Shirin Ebadi is a prominent Iranian political thinker, lawyer, women’s rights activist, and a winner of the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize. In her acceptance speech, the activist emphasized the compatibility of human rights principles and Islam. Also, she urged the international community to eliminate neo-imperialist and secular-inspired labels and stereotypes about the inherent illiberality and patriarchy of Islam and Iranian society (Ebadi, 2003). In Ebadi’s opinion, the infringement of women’s rights in Islamic countries is rooted in discriminatory politics and patriarchal environment and not in religion (Sameh, 2019). On the contrary, during her lifelong political and civic activism, Ebadi strived to promote democratic values and women’s human rights in the Islamic world and Iran in particular.
Ebadi’s standing regarding the distinction between international human rights and a separate “Islamic Path” is complex and multifaceted. In her Deutsche Welle article, the Nobel Peace Prize winner points out that illiberal regimes, which attempt to formulate counterstatements on human rights, often violate internationally recognized principles. The author also calls for the globalization of justice while noting that the latter can bring positive results if it is designed according to the legal principles of the given community (Ebadi, 2018). Therefore, although the application of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights cannot be allowed to serve as an instrument in the political gambit of authoritarian regimes, it should be applied according to the socio-cultural realities of the community.
Ebadi pays special attention to the lack of performance of the United Nations and the hypocritical policies of Western democracies in promoting human rights. In her speech, the Nobel Prize winner explicitly criticizes the militaristic and anti-humane policies of Iran and the United States as examples of how governments are instrumentalizing the human rights agenda. Specifically, the activist addresses the human rights abuses in Guantanamo in the name of universal safety and security as the case for such political hypocrisy. Additionally, she stresses the need for Iranian feminists to raise their voices to develop a nonviolent indigenous movement that fits within the socio-cultural framework of Islam (Sameh, 2019). As an Iranian feminist reformist, Ebadi has repeatedly advocated decolonizing the discourse on women’s rights and liberating it from the West-centric ideology of transnational feminism. Like a number of other Islamic women’s rights activists, Ebadi seeks to decolonize the fight for human rights in the Islamic world. Additionally, the activist highlights the need to build a new indigenously informed discourse on human rights that would contribute to the diversity and pluralism of women’s experiences.
In summary, it is worth noting that Shirin Ebadi’s self-identity as an Iranian woman and a Muslim empowers her experience and perspective in women’s rights activism. She seeks to show the compatibility of the principles of Islam and democracy, as well as to free religion from charges of its ingrained patriarchy. Her position on human rights is focused on the one hand on criticizing the universalist dogmatism of Western feminists that only their struggle is true. On the other, Ebadi seeks to gain the support and sympathy of the international community for women’s reformism in Iran. I tend to agree with Ebadi’s assertion that human rights principles should not become instruments in the hands of authoritarian and tyrannical regimes. However, I also believe that the universalist principles of human rights should be applied, taking into account the socio-cultural realities of local communities.
The article addresses human rights in relation to global democracy. There has been a trend toward integration of world countries. Although with various benefits, globalization brings about various issues. One of the major issues is democratic control of supranational governance bodies such as European Community and I M F. The other issue in global democracy is great disparity of member states over political issue such as terrorism, global climate and economic development. The other challenge in global democracy is on representation in global decisions. Wealthy countries seem to dominate on global decision while other countries take minimal roles. The author reviews democratic theorists’ approaches to the challenge and relate them to human rights. The author looks into compatibility of global democracy theories and human rights. The author makes an argument for importance of human rights in global democracy.
According to the author, globalization implies extension of social responsibility from an individual country or region to global level. In such global governance bodies, there are questions on their democratic legitimacy taking in consideration that they are not directly formed by the people. Globalization also implies the process toward the state of globalization. According to the author, there has been neglect on human rights issues in the process of globalization. Globalization has led to larger governance bodies such as intergovernmental organizations. In such governance bodies, there are questions on their democratic legitimacy taking in consideration that they are not directly formed by the people. The structures of intergovernmental organizations have led to most decisions not being based on democratic principles. The great influence of wealthy countries on intergovernmental organizations decision such as IMF is of great concern in global democracy.
According to Goodhart, global democracy should be viewed as re-establishing efficient constrains to power rather than transforming the various democracy models. The power constrains entail democratic agency that take into consideration of global diversity and interests. According to the author, achieving the objectives of global democracy require protection from supranational human rights body.
Analysis
Globalization has brought new challenges on global governance. Economic integration, intergovernmental organizations and possible political integration pose various challenges. One of the major challenges to global governance bodies is ensuring democracy. Goodhart argues that ensuring democracy calls for increased role of human rights. He argues that human rights can help to constrain power in intergovernmental organizations. Protecting human rights is one of the major roles of any government. As globalization implies extension of social responsibility from an individual country to global level, intergovernmental organizations should ensure that human rights are protected. The author claims that human rights provide a standard way of interpreting state based democracies. Human rights are universal. Although presented in different ways in various countries’ constitutions, the principles of human rights remains the same. By good translating, the humans rights will retain their original meanings but take into consideration of the new global context.
Global context comprise of various governance that are characterized by lack of a complete political framework. The author argues that human rights are necessary in order to achieve democracy in such a circumstance. He argues that the facts that human rights are based on individuals make them the appropriate way for ensuring democracy. The author further argues that global recognition of human rights provides a great strength to their use in restraining power. The author also argues that human rights do not require a political framework for their implementation and thus they can be implemented in the global context. In addition, the author argues that the fact that human rights express the aims rather than the way the aims will be achieved, provides a flexibility that is needed in a global context. Ensuring democracy in a context that does not have a political framework is challenging. Ensuring democracy requires that the parties involved having a common position on some issues. Since human rights states the universal rights of all individual, they can be used as foundation to global democracy. Every country recognizes human rights; application of these human rights in intergovernmental organizations decisions can ensure democracy. Global democracy should be independent of political framework, the fact that human right are higher than any political framework make them appropriate for global democracy. A global democracy requires flexibility. By only expressing the aims, human rights allow intergovernmental organization governance with various approaches to the aims.
Supranational human rights body can help in ensuring global democracy. A body with formalized rules that has authority over intergovernmental organizations can help to curtail power as well as provide fairness in global issues. Although the current human rights bodies have significant contribution to democracy, they have narrow focus on states and international organizations. By redefining human rights to include the rights of states, individual states in a global context will be protected from abuse by other states or intergovernmental organizations. By providing complaining mechanism for individuals and states can ensure fair participation in a global context. By strengthening universal jurisdictions, there would be an effective accountability that would ensure global democracy.
The author makes strong arguments for the need for supranational human rights regime. However, he fails to provide a convincing definition of democracy in the context of globalization. The approach for a supranational human right body also ignores various important issues. Democracy in the contexts of globalization should be inclusive of democracy as understood in the various countries involved. In essence, democracy entails fair representation in decision makings. It should be understood that individual parties in a global context have varied interest. Although universal human rights have been in existence for a long time, there are still infringements of human rights in various countries. Assuming that a supranational human right body will bring about outright global fairness is wrong. The author fails to address the influence of other factors such as economics, difference in development and political differences of member states.
Conclusion
I agree with the author on the need for a supranational human right regime. Globalization poses new challenges that current international regulatory bodies may not be able to handle. Globalization has brought about questions on fair representation in global decisions. Global democracy requires that the parties involved be fairly involved in global decisions. Considering that the current human rights bodies focus mostly on rights of individuals, there is needs for translating the rights in a global context. In this context the rights of individual states will be expressed. A supranational human rights regime that is supported by appropriate jurisdiction can ensure fairness in inter-state association as well as protect the rights of every individual in global context.
