Melanie Benedict

7661089

April 10, 2013

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 weeks 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 persons 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 Donnellys argument that these perspectives were not

PoLS 3160

Dr. Michael McCrossan

A01

Melanie Benedict

7661089

April 10, 2013

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 weeks 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.

PoLS 3160

Dr. Michael McCrossan

A01

Melanie Benedict

7661089

April 10, 2013

WEEK 10 (Mar.13) UNDRIP Implementation Dilemmas (I) The topic for this weeks 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

PoLS 3160

Dr. Michael McCrossan

A01

Melanie Benedict

7661089

April 10, 2013

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.

PoLS 3160

Dr. Michael McCrossan

A01

Melanie Benedict

7661089

April 10, 2013

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 weeks readings was a continuation of last weeks 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 peoples rights, is what Indigenous people envision selfdetermination 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

PoLS 3160

Dr. Michael McCrossan

A01

Melanie Benedict

7661089

April 10, 2013

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.

PoLS 3160

Dr. Michael McCrossan

A01

Melanie Benedict

7661089

April 10, 2013

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, Womens Rights as Human Rights: Toward a Re-Vision of Human Rights, Human Rights Quarterly 12:4 (1990): 486-498 and Hilary Charlesworth,, What are Womens 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 weeks discussion, I focused mainly on womens 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 womens 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 womens rights. Third, and my favourite, reason I loved the Bunch and Charlesworth readings was that they discussed and wished to gain recognition of womens 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 womens rights to be considered indistinguishable from human rights rather than something in exception and subtext to human rights.

PoLS 3160

Dr. Michael McCrossan

A01

Melanie Benedict

7661089

April 10, 2013

My personal interest is very high on the topic of womens rights and feminism. I consider myself to be a feminist, so found it interesting to see the current dialogue taking place within academia concerning womens rights. However, it is always interesting to see the portrayal and attitude towards womens rights in public society and how skewed it is towards sexuality. It is almost as if womens rights equals sexuality. There needs to be a better education of the general public on why womens rights is not just a historical movement that is irrelevant in modern society. In some ways, womens 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 womens 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 womens rights. They seem to portray people advocating womens 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 womens 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 womens rights in such a negative way undermines our ability to push for womens rights in places where such a concept is still mindboggling. This weeks topic has been really helpful in expanding my understanding contemporary issues and ideas of womens rights. I would like to continue to learn more about particular womens rights campaigns across the world and what tools are being used to advocate womens rights.

PoLS 3160

Dr. Michael McCrossan

A01

Melanie Benedict

7661089

April 10, 2013

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 Lords Resistance Army Case: Ugandas 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 CrossInteraction in the Sudan and Beyond, Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights 7:1 (2009): 1-33. This weeks 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.

PoLS 3160

Dr. Michael McCrossan

A01

Melanie Benedict

7661089

April 10, 2013

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 individuals 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 Ill end up a judge or prosecutor with the ICC.

PoLS 3160

Dr. Michael McCrossan

A01

Melanie Benedict

7661089

April 10, 2013

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 weeks 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 todays 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

PoLS 3160

Dr. Michael McCrossan

A01

Melanie Benedict

7661089

April 10, 2013

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 familys 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 weeks 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

PoLS 3160

Dr. Michael McCrossan

A01

Melanie Benedict

7661089

April 10, 2013

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

PoLS 3160

Dr. Michael McCrossan

A01