2024 Thematic Report to the 79th Session of the UN General Assembly

Presented by Olimpia Guidi and Sarah Kuipers

Human rights organisations and NGOs play a crucial role in monitoring the impact of sanctions on human rights and providing support to affected parties. 12

In addressing the impact of sanctions on rights, Russia has recourse to various international mechanisms. These include the United Nations (UN), which it can engage through the UN Security Council, leveraging its position as a permanent member to voice concerns and negotiate resolutions. 15 Additionally, as a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), Russia can challenge trade-related sanctions that contravene WTO agreements through dispute settlement mechanisms. 16

Furthermore, Russia’s membership in the Council of Europe subjects it to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). 17 Individuals or entities affected by sanctions can bring cases before the ECHR alleging violations of human rights protected under the European Convention on Human Rights. 18 Moreover, Russia could potentially utilise the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to challenge sanctions it believes violate international law or treaties. 19

However, ICJ jurisdiction requires the consent of all parties involved, posing limitations on its effectiveness. 20

Despite these avenues, the effectiveness of international mechanisms in safeguarding rights impacted by sanctions is subject to various limitations. Political considerations often hinder progress, with powerful actors reluctant to challenge one another’s actions. 21 Legal processes within these international bodies are typically time-consuming, offering delayed relief. 22 Enforcement of decisions and compliance by sanction-imposing countries can also be challenging. Furthermore, the scope of these mechanisms may not fully address the extraterritorial application of sanctions or their broader economic ramifications.

Download PDF

24A-Input_for_GA79_thematic_report_-_2024

Photo by Frederic Köberl on Unsplash

References

12 Goncharenko, G., & Khadaroo, I. (2020). Disciplining human rights organisations through an accounting regulation: A case of the ‘foreign agents’ law in Russia. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 72, 102129. Available at:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S104523541930108X

15 Gifkins, J. (2021). Beyond the veto: Roles in UN Security Council decision-making. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, 27(1), 1-24.
16 Gantvarg, I. (2023). Categorisation and Legality of Trade Sanctions Imposed on Russia: Examining Compatibility with WTO and UN Legislation.
17 Nelaeva, G. A., Khabarova, E. A., & Sidorova, N. V. (2020). Russia’s Relations with the European Court of Human Rights in the Aftermath of the Markin Decision: Debating the “Backlash”. Human Rights Review, 21, 93-112
18 Ibid.
19 Sarkin, J. J., & Sarkin, E. (2022). Reforming the International Court of Justice to Deal with State Responsibility for Conflict and Human Rights Violations. International Human Rights Law Review, 11(1), 1-35. Available at:https://brill.com/view/journals/hrlr/11/1/article-p1_001.xml
20 Wulandari, R. (2022). Jurisdiction Issues of the International Court and the effectiveness of ICJ’s Decision in the Russia-Ukraine Dispute Resolution. Nurani: Jurnal Kajian Syari’ah dan Masyarakat, 22(2), 343-350.
21 Frye, T. (2022). Weak Strongman: The Limits of Power in Putin’s Russia. Princeton University Press.
22 Ibid.


Examining Contemporary Forms of Slavery: Implications for Currently and Formerly Incarcerated Populations

Presented by Samantha Orozco and Ariel Ozdemir

In the complex landscape of United States prison labour, there exist six primary categories of prison labour, namely maintenance work within carceral facilities, state prison industries, public works assignments benefiting governmental and non-profit entities, employment with private industries, work-release programs and restitution centres, and agricultural work.

Maintenance work primarily consists of tasks to maintain the prisons themselves, such as janitorial duties, food preparation, grounds maintenance, repair work, laundry, and providing essential services like working in prison hospitals, stockrooms, stores, barber shops, and libraries.

Discriminatory labour assignments
According to a report by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on exploitative carceral labour, race is a large determinant in work assignments. The report reveals that Black men are predominantly assigned to lower-paying or unpaid work such as agricultural, maintenance, or other facilities services jobs, while a higher proportion of white men are assigned to higher-paying jobs such as public works positions.

Inadequate wages & extortion
Incarcerated labourers are paid inadequate wages, often receiving minimal to no compensation; this condition has continued for decades without noticeable improvement. Moreover, prisons, along with the federal government, routinely deduct substantial portions—sometimes up to 80%—of these meagre wages to cover court-imposed fines, taxes, family support, restitution, and room and board expenses, exacerbating the financial burdens faced by those behind bars. According by the ACLU report, states also use the profits garnered from wage deductions “to sustain and expand incarceration” for such things as the construction and renovation of carceral facilities and the establishment and expansion of prison labour programs. Prisons frequently exploit and extort inmates by charging them exorbitant prices for essential items such as phone calls to families and toiletries. Consequently, the families of incarcerated individuals experience significant financial strain to meet these basic needs under price gouging. This also contributes to increased community-level financial insecurity and incarceration in areas with higher rates of incarcerated community members, perpetuating a vicious cycle of exploitation and insecurity.

