HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE 21ST CENTURY: A SCREENSHOT FOR AFRICAN DESCENDANTS PT. I
By: DaQuan Lawrence
*This was originally posted on the Federation for Afrikan Liberations’ website and on DaQuan Lawrence’s Medium page*
Introduction: Human Rights, the US, and African Descendants
The United States (US) is often revered as a nation of unprecedented freedoms, a land of opportunity and democratic principles, leader of economic, political, and social development, and sometimes regarded as an international leader on human rights issues. Though the United States has a favorable human rights record with some nations, others such as Pakistan, Brazil, Kenya, China, Russia, and Turkey are more critical and approach the topic of American human rights values from another perspective, citing numerous contradictions, transgressions, and sheer hegemonic influence derived from America’s economic standing and status as a world superpower.
More recently, events targeting American “minorities” — who are largely disenfranchised — and the civil unrest that followed their killings in US cities, has attracted due attention and criticism. By now we (the American public and international community) should be aware that the US has a contradictory, if not controversial human rights record. The US is known for continually violating the human rights of its citizens. However, the elaborate media establishment, and development of technology and industries throughout the 20th and 21st centuries have created a disillusioned American population, that largely ignores human rights violations unless the media depicts such violations in a manner that appeals to its target audience. In other words, the media is responsible for how the American public digests information, and consequently references and relates to reports of human rights violations. As Malcolm X once cleverly stated, “the media is the most powerful entity on Earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses.”
Several human rights transgressions have not received the same public attention or urgency to resolve and rectify social, economic, and political problems that affect the working, lower, or poorer “classes” of people, as other human rights transgressions that affect communities of economic and political privilege. This is problematic because the issues that are constantly swept under the rug, ignored, or unaddressed are those that affect members of the African diaspora. This moniker is all encompassing and seeks to include African immigrants, African-Americans, and African descendants who share other nationalities, such as French, Dutch, Egyptian, Somalian, British, Japanese, Cantonese, Brazilian, Trinidadian, Barbadian, etc. But what are human rights anyway? And why are they important to the international community, especially African descendants?
International Law and Human Rights Defined: An Abbreviated Outline
The field of international law is historically known as the field that concerns the legal relationships between sovereign states. Modern definitions of international law define the subject as “the legal relationships that exists not simply between states, but also among international organizations, individuals, groups, multinational corporations, and other entities that are considered capable of possessing the characteristics of legal personality”. Traditionally, the way states (nations) treat their citizens has been considered a subject of that respective state’s domestic law alone. However, within contemporary international law, scholars, advocates, writers, and practitioners maintain that every state is subject to a body of law — broadly defined as human rights. The domain of human rights is inescapably and inexplicably linked to rights that may be deemed cultural, political, economic, and social. As a result, human rights issues are often vast in their scope and consist of many grey areas regarding public policy, allowing for sinister violations to occur due to the implications and applications of international law.
As the field of international law continues to develop and become more comprehensive, the definition of the subject has grown to include the relationship between states and their citizens. Individuals have also gained some level of legal personality within international law, and human rights is known as the “calling card” that governs the responsibilities and obligations of individuals on the international stage. Though there is much disagreement about the boundaries of human rights, the subject is widely considered as the rights of individuals by virtue of their personhood and membership in a group. The modern human rights movement traces its roots to the revolutionary ideas of the 18th century such as the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, the American Declaration of Independence, and the United States’ Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The aforementioned documents speak of inalienable rights and declared that their respective governments instituted things such as “liberty”, “property”, “security”, “resistance to oppression”, and even “life”. Despite the fact that these documents excluded large parts of humanity and the existing population, the documents act as conception sources of the incomplete spectrum of human rights within international law. It is crucial to note the subjective and objective limitations of those who crafted the policies that governed states prior to, and during 18th century because these limitations lead to the circumstances and events of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. In other words, events including but not limited to the colonization of Africa, Asia, and Southern America, World War I, World War II, the Women’s Suffrage movement, American Civil Rights Movement, and international declarations of independence and sovereignty from many states took place because of the implicit and explicit marginalization of existing humans.
With the advent of the League of Nations (1920) and consequently, the United Nations (1945), human rights began to take an entirely new form. The United Nations Charter declares that the people of the United Nations “reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women” and pledge “to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom” and “to promote the economic and social advancement of all peoples”. Moreover, on December 16, 1966 the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 2200 A (XXI)[1] otherwise known as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)[2], and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which along with Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)[3] make up the International Bill of Human Rights. The pillar for human rights protection was formed as this legislation enabled future generations of progress within the ongoing and post-modern human rights movements. Yet, declarations do not obligate nations to binding laws and while the aforementioned legislation works to create standards within international law, some states have yet to comply and ratify treaties. According to the University of Minnesota’s Human Rights Resource Center[4]:
The Universal Declaration is a resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations, which creates a high expectation that it will be taken seriously. However, a declaration does not create obligations that are technically binding in law. Nonetheless, since the Universal Declaration is so widely used as the primary statement of what are considered human rights today, it is often regarded as having legal significance and considered “customary” international law and as the authentic interpretation of the references in the UN Charter. The specific rights in the UDHR have been codified into the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). A covenant is a treaty which, under the rules of international law, creates legal obligations on all states that ratify it. Similarly, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) also are treaties that are binding on the states that ratify them.[5]
Though the aforementioned human rights documents outlined or listed ideal practices as policies, states and the international organizations and corporations within them do not always abide by or respect human rights policies. The fact that the United States is one of the few nations that has yet to ratify CEDAW and the CRC demonstrates this fact. The behavior of states within the United Nations system suggests that the norm is to respect human rights on the surface, but to “not get caught with one’s hand in the cookie jar”, as states, organizations, and corporations are permitted to infringe upon the rights of individuals in the areas of labor, housing/shelter, food, education, peaceful assembly, communication, land ownership, and voting rights to name a few categories. For example, police brutality continues to make headlines as incidents between civilians and law enforcement officers have received an increase in popularity and significant media coverage due to technological advances and creative use of mobile devices. Within the international community and United States alike, human rights transgressions that involve police officers are widespread, and disproportionately affect political and economic minorities. Yet, the victims and families of victims continue to seek justice as the perpetrators of such human rights atrocities continue to be employed, compensated, and protected by the US’ repressive state apparatuses.
[to be continued]…
[1] International Network for Economic, Social & Cultural Rights — Background Information on the ICESCR
[2] United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, UN OHCHR
[3] United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
[4] The University of Minnesota’s Human Rights Resource Center
