Browsing by Author "Pellosniemi, Cecilia Laura Elvira"

Two major developments have shaped the international community’s involvement in efforts to bring justice to situations of armed conflict: the turn to anti-impunity and the global protection reflex. The former focuses in international criminal law and accountability, while the latter has informed both humanitarian intervention and the protection of fundamental human rights, as advocated by the humanitarian community. The proliferation of international commissions of inquiry (CoIs) can also be placed in this context. The mechanism has been increasingly deployed in the aftermath of the so-called Arab Spring. Also in the case of Syria, the Human Rights Council (HRC) has set up a permanent Independent International Inquiry Commission, in order to monitor the observation of International Human Rights Law (IHRL) by the parties to the conflict. The Syrian CoI’s mandate can be scrutinised from two perspectives: the formal HRC-given mandate, and its self-proclaimed mandate, which it exerts in its reports and public appearances. While the former focuses on ending all alleged violations to protect the population, the latter should, according to the CoI, be interpreted in a manner, which is the most conducive to civilian protection. In my research, I aim to find out, whether the Syrian CoI has respected its formal and its self-proclaimed mandate. Fundamental to both are the development of IHRL in a manner that is more favourable to civilian protection. While CoIs have been considered a fundamental mechanism in the promotion of global justice, they been both praised and criticised for their progressive interpretations of IHRL, among other things. Also at the beginning of its mandate, the Syrian CoI was said to have assigned IHRL protection responsibilities to non-state armed groups (NSAGs), in a manner that is expansive compared to the state-centric, status quo reading of international law. However, despite its mandate, it seems that the CoI quickly abandoned its willingness to engage in rights-based legal analysis, and even less so in the development of IHRL. I make my assessment of the CoI’s human rights analysis based on three fundamental issues, which mark the current discussions on the application of IHRL in armed conflict. In order to see if the CoI is following its rights-based mandate, I evaluate the CoI reports based on three questions: how it applies IHRL next to or independent of International Humanitarian Law (IHL), whether it considers rights catalogues holistically – particularly economic, social and cultural (ESC) rights, and whether it is willing to assign IHRL responsibilities to NSAGs. Based on my analysis of the CoI’s repots through these three questions, I argue that after a progressive beginning, the Syrian CoI no longer follows its formal or self-proclaimed mandate, nor UN guidance on IHRL fact-finding. Facts also have an advocacy function, and rather than engaging in promoting a protection reflex in the international human rights system, the CoI focuses on matters of anti-impunity, claiming that it cannot do anything, until the UN Security Council refers the Syrian case to the International Criminal Court (ICC). Moreover, the CoI has given political statements that fall well beyond the parameters of its mandate. This has a negative bearing on the CoI’s credibility. I argue that the CoI should act as an ally of the humanitarian community by promoting IHRL protection concerns to the parties and more globally, and I propose a number of concrete recommendations in order for the CoI to better balance the two complementary goals of anti-impunity and civilian protection. These recommendations are highly relevant as UN planning for transitional justice is already fully operational, and international actors are once again demonstrating a willingness to insert ‘managerialism’ in a transitional setting. By employing a more holistic conception of rights protection and by truly acting as a voice of the civilians whilst remaining self-critical, the CoI is more likely to lift itself out of irrelevance in the global division of labour. My analysis is based on both critical literature, and the acknowledgement that my own pro-rights view bears its risks.