Human Rights A Case Study Post Cold War 1989-2003Too Many Humans, Not Enough Rights

I. Introduction

A magnificent group of supranational organizations now coexist and their vitally important missions are often unknown to all but the most interested affected parties. They exist within the monumental political arena of modern international relations. There highest order of business is the mandate that universal human rights are protected, advanced, and recognized by nation states, and that human rights are realized by all individuals residing within all states borders in all nations. These “rights” are extraordinary in every sense of the word, and human rights scholars agree they are obligations that nation-states must bestow upon their human subjects.

United Nations bodies sanction human rights enforcement procedures and help to clarify actions to take by the authority vested to them under international law. Frequently, these enforcement measures settle human rights non-governmental organization (NGO) claims when a human rights abuse has been said to have occurred.

At the end of WWII, the “war to end all wars”, the necessity to devise and to implement human rights laws was apparent to many concerned nation-state leaders. Because of the numerous inhumane atrocities which include the well-documented events of the Holocaust as well as other civilian casualties that occurred during the war, human rights injustices could not be allowed to go unpunished or to occur without repercussion from the global community.

United Nations lawmakers, through the authority found within the United Nations Charter, developed a protocol; a legal measure to prevent and punish inhumane killings. Human rights abuses would then be considered illegal acts under international law which transcends all state boundaries. Nations perpetrating globally recognized human rights with disregard would be held accountable for these actions. Human rights abuses became illegal because of the support for this new declaration that would soon become the Rock of Gibraltar for human rights recognition, and would illustrate and define human rights for the rest of the world.

All nation-states, in particular the United States for the purpose of this thesis, as well as supranational organizations best exemplified by the United Nations and non-governmental organizations (Ngo’s) can benefit when they seek to do their jobs and coexist harmoniously. The underlying reasons are not always apparent, but many human rights theorists argue that it is a simple concept that explains this relationship; it is a universal necessity to promote and sustain the evolution of economic globalization. This necessity is largely a result of the uniqueness of the global situation perpetuated today with much emphasis placed upon the economic and social implications which result from the legacy of the end of the cold war.

Peter Van Tuijl argues in an insightful essay that globalization’s impact is uneven and needs to be qualified in accordance with specific circumstances, such as the perceived erosion of the power of nation-states. “Taking this as a given political reality, I endorse a definition of globalization or global governance as “efforts to bring more orderly and

Reliable responses, to social and political issues, go beyond capacities of states to address individually”. (Van Tuijl 1999, 2) This particular analysis is concerned with globalization theory and is comparable in many respects to the modern day human rights discourse.

Within this thesis an explanation of why this modern human rights discourse exists from an international relations perspective, has become increasingly complex in terms of explaining a single definition for human rights theory. This discourse outlines new human rights theories to be seriously considered within the realm of international relations. To develop this working model theory of human rights, it is necessary to analyze international relations theory first and then come to a consensus as to what human rights theory really is or what it is not.

Today’s accepted dominant international relations theories help clarify a model or a starting point which helps explain that human rights theory is difficult to grasp operationally. However, it is immediately evident that human rights theory does not explain and coincide neatly with inherent dominant international relations theories make this point obvious within this research.

The primary subjects of this thesis examine the intricate nature of NGO campaigns. These campaigns help inform and persuade US policy decision makers that perpetuate international relations policy. There intent is to promote and sustain democracy while ensuring human rights compliance in non-compliant countries. Typically, however, these countries are in various situations of economic stabilization post De-colonization. These particular nations more often than not receive the most observation and endure the most scrutiny and criticism which results mainly from the inability to balance new regime stabilization and human rights simultaneously.

However, this is not always the case. Ngo's are well organized but can also be considered a maze of policy networks with one goal in mind, to further the mission of their individual organization, as well as to eradicate human rights atrocities as they occur situation by situation. The primary difficulties for human rights scholars and uninformed nation state citizens, is that the citizens and public opinion do not often have a significant role within this particular discourse. So the message being sent by the NGo’s is not always received by those who are affected or unaffected by human rights abuse.

Human rights abuses are frequently perceived as a case of relativity to one’s own political, social, cultural, economic, and civil rights perspectives. I call this a notion of “relativity of rights.” This developing theory can best be clarified as a fledgling explanation for recognition or non-recognition of human rights failure or success.

This thesis analyzes the human rights missions of three Ngo’s. I then perform a content analysis of United States Congress resolutions that relate directly to “human rights” specifically in the language contained in the resolutions presented in the congress from the 101^st congress through the 108^th session. This period covers the period 1989-2003. I characterized this part of the research as a longitudinal study of the post cold- war era.

This period had several reoccurring human rights related congressional resolutions introduced in the United States congress.

Numerous activism campaigns occurred simultaneously by the three Ngo’s chosen for this study. The research goal was to seek and explain if there is some sort of nexus or direct relationship that can be sifted out of the discourse between the US Congress human rights resolutions and the Ngo activist campaigns. Activist campaign information for all three Ngo campaigns was not entirely available for comparison dating back to the 101^st Congress, but I used the information from the Ngo activist archives as early as it was available to enhance the comparison.

To further compliment the study, a case study approach helped to provide a detailed examination of the Ngo’s perspective of human rights abuse as well as human rights abuse identification techniques. Operational definitions for human rights for the Ngo's chosen were developed through comparison of human rights abuse policies and procedures for each Ngo.

An assessment of the initial definitions of human rights was necessary for the intent of this study. I researched the language and content of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) declared in 1948 to find it. Various covenants and treaties sponsored by the United Nations further clarify this “relativity of rights” theory, but the same operational definition for human rights is not always apparent across nation states government policies, lawmaking organizations, and amongst Ngo’s in general. Scholarly definitions of human rights theory are compared to the dominant international relations theories in hopes to clarify an operational definition for human rights theory.

This thesis utilizes a research approach which is essentially a comparison of accepted dominant international relations theories, with liberal based human rights theories. After this analysis it is necessary to compare the results. I conclude that it is apparent there is a need for a more advanced methodology to approach the study of human rights in terms of international relations because this maze of human rights definitions and analysis also represent advancement for global democratization and also represent dominant westernized human rights discourse.

The NGO subjects of the case study are Amnesty International (AI), Human Rights Watch (HRW), and Human Rights First (HRF), formerly known as Lawyers Committee for Human Rights. Additionally, the thesis will introduce evidence by way of content analysis, whether activism campaigns conducted by each NGO reflect the same saliency of human rights issues as the human rights issues simultaneously recorded in the respective congressional resolutions. This is the primary intent of this thesis which seeks to discover significant convincing evidence whether the United States Congress is only reliant upon human rights NGO’ s, or other human rights organization, when they identify and acknowledge human rights problems and then propose lawmaking decisions or resolutions related to international human rights.

The period of time compared and analyzed for this study is the post cold war era. It is my hypothesis that the salient issues for these human rights groups will coincide simultaneously with congressional resolutions in the respective congressional sessions. Human rights Ngo’s expend great time, energy, and resources to identify the various human rights abuses that they determine to be of international concern. This diligent study and dedication to human rights advancement while closely observing international law and universal mandates has been challenging.

Because the US Congress represents the people’s branch of the government, political scientists could also hypothesize human rights abuses would likely be salient issues to the American people. But has this really been the case? Kenneth B. Mayer and David T. Canon argue in their book that a core of the argument Madison set out in Federalist 10 is that larger constituencies would be more likely to focus on national issues, and smaller constituencies to show undue concern with local interests. (Canon and Mayer 1999, 6). The congress will take special consideration with matters abroad even when there are salient matters for their constituents that often seem to take precedence in various election terms.

Due to America’s vast ethnic diversity, “the melting pot”, I anticipate that the US Congress does perceive human rights issues abroad to be as important as the American people’s domestic issues at home. This should be evident, at least in part, through the results of the content analysis of the various human rights abuses that become the subject of a congressional resolution or bill. Ngo’s have had a tremendously important role as human rights issues have moved towards positive advancement. They are political and human rights observers independent of intergovernmental organizations that wield tremendous supranational influence. The most salient issues discovered within the numerous reoccurring congressional resolutions, generally trigger immediate foreign policy implications. The economic, political, cultural, civil and social rights of potential economic partners and nation-states allies worldwide give rise to incredible evidence of the significance of these implications.

II. HISTORY OF HUMAN RIGHTS

A mountain of research has been conducted by human rights scholars as well as international lawyers on a global level. These are highly debated and often mostly controversial topics. The vast amount of human rights literature necessitates a good research plan from start to finish. In this study, history is every much as important as the present when discussing the notion of human rights.

As early, as 1740 B.C.E. there is evidence to suggest that human people had some “types” of rights. In Babylonia, a rival Mesopotamian kingdom, some laws and codes are located in a clay tablet “to establish justice throughout Mesopotamia”. The code of Hammurabi survives in a stone column discovered in Iran in 1901 and is now located in Paris. (University of Minnesota, Human Rights Timeline, 6) Many scholars suggest this to be one of the world’s oldest legal documents. Political scientists s and scholars of history can also find text relating directly to human rights in the Old Testament of the Holy Bible dating 1200- 300 B.C.E.

The Treaty of Westphalia, signed in 1648, is another recognized source of natural rights law. In that period state rulers were under the rule of the Catholic Church. This treaty freed states from the jurisdiction of the Catholic Church. (University of Minnesota, Human Rights timeline, 6)

John H. Jackson summarizes this unique period as “Westphalia sovereignty.” He considers this lengthy document to be a “Peace Treaty between the Holy Roman Emperor the King of France, and their

Respective allies.” (Jackson 2003, 786) Over time, this theory developed into important notions of the absolute right of a sovereign nation. This treaty became a significant source of the importance of nation-state sovereignty. It also contains significant implications for the doctrine of human rights.

