Browsing by Author "Omari, Caroline"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    From rhetoric to practice: a study on the right to accessible and adequate housing in Kenya
    Omari, Caroline
    The Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides, among other things, that “everyone has the right to an adequate standard of living…including the right to housing.”1 This has been defined by the first Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as, “the right of every woman, man, youth and child to gain and sustain a safe and secure home and community in which to live in peace and dignity.”2 As with other Economic and Social Rights International Law requires the progressive realization of the right, to the maximum of the country’s available resources, in a non-discriminatory manner. Sadly, in many countries in the world, Kenya included, the gap between housing rights rhetoric and realization is extremely broad. A recent report on the right to housing under international law, prepared by the UN, opens by stating that the right to housing is a ‘fundamental human right’, and that it has been recognized by “over 100 constitutions”.3 The reality however remains that despite this constitutional recognition and the central place of this right within the global legal system; well over a billion people are not adequately housed. Millions around the world live in life or health threatening conditions, in overcrowded slums and informal settlements, or in other conditions which do not uphold their human rights and their dignity. Further millions are forcibly evicted, or threatened with forced eviction, from their homes every year.4 This begs the question, what is the value of recognition? Does it translate into actual justiciability for those whose rights are violated? And perhaps more importantly, how are these rights to be adjudicated, especially in developing countries like Kenya where governments neither have the resources nor the ability to provide housing for huge proportions of their populations who live in crippling poverty?
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    The shadow of politics in the administration of international criminal justice: an analysis of how the Rome statute insulates the international criminal court from political influence
    Omari, Caroline
    The quest for a permanent international criminal court began long before the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court adopted the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 1998.1 When the United Nations General Assembly approved the Genocide Convention in 1948, it charged the International Law Commission with the responsibility to carry out a study on the possibility and desirability of establishing an international judicial organ for the prosecution of, inter alia, the crime of genocide.2 …” It is understandable that a community such as the international community, in seeking a more structured organization, even if only an incipient 'institutionalization', should have turned in another direction, namely toward a system vesting in international institutions other than States the exclusive responsibility, first, for determining the existence of a breach of an obligation of basic importance to the international community as a whole, and thereafter, for deciding what measures should be taken in response and how they should be implemented.3 However, despite the so-called Nuremberg promise that the trials after the Second World War would set a precedent for others, it was not until 1994 that the ILC produced the final draft for the statute of an international court.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    The United States, the Security Council and the International Criminal Court: will international criminal justice prevail despite US recalcitrance
    Omari, Caroline
    Since 1945 when international criminal justice first became a reality the US has been its greatest champion and supporter. As part of the allied movement, the US played a central role in the creation of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal.1 Its support for the process continued through the Tokyo trial, and the various successor trials of Nazi doctors, lawyers, military leaders, political leaders among others.2 The adoption of the convention on the prevention and punishment of the Crime of Genocide also highlights the importance of US support. Unlike the reticent Britain, the US was at the front line pushing for adoption of the convention. Additionally, in 1992 when proposals for international prosecution resurfaced following the outbreak of war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the US took the initiative on a Security Council resolution to establish a commission of inquiry into reports of widespread violations of international humanitarian law.3 Interestingly enough, the US actively participated in the drafting process that led to the adoption of the Rome Statute. The International Law Commission’s draft text was refined through a series of preparatory conferences in which the US played an active role, and even after the adoption of the Statute the US has supported international courts for Sierra Leone and Cambodia. More importantly, the ICC signifies the same values of global justice, human rights and the rule of law that the US is committed to.4 Why then did the US withdraw its support for the ICC at the eleventh hour? What impact has this had on the Security Council’s power to act when National authorities are unable and unwilling? In order to fully understand this question we must delve into the complex relationship between the US and the Security Council.