The Origins of Human Rights Regimes: Democratic Delegation in Postwar Europe notes

The Origins of Human Rights Regimes in Postwar Europe

Author and Source

  • Author: Andrew Moravcsik

  • Reviewed Work: International Organization, Vol. 54, No. 2 (Spring, 2000), pp. 217-252

  • Published by: The MIT Press

  • URL: JSTOR

Introduction

  • The UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights' fiftieth anniversary serves as a reminder of the formation of international regimes for human rights.

  • Such regimes include:

    • European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR)

    • Inter-American Convention on Human Rights

    • UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

  • Unlike trade or security institutions, human rights institutions focus on holding governments accountable for internal actions.

Characteristics of Human Rights Regimes

  • Enforcement is not primarily through interstate action; individuals can challenge their governments in these regimes.

  • Courts and commissions can override domestic laws that violate international commitments, raising challenges to state sovereignty and democratic accountability.

Emergence of the ECHR

Historical Context

  • Established under the Council of Europe in 1953, the ECHR is the most effective international human rights regime.

  • It provides civil and political rights protection to all individuals in member states, regardless of their nationality or legal status.

Unique Features

  • The ECHR initially included a Commission on Human Rights to investigate petitions. By 1998, this was replaced by direct court involvement.

  • Significant compliance rates; member states often amend laws or change practices to align with ECHR rulings.

  • Example: The UK government's compliance after ECHR ruled against excluding homosexuals from the armed forces.

Theoretical Perspectives on the Formation of Human Rights Regimes

Political Theories

  • Scholars have debated motivations behind countries' adherence to human rights commitments.

  • Realist View: Strong states compel others to adopt human rights norms to promote geopolitical interests.

  • Ideational View: Altruistic motivations and normative persuasion drive countries to support human rights.

  • Both views lack substantive empirical support in historical cases, particularly the establishment of ECHR.

Focus of the Article

  • Moravcsik challenges existing theories by arguing that newly established democracies primarily drove the push for binding human rights commitments, rather than established great powers or ideational coalitions.

Self-Interest of New Democracies

Argument for a New Theory

  • New democracies, facing significant threats from nondemocratic forces, push for human rights enforcement as a layer of protection against internal and external challenges.

  • These commitments serve as a tool for consolidating democratic institutions, enhancing government credibility, and reducing future political uncertainty.

Observations from ECHR Negotiations

  • Analysis of historical negotiations suggests that the leading proponents of a binding human rights regime were newly established democracies, unlike established democracies which generally sought minimal enforcement.

Comparative Analysis of National Positions

Support and Opposition

  • Newly established democracies were more likely to support binding obligations for individual petition and compulsory jurisdiction than established democracies.

  • Established democracies such as the UK, Denmark, and Sweden opposed these obligations, fearing a loss of national sovereignty.

Political Calculations

  • Support for human rights covenants often correlated with internal stability and the perceived threats to democratic governance.

  • Established democracies had little interest in binding commitments since their democratic institutions were already stable.

Evidence from Confidential Deliberations

National Discussions

  • British government records reveal that their resistance to binding commitments stemmed from fears about domestic implications rather than concerns regarding human rights violations elsewhere.

  • The government focused on maintaining parliamentary sovereignty and expressed skepticism about the ability of an international court to interpret domestic laws.

Broader Implications and Generalizing Findings

Generalization to Other Regimes

  • Moravcsik suggests that the pattern of support from new democracies and skepticism from established democracies can predict the development of other human rights systems beyond Europe.

Continued Importance of Internal Political Context

  • Self-interest remains a powerful motive in the international cooperation of states on human rights, demanding attention to the domestic political landscape.

Conclusion

  • This study encourages further research into how domestic political needs shape the formation and evolution of international regimes, particularly regarding human rights.