dwa340 - Tumblr blog

[dwa340]

Is The War on Drugs Back On? USA Today

Hi Everybody,

I wanted to share this article discussing Oregon moving back towards drug criminalization. Currently, there is pushback around Measure 110 also known as the Drug Addiction Treatment and Recovery Act, which decriminalized drugs and was approved by voters in 2020.

“According to the CDC, in the 12 months ending January of 2020, there were 621 overdose deaths reported in Oregon. Then in the 12 months ending January of 2023, there were 1,431 overdose deaths reported, a significant increase.”

The article talks about the effects of Measure 110 and de-myths the rhetoric around the increase of visibility of drug use and overdoses as a result of it. The article prioritizes contextualization to demonstrate the positive effects of the act and list more foundational causes for increased overdose and homelessness that need to be addressed to accurately understand the situation.

-Jake

[dwa340]

Debate #5: Conditioning Aid on Rights for SOGI/LGBTQ Populations (Simon)

Background: On February 24th, 2014, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni signed the Anti-Homosexuality Act (AHA), also known as the ‘kill-the-gays bill,’ a modified version of a tabled 2009 Anti-Homosexuality Bill, sentencing those convicted of homosexuality to life imprisonment and requiring “citizens to report anyone suspected of being gay” (see the Economist editorial). After Museveni signed the AHA, Norway, the Netherlands, and Denmark cut aid to Uganda; Sweden and the United States redirected aid from the Ugandan government to civil society and NGOs; and the World Bank postponed a $90 million loan to Uganda’s health service sector (see Saltnes, 11 and Economist). Conditional and values-based aid has been a popular tactic by states and international organizations such as the World Bank and the IMF for decades (see Ramcharan, 3). Yet the effectiveness and morality have also been hotly contested. Within the context of Uganda’s 2014 AHA, our “debate” seeks to highlight four perspectives on conditioning aid based on the rights provided to particular sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI)/LGBTQ populations and these perspectives’ arguments for and/or against the practice.

Aid-Giver Perception In Favor Of Conditionality

Since Uganda is a geopolitically small nation, it can be easily pressured by Western countries to improve gay rights, unlike a larger nation that lacks in gay rights. Regardless of the precedence that it could set, imposing financial pressure on Uganda to change a policy that is radical, even by the standards of most anti-LGBT government policies.

President Yoweri Museveni has been ruling Uganda autocratically since 1986, so it is hard to argue that Uganda’s policy decisions reflect the beliefs of the Ugandan population as a whole (Britannica). Though on paper, Uganda holds multiparty elections, Museveni’s victories have been accused of being fraudulent and he has recently been accused of attempting to position his son as the successor of the Ugandan presidency. As a result, foreign aid should consider the fact that Ugandan governmental policy is non-representative of the Ugandan population, and the funding itself doesn’t undergo the same internal due-diligence that a functioning democracy should. As a result, it is impossible for Uganda to enforce change from the ground up, and these types of interventions could uniquely target the political elites of Uganda and enact important changes such as gay rights. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Yoweri--Museveni 

As argued by former US Secretary of State John Kerry, Uganda’s uniquely extreme new policy is comparable to anti-semitic policy in Germany and apartheid policy in South Africa (BBC). Since this is an apt comparison, it is difficult to assert that states and international organizations should tacitly approve of such extreme policies by maintaining the status quo of foreign aid just because they are being made in the geopolitically insignificant country of Uganda. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-26378230

Aid-Giver Perception Against Conditionality

Geopolitical incentive to provide aid that competes with the non-conditionality of China’s foreign aid(Wan)https://amp.dw.com/en/how-unconditional-is-chinas-foreign-aid/a-43499703 

The poverty rate in Uganda is around 40%, therefore it would be cruel to withhold aid, even though the Ugandan government has no political interest in improving gay rights (World Bank).

In terms of the World Bank specifically, its goal is to tackle extreme poverty, so its withholding of funding for the Ugandan health system shouldn’t be based on the condition of gay rights(Leach). Furthermore, this diversion of focus could lower the effectiveness of the World Bank in doing its prescribed job, therefore they should focus on reducing poverty and not try to branch out to approaching more social causes.

Efforts by Western countries to diffuse LGBT rights in Uganda overshadows the fact that Western countries are culpable of causing Ugandan homophobia in the first place through mechanisms of intervention (Weiss, 6). By continuing the regime of imposing policies on a country receiving foreign aid, the providers of foreign aid risk sabotaging their current efforts to enforce gay rights in the event that a new administration takes over the conditioning of foreign aid and carries a different moral compass but maintains the bargaining chip of influencing gay rights.

Homophobia is an easily diffusible political norm due to its lack of necessity for a self-defined group, whereas LGBT advocates have to organize at a lower level in order to influence political elites (Weiss, 5). In addition, the diffusion of LGBT advocacy only follows diffusion of political homophobia, as a non-homophobic society logically doesn’t need LGBT advocacy (Weiss, 16). As a result, it is uniquely difficult to effectively install progressive LGBT policy since the precursor to this policy is always the existence of homophobia. In this case of Uganda, it might prove to be ineffective to direct a change in such a pervasive ideology in a way that doesn’t come from the direction of compelling elite political circles from the ground-up, as opposed to from the top down in the case of foreign aid. Historical Perception In Favor Of Conditionality

The argument can be made that aid itself lacks historical effectiveness in many cases, therefore the restriction of aid wouldn’t necessarily make donors the culprit of a negative humanitarian impact in a situation where funding largely leads to corruption that worsens the condition of democracy and money often doesn’t arrive in the humanitarian-oriented places that it should. Alternatively, the use of this funding on a conditional basis that stipulates for progressive policy could seriously impact the political elites of Uganda in such a way that motivates them to change their political ideology.

