So, it's almost 4 AM. I've had a headache for three, going on four, days; I've been to the ER and Urgent Care for said headache, and have been prescribed Percocet until I can see my primary doctor for a more permanent solution. My first International Relations paper was due on Friday; problematic in that I was in the ER during most of Thursday evening. BUT, by the awe-inspiring grace of my International Relations professor and likely that of whatever God exists, I got an extension.
Anyway, long story short, here is the paper I cranked out to turn in tomorrow despite my blood turning to Percocet.
Presenting: Jessie's Liberally Theoretical Conception of Why War is Less of a Problem in the Post-Cold War Era than It Has Been in Past Eras.
It has little to do with the Cold War itself, uses World War II more as a reference point than it does the Cold War, and is painfully optimistic. I do not entirely agree with the overall position argued in this paper, but I had to prove that I can think like a liberal theorist. Despite my objections to liberal theory, it's liberal, it's 5.5 pages long, and it's my baby. :) I am very proud of it, although I am well aware that it is probably not my best work, given my current state of mind.
Comments, as always, are appreciated - however, they will have little bearing unless they are submitted before noon tomorrow, when my paper will be turned in.
Enjoy!
Normative Human Rights: Changing the Face of War
In the history of humanity, war has always existed. At one time, war was indiscriminate and did not delineate between military and collateral casualties. In its progression through human history, war has generally evolved toward the limitation of collateral damage. No overarching legal system in the international realm can monitor and regulate standards of war, but there has been a conscientious effort to establish universal rules of war between states. Since the end of World War II, one issue that has pervaded the international sphere in regard to the regulation of war has been human rights recognition and enforcement. The normative and legal changes in human rights have changed the standards of war, making war less of a problem in terms of casualties and conduct.
A precursor to any successful and lasting societal change is a change in normative standards. Normative change in and of itself is not necessarily legally binding; nevertheless, it is powerful. Norms encompass ideals and values held by individuals and groups within a society. In a free society, those values gain prominence in the population through the influence of “norm entrepreneurs” – advocates who strive for normative change within their communities.[1] The norms that become standards by which the government forms policies and laws are those that have influenced the basis of special interests groups and the resolutions of decision-making legislators.[2] Normative changes can also come about because of war: “World historical events such as wars…in the international system can lead to a search for new ideas and norms. Ideas and norms most associated with the losing side of a war…should be at particular risk of being discredited, opening the field for alternatives. ”[3]
The process of normative change in regard to human rights was inspired by the aftermath of World War II. The First World War made the world realize that humanity was capable of wreaking senseless devastation. In spite of this realization, World War II occurred, showing that the racial hatred on a government level can fester and enable calculated mass genocide. The devastation and cruelty of the Nazi war machine was unprecedented, and the norms that had been established within Nazi society (like the enablement and encouragement of racial superiority) were nothing short of appalling. As the full scale of Nazi intentions and actions were realized, the equal and inalienable rights of humanity became less marginal.
However, the prosecution of the Nazis did not necessarily bring human rights to the forefront. At the Nuremberg Trials, the main indictments against the Nazis were focused on war, aggression, and conspiracy, not crimes against humanity. The paradigm of the laws in place by which the Nazis were tried was that of pre-World War II, when the concept of human rights was neither definite nor fully developed. Thus, human rights considerations in the trial were part and parcel, but not the main focus, because they had not yet emerged as a normative concern within the international community, and they had not been internalized as a standard of adherence in Nazi prosecution.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (herein “Declaration”) exhibits how human rights reached a “tipping point” as a norm. Everyone recognized that the things that happened to the Jews and other racial groups under Nazi influence were things that should never happen again. In an attempt to realize this goal, the General Assembly of the United Nations established the Declaration as an international standard of human rights.
That is not to say that the Declaration is “hard law,” or “…[a] legally binding obligation that [is] precise…and that delegate[s] authority for interpreting and implementing the law.”[4] The UN General Assembly does not have the power to oversee the enforcement of the standards of the Declaration. The members of the General Assembly are encouraged to adhere to the standards it specifies, but they are only effective insofar as the individual members enforce the agreed-upon standards within their jurisdictions. There may be indirect consequences in ignoring international standards. For example, other nations may be hesitant to make alliances with states that are non-compliant with soft-law international standards.[5] However, nation-states are sovereign, and are in no way required to implement the United Nations’ standards of human rights. This makes the Declaration an example of “soft law,” in that it is an expected standard of adherence, but there are no direct, established consequences for those who choose to ignore them.
