Human Rights (HRs)

Aïna Centeno Lemaire International Relations Degree Human Rights (HR) 1. Short context a) General background (from International Relation perspective)  Until WW2, HR had seldom been a legitimate international concern, except in exceptional cases (e.g. abolition of slavery).  The general understanding was that treatment of citizens in a given territory was part of states’ sovereignty.  Awareness of the Holocaust and its impact on human dignity led to the integration of IR in international agendas. b) Key documents  Universal Declaration on Human Rights (1948)  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966)  International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966)  Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW, 1979)  Convention against Torture (1984) 2. Human rights: general structure    - HRs are indivisible; they all derive from a common vision of human dignity. They can be classified into five categories: (1) Civil rights: right to life, right not to be discriminated, freedom of expression, religion, movement… (2) Political rights: right to a fair trial, freedom of association, etc. (3) Economic rights: right to work, etc. (4) Social rights: right to social protection, right to adequate housing, right to education, right to health, etc. (5) Cultural rights: right to take part in cultural life, right to benefit from one’s creativity, etc. Main features of HR: Universal: they apply to everyone, everywhere – although this has been subject to debate. Indivisible: they are linked to a holistic vision of human dignity; neither states nor individuals can choose to focus on ‘only some rights’. 1 Aïna Centeno Lemaire - International Relations Degree Interdependent: different rights may contribute to give meaning to others (e.g. right to education contributes to freedom of expression, etc.). They require different roles by states (‘respect, protect, and fulfil’): something which is particularly visible as regards ‘division’ between civil / political rights vs. economic / social / cultural rights. 3. Human rights as an international regime a) Definitions  International regimes refer to the many sets of rules that states have established to regulate behaviour and activity within specific areas.  They can be defined as “sets of implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures around which actors’ expectations converge in a given area of international relations” - Stephen D. Krasner, 1983.  International regimes are generally agreed upon by states and establish rules and norms but don’t necessarily establish new formal bodies.  International regimes may often require international organisations to enforce their principles, rules and norms.  International organisations (e.g. UN bodies) are formal, permanent bodies, generally established by states. b) Some examples:  Transport: postal service, air traffic, etc.  Security: arms control treaties nuclear non-proliferation regime, arms trade treaty, etc.  Environment: Convention on Biological Diversity, UNFCC / Kyoto Protocol, etc  Economy: GATT (Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) / WTO, Int’l Monetary Fund, etc. c) From principles to decision-making (1) Principles: coherent theoretical statements about how the world works (e.g. global welfare will be maximised by free trade). (2) Norms: general standards of behaviour, rights and obligations of states. (3) Rules: lower-level forms of behaviour, which allow to introduce exceptions and address conflicts between principles and norms (e.g. establishing differences between developed and developing countries in free trade). (4) Decision-making procedures: specific prescriptions for behavior (e.g. voting systems). 2 Aïna Centeno Lemaire International Relations Degree d) Analysing HRs as an international regime  The global human rights regime is based on strong and widely accepted principles and norms but weak mechanisms of international decisionmaking and implementation: - International norms: include the aforementioned international standards (UDHR, ICCPR, ICESCR, etc.). - International decision-making / implementation mechanisms: include UN bodies, periodic reviews, experts, etc. which can give opinions and encourage compliance but not oblige.  Decision-making and implementation thus depend mainly on national mechanisms.  Existence of some regional regimes (e.g. those under the framework of the Council of Europe), although they also tend to be weak.  As in some other regimes, non-state actors (particularly NGOs) play an important role as advocates or ‘watchdogs’ of human rights, using legitimacy and discourse generated by international norms and often seeking collaboration between internal and external pressure. 4. HRs agendas today: some important issues and tensions a) Increasing integrated vision  Until some years ago, the main emphasis of HRs advocacy and policy in the global North and in other parts of the world had been on civil and political rights.  Increasingly, economic and social rights have also gained attention (e.g. housing, food…), initially within civil society and later in some governments.  This contributes to reinforcing the notions of indivisibility and interdependence of HRs. b) New actors adopting a human rights discourse  Civil society actors in other areas (e.g. humanitarian aid, international development, women’s rights, neighbourhood groups) increasingly recur to international human rights documents and principles as a basis for their work.  This provides a space for collaboration between civil society organisations in different fields (e.g. campaign for Arms Trade Treaty), as well an increasing presence of local organisations in international forums and mechanisms. 3 Aïna Centeno Lemaire International Relations Degree c) ‘Justiciability’ of ESC rights  Economic, social and cultural rights have often been vaguely worded (e.g. ‘adequate housing’, ‘fair wage’) or placed in a separate category in constitutions (e.g. Spain 1978).  In making them effective, a more active role of governments (including local and regional govts.) than for political or civil rights is necessary.  It has often been difficult for courts to determine whether ESC rights had been violated.  There are increasing mechanisms (e.g. Optional Protocol to ICESCR) and court decisions to determine whether policy measures adopted are reasonable and accessible, whether adequate information is provided and no discrimination exists. d) Applicability of human rights to non-state actors  International HRs standards require states to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights of all people in their territory.  HRs abuses are increasingly committed by other actors, including private companies and non-state armed groups.  Private companies: - They are often responsible for work-related abuses, including forced labour or forced displacement of communities from their lands (e.g. for mining or other extractive purposes). - In such cases, governments are often reluctant to support communities and defend their rights, and no-one becomes accountable for these cases. - Generally private companies’ respect for HRs relies on voluntary initiatives. - The UN has also adopted a set of Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (2011), which establish the responsibility of both states and businesses to respect HRs.  Non-state armed groups: - they are also increasingly responsible for human rights abuses (e.g. ‘terrorist’ groups). - One major challenge involves the difficulty in identifying their representatives and those who may be held accountable for their actions, as well as the degree of unity within an armed group. - The responsibility of armed groups is clear under international humanitarian law (the ‘law of war’) but less so when an armed conflict is not declared. - There are different views within HRs studies as for the feasibility of holding armed groups accountable. 4 Aïna Centeno Lemaire  International Relations Degree In human rights terms, states remain responsible for abuses committed within their territories, even if by non-state actors. e) Governments challenging the human rights system  In recent years, there has been increasing concern about the erosion of HRs standards by governments which had traditionally recognized them.  Some examples: - In the context of the ‘War on Terror’, including defence of the use of torture by the US and other governments. - Measures adopted by European governments: restrictions to freedom of the press, free assembly, asylum… 5. Universality vs. regional views: ‘Asian values’     In the 1990s, but also more recently, some governments have argued that there is an opposition between traditional values and HRs. ‘Asian values’ has distinguished the emphasis placed by the West on individual rights vs. that which Asia places on community and on group discipline: “A major difference between Asian and Western values is the balance each strikes between the individual and the community” (Singapore govt. White Paper, 1991). Order and stability are preconditions for economic growth, which in turn is the basis for any political regime that can guarantee human dignity. “The modern advocates of the authoritarian view of "Asian values" base their reading on very arbitrary interpretations and extremely narrow selections of authors and traditions. The valuing of freedom is not confined to one culture only“-Amartya Sen (Development as Freedom, 1999). 5