Human Rights - Changing conduct of States

"The implementation of human rights is regarded as a matter of changing the conduct of States." Comment. UPSC 2016 Paper 1A Qn 3c

States hold the legal and political authority to create, enforce, and safeguard the rights of individuals within their jurisdiction. The idea that human rights depend on the actions of states is rooted in the legalistic and institutional view of human rights, where states are not only the subjects that define, protect, and enforce rights but are also the key actors whose actions must be transformed to ensure the realization of human rights for all.

1. Human Rights as State-Centered

Legal Obligations of States: According to Hannah Arendt in The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951), human rights are intimately connected to the state, as the rights of individuals are meaningless without the protection of a political entity that can guarantee and enforce them. This is known as the state-centric model, which posits that the state is the central mechanism for securing human rights.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (1948), adopted by the United Nations, also places responsibility on states to uphold human rights through national and international laws. Article 21(3) of the UDHR states, "The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government," emphasizing that the state's legitimacy derives from its respect for the rights of its people.

International Treaties and Conventions, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), reflect the idea that states must implement and uphold international human rights standards.

2. State Sovereignty and Resistance to Change

Sovereignty and Non-Intervention: A key challenge in changing state conduct with respect to human rights is the principle of state sovereignty, which remains a cornerstone of international law. States often resist external pressure to alter their conduct, especially when it comes to issues like political repression, freedom of expression, or the rights of minorities.

Sovereign Immunity: As Karel Vasak pointed out in The International Protection of Human Rights (1975), the challenge lies in the conflict between the principle of state sovereignty and the international community’s efforts to hold states accountable for violations of human rights. Many states argue that human rights interventions violate their sovereignty, asserting that internal matters, including the treatment of their citizens, are beyond the reach of external scrutiny.

Moral vs. Legal Authority: John Locke in his Second Treatise of Government (1689) emphasizes that the social contract and the state's authority are based on consent from the governed, but in practice, many regimes view human rights as secondary to national interests. States may engage in human rights abuses to maintain political control, claiming their right to do so based on sovereignty and national security concerns.

3. Changing State Conduct: 

Role of International Law and Institutions: The idea that human rights implementation hinges on state conduct is mitigated by the growing role of international organizations, such as the United Nations, the European Court of Human Rights, and the International Criminal Court. These organizations provide a platform for human rights enforcement, offering mechanisms for holding states accountable for violations of international human rights norms.

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, developed by the United Nations in the early 2000s, represents an evolution in the idea that the international community has an obligation to intervene when a state fails to protect its citizens from mass atrocities, such as genocide or ethnic cleansing.

This doctrine shifts the focus from state sovereignty to the protection of individual human rights, acknowledging that in certain circumstances, the state’s conduct must be altered or overridden.

Humanitarian Interventions: Michael Walzer in Just and Unjust Wars (1977) discusses the ethical dilemmas surrounding humanitarian intervention. While he recognizes that intervening in a state's domestic affairs is fraught with moral and political risks, Walzer also contends that when states commit gross human rights violations, the international community may have a moral duty to intervene.

4. Domestic Legal Systems and Social Movements

Constitutional and Legal Reform: While international law provides frameworks for human rights protection, much of the implementation relies on the conduct of states at the domestic level. States must pass national laws, establish institutions, and ensure judicial independence to effectively safeguard human rights. The Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution, for example, is a critical document that shapes the protection of human rights domestically.

Domestic civil society and social movements also play a critical role in changing state conduct.

5. Challenges to Changing State Conduct

Cultural Relativism: One of the criticisms of the state-centric approach to human rights is the challenge of cultural relativism. Ruth Benedict, in The Chrysanthemum and the Sword (1946), argued that moral systems are culturally specific and what constitutes a human right in one culture may be viewed differently in another. This complicates efforts to impose a uniform standard of human rights across diverse societies, especially where states claim that their practices are culturally or religiously justified.

Political Will and Accountability: Changing the conduct of states often requires substantial political will, which may be lacking in authoritarian regimes or states that view human rights norms as external impositions. Amartya Sen, in Development as Freedom (1999), underscores that human rights implementation is often hindered by political structures that prioritize state control over the well-being of citizens.

The implementation of human rights as a matter of changing state conduct is a complex and contested issue. States play a central role in human rights protection through legal frameworks, institutions, and enforcement. However, the tension between sovereignty and human rights, the role of international actors, and the pressure exerted by civil society all shape the extent to which states comply with human rights norms. Thinkers like John Locke, Michael Walzer, and Hannah Arendt have highlighted the importance of state accountability, while contemporary theorists like Amartya Sen and Ruth Benedict raise questions about the feasibility and universality of human rights within diverse political and cultural contexts. Ultimately, the transformation of state conduct requires a combination of internal reforms, international pressure, and active civil society engagement to ensure that human rights are respected and protected globally.