Incarcerated labourers are not protected by the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), a federal statute that sets minimum standards and safeguards for health and safety in the workplace. As a result of the lack of workplace protections, incarcerated workers face many dangers in the workplace. Despite lacking jurisdiction to protect these workers, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration has conducted limited investigations which have uncovered severe health and safety concerns and a complete failure to ensure protections in the workplace.

Firstly, many lack proper safety training, leaving them vulnerable to preventable injuries and even fatalities while on the job. A staggering 70% of those surveyed by the ACLU reported receiving no formal job training. Additionally, they often find themselves working in unsafe environments, such as meat and poultry processing plants, garment factories operating sewing and cutting machinery, and industrial-scale prison kitchens and laundries where they’re exposed to hazardous chemicals and industrial machinery. Furthermore, incarcerated workers frequently endure a denial of medical care for workplace injuries. Moreover, during the COVID-19 pandemic, they were thrust to the frontline of the response effort, engaging in tasks like producing personal protective equipment (PPE) while being barred from using it, working in morgues, cleaning medical units, and undertaking frontline health roles, all of which put them at heightened risk of contracting the virus. Despite these dangers, incarcerated workers deemed to have essential job assignments were mandated to continue working.


Download PDF

34A_Call_for_inputs_ContemporaryFormsofSlavery

Photo by Hussain Badshah on Unsplash


Towards Global Justice: Advocating for a Moratorium on the Death Penalty

Presented by Sarah Kuipers, María Núnez Fontán and Ariel Ozdemir

In 2020, 37 states voted against at the UNGA res 75/183 on the use of the death penalty, one of which was North Korea (DPRK). i However, the DPRK has not yet abolished the death penalty and therefore remains a retentionist state. Due to its political nature and isolationist policies, the subsequent lack of access to the DPRK continues to prove a barrier to data collection on the implementation of the resolution and the abolition of the death penalty for NGOs and international bodies alike. However, eyewitness accounts of North Korean defectors provide vital information into the inner workings of the DPRK and the ongoing use of the death penalty. This report will outline relevant updates on the situation in the DPRK regarding the use of the death penalty, the implementation of resolution 75/183, and the impacts on human rights in the country.

According to some NGOs, there are not many reliable sources from the DPRK, which would provide transparent data on the death penalty. As mentioned by Amnesty International, the issue lies within the dependent media sources and lack of transparency in verification. v

While the DPRK maintains that they do not carry out public executions, credible information from defectors gathered by human rights organisations such as Amnesty International contradicts these statements. xii As of recent reports, the DPRK has continued to employ the death penalty as a means of enforcing its authoritarian rule. The death penalty is codified into North Korean law for various lethal and non-lethal crimes. For example, the Pyongyang Cultural Language Protection Act (enacted in January 2023) bans any language deemed to have foreign influence or exhibit linguistic similarities to South Korean language. xiii During and following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, North Korea has also enforced a ‘Shoot on Sight’ order at the border for anyone attempting to enter or leave the country. xiv While limitations on freedom of movement have been somewhat eased for select people within and outside North Korea, the majority of the country’s citizens continue to be banned from leaving, punishable by death as “treachery against the nation”. xv

In another case last year, 20 young athletes were reportedly sentenced to 3-5 years hard labour for using South Korean language and slang (while execution was also a possible legal punishment for their actions under the Pyongyang Cultural Language Protection Act) xxi . Executions have also been reportedly carried out for religious and superstitious activities, drugs, and the breaking of covid regulations. xxii Moreover, reports indicate that infanticide and forced abortion have been used, especially in cases of mothers who were political prisoners, people with disabilities, victims of sexual violence by government officials and prison guards, and defectors forcibly repatriated from the PRC.

However, the utilisation of the death penalty in North Korea represents a gross violation of fundamental human rights including the right to life. The process lacks the most basic standards of due process and fairness, violating the fundamental right to a fair trial. Trials are often conducted behind closed doors, with defendants denied access to legal representation and facing pressure to provide forced confessions. xxiii Furthermore, the arbitrary nature of the accusations and lack of transparency surrounding these executions raise serious concerns about the legitimacy of the judicial system in North Korea.


