Pierre Judd B.

Alvizo

Room M3

Human Rights Law Sat 8pm - 10pm

Why our system on human rights doesn’t work?

In 2013, the UN formally declared the Rohingya people as the most persecuted minority in the
world. They have resided in the lands of Myanmar for so long that it predates even the state’s
establishment; Yet, despite this shared history Myanmar still treats them as illegal immigrants. They are
forcefully segregated from the rest of the population in what can only be described as the modern-day
equivalent of internment camps, where they are viewed with such enmity that birth and marriage control
is resorted to by its state to contain their population. A state, which I might add, that was praised for being
one of the first 48 signatories to the international declaration of human rights. Where are the paragons
of human rights? What is the UN doing? Why is the world content with just idling by? Then again …. the
international community really was never as reliable as Beth Simmons would lead us to believe.

Her critique on Posner can be summed up in two points. One, that Posner is so fixated with his
commentary of the inadequacies of states and international organizations in the field of human rights,
that he fails to take notice of the meaningful actions between stakeholders and their governments at the
domestic level. Two, that the idea of states purposefully choosing not to comply with human rights
because of monetary concerns are absurd because some HR goals aren’t expensive and some whose
enforcement even improves productivity and development.

Why Posner was right to fixate on state to state relations in analyzing Human rights

The travesties of the Rohingya genocide and the silent stance of the international community
witnessing it is by no means an isolated case. The response, or lack thereof, has been the same with issues
like the irrational green line of Israel which corner the Palestinians, and the blatant disregard of the UN
obligation against the use of force by the US against Iraq.

Simmons insists that even if the treaties on human rights are largely ignored by the signatories to
it, they still constitute “political and legal ammunition for locals in making demands”. Yet what worth is
there in bullets without the mechanisms to propel them forward? Her rebuttal is premised on the
existence of a venue for which a state’s citizens can bring forth their claims, which is exactly the problem,
because there isn’t one.

It goes without saying that the venue will certainly not exist within the guilty state and neither
will it exist in the domestic courts of other states who hold no jurisdiction over the offending state. How
about international organizations? The likely answer is no.
 With how much we praise international organizations like the UN for its contribution to the
advancements in human right legislations, we often find ourselves forgetting that international law was
always ever about the coexistence of states, human rights was never truly the priority. Was the UN
established because the world leaders primarily thought to improve human rights? Of courses not, it was
established to maintain international peace and security. What about the ICC? Is there a likelihood of it
enforcing penalties at the expense of the enmity of the state protecting the offenders? Seems unlikely.

Which is why the international community refused to take matters upon its own hands in the case
of Myanmar and the people of Rohingya; Which is why we ignore Israel’s green line; Which is why we
stood back and watched the US invade Iraq, all this because stability and the preservation of international
coexistence has always been the forefront of international law.

Had the world treated individuals, in place of states, the true subjects of international law, the
idealistic approach of Simmons might have allowed locals some semblance of respite against offending
states. But because the development and “enforcement” of human rights law is laced with state interests
in mind, and for so long as it remains so, it is only proper that human rights be viewed and analyzed in a
state’s perspective

Why Problems in Human Rights is an Issue of Managing Finite Resources

Let’s imagine a state in the middle of an external armed conflict, and with its limited budget it
now has to decide how much it uses and for what. This fictional state also happens to be a signatory to an
international human rights treaty to guarantee shelter for refugees. Would our fictional state be willing
to devote itself to fulfilling that treaty on human rights by taking out funds for national defense to
accommodate them? What if the state was not at war, would it be more willing then? This is the heart of
Posner’s argument, albeit a rather extreme example of one, that rights are expensive while budgets
remain the same.

Simmons on the other hand would have us believe that this problem doesn’t exist, that this way
of thinking is wrong because rights like the right to privacy and the participation of women in community
activities aren’t expensive, while the implementation of some might even boost productivity.
Furthermore, she alleges that human rights treaties allow a state’s locals to demand more attention to
basic human rights and needs than their state is currently devoting and that these treaties “certainly
cannot hurt in making the case”.

Has the goal of the human rights movement been to develop empty treaties that “certainly cannot
hurt in making the case” or was it to make strides in bettering the human standard of life? Her criticisms
on Posner rely too heavily on domestic reaction that she down plays the very crux of the entire discourse,
does our system on human rights work?

What do treaties have to do with domestic action? Does its presence somehow invigorate the
masses with the strength to effect positive HR change? What good is the legal basis to the people when
the state has already decided not to entertain it? Take Myanmar and the Rohingyas again for example.
The former is a signatory to various treaties to guarantee human rights, yet what good are they to the
Rohingyas when Myanmar has ultimately decided not to apply it to them. Instead, the state evades its
responsibilities by proudly proclaiming that no human right violations are happening.

The system, as it stands, does not work; because everything is subordinated to the interest of the
state. Which is why Posner wants to address this by tackling the source of a state’s refusal to comply, the
cost. Even Simmons impliedly acknowledges this by telling us that some aren’t even expensive, yet she
forgets that cost doesn’t just revolve around money. The right to privacy she says is cheap, is taken only
in the economic perspective, costs might incur themselves entirely unto state security. State X might want
to ignore the human right of privacy for fear of an imminent terrorist attack on its capital.

In the end my position lies with Posner against Simmons because it is the state which ultimately
decides whether it follows human right legislations and not the people on the ground. Hence, it is with
the state and the reasons for why it chooses not to follow that the focus on human right initiatives should
center on in the future. Blind faith in a system of human rights that does little to nothing is but a dull blade
against the monsters of human suffering.