In the case of Lebanon, its $133 billion of capital inflows from 1993-2012 haven’t tangibly led to an increase in development or quality of life (Finckenstein, 2). https://www.lse.ac.uk/ideas/Assets/Documents/updates/LSE-IDEAS-How-International-Aid-Can-Do-More-Harm-Than-Good.pdf 

Foreign aid can lead to increased corruption and therefore increasingly undemocratic political systems in recipient states(Finckenstein, 3)

Unconditional aid can give recipients the idea that their behavior and level of implementation of aid is unimportant in the process of gaining further funding(Finckenstein, 6).

When compiling a large number of cases, the correlation between official aid and economic growth is statistically insignificant, but slightly positive(Edwards).https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2014/11/how-effective-is-foreign-aid/ Historical Perception Against Conditionality

Sanctions haven’t worked historically and even when they have, there have been significant negative externalities that make sanctions a far less attractive tool in enacting change.States have still signed discriminatory laws/ignored the threats of sanctions

Targets states rather than norm influencers such as NGOs and churches

IMF loans with high amounts of contingencies have led to anti-democratic political consequences for Latin American countries between the years of 1998-2003 (Brown, 431). https://www.jstor.org/stable/25652919 

In the last 30 years, foreign aid has accelerated GDP growth by an annual 1% in the most poor recipient countries.(Edwards)https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2014/11/how-effective-is-foreign-aid/ 

The effectiveness of pushing for the achievement of specific reforms in aid conditionality is less effective than focusing on a broader qualification of progress(Spevacek)https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pnadm068.pdf 

“a review of all U.S. sanctions since 1970 shows that targeted countries altered their behavior in a way that the U.S. hoped they would just 13 percent of the time”(Hirsch)

Harsh sanctions can often have such an impact on humanitarian conditions that it turns citizens against sanctioning countries(Hirsch)

In the example of Iran in 2012, sanctions that kicked Iran off the SWIFT transaction system successfully pushed Iran to accept limitations to its nuclear program, but the externality of this sanction caused a plummet in Iranian living standards, and eventually caused Iran to suffer disproportionately in the COVID-19 pandemic, as they were unable to gain access to medical supplies (Hirsch). In this historical example of what is a successful use of sanctioning/aid restriction to compel change in a single policy, there was such an extreme negative outcome in human rights that the value of such imposition of policy is questionable.

[dwa340]

Debate #5: Conditioning Aid on Rights for SOGI/LGBTQ Populations (Molly!)

Background: On February 24th, 2014, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni signed the Anti-Homosexuality Act (AHA), also known as the ‘kill-the-gays bill,’ a modified version of a tabled 2009 Anti-Homosexuality Bill, sentencing those convicted of homosexuality to life imprisonment and requiring “citizens to report anyone suspected of being gay” (see the Economist editorial). After Museveni signed the AHA, Norway, the Netherlands, and Denmark cut aid to Uganda; Sweden and the United States redirected aid from the Ugandan government to civil society and NGOs; and the World Bank postponed a $90 million loan to Uganda’s health service sector (see Saltnes, 11 and Economist). Conditional and values-based aid has been a popular tactic by states and international organizations such as the World Bank and the IMF for decades (see Ramcharan, 3). Yet the effectiveness and morality have also been hotly contested. Within the context of Uganda’s 2014 AHA, our “debate” seeks to highlight four perspectives on conditioning aid based on the rights provided to particular sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI)/LGBTQ populations and these perspectives’ arguments for and/or against the practice.

For a jumping-off point on the topic, see: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2014/jul/09/lgbt-aid-development-rights

Economist Editorial: https://www.economist.com/leaders/2014/04/12/right-cause-wrong-battle

Saltnes: https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/78520/Saltnes%2B%25282020%2529%2BGlobus%2BWP%2B2%2B2020.pdf?sequence=2

Ramcharan: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2002/wp02183.pdf

I will be looking at the critical theory and ground-up/constructivist perspectives on this issue.

Critical Theory Perspective

LGBTQ/SOGI rights-conditional aid is a neocolonial and ineffective practice.

Conditional aid in Uganda is part of the Global North targeting of Global South countries using conditional aid, which facilitate a North-South binary

Discriminatorily enacted, Uganda represents how conditional aid removes necessary funding from Global South countries, causing them to cut spending or borrow more, thus perpetuating their subordinate and dependent international status

Conditional aid allows Global North states to impose their rights regime on the Global South

Conditional aid is demeaning to the states that receive it

Course Reading Connections

(Lynn Welchman) “Human Rights Law and Politics: A reflection on human rights work in the Middle East and North Africa”: Welchman also notes that within Tunisia, for example, human rights are often viewed by the left as bourgeoisie and Western, thus connecting critical theory concerns to other states and values within these states.

Supplementary Reading Connections

Economist Leaders: Discusses the World Bank’s unfair targeting of Global South states in its LGBTQ/SOGI conditional aid sanctions. (Clare Byarugaba and Maria E. Burnett) Uganda’s Horrific Anti-LGBTIQ+ Bill Returns: The Stakes Are Higher Than Ever: Describes the extent to which Uganda is reliant upon foreign aid. (Elias Biryabarema and Philippa Croome) Uganda told anti-gay bill poses financial risk: Highlights how conditional aid will force Uganda to borrow more. (Stephen Brown) Visibility or Impact? International Efforts to Defend LGBTQI+ Rights in Africa: Provides an overview of various critical theory perspectives on the subject, especially arguments that conditional aid is discriminatory, facilitates Global North economic and cultural domination in the Global South, and frames the Global South as backwards.

