Journals

Melanie Benedict 7661089 April 10, 2013

PoLS 3160 Dr. Michael McCrossan A01

WEEK 5 (Feb.6) - Debates Concerning ‘Universal’ Human Rights

The topic for this week is Debates Concerning ‘Universal’ Human Rights. The readings

done for this week were: Mary Ellen Turpel, “Interpretive Monopolies, Cultural Differences,”

Canadian Human Rights Yearbook (1990): 3-45; Michael J. Perry, “Are Human Rights

Universal? The Relativist Challenge and Related Matters,” Human Rights Quarterly 19:3 (1997):

461-509; and Jack Donnelley, Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice (New York:

Cornell University Press, 2003): 57-88.

This week’s topic on debates concerning the universality of human rights was worthy in

that if forced me to question if it really is, something that I have never considered before. It was

startling to note how much criticism there is outside the developed, and sometime within,

countries concerning the universality of human rights. We in the “west” seem to take it for

granted that everyone thinks like us and wishes to have the same freedoms as us. The debate

between individualism and collectivism is particularly interesting. I do come from an ethnic

background that tends to skew towards collective rights rather than individual rights, so the

points made by the authors about cultural relativism rang true. However, I do think is slightly

erroneous to say that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not account for collective

rights. It really depends on how someone interprets and applies the articles of the Declaration.

For example, someone can interpret the right to freedom of religion as in individualistic

paradigm (i.e. “I choose to be a Catholic”) or in collectivistic paradigm (i.e. “We, as individuals,

chose to be Catholic”). In both cases, a person’s right to freedom of religions is protected.

Another debate I found interesting was the idea of cultural relativism. Specifically, it was

interesting in the Donnelly reading to get to know different perspectives of human rights based

on culture. Although I understood Donnelly’s argument that these perspectives were not



“universal” human rights because a large majority of them were duty based instead of inherent, I

found myself thinking that would it be such a bad thing to have a duty based system. Having

duty and behaviour norms be attached to conditions of human rights would act as a deterrent

against people taking advantage of human rights principles, and allow for clearing of gray areas,

such as human rights of terrorists, associated with the universal human rights paradigm.

Overall, this week’s reading were very informative in addressing criticism that are faced

by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The monopolization of human rights by Western

countries, as articulated by Turpel, was especially informative. It was interesting to note how

countries that are politically and ideologically opposite to ideals of liberal democracy, which is

associated with Western thought, were more likely or even automatically criticize the Universal

Declaration. I think the fault for this lies with both the non-Western countries and Western

countries. The non-Western countries are at fault because they should not reject something that is

positive and gives them equal rights simply based on the origins of the ideals of human rights.

The Universal Declaration should be evaluated, criticized, and rejected because for itself not due

to who formulated it. The Western countries are at fault because they hang on so tightly to their

ideologies and values that they are not willing accept criticism that would only strengthen the

Universal Declaration. When actors, especially states, start to think they will not learn or need

not learn anything from other state who are not like-minded, then that is when conflict arises.

The universal and egalitarian ideals articulated in the Universal Declaration should be

appreciated not scorned due to its origins. Ultimately, portraying and upholding the values of

human rights is what will decide its universality. The idea of practicing what you preach, will

show nonbeliever of the human rights paradigm the advantages and positivity associated with it.



WEEK 10 (Mar.13) – UNDRIP – Implementation Dilemmas (I)

The topic for this week’s class is United Nation Declaration of Rights of Indigenous

Peoples. I did the following readings: James Youngblood Henderson, Indigenous Diplomacy and

Rights of the Peoples: Achieving UN Recognition (Purich Publishing, 2009), Chapter 9; Dale

Sambo Dorough, “The Significance of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and

Its Future Implementation,” in Claire Charters and Rodolfo Stavenhagen, eds., Making the

Declaration Work: The United Nations Declaration on the Right of Inigenous Peoples

(Copenhagen: IWGIA, 2009): 264-279; and Clair Charter, “The Legitimacy of the UN

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,” in Claire Charters and Rodolfo Stavenhagen,

eds., Making the Declaration Work: The United Nations Declaration on the Right of Inigenous

Peoples (Copenhagen: IWGIA, 2009): 280-303.

Before these last two classes my understanding of Indigenous Peoples struggle for

Sovereignty, in terms of recognition of past treaties, recognition of them in international law, and

their attempt at legitimizing their struggles, was very limited. What little I know of the struggle,

is through exposure through media or something someone had told me. I found it shocking to

what extent I had not been exposed to the discussion of rights of Indigenous Peoples. The idea of

Indigenous Peoples sovereignty seems to be such contentious issue, it has not become part of

main stream dialogue. For their part, Indigenous Peoples must really start the discussion rolling

in more the academic circles. From personal experience, I believe to really educated people on

an issue is not necessarily through protest or campaigns but one on one discussion with others.

