Human rights and humanitarian diplomacy

Negotiating for human rights protection and humanitarian access

Kelly-Kate Pease

• Publisher: Manchester University Press
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9781784993290
• eBook ISBN: 9781526109422
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Human rights and humanitarian diplomacy provides an up to date and accessible overview of the field, and serves as a practical guide to those seeking to engage in human rights work. Pease argues that while human rights are internationally recognised, important disagreements exist on definition, priority and implementation. With the help of human rights diplomacy, these differences can be bridged, and a new generation of human rights professionals will build better relationships.

1

Introduction to human rights and humanitarian diplomacy

Human rights and humanitarian diplomacy is the bargaining, negotiating, and advocating process involved with promoting and protecting international human rights and humanitarian principles. This diplomacy is also a secondary mechanism for discovering or defining new rights and principles. For centuries, diplomacy in general was the exclusive preserve of states. States use diplomacy as a foreign policy tool to achieve complicated and often competing goals. Today, human rights and humanitarian diplomacy is conducted on many levels by individuals who represent not only states but also intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). As such, diplomacy occurs on several tracks, often in interactive and simultaneous ways. Track 1 diplomacy refers to the official diplomacy practiced by state and IGO officials using traditional channels and tools. Track 2 diplomacy expands diplomatic activity to include the more unofficial interactions that involve civil society actors such as NGOs and prominent individuals. The conduct of human rights and humanitarian diplomacy occurs on multiple levels that can both complement each other, as well as work at cross-purposes.

This introductory chapter explores what international human rights are, why they are controversial, and why diplomacy is necessary for the actualization of human rights. It also explains the narrow distinctions between human rights and humanitarianism; discusses the different kinds of actors involved in multilevel human rights and humanitarian diplomacy; and outlines basic strategies and tools used to promote and protect human rights and humanitarian principles through diplomacy.

The subsequent chapters of the text are devoted to the process and conduct of human rights and humanitarian diplomacy. Chapter 2 examines the continued centrality of the state and how states, as the main duty-bearers, define and implement human rights and humanitarian principles domestically, as well as promote and protect them internationally. Chapter 3 looks inside “the black box” of the state to highlight the roles of secretaries, ministers, ambassadors, bureaucrats, and ombudsmen. It also looks at how human rights reports are created and help frame the diplomatic process. Chapter 4 shifts focus to IGOs. States create IGOs to help them achieve common goals or manage international problems. One of the central purposes of IGOs, such as the United Nations (UN) and the European Union (EU), is to promote and protect human rights and this chapter provides an overview of their respective multilateral architecture. This chapter explains the operation of international human rights commissions and councils, and how international criminal courts have become an important tool of human rights and humanitarian diplomacy. Chapter 5 delves into the international civil service to show how IGO officials such as secretaries-general and high commissioners (and independent experts such as special rapporteurs) bargain and negotiate for human rights and humanitarian principles. It also explains the diplomatic functions of treaty monitoring bodies and courts in advancing respect for international human rights and humanitarian principles.

Chapter 6 details how NGOs engage in human rights and humanitarian diplomacy. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are just two of the many NGOs which monitor, report, advocate, and educate on human rights. Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF; Doctors Without Borders) and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) routinely and, oftentimes, quietly deliver humanitarian assistance. Chapter 7 explores how the human rights and humanitarian professionals employed by NGOs and IGOs conduct day-to-day diplomacy in the field. This includes providing immediate protection, conducting interviews, negotiating humanitarian access, monitoring detention facilities, and creating humanitarian space.

Selected chapters present sidebars written by individuals engaged in human rights and humanitarian diplomacy to illustrate its actual practice. These sidebars represent voices from across the spectrum of diplomacy: heads of state, foreign ministers, ambassadors, high commissioners, special rapporteurs, humanitarian affairs officers, and human rights professionals. The voices of civil society are also included to illustrate how human rights and humanitarian diplomacy is conducted at all levels. Chapter 8 concludes the text with a discussion of key challenges facing future human rights and humanitarian diplomatic efforts: globalization, failed states, and illiberal challenges to existing norms, laws, and values.

What are international human rights?

Philosophically, human rights are rights possessed by individuals by virtue of their humanity. Human rights are also a means for achieving minimal human dignity and social justice. From an international relations perspective, international human rights are generally recognized as the rights contained in what is called the International Bill of Rights. This includes the rights articulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (1948) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (1966) (and its two optional protocols), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) (1966).¹ The UDHR is a nonbinding UN General Assembly resolution that represents the existing international consensus regarding the definition and importance of human rights in the post-World War II order. This is not to say that other human rights do not exist, only that those rights have not achieved the wider international recognition necessary to be codified in international law.

In order to actualize the rights contained in the UDHR, states followed up by pursuing the more binding international law represented by the covenants and protocols. One way to understand human rights is to organize them around generations. First generation human rights refer to civil and political rights. This generation grew out of the Western, liberal tradition of political thought that holds that individuals need to be maximally free (including being free from oppression) in order to achieve human dignity. To effectively participate in public life, individuals need to have security of person and equal legal status. Through civil and political rights, individuals would be free to maximize their potential and chart their own course in life. Rights included in the ICCPR include to the right to: the freedom from torture or slavery; recognition and equality under the law; the freedom of thought and religion; the freedom of expression and opinion; and the freedom of assembly and association, among others.

