International Consequence to Prorogation

In discussing the principle of democracy in international law in my previous blog entry, I used the 20^th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall as a starting point. I wondered whether the blueprint for German reunification at the turn of the decade of the 80s could be used eventually for Korean reunification. As the 00s give way to the 10s,  I find myself more compelled now than before to write about another “threat to democracy.” While such a phrase may conjure up a slew of George W. Bush speeches discussing his “crusades” to the Middle East, the threat of which I speak is not overseas, not even in a different continent, but here in North America. It is in Canada. While saying that Prime Minister Harper’s move to prorogue parliament on December 30^th, 2009 is a threat to democracy and an affront to international law may seem like a slight exaggeration, the background of the prorogation makes it internationally relevant.

Authoritarian Leadership

This blog is certainly not the forum to engage in an ideological debate. Moreover, prorogation of Parliament is not unusual. Since Canadian Confederation, the Parliament has been put on hold 105 times. However, it is the timing and circumstances of this prorogation which has drawn nationwide criticism. While this is not a problem under Canadian domestic law, it is arguably contrary to “soft” international law. In my previous entry I came to the conclusion that there was, at the very least, the existence of some soft international law requiring the principles of democracy to be promoted.

By proroguing Parliament, University of Toronto constitutional scholar Peter Russell argues, Prime Minister Harper’s leadership has taken “an authoritarian direction…minimiz[ing] his exposure to critical review.” In doing so he killed 36 government bills, and five more Conservative senators took their seats allowing the Tory government to take control of Senate committees. In pausing the legislative process and halting governmental committees from operating, Harper has put the internationally-guarded democratic process at risk.

What makes the prorogation even more internationally relevant and reprehensible is that it came right as the government was facing heat from parliamentary committees about whether Tory officials had knowledge that detainees handed over by Canadian troops in Afghanistan to local authorities were to face torture.

Breaching a Duty to Investigate and Punish?

Regardless of Harper’s reasoning for proroguing Parliament (i.e. for Canadians to focus on the upcoming Olympics), it has the effect of interfering with the investigation of those who may have had knowledge of the torture of detainees in Afghanistan. Such an investigation could lead to the discovery of breaches of the UN’s Convention Against Torture. While the investigation will resume come spring, it is uncertain whether the delay could harm the process.

In the Valesquez Rodriguez case, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights held that States have an obligation to investigate violations of human rights treaties, such as the Torture Convention. By effectively interfering with the committee that was investigating the matter in Canada, this requirement may have been breached.

While these links could be seen as somewhat of a stretch and while the prorogation will attract political, rather than legal criticism, these relatively soft contraventions of international legal principles makes Harper’s decision even more troublesome.

Share/Bookmark