The United Nations (UN), Universal Declaration of Human Rights on Torture, the conference of Countries held to discuss Human rights abuses, was held in February 1985.This conference passed a convention and was opened to be adopted by the countries present at the conference. The gathering came to agreement to ban the use of torture and formed a committee called the “UN committee against Torture”.
The committee was to involve countries to take effective actions to prevent abuse as a result of torture within their boundaries. The convention also passed a resolution to forbid countries to return a refugee to their nation because it is believed that they will be tortured. “It also obliges the country to respect the human rights accord of other nations before making any decision on torture” (Goldberg 14).
Thesis Statement
Every nation is required to train its law forces, i.e. the police and the military on the human right policies which were the United Nations on the torture in their jurisdiction and to investigate any allegations brought forward when their law enforcers have been implicated on human right abuses. The law of the country must allow persons tortured in any form to be permitted to make an official complaint and investigation to be started on the credibility of the person. If the credibility of that person is right, compensation should be given, that includes full treatment and payment to the victim.This accord also does not allow any activities that will allow the use of torture. As a result of these human rights abuses we should not concentrate too much on the punishment of torture perpetrators, these perpetrators are using torture to help uphold the security of a country and above all terrorists are inhuman.
Water boarding is a form of torture that involves tying down a suspect who is believed to have credible information that can help a country. “The suspect’s face is tied with a cloth and he is stimulated to a sensation of drowning using water. In Spain this kind of torture has been used for many years but now it is a subjected to war-crime trial” (Goldberg 3).
Accepted use of torture
There are situation in which the use of torture is morally accepted. The use of torture is unconstitutional in the US but surely if the lives of innocent America citizen are at risks, we must overlook the constitution. If the millions innocent lives will perish as a result of terrorist?
Let’s give an example, a terrorist has planted an explosive on an airline and he alone knows how to disarm the explosive. The government cannot yield for the terrorist demands. If need arises we can use any form of torture to extortionist and save the passengers because the passengers in the airline did not ask their lives to be put in danger because the death of this innocent lives will hunt us as a nation.
If the rights of an individual terrorist is more important to be safe guided, then we must put into perspective the lives of the innocent which must be saved at any price, even if inflicting pain on the terrorist that has put the lives of innocent people in danger. The idealism of a terrorist is, if he threat to kill innocent victims by doing this he give up his civilized standards and he cannot complain if law enforcers tries to get information from him through torture. He already knows his actions and he risk death unlike his innocent victims.
There is no way the US will lose his way when they choose to use torture to retrieve information from terrorist suspects. Pain is one way of preserving order in a country. In near future terrorist group will threaten millions of lives in the world and the use of torture will be used to save those lives. It is high times the world stop criticism on the use of waterboarding and start thinking about its importance. Further more if the perpetrator of torture victims are persecuted, “this will this will expose the officials in other countries suspected to be mastermind of abuse in other countries like in Iraq where the US officials have been accused by human rights activist” (Goldberg 34).
Accounting for Torture Abuses
The immunity law and the torture victim protection Act which was passed 20 years ago by congress is null and void if the perpetrator of this torture are not brought to justice because it says nothing about an individual being given immunity status. “If this is the basis of US government not persecuting it official involved in torture abuses, this would be null and void” (Miller 12).
Let’s take the example of Bashe Yusuf a plaintiff of Somali origin. In the early 80’s he was doing volunteer work with others to clean up hospitals in various places in Somalia. He was arrested together with fellow volunteers, detained and torture for months-subjected to water boarded. After his released from prison was given asylum in the US. Now he is suing the then prime minister Samantar who is in the US as an asylum. Yusuf said, “He want the man to be accountable for this crime he committed and not that he was doing this because he fear for his life”. It outrageous for people like samatar to live peacefully in the US while innocent people suffered under his watch when he was prime minister.
Similar account can be applied in the US; citizens of the US need a full account of all the abuses that occurred under the Bush administrations. Those officials involved, and who facilitated the use of waterboarding to their victims should be brought to book, so as to prevent such human rights violations from occurring again. A Tribunal is needed for people who were involved in these severe crimes, so as to bring back America’s influence in international affairs and to suit the demands of fair dealing, on the use of water boarding such as in the Guantanamo bay and other form of torture elsewhere in the world.Waterboading has greatly damaged the country “moral standing” on torture, as also terrorist around the world are using these actions as a tool to recruit new members. “The US government may use waterboarding as a means to protect its citizens but this is a hindrance to international cooperation on human rights” (Miller 108).
Conclusion
Waterboarding is inhuman and does not respect the human right of a person. Any security apparatus of a nation should be subjected to its laws and also that of set by the U.N. on human rights abuses. This should be followed by the U.S In order to show that it is not party to all forms of suffering and any other inhuman or any punishments that a person will suffer. It is not sufficient to comment on it, but also actions should be taken that will demonstrate that the government is seriously fighting any forms of torture and this will make other countries respect the policies set out by the U.S government.
Works Cited
Goldberg, Elizabeth. Beyond terror, gender, narrative, human rights. London: Rutgers University Press, (2007).Print.
Goldberg, Karen. The torture debate in america. London: Cambridge University Press. (2005). Print.
Miller, Fredric. Waterboarding in the 21st century. New York: Alphascript Publishing, (2009).Print.
Armed conflicts have been an integral part of human civilization from historical times and they continue to characterize human society even today. A common reality with all armed conflicts is that they result in the killing of people and the destruction of property. Even so, conflicts in the 21st century are unique in that the warring parties are obliged to follow some rules of engagement and to respect human rights.
In armed conflicts, the combatants are expected to take appropriate care to ensure that the risk posed to non-combatants is minimized. Lethal force is supposed to be directed at legitimate military targets and the use of force against civilians is seen as unlawful. However, not all armed groups respect these principles and some of them engage in gross violations of human rights. A good example of this is the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) which is a rebel group that operates in Northern Uganda. The LRA rebels under the command of Joseph Kony have sown devastation and death throughout Uganda’s northernmost district for over 20 years.
This rebel outfit was formed as a result of the political and ethnic divisions between the north and the south of Uganda. This paper will set out to demonstrate that the actions of Joseph Kony, the LRA leader, constitute gross human rights violations. The paper will begin by providing a brief overview of the theoretical framework of human rights in armed conflicts as well as a historical overview of the LRA rebel group. An elaborate discussion of the various crimes committed by the LRA will then be undertaken.
Theoretical Framework: Human Rights in Armed Conflicts
The issue of human rights law in armed conflicts has continued to be debated by many scholars over the past few decades. The debate has mostly been centered upon the question “do human rights laws continue to apply once we enter the realm of armed conflict?1” By their very nature, armed conflicts result in death and suffering by the people involved in the war. Victories are in most cases achieved by one party being able to overwhelm its opponent through military force which may make the issue of human rights seem paradoxical.
To further complicate the issue; most internal armed conflicts are prompted by human rights abuses against certain groups. O’Flaherty notes that most conflicts are initiated by human rights abuses such as the oppression of minority groups in a country2. In such scenarios, human rights abuses are already present at the onset of the conflict and the conflict only serves to escalate the violations.
