R2P=MDGS implementing the responsibility to protect through the millennium development goals.

• Author: Moore, Jennifer

INTRODUCTION

In 1945 the United Nations was founded on the audacious notion that the use of military force--"the scourge of war"--should be contained at all cost. (1) Then in 1948 the UN General Assembly recognized the interconnected web of civil-political rights and socio-economic rights by adopting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, inspiring the world community to protect the full spectrum of rights as the surest path to durable peace and human security. (2) Yet in the twenty-first century states continue to pursue geopolitical interests through military interventions, in violation of the UN Charter, and armed forces continue to target civilians, in violation of humanitarian law. Moreover, despite the post-Holocaust pledge "never again," crimes against humanity have continued to proliferate around the globe, from Cambodia and Argentina in the 1970's, to Bosnia and Sierra Leone in the 1990's, to Darfur and Sri Lanka in recent years. (3) Finally, states and international institutions prioritize civil liberties at the expense of social rights, despite overwhelming evidence that pervasive underdevelopment and entrenched socio-economic inequality lead inexorably to armed conflict.

This essay is a peaceful call to arms based on the understanding that an essential way to fight the most egregious and widespread human rights abuses is through a broad-spectrum approach to human security grounded in the Millennium Development Goals and a new, non-military, understanding of humanitarian intervention. The responsibility to protect, often cited as a justification for military force to stop genocide, crimes against humanity, and other widespread human rights abuses, is better seen as a commitment by all nations to strengthen their own social welfare and human rights systems, and for those nations with more resources to assist those with less to do the same.

Section A below reviews the United Nations' early emphasis on constraining the use of military force and promoting human rights in both civil-political and socio-economic terms. Section B contrasts the prevailing contemporary responses of the international community to varying types of human rights abuses. Section C focuses on two important twenty-first century developments in international law: the responsibility to protect (R2P) and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). I conclude by arguing that a socio-economic vision of humanitarian intervention provides the international community with a vital opportunity to return to first principles regarding the meaning of human dignity and security.

1. THE UNITED NATIONS IN INFANCY: PREVENTING WAR AND PROTECTING HUMAN RIGHTS

   The Vision of the UN Charter

   The Members of the United Nations, in the Preamble to its Charter, pledge themselves "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, [and] in the dignity and worth of the human person ..." (4) The prevention of war and the protection of human rights are fundamental to the form and function of the United Nations, reflected in the mandate of two of its primary organs: the Security Council, in its charge to maintain peace and security; and the Economic and Social Council, in its call to enhance human security and promote human rights. (5)

   In the realm of war and peace, Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter provides that "[a]ll Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state...." (6) Qualifying this general prohibition, Chapter VII of the Charter empowers the Security Council to order or permit the use of military force where necessary "to maintain or restore international peace and security," and Article 51 recognizes the right to "individual or collective self-defense." (7) Thus, despite the Preamble's recognition of the "scourge of war," the Charter seems to express a qualified acceptance of the use of force.

   In addition to the language of the Charter, a customary norm of humanitarian intervention has been cited from time to time to justify military intervention in the name of ending widespread human rights abuses, as in the late 1970's when Tanzanian troops defeated Idi Amin in Uganda and Vietnamese forces removed Cambodia's Khmer Rouge government. Humanitarian intervention was one proffered rationale for the U.S. military intervention in Iraq in 2003. (8) Thus, alongside the difficulty of legally reconciling a treaty-based general prohibition against the use of force with a customary basis for exceptional circumstances in which force is justified, the norm of humanitarian intervention may be prone to a certain self-serving application by states. (9)

   Despite the potential for manipulation of the norm, humanitarian intervention remains a compelling concept, particularly in the face of crimes against humanity. The United Nations' recent articulation of the responsibility to protect, discussed below, is a contemporary interpretation of this long-standing tradition. Yet R2P is short-changed when conceived as a mere mandate to use force. Its deeper potential lies in obviating the need for military intervention through the provision of development assistance that enhances socio-economic conditions of life throughout the developing world.

   The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

   In affirming human dignity, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (10) remains the mother lode of modern human rights instruments. The significance of the UDHR is unquestioned, whether it is considered to be customary international law, an amplification of the human rights provisions in the Charter, or the blueprint for a new wave of international human rights treaties. Chief among its progeny are the two International Covenants, adopted in 1966; and three regional human rights treaties, covering Europe, the Americas and Africa, respectively. The human rights enumerated in the UDHR encompass basic physical and psychic integrity, as in the rights to life, humane treatment, equality, and due process; liberty rights, including political participation and freedom of expression; and welfare rights, spanning education, health care, and a decent standard of living. (11)

   A core principle of the Universal Declaration is the interdependence and inseparability of so-called socio-economic and civil-political rights. The UDHR Preamble proclaims "the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want ... as the highest aspiration of the common people." (12) Despite this integrated vision of human rights, when the international community sat down to draft treaty language in 1966, it carved out two separate spheres in the form of two international covenants, one dealing with economic, social and cultural rights, the other with civil and political rights.

2. PUTTING HUMAN RIGHTS LAW TO THE TEST: REMEDIES FOR CIVIL-POLITICAL VIOLATIONS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEPRIVATIONS

   Human rights are too often honored in the breach. All too often, students of human rights law explore their subject matter through narratives of human rights violations in countries around the world. What they quickly learn is that the mechanisms for enforcing the norms, through prevention and remedial measures, are limited in scope and impact. Judicial and quasi-judicial bodies are mandated to identify violations, call for reforms, and sometimes impose tort-like reparations, but such action is not uniformly taken. A common distinction is drawn between instances of political repression and experiences of social misery. States are more frequently found liable for denials of civil liberties than they are called to account for deprivations of social welfare.

   A welfare-centered vision of humanitarian intervention would help correct the disequilibrium in the implementation of civil-political and socio-economic human rights. Our first task is to trace the historical roots of this double standard, originating in the decision to draft two separate international covenants in the decades following the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1949.

   Repression of Civil Liberties

   A variety of human rights treaties have empowered judicial or quasi-judicial bodies to hear allegations of violations of civil and political rights. The first to do so was the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), (13) which entered into force in 1976. The ICCPR codified a number of peremptory norms of international law, namely the prohibitions against torture, slavery, and extra-judicial execution. In addition, the treaty spans a broad spectrum of civil and political liberties, including due process and fair trial rights, freedom of movement, privacy, freedom of conscience and religion, free expression, freedom of assembly, the right to participate in government, and the equal protection of the law. These norms are also set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Civil and Political Covenant further recognizes the right of all peoples to selfdetermination, and devotes a separate article to the equal rights of men and women. (14)

   Article 2 of the ICCPR obligates each state party "to respect and to ensure to all individuals ... the rights recognized ... without distinction of any kind." The "respect and ensure" language in the Civil and Political Covenant implies a relatively high degree of state obligation encompassing the state's duty to refrain from violations by its own agents and its responsibility to prevent and punish violations by non-state actors. The ICCPR also created a Human Rights Committee (HRC) with limited powers to interpret treaty provisions. States may sue each other in the HRC, alleging violations of...