international journal of interdisciplinary researcheduved.org › eduvedmay2104 › e0101.pdf ·...

State Atrocities and International Law Zafar Alam Three Dimensions of Sustainability: In the Context of Indian Financial Environment Prashant Saxena Quality in Teacher Education: Issue and Challenges Dr. Neeti and Mohd. Saquib Taufique The Use of Instructional Technology in Collaborative Teaching- Learning Strategies Sandeep Paul Women Empowerment through the Strategic Roles of Non- Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in the Present Era of Globalization Suresh B. K. Risk of Suicide in Psychiatric Hospital: Assessment and Interventions Devraj Singh Chouhan Services Sector: A Root of Socio-economic Development Anju Rani Beautiful Hill Stations of India: A Case Study of Shimla Arvind Kumar Role of Information Technology in Tourism Planning Jitendra Singh The Role of Medical Health Tourism in Development Process (Concepts and Application) Dr. Arunesh Parashar and Anjali Bhardwaj Review Study on Performance Appraisal System in Indian Organizations: Opportunities and Challenges Poonam Vishwakarma Pradhyuman Singh Lakhawat A Study on Impact of Celebrity Endorsements on Customer Buying Behavior R. Bhuvaneswari MIB Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Knowledge Based Economy Suresh B. K. A Study of Attitude of Different Faculty Research Scholars towards Research Mohd. Saquib Taufique Study of Charged Particle Magnesium Seattering in Presence of Laser Field J. Shukla S. K. Varshney K.S. Varshney

www.eduved.org

International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research

Vol.01 Issue 02 May 2014

ISSN: 2348-6775

Eduved International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research

________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

Vol. 01 Issue 02 May 2014

Abstract

The world has already crossed the threshold and entered in a completely different social

and political environment. The problems once considered purely internal, have reached

beyond the state borders as is being witnessed in current Arab uprising. Increasing

suppression and mass killings, use of weapons of mass destructions, serious violations of

basic human rights or in whole state atrocities against civilians in many Middle Eastern

countries in particular and in other many states in general, have traumatized the conscience

of international community, demanding a novel measure towards protection and

empowerments of human beings as has been agreed by experts that a viable protection of

human rights, can better be realized in a socially strong international civil society. To

address this international problem and curtail the state acts of atrocities and cultural and

structural violences, there must be some mechanism devised internationally, ready to

respond timely in the crises. It is possible through international community by formulating

some binding regulations and principles with easier enforcement process. In this context

‘humanitarian intervention’ and the provision of ‘Responsibility to protect’ (R2P) become

significant.

This paper deals with contemporary trends in the international law regarding protection of

human beings. It tries to survey general understandings and international concerns against

the state atrocities and as well as analyzes the current roles being played by selected

transnational actors in the field with a general background on few important provisions of

human rights and contemporary debates on human security. Finally, it will conclude by

raising issues of potential threats of state atrocities as a thrust area which must be taken

under the consideration of international community to reach a desired objective of creating

a powerful transnational civil society capable enough to fight against state atrocities. Finally

the conclusion part ends with some suggestions on the issues.

Key Words: Human Rights, Minorities, International Law, State atrocities.

Introduction

The contemporary development on the evolution of idea on human rights while giving it a

proper shape or providing it with an impetus has passed through several stages. Grotius

concedes; a dominant state, which violates fundamental human rights, forfeits its ethical

claim to full sovereignty1. Infact, concerns on human rights in our present trans-national

society have reached to a level where international community is involved with its full

concentration to put some practical and working measures on the cruelties of states.

STATE ATROCITIES AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

Dr. Zafar Alam

Department of Political Science and International Relations

Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia


________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________


Fuentes and Rojas Aravena, identify international and structural factors as having

contributed to the evolution of the notion of human security and its new emphasis on the

protection of individuals as: (a) the end of the bipolar communism/anti-communism

conflict; (b) the impact of globalization, for which the national level is often not present in

the global-local chain of cause and effect; (c) the presence of new transnational actors (d)

new power relationships, new non-military, transnational security threats, development

gaps,(e) increase in intra-national conflicts.2

There are close relationships between contemporary notions of human security and human

rights therefore author considers protection of human rights as a precondition towards the

fortification and strengthening of human security. The following queries have been raised in

the proceeding sections, what are the existing human rights threats and contemporary

trends particularly committed by states? How has it invited serious concerns of trans-

national actors, practitioners and as well as of academia? What are the provisions of

international laws so far? Whether, international laws are, in practice, capable enough to

address the emerging threats in the field of human rights.