Download PDF

33A-CallInputsUseofDeathPenalty

Photo by Maria Oswalt on Unsplash

References

i UN RESOLUTION FOR A UNIVERSAL MORATORIUM ON THE USE OF THE DEATH PENALTY ANALYSIS OF THE 2020 VOTE. (n.d.). Retrieved April 10, 2024, from https://old.ecpm.org/wp-content/uploads/flyer-moratoire-GB-2020-211220.pdf

v DEATH SENTENCES AND EXECUTIONS 2022 AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL GLOBAL REPORT (n.d.). Retrieved April 10, 2024, from https://www.amnesty.ch/de/themen/todesstrafe/dok/2023/todesstrafen-bericht-2022-hoechststand-seit-5-jahren/amnesty-report-death-sentences-and-executions-2022.pdf

xii Amnesty International (2021) Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea): Public Executions: Converging Testimonies. https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/asa240011997en.pdf

xiii Hassan, T. (2023) North Korea: Events of 2023. Human Rights Watch https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2024/country-chapters/north-korea

xiv Sifton, J. (2020) North Korea’s Unlawful ‘Shoot on Sight’ Orders: Lethal Force at Border Needs to Comply with Human Rights Law. Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/10/28/north-koreas-unlawful-shoot-sight-orders
xv Hassan, T. (2023) North Korea: Events of 2023. Human Rights Watch https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2024/country-chapters/north-korea; Citizens’ Alliance for North Korean Human Rights (2009) The Criminal Law of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. https://www.hrnk.org/uploads/pdfs/The%20Criminal%20Law%20of%20the%20Democratic%20Republic%20of%20Korea_2009_%20(1).pdf

xxi Kim, J. (2023) North Korea Sentences 20 Young Athletes for ‘Speaking Like South Koreans’. Radio Free Asia. https://www.rfa.org/english/news/korea/athletes-04132023094854.html
xxii Reuters (2023) North Korea Executes People for Sharing S Korean Media: Report. Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/3/31/north-korea-executes-people-for-sharing-s-korean-media-report; Bremer, I. (2024) North Korea Has Executed Citizens for Violating COVID Rules: Report. NK News. https://www.nknews.org/2024/01/north-korea-has-executed-citizens-for-violating-covid-rules-report/

xxiii Amnesty International (2021) Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea): Public Executions: Converging Testimonies. https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/asa240011997en.pdf


Cybermobbing in Europe

Written by: Mayeda Tayyab 

Cyberbullying is a prevalent form of bullying in today’s society. It takes place through electronic communication channels (e.g. emails, social media, texts) to harass and intimidate someone. Bullies can target a person through various electronic mediums like text messages, social media applications, and emails. However, cyberbullying itself takes many forms, and cyber-mobbing is one of them. 

According to STOMP Out Bullying (2024), cyber-mobbing is a form of cyberbullying that is conducted by more than one person. It is a group of people that gang up on one person using rumours, intimidation, while making it seem like the victim is responsible for the reception of such treatment (victim blaming). This kind of cyberbullying is hard to track as the person responsible for instigating the attack hides behind multiple online aggressors. Being attacked by a group of people also makes it extremely hard for the victim to defend themselves, breeding the feeling of isolation. 

Real-life consequences 

Although cyberbullying primarily takes place online, it has real life implications. One such case is of Lindsay, a 13-year-old French girl who fell victim to online abuse, which led to her ending her own life. Even after the death of the victim, the online abuse against her continued as bullies made social media posts rejoicing about her taking her own life. The judicial investigation into this case led to the charging of four minors for “bullying leading to suicide” and one adult for “death threats” (The Brussels Times, 2023). In addition to this investigation, Lindsay’s family filed a lawsuit against Facebook for failing to tackle hate speech and violating their obligation to moderate the content on their platform. Another suchcase is of Lucas, 13, who committed suicide in 2023 after being bullied at school for months due to being gay. Four secondary school students were charged and found guilty of bullying in June 2023 in this case. 

Recent surveys have also shown that 10% of students in French schools face bullying by their school fellows via social media (RFI, 2023). In light of these cases, the French Minister of Education, Pap Ndiaye, announced that all middle schools will provide hour-long anti-cyberbullying sessions to students to raise awareness at the start of the 2023 academic year. The ministry also announced the appointment of a special advisor to each school to deal with such cases and increased the funding for helplines for students in distress. 

Nicole ‘Coco’ Fox, a 21-year-old Irish woman, also experienced the same fate as these French teenagers whenshe took her own life due to bullying. She hanged herself after suffering from three years of online and physical abuse. Through the intense campaigning efforts of Nicole’s mother to push for national legislation punishing bullying, Ireland finally adopted Coco’s Law in 2021 (Genovese, 2023). Under this law, any person who publishes intimate images of a person without consent will face prison for up to 7 years. This law has resulted in the prosecution of hundreds of people for cyberbullying and intimate image-based online abuse (Genovese, 2023). 

