Realism and HI Essay

7/28/2019 Realism and HI Essay

1/10

Nicte-Ha Kantn 1

Human Rights Struggle in Realism Realm

1. IntroductionSometimes the prosperity of a theory can cause the decline of another. This idea can

be applied to the situation of realism and human rights in the international relations

sphere, though no statement can be made for sure. Each of them has emerged in a

different time and has developed in a diverse way. The purpose of this paper is to

examine the condition that each subject holds and find out if the current situation of

human rights in the global domain has caused realism not to prevail.

The structure of this text is as follows. First, the theory of realism will be covered to

get the gist of its argument. Next, the notion of human rights will be explained along with

the main matters related to it. Finally, an analysis of the relationship of both notions will

be made to reach a conclusion.

2. Exposing realismRealism is believed to be the predominant political ideology because it is said to

portray more accurately the relations among states and the reality in world politics; it

represents the current affairs among states in a more realistic way. It is a theory that has

prevailed since ancient times with figures like Thucydides and whose main exponents

have been E. H. Carr, Reinhold Niebuhr, Hans J. Morgenthau, among others. The main

principles of this doctrine are those of statism, self-help and survival.

Realist supporters hold a state-centric notion of the behaviour of the international

system. In this scope, the main protagonist is the state, which is the only authority that

can decide how to carry out all the domestic affairs within its territory, i.e. it enjoys of


2/10

Nicte-Ha Kantn 2

sovereignty. Hence, the state recognizes neither an external superior, nor an internal

equal; and the state exists in a world composed of other, similarly characterized,

territorial, sovereign political units (Brown and Ainley 64). No external body can

intervene in the resolutions of the state in part due to the situation of anarchy that prevails

outside their borders, which means that there is no higher power that orders them how to

behave.

Other bodies such as international organizations (governmental and non-

governmental), economic enterprises, pressure groups, even individuals, may, in

certain circumstances, exercise influence and act independently of states, but the

state is the key actor because the state is the institution which regulates these

other bodies and decides the terms under which they can act. (Brown and Ainley

30)

Regarding the self-help notion, if the state is the only body that can exercise

jurisdiction within its territory due to the notions of anarchy and sovereignty, it is then

responsible for the well-being and security of its own people. For this purpose they can

only use their resources and capabilities since they cannot leave such important tasks to

external bodies. Realists do not believe it is prudent for a state to entrust its safety and

survival to another actor or international institution such as the League of Nations or the

United Nations (Baylis and Smith 176).

These two principles of realism then take us to the idea of survival. As all the

beings in the world seek to subsist, states are concerned about persevering in the

international domain, where there is a constant clash of ideologies among states that can

lead to war. In such an environment, survival is then a vital goal for state leaders. This is


3/10

Nicte-Ha Kantn 3

the supreme national interest to which all political leaders must adhere. All other goals

such as economic prosperity are secondary (Baylis and Smith 176).

After taking a look at the realist ideology, it can be understood why this is the

doctrine that many head of states have decided to adopt for the purpose of ruling.

However, its principles cannot be applied to every field in international relations, one of

which is the theory of international human rights. Realism does not completely get on

with the notions behind human rights since they contradict some of the principles of this

political ideology.

3. Human rights issuesAfter terrible events in which states were one of the main actors that acted against

their own citizens, a concern about human rights in many parts of the world began to

emerge. Human rights were considered sovereignty entitlements of states. States used to

decide (without the influence of any external body) the actions they would take regarding

the rights of their people. However, as the relationship among states becomes more

globalized, human rights are no longer a domestic matter, but an international one.

Nowadays, it is not only state leaders who decide the human rights policy within their

own territory, but sometimes they are also guided by the international norms established

by the global society.

Every action has a reaction. As Jack Donelly argues, one of the triggers for the

emergence of an international human rights policy was the genocide committed by

Germany in World War II. No one outside Germany dared to do something to stop the

massacre at the right moment because the German government sovereignty was being

respected and it was still an issue of domestic policies. In that time the murder of people


4/10

Nicte-Ha Kantn 4

by the state itself was not considered an international matter. In doing so, Germany was

merely exercising its sovereign rights. Traditional realist could find no national

interest that was threatened by the barbarous treatment of foreign civilians (Donnelly 4).

