The United Nations Charter - Case Study Example

Power is more important than culture in determining whether human rights norms should are upheld or not The United Nations Charter was the first treaty of its kind, universal and multilateral, which included the concern over Human Rights in it. It gave the required pedestal to the worldwide movement of Human Rights that has been trying so hard since years to make itself heard. The Charter is that strong platform upon which several international laws of Human Rights have been framed. It says that any human right is not claimed by one because one is a national of a particular country or because it is permitted by the law but simply because one is a human being. Social status, morals, merits, religion cast, creed, race are immaterial in this case. Such rights are not static and keep on changing depending upon changing human needs. The interest shown by the United Nations, to protect the human rights reflects the rising alarm of the entire world to deliver freedom to each and every human being. Treaty like the United Nations Charter serves two main objectives i.e. it serves as an international standard which can be referred to by any nation to examine its own journey, its achievements, lacunae, standards and values; next, it gives inspiration to the countries to frame and implement policies protecting human rights in order to match the standard of the universal effort. However, it is to be noted that since the concept of protection of human rights is made with individualistic mindset a thorough investigation is needed as to where the treaty is leading us to. (Shimray, 2013, p. 72-73) Human Rights Norms - Evolution Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) has come a long way in the last 60 years. Despite its history of failures and the relative incremental successes the work of the UDHR in sync with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, suggests a bright future for the human rights system. Now after 60 years, the main challenge is effective implementation and scrutiny of such laws in as many areas as possible. However, the major gain has been the manifestation of the idea that human rights cannot be done away with to upheld State sovereignty. However major lacunae still exist in the regime and one of which is the lack of a successful system to guarantee the rights of minorities and indigenous peoples. (Castellino, 2010, p.393-394) If one delves into the past, it will found that in the 1600s, the concept of state sovereignty was so rigid that it even gave a nation to kill its own people or to displace large groups of people by force and that no other nation was supposed to interfere with that. However, after the second world war and Hitler’s Holocaust, certain things have definitely changed for the better with the enforcement of the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration; Still, the maddening preoccupation of the founders of the UN was not the protection of the human rights but the concern of states fighting aggressively with each other. (Evans, 2008, p. 284) The evolution of “Responsibility to Protect” In the 1990s, with the termination of the cold war and the elimination of some superpower restraints, conscience-stirring issues arose repeatedly, in various sections of the world, especially in the former Yugoslavia and in Africa. Just as old habits die hard, the habit of non-intervention was still prevailing very much. Though reactions of the international community came through the UN, yet those were incomplete, erratic and also proved to be counterproductive in certain cases like that of the tragedy of Somalia in 1993, the devastation of the Rwandan genocide in 1994, and shocking default in Srebrenica, Bosnia, in 1995. This was followed by the ethnic decontamination started in Kosovo in 1999. Most governments and people were of the view that external military needed to intervene. However, the Security Council was paralyzed to take any action due to the threatened veto by Russia. Power and indifference seemed to reign over human concerns. Eventually the right action was taken, but the whole episode challenged the reliability of the entire international security system. (Just as the case of Iraq invasion, four years later). Throughout 1990s, supporters of ‘humanitarian intervention’ kept opposing that of the traditional rights of state sovereignty. The debate was very bitter with severe verbal attacks on each other. This catastrophic situation, gave rise to the idea of ‘responsibility to protect’, through the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, Canada. (Evans, 2008, pp. 284- 285) Responsibility In 2005, in the United Nations World Summit, Heads of state and governments of 150 nations accepted the concept of ‘the responsibility to protect’. They agreed that each and every sovereign state has the utmost responsibility to protect its own citizens from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and all other crimes against humanity. However when they fail to carry out that responsibility due to ill will or incapacity, the wider international community will step into and take action that is appropriate. If necessary, military action can also be taken as a last resort. (Evans, 2008, p. 284) The concept of the responsibility to protect is very easy to understand. If the term ‘right to intervene’ and the ‘right’ of the big powers to intervene can be kept aside for a moment and instead, focus is kept on ‘responsibility of all’ nations to give protection to their own citizens against crimes and also to help other nations to be able to do so, it can actually make the concept very easy to follow. The primary responsibility lies with the individual nations, definitely but when they fail, the international community will have to intervene for the sake of humanity. Its wants to simply state that human beings should be the priority irrespective of their nationality and keeping the display of power and ego at bay. It is the question of lives. Heinous crimes are being committed; people killed, women raped, children starved to death. If all the nations take the responsibility of ‘prevention’, first, instead of taking actions through like diplomatic pressure, sanctions, international criminal prosecutions, and military action , things would much simpler. It is the question of accepting one’s fault and willing to learn from it and slowing deep concern and sensitivity of the fellow human beings. (Evans, 2008, p. 285- 286) Positive results achieved through ‘Responsibility to Protect’ In the UN General Assembly at the 2005 World Summit, this idea was accepted by more than 150 heads of state and government. The base for consensus was laid, and some steady good news came pouring in. In 2006 the Security Council took a resolution on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflicts. This was followed by another resolution in 2006. Rules and laws have no value unless