Law, Justice, and Democracy: International Human Rights - Essay Example

? (school) Law, Justice, and Democracy: International Human Rights Introduction International human rights are internationallyrecognized rights inherent and endowed to all human beings. As indicated in Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, all people are entitled to rights regardless of their “race, color, sex, language, religion, political, or other opinion or social origin, property or birth status”. Moreover, the endowment of such rights must not be based on the political, jurisdictional, or international status of the country where the citizen belongs. In effect, for countries and territories, the protection of international human rights must be consistent. Despite these clear provisions however, significant gaps in their implementation have been seen throughout the years. Human rights violations have been apparent in various countries and territories and the United Nations and other international governing bodies have not adequately addressed these issues. In other words, the delivery of justice has been questionable. Based on these circumstances, this study now seeks to consider the thesis that the international human rights laws and provisions are not serving the general interests of justice. This paper shall discuss this thesis by reviewing instances of human rights violations and how the human rights laws have responded to these cases. This review shall cover various incidents from different countries and the political considerations which have often impacted on human rights violations and justice in general. Body The articles of the UDHR do not include specific provisions for the guidance of the people, especially those who are obliged to implement its provisions (Dugard, p. 85). The vague nature of the UDHR also leaves major gaps in implementation and the interpretation and these gaps often have to be filled by those who have to implement its provisions. The UDHR was originally meant as a list of objectives to be implemented by member countries; it was not meant to be part of international law. However, the UN Conventional Conference on Human Rights indicated that the UDHR would be included as a part of international laws (Dugard, p. 85). As a result, its provisions have now become part of all state laws; in other words, the reach international laws have become even more extensive. One of the gaps seen in the implementation of international human rights laws is on its decentralization. In countries like Iran and Afghanistan, their laws do not exactly blend well with Western-based international laws, especially when the rights of women are considered (UDHR). As a result, human rights violations have often been apparent against these women when international standards are considered; however, when country-based standards are used, there are no human rights violations. In effect, these countries have not resolved the issue on how to handle these conflicts and the implementation of the international human rights laws seem to be relatively vague and conflicting (Koh, p. 1396). The decisions on these cases often take years to resolve; in the meantime, many more violations are being committed by citizens and government officials alike. This was clearly seen in the case of Afghanistan who was under the Taliban regime for many years until the US troops entered the country after the 9/11 attacks (Hancock, 2007). For years, Afghani men and women suffered under the repressive regime of the Taliban regime and their suffering did not gain sustained international attention; however, when America was attacked on September 11, 2001 and the Taliban proved to be a major supporter of the perpetrator of the attack, major attention was gained by the Taliban group and their actions in Afghanistan. This seems to indicate that the application of human rights practices is unbalanced and vague. Some of the issues in relation to international human rights and the promotion of justice also include the fact that the implementation of the UDHR is based on how vigilant the countries are in actually focusing attention on human rights violations (Koh, p. 1397). For countries who seem to be more vigilant in implementing its provisions, the provisions of the UDHR can be implemented; otherwise for other countries who are not vigilant, human rights violations would likely continue to be major issues (Koh, p. 1397). This vigilance was not seen for almost twenty years in the Philippines during the reign of Dictator President Ferdinand Marcos. As a result, various human rights violations were perpetuated under his presidency, including the assassination of his main political rival martyr Benigno Aquino, Jr. (Ropp and Sikkink, p. 57). Other human rights violations have been carried out in different countries and yet, no vigilance was seen in reporting these incidents or in filing legal remedies to stop or bring perpetrators to justice. This is unfortunate considering that without any report forwarded from the countries, the international governing bodies would have been powerless against these violations. The weakness of the international human rights is also founded on its lack of an implementing arm or agency. The sovereignty of countries involved also seems to be a major issue because implementing international law provisions on the independent