The economic, social, political perspectives of the XXI. century are viewed in the light of globalization by many disciplines. However, the term globalization cannot easily be interpreted in the field of law, it is often referred to as a "chameleon" expression. It first of all means economic-social trends becoming global, thus economic-social problems also internationalize, the same way as the solutions require unity and co-operation on an international scale. Dependence of states, peoples and individuals increases in the globalizing world, country borders do not stop the effect of national trends, they clearly influence other countries as well.
Globalization is making relations among states more intense, inducing major developments in international law at the same time. Although sovereign states remain primary subjects of international law, organizing and synchronizing the more and more diversified interstate relations served as a base for the foundation of international establishments in the late 1900s, with an ever growing importance in international affairs. The so-called "modified sovereignty" is a result of globalization in international law: against total power in domestic issues, which is increasingly being squeezed by international obligations and the number of seats in commissions and assemblies is a way of measuring sovereignty. Now, this number can only be improved by self-restraint regarding traditional sovereignty, thus joining international organizations.
In meeting the challenges of globalization the depth of authority of international law is expanding. Consequently states now are united while approaching more and more issues of world affairs, formerly restricted to of national interest only (respecting basic human rights is one). At the same time countries also share efforts to find solutions to problems that are out of their individual capabilities, such as the protection of the environment, cross-border crime (drug trafficking) or even social barriers and the struggle against poverty.
Globalization's most influential and controversial aspect is the realization of economic, social and cultural rights. Danger is that traditional mechanisms involving states as subjects cannot be applied to multinational companies and worldwide financial corporations. Obviously, the growth of global poverty coincides with other global trends. Poverty, which can easily rid an individual of his basic rights and dignity, is an issue of major concern addressed by the United Nations and its institutions.
Despite the relative wealth enjoyed in developed countries, world-scale poverty is expanding vigorously. One of every five of us humans on the planet, 1.2 billion people altogether live under extremely hard up circumstances. This figure will probably rise in the upcoming two decades as world population is expected to grow by 2 billion, most of which coming from poor countries. The social gap between the wealthy and the poor is an even greater concern for example in Brazil with the poorest 20% of the population rationing only about 2.5 % of the national income and the richest 20% enjoying 2/3 of it. Countries ranging from Russia to South Africa, from Colombia to Nigeria show alarming income distribution statistics and many agree that economic globalization is to blame. True, the fruits of globalization can be found rather unevenly. In China, Malaysia or even Thailand, differences in wealth have been growing on in the last decade, despite protracted and dynamic economic progress and world trade integration.
There is increasing awareness that more solid, better coordinated actions, development of rights, extended defense mechanisms and improving control efficiency in the international community can further promote protection of human rights.
The field of ideas of human rights dates back to the formation of bourgeoisie and the civil revolutions, when citizens' demands were translated into freedom rights in constitutions and other documents of constitutional importance against the state and ruling power. Economic development including improvements in infrastructure and travel and also expansion of trade intensified not only state-to-state, but also relations among citizens of different states. Intensified relations have brought along phenomena and problems worth to be solved by states together, thus requiring international cooperation and international law.
In the early 20[th] century, the impacts of economic
- 101/102 -
development reached a certain extent that demanded international regulations of labor conditions (first that of child and woman labor), leading to the foundation of the International Labor Organization in 1919. Premature attempts of international human rights regulations included first the protection of rights of foreign citizens, later regulation (prohibition) of international-scale issues, such as slave trade and the trafficking of women, but the real driving force towards international regulation was brought about by the horror of the WWII. It became obvious that no state is entitled to do whatever it wants with its own citizens, and that no state can repeatedly ignore human rights without one way or another affecting other countries, mostly by posing a threat to international peace. Therefore internationalization of human rights - namely creation and further rapid development of the international human rights regulations - can be attributed to globalization. Fundamental rights previously set in national constitutions were lifted to the level of international obligations by international human rights regulations and later the range of these rights has steadily been extended.
Law experts view "the idea human rights (in its moral, political and social sense) is a collective definition of the basic values of legal and political culture or the set of legal values of a culture; such values that are a must for a legal system"[1]. All in all human rights are not isolated legal entities but moral and social values represented in law.
