International Criminal Court

The Carr Center researches the impact of the ICC and its emergence as a transformative movement in the history of global governance. We explore the ICC’s potential to hold individuals criminally accountable for mass atrocities and to prevent future mass atrocities.

International Criminal Court - Experts

Kathryn Sikkink

Kathryn Sikkink

Ryan Family Professor of Human Rights Policy, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
Carol K. Pforzheimer Professor, Radcliffe

Global Governance - Experts

  • «
  • 3 of 3
  •  

Global Governance - News

Database: Human Rights Courses, Spring 2018

January 5, 2018

IGA 227 - Insurgents, Terrorists, and Violence: Causes and Consequences of Civil War

Faculty: Dara Kay Cohen

Why do civil wars begin? What motivates the members of armed groups, including rebel groups and terrorist organizations? When and how do civil wars end? What are the social and economic consequences of war? In this course, we will consider major questions about civil war, terrorism, and the use of violence by armed groups. We begin with a review of theoretical constructs, then turn to a series of...

Read more about Database: Human Rights Courses, Spring 2018
UN

Carr Center at the UN

January 5, 2018

On 19 and 20 October, a group of 17 graduate students and fellows visited New York City as part of a Carr Center for Human Rights Policy delegation to the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA).

With more than 70 applications, competition was fierce across the University. Representing the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, Harvard Law School, and the Harvard School of Public Health, students and fellows...

Read more about Carr Center at the UN

Open House & Exhibition: Carr Center for Human Rights Policy

September 10, 2017

 

Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2017, 3:30pm to 4:30pm

Location:  Malkin Penthouse, Littauer Building, 4th floor

 

We welcome you to join us for our annual Open House event! Learn more about the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy and our mission to realize global justice through theory, policy, and practice.

We will discuss ways to get involved with the Carr...

Read more about Open House & Exhibition: Carr Center for Human Rights Policy

Global Governance - Events

2018 Mar 27

The Fierce Urgency of Now Speaker Series: Marshall Ganz - Seizing the Opportunity: Leadership, Organizing, and Democracy

5:30pm to 6:45pm

Location: 

Wexner 434AB, Harvard Kennedy School, 79 JFK Street, Cambridge, MA

Fierce Urgency of Now speaker seriesThe Carr Center is excited to announce its 2018 Speaker Series: The Fierce Urgency of Now: Human Rights in 2018. The series will be faciliated by Professor Mathias Risse...

Read more about The Fierce Urgency of Now Speaker Series: Marshall Ganz - Seizing the Opportunity: Leadership, Organizing, and Democracy
2018 Apr 10

The Fierce Urgency of Now Speaker Series: Sheila Jasanoff - The Threatened Human: Body, Mind, and Rights in a Time of Technological Change

5:30pm to 6:45pm

Location: 

T-520 Nye A, Taubman 5th Floor, HKS, 79 JFK Street, Cambridge, MA

Fierce Urgency of Now speaker seriesThe Carr Center is excited to announce its 2018 Speaker Series: The Fierce Urgency of Now: Human Rights in 2018. The series will be faciliated by Professor Mathias Risse...

Read more about The Fierce Urgency of Now Speaker Series: Sheila Jasanoff - The Threatened Human: Body, Mind, and Rights in a Time of Technological Change
2018 Apr 12

The Fierce Urgency of Now Speaker Series: Joseph Nye - Human Rights in Foreign Policy: from Carter to Trump

5:30pm to 6:45pm

Location: 

Rubenstein 414AB, HKS, 79 JFK Street, Cambridge, MA 02138

Fierce Urgency of Now speaker seriesThe Carr Center is excited to announce its 2018 Speaker Series: The Fierce Urgency of Now: Human Rights in 2018. The series will be faciliated by Professor Mathias Risse...

Read more about The Fierce Urgency of Now Speaker Series: Joseph Nye - Human Rights in Foreign Policy: from Carter to Trump

Global Governance - Publications

Mathias Risse. 6/2016. “On Where We Differ: Sites Versus Grounds of Justice, and Some Other Reflections on Michael Blake’s Justice and Foreign Policy.” Law and Philosophy, 35, 3, Pp. 251-270. Publisher's VersionAbstract

Blake’s book conveys a straightforward directive: the foreign policy of liberal states should be guided and constrained by the goal of helping other states to become liberal democracies as well. This much is what we owe to people in other countries—this much but nothing more. The primary addressees are wealthier democracies, whose foreign policy ought to be guided by the idea of equality of all human beings. My approach in On Global Justice bears important similarities to Blake’s, but with those similarities also come equally important differences. The purpose of this piece is to bring out these similarities and differences and in the process articulate some objections to Blake.