countries may be viewed as violation of sovereignty (Reisman). This was apparent in the Rwanda massacre where the UN peacekeeping forces were not allowed to enter the country by the UN Security Council. The Security Council was more concerned about interfering in the sovereignty of the country than in the protection of human rights. As a result, about 800,000 people died within just a span of 100 days. The UN Security Council is tasked with the determination of entry into any country event without the state’s consent; however, entry into the country may be construed as a violation of the Principle of state sovereignty. This makes the UN and its related agencies inadequate agencies in the protection of human rights. This was a major consideration for the Security Council, which in the face of the major atrocities being carried out in Rwanda proved to be a disastrous delay. A major stumbling block in the protection of human rights is seen in the diversity of people’s culture, religion, traditions, beliefs, and political ideologies (Donnelly, 2005). The differences in culture alone present with a major dilemma in the interpretation and the implementation of human rights provisions. Some countries may consider certain acts to be a necessary part of their culture, others may consider these to be human rights violations (Baehr, p. 45). For the UN implementing agencies, making such delineation is a significant challenge. There is a risk of creating an unfair precedent for countries who do not consider certain acts as human rights violations. However, allowing these acts to continue under the auspices of tradition may also be offensive to other more democratic and liberal countries. Major differences in certain actions may especially be apparent in the case of Islamic and western nations. A flogging or cutting off of a person’s hand may be considered as a norm in the Islam countries; however in the West, these may be labelled as inhumane punishments. Due to these differences in perspectives, major gaps in the actual implementation of human rights violations may become clearly apparent. Almost all governments seem to be repressive in some way or another, and these governments often carry out human rights abuses on their people. Various policymakers have been trying to single out the human rights policies which would hold people responsible for their actions (Koh, p. 1393). Some of these tools include international human rights laws which were established after the end of the Second World War in order to prevent further incidents of human rights abuses. It is apparent to note that advocates of human rights protection have long wanted to explore the possibility of reform and of filling in the gaps of justice and human rights protection. Another concern in human rights protection seems to revolve around the argument that governments support human rights treaties, but not as symbolic acts but as forms of preference for reform (Neumayer, p. 925). Based on such accounts, if human rights laws are crucial for political reform, they will allocate more time to consider these reforms. However, many governments seem to be pressured by international bodies and are not overly concerned about the implications of the treaties they are signing. This is where the gaps in the implementation of human rights laws come into the fore because countries involved do not actually appreciate the implications of their actions and their treaty signings. Various governments believe that they do violate basic central human rights including the freedom of speech and prohibitions of torture and slavery. These violations however are often excused, but not adequately defended. However, it is apparent that the Bangkok Declaration of 1983 would soon change this (Hafner-Burton and Tsutsui, p. 409). In this declaration, the representatives of Asian nations discounted civil and political rights for being against Asian values and these declarations have gotten much attention, especially as this declaration was seen before the Vienna Rights Convention of 1993 (Hafner-Burton and Tsutsui, p. 409). Human rights are considered to be universal and they are norms which limit the allocation of state power. It is therefore not a surprise that many governments do not agree with the imposition of human rights. The Bangkok Declaration set forth that states have the main task of promoting and protecting human rights and also of ensuring that legal remedies are made possible for human rights violations (Varennes, p. 4). It is their responsibility to decide where trade-offs can be made and to secure the rights using various agencies, based on human rights standards. Human rights have to be conceptualized as something which is dynamic, while also noting the significance of regional diversities and cultural backgrounds. The Bangkok Declaration indicated that national sovereignty needs non-interference in state affairs, and in effect, discarded the use of human rights as tools of political pressure (Varennes, p. 7). There seems to be various objections to international rights, especially in relation to human rights. In viewing these objections, there also seems to be a major contradiction in the protection of human rights. The failure of human rights based on differing conceptualizations is be founded on the fact that human rights are unduly based on a Western ideal of