Implementing the human rights framework in a participatory way is equivalent to exercising direct democracy (as opposed to representative democracy which has basically left rights holders in the cold).
1. Although the different UN Human Rights Covenants are the foundation of contemporary international law, many still call this into question. Most often the arguments for this are based on the underestimation, deliberate omission and/or ultimate ignorance of the quantum jump that the adoption of these covenants represents in the history of international relations and of development. These ‘deniers’ often make biased presentations, removed from the context, to discredit human rights principles which today are vital and indispensable for the advancement of democracy and a fairer brand of development. They empty human rights (HR) of their substance by defending a piecemeal approach to the HR covenants. [# Nous le peoples des Nations Unies, (M. and R. Wey)], (CETIM)
2. [Keep in mind that the UN is undisputedly a key instrument (though not the only) of the people of the world to pursue HR principles, but these people (us included) must fight to take the UN back to make good on these principles].
3. As HR activists, we have to confront these deniers and, at the same time, seek ways in which we can demand global and national decision-makers tackle global and national inequalities-of-opportunity and inequalities-of-result. Our motivation for this is not based on self-interest, on national interest, or on collective security or humanitarian considerations, but is based on our persuasion of the validity of the universally sanctioned entitlement of enjoying HR all people have. The latter fact places the national and international role of the nation-state in the forefront primarily (though not only), because of its moral responsibility. Therefore, governance that shares HR values is essential for delivering equality of opportunities and of equality of results using the HR-based framework* on a global scale. (adapted from H.P. Ruger)
*: Unfortunately, the HR framework is still pretty-much lifeless, in part because it is not well known by most, and in part due to the fact that the various General Comments (that expand on the implications of economic, social and cultural rights covenants) are not legally binding. It is further lifeless, because HR remedies, i.e., restitution, retribution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guaranteed non-repetition are still mostly but wishful thoughts. Much to be done here…
4. A world divided by inequalities in HR thus poses ethical and political challenges. International (multilateral and bilateral) and national responses to HR violations must be rooted in ethical values and be executed in an often adverse political reality; this is because ethical claims have power: the power to motivate and to delineate principles, delineate duties and delineate responsibilities, as well as the power to hold global and national actors** morally and politically responsible for achieving HR principles.
**: Confining human rights duties to the State only is nothing but a historical mistake (being remedied…?).
5. Why then are global HR inequalities still morally troubling to some? Regardless of a response to this question, efforts to reduce these inequalities are morally justified; now! It is just how much of our priority reversing these inequalities should receive (and, beware, HR skills and actions must not be the monopoly of professionals). (D+C No.2, Feb 2009). Moreover, never forget that the separation between science and HR is both bad science and bad HR. (C. Bryer, Center for PH and HR, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health).
6. Note, finally, that the ethical principles in the HR domain include the need for a disproportionate effort to help disadvantaged groups, i.e., positively discriminating towards them.
Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City
cschuftan@phmovement.org