28 July 2020, NIICE Commentary 5713
Antara Singh
COVID-19 pandemic has affected the lives of people, society and governments all over the world. Important questions in relation to the capabilities of global governance to respond to the human rights crisis, which were already deemed vital before the pandemic, have now accelerated at a rate and magnitude unprecedented. Debates have spiked over the implications on human rights due to restrictions in movements with lockdown and emergency provisions, censorships over media, civil society, regulation of digital space and the deployment of security sector actors in newer terrains. Measures taken by the governments point to the needs that; they be reminded of and held accountable for the duty to protect human life under international law, that they should address the disproportionate impacts of a crisis on the people and the planet; as well as, that they should ensure adequate safeguards are implemented to protect and promote the rights of the vulnerable and marginalized groups.
The piece argues firstly, that while governance agendas and models are shifting within domestic spheres with preoccupation to accommodate new realities, the time is ripe to address the existing fault lines for bolstering global governance on human rights. Receding multilateralism is largely taken as a cause for lack of sufficiency and consequentiality in the actions by the global governance in human rights. Notwithstanding the link reciprocating both ways, the piece argues secondly, that the more important task at hand has been to embolden the global governance system for a more contextually relevant response delivery mechanism to address the human rights crisis across the world. Lastly, the piece argues that given their strength of the expertise, network and the convening power through the global governance, a timely push through to herald internal reforms and levelling-up the capabilities within the international system will be apt.
The Fault Lines
The ambit of international laws, mechanisms and implementations on human rights have been notably and sweepingly taken up as agenda under the global governance system through the convening power of the UN post-1945. Experts have noted that while initial decades in the post-war period attempted to be forward thinking to address the crucial issues of the century, the pace of machineries on human rights have not been adequate to keep up with the advancing forms of violations across the globe.
Take for instance the volume of efforts and resources that went for creation of war crimes tribunals, transitional justice and peacebuilding initiatives that aimed to harbinger societies that are more inclusive and conflict resilient. While these steps were important, threats to human rights over the decades took to modern forms and it shifted quickly from the terrestrial battleground to newer domains – for example in the digital space. Traditional notions of the linkage of security with human rights transpired increasingly to new sources, COVID-19 and its implications is the latter most demonstration.
A more longer brewing issue has been the scenario where lines of value chains in trade, business and commerce, that proliferated post globalization beyond imaginable proportions from the time of drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and other such human rights instruments. The rise of new actors; private organizations, civil societies, and the speed of changing human interactions induced by science and technological advances, led to collateral creation of new forms of slavery, expanse of migrants and refugees.
Climate crisis and its impacts on human rights is another instance for which thirty crucial years and more of the time has trickled away. It was only in 2016 when Paris Agreement came by, that for the first time ‘human rights’ was mentioned and incorporated in a climate change treaty. And while poor farmers continue dying of starvations due to desertification, crop failures, forest fires and other environmental hazards, even at the point of the writing of this piece, the implementation mechanisms of the Agreement, remains an issue of discordance – such as on financing solutions and loss and damage mechanism, which are pivotal for protecting and promoting the human rights of those lagging behind.
The gap in the pace of externalities and responses of the States in addressing the human rights agenda presses with difficulties for the current international human rights governance. The notion on the primacy of state sovereignty and the associated jurisdictional concepts half a century ago evolved contrarily to a web-like inter mingled activities of multiple stakeholders as important actors across jurisdictions. This meant lacuna in the system’s ability to address the questions related to human rights violations – to what extent the State, private actors, communities and individuals are to be held liable.
It is clear that the issues of attributing accountability and underpinning modalities for delivery in human rights governance cases need renewal in the ways of working. Crisis induce creation of institutions and mechanisms, which can be made more responsive if mandated for emboldened actions.
The Value
Contesting positions on human rights standing as a fact, and as a matter critiqued by many should be viewed correctly as an element of the process in governance. Also, what particular cases or instances of shortcomings pertinent to human rights interventions may have arisen over the years, it should mean these lessons are in the database and institutional memories for the system to perform better. In this vein, the larger and substantive goal of multilateralism driven governance for human rights should not be compromised.
The crux for the future path regarding the global governance on human rights should be based on the threshold that the current one is grappling with inadequacy, and very importantly, not one of irrelevancy.
Ways Forward
It is true that reforms are needed within the system – inclusiveness, multi-stakeholder approach, breaking silos, harmonization of work, tackling rigidities in methods, and increasing quality in outcomes should be the keys. Strengthening the architecture for human rights by a renewed commitment is an opportunity this pandemic ushers in this era. The UN, Human Rights Council, Treaty bodies, experts and other international organizations have significantly enriched the governance system with their milestone contributions through the legal framework and its interpretations, jurisprudence, delivery of inter-governmental co-operation avenues, policy-making tools to address on newly emerging issues, interlocutors analyzing inter-sectional linkages and rendering both macro and micro lens on global patterns based on in-depth studies.
When the waves of crisis transpired due to the pandemic over the past year, the leadership of the UN to guide the nations, societies and individuals have been invaluable to chart pathways especially on building back better. By calling for a new social contract to combat global inequality and for a greener economy for instance, the global governance delivers significant initiatives, of worth beyond symbolic value of norms. An already instituted global governance system for human rights facilitating discussions and policy advice sharing among representatives, experts and networks of the field for timely informed decision-making steps tangibly contribute to prevent further human suffering.
The globe witnessed amid COVID-19 the perils and cost of the discrepancy on international collaboration over the virus and its impacts. As exemplified by those states in which sound functioning of the institutions had been long prioritized by comprehensive policies, results with regard to protection and promotion of human rights were relatively successful. Notwithstanding concerns of some gravity, they were able to guide surpassingly towards the goal of leaving no one behind in their response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In a similar line, right alignment of priorities while revitalizing the machineries of global governance for human rights can effectively impel the needed transformations.
