“Silence or Sanctions? The Global Response to War, Genocide and Human Rights Violations.”

Gurleen Kaur, Research Advisor

Centre for Politics and International Relations, ICHRPP

There is now a near-universal consensus that all individuals are entitled to certain basic rights under any circumstances. These include certain civil liberties and political rights, the most fundamental of which is the right to life and physical safety. Human rights are the articulation of the need for justice, tolerance, mutual respect, and human dignity. Speaking of rights allows us to express the idea that all individuals are part of the scope of morality and justice. To protect human rights is to ensure that people receive some degree of decent, humane treatment. On the other hand, to violate the most basic human rights is to deny individuals their fundamental moral entitlements. It is, in a sense, to treat them as if they are less than human and undeserving of respect and dignity. Examples are acts typically deemed "crimes against humanity," including genocide, torture, slavery, rape, enforced sterilization or medical experimentation, and deliberate starvation. Because these policies are sometimes implemented by governments, limiting the unrestrained power of the state is an important part of international law. Underlying laws that prohibit the various "crimes against humanity" are the principle of non-discrimination and the notion that certain basic rights apply universally.

The number of deaths related to combat and the collateral damage caused by warfare are only a small part of the tremendous amount of suffering and devastation caused by conflicts. Throughout protracted conflict, assaults on political rights and the fundamental right to life are typically widespread. Some of the gravest violations of the right to life are massacres, the starvation of entire populations, and genocide. Genocide is commonly understood as the intentional extermination of a single ethnic, racial, or religious group. Killing group members, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing measures to prevent birth, or forcibly transferring children are all ways to bring about the destruction of a group. Genocide is often regarded as the most offensive crime against humanity. Whereas the term "war crime" refers to a violation of the rules of 'Jus in Bello' (justice in war) by any individual, whether military or civilian. The laws of armed conflict prohibit attacks on civilians and the use of weapons that cause unnecessary suffering or long-term environmental damage. Other war crimes include taking hostages, firing on localities that are undefended and without military significance, such as hospitals or schools, inhuman treatment of prisoners, including biological experiments, and the pillage or purposeless destruction of property. Although clearly outlawed by international law, such war crimes are common. According to Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations, it is increasingly true that "the main aim... [of conflicts] ... is the destruction not of armies but of civilians and entire ethnic groups." Rather than simply killing off whole populations, government forces may carry out programs of torture. Torture can be either physical or psychological and aims at the "humiliation or annihilation of the dignity of the person." Physical torture might include mutilation, beatings, and electric shocks to lips, gums, and genitals. In psychological torture, detainees are sometimes deprived of food and water for long periods, kept standing upright for hours, deprived of sleep, or tormented by high-level noise. Torture is used in some cases to carry out interrogations and extract confessions or information. Today, it is increasingly used as a means of suppressing political and ideological dissent or for punishing political opponents who do not share the ideology of the ruling group. 

States and non-state actors have long reached across borders to commit human rights violations. Killings, kidnappings, harassment and intimidation of exiled dissidents, political opponents, and human rights defenders were well-documented through the twentieth century. Today, however, new techniques such as coordinated online harassment, malicious legal proceedings, digital surveillance and platform censorship have expanded the tactics available to actors seeking to remotely constrain the exercise of basic rights. Authoritarian states today are using digital platforms abroad to expand the reach of state information and shape information ecosystems overseas. The result can be a significant, intentional distortion of the supply of political information within targeted communities and beyond.

The Question of Humanitarian Intervention

Many have noted the strong interdependence between human rights violations and intractable conflict. Abuse of human rights often leads to conflict, and conflict typically results in human rights violations. It is not surprising, then, that protection of human rights is central to conflict resolution. Violations of political and economic rights are the root causes of many crises. When rights to adequate food, housing, employment, and cultural life are denied, and large groups of people are excluded from the society's decision-making processes, there is likely to be great social unrest. Such conditions often give rise to justice conflicts, in which parties demand that their basic needs be met. Indeed, many conflicts are sparked or spread by violations of human rights. For example, massacres or torture may inflame hatred and strengthen an adversary's determination to continue fighting. Violations may also lead to further violence from the other side and can contribute to a conflict spiralling out of control. On the flip side, armed conflict often leads to the breakdown of infrastructure and civic institutions, which in turn undermines a broad range of rights. When hospitals and schools are closed, rights to adequate health and education are threatened. The collapse of economic infrastructure often results in pollution, food shortages, and overall poverty. These various forms of economic breakdown and oppression violate rights to self-determination and often contribute to further human tragedy in the form of sickness, starvation, and lack of basic shelter. The breakdown of government institutions results in denials of civil rights, including the rights to privacy, fair trial, and freedom of movement. In many cases, the government is increasingly militarised, and police and judicial systems are corrupted. Abductions, arbitrary arrests, detentions without trial, political executions, assassinations, and torture often follow.

