Unit 4: Human Rights Flashcards
Define ‘Human Rights’:
Rights and freedoms that everyone is entitled to; they are an inherent part of being human and are absolute and universal (e.g. can’t be taken away by national laws)
Liberals views of Human Rights:
Regard it as the duty of all states to uphold human rights (both of their own populations and in their relations with other states)
Realists views of Human Rights:
See the whole idea of ‘human rights’ as misguided (especially because states’ behaviour should be based on national interests, rather than on notions of morality based on individual rights)
When was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
1948
What wide range of types of human rights does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights promote:
Civil and Political rights
Economic rights
Social and Cultural rights
What are the three generations of human rights:
First generation civil and political rights
Second generation economic, social and cultural rights
Third generation solidarity rights
What are ‘First-generation civil and political rights’?
Right to liberty and political participation - the kind of rights that liberals have fought to establish, for instance in 19th century Britain
What are ‘Second-generation economic, social and cultural rights’?
Right to subsistence and a decent standard of welfare - associated with the collectivist approach of socialism
What are ‘Third-generation solidarity rights’?
Collective rights which help groups to protect their identities, interest or culture - the right to self determination for an ethnic group, for instance
What are ‘negative rights’?
Rights which don’t require action by governments or others except in a negative sense - they shouldn’t torture ect - and represent limits on state power.
These are mainly civil and political rights
What are ‘positive rights’?
Rights which do require action by governments to ensure they are achieved, for instance, in providing schools to ensure the right to an education - mainly economic, social and cultural rights
Challenges to Universal Human rights:
They are simply the rights that have become the norm in Western societies - cultural imperialism
Individual rights and moral values are shaped by their own societies rather than being universal
Criticism to Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the Islamic world and some authoritarian Asian states:
Number of Islamic countries, for instance Sudan, reject some of the rights in the Universal Declaration because they are contrary to Shia law
in 1990s number of authoritarian Asian states like China claimed that some ‘human rights’ as set out in the Universal Declaration were inapplicable and reflected Western traditions
Universal Declaration established human rights as a recognised international concern:
Places a moral obligation on governments to ensure the human rights of citizens are respected
Provides the basis on which other countries can apply moral and diplomatic pressure to countries abusing human rights
Places an obligation on the international community to act
What is the International Declaration on Human Rights:
Steps have been taken internationally to try to make human rights legally enforceable
UN Human Rights Commission produced a two Covenants designed to make aspects of the Universal Declaration legally binding on states which chose to sign: The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
What are human rights?
Concept of human rights was enshrined in the UN’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights - they reflect liberal thinking and are considered to be are rights and freedoms that everyone is entitled to; they are an inherent part of being human and are absolute and universal
Why has it been argued that human rights do not apply universally?
The Universal Declaration set out norms that weren’t legally enforceable
In the West, ‘communitarian’ thinkers have challenged them on philosophical grounds because they see individual rights and moral values as shaped by their own societies
In some parts of the South, human rights are dismissed by claiming that they are in fact not universal at all but reflect the historical evolution of Western societies
Many Muslim countries reject some of the Universal Declaration’s ‘rights’ as contrary to Sharia law
In Asia, a number of regimes, such as in China, have argued for the existence of ‘Asian values’ which legitimise curtailing of individual freedom to protect collective goods like social and political stability
Been attacked on political grounds - the insistence that all countries adhere to what are seen as Western concepts of Human Rights amounts to cultural imperialism
Some also regard human rights as part of a neo-colonial project to control the rest of the world for economic and political reasons
Arguments that recent war crimes trials have not been effective:
Relative small numbers have been brought to justice in relation to the scale of the atrocities, especially in the case of the Rwandan tribunal, the 92 indicted and 29 convicted represent a tiny proportion of those responsible for the deaths of 800,000 people
‘Victors Justice’ - as the tribunals have been set up to try members of regimes opposed by the leading Western powers
Very expensive - the Rwandan tribunal alone cost $268 million in 2009
Arguments that recent war crimes trials have been effective:
The courts have arguably still fulfilled important functions
Those responsible for some appalling crimes have been brought to justice - General Krstic who organised the Srebrenica massacre has been punished
They have given a chance for victims or their relatives to make their voices heard - for instance, some confronted Milosevic face to face at the ICTY
Established important legal precedents - the former Rwandan PM, Jean Kambanda was the first head of government to be convicted for genocide
These developments may have a deterrent effect in the future, if potential perpetrators believe they may face retribution
What is the role of the ICC?
