People’s Tribunals, Human Rights and the Law

Searching for Justice

Regina Menachery Paulose

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• eBook ISBN: 9780429534874
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Droit
• Subtopic: Droits civiques en droit

People's Tribunals are independent, peaceful, grassroots movements, created by members of civil society, to address impunity that is associated with ongoing or past atrocities. As such, they offer society an alternative history and create a space for healing and reconciliation to take place that may otherwise be stifled by political agendas and legal technicalities. Since the 1960's, People's Tribunals have grown and developed to address many kinds of situations, from genocide to environmental degradation.

This book presents a balance of academic and practitioner perspectives on People's Tribunals. It explores key questions relating to their formation and roles and discusses what they can offer to victims and survivors. The volume provides an introduction to the subject, theoretically informed discussion reflecting different perspectives, and a range of contributions focusing on different types of People's Tribunals and various aspects of their operation. The authors analyse advantages and disadvantages of these movements in a variety of contexts. The impact and contribution they have in the international criminal law and international human rights context is also discussed.

The book will be welcomed by those interested in international criminal law, human rights, environmental justice, transitional justice and international relations.

1 Can you hear the people sing? Victim/survivor rights in People’s Tribunals

Regina Menachery Paulose

Contours and history

People’s Tribunals defined

In a previous volume I defined PT as “movements created by citizens, which integrate both local and international participants to take human rights from the abstract level of treaty provisions to a reality of victim’s needs.” Upon further reflection my initial definition appears problematic. It is evident that in some cases there is no integration of international and domestic participants. These movements go beyond violations of human rights and, as discussed by Dr. Binoy Kampmark in Chapter 8, they also delve into environmental issues. Therefore, for the purposes of this volume I provide a new definition in order to encompass a broader range of possible topics.

People’s Tribunals are movements that are created for the purpose of examining rights violations whereby civil society believes the violation has not been formally recognised or addressed by the state, community, or a legal system. It is important to recognise that PT is a movement. A PT is a “movement” because each is uniquely set up to address a specific question. Their focus and objectives are limited in scope, even when they may be set up for a longer duration. Further, it is one event on a continuum of activities on a particular issue. Jean-Paul Sarte, a member of the first Russell Tribunal, thought of PT as “critical spaces for reflection, gathering of testimony, and documentation that then require additional political processes to determine what actions out to follow from their findings.”¹ Aside from emphasising why they are movements, Sarte also emphasised that the PT may create more activity once completed. A PT can begin to or continue to raise awareness on an issue and/or act as an interruption to a dominant narrative.

1Zachary Manfredini, ‘Sharpening the Vigilance of the World: Reconsidering the Russell Tribunal as a Ritual’ [20 March 2018] Humanity Journal <http://humanityjournal.org/issue9-1/sharpening-the-vigilance-of-the-world-reconsidering-the-russell-tribunal-as-ritual/>

History and types of People’s Tribunals

There is no specified format for a PT and it is clear that they can be divided into three main categories. Technically, all of them have been inspired by the first category, the International War Crimes Tribunal, sponsored by Bertrand Russell, a British philosopher of maths and anti-war campaigner starting in World War I. The International War Crimes Tribunal, which started in 1966, focused on US foreign policy in Vietnam and became known as the “Russell Tribunal on Vietnam.” The Tribunal was composed of academics and philosophers such as Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir. Russell was inspired by the Nazi trials at Nuremberg and created this format to raise “awareness about the impact” of the Vietnam War and to encourage people “to take action to stop these crimes.”² The Russell Tribunal held two sessions and then unanimously concluded that the US was “guilty” of the crimes charged which included, “genocide, the use of forbidden weapons, maltreatment and killing of prisoners, violence and forceful movement of prisoners” in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.”³

2Cody J. Foster, ‘Did America Commit War Crimes in Vietnam?’ (New York Times, 1 December 2017) <>www.nytimes.com/2017/12/01/opinion/did-america-commit-war-crimes-in-vietnam.html>

3Ibid.

