Law and alternatives for addressing human rights problems

Law and Human Rights

Is law the solution to human rights problems, or are there better alternatives?

The laws of a nation are designed to protect the rights of the citizens of that nation. They are in place so that a person knows empirically what they are and are not permitted to do. The problem with many nations of the world is that the rights of the citizens are not being protected. There are the individual rights inherent to the culture in question and then there are the more basic human rights which should be available to all people no matter their country, social standing, ethnicity, gender, or any other category which would serve to in any way differentiate one population from another. However, does the creation of laws necessarily indicate that the rights of the citizens are in fact being protected, or are there more efficient and effective ways of accomplishing this?

In the article "Political Institutions and Human Rights," James Vreeland (2008) states that nations that practice crimes that violate human rights, such as nations that commit acts of torture are more likely to accept the rules and restrictions of groups like the United Nations than countries that don't support torture (page 65). The reason for this seems to be that the world at large does not have the ability to police the rest of the world. The United Nations and other international peace-keeping groups can formulate laws and dictums and order other countries to enforce their policies. However, these groups are essentially powerless to ensure that these regulations are enforced. Practitioners of inhuman actions are likely to accept the rules of these policing groups without intending to actually prevent or prohibit their inhuman behaviors. Essentially, dictatorial or tyrannical countries pay lip service to the international group, ensuring that they can continue to violate human rights, more or less with impunity. This explanation is only theoretical. The Convention Against Torture requires nations to sign documentation where they pledge to abandon inhuman torture practices. Just because a country signs the agreement does not mean that they have any desire or intention to follow through with the stipulations of that agreement.

Linda Keith (1999) seems to agree with Vreeland's position in her article "The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights." As of her writing, the United Nations had been a functioning international entity for half a century. What she was able to determine was that the group as a whole was not effective in its capacity as an international peace-keeping and police force. The reason for this, according to Keith, is that the United Nations is viewed as a weak authority in comparison with the desires and agendas of the individual leaders of a given country. Nations which are perpetrating violations of civil rights do so with the knowledge that there is a great likelihood that the incidences will one day make it to the attention of the United Nations. When a scenario like this is up for debate, there is only so much that the United Nations can do to punish a country or the leaders of a country who are committing crimes against its citizens. When a complaint is made, the United Nations designates a group of people to create a committee who will be responsible for discussing and evaluating the circumstances (Keith 1999,-page 99). By the time that this committee is prepared to take action, if indeed it ever is, the situation is usually so highly escalated that any involvement by the United Nations will have little if any effect.

Given that laws regarding acceptance and protection of human rights created by the United Nations do not work, what then is a potentially better solution? It seems that the laws were created out of best intentions. They fail because there is no way to enforce the laws regarding human rights. If there is an international police force, then that group must have the ability to enforce international law. To fixed this currently-flawed system, international groups should agree to an enforcing organization with the capacity to enforce the laws designed to protect human rights.