Human Rights Falling Through the Cracks in a Globalized World

After the atrocities of the Holocaust and World War II, the international community woke up to the horrors of human error and the gruesome violations of what should have been standard treatment of human beings. The phenomenon of globalization has well developed human rights and has been a driving force in the United Nations enforcing the Geneva Conventions. However, inevitably, with every positive human movement, there are great challenges, and an anti-movement; in this case, the localization or regionalization of human rights. Obstacles to overcome in globalization include enclave economies, environmental damage; child labor violations; and the exploitation of weak, rural communities of the world. Conversely, the localization of human rights means lack of continuity and consistency with upholding international standards proclaimed by the new world order.

The framework of human rights in Western civilization is heavily rooted in the relationship between the individual free citizen and the state, and the responsibilities of each therein. It is a relatively new concept that individual and civil-political rights should be combined with social and economic rights. This concept is a general international approach (i.e. tribunals, the global women’s movement, and children’s rights); with much media attention; however, most governments have not integrated such in bureaucratic institutions and national policies. (Wringe, 46-47; Freeman, 37) There are institutional and cultural barriers to overcome when globalizing human rights norms.

When discussing globalization in an academic context, there are three perspectives. First, hyper-globalists believe globalization is highly impersonal, economic-based, and focuses on denationalization. However, skeptics in a second school of thought push government autonomy to balance international flow. Third, transformationalists have a more radical viewpoint, asserting that the line has been blurred between international and domestic affairs. (Steiner, 1307; LeGrain, 22-24) The first two schools of thought do not emphasize the positive change in combining legal rights with socio-economic rights.

Consequently, it is important to remember that globalization is not all positive development. There is great destruction of the environment, and also exposing weak economies to external shocks that can and have caused huge financial crises (such as in 1997) in already unstable, indebted nations. (Steiner, 1308) Marsh and Payne discuss the limitations of globalizing human rights:

“The promotion of human rights norms throughout the world by the acceptance of declarations, treaties, trade agreements, and world opinion is very important for holding nations accountable in the global community. However, such instruments do not guarantee that a nation will institute the legal protections necessary to secure human rights in the first place or to enforce previously adopted human rights laws. The spread of human rights around the world entails more than simply extending the number of states that sign treaties or incorporate human rights protections into their legal systems.”

Marsh and Payne demonstrate the need for the human element in public policy and macroeconomics in the field of human rights. This argument is a well-constructed introduction to the intersection of international human rights and political globalization.

Globalization has led to increased information and movement of goods and ideas. Human beings now have the ability to learn about experiences from strangers on the other side of the world. However, bridging the culture gap brings about new human rights evils; the largest being labor exploitation and violations. When nations first industrialize and boom economically; historically, wages fall and living conditions increase. (Rourke, 12-13)

Concurrently, economic issues, which have a significant impact on human rights progression, have improved with globalization. Taylorism, Toyotization, Fordism, Keynesianism, and the American favorite, McDonalization; are all varying forms and ideas of globalizing the Earth politically, socially, and economically. (Went, 95-96; Rupert, 41) GATT (the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) rounds have cut off trade barriers. On the whole, Europe began free trade policies in the late 1870’s and 1880’s. Another result is the increase in exports around the world since World War II. Finally, increased transportation routes, in the form of new roads, railways, canals, and bridges have brought new avenues for trade. (Rourke, 29-32) Therefore, globalization has spawned international community values in both trade and human rights development. When nation-states are more able to trade with one another, the parties are more likely to listen to one another, as well, and keep concern with foreign internal function and harmony of their trade partner. This is an indirect benefit of globalization on human rights.

One human rights challenge of globalization is the existence of enclave economies, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa. European and other industrialized countries’ corporations move into destitute, rural areas and extract resources (i.e. minerals and oil) and the extremely cheap labor. This process lowers costs of goods, but ships jobs overseas to individuals who will work for almost nothing and often huge labor violation atrocities occur in this situation. Lastly, when the corporate, “Western” entity is finished sucking the area dry of natural resources, they leave the community with nothing but destruction of the environment and social destruction. (Talentino, 2007; Wolf, 188-194)

Likewise, it is a double-edged sword between economic prosper and declining social standards that indicates the advantages and disadvantages of globalization. With globalization, there have been historical international documents, such as the Universal Declaration, CEDAW, CRC, ICSECR, the Convention Against Torture, and the ICCPR. Unfortunately, the influential United States has not recognized the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and has not signed several important human rights doctrines. (Gilpin, 104-105)

With the rise of globalization and human rights regimes, women’s rights are finally coming to the forefront. After the European enlightenment, norms have been universalized in international politics and there are less cultural and individual differences than long ago. In the 20^th century, women began to see themselves differently and injustice and victimization came out in the open (i.e. sex discrimination in Mexico’s Maquiladora sector). The women’s movement in the United States really sparked the ‘women’s rights are human rights’ debate and other movements around the world. For example, there are new organizations and councils such as WILDAF (Women in Law and Development in Africa, the RIAF/DLVF network in Africa, and the AWHRC (Asian Women’s Human Rights Council). The concept of universal human rights has led to uproar and realizations in the female global community. (Wichterich, 162-163; Steiner, 1350-1351)

