A thought bubble: sovereignty vs. human rights

Note: I'm writing this to try to clarify a thought that came to me. This is still a work in progress, and will be until I finish resolving the problems in the argument. 

*****

One of the points of contention in international relations is the issue of sovereignty, and how much - and in what way - agreements and other nations will and can / may "acceptably" breach sovereignty.

The ultimate breach of sovereignty is probably warfare - physically invading another nation and death and destruction. This can, in some cases, have repercussions that continue for decades.

As I started writing that, I was thinking of the USA's wars and other violent involvements in Central America, which led to instability and such appalling social conditions that thousands of people are fleeing  ironically, to the nation that caused the problems, the USA (see here, here, and here). The histories of Europe and post-Civil War USA, however, are probably better examples. In Europe's case, hate and violence between some nations has been passed on through generations (with a concomitant length of war, in some cases - e.g., here) and war has had a role in the creation and ending of many nations, and the USA is still plagued by racist hate from the time of its civil war.

There are other forms of breaching other nations' sovereignty as well - perhaps most notably, in the current clime, the issue of interference in elections - which has occurred for decades before the 2016 US Presidential election, including US actions in the 1996 Russian elections, Iran (1952), the Philippines (1953), and - perhaps most notoriously of all - Chile (1973), and competing US, USSR and sometimes others influence in Italy (1948), Korea (1948), and Palestine (2006), and the USA's misreading of circumstances and subsequent devastating actions and influences in Viêt Nàm in the 50s and 60s.

The USSR probably considers the military "intervention" by the Allies in the Russian Civil War in 1918-19 (which saw over 5,000 Allied deaths [and a Russian death toll in the millions]) as foreign interference - and remember that these events can leave long trails through history, trails that interweave with current influences and can either blow up spectacularly (as in the now former Yugoslavia), or transform (for instance, the ending of apartheid in South Africa).

These military interventions are not always bad: I consider the fight in World War (part) Two (WW2) against the evils of nazism to have been necessary - avoidable, had nations interfered effectively and well with Germany's sovereignty, or even enforced the Treaty of Versailles, but, once it become inevitable, necessary.

And that is a good point to start moving on to other forms of influence - specifically, law, international law, and human rights - all of which had been evolving and developing for centuries beforehand - perhaps most notably the Paris Pact of 1928, which was the basis of significant charges after WW2, but also the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 (although those were agreed to partly to reduce the escalating cost of modern warfare - specifically, "expanding" bullets), and some  aspects of the League of Nations.

At this point, we start to see law and agreement governing the interaction of nations, basically edging the world out of thuggery towards mature interactions. On the basis of the real individuals who suffer during war, directly and indirectly, I consider this a good thing. (There are also benefits socially, environmentally, and even economically.)

However, not all nations agree to such restraints - such as nazi Germany in the 1930s and 1940s. In that instance, the wrong of violently invading another nation (through WW2) is clear and quite apparent: it is perhaps, less clearcut in the case on political interference and "covert" actions.

I would sum the latter example as a conflict between one nation's political aims and will, and another's political aims and will, with one nation being dishonest about their political aims and will. 

There are international agreements on many things - and they have wide benefits, as is the case for instance, with navigation agreements for sea and sky, or postal agreements, and health. Less widely known, sadly, are the benefits from health agreements, and subject to some dispute - from shrinking but noisy minorities within some nations - are agreements about refugees and environment (e.g., the agreements that remedied the ozone depletion problem).

Many of these agreements have options for nations to object to parts, or to withdraw.

So, irrespective of one's view on the content, there is a system which seems to be based largely around the choice of nations (which do not necessarily encompass the views of all citizens of that nation).

Where this becomes greyer is:

(a) ius cogens status laws; and
(b) the Responsibility to Protect / Will to Intervene.

ius cogens is something that has become so widely accepted, that it doesn't matter if someone objects, they will still be expected to comply with that. An example if the prohibition on murder, which is so widely established that, even if the laws banning it were to suddenly disappear overnight, the prohibition would still be respected by decent, "everyday" or "normal" people.

Another example is the ban on slavery, although that two millennia old (at least) struggle is still continuing, as slavery has changed its form and some people are diluting the struggle by flippant use of the term for other problems.

Responsibility to Protect / Will to Intervene is based on the notion of "never again" that first received widespread use / support after WW2, when the genocides and other abuses of the nazis became widely known; the term Responsibility to Protect was developed and formalised after such atrocities did occur again - in Bosnia, and Rwanda, with the term Will to Intervene being developed - but not formalised or even widely used - to cover the fact that nations continued to seek excuses to avoid taking action - currently being displayed by the world towards burma's genocide of the Rohingya. (The term genocide was developed by Raphael Lemkin to describe what had happened to the Armenians at the hands of the Ottoman Empire, the core remnant of which later became modern Turkey, in World War (part) One.)

