International Human Rights and Law

Question: Discuss about theInternational Human Rights and Law. Answer: Introduction: The United Nations Human Rights Council is a part of the United Nations System of intergovernmental body. The Human Rights Council succeeds the United Nations Commission of Human Rights. UNHRC implements and ensures the compliance of the laws regarding Rights (Un.org, 2016). However, be it the ignorance of the mass or the vast area of rights and laws encompassed under the name Human Rights that the rights are often disputed and misunderstood; what kind of rights are described as human rights and which are the rights that attract greater protection and respect? The confusion and disputes are often between civil and political rights and social and economic rights? However, it is difficult to decide and discriminate among the rights; which rights are important and demands more respect and special attention to be implemented and followed. The UN Human Rights Council ensures the compliance and implementation of the legal acts ensuring the Rights of in all the countries enlisted under the UN (Un.org, 2016). However, the question is do the rights and terms match with all the legal and political constitutions of the countries enlisted? If not, why might the countries be following or even ratifying the same conventions with the others? The following essay traces the difference between the political and constitutional convention of an individual state with the UN convention and attempts to find the reason why might certain states under the United Nation enlisted countries be reluctant to ratify international human rights convention e.g. the genocide convention. Genocide Convention provide examples that answers the following question; Why might a state be reluctant to ratify international Human Right Convention. Human Rights are, as the Equality and Human Rights Commission mentions in their website, the basic rights and freedoms that belong to every person in the world, from birth until death. They apply regardless of where you are from, what you believe or how you choose to live your life. They can never be taken away, although they can sometimes be restricted... (Equalityhumanrights.com, 2016). These basic rights are formed on the basic values of equality, dignity, fair treatment, respect and independence. UN enlists nine core Human Rights convention to ensure the strict implementation of the rights and the compliance of the laws; ICERD to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination, ICCPR to implement the Civil and political Rights, ICESCR to implement the rights of Economy, Society, and Culture, CEDAW to eliminate discrimination against women. Moreover, there are CAT to eliminate inhuman treatment or punishment, CRC to implement the rights of a child, ICMW to implement the rights of the migrant workers and their families , CPED to ensure the protection of all from enforced disappearance, and CRPD to implement the rights of people with disabilities (Un.org, 2016). The Genocide Convention was adopted on 1948 with 21 Articles for a proper and firm implementation of the convention and proposed for signature and ratification by the General Assembly and came into force from January 1950 (Un.org, 2016). However, the main question of the essay comes herein; Why might a state be reluctant to ratify with the UN Genocide Convention? . The reason can be twofold. First and most importantly the Human Rights Convention tends to provide to the mass a far too large amount of freedom to exercise regarding their rights in the state. The practice of the rights gives the mass a significant power over the government that can result into severe consequences in terms of the law and legality (ohchr.org, 2016). More importantly, when a state ratifies a treaty with the UN, the state agrees to the legal obligation of implementing the rights as recognized in the treaty. Through ratification, the state agrees to apply the legislative and domestic measure in compliance as the treaty demands. However, this can be problematic in terms of following the National constitution acts to maintain the law. Moreover, the States might fear the interferences of UN through the treaties (Donnelly, 2013). For example, the US in present times has stood down from signing the Convention against Enforced Disappearance with the UN, which would prevent the abductions and secret detentions by the state. As New Statesman points a probable reason of this might be the secret prisons run by CIA at the time when the Convention was drafted. The US has even failed o sign the Mine Ban treaty, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). A reason may be the fear that the treaties might interfere with the national laws and sovereignty to rely increasingly on diplomacy and power to achieve the foreign policies regarding Syria and Iran (Newstatesman.com, 2016). Genocide is a term that has been defined vividly in several points of time. In its varied definition, genocide incorporates almost all international bodies of law, officially adjudicate the crime of genocide pursuant to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) (Quigley, 2013). The act of genocide in itself contains conflicting traits. This problematic trait prevents a distinct definition of the act. However, the UN registers genocide in a number of traits: Killing members of the group Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group (Un.org, 2016) Coined by Raphael Lemkin, genocide, in a conventional way does not comprise of any distinct definition. But to follow the version of Lemkin himself, genocide is the destruction of anethnic group. Genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. (Andreopoulos, 1997). However, the act of genocide cannot be termed only as an act of mere human violence. The term contains in itself a far greater violence of psychological, political and systematic thought process. Genocide was never an act of impulsive human violence in a larger scale. Genocides are created, designed or manipulated almost every time by a greater authoritative power. It is more of a well thought, systematic tendencies planned to exercise and ensure power. The Rwanda genocide on the political scenario of Africa is a proven fact of the matter. Max Webers observation of Bureaucracy further proves the importance of genocide in the emergence of bureaucracy (the exercising of power through domination); Weber comments Bureaucratic administration means fundamentally domination through knowledge (Weber, 2013). Therefore, Genocide becomes an implicit instrument in the establishment of dominion and power. It is needless to mention in this point that no state would likely to sacrifice such a power ful instrument of them in terms of exercising power. A major reason behind this reluctance can be justified by analyzing the first article of the Genocide convention itself that reads, The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish. (Un.org, 2016). Therefore, signing to the convention a country will take upon itself certain responsibilities