I was extremely fortunate during both of my recent trips to be able to sit in on all the organization visits the students attended. I already mentioned the Global Health visits in Geneva in my earlier post (Geneva, Round 1) so this post is about the Public International Law students' visits in The Hague and Geneva.
Palais des Nations (Geneva): We got a tour of the Palais des Nations, the UN's headquarters in Geneva. This, understandably, had the strictest security of all the places we visited, although every single one except the Red Cross and the Canadian Mission had airport-style setups to scan belongings and people, and at every place we had to present (and sometimes leave) our passports.
The Palais was an absolutely massive complex of buildings, at the heart of the northern section of Geneva where all of the international organizations are located.
![]() |
| This room was donated by Spain, and the paintings reflect the progression of civilization and the horrific outcomes of war. |
![]() |
| The Assembly Hall, the largest room in the Palais, which can seat more than 2000 delegates. |
Palais des Nations- Human Rights Council in Session (Geneva): We got to observe a session of the UN Human Rights Council! We sat in an observation gallery looking down on the room (not the Assembly Hall). There were phones hooked up to our chairs that let us listen to what was being said in the room.
The UN has two working languages, English and French. The delegates are seated alphabetically by country name, and so the seating arrangements change depending on which language is being used (for example, the United States' name does not begin with U in French). In addition to its 2 working languages, the UN has four other languages that make up its six official languages: Arabic, Chinese, Russian, and Spanish.
The day we visited, the Human Rights Council was in the final stages of Universal Periodic Reviews for Mali and Botswana. These reviews are done for every UN country once every five years, in which their human rights record is examined and any member country can submit recommendations. The country under review then brings this back to their home government, which decides which recommendations they will agree to implement.
Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees (Geneva): The Senior Legal Officer of the Protection Policy and Legal Advice Department talked to us about his work. Most of our speakers were wonderful, very friendly and open and encouraging the students to ask questions; this one was very intimidating, and would call on students at random to answer questions (once actually barking out "rejected!" when he disagreed with their answer).
Permanent Mission of Canada to the United Nations: It was fun walking into a little corner of Canada in Geneva :) The First Secretary of Legal Affairs gave us an overview of the human rights work done by the mission, and told us about her experiences working as a Canadian diplomat and how her law background informs her current work.
Above and below: a selection of some of the stacks of handouts I came home with!
Above L-R: UN General Assembly, Human Rights Council "Report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism"; yellow Geneva public transit pass (visitors to Geneva get free passes); pink "visitor" slip for the ICTY; courtroom layout diagram from the ICC; ICTY document "Schedule F: Sniping Incidents in Sarajevo"; case sheet for ICTY Karadzic case.
Below L-R: ICC "The Court Today" handout; ICRC "The Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross and Red Crescent"; blue Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights book "International Legal Protection of Human Rights in Armed Conflict"; Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees booklets "Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees" and "Statute of the Office of the UNHCR".
International Criminal Court (The Hague): A representative from the Chambers gave us an intro to the history, jurisdiction, and mandate of the court, and then a Legal Advisor from the Jurisdiction section of the Complementarity and Cooperation Division, Office of the Prosecutor (long title!) talked to us about current cases and developments at the Court. Afterwards we met with the Deputy Prosecutor for a Q&A session.
The ICC website explains the ICC more succinctly than I could: "The International Criminal Court (ICC), governed by the Rome Statute, is the first permanent, treaty based, international criminal court established to help end impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community. The ICC is an independent international organisation, and is not part of the United Nations system.
In the 1990s after the end of the Cold War, tribunals like the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda were the result of consensus that impunity is unacceptable. However, because they were established to try crimes committed only within a specific time-frame and during a specific conflict, there was general agreement that an independent, permanent criminal court was needed.
On 17 July 1998, the international community reached an historic milestone when 120 States adopted the Rome Statute, the legal basis for establishing the permanent International Criminal Court. The Rome Statute entered into force on 1 July 2002 after ratification by 60 countries."
So far, the ICC has seen 18 cases from several situations. The situations have to be referred to the ICC by the country whose territory they're occurring in, if the country is an ICC member state; this is what happened with Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic, and Mali. The other method for a case to reach the ICC is if it's referred by the UN Security Council, which has happened with Libya and Darfur, Sudan.
Permanent Court of Arbitration (The Hague): A Canadian lawyer who works as legal counsel at the PCA gave a presentation on its history and current role, and explained what her work involves. The PCA was established in 1899, making it the oldest institution for international dispute resolution. Countries who are in dispute must both be in agreement to submit their case for arbitration, and must agree to abide by the PCA's decision. We also got a tour of the Peace Palace, which houses the PCA and the International Court of Justice (the principal justiciary body of the UN).
