Human Rights global governance

Effective

Create a more peaceful/stable world (hence ‘world court’ for ICJ).

Delivers rule of law internationally- permanent reminder of the importance of international law.

Set precedent for ICC and upholds international rule of law, making it clear human rights are globally important principles.

Humanitarian intervention is immediate and has a direct effect.

Increased awareness and advocacy.

Ineffective

Advisory- courts requires the cooperation of countries to make arrests, and some states do not accept their jurisdiction.

Lack of enforcement power for courts- potentially too much enforcement power for intervention (illegitimate).

Biased against the developing world- a toy of imperialist powers. Deliver ‘victors’ justice’ on Western terms. Selective in applying intl law.

Multiple human rights violations continue to occur- ineffective.

The courts can take years to come to a decision and prosecute an individual and delivers a judgement after the human rights violation has occurred.

State sovereignty can conflict with its protection.

Intervention only occurs if it is in the interest of the West.

Intervention may provoke wider conflict.

UN/MISCELLANEOUS (UDHR)

The UDHR was made in 1948 to establish absolute civil, political, and social freedoms that all humans should enjoy. It provided the basis for the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966), which both codified the UDHR. These 3 documents comprise the international bill of human rights.

UN/MISCELLANEOUS (UDHR failure)

The UDHR is not legally binding which has allowed for states such as Saudi Arabia to refuse to accept it on grounds that the UDHR is incompatible with Islamic law.

UN/MISCELLANEOUS (Discrimination against Women Covenant)

1979 Discrimination against Women Covenant.

UN/MISCELLANEOUS (Covenant on torture)

1984 Covenant on Torture.

UN/MISCELLANEOUS (Children’s convention)

1989 Children’s Convention.

UN/MISCELLANEOUS (Indigenous people’s convention)

1989 Indigenous People’s Convention.

UN/MISCELLANEOUS (Convention on Migrant Workers)

1990 Convention on Migrant Workers.

UN/MISCELLANEOUS (Convention on Persons with Disabilities)

2006 Convention on Persons with Disabilities.

UN/MISCELLANEOUS (High Commissioner for Human Rights)

In 1993, at the end of the Cold War, there was more importance given to human rights. This led to the creation of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights role, after the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights. The role is there to promote adherence to human rights and expose their violation, carrying great moral authority. Volker Türk of Austria holds the role currently.

UN/MISCELLANEOUS (UN Human Rights budget)

In 2023, the approved regular budget appropriation for UN Human Rights was $178.2 million, representing about 5% of the total UN regular budget.

UN/MISCELLANEOUS (R2P)

R2P redefined the idea of sovereignty in the UN Charter. It set out the principle that where human rights abuses are happening, state sovereignty is not reason enough to not intervene. This was endorsed by all UN members in 2005 at the World Summit.

UN/MISCELLANEOUS (UN Human Rights Council US)

The US has withdrawn from the UN Human Rights Council under Trump.

UN/MISCELLANEOUS (Blair Doctrine)

Blair set out the principles for state intervention in his Chicago speech, where he claimed, ‘if right-minded nations see human rights abuses on a mass scale and the UN refuses to act, then it is a duty for these nations to act.’ The Blair Doctrine- we have a responsibility to “protect our fellow human beings.“

UN/MISCELLANEOUS (Obama drone strikes)

Obama used indiscriminate drone strikes during the war on terror, killing over 100 civilians. America has also refused to shut down its Guantanamo Bay prison, where torture techniques such as waterboarding are common practice.

UN/MISCELLANEOUS (Human Rights Watch- China)

In 2020, Human Rights Watch published its annual World Report focusing on China’s increasing disregard for human rights.

UN/MISCELLANEOUS (Human Rights Watch US)

In 2021, Human Rights Watch demanded an immediate investigation into how Trump supporters were able to storm Congress, and that Trump be held accountable for his ‘reckless campaign’ to ‘undermine democratic process and the rule of law since his electoral defeat,’ as well as why the police response to BLM demonstrations in 2020 had been significantly more aggressive.

UN TRIBUNALS (set up)

Following WW2, the UN Tribunals were set up to prosecute those who had committed human rights violations.

UN TRIBUNALS (Unfair trials- US/Japan)

The UN Tribunals have been unfair in who is tried. The US sat in judgement on Japanese war criminals in the Tokyo tribunal, yet the Americans were not themselves tried for war crimes with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

UN TRIBUNALS (Unfair trials- UK/Germany)

Soviet judges in the Nuremberg trials represented a regime that was responsible for mass murder, while the British destruction of Dresden, Germany in March 1945, which led to the deaths of thousands of civilian refugees, may well have been a war crime.

