Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
RIGHTS II NN BB RR II EE FF
BUREAU OF INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION PROGRAMS
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
http://www.america.gov/
H U M A N
RIGHTS �� ��� �������� � ������D
eep in the mind and spirit of human beings lies the
conviction that each and every person has rights,
including a right to freedom from oppression, freedom
to make reasonable choices, and freedom from cruelty. Nearly
everybody feels this way, instinctively, even if they do not
believe such rights are easy to obtain.
1
EXECUTIVE EDITOR: GEORGE CLACK • EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: MILDRED SOLÁ NEELY •
EDITOR: PAUL MALAMUD • DESIGNER: CHLOE D. ELLIS • COVER DESIGN: MINYAO •
PHOTO RESEARCH: MAGGIE JOHNSON SLIKER • REFERENCE: ANITA N. GREEN
CONSULTING EDITOR: RUTH WEDGWOOD, EDWARD B. BURLING PROFESSOR OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND DIPLOMACY, THE PAUL H. NITZE SCHOOL OF
ADVANCED INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
Human Rights
In Brief
INTRODUCTION
British philosopher John Locke personifi ed
the 17th century Enlightenment. He was
one of the fi rst to suggest that individuals
have “natural” rights, and that government
should serve the public good.2
CENTURIES OF PROGRESS
T
raditionally, all groups of humans,
from clans of forest dwellers to
urban sophisticates, have had
notions of justice, fairness, dignity, and
respect. However, the notion that all
human beings, simply because they are
human, have certain inalienable rights
they may use to protect themselves
against society and its rulers was a
minority view in the era before the 1500s.
Many pre-modern societies believed
that rulers had an obligation to govern
wisely and for everyone’s benefi t.
However, this obligation was believed to
come from divine commandment or from
tradition. It did not rest on a concept
of personal human rights that ordinary
people could call on to defend themselves against unjust rulers.
A Theory for Some
The fi rst person credited with developing a comprehensive
theory of human rights was British philosopher John Locke
(1632-1704). Locke wrote that people form societies, and
societies establish governments, in order to assure the
enjoyment of “natural” rights. Locke defi ned government
3
Most societies throughout history granted rights only to
the lucky few. In the 18th century, in Europe, there arose the
concept of “natural law”—based on a universal order — that
outlined such rights for all. This philosophy had an enormous
eff ect on the American Revolution of 1776, and on the concepts
embedded in the U.S. Constitution, which is still the document
that governs all American law.
In all civilized nations, attempts are made to defi ne and
buttress human rights. The core of the concept is the same
everywhere: Human rights are the rights that one has simply
because one is human. They are universal and equal. Human
rights are also inalienable. They may be suspended, rightly or
wrongly, at various places and times, but the idea of inherent
rights cannot be taken away. One can no more lose these rights
than one can stop being a human being.
Locke’s “An Essay Concerning
Human Understanding”
asserted the importance
and complexity, and thus
the dignity, of the subjective
self.4
as a “social contract” between rulers and ruled. Citizens, he
believed, are obliged to give allegiance only to a government
that protects their human rights. Those rights may even have
precedence over the claims and interests of the government.
Government can only be legitimate when it systematically
honors and protects the human rights of its citizens.
However, there were limitations to Locke’s theory. He did
not consider the claims of all people, even though the language
of his writing speaks in universal terms. His actual focus was
the protection of the rights of European men who owned
property. Women, along with indigenous peoples, servants,
and wage laborers, were not recognized as full rights-holders.
Nevertheless, the thinking of Locke and others of his time was
an important breakthrough.
Expanding Rights
Many of the great political struggles of the past two
centuries have revolved around expanding the range of
protected rights. This has included extending the right to vote
to all citizens, permitting working people to lobby for improved
pay and working conditions, and eliminating discrimination
based on race and gender.
In all of these situations, dispossessed groups used
their limited freedoms to press for legal recognition of the
fundamental rights still denied. In each case, the essence of the
argument was that “we,” no less than “you,” are human beings.
As such, we are all entitled to the same basic rights as well as
to equal concern and respect from the state. The acceptance of
such arguments has led to radical social and political changes
throughout the world.
Across the globe, regimes that denied basic human rights
to their citizens have lacked long-term stability. A signifi cant
cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union was the growing
unwillingness of citizens in the Communist-bloc countries
to accept the systematic denial of internationally recognized
human rights. In South America and Central America, repressive
military governments fell throughout the 1980s. In Asia and
Africa, liberalization and democratization have been more
irregular but nevertheless real. South Korea and South Africa,
for example, are two outstanding examples of human rights
progress.
The lesson of the recent past is that, wherever people
are given the chance to choose, they choose internationally
recognized human rights. And despite shortcomings, we live in
a world in which fewer governments dare to deny their people
that free choice.
HUMAN RIGHTS AS AN INTERNATIONAL
ISSUE
Today, nearly all states in all regions of the world, at all
levels of development, proclaim their commitment
to human rights. A government that engages in a
56 7
consistent pattern of gross human rights violations is widely
considered to be illegitimate.
This was not always the case. A nation’s progress on human
rights — or lack of it — has been an established subject of
international relations for only about half a century. Prior to
World War II, massacres of ethnic groups within a country were
met with little more than polite statements of disapproval. Less
fl agrant violations were not even considered a fi t subject for
diplomatic conversation.
How a government treated its own citizens in its own
territory was considered to be a matter of its sovereignty — that
is, the supreme power it had over its internal aff airs. In fact,
other states and the international community were considered
to be under an international legal obligation not to intervene in
such matters.
Shock of Holocaust
In the Holocaust during World War Two, Nazi Germany and
its collaborators systematically murdered millions — European
Jews, Roma, homosexuals — including men, women, and
children. The revulsion at this inconceivable brutality caused an
extraordinary intellectual change. The sense of responsibility
for the Holocaust generated the pledge that its cruelties should
never be repeated. Human rights entered the mainstream of
international relations. Prior to
the Holocaust some countries
had used the excuse that a
state’s treatment of its own
citizens was a domestic aff air.
The massacre of one’s own
citizens was not an established
international legal off ense.
The Nuremberg War
Crimes Trialsin 1945 helped
to change the situation. The
Following the bloodshed of World War II, a global charter for humanrights took on a new
urgency. Here, Eleanor Roosevelt, widow of President Franklin D.Roosevelt, holds the United
Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
This picture shows Eleanor Roosevelt (right)
discussing a draft document with the United
Nations Commission on Human Rights. An
outspoken humanitarian, Eleanor Roosevelt
helped shape the liberal intellectual climate
of the times.8 9
trials, at which high-level Nazis were held to account for their
actions, introduced the idea of crimes against humanity. For
the fi rst time, offi cials were held legally accountable to the
international community for off enses against individual citizens.
It was in the United Nations, however, that human rights really
emerged as a subject of international relations.
Human rights have a prominent place in the U.N. Charter
adopted in 1945. On December 10, 1948, the U.N. General
Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
This comprehensive list of rights declared that the way in
which states treat their own citizens is a matter of legitimate
international concern and subject to international standards.
Eff ect of the Cold War
However, not everything proceeded smoothly. In the years
following World War II, an intense ideological struggle broke
out between Communist and capitalist nations, which had
repercussions around the world. The “Cold War” lasted until
the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Just as the United
States was sometimes willing to ignore human rights lapses in
“friendly” anti-Communist regimes, the Soviet Union was ready
to use force when necessary to assure “friendly” totalitarian
regimes in its sphere of infl uence.
Furthermore, few states were willing to allow even
multilateral monitoring of national human rights practices, let
alone international implementation or enforcement. The United
Nations is not a world government. It can do nothing that its
members — sovereign states — do not authorize. During the
fi rst two decades of the Cold War, neither bloc was willing to
allow the United Nations to do much at all in the fi eld of human
rights.
By the mid-1960s, though, the Afro-Asian bloc had become
the largest group in the United Nations. These countries, which
had suff ered under colonial rule, had a special interest in human
rights. They found a sympathetic hearing from the Soviet bloc
and some countries in Europe and the Americas, including the
United States. The United Nations thus once again began to
attend to human rights.
