Evolution of the Security Council’s Engagement on Human Rights

Abstract

Thomas M. Franck, Fairness in International Law and Institutions (Oxford University Press, 2002). 3 The 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child was the most universal human rights instrument at time of writing, with 193 states parties. Other instruments nearing universality include the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, with 187 states parties; followed by the 1966 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discriminations, with 175 states parties; and the 1966 International Covenants on Political and Civil Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, with 167 and 160 states parties, respectively. See the United Nations Treaty Collection, Status of Treaties-Chapter IV: Human Rights, available at http://treaties.un.org/pages/Treaties.aspx?id=4%subid=A%lang=en, for updated information.

What We Mean When We Talk about ‘Human Rights’

“…Second, it is difficult to accept that we should define human rights by the practice of intervention without reference to any normative standards and Raz accepts the need to develop 'criteria by which the practice should be judged'.74 Finally, intervention in the name of human rights is often conceived in terms of 71 Under the United Nations Charter, unless a state is acting in self-defence,76 military action must be authorized by the UN Security Council and the Council can only act where there is a threat to international peace and security.77 Whilst violations of human rights may entail such a threat, they do not necessarily do so, and the Security Council's practice in this area has been somewhat inconsistent. 78 The problem has not been resolved by talk of a Responsibility to Protect,79 which establishes that the Council should take action in cases of large scale loss of life or ethnic cleansing.80 Whilst some writers claim there is a right of humanitarian intervention,81 there is no agreement as to when such a right would be triggered, with scholars variously citing violations of the right to life,82 in particular where committed on a massive scale;83 acts of genocide, slavery, or widespread torture;84 and the arbitrary and systematic abuse of rights.85 All proponents of humanitarian intervention agree, however, that, if such a right existed, it would be limited to the most serious cases. Simply put, if we define human rights by the practice of lawful military intervention in the name of human rights, we would have to conclude there are no human rights or the notion is limited to the most extreme violations of the physical integrity of the human person when committed on a massive scale.…”