-
Eric, nothing that the pope said Friday favored one set of rights over another. Indeed, as my post stated, his speech to the U.N. General Assembly included "a tacit reprimand to those who would privilege civil and political rights over economic, social, and cultural rights -- or vice versa." (emphasis added) The point I'd intended to underscore was that the pope had reaffirmed the indivisibility of both sets of rights, the civil/political, on the one hand, and the economic/social/cultural, on the other. Indivisibility was inherent in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but frayed when Cold War geopolitics pushed the U.N. Human Rights Commission to separate the 2 sets as it began the process of drafting treaties designed to make binding all those rights that states had endorsed in the nonbinding Declaration. That separation, which seemed essential at the height of the Cold War, may be less so today: 160 countries are full members of the 1977 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, while 157 countries are full members of the 1977 International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. That means that 3/4 of all the United Nations' member states are firmly in each Convenant's camp. Vestiges of Cold War concerns may be found, however, in the fact that the United States is not party to the latter Covenant and China is not party to the former.
As for China: application of the concept of indivisibility means that China is no more a "champion" of human rights than any other state. The role that the Chinese state has played in alleviating poverty deserves attention. Indeed, how each country addresses the basic needs of persons within its jurisdiction deserves note, as I've argued with regard to the United States in a forthcoming essay just posted at SSRN. But the costs of such programs also must be assessed, respecting matters as wide-ranging as the health problems and the repressions of civil liberties that may result from economic development at all costs. (Here, too, insert a "vice versa.")
On 2 points, it seems, we agree. 1st: Athletes honored to carry the torch a bit of the way toward the 2008 Olympics should not have to fear anger and assault as they run through the streets of their home country. 2d: Comprehensive, critical comparison of the nature and extent of states' programs to protect human rights rarely will yield a clear "winner."
-
If Diane and the pope are right that we shouldn't privilege civil and political rights over social, economic, and cultural rights, and maybe they are right, then we should give credit where credit is due, and crown China the human rights champion of the last thirty years. During that time, the authoritarian Chinese government has raised more than 400 million people out of extreme poverty through its enlightened pursuit of capitalism at all costs. Its indifference to the civil and political rights of Tibetans and other minorities, not to mention those of its own people, detracts from this achievement, but no one can say with any confidence that China could have come so far, so fast, if it had snapped its fingers in 1980 and become a democracy. The only other contender for the human rights crown is the group of western powers that brought down the Soviet Union, and Mikhail Gorbachev, for not standing in the way, an accomplishment that freed a great number of people living in Soviet-dominated satellite states and finally discredited forever a malign ideology, but did much less for the poor than China has. We needn't declare a winner; but out of respect for China's achievement, we should at least let it relay its Olympic torch in peace.
-
shows that entrusting exclusively to individual States, with their laws and institutions, the final responsibility to meet the aspirations of persons, communities and entire peoples, can sometimes have consequences that exclude the possibility of a social order respectful of the dignity and the rights of the person.
Benedict looked, rather, to transnational and international institutions as vehicles to promote human dignity, using a "common language" and not "a relativistic conception." For the pope religion is one such transnational vehicle, of course; "relativist" is, after all, an antonym of "catholic," itself a a synonym of "universal." Yet he devoted much of his address to a vehicle typically expressed on the temporal plane: human rights, the promotion of which Benedict called
the most effective strategy for eliminating inequalities between countries and social groups, and for increasing security.
Even as he found traces of human rights in the centuries-old writings of Catholic scholars like
Augustine and
de Vitoria, the pope found its contemporary source in a 20th C. secular instrument, the 1948
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In tacit reprimand of those who would privilege civil and political rights over economic, social, and cultural rights -- or vice versa -- Benedict reaffirmed the 60-year-old decision to intertwine those rights:
[E]fforts need to be redoubled in the face of pressure to reinterpret the foundations of the Declaration and to compromise its inner unity so as to facilitate a move away from the protection of human dignity towards the satisfaction of simple interests, often particular interests. The Declaration was adopted as a 'common standard of achievement' (Preamble) and cannot be applied piecemeal, according to trends or
selective choices that merely run the risk of contradicting the unity of the human person and thus the indivisibility of human rights.
Perhaps most notable was the pope's embrace of "
responsibility to protect," the international law concept that each nation-state has the primary duty to protect persons within its jurisdiction and control, but if it does not do so, the international community as a whole has a duty to protect those persons against, as the pope put it, "grave and sustained violations of human rights, as well as from the consequences of humanitarian crises, whether natural or man-made." Use of means permitted by the the law of the
U.N. Charter is not "an unwarranted imposition or a limitation of sovereignty," the pope maintained, for "it is indifference or failure to intervene that do the real damage."
Some approach the "responsibility to protect" with skepticism, wondering whether the energy spent on pushing a new concept with a catchy acronym --
R2P -- might be better spent on working to strengthen the U.N. Security Council and other pre-existing mechanism that in the end would have to effect any such intervention.
I'm among those skeptics,
so too José Alvarez, Columbia law professor and immediate past president of the American Society of International Law. Despite disagreement on means, however, we all agree on the ultimate goal, greater enforcement of human rights. And so yesterday's strong statement in support of that objective, from one of the globe's premier norm-shapers, is welcome.
(cross-posted at IntLawGrrls blog)
-
For three decades now the U.S. Department of State each year has issued a report on the human rights practices of other countries throughout the world. It does so to comply with the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, §§ 116(d), 502B(b); that is, at the behest of Congress.
Last week State issued its
2007 Country Reports, assessing the promotion of human rights, or the lack thereof. The reports range from A to Z
—Afghanistan to
Zimbabwe, with 194 nation-states in between.
Far from complimentary, the
introduction's account of China's behavior
included mention of interference with religious freedom and the imprisonment of activists, writers, and lawyers. Still, China was not listed among the worst-of-the-worst, but rather immediately after reference to "authoritarian countries that are undergoing economic reform" and "have experienced rapid social change but have not undertaken democratic political reform and continue to deny their citizens basic human rights and fundamental freedoms."
if this decision 'signifiies that the State Department is paying less attention to chronic violations of human rights in China, yes, that is a problem.'
Also a problem: what some might surmise are the reasons for the differential treatment.
The worst-of-the-worst list includes those members of the international community with which the United States has its most tense relations. China has a different status. (See posts
here and
here and
here.) It's a huge trading partner and a potential hegemon in its own region and those as farflung as Africa.
Indeed, unlike the United States or Europe, for that matter, China's policy is
not to tie human-rights-compliance strings to the considerable foreign aid it hands out; what's more,
China lashes out at the United States every year that it's called on America's human-rights-compliance carpet. This year in particular, it's host to the Summer
Olympic Games, an Olympics that U.S. President George W.
Bush has pledged to attend.
A realist understands that U.S. officials might feel a tension between Congress' human rights command and China's unique status. And yet, with yesterday's
post from IntLawGrrl Naomi Norberg, and with headlines like this one in Sunday's
Times of London
—"
Fears of another 
Tienanmen as Tibet explodes in hatred"
—even a realist has cause to question the choice that the United States appears to have made.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?