![]() |
| The Peace Palace, from teachers.greenville.k12.sc.us |
International Committee of the Red Cross (Geneva): I was here with the Global Health students, but they had a different speaker. The law students got a presentation on the ICRC and its activities in the field, from the Head of Sector at the Division of Integration and Promotion of the Law. They also had a talk from the Advisor for the Unit for Relations with Armed and Security Forces.
One of the most interesting things that came up: they were talking about the difficulties when the ICRC is operating in a conflict between a state and a non-state party. When dealing with a conflict between two states, the ICRC has more clout to prevent atrocities, because the Geneva Convention I, attempting to limit barbarity in warfare, has been almost universally ratified. However, when it's civil war between a state and a rebel group, the rebel group can say "we never agreed to the Geneva Convention!", creating many additional challenges.
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (Geneva): Below are my security passes to get access to the Human Rights Council Session at the Palais (see above) and the Office of the High Commissioner. Two representatives from the Rule of Law and Democracy Section, one of them Canadian, talked to us about the OHCHR's mandate, activities, priorities, and role regarding international human rights mechanisms (their relatonship to the UN Human Rights Council, for example; they're not the same thing!).
International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (The Hague): We spent a whole day here during our time in The Hague, and it was definitely my favourite part of the entire trip. We began with an introduction by a Canadian lawyer who is a member of the Trial Counsel for the Office of the Prosector. Then, we observed part of the trial of Radovan Karadzic, President and Supreme Commander of the armed forces at various times, who is indicted for genocide and crimes against humanity during the conflict in Bosnia in the early 1990s (a conflict most famously known for the Sarajevo snipings and the Srebenica massacre).
This trial has been going on since 2009; the prosecution rested its case in May 2012, and the defence case began in October 2012. The day we were there, the prosecution was cross-examining an expert witness of the defence who had written a report about specific snipings in Sarajevo, which contradicted the report written by the prosecution's expert. Karadzic was present, as well as his legal counsel.
During a break, the cross-examiner for the prosecution (another Canadian! I think her title was Senior Trial Attorney for the Office of the Prosecution) came to talk to us. It was really interesting to hear her talk about the case and how she was working to attack the credibility of this witness. She was so lighthearted and laidback when talking with us, which was such a contrast from the intimidating and very stern person we had just been watching in the trial. I can't imagine the stress of such a job; when she had five minutes left in her break (the rest of which she had spent with us), she said "ok, I have to go melt down now before I go out there again."
Everything was very high-tech: everyone in the courtroom has screens in front of them, and when anyone wants to reference a document, they just mention its name and a few minutes later it appears on everyone's screens, in both Bosnian and English.
Afterwards Katrina, the woman who works as Trial Counsel (that had given us the introduction) gave a lecture to the students. She actually is a short-term Castle professor, and we saw her again at the Castle the following week where she lectured for a few days. She gave a lecture on superior accountability, which is a major issue in the Karadzic case: basically, how does accountability work within a chain of command? Is a superior always responsible for the actions of his subordinates? What if he gave orders for something (eg bombing a certain area) not to occur; if it happens anyways, is he still at fault? Were his orders sincere or a "wink-wink, I really mean the opposite" type of thing?
An interesting note: we also met someone works for the Defence Counsel on the Hadzic case at the ICTY. It was really interesting to hear him and Katrina talk about the differences in their roles. They're both good lawyers who needed jobs, and these cases are very high-profile; but everyone wants to "be a hero" and work for the prosecution on these international war crimes cases. The Defence Counsel lawyer didn't have the same freedom of movement that Katrina did, and she had to escort him into the section of the building where we were meeting.
Above and below: a selection of some of the stacks of handouts I came home with!
Above L-R: UN General Assembly, Human Rights Council "Report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism"; yellow Geneva public transit pass (visitors to Geneva get free passes); pink "visitor" slip for the ICTY; courtroom layout diagram from the ICC; ICTY document "Schedule F: Sniping Incidents in Sarajevo"; case sheet for ICTY Karadzic case.
Below L-R: ICC "The Court Today" handout; ICRC "The Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross and Red Crescent"; blue Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights book "International Legal Protection of Human Rights in Armed Conflict"; Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees booklets "Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees" and "Statute of the Office of the UNHCR".
Something I was fascinated by at both the UN Human Rights Council and the ICTY was the interpretation process. Translators are sitting in observation booths and translating live; I still can't grasp how they can possibly be speaking the translation while still listening to the person they're translating for talking. There's no pause; it's near-instant translation, not someone speaking their part in their language and then the translator starting when they're finished. It was absolutely incredible. The translators were seamless at changing shifts too, which we heard several times.
Also, happy birthday Dad!!








+The+Hague.jpg)














