By Peter Knoope, Associate fellow ICCT. More than three million people went to the streets in French cities in the weekend following the attacks, in a unprecedented public response to an act of politically motivated violence. It made me think back to the massive worldwide public outrage to the abduction of over two hundred school kids in Northern Nigeria by Boko Haram, almost ten months ago. The massive responses to these incidents have to do with the fact that core values come under attack. Violating the right of children to live in peace is even worse than dehumanising your perceived enemy. And killing the cartoonist that only seeks to make fun and raise eyebrows over political issues is like killing humour and freedom itself. It is like destroying that short smiling moment in the morning when you open the newspaper and you look for your favourite cartoon on the front page. It kills the sender of your daily few seconds of recognition and humour that so often brightens up our daily boring routine. This very same week we had devastating news from Nigeria. According to Amnesty International some 2000 people were killed in Baga in Northern Nigeria by the same Boko Haram and there have been reports of suicide attacks in the same area committed by teenage girls. We know from statements by young girls that managed to escape from Boko Haram ranks, that these girls are forced into these acts. The political motives are zero. How cynical and inhumane can one get? But what struck me is the absence of a new massive public outrage over the recent events in Nigeria. The Chibok girls have not been traced. They are not back. Boko Haram continues to expose their total lack of human considerations and values. But the world had something else on their mind. It bothers me. Are we getting used to dehumanising and gruesome acts? Will the public be silent when the next group of journalists or cartoonists are targeted? Is there such a thing as habituation to disgust? Are daily routines and concerns coming in the way? Is Nigeria to far from Paris to be a concern to Europeans? Is there a limit, in time and intensity, to outrage and public protest? Or are those, who speak out and resist, targeted and intimidated, silenced by those who speak with guns rather than with words? Many people have asked me in the last couple of days `where to go from, here`? What is the answer to increasing violence and traction of IS, Boko Haram, AQ and the other killers of freedom of speech? My answer is that massive resistance and public resilience is our only hope. We should not `get used to violence and dehumanisation of and by others`. We should not be intimidated and silenced. Somehow the organised mobilisation of the public is the only societal hope we have. Consider this a call on all sane public voices not to stop and to not be stopped. Massive mobilisation of counter reactions, and a strong call for human values and tolerance, everywhere in the world, is one of our few hopes to counter the rise of the Boko Harams of the world. Consider this a call on governments to facilitate this mobilisation and to create the political space necessary for the mobilisation of the masses. This weekend civil society has shown their confrontational strength. But it is not enough and we should not allow it to evaporate easily. We know that of late some governments have tried to reduce political space in a reflex response to political opposition, violence or terrorism. It happened in Kenya, where over five hundred civil society organisations have been banned by the government as a counter terrorism measure. Political space for civil society is reduced in a variety of countries like Ethiopia, Uganda, Sudan, Indonesia, Russia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Turkey, Egypt and others. The only hope for a strong civil counter terrorism response is being killed in a wide variety of places. Add to that the intimidation tactics of terrorist groups and we know that we are heading the wrong way, at high speed. We know that facilitating the political and public space to resist political violence, as shown in France this weekend, is our only hope. We know that there are people out there that devote their lives to community level peace building efforts. We know that an army of civil society actors work on interfaith dialogue and mediation. We, governments and the public, should mobilise and facilitate those actors to induce and propagate civil responses and public resistance to acts of violence. Across the board. Let us not get used to violence, let us not ignore victims in faraway places, let us not get intimidated by violent actors and let us not be limited in our space by governments that rely on military and repressive means and measures only. This is our world. This is our world where we want to live in dignity, based on human values. We owe it to the children in Nigeria to speak out and not to be silenced. By whomever.  