As a result, human rights are "rather diversified, so legal classification offers an easier understanding"[2] . A well-known method of classifying human rights is as follows:
- protective rights: the right to life and security;
- freedom rights: the freedom of religion, opinion and assembly;
- social rights: the right to work, food and shelter;
- participation rights: the right to take part in both political and economic terms.[3]
Human rights can be divided on the basis of their subjects: individual and collective rights. Collective rights can by their nature be enjoyed in association with others, such as the freedom of assembly and association. Nowadays rights, mainly rights of certain minorities to geographical, self-governing and cultural autonomy, which are collectively entitled to groups of individuals as legal subjects are becoming more and more important.
The fact that states may exercise limitations on human rights and the conditions under which these limitations are set forth by the international law can form another basis for classification[4]. There are absolute rights to be respected even in a state of emergency such as the right to life, prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment, prohibition of slavery and legal penalty with retrospective effect.
According to this way of classification a great deal of the above rights can "normally" be revoked by the state under well-defined conditions: limitations must be based on law, and limitations must aim at the common interest of the society (public order, public moral, public security and public health).
A classification of this kind identifies a group of rights, where an even wider range of limitations on economic, social and cultural rights can be accepted under certain economic circumstances, in the light of the state's financial capabilities.
Recently there is a tendency to sort human rights into a system of hierarchy. "Thus international law agrees on fundamental human rights that are ius cogens, for example the right to life, prohibition of torture, slavery and legal penalty with retrospective effect. These fundamental norms are obligatory without exception, contradicting international legal norms are invalid (ineffective) placing human rights on top of this hierarchy. More numerous are the so-called erga omnes rights, that are obligatory to all parties. Respecting these rights so essential for the international community serves the interest of all states"[5] .
Most frequently human rights are divided into groups by "generations" reflecting differences in time and content in parallel with the three key ideas of the French Revolution: the first generation lists civil and political rights (to ensure freedom), the second economic, social and cultural rights (seeking equality), and the third generation includes collective rights (referring to brotherhood)[6] . The numbering of the generations reflects a chronological order of the formation of rights, although quite mislead-ingly. Today it is generally accepted, that the first two generations of rights are of equal importance, inseparable and can only be viewed through mutual interconnections. Still these two generations form unique entities as it shows in the UN's two separate documents: the Proclamation of Civil and Political Rights and the Proclamation of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966). Traditional interpretation in textbooks sees the difference between the first two generations based on the need of a state's self-restraint towards civil and political rights and its crucial contribution to provide economic, social and cultural rights. By now, it is widely recognized that maintaining political rights does require interference from the state as well as economic, social and cultural rights (the ones that need no direct action from the state) are becoming less and less expensive. International law expects states to comply in providing civil and political rights without delay, but economic,
- 102/103 -
social and cultural rights to be achieved gradually. Nevertheless, gradual progress must not be delayed without sound reasons. These two groups of legal rights show distinction in international legal defense policies as well. In the case of economic, social and cultural rights only report mechanisms have been set up traditionally, whereas an individual's civil and political rights are protected by the legal system, and also victims are entitled to turn to appeal courts. Second generation rights have recently been known to offer forums for complaint as the Europe's Social Chart lists systematic procedures for collective complaints. Anyway, international law and its protective procedures with numerous guarantees are indispensable in securing efficient protection for basic human rights.
There is indeed a group of human rights that not only spread worldwide in the wake of globalization, they were rather created and shaped by globalization itself. International law often views the latest-evolved third generation rights (also known as solidarity rights[7]) as "human rights answers to the challenges of globalization"[8]. Although it is not clear yet which rights belong to the above group and what exactly these rights stand for. Without doubt on the list: the right to peace (the arms race counterpart); the right to a healthy environment (for environmental pollution awareness). With the sprout in the problems of globalization, third generation human rights handbooks are becoming heavier and heavier. Basic rights belonging to the third generation are yet at an embryonic stage in the struggle against global threats. These rights cannot at this point be completely realized within the boundaries of a state, and also these rights (or elements of these rights) cannot (or only to a certain extent) be interpreted as the individual's subjective right against the state. However, when identifying individual rights various components are to be taken into consideration: interpretations of the right to life and health must comply with the right to a healthy environment. There is a growing consensus that the right to a healthy environment may just as well mean an individual's right to a healthy environment worthy to go to court for. In the case of the right to a healthy environment interpreted as the right to environmental conservation (protection and development), it includes the right to be informed on decision making and plans affecting with environment, the right to take part in decision making procedures and chances for efficient appeal correspondingly. Therefore the right to a healthy environment translates into a right with the individual as its subject, but the whole (international) community as its beneficiary[9].
