Hadi Ghaemi and Aaron Rhodes of the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran urge the United Nations Human Rights Council to take a stand against the blatant repression undertaken by the Iranian government. But they acknowledge that so far the UN has done more to support the Iranian government than its victims:
The new session of the U.N. Human Rights Council began on March 1. A failure of the world’s most influential human rights body to deal with the abuse of human rights in Iran will be interpreted by Tehran as a green light for the government’s brutal policies that could result in more executions of political prisoners….
While atrocities since June have horrified people around the world, leading to demonstrations by more than 50,000 people in 110 cities last summer, Iran seems, astonishingly, to be strengthening its standing in the Human Rights Council.
The 47 member states have shown no willingness to hold a special session, as many international human rights experts have recommended, nor have they supported the idea of a special U.N. envoy to look into the situation, and to press Iran to abide by its commitments….
The failure of the Human Rights Council to take serious action to condemn Iran’s human rights abuses, and the election of Iran to the Human Rights Council itself, will be deeply disillusioning for the reform and human rights movement in Iran. It could destroy their faith in the international human rights system, for which many have sacrificed their freedom and security, and for which many have died. It will give legitimacy to hanging political prisoners, and more will be hanged.
But this issue is not just about Iran. It is about the capacity of the U.N. system to protect human rights. If Iran’s grave abuses are ignored and if Iran assumes a place on the council, the council will be further weakened. Other dictatorial regimes will be emboldened to repress their citizens.
Ghaemi and Rhodes attribute the Human Rights Council’s failure to take a stand against Iran to concern that doing so might derail negotiations to reign in Iran’s nuclear program. However, those negotiations have achieved little or nothing in any event. The real cause of Iran’s successes in the United Nations are traceable to deeper weaknesses of international human rights law.
Both the content and enforcement of international human rights law are heavily influenced by authoritarian states who have a strong interest in using the system to protect and legitimize their own oppressive practices. John McGinnis and I have discussed these issues in detail in two academic articles (see here and here).
Far from seeking to protect human rights, the HRC (whose membership includes numerous dictatorships), often passes resolutions intended to facilitate repression (see e.g. here and here). Iran itself has been a member of the HRC in the past and, as Ghaemi and Rhodes point out, is likely to succeed in its efforts to become one again. Even the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights – the most important international human rights law agreement – includes repression-facilitating elements introduced at the behest of the USSR and its totalitarian allies.
The bottom line is that the main weaknesses of the international human rights system are structural. By giving so much influence to the very sorts of governments that human rights law is supposed to constrain, it actually empowers oppressors much more than victims. In the short run, liberal democratic governments should work to limit the scope of the system and and prevent its pernicious elements from overriding their own domestic law, a point McGinnis and I emphasized in our articles linked above. In places like Iran, progress in protecting human rights probably depends on action by liberal democracies and internal dissidents acting outside the confines of the UN system. Liberal democracies cannot and will not always prioritize the promotion of human rights. But they have fewer perverse incentives on these issues than dictatorships do.
In the long term, we should explore the possibility of establishing international human rights bodies that exclude illiberal regimes from membership. That may be the only way to create a Human Rights Council that isn’t just a committee of wolves pretending to guard the chicken coop while they gobble up the chickens.
steve s says:
I have misgivings about making laws we cannot enforce. We cannot even enforce the CAT in our own country. I think these issues are probably better addressed through political and economic avenues.
Steve
March 13, 2010, 5:15 pmgeokstr says:
Fixed that for them.
Most of the Muslim nations are probably cheering them on. After all, they pretty much all hang gays, stone adulterers, enslave women, cut off body parts, endorse violence against Christians and Jews, and legitimize forced child marriage. What’s a few dead protesters among friends?
March 13, 2010, 6:07 pmmark t. tillar says:
“Sometimes I wonder if we shall ever grow up in our politics and say definite things which mean something, or whether we shall always go on using generalities to which everyone can subscribe, and which mean very little.” Eleanor Roosevelt
Progressive Eleanor now has her answer.
The U.N. is a third world debating society. You want human rights enforced outside the United States you have to send in the Army & Marine Corps with our allies the Brit’s, Aussie’s, and Canadians.
March 13, 2010, 6:55 pmOff Kilter says:
Mark T. Tillar: “You want human rights enforced outside the United States you have to send in the Army & Marine Corps with our allies the Brit’s, Aussie’s, and Canadians.”