the individual being self-interested. However, not all societies prescribe to this notion; and they believe that protecting human rights is nothing more than imperialism in practice. Human rights are also viewed in some cultures as obligations which do not include human duties. They believe therefore that in focusing on human rights, the obligation of humans as citizens are ignored (Smith, et.al., p. 207). With such viewpoints, the understanding of human rights and duties is hardly based on a clear understanding of human rights or the basic duties associated therewith. In effect, human rights also become a means of ignoring communal ties because human rights do not blend well with an individual’s local duties, his obligations to his community, or his commitment to the society at large. Some cultures also believe that human rights do not give much attention to social and economic needs. In this instance, the focus of international attention seems to be unbalanced. In the non-Western arena, the focus is on a person’s social, economic, and cultural needs; however these rights need to be negotiated hard with civil and political rights (Follesdal, p. 2). Human rights are also viewed as a violation of individuals and their tacit consent. It can be gleaned that the respect for individuals does not need respect for human rights; however it calls for foreigners to not interfere with the society where they live (Follesdal, p. 2). Therefore, the implied agreement of individuals must be respected, even if the government does not respect their basic human rights. Under these conditions, human rights are seen as a hindrance to the fulfilment of humanitarian goals, Human rights also seem to violate respect for other cultures because these human rights impose a standard which may conflict with non-Western and non-democratic countries (Follesdal, p. 2). The respect which needs to be allocated to other societies calls for these societies to be left alone to consider their own practices. An issue with the conceptualization of human rights is also founded on the fact that human rights ignore non-governmental threats. Human rights do not bring attention to the real threats to the well-being of people which may often be perpetuated by non-government agencies and other countries (Follesdal, p. 2). In less than ideal scenarios, including civil wars, most human rights obligations are often ignored by states and other citizens. Human rights are also viewed as a threat to sovereignty (Follesdal, p. 3). Even as human rights protests and organizations declare their issues against violations, they also ignore world instability which may be seen in interfering with the sovereignty of other countries. Under these beliefs, human rights must be discounted as an exercise of Western imperialism. In seeking to understand the cultural gaps and divide between the west and the east in relation to human rights, there is a need to consider the assumption between this divide (Follesdal, p. 2). Many objectionable Western practices have discounted human rights in the current context; moreover there seems to be theories in relation to human rights in varying non-Western traditions. Rejecting human rights because of Asian values is clearly unfortunate for various reasons. As the government highlights the Western or Asian traditions, it also discounts the diversity in the cultures in the midst of geographical boundaries (Sen, p. 33). These tags also seem to conceal discrepancies in the views of the government and the citizens. Although some values may be seen as common values, and some may differ from each other; they bring to the fore an outstanding truth – that conflicts in human rights may be caused by clashing civilizations (Huntington, p. 87). Major gaps in the implementation of human rights laws and policies are significantly affected by cultural relativism (Poe, p. 853). Cultural relativism, at one point was able to gain much notice as a means of fighting against colonialism. During the years of the colonialism, one culture was seen as superior to all other cultures. This superiority was later challenged and most governments considered the value of each culture individually, and many people tried to accept this innovative thought (Reichert, p. 23). In understanding the concept of relativism, each point must be given equal value and truth must not be accepted fully, only relatively. Truth is therefore unique to each culture and all religions and cultures have truths which are linked with the cultural beliefs of the society where they are associated. Relativism is appropriate in certain scenarios; but language, food, clothing, and art are varied for each culture and state. Moreover, for such cultures to flourish, these relative differences must also be maintained (Pasamonik, p. 207). Moreover, cultural relativism admits that there is an impenetrable diversity between cultures since each culture is unique (Lawson, p. 251). This relativism often leads to confusion in relation to human rights. In general, cultural relativism is the belief in all cultures being equal with each other. In effect, a local culture may allow the mutilation of the female genitalia, then the label of human rights violation must not be made on such practice. If however, the culture does allow such mutilation, then no rules beyond such jurisdiction must interfere in the cultural