This led, most signifi cantly, to completion of the
International Human Rights Covenants in December 1966.
Along with the Universal Declaration, these treaties provide an
authoritative statement of internationally recognized human
rights.
The comprehensiveness of the Covenants, however,
demanded that the United Nations shift its human rights work
from setting standards to monitoring how states actually follow
those standards. This was an area where the organization had
made virtually no headway in its fi rst two decades.
Although the core concepts of human rights norms were
clarifi ed by the mid-1960s, implementation of those norms
remained almost entirely up to the will of individual national
governments. 10 11
The Carter Revival
When Jimmy Carter became president of the United States
in 1977, he raised the profi le of human rights as an international
issue. Carter made the theme of universal rights a priority for
American foreign policy, encouraging the advocates of human
rights throughout the world.
Carter attempted to disentangle international human
rights from the East-West politics of the Cold War and from
North-South arguments between the industrialized and nonindustrializedcountries over economic matters. This gave
new momentum and increased legitimacy to human rights
organizations everywhere.
The Helsinki Process
The mid-1970s also saw the introduction of human rights
into the mainstream of multilateral and bilateral foreign policy.
The United States and European countries began to consider
human rights practices in their aid policies. And the Helsinki
Final Act of 1975 explicitly introduced human rights into the
mainstream of U.S.-Soviet relations.
The Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe
(CSCE) began in the early
1970s as a series of talks
involving the United States,
Canada, the Soviet Union,
and almost all the countries
of Europe. Discussions
focused on resolving issues
between the Communist
East and democratic West.
The CSCE’s fi nal act, reached
in 1975 in Helsinki, Finland,
and signed by 35 countries,
became known as the Helsinki
Accords. The accords cited
10 specifi c principles, including respect for human rights and
President Jimmy Carter and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Desmond M. Tutuin 1986. Carter
wanted human rights to be a central concern of U.S. diplomacy.
Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev, center left,
poses with U.S. President Gerald Ford in
July 1975 in Helsinki, Finland. The “Helsinki
Process” meetings on human rights issues
between capitalist and Communist nations
helped undermine the Soviet empire, showing
that ideas matter.12 13
The protest against British taxes known as the “Boston Tea Party,”1773.
fundamental freedoms
such as freedom of
thought, conscience,
religion, and belief.
Many experts credit the
Helsinki process with
helping to bring about
the fall of Communist
dictatorships in the
Soviet Union and in
Eastern Europe.
By the end of the
1980s the Cold War had come to an end, and on December 25,
1991, the Soviet fl ag was lowered from the Kremlin. The CSCE,
which up to this point had convened meetings and conferences,
now took on a greater role—managing the historic change
taking place in Europe. Its name changed to the Organization
for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). It is now the
largest regional security organization in the world, comprising
56 countries from Europe, Central Asia, and North America. It
also has partner states in Asia and the Mediterranean region.
Many people see the OSCE as a prototype for other regional
cooperative eff orts to forge greater respect for human rights
in other parts of the world. The Copenhagen Declaration and
the Paris Principles of the OSCE have become enormously
infl uential as a measure for human rights performance,
including the record of democratic states.
The protest against British taxes known as the “Boston Tea Party,”1773.
including the record of democratic states.
The protest against British taxes known as the “Boston Tea Party,”1773.
Within the United Nations, a revitalized Commission
on Human Rights, led by Canada, The Netherlands, and
others, formulated new treaties on women’s rights (1979),
torture (1984), and the rights of the child (1989). Experts were
appointed to study and report on human rights violations in a
growing number of countries.
By the mid-1980s, most Western countries agreed that
human rights should be an active concern of foreign policy, and
turned to the issues of monitoring and enforcement.
The 1970s was also the decade in which nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs) concerned with human rights emerged
as a notable international political force. This was symbolized
by the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Amnesty International
in 1977 for its assistance to political prisoners. By 1980, there
were some 200 NGOs in the United States that dealt with
human rights, and about the same number in Great Britain. The
emergence of NGOs in the countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin
America has been an equally important development. These
groups, in addition to their advocacy for victims of human
rights abuses, have been important in infl uencing national and
international human rights policies.
The Post-Cold War Environment
Since the end of the Cold War, international eff orts to
promote human rights have been further strengthened. An
example is the creation of a U.N. High Commissioner for Human
Throughout history, tribal and religious hatreds
have been the bane of human rights. U.S. President
Jimmy Carter (center) considered the 1979 peace
treaty between Egypt and Israel a hallmark of his
presidency. Yet, its promise foundered on these
antagonisms.14 15
Artist’s depiction of the fi rst shots of the American Revolution, fired at Lexington,
Massachusetts, on April 19, 1775. Local militia confronted Britishtroops marching to seize
colonial armaments in the nearby town of Concord.
Rights, bringing about increased international monitoring. In
most countries, the nature and boundaries of human rights
have become more deeply entrenched on the national agenda.
As liberal economic ideas have spread through globalization, so
have other ideas. Nongovernmental human rights organizations
and advocates have become increasingly infl uential worldwide.
To be sure, raising human rights issues is sometimes still
resented by states, as illustrated by the strained relations
between China and its major trading partners in the years
following the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre of Chinese
citizens. And most states still refuse to press international
human rights concerns strongly enough to satisfy many human
rights NGOs.
There are still regimes in power—in Cuba, Burma, North
Korea, and elsewhere—that engage in systematic violation of
internationally recognized human rights. And, as documented
in the reports of the U.S. Department of State and various NGOs,
most countries of the world still have signifi cant human rights
problems.
Nonetheless, there is a new willingness within the
international community to tackle systematic human rights
violations. It is regrettable that, in 1994, the United Nations
failed to respond to stop the genocide in Rwanda with military
intervention. But in El Salvador, U.N. human rights monitors
played an important role in reaching a political settlement
and demilitarizing the country after a decade-long civil war.
Artist’s depiction of the fi rst shots of the American Revolution, fired at Lexington,
and demilitarizing the country after a decade-long civil war.
Artist’s depiction of the fi rst shots of the American Revolution, fired at Lexington,
IIn Somalia, when the country descended into warlord politics, nSomalia, when the country descended into warlord politics,
Artist’s depiction of the fi rst shots of the American Revolution, fired at Lexington,
Massachusetts, on April 19, 1775. Local militia confronted Britishtroops marching to seize Massachusetts, on April 19, 1775. Localmilitia confronted British troops marching to seize In Somalia, whenthe country descended into warlord politics,
multilateral military forces intervened to save thousands
of civilians from starvation. In Cambodia, a massive U.N.
peacekeeping operation helped to remove Vietnamese forces
and contain the Khmer Rouge, promoting a freely elected
government. In Bosnia, the international community, led by the
United States, used military force to bring an end to the bloody
civil war that had killed some 200,000 people and forced two
million others from their homes through systematic “ethnic
cleansing.”
Despite the importance of human rights and humanitarian
politics, the world community was struggling in the early 2000s
to halt vicious, tribal-based strife in the western Darfur province
of Sudan. The confl ict, characterized as genocide by the United
States and many human rights organizations, has taken tens
of thousands of lives and forced more than two million people
into refugee camps.
African Union
Mission troops have
been unable to stop
the widespread
killing and rape, and
the United States has
urged the United
Nations to deploy a
large peacekeeping
force in the country.
At the same time, the
Former South African President Nelson Mandela (right)
receives an award in Johannesburg, 2006. The principle
of black majority rule (personifi ed by Mandela) — as
opposed to white minority rule — for South Africa
became one of the major rights issues of the 20th
century.16 17
international community, including human rights NGOs, has
been engaged in responding to the sharp rise in international
terrorism highlighted by the September 11, 2001, attacks in
the United States and by other al Qaeda attacks around the
world, from Indonesia to Spain. These same observers have
also critiqued the responses to terrorism taken by national
governments.
CONTRIBUTIONS BY THE UNITED STATES
T
he United States has played a special role in the
development and support of human rights ideas and
practices. The Declaration of Independence, by which
the American colonies severed their allegiance to the British
Crown in 1776, proclaimed that “all men are created equal.” No
less important, the declaration asserted the right of a people to
dissolve political bonds that had come to be oppressive.
