It’s been another great year with TN, which feels a little more like an old shoe than a new project now as we creep up on three years. And that, dear readers, is entirely to your credit. Hit numbers keep ticking up and we’ve seen bumps in both guest-postings and comments, which I am always grateful for even when I occasionally take issue with them (znaci, sretan ti bozic i hvala i tebi, istina voda duboka).
Worth noting that total hits are now creeping up close to 48,000. Would be fun to see how close we can get to 50,000 by the time of TN’s third birthday, on February 8 next year. But hope all of you readers with the geographical preconditions and cultural excuses for doing so get a good rest in the meantime!
by Rhodri C. Williams
As we all know, the European Union (EU) received the Nobel Peace Prize last week for “over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe”. The award has been debated, not only because it comes at a moment when a largely self-made economic crisis is severely straining the very element of European solidarity that justified it, but also because it comes after a series of other controversial recipients – most notably Barack Obama in 2009, whose contribution to peace consisted, according to many commentators, of not being George W. Bush.
Although there has always been a perceptible undercurrent of skepticism about the extent to which the EU is built on a foundation of unalloyed idealism, it has rarely been expressed more concretely than in a fascinating commentary in the edition of the Swedish broadsheet Dagens Nyheter (DN) that appeared the day before the Nobel ceremony. There, the Linköping University researchers Stefan Jonsson and Peo Hansen give a preview of their forthcoming book, “Eurafrica: The untold history of European integration and colonialism”. For Europhiles well-versed in the use of Google translate, it will not make for comfortable reading.
Without denying the pacific effect of early economic integration measures such as the European Coal and Steel Community, the authors note that their primary motivation may have been a last ditch attempt to shore up the European colonial project. Faced with an increasingly assertive global anti-colonial movement and the humiliation of the Egyptian nationalisation of the Suez Canal in 1956, the EU was founded in no small part as a means of economically integrating not only Europe but also its remaining African possessions. Consider, for instance, a curious passage in the foundational 195o Schuman Declaration:
by Rhodri C. Williams
An earlier version of this text was submitted to Forced Migration Review for its newly released Issue 41 on “Preventing Displacement″. The article has been published there in a slightly shorter version. I can recommend the entire issue – which addresses one of the most important and overlooked aspects of humanitarian response to displacement – and am grateful to the editors for their permission to publish the longer version of my piece here.
Current global trends are placing increasing economic pressure on land and natural resources, raising the risk that new waves of internal displacement may be caused by the combined forces of climate change and large-scale investment in agriculture. Principle 9 of the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement was ahead of its time in recognizing the need to prevent the worst effects of such displacement by prioritizing protection for those most vulnerable to its effects. In practical terms, such protection implies state recognition and protection of the land tenure rights of indigenous peoples and rural communities.
When the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement were adopted in 1998, they represented a conscientious attempt to apply well-established rules of international law to the then-emergent problem of internal displacement. However, some of the Principles were relatively progressive in their recommendations, choosing interpretations of international law that reflected best practice rather than universal practice at the time in order to encourage effective state responses to displacement.
The protection of property rights is one of these areas. The Guiding Principles set out relatively progressive rules on both the protection of property left behind by internally displaced persons (Principle 21) and on its restitution in the context of durable solutions (Principle 29). Both of these provisions accurately foresaw trends in international practice, with restitution having become virtually a standard component of post-conflict peace building efforts and protection of property rights increasingly highlighted even in responses to natural disasters.
Less well-known but hardly less innovative is Guiding Principle 9, which sets out an obligation to prevent displacement by protecting the rights of those most vulnerable to the loss of their land:
States are under a particular obligation to protect against the displacement of indigenous peoples, minorities, peasants, pastoralists and other groups with a special dependency on and attachment to their lands.