Cotemporary debates on human security

Human security emphasizes on protection from all type of threats to human endurance and

pride, with special stress on promoting human rights, social development, and

environmentally sound and sustainable development, as well as focuses on the elimination

of cruelty, social trouble, terrorism, state atrocities, genocide and discrimination of all

kinds.3 A kind of comprehensive overview of general approach to human security can

include and emphasize on the protection of individuals. It takes as its objectives,

international stability, peace and protection for individuals and communities4. This section

elaborates on the basic concept of human security. There have been serious attempts on

the exact nature and definition of human security from different corners of the world. Due

to the need for brevity, so far we have given few of them somehow in details and others will

have very short references for further study by other researchers.

Views of some related organizations and individuals

According to United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), “Human security can be said

to have two main aspects. It means, first, safety from such chronic threats as hunger,

disease and repression. And second, it means protection from sudden and hurtful

disruptions in the patterns of daily life – whether in homes, in jobs or in communities, such

threats can exist at all levels of national income and development” 5. The list of threats to

human security is long, but most can be considered under several main categories as (a)

Economic security (b) Food security (c) Health security (d) Environmental security (e)

Personal security (f) Community security and (g) Political security6. More or less the similar

views are held by Kofi Annan,7 Sadako Ogata (former United Nations High Commissioner for

Refugees),8 Ramesh Thakur, (Vice Rector, United Nations Peace and Security


________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________


University), 9 United Nations Deputy Secretary General-Louise Frechette, 10 Hans Van Ginkel

(Rector, United Nations University) and Edward Newman,11 George MacLean, 12 Astri

Suhrke, 13 and by the Caroline Thomas14.

Views of academia

Kanti Bajpai says, “Human security relates to the protection of the individual’s personal

safety and freedom from direct and indirect threats of violence. The promotion of human

development and good governance, and, when necessary, the collective use of sanctions

and force are central to managing human security. States, international organizations,

nongovernmental organizations and other groups in civil society in combination are vital to

the prospects of human security”15. There are others from academias who have defined the

concept in similar ways as Lincoln Chen16, David T. Graham and Nana K. Poku17, Anne

Hammerstad18, Gary King and Christopher Murray19, and Sam Arie20.

Official views

Government of Canada, the leading country which incorporated the issue of human security

in her foreign policy priorities, identifies human security as freedom from pervasive threats

to people’s rights. It has identified following foreign policy priorities for advancing human

security (a) “Protection of civilians, concerned with building international will and

strengthening norms and capacity to reduce the human costs of armed conflict. (b) Peace

support operations, concerned with building UN capacities and addressing the demanding

and increasingly complex requirements for deployment of skilled personnel, including

Canadians, to these missions. (c) Conflict prevention, with strengthening the capacity of the

international community to prevent or resolve conflict, and building local indigenous

capacity to manage conflict without violence. (d) Governance and accountability, concerned

with fostering improved accountability of public and private sector institutions in terms of

established norms of democracy and human rights. (e) Public safety, concerned with

building international expertise, capacities and instruments to counter the growing threats

posed by the rise of transnational organized crime”21 Government of Japan has also

considered human security as an important component of her foreign policy. It focuses

on: “preservation and protection of the life and dignity of individual human

beings”22. Besides Canada and Japan other countries have also emphasized substantially on

the similar desires.

Environmentalist’s views

There are also major efforts to deeply study the major implications of human security by

different organizations and individuals. Steven Lonergan, Kent Gustavson, and Brian Carter,

have addressed the issue by using different approaches. Global Environmental Change and

Human Security Project define human security in the following words: “As our perspective

changes, it is important to adapt our policy framework to meet this change….human

security is achieved when and where individuals and communities (a) have the options


________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________


necessary to end, mitigate, or adapt to threats to their human, environmental, and social

rights; (b) have the capacity and freedom to exercise these options; and actively participate

in attaining these options.” and (c) “problems must always be addressed from a broader

perspective that encompasses both povertyand issues of equity (social, economic,

environmental, or institutional) as it is these issues that often lead to insecurity and

conflict23”.