UN TRIBUNALS (Russia veto)

In 2015, Russia vetoed the establishment of a UN Tribunal into the shooting down of Malaysian flight 17 over Ukraine- the only member of the UNSC to exercise this veto. Russia felt the court would not serve in its interests, so resisted its establishment.

UN TRIBUNALS (UN High Commissioner for HR criticisms)

Mary Robinson, then-UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, criticised NATO air bombing Serbia during the Kosovo War in 1999. Both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have condemned as a war crime the deliberate bombing of the headquarters of Serb Radio/Television, which killed 16 civilian workers. NATO was never held responsible for this.

UN TRIBUNALS (Former Iraqi leader trial)

Former Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, was not tried by an intl court- the US tried him in Iraq, so that he was liable to the death penalty.

UN TRIBUNALS- FORMER YUGOSLAVIA 1993 (President of the Bosnian Serb Republic)

Radovan Karadžic, former President of the Bosnian Serb Republic, was indicted in 1995, to be held responsible for the ethnic cleansing of thousands Bosniaks and Croats in the Srebrenica Massacre, yet was not arrested until 2008, and not sentenced to prison until 2016.

UN TRIBUNALS- FORMER YUGOSLAVIA 1993 (Serbian president)

Former Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic was put on trial but died in custody in 2006 after a drawn-out legal battle.

UN TRIBUNALS- FORMER YUGOSLAVIA 1993 (Indicted and convicted numbers)

The ICTY indicted 161 individuals, 90 of whom were convicted.

UN TRIBUNALS- FORMER YUGOSLAVIA 1993 (Bosnian serb general)

The last case the court tried was the Bosnian Serb general Ratko Mladic, who was sentenced to prison for life for war crimes and acts of genocide.

UN TRIBUNALS- CAMBODIA 1997 (tried and sentenced)

The UN tribunal for Cambodia in 1997 tried and sentenced to life imprisonment 3 leading figures in the Khmer Rouge regime- a regime which killed 2 million people in the 1970s.

UN TRIBUNALS- CAMBODIA 1997 (Chief political ideologist)

Nuon Chea, Khmer Rouge chief political ideologist; Kaing Guek Eav, head of the S21 mass killing centre; Khieu Samphan, former head of state.

UN TRIBUNALS- CAMBODIA 1997 (People attending the hearings)

Around 100000 people attended the hearings in the capital Phnom Penh.

UN TRIBUNALS- CAMBODIA 1997 (Internships)

The court offered internships to Cambodian and intl lawyers, so they could develop their understanding of intl law and genocide.

UN TRIBUNALS- RWANDA 1997 (indicted individuals)

93 individuals were indicted, 61 for complicity in genocide, including former PM Jean Kambanda- the first head of government to be convicted on charges of genocide.

UN TRIBUNALS- RWANDA 1997 (Principle established)

It established the principle that rape could be used as a way of perpetrating genocide, and the media could be held legally responsible for encouraging genocide.

UN TRIBUNALS- RWANDA 1997 (Type of convictions)

The UN Tribunal on Rwanda solely convicted Hutus, despite the Tutsi Rwandan Patriotic Front also having committed war crimes.

UN TRIBUNALS- SIERRA LEONE 2002 (Liberian president)

Tried those who had committed atrocities during the country’s 10 year civil war. In the 1990s, Liberian president Charles Taylor supported opposition groups in trying to gain control of the country’s diamond mines. As a result, the Revolutionary United Front and allied criminal gangs (like the West Side Boys) hacked off the limbs of their victims. By 1999 when the British intervened, 50000 had died.

UN TRIBUNALS- SIERRA LEONE 2002 (Sentence)

In 2012, the tribunal sentences Taylor to 50 years’ imprisonment for complicity in the atrocities, the first head of state to be convicted of war crimes.

UN TRIBUNALS- SIERRA LEONE 2002 (Imprisonment)

The tribunal imprisoned 14 others, including Issa Sesay, the commander of the RUF, who was sentenced to 52 years in prison.

ICJ (members and establishment)

193 member states

Established alongside the UN

ICJ (optional clause)

In 2021, only 74 members signed the optional clause accepting ICJ rulings in advance.

ICJ (Number of judges, type of rulings)

The ICJ is made of 15 judges that the UNGA elects for 9-year terms. Rulings are binding on UN member states. If not complied to, they are referred to the UNSC, but the UNSC may not issue a resolution forcing them to comply.