It is not by any means a one-way relationship btween globalization and human rights, as globalization's influence on human rights (internationalization of certain rights while formation of others) comes right back with human rights becoming universal and promoting globalization of civil societies.
The idea of human rights being universal roots in ideological grounds of the age of enlightenment and became incorporated into the policies of the revitalized United Nations Organization after the 2[nd] World War. In 1948 the General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights making it the reference point and a cornerstone for further international human rights regulations[10] .
The phrase "universal" in the title of the Declaration refers to rights independent from any state, rights inalienable from the individual by nature[11]. Publications have questioned the adjective "universal", as the Declaration defined western civilization achievements as universal[12]. Yet others agree that the Declaration is actually universal in the sense that it compiles all common values of mankind (rights inalienable from any human being by nature) and at the same time they admit that there is a lack of universality regarding the Declaration's contents and its cultural conclusions[13]. The Declaration's major novelty is that its adoption can be closely linked to the protection of human rights becoming a worldwide concern. It is however criticized by politicians pressing cultural relativism and distinctly interpreting the relationship between a society's cultural values and human rights; such decision makers demand the traditional policy of non-intervention in international affairs.
Universality of human rights offers several aspects. There is a difference between the universality of creating norms and executing them[14]. Under UN flags enactment of human rights norms is indeed universal as all UN member states are invited to take part in the composition of would-be treaties and declarations. A lot fewer states, on the other hand, are ready to incorporate these norms, many do not accept them to be obligatory in domestic affairs and in everyday practice execution shows only traces of such universality. Which is then present in the formulation phase of human rights norms, but absent in their implementation and recognition.
On a theoretical basis universality of human rights primarily means that every human being is entitled to all the rights and freedoms without distinction of any kind, such as race, sex, color, religious or other
- 103/104 -
opinions of conscience, social origin, property or else, regardless of regions, frontiers or regimes. Since the idea of basic human rights emerged from Western ideological workshops of the 1700's (mainly that of enlightenment and natural law) and since regulations of Western and European legal systems are believed to be the most sophisticated representatives of other civilizations (mainly developing countries) frequently argue that human rights are products of the West and its cultural imperialism, thus aimed at nothing, but to impose Western cultural achievements and political and social philosophies on Third World countries. Such countries commonly prefer cultural relativism to universality of human rights.
Tensions remain between universality and cultural relativism while globalization brings fragmentation alongside in international affairs. This is apparent in the relationship between universality and regionalism concerning human rights.
Although major supporters of cultural relativism are found among Islamic and Asian countries, there is an interesting familiarity with the United States' attitude to international human rights agreements[15]. According to cultural relativism fundamental human rights and freedoms are universal, execution of these rights are solely the responsibility of the governments with regard to the country's traditional sets of values[16]. One cannot ignore the fact that complaints about the universality of human rights most usually originate not from the people affected, but instead from their leaders with contempt towards those rights[17]. After Asian leaders at a regional conference preceding the 1993 Human Rights World Congress in Vienna, Austria had argued universality to be obsolete, NGOs were ready to express their commitment to universal rights in a proclamation[18] .
Examples from East and South-East Asia show signs of reciprocity in the way objections from totalitarian leaders riding economic booms proliferate against individual human rights and at the same time growing economies produce people demanding democracy and human rights in unique profusion[19] .
In recent years governments of Asia (especially Singapore, Malaysia, China and Indonesia) have introduced their views at UN General Assemblies and had their voices heard against Western human rights concepts on numerous occasions. Their arguments include "the need to respect internal issues free from outside interference on one hand, a sound priority of economic and social rights over civil and political ones secondly and thirdly, a greater emphasis on social and collective rights instead of individual freedoms. ... Asian government officials... have long insisted that people in Asia prefer order to freedom and that order helps best in keeping up economic growth. Malaysian Prime Minister, Dr. Mahathir Mahamad not once have claimed that developing countries cannot afford the luxury of human rights"[20].