Overlapping with women’s rights are rights to health (i.e. medical care and reproductive services). Regarding the right to health promoted by transnational human rights regimes, health threats (AIDS, malaria, SARS, polio, etc.) have now been publicized and globalized. According to Benjamin Meier, there are existing collective inequalities that parallel globalization with regards to the public right to health. For example, there might be new research and medical advancements in the fight against HIV/AIDS because of globalization; but there is also a realization that Sub-Saharan Africans as a whole will not have access to these benefits because of their socio-economic status. (Meier, 545-555)

Another international obstacle concerns the “War on Terror” in which the United States has committed gruesome human rights violations regarding the stripping of due process rights, water boarding, torture, and lack of dignity in POW treatment. When G-8 nations, such as the United States of America find more political capital in other nations, sovereignty is put aside as these superpowers intrude. (Lokaneeta, 2008) It is only clear now that the United States is in Iraq for oil, not terrorism, and the root of evil is indeed, money; all perpetuated by the phenomenon of economic globalization. One can see another connecting link between globalization and the human rights field here.

Concerning civil rights and liberties, human rights non-governmental organizations have been fighting for individuals and group victims of discrimination. By claiming jurisdiction, proclaiming a voice, and taking newfound responsibilities; some scholars say is NGO’s and human rights regimes are “stealing” national sovereignty and hegemony. On the other side, human rights organizations promote international consciousness and create standards for treatment of citizens. (Steiner, 1307; Sassen, XXVIII)

Next, localization (when regions and smaller communities demand independence and clout) in general and regarding human rights, is caused by several factors. First, there is often a pre-existing condition of disenfranchisement of the government by its people where there is discontent with production of legislation and protection, or lack thereof, of fundamental civil and political rights. Second, there is a tendency towards ‘local and ethnic identity,’ often enforced by urbanization and education. Third, with every movement, in this case, the phenomenon of globalization; there is an anti-movement of individuals who wish to keep their traditional culture and belonging. Last there is a ‘reluctance’ of local communities to work together because they do not want to share resources. (Steiner, 1309)

Furthermore, what occurs is a decentralization of the political functions, formerly held by the federal government. Core government responsibilities, such as road maintenance, healthcare, education, and importantly, enforcing human rights protections; are left to regional bureaucracy and village rule, possibly heading down a slippery slope of devastating infractions. (Steiner, 1309) Without a single larger authority policing action, local communities are almost left to their own devices to make integral decisions affecting individual human rights.

In contrast, though there indeed are numerous challenges in the globalizing movement; it is imperative to recognize the benefits of free trade (ref. the European Union and The North American Free Trade Agreement), increased flow of technology and goods, sharing experiences with others, and cultural toleration. (Stiglitz, 73) For example, from the mid-eighties to the mid-nineties, foreign investments of OECD countries increased from $47 billion to $360 billion. (Zwass, 139-145) Governments working together and NGO’s (i.e. Amnesty International and Friends of the Earth) influencing the human rights framework is an enormous benefit. Localization is inherent to human nature, however, it is largely a concept of the past; forever imbedded in history. Human rights are now outlined in powerful, symbolic documents; like the Universal Declaration, The Convention on the Rights of the Child, The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, CEDAW, the ICCPR, and many more.

With all these challenges, it is imperative to determine how the international community can formulate improvements and solutions through the following means: (1) new strategy of development for Gross Domestic Product, growth, and society-wide change; (2) emphasizing microeconomics and human rights in macroeconomics; (3) to reduce debt of the world’s poorest nations; and (4) increasing ethical standards in the private sector. Some improvements already instituted include the (1) the introduction of corporate ethics; (2) the Social Accountability 800; (3) the International Code of Ethics for Canadian Business; (4) the Sullivan Principles; (5) the creation of the carbon credits system; (6) the UNHCHR mainstreaming human rights; and (6) the Cologne Initiative in June 1999. (Steiner, 1312-1313; Rupert, 146)

Transnational Human Rights Regimes of the 21^st century (such as the ICCPR, ICSECR, CEDAW, CRC, the Convention Against Torture, etc.) face numerous institutional challenges with mainstreaming human rights. At the top of the list are permanent damaging effects on the environment with lasting impact on human rights; use of child labor; exploitation of economically weak economies; and job outsourcing, which may increase labor violations. Regarding localization, there might be such stiff, unmoving cultural differences that Middle Eastern and African countries, heaping with traditional values, will reject pressure from the international community to conform to modern human rights standards. Inevitably the concentration of industry in cities leads to violence and poverty. Finally, globalization may be increasing the flow of information globally, but governments that abuse human rights will always attempt to stop that flow of information from the rest of the world. The duality of this phenomenon is sure to remain complex and distressing in the coming years.