How Well Has the UN Defended and Developed the Cause of Human Rights Since 1948?

According to author, Amit Ray, “the role of the UN is not policing but awakening the heart centre of humanity”. A humanitarian cause can thus be assigned to the UN but the extent to which the institution has fulfilled these obligations is contested. Developed to maintain peace in response to the tragedies of World War II, the UN’s ambitions have since extended into all aspects of human rights. It is thus of no surprise that, given the institution’s all-encompassing nature, failures have been rife, but whether these violations have outweighed its triumphs is disputable. This essay will assert that the gap between the UN’s capabilities and ambitions is vast and, whilst hypothetically the cause has been defended and developed since 1948, measures have not always translated physically. Though the UN is a valuable institution, should its inadequacies go unrectified, it risks merely reflecting international power asymmetries.

One could infer that the United Nation’s foundational documents, programmes and internal bodies have lent themselves to the defence and development of the cause of human rights since 1948. This is clear in their mandates and ventures to integrate human rights norms into the UN system, as well as the conscious efforts made to install inclusive policies that generate long lasting, authentic change for victims of human rights violations. However, intention differs from reality and, despite measures being implemented to advance rights, this dichotomy is realised in the context of the UN, with the actuality of the institution’s work sometimes hindering the cause. This contradiction was evidenced by a self-examination carried out in 2011, which revealed inadequate responses to the many chronic human rights violations in states such as Afghanistan, Guantanamo and Sri Lanka, undermining the credibility of the institution. According to the report, these failures can be attributed to member states becoming distracted by disagreements regarding what situations the Council could act upon and, in turn, mandates becoming indeterminate. The division’s approach to global crises was also deemed “antagonistic and selective”, resulting in a lack of diversification in both response and solution. It would therefore appear that the UN’s efforts to defend and develop human rights on the ground has sometimes negated core objectives.

According to predominantly realist scholars, the UN’s cause has also been thwarted by the actions of the permanent five members of the UN Security Council (UNSC): UK, US, Russia, France and China. These issues can firstly be understood through critiques relating to the states that hold permanent membership, with the P5 being accused of lacking African and Latin American representation and neglecting economically powerful nations, such as Germany and India. Subsequently, human rights cannot be developed in their entirety by the UN, as one of the principle bodies defending the cause is merely a reflection of the post-World War II, outdated, colonial system and excludes major corners of the globe. This issue is exacerbated by institutional inertia, by which changes to P5 rules would involve transformation of the UN Charter, as well as the backing of two-thirds of the General Assembly and support of the current P5. As a result of the near impossibility of extended membership and economic power being a key determinant in becoming a member, a financially driven agenda could compromise the defence of human rights as not only do economically vulnerable states face being side-lined, but richer nations may also operate in a way that further suppresses weaker nations to ensure the power balance is not shifted. Consequently welfare-related human rights in less developed nations risk being impaired by lack of funding and resources, and political unrest that could emerge as a result of deteriorating conditions would further threaten security rights.

Another criticism of the UN’s response to human rights crises lies with the organisation’s inadequacy, which can be assessed in the context of the 1994 Rwandan genocide. According to a report commissioned by Secretary General Kofi Annan, head of UN peacekeeping operations during the genocide, failure came as a result of “a lack of will to take on the commitment necessary to prevent the genocide”, with the peacekeeping mission being “doomed from the start”. Furthermore, self-critical analysis of the UN on their role in Rwanda revealed the slaughter of 800,000 minority Tutsis and moderate Hutus can be attributed to an insufficient mandate, which prevented peacekeeping forces from using force and limited them to investigating cease-fire breaches and assisting humanitarian aid deliveries; factors which were worsened by the Council’s refusal to strengthen the mandate once killings had commenced. An annual dramatisation of the failure, whereby a Jeep carrying ‘colonialists’ enters a village only for the passengers to change their hats to UN blue helmets then flee, reflects Rwanda’s current perception of the UN. Regardless of initiatives implemented to fortify human rights, physical errors made by the Security Council have drastically failed to defend, let alone develop, the institution’s cause.

Incidents of UN negligence also exist in the form of corruption, as indicated by an Associated Press report which revealed in 2017 more than 100 UN peacekeepers ran a child sex ring in Haiti over a ten-year period. Furthermore, since 2005, approximately 2000 allegations of sexual abuse and exploitation by various UN personnel have occurred globally. Likewise, in 2004 Amnesty International disclosed that the kidnap, torture and forced prostitution of young girls by peacekeeping forces was widespread during the Council’s presence in Kosovo, to which the institution’s peacekeeping department responded, “peacekeepers have come to be seen as part of the problem in trafficking rather than the solution”. Increased prostitution in places such as Bosnia and Cambodia following UN intervention were also recorded, as well as the proliferation of diseases which had not previously been common amongst the local population, such as HIV/AIDS. In carrying out these acts, it is clear that the UN have acted in adverse to their cause to the extent where almost every article in the Declaration of Human Rights has been violated in some capacity. It is therefore, again, impossible to say the UN have comprehensively defended and developed human rights as, when assessing the impact of peacekeeping forces in the territories discussed above, it is unmistakable that volatile situations have been exploited and further aggravated on multiple occasions.