Making an issue such as this a personal dialogue with ‘real faces’ forces people to confront it,

instead of viewing it as “Oh! That is interesting, but it has no effect on me”. Dialogue on



Indigenous Peoples in the mainstream should be more informative and empathetic, instead of

sympathetic, to see real improvements in meeting the objective sought by Indigenous peoples.

The readings themselves raised one important questions for me. The first was, should

there be a separate paradigm or declaration for Indigenous Peoples as a subcategory of the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights? I personally think that having sub-Declarations for

marginalized groups separate from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, seriously

undermines and illegitimates the purpose and power of the Universal Declaration. Is there valid

points, such as Western-centricism or individualism that does makes the Declaration contentious,

maybe incompatible, for traditional Indigenous thoughts? Yes. However, in such a case, it would

be better to expand the ideals and articles of the Universal Declaration to better reflect the

ideologies and practices in the world then make additions or exceptions. After all, the idea of

having a Universal Declaration is to make sure everyone is considered equal and no rights

trumps other rights. Having Indigenous rights be considered under “special” lens either says

Indigenous rights are trump non-Indigenous rights or more cruelly, the Indigenous people are not

‘humans’ therefore must have another set of rules.

Overall, I found the readings to be quite eye opening and informative in setting out

various reasons for advocating Indigenous Rights. I especially like the discussion in class

surrounding what kind of sovereignty and what policy would allow for Indigenous peoples to

exercise self-determination. I would like to learn a little bit more about what kind of sovereignty

that Indigenous people would like implemented and what did the treaties during the colonial

period agree too.



WEEK 11 (Mar.20) – UNDRIP – Implementation Dilemmas (II)

This week was a continuation on the topic of United Nation Declaration on the Rights of

Indigenous Peoples and Implementation Dilemmas. The reading completed for this week

include: Sheryl R. Lightfoot, “Selective Endorsement Without Intent to Implement: Indigenous

Rights and the Anglosphere,” The International Journal of Human Rights 16:1(2012):100-122

and Irene Bellier and Martin Preaud, “Emerging Issues in the Indigenous Rights: Transformative

Effects of the Recognition of Indigenous Peoples,” The International Journal of Human Rights

16:3 (2012): 478-488.

This week’s readings was a continuation of last week’s issue of implementing the United

Nation Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I found the Lightfoot article particularly

interesting because it showed how the rights of Indigenous peoples is really view in the

international stage. It was ironic that the four countries identified as practicing selective

enforcement were the four countries who are considered settler states. The readings from the last

three weeks on Indigenous rights combined with the Lightfoot reading, I think, show two main

reason for the dilemma associated with implementing Indigenous rights. The first is the

international system, particularly the primacy of state sovereignty. I believe as long as there is no

higher power or overseeing system above state sovereignty, Indigenous peoples rights, or any

other rights which undermine or bring into question the legitimacy and sovereignty of the state

will not be implemented. Whether that is right or wrong, is another matter in itself. The second

hurdle to implementing Indigenous people’s rights, is what Indigenous people envision self-

determination and exercising sovereignty means to them. Do Indigenous peoples wish for a

separate state? Do they want self-determination in only certain aspects, such as law? Do they

want trans-border sovereignty that does not entail territory? Questions such as these will need to



be addressed before Indigenous right can be implemented. I think Indigenous people are not

doing themselves a favour by not having a clear, concise, and well-articulated objective and

argument for what is precisely Indigenous people want through recognition at the international

level and through the human rights paradigm.

Overall, the issues associated with implementing Indigenous rights was fascinating. In

the case of academia, I wish there was a more practical application based literature rather than

theory based. As it is often seen, there tends to be a big gap between theory and reality. Having

tangible, practical, implementation rules based on theories would further the cause of Indigenous

rights. In this proposed literature, I would love to see models of sovereignty that could be applied

to Indigenous self-determination. For example, having a trans-provincial judiciary system based

on Indigenous laws and customs. This model could show different ways to implement such a

model, how would it function, what jurisdiction will it fall under, and etc. I fell something like

that would be more helpful then speculation and theory. I also think that media and public

discourse should be more utilized by advocates of Indigenous rights. Having people within the

Indigenous community be social and politically active and informed is not enough to see real

changes. The support of the wider community, whether international or domestic, is necessary

for policy change and implementation. There seems to be so much prejudice and negative

stereotyping associated with Indigenous people, particularly in Canada, which need to change.

This topic has managed to show me how ignorant, or ill informed, I am when I comes to

Indigenous rights. A specific topic or area of Indigenous rights that I would further like to study

is customs and laws of the various Indigenous peoples, both in Canada and abroad.



