The limitations of international human rights regulations

The horrors of the ongoing Israeli attacks on Gaza and Lebanon or the Rwandan genocide in 1994 serve as a stark reminder of the catastrophic consequences of unchecked human rights violations. Despite the existence of international human rights law, this genocide unfolded with devastating speed. 

This tragic event raises a crucial question: Is the current international human rights framework robust enough to prevent such atrocities from recurring? As we grapple with ongoing conflicts, mass displacements, and systemic injustices, it is imperative to critically examine the adequacy of these legal instruments and explore potential avenues for strengthening their implementation.

The history of international regulations to protect human rights goes way back. However, the limitations have also been an agonising part for as long as the regulations came into being. Some of them need to be set apart right off the bat.

One of the biggest problems with international law is that the available policing forces are given very little power to make sure countries follow the rules. While the governments around the world promise to uphold these laws, there's no global authority to hold them accountable. This means countries can break international law without facing serious consequences, as implementation of international law is complex and lengthy, which weakens the whole system.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) can't do much unless a country agrees to be tried. And the International Criminal Court (ICC), even though it can prosecute people for terrible crimes like genocide, doesn't have power over all countries.

However, this also means that there are certain internationally recognised standards that set the bar in terms of protecting human rights by and large.

One first has to understand that laws on international human rights are a complex web of treaties, conventions, and declarations that aim to protect human dignity and ensure basic rights for all people. These laws cover a wide range of issues, from civil and political rights like freedom of speech and assembly to economic, social, and cultural rights like the right to education and healthcare. 

One of the most fundamental instruments is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948. This landmark document outlines the basic rights and freedoms to which all human beings are entitled.

Most importantly, a major part of international human rights law focuses on the protection of human rights during armed conflict. The Four Geneva Conventions, adopted in 1949, are a cornerstone of international humanitarian law, also providing a safeguard for human rights as a whole. 

It provides specific protections for civilians, including those who are wounded, sick, or elderly. The convention prohibits acts of violence against civilians, such as murder, torture, and inhumane treatment. It also outlines the obligations of states to provide humanitarian aid to civilians affected by conflict. While this convention has been instrumental in mitigating suffering during armed conflicts, challenges remain in ensuring its full implementation and preventing violations.

Ultimately, though, from the facts as it appears, these regulations were proven null on multiple occasions despite their best of intentions.

The Rwandan genocide of 1994, as mentioned before, is the perfect example of it, where the Hutu regime killed about 800,000 people. The United Nations had very little scope to do anything in order to make much difference.

Also, the war in Iraq that began in 2003 is another example. It was a highly divisive conflict that sparked global debate. Massive human rights violations were seen, but global authorities failed to take necessary measures to protect human lives. 

This act of intervention brought forward the limitations of international regulations in preventing conflict and resulting violations of human rights. The conflict was waged without the authorisation of the UN Security Council, the only body empowered to authorise the use of force under international law. While the United States claimed the right to act unilaterally in self-defence, many nations and legal experts concluded that this was more than just self-defence, if seen from the perspective of the principle of proportionality. 

Moreover, the Palestine-Israel conflict goes back decades. But the most recent escalation in that conflict is the most brutal, both from a humanitarian and human rights perspective. 

The latest conflict took a turn for the worst when, in May, Israel launched a 5-day offensive that ended up killing 21,600 people, one-third of whom were children. The offensive also destroyed 60% of total Palestinian homes, displacing many more. 

However, even from a layman's perspective, those numbers, when compared, seem like a gross overreaction. Even though there are international regulations and legal bodies, even though such conflict on such a massive scale is hardly ever justified. Again, applying the principle of proportionality, which is a major principle to account for during armed conflict, it is evident that the actions of Israel grossly surpassed that bar. Yet again, international laws and regulations failed to protect human lives and rights.

It is indeed a great concern in today's volatile world. However, if one is to think about it clearly, the flaw of international human rights law lies with its limitations for the most part. 

One of the biggest problems with human rights law is its vagueness. Governments can easily twist these laws to justify almost any action, no matter how harmful. This isn't because the treaties were poorly written but because they were intentionally packed with hundreds of loosely defined obligations under the umbrella of state sovereignty.

Lack of accountability and complex processes of international law make it more inaccessible for those who need its protection. 

People in most countries have a theoretical right to almost everything: the right to work, to speak freely, to practice their religion, to be treated fairly, to have privacy, and so on. With so many rights protecting nearly every aspect of human life, governments have clear policies to implement according to their own ideology. Since governments have limited resources, protecting one right often means neglecting another. This makes it difficult to balance competing interests and prioritise effectively. 

Moreover, national policies and ideology have more priority in determining any factor of human rights, as ratification of treaties and conventions is a major aspect of international law. It determines whether States have obligations under a variety of international legal instruments. The US, for instance, withdrew from the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ in 1986. Other countries that have not signed the declaration recognising the jurisdiction of the court include China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, and Yemen.

Furthermore, domestic courts interpret and balance rights. They ensure rights are applied fairly. International institutions, while important, lack the power and tools to do the same on a global scale.

The UN Human Rights Council, a key international body, often finds itself paralysed by deep divisions among member states. To avoid being bound by decisions they disagree with, countries intentionally limit the council's power. Thus, resolutions of the council are not legally binding for member states. This leads to conflicting interpretations of human rights and a lack of enforcement mechanisms.

International standards for protecting human rights are a complex web of mechanisms and, in many cases, fall short of their purpose. 

However, the regulations and laws put in place for this very purpose are the best attempts taken by the international authorities to make sure human rights are not violated, or at least the violations are mitigated globally. What is required of these laws is for them to be adaptive so they can adapt with time and demand.

Susmita Banik is an LLM student at Jagannath University, currently working as an intern at the Supreme Court Legal Aid Office under the USAID Ain Shohayota Activity project.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard