United Nations and International Human Rights - Essay Example

?United Nations and International Human Rights Introduction The United Nations is the governing ity for international affairs. It is the body which ensures that international relations between nations and between the citizens of the world are protected and managed. The United Nations has various governing bodies and arms which cover a variety of political concerns in the international scene. One of these concerns is international human rights. Securing international human rights is an essential responsibility of the United Nations, one which requires their legislative authority as well as their executive and adjudicatory powers. The protection of these rights by the UN however has been criticized as inadequate and inefficient, especially with reports of human rights violations by international as well as private actors and parties. This paper shall discuss the effectiveness of the UN in the protection of human rights. Specifically, the UN’s effectiveness in ensuring the people’s freedom from torture and oppression shall be evaluated in this paper, with particular reference to relevant case and incidents in the international scene. Body The United Nations was established in 1945 in order to establish and ensure international cooperation and coordination in the resolution of economic, political, social, as well as humanitarian issues; it was also established to ensure that respect is allocated for human rights and that freedom of all individuals regardless of their race, gender, religion, and language is protected1. In order to specifically establish the principles in the protection of human rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted in 1948. Through this declaration, various standards and norms for the protection of human rights norms have been established2. However, even with these declarations, serious human rights violations have been seen in various parts of the globe. As a result, the UN has implemented changes and improvements in its policies on the protection of human rights. Initially however, the UDHR already proclaimed the basic principles it was destined to protect, which included the right to life, liberty, freedom from slavery, freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman treatment of punishment, including other similar rights and freedoms3. In 2006, the Human Rights Council replaced the Commission of Human Rights4. This council as well as the treaty passed established obligations for states to implement in their own lands in order to support the international mandates. From such show of support, the first steps towards the effective implementation of these treaties were already considered. The Rwanda Genocide in 1994 led to the deaths of 800,000 Rwandans in the span of 100 days5. Years of conflict between the Hutu tribes and the Tutsi population in Rwanda culminated into 100 days of torture and killing in the country. The country was plunged into a political and economic crisis upon the death of the Hutu President Habyarimana in 1994 and his death served as the spur for the killing of Tutsis by the Hutus6. The Tutsis were targeted in an effort to cleanse the Rwandan population7. In the midst of the civilian killings, the UN withdrew its forces from Rwanda, thereby allowing the genocide and human rights violations to persist8. The UN was in the perfect position to protect the human rights of the Rwandans, but it did not protect such position. It seemed to appear that the UN was more concerned about suffering another failed attempt at peacekeeping, considering its recent experience of failure in Somalia9. As a result of its prudence, hundreds more would die in Rwanda. Freedom from torture and cruel treatment is considered an absolute right, one which is protected by moral laws and unspoken mandates10. Barnett argues further that the UN bears the responsibility of the Rwandan Genocide11. The UN was in the right position to manage the Rwandan crisis in a way that would have made it possible for the Security Council to consider intervention and entry into the country12. When a historical perspective is considered, the role of the UN as a protector of human rights has been manifested in various incidents13. The UN Preamble also emphasizes the role of the UN in protecting human rights; moreover, the UN already established the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in order to serve as legal bases for its actions in protecting human rights. Despite its legal limitations from the very start, the UN has clearly established its responsibility in the protection of human rights14. Based on these premises, it would be unusual for the UN, as the protector of human rights since the Second World War, to abandon its duty to prevent the violation of human rights in Rwanda in order to ensure its existence and interests as an international body15. Aside from the Rwandan Genocide, other instances of human torture and cruel treatment have also been ineffectively handled by the UN. The UN has the responsibility of evaluating reports submitted by state parties to conventions on human rights and to make judgments on these reports; moreover, the UN is also the body where individuals can express their complaints against states in relation to the violation of human rights16. In 1976, the UN Human Rights Committee was established in order to oversee the above responsibilities. However, the UN has not adequately met these responsibilities. Beyond the effective adjudication of some violations, the impact of the committee has been negligible17. The UN committee has been established in order to provide a venue for individuals to express and file their grievances against states (including their own) for human rights violations. And yet, since it was established twenty years ago, only 765 complaints were registered with the committee; this is very much a disparity with the two billion citizens of the world who are supposed to find legal relief under its wing18. From these complaints, only 263 opinions have been rendered in 199 cases, and out of these cases, only 15% have actually been implemented by the states involved19. One of the instances which marks the committee’s and the UN’s failure involves Libya. In 1995, Libya submitted its human rights report to the UN committee; however, this report did not detail the human rights abuses which were being carried out by their President Muammar Gaddafi20. The report did not mention how expatriate dissidents were shot down and the fact that no perpetrators were apprehended in the Lockerbie bombing21. After three years and after evaluation of the report, the Committee delivered its review of the report. Instead of condemning Libya for its abuses, it complimented the country for its favourable treatment of women22. As for the political murders of the oppositionists, a polite concern and light chastisement was issued by the committee. Libya ignored these comments and concerns. What made the matters even more appalling for human rights advocacy was the fact that Libya was even named chair of the Committee in 200323. These actions do not reflect the actions of a discerning body, or one which seeks to protect human rights. The UN Committee on Human Rights is considered ineffective for a variety of reasons. For one, the members of the committee who are considered experts in the protection of human rights seem to be an extension of the governments they come from24. In effect, these members are actually not independent personalities who can evaluate issues and reports with autonomy or without any overt or even covert political interests to protect25. Without any independent members, the members of the committee cannot objectively evaluate reports and cannot establish judgments on state or individual accountability for the violation of human rights. The UN Committee is also considered ineffective because the committee does not allocate sufficient time for the discussion and consideration of human rights violations. It is a committee which meets infrequently, only three times a year for about three weeks at a time26. These short meetings cannot adequately serve the interests of human rights protection and make the committee nothing more than an ineffective arm of the UN. The committee also does not hold adversarial proceedings and hearings27. No witnesses are allowed to present their cause and concerns and the assessment carried out by the committee is mostly based on a self-report of actions. The committee cannot adequately monitor state and individual actions in these instances and no fair adjudication can ever come about from such a set-up28. The activities of the UN Committee are also dependent on the UN Secretariat. The committee is very much governed by the UN and is not a quasi-judicial entity because its authority and power is drawn from the UN. It is also dependent on the Secretariat for its budget and status29. Since the UN is always concerned about being criticized by its members, this concern is usually reflected on the decisions and actions of the committee. The UN Committee is also ineffective because it does not focus on individual rights, instead, it highlights the duties of the states towards individuals; it therefore does not afford protection to individuals and cannot pressure states to comply with their duties as members of the UN covenant or treaty30. The Committee also does not have independent fact-finding capacity. In effect, it cannot effectively and objectively monitor the activities of countries; moreover, it cannot verify adequately the contents of reports submitted to them. Although the committee can access the reports of the Human Rights Commission, these are inadequate reports which cannot be given independent credence31. The Committee’s work is also essentially unreported. Its activities and findings are not monitored sufficiently to satisfy the interests of concerned human rights victims. The meetings of the committee are behind closed doors and their files and reports are kept confidential32. This diminishes the credibility of the committee and makes their activities less reliable and less objective. Nevertheless, granting to some extent, that the activities of the committee are made public or even if they would increase the number of their meetings, these adjustments would remain ineffective in the face of the fact that the committee does not have enforcement power33. It cannot enforce its opinions on states, and states can only take their opinions under advisement. States can therefore choose to ignore the committee’s