The October-November 2017 are the delineating and defining months that present a constitutional moment in the pilgrimage of human rights when some human rights bodies of global and regional visage will sit in judgement at Geneva in Switzerland to assess the degree of States’ compliance with their human rights obligations through the States’ reports, civil society groups’ submissions, country visits, stakeholders’ hearings, webinars, individual representations and conference presentations.
Five UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies (HRTBs) are going to have their meetings throughout October 2017 to have stock-check of States’ observance with their HRTBs mandate on ICCPR-1966, ICESCR-1966, CEDAW-1979, CAT-1984, and CRC-1989. UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and its Social Forum will be in session and UNHRC will organize Seminars, Working Group Discussions and Thematic Panel Discussions on international human rights issues like refugees, migrants, displaced persons, climate change, transnational corporations, prevention of torture, custodial violence, fair trial guarantee, and gender justice and rights. At the regional level, the European Committee on Social Rights (ECSR), European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IACHR) and Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) will have their sessions too.
There are numerous bodies established under the UN Charter for promoting and monitoring compliance with international human rights, namely; the UN Human Rights Council, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Security Council (UNSC), the General Assembly (UNGA), the Secretariat (and the Secretary-General), and the International Court of Justice. Of these, the UN Human Rights Council and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights are the most active in enforcing and monitoring compliance with international human rights. UN System is a Charter-based bodies system that seeks to uphold international human rights in general; while UN Human rights Treaty Bodies (HRTBs) address compliance with human rights in the particular human rights treaty under which they were established. Primarily, the UN human rights system is composed of two kinds of bodies; (a) Charter-based Bodies that includes the Human Rights Council and its subsidiary mechanisms and thematic mandate holder (e.g., the Human Rights Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous People and Human Rights. However, Treaty Bodies – created under the international human rights treaties and made up of independent experts that have the mandate to monitor States parties’ compliance with their treaty obligations.
Therefore, the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Treaty Bodies (HRTBs) are the substratum of global human rights framework whereunder the human rights commitments, and convictions of the national governments are accounted for implementation. The HRTBs system is a synthesis of ideality and reality based on dreams and desires of humanity and ideals and practical realization of fundamental purposes and core principles of the UN Charter. The HRTB system is an unprecedented attainment of the common good in the history of global gratification for human rights beyond the multitude of geopolitical structures in all the countries. The system of HRTBs stands at the heart of the international protection framework for human rights that translate the global standards, universal norms, and democracy of judicial remedies into affirmative action, the primacy of individual development, communitarian and collective welfare of the humanity. The HRTBs mechanism is a budding and promising contrivance that provides authoritative roadmap on human rights standards, makes recommendations how human rights treaties are invoked and applied in specific cases, and apprises the High Contracting parties of what they must do to make sure that all people are free and equal and enjoy the full realization of human rights.
But, there is a pivotal question as to what extent these HRTBs have been pragmatic in accomplishing the global vision of a world wedded with human rights from textual literalism to transformative functionalism that remains to be seen? Therefore, the UN Member-States (UNMS) contemplated and concluded a State-Led Reform Process (SLRP) to strengthen and enhance the effective functioning of the HRTBs system by adopting the Resolution 68/268 in the UN General Assembly on 9 April 2014. Thus, the SLRP is armed with the architecture of ten Expert Committees entrusted with the responsibility to monitor the enforcement of the obligations in the UNMS enunciated under the core human rights treaties with the additional protocols thereto. Primarily, the SLRP process has started by the states to appreciate the objections to fundamental countenances of the HRTBs’ work to surpass the current reform endeavours initiated by the UNHCHR (United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights). Despite the fact that HRTBs reform process ill-starred but its Final Resolution mostly sidesteps the adverse corollaries for their autonomy and independence and makes significant changes that are bound to affect their work in the long run. Nevertheless, there is a need to do a lot to enhance the efficacy of HRTBs in protecting, promoting, and preserving the human rights for all.
HRTBs: Realizations and Contestations
The HRTBs is an integral constituent of international human rights system that ensures the protection by doing an independent and impartial assessment of compliance and enforcement thresholds of human rights obligations on the part of high contracting parties. The HRTBs personnel contacts, coordinate, and conduct negotiations with plenipotentiaries of the high contracting states during Public Review of Periodic Reports of the states regarding implementation of the international human rights treaties in their respective jurisdictions. They also make public and publish all conclusions and recommendations based on the progress achieved by the countries in their human rights obligations. They come to decisions on individual and collective cases of human rights alleged violations, monitor the human rights and offer general comments interpreting the scope of the human rights commitments. The HRTBs outcomes are important to national governments, HRDs (Human Rights Defenders), NHRIs (National Human Rights Institutions), and NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations) who provide and share the information to HRTBs and cite their conclusions, findings, and recommendations in their reports. The HRTBs also disseminate the work of UN-UPR (UN-Universal Periodic Review), UNHRC (UN Human Rights Council), UN Special Procedures, Academics, and the Courts at national, regional and international levels.
Nevertheless, HRTBs are confronted with considerable impediments in their efficacy and primacy in the absence of compelling machinery to implement the human rights mandate in the UNMS. The treaty obligations both substantive and procedural must be implemented by ensuring the conformity with human rights treaty standards inter-alia compliance of the HRTBs recommendations and submission of reports respectively. However, the majority of the UNMS and states parties to international human rights treaties do not submit their reports on time, and few of them do not report at all to UNHRC. But some states do prepare remarkable reports with the help of their domestic human rights expertise, internal HRDs and other stakeholders and countries also try to ensure significant implementation of HRTBs findings with varying degrees. The emplacement of four new HRTBs in the last ten years has posed a new set of challenges that include their ratification and mounting reporting. As of now, the HRTBs did not receive sufficient resources and wherewithal to monitor and regulate their slow functioning in disposing of backlogs of reports and communications. HRTBs experts are under tremendous pressure due to the mounting workload that strains their efficiency and efficacy. These experts and consultants are nominated and elected by the states parties to the human treaties. They are not paid and serve on the HRTBs in their personal capacities without getting adequate support from the Office of the OHCHR (UN High Commissioner for Human Rights). Therefore, the administrative functionalism in the HRTBs structure does not conform to the global standards that made it cynical and indifferent.