like using the legislative power to punish genocide irrespective of the time (in time of peace or in time of war). To locate the individual or group responsible for the genocide and arrest them, to cooperate with the handing over requests if another country is involved, and to send disputes between nations to the ICJ, individual criminal cases to a national or international tribunal, or to refer a case to the competent organs of the United Nations. (Mayers, 2015). Thus officially announced to be a crime there will be few bureaucratic countries to willingly ratify wit h the convention and to follow the list of countries ratified with the Genocide Convention, countries, known for bureaucracy and severe violation of human rights are part of but the rights are hardly effective in the parts. This very prominently points to the fact that no bureaucratic state would allow any democratic force or the mass to rise into rebellion against their position. Not only bureaucracy but following its own conventions can also be a reason to reluctance towards the ratification of the UN Genocide Convention. Dominican Republic is an example of it. The state signed the genocide convention but is far from ratifying with the convention. The state continued to follow the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Human Rights Watch, 2016) unwilling to change the continuing convention of law. The Chairman did not agree with the convention for the deletion of the sub paragraph of article 2 which as they mentioned should contain provisions which could be interpreted so broadly as to endanger the freedom of the press and to increase the tension between the states (Quigley, 2013). Moreover, the state did not approve the convention of genocide. According to the Chairman Mr. Messina the form of the crime should be punished following the national laws. Not under any convention (Human Rights Watch, 2016). On the contrary the state supported the USSR amendment. To take up genocide from the history to follow the hypothesis and the theories in real time the Rwanda Genocide make a perfect example of genocide created and manipulated for the dominion of the bureaucracy over mass. The Rwanda genocide is important in the context for it took place in the year 1994, the year of the proposal of the Genocide Convention. Not only for the severe bloodletting and an officially enlisted death of 800,000 Tutsis and 10,000 Hutus killed every day, the genocide resulted in a change of power from the Hutus to Tutsis. What started as a rebellion for power against the Authority, turned into a most infamous genocide of the 20th century? However, the rebellion turned into genocide after the shooting of the jet of president Habyalimana (Mamdani, 2014). The armed forces of both groups with machetes, clubs, guns and grenades, began indiscriminately killing the other. The U.N armed force of 2500 soldiers failed to cease the genocide. However, it is only in the 1994 Ju ly the Tutsi rebels took over the control announcing an end to the genocide (Historyplace.com, 2016). Nevertheless, the Rwanda genocide is unanimously taken to be the most manipulated and manually controlled genocide of the end of the 20th century. Parsons Totten mentions it to be the element of a planned annihilation. In present times, a French judge blamed the current president, then the leader of the against rebel group, Paul Kagame to carry out the attack on the jet, followed by the genocide. However, it is a proven fact that the Patriotic Front, which was the first to attack the Hutus, forcing Habyalimana to sign an accord was indeed formed by then leader, Paul Kagame (bbc news, 2016). The genocide turned to be a fruitful result for the Tutsis for the end resulted in their ascension to power. Though Kagame has denied all the blames on himself regarding the manipulation and systematically dictating the genocide, it is a fact even today that Rwanda is accounted to be among the most politically turbulent states under UN. However, it is quiet natural for Africa therefore to be reluc tant to ratify to the Genocide Convention of UN for genocides from the early 20th century have ensured power over the Mass. The Reason is well evident from the above case study. However, to conclude it must be said that States exercise different means of per over the mass; trough dominance or through constitutional law. There are states that prefer to follow their own national law in terms of rules and legal matters. Example is the Dominican Republic. However, for the states it is the dominance that is all accounted for. For the countries exercising power through the means of dominance especially the bureaucratic countries it is important to retain the means of severity of which genocide remains an important instrument. It is well justified therefore for the states that they will be reluctant to the Convention. Reference: "Dominican Republic".Human Rights Watch. N.p., 2016. Web. 7 Sept. 2016. "The Genocide Convention In International Law United States Holocaust Memorial Museum".Ushmm.org. N.p., 2016. Web. 7 Sept. 2016. "The History Place - Genocide In The 20Th Century: Rwanda 1994".Historyplace.com. N.p., 2016. Web. 7 Sept. 2016. "The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights | United Nations".Un.org. N.p., 2016. "What Are Human Rights? | Equality And Human Rights Commission".Equalityhumanrights.com. N.p., 2016. Web. 7 Sept. 2016. Andreopoulos, G. J. (1997).Genocide: conceptual and historical dimensions. University of Pennsylvania Press. BBC News. (2016).Rwanda: How the genocide happened - BBC News. [online] Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-13431486 [Accessed 7 Sep. 2016]. Donnelly, J. (2013).Universal human rights in theory and practice. Cornell University Press. https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/HRIndicators/MetadataRatificationStatus.pdf [Accessed 8 Sep. 2016]. Mamdani, M. (2014).When victims become killers: Colonialism, nativism, and the genocide in Rwanda. Princeton University Press. Mayers, D. (2015). Humanity in 1948: The Genocide Convention and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.Diplomacy Statecraft,26(3), 446-472. Newstatesman.com. (2016).Why is the US so reluctant to sign human rights treaties?. [online] Available at: https://www.newstatesman.com/north-america/2013/10/why-us-so-reluctant-sign-human-rights-treaties [Accessed 8 Sep. 2016]. Ohchr.org. (2016).Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. [online] Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CrimeOfGenocide.aspx [Accessed 7 Sep. 2016]. Quigley, J. (2013).The genocide convention: An international law analysis. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.. Schaller, D. J., Zimmerer, J. (2013).The origins of genocide: Raphael Lemkin as a historian of mass violence. Routledge. Web. 7 Sept. 2016.von MaraviĆ¡, P., Peters, B. G., Schrter, E. (Eds.). (2013).Representative bureaucracy in action: country profiles from the Americas, Europe, Africa and Asia. Edward Elgar Publishing. Weber, M. (2009).From Max Weber: essays in sociology. Routledge.