ICJ (Who is subject to the rulings)

States are subject to an ICJ ruling if they, with at least 1 other state, submit a case to the ICJ, if they sign a treaty specifying that any disputes will be resolved by the ICJ (over 300 international treaties do so), or if they sign a unilateral declaration accepting the ICJ’s jurisdiction in any future disputes (only 72 states have done this).

ICJ (Border dispute between El Salvador and Honduras)

In 1992, the ICJ settled a border dispute between El Salvador and Honduras.

ICJ (Nigeria and Cameroon)

In 2002, the ICJ settled a dispute between Nigeria and Cameroon over the ownership of an oil-rich peninsula.

ICJ (India and Pakistan)

In 2019, India brought a case against Pakistan at the ICJ. India had stated that Pakistan were breaking international law by not allowing consular access to Kulbhushan Jadhar, an Indian naval officer convicted in Pakistan of spying. India won the case when Pakistan agreed that “as a responsible state, Pakistan will grant consular access to Commander Kulbushan Jadhar according to Pakistani laws.”

ICJ (Thailand and Cambodia)

In 2013, the ICJ settled an argument between Thailand and Cambodia over ownership of the Temple of Preah Vihear (awarded to Cambodia).

ICJ (Israel and Palestine)

In 2004, the ICJ ruled the security fence built by Israel around the Palestinian West Bank was illegal. Israel ignored this with President Sharon calling the ruling 'one-sided and politically motivated.

ICJ (Colombia and Nicaragua)

In 2012, Colombia said it would no longer recognise the court after losing a maritime border case to Nicaragua. President Juan Santos argued that 'borders between nations cannot be in the hands of a court of law... They must be drawn by agreement of the countries involved'

ICJ (Australia and Japan)

In 2014, Australia sued Japan over its Antarctic whaling programme and won. But Japan, having initially accepted the decision, simply resumed whaling (on a more limited scale) a year later.

ICJ (Iran and the US)

In 2018, Iran took the USA to court over Trump's re-imposition of economic sanctions, breaching a 2015 multilateral agreement over Iran's nuclear programme. The ICJ ruled in favour of Iran, ordering America to "lift restrictive measures linked to humanitarian trade, food, medicine and civil aviation." Iran called it 'a victory for the rule of law' but US said the court has 'no jurisdiction' in the matter.

ICC (Rome Statute)

Only 124 states ratified the Rome Statute.

ICC (Tribunals as the basis)

UN Tribunals paved the way for the ICC to be set up in 2002, to uphold international law and try individuals for crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity. It was established in the 1990s after the increasing numbers of humanitarian crises to try individuals for war crimes/crimes against humanity.

ICC (Chief prosecutors)

From 2003 to 2021, the ICC had 2 chief prosecutors who significantly raised the global standing of the court. In 2021, a British barrister became the 3rd chief prosecutor. The 18 ICC judges were elected by the Assembly of States Parties for their qualifications.

ICC (Kenyan president)

The ICC indicted Kenyan president Uhuru Kenyatta for killing over 1000 people after the disputed 2007 election. Lack of cooperation by the Kenyan government forced the ICC to drop its prosecution. President Kenyatta claimed the court was “blatantly biased” and a “toy of declining imperialist powers.”

ICC (Congolese warlord TLD)

The ICC sentenced Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, a Congolese warlord, to 14 years in prison for several human rights abuses, including the recruitment of child soldiers, in 2012. He was released in 2020.

ICC (Congolese warlord GK)

In 2014, Germain Katanga, a Congolese warlord, was sentenced to 12 years for atrocities committed during Congo’s civil war.

ICC (Former vice president of Congo)

The former vice president of Congo, Jean-Pierre Bemba, was sentenced to 18 years in prison in 2016 for deploying sexual violence as a weapon.

ICC (Militant islamist)

In 2016, Ahmad al-Mahdi, a militant Islamist, was sentenced to 9 years for destroying historic artefacts in Mali, developing the concept of ‘cultural terrorism’.

ICC (Putin signature)

In 2016, Putin removed his signature from the Rome Statute over the court’s criticism of the annexation of Crimea.

ICC (Former Sudanese president)

The former Sudanese president, Omar al-Bashir, was indicted in 2009, but did not serve a short sentence until 10 years later in 2019, and is still wanted by the ICC for genocide and war crimes.