With the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, the world
witnessed the fi rst practical experiment in creating a
government that would be judged by the extent to which
it respected and protected the rights of its citizens. Rights,
thus, are often seen by Americans as a defi ning feature of
their national heritage. The earliest Americans did not speak
of “human rights” per se, but they did speak of freedom and
liberties. Many of the fi rst colonists came to the New World
seeking religious freedom denied to them in 17th century
Europe. In forming their communities, they developed over
time a sense of religious tolerance as well as a passion forselfgovernment. When the time came for the American colonists
to break away from Britain, they had a well-established body of
law and custom that recognized freedom of speech, freedom of
religious worship, and freedom of assembly. To petition
The American Revolution of 1776 was based on the human rights theoriesof philosophers,
some of them French. By 1789, American revolutionary fervor hadspread back to France,
and soon destroyed the French monarchy. This etching refers to thepassage of a law in
France in 1795 guaranteeing freedom of speech and of the press.18 19
government, to have a jury trial, and to have a say in governing
their own aff airs were other cherished rights.
These were all among the values underlying the
Declaration of Independence—an excerpt of which appears
below—in 1776. Its principal author, Thomas Jeff erson, later
became the third president of the United States.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable [inalienable] Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these Rights,
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of
Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of
the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government,
laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its Powers
in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to eff ect theirSafety
and Happiness.
Left: The U.S. Declaration of Independence from Great Britain in 1776proclaimed that men
have “inalienable rights,” including “life, liberty, and the pursuitof happiness.” The concept
of “inalienable rights” — deriving from a universal morality and notrevocable by arbitrary
human rule — came from earlier philosophers and is still at the coreof human rights.20 21
The Bill of Rights
In 1787, representatives of 12 of the original 13 American
states met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to begin drafting the
U.S. Constitution. They crafted a document of compromise and
representative democracy that has adapted well to changing
circumstances for more than 200 years.
There were many who opposed the new Constitution in
the beginning. Their consent to the document came only with
the promise that a series of amendments would be added
guaranteeing civil liberties—liberties that already were part
of most state constitutions. Thus, the 10 amendments below,
known collectively as the Bill of Rights, were added to the
Constitution in 1791. Since the adoption of the Bill of Rights,
only 17 additional amendments have been made part of the
Constitution.
Amendment I - Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for
a redress of grievances.
Amendment II - A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear
Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III - No Soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered
in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war,
but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV - The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and eff ects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated. ...
Amendment V - No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or
otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment
of a Grand Jury ... nor shall any person be subject for the same
off ence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,
In this painting by John Trumbull, Thomas Jeff erson presents theDeclaration of
Independence to John Hancock at the Continental Congress inPhiladelphia, 1776. The
drafters knew the document would lead to war with Britain, but couldnot imagine its
philosophic impact.22 23
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation.
Amendment VI - In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall
enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of
the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,
which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and
to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be
confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory
process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the
Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII - In Suits at common law, where the value in
controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury
shall be preserved. ...
Amendment VIII - Excessive bail shall not be required, nor
excessive fi nes imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments
infl icted.
Amendment IX - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained
by the people.
Amendment X - The powers not delegated to the United States by
the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
the States respectively, or to the people.
Human Rights Problems
There are, of course, less attractive sides to the U.S.
heritage. Slavery was an accepted practice in the southern
states during the fi rst 75 years of the American republic, and
racial discrimination in schools, public accommodations, and
social practices was the norm for much of its second century.
The American Indians, as they were then called, were forced to
move westward, losing their homes, their lands, and often their
lives. Women were denied the right to vote in elections, the
right to serve on juries, and even the right to hold property as a
wife. But one of the features of American democracy is thatselfcorrecting mechanisms like elections
and courts tend to remedy the
mistakes of earlier eras. The simple
power of the idea of equality has
also helped to correct social ills.
During the Cold War, the United
States supported some brutal
military dictatorships, providing
them with fi nancial and military
support so long as they supported
U.S. economic and geopolitical
interests. More recently, the United
States has been criticized in the
wake of 9/11 for its treatment of
some suspected terrorists, as well
President Abraham Lincoln at the
Antietam battleground, 1862. The
U.S. Civil War, pitting the nonslaveholding North against the
slaveholding South, ended slavery
in North America forever, and
made human rights concerns a
perpetual part of American society
and culture.24 25
about the disenfranchisement of convicted felons after they
have served their sentence, and discussions about the rights
of sexual minorities. Again, one sees that the power of an idea,
such as equality, generates a continuing debate.
Positive Actions
But the United States also has a long record of positive
international action on
behalf of human rights.
After World War I, U.S.
President Woodrow Wilson
championed national
self-determination and
protection of minorities by
the international community.
After World War II, the United
States devoted considerable
eff ort and money to
sustaining and rebuilding
democracy in Europe and
to establishing democracy
in Japan. The United States was a leader in decolonization,
granting independence to the Philippines in 1946. And with the
end of the Cold War, the United States has emerged as a leader
in multilateral human rights and humanitarian initiatives in
Somalia, Sudan, Haiti, Bosnia, and other countries.
as for isolated instances of prisoner abuse by the U.S. military
during the Iraq War. The boundaries of rights in instances
of confl icts involving terrorists — who, after all, are out to
destroy everybody’s rights — are still being debated in civilized
societies.
There are concerns in some quarters about the use of the
death penalty and the adequacy of legal representation in
death penalty cases, as well as the number of minority males
incarcerated in prisons for criminal off enses. There are debates
This scene by British painter Benjamin Haydon shows a meeting of ananti-slavery society
in 1840. In Britain and America, anti-slavery societies vehementlyopposed the slave trade
— an example of a political movement inspired by conscience.
President Woodrow Wilson celebrates
Armistice Day, 1921. Following World War
I, Wilson’s idealism led to the founding of
the League of Nations (the fi rst attempt to
form a United Nations) and to still-prevailing
theories of international order.26 27
Keeping Congress Informed
The U.S. State Department is required by law each year
to submit several comprehensive reports on human rights to
Congress. They include:
• Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, a detailed
assessment of the situation in countries around the world;
• Supporting Human Rights and Democracy • Supporting Human Rightsand Democracy, d, descriptions of what escriptions of what
the U.S. government is doing to address the abuses noted in
the country reports;
• International Religious Freedom Report • InternationalReligious Freedom Report, a, an examination of the n examination ofthe
degree to which people are free to worship as they please;
• Traffi cking in Persons Report • Traffi cking in PersonsReport, a s , a survey of modern-day slavery. urvey of modern-dayslavery.
When completed, these reports are delivered to Congress and
placed on the Internet for dissemination worldwide.
Abroad, American self-righteousness and an American
willingness to act unilaterally have provoked occasional
resentment, even among those who have shared the values
underlying American policies. It is not diffi cult to point out
where the United States falls short of its ideals. Nonetheless,
the United States today, as two centuries ago, is a world leader
in the ongoing struggle for human rights. And, while the ideas
are widely accepted, the struggle to implement them continues
globally.
INTERNATIONAL MONITORING AND
IMPLEMENTATION MECHANISMS
A
tt least theoretically, states are increasingly accountable leasttheoretically, states are increasingly accountable
AAtto the international community for their human rights o theinternational community for their human rights
practices. More than three-fourths of the countries
of the world have ratifi ed the International Human Rights
Covenants.
Opening ceremony at the United Nations World Conference on HumanRights, Vienna,
1993. Human rights concerns, if not always implemented, are now anelement of the global
agenda.28 29
The United Nation’s International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights established a supervisory committee of
independent experts—the Human Rights Committee—the
principal function of which is to review periodic reports
submitted by states. Similar committees have been created by
international human rights treaties on racial discrimination,
women’s rights, torture, and the rights of the child, as well
as new treaties on the rights of the handicapped and migrant
workers.
Incentives for Improvement
Monitoring and reporting cannot force states to alter their
practices. There are, however, other incentives for states seeking
to improve or safeguard their human rights records. The process
of preparing a report may uncover areas where improvement
may be needed. This can be a reminder to offi cials of their
international legal obligations.
The European Commission on Human Rights, which existed
within the Council of Europe, had a stronger complaint system.