In armed conflicts, there are some internationally sanctioned rules which must be followed by the conflicting parties. The Geneva Convention asserts that as a minimum, “personals taking no active part in hostilities should be treated humanely”3. While a combatant can lawfully target another combatant since this is a necessary part of any military operation during the war, the Geneva Convention also explicitly forbids the intentional direction or attacks against the civilian population who are not taking part directly in the hostilities. Another human right issue in armed conflict is the prohibition of torture. Warring parties are required to abstain from using torture tactics on enemy forces since this constitutes a human right violation.
A significant characteristic of most of the armed conflicts since 1990 is that they have been intrastate conflicts. These conflicts have pitted government forces against armed rebels or various armed rebel groups against each other. The armed conflicts have in most cases lasted for over eight years, bringing about prolonged suffering to the civilian population in the areas affected. Most rebel groups are unable to match the military might of the government forces and they, therefore, have to resort to less direct means of attack.
Terror tactics against civilian populations are used as a strategy by some armed groups to weaken the support for their opponents4. In such conditions, human rights are disregarded since the objective is to intimidate the population and weaken the support of the opponent forces. The state forces are also unable to offer protection to vulnerable groups against attacks by rebel forces.
Conflicts which occur within a nation’s border are unique in that certain human rights obligations exist within the State’s boundaries. The actions carried out by the conflicting parties should therefore be consistent with the human rights law established in the state since these laws do not cease to exist with the outbreak of the conflict5. The armed groups engaged in the conflict are therefore required to respect the human rights obligations that exist within the borders of the country.
History of the LRA Conflict
The Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) is a non-state armed group that engages in acts of violence that are primarily directed against the civilian population of northern Uganda. The LRA was born from the ruins of the Uganda National Liberation Army (UNLA) which fled north following the rising to power of the National Resistance Army (NRA) which was led by the current Ugandan president, Yoweri Museveni6. The UNLA was predominantly made up of northern troops who were fearful of reprisal by the NRA due to the past atrocities that the UNLA had committed at the command of the previous regimes7. The fears were confirmed when the NRA began mistreating the Northern population which led to the north forming armed groups for defense against the imminent southern occupation.
The LRA leader, Joseph Kony, first emerged as a spirit medium in early 1987 and his movement took up the name “Lord’s Army” and later changed its name to “Lord’s Resistance Army”. The LRA attracted popular support in the late 1980s and the population viewed this group as a formidable fighting apparatus that could present a credible counterforce to the NRA. As a result of this support, the LRA was able to attract several followers from the UNLA and the local population who joined the movement and engage in its military operations. However, this popular support was short-lived and by the early 1990s, the group had lost most of the support it previously enjoyed. With the loss of popular support, the rebel force lost its ability to recruit from the northern population since the civilians had no incentives to align themselves with the rebels. In response to this situation, the LRA started to engage in a large-scale abduction policy to fill its ranks of fighters.
In the early 1990s, the government engaged in aggressive military operations against the LRA to distance the local population from this group. The government’s rationale was that by isolating the LRA from the local population, the group would die out naturally due to a lack of resources. However, this tactic by the government forces resulted in more attacks on the populace by the LRA8. From 1991, the LRA embarked on large-scale attacks on the ordinary civilian population as well as community buildings such as schools and clinics.
The attacks on the civilians served the dual purpose of punishing the civilians for siding with the government as well as alienating the government from the people. From 1997, the LRA became an element in a proxy war between Sudan and Uganda with the Sudanese government supplying the LRA with weapons and ammunition and also allowing the rebel group to use Southern Sudan as a base of operation.
The armed conflict between the LRA and the Ugandan government has continued to rage on up to date. The initial goal of the LRA was to overthrow the Ugandan government but that goal has long since been abandoned and currently, the goals of the rebel group remain hazy with some researchers advancing that the rebel group has no political or social agenda9. While the war in northern Uganda is supposed to be between the Ugandan government forces and the LRA, the victims of the war are predominantly civilians of the northern Ugandan region.
Why Kony’s War constitutes Human Rights Violations
While death and destruction are to be expected in armed conflicts like the one that the LRA has been engaged in, this rebel group has been engaged in human rights violations. Since 1988, the LRA under Kony’s leadership has been responsible for horrific human rights abuses. The gravity with which the international community views Kony’s actions can be seen from the arrest warrant issued against him by the ICC in 2005. This warrant charged the LRA leader with 33counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity including the forceful conscription of children in the groups’ army10.
Joseph Kony’s LRA has been the principal belligerents in the conflict that has raged on for over twenty years in northern Uganda. This conflict has resulted in the displacement of over 1.5 million people and has caused many deaths and destruction turning the northern regions of Uganda into a humanitarian disaster11. The very nature and method of the armed conflict perpetrated by the LRA has led to most of the fighting taking place in civilian communities. Studies reveal that starting from 1994, the LRA started to systematically attack civilian rather than military targets12. This campaign which is aimed at terrorizing the civilian population has led to the emergence of hundreds of thousands of internally displaced people in the northern districts.
The Ugandan army has been forced to establish “protected villages” where the displaced people and villagers in the northern districts are forced to relocate for their protection. Life in the protected villages is hard since the civilians lack the basic amenities and food is scarce. This has caused some of the civilians to venture into unprotected areas where they can engage in farming activities. The LRA targets these civilians destroying their houses and farms.
Arguably the most appalling feature of Kony’s rebel group has been the use of children in the LRA. As of 2007, it was estimated that the LRA had engaged in the abduction of an estimated 25,000 to 30,000 children13. While international law explicitly prohibits the use of children in hostilities, Kony has continued to capitalize on the recruitment, conscription, and active use of children to wage his wars. Research indicates that the LRA would most likely not have had the ability to mount a viable fighting force for as many years as it has without child abductees14. The involvement of children in war has been in part the result of the change in modern warfare tactics. Military advancements have made it possible for armed groups to access small arms and light weapons which can be operated by children.
The use of children by the LRA has not been limited to active fighting and abducted children have been forced to serve as sex slaves for the group’s commanders. Rape is rampant in the LRA where girls are given out as “wives” to commanders as well as male soldiers as rewards after military operations. The ICC’s Rome Statute defines the crime of rape as “a war crime and a crime against humanity”. The sexual slavery that Kony’s militia is guilty of forcing its female captives into is also defined as a crime against humanity by the Rome Statute. The rebel forces have also engaged in forced pregnancy which is the unlawful confinement of a female to forcibly make her pregnant.
Abducted girls are subjected to forced pregnancy and reports indicate that the girls who try to prevent pregnancy are punished through beatings and sometimes even killed to act as an example to the others15. Research indicates that forced pregnancies are a strategic move to manipulate the feelings of the captured girls since they are inclined to show loyalty towards their husband-fighters even if the bearing of children occurred against their free will16.
The treatment of children by the LRA also constitutes a violation of human rights. Upon abduction, the children are forced to engage in long marches to the rebel base camps which are in southern Sudan. These marches are long and some of the children who are as young as 8 years die of exhaustion and hunger before they even get to the camps. The children are made to as human mules; carrying the goods that the LRA loot from villages as they make their way to the camp17.
Those children who are unable to keep up with the pace are beaten or even killed to instill fear and discipline in the other abductees. In addition to this, the LRA offers little food and water for its captives and a number of them face starvation. Kony has been guilty of endangering the lives of the child combatants who are often put on the frontline as direct combatants. Since children have little experience, they are vulnerable to hostile fire in a battle situation. In addition to this, the LRA regards children as easily dispensable assets and they are therefore sent on the most dangerous missions.
