On March 18, Congolese militia leader Bosco Ntaganda surrendered himself unexpectedly to the U.S. Embassy in Kigali, Rwanda asking for transfer to the International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague, where he was wanted for allegedly committing crimes against humanity. The apprehension of ICC indictees was one of the main challenges raised during the Program on Human Right's (PHR) Sanela Diana Jenkins Human Rights Speaker Series last quarter. Ntaganda’s voluntary surrender provoked reflection on the lessons learned from the seminar’s evaluation of the ICC’s impact on international justice as it marked its first decade and exploration of its mandate moving forward.

Featuring lectures from international experts, academics, and activists, the seminar addressed many of the current challenges and future hopes of the ICC, including competing notions of justice and peace, budgetary constraints, and victims’ rights.

The series was led by PHR Director Helen Stacy and UCLA Law Professor Richard Steinberg, also a visiting scholar at Stanford's department of political science. They both kicked off the series by presenting the history and structure of the ICC and concluded with a discussion on its impact, commenting on how the ICC has helped shape the narrative on mass atrocities.

“Reflecting Diana Jenkins' personal commitment to restoring dignity, prosperity, justice and hope to those who most need it, the human rights speaker series aims to engage students on the most pressing human rights issues of our time,” said Stacy. “The International Criminal Court's 10th anniversary invites careful thought about its role so far, and its future. Our speakers brought an extensive range of opinions on the Court, but everyone agreed that the very existence of the Court has advanced the dialogue on international justice.”

A wide array of positions were offered by the speakers, representing the nonprofit, academic and policymaking arenas. Citing some of the limitations facing the ICC, Human Rights Watch’s Director of International Justice Program Richard Dicker made a compelling case for the Court, highlighting the role of civil society in promoting the adoption of the Rome Statute - the treaty that established the ICC - by its 122 current signatories.

William Pace, convener of the Coalition for the International Criminal Court described the Rome Statute as “among the greatest advancements ever in international human rights law.”

Stanford political science Professor James Fearon questioned whether the Court can be effective in deterring mass atrocities while relying on states parties to turn over suspects without a police force of its own. He argued that the Court may in fact limit the liability of human rights abusers because it gives them a choice of whether (or not) to turn themselves over to the ICC for trial. This could potentially contribute to prolonged civil conflict if governments’ hands are tied in offering backdoor deals in exchange for an end to the conflict.

Many speakers proposed modifications to the current ICC structure and suggested the following measures to enhance the work of the Court:

• Cherif Bassiouni, who led the drafting committee to launch the ICC, emphasized the need for the Court to appoint well-trained judges;
• David Scheffer, former U.S. Ambassador at Large for War Crimes Issues, highlighted the tremendous diplomatic challenge of not having instruments of arrest or enforcement under ICC control and limited to pressuring states parties to follow through on their obligation to detain indictees of the Court;
• Carla Ferstman, director of REDRESS, a human rights organization that helps torture survivors obtain justice and reparations, focused on the challenges presented by the ICC's distance from the home countries of those on trial and how victims might have a more significant role in the justice process.

Recognizing the ICC’s inevitable growing pains, Shamila Batohi, a senior legal advisor to the Office of the Prosecutor, offered a hopeful conclusion to the series, reminding students of the Court’s commitment to protecting the rights of the more than 2.3 billion people represented by the statute’s 122 states parties and ending impunity for war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.

“Over the course of these nine weeks, students, faculty, and our guest speakers collaborated to develop a range of policies that could potentially improve the ICC system,” said Richard Steinberg. “Though the colloquium took place here on the Stanford campus, the broader collaboration engaged 19,000 users in a fruitful discussion via an online forum.”

Following each lecture, Dr. Diane Steinberg led a dinner discussion for interested students to distill the speaker’s main points into a thought-provoking question to be debated by a global audience on the Human Rights & International Criminal Law Online Forum. Stanford students joined forum participants from around the world to discuss vital questions, such as: “How should the relationship between the International Criminal Court and the United Nations Security Council be changed, if at all, to advance international justice?” and “Assuming that the ICC chooses to retain victim participation in its processes, how can victims’ representation at the ICC be improved and victims’ rights be protected?”

The seminar left students with these provocative questions – and many more – to ponder while tracking the Ntaganda case and the future trial of Uhuru Kenyatta, Kenya’s newly elected president wanted by the ICC for crimes against humanity following the 2007 presidential elections.

Stay tuned for more information on the 2014 Sanela Diana Jenkins Speakers Series, which will focus on the right to health and healthcare delivery.

Actors in government, civil society, and academia have been pioneering innovative approaches to advance transparency, accountability, and democracy around the world. Citizen engagement is at the forefront of democratic practices worldwide and a key pillar to support civil society is access to information.

Andrea Sanhueza, a 2012 Draper Hills Summer fellow, shares her success story of how a group of civil society organizations helped advocate for improved environmental governance cooperation across government and civil society in Latin America and the Caribbean region.

Sanhueza has been an active civil society stakeholder in the Summit of the Americas process, which works to build regional cooperation among governments of the Western Hemisphere. In 2009, Sanhueza drafted a strategy for the Organization of American States (OAS) to structure participation of civil society organizations in OAS activities. From 2001-2010, she served as the executive director of PARTICIPA, a Chilean NGO that works in the democracy field on issues of elections, transparency, access to information, and citizen participation.