And its successor body, the European Court of Human Rights,
has made legally binding decisions in hundreds of cases dealing
with a variety of issues, including sensitive questions such as
public emergencies. In the European system there has been
a partial transfer of authority for implementing human rights
from states to a larger, regional political community.
Regional arrangements in the Americas and Africa have
had less success in this regard. The Arab world and Asia do not
yet have regional human rights commissions, although the Asia
Pacifi c Forum was created in 1996 with a mission to support
regional cooperation in the “establishment and development
of national institutions in order to protect and promote the
human rights of the peoples of the region.” There are also plans
for a new ASEAN human rights commission and a new African
Court of Human Rights. The strength and scope of international
monitoring procedures rests on the willingness of states to use
and participate in them. This situation remains a serious and
persistent problem.
Investigative Reporting and Advocacy
Another set of multilateral human rights monitoring
mechanisms involves
investigative reporting
and advocacy. The pioneer
in this area is the InterAmerican Commission on
Human Rights. Its reports
on Chile in the 1970s and
1980s were an important
element in exposing
human rights abuses of
the Pinochet government,
and its 1978 report on
Local offi cials in Chiapas, Mexico, welcome a
group of international human rights observers,
2002 following years of government clashes with
armed rebels identifi ed with indigenous groups. 30 31
Nicaragua appears to have contributed signifi cantly to the end
of the Somoza government.
Over the past two decades, the U.N. Commission on Human
Rights has devoted considerable eff ort to country studies,
including such politically prominent countries as Guatemala,
Iran, and Burma. Typically, the commission worked through a
so-called “special rapporteur”— an independent expert and
investigator. The special rapporteur, in addition to reporting
formally to the commission, typically attempts to maintain a
continuing dialogue with the government in question in order
to establish a sustained presence and channel for infl uence. The
U.N. Commission on Human Rights also created rapporteurs
or working groups to investigate disappearances, arbitrary
executions, arbitrary detentions, religious intolerance, human
rights violations by mercenaries, and racism.
In 2006, the Human Rights Commission was abolished in
favor of a smaller Human Rights Council. The new Council has
had a diffi cult start. It has been criticized for abolishing special
rapporteurs for countries such as Belarus and Cuba without
apparent reason. In addition, the Human Rights Council has
perpetuated the discriminatory practice of having a permanent
agenda item for only one country, namely, Israel, in relation
to the Palestinian situation. The new human rights machinery
in Geneva also has diminished the role of NGOs in the
Council’s formal sessions, and continues to exclude Israel from
membership in any of the regional groups that organize the
work in Geneva. There is some hope that so-called “universal
periodic review” can serve as an incentive for Council members
to improve their own human rights practices. Clearly, the moral
standing of any rights body has to rest largely on its impartiality.
NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
AND STATES: CONTRASTING ROLES
T
he activities of nongovernmental organizations are also
important to the politics of international human rights.
Amnesty International, Americas Watch, the American
The Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of Tibet, speaks at a humanrights conference in New
Delhi, India. Tibet, a beleaguered ethnic enclave, has come tosymbolize the rights of ethnic
minorities.32 33
Civil Liberties Union, and several other organizations were
important in the debates about Central American policy in the
1980s. And in both North America and Europe, NGOs played
a major role in national debates over sanctions against South
Africa during the 1980s.
Because of their private status, NGOs often can operate
free of the political control of states. And because they do not
have broader foreign policy ambitions that may confl ict with
human rights objectives, NGOs often are better able to press
human rights concerns. Being narrowly focused and generally
nonpartisan, NGOs can sometimes raise human rights issues
within a country that others cannot. This is particularly the
case where independent political activity is repressed and civil
society is weak.
Strengths and
Weaknesses
However, the power
of NGOs is limited.
They must rely on the
power of publicity and
persuasion. Many states
have used their powers
of coercion against local
members of human
rights NGOs, turning
them into new victims. Some countries have forbidden external
funding of NGOs, or have used onerous registration procedures
to hobble their work.
Sovereign states have almost the opposite strengths
and weaknesses of NGOs. States must accommodate a wide
range of interests in their foreign policies. Governments tend
to formulate foreign policy in their national interest, and this
means that human rights advocacy may be limited by other
objectives. But when states do choose to pursue human rights
issues, they typically possess resources, channels of infl uence,
and even publicity capabilities that are unavailable to NGOs.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
T
he 1993 Vienna
World Conference
on Human
Rights helped refocus
international attention
on human rights in the
post-Cold War world. The
war crimes tribunals for
the former Yugoslavia and
Rwanda, established by
the U.N. Security Council
in 1993 and 1994, have
developed the law of
Members of rights groups cheer in the Argentine
Congress following a vote by Argentina’s Senate to
revoke amnesty for those who committed human
rights abuses in the ’70s and ’80s. The damage done
by such abuses can linger for decades.
The United Nations criminal tribunal for the
former Yugoslavia, The Hague, 1995. International
juridical tribunals have been used to pursue war
criminals of failed states, in this instance, the
commander of a Bosnian concentration camp.34 35
armed confl ict and international humanitarian law, seeking to
protect civilians and noncombatants in those civil war confl icts.
Special tribunals were established for Sierra Leone in 2002 and
Cambodia in 2003 to prosecute military and political leaders
responsible for atrocities during times of war and genocide. In
addition, although the United States has not joined as a treaty
party, and has expressed certain reservations about its scope,
the International Criminal Court was established in 1998 by the
Rome treaty, and has been tasked by the U.N. Security Council
to prosecute human rights violations in the Darfur confl ict in
Sudan.
The 1995 United Nations Fourth World Conference on
Women in Beijing attempted to place women’s issues within
the mainstream of international human rights discussions. With
its emphasis on “good governance,” the World Bank highlights
important human rights issues. The Council of Europe and
the European Union have stressed that countries seeking to
join the political structures of Europe must have policies that
protect human rights. In 2002, the United States established the
Millennium Challenge Corporation to provide economic
A woman collects signatures for a campaign against domestic violencein Santiago, Chile.
The sign on her shirt reads “No more violence against women.”
A women’s group in ex-Soviet Georgia. The concept of women’s rights, alargely 20thcentury phenomenon, has arisen as concern for human rightsin general has risen.36 37
assistance to countries that govern democratically, invest in
their people, and encourage economic freedom.
Embarrassing Publicity
Another positive development is the light of embarrassing
international publicity that is increasingly focused on persistent
human rights violators. Global, regional, and national groups
have created a web of pressures that make it almost impossible
today for states to avoid being held accountable publicly for
their human rights practices.
The value of publicizing violations and trying to shame
states into better behavior should not be underestimated.
Even vicious governments may care about their international
reputations. For example, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the
Argentine military regime devoted considerable diplomatic
eff ort to thwart the investigations of the U.N. Commission on
Human Rights. Furthermore, publicity often helps at least a few
of the more prominent victims of repression regain a measure
of freedom and even sometimes avoid execution. The World
Wide Web has made it easier for human rights groups to link up
and publicize issues.
National and international norms and expectations are
being altered for the
better. The idea of
human rights has
a moral force and
mobilizing power
that is hard to resist
in today’s world. And
as more and more
citizens throughout the
world come to think of
themselves as endowed
with inalienable rights,
People read about their rights on a wall poster on a municipalbuilding in Albania.
A man in China surfs the Internet. Modern
technology makes it possible for human rights
organizations to connect with one another, and
share their message with the world.38
the demand for human rights continues to cause dictators to
fl ee and their governments to crumble.
The sword may prove mightier than the word in the short
run. But the task of human rights advocates, wherever they may
be, is the ancient and noble one of speaking the truth of justice
to power. And one of the most heartening lessons of much
recent history is that truth can triumph.
Abridged and adapted, with updates, from the essay What Are HumanRights?
by Jack Donnelly, a professor of international studies at theUniversity of Denver.
Dr. Donnelly is the author of Universal Human Rights in Theory andPractice,
International Human Rights, and numerous articles on a variety ofhuman rights
issues.
Photo Credits: Page 1: © The PrintCollector/Heritage-Images/Imagestate,
UK. 3: Special Collections, (c) 2006 University of Leeds Library. 6,7: UN Photo
(2). 10: T. Cambre Pierce/AP Images. 11: AFP/Getty Images. 12: APImages.
