Numerous debates on the use of force to resolve human rights violations
Numerous debates have been brought up regarding the use of force to resolve human rights violations. This essay goes into the discovery of instances in which the arbitrary use of force has been witnessed, and the reasons why this haphazard use of force should culminate. First, there will be an analysis of human rights, and reasons as to why these rights are violated, as well as the particular situations where insecurity encouraged the haphazard and extreme using of force, as well as its effects on these rights. Here, I will also explore the parties involved and the situations in which force has been applied, and aspects that relate to officers assigned to the use of force and whether or not these officers have received proper training for the kind of force they apply. Second, the principles that relate to the use of force will be examined, together with how they have been reflected on in the relevant legislative reforms. Third, there will be further exploration of issues in human rights protection, and the using of force to resolve violations. Finally, several recommendations are made to guarantee that the use of force is by international human rights standards.
Human rights are inherent to every individual
Human rights are rights inherent to every individual, irrespective of their nationality, ethnicity, sex, religion, race, or even linguistic features. These are inclusive of the right to life and liberty, the right to education and work and education, freedom from torture and slavery, freedom of expression and opinion, and many more (Un.org, 2016). The human rights cannot be denied under any circumstances. Everyone has these rights ascribed to them naturally, and it is expected that both the military forces and the government protect them. Various basic cultural, civil, economic, social and political, rights are laid out in international human rights documents and commissions, for instance, The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and The International Covenant of the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This is to preserve humanity in all circumstances (Un.org, 2016). The widespread endorsement of the application of commissions and documents elaborating human rights documents gives different cultures shared values and norms for formulating and criticizing the law.
Causes and consequences of human rights violations
Human rights violations come up due to the failure to protect the human rights of citizens which leads to more human violations as hatred accumulates making it more difficult to restore peace and order. Denial of human rights is the cause of crises. Human rights play an essential part of international law as the global development, democracy and peace are dependent on the human rights protection. The dilemma of resolving human rights violation by use of force still lingers as the commitment to enforcing these human rights by the states is still wanting. All the international human rights law is aimed at making sure that all human beings are treated decently and nondiscriminatory. However with the abuse of power and the public authorities and states having policies that violate the basic human rights leading to crimes against humanity and war crimes we are left to wonder whether outside forces can intervene to safeguard the human rights, seeing as they are in violation from those in power.
The use of force in resolving human rights violations
When resolving the violation of human rights, force should not be applied, unless when necessary. There should be guidelines with the United Nations on the extent of intervention and when to intervene in the case of human rights violation in a country. The efficiency of the military to enforce human rights in a foreign country has been questioned. Some have argued that sovereign states should be left to define their course of action without intervention. The United Nations charter stipulates the non-use and force and the principles of state sovereignty. According to this argument, there is a different conception of good in various states, and therefore no country has a right to act as a judge of what counts as human rights violation because they will be interfering with the other country's right of self-determination. Humanitarian intervention may lead to disagreements, but more human suffering can be experienced especially in states where it is unacceptable. Sometimes conflicts progress beyond the state prompting for international assistance. It is the international community's duty to protect the citizens of another country if that state is not capable of protecting its people from crimes of war, genocide, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. (Council on Foreign Relations, 2018).
The haphazard and extreme use of force and its consequences
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights discovered that because of the haphazard and extreme use of force, hundreds of individuals all around the world had lost their lives, those of their families, suffered the violation of their integrity and some have even been hindered from exercising their other human freedoms and rights. This has brought up the cause for concern for the Commission. The use of force in resolving of human right violations has also been the subject of proclamations by various international human rights organs, for instance the Committee Against Torture, Human Rights Committee, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of association and peaceful assembly, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial arbitrary executions, the Special Rapporteur on torture or other cruel and domestic civil society organizations (Harrington, J., 2001).
The improper use of force and its impact on society
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights discerns that force has frequently been applied in ways that are not compatible to the standards laid out by the international society The armed forces, civilian police agents and their special groups, as well as private security agents, have deployed their force in various settings, for example public demonstrations and social protests, evictions, immigration and anti-crime operations, among others. This has been done without proper training, supervision, control, and coordination; which has resulted in irreversible damage to integrity and life as a whole (Goldman, 2009). The lack of tolerance that has been seen in particular states in the face of conflict and public displays of social dissatisfaction as well as the historical exercise of keeping certain groups undetectable would appear to be associated with the haphazard and extreme use of force that has been witnessed to the disadvantage of individuals in protest, defenders of human rights, Afro-descendants, journalists plus other workers of the media, LGBTI persons, migrants and others in human mobility, indigenous peoples and their members, and other vulnerable communities stuck in poverty, with their kids and teenagers. An issue that has been of particular concern is the even more common tendency of the use of force to contain public demonstrations and social protests that try to find an outlet to express displeasure and to demands that refer to the erection of enormous infrastructure works, abuse of natural resources by companies in the private sector, and tussles to defend significant rights (Simma, 1999).
The need for accountability and respect for human rights
Moreover, there has been a tendency in some countries to give security tasks and orders to the armed forces, and even to the declaration of states of emergency in response to circumstances of social protest or to address increasing crime (Orford, A., 2003). There is a need to inspect, indict, and discipline those answerable to this sort of the unlawful use of force. This, sadly, remains a pending task pending in some countries. Regardless of the notable efforts made by individual states in the security and order sector, these have been on occasion they have sometimes been inadequate in the guaranteeing of sensible use of force on exceptional cases, as allowed by international standards.