implemented and here comes the role of the Security Council. Another encouraging action taken by the council during the term of Kofi Annan as the Secretary General includes that taken to curb the violence in Kenya, in 2007. A very devastating ethnic linked violence disrupted in Kenya, after the last days of national election. Above thousand people got murdered. People were burnt inside a church; about 300,000 people were displaced within a few weeks. Here a negotiation team headed by Kofi Annan was able to interfere and the violence was stopped. (Evans, 2008, p. 287) Further optimism has arisen by the promising statements of the new Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. He made very clear that he was very much aware of the risks involved, to his own reputation and to that of the UN if anything likes Rwanda or Srebrenica, even remotely happens anywhere. On 31 January, 2008, in the African Union Summit he said that “‘I am fully committed to keeping the momentum that you the leaders have made at the 2005 World Summit and will spare no effort to operationalize the responsibility to protect.’ Indeed he did take certain steps like appointing a Special Adviser to take charge of the institutional process problems, and replacing the Prevention of Genocide Special Adviser with a very deserving candidate. However, both these steps of his have become controversial. (Evans, 2008, p. 286) That the work of ‘responsibility to protect’ was the right thing to do was also very recently endorsed by Pope Benedict XVI in New York recently. He visited the UN for the first time and said “Recognition of the unity of the human family, and attention to the innate dignity of every man and woman, today find renewed emphasis in the principle of the responsibility to protect. This has only recently been defined, but it was already present implicitly at the origins of the United Nations, and is now increasingly characteristic of its activity. Every State has the primary duty to protect its own population from grave and sustained violations of human rights, as well as from the consequences of humanitarian crises, whether natural or man-made. If States are unable to guarantee such protection, the international community must intervene with the juridical means provided in the United Nations Charter and in other international instruments. ” (Evans, 2008, p. 286) Not so good news about ‘Responsibility to Protect’ Just as every positive step taken is always faced with opposition, in this case too, a number of governments or their representatives have started showing complete disregard towards ‘responsibility to protect since early 2008’. Delegates of the Latin American, Arab and African nations to the UN’s budget committee took the liberty to give statements like ‘the World Summit rejectedR2P in 2005’, ‘the concept of the responsibility to protect has not been adopted by the General Assembly’, and that ‘the responsibility to protect itself ... was not accepted or approved as a principle by the General Assembly’. The appointment of highly deserving scholar, Vice-President of the International Peace Academy and retired head of the UN Association of the United States, Edward Luck, in the Special Adviser position on responsibility to protect triggered those reactions. They put forward that the lines written in the World Summit were just to protect the citizens from specific crimes; it was never about the agreement on to the idea of the responsibility to protect; so if it was never adopted in the first place, how a new adviser could be appointed on it. Such unproductive and deliberate squabbles would be a part of a positive effort always. However, concern of the concept’s misuse, its association with neo-imperialism or neo-colonialism and many such things are being used as excuses by various nations to undermine the concept of responsibility to protect. There has been “increased skepticism about the norm in sub-Saharan Africa, Arab-Islamic and Latin American worlds”. (Evans, 2008, p. 288) Speaking of Africa, power and material interest dominate and security dynamics here take a back seat. There are no well organized security communities in Africa and yet the people in power are not willing to abide by the norm. (Williams, 2007, pp. 253-254) Issues that need to be addressed under ‘Responsibility to Protect’ The first issue that is to be addressed is ‘conceptual’ i.e. to make the concept of the norm very clear to each and every one. It is not to be viewed as a bully by the powerful nations or as colonialism but, rather as a mode of cooperation. The second issue that is to be addressed is ‘institutional’ i.e. the council should be prepared to act physically when the situation demands so. Whatever preparation is needed to act whether preventively or reactively should be undertaken. The third issue that is to be addressed is ‘political’ i.e. to create that obligatory will power among nations to join together for the cause. (Evans, 2008, p. 289) Conclusion People claim to be modern, liberalized and globalized. Still there is so much of resistance in embracing something positive in a universal manner. There is lack of will power in making efforts systematized. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights encompassing ‘responsibility to protect’ should be reviewed intermittently by each and every nation to check how far it has progressed in terms of ensuring the rights of its people and also to check where the norm itself is proceeding in ensuring human rights universally (Shimray, 2013, p. 90-91). The people who are suffering do not need to be bound by laws; they just need honest cooperation from the stronger forces to improve their conditions and achieve a greater goal. References Castellino, J. (2010). The Protection of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples in International Law: A Comparative Temporal Analysis. International Journal on Minority & Group Rights, Vol. 17, No.3, 393-422, retrieved on February 9, 2014 from :http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=5c58f953-d78d-40b0-b6f1-a6bfbb71a71d%40sessionmgr198&vid=15&hid=113&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=52645892 Evans, G. (2008). The responsibility to protect: an idea whose time has come … and gone?.  International Relations, Vol. 22, No.3, 283–298 Williams, P. (2007). From non-intervention to non-indifference: the origins and development of the African Union’s security. African Affairs, Vol. 106, No. 423, 253-279, retrieved on February 9, 2014 from: http://users.polisci.wisc.edu/schatzberg/ps362/Williams2007.pdf\ Shimray, S.(2013). Towards A New Paradigm of Human Rights in The Context of North East India. Asia Journal of Theology, Vol. 27, No.1, 70-9, retrieved on February 9, 2014 from : http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=11&sid=5c58f953-d78d-40b0-b6f1-a6bfbb71a71d%40sessionmgr198&hid=122&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=87744516 Read More