Danny Murphy

Global Justice
Normative Forces: don’t worry, this is a tortoise race

DANNY MURPHY

“I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it.”
Dwight D. Eisenhower

Neier in his article is concerned about the new double standard which has emerged in human rights policy of major powers (1996). He calls for the human rights policies of governments to be independent of other pursuits of foreign policy. This will not happen any time soon and according to Garten it shouldn’t due to concerns about diplomacy and the beneficial effects of trade (1996). Unfortunately we live in a world of realist politics and human rights will always be considered a political tool of foreign policy which, as China has shown, can be used as leverage. Human rights will not in any near future be considered an exclusively altruistic endeavour by any government, though they may wish to frame it as such. Yet this fact should not discourage Neier. As this week’s article points out, in its relatively short history the International Criminal Court (ICC hereafter) is already growing teeth. The power of normative force should not be underestimated, especially over a long enough timeline. These normative forces are set to gain force in the future due to the work of NGO’s, American support for human rights, and the peaceful environment of the Democratic Peace.

Of course the ICC has severe weaknesses which the article highlights. Any referral to the ICC must be made by either the country in which the abuse is taking place or by the Security Council. This is clearly a serious limitation. Furthermore any referral to the ICC can be vetoed by any of the five permanent members of the Security Council. The elite position that these superpowers hold in this structure has been problematic for the cause of human rights. It is of course unfair and unjust that the America can espouse the principles of human rights and present itself as a champion of these same rights while carrying out policies of rendition, torture and maintaining facilities like Guantanamo Bay. The extent to which human rights can be overlooked for more traditional concerns of foreign policy can be seen in both the conduct of the US and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Even now America focuses on those countries who they deem not economically or politically important while staying conveniently uncritical of human rights abuses in India, China and Brazil. Yet while we lament the pace of progression we should also remind ourselves of how far the movement has come.

The end of World War II and the subsequent breakup of colonial empires  signalled the end of an era in which human rights abuses were considered nobody’s business but the sovereign state. Just over one hundred and fifty years ago slavery was still going strong in America. The concept of a global justice to which all countries should be subject was inconceivable. The sovereignty of a nation was considered an inviolate law and therefore domestic affairs were not scrutinised on an international level. Fast forward to the present, there are currently thousands of NGO’s worldwide, the most prominent of these such as Amnesty International hold considerable sway in the international arena, there is an agreed upon universal standard for human rights, and an International Criminal Court to enforce elements of this standard. Though these advancements may be imperfect they are still substantial. Furthermore though critics may worry about the elitism and inefficiency that characterises the ICC, they should remain aware of the normative forces that have been created due to these developments.

Though the espousal of human rights values by certain countries may be purely for political effect and may not reflect their conduct, rhetoric has a funny way of trapping those who use it. As these normative standards of human rights form international opinion they become a force to be reckoned with. Sceptics might object to this saying that talk is superficial whilst only actions matter. Yet already countries wish to be perceived as just countries in compliance with this normative opinion of justice. Nieir points out that even China, who might have been thought to be relatively indifferent to international opinion, demanded an apology from NBC after their commentary on the 1996 Olympics included some criticism of China’s human rights record.

The fact that rising and established powers such as India, America and Brazil are democracies, is fundamentally important to the spread of norms as this means to a greater or lesser degree freedom of expression and freedom to organise within these countries. The international environment is increasingly becoming one in which public opinion can be projected on to a world stage and perhaps influence the conduct of nations. NGO’s across the world carry out investigations, pressure governments and increase the transparency of domestic abuses. The work of these organisations supplement government efforts, carry out work that governments are unable to do and work that they do not want to do. These organisations do not acknowledge the borders of countries or have political agendas to which they have to compromise their ideals. They are agents of democratic publics who wish to see the implementation of global justice and they are progressively shining a light on government conduct internationally. As this transparency increases, the disparity between what government’s say and what they do becomes increasingly obvious. Eventually the blatant hypocrisy that is being exposed will eventually force them to act. As we can see in the case of Obama’s promises concerning Guantanamo. His subsequent actions on this matter may not have been complete but does anyone think any actions would have been taken if NGO’s had not lifted the lid on these abuses and publicised it internationally?

Another cause for optimism is the return of America to the  table of human rights. As the world’s current unipolar power their support is crucial to lend weight to the cause.  The Bush Administration seriously undermined and hindered the advancement of human rights. The election of Obama is a cause for celebration as concerns human rights. He may not have carried out his rhetoric to the full extent he promised, for example the closing of Guantanamo Bay. Yet he is the president of a broken system and the constraints on him are enormous. His support for human rights, such as his commitment to send troops to Uganda, is fundamental to the cause as it is legitimised by the involvement of the world’s superpower. While the US may be unjust in whom they persecute and whom they leave alone. We can at least take solace in the fact that they are persecuting some of the human rights abusers. Surely we would prefer that African dictators are brought to justice rather than not. Selective action is better than no action because the American preaching of human rights over a long timeline coupled with the increased transparency created by NGO’s is a recipe for eventual legitimate justice.

Finally we can take solace in the existence of the Democratic Peace. The end of this peace would shatter any possibility of international human rights ever being applied effectively. The catalyst for Universal Human Rights was war but it is the condition of peace, at least among the democratic nations, that has allowed it to advance. During war a country can easily suspend any and all agendas of human rights for matters of national security. Therefore any global war would put human rights securely back on the bench. Furthermore the democratic community who define themselves as fair and just countries gain legitimacy through this narrative but they are also trapped by it. It is true that they flaunt their own standards of justice but it also means that they are vulnerable to criticism. Democracy is considered a fair and legitimate system as elected officials are held accountable by their publics. Well now through NGO’s these publics are banding together internationally and attempting to hold their governments to account on an international level. The ICC is growing teeth and hopefully one day they will be equally sharp for all nations.

One thought on “Danny Murphy”

  1. Daniel Murphy’s article raises a number of key issues that arise from the ICC. Questions of legitimacy and functionality are at the apex of any institution that seeks to further the great human endeavour of a real tangible system of global justice. And while I share Daniel’s current pragmatic assessment of the operations of the ICC I do not find myself in accord with his quiet optimism that the institution will one day remedy the glaring teething problems it now faces. Let’s be frank, the ICC has the same inherent and mechanical flaw that is intrinsic to all international institutions. We live in a world that is governed by force, both legitimate and illegitimate, in which the powerful and wealthy are free to commit gross acts of human rights violations with impunity while moralizing to the weak and impoverished. It hardly needs to be stated that the likelihood of the ICC prosecuting any powerful western state, (say the U.S for example) is about as likely as Bashir al-Assad winning the Nobel Peace prize any time soon. Murphy asserts that ‘The Obama election is a cause for celebration’, but has there been any real discernable shift in policy? The U.S (along with it’s client Israel) still places itself outside the remit of international law through its refusal to cooperate with and significant opposition to the ICC. So in essence the actors may change from time to time but the plot remains remarkably the same. As long as there is one law for the rich and powerful and another for the poor and weak global legal institutions are doomed to fail in the footsteps of their forefathers and sinister individuals, such as Henry Kissinger, fearful of their own possible indictment with cry moral relativism and decry concepts of global justice. Thus it seems the ICC will inevitably become a court of law and not a court of justice.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *