Comprehensive Study Notes on International Human Rights Law and Practice

Major International Human Rights Agreements and Treaties

Foundational and Broad-Scope Agreements

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) - Date Signed/In Force: $1948$ - Brief Description: This document outlines the fundamental human rights to which all people are entitled. It is a cornerstone of international human rights law.
International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) - Date Signed/In Force: $1966/1976$ - Description: It details the fundamental economic, social, and cultural rights of individuals and nations. Its support in the United States remains undermined by Cold War divisions and historical legacies, with some conservatives questioning if these are true "rights" as they pertain to specific groups (like workers) rather than all humans.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) - Date Signed/In Force: $1966/1976$ - Description: Details basic civil and political rights. - Optional Protocol ( $1966/1976$ ): Allows for individual petitions. - Second Optional Protocol ( $1989/1991$ ): Commits state parties to the abolition of the death penalty.

Specific Protections and Group-Based Treaties

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide - Date Signed/In Force: $1948/1951$ - Description: Bans acts committed with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) - Date Signed/In Force: $1965/1969$ - Description: Bans all forms of racial discrimination, placing specific attention on the policies and practices of apartheid.
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) - Date Signed/In Force: $1979/1981$ - Description: Prohibits discrimination against women, with focus areas including education, employment, health, marriage, and family life. - Optional Protocol ( $1999/2000$ ): Permits individual petitions.
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) - Date Signed/In Force: $1984/1987$ - Description: Bans torture under all circumstances. - Optional Protocol ( $2002/2006$ ): Establishes a system of regular visits to monitor state practice.
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) - Date Signed/In Force: $1989/1990$ - Description: Outlines special rights for children. - Optional Protocol ( $2000/2002$ ): Bans the participation of children in hostilities within armed forces. - Second Optional Protocol ( $2000/2002$ ): Prohibits the sale of children, child prostitution, and child pornography. - Third Optional Protocol ( $2011/2014$ ): Allows individual children to submit complaints.
International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (ICRMW) - Date Signed/In Force: $1990/2003$ - Description: Details special protections for workers residing outside their country of origin.
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) - Date Signed/In Force: $2007/2008$ - Description: Mandates equal status and treatment for individuals with disabilities. - Optional Protocol ( $2007/2008$ ): Permits individual petitions.
International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance - Date Signed/In Force: $2007/2010$ - Description: Prohibits the arrest, detention, or abduction of individuals without acknowledgment by the state.

Defining and Internalizing International Human Rights

Philosophical Origins and the Cold War

The modern idea of human rights is rooted in a Western, liberal philosophical tradition viewing humans as equal and autonomous. Political scientist Jack Donnelly notes that the UDHR list can be derived from the principle of "equal concern and respect."

Cold War Competition: Western states prioritized first-generation civil and political rights. The Soviet bloc and developing nations emphasizing second-generation economic, social, and cultural rights.
Internalization: Human rights have not been fully internalized as norms in all societies. Freedom from torture is widely held, yet debates in the U.S. regarding terrorist suspects and waterboarding suggest the norm is fragile.

The Asian Values Debate

Propounded by Southeast Asian leaders in the $1990s$ , most notably Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia and Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore.

Core Beliefs: Prioritized respect for authority, social harmony, and the welfare of the community over individual rights. It was rooted in Confucian thought.
The Bangkok Declaration ( $1993$ ): Signatories affirmed the UDHR but stressed sovereignty, noninterference, and economic/social rights over political liberties.
Criticisms: Skeptics argued "Asian values" served as a cover for authoritarian rule. - Lee Kuan Yew: In power since $1959$ , described as a ‐‐benevolent dictator,‐‐ he detained alleged extremists without trial and crushed opposition. - Mahathir Mohamad: Imprisoned activists like rival Anwar Ibrahim and undermined judicial independence. He called the UDHR an "oppressing" instrument used by the U.S. to impose values.
Wane and Resurgence: Support declined after the $1997$ Asian financial crisis but is resurging under China’s Xi Jinping, who uses Confucian appeals to affirm party authority and prioritize stability/growth over civil rights.

The Hierarchy and Enforcement of Rights

Nonderogable Rights

Definition: "Rights that cannot be suspended for any reason, including at times of public emergency." As identified in ICCPR $Article\,4$ , these include:

Freedom from torture or cruel and degrading punishment.
Recognition as a person before the law.
Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.
Inherent right to life ( $Article\,6$ ).
Freedom from slavery and servitude ( $Article\,8$ ).
Prohibition of imprisonment for contractual obligations ( $Article\,11$ ).
Freedom from ex post facto criminal offenses ( $Article\,15$ ). Note: None of the rights in the ICESCR are considered nonderogable.

Prisoners of Conscience (POCs)

Definition: "Individuals imprisoned solely because of the peaceful expression of their beliefs."

The term was coined by Amnesty International, which focuses on nonderogable rights.
Example: Liu Xiaobo, a Nobel Peace Prize winner jailed in $2009$ for coauthoring a proposal for reform in China.
Historical Case: Nelson Mandela was a POC in $1962$ , but his status was revoked in $1964$ after he was convicted of trying to overthrow the government violently.

Economic Sanctions: Effectiveness and Morality

The Mechanics of Sanctions

States use travel restrictions, trade limits, and loan freezes as a form of coercion to raise the cost of human rights violations. They are most effective when coordinated through multilateral institutions like the United Nations, though coordination is often difficult due to opposing interests (e.g., U.S. vs. Russia regarding Bashar al-Assad in Syria).