practice. In other words, the act is part of the culture, not a human rights violation. In the American context, if an uninsured American does not gain full medical treatment due to his inadequate income, the local American culture accepts such scenario, even if the UDHR may declare the universal entitlement of all people to sufficient medical care (Reichert, p. 24). These are clear examples of cultural relativism, examples which often make the implementation of human rights laws very much complicated and difficult. Although the end-results may seem to be objectionable and inhumane, there seems to be a need for the UN to acknowledge these differences as normal. The issue in the unquestionable acceptance of cultural relativism is within the structure which envelopes the cultural practice (Reichert, p. 24). The major consideration lies in who actually determines or decides culture. With other instances of cultural relativism and human rights, the ability to define culture and laws also defines the end-result. As a result, interpreters of human rights violations and cultures must not be immersed in an unquestionable acceptance of culture over the basic rights of humans. Cultures regularly change and with the passage of time, there is eventually a divergence of these cultures (Ife, p. 24). Regardless of these changes, culture must be understood from its historical roots along with an appreciation of the fact that power often defines culture (Reichert, p. 27). It may be easy to see that states must not ask for cultural exceptions for their actions. Instead, these cultural practices must change based on human rights standards. In order to accomplish such goal, education seems to be one of the necessary first steps that need to be taken. In these instances, questions like – who should defines culture; who has the power to make such definition, as well as who would likely benefit from these conceptualizations of culture must be considered (Freire, p. 18). States often take advantage of culture in order to support their questionable practices. China for one accepted that the sale of children and the killing of female children was one of their persistent issues. However, instead of considering solutions for their population boom, the country highlighted the issue of poverty and backward thinking (Harris-Short, p. 130). Another consideration in this analysis is the fact that many individuals often do not fully understand the meaning of human rights. For example, female genitalia mutilation is a practice which has been commonly practiced in some countries; it has been outlawed in others, but has persisted in some states (Donnelly, p. 283). People however do not fully understand why it is a violation of human rights; and for other people, they do not understand why it is part of the culture in some countries. Preventing its practice is therefore not sufficient because many countries still practice it. However, with the adequate education of the people based on local cultures, its practice may eventually be outlawed totally. The important consideration in this ‘education’ option is the fact that deterring people from practicing it must also not draw the interference of other countries into their cultures and beliefs. In other words, the decision of the country to change must be based on their being informed of the degrading nature of the act, not because their act was labelled as human rights violation by an outsider. In this analysis, the west and east seems bound to clash with each other, mostly because of the understanding that westerners seem to want to impose their will, beliefs, and traditions of the non-westerners. Yet, when westerners utilize culture as a means of reducing their impact in their own countries, serious backlash often results. A case in Germany in 1997 recalls a young woman was burned to death by her father because she refused the man he chose for her (Reichert, p. 25). The courts imposed a reduced sentence on the father citing the practice of his culture and religion. This ruling met with significant backlash from the community who refused to acknowledge the father’s act as a cultural practice; they firmly believed that the act was a major criminal act. In other countries like Iran, women are forced to wear veils when they would leave their homes; and they are punished for failing to follow such practice (Reichert, p. 25). Relativists declare that this practice must be respected because the wearing of the veil protects the women from unwanted advances; it also declares them to be modest women. For western nations, viewing Asian and third world country prisons may cause them to declare the state of these prisons as violations of human rights. Others may however agree that these prisons are acceptable based on third world standards, thereby allowing them to support the return of refugees and those seeking asylum (Reichert, p. 30). Based on the above scenarios, cultural relativism seems to enable these acts or crimes. In some states, it also seems to allow inhumane acts. Relativism declares that people’s rights are based on their nationality and culture and that the rights of people born in Iran or Iraq are different from those born in the US and the UK (Namazie). These relativists also declare that human rights are western concepts only; and yet, the telephone or the internet is not labelled as