All too familiar, but equally as important in human rights history, is the United States Declaration of Independence 1776. The implications for basic human rights found within this historical masterpiece, would come to influence modern western thought and the formal notion of human rights, for centuries to come. Thomas Jefferson theorized much to the same ideology as “natural rights” theories first introduced by Locke and Montesquieu. This monumental constitutional declaration accused King George of tyranny, announced the colonies separation from Great Britain, and proclaimed the creation of the United States. (University of Minnesota, Human Rights Time-line, 6)

To account for far- eastern human rights thought, it is equally important to recognize an important human rights philosopher named Confucius. Confucius lived in a politically and socially unstable period in the Far East from 551- c. to 479 B.C.E. His philosophy was concerned with social and government reforms. The idea of “jen” taught a theory of benevolence expressed in terms of “do not do to others what you would not like yourself”. “Do unto others what you wish to do unto yourself”. These are closely associated with individual rights and responsibilities. His teaching also became a code of conduct for Chinese citizens and a basis for a way of life. Government, in Confucius view, should practice “jen” rather than use force. (University of Minnesota, Human Rights Timeline, 6)

The New Testament in the Christian Holy Bible is another often overlooked source document for the notion of human rights. It is not often cited in terms of human rights historical documents. The period c. 40- 100 C. E. reveals the life of the prophet Jesus. To best illustrate this example you must analyze the content of his doctrine. The apostle Paul wrote some New Testament books in prison, and he had said, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female”. The New Testament also says that Jesus taught that rights come together with responsibilities. (University of Minnesota, Human Rights Timeline, 6)

His teachings certainly espouse the rights of humans as rights and as responsibilities. It is important to recognize human rights historical and religious implications found in these teachings as part of the culmination of present human rights doctrine.

Horst Dippel’s historical analysis suggests that the French Declarations of 1789, 1793, and 1795 represent a close relationship, which exists between individual rights and the general interest of society. According to some French opinions, individual rights and interests were legitimate only as long as they did not contradict public rights and interests. Individuals enjoyed their rights not by nature but as part of the society as a whole; there were no in-alienable rights into which government was not allowed to intrude. He argues that in the French understanding society assumed practically the role of an intermediate power between government and the individual. (Dippel 1996, 32) The obvious conclusions drawn from Dippel’s analysis of the French Declarations are that rights are not in alienable, but individuals do have rights as a collective nature within the umbrella of a society. As significant as this interpretation is, even more significant is the fact that these are references to the concept of human rights in general and the French Declaration is significant to understanding the historical implications of human rights.

Other significant quotes which contain connotations of early human rights theory are also important to this research. Modern human rights discourse can be attributed to theories and quotes made by Abraham Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt. In addition the notion of idealism which is often closely associated with human rights discourse can be attributed to the likes of President Woodrow Wilson and Sidney Hudson Harrison.

In a speech at Chicago, Illinois in the summer of 1858, Lincoln said that “I believe that each individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruit of his labor, so far as it no wise interferes with any other mans rights that each community, as a state, has a right to do exactly as it pleases with all the concerns within that state that interfere with the right of another state, and that the general government, upon principle, has no right to interfere with anything other than that general class of things that does concern the whole.” (Basler 1953, 493)

Former president Theodore Roosevelt spoke eloquently in Paris, France in the spring of 1910, “My position as regards the monies interests can be put in a few words. In every civilized society, property rights must be carefully safeguarded ordinarily and in the great majority of cases, human rights and property rights are fundamentally and in the long run identical; but when it clearly appears that there is a real conflict between them, human rights must have the upper hand, for property belongs to man and not man to property.” (The work of Theodore Roosevelt 1926, 515-516)

President Woodrow Wilson takes an idealist tone in a speech to support the League of Nations in the fall of 1919, “Sometimes people call me an idealist. Well, that is the way I know I am an American. America, my fellow citizens, I do not say it in disappointment of any other great people. America is the only idealistic nation in the world.” (Shaw 1924, 822)

Sidney Harrison is quoted in the Chicago Sun Times in his column entitled Thought at Large, “An idealist believes the short run doesn’t count. A cynic believes the long run doesn’t matter. A realist believes that what is done or left undone in the short run determines the long run.” (Landers 1979, B7)

These famous quotations further emphasize how history has shaped modern human rights discourse and policies. These brilliant men spoke eloquently regarding the importance of human rights and the idealist ideology of idealism. These points become more relevant to research involving human rights theory as it relates to dominant international relations theories. My hypothesis is that these two types of theories are interrelated and thus inseparable. When mentioning a particular international relations theory, the human rights theory will contain differences in identification and definition when compared to opposing internationally excepted international relations theories. Therefore, it can be assumed that no single human rights theory can exist separate from any given international relations theory. The research and the scholarly theorist’s opinions have enhanced this notion further in this study.

II. The UN Charter and Legal Authority

The preamble of the United Nations Charter contains significant references to the notion of human rights. Scholars have analyzed the next most significant doctrine that succeeded the drafting of the League of Nations. The one thing that continues to be scrutinized closely are the strengths and weaknesses of the wording found within the United Nations preamble.

“We the peoples of the United Nations determined to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of human beings, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small’ (United Nations Human Rights Website, 1). The preamble language affirms that the government’s delegates agreed to the wording of the United Nations Charter in the city of San Francisco. This was one of the most significant acts of world unification and diplomacy to be orchestrated this century. For the sake of understanding what this establishment really means to the notion of human rights, it is important to comprehend fully the exact wording in the preamble related to human rights as they later come to be legally and morally defined by various Ngo's and the United Nations.

The research convincingly defines the notion that there really is no definition found within the preamble of the United Nations Charter and for good reason. It is difficult to imagine which countries could have agreed upon a definition for human rights abuses at that time. Furthermore, if a country was not willing to ratify this treaty, they could miss the opportunity to become a member of the United Nations.

Arguably, this was the biggest integration of friendship among nations to become available to weaker countries as well as the most powerful countries in the world at the same time. The first of course was membership in the United Nations. The political, economic, social, cultural, and civil implications of such an elite fraternal membership of countries presented new opportunities for many countries that would preserve power for those elite countries and give power to those without.

The United Nations Charter entered into force in January 1942. Twenty-six countries proclaimed their belief that victory in World War II was essential “to preserve human rights and justice in their own lands as well as in other lands”. Paul Gordon Lauren discusses in his essay that almost exactly one-year earlier President Roosevelt in a speech to the US Congress had said emphatically “Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere” (Lauren 1983, 4).

The human rights discourse stemmed arguably at that time from the atrocities of war. Genocide because of racial discrimination was one of the most blatant human rights abuses to have occurred at that time. These human rights issues were so salient that scholars like Woodrow Wilson, who had previously introduced the League of Nations, and presidential heroes like Roosevelt would pave the way towards a road of unity rather than take the path of national isolation. Both leaders recognized that political alliances and coalitions with these historic organizations, transcend national sovereignty and could strengthen and maintain power for the United States and improve diplomatic relations with her allies abroad.

Clark Eichelberger published a relevant viewpoint in a scholarly journal that talks extensively about the early successes and alliances formed by the United Nations just shortly after becoming an organization. He goes on to say, “while talking about the Russians in 1947, “they wanted a United Nations that would really be a Security Council presided over by four or five great powers, with adequate military forces behind it to restrain regression” (Eichelberger 1947, 98). I believe that he is partially correct in this statement and it is important to realize his analysis is during the decade that these events take place. The United Nations had extended an invitation to the Soviet Union even though they had opposed the allies concerning what to do with Germany at the end of the war.

Ideologically, the western powers and allies were not in harmony with communist ideology. However, the severity of the atrocities, and the immediate need to unite against human rights abusers, would unite countries that could have otherwise presented more problems for the allies in the short term. This could very well have been the Soviet Union. Considering the tensions and scars left after the war’s end, the United Nations became an international symbol of cooperation and unity.

Insofar as the UN Charter is concerned with human rights and fundamental freedoms, (Articles 1, 3; 55, C; 62, 3; 76, C), as well as the preamble, there is recognition of an individual’s place in the international order as well.

Carl J. Friedrich proposed his argument in defense of the UN Charter, “Conquest and imperialism are incompatible with a world order” (Friedrich 1947, 28). Friedrich “feels” the pain left by conquest in the world and is quick to point out that the United Nations Charter is a long way from achieving piece but is a step into the right direction.

Eichelberger’s analysis of the “present machinery” indicates that he has hope with some realistic expectations for the United Nations. He quotes Senator Austin the American delegate on the Security Council who is speaking to a conference of state governments, “the resources of the United Nations Charter and the capacity for growth of the United Nations are limited only by our ability to use them”. Within one and a half years of the formation of the United Nations machinery as he refers to it, it had consisted of three councils, the Security Council, Economic and Social Council, and the Trusteeship Council. In addition, there were “nine committee’s which met to discuss everything from equal employment to human rights”. Furthermore, eight autonomous agencies included the International Bank, International Labor Organization, International Civil Aviation Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, and the World Health Organization, and the International Trade organization. (Eichelberger 1947, 98)

His analysis is important to this thesis because it represents the early scholarly thought regarding human rights discourse and the formation of the UN. The salient issues at that time were money; airplanes, food, health, and trade. There was an International Court of Justice (ICJ) as well. He concludes, however, on a less than approving note, “Thus, in the quest for human rights there is a groping toward a more liberal interpretation of the charter” (Eichelberger 1947, 98). Again, it is the vagueness of the UN charter that helps propel an attempt to define human rights and the ensuing discourse shortly after his publication.

Furthermore, additional historical significance of his publication suggests that immediately, even as an outsider, he had recognized what many others had already realized was necessary. New meaning that is more specific would have to take the place of morally weighty terms so vaguely identified as human rights as initially set forth in the charter.

My analysis for purposes of this thesis is to suggest that this is a perfect example of the need for enhanced clarification and a much more liberal interpretation of human rights. This would soon become the newest and one of the most celebrated human rights documents this century.

II B. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Because there was no officially recognized definition of human rights, other than mentions in the UN Charter, there came into existence a preamble known as the Universal Declaration of Human Right (UDHR). Proclaimed on December 10, 1948 by the General Assembly of the United Nations, it is an outline of articles which represent a thorough universally accepted definition of human rights.

Although it is not a binding treaty, it represents a definition, a starting point, a reference and a symbol of what human rights should be according to the chair of the drafting committee, Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt and her original drafting committee. These were considered serious rights inherent to all human beings inalienable and without exception by virtue of being born human. The UDHR is also often scrutinized to be a reflection of idealism and the normative theory of how nation states should act.

The preamble of the UDHR mentions fundamental human rights and a reaffirmation by the United Nations to recognize them. Equally as important is the fact that the preamble wishes to promote universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms (The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1). “The preamble expressly mentions this declaration as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universaland effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of member states themselves, and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1). This monumental doctrine does however also significantly contradict itself by indicating in the first sentence to be a common standard for all people and all nations, but concludes with peoples of member states and territories under their jurisdiction. From a legal point of view this notion invites controversy.

The UDHR preamble does not legally bind member states and non-member states under international law and the doctrine of custom. However, the UDHR has been already cited to be a custom because other nation-states recognize and adhere to its principles. This is extremely significant because the International Bill of Human Rights and almost all other formal human rights related treaties have recognized the articles within the UDHR with the precise human rights language it contains.