Ground-Up Constructivist Perspective

CON ARGUMENT: Conditional aid is harmful and ineffective.

Conditional aid worsens the socioeconomic status of LGBTQ peoples and citizens within the state receiving aid

Conditional aid prevents necessary services for individuals in the aid-receiving state (especially LGBTQ individuals)

The removal of services and money from individuals prevents their ability to be normative influencers

PRO ARGUMENT: Conditional aid can be effective when enacted through dialogue with and in support of civil society.

Civil society can inform the course of conditional aid

Conditional aid can divert funds to groups and sectors that may facilitate LGBTQ/SOGI rights

Course Reading Connections

(Rodríguez-Garavito) “Foreword to Human Rights at the Intersections": Highlights that we do not need to focus on the West/North, but the active role of local subjects in forming and practicing human rights. Human rights are a collaborative process. (Chase) "An Anti-Foundational Understanding of Human Rights": Rights are created from the bottom-up, through communication and interaction. Thinking of human rights as property of global elites underplays the capacity of individuals and the social and cultural dynamics that create and shape human rights. As such, the cultural relativist argument priviledges forces that threaten cultural diversity and takes an uncritical stance to states that violate human rights. (Rodríguez-Garavito) “Human Rights 2030: Existential Challenges and a New Paradigm for the Field”: Expresses the necessity of collaboration in human rights development and protection. (Quataert) “The New Moral Order”: Human rights are formed through historical struggles from below. Human rights thought must be understood concretely through specific historical movements that, reinforced by their transnational and international linkages, confront the power and privilege working against them.

(Chase) "Human rights contestations: sexual orientation and gender identity": Northern states are unlikely to be norm entrepreneurs in Global South states. (Javier Corrales) "LGBT Rights and Representation in Latin America and the Caribbean": Underscores how important institutional funding and civil society connections are to advancing LGBTQ/SOGI rights.

Supplementary Reading Connections

(Johanne Døhlie Saltnes) "To Sanction or Not to Sanction? Normative Dilemmas in the Promotion of LGBTI Human Rights": Argues that linking conditional aid to LGBTQ/SOGI communities increases antagonism against them. Additionally, Saltnes notes that by removing funding from aid-dependent states, conditional aid in turn removes funding from individuals, social groups, and essential services (including those fighting against HIV/AIDS). Saltnes also highlights how civil society and grassroots movements are important for informing states about the proper course of action for conditional aid. Conditional aid can in turn divert funding to these groups.

[dwa340]

Debate #4: An Israeli Case at the ICC: Its Merits, or A Lack Thereof

Noelle and Yuna

In light of our debate today, we've laid a brief background guide for our in-class debate here!

Background Memo:

The ICC: Structure and Jurisdiction

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was established to serve as a judicial body with jurisdiction over the most serious crimes committed internationally. The Court has complementary status to national jurisdiction, and specifically pursues cases that are not achievable or have not been undertaken at a local or national level.

Article 5 of the Rome Statute establishes the Court's jurisdiction over:

I. The crime of genocide

II. Crimes against humanity

III. War crimes

IV. The crime of aggression

History of ICC within Israel and Palestine

On March 3, 2021, Prosecutor Bensouda of the Office of the Prosecutor announced the opening of an investigation into the violent conflict between Israel and Palestine. The pre-trial Chamber I decided that the Court could exercise its criminal jurisdiction in the situation, within the territories of Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem Current Prosecutor Khan has not issued any charges against Israeli or Hamas individuals The ICC has formally condemned the attack of October 7th while also urging Israel’s government to abide by international humanitarian law The court has nonetheless still supported an investigation into both Hamas and the Israeli government.

Connections:

In International Law for International Relations, Basak Cali discusses jus ad bellum, the legal framework for the conditions under which states may resort to war, or the use of military operations. Under the principles of jus ad bellum, self-defense is legally permissible condition for which war can be waged.

Concerning the rules that regulate the use of force during times of war, or jus in bello, Cali outlines the principle of distinction. This premise under international humanitarian law, that armed forces are required to distinguish between military and civilian targets.

The principle of proportionality, as described by Cali, states that the use of force that is excessive to any military advantage to be had, such as in producing tremendous civilian casualties, is prohibited under IHL.

While states have the wherewithal to violate international humanitarian law, violations of established treaties can mean formal investigations and potential prosecution by international courts, such as the ICC.

Debate Structure:

Position A: Israel can and should be prosecuted at the ICC for war crimes on the basis of legal fact that will have positive political consequences

Position B: An Israeli prosecution is not legally grounded; it will be a setback to reconciling what is a political conflict.

[dwa340]

NGOs and how they finance their operation

I wanted to give more information about how NGOs operate. Last class, I asked Renn and Lauren about how can organizations finance their operations when they are focused solely on grass roots work?

After class, I realized that the organization that I worked for not only raised money from grass roots activism, but also from corporations.

The organization I worked for was Ashinaga Foundation. This is an organization that gives scholarships to orphans in Japan and Africa. I worked in the translation department from Ashinaga.　

First, Ashinaga raises money from street fundraisers. This allows them to appeal to the general public. This is very effective because most Japanese people know Ashinaga as an organization that does street fundraisers to finance scholarships for orphans.

Here is the article to Ashinaga's street fundraiser.

https://www.ashinaga.org/en/media/hq/29657/

At the same time, Ashinaga receives donations from prominent companies in Japan. Some of the companies include Meiji Yasuda Life and Mitsubishi Bank.

