POLI SCI 244- Human rights and ethnic conflict

states dont have the same interests to support the same rights to the same extent --> debate on exactly which rights apply

• nonderogable rights - cannot be suspended, special status (freedom from cruel/degrading punishment, recognition as a person before law, freedom of thought, religion,...)
• prisoners of conscience - imprisoned for peaceful reasons

--> can determine which states value by looking at which they spend money to defend.

• - cant afford to provide basic rights (school)
• - cant control military / police
• - defend national security against ppl using violence
• - if state thinks theyre under attack --> persecute groups they think might be allied with attackers
• - abuse political opponents to keep power

Autocracy / unstable democracy (political opponents repressed)

- show commitment to democracy / political liberalization / reform (forming gov'ts who want to secure new type of government)

• - means rewards from other countries (financial rewards, membership to international organizations that have other benefits - EU
• EX: all EU members have to have human rights, problem with Turkey suppressing the Kurds.

- some just feel sympathy (ex: responses to natural disasters, and human rights

• - self interest in promoting peace and stability --> cant flourish at home if not abroad, civil conflicts could spill into surrounding areas, Haiti --> FL, Bosnia --> all around. labor unions want equal wages to level the playing field (trade)
• So all countries have an interest in preventing

various motivations- all put pressure on gov'ts to make human rights a priority.

- against political opponents - China

1. might not matter --> still dependent on the victims (powerless) getting help. There is no 3rd party to make sure others help. Other states have a weaker interest in penalizing

2. can appear to conform to norms (sign agreements) but still violate in private (use agreements to mask violations)

3. countries most likely to sign agreements are also more likely to violate agreements (dictatorships get pressure from opponents to ratify, but b.c rule is unstable, most likely to abuse rights (torture opponents / insurgents)

• -violators are rarely punished --> usually just sanctions and name and shame
• - inconsistent human rights policies --> ineffectiveness
• (violators care more about securing power than fearing international penalties)
• - costly to enforce

- diplomatic pressure at home - depends on how informed the public is (TAN's - violations are "underground" - up to TANs to bring to surface

- more likely if it serves a larger interest (The west applauded the Helsinki Accords b/c it put pressure on the USSR to start political/economic change)

- when it doesnt look blatantly like violating the principle of soverignty (ex- Apartheid movement in Africa seen as "anticolonial struggle" not foreign intervention

Right of Individual petition - states/individuals can petition international legal bodies directly if they think a state, or their own state, has violated

universal jurisdiction - countries can prosecute violators regardless of citizenship of indiciduals involved / location of crime (even if none of prosecutors are from that state)

• ICC - International Criminal Court - only if accused is national state, crime is on that states territory
• 1. Uganda
• 2. Congo,
• 3. Central African Republic
• 4. Sudan / Janjaweed

no need for future efforts to resolve perceived problems in the future.

last of other efforts to "solve" problems by other means --> it is a strategy

• - if regimes want radical communization
• - if regimes think problems can be solved only by removing the pop. (hatred of victims)
• - looking to defeat guerrilla insurgencies

• intentional
• massive number of deaths (50,000 over 5 or less yrs)
• against noncombatants

• - believe it is the best available means to achieve radical goals, counter threats, or solve military problems
• - means to an end --> consider other options first

but on the basis of their perceptions and beliefs (not necessarily true) - often backfires

dispossessive/communist - want to take all material goods from a large number of ppl, kill those that resist

ethnic - racist/nationalist motives - ethnic opponents pose threat that can only be countered by removing them, hate (bloodiest)

territorial - want to resettle territories already inhabited by other ppl - want to populate with their own ppl

coercive mass killing - use massive violence / threat of more violence to coerce civilians / leaders into submission

• 3 types:
• 1. counterguerilla - guerilla forces depend civilians, deprive them of their base support
• 2. terror - trying to end war quickly - target civilians to get country to surrender without tackling military forces
• 3. imperialist - want to diminish cost of building/keeping large empire. Kill lots of rebellious subjects to show all others what will happen if they resist

easy to extract / transport, start non-separatist conflict, once started - harder to resolve, little danger or igniting separatist conflicts (diamonds and drugs (coca and opium)

hard to extract (oil, natural gas, deep shaft minerals) - produce separatist conflicts

easily blocked by a small number of individuals with small weapons

local people - relies on unskilled work, general more local income

• tend to produce fewer grievances
• prolong nonsepratist conflicts b.c of tendency to benefit rebel groups / cause problems in army
• more difficult to resolve - fragmentation and widespread benefits make sanctions harder to keep, more costly for poor/local ppl

separatist conflict - about grievances over distribution of resource revenue

should make nonseparatist conflicts briefer - benefit govt more but only if govt is stronger

if obstructable can present rebels with extortion opportunities

• lootable - rebels - also more likely to produce problems inside army that controlsit
• unlootable - govt

prolong- rebels are usually weaker, need funding - combat will go on til they run out of money

obstructable - increase duration/intensity - rebels have opportunity to extort

rebels - unless govt can endure internatl sanctions