views and defend its actions by citing their independence and sovereignty as a state34. Consequently, human rights may easily be violated by states and individuals because the most they can get from it would be a slap on their proverbial fingers. However, upholding human rights must take moral precedence over state sovereignty because allowing state independence to triumph over moral rights against torture and abuse is akin to allowing a world of peace, chaos, and unrest to govern the lives of the people. The UN has not established its firm policies on these considerations, and this is perhaps its biggest failure. Due to the inadequacy of the UN Commission of Human Rights in securing human rights, the UN General Assembly replaced the Commission with the Human Rights Council35. However, various reforms to human rights protection were rejected by the Assembly, and unfortunately these reforms were needed in order to prevent the same mistakes of the commission36. The US proposed a small body made up of 53 members in order to secure speedy resolution of actions and speedy issuance of decisions. It also proposed that there be a two-thirds vote from the General Assembly before a member can be elected to the council, and that states with a record of human rights abuses must not be elected to the council37. After negotiations were ended, the GA established a 47 member council which could be elected via a majority vote of the GA without any prohibition on membership for nations with records of human rights abuses. The US voted against the resolution of this proposal arguing that there were no credible requirements set for membership into the council and the possibility that the council will repeat the same mistakes of the commission is high38. This situation presented a potentially disastrous scenario for human rights protection. In its first year, the council did not adequately prove that it was doing any better than its predecessor because it was also as incompetent in handling human rights abuses39. First of all, most of the members refused to review other members who violated human rights and secondly, most of their solid human rights reprimands were directed towards Israel40. The NGO UN Watch points out that there have been 12 HRC resolutions which have been directed towards a specific country, nine of these were against Israel, and three were on Sudan41. In its regular sessions, the council did not adequately consider the repression and abuse of human rights in countries like Belarus, China, Cuba, North Korea, and Zimbabwe which were countries with the worst records and accounts of human rights abuses. In its first year, the actions of the council proved inadequate and the actions it carried out did not sufficiently address and resolve human rights abuses and violations. In fact, it was only able to pass 12 resolutions on human rights considerations and only on two countries, with nine of these resolutions against Israel and three being non-condemnatory resolutions on Sudan42. Moreover, Israel was not even allowed to explain or defend itself against these resolutions. The actions of Palestine and the Hezbollah group during these incidents were not even considered43. While the Council was preoccupied with the actions of Israel, other human rights abuses in other parts of the world were running rampant. The Freedom House identified other human rights abuses in countries like Belarus, Burma, China, the Ivory Coast, Cuba, Laos, Somalia, Syria, Zimbabwe, Uzbekistan, among others; these areas remain neglected as far as UN actions are concerned44 The council’s session on Sudan also did not yield any concrete actions on the human rights scenario in the Darfur region45. The council was very conscious and cautious about placing any blame on Sudan government for the human rights violations in the region. The resolution was mild and non-condemnatory and it merely expressed concern over the human rights situation in Darfur46. The council did not even acknowledge the violations of human rights which were perpetuated in the Darfur region47. An investigatory mission was later sent and was led by Jody Williams; however, Sudan refused entry of the party to Darfur. Instead, the investigation was carried out from Chad and Ethiopia; eventually the report was able to gain evidence of major human rights violations by the Sudan government in Darfur48. This report was rejected by Sudan, alleging that it was inaccurate because no actual investigation was carried out in Darfur. Some members of the council rejected the findings of Williams and the council passed the resolution which mildly noted the Williams report but rejecting its recommendation on condemning Sudan for its actions on Darfur49. In effect, no strong resolution of the Darfur genocide was actually taken by the council and the human rights violations once again went unpunished. During the council’s fourth regular session, it also decided to cease its investigation of human rights abuses in Iran and Uzbekistan50. This was a serious abandonment of its duty to protect the rights of its members especially in the face of the fact that various reports have surfaced on serious human rights violations in these countries51. Without the constant scrutiny and pressure of the UN council on these countries, these