Global Universal human rights – secular and therefore not cultural?
governance: Relative human rights – cultural and therefore not secular?
human Should we follow the Westphalian system of state sovereignty and not intervene in human rights
rights
Human rights have been based on the idea of reciprocity – if one country obeys human rights, others will –
this is why during WW2 poison gas was not involved: a pragmatic consideration as opposed to moral, in
Human
our national interest to not be gassed
rights and
The same goes for the NPT, we do not want to use nuclear weapons as we do not want others to use
reciprocity
them
According to Westphalian principles, human rights are decided by governments, no interference should
be allowed – relative human rights
This idea was challenged by the Nuremberg Trials – a country’s government should be charged if they
Westphalian
kill their own people – if they defy moral principles as was the case with the Nazis
principle
Brought a human rights-based approach to international law, enshrined by the UNDHR
and UN
human
Four Freedoms – freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want (poverty) and freedom from
rights
fear – became a defining war aim of the USA after WW2 with the establishment of the UDHR
There are international regulations on moral behaviour and countries can be kept in check = moral
authority
The UN high commissioner for human rights was established to promote adherence to human rights.
Although lacking in coercive power, the position is important since it carries great moral authority
UNHCHR +
UNDHR
Human rights also promoted through MDGs as well as creation of the UDHR (but there is no enforcement)
Amnesty international, Human Rights Watch, Red cross, Save the Children
NGOs -Critical of authoritarianism in China, Turkey and Russia
How successfully do international institutions enforce human rights
The judicial agency / body of the UN
To settle legal disputes submitted by states
Advisory opinions on legal problems submitted by international branches, agencies
and UN general assembly
Aims
Attempts to enforce the rule of law in international disputes, to create a more peaceful
world
Successful in dispute resolution, through ICJ arbitration
In 1986, it resolved a border clash between Burkina Faso and Mali
Success
In 2002, it settles a dispute between Nigeria and Cameroon over the ownership of an oil-
rich peninsula
Iran refused to acknowledge ICJ sovereignty when the USA brought a case against it
The
International for seizing the US embassy in Tehran
Israel rejected the advisory decision that the wall they were building between them
Court of
and the Palestinian territories was illegal
Justice
Australia won a case against Japan concerning its whaling programme, but Japan
later resumed whaling
ICJ influence undermined because:
Limited in success as it conflicts with realist state egoism: power maximiser states put
Failure their sovereign interest comes above international law
It cannot initiate cases, can only try cases presented to it
We can choose whether to be subject to the ruling of the ICJ – only 72 of 194 ICJ
members have agreed
The UNSC is supposed to enforce ICJ rulings, but the P5 members unlikely to do this as
this would require coercive military action, which can only be done when international
peace and security are threatened
UN special In 1990 there was concern about the way in which the international community should react to genocide,
, war crimes and crimes against humanity occurring in Rwanda, Sierra Leona and the former Yugoslavia
-Sierra Leone was significant as a head of state was convicted: Charles Taylor
Punish and bring to justice those guilty of HRs abuses
Create a liberal principle of a global community that will no longer tolerate abuse of
citizens of states
Aim
Establish principle that the international community can try heads of government for
crimes
Make public the extent and horror of crimes so that they are not repeated
Uprisings occurred, violence with nations declaring independence, ethnic issues between
citizens, massacres
Success:
Made public the atrocities committed, making it difficult for accused to deny Radovan
Karadzic and Ratko Mladic
Brought justice for victims of crimes against humanity
Former
Convicted and sentenced for 83 war criminals, Radovan Karadzic was sentenced to
Yugoslavia
40 years, and political leaders such as Milan Lukic also received lengthy prison
sentences
Failure:
Serbia and Russia have criticised the Tribunal for unfairly focusing on crimes committed
by the Serbs and not investigating the war crimes they themselves endured.
From 1975-1979 the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia was responsible for the deaths of an
estimated 2 million Cambodians as it sought to return the country to Year Zero in its attempt
to create an agrarian, communist state
Success:
The court has handed out three life imprisonment sentences to:
Cambodia
Nuon Chea, Kaing Guek Eav, Khieu Samphan
Failure:
tribunals Former Khmer Rouge navy commander Meas Muth remains free despite the issuance of
2 outstanding arrest warrants – the PM opposes these warrants
Directed genocide of the Tutsi community at the hands of the Hutu – 800,000 died
Success:
The tribunal convicted 61 individuals of complicity in the genocide, including
former PM Jean Kambanda, who became the first head of government to be convicted
on charges of genocide
The tribunal also developed international law by establishing the precedent that rape
Rwanda
could be used as a way of perpetrating genocide.
Failure:
The UN tribunal in Rwanda has been criticised for only having focused on crimes
committed by Hutus. The Tutsi Rwandan Patriotic Front also committed atrocities that
were never investigated
International tribunals criticised for promoting victor’s justice i.e. the USA sat in
judgment on Japanese war criminals and yet the Americans could themselves have been
accused of war crimes for the nuclear bombing of cities
It promotes the idea that African states cannot deliver their own justice and the west
need to help, pushing forward colonial ideas
The way they have been established has caused it to be undermined
Other
Saddam Hussein was not tried by an international court – the US said that the
limitations
Iraqis should try him in Iraq as he could get a death penalty under Iraqi law and
of ITs
convicting him would be easier. Powerful countries could dictate international law
towards their own circumstances.