Structural and cultural violence approaches

After getting the general ideas regarding human security we must see it from a different

perspective of Structural and Cultural Violence’s approaches which are not directly being

taken into consideration by the academia and activists but are very important to address

the problem as its cure requires a proper diagnosis first, Johan Galtung is very much correct

when he says: “There may not be any person who directly harms another person in the

structure. The violence is built into the structure and shows up as unequal power and

consequently as unequal life chances24”. If people are starving when this is objectively

avoidable, then violence is committed, regardless of whether there is a clear subject-action-

object relation… as in the way world economic relations are organized today. Thus, when

one husband beats his wife there is a clear case of personal violence, but when one million

husbands keep one million wives in ignorance there is structural violence25”. While focusing

on Cultural Violence’ approach, Johan Galtung says: “By ‘cultural violence’ we mean those

aspects of culture, the symbolic sphere of our existence – exemplified by religion and

ideology, language and art, empirical science and formal science (logic, mathematics) – that

can be used to justify or legitimize direct or structural violence26”.

An overview

After having seen the different aspects of human security from the wider perspectives

of organizations, academia and governments, one can summarize here that while defining

or diagnosing the problem of human security, it automatically leads us towards individual’s

overall protection from all types of threats be it environmental, be it political, be it

economic, social, cultural or structural. The synthesis behind overall empowerment of

individuals can be drawn as protection of full human dignity as the basic fundamental

human rights. Once attention is turned to the protection of individuals, it becomes

imperative to recognize that major differences of opinion which can exist concerning what

constitutes a threat to their lives, livelihood, health and welfare, differences that are in turn

determined by people’s personalities, self-defensive capacities, gender, age, occupation,

educational level, personal income, experiences and regional variation etc. Human dignity is

seen as the key concept in relation to these values and to the ultimate goal of a world

community in which a democratic distribution of values is sought27.


________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________


Nearly all the major constitutions of the world guarantee ‘so called right to life’ without

knowing, what exactly it means- with some exceptions as few of them have already started

defining and realizing it as ‘life with dignity’28. Over dependency on the corrupt

governmental institutions in many third world countries should not be trusted. In present

transnational society we are experiencing many transnational and cross border problems,

hence it cannot be treated in isolation, it requires global actions because of the trans-

national nature of the troubles and increased interdependency on one another. Thus the

contemporary global interconnectedness and interdependency require greater attention to

deal with such a burning issue. In this context involvement of trans-national actors along

with the growing concern of international law have created a global public opinion against

state atrocities.

Contemporary threats linked with state atrocities

There has been considerable progress on the conceptualization and realization of measures

protecting human beings by setting up various human rights instruments and goals for the

development and protection of affected societies.29 At the same time, under the pretext of

war against terrorism after the 9/11 one notices some disturbing developments particularly

in the third world countries of Asia and Africa. Governments have been suppressing the

democratic and human rights movements of the people in the name of war against

terrorism. Now it has become easier for several so called liberal, undemocratic and

dictatorial regimes to impinge the individual’s conscience and terrorize several categories of

the people.

The situation after 9/11 and above all the awareness among the people about their rights

have put the contemporary world on trial. Middle East uprising, callous suppression of

people by the governments, use of weapons of mass destruction against the civilians and

grave violations of human rights have further raised concerns in front of international

society. The state atrocities by its direct or indirect involvement in the helm of crises or by

sponsoring the terrorism across and within the national borders is the current major threat

which requires international attentions to evolve an international law addressing the

emerging situation appropriately.