In cases where extreme violations of human rights have occurred, reconciliation and peacebuilding become much more difficult. Unresolved human rights issues can serve as obstacles to peace negotiations. This is because it is difficult for parties to move toward conflict transformation and forgiveness when memories of severe violence and atrocity are still primary in their minds.

There is much disagreement about when and to what extent outside countries can engage in humanitarian intervention. More specifically, there is debate about the efficacy of using military force to protect the human rights of individuals in other nations. This sort of debate stems largely from a tension between state sovereignty and the rights of individuals. Some defend the principles of state sovereignty and non-intervention and argue that other states must be permitted to determine their own course. It is thought that states have diverse conceptions of justice, and international coexistence depends on a pluralist ethic whereby each state can uphold its own conception of the good. Among many, there is "a profound scepticism about the possibilities of realising notions of universal justice." States that presume to judge what counts as a violation of human rights in another nation interfere with that nation's right to self-determination. In addition, requiring some countries to respect human rights is liable to cause friction and can lead to far-reaching disagreements. Thus, acts of intervention may disrupt interstate order and lead to further conflict. Others think, "Only the vigilant eye of the international community can ensure the proper observance of international standards, in the interest not of one state or another but of the individuals themselves." They maintain that massive violations of human rights, such as genocide and crimes against humanity, warrant intervention, even if it causes some tension or disagreement. Certain rights are inalienable and universal, and "taking basic rights seriously means taking responsibility for their protection everywhere." If, through its atrocious actions, a state destroys the lives and rights of its citizens, it temporarily forfeits its claims to legitimacy and sovereignty. Outside governments then have a positive duty to take steps to protect human rights and preserve life. In addition, it is thought that political systems that protect human rights reduce the threat of world conflict. Thus, intervention might also be justified on the grounds of preserving international security.

Nevertheless, governments are often reluctant to commit military forces and resources to defend human rights in other states. In addition, the use of violence to end human rights violations poses a moral dilemma insofar as such interventions may lead to further loss of innocent lives. The least amount of force necessary to achieve humanitarian objectives must be used, and that intervention must not do more harm than good. Lastly, there is a need to ensure that the intervention is legitimate and motivated by genuine humanitarian concerns. The purposes of intervention must be apolitical and disinterested. However, if the risks and the costs of intervention are high, it is unlikely that states will intervene unless their direct interests are involved.

Transitional Justice: Response to Human Rights Violations by International Institutions

In transitional justice literature relating to societies transitioning from oppressive and authoritarian rule or conflict to democratic governance, one of the major points of discussion is always what to do with perpetrators of past human rights violations when conflicts or oppressive regimes have ended. The United Nations has a long history of assisting societies devastated by conflict or emerging from repressive rule to re-establish the rule of law and develop mechanisms to deal with large-scale human rights violations. For the United Nations, transitional justice is the full range of processes and mechanisms associated with a society’s attempt to come to terms with a legacy of large-scale human rights abuses, to ensure accountability for the abuses, serve justice, and achieve reconciliation and the transformation of society to establish a democratic society that is underpinned by human rights values. It consists of both judicial and nonjudicial processes and mechanisms, including prosecution initiatives, facilitating initiatives in respect of the right to truth, delivering reparations, and institutional reform designed to establish institutions such as courts, and human rights commissions that promote the rule of law and justice in society, and inclusiveness in the political system in the country. The goal of transitional justice is to ensure accountability, reparations, advance justice, and achieve reconciliation in areas affected by conflict or that have experienced years of authoritarian rule. It also aims to address the root causes of the violations, such as the marginalisation of minorities, so that the communities can be assured that there will be no repetition of past abuses and violations. The way these processes are handled can play an important role in the consolidation of peace and the establishment of an atmosphere conducive to economic growth and development, and the emergence of a society built on the respect of human rights and human dignity.

International human rights organisations’ responses to transnational repression have primarily focused on acts against specific individuals, including HRDs, journalists, lawyers, academics and civil society. The UN’s human rights mechanisms have also taken steps to advocate on behalf of targets who have faced reprisals over their engagements with the UN. International institutions and systems that are meant to protect our rights must be strengthened rather than undermined. The first step is for UN human rights mechanisms to be fully funded, so that accountability and investigations can be pursued, and justice delivered. Amnesty International is also calling for the UN’s key decision-making body, the Security Council, to be reformed to give a voice to countries and situations which have been traditionally ignored, especially in the global south. “The international system needs serious reform to reflect the realities of today. We cannot allow the permanent members of the UN Security Council to continue wielding their veto power and abusing their privileges unchecked. The lack of transparency and efficiency in the Council’s decision-making process leaves the entire system wide open to manipulation, abuse and dysfunction,” said Agnès Callamard. But while self-serving governments fail to put our human rights first, the human rights movement shows we can still draw inspiration and hope from the people these states should have protected.