Historical Examples of Sanctions

$1973$ : U.S. sanctions on South Korea and Chile for treatment of political prisoners.
$1977$ : U.S. sanctions on Paraguay, Guatemala, Argentina, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Brazil.
South Africa: Sanctions were imposed against apartheid only after the government brutally repressed political opponents during an insurrection.
Russia: Smart sanctions targeted elites like Sergei Ivanov following the annexation of Crimea.

The Controversy of Iraq ( $1991–2003$ )

Following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, UN Security Council Resolution $661$ ( $1990$ ) imposed a trade embargo.
Impact: The World Health Organization reported in March $1996$ that infant mortality rose by a $factor\,of\,6$ , resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children under age $5$ .
Moral Dilemma: UN humanitarian coordinator Denis Halliday resigned in $1998$ , calling the program "genocide." Conversely, Madeleine Albright, when asked if the death of half a million children was worth it, replied, ‐‐we think the price is worth it.‐‐
Smart Sanctions: Designed to freeze assets and prohibit travel for elites only, though it is difficult to avoid imposing costs on the general society.

Why States Violate and Protect Human Rights

Reasons for Violation

Lack of State Capacity: Poor countries cannot afford requirements like free primary schooling (ICESCR).
National Security: States violate rights when under attack or fearing groups allied with foreign powers. - Red Scare ( $1917–20$ ): $3,000$ to $10,000$ individuals arrested and denied due process. - Japanese Internment: approximately $110,000$ Japanese Americans interned during World War II. - Second Red Scare ( $1947–57$ ): Blacklisting and jail for suspected communists. - Post- $9/11$ : U.S. drone attacks against citizens abroad.
Preserving Rule: Suppressing internal dissent to stay in power.

Argentina’s "Dirty War" ( $1976–1983$ )

A three-man junta led by General Jorge Rafael Videla conducted a campaign against dissidents.
The Disappeared: Approximately $10,000$ to $30,000$ people were kidnapped, tortured, and killed. Many were taken on "death flights" and pushed from airplanes over the Atlantic Ocean.
Stolen Children: As many as $500$ newborns were taken from imprisoned mothers and given to military families. General Ram3n Camps justified this by stating, ‐‐subversive parents will raise subversive children.‐‐

Genocide and Regime Type

Genocides: Armenians in Turkey (WWI), Holocaust (WWII), Rwanda, Srebrenica (Yugoslavia), and Sudan (Omar Hassan al-Bashir indicted by the ICC).
Regime Dynamics: - established democracies are least likely to violate rights. - Multiparty Dictatorships: Most likely to use overt acts of torture as the opposition remains visible and viable. - Single-Party/Personalist Dictatorships: Opponents are so repressed that frequent violence/torture is less necessary for maintenance of rule.

Motivation for Signing Agreements

Democratizing states sign human rights treaties to demonstrate commitment to political liberalization and to "lock in" reforms for themselves and their successors (Andrew Moravcsik’s argument).

Questions & Discussion

Which groups within a target country are most directly impacted by a general trade embargo? In what ways could these impacts be expected to influence leaders’ behavior?
Should sanctions ever be used to force governments to improve their human rights practices? If yes, when and under what conditions?
Does it make a difference if the conflict of interest is not over human rights but, rather, over an economic or security issue? On what issues and toward what kinds of countries might sanctions ever be an appropriate tool of diplomacy?

1. **Groups Impacted by Trade Embargoes**: - **Civilians**: Ordinary citizens often bear the brunt of economic hardships caused by embargoes. - **Refugees**: Those fleeing conflict or oppressive regimes are affected as resources become scarce. - **Political Opponents**: Groups opposing the government may find themselves more affected, making human rights abuses more visible or urgent. - **Economic Classes**: Lower socio-economic groups tend to suffer more as trade restrictions can lead to job losses and poverty. **Influence on Leaders’ Behavior**: - Leaders may respond to pressures from civil unrest due to economic distress by increasing repression or authoritarian measures. - Conversely, some leaders may shift their policies to appease affected groups to stabilize their rule. 2. **Use of Sanctions for Human Rights Improvement**: - Sanctions could be effective if aligned with clear objectives and if they target elites rather than civilians. - Conditions for effectiveness include: - Significant international consensus on the need for sanctions. - Specificity in the targeted sectors, such as arms or luxury goods, to minimize civilian impact. - Measurable human rights objectives set for the government to achieve. 3. **Conflict of Interest Over Human Rights vs. Economic/Security Issues**: - Yes, the nature of the conflict matters. Economic interests may lead to different priorities in the negotiation process. - In cases where human rights violations are linked to security issues (e.g., terrorism), sanctions may serve dual purposes. - Sanctions might be more likely effective against authoritarian regimes that prioritize regime preservation over public welfare, such as in despotic nations where civil liberties are already suppressed. **Appropriate Use of Diplomatic Sanctions**: - Countries witnessing systemic government abuse (e.g., political imprisonment, ethnic cleansing) could be candidates for sanctions. - Nations involved in major conflicts (e.g., regimes committing genocide) may also warrant sanctions. - Economic sanctions can also serve as a tool against nations that threaten global security with nuclear pursuits or terrorism.