1 / 25

HUMAN RIGHTS

HUMAN RIGHTS. Prof David K. Linnan USC LAW # 783 Unit 14. COMPARISON. WESTERN (ANGLO-AMERICAN VS CONTINENTAL) VS ASIAN OR DEVELOPING COUNTRY VIEWS We do first a summary presentation on human rights mostly from US viewpoint

jenski
Download Presentation

HUMAN RIGHTS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. HUMAN RIGHTS Prof David K. Linnan USC LAW # 783 Unit 14

  2. COMPARISON WESTERN (ANGLO-AMERICAN VS CONTINENTAL) VS ASIAN OR DEVELOPING COUNTRY VIEWS We do first a summary presentation on human rights mostly from US viewpoint Thereafter, please view Prof. Harkristuti Harkrisnowo for the Asian or developing country human rights viewpoint (asking yourself where the differences lie)

  3. INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS TRADITIONAL INT’L LAW VIEWS AS BACKGROUND 1. States as sole subjects, with personality 2. Mistreatment of foreigner considered “insult” of his/her state, so international law claim for injury to foreigner to his/her state derivatively NOT individually (diplomatic protection; “nationality” equates to standing here; but remember, juristic persons not covered) 3. Few international law rules directly applicable to individuals, however, such as jus in bello (no massacring civilians, enforced by military courts martial) or piracy/slavery as international law offenses

  4. TRAD ALIEN PROTECTION ALIEN PROTECTION STANDARDS AS SUBSTANTIVE BACKGROUND 1. Denial of justice (vague general physical protection standards for foreigners) 2. Economic protection standards (antidiscrimination, appropriate compensation for foreigners) 3. Arguments re national versus international standards (from consular justice to arguments about consent to local treatment re Calvo doctrine)

  5. POST WW II TWO WW II WATERSHED EVENTS 1. 1945 UN Charter stressing human rights (but following up Atlantic Charter arguably) 2. 1946-47 Nuremberg & Tokyo trials stressing customary law re aggressive war & crimes against humanity more in human rights terms

  6. HR THREE GENERATIONS 1ST, 2ND & 3RD GENERATION RIGHTS 1. Civil & Political (negative against state) 2. Economic & Social (positive claims for support) 3. Group rights as to development (issue of obligations between rich & poor states)

  7. US VIEWS US RIGHTS VIEWS 1. Strong proponent civil & political, view economic & social as merely aspirational, opposition to group rights traditionally 2. US has been generally reluctant to enter into human rights treaties itself, but pursues other states as with State Department’s annual human rights reports, etc. 3. US has resisted judicialization of human rights most recently as with ICC

  8. REALIZATION CONCEPTS 1. Modern concept is that “normal” human rights are a domestic concern, but that “grave violations” rise to level of int’l concern 2. Modern arguments both on substance of rights and on their enforcement (quiet state-to- state vs embarassing ECOSOC vs loud int’l judicial proceedings like ICC) 3. Universal jurisdiction or similar enforcement before municipal courts (e.g., ATCA & now defunct Belgian statute) 4. Now regional courts & conventions as with European Human Rights Convention, Inter- American and now African systems

  9. THEORETICAL BASIS I WHAT IS THEORETICAL BASIS OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAW? 1. Natural law claims/revival (jurisprudence plus secular versus religion issues) 2. Positivist theory (constitutions, etc.) 3. Cultural relativism theory (Western or modernist construction)

  10. THEORETICAL BASIS II WHAT IS THEORETICAL BASIS OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAW? (CONT’D) 4. Positive/negative restraints on govt (political theory) 5. Collective rights/duties (communitarianism theory, but issue whose rights) 6. Dialectical theories (issue re Marxism, integralism & UUD 1945 in Indonesia)

  11. SOURCES ISSUES WHAT ARE SPECIFIC INT’L LAW SOURCE ISSUES? 1. Issues re sources doctrine, general principles versus customary law formation questions 2. Positivistic treaty claims (eg, UN Charter preamble “to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights” plus article 55) 3. Re school of int’l law, NGO functional connection so who makes law issues in background

  12. LEADING ISSUES I CURRENT LEADING ISSUES IN HUMAN RIGHTS LAW 1. Civil and political rights (defensive against state intrusion, ie no extrajudicial killings) versus economic and social rights (claims for state support, ie free public education) 2. Universal standards versus regional or lower standards as for developing countries (cultural relativism arguments)

  13. LEADING ISSUES II CURRENT LEADING ISSUES IN HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (CONT’D) 3. Group rights issues, often gender based, typically in context of differential treatment in different societies with communalism claims in background (eg, issues re women’s status in Islamic countries) 4. Enforcement issues, meaning universal jurisdiction to enforce before domestic courts (eg, Belgian statute, Alien Tort Claims Act) plus ICC, not much on protocols re individual claims

  14. LEADING INSTRUMENTS I LEADING HUMAN RIGHTS LAW INSTRUMENTS 1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) (mixed) 2. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) (so-called first generation rights) 3. Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) (so-called second generation rights)