human rights abuses would likely continue to impact on the people. The members of the UN Council entered their commitment in the protection of human rights when they accepted their post. However, their actions actually portray an appalling lack of commitment to human rights protection52. The same poor commitment seen from the members of the Commission seems to be apparent in the current Council. This scenario is being made even worse by the major shift in the representation of regions from the commission which manifested strong membership from the Western states, and now in the current council which is largely dominated by Asian and African states53. The membership of the council has largely been made up of states which were also members of the Non-Aligned Movement and the OIC. These groups have been vocal in their disapproval of Israel and the need to scrutinize Israel in all its actions54. Moreover, member states like South Africa and India have not been keen on supporting efforts of the council in securing human rights in various parts of the world. Even as about half of the members of the council are actually free democracies, only a few of these countries have actually expressed their condemnation for human rights violations55. Instead, the council has been active in establishing alliances with abusive regimes which seek to destroy the essential reforms needed in securing human rights protection. As a result, most of these democratic members have ignored the human rights abuses based on their loyalty and political interests56. Amnesty International is also firm on its critique of the UN and its inefficiency in safeguarding human rights. They cite incidents in Darfur, Zimbabwe, Gaza, Iraq, Myanmar, and Afghanistan and demand the immediate actions of the UN on these incidents57. The year 2007 marks a year where Western states were impotent against the emerging powers and human rights abuses were marked by the growing inequalities of millions of citizens. The US and its Guantanamo Bay was a major violator of the freedom from cruel punishment serving as a detention centre for suspected terrorists who were basically stripped of their human rights, including their right to due process and fair trial58. The situation in Russia was also noted with political dissidents being severely punished by the government and with human rights abuses perpetuated in Chechnya59. Rendition of suspected terrorists were also noted as a common human rights violation ever since the 9/11 bombings. These incidents are one among hundreds of other human rights violations which the UN has ineffectually managed. Other incidents have included the imprisonment of monks in Myanmar, in Pakistan, and of women activists in Iran60. Buddhist monks in Burma have endured repression, intimidation, as well as harsh prison sentences and conditions61. A report by a Burman watcher Bertil Lintner documents how monks have been arrested, beaten, and imprisoned, especially after they expressed support for opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi. Many of these monks were driven out of their country, seeking refuge in other states in order to flee the human rights abuses they were likely to endure in Myanmar62. Many of them were defrocked and were tortured for expressing their opposition against the government. Currently, about 200 monks are serving prison time for their beliefs and they are serving these sentences under inhumane conditions63. Many of them are facing ill health and some have already died while in prison. Even if these monks engage in non-violent and peaceful protests, they are labelled as enemies of the state who must be severely punished64. The UN has not yet implemented any solid actions in order to address this issue and it has remained ambivalent in establishing any clear resolutions on the situation. Similar concerns on human rights violations were also seen in Iran. In a report by the UN News Centre, it was revealed that the humanitarian conditions in Iran in relation to human rights were very low and various incidents of human rights violations were apparent65. These incidents included: denial of access to legal counsel and medical treatment to detainees; use of secret and public executions; and the use of death penalty for juvenile cases66. Activists were often arrested, including religious and ethnic leaders. An incident involving 42 lawyers who provided legal counsel was also made public, especially with the arrest and prosecution of these lawyers67. These lawyers were charged with participation in illegal gatherings, sedition, and spreading propaganda68. With these actions, it is crucial to note how human rights violations have become rampant all over the globe. And it is unfortunate to note that the Council for Human Rights actually removed Iran in its watch list for countries suspected of perpetuating human rights violations. Conclusion The above discussion demonstrates how the United Nations is an ineffectual organization in safeguarding human rights, particularly the people’s right to be free of torture, and to be free from cruel treatment and punishment. Various laws and treaties have been passed and ratified by the UN in order to safeguard human rights. However, for the most part, these conventions and treaties have made the same