WP1 Final Draft International Human Rights Law: Freedom of Expression
“The starred tie around my neck/at any moment can tighten into a cobra./How can I speak about coffee and flowers?” This is from Because I Will be Silenced by Chinese-American poet Ha Jin. The definition of free speech in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has the right to “receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers,” emphasizing a global approach. But as Ha Jin describes, the freedom of expression is restricted in many authoritarian regimes and socialist countries. Although national judiciaries permit more political and cultural flexibility in preserving justice, an International Court of Human Rights, administered by the United Nations, extends equal protection of freedom of expression to all world citizens because it mitigates inconsistencies between western democracies and authoritarian regimes.
By the freedom of speech, I am referring to the idea of the natural human right to voice one’s opinion in public without fear of punishment or censorship. Although this right is protected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and formally recognized in most nations, the actual practice is inconsistent among countries and sometimes blatantly disregarded, even in established democracies.
This varying degree of free speech upheld in practice can be explained by the absence of an international court of human rights. Even though there are international human rights treaties such as the previously stated UDHR and ICCPR, there is no international court to enforce the treaties and punish those who violate them. As soft laws are not legally binding, many countries, especially authoritarian regimes, do not face consequences for censorship or persecution of individuals who harm the reputation of the government. Thus, some states restrain people’s right to freedom of expression for political purposes such as prioritizing racial majorities or promoting hypernationalism. For example, China has rejected a global concept of free speech, denying journalists access to Xinjiang and compelling the Uighurs to follow the ideology of the Chinese Communist Party.
To ensure international human rights treaties are upheld in practice, the United Nations can establish an International Court of Human Rights, acting as the sole authority for creating, interpreting, and enforcing international human rights law. Unlike the UN Security Council, the International Court of Human Rights should give every country equal say so that richer and more powerful nations do not easily get away with human rights abuses. Considering how the UN did not interfere with the Chinese government’s suppression of Hong Kong protests and censorship of local newspapers, the right to freedom of expression had been stripped away without any punishment internationally. For the international human rights law to preserve justice, there needs to be actual punishment because we can not innocently trust the moral compass of each government. The International Court of Human Rights would have global jurisdiction, and countries can vote to determine what kind of punishment human rights violators will receive. Since this court is targeted toward states, penalties may be severe economic sanctions, foreign military intervention, or arrest of government officials. This proposed court of human rights differs from the International Criminal Court (ICC), the court of last resort of serious international crimes such as genocide. Issues like free speech don’t get addressed in ICC and powerful countries like the U.S., China, and Russia are not part of the judiciary.
Countries may be more inclined to join the International Court of Human Rights (ICHR) than the already established ICC. Established democracies are motivated to become members because they want to uphold their guiding and much advertised role as human rights protectors. On the other side, authoritarian regimes can gain credibility from membership both nationally and globally. To the autocratic government’s content, people may be more willing to obey and trust a government that promises to respect human rights. Internationally, other countries are more willing to trade or help autocracies that prove their reliability in the ICHR. Furthermore, rivals like the U.S. and China are compelled to join if one side joins. For example, China has always denounced the U.S. for having double standards on human rights and using human rights as a political ploy, and both countries can better monitor one another if they take part in this initiative of ICHR.
Through an international human rights court, the people living under authoritarian regimes can finally voice their opinion without the fear of persecution. In autocratic countries, the only voice the government wants to hear is its own. Dissidents of the government and journalists that expose government scandals are often put in jail for treason. For instance, in an increasingly repressive Egypt, people who are simply expressing their views are treated as criminals under al-Sisi’s presidency. In 2018, at least 113 individuals were arrested for spreading false news and terrorism, for absurd reasons like tweeting, supporting football clubs, clothing, editing movies, conducting interviews, and criticizing sexual harassment. Some were innocently thrown behind the bars for no reason and detained without trial for months.
An international human rights court forces democracies to abandon double standards on human rights practices. Surprisingly, even established democracies choose to forego free speech rights and prioritize their national political agenda, take the United States as an example. Metadata retention laws repress freedom of the press by undermining the confidentiality of journalists’ sources and discouraging people from speaking freely on matters of public interest. Even the former president of the United States, Donald Trump, repeatedly and fearlessly attacked the validity of journalists, at one point even preventing them to perform their job by refusing to answer questions and ejecting them out of the media room. More specific examples include the U.S. government seeking extradition from Russia of Edward Snowden, the whistleblower who exposed the scheme of U.S. mass surveillance in 2013. Similarly, in 2017, the Justice Department indicted NSA contractor Reality Winner for allegedly disclosing classified information about possible Russian government interference in the 2016 U.S. election. If international human rights law overrides U.S. law, Winner can have a chance to claim that her exposals are for the public interest. Hence, a strictly enforced system of international human rights law prevents democracies to use human rights as a mere slogan to pressure political opponents.
While some may say that a national legal approach to free speech generates more space for variation among different political systems and cultures, they fail to understand that the right to freedom of expression can only reach all world citizens with an international solution for it guarantees consistency standards across the board. It is true that national judiciaries are more considerate of local political norms and cultural traditions and do not force states to rigidly apply free speech laws that don’t make sense in respective political systems. However, I would argue that even though the benefits of a national approach are foreseeable, an international court of human rights promises that no individual is left behind or even severely punished for exercising their right to freedom of expression. The United Nations, as the fair authority sought to protect all global citizens, can help better protect targets of free speech restrictions: journalists, writers, government critics, and minorities.
Even though national courts consider political norms and cultural traditions when applying human rights laws, an international approach ensures that all world citizens can deservedly enjoy their right of freedom of expression because it holds democracies and autocracies to the same standard. It is important to think about this because free speech can help the people be in power and protest against the government when necessary instead of being trapped in complete submission and brainwashing. On a global scale, international laws on free speech facilitate better exchange of ideas and information across borders and allow us to understand and accommodate for political and cultural differences because journalists can report world news truthfully with no filter and expose government propaganda. A famous Chinese saying goes, “If we do not erupt in collective awareness, then we will perish in individual silence.” With the aid of the United Nations as the protector of free speech, everyone has a chance to be more than silent bystanders but rather engaging and active global citizens that have a say in our future.
Sources:
https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2018/country-chapters/united-states#8deaa8
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17549507.2018.1392612
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2018/09/egypt-freedom-of-expression/
https://nomadcapitalist.com/global-citizen/countries-arent-part-of-icc/