Bertrand Russell died in 1970 but the legacy of peaceful responses through informal tribunals to the injustices committed by state actors, carried on from 1972–1975 with the creation of Russell Tribunal II. This Tribunal was held to address human rights violations in Latin America. Present among this group of intellectuals was Senator Lelio Basso, who eventually created the Permanent People’s Tribunals (PPT). The Russell Tribunal II found Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, and Bolivia “guilty of serious, repeated and systematic violations of human rights” as crimes against humanity.⁴

4Tamiment Library and Robert F. Wagner Labor Archive, ‘Historical/Biographical Note’ (International War Crimes Tribunal Records) <http://dlib.nyu.edu/findingaids/html/tamwag/tam_098/bioghist.html>, citing International War Crimes Tribunal, Against the Crime of Silence: Proceedings of the Russell International War Crimes Tribunal, Stockholm, Copenhagen (New York, Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation, 1968).

Subsequent to Russell Tribunal II, there have been three more documented Russell Tribunals. In 2001 the Russell Tribunal on Human Rights in Psychiatry was held in Berlin and focused on human rights violations in the psychiatry profession. Specifically, the Russell Tribunal sought to address how “the concept of psychiatric treatment thus becomes a ready weapon” as a tool in fascism and social control.⁵ In 2004 a Russell Tribunal was held in Brussels on the issue of coalition-led invasion into Iraq. Finally, the most recent 2009–2014 Russell Tribunal was on Palestine, which sought “to inform and mobilise public opinion and relevant institutions and decision-makers in light of continuing failures to uphold international law in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”⁶

5Thomas Szasz and George Alexander, ‘A Summary of the Accusation of the Russell Tribunal on Human Rights in Psychiatry’ (June–July 2001) <>www.freedom-of-thought.de/rt/accusation.htm>

6Russell Tribunal on Palestine, Submission to CERD, Israel’s Combined 14th, 15th and 16th Periodic Review (January 2012), p. 1 <https://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cerd/docs/ngos/RussellTribunalOnPalestine_Israel80.pdf>

The Russell Tribunal model continues to build upon Bertrand Russell’s hope that the “tribunals would build momentum toward a people-driven, international peace movement that did more than protest.”⁷ It is clear that Bertrand Russell’s first PT made a significant impact on the kinds of possibilities for civil society to increase peaceful protest and discourse around human rights issues, applying international human rights norms. Russell’s actions inspired Diana Russell and Nicole Van Den Ven to create an International Tribunal on Crimes against Women (ITCW) in 1976. The ITCW focused on crimes committed against women all over the world. The response of the ITCW was tremendous considering 2000 women from 40 countries came together to denounce abuse against women.

7Foster, (note 2).

After the original Russell Tribunal, two other categories of People’s Tribunal have emerged. The second category was created in 1979 by Italian Senator Lelio Basso. Senator Basso was inspired by the first two Russell Tribunals and went on to create the Permanent People’s Tribunal (PPT), which is part of the international section of the Lelio Basso Foundation. The “Algiers Charter” forms the basis for activity of the PPT and is a list of people’s rights that “that codify the right to a national and cultural identity, the right to self-determination, economic rights, the right to culture, the right to the environment and to common resources, minority rights and the guarantees to these rights.”⁸ The format of the PPT is similar in each case as it is governed by a “statute” adopted in 1979.⁹ The PPT statute allows for groups that have suffered a rights violation to apply for examination by the PPT mechanism or the PPT can issue an advisory opinion.¹⁰ The PPT takes on a wide range of issues. For instance, the PPT explored the working conditions of migrants and refugees, stemming from a series of PPT held from 2017–2018. Additionally the PPT took on the issue of fracking and climate change. At the time of writing, the PPT has issued a total 46 “judgements.”