I think Ashinaga is an example of how NGOs finance its operation through grass roots work and connections with corporations.

Gensuke

[dwa340]

Contestation within LGBTI movements/Putin's gender performativity and its implications on the global stage

In response to the Ayoub and Stoeckl article, it's evident how the struggle for LGBTI rights globally is characterized by contested social movements. The article effectively portrays how advancements made by the LGBTI rights movement are met with opposition from conservative and religiously motivated groups. 

A pivotal aspect of the contentious nature of these movements is the emergence of transnationally connected networks mobilizing against LGBTI rights. These networks, often rooted in nationalist, traditionalist, or religious ideologies, actively undermine the achievements of the LGBTI community. By employing similar transnational tools and strategies as the LGBTI rights movement, such as framing their arguments around traditional values or family preservation, these oppositional networks present significant challenges to the advancement of LGBTI rights.

Ayoub and Stoeckl highlight in their piece how Putin framed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as a defense against LGBTQ individuals and a protection of the traditional family. Putin has mentioned how anyone acknowledging biological differences between men and women risks ostracization. This natural argument regarding gender, which reduces individuals to a binary understanding, also influences conceptions of marriage and sexuality. Within international politics, Putin assumes the role of a macho figure who performs his masculinity.

Last year, in my gender and IR class, we examined the macho image cultivated by Vladimir Putin and how his presidency relies on conventional gender understandings and heteronormativity. When Putin first came to power, his image was capitalized on his passion for physical fitness to portray him as a strong, masculine leader who could revitalize Russia's perceived geopolitical weakness following the Soviet collapse. This narrow definition of masculinity propagated by Putin's regime has led to significant homophobia as a political agenda.

The article, “Russia, Homophobia and the Battle for ‘Traditional Values,’” delves into Russia's enactment of a 'gay propaganda' law prohibiting the public portrayal of ‘non-traditional sexual relations.’ These restrictions serve the broader purpose of solidifying conservative support domestically and positioning Russia as a defender of ‘traditional values’ in opposition to the West.

Ayoub and Stoeckl contend that moral conservatives capitalize on populist narratives opposing globalization and the ‘ruling global elite’, falsely linking LGBTI rights with elite interests while the resistance movements are well funded by elites themselves. Interestingly, while Russia is often viewed as a threat to Western democracies due to its military aggression and disinformation campaigns, some conservative groups in the United States and Western Europe perceive Putin's Russia as a compelling conservative political force.

Just as the Ayoub and Stoeckl article explores a reformation of our understanding of family structures, there is a need for a transnational reconceptualization of gender and sexuality. This shift is essential to challenge traditional notions of gender and sexuality, ensuring that individuals who do not conform to the gender binary and heteronormativity are not marginalized by restrictive policies. 

--- MK

[dwa340]

Local Elections in Mexico and Dangers of Populism

Something I found interesting to show in class this week is how local elections in Mexico are currently under severe danger because crime cartels are targeting local candidates who threaten their power in the area. This is after AMLO (president of Mexico) created a quasi-military National Guard which disbanded the federal police and the local police currently have little power against cartels that are active in the area. Furthermore, AMLO has been dismissive of growing electoral violence. This attitude has been in line with AMLO's push for populism within Mexico combined with a general dismissive attitude towards rising concerns from NGOs, human rights activists, and various movements within the country. Overall, this has worsened the conditions of human rights in the country, resulting in the clear democratic backsliding that we're seeing right now.

Even more interesting that the article noted is that cartels in the country have also begun diversifying their business and have extorted payments from multiple local businesses and governments while conducting political assassinations and financing candidates who they find helpful. Combined with AMLO's populism and denouncement of human rights activists/organizations, the state of human rights in Mexico is in remarkable danger, with this election being a prime example of why the defense and upholding of human rights values and practices are incredibly important. It also highlights the point made in the Gordon article today about how governments' villainization of human rights organizations as security or political threats creates more insecurity overall.

I felt it was important to tie in an article around Mexico as a lot of focus in the news lately have been (rightfully) been focused on various other current issues, however, with the state of human rights in Mexico seemingly getting worse with this upcoming election, it felt right to call attention to it.

-Francesca

[dwa340]

Hello everyone!

For this week’s reflection, I was interested in synthesizing Moravcsik and Gordon’s articles. I will attempt to do so within the case study of India, specifically regarding the state’s weaponization of the language of terrorism to create laws that facilitate the prosecution and threatening of human rights NGOs. According to Amnesty International and other established human rights NGOs, the Indian government has recently used laws including “the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA), the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA)” to curb civil society and local and international human rights work under the guise of protecting the country from organizations that could be used for terrorist purposes. Under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act alone, the Indian government has canceled the licenses of over 20,600 non-profit organizations in the last 10 years, specifically targeting human rights NGOs.

India’s actions struck me as very similar to Israel’s development of NGO Monitor and other laws meant to intimidate and curb the influence of human rights NGOs in the name of state security as discussed in Gordon’s article. Gordon argues that Israel weaponized the term “lawfare” to attack NGO presence in the country that might threaten the government’s anti-human rights actions. I see a similar situation in India. Weaponizing the emotionally charged word “terrorism,” the government establishes a false narrative of immediate and necessary action against possibly nefarious NGOs. In doing so, the government can thwart and silence their opposition. 

