International Human Rights Treaties - Essay Example

International Human Rights Treaties Human rights encompass all actions whose core goal is to ensure that thelives of the citizens are at peace. They seek to promote the activities of daily living of any person devoid of their origin, nationality, ethnicity, sex, or religion. In the recent past, most countries have been on the verge of breaking up the human rights, especially due to the rifts in political ideologies. It is such occurrences that have led to the formulation of treaties of agreements, whose goal is to ensure that every person and nation stick to that agreement. The Second World War marked an end of an era where the international community constantly ignored human rights. In the light of the recent developments, it was established that there needed to be strong regulations and major policy changes when it came to dealing with human rights. One thing that was very evident to the period before and during the world war is that human rights were not put into considerations. This situation is what justified German’s actions towards incarcerating prisoners of war in concentration camps. However, the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the UN has consequentially led to other major laws that govern international human rights. The following research explores among other issues the effectiveness of international human rights laws in addressing the social injustices across various quarters in the world. The research will focus on the slow adoption of human right treaties and how the effects of slow adoption to international justice. Compliance in terms of human rights laws have always been a challenge. One of the reasons why this challenge occurs is due to the clash of interest between local jurisdiction and the superiority of international laws compared to domestic laws. Analysts argue that many are the times that this conflict of interest inhibits the international justice system. However, the lack of a clear policy guideline that affects the effectiveness of international human rights laws in addressing social injustices. Hathaway (588) states that there are two main UN-chartered based enforcements. The two are declarations and conventions. The extent to which declarations are effective enough to attract compliance is limited. This is because; declarations depend on the willingness of the host country to enforce certain laws. In addition, declarations are not legally binding. However, declarations have major political implications in terms of enforcement and the willingness to comply by the members bound by the said declarations. Under the international law on the other hand, conventions are legally binding. According to Neumayer (925), it is common knowledge that international human rights are generally under-enforced. The reason given for this under-enforcement is due to the nature of enforcement of such treaties, which is mainly done through transitional legal processes. The international legal processes in this context refer to the collaboration between various legal institutions across the world. Kinney (1457) also shows the distinct difference between obedience and enforcement. Obedience does not involve any consequences other than the fact that disobedience of the law may have indirect political, economic, and social implications. However, enforcement is subject to punitive measures in terms of violations. This implies that laws that are enforced attract legal measures and implications at the behest of the international community. The situation is often complicated when some nations are not part of any international community. There are nations that are not part of the United Nations, The European Union, or even the African Union. Under such a scenario, enforcing international human rights laws would be difficult as there would be little or no effect should measures be taken against a nation for violation of these laws. One of the reasons why countries feel the need to obey and enforce international human rights laws is power related. The United Nations was created by strong nations that emerged victorious after World War II. The basic argument in this context meant that if individual countries were allowed to operate individually with no rules, then the world would be staring at the possibility of another war. According to recent studies, the UN is seen to serve the interest of the major powers that helped establish it. This interest serving is based on the power vested on the p-5 members of the UN Security Council. Another reason for compliance is the global participation that has seen people begin to accept a liberal approach to international laws. The reason why international human rights treaties have somehow succeeded is due to the changing nature of liberal democracy across the world. Some nations that have consistently disregarded international human rights laws have come to the realization that continued disregard of such laws will have far-reaching economic, social, and political implications. The dynamics behind such liberal approach to international human rights is that certain laws that dictate how such nations operate bind the members of the international community. A practical example of this scenario is the peer pressure that has been exerted by the European Council before accepting Turkey and Ukraine into the European Union. Some of the conditions stipulated in the pre-acceptance agreement required the two countries to comply with various international human rights treaties. One of the reasons why human rights treaties have consistently failed in terms of adoption and enforcement is due to the low levels of public awareness. Goodman and Derek (172) observe that local or internal human rights laws are strictly observed. The same cannot be said when it comes to the enforcement of international human rights treaties. One of the common challenge in this context is the conflicting stipulations between the domestic laws and international laws. A practical example of how domestic and international laws can clash is given as the challenges that the International Criminal Court faces in terms of enforcing and prosecuting human rights offences. In some jurisdictions, the domestic laws shield certain individuals from prosecution by international human rights bodies under the international human rights laws. Such laws exclude sitting heads of states, their deputies, or high-ranking government officials. In addition, major countries such as the U.S are not part of any recognized international human rights bodies. However, the same nation is seen as playing a major part in influencing international laws therefore raising some major ethical issues. In conclusion, there has been growing criticism concerning the legitimacy of international organizations such as the UN Commission on Human Rights. This criticism is based on the extent of the jurisdiction of the UN Commission on Human Rights to pursue justice for human rights victims. This is a clear indication on the shortcomings in relation to the enforcement mechanisms when it comes to international human rights laws. However, Hathaway (935) argues that the shortcomings are as a result of the anarchy and disregard of the law that exists in the modern society. The principle of state sovereignty is perhaps the greatest impediment to the enforcement of international laws on human rights. Such treaties can be enforced across the world. However, there are no clear guidelines as to the extent and the level of enforcement. The lack of international authority to enforce such laws is the reason behind the recent cases in countries such Libya, Syria, and North Korea where human rights violations are experienced especially to those with contradictory opinions on governance. Works Cited Hathaway, Oona A. "Do human rights treaties make a difference?" Yale Law Journal (2002): 1935-2042. Goodman, Ryan, and Derek Jinks. "Measuring the effects of human rights treaties." European Journal of International Law 14.1 (2003): 171-183. Hathaway, Oona A. "Why do countries commit to human rights treaties?" Journal of Conflict Resolution 51.4 (2007): 588-621. Neumayer, Eric. "Do international human rights treaties improve respect for human rights." Journal of conflict resolution 49.6 (2005): 925-953. Kinney, Eleanor D. "International Human Right to Health: What Does this Mean for Our Nation and World, the." Ind. L. Rev. 34 (2000): 1457. Read More