Zachary D. Kaufman. 4/7/2016. United States Law and Policy on Transitional Justice: Principles, Politics and Pragmatics, Pp. 382 pages. Oxford University Press. Publisher's VersionAbstract

In United States Law and Policy on Transitional Justice: Principles, Politics, and Pragmatics, Zachary D. Kaufman, J.D., Ph.D., explores the U.S. government’s support for, or opposition to, certain transitional justice institutions. By first presenting an overview of possible responses to atrocities (such as war crimes tribunals) and then analyzing six historical case studies, Dr. Kaufman evaluates why and how the United States has pursued particular transitional justice options since World War II. This book challenges the “legalist” paradigm, which postulates that liberal states pursue war crimes tribunals because their decision-makers hold a principled commitment to the rule of law. Dr. Kaufman develops an alternative theory—“prudentialism”—which contends that any state (liberal or illiberal) may support bona fide war crimes tribunals. More generally, prudentialism proposes that states pursue transitional justice options, not out of strict adherence to certain principles, but as a result of a case-specific balancing of politics, pragmatics, and normative beliefs. Dr. Kaufman tests these two competing theories through the U.S. experience in six contexts: Germany and Japan after World War II, the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103, the 1990-1991 Iraqi offenses against Kuwaitis, the atrocities in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s, and the 1994  genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda. Dr. Kaufman demonstrates that political and pragmatic factors featured as or more prominently in U.S. transitional justice policy than did U.S. government officials’ normative beliefs. Dr. Kaufman thus concludes that, at least for the United States, prudentialism is superior to legalism as an explanatory theory in transitional justice policymaking.

Federica D’Alessandra. 2014. “Human Rights and Alternative Legality in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.”.Abstract

This working paper focuses on the legal protection awarded to the Arab populations under Israeli jurisdiction. In analyzing their legal protection, the author distinguishes between Arab Israelis and other Arab populations resident in territories under Israeli jurisdiction. The author does not deal with Israeli settlements or other discriminating laws such as marriage laws and the family reunification laws, but focuses on anti-terrorism measures. The working paper is divided in three parts: in the first part, the author discusses Israel’s domestic obligations towards Arab Israelis and Palestinian residents, and their de facto discrimination. The second part discusses the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to both the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Palestinian unlawful combatants. The third part discusses the applicability of human rights law to all territories under Israeli jurisdiction, and delves into the issue of the mutual relationship between the two international legal regimes in the territories under occupation. The working paper concludes that many Israeli anti-terrorism measures (such as check-points, night searches of Palestinian households, administrative detentions and targeted executions of Palestinian militants) violate individuals’ rights protected under domestic and international law. Moreover, this working paper finds that Israel’s rationale underpinning the non-applicability of such legislation to the Arab populations under its jurisdiction constitutes a form of ‘alternative legality’ and discrimination.

Kathryn Sikkink. 2014. “Latin American Countries as Norm Protagonists of the Idea of International Human Rights.” Global Governance, 20.3, Pp. 389-404. Publisher's VersionAbstract

Latin American governments, social movements, and regional organizations have made a far greater contribution to the idea and practice of international human rights than has previously been recognized. Most discussions of the global human rights regime stress its origins in the countries of the Global North. This article explores the role of Latin America states as early protagonists of the international protection of human rights, focusing in particular on the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. Histories of human rights in the world emphasize the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, passed by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 1948, as the founding moment of international human rights. Few know that Latin American states passed a similar American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man a full eight months before passage of the UDHR. The American Declaration thus was the first broad enumeration of rights adopted by an intergovernmental organization. This article explores the American Declaration as an example of often overlooked Latin American human rights protagonism that has continued to this day, and that calls into question the idea that human rights originated in only the Global North.

Federica D’Alessandra. 2014. “Israel’s Associated Regime: Exceptionalism, Human Rights and Alternative Legality.” Utrecht Journal of International and European Law. Publisher's VersionAbstract

In the context of Israel’s declared permanent state of exception, this article focuses on the legal protection awarded to the Palestinian populations under Israeli control. To broaden the discussion over Palestinian people’s rights, which generally focuses on the confiscation of land and the right to return, the author consciously focuses on anti-terrorism and security measures, which contribute to the creation of what the International Court of Justice has defined as an ‘associated regime’ of occupation. The article is divided into three parts. In the first part, the author discusses Israel’s domestic obligations towards Palestinians (arguing the case of both Palestinian citizens of Israel, and Palestinian residents) and their de jure and de facto discrimination. The second part discusses the applicability of humanitarian law, specifically the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention. This section discusses the applicability of the Convention to both territories and people under Israeli control. The third part discusses the applicability of international human rights law to all territories under Israeli control and delves into the issue of the mutual relationship between the two international legal regimes in the territories under occupation. The article posits that Israel’s rationale for the non-applicability of such legislation to the Palestinian territories and populations it controls constitutes a form of ‘alternative legality’. The article concludes that Israel’s disproportionate application of security practices and anti-terrorism measures to the Palestinian segment of its population violates Palestinian rights protected under Israel’s domestic and international legal obligations.

  • «
  • 2 of 2
  •