I get it. Talking about systemic failure isn't sexy. People want someone to point their finger at and say "you're the reason why this has happened". Be it fears of rising house prices, the Greek debt crisis or an environmental disaster, people want someone to blame. Saying "perhaps there is something about our system which is causing these problems" is a big turn off - it's an unrealistic criticism because no one wants to contemplate that the problems can't simply be cut out, like a tumor.
Human Rights are wonderful things, the vision of human rights represents the very best of humanity. In the wake of the atrocities of WW2, a broken and frail world said "never again". We wrote our ideas down and we talked about it. We've been writing about it and talking about it ever since. But writing about it and talking about it didn't stop the acts of genocide and aggression that have come since or the arbitrary detention of asylum seekers and their children or the environmental devastation of communities living under the shadow of transnational corporations. Are we blind to the flaws of a system which allows the worst offenders to slip through the cracks? We need to be critical about the system of international human rights if we are to find a solution that truly protects the individual from the exercise of arbitrary power and abuse. Anything less, is a band aid approach at best, a talk fest at worst.
It’s 2015, most of the major human rights treaties have been ratified by the vast majority of countries. And yet, it is hard to argue that human rights are a global success. Let’s examine the state of affairs:
Human Rights are wonderful things, the vision of human rights represents the very best of humanity. In the wake of the atrocities of WW2, a broken and frail world said "never again". We wrote our ideas down and we talked about it. We've been writing about it and talking about it ever since. But writing about it and talking about it didn't stop the acts of genocide and aggression that have come since or the arbitrary detention of asylum seekers and their children or the environmental devastation of communities living under the shadow of transnational corporations. Are we blind to the flaws of a system which allows the worst offenders to slip through the cracks? We need to be critical about the system of international human rights if we are to find a solution that truly protects the individual from the exercise of arbitrary power and abuse. Anything less, is a band aid approach at best, a talk fest at worst.
It’s 2015, most of the major human rights treaties have been ratified by the vast majority of countries. And yet, it is hard to argue that human rights are a global success. Let’s examine the state of affairs:
- Women still lack equality and political and religious freedoms are restricted in China and much of the Arab World;
- Political authoritarianism has gained ground in Russia, Central Asia and parts of Latin America;
- Europe’s strength as a bastion of human rights has floundered. It has turned inward as it has struggled with debt crisis, xenophobia and disillusionment with Strasbourg and Brussels.
- The United States, still carries out the death penalty, exercises torture and arbitrary detention in the wake of 9/11. It also continues to kill civilians with drone strikes.
- Slavery and the trafficking of human lives continues to flourish worldwide.
Surely the vision of international human rights wasn’t supposed to be like this.
In this light, international human rights are looking more and more like simple acts of hubris. The reality is international human rights ("IHR") wrestle with legitimacy because of problems with enforcement and inconsistency of interpretation. What is left is simply a language of IHR- words we like to say and hear. But since when did the language of IHR become so non-committal and timid? Engaging in IHR these days has come to mean translating what were calls for recognition, or respect, or dignity, into "mechanisms", "structures" and “accountability feedback loops”. A language riddled with terms and definitions that is comically far from the humanity and the suffering we were supposed to be addressing. A language which has clearly toxified the hopes and ambition of States in the wake of the atrocities of WW2.
In this light, international human rights are looking more and more like simple acts of hubris. The reality is international human rights ("IHR") wrestle with legitimacy because of problems with enforcement and inconsistency of interpretation. What is left is simply a language of IHR- words we like to say and hear. But since when did the language of IHR become so non-committal and timid? Engaging in IHR these days has come to mean translating what were calls for recognition, or respect, or dignity, into "mechanisms", "structures" and “accountability feedback loops”. A language riddled with terms and definitions that is comically far from the humanity and the suffering we were supposed to be addressing. A language which has clearly toxified the hopes and ambition of States in the wake of the atrocities of WW2.
Why has international human rights reached this ambiguous place? The answer can be found in its genesis. Human rights are a fragment of public international law, a system whose sole members are states and not individuals (or companies for that matter). The fundamental cornerstone of this system is sovereignty. And really, "sovereignty" is just a fancy legal term for saying “mind your own business” when one state wants to complain about what another state is up to or how it is treating its citizens. There is no international forum for victims to bring their claims and if the local courts are corrupt, well then that's just too bad. You see, human rights exist in a system geared against their success; sovereignty is not only the nemesis of human rights but is like Goliath to David - except without the bit where David somehow miraculously wins with just one throw of his stone.
Have human rights failed us? Well, I think it really depends on who you are and where you are in the world. If you were to look down from wherever you are on Mount Privilege you might see that a radically different approach to IHR is clearly long overdue. Being complacent (it's the best we've got) wistful (human rights just need more time to grow) or unyieldingly cynical (money and warheads are the only laws in this world) will not bring relief. We need to stop shrugging off the burden of upholding human rights onto bureaucrats and we certainly need to stop assuming that the powers-that-be are doing a good job of maintaining human rights behind closed doors. The problems are systemic which mean they start at the very bottom and are riddled all the way to the very top.
We can't keep crying "never again" every time an international humanitarian crisis crops up and all the while sit there wringing our hands, hoping for a system which offers resolution. Wanting and hoping that the IHR system will come of age or change on its own volition will not offer remedy to those who need it most. We need to stay critical and vigilant of the systems around us - be conscious consumers, dedicated voters and vocal supporters of our rights and the rights of others. The battle for human rights, was not won 60 years ago, it had only just begun.
We can't keep crying "never again" every time an international humanitarian crisis crops up and all the while sit there wringing our hands, hoping for a system which offers resolution. Wanting and hoping that the IHR system will come of age or change on its own volition will not offer remedy to those who need it most. We need to stay critical and vigilant of the systems around us - be conscious consumers, dedicated voters and vocal supporters of our rights and the rights of others. The battle for human rights, was not won 60 years ago, it had only just begun.
 |
No comments:
Post a Comment