After The First Trial: A Population-Based Survey on Knowledge and Perception of Justice and the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia
On July 26, 2010, Kaing Guek Eav, alias Duch, was convicted of crimes against humanity and grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions for events that took place three decades earlier under the Khmer Rouge regime. Following this important milestone for the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), the present study was implemented to (1) monitor public awareness and knowledge of the ECCC’s work, as well as of outreach and victim participation initiatives organized by the tribunal and local non-governmental organizations; (2) assess attitudes about justice and the desire for reparations for past crimes; and 3) recommend ways in which the ECCC, civil society, and the international community can continue to engage Cambodians in the work of the ECCC. This report presents the results of a survey of 1,000 Cambodians, aged 18 or above, randomly selected throughout the country to be representative of the adult population. The interviews were conducted anonymously and confidentially in December 2010 by a team of trained interviewers using a structured questionnaire. This is the second population-based survey conducted in Cambodia by the Initiative for Vulnerable Populations at UC Berkeley’s School of Law Human Rights Center. It is hoped that the findings will contribute to establishing a dialogue between the ECCC, the government, the Cambodian population, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the international actors on the role and impact of the ECCC, expectations of the population, and beyond the Court, what must be done to deal with the violent past.
Illiberal Transitional Justice and the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia
The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) was created by an agreement between the Cambodian government and the United Nations with a mandate to put Khmer Rouge leaders on trial for crimes committed during their 1970s regime. Judicial responses, such as the ECCC, to periods of mass violence have been termed transitional justice since the 1990s. Although the definitions of transitional justice are very broad, the explanations and analyses offered by the literature contain implicit assumptions that transitional justice is being implemented as part of a transition towards liberal democracy. In this thesis I use the case of Cambodia to challenge these assumptions and propose a new category of illiberal transitional justice. Before the creation of the ECCC began, the Cambodian government had spent nearly two decades shaping the narrative of the Khmer Rouge period to suit its political interests. When the United Nations became involved in discussions for a Khmer Rouge tribunal the government was concerned to protect itself and this narrative. The negotiations took place over six years where both sides competed for control over the mechanism. This competition for control was then transferred to the national and international sides of the court once the ECCC became operational. Although all actors involved in the ECCC frequently invoked the language of procedure, in practice procedures were easily dismissed if they were inconvenient. Given this discussion of the ECCC’s establishment and operation, I consider the court in light of the expectations of the transitional justice literature. The ECCC was not adhering to the assumed outcomes regarding ending impunity, building the rule of law, or strengthening democracy, and instead these changes were being actively impeded by the Cambodian government. Rather than pursuing these expected goals the Cambodian government was using the ECCC to enhance its international legitimacy and to strengthen its domestic political control. I argue that the ECCC should be considered an archetypal example of illiberal transitional justice. Cases of illiberal transitional justice sit on a spectrum between liberal transitional justice, which currently dominates the literature, and cases of transitional justice employed by repressive regimes, which are largely ignored in the literature. The ECCC, as a case of illiberal transitional justice, sits on the boundary between legitimacy
Protection of the Marine Environment: The International and National Regulation of Deep Seabed Mining Activities
This chapter provides an overview of the international and national regulatory framework pertaining to deep seabed mining activities. It begins by discussing the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the backdrop for all marine activities – be they national or international – and examines the obligations of states to protect the marine environment from the harmful effects arising from deep seabed mining. Next, the chapter examines the international regime for deep seabed mining (i.e. “activities in the Area”), explaining the “common heritage of mankind” status of the Area (i.e. the international seabed); the functions of the International Seabed Authority (ISA), the international organization established to govern deep seabed mining in the Area; and the concept of state sponsorship of non-state entities (i.e. private actors) for deep seabed mining in the Area. The chapter follows with a discussion of the development of national legislation to regulate deep seabed mining, examining efforts in the Pacific region where many prospective deep-sea mining sites are located. This includes a look at the legislative regimes of several Pacific Island nations, namely, Papua New Guinea, Tonga and the Cook Islands, for whom deep seabed mining may soon become a reality – as well as New Zealand and Japan, countries with comparatively developed rule of law and legislative regimes that have undertaken or considered deep seabed mining in their national waters. Overall, the chapter critically describes and evaluates the current regulatory status in the international and national seabed areas and highlights some salient gaps that require urgent attention in order to ensure marine environmental protection and mitigate impacts on humans.