Summary: EXAM - Espionage and
war in cyberspace
Includes all lectures, extensive notes and notes on all four discussion sessions.
Lecture 9: Human rights
Multiple histories of human rights
● Human rights are often seen as a liberal western idea, coming from Enlightenment
times and then spread around the world. Many scholars argue against this.
● These scholars say we can see ideas about justice and fairness for all people in
antiquity as well
● Also: many Asian spiritual traditions. Just treatment, dignity for others etc. are very
important in these traditions.
● Human rights are not a modern western invention. They draw from multiple sets of
thought around the world: religious, spiritual and philosophical.
● Human rights in written form: European distinction between nobles and kings and those
of the average population or citizen. Magna Carta. Founding document from the 13th
century on the idea that individuals do have rights. There are limits to the power of
nobles and the king. Someone in the UK shot at the display in which the Magna Carta is
displayed (in a museum). At the time, the Magna Carta was not seen as the beacon of
human rights. It was more about negotiations on power between the nobles and the
king.
● Foundational moment in history of human rights: American Declaration of
Independence (1776) and the French Revolution (1789). Considered to be a paradigm
shift in thinking about human rights.
● We have multiple histories, but they coalesce as well.
● Relation of human rights and protection of human rights, even in conflict. Think about
international law and assuring to prevent unnecessary suffering and that combatants
and civilians are distinguished in battle. This is part of a broader attempt to ensure that
states even in conflict situations still adhere to human rights principles. Created by
Swiss writer during the Battle of Solferino, Napoleon era battle. Dead and wounded
, were left on the battlefield for a long time. His observation later led to the Geneva
Convention and the creation of the Red Cross. → events in the past centuries do have
their effects on contemporary human rights approaches.
What are human rights?
● International ‘Bill’: UN Declaration (1948) + Two Treaties ICCPR & ICESCR (1966) &
Protocols (1966/2008) → UN Declaration is a good thing to READ. Powerful rhetoric.
Everyone has fundamental rights. The International Bill of Rights is the UN Declaration
along with additional treaties. Political rights: freedom of expression, participation etc.
Social rights: not to be in poverty, access to education etc. Mostly people talk about
civil and political rights in scholarly literature. Don’t forget they were designed to be
balanced. Cold War context: civil and political rights being put forward by the western
world. Economic and social rights being insisted on by the third world, global south,
Sovjet-backed world.
● Gender as a human right was fundamental to the instigation of human rights in the UN
● Elenor Roosevelt: pushed the agenda of human rights forward
● ‘Core’ instruments, treaties & protocols: racial discrimination (1965), women (1979),
torture (1985), children (1989), migrants (1990), disabilities and disappearance (2006) →
disappearences especially have to do with authoritarian regimes in South-America. Was
unknown who did this, regime or others. You have a list of core instruments relating to
different kinds of human rights. Different audiences, different agendas as well.
● Regional declarations: e.g. ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) (1953),
ACHPR (African convention) (1981), CDHRI (Cairo declaration - about human rights in
Islam, made it clear human rights were not just a western thing) (1990) → spread of
human rights became a regional issue.
● Cold War divisions between political and economic/social rights
⇒ Basis on which human rights architecture emerges in international politics. Think about the
overall picture, multiple histories of human rights, becoming codified in the second half of the
20th century. State-based.
The rise of human rights activism
● We will now look at ngos, moving away from the state-based story.
● There are global maps on problematic human rights areas i.e. areas in which human
rights treaties are not ratified. Not just in Africa and Asia. But also the US! They do not
sign many conventions that limit their sovereignty, including in the human rights
domain.
● Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch - have grown over the last 50 years to
become massive organisations. Big bureaucratic processes operate all over the world,
protection and promotion of human rights.
, ● Normative approach to international politics example: landmines. Ottawa Treaty,
agreed in the 90s. Idea was that no state would agree to limit landmines, because they
did not want to limit that warfare ability. But, ngos highlighted the suffering caused by
the landmines, highlighting they did not adhere to the principle of distinction (between
combatants and non-combatants). Also a lot of suffering caused by them, mostly used
in poor parts of the world etc. Ngos said: we need an agreement on this. States agreed
to limit themselves based on the campaigning of these ngos. But, not just by these
ngos, states want to do it as well.
