By Kaveesha Fernando
LONDON, UK (CWBN)_ On December 10, 72 years ago, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted. It was a momentous occasion – the culmination of two long years of work by representatives from all over the globe who worked together to form a single document which established a common global framework for human rights.
Adopting the declaration was no mean feat. Two years was much longer than initially anticipated. In fact, the initial goal was to create a Bill of Rights (similar to the Magna Carta), but it quickly became evident that this would not be possible given the vast sociological differences between nations across the globe; differences such as culture, social structure and political philosophy. A declaration was decided upon – non-binding ideals which were agreed upon (for the most part) as common goals of member states of the United Nations. This formed the foundation for the International Bill of Human Rights; several documents which served the initial goal of a Bill of Rights.
Apart from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Bill of Human Rights consists of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and its two Optional Protocols (the covenants and the first protocol were adopted in 1966, the second protocol in 1989). Together, they have served as the benchmark for human rights, allowing nations to deal with each other with an understanding of the common standard they must uphold, which has paved the way for a lot of progress in international relations and led to the formation of a new world order.
The United Nations has set the theme of Human Rights Day this year to be: “Recover Better – Stand Up for Human Rights”. The organisation states that human rights need to be put “front and centre” of COVID-19 response and recovery globally in order to achieve a better future for people everywhere. UN Body WHO’s The Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator Partnership is a very topical example of how human rights are not just political – everyone in the world should have equitable access to the vaccine which can prevent them from falling victim to a deadly global pandemic.
There will be plenty published today about the pandemic and the various issues it has wrought upon the world in terms of human rights. Therefore, let us digress from the one topic which seems to be at the centre of every major discussion in 2020 (COVID-19) and instead focus our attention on one which will be significant for decades after the pandemic is ancient history, and possibly even centuries more if it remains unresolved – the establishment of universal human rights.
Human Rights and the modern world
What comprises the concept of modern-day human rights? The United Nations says that they are “rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status”. They state that this includes the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education as well as many others.
While there is a lot of debate on the topic in modern times, no one denies the existence of human rights. International lawyers argue that the fact that all nations defend their actions by stating that it was not a violation of human rights shows that they accept that such a concept exists and should be respected (at least overtly).
However, there are two trains of thought on how uniform the application of human rights should be. Most of the developed world accepts that such rights should be universal – as long as you are born human, you qualify for certain rights regardless of where you live. However, some nations argue for the concept of cultural relativism; they say that human rights differ based on where you are born. They argue that the collectivist nature of most societies in developing regions makes applying the truly Western concept of universal human rights (as is with no changes) both impractical and unfair. A lot of nations also argue that their voices were not considered when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948; some nations had not been established or were not member states of the United Nations. These are just some of the reasons why cultural relativism in terms of human rights must be accepted, they claim.
UN human rights organs and developing countries
The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) plays a pivotal role in advocating for human rights to be upheld. The council is responsible for strengthening the promotion and protection of human rights around the globe as well as addressing situations of human rights violations and making recommendations on them. While the 5 Permanent Members of the council (China, France, Russian Federation, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America) remain the same, 47 United Nations Member States are elected to the council by the UN General Assembly for a period of three years.
Together with the International Bill of Rights, the UNHRC helps ensure that gross humans rights atrocities do not go unpunished. While the UNHRC does not have through international law the powers vested upon a state government through domestic law, it is able to censure nations through other effective means such as economic sanctions. Without such systems, the world would have seen a lot more human rights atrocities over the years.
An important means by which the UN system is able to promote human rights is through the reporting system established under the ICCPR and the ICESCR. Periodic reports are submitted by member nations to the body in question (the Human Rights Committee and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), detailing how the state has fared in adopting the covenant within their nation. The reporting system allowed nations to share their experiences in enforcing human rights within their jurisdiction. This helped other nations gain valuable insight and also allowed the relevant committee to advise the nation in question on how to improve.
Human rights as a weapon
However, there has been a rather unfortunate trend of the more powerful nations bullying developing nations into doing their bidding. The United States of America, widely recognised as the world superpower, has been one of the biggest perpetrators in this regard. The damning evidence is everywhere, one of the best examples being a New York Times bestselling book: “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” by John Perkins. His website explains that in the book he shares “new details about the ways he and others cheated countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars. From the U.S. military in Iraq and infrastructure development in Indonesia to Peace Corps volunteers in Africa and jackals in Venezuela, Perkins exposes the corruption and failed policies that have fuelled instability and anti-Americanism around the globe, with consequences reflected in our daily headlines and lives”.
The United Nations system, like all other systems, is not without its faults. However, as the world keeps working on these issues, the situation will improve. Systematic opposition has been rising against human rights abuses of the United States and it is clear that the hypocrisy of such mala fide actors will not be tolerated in future.
Way forward for developing nations
By engaging with the UN and gradually adopting the principles and policies listed in the various declarations, covenants and protocols, developing nations have much to gain. A good track record on human rights attracts investors to one’s nation. Social unrest and political instability decrease, ushering in peace and economic prosperity. The threat of sanctions disappears, and a country which is respected on the international stage is a country which is able to forge strong international relations. The UN, in turn, gains more through diplomacy; gradually convincing countries to improve the state of human rights within their jurisdictions is much more productive than asserting what they feel must be done.
Many countries still argue that their values and ideals are not reflected by the international world order. However, by engaging with the UN and other multinational bodies, nations can change the systems which they feel are unfair and amend treaties and resolutions to include their perspectives. Ignoring globalisation and the growing unity of the world will not be beneficial for any nation, but cooperating and gaining the world’s confidence will undoubtedly help everyone.
There is an alarming rise in governments who promote nationalistic, intolerant values today. Walls that keep people out, fierce battles over largely uninhabited regions and a complete rejection of refugees and similar disturbing developments can be seen all over the globe. People seem to feel that the current world order is hypocritical, going against the interests of the citizens of the globe.
However, one must remember that the UN was created to prevent a third world war, and it has definitely been instrumental in ensuring that World War III did not break out. The fact that most nations are member states of the organisation shows that overall, its existence is beneficial for everyone. This means that nations truly have nothing to lose by ensuring that they take part in global affairs and better their nation’s track record in terms of human rights.