State terrorism

Terrorism is understood generally as an organized sadistic act by non-state actors against

unarmed civilians to create mass fear in the society. But terrorism is also committed by a

sovereign country or a government, both domestically and internationally. Domestic state

terrorism may be internal to a country and is not usually manifested regionally

or internationally. Nationally, a regime may clearly engage in terrorist practices against its

own population for various reasons, ranging from perpetuating a dictatorial rule to preserve

the state’s territorial integrity and victimization of a particular segment of population on

ethnic, religious or racial grounds. The ‘reign of terror’ practiced by the Jacobins during


________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________


French Revolution, the holocaust of Jews by the Nazis in Germany, the ‘great terror’

campaign during the Stalinist Russia, the virtual extermination of Muslim Brotherhood in

Syria under Hafez al-Asad, Mao Tse-Tung’s repression in China in the guise of Cultural

Revolution, the apartheid policy pursued by the white Pretoria regime in South Africa, the

persecution of Iraq’s Shiite majority and Kurdish minority by the Saddam regime and the

Serbian ethnic cleansing of Bosnian Muslims in the Balkans are some of the most prominent

examples of domestic state terrorism,30 which still continue in different forms in some

countries like Syria and Libya requiring immediate international attentions.

The international protection of human rights

The preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted on 10 December 1948

emphasizes that ‘recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights

of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the

world’31. The view adopted by the Western world with regard to international human rights

law in general terms has tended to emphasize the basic civil and political rights of

individuals, that is to say those rights that take the form of claims limiting the power of

government over the governed. Such rights would include due process, freedom of

expression, assembly and religion, and political participation in the process of government.

The consent of the governed is seen as crucial in this process32.

The approach of the Soviet Union was to note the importance of basic rights and

freedoms for international peace and security, but to emphasize the role of the state.

Indeed, the source of human rights principles was seen as the state. Tunkin wrote that the

content of the principle of respect for human rights in international law may be expressed in

three propositions: (a) all states have a duty to respect the fundamental rights and

freedoms of all persons within their territories; (b) states have a duty not to

permit discrimination by reason of sex, race, religion or language, and (c) states have a duty

to promote universal respect for human rights and to co-operate with each other to achieve

this objective33. In other words, the focus was not upon the individual but solely upon the

state. Human rights were not directly regulated by international law and individuals were

not subjects of international law. Certain human rights may now be regarded as having

entered into the category of customary international law in the light of state practice.

These would certainly include the prohibition of torture, genocide and slavery and the

principle of non-discrimination34. In addition, human rights established under treaty may

constitute obligations erga omnes for the states parties. Certain areas of international

human rights law are rapidly evolving. First, for example, the increasing extraterritoriality of

human rights is becoming evident in the case-law of the European Convention on Human

Rights, the approach of the Human Rights Committee under the International Covenant on

Civil and Political Rights35. Second, the responsibility of states to prevent human rights

abuses is beginning to be seriously considered, particularly with regard to genocide36 and


________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________


torture37, while more generally the obligation upon states and, for example, international

organizations positively to protect human rights is becoming part of the agenda of

international human rights law. Third, increasing interest is being manifested in national

human rights institutions38, in addition to different specialized committees and sub organs.

Article 1 of the charter includes in the context of purposes of the organization the

promotion and encouragement of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for

all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion. Article 13(1) notes that the

General Assembly shall initiate studies and make recommendations regarding the

realization of human rights for all, while article 55 provides that the United Nations shall

promote universal respect for and observance of human rights. In a significant provision,

article 56 states that: all members pledge themselves to take joint and separate action in

cooperation with the organization for the achievement of the purposes set forth in

articles39.

The protection of the collective rights of groups and individuals

International law since 1945 has focused primarily upon the protection of individual human

rights, as can be seen from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In recent years,

however, more attention has been given to various expressions of the concept of collective

rights, although it is often difficult to maintain a strict differentiation between individual and

collective rights. Some rights are purely individual, such as the right to life or freedom of

expression; others are individual rights that are necessarily expressed collectively, such as

freedom of assembly or the right to manifest one’s own religion. Some rights are purely

collective, such as the right to self-determination or the physical protection of the group as

such through the prohibition of genocide; others constitute collective manifestations of

individual rights, such as the right of persons belonging to minorities to enjoy their own

culture and practice their own religion or use their own language. In addition, the question

of the balancing of the legitimate rights of the state, groups and individuals is in practice

crucial and sometimes not sufficiently considered.