Legislation

There is no EU legislation on tackling online bullying across Europe because such legislation would not be legally binding. This leaves the issue of cyberbullying up to governments. After devastating cases of suicide among young people in France, Ireland, and Italy, laws that criminalise  cyberbullying to prevent further harm have been adopted, although the damage to the existing victims of such harassment is already done. Despite this, most European countries still have no laws in place to protect children from online abuse. Governments and policymakers must take a proactive approach to cyberbullying to prevent psychological and physical harm to young people as has been demonstrated by cases such as Lindsay and Nicole Fox. 

With minimal legal protection in most countries, the onus of tackling cyberbullying on a mass scale falls on social media companies. In Lindsay’s case, a lawsuit against Facebook claimed that they were aware of the hateful posts directed at Lindsay and failed to remove them from their platform. Facebook responded to these claims stating that any content reported to be hateful is removed by them. 

What are social media applications doing?

Facebook has partnered with NGOs to form the Online Civil Courage Initiative, funding campaigns against hate speech and terrorism on Facebook (Ambasna-Jones, 2016). Facebook polices the content on their platform through their reporting system. Therefore, unfortunately, if any hateful content is not reported, it goes unnoticed by Facebook. Furthermore, there is no data to show how many reports received by Facebook are resolved and result in the removal of abusive content and accounts (Ambasna-Jones, 2016). There is a block feature on the app to remove anyone who might be harassing someone on Facebook, however, it is not enough to tackle cyber-mobbing which involves multiple people targeting a single person as they can still spread hateful content to the friends of the victim through social media as well as other online channels. 

Instagram, owned by Facebook, also has a similar reporting mechanism against abusive content, hate speech, and underage users (below the age of 13). Instagram claims to have a 24/7 report monitoring system, which is responsible for the removal of hateful accounts and reporting the perpetrators to local authorities (Ambasna-Jones, 2016). However, similar to Facebook, there is no data to show the effectiveness of their reporting mechanisms. 

X (formerly known as Twitter) is grappling with similar issues as Facebook in this regard. Although they have improved their reporting mechanisms, there is no data to show how many of these reports are successful and their overall impact on tackling abuse on X. 

Although these social media platforms have mechanisms in place to police bullying and abusive content, they are not taking a proactive approach to stop online harassment, as evidenced by Lindsay’s case where people were posting hateful content about her event after her death and Facebook failed to remove it. There needs to be a system in place that would screen social media platforms for any abusive material without the need for reporting to address cyberbullying before the materialisation of any psychological or physical harm.

Consequently, cyber-mobbing is a growing issue amongst the children in Europe. The national governments and social media companies must collaborate to tackle this issue via the criminal justice system and electronic preventative measures to remove abusive material from online spaces before they cause any harm. 

References

Education Monitor: Around The Globe between the 1st and 15th of May, 2024

Broken Chalk proudly presents a new edition of “Education Monitor: Around the Globe” between the 1st and 15th of May, 2024. Broken Chalk aims with this letter to increase public awareness of  Educational problems, challenges, and violations in the scope of the world. This newsletter is unique. This is a weekly newsletter in which we attempt to monitor and convey educational news from around the world in a concise manner. This monitor will be published biweekly with the effort of our young and enthusiastic team.

You can contribute to our work if you like. If you witness any violations in the scope of education, you can write the comment part of this post. Broken Chalk will try to address the issue in its next monitor edition.

May-1st-till-15th-2024-Edition-2

To Download it as PDF: Follow this link.

Broken Chalk Platform, in March 2019, was founded by a group of educators abroad who experienced and have been experiencing severe human rights violations in Turkey and had to ask for asylum currently in several countries.

These education volunteers also suffered greatly and started their new lives in their new countries without human rights violations. They gained respect just because they were considered human beings in those countries. However, they left one part of their minds and hearts in their homeland. They assigned themselves a new duty, and the human rights violations they left behind had to be announced to the World. A group of education volunteers who came together for this purpose started their activities under the Broken Chalk platform’s umbrella. However, the Broken Chalk platform was not enough to serve their aims. Therefore, they completed their official establishment as a Human Rights Foundation in October 2020.

Broken Chalk is now much more than a platform, and we have reviewed and enlarged our vision and mission within this framework. Violations of rights would be the first in our agenda in the field of Education all over the World. At the point we reached today, Broken Chalk opened its door to all individuals from all across the globe, from all professions, and to all individuals who say or can say ‘I also want to stand against violations of human rights in Education for our future and whole humanity, where our generations grow up together.’

Education is essential because it can help us eliminate the evils from society, introduce, and increase the good. We want to draw the public’s and stakeholders’ attention to the fact that Education is in danger in several different parts of the World. The attacks are wide-reaching, from the bombing of schools to the murder of students and teachers. Raping and sexual violence, arbitrary arrests, and forced recruitment also occurred, instigated by armed groups. Attacks on Education harm the students and teachers but also affect the communities in the short and long term.

We invite all individuals who want to stop human rights violations in Education to become Volunteers at Broken Chalk.