18 March 202
by David Matas
Are trafficking in organs and trafficking in humans for the purpose of organ removal the same? One would have thought so. Organs, after all, are components of humans. Trafficking of part is, one would have thought, trafficking of the whole. Any distinction between the two is bound to seem artificial. The notion that, when a person is trafficking part of a human being, the person is not trafficking the human being from which the part comes seems unreal.
A distinction has nonetheless developed at international law. There are two sets of international laws, one dealing with trafficking in organs and another dealing with trafficking in humans for the purpose of organ removal. Why and how did this distinction develop?
One can argue conceptually for a differentiation between any two activities with different linguistic formulations, no matter how close the terms seem in ordinary everyday language. Yet, international law is not developed by linguists or philosophers or even legal scholars. It is developed by states. International law operates in the sphere of geo-politics.
International law, even if it does in some cases bind individuals, generally binds states. As well, even though NGOs may have a role in the drafting of international instruments, treaties are negotiated, signed and ratified by states. International customary law is not principles that individuals consider binding. It is principles that states practice and consider binding on themselves. International law develops through the acceptances by states of principles and mechanisms that they accept apply to themselves.
When we are looking at state actors generally, we do not see just states run by governments which respect human rights. We do not see just states run by government which aspire to respect human rights. We see also states run by governments which are criminal, which engage in mass murderer of their own citizens, which are totalitarian, which are corrupt, which seek immunity, which deny and cover up their crimes. States run by governments of the second sort do not support the development of any international law or mechanisms which is directed against them.
That does not mean that states run by criminal governments stay away from institutional standards and institutions. On the contrary, these governments embrace these standards and institutions, partly in an exercise of hypocrisy to fool the gullible and naive, partly to hide their misdeeds behind an aura of respectability, partly to attempt to ensure that these international standards and mechanisms are not turned against them. We even see in some cases states with criminal governments attempting to turn the human rights standards and mechanisms around to target rights respecting states in order to delegitimize their critics.
The effort of states run by rights violating governments to attempt to ensure that these international standards and mechanisms are not turned against them is sometimes engaged by opting out of enforcement procedures, compliance assessments, individual petition options and dispute resolutions mechanisms. It is also done through linguistic quibbling, assertions that the general standards to which they have ascribed do not apply to the particular type of violation of which they are accused.
The United Nations Human Rights Council does not, for instance, just attract rights respecting states. On the contrary, some of the most egregious violator states are among its candidates for membership and even actual members.
One can say the same of international human rights treaties. It is not just governments of states which respect human rights or which aspire to respect human rights which join in on these treaties. Many egregious violator states sign on to these treaties, typically while avoiding the enforcement systems, staying clear of the optional individual petition procedures, and filing reservations about dispute resolution mechanisms.
All this is true of China in the modern human rights era. The Government of China since 1949 has been ruled by a Communist Party guilty of an unending sequence of massive human rights violations against its own citizens. Despite these atrocities, China has signed and ratified many human rights treaties. These included the Convention against Torture, even though there is systematic torture in Chinese prisons and detention centre, and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, even though there is massive discrimination against Uyghurs and Tibetans as well as other distinct minorities in China. China, to boot, now sits on the UN Human Rights Council.
The particular focus of this talk is United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and The Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons. China is a party to both.
Please click the link below to check the details below.
ETAC
18 March 202
by David Matas
Are trafficking in organs and trafficking in humans for the purpose of organ removal the same? One would have thought so. Organs, after all, are components of humans. Trafficking of part is, one would have thought, trafficking of the whole. Any distinction between the two is bound to seem artificial. The notion that, when a person is trafficking part of a human being, the person is not trafficking the human being from which the part comes seems unreal.
A distinction has nonetheless developed at international law. There are two sets of international laws, one dealing with trafficking in organs and another dealing with trafficking in humans for the purpose of organ removal. Why and how did this distinction develop?
One can argue conceptually for a differentiation between any two activities with different linguistic formulations, no matter how close the terms seem in ordinary everyday language. Yet, international law is not developed by linguists or philosophers or even legal scholars. It is developed by states. International law operates in the sphere of geo-politics.
International law, even if it does in some cases bind individuals, generally binds states. As well, even though NGOs may have a role in the drafting of international instruments, treaties are negotiated, signed and ratified by states. International customary law is not principles that individuals consider binding. It is principles that states practice and consider binding on themselves. International law develops through the acceptances by states of principles and mechanisms that they accept apply to themselves.
When we are looking at state actors generally, we do not see just states run by governments which respect human rights. We do not see just states run by government which aspire to respect human rights. We see also states run by governments which are criminal, which engage in mass murderer of their own citizens, which are totalitarian, which are corrupt, which seek immunity, which deny and cover up their crimes. States run by governments of the second sort do not support the development of any international law or mechanisms which is directed against them.
That does not mean that states run by criminal governments stay away from institutional standards and institutions. On the contrary, these governments embrace these standards and institutions, partly in an exercise of hypocrisy to fool the gullible and naive, partly to hide their misdeeds behind an aura of respectability, partly to attempt to ensure that these international standards and mechanisms are not turned against them. We even see in some cases states with criminal governments attempting to turn the human rights standards and mechanisms around to target rights respecting states in order to delegitimize their critics.
The effort of states run by rights violating governments to attempt to ensure that these international standards and mechanisms are not turned against them is sometimes engaged by opting out of enforcement procedures, compliance assessments, individual petition options and dispute resolutions mechanisms. It is also done through linguistic quibbling, assertions that the general standards to which they have ascribed do not apply to the particular type of violation of which they are accused.
The United Nations Human Rights Council does not, for instance, just attract rights respecting states. On the contrary, some of the most egregious violator states are among its candidates for membership and even actual members.
One can say the same of international human rights treaties. It is not just governments of states which respect human rights or which aspire to respect human rights which join in on these treaties. Many egregious violator states sign on to these treaties, typically while avoiding the enforcement systems, staying clear of the optional individual petition procedures, and filing reservations about dispute resolution mechanisms.
All this is true of China in the modern human rights era. The Government of China since 1949 has been ruled by a Communist Party guilty of an unending sequence of massive human rights violations against its own citizens. Despite these atrocities, China has signed and ratified many human rights treaties. These included the Convention against Torture, even though there is systematic torture in Chinese prisons and detention centre, and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, even though there is massive discrimination against Uyghurs and Tibetans as well as other distinct minorities in China. China, to boot, now sits on the UN Human Rights Council.
The particular focus of this talk is United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and The Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons. China is a party to both.
Please click the link below to check the details below.
ETAC