Besides political clashes a significant conceptual debate has popped up about the possibilities of adopting human rights in Asia. Deeply influenced by their unique traditions Asian societies share a common approach that one is entitled to human rights not because he is a human being, but because these rights are given by god. Also, it has become urgent to define brand new rights as a result of globalization in the region, thus making things even more complex. With migration and corruption on the rise countries without solid legal traditions rely on powerful governmental control and administrative regulations.
Globalization is driven by mutual connections, while in the meantime enhancing them. The principle of human rights being mutually dependent is only one aspect and it highlights the fact that human rights and various generations of human rights are linked so closely to one another that disregard for one of the rights deprives the benefits of another. It is equally important to point out that human rights cannot be thoroughly enjoyed in any corner of the world with mass human rights violations elsewhere. As the threat it poses to world peace may seem obvious, human floods of refugees often induce large-scale tensions "exporting" legal offences from the countries of origin. Recipient or target countries then come under enormous public pressure as social welfare systems become compromised, inhuman conditions in refugee camps make it to the headlines and acts of racism and intolerance overwhelm.
Such close links often manifest in the interaction of cultures. Western legal traditions and human rights philosophies focus on individualism and are historically in favor of rights rather than duties, whereas non-Western societies emphasize obligations to the community over individual freedoms. As a consequence of a better understanding between cultures, non-Western approaches may eventually acknowledge a new, complex set of individual choices and obligations and also Western philosophy may incorporate collective duties[21]. The impacts of Buddhism have already appeared in Western thinking as reflected in environmentalists' attitudes to the rights of future generations. The idea of collective duties towards the greater community is getting more attention as recognition of economic and social rights is established, although providing these rights remain the responsibilities of society's solidarity (by means of social distribution and NGO efforts). Western countries could serve as examples for successful adoption and vindication of economic and social rights alongside with civil and political
- 104/105 -
principles. These examples prove that individual rights and freedoms often labeled as creations of the West can peacefully coexist with collective norms and accepting the value of individualism allows for reconciliation with the solidarity found among citizens. Of course, liberal views have long nodded at society's common boundaries of individual freedoms and acts; even the concept of social contract outlines rights to be valid within the community. Freedoms are not at all limitless in modern international law as it is clearly highlighted in human rights declarations: in the case of civil and political rights the interests of society and the need to protect the rights of fellow citizens justify certain forms of restrictions of various extent. Upon imposition of such limitations the countries' unique social and cultural features may also be taken into consideration.
An important aspect of universality of human rights in an institutional-authority oriented approach lies in the international legal regulation of universality and regionalism. With worldwide human rights agreements and control mechanisms in place, the need for regional establishments does not aim at undermining universality of human rights, but is principally a product of the struggle for efficiency and somewhat that of a larger-scale social-cultural homogeneity particularly at regional levels. When compared, universal and regional documents about international human rights show little variation in contents and the rights to be provided, there are no fundamental philosophical or value gaps, only regional variances[22]. Take the American Declaration of Human Rights for instance, which goes further than most UN and regional agreements in reaffirming the right to life with the prerequisite "in general from the very moment of fertilization" life is entitled to protection. Or there is the Chart of African Nations expounding the importance of ethnic rights and individual obligations.
Real contrast can only be encountered during control and law enforcement mechanisms, which are often the roots of disagreement present in the texts[23]. European legal systems show strong judicial dominance offering ideal grounds for isolated individual claims, but inefficient against structural, serious and mass human rights violations[24] . The American procedure places the Human Rights Commission (with its at-the-scene fact-finding probes) ahead of the actual court system, which has only contributed a rather consultative role so far[25]. The judicial side has not been a strong one in African legal systems either. According to a popular explanation, African, as well as some Asian traditions and justice philosophies have always downplayed court case orders, instead turning to civil mediators to help in negotiating a settlement[26] .