Prohibition of genocide

The physical protection of the group as a distinct identity is clearly the first and paramount

factor. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide signed

in 194840 reaffirmed that genocide, whether committed in time of war or peace, is a crime

under international law. Genocide is defined as any of the following acts committed ‘with

intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such’:

(a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of

the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about

its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) imposing measures intended to prevent

births within the group; (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Prohibition of discrimination


________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________


The International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination41 was

signed in 1965 and entered into force in 1969. It builds on the non-discrimination provisions

in the UN Charter. Racial discrimination is defined as: any distinction, exclusion, restriction

or preference based on race, color, descent or national or ethnic origin which has the

purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an

equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social,

cultural or any other field of public life. States parties undertake to prohibit racial

discrimination and guarantee equality for all in the enjoyment of a series of rights and to

assure to all within their jurisdiction effective protection and remedies regarding such

human rights. It is also fair to conclude that in addition to the existence of this Convention,

the prohibition of discrimination on racial grounds is contrary to customary international

law.42

This conclusion may be reached on the basis inter alia of articles 55 and 56 of the UN

Charter, articles 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International

Covenants on Human Rights, regional instruments on human rights protection and general

state practice. Discrimination on other grounds, such as religion43 and gender, may also be

contrary to customary international law. The International Covenant on Civil and Political

Rights provides in article 2(1) that all states parties undertake to respect and ensure to all

individuals within their territories and within their jurisdictions the rights recognized in the

Covenant ‘without distinction of any kind such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political

or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status’44.

The protection of minorities

The question of minority rights came back onto the international agenda with the adoption

of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1966. Article 27 of this Covenant

provides that ‘in those states in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons

belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other

members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own

religion, or to use their own language’. The UN Human Rights Committee has taken the

opportunity to consider the issue in discussing states’ reports, individual petitions and in a

General Comment. In commenting upon states’ reports made pursuant to the International

Covenant, the Committee has made clear, for example, that the rights under article 27 apply

to all members of minorities within a state party’s territory and not just nationals, 45 and it

has expressed concern with regard to the treatment of minorities within particular states.46

Other suggested collective rights

The subject of much concern in recent years has been the question of a right to

development47 on which a Declaration was adopted by the UN General Assembly in

1986.48 This instrument reaffirms the interdependence and indivisibility of all human rights


________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________


and seeks to provide a framework for a range of issues (article 9). The right to development

is deemed to be an inalienable human right of all human beings and peoples to participate

in and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development (article 1), while states

have the primary responsibility to create conditions favorable to its realization (article 3),

including the duty to formulate international development policies (article 4).

The implementation

The United Nations system has successfully generated a wide-ranging series of international

instruments dealing with the establishment of standards and norms in the human rights

field. The following institutions are given the mandates to address the implementation

processes, such as; General Assembly, the Human Rights Council and The Committee

Against Torture. Most international human rights conventions obligate states parties to take

certain measures with regard to the provisions contained therein, whether by domestic

legislation or otherwise. In addition, all the treaty bodies discussed above require states

parties to make periodic reports. Some of them have the competence to consider individual

communications; some may consider inter-state complaints, while three of them may

inquire into allegations of grave or systematic violations.

Humanitarian intervention

There are many provisions, as mentioned above, in the form of different treaties signed by

majority of the states. United Nations provisions and resolutions have been adopted by

them and given place in the respective municipal laws which are binding on

them. However the implementations of these provisions and proclamations are in reality in

the hands of ruling elites especially in the third world countries. There are dictatorial

regimes in the Middle East supported by very rich oil resources having claimed that issues of

human security are addressed sufficiently but the fact is that people are not given political

rights and women are heavily marginalized from the main stream. In South Asia,

regionalism, communalism, casteism, etc. are heavily affecting the development process.

Democratic rights are mentioned and have been given due emphasis in all the definitions of

‘human security’ but what does it mean for the minorities protection and participation in

political processes, where rule of majority exists. In many African countries, genocides,

ethnic cleansing, structural and cultural violence and states involvement in terrorizing their

own civilians have been experienced in the past decades. No doubt international community

had a full sympathy with affected people in the respective countries like Syria, Libya and

Rwanda and elsewhere. But it is only recently when the states, particularly with the support

of international civil society and powered by social media have started talking on the

prospects and possibilities of ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P) in addition to ‘Humanitarian

Intervention’ for a better realization of notion of human security. Humanitarian intervention

has been substantially contributing in the many crises related to the ‘human security’ but it


________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________


has happened generally when the crises had ended or in other words it lacks preventive

measures.