15: Themba Hadebe/AP Images. 17: Bibliotheque Nationale/akg-images.18:
Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress (LOC).20, 23:
Prints and Photographs Division, LOC (2). 24: Bettmann/CORBIS. 25:Prints and
Photographs Division, LOC. 27: Rudi Blaha/AP Images. 29: EduardoVerdugo/AP
Images. 31: Manish Swarup/AP Images. 32: Daniel Luna/AP Images. 33: AP
Images. 34: Santiago Llanquin/AP Images. 35: Maria Steen/Moment/Redux.
36: Fejzon Numani/OSCE. 37: © Sinopix.
ten denied full human rights
- A + A Published 30 April 2008Tags health care human rights social policy social protectionShare on facebook Share on gmail Being particularly vulnerable, the elderly are "often ignored and denied their fullhuman rights," according to the Council of Europe's Commissioner for Human RightsThomas Hammarberg, writing on the council's website on 28 April 2008.
The author calls for the human dignity of the "lost generation" to be respected andtheir rights restored, as they do not enjoy an adequate standard of living and many ofthem are poor.
Given their frailty, aged people should get "special protection", Hammarberg argues,explaining that this is why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipulated theyhave the right to security.
In our society, the elderly tend to be discriminated against on several levels and maybe considered as worthless or non-productive, the human rights commissioner states.
Hammarberg highlights the labour market as a good example of an area wherediscrimination frequently occurs – many retired people who wish to continue theirprofessional activity do not have the opportunity to do so as their age prevents themfrom accessing the market.
The author suggests leaders should make retirement ages more flexible as "olderpersons should have the opportunity to work as long as they wish and are able to, insatisfying and productive work".
Modern society has not adequately addressed disabilities caused by ageing like reducedvision, reduced hearing or reduced mobility, Hammarberg states, highlighting thenecessity of designing policies and programmes that would adapt to their situation.
Institutionally, he says some countries should better control the way in which agedpeople are treated, as they are "less able to defend themselves against abuse".
He also calls for the conditions in which they are hosted to be more thoroughlymonitored.
Faced with ageing populations, the elderly are bound to be "a strain on the social andhealth care system," therefore the commissioner urges European leaders to re-examinetheir social protection systems, health care and housing policies, which are not"suited" to the elderly.
India
INDIAN CRIMINAL DEFENSEMANUAL
1. The Role And Responsibility of a LegalAid Lawyer
2. Rights of the Accused and Exceptional Circumstances
3. Client Interview 4. Other Pretrial Matters 5. Theory of the Case 6. Various Defense Strategies 7. Questioning the Witness 8. Plea Bargaining/Guilty
Plea9. Evidence 10. Arguments
CODES
The Code of Criminal Procedure
The Constitution of India The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 The Indian Penal Code, 1860 LEGAL RESOURCES
Lawyer-Client Relationship India Country Summary Card Rights of the Accused Around
the World Important Case Law regarding
Defendants' Rights in IndiaLEGAL TRAINING RESOURCE
CENTER
eLearning Courses for Indian lawyers
BackgroundIndia has one of the world's largest populations of pre-trial detainees with249,796 people in overcrowded and unsanitary prisons. While in police custody,these Indian citizens are often subjected to beatings, sleep deprivation, andshock treatments - all in violation of their fundamental constitutionalrights. Subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, they are an example ofhuman rights abuses on a colossal scale. Four people die in police or judicialcustody every day from these abuses.
Many of these deaths could be avoided if cases were swiftly resolved. However,each year more cases are filed in Indian courts than can ever be disposed of,creating a huge bottleneck in the criminal justice system. There are currently26,752,193 pending cases in Indian courts and in some jurisdictions case loadsare so high that it would take a thousand years to clear court dockets.Because of this backlog, detainees who cannot make bail are sometimes kept inpretrial detention longer than the maximum sentence they would have receivedif convicted. In one case, a man was held in pretrial detention for 54 yearseven though the maximum sentence for his crime was only 10 years. During theseperiods of pre-trial detention, arrestees are at the greatest risk of humanrights abuses as victims have reported that the longer the period ofdetention, the more intense the violence against them becomes.
These abuses are made worse and worse by the continuing deterioration of theIndian Police, one of the most ill-equipped police departments in the world.For every 1,037 Indian residents there is only one police officer. (Asianaverage: 558, global average: 333). Understaffed, under-skilled and under-resourced, the police in many Indian states work long hours under filthy laborconditions. Junior officers face intense pressure from supervisors to solvecases quickly and efficiently. As a result, bribery, brutal torture, murders,illegal arrests and other human rights abuses have become the norm, ratherthan the exception.
Recently, India has demonstrated an increased commitment to rule of law andcitizens’ legal rights. Because of police abuses during interrogation, Article22 of the Indian Constitution was added to prevent police from detainingcitizens for longer than 24 hours without a special order from a magistrate.Though domestic law grants this fundamental legal right, there remains atremendous gulf between the actual law and its implementation. Police officersregularly detain suspects for several days, post-dating arrest documents 24-hours before producing the defendant before the magistrate. Similarly,pretrial detainees are routinely denied due process rights taken for grantedin the western world: notice of charges and an opportunity to contact familyor lawyers. In many cases these prisoners – poor and marginally literate – arecompletely unaware they have any legal rights at all, further emboldeningpolice officers.
NGOs have been successful in lobbying Indian authorities to criminalizetorture, organizing public awareness campaigns on the issue of torture andaiding the rehabilitation of torture victims. However, systematic policedenial, obstruction, an absence of records and a lack of accountabilitycontinues to plague the system.
Despite the fact that India has a limited legal aid system, the vast majorityof pre-trial detainees never receive any legal representation, making thisright illusory at best. India's current legal aid system operates primarily inurban areas, and due to caste segregation many Indians do not receive accessto legal aid at all. Each of India's 28 states operates its own Legal ServicesAuthority, resulting in an uncoordinated approach to India's legal aidproblems.
Type of SystemA former British colony, India has a criminal justice system heavilyinfluenced by the English common law system. There are, however, significantdifferences. For instance, India banned the use of jury trials in 1960.
Sources of Defendants' RightsDefendants' rights are protected by the Constitution of India, the CriminalProcedure Code of 1973 and the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 which governs asuspects rights prior to trial. In addition, defendants' rights are
established by case law by regional and national courts. By law, Indiandefendants retain a significant number of rights including the right tocounsel[1], the right to silence [2], the right to a fair trial[3], the right toconfront witnesses[4] and the right to a speedy trial[5]
Defendants' RightsPre-Trial
The arrest of a defendant must be made if a reasonable complaint has been madeor credible information received or a reasonable suspicion exists that anindividual committed a crime[6]. Police may conduct a search upon probablecause and the issuance of a search warrant.
A defendant may be detained pending trial. For bailable offenses a Magistratemust notify the accused of his right to bail and prescribe the amount of bail.The defendant has the right to identify an individual to be informed of his orher arrest.[7]. An arrestee has the right to demand an "Inspection Memo" fordocumenting any injuries incurred during or after arrest and has the right toa medical examination every 48 hours.
A defendant has the right to meet a lawyer during interrogation though notthroughout the entire duration of the interrogation.
Defendants in police custody must be produced before a Magistrate within 24hours of arrest. [8]
The right to counsel applies to all custodial interrogations as well ascritical stages of the proceedings including post-indictment interrogations,arraignments, gulity pleas and trials.[9]
Trial
A defendant has the right to a fair trial in open court [10] as well as theright to confront witnesses [11]. Jury trials were abandoned in 1960 and alltrials occur with the judge sitting as finder of both law and fact.