8Permanent People’s Tribunal, ‘Algiers Charter’ <http://permanentpeoplestribunal.org/algiers-charter/?lang=en>

9The Statute that still governs the work of the PPT is from 1979, although it appears a new one is being formulated. That statute can be found on the PPT website. <http://permanentpeoplestribunal.org/statute/?lang=en>

10Permanent Peoples Tribunal, Statute, Article 3 and 4 (1979) <http://permanentpeoplestribunal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/statute.pdf>

At this juncture, a quick side note is warranted. The Russell Tribunals and the PPT use legal descriptors to make it presumably appear as though it is a legal institution. The reason for the use of certain legal descriptors is unclear. It is my view that these descriptors cause confusion and detract from the critical conversations that are taking place. A PT does not have the power to indict people, issue arrest warrants, compel witnesses, and sentence people. Ronald Rogo will discuss in this volume that this is one of the main differences between a PT and a Truth Commission.

Take for example some of the descriptors used in the 2015 International People’s Tribunal (IPT) which convened in Washington, DC to examine crimes against the Filipino people by President B. Aquino and President Obama. Building upon the work of the other Philippines PPT, the IPT “indicted” defendants by certified mail and even had its own “Clerk of Court.” Without the highly charged legal language which can be found throughout its report, this movement is impressive because of the sheer volume of participants, specifically victims and survivors that came together to discuss these issues, and the amount of documentation it was able to produce.

Besides the legal language that can give the perception that these are “kangaroo courts”¹¹, PT are criticised for being one-sided and therefore lead to a predetermined outcome. Other criticisms of PT are outlined in chapters by Benjamin Duerr, Dr. Thamil Venthan Ananthavinayagan, Ronald Rogo and Shadi Sadr. A PT can only benefit from having a multitude of voices and perspectives, in support of or contrary to, so that the issues are well balanced and presented in a manner that can truly mobilise public opinion and governments to act. Perhaps some of these criticisms are the underlying reasons for a third category of PT to emerge.

11Both the Russell Tribunal on Vietnam and the Russell Tribunal on Palestine faced criticism for being biased. See Richard Falk, ‘People’s Tribunals, and the Roots of Civil Society of Justice’ (12 May 2015) <>www.opendemocracy.net/en/opensecurity/peoples-tribunals-and-roots-of-civil-society-justice/>

The third categories of PT are those that are completely independent. Their formats are created based on the inquiry, goals, and resources of the civil society group which initiates the process. The ICTW mentioned earlier is one example. Another example is the International Peoples Tribunal on Kashmir (IPTK) which was created in order to document human rights violations in Kashmir. The IPTK was only able to focus on the Indian-controlled side of Kashmir due to difficulties in accessing the Pakistan-controlled side.¹² The IPTK convened from 2008–2009 to 1) examine the failures of governance; 2) to examine the breakdowns in human rights; 3) expand awareness on human rights abuses; 4) develop recommendations for justice; and 5) increase participation of the local and international community toward justice, peace, and security in the region.¹³ The IPTK concluded its session with a report, “Buried Alive” which documented the graves of those killed in mass atrocities. The IPTK submitted its findings to the United Nations and the European Union. The Eu...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Author biographies
• Introduction
• 1 Can you hear the people sing? Victim/survivor rights in People’s Tribunals
• 2 Political will and the people’s will: the role of People’s Tribunals in international justice
• 3 People’s Tribunals and truth commissions
• 4 Panem et circences? People’s Tribunals from a TWAIL perspective
• 5 The right to tell: the Sarajevo Women Court in search for a feminist approach to justice
• 6 The Iran Tribunal: an international People’s Tribunal for the promotion of truth and justice
• 7 The role of the PPT in securing the rights of Rohingya and other minorities in Myanmar
• 8 People’s Tribunals, law and ecological justice: the Australian contribution
• 9 People’s Tribunals and how they examine childhood sexual abuse
• 10 The China Tribunal
• 11 Transitional justice delayed is not transitional justice denied: contemporary confrontation of Japanese human experimentation during World War II through a People’s Tribunal
• 12 From painkillers to cures: challenges and future of People’s Tribunals
• Index