Responsibility to protect (R2P)

In addition to many human rights instruments protecting human security, it is only now

when the world community has started realizing the requirement of mechanism ready to

respond immediately in the face of grave violations of human rights and genocide or mass

killing. R2P, it is claimed by the initiators of the concept, can have much wider scope and

capability to protect the people from a traumatic situation. It was adopted in 2005 at the UN

sponsored World Summit. The principle stipulates, first, that states have an obligation to

protect their citizens from mass atrocities; second, that the international community should

assist them in doing so; and, third, that, if the state in question fails to act appropriately, the

responsibility to do so falls to that larger community of states. R2P should be understood as

a solemn promise made by leaders of every country to all men and women endangered by

mass atrocities49. The application of the R2P norm is unambiguously confined to atrocities

like war crimes, ethnic cleansing, genocide and crimes against humanity. The principle to

achieve these objectives obligates on states that they must act to prevent mass atrocities

with the help of the international community, through “diplomatic, humanitarian and other

peaceful means.” This may possibly include strengthening state capacity through economic

assistance, rule-of-law reform, the building of political institutions and through direct

mediation if the situation becomes immense. When these peaceful means fail to achieve

the goals, Security Council can adopt more coercive measures. These could include such

non-consensual measures as economic sanctions or the threat of sanctions, arms

embargoes, or the threat to refer perpetrators to international criminal prosecution. If the

peaceful means is inadequate and the state is manifestly failing to protect its population,

only then would the Security Council consider the use of military force50.

In the 1990s on the issue of states sovereignty while deciding on the issue of humanitarian

intervention UN became intensely divided between those who insisted on a “right of

humanitarian intervention” and those who viewed such a doctrine as an indefensible

contravention of state sovereignty. At the time, Secretary-General Kofi Annan warned that

the UN risked discrediting itself if it failed to respond to disaster such as Rwanda and

Srebrenica, challenging member states to agree on a framework for action. The 2001 report

of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty formulated the

alternative principle of “the responsibility to protect,” focusing not on the “right” of

outsiders to intervene but on the responsibility of all states to protect people at risk. The

High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change endorsed the concept as did the

Secretary-General, and then heads of state and government gathered in the General

Assembly for the UN’s sixtieth anniversary voted unanimously to accept a ‘responsibility to


________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________


protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against

humanity’. Questions are raised on the sovereignty issue. But it is now being said, it is not a

license to control those within one’s borders, but rather as a set of obligations towards

citizens. The Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide and the former representative

of the Secretary-General on internally displaced persons, Francis Deng, developed the

concept of “sovereignty as responsibility.” And chief among those responsibilities, he and

others argued, is the responsibility to protect citizens from the most atrocious forms of

abuse. Simply put, people come first51.

Concluding remarks

However there are the acts of terror existing in different forms. It is said that terror

perpetrated by states against their own people does not destabilize the international system

and does not manifest itself internationally; it is difficult to invoke international law to take

the regimes to task for terrorizing their populations .52 In fact, it is a new development in

international politics, that the world community feels the need for international

humanitarian intervention in a country led by a regime with a track-record of repression.

And still there is no global consensus on the issue of regime change, even though the states

accused of supporting international terrorism in the past and even today. Iran and Syria are

generally supposed to be practicing state terrorism. In retrospect, therefore, until overt

practice of domestic state terrorism is internationally accepted as an activity requiring

punitive global action, it will be difficult to officially brand states terrorizing their people and

take some punitive international action against them53.

In the prevailing international situations R2P seems very relevant and useful to address the

grave violations of human rights and atrocities. In the first place it should be made very clear

that it is not military intervention only, rather it has multiple options to bring down the

arrogant acts of the erring states, and it has the option ranging from mediation and

diplomacy through economic sanction and arms embargo. Military intervention can be used

as the last resort only. The second dimension could be readiness of governments and

intergovernmental organizations to take recourse to diplomatic, civilian and if necessary

acquire the military capability needed to ensure effective warning and early action, to

provide essential assistance to those countries who need it, and most importantly, to assist

people desperately in need of protection. Third, diplomacy should be used for political

mobilization and increasing motivations of majority of states supported by public opinion

from all corners of the world to get timely consent to intervene in any such contingency54.