The ICC is a permanent court established by international treaty in 1998 which covers the most serious cases of abuse of human rights - genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity
Began trials in 2009 and has jurisdiction over the nationals of states party to the Treaty, or over anyone committing a crime on the territory of a state party and it can also hear cases referred to it by UN Security Council
It operates as a court of last resort and will not hear cases if they have been already tried in the state that has jurisdiction over the accused
What factors limit the ICC effectiveness:
ICC has no jurisdiction over nationals of states that aren’t party to the treaty and this currently excludes major powers such as US, China, Russia, India and most of the Middle East
All indictments so far have related to African conflicts, which opens the ICC to the charge of being a selective, neo-colonial body
ICC has no enforcement arm of its own and depends on the cooperation of states to arrest those indicted, which is problematic.
ICC prosecutors also find it difficult, with relatively few staff, to sift through highly complex conflicts, often based on tribal affiliations, and select the right people to indict
The credibility of the ICC has also been undermined by the strenuous opposition of the US during the Bush presidency, which feared politically motivated trials of US personnel
To what extent is countering terrorism compatible with upholding human rights?
Human rights of citizens are at unprecedented risk from terrorist violence, especially during the current ‘war on terror’
Countering terrorism inevitably involve some infringements of civil liberties and a balance has to be struck - to detect terrorist plots greater amounts of information are monitored by the state
More serious breaches of human rights are also acceptable in the interests of protecting society - if terrorists rights are infringed, this is a price worth paying to avert mass murder
Police should have the ability to detain suspects without trial for a limited period so as to be able to gather evidence
Some argue acceptable to detain terrorist suspects indefinitely and use harsh interrogation techniques against them as a price worth paying to safeguard the majority - Bush administration approach, Guantanamo
US has also undertaken the assassinations of leading figures in al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated terrorist groups - e.g. through drone attacks or killing of Bin Laden in 2011 by Navy Seals
Arguments countering terrorism is not compatible with upholding human rights?
Liberals would argue that many of the methods used in the ‘War on terror’ are not compatible with Human Rights, which are morally absolute and cannot be infringed, irrespective of the circumstances
Critics of the Western governments involved in the ‘War on Terror’ argue that many of the methods being used are unacceptable intrusions into personal freedoms and give too much power to the state
Argue information demanded more for political than genuine security reasons, eg to show the public that the government is ‘tough on terrorism’
Claimed that anti-terrorism laws are abused to intimidate journalists and protestors
Methods used by the Bush administration were even more subversive of human rights - suspects being held in Guantanamo were denied the rights they should have had as prisoners of war and not given access to the US courts
If states gain the power to detain indefinitely without trial and can use torture, they are likely to use it against dissidents rather than real terrorists, as in countless police states
Methods are morally repugnant - terrorists have rights because they are human like everyone else
Methods counterproductive - outrage at the abuses has acted as a ‘recruiting sergeant’ for Bin Laden and other jihadis
Drone attacks raise ethical issues
In order to gain the collaboration of other countries the West has also overlooked widespread abuses
Arguments for international interventions for humanitarian reasons:
Liberal interventionists would argue that human rights are indivisible and the international community has a duty to protect victimised groups like the Tutsis in Rwanda
Unacceptable in the 21st century for states to hide behind national sovereignty to excuse gross abuses of human rights e.g. genocide, war crimes and ethnic cleansing
Domestic repression has a major impact on surrounding states because it creates refugees, as in the case of Kosovo or Syria - regional stability is justifiably an international concern
Growing body of international law that refuses to allow leaders to hide behind state immunity
Series of actions have demonstrated that leading states are prepared to act, if necessary without UN sanction. In each case, these have resulted in the removal of intolerably repressive regimes
Even if the international community has acted inconsistently, it is better to help some victimised groups than to do nothing
Arguments against international interventions for humanitarian reasons:
Realists would argue that states should act to secure their own national interests and are not justified in sacrificing their troops to protect the citizens of other countries in the pursuit of ‘universal’ human rights
‘R2P’ will be used by powerful states like the US to excuse military interventions designed to impose their will on weaker powers, as in the Iraq war
Intervention also rests on unfounded assumptions of moral superiority on the part of the Western powers, especially the US, and double standards. It is hypocritical to intervene in cases of abuses by small powers and ignore equally bad abuses by more powerful states like Russia, or by allies of the US like Israel
States seek to intervene selectively in pursuit of their own agendas and definition of ‘human rights’
Huge risk that intervention will make matters worse and lead to more rather than less deaths - eg the huge number of Iraqis who have died or been forced to flee after the US intervention in Iraq
The huge cost and difficulty of nation-building in Afghanistan and Iraq has led the West, particularly the US and UK, formerly the strongest supporters of humanitarian interventions, to be extremely wary of further operations, as seen with the Syrian crisis
What is the UN Charter for Human Rights?