While many of the laws utilized by the Indian government to attack human rights NGOs existed long before these attacks began, the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which came into power in 2014, amended these laws to facilitate greater attacks on NGOs and human rights groups. Since the BJP’s ascent to power, India has been in a democratic backslide. This brings me to the Moravcsik article. He argues that states with established democracies or authoritarian governments are the least likely to approve of binding human rights regimes. India, as a democratic state since the 1950s that is now following a path to authoritarianism, fits into this definition. This case study thus fits Moravcsik’s hypothesis that states act in self-interest and that states that do not desire recognition by the global consensus or those with established democracies do not support global human rights interventions.

An established democratic state that is weaponizing language and law to attack human rights NGOs, India is an excellent example of Gordon and Moravcsik’s arguments about state receptivity to human rights interventions within the context of their domestic situations.

- Molly

[dwa340]

Lawfare and NGO Monitor

Hi everyone!

After reading Gordon's "Human Rights as a Security Threat: Lawfare and the Campaign against Human Rights NGOs", I wanted to look further into NGO Monitor, one of the right-wing groups referenced in the article. Gordon delves into the group's smear campaign against one of the UN Human Rights Council's previous reports, following the violent conflict that erupted in Gaza in 2008. From its findings, the commission determined that international humanitarian law had been breached throughout the war, and indicated that plausible crimes against humanity had been committed. After its release, NGO Monitor went about issuing a formal press release discrediting the report, on the basis that its findings relied on the testimonies of several human rights organizations.

It would seem that the group has maintained its adversity to the UN Human Rights Council, as per its denouncement of a 2022 report by the HRC's Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory. I've included NGO Monitor's response to the report below.

In its article, NGO Monitor seeks to delegitimize the COI's report on the grounds that it is substantiated by information supplied by what the group refers to as "terror-linked and anti-Israel NGOs" (NGO Monitor).

Evidently, the group's campaign against NGOs persists. As Gordon pointed out, NGO Monitor's prior campaign against human rights organizations, as well as the New Israel Fund (NIF), actively sought to compromise their public perception and funding. By discrediting the integrity of these reports, NGO Monitor effectively labels the COI's mandate as biased, ultimately dismissing the seriousness of its claims.

As such, it can be safely assumed that the neoconservative campaign against liberal human rights organizations described by Gordon persists into the present day. Wherein these groups continue to situate lawfare as a national security threat, they may effectively blockade the work of human rights organizations, especially in a time where they are certainly needed.

Critically, despite the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) formal order in the genocide case brought forth by South Africa, the Israeli government, has thus far, rejected compliance in one fundamental measure, at least. According to Human Rights Watch, the Israeli government has maintained its obstruction of the entry of humanitarian aid and essential services into Gaza. This has effectively continued the denial of food, fuel, and aid to the 2.3 million Palestinians within Gaza, serving as collective punishment against the civilian population and starvation as a weapon of war.

-Noelle

[dwa340]

Justifications for Human Rights: Natural Rights

This is Gensuke. I will break down the idea of natural rights in this post.

My main claim is that natural rights are the main core in human rights.

Natural rights are rights to life, liberty, and property. People possess these fundamental rights when they are born.

This idea of natural rights originated in ancient Greek era. Philosophers like Aristotle claimed that human beings possess natural rights before nations. He added that governments are obligated to protect citizens natural rights.

In the 17th century, an English philosopher named John Locke contributed in deepening the understanding of human rights. In his books he claimed the following three things about natural rights.

Humans have rights to life, liberty, and property before any political institution 

Governments are created to protect citizens natural rights

When natural rights are not protected by governments, citizens have the right to overthrow that government. 

There are evidences to prove that the basic ideas of human rights originate from natural rights.

Evidence 1: The Declaration of Independence

“ We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. “ 

Jefferson suggests that people have the fundamental rights (rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness). These rights are fundamental for human rights.

Evidence 2: Universal Declaration of Human Rights (General Assembly Resolution)

Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Although this is a resolution from the General Assembly, every human rights treaty mentions the UDHR in their preamble. This suggests that natural rights are the foundations of human rights.

-Gensuke

[dwa340]

Personal Autonomy Approach to Human Rights (Gerwith and Boylan)-Bernadette Robinson

 Background memo 

Point 1: The justification of claims to the possession of basic human rights is grounded in the capacity for rationally purposive agency, which essentially means all human action is done for a certain reason. In other words, our capacity for agency (to plan and execute an action aka personal autonomy) is the foundation for human rights. 

Point 2: Importantly, freedom and well-being are two necessary prerequisites for our ability to have agency and are also the basic requirements for being human. Therefore, every human is entitled to have access to these basic requirements of freedom and well-being. 

Point 3: To be considered successful an argument for human rights must specify what a person has a right to; in addition, it must be universally applicable and must incorporate the principle of equality. There exists an absolute right to life possessed by all human beings, meaning it cannot be overridden under any circumstances.

Point 4: The personal autonomy approach to human rights involves two theories: The principle of generic consistency and the tale of embeddedness.

The Principle of Generic Consistency (Alan Gerwith) is based on the idea that there is a necessary concern for others’ human rights

Each person must act in accordance with their own and all other persons’ generic rights to freedom and well-being. 

Tale of Embeddedness (Michael Boylan)

Both the principle of generic consistency and the tale of embeddedness make the possibility of human action a cornerstone of their theoretical framework

generic consistency: human action is foundational

tale of embeddedness: a person’s desire to be good is more foundational

The precondition of action involves the possession of a nested hierarchy of goods

Basic goods such as food and water enable the biological conditions for action

Some skills are necessary for effective action, such as literacy and basic human rights

Human rights have an instrumental value and are justified by their contribution to the agent’s desire to be good

Relevant readings: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1037&context=poliscifacpub (helpful article in understanding the principle of generic consistency)

The “Personal Autonomy Approach to Human Rights” section of the Gordon reading gives a good overview of this philosophical framework and where much of the information below is derived from.

