier this month, author Pat Giersch discussed his new book, Corporate Conquests: Business, the State, and the Origins of Ethnic Inequality in Southwest China, which examines how corporations, combined with top-down policies geared toward modernization and state-building, marginalized local and ethnic minorities in the West, creating unequal access to growth and prosperity. 

Giersch’s story begins with the emergence of early-twentieth-century corporations, which enabled business to maintain a central hub of power while also expanding throughout the Southwest, reaching into Tibet, Southeast Asia, and Eastern China. New opportunities emerged and new avenues for economic growth flowed into the entrepreneurial hometowns, bringing wealth, mobility, and cosmopolitan lifestyles to elite merchants in Yunnan Province. 

However, as corporations grew in both size and power, so did their reach into local communities, which displaced local ownership of the development process, concentrating local resources in the hands of outsiders. This process is referred to as “disempowered development,” a term first coined by Andrew Fischer, which creates an environment of systematic inequality – one that China is still dealing with today.

For example, Giersch notes that as corporations reached deeper into villages inhabited by native Tibetans, called Khampas, in the West, they took control of what were once local sources of commerce, including traditional medicine gathering, and exported that wealth to their own regional hubs, sidelining the local people and community. This process continued in mass throughout the region, marginalizing and excluding local communities from the economic growth experienced by the elite. 

In the lecture, Giersch stressed how destabilizing and traumatic the experience of disempowered development and modernization would have been for people in Southwest China. Corporations brought rapid change, which fundamentally shifted economic and political organization. As an example, the immigration of the majority Han Chinese challenged societal structures and hierarchy. Clashes between locals and migrants were not uncommon, and instances of violence in the region underscored societal resistance to modernization.

Giersch noted that beyond the loss of local commerce and economic empowerment, modernization and disempowered development also strained local families in a myriad of ways. Many men had to travel more frequently, leaving their communities for extended periods of time to seek business opportunities, which tried and tested local families. For the men, time alone and away from home came with a variety of negative temptations, including affairs and marriages with other women which could break families apart. Additionally, drug and alcohol abuse was on the rise, including newly formed addictions to opium. 

For women left at home, the stress of increased responsibilities in the wake of absent men and the strain of managing trans-regional families proved a huge burden to bear, argued Giersch. Furthermore, increased connections with the outside world further challenged local traditions and worldviews, with children from wealthier and elite families expected to leave home to study abroad.

Giersch describes the process of modernization as a fairly traumatic phenomenon for individuals and the society as a whole. The stress experienced by local people, compounded by unequal access to the economic gains reaped by non-local businessmen strained local societies. 

Using the experience of those in Southwest China, Giersch noted that any effort at economic development and poverty alleviation will not be successful without empowering local people and ensuring “local control over local resources and local futures.” If this cannot be negotiated or protected, development plans may only exacerbate existing inequalities and create larger divides between those who can access financial gains and those who are perpetually excluded from growth and prosperity.

Does Addressing Climate Change Mean Addressing Racism?

By Noah Smith, RightsViews staff writer and graduate student in the Human Rights Studies program at Columbia University

On October 28, Climate Refugees and the Institute for the Study of Human Rights at Columbia University brought together experts in environmental racism, indigenous rights, climate science and racial justice to discuss the two fundamental issues of our time: race and climate change. The panelists offered their expert opinions on the intersectional relationship between race and climate change and discussed solutions to mitigate these issues moving forward.

The climate crisis has disproportionately impacted marginalized populations, many of whom may be displaced or forced to migrate, because of years of unequal access to opportunities and gaps in human rights. Panelist Dr. Ingrid Waldron, a noted sociologist, has coined this disproportionate impact as ‘Environmental Racism’ which she defined as ‘‘a disproportionate location and exposure for indigenous, racialized communities and poor white communities to contamination from polluting industries and other environmentally hazardous activities.’’

The panel further articulated the delineation of ‘Environmental Racism’ by discussing the COVID-19 pandemic, George Floyd’s murder and the subsequent protests for racial justice, which correspondingly exemplified the effects of two divergent crises that have disproportionate impacts on Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC) because of systemic unequal access to opportunities. In 2020 the JAMA Network Open, which is part of the Journal of the American Medical Association, published a report which elucidated that in the United States Black mothers are most adversely affected by pregnancy risks associated with climate change and Black communities face heightened risks of air pollution. Upon revealing these startling realities, the panelists state that race appears to be a greater risk of exposure to environmental pollutants than poverty.

Panelist Professor Philip G. Alston, the UN Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights, discussed a 2019 report on Climate Change and Poverty, which found that developing nations will bear 75% of the financial costs and losses associated with the climate crisis, despite only contributing 10%  of carbon dioxide emissions. Alston further asserted that one could argue that ‘‘the whole phenomenon of climate change is driven by racism because it’s outsourced, and the dominant white elites are going to be able to protect themselves and they do not care about the terrible consequences that are being predicted because they will hit other groups.’’