Confessions to police are inadmissible as evidence. Confessions may beadmissible if made to a Magistrate and only if the Magistrate examines thecircumstances of the confession for possible police coercion orintimidation[12]
Post-Conviction
The Constitution of India prohibits an individual from being prosecuted andpunished form the same offence more than once.[13] The Criminal Procedure Codestates that every individual convicted in High Court may appeal to the SupremeCourt. Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or AdditionalSessions Judge or a trial in any other court in which the sentence ofimprisonment is more than seven years may appeal to the High Court. Thedefendant must show that a miscarriage of justice jeapardized the fundamentalfairness of the trial in order to secure reversal.[14]
The Indian Supreme Court may enforce Constitution rights by Habeas corpus,mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari [15]
See Criminal Justice Systems Around the World
QUICK FACTS
There are 26,752,193 pending cases in Indian courts. In some jurisdictionscase loads are so high that it would take a thousand years to clear courtdockets.
References
1. ↑ Constitution of India, Art. 22(1)2. ↑ Constitution of India, Art. 20(3)3. ↑ Constitution of India, Art. 144. ↑ India Evidence Act, Section 1385. ↑ Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. V. Home Secretary, Bihar, Patna, (1980) I
SCC 986. ↑ Criminal Procedure Code, Sect. 417. ↑ Criminal Procedure Code, Section 50A8. ↑ Constitution of India, Article 22(2)9. ↑ State of M.P. v. Shobharam, AIR 1966 SC 1910: (1966) Cri LJ 152110. ↑ Criminal Procedure Code Sec. 32711. ↑ Indian Evidence Act Sec. 13812. ↑ Criminal Procedure Code, Sect. 164.
13. ↑ Constitution of India, Art. 20(2).14. ↑ For a full list of appealable issues see Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973, Sections 460-466.15. ↑ Constitution of India, Art. 32(2)
What Can Be Done: Human Rights First’sPrimetime Torture ProjectHuman Rights First has developed a project called Primetime Torture that seeksto limit the negative impact television has on the way U.S. troops operate by:Training soldiers
We are developing training materials to educate junior soldiers about why theway torture is portrayed on television should not be imitated. The trainingmaterials include a 20-minute video that combines scenes of torture and crueltreatment from popular television shows with interviews from seasonedinterrogators, script writers and cultural critics as well as a writtendiscussion guide written by former interrogators.Talking to the creative community in Hollywood
Human Rights First has reached out to writers, producers, studio executives,actors and others with creative control to talk to them about the way tortureis presented on TV. As part of this, we are introducing seasoned interrogatorsto Hollywood and encouraging writers and producers to utilize formerinterrogators as a resource.
Human Rights First has also created the following recommendations to creatorsof popular culture who are writing scenes about interrogation:1. Depict torture, but condemn it – and the torturer.
Historically, the American military has viewed torture as unacceptable: notonly does torture practiced by Americans undermine the United States’ role asa champion of human rights, it also puts captured Americans at greater risk oftorture and limits the U.S. government’s ability to criticize or punish suchtreatment.
U.S. interrogators say that not only is torture illegal and immoral, it isalso ineffective as an interrogation tactic – because it is unreliable.
Moreover, evidence gained through torture is inadmissible in court – andtherefore unusable for prosecuting alleged terrorists or criminals.
In depicting interrogation scenes, writers might consider having respectedcharacters condemn acts of torture or question the morality, the consequences,and the efficacy of abuse when used as an interrogation technique. Characterswho torture should be criticized and ostracized.
It would also be helpful for writers to consider having only villains – orcharacters of questionable ethics – torture to elicit information, and then tohave the abuse prove ineffective in producing actionable intelligence.Certainly, Americans – and American heroes in particular – should not torture.2. Show that torture is unreliable and ineffective.Torture, as it is performed by American characters on television, regularlyproduces reliable information – and quite quickly. When writingabout interrogation, writers might consider creating scenes that moreaccuratelymirror reality: showing that torture often incapacitates suspects (orkills them); that innocent people are often mistakenly tortured; or thatvictimsof torture provide false information.3. Show the consequences of torture – physicaland emotional.
On television today, torture has few consequences for the torturer and thetortured. Interrogators report, however, that the physical and psychologicaleffects of torture are profound – that it would be difficult, if notimpossible, for those who torture or are tortured to resume normal lifequickly as they do on television.
Writers might consider showing the psychological dimensions of those who treatothers inhumanely, and the real physical and psychological costs to those whoare tortured.4. Have heroes use legal techniques.
For decades American soldiers and police officers have gleaned valuableinformation from suspects without torturing them. There are textbooks full oflegal interrogation techniques – techniques with great dramatic possibilities.
Writers might consider speaking to experienced military and FBI interrogatorsabout the range of psychological and dramatic situations faced in real-lifeinterrogations.5. Remember that American popular culture is exported widely around the world.
With the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo fresh in people’s minds,exporting the glorification of torture by American military and policepersonnel further tarnishes America’s image in the world.
At a moment when there is an active policy debate in the United States aboutlegalizing coercive interrogation, writers might consider the effect onAmerica’s image – and soldiers’ safety – of creating interrogation scenes thatcelebrate Americans torturing without legal consequences.6. Understand the impact of perpetuating the “ticking time bomb” scenario.
Since the attacks of September 11, there has been an effort to change U.S.interrogation policy so that abuse is permissible in certain circumstances;the so-called “ticking time bomb” scenario is often raised as such acircumstance. Experienced interrogators say that the ticking time bombscenario is so exceptional it is all but mythical: interrogators rarely, ifever, are certain that a suspect in custody knows the details of an imminentattack and that torture would work to elicit that information.
The ticking time bomb scenario, however, has been firmly lodged in the publicdebate as likely and common. Opinion polls show that Americans – who oncethought torture unacceptable – now believe torture may be warranted in certaincircumstances.Because the ticking time bomb scenario is a powerful dramatic device, itis used regularly, even disproportionately, in television interrogationscenes;this contributes to the false idea that such a scenario is common. Writersmight consider balancing ticking time bomb scenes with other scenarios. Thisway, writers will not perpetuate the idea that this situation is commonplaceand effectively addressed by torture.
Home | About | Challenges | Knowledge Base | NewandFeatured | Participate | Projects
LoginJoin BeyondIntractabilitySystemStatusAcknowledgements
Human Rights ProtectionPrinter-friendly version Send by email
Human Rights Protection
ByMichelle Maiese
June 2004
What are Human Rights?
Human rights are the basicrights and freedoms to whichall humans are consideredentitled: the right to life,liberty, freedom of thought andexpression, and equal treatmentbefore the law, among others.These rights represententitlements of the individualor groups vis-B-vis thegovernment, as well asresponsibilities of theindividual and the governmentauthorities.
Such rights are ascribed"naturally," which means thatthey are not earned and cannotbe denied on the basis of race,creed, ethnicity or gender.[1]These rights are often advancedas legal rights and protectedby the rule of law. However, they are distinct fromand prior to law, and can be used as standards forformulating or criticizing both localandinternational law. It is typically thought that
FollowBeyondIntractability:
AdditionalSupportOptions
I found one day inschool a boy ofmedium size ill-treating a smallerboy. I expostulated,but he replied: "Thebigs hit me, so I hitthe babies; that'sfair." In these wordshe epitomized thehistory of thehuman race.
- BertrandRussell
The 1993 World Conferenceon Human Rights affirmedthe crucial connectionbetween internationalpeace and security and therule of law and humanrights, placing them allwithin the larger contextof democratization anddevelopment.
The United Nations isincreasingly combiningefforts to prevent or endconflicts with measuresaimed at reducing humanrights abuses insituations of internalviolence. Special emphasisis placed on ensuring theprotection of minorities,strengthening democraticinstitutions, realizingthe right to developmentand securing universalrespect for human rights.-- United Nations, "Human RightsToday: A United Nations Priority."
the conduct of governments and military forces mustcomply with these standards.
