Global Governance: Human
Rights and Environmental
Subject Govt & Politics - Global Politics
Last edited time 22 March 2025 16:48
International law has helped govern international relations since the rise of
the nation-state in the 17th century onwards. For most of modern history,
international law has been based upon the principle of reciprocity - if you
obey an international agreement it is more likely that another state will see a
reciprocal interest in obeying it as well. This is why, during the Second
World War, the European powers did not use poison gas against one
another. It was generally pragmatic as opposed to moral considerations that
governed this decision.
Since the 17th century, Westphalian principles enshrined the concept that
human rights are relative and to be determined by the government under
which one lives.
The idea was challenged in 1945 with the Nuremberg Trials. Leading Nazi’s
were tried as war criminals for ‘crimes against humanity’ and for ‘waging
aggressive warfare.’ This set a precedent for a country’s government to be
charged for defying all moral principles, thereby questioning the
fundamental principles of Westphalia.
The realist assumption that states could not be held to account by the
international community did not seem adequate given the atrocities waged
by the Nazi regime against members of its own country and against other
nation-states. Lessons had to be learned, as US prosecutor Robert Jackson
remarked, ‘The wrongs which we seek to condemn have been so
calculated, so malignant, and so devastating, that civilisation cannot
tolerate their being ignored, because it cannot survive their being
repeated.’
Nuremberg accelerated the need for a human-rights based approach to
international law. This was evident in 1945 when 50 states met to sign the
UN Charter. President Truman linked the Charter to human rights by
Global Governance: Human Rights and Environmental 1
, remarking that had it been passed sooner ‘millions now dead would be
alive.’
The human rights approach to international law was further enshrined with
the drawing up of the United Nations declaration of Human Rights in 1948.
This was based upon the ‘inherent dignity’ and ‘equal and inalienable rights
of all members of the human family.’ Its committee chairperson, Eleanor
Roosevelt, called it the Magna Carta for ‘all men everywhere.’
The UDHR also provided the basis for the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights (1966) and the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights (1966), both of which entered into force in 1976.
These three documents compromise the International Bill of Human Rights
and remind nation-states that there are international standards of moral
behaviour and that states can be held accountable.
The end of the Cold War in 1990 saw new developments in International
human rights with the appointment of the United Nations, Amnesty
International, Human Rights Watch, Red Cross and Save the Children.
These global pressure groups use the internet to its full potential. For
example, Human Rights Watch published its annual World Report
cataloguing nation-state’s record on human rights abuses. In 2017, it
criticised Bashar al-Assad of deploying a ‘war crimes strategy’ in the Syrian
civil war and has also been highly critical of authoritarianism in China,
Russia and Turkey.
2. How the Nuremberg Trials challenged Westphalian principles - Westphalian
principles suggest that the nation-state is sovereign and accountable for
itself, and free to determine some of its own moral principles. However, the
Nuremberg Trials stated that the international community should be
responsible for such things,
ICJ - International Court of Justice
HQ; The Hague, Netherlands
Global Governance: Human Rights and Environmental 2
, Sitting President; Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf (Somalia)
Background: it is the judicial agency of the UN, and began operation in 1946
Main aims;
-to settle legal disputes submitted to it by its states
-provides advisory opinions on legal questions submitted to it by international
branches, agencies and the UN general assembly
-attempts to enforce the rule of law in international disputes to create a more
stable and peaceful world
-Article 94 states that all members should comply with its judgements. If they
do not, the other party may approach the UNSC to have the judgment enforced
successes failures
1980 - Iran refused to accept ICJ
1986 - resolved a border clash between sovereignty when the US brought a case
Burkina Faso and Mali against it for seizing the US embassy in
Tehran
2012 - Colombia announced it no longer
accepted ICJ jurisdiction after it decided a
maritime border case in favour of
1992 - settled a complicated border dispute Nicaragua. Colombian president, Juan
between El Salvador and Honduras Mantel Santos; ‘borders between nations
cannot be in the hands of a court of law…
they must be drawn by agreement
between the countries involved’
2014 - Australia bought a case against
2002 - settled a dispute between Nigeria
Japan, condemning its ‘scientific’ whaling
and Cameroon over ownership of an oil rich
programme in the Atlantic. In 2015, Japan
peninsula
resumed whaling in defiance of the ban
Israel rejected ‘advisory’ decision of the
ICJ to the UNGA that a wall Israel was
building to separate Israel from
Palestinian authorities was illegal
2010 - Russia ignored decision of ICJ that
Kosovo was legitimately able to declare
independence from Serbia in 2008
Reasons why the ICJ has not been successful
Global Governance: Human Rights and Environmental 3
Rights and Environmental
Subject Govt & Politics - Global Politics
Last edited time 22 March 2025 16:48
International law has helped govern international relations since the rise of
the nation-state in the 17th century onwards. For most of modern history,
international law has been based upon the principle of reciprocity - if you
obey an international agreement it is more likely that another state will see a
reciprocal interest in obeying it as well. This is why, during the Second
World War, the European powers did not use poison gas against one
another. It was generally pragmatic as opposed to moral considerations that
governed this decision.