ICC (Phillippines)

ICC (jurisdiction)

The most powerful UNSC members do not accept ICC jurisdiction over their internal sovereign affairs. India does not recognise ICC jurisdiction either, so 70% of the world’s population is outside their remit. The USA, China, Russia (the 3 most powerful UNSC members), and many other states are not part of it. This makes the ICC seem much less legitimate considering many do not accept its jurisdiction. This also hinders the court from actually making arrests.

ICC (Failure of chief prosecutor)

The ICC’s chief prosecutor can look into a case themselves.

ICC (Types of convictions- African complaints)

Since its establishment, the ICC has only indicted and convicted Africans. This raised complaints that it is institutionally prejudiced. The African Union (AU) urged its members not to cooperate with the ICC. There have been several accusations of the court being biased against the developing world. In 2017, Burundi became the 1st country to withdraw from the ICC.

ICC (failure to carry out arrest warrants)

The ICC has not been able to carry out its arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant for their. They haven’t been able to stop war crimes in the Middle East in several cases.

ICC (First term in office US)

During his first term in office in 2020, Trump imposed sanctions on ICC officials who were investigating whether US forces had committed war crimes in Afghanistan. This included a travel ban and asset freezes against former chief prosecutor Fatou Ben-souda.

ICC (Hague Group)

The Hague Group, which was founded by 9 countries, have come together to uphold ICJ and ICC rulings on Israel by placing economic and legal sanctions on them. They put out a statement that “no nation is above the law, and no crime will go unanswered.”

HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION (failure of Obama)

The decline of humanitarian intervention was illustrated by Obama’s inaction in Syria, as well as the failure of intervention in Libya.

HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION (Clinton Doctrine)

The Clinton Doctrine- when mass human rights violations are taking place, the US should be prepared to intervene (1999).

HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION (AU authorising intervention)

In 2013, the AU authorised French intervention in Mali, providing it with legitimacy. Subsequently, AU forces have cooperated with the French intervention trying to stabilise the country.

HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION (UNSC failure)

The UNSC has not been willing to challenge Sudan’s sovereignty.

HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION (DRC civil war)

The DRC civil war poses no threat to global stability, hence no need for the West to intervene.

HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION- success- FIRST GULF WAR 1991

States cooperated to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait. When Saddam Hussein went on to brutally suppress Kurdish uprisings in North Iraq, the UNSC passed Resolution 688, establishing no fly zones within Iraqi borders- Operation Provide Comfort. This successfully set forth conditions for a ceasefire.

HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION- failure- SOMALIA 1992-1993

President Bush committed 28000 US troops to Somalia, a state that had fallen into anarchy, where over 1 million were facing starvation.

HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION- nonintervention- RWANDA 1994 (number killed)

800,000 Rwandans were killed out of a population of 6.3 million. The tiny UN force could do little. When the UNSC agreed to send reinforcements, the killing was mostly over.

HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION- nonintervention- RWANDA 1994 (French involvement)

The French government also had strong connections with the Hutus.

HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION- initially unsuccessful (UN), then successful (NATO)- BOSNIA 1995 (background)

Civil war erupted upon the breakup of Yugoslavia. President Clinto was wary of getting involved. The UN sent peacekeepers unsuccessfully.

HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION- initially unsuccessful (UN), then successful (NATO)- BOSNIA 1995 (Srebrenica massacre)

In the biggest mass murder in Europe since the end of WW2, Bosnian Serbs murdered 7000 Bosnian Muslim men when they overran the UN safe haven of Srebrenica.

HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION- initially unsuccessful (UN), then successful (NATO)- BOSNIA 1995 (Operation Deliberate Force and UN mandate)

Alongside Bosnian Serb artillery attacks on Sarajevo, Srebrenica pushed NATO to take action. Operation Deliberate Force was set up. A UN mandate confirmed NATO‘s operational legitimacy.

HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION- initially unsuccessful (UN), then successful (NATO)- BOSNIA 1995 (Dayton Peace Accords)

All sides agreed to the Dayton Peace Accords. To ensure compliance, NATO deployed 60000 troops in Bosnia with a mandate to disarm rival military factions, rebuild Bosnia, and restore trust between ethnic groups in the region.

HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION- success- KOSOVO 1999 (background)

Albanians in Kosovo wanted to separate from Serbia and establishing independence. In response, the Serbian president, Milošević launched a military response to crush separatists.

HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION- success- KOSOVO 1999 (Blair’s response and NATO)

Blair saw this as ethnic cleansing and pushed for intervention. NATO began aerial bombardment against Serbia. This forced Milosevic to give over Kosovo. Kosovo Force (KFOR) took over rebuilding responsibilities.

HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION- success- KOSOVO 1999 (Troops)

As many as 50,000 troops were deployed to provide the necessary conditions for peace. They were involved in a wide range of military and non-military roles, from disarming militias to safely accompanying children to school.

HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION- success- KOSOVO 1999 (Labelled as…)

The intervention in Kosovo in 1999 has been labelled as the pinnacle of humanitarian intervention, where NATO and US forces prevented an attempt at ethnic cleansing from Serbia.

HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION- success- KOSOVO 1999 (Chomsky’s opinion)

Chomsky noted that the main reason for the Kosovo invasion was to cripple and defeat a Russian ally (Serbia) and thereby reinstating American dominance. Not just this, but Blair argued the conflict may spread through the Balkans, threatening EU stability.

HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION- success- EAST TIMOR 1999-2001 (backstory)

In 1975, Indonesia annexed East Timor. The large Catholic population and different culture meant they wanted independence, which was granted after a 1999 referendum won by 78%.

HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION- success- EAST TIMOR 1999-2001 (Refugee crisis)

Pro-Indonesia militias backed by the Indonesian government had a violent response. 500000 East Timorese were driven from their homes in a refugee crisis.

HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION- success- EAST TIMOR 1999-2001 (UN resolution)

UN resolution 1264 authorised an Australian-led multinational force to enter East Timor with a robust mandate to defeat militias.

HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION- success- EAST TIMOR 1999-2001 (Stability regained)

In 2001, stability had been restored and elections were held for East Timor. In 2003, East Timor formally gained independence.

HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION- success- EAST TIMOR 1999-2001 (Australia’s concern)

It could be argued that Australia was only concerned with this due to the refugee crisis spillover into Northern Australia.

HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION- success- SIERRA LEONE 2000 (backstory)

in the 1990s, Sierra Leone had a brutal Civil War. The Revolutionary United Front, backed by Charles Taylor (Liberian president), was responsible for numerous atrocities, including mutilation, in return for ‘blood diamonds’.

HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION- success- SIERRA LEONE 2000 (Blair’s intervention)

In 2000, the RUF advanced on the capital. Elite British troops were sent by Blair to engage in mobile operations against the RUF and allied militia, like the West Side Boys. Criminal gangs were no match for trained British troops, so the rebels were crushed.

HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION- success- SIERRA LEONE 2000 (British troops victory)

British troops remained to advise and train Sierra Leone armed forces. In 2001, the RUF agreed to disarm. In 2003, Taylor stood down and went into exile.

HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION- unsuccessful- AFGHANISTAN 2001-2021 (backstory)

Primarily launched to eliminate the terrorist threat from Al-Qaeda due to 9/11. The Taliban’s brutal rule, involving human rights abuses, was also heavily condemned.

HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION- unsuccessful- AFGHANISTAN 2001-2021 (Reason for West intervention)

The West wanted to establish conditions for a liberal democracy. Even though NATO made a huge military commitment, they could not ensure long-term security. Fundamental Islamism was far more resonant in local conditions than liberal attempts to encourage gender equality.

HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION- unsuccessful- AFGHANISTAN 2001-2021 (Reason for Western forces’ failure)

Western forces did not understand the significance of the ethnic, tribal, and family alliances and tensions. In 2021, almost exactly 20 years after the invasion, the Taliban re-entered Kabul.In 2021, almost exactly 20 years after the invasion, the Taliban re-entered Kabul.

HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION- unsuccessful- AFGHANISTAN 2001-2021 (US war crimes)

America committed war crimes during their occupation of Afghanistan, with an airstrike in 2015 killing 42 Afghans in a hospital in Kunduz.

HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION- unsuccessful- IRAQ 2003-2011 (post-9/11 intervention)

A post 9/11 intervention to stabilise the region and remove weapons on mass destruction, as well as overthrow Saddam Hussein and his brutal dictatorship.

HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION- unsuccessful- IRAQ 2003-2011 (Failure to reconstruct)

Saddam Hussein was quickly overthrown, but little attention was paid to post-war reconstruction. The US felt Iraq would quickly move towards democracy, but chaos ensued after.

HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION- unsuccessful- IRAQ 2003-2011 (Iraqi army)

The Iraqi army had been disbanded and the government and civil service were dismissed by the US, encouraging the disintegration of law and order.