WEEK 12 (Mar.27) – Sexuality, Gender, and Prohibitions Against Discrimination

The topic for this week is Sexuality, Gender, and Prohibitions against Discrimination.

The readings done for this week were: Charlotte Bunch, “Women’s Rights as Human Rights:

Toward a Re-Vision of Human Rights,” Human Rights Quarterly 12:4 (1990): 486-498 and

Hilary Charlesworth,, “What are ‘Women’s International Human Rights?’” in Rebecca J. Cook,

ed., Human Rights of Women: National and International Perspectives (Philadelphia; University

of Pennsylvania Press): 58-84.

For this week’s discussion, I focused mainly on women’s rights in the context of the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Both of the readings I did were amazing. There are

several things I like about Bunch and Charlesworth. First, they addressed popular criticism of

women’s rights being considered human rights, then responded to those criticism besides just

dismissing it as invalid. I have previously been frustrated about the lack of direct responses to

criticism in previous readings, such as the Donnelly reading concerning the universality of

human rights. Second, I like that they offered practical implementation options. From what few

articles I have read on human rights, there is a lot of theorizing and possibilities concerning the

implementation of human rights or indigenous rights, but none really set a step by step process

quite like these readings on women’s rights. Third, and my favourite, reason I loved the Bunch

and Charlesworth readings was that they discussed and wished to gain recognition of women’s

rights as being human rights instead of trying to discuss and gain recognition of it being

connected or in subtext of human rights. Although this process seems the harder root, in the long

run I think it is better for women’s rights to be considered indistinguishable from human rights

rather than something in exception and subtext to human rights.



My personal interest is very high on the topic of women’s rights and feminism. I consider

myself to be a feminist, so found it interesting to see the current dialogue taking place within

academia concerning women’s rights. However, it is always interesting to see the portrayal and

attitude towards women’s rights in public society and how skewed it is towards sexuality. It is

almost as if women’s rights equals sexuality. There needs to be a better education of the general

public on why women’s rights is not just a historical movement that is irrelevant in modern

society. In some ways, women’s rights is more important now than it was when it began.

Ironically, I was learning about the early suffragette and suffragist movements in my history

course this week. It has made me realize how women’s rights have evolved from one major

objective, gaining the vote, to a host of objectives, ranging from education to abortion. The

media, I find, is irresponsible in portraying women’s rights. They seem to portray people

advocating women’s rights as someone who is a bra-burning, men-hating, bikini-clad radical

nutcases who are behind on the times than someone who is contributing positively to develop

society. This image is also irresponsible because it has repercussion in terms of women’s rights

in developing countries. Maybe it is true that women have reached equality in developed society

(which I am skeptical of) but there are millions of women who are brutalized everyday around

the world in third world countries, or even in our backyard in terms of Indigenous women. So

portraying those who advocate women’s rights in such a negative way undermines our ability to

push for women’s rights in places where such a concept is still mindboggling.

This week’s topic has been really helpful in expanding my understanding contemporary

issues and ideas of women’s rights. I would like to continue to learn more about particular

women’s rights campaign’s across the world and what tools are being used to advocate women’s

rights.



WEEK 13 (Apr.3)- Enforcing Human Rights Regimes

The topic for this week is Enforcing Human Rights Regimes. The readings done for this

week include: Payam Akhavan, “Justice and Reconciliation in the Great Lakes Region of Africa:

The Contribution of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda,” Duke Journal of

Comparative and International Law 7 (1997): 325-348; Payam Akhavan, “The Lord’s

Resistance Army Case: Uganda’s Submission of the First State Referral to the International

Criminal Court,” American Journal of International Law 99:2 (2005): 403-320 ; and Christopher

D. Trotten, “ The International Criminal Court and Truth Commissions: A Framework for Cross-

Interaction in the Sudan and Beyond,” Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights 7:1

(2009): 1-33.

This week’s topic was interesting in that I do not think that within the current

international system Human Rights Regimes can be enforced. First, like the implementation

dilemma associated with Indigenous Rights, as long as state superiority is supreme in

international and human rights discourse, enforcement is not truly possible. The current

enforcers, the UN Security Council and the International Criminal Court, is deeply flawed. For

example, if a country A violates human rights or international law then it should in theory be

prosecuted and held accountable. However, if country A happens to be allied to a permanent

member of the Security Council, sometimes the most serious consequence it will face is strong

diplomatic condemnation. As long as the Security Council has permanent members who are

sovereign states with veto power and are responsible for recommending cases to the International

Criminal Court, there will be atrocities and violations of human rights that will slip through

enforcement. To truly enforce something, violators of rules must be held accountable.



