Human Rights: Have They Become More Important? Flashcards
arguments suggesting that human rights have become more important in global politics
rise in humanitarian interventions
the ICC
emphasis on human rights in the West especially
arguments suggesting that human rights have NOT become more important in global politics
many humanitarian interventions have not genuinely had the aim of protecting human rights, many have been undertaken for selfish reasons
the ICC failures
Western hypocrisy
rise in humanitarian interventions
RISE IN HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION
The rise in intervention based on protecting human rights suggests that such rights have become more important in global politics
For example, in 1990, the UN was successful in peace-making when it mandated military action to evict Iraqi forces from Kuwait and then authorised the establishment of UN safe havens within Iraq in 1991 to limit Saddam Hussein’s aggression towards his own citizens
Another UNSC success can be seen in Sierra Leone (1999 – 2005) when UN peacekeepers successfully prevented the country relapsing into conflict while a peace agreement was put in place. UN soldiers helped to destroy thousands of weapons and disarm thousands of fighters, including child soldiers. Sierra Leone now provides peacekeeping troops in Somalia
NATO’s role in ending the fighting in the Balkans and subsequently maintaining peace has been very positive and highly effective. It launched large-scale air operations and deployed approximately 60,000 soldiers under Operation Joint Endeavour. NATO, by its bombing of the Bosnian Serb positions in 1995, led to the signing of the Dayton Peace Accords that ended the fighting in Bosnia, demonstrating its effectiveness in peace-making and peace-keeping where other organisations had failed.
many humanitarian interventions have not genuinely had the aim of protecting human rights, many have been undertaken for selfish reasons
RISE IN HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION
Not all of these interventions have genuinely had the aim of protecting human rights, many have been undertaken for selfish reasons
states that intervene can be seen as using humanitarian grounds as an excuse to increase their power and further their own interests, or even as a pretext for the control or annexation of another state – e.g. the Iraq War
one particularly problematic intervention was Western intervention in the Libyan civil conflict in 2011
this was ostensibly made on humanitarian grounds, to stop the bombing of innocent people, but this was soon claimed to be a cover for the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime
however, Gaddafi’s overthrow only led to more chaos and killing in Libya, especially since after his overthrow, the country descended into anarchy which allowed ISIL to gain a strong foothold
it can be argued that interventionism is merely another form of neo-colonialism and a way that Western states can impose their values onto others
humanitarian intervention may be a façade behind which Western states invade and exploit other countries
for example, some felt that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was carried out just so the USA could gain access to Iraqi oil, claims that the Iraqi regime possessed weapons of mass destruction formed the legal basis for the invasion and the argument that overthrowing Saddam Hussein because he was a bad person who had violated the human rights of his citizens formed the moral basis, many argue that this was merely a façade
some suggest that the Bush administration invaded Iraq for its demonstration effect. A quick and decisive victory in the heart of the Arab world would send a message to all countries, especially to recalcitrant regimes such as Syria, Libya, Iran, or North Korea, that American hegemony was here to stay. Put simply, the Iraq war was motivated by a desire to (re)establish American standing as the world’s leading power
East Timor – The Australian-led intervention during the 1999 crisis in East Timor has been considered as a success story in responding to a massive humanitarian emergency. It has been touted as the start of the emergence of a wider acceptance by the international community of the duty to protect innocent civilians who are suffering serious human rights violations
But many challenge the conception that the intervention into East Timor represents a significant shift in international relations based on state commitments to protect human rights, instead arguing that Australia’s leadership during the crisis was motivated primarily by the pursuit and protection of its strategic and economic interests
The Timor Sea is rich in oil and natural resources
the ICC
THE ICC
Human rights have become more important, as seen in the establishment of international courts designed to deal with human rights abuses
Alternatively, some argue that the numerous successes of the ICC suggest that while international law may be theoretically constrained by the existence of state sovereignty, in practice international law tends to be upheld by sovereign states. The ICC is the organisation that prosecutes individuals for crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes. By convicting human rights abuses before an international court, the ICC establishes precedents for the development of international human rights-based law. For example, the ICC successfully prosecuted the Congolese warlord Thomas Lubanga for recruiting and using child soldiers and he was eventually sentenced to 14 years imprisonment. Moreover, its persecution of Laurent Gbagbo, former president of the Ivory Coast, has reinforced the principle that heads of state are morally responsible for their actions. The fact that a large number of states have accepted that these crimes can be tried at an international court suggests that there is a little less anarchy in the international system, and that states are not as sovereign as they once were. Such successes and influence of courts that uphold international law suggest that international law is not always undermined by state sovereignty.