From today’s Daily Beast: “How Americans Fleeced Iraqi Reconstruction
March 13, 2010, 7:10 pmFollow the money. That’s what federal investigators did in the case of the $150 billion spent on Iraq’s reconstruction. In the past six months alone, they’ve uncovered more than 50 instances of fraud or bribery on the part of Americans, resulting in fresh indictments. Many of the cases appear to be shameless, with some suspects simply mailing thousands of dollars home or smuggling money out of the country in duffel bags. Others sent millions via wire transfers. Officials found the cash was used to buy BMWs, plastic surgery, or pay down casino debts. “I’ve had a continuing sense that there is ongoing fraud that we have not been able to nail down,” the head of the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction told The New York Times. “This spate of new cases is evidence that that sense was reasonably well placed.” So far, there have been 58 fraud cases put forth by the government involving reconstruction funds that have led to successful convictions.” (linking to an article in The New York Times)
Nick says:
What incentives would work? I can think of one, but only for four years at a time. Democrats would support whatever Republicans oppose, and vice versa, for the length of each term. In this case, democracy for foreigners.
March 13, 2010, 7:22 pmChris Travers says:
meh…. I dunno about anyone else but if I had to choose between moving to Iran and moving to Saudi Arabia, I think the choice would be clear as day: Iran.
Iran doesn’t have a good human rights record, it’s true. However, they aren’t really that bad by Middle Eastern standards.
March 13, 2010, 7:26 pmAllan Walstad says:
Surely this reasoning applies to the UN itself. The first step toward any useful international organization is to junk the UN.
March 13, 2010, 9:41 pmrpt says:
That goes ten times over if you are a female Chris.
March 13, 2010, 10:42 pmPatHMV says:
These are not “laws.” They’re just not. It’s a massive fiction. There is nothing enforceable about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. To call it a “law” is just erroneous. Some parts of it are wonderfully nice aspirational standards, but that’s about it.
March 13, 2010, 11:36 pmG. May says:
Re: OffKilter
You were responding to a comment about Human Rights Enforcement with a quote from The Daily Beast (Really? The Daily Beast?) about fraud. I’d say you missed the mark.
Perhaps a more topic appropriate reference would have been to mention the massive fraud of the UN’s Oil for Food programme?
March 13, 2010, 11:51 pmLior says:
The article seems to have a misplaced premise: that the UN HRC “if it only worked” could actually do anything about human rights. International organizations have just as much force as the countries that support them are willing to put behind them — it’s not like Iran would voluntarily change its policies even if the “Human Rights” Council repeatedly condemned them in the strongest terms …
March 14, 2010, 12:02 amChris Travers says:
But this kind of gets to a couple of major points about human rights as a general topic. The very difficult truth is that it is extremely difficult to separate cultural ideals from human rights. So we have a choice of either saying “This is what the West will force on the rest of the world” and denying any major Middle Eastern nation a seat at the table (Israel and Turkey included), or we end up having to recognize that many other cultures will draw lines in very different places.
Both “solutions” end up denying that most “human rights” are anything more than cultural constructs. Sure there are few probable exceptions (right to collective self-defence, right to self-determination) but those end up being rights that the cultural collective has, not the individual.
I have been rather disillusioned with the whole idea of human rights since when I was in High School. I suspect this is more “because” than “in spite of” having a number of very pro-human-rights activist relatives.
Also the only reason that folks point to Iran instead of other (worse) Middle Eastern countries is that it is politically expedient to do so.
March 14, 2010, 12:41 amMnZ says:
OK…so the US is bad because we prosecute fraud and corruption in our own people when we find it? Even when that fraud and corruption is directed at other countries?
Actually, you have unwittingly shown why the US is right to be hyper-skeptical of “international law.” The US actually believes in the rule of law (including the treaties that it signs) while certain countries have no problem with signing international treaties and then simply ignoring them.
March 14, 2010, 12:50 amorca says:
Is that sarcasm?
March 14, 2010, 1:07 amRicardo says:
I disagree. This presumes the only voices for human rights in other countries come from outside the country. On the contrary, Shirin Ebadi is one of the leading voices within Iran for human rights and was born and raised there and held a position as a judge before the Revolution. What do we make of someone like her? We have to choose between saying she is an out-of-touch member of the Tehran elite who has been too influenced by “foreign ideas” and would be better off moving to Europe or the U.S. or else we have to demand that she be allowed to advocate her ideas and push for a peaceful change in the government within Iran without fear of arbitrary arrest or extrajudicial execution.
The alternative to the idea of universal human rights is to commit to looking the other way and keeping quiet when someone who does not happen to share your nationality is abused and exploited.
No doubt. Iran is seeking hegemonic power over the Middle East which means that very soon the human rights situation will not only be affecting Iranians. At the same time, there is a credible opposition movement within Iran and a history of democracy in the country so actual real-world change isn’t just some fantasy. By all means, people who care about human rights ought to focus their energy on the countries with the most potential for change. That was the logic behind the South Africa boycott in the 1980s as well.
March 14, 2010, 3:01 amcommon_sense says:
Regulatory capture on an international level. No surprise; when someone figures out how to eliminate regulatory capture at any level, we’ll all benefit, but I’m not holding my breath.
