Has Justice Finally Arrived for the DRC?

By: Lindsay Raskin, Associate, The Global Business Law Review

The conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) now ranks as the world’s deadliest conflict since World War II.  Since its outbreak in August 1998, fighting between the factions has led to the deaths of approximately 5.4 million people and created a refugee crisis with more than 1.5 million displaced.[1]  A profound product of this violence, fueled by intrinsic cultural norms in the DRC, is rape.  The international community considers the DRC the rape capital of the world.  Current studies estimate that 1.8 million women in the DRC are raped during their lifetime at a rate of 48 rapes every hour.[2]

On August 12, 2011, the DRC’s parliament finally took action by adopting legislation creating a specialized court to hear cases of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide committed in the DRC since 1990.[3]  While many human rights advocates consider the action taken by parliament a triumph, it is unclear whether a specialized tribunal is the most effective forum for victims of these humanitarian crises.  The international community tends to favor specialized tribunals, which have been seen in East Timor and Cambodia, because the country where the conflict occurs bears the burden of providing the majority of funding for the tribunal as well as the majority of the tribunal’s staff.[4]

Despite recent action, rape continues to be one of the most common crimes committed in the DRC, and reporting its commission is still taboo in Congolese society.[5]  Women who are raped are viewed as “dirty” and are often forced to “weigh [their] desire for justice against the social consequences.”[6]  Thus, despite the strides the DRC has made in recent years, the country currently lacks the infrastructure and support programs for the victims of these crimes.  If women are unwilling to come forward, how can they ever receive justice?  Furthermore, not even the ICC is a suitable forum for justice for the victims of rape.  While the Lubanga case is the first case in which the ICC allowed victims to participate, the names of those who participate in trials at the ICC are widely known.[7]  Thus, the victims of rape who testify will face the same social consequences—namely the risk of being ostracized from their community—that they would have faced if they participated in a case in the DRC.  Rather than rushing to appease the international community, the DRC, as well as the international community as a whole, should take the time to create an effective forum, such as an ad hoc tribunal, which can protect the identity of rape victims who testify in court and focus on building a system of support and acceptance to aid these victims.

South Korean Free Trade Agreements: U.S. and E.U.

by Robert Molnar, Associate, The Global Business Law Review

The United States and South Korea are moving closer to establishing a free trade agreement between the two countries.  The full text of the proposed agreement is available at http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/korus-fta/final-text. The two countries originally signed the treaty in 2007, but its approval in the U.S. stalled when the auto industry objected to the level of access it would receive to the South Korean market.[1] Three years later, President Barack Obama re-committed the U.S. to the treaty and reached a new agreement by the end of the year.  The Treaty would be the largest free trade agreement signed by the U.S. since the North American Free Trade Agreement of 1994 (NAFTA), and is the first bilateral agreement between the United States and a major Asian economy.[2]

The European Union signed a free trade agreement with South Korea on October 6, 2010.  The European Parliament ratified the agreement in February of this year and the agreement became law in July.  The agreement is designed to decrease trade barriers between South Korea and the EU by 98% over the next five years.[3] Senator Rob Portman of Ohio has cited the EU-South Korea free trade agreement as already successful at boosting imports from the EU to South Korea, and has urged passage of the U.S.-South Korea agreement.[4] Scott A. Snyder of the Council on Foreign Relations has claimed that the agreement will create new American business opportunities in South Korea.[5]

Sherrod Brown, U.S. Senator also from Ohio, has urged President Obama not to submit any free trade agreements to Congress until Congress approves an extension of Trade Adjustment Assistance (“TAA”), a federal government program that helps American workers whose jobs are sent overseas.  Brown, a critic of past free trade agreements, introduced legislation to extend TAA benefits in the Senate, which passed the bill on September 22, 2011.[6]

Earlier this year, The American Lawyer reported that several large American law firms have expressed an interest in opening offices in South Korea.[7] However, expansion of legal services in South Korea may have more to do with the deregulation of legal training by the South Korean government than the pending trade agreement.[8]