Reoccurring themes and special salience given to particular countries human rights violations, have varied by country and for obvious reasons. The UDHR proclamation was drafted during particularly troublesome political and social turbulence occurring all over the world. However, this would not be the only western tie to the defining articles found within the UDHR. The human rights discourse is found within the articles and can easily be arguably a mirror of the times, and a genuine idealistic representation of rights that every man woman and child would hope to enjoy.

It is easier to explain the meaning of the articles if they are divided categorically. Five categories of rights comprise the UDHR. They are civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights. The first two articles describe the entitlement to all of the rights by virtue of being born free. The second article discusses the fact that there can be no discrimination against anyone for any reasons. Articles 3-18 are the civil group of rights, these articles are defined as personal freedoms of a member of a society. The political rights are in articles 19-21. The economic, social and cultural rights are articles 22-27. Articles 28-30 contain language relating to the right to self-determination of peoples, the requirement and limitations of human rights for an individual in a community, and a strict prohibition of human rights culminated with Article 30. (Abbreviated Version of the UDHR, 1) When compared with international relations theory once again this theory contains traces of global international relations and is a critique of the realist theory of international relations.

Together the articles in this proclamation have strengthened already strong cultures and in theory, could also have preserved indigenous, poor cultures as well. The UDHR has led to several binding covenants among nations and has enhanced politically perceived weaknesses and breakdowns in human rights behaviors since its inception. It is a model, a reference, and a starting point for society as a whole to consider as important in every nation.

II. C United Nations Assessment of Human Rights Theory

The Commission on Human rights convened early in 1946. According to the International Bill of Human Rights the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights were adopted by the General assembly by its resolution 2200A (XXII) of 16 December, 1966.

The first optional protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the same resolution, provided international machinery for dealing with communications from individuals claiming to be victims of violations of any of the rights set forth in the covenant (United Nations Fact Sheet No. 2 Rev 1 1996, 4).

What does this mean in terms of the United Nations contributions to Human Rights? A considerable amount of effort has helped achieve a pinnacle of human rights legislation through the efforts of the United Nations. This effort has culminated with the establishment of the International Bill of Human Rights (United Nations Fact Sheet No. 2 Rev 1 1996, 4). The International Bill of Human rights contains several protocols. These protocols consist of the UDHR, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Optional Protocol to the International covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Second Optional Protocol to the international covenant on civil and political rights aiming at the abolition of the death penalty (United Nations Fact Sheet No. 2 revs 1996, 4).

The 1966 covenants had provided two types of human rights protection. Civil and political rights were the emphasis in the first protocol. Political, economic, and cultural human rights are emphasized in the second protocol. What these covenants did accomplish importantly enough, was a provision for legal machinery to deal with international claims of victims of any human rights abuses that had been set forth within these particular covenants (United Nations Fact Sheet No. 2 1996, 4).

Both covenants entered into force in the spring of 1976. As of 1995, each covenant contained 132 countries (United Nations Fact Sheet No. 2 1996, 13). The United States did ratify both covenants. However, interestingly enough, they have not ratified either optional protocol one or two.

Optional protocol one contained provisions that the United Nations Human Rights Committee could receive claims made by one states victim against another and act competently. Eighty-five states did agree to have these claims heard by the committee for human rights at the United Nations. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights contained optional protocol number two. The second protocol related to provisions to abolish the death penalty. Twenty-eight states did ratify that optional protocol (United Nations Fact Sheet No Rev 1 1996, 15)

II D. Scholar’s Speak up, Analysis of Human Rights Theory

Many scholars agree that the International Bill of Human Rights represents one of humankind’s great achievements. It is not a symbol of an attempted universal failure to stop atrocities to humanity before they occur. Unfortunately, not everyone is pleased with the implications of universal human rights because some nation-states view human rights as an obstacle to the principles of state sovereignty. This has at times been problematic, for powerful countries that do not wish to give up economic, political, social, civil or cultural rights to smaller, less economically fortunate nation-states.

The role of the United Nations and the United States seems clear regarding human rights, but these two organizations do not always see the world through the same international relations lenses. Strong evidence for this was discovered through content analysis of numerous US congressional resolutions where it was discovered that the US has made mention of withdrawing completely from the UN several times since 1989.

Some academia’s suggest that human rights theory is particularly problematic not only for nation-states but for all those agencies and governments directly affected. The more common theory problems involve the universality of human rights. It is still a strong matter of debate whether human rights can be truly “universal” by definition. Cultural relativism, international relations, and international law often propose conflicting views with human rights theory at various levels of analysis. For example,

countries that are still de-colonizing this century are particularly vulnerable to civil, political, economic, social, and cultural notions of human rights within their territories. The five main human rights categories have not come to fruition in a number of third world countries. This fact is arguably largely due in great part to those countries recent evolution as sovereign territories. The arguments and disagreement with universal human rights is usually the same, state governments respond that these rights do not apply to them because we do not recognize them to be important to the sovereignty of our state. This has been particularly problematic.

Furthermore they have argued that why should they have to recognize human rights if they have never recognized them? The implications include recognizing that the notion that western ideological human rights do not mirror the same political, cultural, social, economic, and civil rights as eastern and middle eastern civilizations. Most of these out date some western civilizations literally by centuries.

Scholars, nation- state leaders, and less civilized militias have opposing views regarding human rights, so it is difficult to get a consensus related to cultural relativism and universality of rights.. The opposing themes reoccur and are always related to the universality of human rights, the enforcement mechanisms to punish violators, international laws, and to the leaders of those governments, states sovereignty.

Meantime the economic and political implications for the US are frequently unbalanced by and challenged in the name of the perpetual human rights machinery. The US has to make preparations for its own economic future while deciding how to interact with countries that do not respect or literally disregard basic human rights doctrine contained in treaties as well as the UDHR. These complicated issues can be traced to the articles within the language of the UDHR, which have aided immeasurably to the drafters of the various covenants that now serve as legal agreements between some nations, yet other nations remain unbound.

Nation states have had a plentiful amount of work to accomplish when they decide how to implement international human rights policies. Local human rights deficiencies call for reforms that would address the complexity and particularity of each human right.

Cyril Adjei suggests that the social constructivist viewpoint suggests that it is both liberal theorists and critical legal scholars that share the statutory protection of human rights. (Adjei 1995, 28) This is the perspective that human rights are contingent in the sense that they reflect values that a given community considers to be fundamental. This view partially explains how complex the notion of fundamental human rights really is. The preliminary contention is that human rights doctrine is often contradicting and especially difficult for legal analysis. The implication that human rights doctrine is often contradicting and is especially difficult for critical legal analysis is largely a result of the vagueness of the relevant statutes and their particular applicability within each nation at every level. Legal scholars have had their “hands full” with competing views and must rely heavily upon previous case law.

>

Community standards have been frequently applied to US judicial language when interpreting the applicability of various laws at various levels of government. Human rights legal scholars have taken this approach as well, in hopes of determining the best arguments under international law to defend or prosecute human rights abuses.

Often contrasting with those laws are defense mechanisms built in to the UN Charter and are frequently cited in defense of a states domestic sovereignty. Alexander J. Pollock enlists a theory of conservative jurisprudence which “interprets the role of the United Nations in the South West Africa Cases with emphasis on Article 2, section 7 of the UN Charter. This states that nothing in the present charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters that are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the member to submit such matter for settlement under the present Charter”(Pollock 1969, 770). Pollock contends that under international law, the United Nations is a group of sovereign nations. If these states express their opinion on some matter it tells one nothing but that the majority of nations has that opinion. Therefore, its declarations and resolutions cannot legally bind a sovereign state, and the fact that they express a different moral evaluation of racial discrimination or separate development is without legal importance. (Pollock 1969, 770)

It is safe to conclude that Pollock’s publication regarding the South West Africa Cases is not in tune with customary international law principles. Why does he take the extreme position against the United Nations Charter? Pollock is taking the literal critical human rights scholar approach with an obvious exception to the wording of human rights law found within the various doctrines.

His article also mentions that there is tension regarding the United Nations Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty. He argues that in these declarations, it states expressly “every state has an inalienable right to choose its political, economic, social, and cultural systems, without interference in any form by another state.” However, it then goes on to say, “all states shall respect the right to self determination and independence of peoples and nations, to be freely exercised without any foreign pressure and with absolute respect to human rights and fundamental freedoms”. “Consequently, all states shall contribute to the complete elimination of racial discrimination and colonialism in all its forms and manifestations”. (Pollock 1969, 770)

The analysis that Pollock provides is that the United Nations defines a state to be sovereign and then allows interferences with its domestic decisions under certain circumstances. This is an excellent example once again, of analysis that portrays contradictory language in human rights.

This will of course have obvious implications for all international human rights actors, national elites, and nation-states.

E.H.C. concludes that “the unanimous decision of the California District Court of Appeals in Fujii v. State has caused wide comment both in the press and in legal periodicals. This court held that the Alien Land Law, which prohibits aliens who are ineligible to become citizens from owning land, to be unenforceable as against the United Nations and the Declaration of Human rights. This is the first time that a court in the United States has used the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration of Human Rights to invalidate a state law” (E.H.C. 1950, 1059). This article which was taken from the Virginia Law Review outlines the author’s disbelief that a supranational charter could change national domestic law. However, in this case it did. In 1950, the UDHR had a far reaching hand into domestic land law.

Today, it is uncertain that this document still contains this type of domestic jurisdiction. According to Lawrence Finkelstein., “the concept of domestic jurisdiction” embodied in Article 2, paragraph 7 of the UN Charter, has frequently been criticized both on the ground that it is an undesirable limit on United Nations jurisdiction, and on the ground that the language of the Charter did not sufficiently inhibit incursions by United Nations organs, especially the General Assembly, into matters which should remain of purely national concern” (Finklestein 1955, 222). Peace and security are Finklestein’s primary concerns. His argument proposes that the United Nations is unable to fulfill its duty to the peace is unjustified by the language contained in Article 2 paragraph 7 of the UN Charter.

The discourse during the continuous evolution and implementation of human rights covenants and treaties has been diverse and frequently unbalanced. The best analysis process for scholars to take is to determine the facts on a case-by-case basis and then formulate decisions given all applicable information.

These scholarly analyzes represent the resulting growing pains that scholars, nation-states, and the United Nations have had to identify, work through, and interpret during relentless human rights discourse involving states sovereignty and universal human rights.