Another human violation practiced by Kony’s group has been the use of torture and maiming to instill fear in the civilian population. The LRA in displays of strength has engaged in horrific maiming including the cutting off of lips, ears, and noses of innocent civilians in northern Uganda18. Torture by the LRA is not only used against the civilian population but also LRA abductees. Amnesty International reports that children who are caught trying to escape are tortured using such means as; beating with clubs, burning with oil, and branding to name but a few19. Rape has also been used as a tool of torture by the LRA. Kony has made use of rape to terrorize and control the communities in the Northern parts of Uganda and it is a key part of the LRA’s war strategy.
Conclusion
This paper set out to demonstrate that Joseph Kony, the LRA leader is guilty of human rights violations on a large scale. The paper began by affirming that even in armed conflicts, combatants are supposed to respect human rights and ensure that civilians are not involved in the conflict. The paper has traced the formation of the LRA to 1987 and noted that while the LRA was formed as a result of legitimate fears by the Northern people, the rebel group quickly lost favor with the civilians it claimed to represent.
LRA has since then engaged in activities that are a direct breach of international law applicable to armed conflicts. Specifically, it has been revealed that the LRA has been involved in targeted attacks against civilians. Large-scale abductions of children have been the primary means through which Kony’s group has been able to sustain its forces. The group has also made use of torture and maiming to intimidate the civilian population. From these revelations, it is clear that Joseph Kony’s actions constitute human rights violations. The Ugandan government with the assistance of the international community should take up action to bring this human rights violator to justice.
Bibliography
Amnesty International. Monitoring and Investigating Human rights abuses in armed conflict. Basford: Amnesty International, 2001.
Bevan, James. “The Myth of Madness: Cold Rationality and ‘Resource’ Plunder by the Lord’s Resistance Army.” Civil Wars 9, no.4 (2007): 43–358.
Coomaraswamy, Radhika. “The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict – Towards Universal Ratification.” International Journal of Children’s Rights 18, no.1 (2010): 535–549.
Forsythe, David. Encyclopedia of human rights, Volume 1. Cambridge: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Jurdi, Nidal. The International Criminal Court and national courts: a contentious relationship. NY: Ashgate Publishing, 2011.
Lubell, Noam. “Challenges in applying human rights law to armed conflict.” International Review of the Red Cross 87, no.820 (2005): 737-754.
O’Flaherty, Michael. “Human rights monitoring and armed conflict: challenges for the UN.” Disarmament Forum 3, no.1 (2004): 47-57.
UNICEF. Machel study 10-year strategic review: children and conflict in a changing world. Geneva: UNICEF, 2009.
Footnotes
Noam Lubell, “Challenges in applying human rights law to armed conflict,” International Review of the Red Cross 87, no.820 (2005): 737.
Michael O’Flaherty, “Human rights monitoring and armed conflict: challenges for the UN.” Disarmament Forum 3, no. 1 (2004): 47.
Nidal Jurdi, The International Criminal Court and national courts: a contentious relationship, (NY: Ashgate Publishing, 2011), 141.
Amnesty International, Monitoring and Investigating Human rights abuses in armed conflict (Basford: Amnesty International, 2001), 5.
Noam, 739.
James Bevan, “The Myth of Madness: Cold Rationality and ‘Resource’ Plunder by the Lord’s Resistance Army,” Civil Wars 9, no.4 (2007): 343.
James, 344.
James, 345.
James, 343.
UNICEF, Machel study 10-year strategic review: children and conflict in a changing world (Geneva: UNICEF, 2009), 206.
James, 343.
David Forsythe, Encyclopedia of human rights, Volume 1 (Cambridge: Oxford University Press, 2009), 113.
James, 343.
UNICEF, 24.
Nidal, 142.
Radhika Coomaraswamy, “The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict – Towards Universal Ratification,” International Journal of Children’s Rights 18, no.1 (2010): 543.
The greatest threat to human rights is war. That is the challenge of today, “to prevent the tragic violations committed in the course of conflict and reconstruct the societies which conflict has destroyed.
When the U.N. first met, in 1946, one of its first resolutions declared that the Commission had no power to look into communications about individual human rights abuses. Instead, it would stick to drafting standards and stay out of the actual developments and problems of the Stalinist Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and its colonies, and the segregationist United States and other powers as well. Much has changed since that time: inch by inch a structure of legally binding treaties, special investigators, and mechanisms has been built up to hold countries to commitments to respect the human rights of their citizens, and be accountable for their actions.
Human rights depend, as Hannah Arendt pointed out, on national rights – that is, rights constitute, protect, and punish one as the citizen of a nation-state. This also means that the state has the power to use human rights discourse to coerce its own citizens—just as colonial rulers had the power to use it against its own subjects. In defending its own citizens’ human rights it is only the state that can legally threaten to punish violators.
There is an unresolved tension here between the moral invocation of” universal humanity” and the power of the state to identify, apply, and maintain the law. For not only does the Declaration equate law with justice, it also privileges the state’s norm-defining function, thereby encouraging the thought that the authority of norms corresponds to the political force that supports them as law. Ironically, it was the moral revulsion against the legal atrocities of the Nazi state that led, after World War II, to a renewed interest in the old natural law tradition, and that contributed in a major way to the framing of The Declaration. (It was the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal that retrospectively introduced the notion of crimes against humanity into international law.)
But the condemnation of a particular state’s system of law and of its behavior in terms of norms entirely external to them led not to recognition that nonstate norms have authority as such. They led instead to the formulation of sacred laws that must ultimately depend, as laws, on their recognition by states.
Human rights flow from the intrinsic sacred dignity of the person in his/her vocation to serve the community and to be recognized by communities and governments. Human rights flow from the respect of human dignity. Each person has a right to those things required for human decency starting with food, shelter, clothing, employment, health care, and education. Also includes freedom of speech, religion, association, migration, and participation in full society.
Since property is an important link to human development then everyone has a right to private property – but this is not an absolute right. Private property must serve the needs and development of the whole community. It is the responsibility of each to respect and protect the human rights of all.
It is the role of government to regulate those organizations that play a role and assure that the common good will be enhanced. Government must not do for those that can do for themselves – but it must also help those who cannot do for themselves toward the work of serving the common good.
We are all part of a social context that is essential for community living and individual development. We must realize any set of social and cultural structural contexts. Liberation from oppressive social political and economic situations and struc-tures is an important mission of the church but it must also include spiritual and religious dimensions as well. People have the right to democratic participation in decision making opportunities in order to achieve the common good as presented by govern ment. A minimum level of participation in the community is a fundamental demand of justice and requirement for human dignity. Church recognizes the inequities that exist but does not provide any solutions.
We are all part of the human family and have a mutual obligation to promote the rights and development of all people across communities, nations, and the world, irrespective of national boundaries. Peace is the fruit of justice and is dependent upon solidarity and right order among humans and among nations. Progressive disarmament is essential for future security – peacemaking: pacifism or non-violence and just war theory.
However, in the book “Philosophy of Human Rights by Ayatullah Javadi Amuli, he believes in the difference in the principle of human rights seen in Islam and by the West. He believes that defining human rights depends on people’s world-vision. According to them, human rights are the manifestations of the rebellious self-centered man of the modern century. In his eyes, modern man has turned into a creature that regards himself the viceroy of God in the universe and organized himself by adapting himself to physical pleasures.
That man finds himself in the position to create rights based on desires and reject whatever God has commanded, is an unpleasant event in the age of humanism. This great perversion in the thoughts of man as the symbol of rebellion against the Almighty is manifested in the modern humanitarian thoughts. Than human rights cannot be formulated through agreements or traditions and customs
However, beyond that it seems that there are deeper sets of questions. If we want a world which has more human rights and more global responsibility, the world has to have people who are free to exercise those rights, who have a genuine opportunity to realize them, who recognize their responsibility to make the most of them, and who are parts of global community that supports the development of those rights, a community that does not make exclusive claims to the truth, but instead is rooted in our common humanity and the obligations that flow from that. That means that we have an obligation, those who come from wealthier countries, to increase the benefits and reduce the burdens of the 21st century world.
