Human Rights in International Relations (PLIT10063)
Class notes
Complete Class and Exam Revision Notes for Human Rights in International Relations (PLIT10063)
45 views 1 purchase
Course
Human Rights in International Relations (PLIT10063)
Institution
The University Of Edinburgh (ED)
Complete notes for all 'Human Rights in International Relations' topics, centred around different exam essay topics. Perfect amount of detail for excelling at the exam. I got a 74 in my exams by revising using these notes!
Topics:
1. Introducing Human Rights
2. Framing Human Rights: Theoretica...
Human Rights in International Relations (PLIT10063)
All documents for this subject (3)
Seller
Follow
annesmith
Reviews received
Content preview
Human Rights in International Relations: Complete Notes
(1) Human Rights
(1.1) Definition of ‘human rights’
- HRs is defined by its universality: applies to all humans, not just a subset of
- “Human rights indicates both their nature and their source: they are rights one has
simply because one is human” (Donnelly 1998)
- Reality: not all people enjoy their human rights (equally) -- but all humans have the
same HRs and hold them equally and inalienably
- Equality of rights: do murderers and their victims have the same rights? (e.g.
prisoner voting rights)
- Principle of indivisibility?
- Idea that to guarantee civil & political rights, we must ensure economic, social &
cultural rights (& vice versa)
- Northern states often oppose indivisibility principle: regard civil & political rights as more
important than economic & social rights
- Many wealthy states persist in seeing the right to development as a set of moral,
not legal, commitments
- Southern states often remain mistrustful of universality norm
- Emphasise cultural relativity & national sovereignty
- ‘Human rights regime’: the entire human rights system; includes laws & norms
(1.1.1) Cultural Relativism
- Cultural relativism: ethics develops within particular social contexts. Social contexts are
distinct from one another, so there cannot be a ‘universalist’ moral framework
- Diverse cultural, religious, & philosophical traditions
- Rise of cultural exceptionalism → ‘sovereignty’ as defense against ‘Western’
system of human rights / cultural imperialism
- Taliban: pretty much everything the Taliban does to women violates Convention on
the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW, 1980)
- → Taliban’s claim to speak on behalf of Afghan culture is
undermined by their silencing of half the population
- US: fine with executing people who committed crimes as minors
- Singapore: “Asian Values”
- Prioritisation of individual rights vs group rights.
- Criticisms of UDHR for focusing excessively on individual rights, while neglecting
the rights of society & the common good
- African Charter on Human and People’s Rights
- Equality of rights: is there a hierarchy of rights?
- But binaries of North/South or West/non-West obscures the contributions & agency of
states outside the Global North re: HRs (Sikkink 2015)
- History of HRs policies reveals: HRs policies have often been embraced by the less
powerful to try to restrain the more powerful
- Latin America drafted the first intergovernmental declaration of rights (the
“American Declaration”) 8 months before UDHR was passed in UNGA, 1948
- All the rights in the UDHR also appear in the American Declaration
, - NGO & LatAm lobbying led to inclusion of HRs language in UN Charter
- The language was not the language of Great Powers; adopted by Great
Powers only in response to pressures from smaller states & civil society
- Arguments against cultural relativism:
- (1) Those advancing the exceptionalist claim do not genuinely & legitimately
represent those on whose behalf that claim is made
- Often flimsy disguise for totalitarian tendencies
- Islam & HRs scholars: much of Islamic fundamentalism do not align w/
Islamic texts / jurisprudence
- (2) Religious freedom & tolerance not traditionally Western either
- Stoning in Bible; Harvard Law School not admitting women until 1950s;
colonialism & Section 377
- (3) HRs is grounded in modern social, economic, & scientific developments
- Issue: implies countries whose HRs do not meet our standards are
‘backwards’ / ‘uncivilised’ → racist & Western-centric narrative
- Issue: does not explain why countries with similar levels of development
have vastly different conceptions & practice of HRs
(1.2) Emergence of HRs in Int’l Law
(1.2.1) Individuals as subjects of int’l law
- Changes took place in int’l law after WWII to include individuals (not just states)
- Until 1945, only states were subject to int’l law (emphasis on state sovereignty). But
Nazi Germany led to belief that states cannot necessarily be trusted
- → Consensus by end of WWII that HRs & democracy would need to be an essential
part of post-war order
- UN Charter (1945): first recognition of human rights (but very vague guidelines)
- Preamble, Art. 1, 55, and 56
- But Charter still emphasises principles of state sovereignty
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
- Only a “statement of declaration”: not legally-binding
- First time an int’l organisation had attempted to draw a list of HRs
- Idea that people have rights in virtue of being human, not in virtue of being a citizen
of particular states
- Cold War
- 2 International Covenants + UDHR = known as “International Bill of Rights”
- Covenants are legally-binding treaties; includes enforcement mechanisms
- 2 covenants:
- International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR)
- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)
- Different Conventions
- More specific and narrowly defined, compared to Int’l Bill of Rights
- Jus Cogens: principle in int’l law that is so fundamental that it binds all states and
does not allow any exceptions. A treaty that conflicts with an existing jus cogens
rule is void
- Fundamental idea: affects all states, including ones not directly involved.
