The Role of Individual and Collective
Rights and Freedoms in the Generation of Conflicts
Kurt Jonassohn
April 1999
Since the end of World War II there has been a great increase in concerns with human rights and freedoms. The charter of the United Nations was signed on 26 June 1945 in San Francisco. In its Preamble it states that "We the people of the United Nations determined .... to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, ...." While these sentiments were noble enough, their implementation was undermined by the provision that decisions of the Security Council had to be unanimous, and, even if unanimous, they were not buttressed by an enforcement mechanism. The charter was soon followed by the adoption of the International Bill of Human Rights (1948) and a number of instruments dealing with civil, cultural, economic, and political rights. Others dealt with several types of discrimination, war crimes, crimes against humanity, the prevention of genocide, the abolition of slavery and forced labour, the fair administration of justice including the prohibition of medical abuse and torture, etc. There also followed conventions about refugees, asylum, freedom of information and association, the eradication of hunger and malnutrition, among others. Most of these were signed by a majority of member states although in quite a few cases this was not followed by ratification.
In 1975, representatives of thirty-five countries met in Helsinki for a Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. This resulted in the often quoted Helsinki Accords which stated that "The participating States recognize the universal significance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for which is an essential factor for the peace, justice and well-being necessary to ensure the development of friendly relations and co-operation among themselves as among all States."
A number of other instruments were arrived at by international or regional bodies concerned with formulating and enforcing norms dealing with economic matters such as international tariffs (GATT), freedom of trade (NAFTA), control of population growth, preservation of the environment, and reduction of pollution. On January 1, 1995 the World Trade Organization (WTO) was established - at once an institution to govern international trade and negotiations, and a body of law which contains and administers a number of earlier legal agreements on how countries should conduct international trade.
What is clear, even to the casual observer, is that many of these instruments are honoured in the breach. This raises the question why they are adopted in the first place. The answer probably varies from case to case, but one can generalize about several possible reasons. Some countries will become signatories to make a favourable impression in the international community; others will do so because of pressure by powerful advocates of a measure; some may be bribed into conformity; still others may be motivated by a desire to disarm pressure groups at home. When countries fail to honour their commitments it may be because they never had intended to honour them, because their situation has changed, because internal or external pressure groups have risen to prominence, or because some of the required actions run counter to some countries’ interests, cultures, religions, or traditions.
In the majority of cases such violations of international instruments have been ignored. Occasionally, some of the other signatories get upset enough to object. This has led to the establishment of a number of mechanisms intended to deal with such cases. They range from international courts to a variety of appeal bodies. Few of them are very effective in brokering compromises that are acceptable to all parties. Therefore, breaches of international agreements with their resulting conflicts continue to threaten international peace. The contesting parties are seldom motivated by an urge to see the ideals of the United Nations in operation. More often they are dedicated to maintaining and enlarging their influence, power, and wealth.
However, there seems to be a structural problem that is never mentioned, and it is this: even if one posits an utopian state of affairs where everybody is committed to observing and implementing the terms of all the international instruments that they have signed, one realizes quickly that no such state could exist. The reason no such state could exist is that the contents of many of these agreements are mutually contradictory and often also in conflict with the history, traditions, and values of many of the participating countries. Thus, one can only come to the conclusion that these international instruments, intentionally or not, institutionalize international conflicts that may periodically escalate to gross human rights violations.
A few examples should suffice to illustrate this point. The reader will be able to supply concrete cases from recent history.
-- A first example will illustrate the extent to which a reader may be forgiven for thinking that all this must be part of the theater of the absurd. The General Assembly of the United Nations proclaimed by resolution 1386 (XIV) of 20 November 1959 the Declaration of the Rights of the Child. By the end of 1990 sixty-four countries had ratified this declaration. Among them we find Brazil, Burundi, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Guinea-Bissau, Indonesia, Pakistan, Phillipines, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Zaire, among others. None of them seem to be known for defending, nurturing, and protecting their children with particular fervor. Any such urges quickly give way to the need to exploit children in productive activities in order to compete under free market conditions, or to arm them so that they may assist the military in maintaining the viability of the sovereign state, or even to sell them into slavery in contravention of the much older conventions and protocols on the abolition of slavery that so many of them ratified. Since the living conditions of children in some of these countries is only too well known, the incompatibility among the several relevant instruments is only too obvious. The significance of these cases lies less in their potential for leading to violent conflicts than in the way in which they make contempt for international agreements an acceptable form of behaviour.
-- The protection of the sovereignty of the member countries is central to the Charter of the United Nations and to the basics of international law. However, many of the same sovereign nations subscribe to instruments whose implementation undermines or even abolishes their sovereign prerogatives. Two of the most prominent examples are the European Union and the World Trade Association. The European Union abolishes boundaries between member countries to assure freedom of movement while several national and ethnic groups are determined to maintain their distinctiveness. The World Trade Association tries to enforce freedom of trade while some member countries attempt to maintain control over health and environmental matters within their territories.
-- Many countries have signed various instruments that outlaw discrimination on the basis of age, sex, ethnicity, race, religion, etc. in spite of the fact that some of these discriminations are deeply imbedded in their history, culture, religion, or constitution. Thus, countries where ethnicity and race are the basis of their social structure, and countries where the state is defined in religious terms, are not very likely to implement international instruments designed to eliminate these practices.
-- Many countries have signed instruments that advocate individual freedoms in spite of the fact that their society values the collectivity above the individual. In many of these cases the defense, security, and welfare of the collectivity is considered more important than rights and freedoms of any individual.
-- Although many of these same countries have supported agreements to reduce damaging emissions and to protect the environment, they permit or even participate in the abuse and exploitation of their own environment. They often do so not only because of the financial rewards, but also because many aspects of free trade agreements would prevent them from implementing appropriate measures.
-- Even agreements designed to help underdeveloped countries, at the same time, undermine these countries’ efforts at self-determination and independence by undercutting their sovereignty. Such help is almost always offered on conditions that either favour the economy of the helping country or the economic theories of such international bodies as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
-- Multinational corporations use various international instruments (from the WTO to patents and copyrights) to defend their right to exploit natural and human resources anywhere in the world. In the process they come into conflict with other international instruments that are designed to protect sovereignty, the environment, and various rights of individuals.
All such situations inevitably produce conflict. Conflict is a fact of life. It may be caused in many different ways in many different situations. One of these possible causes has been explored above. When conflict does occur it can be dealt with in many different ways. At one extreme it may be peacefully resolved by recourse to arbitration, compromise, diplomacy, or judicial procedures. At the other extreme it may lead to genocide, gross violations of human rights, massacres, violence, or war. And, between these two extremes, there are still other ways dealing with conflict.
The obvious fact that the more violent forms of conflict still occur makes it imperative that ways be found to settle such conflicts by using more peaceful means. One step in that direction would be a revision of international laws, agreements, and conventions and their enforcement so that they would deal with the incompatibilities among international instruments that were designed to further peace and well-being. This should not be an exercise in just rewriting these documents because they first requires an investigation into the underlying expectations, interests, and motivations of the signatories. Furthermore, it also requires serious efforts to establish respect for international agreements and to counteract the widespread skepticism, if not cynicism, that the present situation has created.