such, especially if it benefits them greatly. It is important to note that culture for culture’s sake is not impenetrable. A culture which cannot actually protect humans and their right to exist in better lives is inherently worthless. Fighting for a standard human right implies the need to condemn reactionary beliefs. One struggle against inflammatory practices is also a struggle against major powers that be (Namazie). Despite this understanding, there still lies a major gap in the understanding of cultural relativism and human rights violations. As a result, it is still difficult for many countries to understand the need for standardizing human rights violations and defining which practices are validly labelled as culture, and which would be considered human rights violations. The government seems to be one of the major violators of human rights. Based on surveys of human rights activities in certain countries, it is clear to note that most states have signed many human rights treaties, thereby establishing a world space which accepts human rights as a universal law. Moreover, the percentage of states reported to have carried out human rights violations over time have increased with time, tapering in incident in the last few years (Reichert, p. 30). There is a major gap between states and their approval of human rights treaties and their desire to bring their human rights protection with these standards have been difficult. This was seen in the case of Guatemala when it signed its first global human rights treaty protecting woman against discrimination (Reichert, p. 31). This was seen in 1982 which showed significant incidents of human rights violations in the country. And yet, by 1992, the country signed all six of the most important human rights agreements, extending their commitment to civil and political rights; and securing freedom from torture for children (Apodaca, p. 587). But still these violations persisted. Iraq is also another clear example of the failings of the human rights laws. In 1970, it signed its first human rights treaty, however, despite such commitment, the government carried out various violations in terms of racial discrimination (Hafner-Burton and Tsutsui, p. 1380). Eventually, in 1994, it signed all six treaties in relation to human rights. And yet, human rights groups reported that Iraq was guilty of perpetuating extreme and extensive human rights violations and repression (Amnesty International). The failure of compliance seems to be expected by some scholars because they believe that states only comply with human rights laws when it is convenient to fit their needs (Downs, et.al., p. 379). In effect, this belief also seems to support the notion human rights treaties do not have much effect on human rights practices. This is exacerbated by the fact that treaties are not designed to make the ratifying governments liable for their signatures. Other scholars argue otherwise, declaring that states mostly comply with the international laws they are trying to support (Henkin, p. 197). Human rights laws are no exception. International organizations, as well as non-governmental groups can interact with government leaders in order to carry out new practices (Finnemore, p. 199). International pressures later led to the reduction of forced disappearances in Argentine and in the reduction of legal impediments in human rights laws in Japan and Korea. Various accounts were apparent in other incidents. Lutz and Sikkink (p. 633) declare that standardizing global human rights can impact well on state practices, but the issue is already clear. In theory, the principles of human rights seem to work well; however, its applications is literally filled with major gaps. The main argument in human rights and its implementation is based on the issue that global standardization of human rights seems to be a double-edged sword. In one side, global human rights have weak institutions to enforce norms; and this provides support in ratifying human rights treaties as a means of superficially fulfilling one’s obligations. Moreover, international treaties may sometimes assist governments in providing a shield in increasing abusive actions after ratification as such ratification often gives human rights legitimacy making it difficult to push them into other actions (Hafner-Burton-Tsutsui, p. 1380). With the decrease of outside pressures, governments often descend into repression after ratification and human rights regimes often find it hard to cease this process. On the other side of the coin, human rights supporters manoeuvre around treaties, using helpful state actions to pressure states to comply with human rights standards (Hafner-Burton and Tsutsui, p. 1381). As a result, human rights treaties and rights seem to culminate with a significant amount of empty promises and vague declarations. Although it seeks ideal goals, it cannot seem to reach a genuine interpretation and arrangement of rights. Conclusion International rights laws and relations provisions are not serving the general interests of justice. First of all, there are major gaps in the implementation of the laws, especially in terms of interpretation and application of these rights. Secondly, there are vague provisions and elements of the international laws which often leave states doubtful in their implementation and interpretation of