Second generation human rights center on economic, social, and cultural rights. These rights include the right to: work and for a fair wage; an education; an adequate standard of living (including food and housing); and to health (interpreted as the right to health care). This generation of rights is largely a product of socialist values, which is one of the reasons why the right to “social security” was a centerpiece of the ICESCR.

Third generation human rights refer to collective human rights such as the rights of peoples to self-determination, or development, or the rights of specific groups (minorities, children, women, refugees, stateless persons, and indigenous peoples). Collective human rights are possessed by groups and are designed to improve the dignity and lives of group members. Certain groups face unique challenges in actualizing their human rights and thus have their own specialized treaties.

The ICCPR and the ICESCR represent the binding international law that codified many of the human rights contained in the UDHR. These two treaties now are joined by other core international human rights treaties:²

•International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965);

•Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1979);

•Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984);

•Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989);

•International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families (1990);

•International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances (1996);

•Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006).

In addition to these core instruments, numerous other domestic, regional, and international laws have been inspired by the UDHR. Most call for human dignity within their preambles, suggesting this overarching theme within the international human rights discourse.

Why are human rights controversial?

Legally speaking, states make international law but individuals are the claimants (or the possessors) of human rights. States are the “duty-bearers,” which means they have the primary obligation to respect, protect and fulfill those rights.³ While there is general agreement on the idea of internationally recognized human rights, not all states accept all rights and some states are party to some human rights treaties but not others. States often become party to treaties but issue reservations to parts they do not agree with. Moreover, considerable disagreement exists on the definition and implementation of human rights. In addition, there is no consensus on what is permissible while promoting and protecting human rights. Human rights can also conflict with other important international norms and values. Most states jealously guard their sovereignty. Sovereignty is a centuries-old legal principle that holds that the state, or representatives of the state (the government), has the final say within its territorial jurisdiction. For many states, this includes the right to define and implement human rights. A companion legal principle to sovereignty is the principle of nonintervention. This means that states have the duty not to intervene in the internal affairs of other states. This certainly applies to coercive military intervention but many states also see sanctions, the withholding of aid, and even the mere discussion of a state’s domestic human rights situation as forms of intervention.⁴

Prior to World War II, human rights issues were largely considered to fall within the domestic jurisdiction of states, therefore, not subject to serious outside scrutiny. However with the creation of the UN in 1945, a legal revolution occurred whereby states exercised their sovereign prerogatives and agreed to international human rights laws that clearly regulate what a state can and cannot do to the people within its territory. States, when they join the UN, take on the legal obligation to promote and protect human rights. The UDHR passed without a dissenting vote, although important states such as South Africa, the Soviet Union, and Saudi Arabia abstained. The UN Charter and the UDHR were revolutionary at the time because they challenged the absolute sovereignty of the state and placed human rights squarely on the international agenda. Article 55 of the UN Charter states:

With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:

a.higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;

b.solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international cultural and educational cooperation; and

c.universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.

Article 56 contains the pledge to take joint and individual action to achieve the purposes contained in Article 55. At the same time, Article 2(1) of the UN Charter also privileges the sovereign equality of states and Article 2(7) prohibits the UN from intervening in the internal affairs of states. With the onset of the Cold War international human rights became politicized as both sides in the East–West conflict of the Cold War used human rights to try to delegitimize the other. The United States condemned the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc states for suppressing civil and political rights and, conversely, the United States was criticized for its unemployment, racial segregation, and poverty. Moreover, the often violent decolonization process greatly expanded the number of states that constituted “the international community.” These newly independent states were not keen to curb their hard-fought sovereignty or necessarily subscribe to existing values or definitions of human rights. The economic and political disparities between North and South led to a divide where developing states began to challenge the rules and values they perceived to privilege the wealthy.

Competing and contradictory international norms, values, and principles, as well as disagreements regarding the definition and implementation of human rights, has led to several ongoing debates. The first debate centers on whether human rights are universal or culturally relative.⁵ During the preparatory session for the UDHR, and after it was passed, the American Anthropology Association expressed grave concern regarding the origins and consequences of the “universality” of human rights. Universal human rights centers on the idea that rights are applicable to all humans, whereas the cultural relativist approach holds that rights are relative and to be understood in the context of the culture in which they are being actualized. The rights articulated by the West could be interpreted as a form of colonialism in that they prescribe certain kinds of domestic laws and even government type. In order to have cultural diversity, rights must be defined and implemented by societies differently. At the same time, many cultural and religious practices can be harmful to human dignity and be discriminatory on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, or minority status. After six decades of debate, the literature and development of international and domestic human rights law suggest that human rights are “relatively universal.”⁶ Certain rights do appear to be universal, such as the right to freedom from torture, while others, like the right to marry, health care, or to participate in public life, are still relative. The tension between cultural relativism and universalism is something that needs to be managed by states and the international community and informs the ways human rights are pursued and promoted through diplomacy.⁷

A related debate centers on the extent to which some rights are ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• List of tables
• List of sidebars
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Introduction to human rights and humanitarian diplomacy
• 2 The centrality of the state
• 3 Inside the black box
• 4 The United Nations and multilateral diplomacy
• 5 IGO diplomacy and the international civil service
• 6 NGO diplomacy
• 7 The human rights and humanitarian professional
• 8 Conclusion
• Glossary
• Appendix: Statement of ethical commitments of human rights professionals
• Bibliography
• Index