March 14, 2010, 8:59 amOff-Kilter- so some people stole United States’ money that we had earmarked for Iraq, and now we are investigating in order to punish those people? Sounds like things are working as they are supposed to. I wish there were no rotten apples, but they exist and you deal with them as best you can.
Orca- Those two clauses do seem unrelated. I’m not sure what rule of law has to do with international law.
MnZ says:
Orca don’t be daft. The primary reason why it seems the US flouts international law so much is because (i) the US actually allows debate about the meaning of international law or (ii) the US has refused to sign certain treaties.
Consider the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). The US has been criticized several times in the past for not ratifying the CEDAW. Fine…but how much comparable outrage was generated when several countries signed and ratified the CEDAW and then “reservationed” themselves out of compliance?
I would encourage all “International Law” proponents to read the reservations. Based on those reservations, it is clear that several countries treat “International Law” as a joke.
March 14, 2010, 9:12 amIran and the Shortcomings of International Human Rights Law « Conservative Crier says:
[...] READ MORE [...]
March 14, 2010, 10:46 amA. Criminal says:
That’s better than wasting it on Iraq and Iraqis. Seriously.
As for Iran, we just need to “respect other cultures”, as our betters tell us, especially a culture that’s based on a religion because all religions are wonderful and if [rhetorical] you don’t think so then you’re an intolerant racist and should be purged so you stop ruining our planet with your CO2 emissions.
March 14, 2010, 11:13 amSarcastro's Little Brother says:
Off Kilter,
Yes, because fraud by American contractors is just the same as Saddam Hussein and his torture rooms, particularly when we are discussing human rights violations.
March 14, 2010, 11:26 ambyomtov says:
This presumes the only voices for human rights in other countries come from outside the country.
Exactly.
While the “culture” explanation has some value, it’s necessary to be very careful about that argument. If the culture is controlled by the dominant members of society – those who deny others their rights – then of course insisting on human rights contradicts the culture. (This was one of the problems with advocacy of segregation as “southern culture” in the days of Jim Crow).
It’s very easy, and incorrect, to take the social views of the dominant group as the “culture” which must be respected.
March 14, 2010, 12:22 pmJohn Moore says:
That multi-culturalists have difficulties dealing with issues such as Muslim treatment of women shows the bankruptcy of modern multi-culturalism.
Europeans evolved ideals of universal human rights, and we see that people in other cultures who are denied those rights show a desire for them.
The European idea of universal fundamental human rights (freedoms, not entitlements) is right in an absolute sense, and relativists who wish to condition rights on cultural norms are wandering through a dismal intellectual swamp.
March 14, 2010, 2:11 pmCornellian says:
The post seems to equate international structures like the UN with law. If the UN dissolved tomorrow and the modern democracies of the world created a new organization the next day, restricted to democracies, the law wouldn’t be any different. The new organization would propose better treaties, from a human rights point of view, but the countries outside the organization wouldn’t sign those treaties.
March 14, 2010, 2:15 pmIran and Human Rights Laws « The Republican Heretic says:
[...] Human Rights Laws Sun 14 Mar 2010 The Republican Heretic Leave a comment Go to comments Ilya Somin at the Volokh Conspiracy comments on Iran and its constant violations of international human rights laws. And of the [...]
March 14, 2010, 2:21 pmFen says:
You misinterpret the purpose of the UN.
The UN exists for liberals to
1) express their fierce moral urgency without getting their hands dirty.
2) and to make America weaker.
March 14, 2010, 3:27 pmorca says:
the John Birch society is running the Republican party?
March 14, 2010, 3:45 pmFat Man says:
“Human Rights”, like “social justice”, and “peoples democratic republic”, is just another liberal slogan. The sooner liberalism dies, and these slogans die, the better off humanity will be.
As for the UN Human Rights commission, what a joke. Dust bin is the correct place for it.
March 14, 2010, 3:54 pmburgerghost says:
“In the long term, we should explore the possibility of establishing international human rights bodies that exclude illiberal regimes from membership. That may be the only way to create a Human Rights Council that isn’t just a committee of wolves pretending to guard the chicken coop while they gobble up the chickens. ”
You mean regimes that imprison their own citizens and foreign nationals for years without charges, like the United States does?
March 14, 2010, 3:58 pmyankee says:
I believe this is not a violation of international law under the well-accepted legal principle of “American Exceptionalism.”
March 14, 2010, 4:09 pmSarcastro's Little Brother says:
I know, let’s give KSM a parade down 5th Avenue and the keys to New York City instead. That will teach ‘em.
March 14, 2010, 4:17 pmgeokstr says:
I dunno. Is the CPUSA running the Democratic Party?
March 14, 2010, 4:31 pmgeokstr says:
Amen.
