International Law and Human Rights - Essay Example

International Law and Human Rights The global reality which is present with us today is a direct result of the developments of world affairs which took place after the end of the cold war and the rise of America as the sole world power. Since the Second World War, there have been nearly sixty limited conflicts between countries which have often ended on their own or through the intervention of one or more global powers. In some cases, international law was established and things such as economic sanctions and diplomatic negotiations have also resulted in the diffusion of tension between nations. The idea for the respect of the laws of a society is ingrained into the members of a society with the aid of the education which is given to them. It is a necessity because without respect for the law, a society could fall apart with each member of the society doing exactly as s/he wished. Of course, there is also the threat of punishment associated with breaking the law but if someone is completely sure that they can get away with it, it would be unlikely that they would continue to follow the laws without having incredible self restraint (Barak, 2005). When the same idea is applied to the global situation, we see a society where certain members can play loose and fast with the laws of the collective which can lead others to think that international laws and covenants on human rights are meaningless to begin with (McCarthy, 2006). They may be taken as guidelines or suggestions rather than the dictates of the global government which apparently works without an established arm for the enforcement of its laws. In any civilised society, there is a group of people who are responsible for maintaining the law of the land. While it is easy to enforce the law where jurisdiction is clarified and law officers know what they can and cannot do, international law enforcement becomes more an issue since certain authorities may not be recognized by other sovereign nations (Shaw, 2003). In such tricky matters, it is possible that international force becomes more important than international law (Palmer & Palmer, 2004). There are quite a few places on the planet where the government of the people is accused of acting against the people in violation of human rights. This violation of rights may be limited or ignored altogether as in the case of Japan where women are treated as less than men (Asian Human Rights Commission, 2001), or it may cause the international powers to get together and take real notice of the situation. Violators of human rights can even face the force of the international bodies with regard to them sending over peace keeping forces and humanitarian intervention groups (Wheeler, 2003). This intervention works with or without the use of deadly force, with or without support from the locals and even with or without legal ambiguities in terms of international laws concerning the sovereignty of the government accused of violating human rights. These ambiguities may come from various sources and even those who are supposed to act as peacekeepers and the protectors of human rights may not be quite sure about what they need to do and what they can do remaining within the laws that govern their actions (Duffey, 2000). This is because the understanding of international law may be different between the various groups which make up a peacekeeping force. Nearly twenty years ago i.e. in 1988, less than thirty countries had ever sent their forces to be a part of an alliance for peacekeeping that was supposed to protect human rights. In those days, the peace keepers from these nations were often quite clear about their objectives and the powers given to them. By 2000, there are more than 80 countries that regularly send their troops on peacekeeping missions under the U.N. flag. Even though these peacekeepers have the same flag and have been given the same mandate from the United Nations, it is not necessary that they follow the same definitions in terms of international law (Duffey, 2000). Even more importantly, international law is based on the foundations of accepting the sovereignty of individual nations which brings up a legal question of enforcement. This connects directly with the process of making countries follow international laws in terms of its enforcement, i.e. can it be enforced? In situations like Iraq when it was under the control of Saddam Hussein or Afghanistan when it was ruled by the Taliban, international law was more or less forcibly enforced (McCarthy, 2006). The government of the United States says that it acted according to international law when it invaded Afghanistan in their attempt to capture Osama Bin Ladin and his cohorts. It also says that Iraq was attacked to stop and prevent further terrorists attacks on American interests around the world. While this may have been accepted by some nations who have joined the war against terror as American allies, other nations have certainly raised questions regarding the legality of American actions and the military presence which still continues in Afghanistan and Iraq (Byers, 2005). However, it must be noted that both the Taliban and Saddam had long established histories of violating international agreements on human rights and even smaller conventions which ask governments not to use things such as torture or other coercive means. These governments were attacked not because they were offending international sensibilities with regard to their violations of human rights but because the attacks on them were for American interests or as some would have us believe, for American security (McCarthy, 2006). While it can not be denied that the Taliban and even Saddam deserved to be attacked and overthrown due to their documented excess with regard to international human rights accords, the world seems to have ignored them as long as they could be tolerated. At the same time, there are other governments which are presently noted for their violations of human rights but they may not be attacked anytime soon. One of these nations, unsurprisingly perhaps, is America itself (UNCHR, 2006). America is involved in the breakage of international law even today with the prisoner holding exercise which is going unstopped in Guantanamo Bay. The treatment of Iraqi prisoners of war has also been questioned in terms of its legality and as a violation of the Geneva Convention (McCarthy, 2006). The legally ambiguous case of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay is particularly important because independent investigators of the UN Commission on Human Rights have asked the United States to close down the detention centre at once and bring all the accused prisoners before independent and competent tribunals or to release them if the trials are not to be conducted within a specified time limit set on the process (UNCHR, 2006). According to the United Nations inspectors, the treatment which is given to prisoners in Guantanamo Bay is contrary to internationally accepted regulations and is a flagrant violation of basic human rights. The interrogation techniques which are taught, used and endorsed by the American Department of Defence includes the process of degrading the individual being question and placing them in inhuman conditions. In the interviews conducted by U.N officials, the detainees said that they experienced extreme pain and suffering during interrogation. The methods of interrogation used by the American officials amounted to torture as it is outlined in the first article of the Convention against Torture (UNCHR, 2006). Here we have America defying and breaking international law, does the international community have the ability or even the overall motivation to ensure that international laws concerning human rights are not broken? While the UN and other human rights groups will log their protests, the blatant disregard for international agreements on human rights continues unstopped. Can it therefore be said that George W. Bush is much the same as Saddam? When can we expect CNN to report bombings over Washington and the long awaited liberation of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay? Not any time soon and it is very likely that we will never hear that news. In conclusion, the United Nations Report on International Law must be mentioned since it notes several paradoxical situations where the world itself is going towards globalization with the use of advanced communication tools and co-dependent economies while the regional political and legal barriers are pulling it towards a state of stratification and separation. It discussed the topic of immigration extensively and as mentioned by Ku & Diehl (2003) showed how immigration laws which are directly connected to international law are often affected by politics more than the respect for human rights. Works Cited Asian Human Rights Commission, 2001, ‘Japanese Discrimination Against Women’, Asian Human Rights Commission, [Online] Available at: http://www.hrsolidarity.net/mainfile.php/1999vol09no01/788/ Barak, A. 2005, ‘Begin and the Rule of Law’, Israel Studies, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 1. Byers, M. 2005, War Law, Understanding International Law and Armed Conflict, Grove Press Publishers. Duffey, T. 2000, ‘Cultural Issues in Contemporary Peacekeeping’, International Peacekeeping, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 142-169. Ku, C. and Diehl, P. 2003, International Law, second edition, Classical and Contemporary Readings. Lynne Rienner Publishers. McCarthy, A. 2006, ‘International Law v. United States’, Commentary, vol. 121, no. 2, pp. 41-48. Palmer, G. and Palmer, M. 2004, Bridled Power, OUP. Shaw, M. 2003, International Law. Penguin. UNCHR. 2006, ‘Does the Treatment of Prisoners at the Detention Facility in Guantánamo Bay Violate International Law?’, International Debates, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 106-108. United Nations. 2005, Report of the International Law Commission, United Nations. Wheeler, N. 2003, Saving Strangers : Humanitarian Intervention in International Society, Oxford University Press. Word Count: 1,612 Read More