Although the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not have the “hard” authority that domestic laws tend to have, its adoption by various international actors is a result of what is called a “norm cascade.” Human rights became recognizable as an emerging norm in cultures and societies across the globe to the point that various sovereign actors used the concept of human rights as a basis for creating domestic laws and taking international action. As more sovereign nations agree to follow human rights standards, their example encourages the compliance of other nations in what can be described as a type of international “peer pressure.” Nations might also receive pressure from their constituents to follow normative standards, although this is not a universal factor, considering the non-democratic natures of many nations.
The final stage of the normative life cycle is internalization, where a norm “…achieve[s] a ‘taken-for-granted’ quality that makes conformance with the norm almost automatic.”[6] In the case of human rights, this process continues to develop. Today, different nations carefully consider the implications of certain actions from a human rights perspective, particularly acts of war. However, that is not true of every action made by every nation. As noted in Jack Donnelly’s ‘The Relative Universality of Human Rights,’ “…in all countries, significant violations of at least some human rights occur daily, although which rights are violated, and with what severity, varies dramatically.”[7] This may be discouraging to those who work for the advocacy of human rights, but the global realization of any standard is difficult, and takes time.
The realization of human rights has had a profound impact on the conduct of war, at least in part. During World War II, the Nazis did not distinguish between civilians and soldiers, which translated into more civilian than military fatalities. Today, technology has advanced to the point that the havoc wreaked during World War II would be seen as child’s play if certain technological capabilities (such as that of nuclear weaponry) were exercised to their full potential. However, the mindset of maintaining human rights compels many nations to target enemy combatants, not entire populations, and they are therefore less likely to use weapons of mass destruction and more likely to use weapons of precision. Human rights standards also dictate a certain level of civility in dealing with enemy combatants during war. For example, the Declaration forbids the practice of torture. According to the Declaration, this is an established expectation in the capture and incarceration of prisoners of war.
Human rights also inspire movements within states, potentially precluding war when those rights are realized. Changes in human rights that emerged from movements such as the American Civil Rights movement may have inadvertently prevented full-scale war. If racial prejudices were the inspiration of Nazi atrocities, could racial prejudices in America during the Civil Rights Era have escalated to the point of war? Although history is in hindsight and “what if” questions are impossible to answer accurately, one might point to the historical example of the American Civil War and its human rights implications as an argument in affirmation of that possibility.
In what might seem like an odd paradox, human rights can also constitute the basis for going to war. The United Nations serves as an institution of legitimacy in situations of warfare in that any nation that belongs to the United Nations must attain the approval of the United Nations Security Council before they can declare war on another nation.[8] The United Nations is more likely to grant the approval of a declaration of war if the nation in question has committed human rights violations. Conversely, the United Nations would never grant approval for war if doing so meant the compromise of human rights.
Today, the casualties of war are considerably less than they were 70 years ago, despite the potential for casualties to be much greater when one considers the greater populations coupled with weapons of mass destruction. The United States is currently waging two wars, one in Iraq, and the other in Afghanistan. The time span of the two wars together has been approximately ten years, and in that time, the approximate casualties of civilians and soldiers have been 100,000 and 7,000, respectively.[9] Compared to the approximate 60 million civilians and soldiers that lost their lives in the Second World War in the same approximate time span, the difference is remarkably steep. That such a dramatic change could be effected in such a short time is stunning, and it would not have occurred without the normative changes that have taken place in the arena of human rights.
Human rights provide a standard of justice that is applicable to every human in every place. It is true that human rights are never fully realized within any one nation, but by definition, their application is intended for every human in every nation. To some, this might seem like an unrealistic expectation, but if sovereign nations continue to cooperate and human progress maintains its current trajectory, then the realization of human rights in its full capacity as a normative standard is not only possible, but probable. Humanity might be flawed by nature, but as international institutions and policies are developed that encourage and advance the cause of human rights, normative human rights will become fully internalized and achieved.
