Most
people are aware of human rights and know the importance of maintaining
them. However people remain ignorant regarding the debates surrounding
the implementation of human rights for imperialism. Since the end of the
cold war, the realm of human rights has expanded towards a global issue
that has manifested into one of the key cornerstones of foreign-policy
between international actors. Imperialism is a policy of extending
control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition
and/or maintenance of empires, either through direct territorial
conquest or through indirect methods of exerting control on the politics
and/or economy of other countries.[1] Human rights imperialism is
attempting to maintain or extend control or authority under the banner
of human rights. The terminology of human rights has given the concept
normative weight, from both the mainstream and throughout international
relations. The argument for this form of imperialism is that the states
that promote it, or have the greatest spheres of influences, can use
this normative weight to accomplish national interests under the banner
of human rights. It is a potential risk within the realm of human
rights.
It’s imperative to assess the conceptual framework associated with
human rights imperialism and the potential consequential risks arising
from enforcing this unjust practice of human rights. To grasp a better
understanding of the concept of Imperialism within Human Rights, I will
bring in Realism to this debate. Please note: while I am not a realist
they have some sound arguments regarding this debate. A student from the
Realist international relations school of thought would agree that
human rights imperialism is a serious risk in the promotion of
successful human rights and could even agree with the argument that the
heavyweights of the international arena merely use the name of human
rights to achieve ultimate national interest goals. Realists consider
interests to dominate political action; politics to be merely a struggle
for power to enforce these interests; and there being no right or
wrong, but only opinion backed by force.[2] Ultimately the realist world
becomes one where the key actors on the international stage break the
rules and only agreements are made if they are beneficial for their
national interests; it becomes one inhospitable for the practice of
human rights.One of the key criticisms of human rights imperialism is how influential and key states are enforcing foreign-policy with nationalistic agendas under the banner of human rights. The diplomacy for human rights is merely discussion and has emerged as a key part of the vocabulary of modern foreign-policy interactions between international agents.[3] This is one of the key arguments that constitute and help enforce human rights imperialism; the reason for these states to so assiduously pursue human rights, is due to the term becoming mere international relations language between states to gain legitimacy across the realm of international relations and the mainstream. Human rights laws are dominated by national policy goals[4] and hence this anchors the hypocrisy that arises from this imperialism.
Another key argument to consider is the fact that there is no single state to impose just peace leading to an anarchic system of international relations. The lack of a single world government or an institutional body with true political might that can oversee and protect the relations between states, leads to this anarchy because state relations that aren’t truly or justifiably regulated. This means that states with a huge of expansive sphere of influence can interact in whatever way they need to in pursuing national interests, no matter how detrimental it could be to the livelihood of others. This sovereignty is argued to be affecting human rights. Realist thought towards the paradigm of human rights imperialism also consider that it’s an ethical objection. It’s an ethical objection to the assumption of a universal morality that human rights formed out.[5] The key, influential institutions and states are the ones who ultimately determine what would constitute to one’s human rights becoming infringed. These states not only determine the definition of human rights but can potentially enforce it as a ruse to pursue national interests.
Human Rights were formed from Liberalism. This school of thought arose from the general consensus from human rights advocates, that individuals obtaining rights should be respected. All individuals have equal and moral worth and human rights helps promote this. Unlike realist thought that considers human rights imperialism to be a significant factor in inhibiting the true access of human rights. The world view is that western states are enshrining the rights of citizens through various means; and ultimately is significant to the development of human rights and even abolishing slavery.[6] Liberal arguments claim the western world has been the catalyst for this human rights revolution, and also need to be present during the evolving dynamic of human rights practices. These states that dominate international relations are the ones who not only promote them efficiently but also have the practical means to ensuring the protection of each person’s human rights.
Liberal thought does give key arguments for the importance of human rights and why it is the western world that needs to pursue human rights. However it also fails to address the fundamental inconsistencies from the western world that have audaciously promoted human rights and the conceptual flaws that can allow these states to use the name of human rights, which exerts great normative legitimacy even from the mainstream, for their own national interests while at the same time paradoxically abusing the human rights of others.
One of the key risks that could arise from the
implementation of human rights via the campaigns of influential states
is that these states define what would conclude a human rights abuse.
It’s also significant to consider how most major superpowers that have
ever existed have had this universal claim to know what’s right and
ultimately enforce their moral compass, no matter how distorted, onto
external states and communities. Carr (1946) found that the link between
national interests and universal morality is evident in the
justifications of colonial possessions by European imperial powers
within the 19th century.[7] This could also be determined from how the
US promotes democracy under sometimes frightening methods. This argument
of how these empires claim to hold moral superiority and right is one
that will be used to criticise the risks of human security imperialism.
Some of the most oppressive regimes would use propaganda to claim moral
superiority, but still enacted through tyrannical methods. This ties in
with the article title, as the assumed universal principle of morality
is still perception. A powerful institute or state could infringe on
one’s human rights while still upholding this notion of moral
superiority. The tyrannical possibilities from these empires and
powerful institutions, under the name of human rights, are potential.
Already the US, one of the biggest contributors towards the field of
human rights, has caused human rights violation under this morale
mediator label.
Another debate to consider is how economic forces and structures are
preventing the active and legitimate practice of human rights.[8] This
is the argument that the legal field of human rights is subordinated
through exploitive capitalism that aim to achieve their means of
productions over the standard of living for people.[9] These arguments
can be coherently compared with the potential risks of human rights
imperialism as it would be the most powerful institutions that also
place importance towards the economic outcomes of diplomacy over any
human right outcome. Yet, to achieve some of these economic outcomes
would require these powerful states to operate illegitimately; one which
can be expressed through human rights.
