Human Rights and International Relations: Meeting 18 Study Guide

Page 1-3: Defining Human Rights and Historical Foundations

Conceptual Definition of Human Rights

According to Amnesty International, human rights are defined as the basic rights and freedoms that all people are entitled to, regardless of their nationality, sex, national or ethnic origin, race, religion, language, or any other status. These rights are considered inherent to the human condition and are meant to be universal in their application.

The Modern History and Crystallization of Human Rights

While concepts of human dignity have long existed, the modern concept of human rights crystallized primarily in the aftermath of World War II ( $1939-1945$ ). The global realization of these rights was a direct response to the atrocities committed by the Nazi regime.

The Holocaust and Nazi Death Camps

The Nazi death camps resulted in the systematic murder of more than $6,000,000$ individuals. The victims included:

Jews
Sinti and Romani (traditionally referred to as "gypsies")
LGBT individuals
Disabled individuals

Specific mention is made of the Buchenwald concentration camp in Germany ( $1945$ ) as a key historical location documenting these horrors.

The Legal Concept of Genocide

Genocide is defined as the deliberate extermination or the attempted extermination of an entire national, racial, religious, or ethnic group.

The Nuremberg Trials ( $1945-1946$ )

The Nuremberg Trials were a series of military tribunals held by the Allied forces following the end of World War II.

Target: They prosecuted the leadership of the Nazi party.
Charges: The defendants were charged with war crimes and the newly codified category of "crimes against humanity."
Participants: $24$ individuals in total were accused of these crimes.
Outcomes: $12$ of the accused were sentenced to death.
Notable Figure: Hermann Göring was one of the prominent Nazi leaders on trial in $1945$ .

Page 4-7: The International System of Human Rights Protection

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in $1948$ , the Universal Declaration of Human Rights serves as the foundation of the international system designed to protect human rights.

Structure: The document consists of $30$ articles.
Scope: These articles establish the civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights of all people globally.
Legal Status: A critical distinction is that the UDHR is a "declaration" rather than a treaty. Consequently, it is neither legally binding nor internationally enforceable.

The Reality of Human Rights Protection

While human rights are theoretically universal, they are not protected equally across the globe. This is evidenced by the Human Rights Index ( $2022$ ), which maps global protections on a scale from $0$ to $1$ , showing significant disparity in the treatment of citizens between different states.

Reasons for State Violations of Human Rights

the transcript identifies three primary reasons why states choose to violate the rights of their inhabitants:

Lack of State Capacity: The government may lack the resources, infrastructure, or control to enforce rights or prevent abuses by third parties.
Defense of National Security: States often justify rights suppressions as necessary to protect the country from external or internal threats.
Preservation of Government Rule: Autocratic or threatened regimes may violate rights to maintain their hold on power and suppress political opposition.

Page 8-10: International Law and Its Effectiveness

Evolution of International Human Rights Laws

Since the signing of the UDHR in $1948$ , many new international human rights agreements have been signed via the UN. These agreements commit states to specific goals, such as:

Ending the use of the death penalty.
Banning the use of torture.
Prohibiting children under the age of $18$ from participating in military service.
Banning child prostitution and child pornography.
Protecting the rights of migrant workers.

The Effectiveness Gap

Despite the proliferation of these laws, they do not appear to be effective in practice. A significant paradox exists: states most likely to sign human rights treaties are often the same states most likely to violate those agreements.

Anarchy and Enforcement: Under the condition of international anarchy, there is no central authority to enforce these agreements, making them difficult to uphold.
Reputation Management: Some states sign agreements solely to enhance their international reputation or gain favor with the international community, with no genuine intention of adhering to the terms.

Responses to Human Rights Abuses

What happens when a state abuses the rights of its citizens? The outcomes generally fall into three categories:

Nothing: In many cases, no international action is taken.
Activist Pressure: Non-governmental actors attempt to influence the state.
State Pressure: Other nations apply diplomatic or economic pressure.

Page 11-13: Constructivism and Transnational Advocacy Networks (TANs)

Constructivism in International Relations

Constructivism, as advanced by scholars such as Kathryn Sikkink and Margaret Keck, asserts that international political outcomes are not solely the result of material factors (such as military power or economic wealth). Instead, non-material factors like ideas and norms play a crucial role in shaping behavior.

Transnational Advocacy Networks (TANs)

A "TAN" is defined as a group of activists and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) acting in pursuit of a normative objective, such as human rights or environmental protection. These networks aim to change policies globally.

Case Study: South African Apartheid ( $1948-1994$ )

The end of Apartheid serves as a primary example of a successful TAN effort.

Characteristics of Apartheid

Minority Rule: A white racial minority ruled over a majority non-white population.
Institutionalized Segregation: Racial separation was codified into law.
Disenfranchisement: Non-whites were denied the right to vote.
Abolition of Representation: Non-white political representation was completely abolished.
Citizenship Stripping: Black South Africans were stripped of their citizenship.
State Violence: Violence against non-whites was committed under the justification of "state security."

