Human Rights & The Never Again Justification; Part IV of IV (Conclusion)

Human Rights & The Never Again Justification; Part IV of IV (Conclusion)

So far I have argued the following:

  1. that human rights laws are not integral to the rule of law
  2. that international human rights laws have been ineffective in practice and this is due to a lack of consensus on the issues that human rights laws are designed to apply to
  3. that there is no transcendental justification for human rights laws analogous to theological doctrines; this makes it difficult to proselytise those who reject human rights laws

All of the above practical objections, can be used to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of human rights laws, which in turn can be used to show that such laws are unlikely to be effective in preventing genocide.  Indeed, they have not been, as is clear from the genocides that have occurred since the UNDHR, such as genocides that occurred in Cambodia and Rwanda.

This could be viewed as disappointing, given that the primary aim of the UNDHR was to prevent genocide.  Whilst the precise causes of genocide can the subject of debate, it is obvious that it cannot occur within homogenous territories.  Yet rather than encourage the development of homogenous or even relatively homogenous nation states, that respect each other’s national sovereignty and territorial integrity, those responsible for enforcing international human rights laws have sought to create the exact opposite scenario; see here.

Furthermore, genocide is abhorrent for the same reason that murder is abhorrent; the latter due to the uniqueness and value of each human life and the former due to the uniqueness and value of each racial and ethnic group.

Indeed, the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) defines ‘genocide’ more widely than deliberate killing, to include:

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group, conditions of life calculated to bring about is physical destruction, in whole or in part

(d)   Imposing measures designed to prevent births within the group  

With this in mind, the policies promoted by the UN and other agencies that claim to be concerned with the protection of human rights, in particular mass migration and globalisation, which serve to create fungible and deracinated populations, seem incongruous with the original aim of the UNDHR.  This is assuming of course, that the stated aim was sincere in the first place.