HRTBs Reform Peregrination
Having recognized these challenges, the Human Rights Treaty Body reforms have been initiated in 2009 by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay as a cycle of consultations involving the entire stakeholders to strengthen the HRTBs that has come to known as Dublin Process. These plans triggered significant ruminations among the present and past HRTBs academics, consultants, experts, NGOs, NHRIs, UNMS, UN Secretariat and other UN bodies. The Dublin Process completed its mandate in 2011, but a group of States led by Russian Federation raised objections that impugned process had not adequately addressed the concerns of many stakeholders. Consequently, the group successfully pushed the UN General Assembly to start the inter-governmental process based on SLRP structure. Therefore, UN General Assembly adopted a resolution in February 2012 whereunder process was created that was supported by the eighty-five States and sixty-six States abstained including the US from voting. On the Dublin Process, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights published her report in July 2012 and negotiations had started among the States and stakeholders including international civil society institutions and organizations. Consequently, in February 2014 States brokered an agreement that was adopted by the UNGA in April 2014 as a formal resolution.
The Aftermath of the SLRP
The Dublin Process intended to secure the maximum threshold of States compliance with their obligations about reporting and meeting to facilitate the HRTBs to review the UNMS reports in an agreed and stipulated time frame. The High Commissioner for Human Rights has mooted a proposal of adopting the mandatory Master Calendar to ensure the compliance of the States parties to the human rights treaties on every five years, but many States has resisted that. If accepted, the impugned proposal would have doubled the meeting time of the States parties to the human rights treaties, but during SLRP negotiations States raised legal, pecuniary and feasibility challenges and, ultimately, it resulted in a fiasco. Even so, the SLRP has increased the meeting time of the HRTBs by more than 20% during 2012-2015. The average workload of each HRTBs has been determined every two years based on a formula so that there would not be any arrear or accumulation of cases at the cost of other functions and priorities.
Even though the Resolution enhances the HRTBs meeting time, but it does not considerably enhance the total amount of resources reserved for HRTBs. The UN regular budget covers the global funding needs of the OHCHR at a rate of 40 percent approximately. The residue is covered by voluntary contributions from UNMS and other donors. The UN regular budget, approved by the UNGA every two years, is paid by the “assessed contributions” from each Member State that are decided and determined according to a formula that takes into account the size and strength of their respective national economies. The UN’s regular budget should finance all activities mandated by the General Assembly and its subsidiary organs, including the HRC. Further, on an annual basis, the resolution makes provision for creating a capacity-building programme under OHCHR that assists the States upon their request to salvage their problems.
Harmonization of Procedures and Methodologies
The UNHRC’s report impressed upon the HRTBs to harmonize their procedures and methodologies so that their working could be improved. The SLRP or Cross Regional Group (CRG) led by Russian Federation alleged that HRTBs had exceeded treaty briefs in their style of functioning, intangible methods, indulged in political castigation of States and allowing to reference information culled from the civil society institutions like NGOs, etc. Moreover, HRTBs officials resorting to iconoclastic and innovative techniques in developing new procedures to ascribe the States’ policies, general comments, recommendations and enforcement thereof. Consequently, states impressed upon the UNGA to insist on changes to the procedures of the HRTBs and to ensure bigger obsequiousness and primacy to the views of the States. However, many States asked for self-regulation on the part of HRTBs precisely to guarantee impartiality, independence, and honesty in their functions and operations.
The intergovernmental process or SLRP vouches for UN High Commissioner for Human Rights’ proposed procedural reforms whereunder HRTBs are required to harmonize their procedures. SLRP impressed upon the HRTBs that they must conform to their Mandate and respect the positions of the state parties. Therefore, in achieving the larger harmonization, the resolution called for empowering HRTBs’ Chairs to take procedural decisions incommensurate with their prior deliberations with the fellow experts. Thus, the HRTBs’ Chairs have started the deliberations and discussions in this connection. At one fell swoop, the resolution does not put HRTBs member states in a supervisory control position over the HRTBs experts in ways that could have critically cast a shadow upon their inspection of States’ performance in preserving, promoting, and protecting the human rights. However, the resolution does not support a polemical proposal of CRG that contemplated a Code of Conduct for HRTBs experts while ensuring their accountability under a mechanism. As an alternative, it urges the HRTBs to review their Self-Regulatory Guidelines (SRGs) on accountability and independence while keeping in view the States’ concerns.
Improving the Execution and Openness
There is a requirement of enhancing, improving the existing threshold of execution and implementation of HRTBs with transparency in conformity with UN High Commissioner’s objectives to ensure the high quality reporting and enforcing the HRTBs’ recommendations in the municipal jurisdictions of the States parties. However, UNGA Resolution makes a sporadic mention that States to emplace “standing national reporting and coordination mechanisms” to compile reports in consultation with civil society institutions, NGOs, non-state actors and all stakeholders while appreciating and monitoring the HRTBs work and recommendations and their implementation. On the issue of accessibility and openness, UN High Commissioner advocated their enhancement and reflection in the functioning and operations of HRTBs. Further, UNGA Resolution envisages the UN webcasting of HRTBs meetings but, unfortunately, it has been perceived as rhetoric leaving it to OHCHR to arrange its funding. Moreover, it has also recommended that HRTBs should stipulate word limitations to reports and representations made by the NGOs and other civil society groups just to rationalize the cost incurrences. Similarly, UNGA Resolution begs off to entertain the recommendations of the UN High Commissioner regarding promotion and selection of HRTBs experts and consultants.
The ratification of human rights declarations, treaties, and optional protocols must be mobilized on the largest scale to improve upon human rights protection at all levels of nation-states, regional arrangements, and global commitments. Simultaneously, national constitutions, national legislations, public policies and lego-institutional response structure must conform to the HRTBs system. There are many challenges confronting the HRTBs like overstraining of resources due to the proliferation of human rights treaty bodies, States parties reluctance and irregularity in reporting, and mounting individual communications. However, there are some States both from developed and developing a world that is entirely compliant with their reporting obligations, but there is a backlog of reports with the HRTBs. However, if all the States parties start reporting in a disciplined manner and well-stipulated timeframe, HRTBs system might collapse as it is not well-equipped to handle the entire gamut of reporting submissions. The UNGA Resolution 68/268 has been adopted to reflect upon and strengthen the HRTBs system.