Various "basic" rights that cannot be violated underany circumstances are set forth in internationalhuman rights documents such as the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights, the InternationalCovenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,and the International Covenant on Civil andPolitical Rights. The rights established by thesedocuments include economic, social, cultural,political and civil rights.[2]
While human rights are not always interpretedsimilarly across societies, these norms nonethelessform a common human rights vocabulary in which theclaims of various cultures can be articulated. Thewidespread ratification of international humanrights agreements such as those listed above istaken as evidence that these are widely sharedvalues.[3] Having human rights norms in placeimposes certain requirements on governments andlegitimizes the complaints of individuals in thosecases where fundamental rights and freedoms are notrespected.[4] Such norms constitute a standard forthe conduct of government and the administration offorce. They can be used as "universal, non-discriminatory standards" for formulating orcriticizing law and act as guidelines for properconduct.[5]
Many conflicts are sparked by a failure to protecthuman rights, and the trauma that results fromsevere human rights violations often leads to newhuman rights violations. As conflict intensifies,hatred accumulates and makes restoration of peacemore difficult. In order to stop this cycle ofviolence, states must institute policies aimed athuman rights protection. Many believe that theprotection of human rights "is essential to the
sustainable achievement of the three agreed globalpriorities of peace, development and democracy."[6]Respect for human rights has therefore become anintegral part of international law and foreignpolicy. The specific goal of expanding such rightsis to "increase safeguards for the dignity of theperson."[7]
Despite what resembles a widespread consensus on theimportance of human rights and the expansion ofinternational treaties on such matters, theprotection of human rights still often leaves muchto be desired. Although international organizationshave been created or utilized to embody thesevalues, there is little to enforce the commitmentsstates have made to human rights. Militaryintervention is a rare occurrence. Sanctions have aspotty track record of effectiveness. Although notto be dismissed as insignificant, often the onlyconsequence for failing to protect human rights is"naming and shaming."
Interventions to Protect Human Rights
To protect human rights is toensure that people receive somedegree of decent, humanetreatment. Because politicalsystems that protect humanrights are thought to reducethe threat of world conflict,all nations have a stake inpromoting worldwide respect forhuman rights.[8] Internationalhuman rights law, humanitarianintervention law and refugeelaw all protect the right tolife and physical integrity and
"Numerous reports,compiled by the UnitedNations (UN) and varioushuman rightsorganizations, have citedgross violations of humanrights in Africa,especially within thecontext of internal armedconflicts. In light ofthis scenario, thequestion of whether or nota right to humanitarianintervention exists hasbecome even morepertinent." - KithureKindiki, "Gross Violations ofHuman Rights"
attempt to limit the unrestrained power of thestate. These laws aim to preserve humanity andprotect against anything that challenges people'shealth, economic well-being, social stability andpolitical peace. Underlying such laws is theprinciple of nondiscrimination, the notion thatrights apply universally.[9]
Responsibility to protect human rights resides firstand foremost with the states themselves. However, inmany cases public authorities and governmentofficials institute policies that violate basichuman rights. Such abuses of power by politicalleaders and state authorities have devastatingeffects, including genocide, war crimes and crimesagainst humanity. What can be done to safeguardhuman rights when those in power are responsiblefor human rights violations? Can outside forcesintervene in order to protect human rights?
Humanitarian Intervention
In some cases, the perceived need to protect humanrights and maintain peace has led to humanitarianintervention. There is evidence that internationallywe are moving towards the notion that governmentshave not only a negative duty to respect humanrights, but also a positive duty to safeguard theserights, preserve life and protect people from havingtheir rights violated by others.[10] Many believethat states' duties to intervene should not bedetermined by proximity, but rather by the severityof the crisis.
There are two kinds of humanitarian interventioninvolving the military: unilateral interventions bya single state, and collective interventions by agroup of states.[11] Because relatively few stateshave sufficient force and capacity to intervene ontheir own, most modern interventions are collective.
Some also argue that there is a normative consensusthat multilateral intervention is the onlyacceptable form at present.[12]
There is much disagreement about when and to whatextent outside countries can engage in suchinterventions. More specifically, there is debateabout the efficacy of using military force toprotect the human rights of individuals in othernations. This sort of debate stems largely from atension between state sovereignty and the rights ofindividuals.
Some defend the principles of state sovereignty andnonintervention, and argue that other states must bepermitted to determine their own course. They pointout that the principles of state sovereignty and thenon-use of force are enshrined in the charter of theUnited Nations, which is regarded as anauthoritative source on international legal order.[13]
This argument suggests that different states havedifferent conceptions of justice, and internationalcoexistence depends on a pluralist ethic wherebyeach state can uphold its own conception of thegood.[14] Among this group, there is "a profoundskepticism about the possibilities of realizingnotions of universal justice."[15] States thatpresume to judge what counts as a violation of humanrights in another nation interfere with thatnation's right to self-determination. Suspicions arefurther raised by the inconsistent respect forsovereignty (or human rights for that matter);namely, the Permanent Members of the UN SecurityCouncil have tremendous say over application ofinternational principles. In addition, requiringsome country to respect human rights is liable tocause friction and can lead to far-reachingdisagreements.[16] Thus, acts of intervention may
disrupt interstate order and lead to furtherconflict.[17] Even greater human suffering mightthereby result if states set aside the norm ofnonintervention.
Others point out that humanitarian intervention doesnot, in principle, threaten the territorialintegrity and political independence of states.Rather than aiming to destabilize a target state andmeddle in its affairs, humanitarian interventionaims to restore rule of law and promote humanetreatment of individuals.[18]
Furthermore, people who advocate this approachmaintain that "only the vigilant eye of theinternational community can ensure the properobservance of international standards, in theinterest not of one state or another but of theindividuals themselves."[19] They maintain thatmassive violations of human rights, such as genocideand crimes against humanity, warrant intervention,even if it causes some tension or disagreement.Certain rights are inalienable and universal, and"taking basic rights seriously means takingresponsibility for their protection everywhere."[20]
If, through its atrocious actions, a state destroysthe lives and rights of its citizens, it temporarilyforfeits its claims to legitimacy and sovereignty.[21] Outside governments then have a positive dutyto take steps to protect human rights and preservelives. In addition, it is thought that politicalsystems that protect human rights reduce the threatof world conflict.[22] Thus, intervention might alsobe justified on the ground of preservinginternational security, promoting justice andmaintaining international order.
Nevertheless, governments are often reluctant tocommit military forces and resources to defend human
rights in other states.[23] In addition, the use ofviolence to end human rights violations poses amoral dilemma insofar as such interventions may leadto further loss of innocent lives.[24] Therefore, itis imperative that the least amount of forcenecessary to achieve humanitarian objectives beused, and that intervention not do more harm thangood. Lastly, there is a need to ensure thatintervention is legitimate, and motivated by genuinehumanitarian concerns. The purposes of interventionmust be apolitical and disinterested. However, ifrisks and costs of intervention are high, it isunlikely that states will intervene unless their owninterests are involved.[25] For this reason, somedoubt whether interventions are ever driven byhumanitarian concerns rather than self-interest.
Many note that in order to truly address humanrights violations, we must strive to understand theunderlying causes of these breaches. These causeshave to do with underdevelopment, economicpressures, social problems and internationalconditions.[26] Indeed, the roots ofrepression, discrimination and other denials ofhuman rights stem from deeper and more complexpolitical, social and economic problems. It is onlyby understanding and ameliorating these root causesand strengthening both democracy and civilsociety that we can truly protect human rights.
Restoring Human Rights in the Peacebuilding Phase
In the aftermath of conflict, violence and suspicionoften persist. Government institutions and thejudiciary, which bear the main responsibility forthe observation of human rights, are often severelyweakened by the conflict or complicit in it. Yet, ageneral improvement in the human rights situation isessential for rehabilitation of war-torn societies.Many argue thathealing the psychological scars
caused by atrocities and reconciliation at thecommunity level cannot take place if the truth aboutpast crimes is not revealed and if human rights arenot protected. To preserve political stability,human rights implementation must be managedeffectively. Issues of mistrust and betrayal must beaddressed, and the rule of law must be restored. Insuch an environment, the international community canoften play an important supporting role in providingat least implicit guarantees that former opponentswill not abandon the peace.[27] Because allinternational norms are subject to culturalinterpretation, external agents that assist in therestoration of human rights in post-conflictsocieties must be careful to find local terms withwhich to express human rights norms. While humanrights are in theory universal, ideas aboutwhich basic needs should be guaranteed varyaccording to cultural, political, economic andreligious circumstances. Consequently, policies topromote and protect human rights must be culturallyadapted to avoid distrust and perceptions ofintrusion into internal affairs.
