agosto 29, 2015
Por Nicolás Carrillo Santarelli
Como muchos lectores sabrán, estos días son tensos en relación con las relaciones bilaterales colombo-venezolanas, por problemas de presuntos abusos de derechos humanos, expulsiones masivas y alegaciones de agresiones (cuestiones que, por ejemplo, han motivado pronunciamientos de la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos y agentes de la ONU llamando a Venezuela a respetar el derecho internacional de los derechos humanos). En el periódico colombiano El Heraldo se acaba de publicar un análisis que he hecho sobre aspectos de relaciones internacionales y derecho internacional que pueden verse afectados, cómo afrontar la crisis y qué factores políticos pueden estar tras su origen, siendo los argumentos sobre contrabandismo y paramilitarismo quizás excusas. El artículo se encuentra en el siguiente vínculo.
Por qué son necesarias las obligaciones internacionales de derechos humanos directas de las empresas y no son inevitables sus riesgos
agosto 27, 2015
Por Nicolás Carrillo Santarelli
En la página web Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, donde participan en el debate sobre empresas y derechos humanos y el tratado sobre este tema ONGs, académicos como John Ruggie y expertos, acaban de publicar un texto corto mío defendiendo la necesidad, para procurar una protección y reparación efectivas y sin impunidad de todas las víctimas, de la existencia de obligaciones de derechos humanos reguladas por el derecho internacional que vinculen directamente a las empresas, ante la insuficiencia de la responsabilidad estatal (que puede no existir si hay una diligencia debida) y la incertidumbre sobre la efectividad de los estándares no vinculantes, como códigos de conducta o los Guiding Principles, aunque reconociendo la complementariedad e importancia de estas otras dimensiones. Estos argumentos (como la importancia de crear estándares mínimos universales que permitan acciones y denuncias sin límites por disparidad en regulaciones o estrategias económicas) se encuentran en el siguiente vínculo: http://business-humanrights.org/en/corporate-human-rights-obligations-controversial-but-necessary
The following points on the Spanish Treaties and Other International Agreements Act, which was passed on 27 November 2014, were presented at the Duke-Geneva Conference on Comparative Foreign Relations Law, convened by Professor Curtis Bradley on 10-11 July 2015 in Geneva. The draft paper with footnotes and references may be commented and downloaded here. Another post in Spanish on the Treaties and Other International Agreements Act may be found here.
A treaty practice in need of regulation.
The original problem with the treaty process regulation in Spain was that the rules were half democratic. Indeed, in 1972, under a glooming Francoist regime, Spain both acceded to the 1969 VCLT and regulated its treaty process through a Decree. These regulation was significantly amended by the Spanish Constitution of 1978, but the 1972 pre-constitutional Decree, helped by Circulars of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, still governed important aspects of the treaty making process until its abrogation by the new law in December 2014.
The other reason for the adoption of a comprehensive law of treaties was the need to deal with the huge conventional practice by the Executive and the Autonomous Communities affecting foreign affairs, particularly through MOUs, but also employing different sort of international administrative agreements. The law tackles that issue by defining and regulating three types of agreements: international treaties, international administrative agreements, and MoUs called non-normative agreements in the Law as a synonym of non-binding international agreements. International treaties would be control by the Parliament through a compulsory authorization to the Executive to express the consent to be bound by the treaty, while the other international agreements would not be subjected to such requirement. There are some problems with the definition of international administrative agreements in the Law, but I will leave that apart and concentrate on two critiques to the controversial scope of the Treaties Act, as some thought that it was unnecessary (and even wrong) to include AIA and MOUs, while others thought that it was short in scope as the trilogy of categories left some relevant international agreements out of the picture.
- The critique on incompleteness may prove right in cases of sole executive treaties, since the definition of AIA only seems to cover agreements based on a principal treaty providing for the authority to execute its provisions through further administrative agreements. The drafters of the Treaties Act were not persuaded by this critique: they seem to understand that those agreements, including sole executive treaties, fall under the category of international treaties, and so require the normal treaty process, or they are international agreements governed by national law. Both are out of the AIA definition.
- The critique on the lack of justification to include the new categories of international agreements is more complex. A general point affecting both AIA and MOUs is that for some authors the treaty system had functioned rather well with the Decree plus the Circulars, so allegedly for them there was no need to opt for a law with such a comprehensive scope. The legislator was not impressed by this argument, and believed that the legal system could not continue to avoid the proper regulation of the rich practice of international agreements.
