A Brief Case For Human Rights
The article The Case Against Human Rights by Eric Posner attempts to argue that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) has not succeeded in establishing a universal moral standard that all nations should uphold. I have been reading about human rights quite a bit lately and thought that I should respond to this argument briefly.
In this article, I will argue that Posner’s conclusion is false and make a case for why human rights laws are beneficial for society.
- (1) We will evaluate Posner’s central claim that the UDHR lacks clarity and thus is ineffective for social change.
- (2) We will discuss the difficulty of enforcing human rights laws, particularly in Brazil.
- And (3), we will briefly assess whether the International Criminal Court is effective in upholding human rights laws.
“Hopelessly Ambiguous” Rights
Firstly, let us discuss Posner’s core thesis, that human rights laws are “hopelessly ambiguous” (Posner). This ambiguity, he holds, will lead to the inevitable misinterpretation of these laws and subsequently governmental injustice. Posner calls the UDHR, “[P]oorly defined obligations.”
Every country has to inevitably commit trade-offs in maintaining certain rights over others because countries are limited in resources, he claims. When dealing with philanthropic projects, economists and philosophers have managed to find effective ways to combat this seeming difficulty. To say that we do not have the means to categorize certain rights over others would put us in a state of moral regress. Posner’s objection is clearly missing the point of having documented rights in the first place. As Lynn Hunt writes, in her book Inventing Human Rights,
“[The] Declarations — in 1776, 1789, and 1948 — provided a touchstone for those rights of humanity, drawing on the sense of what ‘is no longer acceptable’ and in turn helping to make violations all that more inadmissible” (214).
The UDHR was written in response to the crimes against humanity committed in the Second World War. Posner expects human rights to be maintained without really knowing what they are. He thus commits himself to a ‘Kettle Logic’ fallacy where, in order to prove a statement, one provides premises that contradict each other, making the previous statements irrelevant.
Posner does not provide any alternative nor basis for international law or explanation of why progress in human rights laws has happened. He assumes that human progress is the result of economic advancement and the fall of Communism without providing any evidence for his claim. Although that is not the full extent of his view.
Did The World Become a Better Place Because of Philosophy or Because of Economic Advancement?
Posner acknowledges that the world has become a better place but doubts that human rights activists, philosophers, and politicians have helped increase human rights around the world. If we were to accept this premise, we could similarly argue that progress has been made despite regular domestic laws. Granted, these laws are not solely responsible for making the world a more equal place. We cannot discredit them entirely, however. Posner falsely argues that laws — and the penalty that is given to those that break the law — do not contribute to preventing nations in acting unethically towards their citizens.
Posner’s article is not only guilty of misrepresenting the importance of defining rights but it also oversimplifies cases when human rights are violated.
Posner writes, for example, that Brazil’s police force actively engages in torture. Courts in Brazil do not have proper funds in order to challenge crime and injustice and so the police force is forced to use unethical methods in order to “extract confessions.” Rio de Janeiro, known for their cruel police force, has had decreased incidents of torture from 2003 to 2015 by 46%, writes Robert Muggah in his article, “How Did Rio’s Police Become Known As The Most Violent In The World?” (Muggah). The central reason for the success of this reduction in police brutality has been by rewarding police officers for not engaging in unjust behavior. There has been an increase of police-killings since 2014 but that does not mean that human rights laws are ineffective.
The increase simply suggests that upbringing is more important than enshrining laws without educating regular citizens of the ethical importance of maintaining them. A 2014 Stanford University survey suggests that these shootings are likely directly correlated with early childhood trauma, as exposure to aggressive behavior earlier in life often results in imitating similar harmful behavior later in life.
The study says that approximately 18% of Rio’s military police force had “witnessed” a homicide in childhood. 25% of the victims were abused when young and 32% had been exposed to a family or friend death earlier in life (Magaloni, et al). Posner, however, throws the baby out with the bath water. He claims that since laws are difficult to maintain, it is pointless to even define them.
The International Criminal Court Justice System
Attempts are being made actively to improve the justice system. As of 2018, the International Criminal Court (ICC) is actively investigating Vladimir Putin, China, & America, not to mention less prosperous nations. That does not mean that the world is or will be perfect. It does mean that countries feel more pressure to act in accordance with international law.
The American president, Donald Trump, along with the current US national security adviser, John Bolton, had voiced opposition to ICC’s investigation of America’s invasion of Afghanistan (Tisdall). In response, the ICC issued a statement saying:
“The ICC, as a court of law, will continue to do its work undeterred, in accordance with those principles and the overarching idea of the rule of law” (Bowcott).
This opposition, let us hope, is a positive sign that the ICC has benefit to international law and will continue to bring nations to justice for their crimes against humanity.
We have briefly discussed Posner’s central claim that human rights are (1) ambiguous and poorly defined and (2) difficult to maintain universally. Then we have discussed counter-arguments to these claims. The UDHR is essential towards improving equality around the globe. As with domestic laws, economic improvement happens because of regulations, not the other way around. The ICC and other organizations will continue to prove that human rights laws will be maintained despite the military power and influence of the world’s largest economies.
Let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater when discussing human rights. They are inevitable.
Sources
- Bowcott, Owen. “ICC Will Continue ‘Undeterred’ after US Threats.” Guardian, 11 Sept. 2018, www.theguardian.com/law/2018/sep/11/icc-will-continue-undeterred-after-us-threats-john-bolton.
- Hunt, Lynn Avery. Inventing Human Rights: a History. W.W. Norton, 2008.
- Magaloni, Beatriz, et al. “Understanding Police Use of Force in Rio De Janeiro.” FSI, cddrl.fsi.stanford.edu/crimelab/research/understanding-police-use-force-rio-de-janeiro.
- Muggah, Robert. “How Did Rio’s Police Become Known as the Most Violent in the World?” Guardian, 3 Aug. 2016, www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2016/aug/03/rio-police-violent-killing-olympics-torture.
- Posner, Eric. “The Case against Human Rights.” Guardian, 4 Dec. 2014, www.theguardian.com/news/2014/dec/04/-sp-case-against-human-rights.
- Tisdall, Simon. “Trump Attack on ICC Is the Unacceptable Face of US Exceptionalism.” Guardian, 10 Sept. 2018, www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/10/trump-attack-on-icc-is-the-unacceptable-face-of-us-exceptionalism.
Before you go…
🗣 I love connecting with fellow thinkers. Find me on Twitter, Facebook, Goodreads, or Instagram.
I’d love if you’d share the article on Facebook/TWITTER if you want your friends to benefit from it in some way at all.
I write to keep you thinking and to keep me thankful and reflective. Cheers and until next time,
keep reflecting.