Moreover, abuses of veto power in the P5 are further indicative of self-interest taking precedence over the institution’s cause. This flaw has been summarised by Amnesty International’s former Secretary General, Shalil Shetty, “the Security Council is there in order to protect human interests […] but they tend to protect their own national interest, so the humanitarian consequence of these big powers playing politics is what we see in Syria” in regards to Syrian ally, Russia; a state which has used its veto power more than any other member. Additionally, as a result of Russia vetoing draft resolutions relating to chemical weapon investigations, imposed sanctions and the ICC in the Syrian Civil War twelve times, over 400,000 have died in conflict since 2011. French ambassador to the UN, Francois Delattre, has gone as far as to describe Russia’s use of the Security Council vote as “systemic”. China have also been accused of abusing their veto power in matters concerning Taiwan’s independence and solutions to the mass killing of Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar as a result of trade relations. Likewise, the US have been condemned for casting the single opposing vote against fourteen affirmative votes on a resolution calling on the US to withdraw its Jerusalem-based embassy, as well as voting down dozens of resolutions that would have called on Israel to fully withdraw from Palestinian territory. In response, permanent observers for the State of Palestine asserted, “one party cannot continue to monopolise the peace process, especially not one that acts with bias in favour of the occupying power”. This solidifies arguments claiming the UN have worked conversely to human rights and has therefore failed in developing the cause, as multiple instances have occurred where maintaining the hard power of member states has taken priority over the rights of the citizens of weaker states. As a result, rights to life, liberty and security continue to be breached in defenceless nations.

Though it is evident many of the UN’s attempts to defend human rights on the ground has failed, countless operations have taken place where the institution’s efforts have materialised in genuine, wholesale change. It is imperative both arguments from the realist and rational institutionalist school of thought are acknowledged if the complexity of the historical debate is to be understood. Whilst it is evident African states have fallen victim to much of the UN’s failure, places such as the Mano River Basin sub-region of West Africa have seen hostilities subside across 3 countries, and the return home of 3.5 million displaced inhabitants as a result of UN intervention. Defence of rights is also present in that approximately 45,000 UN peacekeepers were deployed amongst the region, with 547 dying in conflict; a sizeable difference contrasted against the 2500 personnel that were stationed throughout Rwanda in the 1990s. Furthermore, in the political domain, nine presidential and legislative elections have been supported by UN forces throughout this process. Justice rights were additionally developed with the establishment of the UN-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone, which saw war criminals Charles Taylor and Laurent Gbagbo convicted for crimes against humanity. The longevity of the UN’s commitment to this region was reflected in its response to the 2014 Ebola crisis in which the specialised agency, WHO, can be credited for the eradication of the disease in West Africa in 2016. In terms of healthcare accomplishments, this agency can also be praised for the 99% decrease in polio since 1988, eradication of small pox in 1979 and saving of 37 million lives from tuberculosis since 1995, as well as decreasing the number of children dying before their 5th birthday to 10 million for the first time in recent history. Fundamentally, it is clear the UN have not only played a significant role in defending human rights in volatile states through enacting political and legal measures, but also in developing the cause globally through medical research.

Aside from work on the ground, much of the UN’s defence of human rights stems from foundational, factional and structural efforts; an argument asserted by rational institutionalist scholars. One could argue the UN has defended and developed the cause of human rights since 1948 as the claims put forth in its foundational Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) have served as the governing principles on which the institution operates. According to Article 1 of the UN Charter, the organisation would set out to promote and encourage respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms irrespective of race, sex, religion and language. Likewise, Article 2 states international disputes would be resolved peacefully through the organisation, ensuring the sovereign equality of each member is recognised, whilst maintaining security and justice. Though these notions persisted following 1948, they were developed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Proclaimed by the UN General Assembly in the December, it recognised humans as possessing conscience and reason, thus being “born free and equal in rights”. The discourse advanced in this declaration also states distinctions would not be made on account of “political, jurisdictional or international status” and that security, liberty and the right to life were rights that should be granted universally. It is thus evident human rights were defended in the creation and initial development of the UN as the cause was acknowledged in the first Articles of its Charter and 1948 declaration, thus embedding them deep into the institution’s core and positing them at the heart of all the UN would set out to achieve.

