What Are the Challenges Faced by Actors in Defending Human Rights

This paper is dedicated to take a deep look at the human rights issue with the perspectives of Richard Falk, Martha Finnemore and Richard Price respectively. In the first section, I will focus on the arguments presented in policy debate written by Falk and link them with the primary claims of Finnemore and Price. Later, I will make a broader explanation of two scholars' views about the question "What are the challenges faced by actors in defending human rights? What are the responsibilities of states, international organizations and civil society?" Finally, I will provide my own response to this question. 1.RICHARD FALK AND POLICY DEBATE According to Finnemore, the identification of "human" who deserves to be defended when exposed to abusive practices expanded from a limited framework covering Europeans and Christians as in 19th century (the cases of Greeks, Bulgarians, Armenians and Maronites) to a broader range encompassing all peoples regardless of race, religion or color with the help of abolition of slavery and decolonization.  Since the construction of UN in 1945 and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, the debates about humanitarian issues have been brought to multilateral environment and shaped around this convention. To Falk; albeit a perception in prevalence of more human rights violation today than before, the reality draws a distinct picture supported by all reliable human rights indicators suggesting a progress in the direction of self-determination and democratization in all parts of the glob which means more participation of individuals in defining their own destiny and more restraint governments. Moreover; as Falk mentions, one of the vital accomplishment of UN system is the creation of significant human rights architecture containing treaties on discrimination against women, racism, children, religious beliefs, and refugees, as well as institutional innovations such as the establishment in Geneva of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. However, there are still many challenges faced by the actors and the responsibilities for the actors many of which stem from these challenges. As Falk points out, the generalized framework of DUHR allows infinite number of interpretations. On the other hand, the non-Western regions of the world assert that the human rights are Western invention being dictated to other parts of the world. Furthermore, there is a prevailing disorientation in Western World in thought about international human rights which arises from dual origins having emanated from French Revolution and American Revolution. According to Falk, these sources cause erosion in belief of universality of human right norms and render it harder to defend these norms. Also; as Falk stresses sometimes war against global terrorism causes some abusive actions to be seemed as legitimate and thereby obscures the nature of actual conflict. He believes that the war is a far more political and moral conflict and what should be defended is precisely the dignity of human rights. He argues that states must sustain this standard in legislative enactments, judicial actions and administrative policies. Additionally, both Finnemore and Price would emphasize the necessity of the presence of civil society who always spy on the government behaviors whether they fit well with the norms for the effectiveness of them. Further; the multinational corporations, which are naturally profit-making actors without any constructed moral obligation beyond the interests of uplifting shareholders’ wealth, sometimes apply some abusive practices. Falk argues that the civil society leaders must organize boycotts against these corporations just as they did in the cases of Shell and Nestle. Price, when asked him, would likewise argue that the norm entrepreneurs from civil society or international organizations must publicize the issue by collecting and sharing data with the society. Falk similarly gives importance to the voluntary initiatives such as UN Global Compact which certifies the corporations as gold global citizens when they conform to a check list of standards. Finally, the principle of territorial sovereignty and historically constructed skepticism about the humanitarian interventions identified as concealed ways of overriding the political independence of the region challenge the endeavor of humanitarian intervention even when needed. Falk argues that if the facts point out a forthcoming humanitarian catastrophe and ample political will exists, then the world community must act. Finnemore on the other hand highlights the necessity of qualitatively multilateral actions based on shared norms and principles while talking about this subject. After having primarily figured out what Falk says about the human rights subject and integrated them with the assertions of Finnemore and Price, in the remaining parts of this paper I will show the possible approaches of these scholars to this issue and give my insights about the topic. 2.1. MARTHA FINNEMORE This section is dedicated to show the possible response of Martha Finnemore to the question of "What are the challenges faced by actors in defending human rights? What are the responsibilities of states, international organizations and civil society?" Actors defend human rights by attributing to the generally accepted norms. However; since norms are socially constructed, they change with social interactions.  