provisions. Lastly, there is a cultural relativist element which is ignored by those implementing the laws. Cultural relativism is a major element in the failure of international laws because violations of the provisions are not adequately understood and in the end, the laws are often ignored and not adequately implemented. What may be a human right violation in one country may not be for another, and vice versa. In effect, the implementation of the provisions of human rights laws seem to be based on the whims and discretion of the states involved. This seems to diminish the impact of the law, reducing its efficacy and preventing pressures made on the authorities involved. All in all, there is a need for the government officials as well as the UN to review the provisions of international laws on human rights, to assess its implementation, and to establish clear processes for addressing major violations and to fill in significant gaps. Reference Amnesty International, Amnesty International Report, London: Amnesty International Publications, 1994. Apodaca, C. ‘Global Economic Patterns and Personal Integrity Rights after the Cold War,’ International Studies Quarterly (2001), 45:587–602. Baehr, P. R., ‘Human rights: Universality in practice,’ New York: Palgrave, 2001. Donnelly, J. ‘Cultural relativism and universal human rights, Human Rights Quarterly, (1984), 6(4), 400-419. Downs, G. Rocke, D. & Barsoom, P. ‘Is the Good News about Compliance Good News for Cooperation?’ International Organization (1996), 50:379–406. Dugard, J. ‘The Influence of the Universal Declaration as Law,’ Maryland Journal of International Law, (2009), 24(85), 85-93. Finnemore, M., ‘National Interest in International Society,’ Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Freire, P., ‘Teachers as cultural workers. Letters to those who dare teach,’ New York: Boulder, 1998. Follesdal, A. ‘Human Rights and Relativism,’ Real World Justice: Grounds, Principles, Human Rights Standards and Institutions, Berlin: Springer, 2005 Hafner-Burton, E. & Tsutsui, K. ‘Human Rights in a Globalizing World: The Paradox of Empty Promises,’ AJS (2005), 110(5), 1373–1411 Hancock, J. ‘Human rights and US foreign policy,’ London: Routledge, 2007. Harris-Short, S. ‘International human rights law: imperialist, inept and ineffective? Cultural relativism and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child,’ Human Rights Quarterly, (2003) 25(1), 130–152. Henkin, L. ‘How Nations Behave: Law and Foreign Policy,’ New York: Columbia University Press, 1979. Huntington, S. P. ‘The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order,’ New York: Simon and Shuster, 1996 Ife, J., ‘Human rights and social work: towards rights based practice,’ Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Jack, D. ‘The Relative Universality of Human Rights,’ Human Rights Quarterly (2007), 29(2), 281-306. Koh, H. ‘How is international human rights enforced,’ Indiana Law Journal, (1998), 74, 1396-1417. Krasner, S. ‘Problematic sovereignty: contested rules and political possibilities,’ New York: Columbia University Press, 2001. Lawson, S., ‘Democracy and the problem of cultural relativism: normative issues for international politics,’ Global Society: Journal of Interdisciplinary International Relations, (1998), 12(2), 251–271. Lutz, E. & Sikkink, K. ‘International Human Rights Law and Practice in Latin America,’ International Organization (2000), 54:633–59. Nabudere, D. ‘Human rights and cultural diversity in Africa,’ Association of Law Reform Agencies of Eastern and Southern Africa-(ALRAESA) Conference on the Fusion of Legal Systems and Concepts in Africa, (2005), 04 April 2012 from http://www.justice.gov.za/alraesa/conferences/2005uganda/ent_s4_nabudere.pdf Namazie, M., ‘Cultural relativism – this era’s fascism’ (1998), 04 April 2012 from Neumayer, E. ‘Do International Human Rights Treaties Improve Respect for Human Rights?’, Journal of Conflict Resolution (2005), 49(6): 925–953. Pasamonik, B. ‘The paradoxes of tolerance, Social Studies, (2004), 95(5), 206–211. Poe, S. C., and Tate, C. ‘Repression of Human Rights to Personal Integrity in the 1980s: A Global Analysis,’ The American Political Science Review (1994), 88:853–72. Reichert, E. ‘Human Rights: An Examination of Universalism and Cultural Relativism, Journal of Comparative Social Welfare (2006), 22(1), pp. 23–36 Reisman, W., ‘Sovereignty and Human Rights in Contemporary International Law,’ Faculty Scholarship Series, Paper 872, (1990), 04 April 2012 from http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/872 Ropp, S. & Sikkink, K. ‘The power of human rights: international norms and domestic change,’ London: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Sen, A. ‘Human Rights and Asian Values: What Lee Kuan Yew and Li Peng don't understand about Asia’. The New Republic (1997), 33-40. Smith, J. Bolyard, M., Ippolito, A. ‘Human Rights and the Global Economy: A Response to Meyer,’ Human Rights Quarterly (1999), 21:207–19. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 2, (2012) 04 April 2012 from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ United Nations Department of Public Information, ‘Women and Violence’, United Nations (1996) 04 April 2012 from Varennes, F. ‘Asia-Pacific Human Rights Documents and Resources,’ Volume 1, London: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1998 Read More