March 14, 2010, 4:32 pmAnonsters says:
This is almost exactly right, insofar as it points out that UN Human Rights Council =/= international human rights law.
If the UN dissolved tomorrow, countries would still be bound by the human rights instruments they’ve signed. They’re multilateral treaties.
And you’ll have noticed, if you know anything about international human rights, that most of the major treaties have their own monitoring and implementation bodies (provided for in the treaties themselves) and don’t rely on the HRC for anything. They’re called “treaty bodies” for a reason.
March 14, 2010, 4:36 pmorca says:
The John Birch Society was the co-sponsor of this year’s gathering of “conservatives:”
http://washingtonindependent.com/71223/the-john-birch-society-to-co-sponsor-cpac
The American Right’s race to the bottom is almost run.
March 14, 2010, 4:53 pmAnonsters says:
But orca, it’s liberals who are eeeeeevil. Know your audience!
March 14, 2010, 5:02 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Don’t bet on it: Liz Cheney is still lacing up her Nikes, preparing to accept the baton.
March 14, 2010, 6:06 pmuberVU - social comments says:
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by a_b_debrie: http://bit.ly/98imDI Ilya Somin on some problems w/ international human rights law #pols470…
March 14, 2010, 6:55 pmBohemond says:
Sheesh. Same old Gitmo singalong. What part of “captured enemy” don’t you understand? We held thousands of Germans without charges, too- because enemy detention for the duration of hostilities has nothing to do with ‘charges’ or criminal law.
March 14, 2010, 7:09 pmChris Travers says:
She’s an interesting case, and a courageous woman. I would be very willing to bet, based on her anti-Western views, that she would have rather different ideas of human rights than most human rights groups. She’s a leading voice area, but it isn’t clear we are willing to given her a real voice at the table. Certainly her support for Mossadeq, opposition towards the Shah, and at least partial support for Khomeni would place her well outside the Western human rights mainsteam.
Those aren’t the only choices, and I think it is asking the wrong question, to be perfectly honest.
Her work has been primarily towards ensuring legal and social justice within the confines of Iranian culture. There is no reason to suspect that she would endorse a human rights platform that the West would find acceptable. She strikes me much more like an ACLU-type activist than a HRW/Amnesty International type.
Ok. So here are difficult questions:
1) Is it a human rights violation when unmarried mothers are deeply discriminated against?
2) Is there a human right to be left alone in one’s sexual life?
3) Is free speech a human right? If so, does this mean that libel laws are human rights violations? If not, then why would bans on sedition be any different?
4) Is it a human rights violation to ask women to cover their hair? Is this different for Jews and Muslims?
There may be common ground in some areas, but I wouldn’t count on it. Instead I think that social justice is more than a formuleic set of rules. I think that social justice or lack thereof arises from the gestalt of the culture and in particular the interrelation of various elements. What this means is that I tend to be suspicious of folks pushing for specific changes in other cultures.
The question is whether the Iranians collectively have a human right to self-determination, and if so, if this takes precedence over our non-Iranian cultural ideals. If the Iranians have such a human right, then it seems to me we have to at least respect the social directions they take it. If, on the other hand, Western culture is inherently right and everyone else is inherently wrong, then we can push to Westernize the world…..
I approach the question of South Africa very differently. I think one must start with a sympathetic look at what one is concerned about (in that case Apartheid), look at what social functions it served, the reasons for the policy etc. One can then look at how it breaks down, falls short, and fails to meet the legitimate aspirations of those living under it. In the case of Apartheid, I think it is something which was worth condemning.
However, the human rights canard is typically used for political reasons in a very different way. By any standard, Iran is not too bad in terms of human rights when compared to many other Middle Eastern and North African countries. They are also more Western in odd ways than most (not just language, but also governmental models which seem to be based on older Spartan models adapted through Plato). We condemn Iran because we want to condemn Iran. Nobody explains to me though why the Saudi Arabia gets a free pass except that for one reason or another we decide we are better off giving them one.
March 14, 2010, 7:28 pmChris Travers says:
John Moore:
I think some things are great aspirations. I think self-determinism is also a fundamental right.
I also don’t think it is impossible to criticize cultures from a relativist perspective. This isn’t just a matter of multiculturalism but also a recognition that if we are to value our own nationalism, we should as a matter of basic fairness, extend other groups that same right to nationalism.
Where I think condemnations are appropriate is where one group defines themselves as having human rights that other groups do not have. For example (using Israel as an example for a moment), you can’t say “we, Israelis, have a human right to self defence and self-determination, but Palestinians do not.” (Yes, I’ve heard that one, believe it or not.) One can also raise concerns about how various social elements interact. For example “Israel claims to be both a Jewish State and a State where all citizens are equal. However, since about 16% of the Israeli population is non-Jewish, it seems to me that the state of Israel cannot possibly meet both goals at once. So which is it? Are you really telling me that Arab-Israelis SHOULD be second-class citizens?”
