Monday, November 1, 2010

IntLawGrrls

IntLawGrrls

Clinton in Cambodia

Posted: 01 Nov 2010 01:35 PM PDT

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton recently visited Cambodia as part of an Asia tour and gave remarks in support of the accountability process underway there. After visiting Toul Sleng detention center with a group of students (at left, photo credit), Secretary Clinton remarked in a town-hall style meeting:

A country that is able to confront its past is a country that can overcome it. ... Countries that are held prisoner to their past can never break those chains and build the kind of future that their children deserve. ... Although I am well aware the work of the tribunal is painful, it is necessary to ensure a lasting peace.
See here for her remarks after her visit to Toul Sleng.
As we've blogged before, the future of the ECCC remains uncertain. Case 002 against regime leaders is proceeding apace, but Cases 003 and 004, against mid-level former Khmer Rouge, are controversial. The Cambodian Prime Minister, Hun Sen, has indicated he does not support these cases, ostensibly because they will plunge the country back into civil war. His remarks and the intransigence of the Cambodian Co-Prosecutor and Co-Investigating Judge in moving forward on the two cases have given rise to concerns about political manipulation of the ECCC. The assumption is that individuals under investigation are political allies of the Prime Minister, who recently told U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon that he should close down the U.N.'s human rights field office because it is interfering in Cambodian internal affairs. (Photo at right with Youk Chhang, founder/director of the Documentation Center of Cambodia).

Kudos to Secretary Clinton for keeping accountability high on her agenda in the region.

The Right to Accessibility: Air Travel

Posted: 01 Nov 2010 03:05 AM PDT


Amy Standen's National Public Radio report--"Unfriendly Skies? Blind Passengers Sue United"—is simultaneously encouraging and troubling. According to the story, passengers brought suit against United Airlines, alleging violations of U.S. civil rights laws for its failure to make digital airline ticket kiosks and websites accessible to the blind.
The news was encouraging because it reflects an increasingly organized, politically active, and legally-savvy disability rights community. Similar litigation had been initiated against universities that required students to use inaccessible electronic readers.
My disappointment stems from the realization that two decades after passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and following subsequent amentments, such groups would still have to litigate to effectuate basic change. IntLawGrrls have discussed the challenges and possibilities of the disability rights movement in our disability series.
The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which the U.S. President signed in 2009 and about which I've posted here, here, and here, provides the following in Article 9:

1. To enable persons with disabilities to live independently and participate fully in all aspects of life, States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure to persons with disabilities access, on an equal basis with others, to the physical environment, to transportation, to information and communications,
including information and communications technologies and systems, and to other facilities and services open or provided to the public, both in urban and in rural areas. These measures, which shall include the identification and elimination of obstacles and barriers to accessibility, shall apply to, inter alia:
(a) Buildings, roads, transportation and other indoor and outdoor
facilities, including schools, housing, medical facilities and workplaces;
(b) Information, communications and other services, including electronic services and emergency services.
2. States Parties shall also take appropriate measures to:
(a) Develop, promulgate and monitor the implementation of minimum standards and guidelines for the accessibility of
facilities and services open or provided to the public;
(b) Ensure that private entities that offer facilities and services which are open or provided to the public take into account all aspects of accessibility for persons with disabilities;
(c) Provide training for stakeholders on accessibility issues
facing persons with disabilities;
(d) Provide in buildings and other facilities open to the public signage in Braille and in easy to read and understand forms;
(e) Provide forms of live assistance and intermediaries, including guides, readers and professional sign language interpreters, to
facilitate accessibility to buildings and other facilities open to the public;
(f) Promote other appropriate forms of assistance and support to persons with disabilities to ensure their access to information;
(g) Promote access for persons with disabilities to new information and communications technologies and systems, including the Internet;
(h) Promote the design, development, production and distribution of accessible information and communications technologies and systems at an early stage, so that these technologies and systems become accessible at minimum cost.
Making digital kiosks accessible seems a relatively simple matter given the advanced state and easy availability of speech software. It is an advance, by the way, that many sighted physicians, lawyers, and other busy professionals now find invaluable. They may use voice recognition software to take notes, and then use speech software to have long medical and legal records read back to them while their hands or eyes are occupied.
Technological developments, once created by or for blind users, are now being marketed quite profitably to non-disabled consumers. When I became legally-blind in the mid-1990s, I discovered, to my great relief and delight, audiobooks in the form of books on tape through the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically-Handicapped. Many such collections are now being transferred to digital format (if funding is not cut). These days, of course, commercial audiobooks are a "mainstream" necessity for non-disabled travelers on long car or airplane trips. Even some smartphones that have flat, non-tactile touchscreens are finally accessible for the blind with integrated speech software. The technology had long been available at high cost in specialized disability contexts, but it seems that few companies were willing to investigate its mainstream marketability. Such applications now allow both blind and sighted listeners to read smartphone menus, e-mails, the web, and other applications on a small hand-held device.
Millions now carry around electronic-readers and e-books. Electronic textbooks are increasingly touted as a partial solution for the skyrocketing costs of bound textbooks. But these innovations must be made with the principles of universal design and access in mind. The advent of text-to-speech and large-print in electronic readers also resulted in lawsuits and official warnings when designers and universities apparently forgot to consider or consult with disabled potential users. Certain electronic reader developers overlooked the simple matter of formatting the basic menus in audio or large-print to allow blind users to reach the desired reading materials in the first place.
Ironically, many blind people who are lucky enough to have the financial support to access technology and the related training use it avidly and expertly. What was once feared as a massive potential barrier to employment or participation has instead opened many doors and opportunities to important resources and information.
Screen-reading software allows blind users to read on-line news media, to conduct research, to blog, and to participate in social networks for political, employment, or cultural networking. It should also allow them to travel more easily.
This post is dedicated to the late Paul Steven Miller (1961-2010), Henry M. Jackson Professor of Law, University of Washington School of Law, and to his family, friends, and colleagues. A leading disability rights advocate, Paul was Special Assistant to U.S. President Obama, liaison on disability for former President Clinton, and one of the longest serving members of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Paul passed away at age 49 on Tuesday, October 19. Stories about his life and work appear here and here.