Now we get to the thought bubble I'm working on developing.

Let's go back to the notion of laws against murder suddenly disappearing, and suppose - for the purposes of this exercise - that one nation embraced the lack of such laws.

Would you be happy to go to that nation? I consider most people would say "no, that would be dangerous".

Would you be happy with that nation trying to get your nation to also remove your bans on murder? Again, I think most people would say "no".

This illustrates - somewhat extremely - the concerns everyday people have about failing to respect sovereignty. In real life, of course, it is not as clearcut as that, as most people's concerns are based on fallacies (especially around refugees [e.g., see here] and what other religions and cultures are like - which is rich, diverse, and NOT monolithic), and the politics are often based on power and the imposition of one's culture on others - a problem the USA is notorious for, especially with regard to economic and social security matters (It's record on human rights is patchy - some good, some bad, some neutral).

In real life, the politics often appears, in my opinion, to lag behind the will of the people. Many people wanted action taken in Bosnia long before anything was done, for instance. Many people wanted action in Rwanda while it was happening as well - and some action (such as bombing the radio station that was broadcasting incitement to hate and violence) would have been effective, but the world had ignored and misread the signals so thoroughly that there wasn't enough time for large scale intervention before Rwandan rebels ended the genocide themselves (before going on to commit another).

Why? For a range of reasons very capably explored and explained in Samantha  Power's book "A Problem  from Hell" (Pub. Basic Books [“a member of the Perseus Books Group”], New York, 2013, ISBN 978-0-465-06151-8; previously published HarperCollins in 2003 and 2007), which, for the purposes of this article, I will summarise as "concern about votes" (aka political power).

Now, let's change the perspective a little. In that nation which now allows - perhaps even encourages - murder, perhaps sitting in the international naughty corner and ignoring the rest of world, at what point do you say "enough is enough" and take action?

Ignoring the naive who would talk about that nation's need to improve itself, reactions would range between "never" to "immediately", with most people probably trying to determine a rational or reasonable basis for when to act. Then the debate would turn to "what form of intervention should this take", with some arguing for targeted sanctions only, some for wider sanctions, a few for military gungho-ism, and some for progressive escalation from the first to the last option.

In everyday life, without considerable education, some people will not even call the police when they hear domestic violence, as shown by Samantha Power's book: similar education (aka - action to trigger "imagination") is often needed to get people to want to take action against atrocities - I'm not sure that's about avoiding one's own casualties, as many people too often don't think about that or assume their forces will be more effective, but there is some sort of head-in-the-sand attitude problem - or an assumption that they cannot have an influence.

Where support for action grows is when the effects on oneself of a rowdy or disruptive neighbour becomes apparent - in the thought bubble I'm rolling around, perhaps some people start arguing for allowing murder in your nation, or start acting on the basis that "they can do it, so why can't I?"

In real life, severe internal problems in one nation can affect trade and economics, cause a spread of instability, and ultimately lead to war - as happened with Germany in the 1930s and 1940s, and central Africa in the 1990s.

We're all interconnected, and we cannot afford to overlook our neighbour's problems. We're entitled to consider what we should be doing, realistically, but wilful blindness is not an acceptable option. And that applies from the level of the individual through to the world community of nations.

(On a lesser scale, the USA is currently experiencing the return of problems it created in Central America, which is a perfect example of this interconnection.)

One of the problems here is, in democracies, that people can take some time to realise the seriousness of problems, and that can lead to the election of politicians like those who delayed the USA's entry into World Wars One and Two.

There are a couple of solutions here.

The first is for a better flow of information - not just quantity and timing, but also quality - from both media and governments. This gets into a whole other set of issues currently being played out in Australia through the debate over police raids on media.

The second is for some prior discussion and pre-agreement on triggers, actions and reasonable approaches to impacting on nations' sovereignty. Fortunately, we've done that, and have the multi-cultural, multi-religion based Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the United  Nations and UN Security  Council, which are based on, in part, the following, from the UN Charter:

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

• to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
• to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
• to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
• to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS

• to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
• to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
• to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
• to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS

 . . .

CHAPTER I: PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES
Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

 . . .

CHAPTER VII: ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION
Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 40
In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.

Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Article 43

1. All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.
2. Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.
3. The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

Article 44
When the Security Council has decided to use force it shall, before calling upon a Member not represented on it to provide armed forces in fulfilment of the obligations assumed under Article 43, invite that Member, if the Member so desires, to participate in the decisions of the Security Council concerning the employment of contingents of that Member's armed forces.

The UN can seem frustrating and unwieldy, and there are things to fix there, but some of the slowness is because of grappling with issues such as balancing human rights and sovereignty. 

Now we just need to get everyone aware of all this . . .