Since the 17th century, Westphalian principles enshrined the concept that
human rights are relative and to be determined by the government under
which one lives.
The idea was challenged in 1945 with the Nuremberg Trials. Leading Nazi’s
were tried as war criminals for ‘crimes against humanity’ and for ‘waging
aggressive warfare.’ This set a precedent for a country’s government to be
charged for defying all moral principles, thereby questioning the
fundamental principles of Westphalia.
The realist assumption that states could not be held to account by the
international community did not seem adequate given the atrocities waged
by the Nazi regime against members of its own country and against other
nation-states. Lessons had to be learned, as US prosecutor Robert Jackson
remarked, ‘The wrongs which we seek to condemn have been so
calculated, so malignant, and so devastating, that civilisation cannot
tolerate their being ignored, because it cannot survive their being
repeated.’
Nuremberg accelerated the need for a human-rights based approach to
international law. This was evident in 1945 when 50 states met to sign the
UN Charter. President Truman linked the Charter to human rights by
Global Governance: Human Rights and Environmental 1
, remarking that had it been passed sooner ‘millions now dead would be
alive.’
The human rights approach to international law was further enshrined with
the drawing up of the United Nations declaration of Human Rights in 1948.
This was based upon the ‘inherent dignity’ and ‘equal and inalienable rights
of all members of the human family.’ Its committee chairperson, Eleanor
Roosevelt, called it the Magna Carta for ‘all men everywhere.’
The UDHR also provided the basis for the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights (1966) and the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights (1966), both of which entered into force in 1976.
These three documents compromise the International Bill of Human Rights
and remind nation-states that there are international standards of moral
behaviour and that states can be held accountable.
The end of the Cold War in 1990 saw new developments in International
human rights with the appointment of the United Nations, Amnesty
International, Human Rights Watch, Red Cross and Save the Children.
These global pressure groups use the internet to its full potential. For
example, Human Rights Watch published its annual World Report
cataloguing nation-state’s record on human rights abuses. In 2017, it
criticised Bashar al-Assad of deploying a ‘war crimes strategy’ in the Syrian
civil war and has also been highly critical of authoritarianism in China,
Russia and Turkey.
2. How the Nuremberg Trials challenged Westphalian principles - Westphalian
principles suggest that the nation-state is sovereign and accountable for
itself, and free to determine some of its own moral principles. However, the
Nuremberg Trials stated that the international community should be
responsible for such things,
ICJ - International Court of Justice
HQ; The Hague, Netherlands
Global Governance: Human Rights and Environmental 2
, Sitting President; Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf (Somalia)
Background: it is the judicial agency of the UN, and began operation in 1946
Main aims;
-to settle legal disputes submitted to it by its states
-provides advisory opinions on legal questions submitted to it by international
branches, agencies and the UN general assembly
-attempts to enforce the rule of law in international disputes to create a more
stable and peaceful world
-Article 94 states that all members should comply with its judgements. If they
do not, the other party may approach the UNSC to have the judgment enforced
successes failures
1980 - Iran refused to accept ICJ
1986 - resolved a border clash between sovereignty when the US brought a case
Burkina Faso and Mali against it for seizing the US embassy in
Tehran
2012 - Colombia announced it no longer
accepted ICJ jurisdiction after it decided a
maritime border case in favour of
1992 - settled a complicated border dispute Nicaragua. Colombian president, Juan
between El Salvador and Honduras Mantel Santos; ‘borders between nations
cannot be in the hands of a court of law…
they must be drawn by agreement
between the countries involved’
2014 - Australia bought a case against
2002 - settled a dispute between Nigeria
Japan, condemning its ‘scientific’ whaling
and Cameroon over ownership of an oil rich
programme in the Atlantic. In 2015, Japan
peninsula
resumed whaling in defiance of the ban
Israel rejected ‘advisory’ decision of the
ICJ to the UNGA that a wall Israel was
building to separate Israel from
Palestinian authorities was illegal
2010 - Russia ignored decision of ICJ that
Kosovo was legitimately able to declare
independence from Serbia in 2008
Reasons why the ICJ has not been successful
Global Governance: Human Rights and Environmental 3