David Kennedy argues that while the human rights movement
has done a great deal of good, it was also part of the problem. They do
not consider the full range of potential down-sides or negative
consequences due to the normative foundations that arise from the debate
of human rights.[10] He echoes the arguments that powerful institutions
can use the language of human rights for legitimacy due to no concrete
definition of what infringes one’s human rights.[11] This can allow
states to mitigate the definition to give a context, or a policy, some
normative weight which ultimately anchors the importance of human
rights. It’s this normative weight that helps advocates exert this
profound notion of promoting human rights, without considering the
imperialism that could consequently spawn through this. But this should
not be ignored, as it could be detrimental and of a great cost, because
it could be costly not through the actions but lack of actions. Actual
human rights violations and those pursued by these states should be
compared to reveal the incoherencies or coherencies. This could
eventually lead to this imperial viewpoint towards implementing human
rights. Kennedy makes another contributing factor in considering these
risks; rights are socially constructed. The more powerful a right is
enacted or perceived to be then the more power and influence to the
society that had constructed them.[12]
The United States have been one of the key contributors
towards human rights since the twentieth century. However it is through
their human rights violations that they have committed, that anchor
these potential risks. This ties in both with the expansive policies the
US enforces, sometimes in the name of human rights, and the risks of
the private and external threats of human rights that can at the same
time ignite human rights imperialism.
This would be through transnational corporations that abuse
human rights, to achieve their ultimate economic goals, without having
to the legitimate aspects of this.[13] Private corporations are argued
to be disrupting human rights and are freely non-punished.[14] The
states that these private corporations fall under could use these
corporations to achieve national interest goals while also undermining
human rights. Is this the case with the US?
One of the biggest advocates for human rights in the US
violated these same rights they so assiduously promoted throughout the
international spectrum. The UN are claimed to be too reliant on
sovereign US, and this is anchored through the controversial military
action by the US using NATO to “save” Kosovo.[15] This was done in the
name of human rights, but also undermined the human rights of innocent
Serbians under an oppressive regime.[16] This controversial military
action argued by critics is reflected through the War on Terror campaign
that shifted the focus on human rights practices towards one of the
western states that advocated it. The methods practiced through this war
on terror campaign violated human rights of people not determined yet
to be criminals, only the potentiality. This is a frightening fact that
the biggest promoters in human rights, so easily violated it without a
one-hundred percent assurance. These violations were enacted through;
extraordinary renditions, coercive interrogations and illegitimate
humanitarian interventions.[17]
These illegal and unjust methods are extreme violations of
human rights and do expose the risk of human rights imperialism, as the
people or the US who enforced these drastic measures have not been
legally trialled or received adequate justice. The Abu Graib and
Guantanamo Bay atrocities also help develop this. The ethical failures
of the US in torturing inmates, in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Graib,
exacerbate human rights violations exerted from the US’ military
intelligence. These inmates are imprisoned for the ultimate goal of
preventing human rights by violating human rights, and thus this anchors
the risk of human rights imperialism through this subjective moral
hypocrisy.
The risks of human rights imperialism are detrimental to
the human rights of those who will consequently suffer. Human rights are
and have been crucial to the globalisation of morality in society.
Human rights is an important right, people don’t choose where they are
born. It’s not justice nor is it fair for someone who’s born in a
developing country to be in a worst position than someone who was born
in our country for example; it’s all dirt that we have perceived to have
borders. Human beings are all of equal worth, and human rights are
imperative to ensuring this.
The power and biased influence that these influential
institutional bodies spread can be ultimately strengthened by labelling
it under their human rights regime. These states are also the ones whose
definition of human rights is the one that will dominate, as these
states are the ones promoting it. In conclusion, human rights are in
risk of imperialism. There is no regulatory body that can exert
regulation of state interactions; as theses states could promote human
rights under false pretences to gain these overall nationalist goals.
Through how the US has been enforcing human rights, while at the same
time violating these human rights in attempting to protect human rights
provides evidence to conclude that it is a risk. A risk that will
continue to prevail until the practice of human rights is
institutionalised at the minimum, or regulated through an unbiased
international institution with political might and not under the
influence of any state.
[1] U. J. Heuer and G. Schirmer, Human Rights Imperialism, Monthly Review 49:10 (1998), p. VII.
[2] R. J. Vincent, Human Rights and International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), p. 121.
[4] S, Chesterman, Human Rights as subjectivitiy: Age of
Rights and the Politics of Culture, Millennium: Journal of International
Studies, Vol. 27 (1998), p. 98.
[5] C. Tomuschat, Human rights: between idealism and realism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 260.
[6] M, Goodhart, Human Rights: Politics and Practice (Oxford: OUP, 2009), p. 63.
[7] Goodhart (2009), p. 63.
[8] L. Kolakowski, Daedalus: Human Rights 112: 4 (1983), p. 83.
[9] Ibid, p. 84
[10] R. Dickinson, E. Katswell and C. Murray, Examining
critical perspectives on human rights (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2012), p. 20.
[11] Ibid, 23.
[12] Ibid, 28.
[13] A. Clapham, “Human Rights obligations of non-state
actors in conflict situations”, International Review of the Red Cross
88: 863 (2006), p. 492.
[14] Ibid, p. 514.
[15] D. Kostovicova, M. Martin and V. Bojicic-Dzelilovic,
‘The missing link in human security research: Dialogue and insecurity in
Kosovo’, Security Dialogue 43: 569 (2012), p. 570.
[16] Ibid.[17] R. Crelinsten, Counterterrorism (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2009), pp 76 – 77.
No comments:
Post a Comment