Connections with Benhabib

Benhabib argues that first and foremost as a moral being capable of communicative freedom you have a fundamental right to rights; in other words, you have a right, in the sense of a moral claim, to be recognized by others as a “rights-bearing person” entitled to a legally instituted schedule of rights” (Benhabib 40). While Benhabib doesn’t completely agree with the personal autonomy approach, they do emphasize the importance of communicative freedom, which is closely tied to agency. Benhabib also argues that the juxtaposition of the personal autonomy approach and the “political” or “functional” conception of rights as highlighted by Beitz is false and simplistic because any justification for human rights will presuppose some conception of human agency, as well as entertain some assumptions about the nature of our sociopolitical world (Benhabib 38). While the personal autonomy approach and Beitz’s functional approach to rights seem to oppose each other, both theories could benefit from altering their frameworks to utilize ideas from each other.

Connections to Natural Rights

All humans possess natural rights, which are independent of the political recognition granted by the state and are also absolute universal moral norms (Gordon 31). This aligns closely with the concept of personal autonomy, emphasizing the necessity for rights to be universally applicable and grounded in the principle of equality. It is essential to recognize that natural rights find their origin in a divine source, while the personal autonomy approach asserts that human rights are rooted in agency.

Debate:

Beitz Ideas and Counter Points

Beitz Idea: Philosophical ideas about human rights constrain what human rights are and don’t provide a good explanation for why violations occur Counterpoint: Philosophical ideas about human rights serve as a foundational framework that offers a comprehensive and aspirational vision of the inherent rights and freedoms that all individuals should enjoy. 

Beitz Idea: We can’t separate human rights theory (it’s too abstract) from real life Counter-Point: As Melany suggests, we need to clarify the philosophical framework of human rights. This clarification will enable us to more effectively address real-world instances of human rights violations.

Beitz’s Idea: “Human rights should be based on what happens not what it ought to be.” Counter Point: It is crucial to recognize that human rights ideals serve as aspirational benchmarks. What ought to be reflects the moral and ethical principles guiding our society. A focus solely on what happens may risk normalizing or accepting existing injustices, hindering progress toward a more equitable world.

Criticisms of the personal autonomy approach:

It seems logically correct to assume that people who are incapable of acting in a “rationally purposive manner” have no legitimate claim to human rights

People like children, the impaired elderly, etc. cannot validly claim to be protected by human rights bc they can’t act in a “rationally autonomous way”

Response to these criticisms:

The concept of personal autonomy itself can be subjective and culturally influenced. Different societies may have diverse definitions of rationality and purpose, and what is considered rational in one context might not be the same in another. 

This framework is also grounded in the fact that every human is entitled to have access to these basic requirements of freedom and well-being. Any law that violates this is violating human rights.

[dwa340]

Beitz Practical Rights Approach

Background Memo:

Discussion and implementations of human rights have expanded a lot in recent years. There are a myriad of ways to look at why human rights have emerged and continue to emerge from natural rights, to personal autonomy, to reason giving to practical. In this debate we will be breaking down some of these approaches and debating whether or not they're a good method to approach what human rights are (or ought) to be. I personally, will be discussing Charles Beitz's view of a Practical Approach to thinking about human rights. The points are outlined below:

Main Question:

What is the nature of human rights? (i.e. What does it take for a value or idea to become a human right not what are/aren't genuine human rights)

Main Points:

We should not use philosophical approaches (like natural rights) when answering what human rights are. This is because a philosophical approach constrains what human rights are and explanations for why violations occur

-Natural rights have had important influence on more recent thought about human rights, but it's misleading to think of human rights coming from the same mold/sharing the same features in contemporary thought. The founders of modern human rights considered saying that human rights belong to people by nature-- they decided not to because it would be too narrow of a view, distorting our perceptions of the HR enterprise. (This is my own note, but likely because in the UNDHR, they left room for rights to evolve-- if constrained to natural, we would be limited in rights claims).

Human rights are public principles that are meant to do a certain kind of work in the discourse of global politics-- not just a state of nature or a generic form of society, abstract from reality. They are a public basis of political criticism

This question should be approached through the idea of sui generis-- or the idea that they should be constructed based on what actually happens in practice

He argues for a two-level approach to human rights-- states have a responsibility to protect human rights and if they don't, then international concern and interventions are justified and not just limited to coercive replies

-Responses can include accountability through UN HR monitoring systems, incentives by states and IGOs to motivate policy change, development of legal and economic capabilities and infrastructure to build a state's capacity to satisfy HR norms, Efforts by local NGOs or activists to influence domestic actors and shift beliefs, economic sanctions or humanitarian military intervention, and change in policies of external actors aimed at helping a state satisfy HR (i.e. lifting trade restrictions or sanctions that are contributing to HR violations)

If a state accepts a rights claim then they are obligated to: (1) make it a political priority to protect it, (2) Enact legal and policy instruments to protect the right, and (3) if a state fails to protect the right, then it graduates to the second level of Beitz's approach, meaning international concern.

