Human Rights - Essay Example

Human Rights Protection: Whose Responsibility? Section Number of Human Rights Protection: Whose Responsibility? Human Rights are the basic rights that every individual is entitled to in order to be able to lead a life of dignity and honor as a human being in this world. Human rights are usually threatened directly or indirectly in times of conflict. Since the nature of conflicts can be different in different situations and in different times in history, the ways or means by which human rights are violated also undergoes constant and continuous change. In conventional wars between two defined and recognized sets of adversaries such as states with their armies the primary concern was with the safeguarding of the human rights of the fighting forces during the course of the war; but often spilled over to human rights of civilians when one army managed to occupy territories of its enemy. The Geneva Conventions or the International Humanitarian Law (IHL) as they have been termed cumulatively, were initially framed to address the type of violation of human rights in such conventional wars. With the proliferation of internal conflicts due to failed states in which the prominent controlling power collapses; ethnic wars in which the demarcation between fighting forces and civilians becomes blurred; asymmetric wars in which an overpowering state such as the US faces comparatively far weaker adversaries who resort to terror tactics; and finally conflicts such as the ongoing Global War On Terror (GWOT) in which adversaries may not even be properly distinguished or defined; the protection of human rights has taken on an entirely new dimension. This paper seeks to analyze the newly emerging conflict scenarios in order to identify the most effective agency or group of agencies for safeguarding human rights. Problems in Enforcement The Geneva Conventions are controlled by the International Committee of the Red Cross. The General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948. It was a non-binding declaration, but in 1966 the United Nations adopted the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) which made the provisions of the UDHR binding on all signatories. The UDHR is considered the soul of the international customary law which can be invoked by national and other legal bodies under circumstances deemed suitable. As the world evolved and went through different types of violations of human rights, the United Nations adopted many other individual pieces of legislations or treaties known as human rights instruments to meet the requirements of new conflict situations. The United Nations is the only multilateral governmental agency with internationally accepted jurisdiction for universal human rights jurisdiction. To do so, the United Nations had constituted bodies such as the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and more recently in 2005 the United Nations Human Rights Council. Yet, when it comes to enforcement of international human rights laws the responsibility lies with the nation state. It therefore falls on the state concerned to practically safeguard human rights. There is no international court whatsoever that legally upholds human right laws. This is precisely what leads to the doubts and ambiguities in practical protection of human rights because in the present context, the perpetrators of human rights violations are more often than not the nation states themselves or in other words those who hold the reins of power in such states. Conflict Scenarios The case of Afghanistan is a classic example of the changing nature of conflict and the resultant human rights violation. The United States supported a resistance movement in Afghanistan to fight the Russian troops in the country. This led to the formation of what came to be known as the Talibans. When the Russians were there, violation of human rights of civilians would be expected more from the Russians. The Talibans could be only in the position of threatening the human rights of captured Russian fighting forces. However, when the Talibans took over power in the country, it was they who indiscriminately tortured killed thousands of Afghans. Millions of Afghans had to take shelter in refugee camps in neighboring countries. While the Russians could be expected to abide by international laws to protect human rights, the Talibans hardly bothered. The case of Afghanistan as an example of human rights violation however does not end at that. When the United States invaded Afghanistan as the first strike of the GWOT responding to the 9/11 attacks, the civilian population had to bear the brunt of what was termed as ‘collateral damage’. Hundreds were killed again and many more forced to become refugees. The war on terror in Afghanistan was a different kind of war which depended more on factors such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against civilians, and the need to try terrorists for war crimes such as killing civilians. Torture took on new legitimacy in the GWOT. And since it is extremely difficult to identify precise who is a terrorist and who is not, it is obvious that it would not be possible to restrict torture, when adopted as a means of extracting information or as a war strategy, only on terrorists. A large section of the innocent civilian population also had to suffer due to innumerable cases of mistaken identity. The question here is who or what would protect human beings from suffering such kinds of indignities irrespective of whether the sufferer is a terrorist or not. The situation in the Middle East where the Palestinians fight against the Israelis, where US troops get bogged down in a war that gives scant regard to human rights present different facets of the same changing conflict scenarios. Viewed objectively, there is very little that the nation state concerned can do or would be willing to do to protect human rights. Israel would be the least concerned about the human rights of the Palestinians and the Palestinians neither have the legal status or the control to enforce human rights safeguards. In Iraq, examples such as Abu Ghraib and the wanton attacks on and by the Iraqi resistance groups are glaring transgressions on human rights. Who will bell the Cat? If the nation states cannot do it who can? The answer could lie in the two extremities of the theatre of violence – the individual and the international community. Since the immediate impact is on the individual or the group of individuals whose human rights are violated, it is the individual who must be enabled to protest and stand up for their rights. Since the enabler cannot be the nation state it has to be some international body constituted solely with the purpose of protecting human rights, and with very strong and formal links with the media, the objective media, be it national or international. The international implementing or enforcing body has to be vested with effective powers and an adequate structural hierarchy that runs down to the ground level of conflict to deal with any violations that may take place. The problem of violation of human rights has to be addressed at the individual or personal level since human rights are basically personal rights of an individual. The individual has to be facilitated by such an international body in conjunction with the media to bring cases of violation to the attention of the world at large through the international enforcing body so that adequate measure can be adopted to put an end to all human rights violations. It is imperative that the international enforcing body be of politically neutral character, and that no power or super power hold sway over the body. Such an organization will need the sanction, support and patronage of the international community of nations, but it will have to retain its objectivity when making crucial decisions. Only a democratic devolution of power can make this possible. The onus of protecting human rights thus falls primarily on the individual. But an effective and neutral international system to facilitate the individual to do so has to be meticulously built up. Read More