Given the current bleak narrative, the panel offered future solutions to assuage the concerning trend we see regarding the current crisis. Panelist Dr. Lucky Tran, a science communicator based at Columbia University, spoke of the need to fight for communities harmed by bad science policies. Stating that there is a broad misunderstanding by science advocates who operate under the belief that facts alone are enough to convince individuals that climate change as well as racial inequality are real and pose existential threats to our society. He pointed out that this line of advocacy is not enough stating that ‘‘facts are not enough, we are talking about values. We’re talking about real lives, we’re talking about stories, and we have to do that a lot better.’’ This emphasis on storytelling as part of the solution to the climate crisis has been utilized by many science advocates in recent years. 

In fact, I recently watched a documentary titled America’s First Climate Change Refugees, which told the stories of communities across the US who are now threatened by rising sea-levels resulting from climate change. The individual voices showcased in this documentary are incredibly powerful and exemplify how storytelling can help us address complicated issues such as climate change. 

Furthermore, panelist Dr. Carlton Waterhouse, an international expert on environmental law, spoke about environmental justice and suggested we think of it in three frames: distributive, procedural, and justice as recognition. This framework of conceptualizing environmental justice recognizes that there is an unequal distribution of pollutant sources in society, a lack of recognition of marginalized voices in government and environment policy procedural processes, as well as a lack of recognition of what marginalized communities need and deserve. 

Actualizing these frames of justice should be a priority and as stated by Dr. Waterhouse recognizing ‘‘inequitable distribution of pollution, the harm that comes from it, and the benefits that are derived from it, that to me is the core of environmental justice.’’

Voter Suppression in the United States: Infringements on the Right to Vote

By: Jalileh Garcia, Staff Writer at RightsViews

In the midst of a pandemic, with a rising number of COVID-19 cases, the United States election will take place on November 3, 2020. This election will be decisive for many of the contemporary issues that people are facing in the United States, and beyond. 

The right to vote is understood as one of the foundational cornerstones of a democracy, allowing free and fair elections to take place. Different civil and human rights safeguard the right to vote, namely the 15th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and Article 25 (b) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Despite having these legal protections, different states such as Georgia, North Carolina, among others continue to limit the exercise of this right in the country. 

The UN Committee on Human Rights delineated in the General Comment 25 of the ICCPR that States have the duty to “take effective measures to ensure that all persons entitled to vote are able to exercise that right.” Furthermore, when required registration of voters “should be facilitated and obstacles to such registration should not be imposed.” 

Voter suppression is one of the ways that countries create obstacles to the right to vote. Myrna Perez, director of the Brennan Center’s Voting Rights and Elections Program, noted that voter suppression is “an attempt to depress turnout or participation where there is some actor trying to reduce access to the ballot.” 

This exclusion of certain groups of voters is nothing new – rather, it has been the norm in the United States. Polling taxes, literacy tests, purges of voter rolls, and other tactics have been used to historically disenfranchise Black and Native American voters. Recently, voter suppression has also been affecting Latinx populations.  

Different restrictions to the right to vote, through voter suppression, can include voter-ID laws, limiting and cutting the hours at the polls, purging voter rolls, and outright intimidation.   

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, a total of 36 states have laws that request or require voters to show some form of identification (i.e. strict photo ID, ID without photo, etc) at the polls, 35 of these are in force for this 2020 election. A study by Zoltan Hajnal, Nazita Lajevardi, and Lindsay Nielson found that “strict identification laws have a differentially negative impact on the turnout of racial and ethnic minorities in primaries and general elections.” Furthermore, it found that these laws “skew democracy toward those on the political right.” 

Videos have surfaced on social media of people waiting hours to cast their ballots at sites prepared for early voting in New York City. The New York Times indicated that some people waited as long as 5 hours. One of the reasons for these long lines – people are scared that their absentee ballots will not be counted due to bureaucratic, technical issues, so they had chosen to vote in-person despite COVID-19 worries.   

Many disputes have arisen over the purging of voter rolls, which is used to disenfranchise many minority voters in the United States. This has been seen before when, in 2016,  the County Board of Elections challenged the votes of 180 Black people in Sparta, Georgia by summoning voters’ to prove residence, or they would lose the ability to vote in that election. This fear continues throughout the 2020 election, given that the State of Georgia “mandates some of the country’s most aggressive methods for purging voters from registration rolls”, says ACLU Georgia

In a new age of “fake news”, disinformation campaigns to depress turnout in elections have flooded social media. Win Black, a campaign that seeks to ensure that Black and Brown communities do not suffer at the hands of disinformation campaigns, explained how these campaigns seek to discourage Black and Brown voters from casting their ballots by playing on these communities’ worries, inspiring them to not vote. 

