|
|
| International Human Rights and Political Realism in the 21st Century |
 PRINTABLE VERSION |
Aside from the normative success of international mechanisms aimed to promote, and safeguard human rights, the lack of a deterrence mechanism has also served to be a contributory factor in the failure of applying such mechanisms on empirical grounds. It is important, however, to make a clear distinction between the lacks of a deterrence mechanism, with the lack of an enforcement mechanism. It is apparently clear that the massive air strikes conducted by U.N. coalitions against such states as Iraq have forced such states to comply with U.N. resolutions demanding their disarmament. It can be argued that such instances as the 1998 U.N. bombing of Iraq have indeed acted as methods, by which U.N. resolutions have, and can be enforced. One can assert that such measures as the use of military force have served as an enforcement mechanism since they have been carried out with the intention of constraining states to comply with Resolutions, and that since compliance was the objective of the air strikes, which were carried out. After all, the purpose of enforcement in the legal context has been to ascertain adherence to prescribed laws; precisely the purpose of past air strikes against Iraq.
It is also important to discern the dissimilarity between deterrence and punishment. Many will assert that the carrying out of air strikes against Iraq should not be viewed as an enforcement mechanism, but as a mechanism by which punishment can be imposed upon a state, which has failed to accede to international law. However, the fact remains that a military attack on a state such as Iraq will deceptively resemble punishment, yet it is not so. It would be logical to adopt the view that military action initiated by an ulterior force would indeed assist in strengthening the grip of the power of a dictator such as Hussein, for it unifies his populace against the outside force, and contributes to direct attention away from the repressive domestic environment. To further inquire into the matter, one can argue that military action against a dictator would serve to facilitate conditions beneficial for the leader. Hence, in the context of adhering to international human rights principles, there is a lack of a deterrence mechanism, and this contributes to a failure of the application of such principles on empirical grounds. The fact that the world has been witness to extensive military campaigns against countries such as Iraq illustrates that such attacks have been the unavoidable result of a lack of a deterrence mechanism in adhering to human rights principles. It also illustrates that in the context of international human rights law, enforcement is subsequent to the failure of deterrence, or in the case in question, subsequent to the lack of deterrence. Therefore, the issue of deterrence serves as another example of the failure of implementing human rights principles on empirical grounds. As well, it serves as an example of how fundamental human rights principles are paradoxically violated in the course of enforcement with the acclaimed intention of preserving them. The issue of ironically infringing upon the fundamentals of human rights law for the sake of preserving them will be alluded to in the next section of the paper. The essay now proceeds to discuss how certain states have adeptly manipulated the flaw of the lack of a deterrence mechanism, along with the general claim of honoring human rights principles, to actualize their national interests.
The first example, which will be drawn, pertains to the case of the imposition of economic sanctions, and the execution of military strikes against Iraq. It will be argued that such phenomena undoubtedly illustrate actions, which have been beneficial for states such as the U.S. and U.K., while having created a humanitarian disaster in the victim countries. In the case of Iraq, one can witness a commission of actions, which have been the consequence of Resolutions such as 661, which was adopted in 1990. This Resolution was adopted by the Security Council in response to Hussein’s incursion into Kuwait, and decreed that a ban be placed on all imports and exports except, “for supplies intended strictly for medical purposes, and, in humanitarian circumstances, foodstuffs”. However, figures illustrate that after the imposition of sanctions, Iraq has been importing only $33 million of drugs (mostly donated by international agencies), while this figure was $360 million prior to the sanctions. Having made mention of this, it would not be difficult to discern one cause for the humanitarian disaster in Iraq. The adoption of the Resolution in question, which facilitated the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, came subsequent to Desert Storm; a massive military strike, which destroyed a significant portion of Iraq’s civilian infrastructure. Both the military attacks and the imposition of sanctions have been the direct result of the nonsuccess of human rights norms to be applied on empirical grounds.
|
Tags
You must be logged in to add tags.
|
Writer Profile
Nima Shirali
This user has not written anything in his panorama profile yet.
|
Comments
You must be a TakingITGlobal member to post a comment. Sign up for free or login.
|
|