On Wednesday December 17th the last new ambassador in The Hague of 2014 presented his credentials to the King: H.E. Mr Carlos Herrera Rodriquez (1961) of Peru, the successor of H.E. Mr. Allen Wagner who served such a long time in The Hague. The new ambassador studied law and international relations in Peru and Paris and started his diplomatic career in 1984. He worked in Lima, France, Ecuador, USA and again Paris (also UNESCO). The Hague is his first posting as an ambassador abroad. He wrote not only about diplomacy but also nine fiction books.He was the last of 26 new ambassadors in The Hague who presented his credentials in 2014. Before him, The Hague welcomed that year new ambassadors from six EU countries (Spain, Malta, Belgium, Ireland, France and Hungary), three from EU candidates (Turkey, Macedonia and Albania) and two other European countries (Belarus and Switzerland), as well as seven from North, Middle and South America (USA, Chile, Panama, Cuba, Guatemala, Costa Rica and Peru), five from Asia and the Middle East (apart from Turkey that has already been mentioned: Qatar, Bangladesh, Iran, Georgia and Korea), two from Africa (Ghana and South Africa) as well as a new ambassador of New Zealand. In 2014 I informed you in Diplomat Magazine briefly about each of them. The new year 2015 started with two new ambassadors on January 21st . H.E. Dr. Obaidullah Obaid (1968) from Afghanistan who is a medical doctor. He worked until 2010 in the Ministry of Health and in the Kabul Medical University, lately as the Dean of that University. In 2010 he became ambassador in Iran, but two years later he was appointed the Cabinet Minister for Higher Education in Afghanistan. H.E. Mr Abdulaziz Abdullah Abohaimed (1961) is the new ambassador of Saudi Arabia, who studied political sciences in the USA. He started at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Riyadh in 1989 and served as a diplomat in Paris and Singapore as well. The Hague is his first posting as an ambassador. All the new ambassadors are most welcome in the what several Secretary Generals of the United Nations called: The Hague, the Legal Capital of the World ! a.beelaerts@planet.nl  

Palestine accedes to Rome Statute, International Criminal Court and other international instruments. By Nicolas Boeglin, Professor of International Law, Law Faculty, University of Costa Rica. Last January 6, United Nations Secretary General issued a note indicating that ICC’s Rome Statute will enter into force as to the State of Palestine on April 1, 2015 (see official note of Secretary General acting as depositary of Rome Statute). On 7 January 2015, the President of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute welcomed the deposit by Palestine of the instruments of accession to the Rome Statute of the ICC as well as the agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court (APIC) (see official ICC press release). On the very same day, ICC Registar sent a letter to Palestine authorities (see letter) confirming the reception of a declaration made pursuant article 12(3) of Rome Statute: “Excellency, I hereby confirm receipt, on 1 January 2015, of your 31 December 2014 “Declaration Accepting the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court” which was lodged with me pursuant to article 12(3) of the Rome Statute, and in which you state that “the Government of the State of Palestine recognizes the jurisdiction of the Court for the purpose of identifying, prosecuting and judging authors and accomplices of crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court committed in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, since 13 June 2014.” Pursuant to Rule 4(2) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, a declaration under article 12(3) of the Rome Statute has the effect of the acceptance of jurisdiction with respect to the crimes referred to in article 5 of the Statute of relevance to the situation, as well as the application of the provisions of Part 9 of the Statute and any rules thereunder concerning to States Parties. I hereby accept the declaration and I have transmited it to the Prosecutor for her consideration. This acceptance is without prejudice to any prosecutorial or judicial determinations on this matter“. In August 2014, ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda explained in an article published in The Guardian her position with respect to the lack of jurisdiction of ICC on crimes committed in Gaza (see article). It must be recalled that on January 21, 2009, Palestine sent a similar declaration to ICC: « the Government of Palestine recognizes the jurisdiction of the Court for the purpose of identifying, prosecuting and judging the authors and accomplices of acts committed on the territory of Palestine since July 2002 ».  A selected group of experts in international law considered in 2010 that this declaration made in 2009 allowed ICC to exercise his jurisdiction on Gaza situation (see collective document  entitled: “Les effets de la reconnaissance par la Palestine de la compétence de la CPI”). In addition to the 1998 Rome Statute and the declaration made, there are other relevant international treaties to which Palestine is becoming State Party since Dec.31, 2014. The complete list of treaties that Palestine has acceded is the following: 1. Convention on the Political Rights of Women 2. Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the ‘New York Convention’) 3. Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal 4. Convention on Biological Diversity and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity 5. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II) 6. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem (Protocol III) 7. Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses 8. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents 9. United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime 10. Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel and the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel 11. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 12. Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity 13. Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court 14. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 15. Declaration in accordance with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 16. The Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons 17. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons 18. Convention on Cluster Munitions (Source: UNISPAL note reproducing the letter of President M. Abbas of Dec 31, 2014). Concerning UN Convention of 1997 on International Watercourses, a recent note in a specialized site on international water regulations indicated that: “In addition, with Palestine’s accession to the Convention, Israel is now the only state in the Jordan River Basin to not have joined the treaty. Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria – all riparians to the Jordan River Basin – became Parties to the Convention in 1999, 1999, and 1998, respectively“.