International Relations at Chautauqua
My weekly Thursday newsletter usually focuses on international relations. Since I’m at Chautauqua this week, I tried to find something that connected Chautauqua with international relations, so this is what I came up with.
On Tuesday of this week, I wrote about the focus Chautauqua places on continuing education, through its reading clubs, lecture series, concerts, and the like. It also offers classes taught by experienced and credentialed instructors across a variety of disciplines. Today I want to focus on two courses on offer this week: “War and Anti-War” and “Human Rights in Conflict.” I wanted to fit them into my schedule for this week, but it’s not going to work. So I’ll tell you what the courses are all about and let you follow up in you’re interested.
War and Anti-War
Here’s how the instructor described his course:
This course is designed around readings and discussion. We will read short works or excerpts of fiction and non-fiction by such writers as Tim O’Brien, Chris Hedges, and Philip Caputo. The readings will lean toward “anti-war” literature to guide our discussion around the overarching question: When, if ever, is war morally justifiable?”
It's hard to wrap your head around the idea that there are internationally recognized “laws of war” that attempt to control war – the ultimate uncontrollable situation. These international agreements evolved mostly during the 20 century, when the horrors of global war and the attendant humanitarian crises led decision-makers to try to rein in the horror and – well, make war more palatable.
The general idea was is that nations can recognize their shared values are less likely to try to annihilate one another. A laudable goal. The only way to do this, they decided, was to find common ground through organizations set up to do just that. These organizations are many and varied:
Worldwide or global organizations, generally open to nations worldwide as long as certain criteria are met:
This category includes the United Nations (UN) and its specialized agencies, the World Health Organization, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
It also includes globally operating intergovernmental organizations that are not an agency of the UN, including for example: the Hague Conference on Private International Law, a globally operating intergovernmental organization based in The Hague that pursues the progressive unification of private international law;
the International Criminal Court that adjudicates crimes defined under the Rome Statute; and the CGIAR (formerly the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research), a global partnership that unites intergovernmental organizations engaged in research for a food-secured future.
Just war theory presumes that there are legitimate uses of war but also sets moral boundaries on the waging of war. It deals with two fundamental questions concerning the ethics of war and peace: When is it morally and legally justified to go to war? What moral principles should we follow during war?
Jus ad bellum (moral justifications for going to war) requires that the cause for war is just; the right authority makes the decision; the decision is made with the right intention of bringing about peace; the war is a last resort; the overall evil of the war does not outweigh the good.
Jus in bello (moral principles to follow during war) governs the treatment of prisoners; requires the protection of civilians, and prohibits the disproportionate use of force.
A third part of just war theory is jus post bellum, denoting justice after war.
There’s a whole body of literature and practice relating to this topic, and I leave it to you to explore it if you’re interested. The Russian invasion of Ukraine in March 2022 has raised all of these questions once again, as “war crimes” are alleged against the Russian Army as they bombard civilian populations in Ukraine. We may all conclude that this is fundamentally unjust, but the entire process lacks enforcement. We are left to think that there must be a better way.
Human Rights in Conflict
Here’s how the instructor described his course:
What is the basis for claiming that human rights exist? Does the right to freedom of expression allow disinformation, cartoons that insult a religion, or office banter that offends some people? Is there a natural right to property, or can the state redistribute income and wealth to help the poor? Can natural rights be respected in war zones? Do transgender individuals have a right to participate in organized sports? Does religious freedom justify discrimination against other people? We consider these and other issues through presentation and discussion.
In the same way that the horror of World War II convinced the world that cooperation rather than conflict was the path forward, the horrors of the Holocaust convinced the world that human rights are endangered everywhere if they are endangered anywhere. International organizations were created to address this problem, often associated with the organizations formed to facilitate international cooperation.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, passed by the UN in 1948, is widely recognized as having inspired, and paved the way for, the adoption of more than seventy human rights treaties, applied today on a permanent basis at global and regional levels (all containing references to it in their preambles).
This is what the United Nations has to say about Human Rights:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the international human rights system were created as a blueprint to prevent conflict and build peace.
They also have a special role in averting the escalation of violence. Just as war, conflicts and insecurity increase the incidence of human rights violations, societies that respect human rights experience less violence and insecurity. They are more resilient and more inclusive, human rights reports show.
At a recent meeting, UN Human Rights Chief Volker Türk said human rights was the best starting point for preventing crises and build peace.
“Full compliance with human rights is the best antidote to the inequalities, unaddressed grievances and exclusion which are often at the root of instability and conflict,” Türk said.
By its nature, human rights work is often reactive to events, coming after human rights violations, conflict or crises. To deal with today’s challenges, UN Human Rights is strengthening its focus on prevention, aiming to engage earlier and more strategically to address the risk of violations, conflict or crisis before they impact lives, said James Turpin, Chief of Prevention and Sustaining Peace Section, UN Human Rights.
“Human rights possess preventive power,” Turpin aid. “They are essential to addressing the causes and impacts of all complex crises, and to building sustainable, safe, and peaceful societies.”
The challenge to national sovereignty presented by all of these agreements is a constant sticking point in their enforcement. Countries that are supportive of the general principles of human rights and other international agreements often balk when the international community turns its attention to that country. The first and most basic problem is that in itself the UDHR includes no clear mechanism of implementation. All UN declarations, including the UDHR, are aspirational. They embody ideals and goals, but in themselves they provide no concrete framework for actually achieving them. The US is not exempt from challenges to its human rights record by the international community. Racism is on the rise and ethnic minorities suffer widespread discrimination. Hate crimes based on racial bias in the United States increased dramatically between 2020 and 2022. The racist massacre at a Buffalo supermarket, with 10 African-Americans killed, shocked the world.
The current Russian invasion of Ukraine highlights issues related to both of these classes. The intentional bombing of civilian targets, for example, is in direct violation of the laws of war. On the other hand, cluster bombs (like the ones the US is planning to provide to Ukraine) have been condemned as inhumane by human rights organizations. However, neither the US nor Russia is likely to abandon its policy decisions because they violate an unenforceable international declaration.