The fact that states are interested in specific issues today doesn't guarantee their pursuit of same interests later. New or changed norms engender new or distinct behaviors. This uncertainty leads to problems for the actors while defending humanitarian issues. Nonetheless, in the process of norm internalization, which is one of the phases for understanding the norm influence, the predictability problem is solved. Because norms acquire a taken-for-granted quality and no longer a matter of  public debate(For example, there is no discussion about the women's right for voting today) So, the actors namely states, international organizations and civil society must strive to increase the pace of transition from norm emergence to norm acceptance/cascade then  to norm internalization. For this, norm entrepreneurs especially from civil society must convince a critical mass of states(norm leaders) to adopt new norms. In the second stage, norm leaders must try to socialize other states to become norm followers and at the end of norm cascade norm internalization occurs.  Intrinsic characteristics of the norms sometimes render the mission of the actors much more harder and become challenge for them in defending human rights. Because, norms, that are ambiguous and complex rather than specific and clear, are less likely to be effective. Likewise, Institutionalists in sociology stress that norms making universalistic claims about what is good for everyone in everywhere are more likely to expand than the particularistic and localized ones. Thus, actors whether they are states, international organization or civil society must work for ensuring the designation of the norms in accordance with these characteristics (clear, specific, universalistic) Existing norm framework generally creates a challenge for the advocates of human rights. The association between new norms and the existing ones affect the possibility of new norm influence. For instance, the opponents of women genital mutilation couldn't become so successful until when they replaced the term of circumcision with mutilation. Because, the concept of women circumcision brings the practice of men circumcision into mind and this practice is perceived as a positive activity. Thus, this is a must and also a responsibility for the human rights champions (states, international organizations or civil society) to present the issue in compliance with the already established normative framework in order to resonate the problem much more strongly. There has been a normative contestation over humanitarian intervention issues since 1945 and this creates a challenge for these practices. UN Charter enshrines two principles: Article 1 emphasizes the respect for human and justice while Article 2 stresses the sovereignty as the organizing principle of international system. However; when the issue is abusive activities of the states against their own citizens, the two principles become intertwined and cause conflict. This conflict engendered new patterns of behavior when humanitarian intervention is mandatory. States ought to meet the responsibilities to be identified as legitimate and genuinely humanitarian. The intervention must be multilateral (qualitatively multilateral in Ruggie's term) ,and states must consult and coordinate with each other at the preparation and operational levels of the intervention. Also, if possible, disinterested countries should be involved to this enterprise. All phases of the process must be managed according to shared norms and principles. As a result, apart from facing serious challenges in defending human rights, actors also have to undertake some responsibilities to be able to acquire desired outcomes.  2.2. RICHARD PRICE In this part of the essay, my aim is to figure out the likely answer of Richard Price to the question of "What are the challenges faced by actors in defending human rights? What are the responsibilities of states, transnational organizations and civil society?" To protect human rights, well identified and generally accepted norms, presence of which make the efforts of actors in defending human rights more effective, must be established. But; because ideational and normative shift generally requires a crucial crisis or serious shock rendering the issue salient as experienced in AP land mines issue, it is so hard for the human rights proponents to eventually obtain desired results especially in stable periods. On the other hand, the absence of sufficient amount of statistics and deficiency in dissemination of information may decline the public awareness about the subject. Statistics are very vital for their functions of transforming the subjects previously invisible into more noticeable status and politicizing them as a crisis on state agenda. Furthermore, even if the platform to address the issue is provided, widespread acceptance of the legitimacy of the new norms is inherently hard to be achieved owing to great resistance by some countries as U.S, Finland and Cuba did during the negotiations on the ban treaty for AP land mines.  States, international organizations and civil society have so many responsibilities to overcome the difficulties listed above. Firstly, key individuals or activists from civil society such as international moral entrepreneurs (Princess Diana, Pope Jean Paul 2, Dalai Lama for AP land mines issue) must act as the moving force behind the resolution of the issues by persuading important decision makers to uplift the position of the issue on domestic or international political agenda. Secondly, humanitarian and development groups from civil society and international organizations must work in independent locations, collect information and share them to demonstrate the scope and negative repercussions of the issue. These efforts are highly significant on account of providing transnational dissemination of the information needed to define the issue as a problem and a global crisis and thereby mobilize the states and related institutions for the resolution of the case.  