>

III. Case Study Amnesty International

Amnesty International (AI) defines itself as a worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights (About Amnesty International 2004, 9). Wherever one might look regarding human rights discourse one might expect to find Amnesty International somewhere close. How does this organization accomplish this? AI is unique in that a British lawyer whose inspiring assignment was to represent two imprisoned Portuguese students who had raised their glasses in a toast to freedom chartered its beginnings as a present day NGO powerhouse (About Amnesty International 2004, 9).

Mr. Brensons, the founder of AI, had a vision in 1961 that helped to begin a human rights movement by an Ngo unprecedented in recent time. For the purpose of this study, it is important to recognize a time-line of significant human rights activities and that the UDHR is the source document that AI refers to as its human rights foundational document.

AI boasts membership of nearly 2 million people internationally. AI accepts no funds and does not ask for them from governments for their work campaigning against human rights violations (About Amnesty International 2004, 9). AI has a unique mission which outlines everything from their vision to disclosure publicly of their finances.

>

III A. Mission and Scope Of Purpose

AI’s mission statement reveals significant information regarding its mission and scope of purpose as an organization. AI describes itself as having a vision and a mission. That is to say that there should be a world in which every person enjoys all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards. (Amnesty International, 2004) So far the UDHR is there source document and it has a very broad mission statement if it is to see all of the human rights enshrined in the UDHR and “other” international human rights standards come to fruition.

Latest estimates place well over 4 billion people on the earth, and there are numerous human rights covenants and treaties that might be categorized as international human rights standards. This is a vague statement of mission for a gigantic Ngo such as AI. Does this fact carry relevant implications? The articles in the UDHR contain rights and responsibilities for all of humanity. So which rights should get the most attention? AI has their own rights to look after, as further analysis will reveal.

AI recognizes a need to explain its core values and places those in the statute as well. AI forms a global community of human rights defenders with the principles of international solidarity, effective action for the individual victim, global coverage, the universality and indivisibility of

human rights, impartiality and independence, democracy, and mutual respect (Amnesty International, 2004). They cite with specificity, mandates such as international solidarity, effective action for individual victims, global coverage, and universality of human rights. This also includes indivisibility of human rights, impartiality, independence, democracy, and mutual respect for human rights (Amnesty International, 2004).

These eleven core values are worthy of further clarification but precise enough to be meaningful in a vague moralistic sense. AI has proclaimed numerous human rights abuse methods and core values to their organizations mission.

AI intends to address governments, intergovernmental organizations, armed political groups, companies and other non-state actors. They seek to disclose human rights abuse accurately quickly and persistently. AI systematically and impartially researches the facts of individual cases and patterns of human rights abuses. These findings are public, and member’s supporters and staff mobilize public pressure on governments and others to stop the abuses. AI urges all governments to observe the rule of law, and to ratify and implement human rights standards, it carries out a wide range of human rights educational activities; and it encourages intergovernmental organizations, individuals, and all organs of society to support and respect human rights (Amnesty International 2004). Where is human rights abuse information to be made public? AI has a bold mission in that it intends to and does confront powerful agencies such as governments, corporations, and armed groups. It would be unwise to say AI does not systematically address human rights with partiality, as this is not the chosen method of human rights disclosure.

Nicholas Owen in his edit of the 2001 Oxford Amnesty lectures examined a set of contemporary dilemmas for advocates of human rights. The assumptions of contemporary human rights discourse, notably the identities of and relations between the “we” who take it upon ourselves to right wrongs, and the “they” whose wrongs are to be righted” (Owen 2003, 2). As the editor of Human Rights Human Wrongs in support of Amnesty International, Owen recognizes an important issue to discuss at the committee gatherings in 2001.

He goes on to say that “however it is now becoming clear that while such abuses have hardly ceased, many of the modern problems of human rights arise not where the state is to strong, but where weak and internally divided states cease to be able to guarantee social order.” Activists therefore have had to face the choice between a principled refusal to intervene, tempered perhaps by humanitarian aid where it can be supplied, and endorsing a more active involvement, ranging from mediation and the good offices of third parties through harder forms of intervention such as the deployment of peacekeepers, the arming of proxies, and perhaps even coercive military occupation” (Owen 2003, 3).The mission and scope of a giant NGO such as Amnesty International is a maze of international relations policies and human rights interpretation. This is no easy tasking for any NGO even AI.

II B. Activist Campaigns, Defining Human Rights Abuses

AI’s internet website lists specific activist campaigns for human rights violations. AI categorized these as current, active, and closed appeals. Current appeals are the same as active for purposes of this analysis. Appeals for action, urgent action networks, and worldwide appeals comprise the majority headings of their activist campaign activity.

AI “appeals for action” consist of written correspondence to nation-state decision makers to disclose an identified human rights abuse within that particular country or territory. All of these members receive an email regarding the violation and are asked to endorse documentations and letters to those individuals that should respond to the violations of human rights.

“Urgent action” network information techniques apply rapid letter writing, faxes, and phone calls on behalf of those individuals in immediate short-term danger of human rights violations. On 19 March 2003, the Urgent Action technique reached its 30^th anniversary. Over the years, tens of thousands of Amnesty International supporters have sent letters, faxes or emails on behalf of those in immediate short-term danger of human rights violations. (AI 30 years of Urgent Actions, 2004)

“Worldwide appeals” are current or closed respectively. AI uses this terminology to describe the status of appeals they handle. AI sees this as a useful way to keep track of pending appeals and those that they have had success making a positive change. Current worldwide appeals are dated 1995 through 2004 (AI Act Now worldwide appeal, 2004). Closed appeals on their site are also listed in the same range from June 1995, through 2004 (AI Act Now worldwide appeals, 2004).

AI’s current campaign lists 12 broad human rights topics. These topics range from violence against women, to a Health Professional Network. Previous campaigns range in date from 2000-2003 and many may be outdated and are for reference purposes only (AI Campaigns current campaigns, 2004).

>

III C. Self-Definition of Human Rights

The types of human rights abuses can divide the worldwide appeals and campaigns categorically, but in general, the campaigns and appeals do not coincide with precise language found within the UDHR. This is the source document for comparison of human rights categorically as determined by AI’s proclamation. AI has had several campaigns and appeals not expressly defined with UDHR terminology. Some examples found on their official internet website would be the current campaign to control arms, treaty body’s participation, and those companies and international financial institutions are strictly accountable for the human rights impact of their activities (Amnesty International, 2004). These relate to legal definitions for organizations that have evolved since the inception of the UDHR.

However, several campaigns, and appeals do relate directly to the UDHR in language and in intent. AI country campaigns consist of human rights language such as asylum, refugees, torture, false imprisonment, freedom of expression, execution of minors, prisoners of conscience, and illegal detainees. These are all well within the scope of human rights language found in the UDHR. I make this comparison because it is important to consider whether significant definitions of human rights have been reinterpreted, or are they in strict compliance with definitions first set forth by the monumental proclamation?

In the case of AI, some significantly different human rights activist campaigns have surfaced while some older notions of human rights announced in the UDHR remain consistent with the language and scope. Whether there will be legal, moral, or otherwise internationally significant implications, such as trend setting, the spillover effect, or a completely new set of human rights crises for other human rights Ngo may become a renewed consideration for researchers and analysts alike.

IV. Case Study Human Rights Watch

Human Rights Watch (HRW), an Ngo formerly referred to as Helsinki Watch began human rights protection and advancement in 1978. Human Rights Watch describes itself as an NGO with more than 150 dedicated professionals employed internationally. These professionals consist of lawyers, journalists, academics, and country experts. It is common that HRW join forces with another Ngo to further common goals. HRW boasts that they are the largest human rights organization based in the US (Human Rights Watch, 2004).

According to their official website, it is the intent of HRW to generate extensive coverage in local and international media. This publicity helps to “embarrass abusive governments” in the eyes of their citizens and the world. When embarrassment is not enough, HRW presses for the withdrawal of military and economic support from governments that egregiously violate the rights of their people (Human Rights Watch, 2004). HRW does not indicate who they will press but the implications point to the US or the UN.

HRW began its mandate in 1978 as Helsinki Watch. At that time, the primary goal was to monitor the compliance of Soviet bloc countries with the human rights provisions of the landmark Helsinki Accords. HRW explains further that by 1988 the “watch” groups had assembled a committee to form the present day international human rights group. This group has a new internationally flavored mandate for human rights abuse identification advancements in reporting and activism. HRW also displays significant influence to encourage economic and military sanctions upon violating governments.

HRW has a main office in New York with international organizations in Brussels, London, Moscow, Honk Kong, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington. HRW currently watches “developments” in 70 countries. HRW believes that international standards of human rights apply to all people equally, and that sharp vigilance and timely protest can prevent the tragedies of the twentieth century from reoccurring (Human Rights Watch, 2004).

>

HRW uses the “international standards” language to describe its mandate, but loosely termed, this can create some discourse as to what exactly are “international standards” of human rights. HRW see the hallmark and pride of HRW is the even-handedness and accuracy of there reporting. They do not accept financial support from any government or government funded agency (Human Rights Watch, 2004). HRW receives donations from private organizations and from private individuals only.

IV A. Mission And Scope Of Purpose

HRW believes that international standards of human rights apply to all peoples equally, and that sharp vigilance and timely protest can prevent the tragedies of the twentieth century from reoccurring (Human Rights Watch 2004). This statement reflects with accuracy what HRW intentions are and why they exist.

The 2003 Human Rights Watch World Report further clarifies the official internet website mission statement. “Human Rights Watch defends freedom through expressing due process and equal protection of the law, and a vigorous civil society, to document disappearances, torture, arbitrary imprisonment, discrimination, and other abuses of internationally recognized human rights.” “Our goal is to hold governments accountable if they transgress the rights of their people” (Human Rights Watch 2003, vii).

The authors of their mission statement realize that it does not limit HRW in any way as to what international standards of human rights they intend to address nor does it place burdensome limits upon the organizations methods or legal basis to proclaim itself a human rights Ngo. HRW knows what sharp vigilance and timely protest can accomplish as long as the organization and the world also know what this entails, there continuous mission will continue to be accomplished.

IV B. Activist Campaigns, Definitions Of Abuses

HRW is concerned with certain issues that cut across national boundaries as they are defined. These include academic freedom, Aids, Arms, caste discrimination, child soldiers, children’s rights, corporations, drugs, free expression, human rights defenders, and the ICC.

