Carole Vann et Isolda Agazzi/Infosud - With the war on terrorism triggered by the events of September 11th, conflicts are no longer taking place only on distant battlefields. Switzerland, the United States and European countries are also in “a conflict situation”. That being the case, what law should be applied? Professor Andrew Clapham is this week opening in Geneva an Academy which is offering a course dealing with four branches of international law that are normally treated separately; human rights, international humanitarian law, refugee rights and international criminal law. The academic year, it appears, is going to start with a course dealing with an extremely newsworthy subject.

Professor Clapham, Geneva already has the UN human rights council. Aren’t you afraid that the city is going to suffer from human rights “indigestion”?

No, there are a lot of human rights violations in the world and a better awareness of these justifies a greater concentration of effort. Moreover, new treaties are being adopted - such as the ones on enforced disappearances and on the rights of poeple with disabilities- and lawyers, diplomats and NGOs need to update their skills.

Similar Academies already exist in Florence and in the Hague, as well as at Harvard and in the US. Why do we need another one?

This Academy adds something new to the mix. We are going to take a “joined up” look at conflict situations, with four branches of international law that are normally studied separately; human rights, international humanitarian law, international criminal law and refugee rights. It is a first, happening as a result of new developments on the international stage. The war against terrorism means that conflict situations are no longer happening on distant battle fields, but also in Switzerland, in Europe and in the United States.

Guantanamo is a case in point: Should the American Supreme Court apply international humanitarian law, which is the right exercised in armed conflicts or human rights law? The same question applies if you arrest a suspected terrorist in London or in Iraq. Recent case law at the International Court of Justice insists on the obligation of respecting human rights - like freedom of expression - even in a conflict situation. These often offer a more widespread protection. Take the case of child soldiers: The Geneva Conventions forbid the recruitment of children under 15, although the optional protocol to the Child Rights convention fixes the limit at 18. Moreover, the implementation of human rights conventions is scrutinised by a committee system, and sometimes complaints can be lodged. And the International Court of Justice can also demand reparations.

Who are you targeting ?

Members of the legal profession, journalists, NGOs and any other person who already has relevant professional experience. We are also going to offer a 12 month Masters alongside specialization courses. In the long term we want to offer also distance learning. Who knows, perhaps we are going to train future special rapporteurs… Some of them are however beginning to take into consideration humanitarian law as well as human rights law in their reports.

What can academics really do solve the problems of the UN and change the reality on the ground?

The special rapporteurs, who make up one of the pillars of the new Council, are almost all academics. The Universal Periodic Review system is also going to call on the expertise of universities and the Academy is in fact in the middle of preparing a profile of the legislative systems of each country, outlining the relevant law and its implementation. It goes hand in hand with the Swiss index that lists all UN documentation.

It was an attractive idea on paper to transform the Commission into a Council, but there is a danger that through all the diplomatic scheming we are going to lose some of the major achievements of the Commission, such as the independent experts. What do you think?

Governments obviously decide what they are going to choose from the various academic proposals they receive. Professor Walter Kälin originally envisaged that the Council for example could defer a case to the International Criminal Court or to the Security Council, but this suggestion has not been taken up. But even an idea that is not accepted can be taken up at a later date. We come up with ideas, which countries can decide whether or not to put into practice. After all the UN is made up of governments and not of professors and it works very well like that!

Translated from French by Claire Doole