International Public and NGO Management
(Fall 2003)
Term Project
No More Execution: Campaign against Death Penalty
by
the Amnesty International
Instructor: ¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Professor John R. Mathiason
Student Name:¡@¡@ ¡@¡@ Franco KWOK
Date:¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ ¡@¡@ December 15, 2003
¡§The forfeiture of life is too absolute, too irreversible, for one human being to inflict it on another, even when backed by legal process¡¨ ¡V Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General, United Nation.
Introduction
¡@¡@¡@ Since the end of the World War II, it has been raising concern in the civilized nations that the death penalty was the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (the Declaration), the first international instrument for fundamental human rights adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations (UN) in 1948, recognizes that ¡§the right to life¡¨ is a basic human right. Although it does not explicitly mention about abolition of capital punishment, it embarks the international debate, which lasts for more than 50 years.
¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Some eighteen years later, the Declaration was complemented by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 1966. The Article 6 of ICCPR enshrines ¡§the right to life¡¨ and implicitly sets out the international goal to abolish the death penalty ultimately (Schabas, 2002: 95).
¡@¡@¡@ ¡@¡@¡@ The year 1989 was an important year in the history of the contemporary world. After the June-fourth Incident in China, the Berlin Wall came down in November earmarked the end of the Cold War and unveiled the subsequent collapse of the communist states in the Eastern Europe and the ¡§Big Brother¡¨, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic. At the end of the same year, UN General Assembly adopted the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR Aiming At the Abolition of Death Penalty (the OPT2). Despite its ¡§optional¡¨ nature, OPT2 is a cornerstone for the international abolitionist movement as it provides the international community with the first and specific instrument against capital punishment.
¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ The Amnesty International (AI) is a non-governmental organization (NGO) and a pioneer of advocating human rights and the international abolition of the death penalty. Like other human rights NGOs, AI seeks to influence state players, as well as the general public, to change their attitude and behavior to protect rights for all people, in particular the ¡§forgotten prisoners¡¨. Founded in 1961, AI was launched by a British lawyer Peter Benenson to, inter alia, oppose the use of death penalty against ¡§prisoners of conscience¡¨ and subsequently anyone sentenced to death[1]. In 1971, the International Council Meeting (ICM), the decision making body of AI, requested the UN and the Council of Europe making all possible efforts to achieve the abolition of death penalty throughout the world[2]. After more than 40-years¡¦ effort, AI is now a very influential NGO with high reputation in human rights aspects.
¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ The Campaign against Death Penalty (the Campaign) is one of the major thematic campaign programs of AI. This paper attempts to analyze the Campaign being implemented by AI from a management perspective, particularly focusing on its efforts after OPT2 was adopted in 1989.
Objectives of the Campaign
¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ The overall objective of the Campaign, as set out in AI¡¦s annual report, is to abolish death penalty. It has been one of the key missions and objectives of AI for more than decades and remains unchanged after the passing of OPT2. This overall objective clearly demonstrates the ¡§end-state¡¨ and the vision of the Campaign. Since 2001, AI has supplemented in its Annual Report that, pending abolition, it calls on governments, to commute death sentences, to introduce a moratorium on execution, to respect international standards restricting the scope of the death penalty and to ensure the most rigorous standards for fair trial in capital cases (AI, 2001).
¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ However, no specific objectives for the Campaign can be found in AI¡¦s annual reports or document being accessible through its website. If the specific objective of the Campaign is exactly the same as the long-term one, i.e. to abolish the death penalty, it will be too ambitious and unrealistic as only about half of the countries in the world join the abolitionists after some 50-years¡¦ efforts. It also does not define the specific areas in which action must be taken and lacks a designated time frame for strategic planning.
¡@¡@¡@ ¡@¡@¡@ For the purpose of this study, the International Secretariat (IS) of the AI in London was approached. In their reply, the IS did not provide any official document setting out the specific objectives of the Campaign but suggest the following:-
(i) increasing the number of abolitionist countries and those not practicing the death penalty;
(ii) promoting signature/ratification of abolitionist protocols;
(iii) increasing awareness of the inherent unfairness of the death penalty in terms of discrimination, unfair trials, and judicial inequalities;
(iv) strengthening anti-death penalty resolutions at UN Human Rights Commission;
(v) disseminating information about the death penalty;
(vi) saving lives by mobilizing urgent action and death penalty networks to prevent execution.
¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Good specific objectives should define end-states within a particular time period and should be precise, time-limited and observable[3]. Although the vision of the above ¡§specific objectives¡¨ can be seen, they are not so well-formulated.
¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Firstly, the ¡§six specific objectives¡¨ do not provide specific timeframe and clearly describe the end-state. In other words, they are too general and vague for the strategic planning purposes.
¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Secondly, some of the ¡§objectives¡¨ are confused with ¡§activities¡¨. For example, ¡§promoting signature/ratification of abolitionist protocols¡¨ and ¡§disseminating information¡¨ are indeed activities to achieve the overall objective or some other specific objectives, like increasing the number of abolitionist states. For the last objective ¡§saving lives by urgent action¡¨, it appears to be an immediate action, rather than an objective, to protect the rights of the prisoners.
¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Thirdly, some ¡§specific objectives¡¨ are better described as ¡§outcomes¡¨ of the Campaign. An outcome is the change in behavior desired which is essential to the achievement of the objectives[4]. ¡§Strengthening the anti-death penalty resolution¡¨ is considered to be an outcome that it aims to impose stronger international pressures and change the behavior or attitude of the member states towards death penalty in UN Commission on Human Right (the Commission). ¡§Increasing awareness of the inherent unfairness of the death penalty¡¨ is also an outcome because it is necessary for mobilizing public and international community¡¦s support for abolition of capital punishment.
¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Reading between lines of AI¡¦s reports and document, it is believed that there are some other hidden objectives which the Campaign has not clearly set out. First, the Campaign, which is an integral part of AI¡¦s human rights movement, aims to complement to the UN human right framework. Second, AI¡¦s Campaign wishes to enhance transparency of the retentionist governments in order to protect the human rights of the prisoners stipulated in the ¡§Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of Those Facing the Death Penalty¡¨ (the Safeguards), which was adopted in 1984 by UN Economic and Social Council (EOSOCO) and the General Assembly. Third, AI aims to increase other NGOs¡¦ participation in the movement against the death penalty through co-operation and co-ordination.
¡@¡@¡@ ¡@¡@¡@ In the light of the above, I would take the liberty to reconstruct AI¡¦s objectives of the Campaign as follows and review their effectiveness one by one:-
(i) to increase the number of abolitionist countries and signature/ratification of abolitionist protocols[5];
(ii) to secure public support for abolition of the death penalty;
(iii) to complement to the UN human right regime;
(iv) to protect the human rights of the prisoners who sentenced to death, in particular ¡§the right of life¡¨; and
(v) to form a united front against the death penalty with other NGOs.
Review of the Effectiveness of the Campaign
Increasing the number of abolitionist countries
¡@¡@¡@ ¡@¡@¡@ Substantial progress has been achieved in the number of abolitionist countries by law or by practice since 1990. According to AI, the number of abolitionist countries raises from 88 to 112 during the period of 1990-2002. In 2002, 76 of which are total abolitionists (46 in 1990), i.e. no capital punishment will be imposed for all crimes, 16 have abolished the death penalty for all except wartime crimes, and the other are abolitionists de facto[6]. In other words, more than half of the countries in the world have already joined the procession of abolitionists. On average, two to three countries are doing away with death penalty every year. Up to 2002, 49 states have formally ratified OPT2. Seven other states have signed the OPT2 indicating their intention to ratify it in due course (AIHK, 2003:17).
Figure. 1¡@ The number of abolitionist countries (1990-2002)
¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ It is noted that 25 new abolitionists come from Europe[7], most of which are from ex-Soviet bloc or new European countries. The main force to drive them to abolish the death penalty is the policies of the intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) of Europe, including Council of Europe (CoE), European Parliament (EP) and European Union (EU). In 1996, CoE made immediate moratoria and ratification of Protocol 6 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the purpose of which is to abolish death penalty in peace time amongst European states, explicit requisites for membership, and calling for those member states which retained the death penalty but did not use it to abolish death penalty in law. In 1997, EP adopted a resolution on the abolition of the death penalty aimed at all European states and called on them to ratify the Second Optional Protocol. After EU¡¦s Treaty of Amsterdam, which took effect in May 1999 to provide for abolition death penalty in all EU states, EU declared that respect for human rights and fundamental freedom is a condition for admission (Manners, 2002: 247).
¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ These policies have significant effects on changing European governments¡¦ attitude towards the judicial execution. Western Europe is totally free of the death penalty today. The countries in Eastern Europe, which are eager to join ¡§the European Family¡¨ to secure assistance and investment for their development, are expected to take the same path (Moorehead, 1995).
¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Manners (2002: 251) described that the policy changes in European IGOs are mainly contributed to the efforts ¡§transnational and supranational organizations¡¨, one of which is AI. Since 1970s, AI has played a crucial role in persuading and encouraging the CoE and EP to make abolition of death penalty a formal policy and its efforts were rewarded in 1990s.
¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ In fact, AI¡¦s efforts also influence the external policies of the European IGOs. In February 1998, AI successfully persuaded the EU to issue a statement regretting the execution of Sean Sellers, who was 16 at the time of his crime, in the states of Oklahoma, US (Power, 2001: 277). In the spring 2000, EU for the first time sponsored an anti-death penalty resolution to the annual meeting of UN¡¦s Human Rights Commission (Power, 2001: 277). EU¡¦s ambassador to Washington also regularly presents letters of protest to governors of US states where prisoners are executed (Anonymous, 2001). In June 2001, CoE voted to remove Japan and US as observers unless they impose a moratorium on executions and begin repealing the death penalty[8]. This resolution exerted strong pressure on Japan and generating an abolition movement by some Diet members to draft new legislation to replace capital punishment with life imprisonment (Hanai, 2003).
¡@¡@¡@ ¡@¡@¡@ In addition to Europe, AI also secures some success in US through lobbying. After some power lobbying of prominent Irish Americans by AI groups in Ireland, the members of the Massachusetts House of Representatives vetoed to reinstate the death penalty (Power, 2002:277).
¡@¡@¡@ ¡@¡@¡@ Nevertheless, there is little progress in Asia and the Islam world. Only five Asian countries/territories abolished capital punishment during 1990 to 2002[9]. China is still the ¡§leaders¡¨ in execution, which accounts for about 70% of the total execution and more than 1,000 people are executed every years[10]. Iran ranks the second in the row. AI is still perceived as ¡§an enemy from the West¡¨ and is unable to set up an official section in China[11]. Recently, it is reported that the Philippines, which placed a moratorium for execution in 2001, will resume execution in January 2004[12]. Singapore is also planning to increase its use of death penalty (AIHK, 2003:23).
Securing public support
¡@¡@¡@ ¡@¡@¡@ To assess whether the Campaign can successfully secure public support, we can look into some public opinion surveys in retentionist countries.
¡@¡@¡@ ¡@¡@¡@ The results of some recent surveys in US are indicative. Although a 2001-survey still showed that 63 percent stood for death penalty, it was down from 77 percent five years ago (Vorlet, 2002:8). Another poll in New Jersey in 2001 ¡V where in 1999 an overwhelming majority backed capital punishment ¡V found that 66 percent of New Jerseyans supported a moratorium on execution (Shapiro, 2002). More and more Americans support moratorium on execution is contributed to AIUSA¡¦s capabilities to play up the stories of the high error rate of the capital punishments and academic findings of disproportional use of the death penalty to poor African-Americans in the media.
¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ At international level, AI is also managed to secure great public support for the Campaign. In 2000, a worldwide signature appeal was co-organized by AI and the Community of Sant¡¦Egidio, a Rome-based interfaith group, and Moratorium 2000, a US-based anti-death penalty organization, and collected more than 3.2 million people from over 146 countries in the world to support for a moratorium on the death penalty. The signature appeal, in a form of a leather-bound book, was presented to Mr Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of UN in December 2000. It cleared demonstrates that the Campaign has developed into a transnational and cross-cultural movement which articulates the interests and concerns of many people in the world.
¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Having said that, some people still believe that retention of capital punishment is a necessary evil or even a must to control serious crime. In fact, ¡§public support¡¨ is one of the common excuses for the retentionist states to respond to international pressure. Japan opposed to do away with judicial execution on the grounds that 79% of Japanese who responded to a poll conducted by the Prime Minister¡¦s Office wanted to keep death penalty (Anonymous, 2001). Even in some European countries, recent polls suggested that a majority of voters would like to see capital punishment be reintroduced for particularly heinous crimes (Anonymous, 2001). The reason for the Philippines planning to resume execution is also because of the great pressure from the local Chinese urging for combating the high crime and murder rate[13].
¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ The deterrent effect of capital punishment is the critical battleground in the debate over the abolition of death penalty. AI argues that academic studies have proved that there is no direct and strong correlation between death penalty and crime rate. Roger Hood, in his research which carried out for the UN in 1988, concluded that ¡§research has failed to provide scientific proof that executions have a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment and such proof is unlikely to be forthcoming¡¨ (quoted in Anonymous, 2001). This conclusion is also supported by most of the criminologists (Candler, 2001:365). However, it appears that the Campaign is unable to persuade the Asians to take this argument.
Complementing to UN human right regime
¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ UN is primarily a system of ¡§rights of the states¡¨, in which each government retains its sovereignty. Some states, in particular those third world and authoritarian countries, are lukewarm and hostile to international human rights control and monitoring mechanisms. The relevant bodies of the UN system will even get into trouble if they make serious evaluations of or comment on the compliance or non-compliance of individual states (Schneider, 2002: 149).
¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ One of the major problems of the UN human right system is the absence of coercive power to collect the necessary information to monitor whether member states are fully complied with the international conventions and standards on the death penalty. For example, in its resolution 1990/29 and 1990/51, EOSOCO asked member states to provide the Secretary-General with the information required for the preparation of the fifth quinquennial report on the question of death penalty. However, only less than half (89) countries responded to the Secretary-General and majority of the retentionist countries did not respond to the survey[14].
¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ AI, which has been given the UN consultative status since 1964, is capable of mobilizing significant complementary resources to assist the UN human rights regime. Schneider (2000: 156) noted that most of the UN information on human right issues, including those related to the death penalty, sources from AI. Through its annual reports and statements submitted to various UN bodies, AI provides accurate basic facts and figures, which are not made available from most of the retentionist states, and criticizes any violation of the international agreement by member states. Therefore, the information can assist UN bodies to perform its monitoring role and provide them with solid justifications to take stronger actions when necessary.
¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Not only is AI an information provider but also an active lobbyist. AI has successfully persuaded the Commission to adopt seven resolutions against death penalty consecutively during 1997 to 2003. The resolutions are getting stronger and stronger. The 1997 resolution was a general appeal calling for abolition of death penalty, observing the safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights to those facing the death penalty, making available to the public information with regard to the imposition of the death penalty. Since 1999, the resolutions have included definite requests to the retentionist countries. Over the years, the requests have increased gradually from 12 in 1999, 15 in 2002 and 19 in 2003[15], which imposes stronger pressure on the retentionist governments.
¡@¡@¡@ ¡@¡@¡@ Nevertheless, there are increasing challenges from retentionist states. Their resistance is mainly on the grounds that criminal justice system of a state is ¡§a matter of national sovereignty reflecting their cultural and religious values¡¨ and no foreign nations, or even UN, have the right to dictate other countries to make any change (Hood, 2002: 18). Although the abolitionist countries is managed to secure endorsement of the resolutions in the Commission, the number of dissenters is increasing. In Table 2, it shows that the margin between for and against the resolutions has been narrowed from 16 in 1997 to 5 in 2003. In 2002 and 2003, less than half of the member states in the Commission voted for the resolutions. In addition, 50 states jointly issued a statement in 1999 to record their disassociation from the resolution. A total of 51 and 61 states jointly issued the statements again to express their opposition in 2000 and 2002 respectively.
Table 2. Voting Results in the Commission on Human Rights on the Resolution on the Death Penalty
|
Year |
For |
Against |
Abstention |
|
1997 |
27 |
11 |
14 |
|
1998 |
26 |
13 |
12 |
|
1999 |
30 |
11 |
12 |
|
2000 |
27 |
13 |
12 |
|
2001 |
27 |
18 |
7 |
|
2002 |
25 |
20 |
8 |
|
2003 |
23 |
18 |
10 |
¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ The retentionist countries are also trying to oppose to UN resolution at the General Assembly aimed at promoting abolition. In 1994, Singapore introduced an amendment to the resolution to the General Assembly with a view to ¡§re-affirming sovereign right of states to determine the legal measures and penalties which are appropriate in their societies to combat serious crime effectively¡¨ (Hood, 2002: 20). In 1999, 70 retentionist countries co-sponsored similar amendments to the draft resolution against death penalty, which was co-sponsored by 73 states. In view of the divergent opinion, abolitionist states withdrew their draft resolution.
¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ In general, AI is very effective in complementing to the UN human right regime by serving as an information provider and a ¡§watchdog¡¨ to make up for the structural weakness of the UN human right regime and to strengthen the machinery for ensuring that the international standards are respected by governments. However, it cannot make use of the UN framework to build up consensus for abolition and change the views of the retentionist states.
Protecting the Rights of the Prisoners Sentenced to Death
¡@¡@¡@ ¡@¡@¡@ The human rights of the prisoners who sentenced to death include ¡§the right of life¡¨ and other rights stipulated in the Safeguards, including fair trials, appealing to a higher court and petitioning for pardon or commutation of the sentence.
¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Given insufficient information available, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to assess the effectiveness of the Campaign to protect the ¡§right of life¡¨ of the prisoners. Theoretically speaking, it can be assessed by the number of executions being stopped by the ¡§urgent action¡¨ appeals of the Campaign. From the available information, AI carried out at least 3,671 urgent action appeals during the period of 1991 to 1998, 558 of which were related to judicial execution[16]. However, there is no further information telling how many of them are successful. From time to time, there are reports that execution of prisoners are deferred or even abandoned and replaced by other penalties[17] but they are scattering and insufficient for conducting a meaning analysis.
¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ The IS has responded that statistical information on both ¡§death row prisoners receiving assistance and number of success cases are not quantified¡¨. Perhaps it is difficult to produce such figures as an ¡§urgent action¡¨ appeal may last for years and countries seldom admit that a prisoner is granted clemency because of international pressure or AI¡¦s action. From the AI¡¦s perspective, it may also not want to claim the credit as it may compromise its future actions.
¡@¡@¡@ ¡@¡@¡@ For the Safeguards, the retentionist governments are usually reluctant to make the implementation details of the death penalty subject to the public and international scrutiny, even the basic statistical information. It is hoped that, through exposing those covered up information, the retentionist governments who are not compliant to the Safeguards will be shamed and forced to rebut AI¡¦s allegation by providing some more information. Even though they choose not to respond, the retentionist governments will be aware of being closely monitored by the international community.
¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ From the information available, AI has at least condemned China, Singapore, Saudi Arabia and US publicly for their failure to observe and comply with the Safeguards. None of these countries has made any clear international commitment to ensure that the rights of the prisoners will be respected. In other words, AI is able to ¡§shame¡¨ the non-compliant countries, but is unable to change their attitudes or secure their official support to protect the rights of prisoners sentenced to death.
Forming united front with other NGOs
¡@¡@¡@ ¡@¡@¡@ A united front against the death penalty can mobilize the participation of other NGOs. It can strengthen the Campaign and resources, in term of both human and finance resources, can be deployed more effectively to achieve greater results through carefully planning and coordination. It is a win-win approach for human right NGOs which share similar values and vision but face insufficient resources.
¡@¡@¡@ ¡@¡@¡@ AI is considered effective in collaborating efforts and forming united front with other NGOs. The millennium signature campaign, as mentioned above, is a good example showing AI¡¦s efforts of co-operating with other NGOs to achieve the ultimate goals of abolition of the death penalty.
¡@¡@¡@ ¡@¡@¡@ AI is also a founding member and one of the steering committee members of the World Coalition Against Death Penalty (the Coalition), which was formed in May 2002. The objective of the Coalition is to gather NGOs, bar associations, trade unions, and other organizations to coordinate their efforts of lobbying and action in an international level. Since its establishment, the Coalition has organized two times the World Day against the Death Penalty in 2002 and 2003.
