WOCIT HP 2004-2-24
SHORT HISTORY
of the World Citizens' Tribunal
Chairperson of the Preparatory Committee for the WOCIT
Rikio Kaneko
November 24, 2002
1. Several international citizens' courts of justice were established after the Second World War, such as:
the Bertrand Russell Vietnam War Crimes Tribunal for cases related to the Vietnam War;
the Permanent Peoples' Tribunal which was formed in 1979 as the successor to the Bertrand Russell Vietnam War Crimes Tribunal on Latin America (http://www.law.warwick.ac.uk);
the World
Citizens' Court for cases
related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was a temporary court which addressed specific issues. (A
Japanese professor who was one of its co-founders informed us. This is another
reason why we renamed our organization ‘WOCIT’);
theChernobylCourt for cases related to the
1986 nuclear accident at Chernobyl (Ukraine);
the International Court of Women for cases related to the Japanese army’s use of women as "comfort women";
the Korean War Crimes Court for cases related to the Korean War, held in New York in 2001;
the World Court of Women against War and for Peace, etc.
In Japan, Mr. Akira Maeda proposed to establish a “Bush's Crime
Court”, a civil court for judging the American government’s actions in Afghanistan. [see en]
2. Apart from the above mentioned, there are ‘courts’ which relate to social movements, the promoters of which want
to obtain social or legal judgment on specific crucial problems. According to
its website, the purpose of the
World Court Project was to obtain an advisory opinion by the
International Court of Justice in The Hague on the legality of the use or the possession of nuclear
weapons.
(On 26th July 2001, the WOCIC
received an email stating that the “Citizens World
Court” had been established in 1991. The WOCIC was therefore obliged to change
its name. They said that the activities of our “World Citizen’s Court”
was much broader
than their "Citizens' World Court". There is a movement in Japan to craete a People's Court for judging legal problems of atomic bomb.)
Long-Standing Territorial Problems
3. The establishment of the World Citizens' Court fulfilled a pressing need. Its roots lie in wanting to resolve a long-standing territorial dispute between Japan, Russia and the Ainu people. We have many documents detailing this dispute, including
e-mails to Russian President Mr. Boris Yeltsin and the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
4. In
1993, the Russian and Japanese governments agreed to settle the problem by early conclusion of a peace treaty between them on the basis of law
and justice. Later, the Heads of State expressed their intention to conclude the treaty by 2000. But time continued to pass without any
resolution in sight.
World Civil Court
5. I, and many other concerned people, were afraid that the settlement of
the territorial problem would be postponed indefinitely. I decided therefore to
create a citizens' court of justice which would serve
to settle this territorial dispute. Assuming that this idea would not meet
large obstacles, I created a Preparatory Committee (PC) composed of five
Japanese scholars and drafted fundamental documents for
the "World Civil Court".
6. In May 1999, I went to The Hague to participate in The Hague Appeal for Peace world conference in
which 10,000 activists from all over the world, as well as Kofi Annan, Bishop
Desmond Tutu and many others participated. I presented the proposed World
Civil Court. As a result of discussions and events in The Hague, we
decided that it would be best to broaden the proposed court to a universal and permanent world court.
World Citizens' Court (WOCIC)
7. Documents
written after the Hague conference reflect
our change of course: we changed the jurisdiction of the WOCIC from just one
local issue to a generalized global jurisdiction. The members of the
Preparatory Committee (PC) agreed to the idea to
establish the “World Citizens' Court” (WOCIC).
8. I proposed to revise the former Statutes and other rules, and the PC reached
an agreement on the fundamental documents of the World Citizens’ Court (WOCIC)
on the 7th July 1999.
9. These documents were continually improved; we have retained all copies
of the WOCIC documents ? which professionals in this field may find useful to
read.
10. On the 31st May 2000, the PC finally
announced the epoch-making birth of a permanent and universal “World
Citizens' Court”. The PC created an Interim Court (IC) as a beginning form of
the WOCIC. Then the PC set up the WOCIC
Home Page. Even after the
establishment of the WOCIC, partial
revision of the WOCIC documents continued.
11. So
far, the Interim Court has received a total of ten international petitions. The consensus of our thinking is that the characteristics of the
World Citizens’ Court should be international, neutral, peaceful and, most
importantly, Citizen-centered. Taking into account the necessity of security
and avoiding undue pressures, the Court may introduce a system to allow
anonymous petitions.
12. It
seems logical that the first action which the WOCIC received on the 10th
June 2000 was the case concerning the
territorial dispute between Japan, Russia and the Ainu people (four islands case). Ms.
Yayoi Ono is one of the co-plaintiffs, but others remain anonymous.
