-
Why are human rights controversial?
states dont have the same interests to support the same rights to the same extent --> debate on exactly which rights apply
-
Which rights are more important
- 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.
-
Why do some states violate human rights?
- - 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
-
Human rights more likely in which type of government
Autocracy / unstable democracy (political opponents repressed)
-
Why do states sign human rights agreements
- 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.
-
Why dont states obey human rights laws?
- against political opponents - China
-
Do international human rights laws make a difference?
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)
-
Why are human rights laws not very effective
- -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
-
Why do some states take action against human rights
- 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
-
Hopes for improvement of protection of human rights int the future
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
-
VALENTINO: Why mass killing is the "Final Soultion"
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
-
Val: when is mass killing most attractive
- - 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
-
VAlentino: 3 definitions of mass killings
- intentional
- massive number of deaths (50,000 over 5 or less yrs)
- against noncombatants
-
Valentino: logic behind mass killing
- - 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
-
Valentino: three most prominent types of mass killing
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
-
Valentino: other types of mass killings: coercive
three types
1. counterguerilla
2. terror
3. imperialist
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
-
ROSS (role of natural resources in civil war
lootable resources - easy or hard to extract, more likely to start which type of conflict, (easy or hard to resolve - will it start the other type of conflict?)
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)
-
Ross - unlootable resources
hard to extract (oil, natural gas, deep shaft minerals) - produce separatist conflicts
-
Ross - obstructable resource
easily blocked by a small number of individuals with small weapons
-
if lootable, will it benefit local people or government
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
-
Unlootable - start what type of conflict
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 resources / unlootable resources - which will benefit rebels/ govt
- lootable - rebels - also more likely to produce problems inside army that controlsit
- unlootable - govt
-
if resource is lootable how will it affect the the length of non-separatist conflicts
prolong- rebels are usually weaker, need funding - combat will go on til they run out of money
-
how does obstructability affect duration and intensity of conflicts
obstructable - increase duration/intensity - rebels have opportunity to extort
-
if a resource is illegal, who will benefit
rebels - unless govt can endure internatl sanctions
|
|