It is aptly be put forward that UN General Assembly has been attending, appreciating and addressing many of the HRTBs concerns regarding resources, functioning, and operations but much remain to be tackled to make HRTBs stronger and stouter in responding to emerging human rights violations. UNGA resolution seeks to make HRTBs system more sustainable and sturdier without incurring further UN resources while making optimum utilization of enhanced meeting time slots. However, the requirement for more resources would occur in future owing to the sustainability apprehensions and anxieties as there would be mounting workload of HRTBs disproportionate to the limits of the volunteer experts’ capacity. Thus, rights-holders and stakeholders of the HRTBs must be central to any review of the HRTBs system.
Therefore, currently contemplated reform agenda is insufficient and intangible to meet these challenges posed by the HRTBs. In a nutshell, all stakeholders to the HRTBs structure must pursue the substantive objectives identified in the Dublin Process along with UN High Commissioner’s Report. Hence, the visibility of HRTBs to larger public must significantly be enhanced, reporting quality and regularity of State reports submissions must be increased, proactive implementation of recommendations of the HRTBs, and strengthening the efficacy of HRTBs membership while upholding the accessibility, accountability, independence and transparency of the HRTBs system to all the stakeholders and civil society groups. HRTBs require these indispensable, inevitable and inescapable changes so that HRTBs could make a greater contribution to the protection, preservation, and promotion of human rights and civil liberties across the world.
Turkish denial of Armenian genocide and application of international law for justice
Authors: Punsara Amarasinghe and Anastasia Glazova*
Exactly one hundred and four years ago world witnessed the first systematic genocide when the international law had adopted no specific legal remedies to prevent such atrocities or decades before Raphael Lemkin coined the term “Genocide” in 1944. The calamity that befell Armenian people lived in Ottoman Empire have been widely discussed as one of the macabre events recorded in human history as it took more hundred thousands of Armenian lives, yet up to this day Turkish government has denied the events took place in Turkey against Armenians. The facts which paved the path to slaughter Armenians were filled with the rise and of nationalism in Ottoman Turkey and also it fair to assume Armenian people were caught between the two belligerent powers of Russia and Turkey and later took the pretext to considering some Armenians were loyal to Russia as a good strategy to carry out their massacre. The Armenian genocide was executed under the chief motive of eliminating the whole Armenian population from Ottoman territory.
The atrocities against Armenians were given legitimacy as Turkish government promulgated temporary law of deportation and temporary law of expropriation and confiscation, which granted a legitimate way to get rid of Armenian population and also to eventually to acquire their properties as well. After the defeat of Ottoman empire and central European powers in First World War the actions taken by allies in 1919 Paris peace conference against the perpetrators of Armenian genocide. The decision of conducting a trial for the perpetrators was culminated in Treaty of Severes as its article 230 states that the Ottoman Empire “hand over to the Allied Powers the persons whose surrender may be required by the latter as being responsible for the massacres committed during the continuance of the state of war on territory which formed part of the Ottoman Empire on August 1, 1914.” However the allied attempt to establish a proper trial on Armenian genocide was faded into oblivion as the prosecutors found no solid evidence to reprimand Ottoman officers involved in Armenian genocide and eventually most of them were walked free without being charged.
Most interesting question pertinent to Armenian genocide remaining today is the ambiguity of assessing the planned intention of Ottoman government to exterminate Armenian population systematically. According to Article 2 of Genocide Convention adopted in 1948, the element of genocide can be proven when such acts were committed against national, ethnical, racial or religious group” with “the intent to destroy [it] in whole or in part”. The common rhetorical quibble which has been often used to cover the Turkish responsibility over Armenian genocide is that the genocide convention was not existing at that time when those heinous crimes were occurred. However the prohibition of international law is in inherent part of peremptory norms ( JusCogens ) in international law which binds all the states to eliminate such crimes and bring the perpetrators before justice. Regarding the state responsibility of Turkey as the liable party who took the initiatives of obliterating Armenian population from its territory, it is interesting to observe that Ottoman rule was ceased to exist after their defeat of First World War and the emergence of Kemal Ataturk’s secular Turkey denied accepting the responsibilities for such acts occurred in the past and pay compensation for the victim unlike how Germany felt humiliated on their Nazi past after Second World War and adopted a policy of providing compensation for the descendants. Instead of moving to embrace the guiltiness of the past, the republic of Turkey seemed to have negated the factual reality from its masses through various methods.
As an example when the whole Armenian diaspora around the world commemorated 103rd anniversary last year, Turkish president declared bringing genocide charges against Turkey is akin to “blackmailing” his country. Moreover the creating a public discourse about their notorious imperial past of Ottoman Empire has been completely trampled by legal apparatus of Turkey as Article 301 of current penal code of Turkey has penalized criticizing Turkishness as a criminal offence. Many journalists and activists including Turkish bestselling novelist Orhan Pamuk were reprimanded in Turkey under this outrageous section of Turkish penal code, because they had audacity to condemn the atrocities took place in the past against Armenians lived in Ottoman territory.
Tracing the state responsibility of modern Turkey for the acts occurred in the past from international law perspective drives modern day scholars for a labyrinth to seek the connectivity of the past and state responsibility. Legal historian Vahagn Avedian has suggested in his article titled State Identity, Continuity, and Responsibility: The Ottoman Empire, the Republic of Turkey and the Armenian Genocide” the responsibility lies in modern Turkey as it is the continuation of Ottoman Empire and his contention is based on the fact that only some minor changes happened when the republic replaced the empire. He shows many of those accused of war crimes and illegal confiscations were elevated to high positions in the republic and almost none was convicted for the committed internationally wrongful acts.