the ICC failures
THE ICC
On the other hand, the standing of this argument is considerably constrained by the numerous failings and limitations of the ICC and the abundance of examples where states have ignored ICC rulings. While many states have signed up to the Rome Statute, some countries, including the USA, China, India and Israel, are not bound by the full requirements of the court. Similarly, in October 2016, South Africa, Burundi and Gambia announced that they were going to withdraw from the Rome Statute, and other African countries may follow. Russia also seems likely to withdraw from the Rome Statute, perhaps because it may face punishment over the annexation of Crimea and its actions in the Syrian Civil War. With so many powerful countries absent or threatening to withdraw, the ICC only provides partial justice and cannot claim to uphold international law. This demonstrates that sovereign states, who are free to withdraw from such organisations, are capable of severely undermining international law.
The fact that many states do not cooperate fully with the ICC, have withdrawn, etc suggest that human rights are not very important to them
One of the main issues relating to UN special tribunals and the ICC is that some countries are not bound by the full requirements of the court, including China, the USA, India and Israel. This severely limits the ability of such institutions to deal with human rights abuses as it restricts their jurisdiction and how much action they can realistically take after humanitarian catastrophes and other issues of abuse by individuals or governments take place. For example, China is recognised for having a relatively poor human rights record. In 1989, the Tiananmen Square Massacre took place in which troops fired at student-led demonstrators and the number of casualties was internally estimated by the Chinese government to be around 10,000. More recently, China has come under huge pressure and criticism due to its treatment and persecution of Uyghur Muslims. In 2018, a UN committee heard that up to 1 million Muslims were being detained in internment camps and forced to undergo ‘re-education’ programmes. However, China is one of the countries not fully bound by the ICC, meaning that many of such human rights abuses may be essentially ignored and institutions like the ICC and UN tribunals are rendered unable to act. As such countries, known for having poor records regarding the treatment of their citizens, are not bound by the courts, it severely limits the ability of these courts to deal with human rights abuses.
Furthermore, the ICC faced another huge blow in 2016 when South Africa, Burundi and Gambia declared their decision to withdraw from the Rome Statute and therefore the ICC. There are fears that other African countries may follow, largely because there is the perception that the ICC and UN tribunals are biased against Africans seeing as most trials and prosecutions have been of Africans and arrest warrants have only ever been issued against Africans. According to countries like Burundi and Gambia, this makes the ICC look like a colonial organisation and this criticism limits its power and influence, and since other African countries may also leave the jurisdiction of the ICC, this issue has the potential to severely limit the ICC’s ability to deal with human rights abuses.
Moreover, the ability of the ICC and UN tribunals to deal with human rights abuses depends heavily on the cooperation of nation-states involved. Both organisations depend on states to turn over suspects and help in the information gathering process in order for trials to be as quick and efficient as possible. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. There have been numerous cases when the prosecutor has the evidence needed, an indictment has been issued but a trial has not followed because the indicted individual has not been turned over for trial, meaning that the suspect remains at large as an international criminal and does not have to answer their charges. This has been the case with Omar al-Bashir, former president of Sudan, who is charged with crimes against humanity and genocide in Darfur, in which up to 300,000 people were killed and 2.7 million driven from their homes by militias he backed from 2003. Sudan’s military government has said it will not extradite al-Bashir to face his charges, claiming it would be “an ugly mark on Sudan”. This lack of cooperation is one of the biggest issues facing both the ICC and UN special tribunals, limiting their ability to deal with human rights abuses as neither can force a state into complying with them, even if that state has agreed to fall under the jurisdiction of the courts.
emphasis on human rights in the West especially
EMPHASIS ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Especially in the West, we seem to have developed a human rights based culture
For example, in the UK…
Firstly, perhaps the most significant argument suggesting that rights are protected in the UK is that they are upheld by numerous pieces of legislation. For instance, the Human Rights Act 1998 was passed by New Labour under Tony Blair and incorporated the ECHR into UK law. It includes the right to fair and equal treatment before the law, freedom of expression and freedom from arbitrary arrest. This ensures that rights are upheld by allowing these rights to be defended in UK courts rather than having to go to the ECHR in Strasbourg which can be highly time-consuming and expensive. Furthermore, rights under the HRA are easier to defend because the act was the first that clearly set out citizens’ rights into one single document, thus allowing citizens to clearly establish what rights they actually possess and when these have been infringed and ensure that these rights are enforceable by allowing them to be defended in UK courts. It has often been suggested that the UK has a rights-based culture as all new legislation must be compliant with the HRA – our culture is clearly heavily based on and values the rights of its citizens. Rights are also upheld by the Equality Act 2010, which attempted to bring together the various pieces of legislation – such as the 1970 Equal Pay Act and the 1976 Race Relations Act – that sought to outlaw discrimination and unfair treatment into one Act of Parliament. It identified nine protected characteristics including race, sexual orientation and age, making it illegal to discriminate against people based on any of these characteristics in the workplace and wider society. These pieces of legislation demonstrate that rights are now better protected and upheld than ever before.