Along with regional policies, the UN's universal legal mechanisms are vital not only in cases where there are no regional charts or human rights institutions to watch and protect, but also where present regional procedures need support and update. UN's most frequently notable control mechanism is the report procedure. As an advantage, the commission in charge, using official government reports and other information sources as well, can call attention to a country's basic structural problems long before related individual complaints appear or even prior to the actual human rights violations. Such report mechanisms may therefore prove useful for anticipation and prevention. Another advantage of universality in the world of human rights is that it enables people representing different cultures to share similar objectivity and criticism when referring to previously untouchable regional traditions - the same way as regional institutions may point out at a country's controversial issues and legal practices, often taken for granted and not even seen as issues by the culture's natives -, thus allowing cultural diversity to contribute to improvements in human rights protection.
Human rights universality does not contradict the idea of diversity among societies and cultures, as universality is never intended to mean uniformity[27] . Nor can it mean cultural uniformity, as human rights only draw a bottom line in the conditions for individual and collective well-being[28] . Universality sets certain fundamental values inalienably entitled to all members of the human family based on their biological and social needs and musts. Such values include life (free of fear and suffering), human dignity and basic health. Human rights represent exactly these values, although their actual manifestation and effect may vary culture by culture. Human rights philosophies have two principal cornerstones: prohibition of discrimination and tolerance, that is respect for the rights of others. All in all universality should be viewed in the light of these two principles, as it tolerates every culture unless it denies basic human rights values treasured by an overwhelming majority of civilizations.
In general, globalization is attributed to economic factors, namely the liberalization of market interests and world trade. Economic factors on the other hand have a great influence on attitudes to human rights. In the
- 105/106 -
case of economic, social and cultural rights there is a more or less direct correlation as such necessary government actions are limited by economic conditions. The concept is present in numerous international agreements, primarily in the Universal Declaration of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, allowing states to allocate resources within their financial limits. This close relationship works only in one direction though; protecting human rights requires a certain level of economic development, whereas high industrial output lacking further political will and action does not necessarily mean effective human rights responses. It is generally true that providing all the economic, social and cultural rights puts an enormous budgetary pressure on its administration, although some the rights of this sort, for example the right to form labor unions costs significantly less than others, of course practically even these expenses are pushed over to the private sector, mainly to business units as employers. Also true, that certain civil and political rights claim a bigger portion of the budget cake as does the court system housing fair legal protection or the voting process in democratic elections - the costs of democratic institutions as a whole. In connection to human rights, one might be able to say that since the two major groups of freedoms can only be provided together with one another, there is a minimum level of economic development and resources essential for providing full-scale human rights coverage. Consequently, trade liberalization and integration, if healthy for economic growth, can have a positive impact on the realization of human rights.
Another aspect of the relationship between human rights and the economy is the way everyday human rights practices influence economy. Deprivation of classic rights can in the long run lead to economic recession, as seen among the countries of the former communist bloc, although market stability - on both national and international level - presumes political stability, which in the end relies on a basic standard of civil and political rights conditions. Realization and practice of these rights have proved inseparable from those of economic, social and cultural rights; realization of one branch of rights requires respect for the other on the basis that neither of the branches is superior or more important (theory of mutual dependence among human rights). A successfully carried out economic liberalization gives way to new administrative and decision making centers with clearly defined functions, eventually leading to political liberalization[29] , a the new middle class can push for improvements in democratic standards[30]. Economic growth therefore triggers social demands for democratic rights, flawless human rights conditions contribute to political stability, which then encourage investment hopes, thus fueling business growth after all.
Political studies found that long-term economic uphill favors degradation of traditional or material values (such as work, family, prestige) and a renaissance of postmodern, post-material values (such as democracy, human rights and protection of the environment). A value shift of this kind has frequently been a key factor in democratic consolidation processes in Latin America and Asia. The shift is by no means irreversible, following a sudden economic downfall even Western societies show signs of revaluation among historic and mundane achievements at the expense of democratic values[31]. The phenomenon serves as a bright example for inseparable and mutually interdependent human rights, equally important civil and political and also economic, social and cultural freedoms. Attention turns usually to rights abuse cases only and human life cannot be complete without the full set of values represented in these human rights. Despite such an obvious relationship economic and social rights boost tax rates and the price of labor at the same time holding back effectiveness and competitiveness, no wonder they are not so much welcome among corporate leaders. These issues can be alleviated by world community's harmonized efforts to provide economic and social rights.