Thirdly, civil society must always strive to achieve networking with the international organizations and these organizations must open a stage for them to voice their concerns and provide access to the international political processes of negotiations conducted by inter-governmental organizations. Fourthly, the success of generating support within domestic or international political processes for the new norms, on which the resolution of a humanitarian problem will substantiate, depends heavily on how the new norms comply with already existing norms (The agreement on the ban of chemical weapons was easily achieved thanks to an existing consensus on the illegality of poison usage). Hence, the actors, no matter whether they are states, international organizations or civil society, must sustain the negotiation in appropriate context.  Lastly, the hegemonic states ought to use their influence on solving the problem. This creates a systemic source for the diffusion of solution among other states with their emulation of the hegemon's action.   To conclude, it is undoubtedly true that the actors are facing some challenges as listed in the second paragraph of this section in defending human rights. They also have some responsibilities as mentioned above to overcome these challenges and obtain more successful results defending these issues.  3. MY RESPONSE There exist so many difficulties that human rights champions must confront. In addition, the actors namely states, international organizations and civil society must bear a series of responsibilities while defending humanitarian issues. Firstly, the lack of universal norms regulating business activities especially job security issues allows multinational corporations to move their operations from the regions imposing strict regulations to more flexible areas. Moreover, many states compete with each other to moderate the standards to attract more foreign direct investment(This situation can also be identified as "race to the bottom"). Under these conditions, MNCs, naturally profit maximizers, become much less hesitated to abuse human rights. For overcoming this challenge, I support the arguments of Price, who gives the responsibility of publicizing the issues through collecting and sharing data with society to moral entrepreneurs, and Falk who recommends civil society to organize boycotts. Also, as Falk mentions the voluntary enterprises like Global Compact can engender positive reflections. But, to be able to solve the problem, something must be done in the macro level. I think, some states especially having higher standards, caring more about these issues or more potent for influencing others; organizations like labor unions or social democrat parties must collaboratively strive to affect the agenda setting process in international negotiations and try to ensure the adoption of universally prevalent norms. Secondly, for some cases getting involved in humanitarian intervention entails to undertake so much political and economic costs. After Assad used Sarin gas in Syria, even the big powers such as France waited for U.S to make an explanation. Because, engaging into these practices without the companionship of a hegemon can possibly harm their strategic interests in the region and be economically more expensive. States must take precedence of defending human rights over political or economic interests. Nonetheless, it is not realistic to expect states to instinctually head towards these practices. Hence, civil societies from many countries, as Price, Falk and Finnemore also recommands, must be active and force their governments to step into intervention or other sanctions by mobilizing the public opinion and creating pressure. Thirdly, as we witness in again Syrian case, Security Council sometimes becomes dysfunctional due to the vetoes of Russia or China or so on. In these times, alternative mechanisms like NATO forces or voluntary troops must be activated to carry out the mission as the world community experience in Kosovo case. However, ensuring legitimacy for these activities is much harder to achieve than the interventions authorized by UN and possible fallacies during these practices may damage the perceptions of the humanity as in the case of Iraq. Fourthly, it is so hard for voluntary groups from civil society to voice their concerns in the international realm. Collective action is needed so as to be effective and this can only be achieved through combining the capabilities of separate actors. We know that some international organizations such as Amnesty International, ICRC or Doctors Without Borders play more effective roles in championing the human rights. Thus, all small actors ought to aim to establish a broader platform and shape their activities to eventually attain this goal. Finally, the existing norm framework may create a challenge for the proponents of new norms especially when the new framework isn't designed in accordance with the old one. As Price mentions, the success of the banning of chemical weapons can be explained by the presence of a norm prohibiting poison. Because the new norm was presented in already established framework, it became easier for chemical use to be identified as illegitimate and thus prohibited. Again; as Finnemore exemplifies, the new norm regarding women genital mutilation could only be successful just as it was put in the framework of mutilation instead of circumcision which implies a positive connotation driven from men circumcision. Thus, the advocates of human rights must be careful in which framework they submit the issue. To conclude, it is obvious that actors have to deal with a series of challenges while advocating human rights. In addition to them, they must also bear so many responsibilities while striving for this aim. 4. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1. According to you, what is the effect of Iraq intervention on debates about humanitarian intervention? 2. Is it really possible to produce universally practiced norms regulating the operations of MNC all around the glob? 3. How can we reverse the process of erosion in belief about the universality of human rights? Fatih Ümit Çetin 20131474