In 2015, Russia vetoed a UN tribunal for the shooting down of Malaysian flight 17 over
Ukraine – which Russia had a hand in
Philippines 2016, China was illegally claiming territories as its own – China boycotted
the proceedings arguing the court had no jurisdiction
The ICC Aims International court of last result for the most horrific issues, established by the
Rome statute (unlike the ICJ and UN)
governance: Relative human rights – cultural and therefore not secular?
human Should we follow the Westphalian system of state sovereignty and not intervene in human rights
rights
Human rights have been based on the idea of reciprocity – if one country obeys human rights, others will –
this is why during WW2 poison gas was not involved: a pragmatic consideration as opposed to moral, in
Human
our national interest to not be gassed
rights and
The same goes for the NPT, we do not want to use nuclear weapons as we do not want others to use
reciprocity
them
According to Westphalian principles, human rights are decided by governments, no interference should
be allowed – relative human rights
This idea was challenged by the Nuremberg Trials – a country’s government should be charged if they
Westphalian
kill their own people – if they defy moral principles as was the case with the Nazis
principle
Brought a human rights-based approach to international law, enshrined by the UNDHR
and UN
human
Four Freedoms – freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want (poverty) and freedom from
rights
fear – became a defining war aim of the USA after WW2 with the establishment of the UDHR
There are international regulations on moral behaviour and countries can be kept in check = moral
authority
The UN high commissioner for human rights was established to promote adherence to human rights.
Although lacking in coercive power, the position is important since it carries great moral authority
UNHCHR +
UNDHR
Human rights also promoted through MDGs as well as creation of the UDHR (but there is no enforcement)
Amnesty international, Human Rights Watch, Red cross, Save the Children
NGOs -Critical of authoritarianism in China, Turkey and Russia
How successfully do international institutions enforce human rights
The judicial agency / body of the UN
To settle legal disputes submitted by states
Advisory opinions on legal problems submitted by international branches, agencies
and UN general assembly
Aims
Attempts to enforce the rule of law in international disputes, to create a more peaceful
world
Successful in dispute resolution, through ICJ arbitration
In 1986, it resolved a border clash between Burkina Faso and Mali
Success
In 2002, it settles a dispute between Nigeria and Cameroon over the ownership of an oil-
rich peninsula
Iran refused to acknowledge ICJ sovereignty when the USA brought a case against it
The
International for seizing the US embassy in Tehran
Israel rejected the advisory decision that the wall they were building between them
Court of
and the Palestinian territories was illegal
Justice
Australia won a case against Japan concerning its whaling programme, but Japan
later resumed whaling
ICJ influence undermined because:
Limited in success as it conflicts with realist state egoism: power maximiser states put
Failure their sovereign interest comes above international law
It cannot initiate cases, can only try cases presented to it
We can choose whether to be subject to the ruling of the ICJ – only 72 of 194 ICJ
members have agreed
The UNSC is supposed to enforce ICJ rulings, but the P5 members unlikely to do this as
this would require coercive military action, which can only be done when international
peace and security are threatened
UN special In 1990 there was concern about the way in which the international community should react to genocide,
, war crimes and crimes against humanity occurring in Rwanda, Sierra Leona and the former Yugoslavia
-Sierra Leone was significant as a head of state was convicted: Charles Taylor
Punish and bring to justice those guilty of HRs abuses
Create a liberal principle of a global community that will no longer tolerate abuse of
citizens of states
Aim
Establish principle that the international community can try heads of government for
crimes
Make public the extent and horror of crimes so that they are not repeated
Uprisings occurred, violence with nations declaring independence, ethnic issues between
citizens, massacres
Success:
Made public the atrocities committed, making it difficult for accused to deny Radovan
Karadzic and Ratko Mladic
Brought justice for victims of crimes against humanity
Former
Convicted and sentenced for 83 war criminals, Radovan Karadzic was sentenced to
Yugoslavia
40 years, and political leaders such as Milan Lukic also received lengthy prison
sentences
Failure:
Serbia and Russia have criticised the Tribunal for unfairly focusing on crimes committed
by the Serbs and not investigating the war crimes they themselves endured.
From 1975-1979 the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia was responsible for the deaths of an
estimated 2 million Cambodians as it sought to return the country to Year Zero in its attempt
to create an agrarian, communist state
Success:
The court has handed out three life imprisonment sentences to:
Cambodia
Nuon Chea, Kaing Guek Eav, Khieu Samphan
Failure:
tribunals Former Khmer Rouge navy commander Meas Muth remains free despite the issuance of
2 outstanding arrest warrants – the PM opposes these warrants
Directed genocide of the Tutsi community at the hands of the Hutu – 800,000 died
Success:
The tribunal convicted 61 individuals of complicity in the genocide, including
former PM Jean Kambanda, who became the first head of government to be convicted
on charges of genocide
The tribunal also developed international law by establishing the precedent that rape
Rwanda
could be used as a way of perpetrating genocide.
Failure:
The UN tribunal in Rwanda has been criticised for only having focused on crimes
committed by Hutus. The Tutsi Rwandan Patriotic Front also committed atrocities that
were never investigated
International tribunals criticised for promoting victor’s justice i.e. the USA sat in
judgment on Japanese war criminals and yet the Americans could themselves have been
accused of war crimes for the nuclear bombing of cities
It promotes the idea that African states cannot deliver their own justice and the west
need to help, pushing forward colonial ideas
The way they have been established has caused it to be undermined
Other
Saddam Hussein was not tried by an international court – the US said that the
limitations
Iraqis should try him in Iraq as he could get a death penalty under Iraqi law and
of ITs
convicting him would be easier. Powerful countries could dictate international law
towards their own circumstances.
In 2015, Russia vetoed a UN tribunal for the shooting down of Malaysian flight 17 over
Ukraine – which Russia had a hand in
Philippines 2016, China was illegally claiming territories as its own – China boycotted
the proceedings arguing the court had no jurisdiction
The ICC Aims International court of last result for the most horrific issues, established by the
Rome statute (unlike the ICJ and UN)
