Protecting Human Rights today

In 1948 on the 10th of December, the Universal Declaration of Human Rightswas proclaimed by the United Nations. 70 years later, Human Rights are in danger, maybe more than ever in the post–World War II era.

Failed States and Human Rights

The protection of human rights in our globalized world is the most important task for both individual states and the international community of states, that is, the United Nations, which is the political body of human society. Nevertheless, the protection of human rights and established state sovereignty, the two basic principles of international public law for the last 70 years, nowadays seem to in conflict. This conflict is apparent especially with regard to the problems of "failed states" and asymmetric threats, where the governments of some states are not willing or not able to protect human rights, corresponding to the most important connotation of the term "sovereignty", that is, not power but responsibility in both internal functions and external duties.

The International Community's Responsibility

Due to the change in the international environment after the end of the Cold War, which gave rise to new security issues and new powerful actors, who are identified as neither states nor human beings, like terrorist groups and networks, the world has to rethink the structure of the main global juridical and military instruments. A discussion about new opportunities for common action also needs to take place. One very central aspect of this discussion is to find out and make a decision on, in general, what should be more important for the 21st century: state sovereignty, which does not mean the principle of nonintervention, or protecting human rights, also by humanitarian intervention (political, economic and military).

The second point is to establish clearer rules, procedures and criteria for determining whether, when and how the community of nations has to take action due to the common responsibility of the whole of mankind for human rights. In my opinion, clearly the protection of human rights everywhere in the world is more important than guaranteeing state sovereignty. To discuss the question of the circumstances of this "responsibility to intervene", I refer to the recent proposal of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, published in 2001 by the International Development Research Center under the title "The Responsibility to Protect". The report covers the problem under the headlines of prevention, protection and reaction.

Prevention

Prevention addresses both the root causes and the direct causes of internal conflict and other man-made crises putting populations at risk. It is the state's duty to prevent any kind of violence within its borders, but the community of nations has to support individual states that are not able to ensure the prevention of violence on its own with political and economical development aid. The goal is to safeguard nation-building processes, political and economical development and stability in general. In fact, the prevention of violence is the single most important aspect of protecting human rights. Prevention options should always be exhausted before intervention is contemplated, and more commitment and resources must be devoted to it. One crucial point is human rights education.

Protection

If prevention is no longer an option and serious and irreparable harm is occurring to human beings, or is imminently likely to occur with large-scale loss of life, and the state in which this is happening neglects or is unable to stop the suffering, the international community has a responsibility to protect: "The principle of nonintervention yields to the international responsibility to protect" (p. XI). The commission further points out: "With the end of the Cold War, it became a live issue as never before. Many calls for intervention have been made over the last decade -- some of them answered and some of them ignored. But there continues to be disagreement as to whether, if there is a right of intervention, how and when it should be exercised, and under whose authority" (p. VII).

The key question of legitimate authority especially must be answered. In the commission's opinion, there is only one institution by which to carry out humanitarian intervention: "The UN, whatever arguments may persist about the meaning and scope of various charter provisions, is unquestionably the principal institution for building, consolidating and using the authority of the international community" (p. 48).

Reaction

If it follows from analysis that the international community of states has to react to the situation, this reaction has to be considered on different levels. That means first of all, that political, diplomatic and economical pressure must be used first before military action can be considered as the ultima ratio (last resort).

However, this does not mean that everything has to be tried first. If it is clear that other measures will not help the suffering immediately, military action can be taken into consideration without further ado because otherwise the loss of time would cause heavy loss of life and this is exactly what has to be stopped. This intervention must use only military measures of proportional means that obey operational principles, like clear and unambiguous mandates by the United Nations, involve a common military approach among involved partners, retain unity of command, clear communications and a chain of command, and last but definitely not least, pursue maximum possible coordination with humanitarian organizations.

Conclusion

Military intervention, when it occurs, must be carried out only for the purposes proposed, be effective, and be undertaken with proper concern to minimize the human costs and institutional damage that will result. The main purpose has to be the elimination of the conflict's causes while enhancing the prospects for durable and sustainable peace, (re-)establishing a regime that respects the Human Rights as considered in the Universal Declaration of 1948.