The lack of solid evidence and constant denial of Turkish government in both past and present has always hindered the threshold of creating genocide charges for the brutal acts committed against Armenian population, nevertheless the evidence left by some witnesses show the exact intent of Ottoman regime to eradicate Armenian community from their empire. As an example the memories written by American consulate in Harput Mr. Leslie Davis provide solid evidence of the horrendous massacre of Armenian civilians in the province of Harput. When it comes to tracing the intentional element of carrying out such heinous acts it is clear that orders stemmed from the authorities of Ottoman Empire to preserve its purity and the background before the events took place demonstrate the fact that Ottomans possessed the clear intention getting rid of its Armenian community. Since the individual responsibility lies in state ambiguity to prove today as all the responsible persons for Armenian genocide are dead and gone, the concern of state responsibility can be an ideal tool to use against Turkey from international legal perspective. In the context of bringing Turkey before justice the role of European Court of Human Rights can be taken as an ideal example as both Turkey and present day Armenia are members of the court. However due to the total absence of cases for the Armenian Genocide, the ECHR could draw arguments from other supranational courts where it is encouraged to foment dialogue between the courts’ judges. Indeed, even functionally specialized tribunals remain part of an integrated and interconnected system and have recourse to the same basic sources of international law.
All in all the attempt of proving Turkey’s responsibility international law by using available remedies through ICJ, ECHR of International Criminal Court seem to be twilight as I pointed above due to lack of clear evidence and other anomalies, yet the justice for the victims only can be rendered by going for a mutual reconciliation between modern state of Armenia and Republic of Turkey. The current camaraderie between France and German has shown us the one bitter enemies can become closer friends through good actions which eventually heal the memories of past and as it has been more than 100 years since this heinous crimes took place against Armenian people, Turkey should at least declare a note of apology for the victims and I believe such an act coming from the state whish was responsible for the actions would make more sense than grappling with vague circumstances under international law to prove justice.
*Anastasia Glazova is a PhD researcher in Faculty of Law in Higher School of Economics in Moscow. Her research areas include international law, international maritime law, law of the sea and international human rights law. She can be reached at angla.1892[at]mail.ru
The clash of human rights ideas between universalism and relativism
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood”. Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.
Human rights from the prism of universalism
After the outbreak of the Second World War, maintaining and in particular, providing a universal set of rules and values of human rights were put forward as one of the basic duties. Universalist approach searches for what is methodical and systematic, tries to enforce the rules, laws, and norms on all of its members so that things can run more resourcefully. In order to promote democracy in terms of human rights should be a pivotal priority of each state. Certainly, the development of a state adequately depends on preserving, and especially the implementation of human rights in civil society. In our current world, human rights are based on two predominant approaches in accordance with regions-East and West, North and South. One of them is universalism, another is cultural relativism. The cutting edge universalism theory of human rights can be founded not only on common law, equity, response to dignity, injustice, and fairness of appreciation, but also capacities of a human being, moral agency, and self-ownership, among other peopleUniversal sets of standards, rules, and values are based on Western countries prospects. The history of universalism can be traced back to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on 10 December 1948, as a pivotal guide to mankind. As a result, The Declaration expressed a novel denotation to the word “universalism.”
The fundamental values and principles highlighting the concept of human rights are of a universal character. Thus, these values and principles referred to the concept of individual liberty and freedoms, the belief in democracy and political rights, the acknowledgment of social and economic rights. “To a large extent, universality is one of the indispensable descriptions of human rights. From this perspective, human rights are civil rights that apply to all humankind and are therefore referred to universal values and rules. All human beings are the possessor of these civil rights, independent from what they actually do, where they come from, where they reside and from their national citizenship, their community, etc. “The universality of human rights is rooted in and also manipulated by the other characteristics of human rights: human rights are categorical (every human being has these rights, they cannot be denied to anyone), democratic (also called egalitarian-every human being has the same rights), individual (human rights apply to every human being as individual and protect the latter from violations by a collective recognizing at the same time the important role of a collective for the individual, they have their own rights to provide themselves sufficiently in social community, such as freedom of living, speech and etc), fundamental (human rights protect basic and essential elements of human continuation) and indivisible (the whole catalog of human rights must be respected, they are complimentary)”.
It would be necessary to emphasize that promoting democracy, providing human rights, individual liberty, national self-determination, and the other values were noted on Woodrow Wilson’s fourteen-point program. The main crux of universalism is the implementation of universal sets of norms, and values along with not only Western countries, but also Eastern, Asian and The Middle Eastern countries, where cultural relativism (mainly moral relativism) dominates and contains its moral and ethical values over people of these countries. Universal human rights are based on Western ideology. It has been argued that universalism on human rights merely referred to Western Imperialism. It put forward some challenges in accordance with the main priorities and prospects of universal human rights. Unquestionably, we apparently realize that countries who reject the universal sets of standards as a policy of Western countries, form some basic values and ethical values based on cultural relativism. Universalism and cultural relativism cannot coincide with each other in terms of diverse moral and universal values.
In our industrialized world, the universal sets of values cannot be wholly implemented to all countries, because of the fact that strong dominance of primordial cultural and ethical values and standards which bolster their places among people within civil society, at the same time reject the universalism of human rights. On the other hand, cultural relativism cannot be accepted as universal moral values for countries. According to providing human rights, universalism is a pivotal approach that has more opportunities than cultural relativism. But, in more cases, we try to percept the today’s realities of the world. In general, as we understand that providing universal human rights have to base on the basic principles and rules within international law, but cultural relativism cannot refer to the rules and norms of international law, because of having predominant cultural and traditional values and norms within its own system. Thus, a related challenge is that the inspirations of human rights do not aid to solve the most disputable issues of non-Western societies. The extreme of which is that the idea of human rights is in many cases, as opposed to the ideas and values of non-Western countries.
In the case of the universality of human rights, there are some challengeable situations along with the implementation and perception of human rights. Since the publication of Pollis and Schwab’s Human Rights: Cultural and Ideological Perspectives in 1979, human rights universalists and cultural relativists have collided in regard to legality and applicability of human rights outside the West within civil society. In their confrontational lead essay, “Human Rights: as Western Construct with Limited Applicability,” the authors argued that “the Western political philosophy upon which the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are based provides only one specific elucidation of human rights, and that this Western notion may not be successfully applied to non-Western areas” due to ideological and cultural differences.
