WORLD NEWS FLASH by KS
UNITED STATES: Impeachment Trial 2.0 Begins
On Feb. 9, the United States experienced two firsts: a second impeachment trial, concurrent with the first of a former president.
The trial was allowed to proceed after all the Democrats in the Senate, as well as six Republicans, voted to go froward with it. This comes after the House of Representatives voted mostly but not completely along party lines to pass an Article of Impeachment on the grounds of Incitement of Insurrection.
House Impeachment managers presenting the Democrats’ case against Donald Trump include lead manager Jamie Raskin, Diana DeGette, David Cicilline, Joaquin Castro, Eric Swalwell, Ted Lieu, Joe Neguse, Madeleine Dean, and Stacey Plaskett. So far, they have cited Trump’s rhetoric on social media and during the Jan. 6 rally as the match that lit the incitement of the insurrection at the Capitol. Meanwhile, Trump’s lawyers have defended Trump on the basis of his words being protected as freedom of speech under the First Amendment.
The trial is expected to run only eight hours per day and should not go longer than a week. While many have welcomed an impeachment of Trump, some have suggested that the trial should only come after Congress passes the proposed $1.9 trillion aid package to assists the American people.
INDIA: Deadly Floods Ravage India
The United Nations stands ready, if necessary, to contribute to ongoing rescue and assistance efforts, following a glacier burst and subsequent flash flooding in northern India, Secretary-General António Guterres said on Feb. 7.
At least 14 people are reported to have died and over 170 missing after part of a Himalayan glacier broke away in India’s Uttarakhand province on Sunday, unleashing a torrent of water, rock and debris downstream. Key infrastructure, including a dam, are also reported to have been damaged. Some 15 people are said to have been rescued as of the morning of Feb. 8 (local time).
In a statement issued by his spokesperson, the Secretary-General expressed his deep condolences to the families of the victims and to the people and Government of India.
“The United Nations stands ready to contribute to ongoing rescue and assistance efforts if necessary,” the statement added.
According to media reports, experts are investigating the incident, which occurred in a remote area, and the cause is yet to be determined.
Glacier bursts, and the resulting flash floods, are extremely destructive natural hazards, especially for communities and infrastructure downstream. The Himalayan region is particularly vulnerable to such disasters, with the risk aggravated due to climate change and temperature rise.
MIDDLE EAST: Huge Ruling on Israel-Palestine Conflict
On Feb. 5, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (“ICC” or “Court”) decided, by majority, that the Court’s territorial jurisdiction in the Situation in Palestine, a State party to the ICC Rome Statute, extends to the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, namely Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.
On Dec. 20, 2019, the ICC Prosecutor announced the conclusion of the preliminary examination of the Situation in Palestine. The Prosecutor determined that all the statutory criteria under the Rome Statute for the opening of an investigation have been met. A decision on opening the investigation in this situation is in the remit of the ICC Prosecutor. On Jan. 22, 2020, the Prosecutor seized the Chamber under article 19(3) of the Rome Statute, requesting a ruling only on the scope of the Court’s territorial jurisdiction in the Situation in the State of Palestine.
In the decision, Pre-Trial Chamber I recalled that the ICC is not constitutionally competent to determine matters of statehood that would bind the international community. By ruling on the territorial scope of its jurisdiction, the Chamber is neither adjudicating a border dispute under international law nor prejudging the question of any future borders. The Chamber’s ruling is for the sole purpose of defining the Court’s territorial jurisdiction.
Pre-Trial Chamber I examined the Prosecutor’s request as well as the submissions of other States, organizations and scholars who participated as amicus curiae and groups of victims. The Chamber held that, in accordance with the ordinary meaning given to its terms in their context and in the light of the object and purpose of the Statute, the reference to ‘[t]he State on the territory of which the conduct in question occurred’ in article 12(2)(a) of the Statute must be interpreted as a reference to a State Party to the Rome Statute.
The Chamber found that, regardless of its status under general international law, Palestine’s accession to the Statute followed the correct and ordinary procedure and that the Chamber has no authority to challenge and review the outcome of the accession procedure conducted by the Assembly of States Parties. Palestine has thus agreed to subject itself to the terms of the ICC Rome Statute and has the right to be treated as any other State Party for the matters related to the implementation of the Statute.
Pre-Trial Chamber I noted that, among similarly worded resolutions, the General Assembly of the United Nations in Resolution 67/19 “[reaffirmed] the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967.” On this basis, the majority, composed of Judge Reine Adélaïde Sophie Alapini-Gansou and Judge Marc Perrin de Brichambaut, found that the Court’s territorial jurisdiction in the Situation in Palestine extends to the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, namely Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.
In addition, the Chamber found, by majority, that the arguments regarding the Oslo Agreements, and its clauses limiting the scope of Palestinian jurisdiction, are not pertinent to the resolution of the issue of the Court’s territorial jurisdiction in Palestine. Such matters and other further questions on jurisdiction may be examined when and if the Prosecutor submits an application for the issuance of a warrant of arrest or summons to appear.
THAILAND: Lèse-majesté Laws
United Nations independent human rights experts on Feb. 8 voiced grave concerns over increasingly severe use of lèse-majesté laws in Thailand, warning that a rise in their usage is further restricting civic space and the enjoyment of fundamental freedoms in the country.
The lèse-majesté provision of Thailand’s criminal code prohibits defaming, insulting or threatening the royal family, and carries severe punishments for those found guilty.
“We have repeatedly emphasized that lèse-majesté laws have no place in a democratic country,” the experts said.
“Their increasingly harsh application has had the effect of chilling freedom of expression and further restricting civic space and the enjoyment of fundamental freedoms in Thailand,” they added.
In a news release, the experts also said they were alarmed that Anchan Preelert, a 60-year-old former civil servant, had been sentenced to over 43 years in prison for insulting the royal family. The sentence is believed to be the country’s harshest under lèse-majesté provisions, for reportedly having posted audio clips that were critical of the monarchy on her Facebook page between 2014 and 2015.
Ms. Preelert’s case was first raised by the UN independent experts in 2016. She was initially tried in a military court and sentenced to 87 years in prison. Her sentence was halved when she confessed to the alleged violations after her case had been transferred to a civilian court in mid-2019. The decision is being appealed.
“We urge the appeal court to reconsider the case of Anchan Preelert in line with international human rights standards and set aside the harsh sentence,” the rights experts said.
According to the experts, as pro-democracy activists have largely moved towards online advocacy in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, authorities have begun enforcing lèse-majesté provisions more strictly and have even charged minors with these severe charges for exercising their freedom of expression.
“We are profoundly disturbed by the reported rise in the number of lèse-majesté prosecutions since late 2020 and the harsher prison sentences,” they said.
While underlining their constructive ongoing dialogue with the Government on this matter, the experts said that under international human rights law, public figures, including those exercising the highest political authority, such as heads of State, are legitimately subject to criticism.
“The fact that some forms of expression may be considered offensive or shocking to a public figure is not sufficient to justify the imposition of such severe penalties,” they said.
“We call on the authorities to revise and repeal the lèse-majesté laws, to drop charges against all those who are currently facing criminal prosecution and release those who have been imprisoned under for the exercise of their rights to freedom of expression and of peaceful assembly,” the experts said.