To promote human rights standards in post-conflictsocieties, many psychological issues must beaddressed. Societies must either introduce newsocial norms or reestablish old moral standards.They must design programs that will bothaddress pastinjustice and prevent future human rightsviolations. Human rights must not become justanother compartmentalized aspect of recovery, butmust be infused throughoutall peacebuilding and reconstruction activities.Democratization implies the restoration of political andsocial rights. Government officials and members ofsecurity and police forces have to be trained toobserve basic rights in the execution of theirduties. Finally, being able to forgive past
violations is central to society's reconciliation.
Rights Protection Methods
Various methods to advance and protect human rightsare available:
During violent conflict, safe havens toprotect refugees and war victims from anysurrounding violence in their communities cansometimes help to safeguard human lives.
As violent conflict begins tosubside, peacekeeping strategies to physicallyseparate disputants and prevent further violence arecrucial. These measures, together with violenceprevention mechanisms, can help to safeguard humanlives. Limiting the use of violence is crucial toensuring groups' survival and creating the necessaryconditions for a return to peace.
Education about human rights must become part ofgeneral public education. Technical and financialassistance should be provided to increase knowledgeabout human rights. Members of the police andsecurity forces have to be trained to ensure theobservation of human rights standards for lawenforcement. Research institutes and universitiesshould be strengthened to train lawyers and judges.To uphold human rights standards in the long-term,their values must permeate all levels of society.
Dialogue groups that assemble people from variousethnicities should be organized to overcomemistrust, fear and grief in society. Getting to knowthe feelings of ordinary people of each side mighthelp to change the demonic imageof the enemy group.Dialogue also helps parties at the grassroots levelto discover the truth about what has happened, andmay provide opportunities for apology andforgiveness.
External specialists can offer legislativeassistance and provide guidance in drafting pressfreedom laws, minority legislation and laws securinggender equality. They can also assist in drafting a
constitution, which guarantees fundamental politicaland economic rights.
Those who perpetrate human rights violations find itmuch easier to do so in cases where their activitiescan remain secret.International witnesses, observers and reporters canexert modest pressure to bring violations of humanrights to public notice and discourage furtherviolence. Monitors should not only exposeviolations, but also make the public aware of anyprogress made in the realization of human rights. Inorder to ensure that proper action is taken afterthe results of investigations have been made public,effective mechanisms to address injustice must be inplace.
Truth commissions are sometimes established after apolitical transition. To distinguish them from otherinstitutions established to deal with a legacy ofhuman rights abuses, truth commissions can beunderstood as "bodies set up to investigate a pasthistory of violations of human rights in aparticular country -- which can include violationsby the military or other government forces or armedopposition forces."[28] They are officiallysanctioned temporary bodies that investigate apattern of abuse in the past. Their goal is touncover details of past abuses as a symbol ofacknowledgment of past wrongs. They typically do nothave the powers of courts, nor should they, sincethey do not have the same standards of evidence andprotections for defendants. As such, they usually donot "name names" of those responsible for humanrights abuses, but rather point to institutionalfailings that facilitated the crimes. Finally, theyconclude with a report that contains recommendationsto prevent a recurrence of the crimes and to providereparations to victims.
International war crimes tribunals are establishedto hold individuals criminally responsible forviolations of international human rights law inspecial courts. The international community rarelyhas the will to create them. As the experiences withthe war tribunals for Rwanda and Yugoslavia
indicate, even where they are created, they areimperfect. They cannot hold all perpetratorsaccountable and typically aim for the topleadership. However, it remains difficult tosentence the top-level decision-makers, who bear theultimate responsibility for atrocities. They oftenenjoy political immunity as members of the post-conflict government. Incriminating a popular leadermight lead to violent protests and sometimes even torelapse into conflict. Leaders may be necessary tonegotiate and implement a peace agreement.
Various democratization measures can help to restorepolitical and social rights. For sustainability andlong-term viability of human rights standards,strong local enforcement mechanisms have to beestablished. An independent judiciary that providesimpartial means and protects individuals againstpolitically influenced persecution must berestored. Election monitors who help to guaranteefair voting procedures can help to ensure stable andpeaceful elections. And various social structuralchanges, including reallocations of resources,increased political participation, and thestrengthening of civil society can help to ensurethat people's basic needs are met.
Humanitarian aid and development assistance seeks toease the impact that violent conflict has oncivilians. During conflict, the primary aim is toprevent human casualties and ensure access to basicsurvival needs. These basics include water,sanitation, food, shelter and health care. Aid canalso assist those who have been displaced andsupport rehabilitation work. Once conflict hasended, development assistance helps toadvance reconstruction programs that rebuildinfrastructure, institutions and the economy. Thisassistance helps countries to undergo peacefuldevelopment rather than sliding back into conflict.
Conclusion
The expansion of international human rights law hasoften not been matched by practice. Yet, there is
growing consensus that the protection of humanrights is important for the resolution of conflictand to the rebuilding process afterward. To achievethese goals, the international community hasidentified a number of mechanisms both to bring anend to human rights abuses and to establish anenvironment in which they will be respected in thefuture. They are not alternatives, but each providesimportant benefits in dealing with the past andenvisioning a brighter future.
[1] Little, David. "Universality of Human Rights,"[availableat: http://www.usip.org/research/rehr/universality.html]
[2] endnote goes here**
[3] At the same time, some would argue that thehegemonic power of the West, whether throughnormative pressure or economic, is responsible forwidespread ratification.
[4] Antonio Cassese, Human Rights in a Changing World.(Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990), 2.
[5] Little, "The Nature and Basis of Human Rights,"United States Institute of Peace.
[availableat: http://www.usip.org/research/rehr/natbasis.html]
[6] "Human Rights Today: A United Nations Priority,"The United Nations, 2000. [availableat:http://www.un.org/rights/HRToday/]
[7] Cassese, 3.
[8] Cassese, 58.
[9] Don Hubert and Thomas G. Weiss et al. TheResponsibility to Protect: Supplementary Volume to the Report of theInternational Commission on Intervention and StateSovereignty. (Canada: International Development ResearchCentre, 2001), 144.
[10] Hubert and Weiss, et al., 147.
[11] Kithure Kindiki, "Gross Violations of HumanRights in Internal Armed Conflicts in Africa: IsThere a Right of Humanitarian Intervention?"in Conflict Trends, no. 3, 2001. ACCORD.
[12] Martha Finnemore, The purpose of intervention: changingbeliefs about the use of force. (Ithaca, Cornell UniversityPress, 2003), chapter 3.
[13] Kithure Kindiki, "Gross Violations of HumanRights"
[14] Hubert and Weiss, et al., 132.
[15] Hubert and Weiss, et al., 133.
[16] Cassese, 58.
z[17] Hubert and Weiss, et al., 133.
[18] Kithure Kindiki, "Gross Violations of HumanRights"
[19] Cassese, 55-6.
[20] Hubert and Weiss, et al., 135.
[21] Hubert and Weiss, et al., 136.
[22] Cassese, 58.
[23] Hubert and Weiss, et al., 136.
[24] Hubert and Weiss, et al., 137.
[25] Hubert and Weiss, et al., 141.
[26] Cassese, 59.
[27] See for example, Barbara F. Walter, Committing topeace: the successful settlement of civil wars. (Princeton, N.J.,Princeton University Press: 2002).
[28] Priscilla B. Hayner, (1994). "Fifteen TruthCommissions - 1974 to 1994: A Comparative Study."Human Rights Quarterly. 16(4): 604.
Use the following to cite this article:Maiese, Michelle. "Human Rights Protection." BeyondIntractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. ConflictInformation Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder.Posted: June 2004<http://www.beyondintractability.org/bi-essay/human-rights-protect>.
Updated Additional Resources
»
Login to post comments
Beyond Intractability Copyright © 2003-2012 The Beyond Intractability Project, The ConflictInformation Consortium, University of Colorado;Beyond Intractability is a Registered Trademark of the University ofColoradoContact Beyond IntractabilityPrivacy Policy
The Beyond Intractability Knowledge Base Project Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess, Co-Directors and Editors
c/o Conflict Information Consortium (Formerly Conflict Research Consortium),University of Colorado
580 UCB, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309, USA -- Phone:(303) 492-1635 -- Contact