Furthermore, international justice, labor rights, lesbian and gay rights, freedom of the press, prisoner treatment, racism, refugees and repressions, United Nations, and women’s rights round out an extensive list. HRW distinguishes Economic, Social, and Cultural rights from the previous list of human rights issues. This is a large mandate to be active towards identification and reporting. The research suggests that because of the vastness of their proclaimed mandates, HRW has an endless supply of human rights protection to contend with in the future.

Obvious analysis suggests that some of these issues again do not fit neatly into UDHR definitions of human rights abuses. This is not necessarily troublesome or a problematic finding, but is indicative of support for my hypothesis. In their publication Human Rights Watch, some other examples are listed as academic freedom, AIDS, arms, corporations, drugs, free expression on the internet, human rights defenders, and “opportunism watch” the repression in the name of anti-terrorism(Human Rights Watch 2004, 1).

HRW has a take action campaign and it nearly mirrors the process used by AI. When a human rights abuse situation is occurring, they send emails to all members and urge them to fax, call, or email the appropriate

decision makers on behalf of the various countries. This also includes sending email and faxes directly to the US White house in Washington.

HRW has outlined accurate information about various countries human rights records to include Africa, the America’s, Asia, Europe, Central Asia, Middle East, North Africa, and the United States. Currently the active campaigns include countries such as Cairo, United States, Chechnya, Uganda, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, West Africa, Afghanistan, and Nigeria.

Burma, Russia, Morocco, Israel, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Canary Islands, China, and Mexico also round out a very diverse grouping of countries.

Another interesting observation in this analysis is that the United States is also on record for abuses of human rights. Reporting this could be strength for their organization as well as a possible chink in its armor. Regardless, HRW activism campaigns are every bit relevant to the salient issues of the present state of democratization in the world today.

Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch assesses activist successions; “clarity is best achieved when misconduct can be portrayed as arbitrary or discriminatory rather than a matter of purely distributive justice” (Roth 2004, 63) The director summarizes in the abstract of his journal publication that the methods employed by HRW must be able to counter the argument of distributive justice often cited by nations frequently cited for human rights abuses.

>

IV C. Self-Definition of Human Rights

As mentioned previously, HRW specific focus is on self-identified particular human rights abuse issues. Human Rights Watch is dedicated to protecting the human rights of people around the world. We stand with victims and activists to prevent discrimination to uphold political freedom, to protect people from inhumane conduct in wartime, and to bring offenders to justice. We investigate and expose human rights violators and hold abusers accountable. We challenge governments and those who hold power to end abusive practices and respect international human rights law. We enlist the public and the international community to support the cause of human rights for all (Human Rights Watch World Report 2003, preface).

These are with regard and in accordance with “internationally accepted” human rights mandates. The difficulty is deciding exactly what that means. How important is the specific content of the language cited on their website or in there publication when they make their case for some human rights violations is uncertain. However, it is certain that the original mandate, the Helsinki accords, gave them US governmental backing and support to police the former Soviet bloc for human rights abuses in 1978. There mandate was a mixture of rights abuses at that time. The evolution of this organizations mission and self-definition is sometimes assuming from a legal but not necessarily a moral point of view. A scholarly assessment and analysis reveals clearly the fact that HRW is all too familiar with the human rights legal machinery and is all too familiar in how to utilize it effectively.

>

V. Case Study Of Human Rights First

Human Rights First works in the US and abroad to create a secure and humane world, by advancing justice, human dignity, and respect for the rule of law (Human Rights First 2004, 1). This is HRF specific definition of their organizational mission according to their official internet website. According to the Critique of the 1994 DOS Country Report published by HRF in July 1995, HRF support human right activists who fight for basic freedoms and peaceful changes at the local level, protect refugees in flight from persecution and repression, help build a strong international system of justice and accountability, and make sure human rights laws and principles are enforced in the United States and abroad (Human Rights First 2004, 1). This is Human Rights First; formerly known as Lawyers Committee for Human Rights mandate. The perspective on human rights is without question one of legal significance with a heavy emphasis placed upon civil rights.

The essence of the mission at HRF rests in the notion that the United Nations declaration of the protection for human rights defenders dated on the 50^th anniversary of the UDHR is a milestone to realizing human rights on the ground in domestic human rights abuses situations. The reasoning behind this notion is not complex. If human rights defenders are “safe” on the ground, they can make accurate reports and put into gear the necessary mechanisms to enhance the abilities of human rights legal and governmental machinery. “The Declaration rests on a basic premise that when the rights of human rights defenders are violated, all our rights are put into jeopardy and all of us are made less safe” (Annan 1998).

HRF would like to document, expose human rights violations, and hold governments accountable, by seeking remedies for victims and educating populations on their human rights, these individuals commonly referred to as human rights defenders play a crucial role in combating violations and improving human rights (Annan, 1998).

This efficient committee conducts further fact finding missions and publishes reports which serve as a starting point for sustained follow-up work within.

>

V. A. Mission And Scope Of Purpose

Not only is the United States on notice by HRF, but several other countries are currently being “monitored” by human rights “defenders” on the ground. The list according to their official website contains 18 countries. These are China, Columbia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Israel, Palestinian territories, Jordan, Kuwait, Mexico, Northern Ireland, Singapore, South Korea, Tunisia, Turkey, and Zimbabwe.

Furthermore according to their Critique and review of the Department of State country reports on human rights practices, “Since 1978 the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights or (HRF) has worked to protect and promote fundamental human rights. Its work is impartial, holding each government to the standards affirmed in the International Bill of Human Rights, including the right to be free from torture, summary execution, abduction and “disappearance”. Additionally they protect the right to be free from arbitrary arrest, imprisonment without charge or trial, and indefinite incommunicado detention. The right to due process and a fair trial before an independent judiciary are also of primary concern (Critique, Review of the US DOS Country Reports on Human Rights practices for 1994 1995, 307)

Media alerts available via their official website contain activist efforts that archive activist information dating 1996-2002.

Summarily, activist programs depend primarily upon the actions of human rights defenders on the ground, however, the most salient topic for HRF are of a legal nature. These topics also include asylum, Africa, Asia, Europe, Freedom of Association, Latin America/Caribbean, Middle East/North Africa, International Justice, International Financial Institutions, International refugees, and the United Nations (Human Rights First site-map, 1994, 1).

Various other new and innovative representations of detailed activism information are available primarily via the use of electronic newsletters. This invaluable information is via internet email to HRF members and their constituents worldwide. This activist method represents another means of calling attention to various governmental decision makers in various countries. “Rights wire” is HRF first free electronic newsletter, and is published bi-weekly. Rights Wire provides analysis of timely human rights abuses and opportunities to take action on them (Human Rights First Rights wire 2004, 1).

V. B Activist Campaigns, Definitions Of Abuses

As previously introduced, HRF would like to see a secure world with the rule of law. They would like to advance the rule of law for human rights not only internationally, but also in domestic territories of nation-states everywhere. HRF will rely upon a countless number of treaties and political activism to utilize the law and hold accountable under the law, those that would otherwise go unpunished for human rights abuses. This is no easy mandate for any organization. Justice for all, through the strengthening of international systems of justice and universal accountability are a significant part of this group’s mission and its scope.

Given the primary mission of HRF they are an NGO to be respected, to be aware of these goals, and be prepared to manage your human rights abuses appropriately, who is to say, not allow them whatsoever.

HRF utilizes as its strength the provisions set forth in various covenants and treaties to expose human rights violations and to hold those responsible accountable. Generally, this would mean through reparations and monetary remedies. There are resolutions and significant monetary sources available to punish human rights offenders. This can mean a significantly new meaning and call for urgency to better prepare legal precedents, to establish the judicial machinery necessary under international law, and to hold countries governments culpable and therefore liable for human rights abuses that have occurred.

V C. Self-Definition of Human Right

HRF relies upon the definitions of human rights set forth under the UDHR, as well as international law. They are organized and prepared to recognize all legal machinery necessary to further their organizational goals. HRF emphasize the international justice system and domestic civil rights human rights abuses and their resolution. They disagree with countries that are not in favor of an International Criminal Court which includes the US at this time. HRF feels those country-based tribunals are highly effective to try international crimes and are adamantly pro ICC establishment. Weakened state sovereignty principles appear to take less precedence to the mission than individual legal and civil rights.

The obvious implications for violators of human rights, by Ngo human rights tactics employed by HRF set precedents. These tactics may be the new trend towards holding countries accountable to remedies under binding treaties and the UDHR. No country would wish to pay reparations and or fines for violating human rights. Those countries are accountable due to human rights protections efforts by this well-prepared and organized NGO.

While addressing HRF accomplishments for the previous year, HRF boasts of situations like upholding the rights of refugees, pro bono legal work for asylum seekers, and domestic abuse asylum seekers given the right to asylum. HRF has also advocated for fairness for non-citizens.

Other activist efforts include the termination of Operation Liberty Shield, and a special registration program for Arab males in the 16-25 year-old range authorized by federal law changes that conceded some registration waivers (Human Rights First our accomplishments 2004). HRF also prided itself through exposing mistreatment of non-citizens, as well as two rights positions at the Department of Homeland Security (Human Rights First Our accomplishments, 2004).

HRF legal accomplishments continued to be impressive and included law and security issues in the US. The organization was careful to document rights-erosions post 9/11 in two publications entitled Imbalance of Powers and Assessing the new Normal (Human Rights First, Our accomplishments 2004) Because HRF mandate involves complex legal issues combined with human rights and the justice system, it is no surprise how this organization can infiltrate and identify human rights abuses. The expertise is especially evident with abuses of civil human rights nature in the domestic US and abroad.

Other significant activist activity has had a positive legal impact in a wide array of civil matters. In addition, HRF claims to have helped to improve the US State Departments human rights reports and protect the privacy of law-abiding citizens that helped to prohibit congressional funding for the Total Information Awareness, (TIA) program. This anti-terror initiative was a widely debated Pentagon reaction to terrorism that would have allowed the collection by the US government of personal

information of American citizens. These include driving records, tapes from airport surveillance cameras, high school transcripts, book purchase, medical records, phone conversations, and e-mails. (Human Rights First, our accomplishments, 2004)

HRF successes were not limited to domestic civil rights initiatives, though however. A prominent Egyptian human rights defender abroad was alleged to be a victim of false accusation in Egypt. Saad Ibrahim is a human rights defender based in Egypt. HRF sought US assistance and he was out of jail sooner than he had anticipated (Human Rights First, Our accomplishments, 2004).

A Malaysian activist was out of prison after HRF intervened on his behalf. H e had spent two years imprisoned because of his role as a labor rights activist in Malaysia (Human Rights First, Our accomplishments, 2004).