● US sees itself as a defender of human rights around the world. The Department of State
in the US issues annual human rights reports around the world, calling out countries
that are not doing well in this area. Ngos are not governmental and can be seen as
principled and normatively driven, reasonably objective. This is clearly not the case with
the US human rights report. But they do try to be objective. Scholars have looked at
these US reports and found that countries with a poor diplomatic position with the US
are mentioned more often, so it’s good to be wary about this and the extent to which it
can really be seen as objective.
● States appear into this arena which initially was occupied by ngos.
Mainstreamed into UN processes
● Recent trend: see human rights as mainstreamed into international, especially IN
processes
● UN Human Rights Council: all states are part of this. Specific states elected on a
regular basis, so there is a regular change in states engaged in human rights council.
● Involvement of the UN in human rights issues is controversial.
● UN has special rapporteurs: people designated to protect human rights. To understand
more about human rights in cybersecurity we need to understand more about the UN.
● There have been multiple versions of the UN human rights council.
- Earlier versions were scrapped because a lot of states that have human rights issues in
their own country gained the reputation of not doing anything. States could not
condemn human rights violations and so on.
- Current UN human rights council has inherited many of these problems. There is alot
going on behind the scenes on who gets a place at the human rights table and what
they do when they are there. E.g.: Saudi Arabia, has been on the council a couple of
times, gained its seat through vote trading with the UK. They traded votes in different
areas to get them onto the council. Read more about this! Not necessarily democratic
or fair.
● States have also begun to take responsibility to protect human rights in other states.
This is highly controversial in international law.
- Whether human rights violations, significant ones (e.g. genocide), justify other states
militarily intervening in these states. This is known as the responsibility to protect
, (R2P), invoked in the early noughties, George Bush administration, looked to intervene
around the world. But: mostly these interventions were because of self-protection.
- For a while, human rights narrative justifications became tied into foreign military
intervention.
- There are also contradictory currents with human rights protections and also an
increasing focus on counter-terrorism and terrorism action around the UN. This takes
many forms, different interpretations around the world. Can be a counter-terror in one
place, but not in another. Oppression of opposition groups also often in the name of
counter-terrorism.
- Theme of the emergence as an issue on the world stage does not sit nicely with the
protection of human rights. Especially when it’s international terrorism, and the US does
interogations and stuff, and they partner with states who have poor records of human
rights violations. Ongoing conflicts also play a big part.
● Mainstreaming human rights brings with it a lot of problems. There is a purity of human
rights activism, coming from the 80s and 90s with these ngos, when it becomes a
state-led process, an international organisation process, it becomes subject to the
politics and bureaucracies and strategic manipulations you see elsewhere in politics.
Protection of human rights is diminished as well as it is promoted when it turns into
these forums.
Recent developments and businesses
● Those responsible to protect human rights and those subject to human rights laws etc.
have expanded over the last decades
● Picture of Lake Erie (North America) → academics and campaigners say Lake Erie
should be considered a human rights subject. It has human rights. They see that
human rights architecture should be extended to the natural world.
● States are classically responsible for those in their sovereign territories, but business
and human rights are now subject to the “Guiding Principles on Business and Human
Rights” - United Nations
● “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights'' - United Nations → not binding
obligations. Ways in which the UN tries to encourage business to acknowledge and
incorporate human rights in their activities. Corporate social responsibility is the most
well-known example of this.
● Overall idea is that many businesses’ activities cross national boundaries and impact
local populations. Extractive industries, pollution, etc. Underlying principle is that they
should avoid committing human rights violations in their commercial activity. Also
avoid contributing to human rights violations committed by others, by supporting,
contributing or allowing it for example. The latter one (not contributing etc.) is more
murky than the former. The latter one becomes more relevant on business obligations
on human rights and the Internet. The Internet itself is a very commercial enterprise, run