The article on Uganda was especially fascinating for me because when I was in high

school we did a walk to raise awareness for the Invisible Children, Inc. campaign. Invisible

Children, Inc. is an organization founded to bring awareness to the activities of the LRA and its

leader Joseph Kony in 2004. Its main focus is on ending LRA practices of abduction and abuse

of children, and forcing them to become child soldiers. It advocates the US, through

presentations, films, campaign, etc. in high schools and colleges to get the US government to

take military action in Central Africa. I can clearly remember watching videos of former child

soldiers and listening to their stories. The sheer amount of violation perpetrated by Kony and the

LRA are astounding. However, this is a perfect example of how enforcing human rights regime

continues to be a failure. Kony has not been held accountable for his actions and is still at large.

In instances like these, the media should be obliged to inform the public about these atrocities. I

find that the Western media is so concerned with peoples sensibilities or are so biased towards

certain issues that the general public can go a lifetime without knowing about some of the

biggest violations of human rights.

Overall, enforcing human rights will continue to an issue so long as state sovereignty

reigns supreme and sovereign state are reluctant to use terminology such as Genocide. I think it

is every individual’s obligation to better inform themselves about situation around the world

without relying solely on domestic media. The enforcement of human rights is especially

pertinent to me because I am interested in going into human rights law, specifically concerning

humanitarianism and ethics of war. Just reading these articles are in itself a great way for me to

better understand the topics, criticisms, and inefficiencies that I could face in the future. Who

knows, maybe I’ll end up a judge or prosecutor with the ICC.



WEEK 14- Human Rights, Globalization, and the “War on Terror”

The topic for this week is Human Rights, Globalization, and the “War on Terror”. The

reading done for this week include: Jean L. Cohen, “Whose Sovereignty? Empire Versus

International Law,” Ethics and International Affairs 18 (2004) 1-24; and Antony Anghie, “The

War on Terror and Iraq in Historical Perspective,” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 43 (2005): 45-66.

This week’s topic was particularly interesting due to the mindset of our times. The “war

on terror” and everything that is associated with is such a contentious and touchy topic. I find it

has become almost impossible to criticize or argue against certain principle or practices, such as

treatment of POWs or torture, for fear of being labelled a terrorist/ terrorist-sympathizer yourself

or accused of being unsympathetic to the events of 9/11. There is almost an unspoken

justification for breaking human rights principles and international law because of the association

of the 9/11 attacks with “the war on terror”. To quote Gandhi, “a wrong for a wrong, makes the

whole world blind”. The idea is that there is no legitimate justification for breaking human rights

principles and international law just because something wrong and horrible was done to you.

Torturing people because they tortured you or trying to kill people because they tried to kill you,

is stupidity not justice.

One particular topic that I found interesting was the use of “just war” theory to legitimize

actions, such as pre-emptive attacks, to be astonishing. For a war to be considered “just”, there is

more than the principle concerning pre-emptive strike in the face of a threat. Pre-war, or jus ad

bellum, principles exhaust and emphasize the need for diplomatic and non-military actions. An

actor is only justified in going to war when all other options have not worked. In today’s world,

having a state be labeled a “rogue state” or a groups as being a “terrorist” is enough of a reason

to go to war. In the particular case of the US invasion of Iraq really is not a “just war”, as Anghie



talked says. The problem is that the “just war” theory and principle originated in a time period

where it was simple to distinguish between combatants and civilians. The “just war” tradition is

applicable in traditional military combat situations where there is a distinction in frontiers and

combatants-civilians but is relatively useless in modern guerilla or asymmetric warfare where

such distinctions are almost non-existence. Therefore, using “just war” theory to legitimize the

“war on terror” is erroneous.

I am particularly sensitive to war and prescribe to an active non-violence ideology due to

my own and my family’s experiences. I always find it astonishing when people advocate or

portray war as something inevitable, honourable, and just. It shows the deep disconnect between

the realities of war and the ideals of war. War is not something that is clean and honourable. For

those who experience it, it is degrading and unjust. In terms of human rights, the mentality that

the end justifies the mean, so therefore human rights principles and international law should be

sacrificed in particular situations is obscured and dangerous. The moment that people become so

disconnected from wars that they can advocate things like torture is when you know that

education is needed. The media, as well as knowledgeable people or those who have experienced

the horrors of war, should actively inform and create a dialogue against non-violence.

Insensitivity and apathy concerning war, and the willingness to break human rights principles

and international law, are the first step to destroying the world and promoting injustice.

This week’s readings and how it portrayed the “war on terror” in terms of justification,

globalization, and the rise of a new imperial order was very interesting. It has raised more

question for me on the ethics of war and what justification people use to justify certain acts, such

as torture or the usage of drones. I have become interested in learning more about the theoretical



frameworks that pertain to ethics of war, particularly in relation to human rights and

humanitarian law.

Journals

Documents

Transcript of Journals