COURIER ONLINE

THE STANLEY FOUNDATION

Resources
Conference report(s):
"Report of the Fortieth Strategy for Peace, US Foreign Policy Conference"
Acrobat PDF

There is a healthy debate in the international policy community about the definition of human rights and the proper response to human rights violations. A recent Stanley Foundation meeting, part of the fortieth Strategy for Peace Conference, advanced this debate with a discussion titled "The Competition of Rights in the International System."

Nation-states and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are struggling to find common ground on a broad range of human rights while maintaining respect for cultural differences. Participants in this conference struggled with the matter as well. "Some felt that any attempt to reach an agreement on the scope of human rights would be fruitless, while others believed that defining human rights was crucial for effecting reform," according to a report released following the conference.

With no common understanding on rights, some argued, the world would have no authority to address human rights issues. Others said that defining human rights was "...bound to be somewhat arbitrary and more reflective of some states' perspectives than others." One participant felt that setting standards was "...an inherently unwelcome imposition on a particular state's practices." Yet, another participant at the meeting argued that human rights could be defined by listening to the victims of injustice.

Cultural Relativity
All agreed that different cultures interpret and implement human rights standards in different ways. Some states emphasize civil and political rights. Others focus on social and economic rights.

"Although the entire group acknowledged this reality, the members were strongly divided on the question of whether human rights standards should ideally be universal or tailored to the cultures of the particular nations they applied to," said the conference report.

Creating culturally specific human rights standards will foster respect for differences among nations, argued some. Others added that nations were more likely to respect human rights standards created with culture in mind. One participant argued that a universal human rights regime smacks of colonialism.

On the other side of the argument, some participants worried that culturally specific human rights standards could allow tyrants "...to defend their human rights abuses under the pretense of preserving cultural uniqueness.... [Others] believed that the entire substance and force of the concept of human rights comes from its equal application to all humans. If standards are shaped so as not to offend any particular nation, the potency of rights would be greatly diminished," according to the report.

Mixed into the debate over universal human rights versus culturally specific rights was the issue of national sovereignty. A strict application of the power and sovereignty would allow every state to determine its own human rights standards. While some at the meeting argued that intended reform of a nation's human rights practices will be the most effective, most believed that national sovereignty is no longer a valid reason to shield a state's human rights abuses from international scrutiny.

Human Rights Violations
When domestic human rights abuses are suspected, there are many ways for the international community to respond. NGOs can monitor and criticize the offending nation in order to draw public attention. States and groups of states can impose sanctions and physically intervene in order to end human rights abuses.

"The group agreed that the least offensive and intrusive international response to human rights violations is an organization's or nation's bare criticism of other countries. The group also agreed that monitoring (whether conducted by state or nonstate actors) is among the more respectful and useful means for promoting human rights."

Some cautioned that the integrity of monitoring can be called into question by political biases. States tend to monitor adversaries rather than friends. One participant pointed out that China monitors human rights abuses in only one country, the United States. The United States, some argued, maintains a double standard "...by not subjecting itself to the same rigorous scrutiny as it applies to other nations," said the report. Others dismissed this view.

Intervention and Sanctions
The most intrusive method for compelling a nation to comply with human rights standards is military intervention. The United Nations authorizes such intervention only when there is a "threat to international peace and security." At the conference, most participants agreed that intervention, especially in a domestic situation, should be reserved for only the most drastic human rights violations. Some pointed out that countries use humanitarian intervention only if they have a political interest in doing so. "Others agreed, but maintained that the motivation of the intervention was less important than the results," said the report.

Economic sanctions, on the other hand, were said to be a poor tool for promoting human rights. Conference participants said sanctions usually harm the people of a country more than the corrupt leaders. Economic aid and improving economic conditions may do more to reform human rights situations.

New Project
Members of the discussion group expressed interest in creating a new human rights monitoring project involving nonstate actors from China, Cuba, and the United States. "The project would operate on the basis of mutual understanding of the nations' respective political systems. There was wide agreement that human rights could be best promoted with such an understanding," the report said.

Further discussion involved how each country team would compile a list of human rights obstacles and design an index to evaluate current conditions and measure programs. Most members expressed hope that this kind of self-monitoring by nonstate actors will introduce a valuable perspective in the advancement of human rights.