PHA-Exchange> Food for thoughts (and deeds) that go unsanctioned

[Claudio]

Human Rights Reader 89
 

UNFORTUNATELY, HUMAN (PEOPLE'S) RIGHTS VIOLATIONS DO NOT CALL FOR CONCRETE INTERNATIONAL SANCTIONS.

 

 

1. In international law, a violation of human rights (HR) is deemed to be an offence, not only against the state, but also against all members of the international community. But unfortunately, this does not necessarily imply an international crime, so that many HR violations do not actually call for public/worldwide action.  Ergo, force and sanctions cannot be used in the case of despondency towards poverty alleviation, low and unfair pricing of commodities (food included) and against the inequitable provision of health care and educational services. 

 

2. The question is: Does the international community have the responsibility to intervene legally in cases of clear violations of the right to food or to health, or to education?  In a utopian world, perhaps yes. However, the direction in which HR 'soft laws' are applied, the inherent responsibility is vaguely given to international development organizations instead.

 

3. This vagueness in the language of international law is problematic, because it allows for the manipulation of this inexactly-defined-body-of-laws. There is an urgent need for further codification of this body of international law related to HR. But, in today's world, the codification of international law is a reality we can only dream about. The US, for example, is consistently disrespecting international law by not ratifying treaties it has signed. The US will certainly veto any codification of international law that may hold it responsible for its actions, both domestically (e.g., CO2 emissions) and overseas (e.g., the International Court of Crimes Against Humanity). This begs the question: If there is no codification and no means of enforcing it, what is the point of this international law? 

>From unenforceable laws come no rights!

 

4. International law is primitive and subject to individual countries' recognition of each norm as being a legally binding norm. Because the international community lacks a central authority, the creation of international law is consensual through treaties. Treaties are documents often bilaterally or multilaterally signed that are agreements by governments who consent to be bound by their contents. Treaties fall into the category of 'soft law' (documents that are not directly enforceable in courts and tribunals, but that nonetheless, have an impact on international relations). Many such international agreements may prove useful and may serve as a basis for future legally binding agreements. 

 

5. However, the name given to these laws ('soft laws') is inherently problematic, because soft law is not law at all. Essentially, soft law is comprised of declarations of principles, codes of practice or conduct, recommendations, guidelines, standards, charters and resolutions. These instruments have no legal authority, but there is an expectation they will be respected and followed by those countries and governments who have signed them. 

 

6. One problem with non-legal instruments is that countries can sign on to them without the fear of having to be held accountable --legally.  Pressure comes (or is supposed to come) from the international community. But it is only an assumption that, if a treaty is signed, a country will do everything in its power to maintain the integrity of the contract.

 

7. While the analogy is only approximate --because there actually is enforceability and punishment for people driving too fast-- there are some parallels between the importance of international law and the importance of signs marking the speed limit in a highway. When the speed limit is 100 km/hr, one can assume that traffic will be moving at an average of 105-110 km/hr. So, if the speed limit is 100, why do people drive 5-10 km/hr faster? The answer is simple: If there were no speed limit signs, people would drive at 120 or more km/hr. The speed limit signs work as a limit of what is acceptable. People cross that line all the time, but they measure their breaking of the law according to the line. Treaties signed by governments put forth by the international community serve as the line equivalent to the speed limit sign, in a way serving the same purpose.

 

Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City

claudio at hcmc.netnam.vn

-------------------------------------------

Mostly taken from a 2004 course term paper by Noah Levinson, gbnl at aol.com .
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://phm.phmovement.org/pipermail/phm-exchange-phmovement.org/attachments/20041130/02e68643/attachment-0001.html>