Post-Conflict Justice Survey & Interviews

Posted: 01 Nov 2010 01:24 AM PDT

Have you worked in the field of post-conflict justice?
Would you like the chance to share the story of your experiences?
If you have ever worked on issues relating to post-conflict rule of law or accountability for atrocities, you are invited to participate in a survey about your work experience. You can take the survey on-line in English here. Or if you would prefer to take the survey in French, click here.
The survey, which is being conducted by yours truly, Professor Elena Baylis at the University of Pittsburgh Law School, should take only about 10-15 minutes to complete.
As thanks for participating in the survey, you will be eligible to win a $100 Amazon.com gift card. One of every 25 people participating in the survey will win. At the end of the survey, you will see a report summarizing the survey responses so far and indicating how your responses compare to those of other survey-takers. You will also be given the chance to request a copy of the final report of this research study.
We would also welcome the opportunity to talk to you about your post-conflict justice work. You will have the chance to volunteer for an interview at the end of the survey. Interviews will be brief (no more than 30 minutes) and can be conducted in person or over the phone.
The purpose of this research study is to learn about the work and career choices of people working on post-conflict justice issues and to examine what effect those choices are having on the development of the field of post-conflict justice. This is the first study to focus on the role of the people involved in post-conflict justice, rather than primarily on its processes or institutions. By participating, you will help us better understand this emerging area of the law -- and have the chance to tell your story as well.
The survey is anonymous, and interviews can also be conducted anonymously if you wish. All individual responses are confidential and will be kept secure. The data from the survey will be reported only in the aggregate. There are no foreseeable risks to you from participating in this research study, and the only benefit offered is the chance at winning a gift card. Your participation is voluntary and you may withdraw from the study at any time.
If you have any questions about this study, or if you wish to volunteer for an interview or request a copy of the final report without taking the survey, you may contact me directly at ebaylis@pitt.edu.

On November 1

Posted: 01 Nov 2010 12:04 AM PDT

On this day in ...
... 1887, U.S. Secretary of State Thomas F. Bayard (left) wrote a letter to the U.S. Ambassador to Mexico, regarding the case of one A.K. Cutting, an American who had been jailed in Mexico on charges that he had libelled a Mexican citizen in a paper published in Texas. (The letter's reprinted in full on pp. 751-57 here.) Bayard argued that U.S. citizens could not

be held under the rules of international law to answer in Mexico for an offense committed in the United States, simply because the object of that offense happens to be a citizen of Mexico.
Contending that "the penal laws of a country have no extraterritorial force," Bayard demanded indemnity for the jailed citizen and repeal of the Mexican law that had permitted his arrest. Mexico's contrary position in this Cutting Case (a controversy that gave rise to concerns that the United States might invade Mexico) amounted to an assertion of what is now known as the passive personality principle of extraterritorial jurisdiction.

(Prior November 1 posts are here, here, and here.)
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)