ETVT HR are more effectively protected by HI than int courts and tribunals Flashcards
LOA
both ineffective but int courts slightly more effective
structure
- the ability of HI to prevent immediate HR violations vs courts
- the ability of courts to uphold HR and hold perpetrators to account
- how powerful states can undermine int. courts
- for (ability of HR to prevent HR violations rather than int courts )
Humanitarian interventions can override state sovereignty to prevent immediate abuses.
Interventions protect vulnerable populations when courts canโt enforce binding decisions.
Key examples: NATO in Kosovo (1999), INTERFET in East Timor (1999), NATO in Libya (2011).
Interventions can save lives, halt violence, and deter future human rights violations.
Responsibility to Protect (R2P) allows international action when states fail to protect citizens. ๐โ๐ก๏ธ
- against they are better protected by courts
Humanitarian interventions are becoming rarer due to the rise of China and Russia, both of which oppose interventions that override state sovereignty. ๐จ๐ณ๐ท๐บ
China and Russia use their UNSC vetoes to block humanitarian actions, especially when they challenge strategic interests. ๐
Russiaโs veto in Syria shields Assad despite human rights violations, including chemical weapons use. ๐ฅ
The U.S. shift toward isolationism since the 2000s (Obama, Trump, Biden) reduces willingness for global humanitarian interventions. ๐บ๐ธ๐ซ
U.S. military fatigue from Iraq and Afghanistan, alongside the 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan, highlights this trend. ๐
These factors leave human rights crises unresolved, such as the Uyghur Genocide, Rohingya Genocide, and Sudanese civil war.
- against ability of int courts to uphold HR and hold perpetrators to account
International courts can persuade states to change behavior through legal rulings, preserving sovereignty. โ๏ธ
The liberal perspective emphasizes the power of the rules-based international order and moral pressure. ๐
ECHR: Rulings like Goodwin v. UK (2002) forced the UK to pass the Gender Recognition Act, protecting transgender rights. ๐ณ๏ธโโง๏ธ
ICJ: The Democratic Republic of Congo v. Uganda (2022) case led Uganda to pay reparations for human rights violations. ๐ฐ
ICC: The ICC sentenced Thomas Lubanga (2012) for recruiting child soldiers, holding individuals accountable. ๐ถโ๏ธ
ICTY: Convicted 90 war criminals, including Radovan Karadลพiฤ for the Srebrenica massacre (1995), ensuring justice. ๐๏ธ
- for HR are better protected by HI
Enforcement Issues: International courts rely on state cooperation; state sovereignty often hinders enforcement. ๐โ๏ธ
Realist View: States prioritize sovereignty and self-interest over compliance with international court rulings. ๐ผ
ICJ Consent: States must consent to ICJโs jurisdiction; no cases have been brought against the U.S. despite War on Terror abuses. ๐บ๐ธ
Myanmar Case: In 2020, ICJ ordered Myanmar to protect the Rohingya after The Gambiaโs 2019 case; Myanmar largely ignored the ruling. ๐ซ
ECHR Resistance: Russia ignored rulings on political prisoners and Chechnya; UK resisted 2005 Hirst v. UK ruling on prisoner voting. ๐ท๐บ๐ฌ๐ง
Selective Compliance: States selectively comply when rulings align with national interests, undermining human rights protection. ๐๏ธ
- for because powerful states undermine
Disproportionate Impact: International courtsโ rulings often affect weaker states while powerful nations evade accountability. ๐๏ธ
Weaker States Pressured: Poorer nations face pressure (sanctions, isolation) to accept jurisdiction of international courts. ๐๐
Powerful States Exempt: 70 states, including Russia, China, and the U.S., havenโt signed the Rome Statute, avoiding ICC jurisdiction. ๐จ๐ณ๐ท๐บ๐บ๐ธ
ICC Limitations: The ICC canโt investigate nations like China for Uyghur genocide, as they donโt accept its jurisdiction. ๐ซ
Bias Against Weaker States: Up to 2023, all 31 ICC indictments were against African leaders, leading to accusations of bias from the African Union. ๐โ๏ธ
Flaw in Universal Human Rights: Powerful states maintain sovereignty and face less accountability, undermining the ideal of universal human rights protection. ๐๏ธ
- against
Collateral Damage: Humanitarian interventions can cause civilian casualties, undermining the protection of human rights. โ ๏ธ
Example: NATO bombings in Kosovo (1999) targeted civilian infrastructure, killing hundreds. ๐ฅ๐๏ธ
Selective Use: Humanitarian rhetoric often justifies military actions with hidden motives, like the U.S. War on Terror, leading to widespread abuses. ๐๐
Example: Iraq War caused 200,000 civilian deaths, despite claims of human rights protection. ๐ฎ๐ถ
Double Standards: Interventions rarely target powerful states (e.g., China, Russia, Israel) where abuses persist, revealing inconsistency in human rights protection. ๐โ
ICC Accountability: The ICC has pursued cases against powerful states, showing it can uphold human rights universally. โ๏ธ
Example: Arrest warrants for Russian President Putin (2023), Israeli officials, and Hamas leaders for war crimes.
How do humanitarian interventions sometimes fail to protect human rights?
Humanitarian interventions can cause major civilian casualties, like NATO bombings in Kosovo (1999), which targeted civilian infrastructure, leading to hundreds of deaths. ๐ฅ๐๏ธ
How has the War on Terror been justified using humanitarian rhetoric, and what was the actual outcome?
The U.S. justified the Iraq War with claims of liberating oppressed populations, but it resulted in human rights abuses and the death of an estimated 200,000 Iraqi civilians. ๐ฎ๐ถ
Why do humanitarian interventions often target weaker states and not powerful ones?
Humanitarian interventions have not occurred in powerful states like China, Russia, or Israel, despite human rights abuses in those countries (e.g., Xinjiang, Ukraine, Gaza). ๐โ
What are the limitations of international courts like the ICC?
International courts are limited by state sovereignty; for example, 70 countries, including Russia, China, and the U.S., havenโt signed the Rome Statute, meaning they arenโt subject to ICC jurisdiction. ๐โ๏ธ
What action did the ICC take against Myanmar and what was the response?
The ICJ ruled in 2020 that Myanmar must protect the Rohingya, but Myanmar largely ignored the ruling, showing how state sovereignty undermines international law. ๐ฒ๐ฒโ๏ธ
How has the ICC addressed the issue of accountability for powerful nations?
In 2023, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Putin for war crimes in Ukraine, showing it can pursue powerful nations despite their resistance. ๐ท๐บโ๏ธ
How did the ICC address alleged war crimes in Gaza in 2024?
The ICC applied for arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, former Defense Minister Gallant, and former Hamas leader Sinwar for crimes in Gaza. ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ต๐ธ
Why is there criticism of the ICCโs focus on Africa?
Up until 2023, all 31 ICC indictments were against African leaders, leading to accusations of bias and a focus on weaker states while powerful nations are overlooked. ๐โ๏ธ
What happened with the ICCโs jurisdiction over powerful states?
Countries like the U.S., Russia, and China have refused to accept the ICCโs jurisdiction, leading to an inability to prosecute individuals from these states for human rights abuses. ๐จ๐ณ๐ท๐บ