The principles of using force in accordance with international human rights law
Every country is responsible for the guaranteeing of security and public order, through its law enforcement officials. It is from this duty that nations have uprooted a power applied in the use of force, a power that is restricted by the adherence of human rights. The fundamental rights to life and humane treatment laid out in Article I of the American Declaration of the Rights mandate that these rights be preserved and protected. Hence the actions in satisfying duties of security and law and order need to make certain that any threat to these rights is reduced by conducting a careful inspection in stern compliance with the standards and principals of the international society
The necessity and limitations of humanitarian intervention
In the history of the long debate about humanitarian intervention, there has been constant failure to address the methods and the circumstances of such responses. The first pillar of the responsibility to protect is that all states should protect all their citizens within their borders and put up human rights monitoring mechanisms in place. The second pillar encompasses international assistance to avert looming crises through technical, financial and military help. The humanitarian intervention is the last pillar of peacekeeping after the first one and the second one becomes unresponsive. Although the humanitarian intervention is aimed at promoting human treatment with decency and the rule of law it may destabilise a state as using forceful means to maintain peace may involve mixed motives and self-interest. It is therefore imperative that the least amount of force should be used to achieve humanitarian goals and objectives and the intervention should be able to do more good than harm. Experts have identified that the motivation and the willingness to use military force are necessitated by the relevance of the state to the world community, to a large extent the level of desperation of the affected population, the attitude of the major players in the crisis and the geopolitical factors.
The principles and considerations of using force in humanitarian intervention
The costs and risks of humanitarian intervention are high, and it is unlikely that states will intervene unless their self-interests are advanced. For this reason, more dilemma lies on the question of whether humanitarian intervention is for the greater good or the advancement of self-interest. Because of the unalterable nature of the potential effects of the use of force, this should be a measure of last resort that quantitatively and limited, is supposed to avert a more severe occurrence than that caused by the reaction of the state'(Saba, and Akbarzadeh, 2018). It is within this framework that both the Commission and the I/A Court HR have decided that the use of force is only justified if the principals of legality satisfy that it is necessary to use force( Goldman, 2009). These principles are grounded on the international duties contracted by the states regarding human rights.
The importance of proportionality and minimal force in law enforcement
In the use of lethal force, international human rights law emphasizes that its exceptional use has to be controlled by law in an adequately distinct way (Watkin, K., 2004). Moreover, it should be interpreted scarcely and should not be used in every situation. With this said, the Inter-American Court indicates that from each case's position, it is important to confirm if there are less harmful means that can be used in the safeguarding of integrity and life of the person or situation in question. When evaluating the proportionality of the interventions that could the used by authorities, the circumstances considered include: the levels of intensity and the level of dander shown by the threat, the conditions of the surrounding environment, the attitude of the person as well as the the means available to the agent as so as to adequately deal with the situation at hand (Dupuy et al, 2009). The agents who are legitimately allowed to use force are required to determine the level of cooperation, aggressiveness or resistance shown by the person or persons involved. They are expected to use tactics of negotiation, control or use of force, only as appropriate. The principle of proportionality necessitates officials in law enforcement to reduce the injuries or harm caused to any individual, to a minimum, at all times, and to ensure that the situation only leads to pulling of the trigger when necessary( Heyns, C.H., 2014). The inter-American human rights system organs also agree that when taking note of the duty to engage in, there should be adequate preventive planning of the actions of the agents in law enforcement. This is closely associated with the principle of proportionality when they understand that it involves minimizing the use of force. This kind of planning calls for an assessment of the circumstances that threaten the values that are supposed to be safeguarded by law enforcement officers, while also ensuring to weigh the use of less harmful alternative means to address them.
References
Council on Foreign Relations. (2018). The Dilemma of Humanitarian Intervention. [online] Available at: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/dilemma-humanitarian-intervention [Accessed 18 Sep. 2018].
Dupuy, P.M., Dupuy, P.M., Francioni, F. and Petersmann, E.U. eds., 2009. Human rights in international investment law and arbitration. Oxford University Press.
Goldman, R.K., 2009. History and action: The inter-American human rights system and the role of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Hum. Rts. Q., 31, p.856.
Harrington, J., 2001. Special Rapporteurs of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights. Afr. Hum. Rts. LJ, 1, p.247.
Reading Orford, A., 2003humanitarian intervention: Human rights and the use of force in international law (Vol. 30). Cambridge University Press.
Saba, A. and Akbarzadeh, S., 2018. The Responsibility to Protect and the Use of Force: An Assessment of the Just Cause and Last Resort Criteria in the Case of Libya. International Peacekeeping, 25(2), pp.242-265.
Simma, B., 1999. NATO, the UN and the Use of Force: Legal Aspects. European Journal of international law, 10(1), pp.1-22.
United Nations. General Assembly and Heyns, C.H., 2014. Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary Or Arbitrary Executions: Addendum: Observations on Communications Transmitted to Governments and Replies Received. United Nations General Assembly.
Un.org. (2016). Human Rights. [online] Available at: http://www.un.org/en/sections/issues- depth/human-rights/ [Accessed 17 Sep. 2018].
Watkin, K., 2004. Controlling the use of force: a role for human rights norms in contemporary armed conflict. American Journal of International Law, 98(1), pp.1-34.