Apart from these, it can be comprehended that Universality of human rights refers to Western cultures, in particular, traditional and moral characters, which can not be implemented to non-Western countries because of having their own cultural and ethical rules and norms. The implementation of universal human rights from the Western perspective to relativist non-Western countries cannot achieve any kind of success in terms of providing human rights sufficiently, because of the fact, universal human rights merely concern on the Western-cultural sets of norms. Thus, in the case of non-Western countries, cultural relativism and universalism can collide with each other in for a range of reasons, for instance, considering moral and ethical standards, attitudes toward human rights, implementation of these rights and etc.
The approach of cultural relativism
Relativism is characterized as a set of views about the connection between morals and culture or humanity. Apart from universalism, cultural relativism is based on morals, ethics, and customs of each human society and differs from one another. Thus, what is the crux of cultural relativism within civil society? Cultural relativism is the vision that all beliefs, traditions, and morals are in respect to the person inside of his own social setting. As such, “right” and “wrong” are society particular; what is viewed as good in one society may be viewed as morally wrong in another, and, since no worldwide standards of morals and ethical behaviors exist, nobody has the privilege to judge another society’s traditions. Moreover, we can not judge someone, or person with his or her cultural values, in particular ethics and morals in society.
Cultural relativism is an aphoristic standard created by Franz Boas and advanced by his successors of human sciences in the 1940s. It was blended with moral relativism during the Meetings of the Commission of Human Rights of the United Countries in setting up the Universal Declaration of Human Rights from 1946-1948. Thusly, the scholastic marvel of cultural relativism grew synchronously with the conception and development of the universal human rights lawful administration. Actually, discussion, cultural relativism within the order of humanities is a heuristic device reflecting the rule that an individual human’s convictions bode well as far as his own particular society, while moral relativism imitates the rule that all societies and all worth frameworks, while unmistakable, are just as substantial.
In 1887, Franz Boas first ascribed this principle as “… civilization is not something complete but is relative, and our thoughts and conceptions are true only so far as our civilization goes”, whereby, he formed an adage of anthropological research.
According to some analysts, cultural relativism sees nothing naturally wrong with any cultural appearance. As a consequence, the primordial Mayan practices of self-mutilation and human sacrifice are neither good nor bad; they are simply cultural distinguishing, analogous to the American custom of shooting fireworks on the Fourth of July. Human sacrifice and fireworks -both are merely diverse products of separate socialization. Cultural relativism engenders in each human society differently. Cultural relativity is an irrefutable fact that ethical rules and social institutions produce astounding cultural and historical variability. Cultural relativism is an authoritative opinion that holds that (at any rate some) such contrasts are absolved from legitimate criticism by outsiders, a precept that is firmly bolstered by ideas of mutual independence and self-determination.
Moral judgments, notwithstanding, would appear to be basically widespread, as proposed by Kant’s definite imperative as well as by the common sense difference in the middle of the principled and self-intrigued activity. The perception of human rights in the modern world from the prism of both universalism and cultural relativism is entirely complicated. At the same time, they showed their assumptions and ideas with a radical approach. In this case, two extreme positions can be considered in each called radical universalism and radical cultural relativism. Radical cultural relativism holds the opinion that culture is the sole wellspring of the legitimacy of ethical rights and rules. Radical universalism emphasized that culture is unimportant to the legitimacy of moral rights and principles, which are universally lawful and valid.
Furthermore, the main arms of the cultural relativism are typified as strong and weak cultural relativism. How were they considered under the rules of human society? – Strong cultural relativism refers to culture as a vital source of the legitimacy of ethical rights, in particular, morality and rules. The standards of Universal human rights, however, serve in conjunction with ensuring on potential excesses of relativism. At its utmost extreme, just short of radical relativism, strong cultural relativism would recognize a few basic rights with virtual universal requests, but allow such a wide range of variation for most rights that two entirely reasonable sets might overlap only somewhat. Weak cultural relativism also cites that culture may be an imperative well of the legitimacy of an ethical right and rules. Universality is at first assumed, however, the relativity of human instinct, groups, and rights serve as to verify on potential abundances of universalism. In some cases, weak cultural relativism would perceive an extensive arrangement of by all appearances universal human rights, but permit intermittent and entirely constrained neighborhood varieties and special cases. 
Hence, the cultural impacts on human civilization are unalienable, regarding the fact in civil societies had been formed by the effects of various types of moral and ethical powers, in particular, primordial traditions belonged to each human being. Thus, in today’s world, the realities of East and West, North and South are irrefutable. Moreover, there can be slight uncertainty that there are important, structurally determined cultural and in many cases, moral distinctions for example, between the basic “personality and natures “of men and particularly, women in modern western and traditional Islamic or Muslim societies. Thus, human nature formed the basic personality of each human being within his or her civil community. Relativism centers on the thoughts of moral self-sufficiency and public self-determination. Regarding cultural relativism, it also establishes the internal and external effects of morality.
The main features of internal evaluations were given by your own society, but the external evaluation focus would seem universal judgments that can be affected by western or other foreign societies. Furthermore, moral judgment by their society is normal and universal for its human nature. Because of the fact that he or she belongs to this civil society which is based on its cultural and moral characteristics and for this reason, moral judgments given by his or her own society center on their genesis and historically specific contingent.
Pre-colonial African village, Native American tribes, and traditional Islamic or Muslim social community focus on the native morality of cultural relativism. Universal human rights are strange to their community, the reason why, they merely concern on their native traditional values, because of the fact that the communal self-determination, in particular, moral self-sufficiency engenders cultural and social variability of human nature within their own community. Long-established traditional cultures of Africans for example, usually were powerfully constitutional, with compulsory major restrictions on civil society. These kinds of central limitations also deprived them of the main universal and identified norms and values of the contemporary world. Thus, it can lead to strong despotism and violence in this community. According to cultural relativism, it can be essential to mention some Asian, the Middle Eastern and Latin American countries through considering their own conventional values and morality within the system of human rights.
Regarding Pakistan, the main reference in its National Report is contained in the schooling procedures underlined by the government, in which it proclaims that the “new National Educational modules has tried endeavours to incorporate standards, in particular values of human rights, maintaining assorted qualities and distinction alongside universal human rights that In the case of Pakistan, CEDAW was unequivocally worried about not only pervasive patriarchal positions and attitudes but deep-seated conventional and cultural stereotypes related to the roles and responsibilities of women and men in the family, in the place of work and in civil society.