International Response and the Boomerang Model

Phase 1 (Reluctance): Initially, powerful states were reluctant to sanction South Africa. In $1974$ , the United States, France, and Britain vetoed a motion designed to expel South Africa from the UN.
Phase 2 (Public Opinion Shift): By the early $1980$ s, public opinion in these countries became strongly anti-Apartheid through protests and activist campaigns.
Phase 3 (Sanctions and Divestment): By $1986$ , all of South Africa's major trading partners had imposed economic sanctions. Many U.S. universities divested their endowment investments from South African-linked interests.
The Boomerang Model: This model describes how NGOs in a repressive state, facing a "blockage" from their own government, transmit information to NGOs in democratic states. Those NGOs then pressure their own governments and international organizations (like the UN) to put pressure back on the repressive state from the outside.
Outcome: Apartheid ended in $1994$ , and Nelson Mandela was elected as South Africa's first black president in the country's first democratic elections.

Page 14-17: Humanitarian Intervention and Its Failures

Defining Humanitarian Intervention

Humanitarian intervention is an armed intervention in a state, conducted without that state's consent, for the purpose of addressing (or preventing) a humanitarian disaster.

Case Study in Success: Bosnia ( $1995$ )

During the war between the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbs/Croats, a major atrocity occurred in July $1995$ . Serbian forces attacked the town of Srebrenica, massacring $8,000$ civilians.

Action: In response, the UN requested NATO airstrikes against Serbian forces.
Result: The intervention quickly forced the Serbs to the negotiating table to establish peace.

Failures of International Response

Many humanitarian disasters do not receive an effective international response. Notable examples include:

Cambodia ( $1975-1979$ )
Rwanda ( $1994$ )
Darfur, Sudan ( $2003-2009$ )

Roadblocks to Intervention

Intervention faces two major types of political roadblocks:

Domestic Political Obstacles: Internal national politics can prevent a state from wanting to intervene.
International Political Obstacles: Disagreements between powerful states in the UN Security Council (UNSC) can prevent coordinated action.

The US Experience in Somalia ( $1993$ ) and Rwanda ( $1994$ )

The lack of intervention in Rwanda was heavily influenced by the Battle of Mogadishu in Somalia ( $1993$ ).

The Tragedy: In Somalia, $18$ U.S. soldiers were killed and $73$ were wounded. The bodies of American troops were mutilated and dragged through the streets, which humiliated the Clinton Administration.
Public Opinion in $1993$ (Somalia): $81\%$ of Americans initially believed sending troops was the "right thing," and $71\%$ believed the mission was worth American lives.
Public Opinion in $1994$ (Rwanda): Following the Somalia tragedy, $63\%$ of Americans felt Rwanda was not vital to U.S. interests and believed it would be wrong to risk the lives of American troops.

International Roadblocks: Libya ( $2011$ ) vs. Syria ( $2011-2018$ )

Libya ( $2011$ ): During the civil war, reports indicated Gaddafi was massacring protesters. The UN Security Council authorized "all necessary measures… to protect civilians." While the intervention occurred, Russia and China felt the U.S., France, and NATO exceeded the mandate provided by the UNSC resolution.
Syria ( $2011-2018$ ): In the Syrian civil war, estimates suggest between $350,000$ and $600,000$ people were killed. Despite this, Russia and China utilized their veto power to block UNSC resolutions authorizing intervention against the Syrian regime.

Page 18-19: Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and Future Outlook

The "R2P" Framework

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is a newer UN-initiated human rights norm designed to address the international community's repeated failure to stop genocides and war crimes. It shifts the concept of state sovereignty from a "right" to a "responsibility."

The Three Pillars of R2P

State Responsibility: A state has the primary responsibility to protect its own population from genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
International Assistance: The international community has a responsibility to assist states in fulfilling their protective duties.
Collective Responsibility to Intervene: If a state fails to protect its citizens and peaceful measures fail, the international community has a responsibility to intervene. This starts with coercive measures like economic sanctions, with military intervention serving as a last resort.

Criticisms of R2P

National Sovereignty: Critics argue it violates the norm of sovereignty and opens the door for international meddling.
Selective Application: The inconsistent application by the UNSC (e.g., intervention in Libya but none in Syria) suggests unfairness.
Scope Creep: There is debate over whether the responsibility should broaden to include interventions following natural disasters.

Summing Up and Looking Ahead

The modern conception of human rights was greatly influenced by the atrocities of World War II.
States protect human rights unevenly, and international law often lacks impact.
While TANs and state pressure can work, their efforts remain selective.
Future considerations include the difficulty of fixing environmental problems, as highlighted by the retreat of the Muir Glacier in Alaska between $1941$ and $2004$ .