Western hypocrisy
WESTERN HYPOCRISY
Human rights seem to be important to the West, but under the surface they are disregarded – the West is highly hypocritical in its stance on human rights, which suggests they have not necessarily become more important in global politics
If an international standard of human rights is going to exist all states would need to be held equally accountable before the law and if international law is to be legitimate it must treat Allstate the same
This principle is undermined because often the more powerful states ignore international law if it is against the national interest
For examples America’s use of waterboarding the indefinite internment of terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay And the rendition of terror suspects to states such as Pakistan where they could be more discreetly tortured
another example of such double standards can be seen in the military coup in Chile in 1973
following an extended period of social unrest and political tension between the opposition-controlled Congress of Chile and the socialist President Salvador Allende, Allende was overthrown by the armed forces and national police
the Popular Unity government was overthrown and a military junta was established that suspended all political activity in Chile and repressed left-wing movements
Allende’s appointed army chief, Augusto Pinochet, rose to supreme power within a year of the coup, formally assuming power in late-1974
the United States government, which had worked to create the conditions for the coup (e.g. through economic warfare ordered by President Nixon), promptly recognized the junta government and supported it in consolidating power
This demonstrated a double standard as the USA was willing to support a military dictatorship that represses many rights including the freedom of speech in association to further their own national interests
Simply because they did not like their ideology they were fifth of communist expansion in what they saw as their backyard so were willing to support regimes that also anti-Communist in nature
USA preaches democracy and human rights but overthrows democratically elected government and instead supports military regimes
today, there are still claims that the USA and the West operate double standards
they claim to be defenders of human rights but there have been numerous examples of the USA using questionable techniques during war that violate human rights
EXAMPLES = Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib prison, British troops, covert rendition, US drone strikes
the use of the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base as a detention camp for ‘unlawful combatants’ in the war against terror
as well as the use of ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ such as waterboarding, which are widely viewed to be examples of torture
the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq was also a scandal that seemed to show the hypocrisy of the USA
detainees were severely abused and maltreated in 2003 and the US authorities were accused on inflicting ‘grave breaches of humanitarian law’
British troops were implicated in the death of Baha Mousa in Basra, Iraq in 2003
they were accused of using banned interrogation methods and ‘gratuitous violence’
one soldier admitted a charge of inhumane treatment and became the first member of the British armed forces to be convicted of a war crime
in 2013, a British marine was found guilty at a court martial of executing an injured Afghan insurgent in 2011
the USA has also been accused of breaching core liberal values in the war against terror through the use of ‘covert rendition’
the US government is alleged to have unlawfully transported terrorist suspects to other countries to by-pass normal legal and human right protections
detainees were often tortured and denied legal advice and fair trials
for a country that prides itself on upholding the rule of law, such acts can be seen as utterly hypocritical
according to Intercept, Between 2012 and 2013 airstrikes in Afghanistan have killed more than 200 people of which only 35 were intended targets
During 15 month period nearly 90% of those killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets
This illustrates how innocent bystanders are killed as part of the US war on terror And how the US is willing to sacrifice innocent human lives for their own national interest
the West is meant to symbolise liberal values such as democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law
however, it is often alleged that Western countries ignore these values when dealing with other countries if its suits their national interests or if it means they will make money
there are numerous examples of occasions when UK governments have been accused of hypocrisy or double standards (e.g. arms trade)
the UK has sold armaments to Saudi Arabia that have been used against civilians in Yemen
Saudi Arabia started a military campaign in 2015 against Iranian backed-rebels in Yemen and alleged indiscriminate bombing has led to the killing of thousands of civilians and led to a humanitarian catastrophe in one of the world’s poorest countries
since 2015 the UK government has approved arms exports worth over £3.3 billion
another example of UK hypocrisy concerns the alleged Western and UK silence or inaction over human rights abuses in China due to China’s economic power
the UK government believes that it can make more progress in persuading China to respect human rights by engaging in quiet diplomacy and encouraging trade rather than taking a harder line with the potential superpower
although many argue that the UK simply doesn’t want to provoke or anger China because China is the second largest, soon to be largest, economic power
these examples demonstrate that the West does not always practise what it preaches
liberal democratic states should have more ethical policies so they can lead by example rather than contradicting themselves
