Scope of Responsibility - Towards Greater Humanity - Coursework Example

Scope of Responsibility: Towards Greater Humanity? The world is fast turning into a global village. A person in one corner of the world can communicate and interact with another person in a diametrically opposite corner of world as if they were living in the same village. This is largely because of the fact that unprecedented developments in Information and Communication Technology (ICT) have transcended physical boundaries and geographical borders to bring people and communities living in different parts of the world within a virtual proximity that enables social, political and cultural intermingling and assimilation. It is in the context of this global village of a world that this paper examines the scope of responsibility of the individual. In the world of today, is our responsibility only towards ourselves, our families, our community or our state; or should our responsibilities, in whatever aspect of life it may be, be towards broader humanity? Context of the Responsibility Responsibilities are related to various aspects and context of life. Responsibilities can be broadly classified into personal responsibilities, social and political responsibilities and responsibilities related to work or occupation. Personal responsibilities are those which an individual have to carry out for the self or for the immediate family or relatives. A person is responsible for his own good conduct, for the well being of her or his family –children, family partner, siblings, and relatives. It is not that personal responsibilities affect only the self, family or relatives of the person. By carrying out such responsibilities the person contributes towards the community and the state also, albeit indirectly. The orientation of the person entrusted with the responsibility is however limited and do not encompass the broader perspective. Social and political responsibilities are responsibilities that have wider ramifications. These responsibilities are beyond the self or the family and are more directly related to the community, society and the state. Each community or society has its own codes of responsibility which an individual is expected to adhere to. In doing so, the person contributes towards the perpetual sustenance of the community or the society. Similarly, each state has its own constitution, its codes of laws and rules. The constitution of any nation state provides the guidelines to the social and political rights and responsibilities of a person. It is in the case of social and political responsibilities that the perspective of the individual has undergone radical changes in the last decade with the advent of ICT and the resultant conglomeration of the world into a global village. It has come to a state in which what happens in any part of the world could have its effect on a very large population or part of the world. Social and political responsibilities are more oriented towards broader humanity in the context of the modern world. Finally we have responsibilities which are entrusted on us in our work or occupation. Depending on the nature and scope of the work or occupation as also the nature or specific area to which the responsibility is related, such responsibilities could transcend national and international borders and affect humanity as a whole. The corporate social responsibilities of any multinational have the potential of making a difference in the living conditions of people associated with a wide variety of industries and businesses. “…corporate social responsibility has become a must. Public institutions (European Union, United Nations, even the ILO), the business world, employers, civil society organisations – at least some of them – seem to be at one in the conviction that ‘corporate social responsibility’ is an essential element of present and future social policies, in all the continents and all the sectors” (Fonteneau, 2003). The broader perspective of responsibility towards humanity as a whole can be exemplified in the case of human rights and international law and the situation that the crisis in the Middle East has created. The Case of Human Rights and International Law 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. An analysis of the formal mechanisms of protection of human rights and the change in nature of conflicts gives a very clear indication that the responsibility of protection of human rights would fall more on the individual than on any institutionalized mechanism or formal organization. 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. And when it comes to the states, it is the collective sense of responsibility of the citizens that would matter most. In the case of human rights, therefore, the individual responsibility is towards broader humanity. Humanity in Danger There have been many instances in history in which the concept of humanity itself has been endangered because of people failing to carry out their responsibility towards humanity in one way or the other. When we speak of people in this case, it could be people in the form of a government, a nation or international body acting together with scant regard towards how their actions could impact the overall situation. Many revolutions, wars and even peace efforts often take the form of sidelining and marginalizing whole communities and people. Many a time, superficial peace has been achieved by silencing people. The war in North America for example was put to an end by wiping out almost the entire indigenous population by the European settlers. The Blacks in South Africa under Apartheid is another obvious example. In Apartheid South Africa, the humane rights of the Blacks were denied and they were silenced by the use of force. In both the cases the more powerful party did not carry out their responsibilities towards the weaker party. In failing to do so they failed to carry out their responsibility towards greater humanity. An individual belonging to the European settlers in North America or to the white Apartheid regime in South Africa could have very well taken on the responsibilities towards the self, the community or the state, but had lacked the broader perspective and failed to carry out his or her responsibility towards humanity. In the Middle East, the issue of Palestine brings such a point of disjoint to the fore. All peace efforts in the area have been marked by an increasing discrimination against the Palestinians, a rise in the atrocities of the state of Israel and a resultant violent backlash from the Palestinians. Peace has become irrelevant for the Palestinian. “…we cannot talk about peace in an abstract or isolated way as if it is a separate and self-contained entity. ‘Peace’ in many countries has been ‘achieved’, but, in the process, people either have been crushed or are still boiling inside. Eventually, this type of superficial and outward peace will fall apart and humanity will bloom again” (Fasheh, 1998). The Middle East speaks for itself. Neither the Palestinians, the Israeli nor mediating parties such as the United States have taken on their responsibilities from the broader perspective of humanity. The resultant disturbances have had their impacts on a global basis. The Middle East has turned into a breeding ground for international terror. The terror has spread to as far as the American heartland. The main reason behind such a grave situation is a wrong perspective of the scope or orientation of responsibility. Conclusion It is therefore very evident that even though the responsibility that one carries out may not seem to be directly towards larger humanity, the resultant effects of personal, socio-political or work-oriented responsibilities is directed towards the sustenance of the principles of humanity. References -01 1. Fonteneau, G., Corporate Social Responsibility: Envisioning its Social Implications, 2003, The Jus Semper Global Alliance, TJSGA/TLWNSI ESSAY/ 2. Fasheh, M., Which is more Fundamental: Outward Peace or being True to our Humanity? 1998, Tamer Institute for Community Education, Ramallah, Palestine Read More