Liberals v Realists: Human Rights Flashcards
the significance of the divisions regarding human rights that exist between liberals and realists
disagree over whether human rights can practically exist in the world today
disagree over how well, if at all, human rights can be upheld in the international system
disagree over whether humanitarian intervention should be undertaken to defend human rights
disagree over whether human rights can practically exist in the world today
realists and liberals differ in their attitude towards human rights and whether they can practically exist in the world today
realists believe states are amoral, so it does not make logical sense to describe the international system in terms of ‘human rights’ or ‘justice’ as states do not act according to such universal principles
they are not guided by moral standards and states differ hugely in their cultural traditions and histories, which impact the human rights they decide to uphold
therefore, realists would argue that human rights cannot be truly universal
this can be seen in the Lindsey Sandiford case in which Sandiford was convicted of drug smuggling by an Indonesian court and in 2013, she was sentenced to death by firing squad
the Indonesian judges overseeing her case have repeatedly rejected appeals for clemency, arguing that her actions deliberately undermined the country’s war against drugs
this is a controversial case as the death penalty does not exist in the UK, yet Sandiford, a British woman, has been given the death penalty in Indonesia, supporting the realist view that a universal standard on human rights is near impossible to achieve
however, liberals disagree and believe that universal human rights are a cornerstone of the international system
they argue that despite cultural differences, states are still capable of cooperation and have reached a consensus on human rights
this is evident in the fact that international courts, charged with upholding human rights, have been established and the majority of the world’s states have signed up to them
for example, 139 states have signed the Rome Statute (the founding document of the ICC) and 118 have ratified it
therefore, while liberals believe there is a place for human rights in the international system, realists argue that there is not
disagree over how well, if at all, human rights can be upheld in the international system
another major division between realists and liberals regarding human rights is how well, if at all, human rights can be upheld in the international system
according to realists, human rights cannot be effectively upheld as the effectiveness of IGOs is severely limited in the system of international anarchy
there is no power above the state and therefore no higher authority that can effectively protect human rights and ensure that they are upheld
for example, the UK has denied prisoners the right to vote despite this being included in the European Convention on Human Rights and Saudi Arabia, until very recently, had upheld a law banning women from driving
furthermore, in April 2019, Brunei introduced the death penalty for gay sex, allowing people to be stoned to death if convicted, yet this violates the concept of ‘human rights’ and demonstrates that human rights cannot be effectively upheld as states are ultimately sovereign
these cases all suggest that IGOs cannot adequately uphold human rights as states cannot be compelled to behave in any particular way, essentially being free to determine what rights their citizens realistically possess and which they do not
moreover, realists, like conservatives, have a pessimistic view of human nature
Thomas Hobbes, in particular, believed that humans are selfish and seek “power after power”, meaning that states do too
therefore, states will act selfishly and often avoid cooperating over the issue of human rights if it is not in their own national interests, again limiting how effective IGOs can be in upholding human rights
however, liberals disagree and take the polar opposite view, instead arguing that human rights can be effectively upheld in the international system
they would point to the numerous successes of organisations like the ICC as evidence of this
by convicting human rights abuses before an international court, the ICC establishes precedents for the development of international human-rights based law and may also deter future human rights abuses as war criminals realise they cannot hide from justice
for example, it successfully persecuted Laurent Gbagbo, former president of the Ivory Coast, which reinforces the principle that heads of state will be held morally responsible for their actions
the ICC also successfully prosecuted the Congolese warlord Thomas Lubanga for recruiting and using child soldiers and he was sentenced to 14 years imprisonment
additionally, liberals would argue that human rights can and will be effectively upheld due to their optimistic views on human nature
both liberals and socialists have a positive view of human nature, believing that humans are capable of a selfless concern for others
this human altruism means that states are capable of cooperation, making it very possible for them to band together to protect human rights on an international level
therefore, there seem to be very significant divisions between realists and liberals in terms of how far they believe human rights can be upheld
disagree over whether humanitarian intervention should be undertaken to defend human rights
a final division between realists and liberals is whether they believe humanitarian intervention should be undertaken to defend humans rights or not
liberals tend to adhere to and support the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (R2P), arguing that with state sovereignty comes responsibility and if a state cannot uphold its own citizens’ human rights, then the responsibility to do so falls on the international community
this therefore legitimises humanitarian intervention
however, realists disagree and instead believe that state sovereignty should not be encroached by external forces, especially since the state is the most important global actor and sovereignty is what brings stability to the international system
this draws a parallel with conservatism, which prizes stability above all else
some realists argue that it is a state’s choice how they choose to uphold human rights and intervention cannot be justified on these grounds
examples like Libya, in which intervention caused the country to descend into anarchy, seems to further illustrate the realist scepticism towards humanitarian intervention