Domestic Violence Application:

Many people criticized the 1979 Women's Convention because did not include DV protections -> Beitz argues that it should not be a human right because of how contested it is in various cultures -> If the international community intervenes, it can be viewed as paternalistic and intrusive because it's viewed as an attack on social practices-> BUT external local agents (like NGOs or activists) can act as human rights translators and use coercive measure to change local perceptions so it can be elevated to a HR that's protected

Counter-Arguments and Counter-Counter -Arguments:

States' disagreement about how to implement HR counts against the two-level model

-Vast majority of states do agree that human rights violations should be punished, the disagreement often lies in what types of intervention is permissible (disagreement within practice not about) -> this happens because modern HR have not developed as hoped and there's no international judicial system that can enforce rights

The model is too state-centric

-Because human rights practices and discussions are often state-centric! The model is meant to character HR practices as they are not what they ought to be. States are still able to and should punish individuals who violate HR

Can't states always use the paternalism excuse and therefore block emerging rights from being established or interventions on rights violations?

-Likely, yes, but-- as already stated, interventions are not limited to coercive measures. There are a variety of tools in place that can be used in situations like these, especially the work of local NGOs and activists. If we only see coercive measures as the only tool, then has the possibility to create "we vs. they" situation which can further infringe on liberties of people who the right would help, therefore better to defer to "translators" who better understand the culture, what's realistic and move the dial.

-Francesca

[dwa340]

The ICJ and UNSC Veto Power

Hi everyone!

I wanted to share this article by The Intercept in light of mention of the Nicaragua v. United States of America case taken to the International Court of Justice in chapter 8 of Cali's International Law for International Relations.

The chapter frames the case brought before the ICJ within the context of the enforcement power of international courts. In 1984, Nicaragua filed a formal complaint to the ICJ, citing incidents in which the US had violated international law through mining within its harbors and extending support to the right-wing rebel group, the Contras, against the Sandinista government. These transgressions, which Nicaragua maintained to be violations of the Charter on the Organization of American States, the UN Charter, and the Montevideo Convention, were substantiated by the ICJ's final ruling. Ultimately, the US vetoed the final judgement made by the ICJ, in favor of Nicaragua, on the grounds that the court never had the jurisdiction to pursue the case in the first place.

At one level, the case of Nicaragua v. United States of America puts into question what means international courts, such as the ICJ, have for prosecuting P-5 member states, if they possess veto power in the Security Council. If one of the fundamental functions of international court is to enforce international law, the capacity for P-5 member states, such as the US, to avoid the provisions of the the ICJ's ruling undermines the integrity of institution at large.

Within the contemporary context, the United States' rejection of the ICJ's ruling in its case against Nicaragua poses significant considerations for a potential outcome on case, if pursued in the future, against Israel. While the article affirms the point that a ICJ case against Israel, if inevitably brought forward, would take years to come into fruition. Furthermore, the strong diplomatic connection maintained between the US and Israel could harbor concerns over the effectiveness of ruling persecuting war crimes and genocide against the Palestinian people. As the case on brought forward by South Africa continues, we will be witnessing in real-time the potential enforcement capabilities of the court, once its ruling has been issued.

It is further interesting to note that Nicaragua just recently sought permission by the ICJ to join South Africa's case.

-Noelle

[dwa340]

Man-made famine in Tigray

Background on the Tigray Genocide

Over the past eighteen months, Ethiopian federal forces, Amhara Special Forces, and allied Amhara officials have been implicated in severe human rights abuses in Ethiopia's northern Tigray region, amounting to allegations of genocide. The roots of ethnic tensions in the area trace back to the 1990s when the Ethiopian government, led by the Tigray People’s Ethiopian Front (TPLF), incorporated a portion of northern Ethiopia into the Tigray regional state. This move sparked discontent among many ethnic Amharas who perceived it as an annexation, contending that the territory should have been integrated into the Amhara regional state (Roth 2).

The current wave of ethnic cleansing evolved from a conflict that erupted in November 2020, pitting Ethiopian federal forces and their allies against the TPLF (Roth 1). Subsequent to the takeover of Western Tigray by Amhara security forces and officials, reports indicate a disturbing pattern of mass killings targeting Tigrayan communities.

Man-made famine in Tigray

I would like to highlight the deliberate use of man-made famine as a genocidal tactic, particularly in Tigray, and draw parallels with the genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Article 2 of the UN Genocide Convention identifies one of the five acts of genocide as "deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part." In the context of Tigray, this involves the intentional denial of access to essential resources such as food and clean water, a clear violation of the provisions outlined in the UN Genocide Convention. The Ethiopian Prime Minister, Abiy Ahmed, has been accused of intentionally orchestrating a famine in Tigray, employing tactics such as imposing roadblocks to hinder the delivery of aid. The impact on the Tigrayan population has been profound, with more than 28,000 children diagnosed with severe acute malnutrition and 85 percent of pregnant mothers experiencing malnourishment (Omna Tigray 1). The United Nations (UN) and other authoritative organizations have officially recognized the famine in Tigray as man-made (Omna Tigray 1).

I think it is important to understand how devastating man-made famines can be on a population, as famine is sometimes portrayed as an unfortunate natural occurrence during war or conflict when they are frequently the result of deliberate actions. By recognizing the deliberate nature of such crises, we can better address the underlying causes and work towards preventing or mitigating the devastating consequences of these actions on innocent lives. The legal case presented by South Africa against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) underscores the deployment of famine as a tactic aimed at undermining the Palestinian population in Gaza. It emphasizes that 93% of the population is facing crisis levels of hunger, a dire situation caused by Israel imposing a "complete siege" on Gaza, prohibiting the entry of essential resources such as water and fuel into the strip.

Bernadette

[dwa340]

Migrant Worker Abuses in the UAE and COP28

I thought that it would be interesting to use this post to write about human rights in the UAE, specifically in terms of the prevalence of exploitation of migrant labor in the country. Given that the UAE is often considered to be a more "westernized" or socially liberal country compared to other countries in the Middle East, it seems that it would be easy to brush over the egregious human rights abuses that take place in the country. Since migrant workers compose over 80% of the UAE population, this issue is highly prominent in the conversation of their human rights treatment of residents overall.