Observations
¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Thakur (1994: 375 & 383) has pointed out that the structure of AI movement is designed to collect, distribute and use information and that the programs rest on the simple idea that governments respond to the public opinion. As set out in AI¡¦s Annual Review 2002, the mission of AI is:-
¡§to undertake research and action focused on preventing and ending grave abuses of the rights to physical and mental integrity, freedom of conscience and expression, and freedom from discrimination, within the context of its work to promote all human rights.¡¨ (AI, 2002)
¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ The Campaign against death penalty follows the same logic. AI mobilizes public and secures their support through its research works, which is mainly a worldwide data collection exercise to discover the number of sentenced and execution, unfair legal proceedings, abuse of death penalty against the under-privilege classes, violation of international safeguards for death penalty prisoners, etc. The research results usually publish in its influential Annual Report and quarterly news bulletin on the death penalty. Once the public is mobilized, it will impose pressure on their governments to review death penalty policy internally, or to influence the other countries through diplomatic means externally. On the other hand, AI¡¦s research results arouse the international community¡¦s concerns and thus imposing ¡§shaming¡¨ effects and pressures on the retentionist governments.
¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Nevertheless, this does not give a full account for AI¡¦s achievement in the past 10 years. As ¡§states¡¨ are still the sole players who have the rights to make international treaties and implement the relevant standards, it is very difficult to achieve the objectives of the Campaign if it is not supported by powerful lobbying works. In the back stage, in reality, AI lobbies vigorously the stakeholders, including senior government officials and their representatives at major IGOs, diplomats, leaders of IGOs, etc, at various international arenas through its international networks.
¡@¡@¡@ ¡@¡@¡@ The research-based and public mobilization approach is most successful in those civilized and democratic Western countries, in particular in the Europe. Nevertheless, it does not work effectively in authoritarian states, religious Islam world and traditional Asian countries, where public opinion is often neglected or suppressed.
The Challenges Ahead
¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ AI¡¦s early work focused on prisoners of conscience, fair trials, torture and the death penalty. In 1990s, the mandates of AI have been expanded to political killings and disappearances, abuses by armed political groups, unlawful killing in armed conflict, and the arms trade. In 2001, AI further expanded its scope of work on economic, social and cultural rights.
¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ One of the direct bearings of the expansion of AI¡¦s mandates is that there is insufficient resource to maintain a continuous level of intense campaigning on every issue that falls within its mandate. The major source of AI¡¦s finance comes from membership fees. As the total number of members has remained stable at about 1 million during the past 10 years, AI¡¦s financial resource has not grown proportionally. In order to resolve the scarcity problem, AI takes the strategy of ¡§mass resources, limited time¡¨ for its major thematic campaigns (AI, 1991b), under which AI will only carry out one to two major, large-scale but short-term campaign activities every year. In fact, there was only one large-scale worldwide program for the Campaign in 1999-2000. The local AI sections and groups are responsible for the daily implementation of the Campaign activities with small amount of resources.
¡@¡@¡@ ¡@¡@¡@ The key challenge ahead of the Campaign is therefore how best it can be run more effectively and efficiently given scare resources.
Recommendations for Improvement
Strategic Planning in Both IS and Local Sections
¡@¡@¡@ ¡@¡@¡@ Although AI has a history of forty-year, it does not make any strategic plan until recent years.
¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ In 2003, the ICM endorsed the Integrated Strategic Plan (ISP) for 2004-2010, which is the first strategic plan of AI.¡@ The ISP outlines the boundaries of its works, and ¡§creates the space in which [AI] makes choices and it calls on the whole of the movement for implementation¡¨ (AI, 2003b: 6). According to strategic objective 3.1 of the ISP, AI will ¡§oppose the death penalty and all forms of unlawful killings¡¨. The specific objectives include:-
l to increase the number of countries, and states within countries, that abolish or suspend the death penalty;
l to promote access to justice of all persons threatened with the death penalty; and
l to oppose extrajudicial executions across the world.
¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ These objectives for the Campaign are still not well defined. The overall strategic objective and the third specific objective appear to be the stances of AI rather than achievable objectives. There is also no target for the increase of number of countries to abolish or suspend the death penalty by 2010. The end-state of second specific objective is not clear.