Similarly with regard to Iran, there are plenty of areas where either type of criticism is quite valid. The government also shows the dangers of a government run by the judiciary and can be a warning to many others around the world.
March 14, 2010, 7:37 pmJohn Moore says:
But that is exactly cultural relativism!
So if some country has a culture of child rape, involuntary female genital mutilation, and stoning of homosexuals, that’s just peachy with you because, after all, we are extending to them the same right to nationalism?
March 14, 2010, 7:55 pmChris Travers says:
Read again what I wrote. I think there are a couple of ways one can legitimately apply scrutiny. However, I have very little tolerance for the way in which cultural prejudices tend to be framed as human rights. For example, I have heard more than one person talk about access to abortion as a human right, and have heard more than one person talk about pressure to wear the hijab as a matter of human rights. I think that where cultural differences arise, one must have a more objective foundation than merely holding the premise to be self-evident.
March 14, 2010, 8:06 pmChris Travers says:
John Moore:
Despite my cultural relativism (which is fine with me) I can still find things I think I can legitimately criticize about every nation I have visited, and I can criticize it without being inconsistent with that relativism.
Note I never said I wasn’t relativist. I am. I value cultural diversity and the fact that many cultures disagree on core values. That doesn’t mean a culture isn’t above criticism, but as long as human rights are subjectively defined, I won’t appeal to that authority.
March 14, 2010, 8:12 pmRicardo says:
The usual caveat about asking opinions of people in thuggish, authoritarian regimes applies in her case. It’s impossible to know for sure what she really believes as she and her entire family could be arrested tomorrow before breakfast if she goes just a little bit too far.
In any case, I think her work is more than enough to qualify her for a seat at the table of any self-respecting global human rights movement. I see human rights as a list of priorities and place the right of people to freely speak their minds on political issues higher than, say, the right to a court-appointed lawyer if arrested. I suspect that on those issues that come at the top of the list for me, there would be little if any disagreement between Ms. Ebadi and the senior members of Amnesty or HRW.
Human rights are certainly not about implementing the liberal side of America’s culture wars in the rest of the world. As I say, I view human rights as a list of priorities with some very urgent items at the top and others at the bottom that are more internal matters for the country to decide. I find the questions you ask lack too much context to say anything concrete on them. What does “deeply discriminate” mean? If it means that single mothers will have sulfuric acid thrown in their faces while walking to the grocery store, then yes, that is emphatically a violation of human rights. If it means they don’t get invited to family gatherings, on the other hand, then no, it’s not a violation of human rights. In between, there’s undoubtedly some gray area but that should not detract from the very clear abuses that happen on a routine basis in some countries.
I’m reminded of when Gandhi was asked what he thought of Western Civilization by a British reporter and he wryly responded “it would be a good idea.” Iranian self-determination would be a good idea. Too bad the country is in the grip of a bunch of senile theocrats and neo-fascists who don’t allow any intelligent debate or elections to take place within the country. Self-determination necessarily implies the ability to discuss, debate and vote freely and all three are currently being denied to the people.
To say that freedom of speech is a Western cultural value implies that what you call “Iranian self-determination” is as well. It’s impossible to have the latter in any meaningful sense without the former.
March 14, 2010, 10:53 pmRicardo says:
I should add I’m not too impressed with Iran’s imitation of ancient Sparta. Call it a Godwin’s Law violation if you like, but it is well-established that Hitler was also an admirer of the Sparta model, as a society dominated by a militaristic “racial elite.” I’d be just a bit more impressed if they used Athens rather than Sparta (complete with tolerance of homosexuality and the celebration of wine and music and art and philosophy) as their model.
March 14, 2010, 11:22 pmAnonsters says:
Plato disagrees. ;)
March 14, 2010, 11:33 pmChris Travers says:
The point there wasn’t to defend Iran but rather to ask the relationship between Iran and Western culture. If we are to accept that “Human Rights” are a Western cultural ideal, then it is a fair question to ask.
In essence, we see the current Islamic republic, with a language related to most European languages, with a government based on an imperfect immitation (for practical reasons no doubt) of one of the great classics of Western culture: Plato’s Republic (Republic itself seems to use Spartan culture as a basic framework). Khomeini’s ideal of the “Government by Enlightened Jurist” as at least one NGO has characterized it is something fundamentally drawn from Western, rather than Middle Eastern culture.
Ok, for example, shunned, prevented from finishing any schooling left to do, discriminated against in employment, marriage, etc and thus left with very much abridged economic prospects (this is the norm for much of the world).
What, objectively, defines a “human right?”
If you can give me a concrete definition not based on cultural Western post-Renaissance values, I will reconsider…..
