Human Rights and UN Member States

(As part of the project that I did with the United Nations Association of Singapore (UNAS), I wrote 7 essays concerning various aspects of the UN and the international system. This is essay 2 out of 7)


Section 2 (Human Rights)

Q14. What components make up the International Bill of Rights? Provide reasons why Human Rights remain a contentious issue among member states of the UN.

By Linus Wong, National Junior College

The International Bill of Rights is an informal name for a group of resolutions and treaties. It comprises of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Collectively, they seek to protect the common interests of mankind and the dignity and worth of the human person.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights arose out of the events of the Second World War. The gross injustices and violations of the dignity and rights of a person during the global struggle led nations to seek for a firm, clear, global declaration for the need to safeguard and advance these rights. This Universal Declaration for the first time outlined certain concepts that would later be adopted as the common standard of achievement for all peoples and nations. It recognises the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family and sees this as essential in the promotion of the development of friendly relations between nations and the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.

Human rights as encapsulated by the above declaration remain contentious among states on several points.

1.    The freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want

2.    Right to rebel against tyranny and oppression if there is no peaceful recourse

3.    No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

4.    No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile

5.    Freedom of travel and movement as well as the right to seek asylum

6.    That the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government.

Although not a legally binding treaty but rather a declaration of intent, the fact that it has influenced a multitude of constitutions and has a great global influence makes those 6 points above contentious to various member states for a myriad of reasons. Authoritarian governments as well as non-democratic governments would find the above points irksome due it being a thorn in their system and style of governance. Point 6 on the fact that the people’s will determines the authority of government is often interpreted as an oblique reference to the need for elections and the people have the ability to control the government. However, we see that in one-party states or non-democratic states with military junta’s, strongmen, or dictators in power, this point potentially undermines their legitimacy to rule and threatens their continued control over government. Points 1 and 2 provide a dangerous recourse towards questioning the authority of an existing government and point 2 explicitly provides a legal and moral justification for rebellion and dissent against the state. Point 3 interferes with how states conduct war, for torture is sometimes viewed as the best way to gain vital information in winning a conflict. Points 3 and 4 are also seen as interfering with the internal sovereign power of a government and the right of a government to act in ensuring internal security as well as peace, order and stability. Point 5 in addition gives an opportunity for political opponents and perceived enemies of the state to escape abroad to seek protection or to continue formulating ferment and dissention against the state within the territorial confines of a state. Collectively, these 6 points would be seen by a government that is non-democratic to be a threat to its existence and a potential danger to the state and nation that it seeks to represent. Therefore, the promotion of such values and rights by democratic states brings into conflict and contention the democratic world’s belief in the universality of such values against states who do not feel that it is beneficial to subscribe to them.

United Nations Human Rights Council Logo

United Nations Human Rights Council in Session

Furthermore, collectively, these three documents might infringe or alter certain aspects of domestic or international law, changes which not all member states of the UN may be happy about. As countries seek to defend their sovereignty, their judicial, prosecutorial and executive independence, contentions over the rights expounded in these 3 documents naturally arise.

Looking at the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, two main contentions arise, namely over the right of all peoples to self determination and the right against arbitrary expulsion of resident aliens. The right to self determination is a heavily contested right. Some states see it as the legitimate right of a people to express their desire for freedom and an alternative political system congruent to their nationalist aims. Others, especially states with populations seeking independence strongly contest this right as they see it as damaging to the territorial integrity to the state, detrimental to the government’s political authority and a possible prelude to further secession and civil disobedience. The right against expulsion challenges the notion of the right of states to expel illegal immigrants, a further point of contention.

In conclusion, human rights as a whole are contentious when they touch upon or are seen to affect a state politically. So long as it does not, such as economic, social or cultural rights, they tend to be accepted more readily and with little hassle so long as it is congruent to domestic law and culture.