In an interdependent modern world, “traditional cultures” do not spontaneously grow or develop into “modern cultures.” People are pushed, seduced, coerced, or persuaded into trying to change themselves into something else, something that allows them to be redeemed.
The book also discussed how boundaries are established between the human and the nonhuman. That animals have an interest in living free from human cruelty has long been recognized. However, animals cannot have rights because they literally cannot claim their rights in the court of law.
Miss Evers’ Boys is an emotional and thought-provoking movie that tells a story about a medical experiment conducted in the 20th century. The Tuskegee syphilis study was planned to be six months long, but it ended up being forty years. The medical staff involved, including Eunice Evers, the movie’s main character, made a lot of controversial, if not just wrong, decisions. The Tuskegee syphilis study had a big impact on minorities and raised a discussion concerning human rights.
Discussion
The discussion about human rights is as old as humanity itself. Even ancient philosophers, such as Aristotle, thought and wrote about it. Their views, of course, are different from modern ones, but it is essential to understand that from ancient times people recognized that they were entitled to some rights. In modernity, citizens’ rights are usually determined by their country’s Constitution. However, some human rights are more or less universal for everyone. One document that ensures those rights is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 25 of the Declaration states that “everyone has … the right to security in unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in the circumstances beyond his control” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, n.d., para. 25). The article suggests that every human being has the right to seek and receive help in case of sickness. However, the medical staff in the Tuskegee experiment denied the patients the help they needed, even when the treatment for syphilis was already known.
By refusing to treat the experiment participants the doctors and nurses denied them the right to life because syphilis can become a deadly disease if it is untreated. The authors of the study and the authorities tried to justify human rights violations by saying that they were analyzing the effects of fully developing syphilis on Black males. Moreover, the tested men did not even know they were part of an experiment.
It is not surprising that a study with such severe human rights violations had a deep and long-lasting effect on minorities in the United States. First of all, many African Americans stopped trusting the US medical system (Howell, 2017; Nix, 2017). The topics related to the Tuskegee syphilis study come up in public debates quickly after the truth was discovered. For example, Frazier’s (2020) study analyzes collective memory regarding the experiment. It is stated in the article that the most popular topic connected to those events in journals was the “exploitation of uneducated victims” (Frazier, 2020, p. 284). People criticized the government for taking advantage of those men and their lack of education. Other topics were “racism and blame”, “genocide of Black people”, and others. (Frazier, 2020, p. 284). The revelation of the Tuskegee experiment was a shock for the world community.
Community-based participatory research, also referred to as CBPR is a research strategy that aims at studying a community with the active help of its members. It is usually conducted in diverse communities that include minority groups, and one of their goals is to address health disparities those minority groups might face (Coughlin et al., 2017). The main difference between CBPR and the research strategies that were used earlier is that it recognizes the researchers and the individuals of a community as equal partners (Coughlin et al., 2017). The appearance of CBPR as a study tool indicates a big change that happened after the Tuskegee experiment.
Conclusion
To conclude, the Tuskegee syphilis study violated human rights and resulted in distrust of African Americans toward the healthcare system. The United States government tried to correct the mistake by apologizing to the victims and their families, but it will not restore those people’s health. It is an important precedent that raised a public discussion that spread awareness on such important topics as racial discrimination, equal access to education, and healthcare.
References
Coughlin, S. S., Smith, S. A., & Fernandez, M. E. (2017). Handbook of community-based participatory research. Oxford University Press. Web.
Remarkably, each type of job has its positive and negative sides. People ensure that they join careers that have minimal adverse factors. For instance, one can view three types of jobs, which are flight attendant (pay=23.50), IT helpdesk specialist (pay=22.75), and factory production worker (pay=17.25). Working as a factory production manager has low pay, and many managers experience financial challenges. Simultaneously, the laborers do not enjoy any control on design and production over the work, thus, the staff are uncomfortable with their work. However, tech support is more simplified and, therefore, has higher productivity, and the pay is average; thus, workers can perform their duties diligently. Lastly, the flight attendant job has increased wages and is imperative to many people in the modern world. Consequently, I would prefer to work as an IT helpdesk specialist as I will work on what can improve my skills and help me reach my goals.
First and foremost, alienation, as per Karl Marx’s theory, humans do not have any freedom, and their dignity is lowered to that of human beings. Thus, the best case example among the three jobs of this issue is factory production, whereby the laborers perform their duties to enable them to acquire resources to limit economic hardships (Musto, 2010). In the other two positions, the workers are mainly propelled by other factors. For example, flight attendants do their jobs irrespective of experiencing challenges at work. At the same time, tech support performs a specific function only. Understandably, this issue is made direr as factory workers are mostly forced to feel satisfied to their work since most of them are not comfortable with their duties. Moreover, Factory workers may experience challenges such as unsafe and unhealthy environments, low pay, and long exhausting working hours. Thus, a factory production worker faces various challenges, which makes the position not favorable for me.
Second, there is taylorization as applied by the prominent academician Taylor. According to the researchers, workers should not only work hard but optimize what they do (Sacco, 2019). Working as a factory employee, individuals are forced to perform duties while not optimizing their strengths. As a flight attendant, it does not apply to scientific management as it does not include simplifying and optimizing different jobs. Therefore, Taylorism is best viewed in tech support as one can specialize and optimize one specific issue. Thus, making it my perfect job ensures that one’s skills are mainly portrayed and used in a specific field.
Lastly, there is emotional labor basing my claim on Hochschild. In his argument, he viewed this case as the direst. It included managing one’s emotions, especially the intense negative effects of this issue. Most people cannot handle their challenges, and notably, this has been a significant issue in society (Willig, 2017). Therefore, in factory production and tech support, there is minimal influence of emotions. However, in the case of flight attendants, the profession is different in the way workers do their jobs. They must be able to handle their emotions in the best way, not to affect the passengers in what is happening to them. They must always have a smile on their faces as they are doing their jobs.
In conclusion, I would choose the tech support job. I analyzed the job based on all the concepts above to understand it better and what it entailed. I was able to choose it because it gave me the confidence to work and gain more cash. I could do my job in the best way as there no factors hindering or influencing my working criteria. On the contrary, other positions such as factory workers and flight attendants have many requirements that I deem unfit for me. I cannot engage in anything that I am not conversant with as it might affect how I can perform my functions in the best way possible.
References
Musto, M. (2010). Revisiting Marx’s concept of alienation. Socialism and Democracy, 24(3), 79-101.
Sacco, S. J. (2019). The Craft of Kits: Mechanization without Taylorization (Doctoral dissertation, Loyola University Chicago).
Willig, R. (2017). An interview with Arlie Russell Hochschild: Citique as emotion. Theory, Culture & Society, 34(7-8), 189-196.
The case against the prohibition of absoluteness contrary to torment and associated types of cruelty in universal law queries the ethical and legal conventions that form the foundation of the event of terrorism. The case highlights that lawfully unreserved lawful exclusions do not essentially result in complete rights. The fact that acts of torture inflict terrible suffering is beyond question. However, the two core challenges attributed to the legal and ethical assumptions that underpin terrorism cases rely on one, alternatives and duration of torture and two, whether torture is the worst possible suffering inflicted. Even with the law in place and the ethical and legal aspects in place to question the applicability of torture, terrorism has a direct and clear impact on human rights. The consequences attached to the acts are devastating in how victims live, their liberty, and their physical integrity.