Although this is not an all-inclusive listing of HRF accomplishments in a given year, it is descriptive of the civil and judicial nature of the human rights that HRF seeks to ensure.

VI. Getting the Message, the US Congress Responds

Because the US has a significant role in identifying and perpetuating the successions of human rights initiatives at home and abroad, its mission is a very important one with numerous implications. The US Congress, via the power of the purse, is important to an Ngo to lobby for human rights reforms. Because of the advent of democratization and globalization, and various international relations theories have developed modern human rights, as outlined in the UDHR, are actually just over 50 years mature.

The importance and relevant significance to international relations is not entirely revealed by the following tables at this time. However, there are significant implications to US foreign policy regarding human rights based on these thesis research findings. The door is also open to build upon this research in an effort to discover the implications of the findings and how they can be utilized and by whom exactly. Nevertheless, what I have discovered irrevocably through this study is that human rights theory is static and too reliant upon international relations theory which changes from country to country. Additionally, it is clear that the US Congress does pay close attention at least through the introduction of resolutions, to these three NGOs work. This is very important information. Nevertheless, the heading of this chapter talks about the US Congress and how they speak up, so let’s proceed with analysis of the preliminary findings.

The following tables contain US congressional resolutions relating to the specific terminology that included human rights violations. The usefulness of this analysis is through comparison. I theorize that if you identify specific countries human rights violations, and trends, you can measure successes and or shortcomings of Ngo activism. In this research US congressional resolutions provide compelling evidence of Ngo activism regarding human rights issues and country abuses of them.

The other consideration is that an identification of an abuse is a success while a cessation of abuses would be a great success. Furthermore, with new and powerful NGO human rights machinery and salient discourse internationally, the US response mechanisms found in the congressional responses help to assess United Nations human rights effectiveness as well. The doctrine of deterrence is also a considerable notion of human rights abuse prevention success. Therefore, there are intervening variables to consider and acknowledge when attempting to make a positive correlation between Ngo activism, US political or policy response, and cessation of human rights abuses.

The human rights report cards in the tables to follow indicate human rights “language” as it appeared in the resolutions introduced or continued in the respective sessions of the congressional meetings. The specific language is unedited language or hints of human rights found within the resolutions. These tables are extremely significant for this comparative content analysis. The information is readily available and paramount to my research. All data was compiled from Thomas information on the internet, 2004.

TABLE I

Human Rights Country Report Card HR Resolutions 101st Congress (1989-1990)

Country/region Human Rights Abuse

Baltic’s human rights

Bulgaria Turkish minority oppression

Burma human rights

China one child/family, Tiananmen Square, workers rights,

Religious persecution, repression

Cuba request for plebiscite, egregious hr violations,

EL Salvador reduce human suffering

East Europe countries human rights

Ethiopia commit to human rights, discriminate against Jews

Guatemala peaceful end to 30 -year civil war

Honk-Kong human rights

Haiti human rights

Iran Baha’ I persecution

India Punjab region

Iraq human rights

Kenya deteriorating human rights

Liberia human rights

Laos human rights

Malaysia human rights

Malawi basic human rights

Nepal human rights

N. Ireland employment practices

Paraguay human rights/civil liberties

Poland human rights

Romania human rights

S. Africa detained children

Taiwan human rights, democratic reforms

Tibet denial of asylum seekers

UK human rights

>

>

Table II

Human Rights Country Report HR Resolutions by 102^nd Congress (1991-1992)

Country/Region Human rights Abuse

Burma* “horrifying abuse”, trafficking

China* illegal detainees, workers rights, extra judicial killing, torture, civil remedies, political prisoners, prison labor, involuntary sterilization, coercive abortion

Cuba* human rights violations

East Timor human rights violations

Ethiopia* human rights violations, famine

India* illegal detention, human rights violations

Iran* Ba’Ha I repression

Iraq* protection of refugees, minority suffering, i.e. Kurds, international recognition of human rights, genocide, war crimes

Kashmir freedom/democracy/human rights violations, political human rights

Kenya* political human rights

Mauritania human rights abuses

N Ireland* human rights abuses

Romania* anti-Semitism, human rights against Hungarians, ethnic intolerance

Russia illegal detainees

S. Africa* apartheid

Somalia human rights

Sudan human rights violations

Taiwan* peaceful political change

Thailand human rights violations

Tibet* human rights/freedoms

Uganda human rights

United Kingdom* violence against N. Ireland

Vietnam* political prisoners, illegal detainees

Yugoslavia* political peace

Zaire democracy/human rights

Asterisk* indicates country was listed in previous congressional session.

>

TABLE III

Human Rights Country Report Card Resolutions by 103^rd Congress, (1993-1994)

Country/Region Human rights Abuse

No specific country

Listed as subject of resolutions ratify United Nations Covenant on The Rights of Child, health care, fundamental human rights, human rights for all women, displaced persons assistance, rights for those with disabilities, ratify CEDAW, Iraqi war-crimes

Bosnia mass-rapes

Burma* trafficking of women

Chile “- workers rights”, victims of torture

China* recognize international human rights, food and medical care as basic human rights

Guatemala human rights

Haiti human rights

India* detention laws, health care for women children

Indonesia support Ngo of human rights

Kashmir* human rights

Malawi oppression, disabilities worldwide

Mexico free and fair elections

Middle East condemn terrorism

N Ireland* human rights

Sudan* tragic human atrocities

Tajikistan human rights

Vietnam* political asylum seekers, human rights, democracy, religious liberty, protect indigenous people; prohibit involuntary return of refugees, political prisoners, and multilateral peace activities

Yugoslavia* systematic rapes

Zaire* international terrorism, slavery, democracy

Asterisk* indicates country was listed in previous years congressional session

>

Table IV

Human Rights Country Report Card Resolutions by 104^th Congress,

(1995-1996)

Country/region Human rights Abuse

No specific country Listed as subject of resolutions: stop persecution of Christian’s worldwide, interstate enforcement of child support, ratify CEDAW

Bosnia* human political rights, slavery

Burma* trafficking of women, political freedoms, human rights

Cambodia genocide

Cameroon human rights

China* child labor, human rights, religious detainees

Greece Greek civilians slaughtered during WWII

Haiti* human rights

India* human rights

Kenya political/human rights

Kosovo political/social rights

Mauritania chattel slavery, establish living wage

Sudan* chattel slavery

Thailand human trafficking/political rights

Turkey human rights

USA human experimentation, protect internationally recognized human rights

Vietnam* release political prisoners, illegal prisoners

Yugoslavia *(former) human rights

Asterisk* indicates country was listed in previous years congressional session.

>

TABLE V

Human rights country report card HR Resolution, resolutions by 105^th congress (1997-1998)

Country/region Human Rights Abuse

Afghanistan human rights, humanitarian situation

Belarus fundamental freedoms, rights, trafficking women

China* trafficking transplanted organs, human rights, Tibetan prisoners

Croatia human rights

Cyprus human rights, human rights abuses, recommitting to the 50tj anniversary of the UDHR

Ecuador human rights, due process

Germany religious freedom

Guatemala human rights

Honduras child labor, human rights

India* human rights

Japan WWI war crimes

Kathmandu human rights violations

Kosovo* repression of people/human rights abuses

Laos peoples republic human rights

Mauritania* Chattel slavery

N. Ireland human rights

Peru freedom of press, prisoner rights

Sierra Leone human rights abuses

Sudan* chattel slavery

Thailand* trafficking women

Tibet monitor human rights

Turkey* human rights, trafficking of women, religious persecution, child workers

Uganda child soldiers

Vietnam* religious/economic freedom

Asterisk* indicates country was listed in previous years congressional session

Table VI

Human Rights Country Report Card Resolutions by 106^th Congress (1999-2000)

Country/Region Human Rights Abuse

No specific country Listed as subject of resolutions: stop international sex trafficking, and no legal effect of Executive Order 13107

Afghanistan* women/children human rights abuses

Belarus* child soldiers, discriminations

Burma human rights

Central Asia “non-compliance human rights”

China* political rights, fair open trials, human rights

Columbia speed the peace process

Cuba violation of human rights

Cyprus* human rights

El Salvador war crimes

Eritrea human rights

Germany freedom of religious beliefs

Guatemala* human rights, recognize

Haiti free elections

Honduras* human rights

India* human rights abuses

Iran anti-Semitism

Kosovo* refugees

Kuwait women’s suffrage

Laos’s* human rights

Mexico political repression

Peru* freedom of the press

Russia freedom of the media/press

Sierra Leone* violations of human rights

Sudan* genocide/terrorism

Vietnam* human rights

Yugoslavia political prisoners

Asterisk* indicates country was listed in previous years congressional session

Table VII

Human Rights Country Report Card Resolutions by 107^th Congress

(2001-2002)

Country/region Human Rights Abuse

Afghanistan* basic human rights for women, torture, freedom of religion

Africa democracy/human rights

Belarus* refugee flight, torture

Central Asia* human rights

Chechnya human rights violations

China* discr gays/lesbians/child soldiers, inheritance rights

Congo transition to democracy

Cyprus* community rights

Cuba* political prisoners, honor killings, declassify exec docs

East Timor war crimes

Europe religious tolerance

Iran* rights of women, democracy

Italy illegal detainees

Japan illegal persecution, “comfort women during WWII”

Kazakhstan execution by stoning, sex exploitation, democratization

Laos’s* executions

Pakistan freedom of religion

Palestine persecutions

Russia* strengthen democracy, freedom of the media

Serbia wrongful imprisonment

Sudan* genocide, oppression, slavery

Turkey ethnic conflict, freedom of religion

Ukraine free speech and assembly

USA torture

Uzbekistan protect democracy train Muslims on human rights

Vietnam* torture victims

Zimbabwe human rights, international law

Asterisk* indicates country was listed in previous congressional session

Table VIII

Human Rights Country Report Card Resolutions by 108^th Congress (2002-2003)

Country/region Human Rights Abuse

No specific country Listed: international woman's day, ratify CEDAW

condemn execution, stoning ,establish international tribunal

Africa* acknowledge descendants of slave trade, inheritance rights

Afghanistan* security for women and children

Belarus* fair elections, human rights, rule of law

Burma human rights conflicts

Central Asia* human rights

China* oppression of humans, prisoners of conscience

Cuba* political prisoners, poor human rights

France freedom of religion

Hong Kong “need for freedom”

India child labor

Indonesia end human rights abuses

Iran* religious freedom, rights of women

Iraq prosecution of Iraqi war criminals

Israel solidarity with US in war against terrorism

Japan* acknowledge, “Comfort women” WWII

Kosovo consolidate democratic self government

Laos’s* religious liberty, democratic reform, freedom

Libya ceasefire between Liberians and Liberia for Democracy

Mexico illegal killings

N. Ireland human rights and violence

N. Korea respect human rights, promote human rights

Russia* comply with democracy if a member of G8

Rwanda remember victims of genocide 1994

Saudi Arabia recognize human rights, absence of religious freedom

Syria violations of human rights

Sudan* attacking civilians abolish slavery

Turkey* release political prisoners

Ukraine* promote democracy

USA* detainees from Afghanistan, Iraq, establish living wage

>

>

Asterisk indicates country was listed on previous year’s congressional session

VII. Research Methods

The US congressional resolutions represent with little doubt, the fact that they seriously consider human rights not only in domestic policy situations, but in all nations and territories without exception. Democratic institutions such as the US Congress are proud agencies with strong moral and legal obligations to protect their constituent’s interest as well as international policy. They are integral agents of US foreign policy through the “power of the purse”. The congress has a duty to introduce and establish US policy abroad. Because of this accountability to the people by default the US has to be concerned with all human rights issues for all peoples of the world in every nation. This awesome power and assumed responsibility to lead and support human rights, in various countries, begins with congressional resolutions which are hoped to eventually form international relations policy or a law.

