In many ways human rights has been an enormous success story. In about half a century, it has gone from a relatively minor issue in diplomatic relations to a major and ongoing international concern, with elaborate treaties, mechanisms and codes. Specialized human rights organizations have among them millions of active members. The weakness remains enforcement, even in cases where the binding legal character of the rules is not in doubt.
This non-enforcement is of such a blatant character that there is a serious risk that many of the gains described above will be lost. Only half-jokingly the best advice one can give a tyrannical regime is to simply ignore all international condemnations, refuse to answer any queries, do not let any UN Rapporteurs or NGOs in, and after a while – usually quite quickly – the furor, if any, will dampen and the media will shine their light elsewhere, most likely where there is some degree of cooperation and access. This does not encourage States to follow human rights norms!
An example from the category of treaty obligations where a country has formally pledged to honor its obligations (Communication no 1150/2033 Uteeva vs Uzbekistan):. When the sister of a man condemned to death complained that the confession was obtained under torture, the Human Rights Committee requested Uzbekistan not to carry out the execution while the case was under consideration. Six months later the Uzbek Government informed the Committee that the death sentence had been carried out.
Several countries have steadily refused to cooperate with the UN Human Rights Council and do not let Rapporteurs in (e,g, Iran, Cuba, Burma). Even more refuse to let NGOs in.
In the area of business and human rights in 2008 over 3.000 companies had signed up to the Global Compact (a voluntary code to uphold basic standards – no real teeth, but striking off the list is possible). In 2006, 335 companies were struck off the list, but who knows?
Rather than speculate about why most human rights bodies and persons seem to accept this state of affairs (fatigue, not interesting for the media, not attractive for donors, etc), we should devise urgently mechanism to remedy this situation, to make sure that “crime does not pay”.
Some ideas:
- Every year on 10 December, Human Rights Day, the human rights movement – through a coalition of major and representative NGOs – makes public a list of the top 10 ‘refusniks’ (countries that stand out in ‘non-cooperation’)
- Non-enforcement of decisions by any of the UN treaty bodies will have to be strengthened (report to the General Assembly is not enough). The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights could be asked to compile annually a list of non-enforced decisions and give it the widest possible dissemination, including to the meetings of the States Parties. Persistent non-compliance should be routinely followed by inter-state complaints.
- A business company struck of the list of the Global Compact MUST make this known in the same media and publications in which its joining was announced and with same emphasis (this should be made this part of the code). Non-compliance with this requirement should lead to an active campaign by the UN to explain why the company was struck off the list.
Reactions and other ideas are most welcome.
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 
April 28, 2010 at 15:54
It’s obvious that the reason that some countries refuse to “keep to the rules” is for that particular country’s government own interest.
LikeLike
April 29, 2010 at 10:25
Yes, Alexandra, you are right; therefore we have to make it harder for them to ignore these rules: more negative publicity may deter them from continuing to violate their obligations, best Hans
LikeLike
May 1, 2010 at 23:55
Hello:
Very interesting and stimulating post. I wrote a bit as an answer to your post. I am glad to read optimistic ideas to solve the problem, but still I see difficulties in both governmental and NGO systems. Nevertheless, I will join whoever is for action.
LikeLike
May 4, 2010 at 13:29
I think that “naming and shaming” is a proper initial step to attract attention to states, private business organisations and transnational corporations (TNCs) and governments that don’t comply with their obligation to respect, facilitate and fulfil human rights. Though we should also bear in mind that many concepts in international human rights thinking is often poorly developed. For example: extraterritorial obligations. Human rights are in essence individual rights that should be protected by the state, who is accountable. Human rights are not a territorial concept but universal. UN member states have pledged themselves to take joint and separate action to achieve and fulfil human rights and fundamental freedoms. But who is willing to take their responsibility if another state violates human rights (e.g. when people have not enough access to food, housing, medical care etc.), and in what manner? Human rights thinking is still very much based on state boundaries and sovereignty, but the end of the Cold War, liberalization and globalisation processes need a rethinking in this human rights system. Is a state obligation only related to their own population or do they also have obligations to the subject of other states as well? I also think that TNCs bear a great responsibility in the fulfilment of human rights since they affect at the individual level. In this perspective I think it is important for NGOs and Human Rights Defenders to think about this aspect as well. Especially when they are involved in international negotiation processes where human rights agreements are formulated.
I think that states don’t “keep to the rules” is a major issue. A lot of international agreements are based on for example voluntary guidelines or other soft law. This is hard to judge, because states can always argue that they did everything within their power to comply with human rights standards. Another thing is that monitoring obligations is very complex. There is much discussion about the question weather to use the ‘obligation of result’ or the ‘obligation of conduct’. This is another interesting point of discussion that should be considered among Human Rights Defenders.
LikeLike