Intimidation has also been documented in the early voting periods of the 2020 election. Different methods of intimidation have been used including: armed men standing outside of early voting sites, voters wearing “Black Lives Matter” shirts being turned away at the polls, and false phone calls to residents in primarily Black communities that discouraged voting by mail. In Graham, North Carolina, the police pepper sprayed participants of a march and rally to increase voter turnout, though they had the proper permits. 

While the United States manifests itself as a “champion of democracy” in the international community because of its “adherence” to civil and political rights, this discourse is tainted with voter suppression tactics that negatively impact Black and Brown voters specifically, denying them the right to vote and participate in democratic processes. 

Make the Money, Make (up) the News? The Underreported War of Nagorno-Karabakh

By Nay Alhelou, Co-Editor of RightsViews and MA Candidate in Human Rights Studies at Columbia University. 

Four weeks on, the war over Nagorno-Karabakh continues despite a third ceasefire agreement that was supposed to take effect on October 26. In the meantime, a parallel war – a war of (mis)information – finally starts to make headlines.

Over the past two weeks, both academics and journalists reported on the ways in which Azerbaijan has been using its financial power to set the tone of the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh.

Academics at Harvard University and Columbia University pointed out that Azerbaijan has been investing in lobbying firms and using social media ‘trolls’ to spread misinformation in the aim of getting the public’s support. For example, Azerbaijani Telegram channel “The Tagiev” claimed that videos showing the capture and execution of two Armenian soldiers were staged, even though originally the channel itself posted them and identified them as real. However, an investigation by Bellingcat found that the videos were indeed factual, unlike the claims made by the Azerbaijani Ministry of Defense. Similarly, an Armenian Weekly journalist wrote an in-depth piece detailing different examples of propaganda articles brought to audiences by Azerbaijani-paid PR firms.

As important as these and similar articles are, they have yet to make it to the mainstream. As such, the potential fact-checks and context they provide may go unnoticed. Unless you happen to be an avid reader of a university’s newsletter, you just might miss crucial pieces of information.

However, the so-called mainstream media are not entirely oblivious to Azerbaijan’s financial powers and how they can impact not just the conflict itself, but also how the international community views it. 

Indeed, media are well aware of Azerbaijan’s oil and gas reserves and the economic power – or at least advantages – these may bring to the country. Be it the ability to misinform the public or gain the sympathy of world powers, the less advantageous impacts of Azerbaijan’s economy tend to be ignored, or at best mentioned ‘en passant.’  

For example, on October 18, The New York Times stated matter-of-factly that “Azerbaijan, an oil and gas hub on the Caspian Sea, has deployed superior firepower, using advanced drones and artillery systems it buys from Israel, Turkey and Russia.” While such a statement alludes to the benefits of a strong oil and gas reserve, it falls short from providing an in-depth analysis of said benefits. Readers are then left without any clear understanding of the economic and political powers that are at play and that may be impacting the reaction of the international community (or lack thereof) vis-à-vis the conflict and its resolution.

Again, in another article that the NYT claims would help readers “understand the conflict,” there is no mention of the economic disparities between the two warring sides at all. Even with their economies combined, the GDP of Nagorno-Karabakh (USD 713 million in 2019) and that of Armenia (USD 13.6 billion in 2019) are still less than half the GDP of Azerbaijan alone, which stood at USD 48 billion in 2019. Whether an omission of neglect or intent, the result remains the same: key context is missing.

Other outlets are not as oblivious to the power that comes with money. In an Arabic opinion piece published in “The New Arab” – a pan-Arab outlet based in the UK – Ammar Dayoub plainly warns that the difference between Azerbaijan’s and Armenia’s economic resources will directly impact the outcome of the conflict. He argues that “Azerbaijan’s power stems from the fact it was armed with energy revenue, after 1994, from Russia, Turkey and Israel” and with Armenia’s scarcity of resources, Nagorno-Karabakh will be unable to stand against “the regionally supported attack.”

Even in cases where journalists point out the lies or half-truths spread by the warring countries, a human rights lens seems to be missing. In particular, the mainstream media are neglecting the fact that the right to information – which is an integral part of the freedom of expression – is continuously under threat.

To be sure, this right does not guarantee that people will get accurate information per se. However, it can be argued that the spread of misinformation and the exclusion of key data restricts the audience’s right to access information. As a result, public opinion about the conflict as well as peace resolution efforts may be negatively impacted, if not skewed to the benefit of the richer country.  

Under international humanitarian law, all sides involved in a conflict are subject to equal obligations and have equal rights. This principle ensures that no side can claim that it is fighting a ‘just’ war in the hopes of getting away with everything it does on the battleground.

This principle, however, does not extend beyond the battlefield, where anyone seems to be able to claim anything from the justness of the war to the facts of the war and its context.

Indeed, when a military war turns into one of information, there seems to be only one rule: ‘he who pays the piper, calls the tune.’ That is, until we call it out.