A useful starting point when questioning the legality and morality of the use of torture in punishing extremist acts is the definition of radicalism. According to Lord Carlile, terrorism “associates with ferocity use for dogmatic ends, and consist of any violent use with the intention instigating fear in the community or any segment of it”. Based on the amended Terrorism Act 2000, terrorism is a “threat or use of action where the acts influence an administration or a universal legislative organization or to frighten the community or a segment of it”4. Further, due to the threat or use, serious risks are created that impact public safety and health, damage properties, and interfere with or disrupt an electronic system. Based on Javaid, the cause issue with the conventional comprehension of the proscriptions associated with torture, inhuman, punishing, and undignified treatments in the transnational decree on the rights of men lie in the inability to sufficiently acknowledge the following. First, close to all recognized inventions are in unqualified prohibitions type and fail to comprehend any prompt civil liberties at all.
Various articles on the prohibitions of vigor or threat have been recognized to form the cornerstone of the United Nations Charter. In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 5 says that “none is to be subject to torment or to harsh, insensitive or demeaning conduct or penalty”. In the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 7 allows for “None is to be focused on torment or to harsh, insensitive or demeaning conduct or penalty. Specifically, none is to be the focus in the absence of his permitted accord to remedial or systematic testing”. Further, in Article 3, ECHR shows, “none is to be subject of torment or to harsh, insensitive or demeaning conduct or penalty”. However, the two suggested alterations to Article 3 that would have explained the range of prohibitions of torture in fundamentally diverse ways were declined.
The two reasons associated with the decline of the proposals made to Article 3 were one, the suggestion would fail to apply with the arising of a need to protect the security of limb and life. The other reason was the inclusion of words that “the proscription must be unlimited and that torment cannot be acceptable for any purpose at all for the safety or even saving State’s life”. Further, from the inclusion, it had been suggested that it is better for the community to succumb than for torment to remain. Based on Article 2(2), the UN Convention against torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or degrading Treatment Punishment, “no special situations at all, whether a war threat or state, public emergency or internal political instability, may be employed to justify torture”.
The Legality Principle and Definition of Terrorism
The current universal lawful framework that deals with counter-terrorism sets out obligation relating to terrorism but fail to provide a complete definition of term. While the global community calls out for the need to combat terrorism, in the absence of a definitive term, leaves acts of terrorism in the hands of different states. That means the way terrorism is defined in various countries may carry with it the unintended human rights abuse as the different parties employ ways to punish actors of terrorism. One example the differences manifest when punishing acts of terrorism associates with the respect for the legality principle, as enshrined in Article 15 of ICCPR. Even during communal emergencies, the framework of the article has been found to be non-derogable.
The implication, on the criminal ability, is that it is limited to precisely and clearly providing the respect for the principle of certainty of the law. With this uncertainty, it becomes challenging to ensure interpretations are unduly broaden respect to the proscribed conduct scope. The extent of the broad or vague definition of the term has been used by various governments as a way of covering peaceful acts towards safeguarding inter alia human, labor, or minority rights, or to limit any form of political opposition.
Regardless of the explanation of the term, all governments have the mandate of fully cooperating to combat radicalism. While doing this, Lanovov shows that governments must punish and prevent criminal acts containing the following three characteristics regardless of whether the acts are politically, ideologically, philosophically, religiously, racially, or of other similar nature. One, the acts committed include against civilians with the aim of causing serious bodily injuries, deaths or even taking hostages. Two, committed with the intention of provoking a state of terror in an assembly of people or in public, threatening the people, or coerce an international organization or government to abstain from doing anything. Three, the acts constitute offenses in the range of and as demarcated by the universal protocols and conventions that relate to terrorism.
The Existing Lawful Status of Heightened Torture Practices
In the U.S., the national decree, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340A, agony acts are rendered illegal or any acts of a scheme that results in anguish by any U.S. individual or national in the country. Based on the decree, suffering is where an individual acts under the law color precisely planned to impose severe mental or physical suffering or pain. The particulars entailed in severe mental suffering or pain constitutes severe physical suffering or pain infliction and other processes calculated to disrupt deeply the sense of personality. The details in the definition apply both in the U.S. and to the nationals acting overseas. In the case Boumediene v. Bush, the decision by the court of law governed that in the 2006 Military Commissions Act, prisoners were subject to receive the right to habeas corpus. The differences in the definition of the term terrorism are applied in various contexts and manifests in the decision by the court. The ruling for the prisoners was applicable to the people detained by the U.S. Military; however, it failed to address the secret individual imprisonment was held by intellectual bodies.
In 2009, the Obama administration made a requirement where every administration entity had to bring all and upcoming programs to be aligned with the universal treaties and laws. Based on the requirements, the programs would prevent and define how torture is used. From the order, the then administration rescinded every opinion by the Bush administration of the use of torture in punishing criminals. The 2005 legislation limited the use of interrogation practices on U.S. martial to those found within the Manual of Army Field. The outcome of ruling out the use of enhanced military-led interrogations meant the government would prevent future CIA-led enhanced interrogation programs.
Internationally, the United Nations Convention against Torture (UNCAT), outlines torment as every act that results in extreme suffering or pain regardless whether it is mental or physical, and is purposefully imposed on an individual. The acts must however be proposed to obtain an individual’s or third party’s confession or information. Nonetheless, there is a difficulty in how the international norms and laws are enforced since the Court of International Criminals (ICC) fails in its capacity to detain, upon investigating, the people charged with specific offenses. According to the Rome Statute, only under war misconducts, massacre, wrongdoings against mankind, and aggression crimes do the ICC have dominion but not on terrorism. Further, there are no statutes that limit the ICC for the mentioned crimes. The challenge associated with initiating investigations on terror crimes is the condition that permits the ICC to prosecute and investigate only when the nation is unwilling or unable to do it on its own. The proof burden, which would be otherwise insignificant, would demonstrate the inability or unwillingness by the U.S. domestic court to prosecute persons.
Article 3 of the Fourth Geneva Convention allows for more fortifications against torment, specifically in times of struggle. The article asserts that individuals in fortified struggle but no longer take part or not actively involved in aggressions are forbidden from being exposed to acts of terrorism. The acts constitute, “violence to person and life, specific to murder of every kind, torture, mutilation, and cruel treatment”. Based on such an understanding, the U.S. Supreme Court in 2006 ruled in the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld by showing the common context of the article must be executed to the accused of dread in the U.S. detention. However, as already established, the international norms and laws encounter difficulty to implement and based on this, their application, acceptance, and enforcement remains a challenge by many countries.
While prohibitions against torture contain language preventing legal loop holes creation towards circumventing the essence of the extremis decree, international law body keep relying on the charitable amenability to the international norms. In the U.S., there should be limited debate regarding the use of torture as jus cogens. While there are sufficient sources that guarantee torture as illegal, under the U.S. domestic law, there is still need for executive command to realize the execution of the international standards and laws. The state has and continues to sanction the use of harsh interrogation practices. Due to this, individual members subjected to interrogation practices are under constant risks of apparatuses and administration. The universal jurisdiction principle might allow specific nations to charge American officials associated with harsh interrogation practices with domestic and international law in their own courts. Any American official is subject to domestic war crime(s) against people in absentia and arrested on those charges if they journey to any state. Based on the concerns, the American policy makers have been in the past accused of allegedly curtailing international travel to avoid being arrested.
