2018年-查塔姆研究所_Rising_Powers_and_International_Human_Rights_Law_–_a_Transatlantic_Challenge_11页_286kb

Summary of Transatlantic Dialogues on International Law: Rising Powers and International Human Rights Law – A Transatlantic Challenge

Core Content

The Transatlantic Dialogues on International Law were held in two sessions in 2011, bringing together 60 policy-makers, legal scholars, and practitioners from the United States and Europe. The dialogues focused on the evolving role of rising powers—Brazil, China, India, Russia, and South Africa—in the international human rights system and the challenges this presents for transatlantic cooperation.

Main Views and Key Information

Part I: Positions of Emerging Powers on Human Rights Issues

• Diverse Backgrounds and Priorities: Rising powers have distinct historical, political, and legal contexts, which influence their approach to human rights. They generally emphasize economic, social, and cultural rights (ESCR) and the right to development, in contrast to the traditional focus of the US and Europe on civil and political rights (CPR).
• Sovereignty and Non-Interference: These states often resist sanctions and international scrutiny, arguing that human rights should not override state sovereignty.
• China's Role: As a powerful rising state, China is seen as a key player in shaping the future of international human rights norms. It maintains a rhetorical tolerance for international human rights standards but ignores obligations domestically and resists NGO participation in treaty bodies. China has not ratified the ICCPR and is not a party to the ICESCR, despite its strong ESCR focus.
• South Africa: More open to human rights dialogues, South Africa has emerged as a regional leader in economic and social rights and is a vocal advocate for LGBT rights. However, it sometimes avoids taking strong positions due to its historical debt to neighboring states.
• Russia: Although a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Russia's domestic human rights record is poor. It has ratified Protocol 14 to the ECHR but is resistant to special procedures and NGO involvement.
• India: A relatively open democracy with a strong civil society, India resists international human rights scrutiny and is not part of any regional human rights system. It has not ratified the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT).
• Brazil: A constructive actor in the international human rights system, Brazil promotes gender and LGBT rights and is a strong advocate for South-South cooperation. It has ratified several key treaties and is a participant in the European and inter-American systems.

Part II: Emerging Powers and the UN Human Rights Machinery

• Ratification Records: Rising powers generally have good ratification records, but compliance is inconsistent.
• Treaty Bodies and UPR: The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process has increased state reporting, but treaty bodies are under-resourced. China and India have not granted individual petition rights, while Brazil and South Africa have done so.
• Human Rights Council (HRC): Rising powers have solidarity in the HRC but diverge on country-specific resolutions. China and Russia oppose "naming and shaming", while Brazil is more supportive of robust action. The HRC is not a powerful enforcement mechanism, but it remains a platform for diplomatic pressure.
• Special Procedures: Rising powers are cautious about UN Special Rapporteurs, with China and Russia resisting their criticisms. Brazil, however, is more open and has supported the creation of a Special Rapporteur on health.

Part III: The Question of Enforcement: US and EU Perspectives

• Enforcement Challenges: The international human rights system lacks effective enforcement mechanisms, making it difficult to hold rising powers accountable.
• Soft Tools: Bilateral dialogues, aid conditionality, and civil society engagement are used to promote human rights, but their effectiveness is questioned.
• Hard Tools: Sanctions are a key enforcement tool, though their strategic use is unclear. The EU and US lack a unified approach to sanctions, and there are concerns about proportionality and judicial review.
• Regional Courts: The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is the most effective regional mechanism, though Russia has a poor record of compliance. The inter-American system is less funded but has made progress in human rights promotion. Brazil is involved in this system but is in a dispute with the OAS over a dam project.
• Strategic Considerations: The US and EU must frame human rights issues in a way that aligns with the national interests of rising powers to avoid resistance.

Part IV: Regional Mechanisms

• Regional Oversight: Rising powers like India and China are not subject to regional human rights oversight. The African system is still in a formative phase, with South Africa as a major player.
• EU and US Cooperation: The EU is more effective in promoting human rights than the US, due to its collective approach. However, internal coordination within the EU is often slow, hindering transatlantic cooperation.
• Need for Reform: There is a call for increased transparency, better resource allocation, and strategic use of human rights dialogues and enforcement mechanisms.

Key Recommendations

• The US and EU must renew their commitment to international human rights law and correct recent lapses in compliance.
• The US should support the ICC and drop its objection to the extraterritorial application of human rights treaties.
• Training and capacity-building for judges, lawyers, and police in rising powers should be promoted.
• Translation of international jurisprudence into local languages is necessary for better understanding and implementation.
• The US and EU should use the UPR process strategically to reinforce human rights obligations and recommendations.
• Aid conditionality and investment in civil society should be leveraged to encourage human rights compliance.
• Sanctions should be clearly justified, with transparency and judicial review mechanisms in place.
• Regional cooperation and positive leadership from rising powers should be encouraged within the HRC.
• Transatlantic coordination must be improved to ensure effective and unified human rights advocacy.

Conclusion

The dialogues highlighted the divergent priorities between the US/EU and rising powers in the realm of human rights, as well as the need for greater cooperation and strategic engagement. The challenge lies in balancing diplomatic pressure with pragmatic approaches to ensure that human rights norms are upheld globally.