118
agreements, and programs also include human rights considerations, such as public
health, development, and equity, such as the CBD, UNFCCC, and such programs as
the UN SDGs, Agenda 21, and Harmony with Nature.
The agreements, programs, and people of the human rights movement are vast—
yet are they working? Richard Falk, an international law expert and former
U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian
Territories Occupied since 1967 (2008–2014), believes that all of these developments “suggest the emergence of human rights, but not yet its global acceptance as
enforceable law” (Polychroniou 2018). Decades of documents and diplomacy, and
we are merely at “the emergence of human rights”.
The procedural history of the UDHR even shows that “it would not have received
widespread support from leading governments had it been negotiated as a lawmaking treaty with the effect of eroding sovereign rights” (Polychroniou 2018). In
today’s U.N., Secretary General António Guterres believes that a power struggle
among the Security Council, the U.N.’s permanent, veto-holding body, has prevented them from addressing many of our current global crises, “‘the Security
Council doesn’t correspond anymore’ to today’s international power dynamics…
Those powers have struggled—and in many cases failed—to take meaningful collective action on almost all the pressing issues of the day: the suspected genocide
against Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, Russia’s seizure of Crimea, the disaster in
Syria” (Friedman 2018).
All laws—and the punishments for breaking them—are in place to prevent or
deter harm to others. Yet where are the punishments for state’s violating their ethical
and legal duties not to harm others? Enforcement largely belongs to the courts, and
in human rights law, and outside of national implementation, there are several bodies, yet limited by procedural or subject matter jurisdiction, or even ability to enforce
its decisions.
One of the most powerful bodies capable of enforcing human rights law is the
International Criminal Court (ICC). Yet its mandate is narrow, major states are not
parties to its Rome Statute, and they have been criticized for bias. In 2016, the
Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC even expanded the mandate to include environmental crimes, but there has yet to be any action particular to environmental harms
(Sarliève 2018).
Looking at these courts, it seems that even when state actions cause harms, there
is no reliable and consistent global justice system that can hold all states accountable for harms. Therefore, it seems largely up to citizens and civil society organizations, who are often powerless, with the monumental tasks of demanding protections
for human rights from their and other states, placing environmental harms within
human rights, demanding accountability when those rights are violated, and
demanding a change in their government if the harm continues. Falk believes that,
“It is civil society that has tried to keep the ‘human’ side of human rights as integral
to the protective mission, while governments are again limiting their view of rights
to the ‘rights’ side as an entitlement of a national citizenry, especially those who are
native born” (Polychroniou 2018). And so, the harms often continue unabated.
K. A. Gwiazdon
agreements, and programs also include human rights considerations, such as public
health, development, and equity, such as the CBD, UNFCCC, and such programs as
the UN SDGs, Agenda 21, and Harmony with Nature.
The agreements, programs, and people of the human rights movement are vast—
yet are they working? Richard Falk, an international law expert and former
U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian
Territories Occupied since 1967 (2008–2014), believes that all of these developments “suggest the emergence of human rights, but not yet its global acceptance as
enforceable law” (Polychroniou 2018). Decades of documents and diplomacy, and
we are merely at “the emergence of human rights”.
The procedural history of the UDHR even shows that “it would not have received
widespread support from leading governments had it been negotiated as a lawmaking treaty with the effect of eroding sovereign rights” (Polychroniou 2018). In
today’s U.N., Secretary General António Guterres believes that a power struggle
among the Security Council, the U.N.’s permanent, veto-holding body, has prevented them from addressing many of our current global crises, “‘the Security
Council doesn’t correspond anymore’ to today’s international power dynamics…
Those powers have struggled—and in many cases failed—to take meaningful collective action on almost all the pressing issues of the day: the suspected genocide
against Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, Russia’s seizure of Crimea, the disaster in
Syria” (Friedman 2018).
All laws—and the punishments for breaking them—are in place to prevent or
deter harm to others. Yet where are the punishments for state’s violating their ethical
and legal duties not to harm others? Enforcement largely belongs to the courts, and
in human rights law, and outside of national implementation, there are several bodies, yet limited by procedural or subject matter jurisdiction, or even ability to enforce
its decisions.
One of the most powerful bodies capable of enforcing human rights law is the
International Criminal Court (ICC). Yet its mandate is narrow, major states are not
parties to its Rome Statute, and they have been criticized for bias. In 2016, the
Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC even expanded the mandate to include environmental crimes, but there has yet to be any action particular to environmental harms
(Sarliève 2018).
Looking at these courts, it seems that even when state actions cause harms, there
is no reliable and consistent global justice system that can hold all states accountable for harms. Therefore, it seems largely up to citizens and civil society organizations, who are often powerless, with the monumental tasks of demanding protections
for human rights from their and other states, placing environmental harms within
human rights, demanding accountability when those rights are violated, and
demanding a change in their government if the harm continues. Falk believes that,
“It is civil society that has tried to keep the ‘human’ side of human rights as integral
to the protective mission, while governments are again limiting their view of rights
to the ‘rights’ side as an entitlement of a national citizenry, especially those who are
native born” (Polychroniou 2018). And so, the harms often continue unabated.
K. A. Gwiazdon