Fortunately, a change began to occur for the importance of individuals regarding

their rights and duties with a series of events that took place at the end of the war. With

the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials a more significant standing was conferred on

individuals in the sense that people from the German government were charged, instead

of the state, with committing crimes against innocent citizens. Some years later, after the

emergence of the United Nations in 1945, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

appeared in 1948. The manifestation of the latter was a starting point for a multinational

consensus that every human being on the world is able to enjoy rights by the sole fact of

being a human. As with other issues of great scope, this concept was not immediately

successful; it took some years to be globally accepted. However, there is no doubt of its

triumph since nowadays human rights have become an issue of concern for the

international scope rather than one just discussed within the boundaries of states. What

has given more strength to this idea has been the support of some states, international

regimes and human rights Non-Governmental Organizations.

One of the means through which the concept of human rights has been

established in the worldwide domain is human rights international regimes. An

international regime is a set of principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures

accepted by states (and other international actors) as binding within an issue area (qtd.

in Donnelly 79). These regimes are set up by a division of a global group of states

dedicated to look after the implementation of the norms. This would be the case of the


5/10

Nicte-Ha Kantn 5

UN and its Commission on Human Rights, which has been the single most important

institution of the global human rights regime (Donnelly 80). When stipulating norms,

the Commission works neutrally on a consensus basis, which means that, before the

Commission implements a norm, states have to reach an agreement. This way states enter

in a stage of cooperation in which their sovereignty is respected a notion that may be

gratifying (or not at all) for realists philosophers. Due to such consensus, human rights

are protected and supposedly less likely to be violated.

Another important matter that cannot be left out when talking about human rights

in international relations is the situation of non-governmental organizations. These can be

an organization, usually a grassroots one, with policy goals, but neither

governmental not corporate in make-up An NGO is any group of people

relating to each other regularly in some formal manner and engaging in collective

action, provided that the activities are non-commercial and non-violent, and are

not on behalf of a government. (Baylis and Smith 777)

Human rights NGOs (such as Amnesty International) play a very important role

in the implementation of human rights. As their main purpose is to look after human

rights enforcement, they are efficient bodies in the safeguarding of these entitlements

since they do not get distracted with other matters, as states do. Although, unlike other

international figures like states or economic enterprises, they cannot easily carry out

projects because they do not count with own resources, they count with another

significant tool which is the support of people worldwide. They denounce the unfair

violations committed against the rights of individuals and ask for peoples backing so as

to exert pressure on governments to cause a change. Because they are narrowly focused


6/10

Nicte-Ha Kantn 6

and generally nonpartisan, they sometimes can raise human rights issues within a country

that no other actor can (Donnelly 142). Publicizing the offenses that states have

committed against human rights and putting governments to shame before the world may

cause more cooperation from the part of the state. Even vicious governments may care

about their international reputation, and publicity often does help some of the more

prominent victims of repression (Donnelly 81). NGOs are aware that the pressure

exerted by millions of individuals can make a difference. They can influence states that,

exposed at the sight of millions of people, are obliged to act the way imposed by a

worldwide consensus.

Another matter of concern within the field of international human rights is that of

humanitarian intervention. This is explained as a forcible breach of sovereignty that

interferes in a states internal affairs (Baylis and Smith 557). As it can be noted, this is a

concept that goes against the concept of sovereignty of the realist state, but it has a

justification. Allegedly, humanitarian intervention is just carried out in events of extreme

necessity by bodies that consider that the actions of a state within its boundaries are

attempting against human rights. Then it is necessary the interference of an external

party. The excuse is that the intervention has merely good purposes to restore or establish

an environment of peace. No other interests should have the interventionists to overstep

another state sovereignty.

It is important to see the perspective of realism on this topic since the sole idea of

humanitarian intervention clashes with realist principles. First, they do not believe in the

humanitarian nature of this action because the very concept of humanitarian has implicit

the idea of disinterest. States only pursue their national interest and thus humanitarian


7/10

Nicte-Ha Kantn 7

intervention is ruled out since states are motivated solely by what they judge to be their

national interest (Baylis and Smith 558). Moreover, they have another (logical) posture

against this idea. In order to defend the main principles of sovereignty, self-help and

survival that realists hold, they argue that states should not carry out this kind of actions.

States should not sacrifice its own means, such as the lives of their citizens and military

resources, in favourof another state. If a civil authority has broken down or is behaving

in an appalling way towards its citizens, this is the responsibility of that states citizens

and its political leaders (Baylis and Smith 558). Both ideas are somewhat interrelated in

the sense that the latter supports the former. If a state is willing to risk itself is because it

knows there would be some profit, thus there is an interest beyond humanitarian

purposes.

Sticking to these arguments, I agree with the first stance but differ from the latter.