In accordance with cultural values and traditions, in Iraq, young ladies are often deprived of education after 12 to 15 years in provincial areas; however, the country’s educational ministry still remains muted and latent with respect to the procedures of schooling to be taken to set up the compulsory law of education. Apart from this, the “violence against women and girls continues to be one of the critical problems in this region. Women in these areas are undergone some kinds of violence by armed forces, Iraqi policies, and militias. On the other hand, the extensive functionality of the death punishment, torment, and inhuman behaviors and standards are widely practiced in Iraqi prisons, therefore, the severe influences of the myriad breaches of the rules of war by Iraq armed forces, groups, and policies have lingered in civil society for a long time. Thus, in the case of Iraq’s cultural values and morality, it can never be justified in terms of gender equality, because this country only validates itself to engender violence and antagonist actions toward its society, in particular women. Why? – Is the maintenance of human rights composed of these types of behaviors? In this region, promoting antagonist manners and behaviors toward society, rather than upholding universal sets of values and standards of human rights can not give meaningful benefits to this country.
In addition, it should be emphasized that at the same time, Israel articulated its anxieties regarding, severe methods of capital punishment, discrimination, violence, in particular, forced marriages methodically engaged against women and girls.
When it comes to Latin American countries, it can be useful to focus on the traditional manners and roots of Cuba. According to this country, the UN Compilation gives data to form autonomous human rights institutions and associations and boost contributions to the international system. Cuba experiences torture, discrimination, prison circumstances, arbitrary detentions, domestic violence, the conditions of prostitution and other forms of violence against women. In the instance of Cuba, the UN promotes basically substantial reforms on human rights. According to this situation, in 2006, “Cuba tried to mention its motivation in order to support cultural rights and the respect for cultural diversity and the promotion of peace for the satisfaction of all human rights.
However, Cuba stands in the same position in order to maintain conventional rights and international-third generation values and standards in human rights issues.” Hence, basic cultural differences cannot justify the universal values and standards of human rights. In most cases, cultural relativism leads to the conditions of despotism and antagonism, in Asian, the Middle Eastern and some parts of Latin American countries, through these methods, it can not maintain human rights within society. If cultural relativism merely focuses on strong authentic moral and ethical basis rather than supporting the alternative methods of providing human rights universally, these types of roots can lead to colossal gaps between Eastern and Western societies in the contemporary world order. Eventually, we tend to realize that reciprocal respect and understanding between people can cause the inclusive implementation of human rights from both universalism and relativism perspective in civil society. Through reaching to reconciliation processes of the two main approaches of human rights, our civil society can create relative universal sets of values and behaviors by taking into account both relativism and universalism.
We try to comprehend that many Eastern and Asian countries will not justify the strong universal basis and sets of human rights in future life expectancy. Regarding the fact that their community, in particular, each human being depends on the authentic self-governing rules, traditional set of values and basis. Transmitting from these kinds of values into the burly standards of human rights can be arduous for them that how can they behaved under the rules of these common standards. Universalism is not about everything for them, but at the same time, if universal sets of values can be implemented in some Eastern and Asian countries, firstly, their social communities have to eager to alter their customary ethical and moral natures into the central standards of human rights take on universal nature of human rights.
 Universality of Human Rights, Dr. Peter Kirchschlaeger, Co-Director of the Centre of Human Rights Education, University of Teacher Education of Central Switzerland – Lucerne, http://www.theewc.org/uploads/files/Universality%20of%20Human%20Rights%20by%20Peter%20Kirchschlaeger2.pdf
 Michael Goodhart*, Human Rights Quarterly 25 (2003) 935–964 © 2003 by The Johns Hopkins University Press Origins and Universality in the Human Rights Debates: Cultural Essentialism and the Challenge of Globalization, pp 4-5, http://hmb.utoronto.ca/HMB303H/weekly_supp/week-02/Goodhart_Cultural_Essentialism.pdf.
 Franz Boas 1887 “Museums of Ethnology and their classification” Science 9: 589
 http://www.gotquestions.org/cultural-relativism.html , what is cultural relativism?
 Cultural Relativism and Universal Human Rights Author(s): Jack Donnelly Source: Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 6, No. 4 (Nov., 1984), pp. 400-419 Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/762182.
 Cultural Relativism and Universal Human Rights Author(s): Jack Donnelly Source: Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 6, No. 4 (Nov., 1984), pp. 406-414 Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/762182.
 http://www.univie.ac.at/bimtor/dateien/pakistan_upr_2008_info.pdf, Human Rights Council Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review Second session Geneva, A/HRC/WG.6/2/PAK/1 of 14 April 2008, Para. 74.
 A/HRC/WG.6/7/IRQ/3 1, http://www.univie.ac.at/bimtor/dateien/iraq_upr_2010_summary.pdf, Human Rights Council, Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review Seventh session Geneva, 8-19 February 2010;
 A/HRC/WG.6/4/CUB/1 4 November 2008, http://www.univie.ac.at/bimtor/dateien/cuba_upr_2008_report.pdf Human Rights Council Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review Fourth session, Geneva, 2-13 February 2009.
The 21st Century: The Century of Reforming The UN Security Council
Reforming the UN SC with the veto power only of the UN Secretary General and a new article of the UN Charter “On the Rights of Nations to Self-Determination” will eliminate the aggressive fervor of the USA, Russia and China on inciting regional and world wars on our Planet.
On July 19, 2017, at the meeting of the UN General Assembly devoted to the reform of the UN SC, the Deputy Permanent Mission of Russia to the UN V. Safronov raised the issue of the reform of the UNSC. He proposes to expand the composition of the Security Council at the expense of only the countries of Asia and Africa, which is a formal attitude towards the UN, as the most important organ in the fate of the countries of the world in maintaining international peace and security on our planet.
In my opinion, the expansion of the UN SC should cover the most important countries from all continents of our Planet. At the same time, in the absence of members rights to the veto, which will allow discussing in the UN SC the most important problems of the countries of the world with relevant resolutions for the reality of their execution.
Below I cite my draft reform of the UN SC, which differs radically from the proposal of the representative of the Russian Federation, the United States and other countries to the United Nations.