The methods used to quantify and qualify the data gathered for this thesis is comprised mainly of comprehensive comparisons of Ngo activism campaigns and US Congressional resolutions. The information relating to the Ngo's was available on each of the official websites for each Ngo respectively. Official Ngo publications were also consulted to verify the accuracy of the information reported on the organizations official websites. Ngo field monitors and employees prepare human rights abuse data. Some human rights abuse data and statistics are readily available and invaluable while preparing this thesis and in discovering preliminary conclusions.

This research process has taken the form of a content analysis of the human rights data collected from three official Ngo internet websites, Ngo print publications, and the various human rights abuse congressional resolutions. Human rights reports and activism campaigns available on the official internet sites for each of the three respective Ngo's were perused thoroughly for content. Each Ngo has official print publications, which were cross-referenced for accuracy to ensure the “official” internet websites contained up to date and verifiable missions in each NGo’s official print publications. These were resources such as Human Rights, Human Wrongs, and an official publication in support of Amnesty International published by Oxford University Press in 2003. In addition, I consulted a print publication by the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights(LCHR) called Critique. In this publication, a review was conducted of the US State Departments Country Reports on Human Rights practices. This book was published in 1995 by the LCHR. Finally, an extensive publication by Human Rights Watch entitled World Report which was published in 2003 provided a brilliant and informative cross reference to the mission and scope of Human Rights Watch as well as an official endorsement of their internet website addresses which is one of the most important portions of my content analysis.

If the Ngo made an official statement, prepared an activist campaign, or otherwise prepared a country report for the country cited to have human rights abuses occurring on their official internet website, it was a positive identification of a human rights issue for that country in that year. The content analysis also closely examined the human rights language used in eight consecutive US congressional sessions. This process allowed for further comparison of congressional resolutions for human rights issues with NGO country reports, and activist campaign respectively.

All three types of Ngo activity monitoring reporting systems categorized one issue for purposes of quantifying this data. The result for analysis is a ratio or percentage of issues per congressional resolution, (IPCR). This ratio is indicative of a percent of Ngo human rights issues that mirrored the same issues for that congressional session.

The larger the percentage for that congressional session the more frequently the Ngo is citing the same abuse as the US congress. A preponderance of Ngo human rights language identifies the issues in those countries during those congressional sessions. Table X represents a culmination of the findings for this content analysis and provides compelling evidence to support my thesis.

Table X

>

Human Rights Report Card by Congressional Resolutions

>

108^th Congress AI (IPCR)* HRF (IPCR) HRW (IPCR)

29 countries 79% 31% 55%

107^th Congress AI HRF HRW

26 countries 81%19% 73%

106^th Congress AI HRF HRW

26 countries 69% 31% 80%

105^th Congress AI HRF HRW

24 countries 58% 15% 67%

104^th Congress AI HRF HRW

17 countries 59%notavail 53%

103rd Congress AI HRF HRW

18 countries not avail not avail 67%

102^nd Congress AI HRF HRW

25countries not avail/not avail 80%

101^st Congress AI HRF HRW

30 countries not avail not avail 70%

*(IPCR) = (Ngo issues per congressional resolutions) (percent or ratio) calculated by adding the number of Ngo mentions of specific human rights abuses per congressional session and divide by number of human rights related congressional resolutions found within that particular session

Analysis

Table X unquestionably illustrates that my hypothesis that Ngo human rights reporting has a significant correlation to congressional human rights reporting. The high percentages of concurring human rights related campaigns, country reports, and activist campaigns overwhelmingly concur with the language contained in the congressional resolutions. Each individual Ngo website contained comprehensive compilations of human rights information for comparison (Amnesty International, 2004).

There are numerous interesting trends indicated within this data that reflect reasons for choosing each of the three Ngo's respectively. AI is the oldest human rights group and has headquarters in the United Kingdom. For the purpose of this thesis I was mostly interested in evaluating the correlation between these three Ngo's and the US congress, it was however interesting to see the emphasis the congress had considered for each Ngo's compilation of human rights information respectively.

A brief comparison indicates that with the exception of the 107^th and 108^th congress respectively, Human Rights Watch, the US based human rights group, illustrated the most salient issues the US congress chose to present resolutions for in the 101st through 106^th congressional sessions. Amnesty International had the highest percentage of issues represented in the US congress for the 107^th and 108^th Congress. HRF did not have high percentages of salient issues for the congressional resolutions in which they had reported abuses. Some significance related to this finding is that HRF

Mandates reflect civil and judicial related human rights issues. These issues are appropriate for other US based governmental agencies to take action upon but are still relevant to the scope and authority of the US congress. HRW and AI are much more in tune with human rights issues of an international scope that are arguably in the scope and purpose of the US congress mandate to represent larger more international issues and take action as they would see fit.

In an effort to more conclusively qualify and quantify these conclusions, additional research will enhance the significance of the resolutions particularly if they became laws or affected foreign policy in a measurable way. There are UN groups that help identify human rights issues as well as US based country reports issued by the US State Department. This information can overlap and it may be hard to identify exactly which organization evaluated and reported which human rights issue first. Are the issues usually cyclical in that there is a report from year to year until a resolution or a response from concerned actors occurs? This question is still to be answered. The conclusions are clear however and they have been adequately introduced through my content analysis and comparative methods of political science research.

There is a vast network of human rights “machinery” to use a coined phrase of a scholar mentioned earlier in this paper, involved in the never-ending task of identifying, reporting and conducting research into human rights matters globally. Although it may be bold to say that these three organizations are the only groups to influence the US congress on these matters, to refute the extent to which they are not the only groups would require additional research to quantify data from other human rights reporting agencies. The significant use of resolutions in the US congress for each yearly activist campaign and congressional session respectively is significant evidence to support my hypothesis.

However, it is still difficult to say exactly which Ngo or reporting agency that Congress is referring to while excluding others that may be reporting upon overlapping information. Van Tujijl suggests that “particularly, during the last 25 years, Ngo's have contributed to international and national discourse on issues of global scope, such as the eradication of poverty and the promotion of gender equality, peace, sustainable development and human rights” (van Tuijl 1999, ). This is an inherent argument that does require further research to strengthen these findings

Conclusion

Human rights scholars and political scientists are particularly interested in the relationship between Ngo's and government bodies not only in the US but also internationally. Not long ago two British scholars Nicholas Wheeler and Timothy Dunne indicate in there essay regarding human rights theory, that it is necessary that “a critical approach to security that places human rights at the center of theory and pr axis, reflecting the fundamental indivisibility of security and human rights”. (Dunne, Wheeler, 2004, 9) What they are trying to discuss are the various discourses surrounding human rights theory and practice. Without straying too far from the significance of the findings in this thesis, it is important to mention exactly how important security is not only to nation states, but also to international world order.

Dunne and Wheeler are convinced that you cannot have security if you do not address human rights. I agree which is to say this discourse further strengthens the importance and the significance that the US congress is all too aware of human rights discourse.

HRW, in late 1970 began to monitor Russian human rights abuses the result of the famous Helsinki Accords. There importance as an agency with monitoring and reporting prowess has grown significantly not only in scope, but also in mission and importance to human rights protection internationally. HRF has been the rock of Gibraltar in helping to solidify and codify civil rights laws not only in the US but internationally as well.

AI’s mission is now over 40 years old and mature. AI was awarded the 1977 Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of its unique role to further human right advocacy. Michael Posner recognizes this in his insightful essay that several key US based human rights organizations including Helsinki Watch (Human Rights Watch, and the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights (HRF) were founded during this period. (Posner 1995, 134) This is a significant finding to support my hypothesis and conclusion that Ngo’s are extremely significant to international relations decision making for the US Congress and UN bodies internationally.

Muria Kruger further enhances this point regarding a mission to explore Norms for Commentary, “At the 2003 meetings of both the working group and the Sub-Commission, many Ngo's and others made public statements in support of the Norms; including Amnesty International; Christian Aid, Human Rights Advocates, Human Rights Watch, and The Lawyers Committee for Human Rights (HRF). (Weissbrodt, Kruger, 2003, 906)

Clarke and Feinerman recognize these Ngo’s in a note from there essay regarding criminal rights in China. “For an excellent and well informed discussion of many of the issues and institutions mentioned only briefly here, see Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, Criminal Justice with Chinese characteristics.” (New York: Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, 1993) (Clarke, Feinerman, 1995, 140)

Rita Maran essay analyzes international human rights in the US and finds “Ngo’s are not intimidated by powerful countries, in October of 1998, Amnesty International launched a worldwide campaign focusing on human rights abuses in the US; it came as something of a shock to a public more accustomed to AI campaigns that target other countries.” “The campaign, “rights for all”, added the US to the list of countries that includes Turkey, China, Sudan, Indonesia, and Columbia which over the years performed extensive human rights campaigns (Maran, 1998, 1)

Fiona Robinson when speaking of Ngo's philosophical and practical controversies determines that “the theoretical traditions informing different kinds of rights cannot be extricated from the political agendas of states-in this case, the push from many western states towards the liberalization of trade, production and finance in the contemporary period. She also argues that together, these theoretical arguments and political priorities have inevitably meant a systematic downgrading of the importance of economic and social rights by western states and global civil society. (Robinson, 2003, 82) Robinson’s notion however is not advanced by the findings in this research, but these social rights are often a topic of concern when evaluating the significance of what types of resolutions are being included on the congressional agendas.