March 15, 2010, 1:00 amChris Travers says:
I see I am not the only one to know that :-)
March 15, 2010, 1:28 amAnonsters says:
BTW, I very much disagree with this. There are things in the UDHR that would not be in there if it were solely a product of Western ideas and ideals. The US hasn’t even ratified the ICESCR, whereas other, non-”Western” countries have.
Plus, look at the Banjul Charter, or the Arab Charter of Human Rights. Granted, there are things in the Arab Charter that we wouldn’t find particularly appealing, and that don’t mesh perfectly with “Western” ideals. But there they are. Asia is the only region not to have a regional human rights instrument, and there’s movement in that direction (possibly through ASEAN, or possibly as an independent thing entirely a la Banjul/Arab Charter).
Human rights is a universal language these days, whatever its origin may have been (which is debatable in itself).
March 15, 2010, 1:48 amRicardo says:
I don’t know that I can come up with an all-inclusive definition that would satisfy time as well as word count constraints. But I can come up with a partially inclusive definition that includes things such as the right to participate in a political community, the right to leave that community or country at one’s choice, the right to choose one’s own occupation, the right to live in a society governed by laws and the right to be free from physical violence or arbitrary government force.
If these are “Western” values, I don’t necessarily count that as an argument against them. These principles evolved in Western societies exactly because these were societies that had to figure out how not to descend into civil war, barbarism and absolutism in the midst of competing ideologies, religions and ethnic groups. The fact that so many societies have not yet accepted these values is one of the reasons that these societies are plagued by civil war, barbarism and absolutism. So much the worse for them. The starting point for me is recognizing that the victims of this are fellow members of homo sapiens who deserve a bit more from people like me than to be told to learn to live with the lot they have been assigned by the people who rule over them.
I’d also note that you made an interesting allusion to the principle of “self-determination.” It seems to me you have to acknowledge the whole idea becomes white noise if it is not coupled with the right I mentioned above to participate in a political community. Without the notion of a political community that represents the people, government simply becomes a tool of whoever happens to be in control of the armed forces at the moment. That’s determination-by-despots, not self-determination.
I’d also point out that self-determination is itself mostly an Enlightenment-era idea especially associated with Jean Jacques Rousseau. If it wasn’t for self-determination, Persia might be ruled by Turks or some other group of Central Asians right now, to say nothing of the French or the British.
March 15, 2010, 2:00 amAnonsters says:
And note that self-determination has played a much, much, much larger role in the human rights thinking of the “third world” than it has of the 1st (or even 2nd) world. It’s been principally the tool of territories struggling for independence from colonial regimes.
March 15, 2010, 2:10 amChris Travers says:
Anonsters:
I looked at both the documents you pointed to and they seemed very weak to me. For example, from the Arab charter of human rights:
A careful reading of this would show that Saudi Arabia is well within the corners of this paragraph.
Both documents seem to have basically three main points:
1) Collective self-determination is a right.
2) There is a general right to freedom from arbitrary imprisonment.
3) Courts should generally be somewhat independent.
A lot of the rest of the ‘rights’ mentioned are so weak, and contain so many systematic exceptions that they are totally subsumed in collective self-determination.
I don’t mind a conclusion that those three are all good ideas and noble goals, but I can’t see how anything beyond collective self-determination and, perhaps, freedom from arbitrary punishment can be seen as within a broad international consensus of human rights.
I note further that you grant that there is much in these documents you don’t like. So how can you objectively separate what is valuable from what is not without considering the cultural context?
March 15, 2010, 2:20 amChris Travers says:
Ricardo:
I asked for an objective definition of human rights. I didn’t get one. BTW, I don’t believe that democracy is a human right or even leads to a better human rights record than alternatives. For example, Malaysia is less democratic than Indonesia and yet has a better human rights record.
Please provide an objective process by which one can determine if, for example, any given issue is one of human rights, and what those rights are. (For example, some people say there is a human right to life, that allowing abortion violates. Others say there is a human right to liberty which restricting abortion violates. Certainly the natural rights thinkers held that both liberty and life were human rights. So how, objectively, can we answer this question?) Please avoid appeals to authority or holding premises as self-evident.
You clearly believe there is a right answer. I am asking not for that answer, but for objective proof that such an answer exists.
March 15, 2010, 2:26 amAnonsters says:
That’s part of the point. I have a fairly thick conception of what human rights should be. But I recognize that other regions are not willing to sign a multilateral treaty containing the types of thick protections I’d prefer. Hell, even the United States is unwilling to sign certain treaties that I think we should sign (e.g., the ICESCR). On the other hand, most of the countries in the world have recognized that there is value in crafting and deploying arguments using human rights discourse. They don’t just sit on the sideline and say, “Well, that’s not a part of our cultural heritage, so it doesn’t mean anything to us.”
