Borders of Humanitarian Treatment Tests and Stretches Unveiled
The global decline of Western hegemony poses significant challenges for the durability and effectiveness of the international human rights regime. This erosion of the post-war Western-dominated international order calls for a critical reassessment of the human rights movement and its ability to survive in a transformed global landscape.
While questioning human rights' universality may provoke discomfort among supporters, it is essential to acknowledge the dependence of the human rights enterprise on a Western-led international order that is gradually losing its influence. Without adapting to the seismic shifts in the international system, the human rights movement risks becoming increasingly irrelevant and questioned in its effectiveness.
Several factors contribute to the erosion of support for human rights worldwide. Apprehension about the international order's retreat, waning democracy, the growth of authoritarian countries, and the rise of illiberal movements are among them. In addition, the cumulative impact of decades of Western double standards and the impotence of institutions such as the United Nations Security Council impair multilateralism.
The consequences of these tectonic shifts in the international order are still largely unexamined and unaddressed. Traditional approaches to the human rights enterprise, focusing on the evaluation of its success or failure, may be insufficient to account for its future prospects in the evolving international system.
Instead, it is crucial to recognize that the fate of human rights hinges less on the actions of the human rights movement and more on the shifting structures of the international order. As the by-product of the waning post-war order, the human rights enterprise must find a way to endure without the support of the international system if it is to survive in a vastly transformed and less favorable global environment.
The waning Western dominance has had a profound impact on the human rights regime. International human rights were mainly embedded in the United Nations—the central pillar of the post-war international order. While initially effective, the inscription of human rights in the UN has become increasingly contested as rising global and regional powers selectively address human rights issues that suit their interests or challenge the human rights system.
Though the human rights movement has achieved some notable successes in terms of state commitments to human rights, these accomplishments often had little to do with the genuine commitment of the states themselves. Instead, the diffusion of human rights norms was facilitated by the expansion of the number of UN members, astute advocacy from below, and favorable developments in world politics such as decolonization, democratic "waves," and the outcome of the Cold War.
However, as Western influence wanes, governments have increasingly questioned their own commitment to human rights, leading to the erosion of human rights diplomacy and the marginalization of human rights concerns on the global agenda. Rising global and regional powers may use their economic leverage to selectively address human rights issues or actively undermine the human rights functions of the United Nations.
This trend is likely to result in a decline in the number, resources, and influence of the human rights enterprise, particularly in regions where guarantees for civil society independence remain fragile. Consequently, the international playing field is expected to tilt further in favor of authoritarian systems, with limited attention paid to human rights concerns—even when they prove consequential for international peace.
In order to adapt to these shifting state structures, the human rights movement must focus on maintaining the onus on governments to justify their actions according to universal norms about how people should be treated. The practical significance of international law lies in the legitimizing influence derived from invoking human rights frameworks to fight injustices, remove barriers to equality, and press for accountability. In addition, the human rights movement must distinguish which rights should be prioritized in various contexts and refrain from applying the same recipes to fundamentally different types of political regimes.
The human rights movement must also accept that it no longer commands the authority it once held and anticipate further declines in Western support for human rights endeavors. For the human rights movement to remain relevant in a global context dominated by non-Western states, it must foster cooperation, prioritize pragmatic solutions, and distinguish which rights are most important according to the specific political landscape. This struggle for relevance is essential because it provides the foundation for future influence.
Despite these challenges, the human rights aspirations nurtured around the world during the post-war era still provide a vital foundation for continued advocacy. However, avoiding reliance solely on Western patronage is crucial to securing the future of the human rights enterprise.
- The human rights movement, in achanging global landscape, needs to adjust its approach to combat economic inequality and promote gender equality, as Western support wanes and non-Western states gain influence.
- The erosion of the post-war international order, marked by the decline of Western hegemony, has led to a reevaluation of the human rights enterprise and its ability to survive in civil society, where public opinion on human rights issues may be increasingly influenced by non-Western perspectives.
- The human rights movement must prioritize pragmatic solutions and cooperation with rising global and regional powers to maintain its effectiveness in addressing human rights concerns in a transformed international system, where politics may prioritize national interests over universal human rights norms.