Torture and Human Rights
Involvement in torture practices for punishment; before, during, and after, puts medical practitioners in morally compromised positions. That is the case regardless of whether their involvement was from a military, civil, or judicial perspective. If medical professionals are nowhere close or present during torture, then torture victims become exposed to risks in several ways. However, Timothy and Peter argue that in their presence, protecting criminals against torture results in injurious outcomes since there are higher instances of ethical advisories afoul. For a professional angle, a physician responsible in treating or resuscitating victims of torture is subject to questioning on morality and legality if the victims are tortured in the future.
Some health professionals have been involved in treating victims of torture and sometimes have gone the extra mile to do the heroic acts to save the lives of the victims. In other times, the physicians themselves have been subject to retaliation by being involved in the treatments. While some have been maliciously involved, others have both committed and witnessed various acts that results in injuring the bodies of the criminals with the intention of gaining information. Others’ involvement has been aimed at eliciting collaboration or conformity, safeguarding themselves from retaliation, among others. The other way medical practitioners have been involved in the interrogation process, resulting in harming the criminals, has been providing counsel on the fitness of the victims. In such instances, victims have been subjected to more torture due to the information used by interrogators. Physicians have also played a role in the falsification of documents, in person or trained others to do the same.
Since 1975, the World Medical Association (WMA) adopted the Tokyo Statement and with that, prohibited physicians from participating in torture practices. Based on the declaration, “The health professional must not participate, condone, or countenance in torture practices or associated types of inhuman, cruel, or degrading practices. That includes every other form of offense that the victim might be subjected to. Such processes result in the health professional being guilty, accused, or suspect when the victim’s motives or beliefs, and every institution inclusive of civil strife and armed conflict. The practitioner has no mandate providing any instrument, premise, knowledge, or substance towards facilitating torture practice or other associated forms of inhuman, degradation, or cruel treatment. Similarly, doctors do not have to diminish the victim’s ability to resist such treatments. Moreover, the professional must not be present during any process where torture or associated practices are threatened or used”. Further, in two more instances, WMA has denounced torture and associated practices and adopted formal positions on doctor’s physical participation in torture.
In a specific denunciation, the WMA in 1997 said that health professionals are guaranteed by health integrity to labor for patients’ wellbeing. The association’s denunciation of such practices meant “physician’s involvement in war crimes, torture, and humanity crimes is different to rights of men, universal law, and medical ethics, and any practitioner engaged in such crimes is unfit for the medicine practice”. In 1999, physicians have the responsibility of opposing and not participating in torture and associated practices for no motive. Contribution in such practices entails but not restricted to “suppression of any provision, information to enable torture practices, and substances. Further, medics must never be present when torture is used for any purpose whatsoever”. Moreover, the AMA Code of Medical Ethics shows that, “practitioners might treat detainees or prisoners only if that aligns with the patient’s interest. However, physicians have no obligation to treat people to confirm their well-being for the torment to start”.
Medical Ethics Advocates Opposition, not Approved
Various health institutions out rightly condemn the use of torture practices; nonetheless, they do not provide any specific measures where the practices can be monitored or enforced. The only exception for practicing professionals, when found guilty, is to be expelled from being a doctor. Expulsion in itself may have little impact on the health professionals since membership to the group is usually voluntary. The recommendation by the WMA is that health institutions must ensure practitioners joining their nations reply to every torture allegation question before licensing to practice takes place. The other recommendation by the association that helps question the legality and morality of the practice is reporting any torture involvement evidence to the right authorities.
However, it remains unclear whether health professionals answer the required answers on the issue of torture. One recommendation by George Annas has been the formation of a universal bioethics court, having prosecution authorities, where physical misconduct events are handled, comprising torture. Even in the absence of strong legal mechanisms in dealing with torture, its potential is great. Some practitioners have been known to work to counteract and identify the practices associated with torture. The significance of the practices lie in the ability to deter and identify what torture is and though this, the commitment to fight the act is defined. The investigative calls by the likes of Steven H. Miles on the need to end torture by medical practitioners towards protecting human rights are justified. When the acts are ended, inclusive of prisoner’s death record falsification, then it becomes possible to define the procedural safety against beaching ethics and law. Only then will the evils associated with torture be countered and people will not have to worry about the acts regardless the professional organization involved.
Conclusion
It has been shown that acts of torture inflict terrible suffering and that is beyond any question. Based on that, the case against prohibition absoluteness contrary to torment and associated types of abuse becomes clear. In the universal decree the ethical and legal assumptions that form the foundation of torture practices against terrorism for punishment; before, during, and after, puts organizations at morally compromised positions. Only then will the evils associated with torture be countered and people will not have to worry about the acts regardless the professional organization involved.
Bibliography
American Medical Association. Opinion 2.067 Torture. Code of Medical Ethics and Current Opinions.
Annas GJ. Some Choice: Law, Medicine, and the Market (1998) New York: Oxford University Press.
Basoghu M. ed. Torture and Its Consequences: Current Treatment Approaches. Cambridge (1993) Cambridge University Press.
Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law (CERL) Report (2017) Contreras-Garduño, Diana, and Ignacio Alvarez-Rio. “A Barren Effort?: The Jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on “Jus Cogens” (2004) Realization of Human Rights: When Theory Meets Practice: Studies in Honor of Leo Zwaak. 167-192.
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 1984, p. 42 “Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field,” Web.
Council of Europe, Collected Edition of the Travaux Preparatoires of the European Convention on Human Rights, Vol II (1975) at 36–40. For an account of the drafting history of Article 3 ECHR, see Evans and Morgan, p. 44 at 69–73.
Dickson B. Law Versus Terrorism: Can Law Win? (2005) European Human Rights Law Review 11-28.
Fitzpatrick, J. ‘Speaking Law to Power: The War Against Terrorism and Human Rights’ (2003) 14 European Journal of International Law 241 For recent discussions of the Strasbourg jurisprudence on Article 3 ECHR, see Mavronicola, p. 11 and Smet, p. 15 at 475–80
Great Britain. UN Convention against Torture: Discrepancies in Evidence Given to the Committee About the Use of Prohibited Interrogation Techniques in Iraq : Report, Together with Formal Minutes, and Oral and Written Evidence (2008) London: TSO
Gross, O. ‘Are Torture Warrants Justified?’ (2004) 88 Minnesota Law Review 1481 No 29 of the UN’s Human Rights Committee (2001).
“Has Obama banned torture? Yes and no,” Al Jazeera America, Web.
“Hamdan v. Rumsfeld,” Web.
Iacopino V, Peel M, eds. The Medical Documentation of Torture (2002) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, p. 42.
Javaid Rehman, ‘Acts of Terrorism and Human Rights Violations,’ in International Human Rights Law, London, Longman, 2nd edn, 898-919
Joint Committee on Human Rights, Renewal of Control Order Legislation 2011, 8th Report of 2010-12, HL 106; HC 838.
Joseph, S. ‘Australian Counter-Terrorism Legislation and the International Human Rights Framework’ (2004) 27 University of New South Wales Law Journal 428
“Lakhdar Boumediene, et al. v. George W. Bush,” Web.
Lanovoy, V. “The Use of Force by Non-State Actors and the Limits of Attribution of Conduct” (2017) 28(2) European Journal of International Law 563–585
Lewis NA, Schmitt E. Lawyers decided ban on torture didn’t bind Bush. New York Times. 2004: A1, A10.
Lord Carlile, The Definition of Terrorism (2007), Cm 7052.