Foundation of the modern concept of human rights is the UN Charter, which proclaimed the need for ‘respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion’
A more detailed of definition of human rights was then set out in the UN General Assembly’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Realists arguments to what extent is countering terrorism compatible with upholding human rights?
State Sovereignty = state first
Protest the many not the few
States > NSAs = Bush “with us or terrorists”
Rights to life doesn’t apply to terrorists
Cultural Relativism
Realists argument that there are few legitimate grounds for international intervention:
Not humanitarian if acting in self-interest + pursuit of power - if not ‘self-interest’ states don’t intervene e.g. Rwanda 1994
State sovereignty + states being principle actors - cant jeopardise other sovereign states
National interests override need for Human Rights
Human Rights not applied universally
Long term instability - Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya
Liberals argument that there are few legitimate grounds for international intervention:
R2P undermined traditional notions of state sovereignty - Libya, Kenya used RP2
Need for Universal Rights - Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948
Regional instability - Rwanda caused instability in the Congo/ without intervention in Kosovo regional instability would have prevailed
Democratic Peace Theory
Controversies over human rights:
Cultural Relativism
Sovereignty
Not applied universally
International implications of human rights:
Places a moral obligation on governments to ensure the human rights of their citizens are respected
Provides the basis on which other countries can apply moral + diplomatic pressure to countries abusing human rights
Conflict between HR + National Sovereignty:
Chapter 2, Article 7 - enshrines sovereignty
The ICJ + its role:
International Court of Justice
UN court with a global remit but it is not a body which enforces human rights; it arbitrates on disputes between states
Protection of HR in wartime:
Hague Conventions of 1899 + 1907 banned chemical warfare + required that the lives and property of civilians should be respected
Geneva Conventions - set out rules for those not actively engaged in fighting
Geneva Protocol - prohibited use of chemical weapons
The ICC + what it does:
International Criminal Court - a permanent court dealing able to cover crimes in all states that are a party to it
E.g. Thomas Lubaga (Convicted)
The ICC - criticisms:
7 countries opposed the Treaty, including the USA, India, China, Israel + 21 abstained
ICC covers only the most serious cases (genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity); crimes of aggression are not currently within its jurisdiction
Role of the NGOs in protecting HR:
Groups like Amnesty International + Human Rights Watch work by drawing attention to abuses, gaining public support and putting pressure on governments in the West to intervene; they also seek to embarrass the governments of states
Impact of the ‘War on Terror’ on HR:
The ‘War on Terror’ has had a negative effect, especially worsening protection for Human Rights in number a countries
E.g. Torture, Drones, Surveillance
Balance between HR and protecting the public from terrorism:
The various jihadi groups clearly pose a threat to the public, with a number of atrocities already carried out.
Any government would be expected to take actions to protect its citizens from such a danger + most people are prepared to accept some degree of infringement
Meaning of ‘humanitarian intervention’:
Humanitarian Intervention - A military intervention that is carried out in pursuit of humanitarian rather than strategic objectives
Liberals view of ‘humanitarian intervention’:
Liberal interventionists consider that the international community has a moral duty to uphold human rights that overrides national sovereignty
Realists view of ‘humanitarian intervention’:
Realists argue that a states priority is to defend its own national interests; they have no duty to intervene in the purely internal affairs of foreign countries
Increase in ‘humanitarian intervention’ since the end of Cold War and reasons for this:
‘Liberal Movement’ that followed the end of the Cold War there was a new optimism that a ‘new world order’ could be created - the leading powers could now collaborate to ensure the UN worked effectively to deal with the threats to international peace
Examples of ‘humanitarian intervention’ - both positive + negative ones:
Positive:
Cambodia 1993
Sierra Leone 1999-2005
Negatives: Somalia 1992-93 Rwanda 1994 Bosnia 1994 Kosovo War
R2P - definition:
‘Responsibility to Protect’ people from genocide and other atrocities when national governments fail to take action, including by force if required
R2P - problems with it:
Not applied universally
Sovereignty
Cultural Relativism
