Mark Mazower, The Strange Triumph of Human Rights,
The new world order is built with the language of human rights in mind. How did this
happen?
→ Mazower looks at legal scholarship to answer this question.
I. 19th Century - Concert of Powers created principles such as commitment to freedom
of religion and they tried to impose them on other emerging nations.
Minority Rights: Cases of violence against groups - Armenian genocide, Eastern Europe
during WW1 etc.
After WW1, the freedom and recognition of new emerging states were conditional on
the respect of minorities. The monitoring of the situation was entrusted to the League of
Nations. In this timeline, there is no talk about individual rights yet, rather the focus is on
minority group rights.
The League however was still a tool of the Great Powers, maybe not directly but the
racism of the Great Powers was still intact. (Japanese proposal for racial equality e.g.) It was
clear that the conditions for Eastern Europe did not apply for the West and since Germany
was left out completely, the Nazi treatment of Jews was also not monitored properly by the
League. Attempts to generalise minority rights were futile.
The German approach changed in 1933 when it started shifting from protection
through international law and cooperation to national expansionism, use of force and
bilateral diplomacy (p. 384) “The nation comes before humanity” , jurists declared in Nayi
Germany. “Blood is stronger than a passport” Previously alienated Germans who were
residing in eastern Europe and the Balkans were being “saved” by the Third Reich and
resettled in seized properties from inferior minorities.
In January 1942, 26 nation-states signed the Declaration of the United Nations “to
preserve human rights and justice in their own lands as well as in other lands”. Slowly, the
term of individual rights was not missing from the new global security agenda. The language
of human rights seeped into politics with actors such as Churchill stressing their
importance.
However, given the momentum, how could such bills of rights be accepted?There
was a need for compromise as well, when it came to enforceability.
● Human rights did not emerge only because of the actions of Nazi Germany,
they were also fitting quite well into the liberal democracy agenda that was
contrasting fascism and communism. As a driver for democracy, human rights
became a democratic value.
President Eduard Benes of the Czech Republic called for a charter of Human Rights
for the whole world rather than returning to minority rights. The true security of rights
rested on everyone being equal and everyone having the rights to access these
fundamental rights.
Minority rights and the approach of the League were widely refused. Human rights
“were there to fill the gap”,1 (Hungarian minorities e.g.)
Minority rights were not to be talked about anymore, the presumption was that individual
human rights would resolve these issues and more.
II. Post-war human rights
1
Mazower p. 390.
“They were told to look to the United Nations Charter for their security. But what they
found there was shrouded in ambiguity”2.
When the big five sat down to talk about the Charter in 1944, not all parties agreed on
individual and fundamental rights. Britain, preoccupied with what such policies would mean
to its colonies. Moreover, there was concern both from the UK and Russia that such
fundamental freedoms would allow for outside meddling into internal affairs of how their
nations were organised. Roosevelt however was strongly in favour of references to human
rights. The Americans could finally have an international goal and depart from isolationism,
depicting themselves “defenders of both universal human rights and domestic state rights.”3
In October 1944 there was a Proposal for a general international organisation that
barely mentioned human rights. However, it was met with much backlash from American
opinion and other states as well. The rights and freedoms promised in the war time
speeches were nowhere to be found. Therefore, reluctantly, the UK started thinking about
the lengths it would go to, expressing its clear intentions of not wanting to guarantee human
rights but a declaration would suffice. Roosevelt, although much in favour of human rights,
had to think of a way to make sure they are not directly applicable in national jurisdiction to
gain the approval of Congress but still please the American people.
“The higher human rights moved up the agenda, the greater the pressure for a further
limitation on the new organisation’s ability to intervene in the domestic affairs of member
states.”4
The final UN Charter shows the competing interests of the big five. The language
was spirited and brave while the articles had barely any substance. There was no
enforcement whatsoever. (Hans Kelsen: “empty phrases”).
HOWEVER, the General Assembly became a forum that picked up human rights
again and through the determination of certain states, they were rewritten again and again in
unimaginable ways since then. Small nations found new powers in the GA. The GA became
a sort of forum to publicise human rights violations internationally.
E.g. NAACP petition to the UN followed by a blockade to the Commission on human rights
and their ability to bring about action.
III. Weak human rights might be the sacrifice it took to create the international forum that
we see today. It was a compromise to be able to bring everyone to the table. But
human rights did take roots, especially in Europe with the surprise of the ECHR
which is backed by a court.
In the end, the hopes of the drafters did materialise in certain ways, the Charter, while not
legally binding, is the moral foundation for many human rights principles that followed.
Jeremy Waldron, "Is Dignity the Foundation of Human Rights?"(2013)
As the title suggests, Waldron is interested in the foundation of human rights and whether it
is true that this foundation is dignity, as it is often mentioned in preambles or scholarly works.
He is embarking on this journey to clarify the role of dignity in the language of human rights.
2
ibid, p. 391.
3
Ibid. p. 392.
4
Ibid, p. 393.
Human rights “derive from the inherent dignity of the human person.”5
→ dignity is a foundation for human rights, to understand rights we have to look for what is
the inherent dignity of a person.
“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,”6
→ dignity and rights are coordinate ideas, going hand in hand.
Content versus foundation of rights
“All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with … respect for the inherent
dignity of the human person.”7
What is foundation?
- Teleological foundations - purpose
- Historical foundation
- Philosophical foundations.
→ Are human rights based on dignity?
There are many human rights. Are they all derived from dignity?
Right to life.
Right to healthcare – could come from right to life
Idea: Dignity comes from autonomy. But you need to be able to live, to be protected from
torture, to be
Waldron: human dignity can be a source for rights BUT the rights also reinforce it, they
create human dignity. Dignity is not necessarily a foundation, it is something they have in
common.
What is the essence of a right?
- Problems of interpretation. E.g. abortion can curtail the right to life.
→ rights are connected to cultures.
The issue is that the foundation of dignity and of rights are shaky and unclear. It is no
surprise that there are so many interpretations of rights.
→ we claim dignity as a foundation but people have a different understanding of dignity.
5
ICCPR
6
ICESCR and ICCPR
7
ICCPR Article 10(1)