Competitive advantages resulting from an artificially low level of economic and social rights, often referred to as social dumping have previously stirred up resistance from international organizations. The struggle has always been a major driving force behind the development of, among other economic institutions of integration, the European Community and the World Trade Organization, promoter of worldwide quota liberalization[32] .
Besides labor conditions, globalization has a rather negative effect on various aspects of human rights. Globalization has increased disparities regardless of anti-discrimination principles. Economic and social differences have always been there, globalization only made things worse. Social gaps and poverty are on the rise and globalization exclusively fruits for very limited fractions of the population, distinctions made on the basis of geographical location, income and language used in telecommunication. Urban and rural ways of life have come oceans apart and disparities in future prospects divide continents not only by the historic trenches between North and South, but within the developed world bringing more and more racial discrimination along. Besides generally accepted achievements mass proportions of women's employment have resulted in underpaid
- 106/107 -
thousands of women flooding suburban areas all over the developing world. Rootless, hungry and desperate, many end up as victims of prostitution or trafficking. Nevertheless, globalization is not always a direct cause of brand new human rights abuses, it has simply drawn excess attention to previously identified, but long ignored issues[33].
Globalization is not only a playground for business trends, but it is indeed influenced greatly by political currents. Market conditions are in the hands of politics and the rules of the game are constantly being shaped through power talks at both bi and multilateral round tables, as at the World Trade Organization[34] . To identify political dimensions in globalization one has to simply remind of the growing number of ideas about global government, supporters proposing for extended UN institutional authority to cope with global issues.
Present institutions of global governing system have in the past been selectively sensitive to global issues, most of them only with a slight familiarity to the aspects of sustainable growth and globalization. Among others, the UN Development Program (UNDP) presses that strategic reforms in any economy must coincide with appropriate social welfare policy able to withstand the negative effects of market forces. Its 1999 annual, the Human Development Report stressed out that the institutions of global governing system need to be reoriented in order to successfully maintain fairness during international negotiations.
Human rights institutions founded by the United Nations Charter (the Economic and Social Council, the Human Rights Commission and its sub-commissions) often address different issues of globalization, however linked human rights groups show less ambition in doing so. The majority of attention came from the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Commission. In May, 1998 the Commission turned to the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the WTO to implement social monitoring methods to probe real public impact on human rights along with their measures. The Commission declared: country reports will have to be evaluated with respect to international economic policies, which greatly influence a state's chances to do her duties set forth by the Universal Declaration. In the general comment section of the right to food, the Commission addressed the issue of food safety affected by globalization, the responsibility of private organizations and the obligations of states to properly regulate private and corporate activities, and highlighted the stakes involved as international organizations must keep the right to food in mind while setting up policies and trying to enforce them[35] .
An exceptionally high amount of criticism hits international economic and financial institutions from human rights perspectives. Both World Bank and the IMF has on several occasions been charged with prescribing structural reform projects and shock therapy measures on state budgets, that significantly deteriorated the population's economic and social rights conditions. The WTO has been blamed before for its trade liberalization and competitive advantages resulting from cheap labor. As an outcome, critics say, Labor Code minimums and social welfare standards decline, causing after all, or at least threatening with, downward-harmonization of a sort. In order to restore balance, industrial countries and labor unions have urged a so-called social clause to be enclosed in trade agreements. These steps are not at all welcome among developing countries, who see it as protectionism of the developed. Studies conducted by international economic workshops on the other hand show that although some corporate decisions are actually based on exploitation-generated low cost advantages, poor or lacking Labor Code standards do not attract investments exponentially as many business entities anticipate social discontent and unrest along, not mentioning the emerging danger of customer boycott. Countless multinational corporations have set their own business policies containing additional human rights remarks, much encouraged by the governments of industrial nations in case of public procurement procedures for instance. Such initiations can easily confront WTO guidelines concerning procurement conditions and eliminating technical trade obstacles, thus bringing WTO sanctions. To avoid WTO getting in the way of human rights vindication in the process of globalization, experts suggest promoting the principle of human rights primacy over any other contractual commitments in international law. And if free trade agreements are to be reconciled with human rights obligations, steps in human rights development will hardly clash with WTO regulations again[36] .