March 15, 2010, 2:27 amAnonsters says:
Give us a definition of an “objective definition.”
March 15, 2010, 2:28 amRicardo says:
Chris, it seems to me that you yourself reject a completely nihilistic view of society and culture where might makes right. You say, “I can’t see how anything beyond collective self-determination and, perhaps, freedom from arbitrary punishment can be seen as within a broad international consensus of human rights.”
I’d like to start with that concession and work forward rather providing an “objective” justification for a set of values that it seems you are not inclined to argue with. So with this as our starting point, why is it that we decide to divide the world up into nation-states (inspired by Enlightenment-era thinkers like Rousseau) rather than multi-national empires, as was the norm for much of history? Who draws the borders of these states and determines who has political representation within them? Once we answer those questions, we then have to ask how the states that rule within their own territories can be guaranteed to represent the interests of the people within them.
Providing sensible and coherent answers to these questions means you have to start addressing issues like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to practice religion, and the right to be free from arbitrary violence from the start. Without these guarantees, the idea of political representation becomes a nasty farce.
The only alternative is to accept the proposition that whoever has the most weapons is free to impose his will on whatever territory he can manage to get under his control. We already know what the outcome of a world ruled along those lines is: brutality, wars of extermination, fascism and misery.
(Your comparison of Indonesia and Malaysia also reminds me of a systematic mistake that gets made a lot in the Western media. People insist that if a country holds one or two successful sets of elections that country is by definition a “democracy.” Meaningfully judging a democracy requires a track record of, I would say, at least 20 years. And all I can say to Malaysia is “best of luck”: the country appears to me to be a ticking time bomb absent any real reform. Only time will tell whether the Malaysia model is sustainable.)
March 15, 2010, 2:53 amChris Travers says:
Observable by anyone regardless of cultural, religious, or linguistic background.
(Of course, the ability to read the definition requires English and I recognize that. The linguistic bit is mostly to avoid the word games that many philosophers are fond of.)
March 15, 2010, 11:44 amSarcastro says:
[Dude, that restriction means not even reality is objective.]
March 15, 2010, 11:54 amChris Travers says:
So we look back basically to the end of WWII to find that trend. Secondly are you saying we don’t have “multi-national empires” (like the US) or that there isn’t a trend back towards this direction with the EU?
So, we have to wait six more years to look at Indonesia? Personally, having watched Indonesia for the last seven, I don’t think much will change in that time.
What makes these objectively natural rights? Because they seem like noble ideals? Is there a specific problem that is readily observable by anyone, that natural rights theory is designed to solve?
Against this, I would note that generally most of these regional human rights treaties define various human rights about as strongly as the English Bill of Rights (one of the English Constitutional Documents) protects the individual right to keep and bear arms……..
March 15, 2010, 12:38 pmChris Travers says:
“Reality” is an abstract concept and probably not sufficiently objective anyway ;-)
I have a tree in my front yard. I can bring in folks from different backgrounds and they can observe it (leaving aside fundamental physical or mental handicaps). They may not know what a tree is, but they can see this tree and try to make sense of it.
That’s what I am getting at :-)
March 15, 2010, 1:00 pmSarcastro says:
[As a modernist, I gotta say: grrrrr! :-P
Isn't your definition of objective therefore so restrictive that it will never apply to anything, and thus be a useless word?
Not that I have a good alternate definition, but I'm not a fan of postmodern paralysis cause you don't know what you are actually observing.]
March 15, 2010, 1:35 pmChris Travers says:
Sarcastro:
Do you have a better way of separating cultural ideals from human rights? Or are all cultural ideals human rights?
Note that even if we agree that these are subjective or culturally-bound concepts, that doesn’t necessarily mean that culture is beyond criticism. I think there are ways that this can be done without appealing to authority.
March 15, 2010, 4:16 pmChris Travers says:
Sarcastro: “Objectivity” is a useful concept, though ultimately one which cannot be objectively true.
For example, there is a very narrow difference between looking at something as being “objective” and something as being “intersubjective.” To me, I think we should be free to address whether a given framework works for a given question. One real problem is that language creates an intersubjective (rather than truly objective) framework for communicating things. Anyone who has ever done historical or comparative linguistics runs up against this problem very quickly. Worse, different languages don’t always express the exact same thing in translation (which is a major problem reading, say, Plato’s Republic in English translation). Against this background, it is very hard to show that something is universally applicable to the human condition. Even comparative studies folks such as myself tend to use “universal” in a fairly weak sense (meaning something short of “universally applicable”).
Consequently, I am not sure one can simply assert “there is a universal, natural right to freedom of speech.” This is a cultural construct which is also culturally abrogated by everything from fines on pro-terrorist cartoons to libel laws, and from advertising restrictions to sedition laws.
