Christopher Beshara surveys the recent history of human rights with a view to the future.
As a student of history, I cling to the hackneyed notion that examining the past helps humankind chart a way forward. Applying that maxim to human rights in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, the future looks grim. Broadly speaking, the international rule of law faced three enemies during the last turbulent century: excessive respect for state sovereignty, unbridled moral relativism, and a brand of diplomacy that prioritised compromise and impunity over global justice. While the continuing 2003 Iraq War signals the erosion of the first, albeit counter-productively, the others remain alive and well.
After the dust of the Second World War had settled, and with the images of Belsen and Auschwitz still fresh in their minds, national leaders took up the cause of international law with gusto – or, so it seemed. Building upon the framework of the defunct League of Nations, the United Nations (UN) was established in 1945. As some of the most serious international law proposals since the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, whose dogmatic emphasis on state sovereignty perhaps did more harm than good, the 1945 Charter of the United Nations and the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) were fateful documents for the human rights cause. The latter’s status as a non-binding declaration, as opposed to a binding statement of international law, was an ominous sign of things to come. As it turned out, politicians were all too willing to sign a whole host of documents championing human rights, provided that compliance was ultimately optional.
Of course, there were some idealists among the cynics. Raphael Lemkin, whose Jewish family suffered at the hands of the Schutzstaffel, undoubtedly took ‘never again’ to heart when drafting the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, signed months after the UDHR. The central difference with this document was that it legally bound its signatories, ultimately facilitating the establishment of ad hoc tribunals to prosecute international malefactors. The 1949 Geneva Conventions rounded out the triumvirate of human rights documentation. With enforcement mechanisms in place, all that remained was the test of time.
But the passage of time itself was problematic. Images of Belsen and Auschwitz were no longer fresh in the minds of political juggernauts. Instead, the United States was anxious to ensure that, quite apart from Somalia, no more American soldiers came home in body bags, even if their deaths were in the name of humanitarian intervention. Such flagrant self-interest rendered the 1994 Rwandan genocide a near certainty. –‘Genocide’- had become an unspeakable word despite the obligations of states under the Convention. Compounding the problem was the sanctity with which state sovereignty was still regarded, notwithstanding the myriad atrocities committed in its name. To give but one example, President Bush Senior, in a misguided gesture of respect for territorial sovereignty, ordered General Schwarzkopf to halt his march to Baghdad in 1991.
And yet, we can still trace most of the problems of human rights protection in the twenty-first century back to the seminal proclamations of the last century. In justifying the 2003 Iraq War, the Bush Administration disingenuously interpreted Article 51 of the UN Charter as enshrining the right to “anticipatory self-defence”, despite the contrary opinions of international lawyers. Among Asian, African and Latin American nations that continue to flout international laws, we hear protestations that inalienable human rights are inherently Western concepts, biased towards liberal democracies and insensitive to cultural differences. The argument rings hollow given that these very nations were involved in drafting the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which embodies so many of the second-generation rights that socialist and non-Western nations hold dear.
Given this bleak track record, what might the future hold for human rights? For one thing, the UN cannot bear the brunt of human rights enforcement. Bodies such as the Human Rights Committee are only able to express tentative legal ‘views’ on human rights abuses, and can only investigate specific allegations against signatories to the Optional Protocol of the ICCPR. The system of periodic state reports on human rights progress is little more than a quixotic exchange of paper.
The real promise for the international rule of law lies in judicial bodies. No doubt the International Criminal Court serves as a deterrent to would-be malefactors, with Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo recently urging Iraq to ratify the Rome Statute so that President Bush might be brought up on crimes against humanity. Unthinkable? Undoubtedly, given that the U.S. is actively undermining the Rome Statute with Bilateral Immunity Agreements. But while neo-realist realities will always serve as a barrier to human rights enforcement, the visions of an idealistic few might yet alleviate the suffering of many.
Christopher James Beshara is in his third year of a combined degree in Arts and Law, majoring in History
