This is why they attack Francesca Albanese: the law against imperial power

The attacks targeting Francesca Albanese, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory, raise crucial questions about the international human rights system and the role of multilateral institutions that promote functions like hers within the framework of the United Nations.

How the UN special mandate for Palestine was born.

The mandate for the Palestinian Territories was established in 1993 by the Commission on Human Rights (later the Council), with the aim of monitoring, reporting, and analyzing the situation in the Palestinian Territories occupied by Israel— the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip —since 1967. The mandate is distinguished by its focus on the conduct of the occupying power, in accordance with international humanitarian law and the Geneva Conventions , and focuses on the responsibilities of the occupying state, under the norms of jus in bello and jus ad bellum. This mandate falls within the United Nations Special Procedures, a fundamental instrument for the protection of human rights. The independent experts within the Special Procedures conduct country visits, investigate cases or systemic violations, send official communications to states, conduct thematic studies, consult with experts, and promote international standards. They also engage in advocacy, public awareness, and technical cooperation, and report annually to the Human Rights Council and the UN General Assembly. In crisis contexts, they often represent the only warning mechanism available at the international level.

As Special Rapporteur, Francesca Albanese does not represent the UN diplomatically, nor does she act on behalf of a state: she is an independent expert appointed by the Human Rights Council. Her work is based on documented sources, field missions (when permitted), interviews with witnesses, legal analysis, and comparison with international standards. She has described the Israeli occupation as a form of apartheid and has systematically documented incidents of violence, expropriation, arbitrary detention, and repression of Palestinian civil society. Her conclusions are consistent with reports by the UN and international human rights organizations. This very consistency makes the attempt to delegitimize her work serious: attacking the rapporteur personally, rather than addressing the content of her mandate, undermines the very principle of international accountability, weakening an already crisis-ridden system, in which law is often subordinated to the logic of force.

A symbolic genesis. The first special mandate against apartheid in South Africa.

The first United Nations special mandate was established against apartheid in South Africa: an institutionalized form of racial discrimination that many Western powers had ignored for economic and geopolitical reasons. That mandate represented a pioneering act, in which international law attempted to assert itself against realpolitik. Today, the mandate for Palestine follows that same trajectory: it addresses a reality of protracted military occupation and large-scale violations, as documented by numerous reports and resolutions . It was an unprecedented decision: for the first time, an international body established a permanent mechanism to monitor and report systemic violations, targeting a single state. In a context in which many powers had refused to condemn South African apartheid, the mandate represented a revolutionary gesture: international law placed itself above political interests, taking on the task of denouncing structural injustice even at the cost of conflict with those in power. Over the years, this pressure contributed to the political isolation of the South African regime and the legitimacy of its opposition.

International law in the “neo-imperial” era.

Today, however, the global context has worsened. We are experiencing a return to imperial logic: geopolitical power, military alliances, and economic interests prevail over the norms of international law. Multilateral institutions are being stripped of power or bent to the strongest. Special Rapporteurs are becoming targets: hindered, discredited, ignored. Attacking Albanese means not only challenging his words, but delegitimizing the entire architecture of international responsibility. Legal debate is being replaced by ideological conflict, undermining one of the last remaining tools for denouncing systemic injustices where states are inert or complicit. Recent history is full of similar cases. Agnes Callamard, now Secretary General of Amnesty International, was attacked for her investigation into the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. Nils Melzer , the rapporteur on torture, was criticized for his denunciations of the treatment of Julian Assange. Philip Alston was accused of bias for his reporting on extreme poverty in the United States. In all these cases, the price of independence was high, but necessary.

Richard Falk, a jurist and professor emeritus at Princeton, was UN Special Rapporteur from 2008 to 2014. He denounced the blockade of Gaza (2008) , Operation Cast Lead (2009), apartheid practices (2010), and the ethnic cleansing in East Jerusalem (2011). In 2012, he called for an investigation by the International Court of Justice into the treatment of Palestinian prisoners and accused multinationals of complicity in the expansion of settlements. His denunciations were attacked, but never refuted on the merits. His work laid the foundation for Albanese's current mandate. Defending Francesca Albanese 's role today means defending the possibility that international law still has a voice in a world where the law of the strongest prevails. When states fail, independent rapporteurs often remain the only mechanism for calling things by their proper name. Protecting the Special Rapporteurs, the United Nations, and Francesca Albanese means upholding the principles of legality, justice, and humanity globally.

*Forum to change the order of things

FROM

Giovanna Cavallo