¡@¡@¡@ ¡@¡@¡@ Not only should strategic planning be carried out in the headquarters of AI but also its death penalty groups and local sections across the board. It is very important as these groups and sections are the front line of the Campaign which makes the implementation plans locally. For example, the Hong Kong Section of AI (AIHK), with consultation of the IS in London, formulated its own strategic operational plan (SOP) subsequent to the adoption of the ISP. In the SOP, abolition of death penalty is one of the strategic goals:-
¡§Apart from the HKSAR and Macau, all the countries/territories that form ¡§greater China¡¨ retain the Death Penalty, with China being the world¡¦s major executer, and Singapore having the highest rate of execution¡K With greater integration of HKSAR and the PRC, there are increasing opportunities for debate and information dissemination about death penalty issues with people in the PRC, and as AIHK develops more translated /Chinese language materials, with the rest of the Chinese-speaking world. AIHK, as part of Greater China, has a unique role to play in campaigns on the death penalty given our status as part of China. ¡¨ (AIHK, 2003)
¡@¡@¡@ ¡@¡@¡@ It is a general description of the ISP. However, the SOP does not set out any objectives or any specific targets to be achieved.
¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ It is a correct first step for AI to formulate ISP for short to medium term planning. For improvement, each specific objective of the Campaign needs further refinement to clearly define the expected end-states at the end of the period, i.e. 2010, in result-oriented language. The lower level objectives and outcomes should be linked with the higher ones. In the process, AI should also develop an evaluation mechanism by building in measurable indicators for both the AI and public to gauge the effectiveness of these objectives. IS should require its death penalty groups and local sections to take the same path and develop their SOPs at the same level of quality. AI may wish to assist them to plan strategically by providing professional support, sufficient training and allocating resources on a result-based programming.
Concentration of Resources in the Targeted Countries
¡@¡@¡@ ¡@¡@¡@ In the past 10 or more years, the focus of Campaign is on the newly formed European states. Nowadays, most executions are taken place in Asia and the US. In 2002, 81% of all known executions took place in China, Iran, Saudi Arabic and the US (AIHK, 2003: 15). Given limited resources, it will be more effective and efficient for AI to shift its focus from Europe and concentrate in Asian countries and the US.
¡@¡@¡@ ¡@¡@¡@ Concentration of resources does not only mean allocating resources to the activities for those targeted countries, but also focusing on the most effective strategy in respective state. For instance, public opinion plays an important role in affecting and the formulation of public policies in US and therefore most efforts should be made to mobilize the public. On the contrary, in China, the mass media is tightly controlled by the Government and flow of information is closely monitored and censored. The Beijing Government is also not willing to maintain any contacts with AI. In this circumstance, AI should devise other strategies, such as back stage lobbying through third parties, to push forward the Campaign.
Enhancing direct communication and co-operation among sections
¡@¡@¡@ ¡@¡@¡@ In view of different political and economic backgrounds, each AI section has its own concerns. The AIHK, inter alia, is concerned about death penalty, while some other AI sections are more interested in rights of gays and lesbians, violation of women, etc. They, under the direction and strategies set by the AI headquarters, work very independently that there is little communication and co-operation among sections. AI can encourage those sections having the same concerns to work together in order to strengthen the Campaign at a regional level. It can bring about synergy effects and take full advantage of the common services.
Conclusion
¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ A first look at the Campaign will likely come to a favorable conclusion, given the number of abolitionists has been increasing. It is true that there was a great success in the Europe in the past 12 years, but the achievement is limited in European states. We see no sign for significant improvement on the abolition of the death penalty in other retentionist states, in particular traditional and oriental countries, either in the same period or in the near future..
¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Measuring the success of the Campaign is indeed not an easy task. It is not only because, as Thakur (1994: 376) suggested, no government is going to admit having given in to external pressure, but also the vague and ambiguous objectives of the Campaign as well as insufficient information available.
¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ Because of increasing fear of crime and public pressure for tougher penalties, further movement toward the death penalty abolition may have to occur in small steps. Changing people¡¦s mind in the traditional retentionist countries is also a long-term social re-engineering process which may last for years or decades. If there is little success or difficult to observe its effectiveness, the international community will likely lose their enthusiasm for the Campaign and recede from the international agenda.
¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@¡@ AI has already taken the first step to think and plan more strategically. It may take some times before AI becomes an all-rounded good planner. The future achievement of the Campaign will depend on how best AI can devise well-defined objectives with realistic and achievable targets.