Democratic control of international agreements is about substance, not just form.
Except perhaps for the soft voting requirement to authorize treaties that attribute sovereign powers to international organizations (absolute majority instead of a super voting majority), the Constitution provided for a decent method of democratic control of treaties. The problem comes with an extensive practice of avoiding the parliament through treaty design. Let us recall that AIAs are not to be submitted to the treaty process provided for in the Constitution for international treaties, which requires the authorization (and therefore the control) of the Congress and the Senate previous to the government’s expression of consent to be bound by the treaty. The Treaties Act requires a consultation to the Legal Advisor of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the nature of the agreement, and its publication in the Official Journal. The criticism is based on the idea that what matters for the determination of a treaty in the Spanish constitutional system is its substance, not its form. I will give you an example: the controversial decision by the Office of the Legal Advisor holding that the agreement on the financial sector adjustment program for Spain of Memorandum of Understanding between the European Commission and Spain on Financial Sectorial Policy was an “international administrative agreement”. The huge amount of debt contracted by Spain for the restructuring and recapitalization of the Spanish banking sector was a key element to support the opinion that the agreement was in fact an international treaty requiring the authorization of the Parliament. For the Legal Advisor the agreement was founded in the previous Framework Agreement on the European Financial Stability Facility of 2010, and therefore was properly considered a IAA.
The Treaties Act intends to tackle ‘hidden treaties’ (in Professor González Vega’s expression) made as MOUs with the following two requirements: first, MOUs should be submitted to the legal advisors of the bodies or organs intending to sign them; second, MOUs should be communicated to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in order to be included in a special Registry of MOUs. This is helpful. Especially the obligation to register these non-binding agreements may prove beneficial for a better practice on MOUs and their transparency. Until now, the practice was disperse and chaotic, since the International Law Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs checked only a few of those agreements. Moreover, some public bodies and Ministries used and abused of MOUs, particularly in certain sensible areas, such as defense and foreign aid. The very broad capacity to make MOUs remains problematic, and of course the registry to be kept by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will not solve the difficulties arising from treaties wrongly qualified as ‘non-normative agreements’. Having said that, such risk already existed before the Treaties Act, and one must insist that the obligation to publish these agreements in an official public registry creates a strong incentive to establish a better practice on MOUs.
It’s politics, not law.
The measures intended to increase transparency and control over the conventional activities of diverse organs and bodies negotiating AIAs and MOUs are also significant. The challenges, however, remain big, and they may not necessarily arise from the functioning of the law but from entrenched practices, deficiencies and equilibriums of power within the Administration and the nation.
Some people doubt about the force of the incentives to do away with ‘hidden treaties’ and strengthen the role of the legislative. In my view, the problem lies not within those mechanisms of control, which function well when they are followed but in the poor involvement of the legislative in the treaty-making process. The formal rules of the Constitution, and now the Treaties Act, are formally fine. Nevertheless, the role of the Congress and the Senate in the scrutiny and democratic control over treaties is scarce and deficient –as a general rule, it is a “low intensity intervention” at best. The Foreign Affairs Committee of the Congress is prone to discuss controversial political issues, but does not have a proper practice for the thorough examination of the treaty-making process. The Congress and the Senate usually authorize the Government to express consent to be bound by treaties without any discussion or debate at all. When legislators are asked about this deficiency, they would allege lack of resources. There is some truth to that, of course, but is not a very persuasive argument since such democratic control has never been a legislative priority. A more sophisticated response to that fact is based on a sort of consensus on foreign policy. From this perspective, the lack of debate would not be a mere blanc cheque, but a recognition of all legislatures since the Spanish transition that foreign affairs policy is a State policy. Such explanation is not convincing. There have been situations of vast dissent on foreign affairs policy, and in any case the legislative power has a constitutional democratic mandate to control the extensive treaty-making practice of the Government.
The other challenge that must be mentioned lies in the political tensions created by the will of many Autonomous Communities to acquire more and more external relations power, as expressed in the letter of their Statutes of Autonomy, and of the will of some of them to have a foreign power of their own. The law seems to be clear: the treaty making power is an exclusive competence of the central Government; the Autonomous Communities can conclude IAA and MoUs on subject matters of their own jurisdiction with different degrees of control by the central Government. Moreover, the Treaties act provides for several rights and obligations concerning the participation of Autonomous communities in the treaty process, such as the right to request the central Government to open negotiations of treaties on subject matters of their own jurisdiction or affecting in a special manner their territorial scope or the right to request to be part of the Spanish delegation in charge of such negotiation. Having said that, the fair aspirations of the Treaties Act to coordinate the practice of Autonomous Communities concerning international agreements would become sterile without a minimum respect of the federal loyalty principle.
