Human Rights
In the modern era, especially after the Second World War, the rights of individuals to all aspects of human dignity were recognized in the UN Charter of 1945. From the preamble through to Article 68.
Three years later, and thanks to Eleanor Roosevelt, the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. Though a declaration, it gained gradually the status of customary law, through citations in documents and references in testimonies.
Customary law indicates that each State observes it in accordance with its ways of governance and its basic laws (or constitutions).
Between 1945 and 1948, the Nazi military trials in Nuremberg (1945) and the Tokyo military trials (1946) both established one general principle: A combatant in any armed conflict should not abide by orders which violate the human rights of individuals.
This led to the formulation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949. These conventions dealt largely with the strict observance of the protection of non-combatants during armed conflicts.
No power outside of that of the State is permitted to intervene in how the State implements its laws relating to human rights. The only exception is in instances of massive violations of human rights. In such cases, the offending State is subject to the new doctrine of international humanitarian intervention. A case in point: Iraq of Saddam Hussein.
Some non-governmental organizations have unduly violated those principles of sovereignty. Darfur (the Sudan) provides a specific example. As a member of the UN Security Council mission to Darfur in 2007, I noted that some of my colleagues in that mission began writing their reports against the Sudan before they touched Sudanese territories for the first time.
Several of the western human rights organizations had been reporting about "thousands of rape cases" in Darfur. Through my own investigations with the Sudan judiciary, Bar, and common folks, I discovered only 69 such cases. And these cases were all adjudicated by competent Sudanese courts.
Based on those facts and field assessments, I, unfortunately, concluded that the findings of human rights organizations should be scrutinized before taking their reports at face value.
Here we should note that human rights organizations, being dependent on outside funding, are prone to inflating or distorting their findings. Their goal here is to manifest activism worthy of support, which may not be the gateway to the real facts.
This is of great importance for reasons of credibility and public belief in those who advocate for human rights.
The US Constitution, drafted in 1787, defined in its preamble that the purpose of government was to "promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." And in its First Amendment, no law can be enacted "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) provided for respect of human rights as a condition for the promotion of friendly relations among nations as well as international peace and security.
This marked an evolution in our global outlook upon human rights. For it shifted that issue from the column of social issues to that of peace and security.
As a global community, let us nurture the tree of human rights by the nutrients of non-intervention in internal affairs of States, and of neutral advocacy for the rights of all human beings.
Three years later, and thanks to Eleanor Roosevelt, the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. Though a declaration, it gained gradually the status of customary law, through citations in documents and references in testimonies.
Customary law indicates that each State observes it in accordance with its ways of governance and its basic laws (or constitutions).
Between 1945 and 1948, the Nazi military trials in Nuremberg (1945) and the Tokyo military trials (1946) both established one general principle: A combatant in any armed conflict should not abide by orders which violate the human rights of individuals.
This led to the formulation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949. These conventions dealt largely with the strict observance of the protection of non-combatants during armed conflicts.
No power outside of that of the State is permitted to intervene in how the State implements its laws relating to human rights. The only exception is in instances of massive violations of human rights. In such cases, the offending State is subject to the new doctrine of international humanitarian intervention. A case in point: Iraq of Saddam Hussein.
Some non-governmental organizations have unduly violated those principles of sovereignty. Darfur (the Sudan) provides a specific example. As a member of the UN Security Council mission to Darfur in 2007, I noted that some of my colleagues in that mission began writing their reports against the Sudan before they touched Sudanese territories for the first time.
Several of the western human rights organizations had been reporting about "thousands of rape cases" in Darfur. Through my own investigations with the Sudan judiciary, Bar, and common folks, I discovered only 69 such cases. And these cases were all adjudicated by competent Sudanese courts.
Based on those facts and field assessments, I, unfortunately, concluded that the findings of human rights organizations should be scrutinized before taking their reports at face value.
Here we should note that human rights organizations, being dependent on outside funding, are prone to inflating or distorting their findings. Their goal here is to manifest activism worthy of support, which may not be the gateway to the real facts.
This is of great importance for reasons of credibility and public belief in those who advocate for human rights.
The US Constitution, drafted in 1787, defined in its preamble that the purpose of government was to "promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." And in its First Amendment, no law can be enacted "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) provided for respect of human rights as a condition for the promotion of friendly relations among nations as well as international peace and security.
This marked an evolution in our global outlook upon human rights. For it shifted that issue from the column of social issues to that of peace and security.
As a global community, let us nurture the tree of human rights by the nutrients of non-intervention in internal affairs of States, and of neutral advocacy for the rights of all human beings.
Comments
Post a Comment