What is The Access Initiative?

Founded in 2000, The Access Initiative (TAI) is a global coalition of civil society organizations that work towards the implementation of the right to access of information, participation and justice regarding environmental issues. These rights —known as access rights — are included in Principle 10 of the Río Declaration that was signed at the first Earth Summit in 1992.

Why are access rights important?

Access rights are key for democracy and governance because they are the foundation for exercising human rights. If a person can have access to information about a public issue (education, health, or pension) and can participate in a meaningful way, then he/she will be able to effectively exercise their rights. Without access to information — which is the major building block — it is almost impossible to exercise human rights.

Since its founding, TAI has been dedicated to improving citizens’ access to environmental decision-making, strengthening the enforcement of environmental law and policy, combating corruption, and realizing human rights.

What has been one of The Access Initiatives' key milestones?

In June 2012, the second conference on sustainable development took place in Brazil, known as the Río+20 Summit. TAI came together to advocate for the advancement of access rights for countries in the Latin American and Caribbean region.

I visited the government of Chile — specifically the Foreign Affairs Ministry and the Ministry of the Environment — to let them know about the TAI proposal for a regional convention. The proposal included evidence-based advocacy to encourage collaboration across government and civil society and promote innovation that advances transparency, accountability, and inclusiveness of civil society at all levels.

The government of Chile submitted the TAI proposal for a regional convention on the Principal 10 Declaration to the U.N. The governments of Jamaica and Brazil also submitted the TAI proposal and showed their support. This was a milestone in the longer process.

How were you and your partners successful in convincing other governments to support TAI?

TAI was successful in getting other governments on board to support the initiative through a strategic partnership with the government of Chile who was key to getting other governments to sign the declaration.

TAI and representatives of the government of Chile started advocating during the preparatory meetings of the summit to other governments. We encouraged them to join this proposal for the advancement of access rights for countries in the Latin American and Caribbean region. After two years of advocating for the relevance of a regional instrument in the declaration, we had 11 governments supporting our proposal for the development of a regional instrument to strengthen access to information, public participation, and access to justice in sustainable development decision‐making. These governments include: Brazil, Costa Rica, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Jamaica, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay.

What was the outcome of this collation of governments in the Latin American and Caribbean region?

The signatory governments committed to drafting and implementing a Plan of Action 2012-14, to work towards an international instrument. The U.N. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) is serving as the technical secretariat for the process.

In November 2012, ECLAC hosted the first meeting of representatives appointed by the signatory governments in Santiago, Chile. The representatives agreed on a roadmap that defines the next steps for the collation and appointed a steering committee composed of the governments of Chile, Dominican Republic, and Mexico to coordinate the process.

What role does civil society play in advancing environmental democracy?

The participation of civil society in the development of a Latin American and Caribbean Principle 10 instrument is essential to the process. There now exists a real opportunity to advance environmental democracy and access rights in the Latin American and Caribbean region. Civil society's participation would ensure that the instrument is capable of actually strengthening public institutions in the region, and ensure its legitimacy and viability as a tool to strengthen environmental governance for sustainable development. Governments have committed to a participatory process, but this commitment will not materialize if civil society lacks the actual capacity to participate in the relevant meetings of the process.

What does the future hold for TAI?

We are very excited about the possibility of creating a regional instrument for the efficient implementation of access rights in Latin American and Caribbean region. Today there is a real opportunity for both governments and civil society to promote good environmental governance through implementation of the LAC Principle 10 Declaration. The dec­laration is still open for signature by other Latin American and Caribbean countries, and it is expected that more countries will join the process and lend increased vigor to this innovative approach to regional coopera­tion on environmental governance.

More than 2,860 American and allied troops have been killed in the Afghanistan war, which was launched in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to avenge the deaths of nearly 3,000 civilians. As many as 17,500 Afghan civilians have lost their lives in America's second-longest war. The U.S. military intends to withdraw its combat troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2014, closing a chapter in American history that has largely been dropped from the headlines and the collective consciousness of the American people.

Stanford scholars and military experts, including Karl Eikenberry, Joseph Felter, J.B. Vowell, Viet Luong, Anja Manuel and Erik Jensen, talk about the lessons learned, the gains and losses and what to expect after the war formally comes to an end.

Jeremy M. Weinstein, an associate professor of political science and a senior fellow at Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, received the Karl Deutsch Award from the International Studies Association (ISA).

The award recognizes scholars younger than 40 - or within 10 years of defending their dissertation - who have made the most significant contributions to the study of international relations and peace research.

Weinstein, 37, focuses his research on civil wars and political violence; ethnic politics and the political economy of development; and democracy, accountability, and political change. He is the Ford Dorsey Director of Stanford’s Center for African Studies and is also an affiliated faculty member at the Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law and the Center for International Security and Cooperation.

He was presented with the award on April 4 by ISA, which promotes research and education in international affairs.

Other Stanford researchers who received the award include Michael Tomz (2011), Kenneth A. Schultz (2003), and James D. Fearon (1999).