When it is states which intervene to alleviate the suffering of another nation they would

normally do it with self-interest behind their actions since there would be no point (or

gain) for them to sacrifice themselves without receiving something in exchange (in the

case when NGOs make humanitarian intervention, they do it selflessly with mere

humanitarian and benevolent purposes). Regarding the second posture, I believe

sometimes it is necessary the intervention of an external party to alleviate the suffering of

a nation and prevent the situation to go worst.

4. Evaluating Realism and Human Rights RelationshipThroughout the explanation of both realism and human rights we have seen that they

coexist in a rather uncertain situation. Some principles of human rights differ from those


8/10

Nicte-Ha Kantn 8

of realism which causes the latter not to accept them for its survival. In the following

lines this will be explained with more detail.

One of the reasons why realism might be against the notion of human rights is

because it attempts to its principle of sovereignty. The debate of whether it is still true

that there no mayor authority than the state prevails, but realism knows how to respond to

that. It could be thought that the existence of global groups of states, such as the UN, or

global groups of individuals, such as non-governmental organizations, would make a

change against the belief that there is no higher power above states that controls them or

tell them how to act. For realist, states keep being the sole authority that takes decisions

upon their territory, despite international norms that pretend to set standards.

The existence of international norms does not in itself give the UN, or anyone

else, the authority to implement them, or even to inquire into how states

implement (or do not implement) them. By ratifying the covenants, states agree to

follow international human rights standards however, they do not authorize

international enforcement of these standards. (Donelly 8)

Moreover, it is said that countries like China or Russia believe that no external

figure can criticize the events that take place within the territory of a state due to the

entitlement of sovereignty and national self-determination which are are necessary

conditions of order in the international system (Brown and Ainley 226).

The notion of morality implicit in the idea of international human rights seems to

be another reason why realists seem to be somewhat unsympathetic. They believe that

morality out of their territory is not a concern of the state. To pursue a moral foreign

policy would be not only foolishly unsuccessful but would leave ones country


9/10

Nicte-Ha Kantn 9

vulnerable to the power of self-interested states (Donnelly 31). From this perspective,

states seem to be selfish because they just care about themselves. At the end, anyway,

that is why there is an idea of self-help within realism. It is understandable, then, that

they reject some ideas such as humanitarian intervention.

On the other hand, there are some facts that put realism in a rather

disadvantageous side. First there is the condition that individuals nowadays hold before

the international system. There are now more acknowledged than before both in a

positive and in a negative way. While their rights are recognized, they can also face

charges for the crimes they commit against their fellowmen. In this respect, some

questions rise. Because international figures can now charge individuals, instead of

states, with the crimes they commit, can that be counted as a form of intervention?

Citizens form part of the domain states have power in. If external organizations decide

upon the fate of citizens, are they violating the sovereignty of the state?

Moreover, the way that human rights are implemented and the importance they

have gained are unfavourable news for realism. The human rights regime suggests that

there may be some actions, such as torture, slavery and arbitrary detention that are

prohibited regardless of their status in domestic law, and regardless of the official status

of the perpetrator. The enforcement of this position is a severe challenge to the notion of

the sovereign state (Brown and Ainley 213). According to this, states have to stick to

the norms established by the international society. In addition, there is also the situation

of the NGOs, which, by the means of publicity and support from many people around the

world, can influence the actions of states in the human rights scope. It seems then that in

some cases there are external bodies that can exert a kind of power upon states.


10/10

Nicte-Ha Kantn 10

5. ConclusionAs it is known, no exact statement about human behaviour can be made. That is why

disciplines related to this wide topic attempt to give a glimpse of how people behave.

While some authors believe that human rights have actually caused a decline in the

current standing of realism, there are others that contradict such arguments. I consider

that the relationship between realism and human rights in the international domain not

necessarily has to be prejudicial to either of both.

The future of human rights just might be determined by their ability to develop new

forms of cooperation that protect the state as an essential mechanism for realizing human

rights (Donnelly 209). Such argument suggests that international human rights

endurance relies on the prevalence of realism within the international system. Nowadays

both theories have a good standing in the international relations, each one in its own way.

Perhaps, in years to come, a major change will cause the balance to tip in favour of one

of them or maybe the debate will continue.

Bibliography

Baylis, John y Steve Smith. The Globalization of World Politics. New York: Oxford

University Press, 2006.

Brown, Chris y Kirsten Ainley. Understanding International Relations. New York:

Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.

Donelly, Jack. International Human Rights. United States: Westview Press, 2007.

Realism and HI Essay

Documents

Transcript of Realism and HI Essay