by Rhodri C. Williams
Its been a busy 18 months in my new rule of law gig, and an eye-opening time to boot. While the range of issues falling under the rule of law umbrella is impressive in principle, I have found myself inevitably stove-piped in practice, with my housing, land and property (HLP) interests finding expression mainly in sporadic consultancies, and justice sector reform issues suddenly front and center in my professional life. Not that I am complaining, mind you.
Judicial reform is just another lens on the whole muddle of good intentions and mixed results I was approaching earlier mainly from a humanitarian perspective, and a change of perspective can be refreshing. I also expect that as I proceed down the rule of law road, I will have opportunities to unpack more and more of my HLP baggage along the way. But for now, it is very interesting to have at least a back row seat on the evolving definition of rule of law and how it relates to broader development assistance efforts.
Recently, a colleague (who I will hat-tip if she likes this post) sent me links to a pair of pieces that helped to crystallize some of the recent debates in this area in my own mind. The first was to a recent Washington Post op-ed by Gary A. Haugen of the International Justice Mission. Haugen describes the explosion of private security companies in the developing world and the extent to which this has resulted in a monopoly on protection from violence for the rich:
As elites abandon the public security system, their impoverished neighbors, especially women and girls, are left relying on underpaid, under-trained, undisciplined and frequently corrupt police forces for protection and all-but-paralyzed courts for justice. ….
When a justice system descends into utter dysfunction, those who exploit and abuse vulnerable people may do so without fear of apprehension or prosecution. As a result, violence is an everyday threat, as much a part of what it means to be poor as being hungry, sick, homeless or jobless.
Interestingly, this piece also exposes the great home truth about the ‘civil and political’ rights traditionally protected by judiciaries. Exclusive proponents of such rights (in countries ranging from the US to Sweden) have often lauded them for being ‘negative’ (in the sense that they involve government duties to refrain from taking actions), and therefore ostensibly cost-free to taxpayers.
This in contrast to social and economic rights, which are ‘positive’, entailing affirmative government actions (and expenditures), and therefore often decried as an unwarranted intrusion in the inherent right of governments to roll the pork barrels toward whichever constituency they choose. In the present case, the lurch toward private security has at least laid bare the extent to which courts actually represent a highly expensive ‘positive’ guarantee necessary for the equitable protection of any kind of rights.
Posted in Commentary
Tagged access to justice, ADR, customary law, development, FBA, ICCPR, ICESCR, ICG, ILAC, judiciary, MDGs, rule of law
I am very happy to announce that the International Legal Assistance Consortium (ILAC) has just published a new report based on the rule of law assessment I helped to organize last January in Libya. While I had a hand in writing the report, it is the product of a fruitful collaborative effort with the assessment team members, all of whom were experts representing ILAC’s member organizations. A pdf version of the report, as well as summaries in English and Arabic, can be accessed here.
The ILAC report focuses on the role of core rule of law institutions such as the private bar and judiciary, and sets out recommendations for enhancing both their independence and their effectiveness in a new, democratic Libya. A very important part of the report’s analysis focuses on how the legal system is affected by the current transition, and notes the dilemma for the judiciary in particular – in that regular courts are both saddled with the delicate task of bringing those accused of crimes in connection with the 2011 uprising to justice and are themselves likely to be the object of vetting efforts in connection to the role that some judges played under the Gaddafi regime.
Despite the rule of law focus, in other words, the report delves into a number of transitional justice issues, most notably prosecution and institutional reform. In this sense, it complements the earlier work I did for UNHCR on property and displacement issues, which approached the transitional justice debate in Libya primarily from the viewpoint of victims’ reparations. Our report also comes hot on the heels of the latest by the International Crisis Group (ICG), which focuses squarely on the current showdown between the state and judiciary on one hand, and revolutionary brigades on the other.
One of the less memorable milestones for TN in 2013 will be the first passage of an entire month – January – without a single posting. The fact, as many of you are probably now aware, is that I have been completely taken up with some recent work with the International Legal Assistance Consortium (‘ILAC’, based here in Stockholm) on supporting rule of law efforts in Libya.
This work builds on research I did last year for the UNHCR on housing, land and property issues for IDPs and refugees in Libya, which had important rule of law and transitional justice implications. It also reflects a little bit of a return to the rule-of-law fold via another assignment last Spring, this one mapping and analyzing the emerging field of constitutional assistance for the Swedish Folke Bernadotte Academy (report to be published soon). The job with ILAC has involved core RoL concerns of the kind I started out with long ago in Bosnia – an assessment of the judicial system and the RoL institutions around it as both the objects and carriers of transitional reform.
So there have been a few changes in the make, and these have kept me very busy. One is a shift from freelance consultancy to something more in the way of a day job, and the other might be described as a shift in focus from a particular substantive concern (property) to the kind of institutions that safeguard access to and enjoyment of property and most other rights. Whatever comes of all this, I do plan to keep TN going, based on two equations. First, and most practical, less consultancy equals more disposable time (on that, more later, once I have extracted myself more fully from the hamster wheel).
But, second and more important, the times are such that I no longer feel I have to make a choice between ‘rule of law’ proper and the more humanitarian, human rights and development-oriented concerns of my consultancy career and this blog. One of the reassuring things in coming back to grips with the UN rule of law literature was the extent to which this area has explicitly become interwoven with human rights, transitional justice, and development discourses. Or as I put it in commenting on the run-up to the UNGA’s ‘high-level meeting’ on RoL last Fall, what seems striking is an “increasingly emphatic accommodation of legal empowerment and economic/social concerns in an area of practice that arguably began as a bastion of orthodox civil and political imperatives.”
And for those who persist in the belief that a step toward rule of law must entail a step away from social and economic concerns, I have another announcement that may be reassuring. As some of you know, regular TN guest-blogger Natalie Bugalski and her colleague David Pred have founded an independent research and advocacy organization, Inclusive Development International (IDI). Last Fall, I was honored to be asked to join them as an associate and quickly accepted. IDI is dedicated to supporting poor and marginalized peoples in the face of unaccountable political and economic institutions that promote harmful development activities and fail to properly implement safeguards to protect their rights. I cannot imagine a more timely and relevant rule of law challenge.