Theoretically, programmes established by the UN also suggest the organisation has made successful, conscious efforts to defend and develop the cause of human rights. UNICEF, which became a permanent part of the UN system in 1953, exemplified the institution’s ethos as it sought to “hold everyone accountable to the promises made for children” through their efforts to guarantee education, food security and vaccinations against common childhood diseases for children, particularly those living in less developed states, alongside preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS and helping young people affected by the disease to live a dignified life. The defence and development of human rights has been integrated into this faction as not only does it work in line with the Convention on the Rights of the Child and aim to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, but it also recognises systemic gender inequality and predominantly provides aid to women and girls as a result. This awareness of gendered humanitarian issues has also carried through into programmes such as UN Women, which claims its aid has developed in tandem with global norms and standards and is “committed to ensuring equality between women and men as partners and beneficiaries of humanitarian action”. To ensure the goals set out in the UN Women Humanitarian Strategy 2014-2017 are met, the department operates three programmes on crises prevention, preparedness and response to leverage women’s leadership and promote resilience, minimise vulnerabilities and mitigate risk. As a result, bilateral aid directed at securing gender equality in fragile states has quadrupled from 2007-2017. Places such as the Za’atari refugee camp in Jordan have also seen cash-for-work opportunities for women increase by 87%. The UN has thus been advantageous to the cause of human rights as its projects have acted upon the organisation’s belief in a right to education, work, healthcare and security, operating with an awareness of global gender dynamics and the importance of inclusivity. However, Human Rights up Front (HRuF) perhaps best supports the line of argument that the UN have successfully defended and developed human rights through their programmes as the Secretary-General’s initiative seeks to prevent problems that impede upon peace, security and development, specifically those concerning human rights. In doing so, three types of change have been introduced by the organisation; cultural change, operational change and change to UN engagement with Member States. This multifaceted approach has prompted UN members to act with moral courage and adopt principled positions and, in doing so, aids in preventing large-scale, gross human rights violations and the infringement of international humanitarian law. Furthermore, the HRuF programme has enabled UN entities to identify the impact of development problems on human rights, encouraging greater efficiency in communication between the UN system and Security Council and preventative political solutions to transpire. It is subsequently evident that human rights have been developed by the UN since 1948 as systems have been implemented specialising in the preservation of key rights and protection of vulnerable members of society.

Additionally, one could assess the UNPFII and OHCHR components of the structure of the UN to support the notion that human rights have been defended and developed since 1948. The UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII), which serves as a high-level coordinating body to the Economic and Social Council over matters concerning the rights of indigenous populations, would appear developmental of rights as the panel raises awareness of issues specifically affecting minorities and assists in their integration. The body also distributes information regarding indigenous issues within the UN system, making recommendations to the Council on how the socio-economic status, education and health of native communities can be protected, as well as safeguarding their cultures and traditions. An objective to defend human rights is thus clear within this sector as its libertarian attitudes towards rights pertaining to thought, belief, religion and expression has been accounted for through the conservation of otherwise endangered populations. However, it is valid to attribute the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) as the principle structural division advancing the cause of human rights in the UN, with the body acting upon a unique mandate that protects and promotes human rights for everyone. The division seeks to incorporate “a human rights aspect into all UN programmes” to ensure “development and human rights” are “interlinked and mutually reinforcing”, and that the cause is held at centre-stage by the international community. The body publicly condemns violations of rights, provides technical expertise and capacity-development to ensure a universal standard of rights is met and assists governments in ensuring the rights of their citizens; all of which are essential during a time where the UN attempts to pursue its most far-reaching platform yet. Examples of the success of this approach can be taken from the work of the UN Sustainable Development Group (UNSDG), a division which functions alongside the UNPFII in assisting governments in acting in accordance with international human rights norms. This was evident in the Uruguay penal system in 2009, which the UN Special Rapporteur criticised for being cruel, inhumane and operating outside of human rights regulations. As a result, a complete overhaul of the criminal justice system was initiated, alongside a Joint Programme that facilitated inter-agency and inter-institutional change that would enable the entire system to address issues of human rights violations through a series of penal policies and programmes. According to the Uruguayan government, the UN’s “impartiality, normative role and ability to leverage experiences” was critical in addressing the issue. Subsequently, the state’s prison infrastructure and services have improved, officials are trained in legal norms and standards, and social reintegration has been made more efficient. It is therefore evident there has been instances where advisory bodies within the UN’s structure have contributed to the development of human rights.

To conclude, the extent in which the UN has defended and developed the cause of human rights since 1948 is based on the experience of who is asked; a Bosnian Muslim man in Srebrenica in 1995 may blame the institution for the massacre of his community, whereas a women in Egypt in 2015 could attribute the organisation with the significant drop in female genital mutilation in her village. It is subsequently valid to assume the institution is time, gender and geographically dependent. However, the notion stands that in many instances the UN’s human rights related ambitions, which are strong internally, have not always materialised into external capabilities; something which has led to cataclysmic human rights violations. Moreover, few of these failures have devastated superpowers, which indicates the debate should be racialised as this disproportionality can be attributed to major flaws in G5 representation, suggesting the institution has acted in a manner reflective of international power disproportionalities. It is important to recognise success on the ground and progress in crises response however, as it appears the institution has come to hold human rights increasingly at its core. To sustain this evolution, it is valid to suggest not only must the organisation continue to adapt to shifting polarity, but also work towards external intersectionality. This could be accomplished through imposing voluntary restraint, or increasing P5 membership to represent all corners of the globe. Only in doing so, can the UN comprehensively, authentically execute its cause.