References and end notes


________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________


1- W.J. Korab. Kaprowicz, “In Defense of International Order: Grotius’s Critique of

Machiavelism.” The Review of Metaphysics, Vol. 60, No. 1 (Sep., 2006).

2- Claudia F. Fuentes and Franciso Rojas Aravena, “Promoting Human Security: Ethical,

Normative and Educational Frameworks in Latin America and the Caribbean”, Paris,

UNESCO, 2005, pp. 22–23.

3- Shin-wha Lee, “Promoting Human Security: Ethical, Normative and Educational

Frameworks in East Asia”, Paris, UNESCO, 2004, p. 11.

4- Claudia F. Fuentes and Franciso Rojas Aravena, Promoting Human Security: Ethical,

Normative and Educational Frameworks in Latin America and the Caribbean, p. 20.

5- United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). “Human Development Report

1994”. New York: Oxford University Press, 23.,

http://www.undp.org/hdro/1994/94.htm 08/02/01

6- Ibid.

7- United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Millenium Report, Chapter 3, p.43-44.

http://www.un.org/millennium/sg/report/full.htm Accessed 08/02/01.

8- See Human Security: a Refugee Perspective." Keynote Speech by Mrs Sadako Ogata,

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, at the Ministerial Meeting on

Human Security Issues of the "Lysoen Process" Group of Governments. Bergen,

Norway, 19 May 1999. http://www.unhcr.ch/refworld/unhcr/hcspeech/990519.htm

08/22/01

9- Ramesh Thakur. “From National to Human Security.” Asia-Pacific Security: The

Economics-Politics Nexus. Eds. Stuart Harris, and Andrew Mack. Sydney: Allen &

Unwin, 1997, p. 53-54.

10- Statement by the United Nations Deputy Secretary-General Louise Frechette to a

high-level panel discussion on the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of the

Vienna International Centre (VIC), October 9, 1999.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/1999/19991012.dsgsm70.doc.html 08/02/01

11- Hans Van Ginkel, and Edward Newman, “In Quest of Human Security.” Japan Review

of International Affairs 14, no.1, 2000), p. 79.

12- George MacLean. “The Changing Concept of Human Security: Coordinating National

and Multilateral Responses”. http://www.unac.org/canada/security/maclean.html

08/22/01.

13- Astri Suhrke. “Human Security and the Interests of States.” Security Dialogue, 30.

No.3, 1999, pp. 265-276.

14- Caroline Thomas. “Global Governance, Development and Human Security”. London,

2000, pp. 6-7.

http://www.undp.org/hdro/1994/94.htm

http://www.un.org/millennium/sg/report/full.htm%2008/02/01

http://www.unhcr.ch/refworld/unhcr/hcspeech/990519.htm

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/1999/19991012.dsgsm70.doc.html

http://www.unac.org/canada/security/maclean.html


________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________


15- Kanti Bajpai. “The Idea of a Human Security Audit”. Joan B. Kroc Institute Report, No.

19. Fall 2000, p. 1-4. http://www.nd.edu/~krocinst/ocpapers/op_19_1.PDF

08/22/01

16- Lincoln Chen. “Human Security: Concepts and Approaches.” Common Security in Asia

New Concepts of Human Security. Eds. Tatsuro Matsumae and Lincoln C. Chen.

Tokyo: Tokai University Press, 1995, p.139.

17- David T. Graham, and Nana K. Poku. “Migration, Globalisation and Human Security”.

London: Routledge, 2000, p.17.

18- Anne Hammerstad. “Who’s Security? UNHCR, Refugee Protection and State Security

after the Cold War.” Security Dialogue 3, no.4, 2000, p. 395.

19- Gary King and Christopher Murray. “Rethinking Human Security.” Political Science

Quarterly. (Winter 2002): p. 2. http://gking.harvard.edu/files/hs.pdf accessed on

08/22/01.

20- Jennifer Leaning, M.D., S.M.H., and Sam Arie. “Human Security in Crisis and

Transition: A Background Document of Definition and Application”. Working Draft,

Prepared for USAID / Tulane CERTI. September 2000, p.37.