mistakes which their predecessors have made. They lack the political power to protect human rights and the will to punish violators. Human rights violations are still rampant all over the world. Moreover, the UN has chosen to ignore and to act lightly on these matters, thereby leaving the victims no better than they were before. These violations can be seen in China with its treatment of the press, in Iran for its cruelty against political oppositionists, in Rwanda for the failure of the UN to prevent the Genocide from escalating, or in Darfur for allowing the Sudanese government to go unpunished in its actions. These violations have only been met with resolutions expressing the concern of the UN, but no concrete condemnation or punishments have been meted out for these violations. Without some form of punishment or castigation, these violations would likely persist. References Amnesty International, ‘Sixty years of human rights failure – governments must apologize and act now’. (2008) (accessed 09 March 2012). M. Barnett, ‘Eyewitness to a Genocide: The United Nations and Rwanda’ (New York: Cornell University Press, 2002), 34 K. Camp, ‘The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Does It Make a Difference in Human Rights Behavior?’, (1999) 36 Journal of Peace Research 1, 95–118. BBC News, ‘UN creates new human rights body’, (2006), (accessed 09 March 2012). R. Dallaire, ‘Shake Hands With The Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda’ (New York: Random House, 2008), 56 A. De Waal, ‘Darfur and the failure of the responsibility to protect,’ (2007), 83 International Affairs 6, 1039 Freedom House, ‘The Worst of the Worst: The World's Most Repressive Societies’, (New York: Freedom House, 2007). J. Goodliffe, and D. Hawkins, ‘Explaining Commitment: States and the Convention Against Torture’, (2005) 68 Journal of Politics 2, 358 El Jahmi, M., ‘Libya and the U.S.: Qadhafi Unrepentant,’ (2006) 13 Middle East Quarterly 1, 11-20 E. Hafner-Burton and K. Tsutsui, ‘Justice Lost! The Failure of International Human Rights Law To Matter Where Needed Most,’ (2007) 44 Journal of Peace Research 4, 407–425 O. Hathaway, ‘Do Human Rights Treaties Make a Difference?’, (2002), 111 Yale Law Journal (8), 1935. O. Hathaway, ‘The Cost of Commitment’, (2003) 55 Stanford Law Review, 1821 L. Henkin, ‘Human Rights: Ideology and Aspiration, Reality and Prospect, in Realizing Human Rights: Moving from Inspiration to Impact’ (2000) 3, 16–18 U. Igara, ‘Burma: End Repression of Buddhist Monks Intimidation Intensifies Ahead of Second Anniversary of Crackdown, (2009) Human Rights Watch, (accessed 09 March 2012). A. Kent, ‘China, the United Nations, and human rights: the limits of compliance’, (Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999), p. 7 M. Lempinen, ‘The United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the Different Treatment of Governments: An Inseparable Part of Promoting and Encouraging Respect for Human Rights (2005), 13–18. M. McDougal and G. Bebr, ‘Human Rights in the United Nations’, Faculty Scholarship Series, (1964) (accessed 08 March 2012). J. Nickel, ‘How Human Rights Generate Duties to Protect and Provide,’ (1993) 15 Hum. Rts. Q. 77, 80 M. O’Donnell, ‘Genocide, the United Nations, and the death of absolute rights,’ (2007) (accessed 08 March 2012). Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘Human Rights, Terrorism and Counter-terrorism Fact Sheet’, (2008) (accessed 08 March 2012). A. Philip, ‘Reconceiving the UN human rights regime: Challenges confronting the new UN human rights council,’ (2006) 7 Melbourne Journal of International Law, 4 G. Robertson, ‘Crimes Against Humanity’. (2006), New York: The New Press. Ch. 1, 1-40. B. Schaefer, ‘The United Nations Human Rights Council: A Disastrous First Year,’ (2007), The Heritage Foundation < http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/06/the-united-nations-human-rights-council-a-disastrous-first-year > (accessed 09 March 2012). B. Schaefer, ‘The United Nations Human Rights Council: Repeating Past Mistakes,’ Heritage Foundation Lecture (2006) (accessed 09 March 2012). J. Steyn, ‘Guantanamo bay: the legal black hole’, (2003). British Institute of International and Comparative Law and Herbert Smith (accessed 09 March 2012). J. Terrie, ‘Military options for Darfur’, in David Mepham and Alexander Ramsbotham, eds, Darfur: the responsibility to protect (Pretoria and London: Institute of Social Studies/Institute for Public Policy Research, 2006), 36. United Nations Charter, 1945, Preamble Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, Preamble Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, c. 1 United Nations General Assembly, ‘General Assembly Establishes New Human Rights Council by Vote of 170 in Favour to 4 Against, with 3 Abstentions,’ GA/10449 (2006), (accessed 08 March 2012). U.N. Human Rights Council, ‘Report of the High-Level Mission on the Situation of Human Rights in Darfur Pursuant to Human Rights Council Decision S-4/101,’ A/HRC/4/80 (2007) (accessed 08 March 2012). UN News Centre, ‘Iran: UN human rights expert concerned over judicial abuses’, (2011) (accessed 09 March 2012). UN Watch, ‘Dawn of a New Era? Assessment of the United Nations Human Rights Council and Its Year of Reform, (2007) (accessed 08 March 2012). Read More