Human rights backlash (Final) Flashcards
What is a “backlash” in human rights?: Commitment versus compliance
A backlash occurs when states push back against international human rights norms, institutions, or enforcement mechanisms — after they have formally committed to human rights treaties or standards. Commitment: Countries cutting down their HR commitment. E.g. withdrawing from treaties or acceptance from monitoring mechanisms.
Compliance: Countries becoming more oppressive and repressive.
Backlash or overheating? –> Fariss 2014
To what extent are human rights worsening or is it just that we are expecting too much. Overheating: maybe what’s happening is that the demands for HR has happened way too quickly - raised the bar too much and too fast. Some argue that by pushing HR too much we are doing it a disservice. Problem of creating more and more rights/entitlements without the consent or support of governments: Implies creating a right with a legitimacy deficit.
The double-edged sword of judicial activistic: PM Netanyahu and the ICC
He visited Hungary, and Hungary is a party to the Rome Statute. All head to states are owed immunity from arrest (customary immunity) - unless that State becomes party to the Rome Statute. ICC issued an arrest warrant against PM Netanyahu under the charger of war crimes. Meant that if he is under the jurisdiction of a state party to the Rome Statute, they are required to arrest him and surrender him to the ICC. This is a violation of Intl law when it comes to a state that isn’t a party to the Rome Statute (Israel). The Court is forcing the parties to the Rome Statute to violate customary law. This is another example of judicial institutions smuggling obligations against the will of states. Weakening the legitimacy of the ICC.
Human rights backlash as a transnational phenomenon: International cooperation as a backlash strategy (The other “lock-in” effects)
In a way to more effectively undermine the ability of the opposition, they are not only applying domestic strategies, but are also using intl law to facilitate cooperation with other authoritarian regimes (I help you crush you opposition, and in return you’re going to help with my with my opposition). These lock-in effects are the effects that the treaty has to lock in authoritarian regimes: any move towards democratization is prevented due to this treaty-based intl cooperation. E.g. CIS Minsk Convention (1994), SCO Anti-Terror treaty (2009).