One of the main legal issues that have led to widespread exploitative practices in the UAE is its kafala sponsorship system, which provides employers with a near-universal leverage over the migrant workers' visa or residency situation. When workers are routinely getting their passports confiscated threatened with detention or deportation when they decide to leave their job, their employment situation appears to resemble more of a serfdom than a job involving a fair exchange between employers and employees. Furthermore, the harsh weather conditions that the workers have to endure causes them to face larger health risks when compared to low-class laborers in other countries. This risk is further amplified by the fact that companies often place their workers in packed residences and don't respect the national mid-day work ban. Also, when workers become victim to these harsh conditions, the UAE neglects to provide healthcare or financial assistance to the workers, and instead often deports them to their home countries who have to bear this burden. It is also illegal for the workers to protest their conditions or go on strike. Though these jobs are often higher paying than what these workers could find in their home-countries, they appear to often have been swindled by this appearance of opportunity and end up getting abused by the companies they work for, and the government of the UAE remains complicit in their non-motivation to enforce labor standards.

With the UAE hosting the UN Climate Change Conference, there is a similar dichotomy to Qatar hosting the World Cup where increased pressure is put onto the country to appear compliant with international standards. Besides the aforementioned human rights abuses, it also seems slightly hypocritical for a petro-state to host this type of conference.

-Simon

[dwa340]

Food Crisis in Ethiopia - Causes and Concerns.

Good Morning Everyone!

The article I have chosen is a slight change of gears in terms of location, albeit with similar themes compared to the most recent conversations in our seminar.

The article, written by the BBC's foreign correspondent in Ethiopia, explains why more than 16 million Ethiopians have gone hungry, with more than half of that number considered starving. It is essential to mention that the Horn of Africa, specifically Ethiopia, has dealt with famine and starvation on a large scale multiple times in the past couple of decades, with the blame being put on past failed governments. This most recent occurrence is believed to have begun in 2020 when the armies of Ethiopia and Eritrea fought against Tigrayan forces in an extremely bloody civil war. A ceasefire was declared in 2022, but the effects on the civilian population remain lingering.

The article follows the British African Minister Andrew Mitchell, who visited the regions affected by the civil war. His visit is to provide aid for the area and assess the possibilities of famine. By quantifying children's weights in the area, his charts concluded that the possibility of famine is worryingly real. He pledged 100 million British Pounds from the United Kingdom to help some 3 million mothers and their children access the vital nutrition and healthcare they desperately need.

Ultimately, the amount of humanitarian aid that Ethiopia receives depends on the current situation in Ukraine and the Middle East. Not only has USAID, the American Development Agency, cut funding from their program due to atrocious misuse of funds (it was reported that their aid and funds had been going to feeding various militias rather than civilians), but the United Nations has also cut back their budget, leading to the UN Correspondent in the area, Ramiz Alakbarov, to call this a forgotten crisis.

To conclude, Ethiopia is on the brink of another famine due to its most recent civil war, and various world agencies have not done enough in terms of providing necessary food and healthcare to the affected populations. One can only hope that whatever funding is going to this part of the world is being used to help their people.

Jack Spencer

[dwa340]

Escalation of Violence in Sudan

Hi everyone!

Continuing with our in-class discussion on humanitarian intervention and international humanitarian law last week, I wanted to include this article on the recent escalation of violence in Sudan, published a week ago by Aljazeera.

In April of 2023, the onslaught of violence between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) re-ignited a conflict that has been brewing over the past two decades. Currently, UN reports indicate that 7.5 million Sudanese have been displaced, and almost half of Sudan's population of 49 million people are in dire need of aid.

The historical backdrop of conflict in Sudan is rooted in fighting that began in 2003 when the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) launched a military attack against the government in Khartoum. The War in Darfur, as it is referred to, was launched because the Sudanese government had been systemically committing neglect and discrimination against ethnic groups within Darfur. Over the course of the war, approximately 300,000 were killed, and another 2.7 million were displaced from their homes.

Concerning the recent escalation of violence, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued a formal statement on its behalf, accusing the SAF and the paramilitary RSF of committing war crimes. In response, Sudan's Ambassador to the UN, Al-Harith Idriss al-Harith Mohamed, has rejected these accusations on the grounds the government and national military forces have operated well within the laws of war. The Ambassador stated that the RSF is solely to blame for systematic, large-scale killings, that attempt to commit ethnic cleansing.

Though ethnic cleansing has not been recognized as an independent crime under international law, the infliction of war crimes extends to the perpetration of torture, destruction of property, inhumane treatment, and intentional killings. The large-scale displacement and loss of civilian life in Sudan constitute war crimes committed by both the SAF and RSF. Recent alarms have been signaled to indicate that, if unchecked, the fighting within Sudan could certainly escalate to the level of genocide. Given that the Genocide Convention recognizes the crime of genocide as one committed with the intent to destroy an ethnic, national, racial, and/or religious group, previous attempts to exterminate ethnic groups within Sudan are extremely relevant. Over the course of the Darfur Genocide, which occurred during the war of 2003, the Fur, Masalit, and Zaghawa ethnic groups were targeted and systematically killed.

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide establishes crimes of genocide can occur during periods of war, including civil war (though they do not have to). Unfortunately, given the endurance of violent conflict in Sudan, the ICC's condemnation of war crimes may be one of many accusations to come as the fighting continues.

-Noelle Puvak