Concerns humanity
- Convention Against Torture (1984)
- Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) → adopted unanimously
, - Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
(CEDAW, 1979)
- Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD, 2006)
- HRs after the Cold War: ‘New World Order’ (Bush)
- Increased recognition that HRs matters
- Spoke of need for collective action & a strong UN; strengthen int’l law & int’l orgs
- See: actions like increased humanitarian interventions (Charter Ch VII invoked;
threats to “int’l peace and security”)
- Critique: really a ‘New World Disorder’
- Break down of states, internal wars; genocide; nationalism
- Economic interests emphasised > HRs. See: Bill Clinton not condemning
China re: Tiananmen
(1.2.2) Problems of Enforcement
- Agreement on int’l HRs laws was possible & happened. But the main problem lies in the
enforcement of these provisions
- Crux of int’l law: agency is on states, in creating, enacting, & enforcing int’l law
- HRs are rights for individuals, but obligations for states
- Signing of treaties is only a starting point (see Genocide Convention)
- National interests and sovereignty, often > human rights culture
- Tension: both are parts of int’l law
- Increase in HRs culture adding normative pressure
(2) Theoretical Foundations
- Different approaches towards the role of int’l institutions & the importance of int’l law
- Realism, liberalism & int’l society are rationalist approaches (i.e. focus on material world)
- Alternative approaches: shift away from analysing just inter-state relations; analyses
structures, intra-state relations etc.
- Emergence of norms?
- ‘Norm emergence’: some threshold / tipping point, where a critical mass / relevant
state actors adopt the norm
- ⇒ norm acceptance: states ratify int’l HRs treaties, incorporate int’l
HRs into their foreign policies & domestic law etc
- Theory: int’l norms emerge when they are embraced & espoused by the hegemon
- Issue: doesn’t explain why hegemonic states begin to pursue HR policies
- Issue: not all major HRs victories were result of hegemonic pressures, e.g.
global campaign against apartheid
- Theory: int’l norms originate in strongly held principled ideas (intrinsic quality of HRs
norms), not in state interests
- E.g. Convention against Torture was crafted by govt officials in consultation
w/ Amnesty International, after increased global awareness about torture
created by Amnesty’s Campaign Against Torture in 1973
- HRs used to define who is in / out of the club of liberal states
- Theory: not enough for individuals to develop norms; must actively promote globally
through intense campaigns
- E.g. NGOs & transnational coalitions conduct intense campaigns to
persuade states of the importance & value of new norms, like anti-apartheid,
anti-slavery, women’s suffrage etc. campaigns
, - ‘Normative entrepreneurs' use language, information, & symbolic activity to
redefine an activity as ‘wrong’
(2.1) Realism
- Theory (note: various realist theories, but these are the shared assumptions)
- Arg: HRs emerged primarily from the goals & needs of powerful states →
reflects interest of powerful states
- Statism: states = principle & only actor
- Survival: states are responsible for their own survival. States are rational actors
who seek to maximise power / security
- System of anarchy: so states rely on self-help
- Emphasis on state power, national interests, & security
- War seen as natural / inevitable
- Morality seen as secondarily
- Int’l law: believe int’l law is irrelevant; no central enforcement mechanisms
- Law in national arena only, not in int’l politics
- People only obey laws because of sanctions. But internationally, punishment is rare
- Powerful states only follow int’l law if it coincides with state interests. Weak states
will be compelled to follow int’l law by powerful states
- Powerful states create rules limiting use of force for self-interested reasons, & will
violate them if it ceases to fall in w/in their interests
- E.g. States agree to Geneva Convention to avoid having their own soldiers
tortured / civilians intentionally targeted. But US torture re: War on Terror
- HRs: realists are proponents of cultural relativism
- HRs may be viewed as a potential threat to int’l order, since state sovereignty is a
central organising principle
- More disorder if this is messed with (see humanitarian intervention)
- Challenges / criticism
- Great Powers (China, USSR, UK, US) meeting to draft UN Charter (Dumbarton
Oaks): initial draft only contained one reference to HRs. Was smaller states (e.g.
LatAm) that pushed for more inclusion of HRs language
- Cannot explain why int’l law has expanded, & why states comply, even when there
is no obvious sanctions happening
(2.2) Liberalism
- Theory
- States as main (but not only) actors. IOs, NGOs, domestic politics etc
- IOs & NGOs important in placing issues on the int’l agenda & lobbying
states & IOs
- IOs as arenas in which states interact & interests are shared
- Int’l system still anarchic, but cooperation is possible and important: states can use
this to ensure their own survival
- Assumption: collective action can help states overcome the insecurities of
anarchy
- Possible as states have some shared interests
- Int’l law: seen as important for regulating relations between states
- Believe that universal norms exist, and are enshrined in int’l law. These then
influence state behaviour
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller annesmith. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $11.03. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