13. On
27th August 2000, the case
concerning the Kashmir problem between India, Pakistan and China (Kashmir case) was
brought to the IC because of the serious consequences that could result if
these countries resorted to nuclear warfare. On the 5th December
2000, at the request of the International Neutral Group of Actors (INGA), the
IC recommended Urgent Measures to the leaders of India and Pakistan, requesting
them “never to initiate the use of nuclear weapons at any time, in any place
and in any situation”. This was the first external action taken by the Interim
Court which was directed to States. After the terrorist attack on the United
States on September 11th, the IC continued to recommend to the
Prime-Ministers of India and Pakistan to refrain from nuclear warfare (15
January and 4 June 2002).
14. On5th September 2000, the
First Summary Petition of the case
concerning sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly islands (Paracel and Spratly islands case) was brought to the IC. The legal status of these islands in the South
China Sea is disputed by several states: China, Vietnam, Malaysia, the
Philippines and even Taiwan. Some of
these countries have used force. During the past few years there have been signs that the contentious situation around these islands
will be improved by diplomatic negotiations.
15. The case concerning military confrontation between Congo
and Rwanda (Congo
v. Rwanda case) was brought to the IC on the 27th October 2000 by citizens who
organized their own INGA (International Neutral Group of Actors). This was also
a serious, long-standing problem in Africa. According to the newspapers, in
2000, presidents of both countries concluded a peace agreement, but the INGA of
this case have not yet informed the IC of their intention to discontinue the
action.
16. The case concerning the Kosovo conflict (Kosovo case) was
brought to the IC on the 5th November 2000 by its INGA because, in
their opinion, “this conflict led to a war in which many citizens suffered bitterly, and secondly, in this case, there are
important problems concerning international law: respect of human rights; intervention in internal matters (of international concern); use
of force without the permission of the United Nations. Thirdly, clarification of these legal problems is of paramount importance in order to establish an international community ruled by law in the 21
century.”
17. The case concerning the Falkland islands dispute between Argentina and England (Falkland case) was brought to the IC on the 19th January 2001 by its INGA “because England and Argentina have been in dispute for many years about the well-known Falkland problem which even led to missile warfare and because clarification of this legal problem would contribute to the betterment of international relations.”(See the First Summary Petition.)
18. The Case concerning the Takeshima islands dispute between Japan and Korea (Takeshima case) was brought to the IC on the 2nd March 2001 by its INGA which was also composed of ordinary citizens. In 1954, the Japanese ministry of foreign affairs suggested to Korean government that “the only fair means of settlement is to submit the present dispute to an international Court of Justice”, but Korean side rejected the proposal. When there is no agreement on such a submission, an international court does not, in principle, have jurisdiction over the problem, but our IC has it as long as the Petition is neutral.
19. The Case concerning the Ainu People’s Indigenous Rights (indigenous rights case) was brought to the IC on the 19th January 2002 by ordinary
citizens. The four islands case also
concerns indigenous rights, but the co-plaintiffs in the present indigenous rights case ask questions of
the Interim Court which are not limited to the four contentious islands, but
which have more to do with their indigenous rights.
20. The Case concerning racial discrimination in Japanese bathing
institutions was brought to the IC on the 14th
June 2002 by its INGA which was also composed of ordinary citizens. It turned
out that the IC had received this Petition in error, because it was not
neutral, but unilateral in the sense that in the petition, three persons,
namely Arudo Debito, Olaf Karthouse and Ken Sutherland, were plaintiffs who
accused a bathing institution and the city of Otaru in Japan. Later, the IC
realized that this was not neutral petition and apologized to them for our
mistake, and informed them that the IC was unable to receive the case. For
further information, see the PC Rules, Article 8: http://www.wocit.org/E-PC-RULES.html
21. The Case concerning an international organization (international organization case) was
made to the IC on the 26th July 2002 by a citizen. It turned out
that this was also not neutral petition: the person wanted to accuse an
international organization. The case was discontinued once the IC informed the
accuser that it was unable to receive such a petition. One of the forms peculiar to international judicial field is a
Petition (or Memorandum)
of neutral character, where contesting parties' opinions on facts and law are
stated on equal basis.
22. The Case concerning Russians’ Human Rights in the States of the former
USSR was brought to the IC on the 11th
August 2002 by its INGA also composed of ordinary citizens. In 1991, in the
territory of the former Soviet Union, new nationalistic states appeared while
Russian-speaking people remained there. The present case concerns, amongst
other things, their rights and the duties in these new states.
World Citizens' Tribunal (WOCIT)
23. It turned out that, to our surprise, there
is another citizens' world court by the name of "Citizens' World
Court" of apparently permanent and universal character. So, the PC decided
that our World Citizens' Court would be renamed "World Citizens'
Tribunal" (WOCIT) as of 1st January 2002.
24. The name change is merely technical. In 2002,
an essential and interesting extension of the sphere of the WOCIT activities
took place on 19 November: the PC
decided that the WOCIT would not only have jurisdiction over disputes in
international law, but also over the disputes of private persons in national
law, as long as they are of international character, and as long as
conciliation or arbitration by the WOCIT is not against
the laws of the relevant state.
WOCIC
e-mail address: registrar@wocit.org