International relations scholars and human rights scholars have given credence to these Ngo's in their professional publications which lends further validity and significance to their mission. These organizations have reputations as leaders and experts in their fields. The work these agencies conduct has significant implications for international relations, international law, human rights abuse identification, and global and economic security.

All too often on the ground, the “defenders” are literally in harms way to gather the information they use to compile there lengthy and significantly important reports. The danger element for those individuals is all too often unmentioned in the human rights discourse; and it is not usually public discourse.

Nevertheless, the US has two large Ngo ’s within its border, and the other western power, the United Kingdom has AI at home. This in itself is worthy of lengthy analysis and contains obvious implications as to the importance the west has to ensure continued democracy.

According to Heiner Bielefeldt, the most prominent contemporary representative of an essentialist “Western” understanding of human rights, however, is Samuel Huntington, the prophet of the danger of a “Clash of Civilizations”. In Huntington’s global political map, human rights as well as democracy, liberalism, and political secularism, belong exclusively to western civilization. (Bielefeldt, 2000, 91) Obviously, in his critique Bielfeldt’s essay does not necessarily support Huntington’s outline for this clash of civilizations nor does he consider Huntington’s human rights and western theory arguments to be accurate. This notion, Huntington’s book, however, is an exercise in a freedom of expression guaranteed by the UDHR that both Huntington and Bielefeldt both enjoy today.

Shannon Lindsey Blanton indicates in her publication that Neo-liberals counter that respect for human rights and democratic governance is an important concern in US foreign policy. (Blanton 2000, 123) This is arguably completely accurate largely evidenced by the sheer numbers of congressional resolutions found within the archives of the US congress. The western model is the human rights baseline while other theorists compete to further the notion of universality often cited as a myth at best.

According to Lee M. Caplan’s “Normative Hierarchy Theory“, when human rights scholars discuss international law, the debate heats up further, despite the fact that modern international law has largely discarded the classic notion of inherent state rights, the “fundamental right” rationale has exhibited surprising resiliency” (Caplan 2003, 748).

Although political human rights theory is often a matter of debate when discussing human rights in general, the underlying notions of protection of categorized human rights from the UDHR are articles of significant importance to human rights and international lawyers worldwide.

This notion is a direct spillover to the missions of Ngo’s. Furthermore, the fact that Ngo's are based within nation states borders indicates a countries willingness to accept human rights missions that parallel the principles of a democratic society. They also illustrate further, the importance of western international power. That is to say, there is a presumption to realize the significance of those Ngo’s to the concept of the ultimate importance of humanity missions, as well as the significance and role supranational and nation-state governments must take, when human rights abuses occur. It is a duty filled with quantifiable political and moralistic obligations of a democracy, to protect and represent all people .

Ngo’s and the US Congress validate the importance of this significant notion, but have not yet met all the obvious challenges. Nevertheless, the intent and mechanisms are in place to support the UDHR and UN human rights mandate. They are limited only by nation-states governments’ willingness to go past the normal threshold of acceptable human rights interference or non-interference with state sovereignty.

References

Abbreviated Version of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 2004. Internet. Available from:

http://www.ykliitto.fi/ourcomhr/2whatare.html/ ;

Accessed June 1, 2004

About Amnesty International 2004. Internet. Available from: http://web.amnesty.org/pages/aboutai-index.eng,

Accessed May 12, 2004

Adjei, Cyril, “Human Rights Theory and the Bill of Rights Debate”, the Modern Law Review. (1995): 17-36

Amnesty International -Act Now-Worldwide Appeal, All Active Appeals.2004.Internet. Available from: http://www.web.amnesty.org/web/wma.nsf/active?openview&start=8.5;

Accessed June 1, 2004

Amnesty International, Statute of Amnesty International.2004. Internet. Available from:http://web.amnesty.org/web/web.nsf/print/aboutai-statute-eng Accessed: June 1, 2004

Annan, Kofi.1998. UN Secretary General September 14, 1998. NGO/DPI Conference. Human Rights First Preface.2004. Internet.

Available from: http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/defenders_hrd_un_declare/hr d.declare; Accessed June 1, 2004

Bielefeldt, Heiner. 2000. “Western versus “Islamic” Human Rights Conceptions: A Critique of Cultural Essential-ism in the Discussion on Human Rights”, Political Theory, (Feb) 90-121

Blanton, Shannon Lindsey. 2000. “Promoting Human Rights and Democracy in the Developing World: U.S. Rhetoric versus U.S. Arms Exports”. American Journal of Political Science. (Jan) 123- 131

Campaigns, Current Campaigns.2004.Internet. Available from: http://www.amnesty.org/campaign/

Accessed June 1, 2004

Caplan, Lee M. 2003.State Immunity, Human Rights, and Jus Cogens: A Critique of the Normative Hierarchy Theory” The American Journal of International Relations. (Oct): 741-781

Clarke, Donald C. and James V. Feinerman. 1995. Antagonistic Contradictions: Criminal Law and Human Rights in China. China Quarterly 135-154

Dippel, Horst. 1996. The Changing Idea of Popular Sovereignty in Early American Constitutionalism: Breaking Away from European Patterns. Journal of the Early Republic. (Spring): 21-45

Eichelberger, Clark M. 1947. The United Nations Charter: A Growing Document Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Volume 252, Progress and Prospects of the United Nations. (July): 97-105

E.H.C. 1950. The Declaration of Human Rights, The United Nations Charter and Their Effect on the Domestic Law of Human Rights. Virginia Law Review (Dec): 1059-1084

Fact Sheet No. 2(Ver.).2004. The International Bill of Human Rights. Internet. Available from: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu6/2/fs2.htm; Accessed June 1, 2004

Finkelstein, Lawrence S. 1955. Reviewing the United Nations Charter International Organization, Vol. 9. (May) 213-231

Friedrich, Carl J. 1947. The Ideology of the United Nations Charter and the Philosophy of Peace of Immanuel Kant 1795-1945. The Journal of Politics (Feb):10-30

Harris, Sydney Justin. 1989. Thoughts at Large reprinted in Ann Lander’s Column. The Washington Post. Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations. (Nov) 1979. Internet. Available from: http://www.bartleby.com/73/868.html; Accessed October 15, 2004.

Human Rights First Sitemap. 2004. Internet. Available from: http://Humanrightsfirst.org, Accessed June 1, 2004.

Human Rights Rights Wire. 2004. Internet. Available from: http://www.humannrightsfirst.org/rights.wire.htm; Accessed June 1, 2004

Human Rights Watch, 2003 World Report, Events of 2002. November 2001-November 2002. Human Rights Watch, 2003

Human Rights Watch; Who We Are.2004. Internet. Available from: http://hrw.org/about/whoweare.htmli; Accessed June 1, 2004

Introduction to Human Rights Education, History of Human Rights Timeline.2004. Internet. Available from: http://www.umn.edu/humanrts/peace/peaceedu/binder2.html; Accessed June 1, 2004

Jackson, John H. 2003. Sovereignty-Modern: A new Approach to an Outdated Concept. The American Journal of International Law (Oct): 782-802

Lauren, Paul Gordon. 1983. First Principles of Racial Equality: History and the Politics and Diplomacy of Human Rights Provisions in the United Nations Charter. Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 5, No 1. (Feb)1-26

Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, Critique Review of the US Department of States Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1994. 1994: Lawyers Committee for Human Rights

Lincoln, Abraham. 1953. Speech at Chicago Illinois, July 10, 1858. The collected works of Abraham Lincoln ed. Roy P. Basler, 493 Internet. Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations. Available from: http://www.bartleby.com/73/1761.html; Accessed: October 15, 2004

Maran, Rita. 1999. International Human Rights in the U.S.: A Critique. Social Justice, Vol. 26. (49) Internet. Available from: Questia Online Library. http://www.questia.com/pm.qst?a=cd=5001290279; Accessed : June 1, 2004

Mayer, Kenneth R. and David T. Canon. 1999.

The Dysfunctional Congress? The Individual Roots of an Institutional Dilemma. West view Press

Posner, Michael. 1995. Rally Round Human Rights. Foreign Policy.

133-139

Pollock, Alexander J. 1969. The South West Africa Cases and the Jurisprudence of International Law. International Organization. (autumn) 767-787

Robinson, Fiona. 2003. NGOs and the Advancement of Economic and Social Rights: Philosophical and Practical Controversies. International Relations 79-96Internet. Available from http://ire.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/17/1/79: copyright Sage publications

Roosevelt, Theodore. 1926. Address at the Sorbonne, Paris France, April 23, 1910 Citizenship in a Republic. The Strenuous Life, The works of Theodore Roosevelt, National Ed: 515-516 Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations. 1989 Internet. Available from: http://www.bartleby.com/731/867.html; Accessed: Oct 15, 2004

Roth, Kenneth. 2004. Defending Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights: Practical Issues Faced on International Human Rights Organization. Human Rights Quarterly: 63-73

Tudorov, Ignatieff, Singer, Bindman, Spivak, Sereney, Sontag, Hoffman, Owen, eds. 2003. In Support of Amnesty International, Human Rights, Human Wrongs. Oxford: University Press

Thomas Legislative Information on the Internet.2004. Bill Summary and Status.2004. Internet. Available from: http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d101query.html, Accessed March 15, 2004

Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 2004. Internet. Available from: http://www.un.org/overview/rights:html; Accessed June 1, 2004

United Nations Human Rights Website. 2004. Internet. Available from: http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/; Accessed June 1, 2004

Van Tuijl, Peter. 1999. NGOs and Human Rights: Sources of Justice and

Democracy, Journal of International Affairs. P 493 copyright 1999. Columbia University School of International Public Affairs, Copyright 2002 Gale Group

Weissbrodt, David, and Muria Kruger.2003. Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regards to Human Rights. The American Journal of International Law. (Oct) 901-922

Wheeler, Nicholas J., Tim Dunne. 2004. We the Peoples: Contending Discourses of Security in Human Rights Theory and Practice. International Relations, 9-23 Internet. Available from: http://ire.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/1/9. Copyright Sage Publications

Wilson, Woodrow. 1924. The Messages and Papers of Woodrow Wilson. Ed. Albert Shaw, Volume 2 p 822 Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations. 1989. Internet. Available from: http://www.bartleby.com/73/871.html. Accessed: October 6, 2004

>

>

>

>