Mary Ellen O’Connell, Remarks: The Resort to Drones under International Law, 2011 (39) Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, Fall 585-600
Méndez,J. ‘Human Rights Policy in the Age of Terrorism’ (2002) 46 St Louis University Law Journal 337
Miles SH. Abu Ghraib: its legacy for military medicine (2004) 364 Lancet 725-729.
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (2008) <“Human Rights, Terrorism and Counter-terrorism” Fact Sheet No. 32>
Ratner, M. ‘Moving Away from the Rule of Law: Military Tribunals, Executive Detentions and Torture’ (2003) 24 Cardozo Law Review 1513
Reis C, Ahmed AT, Amowitz LL, Kushner AL, Elahi M, Iacopino V. Physician participation in human rights abuses in southern Iraq (2004) 292 JAMA 1480-1486.
“Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court,” Art. 8, 1998. Web.
Roth, K. ‘Human Rights as a Response to Terrorism’ (2004) 6 Oregon Review of International Law 37
Saul, B. Defining Terrorism in International Law (OUP 2006).
Scheinin, M. ‘Terrorism’ in Moeckli et al (eds.) (2018) International Human Rights Law (OUP: Oxford) 550-567. Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, p. 42.
Virtual Mentor (2004) 6(9):420-423.
World Medical Association (2006) Declaration of Tokyo Guidelines for physicians concerning torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in relation to detention and imprisonment. Web.
World Medical Association (1997) World Medical Association supports doctors refusing to participate in torture.
Human rights are “international norms that help to protect all people everywhere from severe political, legal, and social abuses” (Nickel, 2010). It is important to note that human rights are associated with the issues of morality and realized in law at both the national and international levels.
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights” (UDHR, n.d.).
The UN Declaration of Human Rights is the main source of the modern conception of human rights.
The UN Declaration of Human Rights
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948.
The main principles according to which the UDHR was developed are dignity, freedom, respect, equality, justice, and peace.
The UDHR was worked out as the response to the necessity to determine the human rights as universal values and to protect them against all the forms of abusing.
The UDHR includes the internationally adopted norms and standards which are necessary to be followed in society.
The UDHR states the human rights which involve all the aspects of the individuals’ life in 30 articles. They are:
the rights to life, liberty and security of person,
to freedom from slavery, torture, discrimination,
to freedom of thought, conscience and religion,
to equality before the law.
The Declaration also states personal and cultural rights and the right to education.
The main strength of the Declaration is in the fact that all the rights are equal, universal, and inalienable.
The UN Millennium Project
The UN Millennium Project was started in September 2000 when 191 nations adopted the Millennium Declaration. The Declaration states the main principles according to which the nations should develop in order to reach the peace and security in the world with depending on the mutual cooperation of the developed and developing countries at the global arena.
The Millennium Project is developed to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) which are directed toward reducing the poverty, overcoming environmental degradation, and discrimination.
The main peculiarities of MDGs and strengths of the project:
There is a limited number of goals to achieve – 8.
They are developed in 18 quantitative specific targets and 40 indicators to measure progress in achieving;
The time of completing the project is limited;
There is the developed system of interaction between the participants.
The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)
Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger.
Achieve universal primary education.
Promote gender equality and empower women.
Reduce child mortality.
Improve maternal health.
Halt and begin to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases.
Ensure environmental sustainability.
Develop a Global Partnership for Development.
The Millennium Project is worked out to propose the best strategies for realizing the MDGs.
The UN Declaration of Human Rights & The UN Millennium Project
The UDHR guarantees the protection of human rights as the part of realizing the principles of the international law. The UDHR can also be discussed as a basis for making the decisions by the human rights observers such as, for instance, Amnesty International.
The UDHR is the standard for completing the aspects of the civil and legal policy in relation to the human rights for all the nations and states (United Nations Association, n.d.).
The UN Millennium Project can be discussed as the base for the political and social cooperation and mobilization of the developed and developing countries during which the national governments in association with the global corporations and unions successfully act at the world arena in order to overcome the main global issues (UN Millennium Project, 2006).
Question
What is the role of the UN Millennium Project in addressing the issue of the human rights’ protection provided by the UDHR?
For the last few weeks, the hundreds of activists from Standing Rock Sioux Tribe have been protesting against the construction of the 1,170-mile Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), a project of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that aims to build a pipeline that will transfer oil from North Dakota to Illinois (Levin 2016). Standing Rock claims that the pipeline would damage the sacred sites of their ancestors and is potentially harmful to the local environment and the economic situation of the tribe. They received a lot of support from neighboring reservations and non-natives, who joined the campsites and participated in demonstrations. The authorities used law enforcement several times to stop the clashes and remove the protesters from the work sites.
The third generation rights
The third generation or solidarity rights are the most newly recognized kind of human/natural rights (Ahmed 2015, p. 12). Specifically, these concern the residents of developing territories. These rights encompass the right to development and the right to a healthy environment.
The project is a menace to sacred native lands and might pollute the water supply from the Missouri River. Since Standing Rock’s primary economic occupation is agriculture, the pipeline would jeopardize the well-being of its citizens. The Corps of Engineers did not consult tribal governments before allowing the project implementation and ignored the cautions from the Environmental Protection Agency. Therefore, the “project violates federal law and native treaties with the US government” (Levin 2016). The case of human rights violations on behalf of the police toward the activists is also being investigated.
According to Dakota Access Pipeline defenders, DAPL
The Dakota Access Pipeline is a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers project that would allow for the transfer of domestic crude oil from the Bakken oil field in North Dakota to Illinois, covering four states. DAPL has stated that “pipelines are the safest, most efficient method of transporting oil” (Levin 2016, para. 11). The authorities are confident that it will make the country less dependent on foreign oil and will be economically beneficial for the region as well (Grinberg, Parks, Ravitz & Sidner 2016). The project would cost $3.7B, and according to Energy Transfer Partners, the entire pipeline would be finished by the end of 2016.
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe began protesting in April 2016
Throughout the history of colonization, the tribes entered numerous treaties, regarded as a “sacred compromise to provide special protection for indigenous peoples” (Contreras & Rombouts 2011, p. 72). However, the treaties never worked, and they still have to protect their own interests.
The protest started in April when tribe members formed their first camp, Sacred Stone. Currently, with the support of thousands of people, including the neighboring reservations and non-native activists, the Standing Rock Sioux are trying to stop the construction process. They are setting up camps and organizing peaceful, unarmed demonstrations in the areas where the buildings are planned (Levin 2016). The Standing Rock tribe is also asserting their rights in court, claiming that the project was approved without the participation of tribal government and that the consequences of the pipeline construction were not properly investigated.
Despite the continuous demonstrations and global resonance, the construction resumed
The authorities responded to the public outcry with law enforcement, using pepper spray, teargas, and rubber bullets and arresting the activists. At the same time, the clashes managed to put the construction on hold and make the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers review its approvals. Barack Obama commented that the Army Corps considered rerouting the pipeline around sacred native lands (Levin 2016). However, the argumentation of the opponents did not convince the Corps to stop the work. The project directors argue that the pipeline design neutralizes any risk to the water supply from an oil spill and assure that “no sacred Native American items have been found along the route” (Milman 2016, para. 12). Despite the continuous demonstrations and global resonance, the construction resumed.
Contreras, D & Rombouts, S J 2011, ‘Collective Reparations For Victimized Indigenous Communities: Examples Of Human Rights Violations Before The Inter-American Court Of Human Rights’ Revista do Instituto Brasileiro de Direitos Humanos, no. 11, pp. 67-84.