REFORMING THE UN SC WITH THE RIGHT OF THE VETO OF THE UNSC
Mankind is at the forefront of a direct collision between the United States and Russia or China on the basis of their geopolitical and geostrategic interests in their regions and countries of the world. As a fact, the UN SC has long been in the position of a “Chinese observer” – a passive observer of the aggressive actions of the leading empires with their invasions into the countries of the world, beginning in the middle of the XX century to this day in Asia, Europe and the Middle East.
And as the consequences of these invasions, there is complete ruin of the regions and the infrastructure of countries, the massive death of civilians and the flow of refugees, which, in turn, leads to global problems in Europe and the USA.
This bloody large-scale process continues to this day since 2000 year, where, finally, from 2015 year, the interests of the powers of the USA and Russia collided directly with their heads in the Middle East in order to display their monopolistic geostrategic positions in specific regions of the world. In turn, the confrontation between the US and Russia is urgently needed by the time of the shaky regime of President Vladimir Putin, when the material condition of the population and the country’s infrastructure is cracking along all the seams with a weak economy.
A rhetorical question arises: what is the leading role of the UN and its main body of the Security Council, as an international organization of all countries of the world? The UN was created, on the one hand, to prevent world and regional wars with disastrous consequences due to Man’s fault, as heads of leading empires and countries of the world. On the other hand, to prevent natural disasters and disasters for the population of the Planet, such as nuclear power plant explosions, tsunamis, earthquakes, meteorite falls, landslides, tectonic collisions and much more.
The creation of the UN in 1945 pursued international cooperation of the countries of the world in political, economic, scientific, cultural, sports and other types of relations, regardless of their political, social, national and religious conditions.
The basis of the UN SC is the primary responsibility for maintaining peace and security in the countries of the world, suppressing not only regional and world wars, but also separatism on interethnic and interreligious soil. At the same time, all UN members are obliged to obey the decisions of the UN SC and their implementation.
A rhetorical question arises: why does the UN SC, from the date of its emergence to this day more than 70 years, fail to fulfill its direct responsibilities for maintaining peace and security, against the background of the regional wars in the world? Why does the UN SC not consider the causes of the emergence of aggressive bloody wars at the level of civilian deaths, mass refugees and the devastation of their cities by major powers? Why does the UN SC not give a proper assessment of the actions of countries like the USA, the former USSR, its successor to Russia and other specific countries of the world? Why does the UN SC not control over the years the course of action of the resolutions on specific countries, which it adopted, and does not put forward at the same time sanctions? Who and why is interested in this when the bill for these wars is no longer in millions and billions of dollars, but in the end in trillions? Whereas the US debt is $ 23 trillion, when the largest historical power of the USSR disappears, and the economy of its successor to Russia today is not detached from the muddy bottom.
According to the UN Charter, countries of the world have authorized the UN SC to “investigate any dispute or situation that may lead to international friction or cause a dispute to determine whether the continuation of this dispute or situation could not threaten the maintenance of international peace and security.” However, even today, the UN SC ignores all bloody events in the countries of the world. What is the reason for not fulfilling the duties of the UN SC?
As a vivid example, the outcome of the Second World War in early 1945 was predetermined by the defeat of Nazi Germany, and at the same time aggressive Japan, and does not give a proper assessment of these US nuclear strikes with the massive deaths of more than 200 thousand people and the complete devastation of two cities in Japan. And this, in turn, allows the former USSR in 1961 to provoke the Cuban nuclear crisis with the United States, and then its successor Russia to threaten nuclear ashes for the United States and European countries.
There was also no assessment of the actions of the authorities of England, which led to the ruins, like Stalingrad in 1943, the beautiful city of Dresden with historical museums just for the fact that the world criminal of Nazi Germany Adolf Hitler steadily bombed and destroyed their cities.
So, with the tacit consent of the UN SC, the wars since 1945 have not only stopped, but, on the contrary, have become more frequent in the regions of the world due to the following, in my opinion, reasons. These include the achievement of priorities of the geopolitical and geostrategic interests of the nuclear superpowers in the regions of the world; dividing the world with the destruction of contradictory social systems, capitalist or formerly communist, and today simply Putin’s; intervention in dictatorial and authoritarian countries with their centuries – old Muslim orders and traditions in order to introduce the “democratic values” of Europe; the implementation of “historical justice” with the aim of reviving the centuries – old imperial territories like Tsarist Russia; the emergence of two or more sovereign states for the same nation in the absence of an article in the UN Charter “On the Rights of Nations to Self-Determination” with the dual policy of the countries.
With the collapse of the USSR, the hegemony of the one polar world politics of the United States over the countries of the West and the world is established. And this, in turn, allows the United States to pursue an independent foreign policy in the world, ignoring their consideration and the consent of the UN SC itself.
As two vivid examples of this, on the one hand, the United States, using the tragedy of September 11, 2001 in New York, killed about three thousand civilians in the skyscrapers at the hands of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda. On the other hand, the former USSR in 1979, without the resolutions of the UN Security Council, they sent their troops into Afghanistan under the slogan of creating “democratic institutions” in the ancient Muslim country. And this process continues to this day at the level of the civil war in the country of Afghanistan.
Without the relevant resolutions of the UN SC, the US in alliance with the countries of Europe has been waging an aggressive war from 2003 to this day in the countries of the Middle East – Iraq, Libya and Syria, with Russia joining in 2015. As a result, a self-proclaimed state of ISIL is born at the level of the ancient laws; complete devastation of cities with a massive death of the population and refugees in millions of people in the countries of the world.
All this speaks of the real viability of the UN regulator and the UN SC itself.
It follows that the Third World Nuclear War has not yet erupted with disastrous consequences for all of Mankind with its possible disappearance, it is necessary to reform the UN SC. At the same time, with all the discussions and resolutions adopted by him, the UN Secretary General should actively participate personally with the sole voting right granted to the UN SC resolutions. For he represents a responsible person for the destinies of the countries of the world – all the UN members, with the goal of actually protecting them the international rights of the countries of the world, regardless of their social systems, as dictatorial, authoritarian or democratic regimes.