  15. LEADING INSTRUMENTS II LEADING HUMAN RIGHTS LAW INSTRUMENTS (CONT’D) 4. Idea of group rights typically rooted in academic and UN conference activity (so-called third generation rights, often documented in something called a declaration with issues re customary/general principles law technically) • Now some regional instruments too, ie European Human Rights Convention, but also often with enforcing tribunal attached • Whole string of newer UN sponsored substantive treaties, often 2nd generation claims as Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), Convention on the Elimination of All Discrimination Against Women (1979)

  16. LEADING INSTRUMENTS III LEADING HUMAN RIGHTS LAW INSTRUMENTS (CONT’D) 7. Current arguments about “indigenous rights”, often mixing environment & human rights claims under new declarations as emerging law claims, remembering CIEL paper & unit 3 sources arguments plus relative conservatism, for example of Supreme Court in Sosa case IN PRACTICE, SEEMINGLY DECREASE IN UNIVERSAL RECOGNITION AS GO DOWN THE LIST, LINKED WITH CLAIM THERE WERE EARLIER HUMANITARIAN LAW INSTRUMENTS IN PARTICULAR PLUS MINORITY PROTECTION TREATIES REACHING BACK LONG BEFORE POST-WW II MODERN INSTRUMENTS

  17. UN BILL OF RIGHTS I LOOK TO SO-CALLED UN BILL OF RIGHTS (UNIVERSAL DECLARATION & TWO COVENANTS) TO PICK OUT SPECIFIC RIGHTS 1. What of more general question whether rights analysis is suitable to address int’l law problems like globalization, distributive justice, etc.? 2. Shadow focus on individuals getting away from traditional focus on law between states? 3. Shadow focus on int’l law as restraining govts within own states? But problem of excuse for intervention, as with much of world’s response to US removing human rights-violating dictator in Iraq

  18. UN BILL OF RIGHTS II LOOK TO SO-CALLED UN BILL OF RIGHTS (UNIVERSAL DECLARATION & TWO COVENANTS) Int’l Covenant Civil & Political Rights Art 6 Deprivation of life Art 7 Torture Art 8 Slavery Art 9 Liberty & personal security Art 10 Criminal justice (presumption of innocence, etc.) Art 12 Liberty of movement

  19. UN BILL OF RIGHTS III LOOK TO SO-CALLED UN BILL OF RIGHTS (UNIVERSAL DECLARATION & TWO COVENANTS)(CONT’D) Int’l Covenant Civil & Political Rights (cont’d) Art 14-16 equality before law & crim pro Art 17 Privacy, family, home, honor Art 18 Freedom of thought, conscience & religion Art 19 Freedom of expression Art 21 Peaceful assembly Art 22 Freedom of association

  20. UN BILL OF RIGHTS IV LOOK TO SO-CALLED UN BILL OF RIGHTS (UNIVERSAL DECLARATION & TWO COVENANTS)(CONT’D) Int’l Covenant Civil & Political Rights (cont’d) Art 22 Freedom of association Art 23 Family & marriage Art 24 Children Art 25-27 citizen participation, equality before law, minority protection

  21. UN BILL OF RIGHTS V LOOK TO SO-CALLED UN BILL OF RIGHTS (UNIVERSAL DECLARATION & TWO COVENANTS) Int’l Covenant Economic, Social & Cultural Rights Art 6 Right to work Art 7 Labor conditions Art 8 Unions Art 9 Social security & insurance Art 10 Family, children & motherhood Art 11 Adequate standard of living, etc. Art 12 Physical & mental health Art 13-14 Education Art 15 Science & culture

  22. US VIEWS CUSTOMARY LAW US VIEWS OF (CUSTOMARY) HUMAN RIGHTS LAW Restatement (Third) Sec. 702 1. genocide 2. slavery 3. murder/disappearance 4. torture 5. arbitrary detention 6. systematic racial discrimination 7. gross violations of internationally recognized human rights Are these first, second or third generation rights? FOREIGN POLICY EMPHASIS ON CIVIL SOCIETY, MEANING NGOSs PLUS, & DEMOCRATIZATION

  23. REGIONAL LAW VIEWS REGIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTRUMENTS/SYSTEMS 1. European, Inter-American and African 2. Why no Asian? 3. Why US reluctance to participate in any international system? 4. Indonesian views pre/post 1998?

  24. ENFORCEMENT I HOW TO ENFORCE HUMAN RIGHTS AND CONTROVERSIES 1. Political versus legal enforcement 2. National versus international enforcement (courts) 3. Regional versus general international (courts) 4. In substantive law, ie Civil Law versus Common Law views re criminal procedure and new idea of int’l criminal law (eg, new ICC), linked with doctrinal approaches like Collision Theory of rights limiting themselves in conflict cases

  25. ENFORCEMENT II HOW TO ENFORCE HUMAN RIGHTS AND CONTROVERSIES (CONT’D) • UN human rights structure particularly on ECOSOC side with various reporters/high commissioner • On human rights side, if looked at Int’l Covenant on Civil & Political Rights would see under art 40 ECOSOC report of states parties, art 40 optional jurisdiction on state to state basis & art 1 optional protocol on individuals bringing claim against state a. Prob is state to state & optional protocol essentially deadletter, with claims more on a state to state basis and via UN rapprteurs b. Nothing comparable in scope to NAFTA Chapter 11 proceedings, instead with higher profile individual efforts typically under, for example, ATCA but there against individuals rather than state

More Related