Resumen del Workshop sobre el tratado de empresas y derechos humanos realizado en Madrid el 26 de junio del 2015
julio 28, 2015
Por Nicolás Carrillo Santarelli
Esta mañana se ha publicado en la página web del Business & Human Rights Resource Centre el resumen de las discusiones y presentaciones en el Workshop sobre el proyecto de tratado en empresas y derechos humanos que se realizó el pasado 26 de junio en la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, del que se había informado previamente en este blog. El profesor Jernej Letnar Černič, de Eslovenia, y quien escribe, redactamos el resumen de las presentaciones y debates. El documento PDF con el resumen del Workshop se encuentra en el siguiente vínculo.
Autonomous weapons select and engage targets without human intervention. They might include, for example, armed quadcopters that can search for and eliminate people meeting certain pre-defined criteria, but do not include cruise missiles or remotely piloted drones for which humans make all targeting decisions. Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology has reached a point where the deployment of such systems is — practically if not legally — feasible within years, not decades, and the stakes are high: autonomous weapons have been described as the third revolution in warfare, after gunpowder and nuclear arms.
Many arguments have been made for and against autonomous weapons, for example that replacing human soldiers by machines is good by reducing casualties for the owner but bad by thereby lowering the threshold for going to battle. The key question for humanity today is whether to start a global AI arms race or to prevent it from starting. If any major military power pushes ahead with AI weapon development, a global arms race is virtually inevitable, and the endpoint of this technological trajectory is obvious: autonomous weapons will become the Kalashnikovs of tomorrow. Unlike nuclear weapons, they require no costly or hard-to-obtain raw materials, so they will become ubiquitous and cheap for all significant military powers to mass-produce. It will only be a matter of time until they appear on the black market and in the hands of terrorists, dictators wishing to better control their populace, warlords wishing to perpetrate ethnic cleansing, etc. Autonomous weapons are ideal for tasks such as assassinations, destabilizing nations, subduing populations and selectively killing a particular ethnic group. We therefore believe that a military AI arms race would not be beneficial for humanity. There are many ways in which AI can make battlefields safer for humans, especially civilians, without creating new tools for killing people.
Just as most chemists and biologists have no interest in building chemical or biological weapons, most AI researchers have no interest in building AI weapons — and do not want others to tarnish their field by doing so, potentially creating a major public backlash against AI that curtails its future societal benefits. Indeed, chemists and biologists have broadly supported international agreements that have successfully prohibited chemical and biological weapons, just as most physicists supported the treaties banning space-based nuclear weapons and blinding laser weapons.
In summary, we believe that AI has great potential to benefit humanity in many ways, and that the goal of the field should be to do so. Starting a military AI arms race is a bad idea, and should be prevented by a ban on offensive autonomous weapons beyond meaningful human control.
Source: The Future of Life Institute.
julio 24, 2015
El artista japonés Ichi Ikeda, cuyo elemento de trabajo principal es el agua, presentó este proyecto en 2003 y me parece muy apropiado por su conexión con los derechos conectados con el medio ambiente y los límites planetarios. La caja de Ikeda contiene 80 litros de agua, la cantidad de agua que necesita una persona a diario para cubrir sus necesidades básicas. Algunos gastamos mucho más que esa cantidad, mientras otros sueñan con ella.
julio 24, 2015
Por Nicolás Carrillo Santarelli Tras los periplos de las denuncias de abusos presuntamente cometidos por Hissène Habré, que incluso se ventilaron ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia en el caso Questions Relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Bélgica contra Senegal). En sentencia de 2012, la CIJ consideró que Senegal era internacionalmente responsable por no cumplir con su obligación aut dedere aut judicare/punire, basada en el artículo 6.2 de la Convención contra la tortura, de juzgar crímenes presuntamente cometidos por el ex dictador(zuelo) del Chad (el artículo se refiere a la comisión de la tortura o a la complicidad en la misma) o extraditarlo a Bélgica de forma alternativa, motivo por el que debía asegurar su juzgamiento sin demoras. Algo muy interesante que dijo en su momento la Corte fue que la obligación vulnerada exigía incluso el establecimiento de una jurisdicción universal. Al respecto, consideró que, si no se acepta una solicitud de extradición (o ella no existe):