The UN SC has the right to “determine the existence of any threat to peace, any violation of peace or an act of aggression and make recommendations or decide what measures should be taken to maintain or restore international peace and security.” The Security Council has the right to impose coercive measures on States violating peace and security, including the use of armed forces and certain sanctions, in accordance with Article 25 of the UN Charter. However, the UN SC cannot really use this right, because its members, like the United States and Russia, pursue a policy of double standard, using the veto right when they need it.
INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF UNSC UN MEMBERS RIGHT TO VETO
All of the above on the aggressive actions of the powers and countries of the world is explained, in my opinion, on the one hand, by the existence of the rights of the five permanent members of the UN SC to vote, veto for consideration, discussion and adoption of resolutions contradicting their foreign or domestic policy, promoting this geostrategic and geopolitical interests that go against the protection of the rights of civilians and the preservation of their places of residence. On the other hand, the five permanent members of the UN SC are not able to cover and specifically find out the pressing problems in the countries of the world with their solutions.
That is why since 1991, the United States used the veto more than 14 times, and Russia more than 13 times, which resulted in catastrophic consequences in the world, in the examples of the countries of the Middle East, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Georgia.
Countries around the world, including personally former UN SG Kofi Annan, made repeated statements on reforming the UN SC with the goal of increasing the number of permanent members, but without making any reservation about eliminating the veto power, which allows imperial countries to manifest geostrategic and geopolitical countries, at the root of their rights interests in the regions of the world.
In my opinion, in view of the above, the reform of the UN SC should be in the following order:
1. increasing the number of permanent members of the UN SC to 15 at the level of strategic and solvent countries – representatives of all continents of our Planet;
2. increasing the number of non-permanent members of the UN SC to 10, periodically replaced after 3 years, taking into account their solvency and significance in the regions of the continents of the Planet;
3. exclusion of the right to vote of the veto of all members of the UN SC;
4. all the issues discussed and the resolutions of the UNSC are adopted taking into account the majority of their votes and
5. oblige active participation in the activities of the UN SC by the UN SG, precisely with his right to vote in veto on questions and UN Security Council resolutions.
The current UN SC permanent members, as the countries of the anti-Hitler and Japanese-Chinese coalitions where the world wars took place, should remain on the UN SC list.
Further, we should take into account countries with their geographical location and importance in the regions of the continents of the Planet by the number of their population, religiosity, the power of their economy and armed forces.
Based on the foregoing, in my opinion:
A. permanent members of the UN Security Council should be: the United States, Russia, China, England, France, Germany, Italy, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, India, Indonesia, Turkey, Egypt, Brazil, Argentina; that is, there are 15 of them, and
B. non-permanent of the UN SC — periodically replaced every three years: Greece (Belgium, Bulgaria, Holland); Poland (Switzerland, Czech Republic, Romania); Denmark (Sweden, Norway, Finland); Azerbaijan (Belarus, Georgia, Armenia); Uzbekistan (Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan); Japan (Philippines, Malaysia, Australia, South Korea); Pakistan (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq); Israel (South Africa, Nigeria, Algeria, Tanzania); Chile (Colombia, Venezuela, Peru); Mexico (Canada. Paraguay); i.e. there are 10 of them.
Thus, in my opinion, the composition of the UN SC should consist of 15 permanent members and 10 non-permanent members. All of them do not have veto power.
In my opinion, a neutral person in the UN should have the right to vote the veto on the topics proposed for discussion and resolutions adopted on them by a majority of the UN SC votes. And this person, who will bear all responsibility for the activities and decisions taken by the UN SC, is none other than the UN Secretary General. This is similar to how in all countries of the world the final solution of the problem of war and peace is provided to the first person of the country – the President or the Premier. And this is my answer to the newly elected 45th President of the United States Donald Trump, who in one of his speeches of December 13, 2016, said: “As for the UN, from January 20, 2017, the organization will be different.” And in his inaugural address, he noted his US vision for the future: “America is first and foremost.” It is his concept of tensile and double meaning. At the same time, he did not mention about the countries of cooperation, including NATO, where the United States plays the leading role. Thus, the EU countries should realize that they can no longer hope for close cooperation and patronage from US.
We must look for ways to strengthen our role, at least in Europe, while not forgetting that it is precisely the reform of the UN SC and with the majority and solidarity of members that will allow them to influence the politics of the world.
It should be recalled that in 2000, the administration of former US President Bill Clinton agreed to expand the UN SC to more than 23 members. However, with the right to vote only to the permanent five members of the UN SC. Since the inception of the UN, the UN SC has been criticized to this day because of the voting rights of its five permanent members to decisions that could harm both their country and others in the world.
Tanker Incidents: Who Blinks First?
The recent tanker incidents in the Gulf of Oman have heightened the potential for a dangerous conflict. Now that the...
Tourism: A Global Force For Growth And Development
The World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) has met in Baku, Azerbaijan, for the 110th Session of its Executive Council (16-18 June)....
Trump’s New Wall? Mexico’s Southern Border
For much of modern history, Mexico defined itself in opposition to the United States. In recent years, the two countries...
A Vision of Sustainable Middle Eastern Design at Four Seasons Hotel Abu Dhabi
Discover a vision of modern Middle Eastern Design at Four Seasons Hotel Abu Dhabi at Al Maryah Island. Developed in...
The impact of US-China Trade war
It is highly unlikely, that any tangible solution to the Trade war between Beijing and Washington will emerge in the...
Renewable energy investment in 2018 hit USD 288.9 billion
Global investment in renewable energy hit USD 288.9 billion in 2018, with the amount spent on new capacity far exceeding...
EU responses to climate change
Fighting climate change is a priority for the Parliament. Below you will find details of the solutions the EU and...
Energy News2 days ago
IEA takes part in G20 Energy and Environment Ministerial in Japan
Economy2 days ago
8 facts you don’t know about the money migrants send back home
Newsdesk1 day ago
Micro and Small Rural Entrepreneurs’ Access to Credit Enhanced by ADB
Science & Technology2 days ago
Girls Don’t Code? In The Caribbean, They Lead Tech Startups
Defense1 day ago
Effectiveness of Nuclear Deterrence of India and Pakistan in Pulwama incident
Economy1 day ago
The Game of Tariffs
Energy2 days ago
Fossil fuel consumption subsidies bounced back strongly in 2018
Newsdesk2 days ago
Improved Skills and Job Opportunities for Youth in Maldives