21- Foreign Ministry of Canada website. <http://www.dfait-

maeci.gc.ca/foreignp/humansecurity/menu-e.asp> accessed on 08/22/01.

22- Government of Japan, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. “Diplomatic Bluebook 1999”,

Chapter 2, Section 3. http://www.mofa.go.jp accessed on 08/22/01.

23- Steven Lonergan, Kent Gustavson, and Brian Carter. “The index of Human

Insecurity.” AVISO Bulletin Issue No. 6 (January 2000).

http://www.gechs.org/aviso/AvisoEnglish/six/six.shtml accessed on 08/24/01

24- Johan Galtung. “Violence, Peace, and Peace Research.” Journal of Peace Research 6,

1969, pp. 170-171.

25- Ibid. p. 171.

26- Johan Galtung, “Cultural Violence.” Journal of Peace Research 27, no. 3, 1990, p. 291.

27- McDougal, H. Lasswell and L. C. Chen, “Human Rights and World Public Order”, New

Haven, 1980, pp. 82–93.

28- The Supreme Court of India and Constitutions from many other countries,

particularly from the developed world.

29- The Millennium Development Goals MDGs, UN Golden Jubilee meeting 2005.

30- Ishtiaq Ahmad, State-Sponsored Terrorism

www.ishtiaqahmad.com/downloads/State_Sponsored_Terrorism.pdf . Accessed on

1/2/2013.

31- Malcolm N. Shaw, “International Law”, Sixth edn, Cambridge University Press, 2008,

p.265.

http://www.nd.edu/~krocinst/ocpapers/op_19_1.PDF

http://gking.harvard.edu/files/hs.pdf

http://www.mofa.go.jp/

http://www.gechs.org/aviso/AvisoEnglish/six/six.shtml


________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________


32- R. Hauser, “A First World View”, in Human Rights and American Foreign Policy (eds.

D. P. Kommers and G. Loescher), Notre Dame, 1979, p. 85.

33- Tunkin, “Theory of International Law”, London, 1974, p. 81.

34- “Third US Restatement of Foreign Relations Law”, St Paul, 1987, vol. II, p. 161.

35- Genocide Convention (Bosnia v. Serbia) case, ICJ Reports, 2007, Para. 183.

36- Ibid. Para. 428.

37- Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally

Protected Persons, 1973 (art. 4).

38- Vienna Declaration on Human Rights adopted by the UN in 1993, Para. 36.

39- Under article 62, the Economic and Social Council has the power to make

recommendations for the purpose of promoting respect for and observance of

human rights.

40- G. Verdirame, ‘The Genocide Definition in the Jurisprudence of the Ad Hoc

Tribunals’, 49 ICLQ, 2000, p. 578.

41- N. Lerner, “The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial

Discrimination”, 2nd edn, Dordrecht, 1980.

42- Dissenting Opinion of Judge Tanaka in the South-West Africa cases, ICJ Reports,

1966, pp. 3, 293; 37 ILR, pp. 243, 455.

43- Report on the Implementation of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of

Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, E/CN.4/1995/91, 1994.

44- See articles 2(2) and 3 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and

Cultural Rights, 1966. Also see M. C. Craven, “The International Covenant on

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights”, Oxford, 1995, chapter 4.

45- Comments upon Norway’s third periodic report, A/49/40, p. 2

46- The fourth periodic report of Russia, CCPR/C/79/Add.54, p. 5

47- See the Report of the UN Secretary-General on the International Dimensions of the

Right to Development as a Human Right, E/CN.4/1334, 1979.

48- 194 General Assembly Resolution 41/128.

49- Parliamentary Hearing at the United Nations, New York, 20-21, November, 2008,

background note prepared by the global centre for the ‘responsibility to protect’.

50- Ibid

51- Ibid

52- Ishtiyq ahmad,

www.ishtiaqahmad.com/downloads/State_Sponsored_Terrorism.pdf .

53- Ibid

Parliamentary Hearing at the United Nations, New York, 20-21, November, 2008.

international journal of interdisciplinary researcheduved.org › eduvedmay2104 › e0101.pdf ·...

Documents