On the other hand, we could define universally applicable problems, even if the fall slightly short of objective. Maybe there is a universally applicable problem of tyranny. If we accept this, however, we could not get to natural rights theory in its modernist form without some important leaps of faith in part because every problem admits to multiple solutions.
I guess I get leery about the idea that we should remake the world in our image and would want clear ways of avoiding this.
March 15, 2010, 4:31 pmSarcastro says:
[I go with all.
I'm perfectly happy to indulge in the tyranny of my own self-ness (roomed with a postmodernist philosophy major for two years).
Thus I'm willing to say I'm right, and that Western liberalism rocks and should be embraced by everyone. But there are costs (in blood, treasure, reputation, lost cultural diversity) that must be weighed before indulging in any cultural imperialism. Plus certain means (straight-up conquering, for instance) are pretty ineffective, while others (Hollywood, open trade, internet) are slow, but inexorable.]
March 15, 2010, 4:34 pmChris Travers says:
Sarcastro:
Influence from open trade and the internet is full duplex, and just wait until Bollywood gets more traction here….
March 15, 2010, 5:04 pmSarcastro says:
[Not if I'm right about how awesome liberalism is. Melting pot and all that.]
March 15, 2010, 5:08 pmChris Travers says:
It’s interesting that despite the fact that we have so much Latin in our legalese, our word “law” and our jury system actually were brought into the Anglo-Saxon language and system by the Vikings….
Influence is rarely one-directional.
How will the Muslim world affect us in the next 100 years? I am willing to bet it will lead to fewer free speech protections for us.
March 15, 2010, 5:25 pmSarcastro says:
[That does not seem to be the current trend. Plus, Islam does not equal speech restrictions, only some interpretations do that.]
March 15, 2010, 5:33 pmAnonsters says:
Indeed. “Political Islamism” would have been the better desriptor than “Islam.” Of course, once you narrow it down like that, you realize the question could be couched as, “How will Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood affect us in the next 100 years?”
March 15, 2010, 6:44 pmChris Travers says:
In general though Islamic law tends to be far less libertarian than Western culture. This is particularly the case in areas which border on free speech (including advocacy of religious ideas). When you have the Shiites and the Salafis in agreement I would suggest that that it is likely to be a common understanding for a long time.
Granted one point: in the area of free speech, the US is truly exceptional. No other country matches our protections, even though we have not taken these as far as they need to be taken.
March 15, 2010, 6:48 pmChris Travers says:
I dunno that any Islam is apolitical, as long as it is true to the Koran. The International Crisis Group wrote an excellent paper entitled “Understanding Islamism” which tackles this question in a very detailed and neutral way.
Islam, as a religion, is structured to meet the role of being the social and legal foundation of society. Trying to push it into a matter of private faith, OTOH, is just projection of Christian attitudes onto a different religion.
March 15, 2010, 6:50 pmAnonsters says:
Not really. There are plenty of Muslims who don’t think their faith requires an Islamic state. For someone as sensitive as you are to cultural difference, I’m surprised you think Islam is so monolithic.
March 15, 2010, 6:58 pmChris Travers says:
“Requires an Islamic state” is strong statement, one which many Muslims debate and some reject. That’s not what I said though. For example, I don’t think Hamas is pushing for an “Islamic state” in the strict sense. However I wouldn’t consider their Islam to be apolitical.
March 15, 2010, 8:06 pmAnonsters says:
They’re an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. They do believe in the necessity of an Islamic state, not only in Palestine/Israel but in the greater Middle East as well. Check out Azzam Tamimi’s Hamas: A History from Within.
March 15, 2010, 9:16 pmChris Travers says:
Anonsters:
Yet when Hamas won the election (and even after disposing of Fatah insurgents in Gaza), they didn’t move on the Muslim Brotherhood’s purported agenda.
AFAICS, there is real question as to whether the Muslim Brotherhood wants an Islamic State (i.e. Sharia as the sole legal authority, government structures based on past Muslim models) or whether they just want to push an Islamic agenda in whatever state they are in. This goes double for Hamas since they were in a position of power at one point. As the ICG pointed out in their paper “Understanding Islamism,” the Muslim Brotherhood generally has taken a position of working within the system to push an Islamic agenda. That’s hardly the same thing as an Islamic State, but it’s political Islam nonetheless.
But this also brings up a number of difficulties in this discussion. The Muslim Brotherhood is fairly clearly a VICTIM of human rights abuses (to the extent we recognize such) in places like Egypt, Jordan, etc.
BTW, in search of a truly objective definition of human rights, I would accept a problem definition (i.e. what natural rights theory was designed to solve). Then we can ask whether it is the only possible solution to the problem, and whether other solutins to the same problem would be equally valid.
March 16, 2010, 11:58 am