Lesson 3: Human Rights and Surrounding Considerations
The 4 sessions in this Lesson refer to the relationship between human rights and international relations as well as foreign policy. Additionally, the role of private actors and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) shall be considered.
Session 3.1 – Human Rights and International Relations
In this session, we shall be considering how international human rights might operate within the broader framework of international relations. We shall account for various approaches to explaining the structure of international relations and consider where human rights might fit in to these approaches.
One key approach to international relations relates to the realist school, whereby the assertion is that states operate in anarchy. The understanding is that there is a pre-existing state of nature where there are no real rules as such, but rather just sovereign states. Each state operates for the betterment of their interests, even if that entails violating international law (a swell as human rights). Of course, international law operates to a certain extent wherever adherence to it would benefit the interests of the state.
In a similar manner, international human rights can at times serve the interests of states. States might claim adherence to a particular human rights norm, such as standing before the General Assembly and making the claim to uphold a norm. This can entrench their status as a sovereign and legitimize their status as a state. Human rights also can serve as the basis for one state making a claim against another, again especially when it would serve the interests of the state. Thus, a state might assert that another state is violating a human rights norm as grounds for upholding their own interests, like opening the door to intervention into another state. Note however that human rights in this context are not necessarily rights per se, as explained in the previous lesson, but rather are at the whim of the state, serving as grounds for a state to assert their interests.
Another approach in the international relations context is the inter-statist approach. In this context, there essentially is a divide between and within the state, sort of like two separate domains. The internal remains the area of the state, whereas the external (or international) lies within the realm of international norms, including human rights. Unlike the tie to state interests, the understanding of the international realm is associated with states agreeing upon various rules, and then being bound to such rules.
For international human rights, the status of human rights can be quite entrenched pursuant to an inter-statist approach. If states are demonstrated to have consented to the rules, such as via a treaty or customary international law, then states will be bound. Note however that the inter-statist approach is similar to a positivist account of international law, as it demands specific state consent to the norms. This could pose problems for human rights where state consent might be difficult to demonstrate, especially if one were to account for deviant state practice.
Another approach to international relations further down the spectrum is a cosmopolitan approach. The understanding is that binding rules exist for states.
Of course, for the international human rights system, this approach allows for a broader application of human rights, especially the entrenched rights. Note however that the issue of relativism and the border of state sovereignty come to the fore as well since the understanding is that the rules apply to all states, in a universal manner. In light of these approaches within the context of international relations, it is important to consider whether international human rights assist with the international process. Which approach provides the greatest stability – and do human rights assist with that goal in any way? Which approach recognizes the independent existence of a state as opposed to the formation and development of some form of international system or international process? Furthermore, if stability is the desired goal of international relations, note that it does not always translate into upholding human rights, especially when factoring in state security (including economic security).
OPTIONAL READING: Forsythe, 3-28