Besides regulatory issues, international economic and financial institutions receive complaints for their formal-organizational structure, which ignores human rights principles. Insufficiencies in the structure such as dominance of the developed countries and a marginal position of the developing part of the world in decision making procedures. Operational defects are believed to include lack of publicity and transparency and also unwillingness to consult with civil groups. The establishment that has gone the furthest on this way is World Bank by listening to what civil societies have had to say and by pioneering human rights conditionality (linking loan commitments to certain human rights conditions). The IMF is slightly behind as the Fund only made some progress in information
- 107/108 -
availability and is yet to implement all other components of transparency and responsibility[37].
During the struggle against the negative effects of globalization there is a growing consensus that besides states, international organizations and multinational companies should also be held accountable by the world community in order for more efficient human rights protection. It is now widely believed that states' mandates stretch further than their own international human rights obligations in respecting those rights, but they also need to compel all citizens and organizations within their jurisdiction to do the same. At the present time the world community faces the unique challenge of multinational business activity, which thrives on all the economic benefits of globalization, while neglects any pressure to compensate for the disadvantages. All this is a result of their overwhelming economic power, which smaller states cannot even dream to be a match for, and bigger countries find it just as hard to exercise jurisdiction over business units of such mobility.
In order to keep transnational business activities within the boundaries of human rights, in 1999 the UN Secretary-General launched the Global Compact program intended to provide an enlarged budget to promote cooperation between the international business community and the UN and to directly integrate the efforts of the corporate sector to comply with universal human rights norms. According to Global Compact, companies are to lay down business policies and internal ethics coherent with international human rights and labor law guidelines. The aim is to encourage corporations not only to implement respective working and employment conditions for their very own colleagues, but also to demand that subcontractors do likewise. They can incorporate policy restrictions on investments targeting economic areas with disregard to human rights. Corporate giants have by now realized the need to take the lead as respect for human rights values has become crucial in improving production figures, too. Firstly, increasing consumer awareness puts the pressure on market competitors to guarantee their workers' basic human rights, as well as environmental and animal treatment minimums. Secondly, respect for underlying principles set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights greatly contributes to the stabilization of a constitutional state, creating a more effective, more placid business climate. It is also widely believed that staff members work better if contented, thus treated with respect and dignity. In investment target and trade partner countries promotion of human rights norms serves the best interests of the business sector, and even so since developed countries have lately been imposing trade sanctions on states with contempt for basic rights - sanctions obstructing free trade. Multinational companies hope for borderless business opportunities and open markets, however these features along with human rights conditions can be improved by sponsoring local welfare, healthcare and educational infrastructure or by disseminating the concept of human rights and supporting civil groups' efforts[38].
Civil society members, NGOs play an essential role in promoting respect for human rights both nationally and internationally and an equally significant role in turning around negative human rights trends resulting from globalization. The world of NGOs has proved to motivate most UN institutions to discuss various aspects of development and globalization and states nowadays to focus on the influence of world trade on human rights.
During the late 1980's the revolution in information technology sped up the process of globalization and global government institutions were unable to follow. As an outcome, social tensions became apparent triggering demonstrations by anti-global groups, who have been seen marching with the moral basis of human rights and relying on IT products as information sources and as certain means of disapproval, all of which have proved extremely useful in stirring up events into angry protests. Globalization is therefore the hand feeding the mouth that bites the hand. A unique combination of human rights and technical innovation aid along globalizing civil societies.
Nevertheless, in the complex process civil society itself has become a major driving force behind globalization. Besides a top-bottom cascade of procedures found in the world of politics and economics, environmental, antinuclear, feminist and other human rights groups exert a key upward pressure on the globalization process[39]. This from-bottom-to-top kind of globalization could potentially encourage a fully democratic evolution for globalization, through consultative statuses at international organizations for instance.
One function of NGOs is facilitate a dialogue between cultures in order to agree on universal values - a dialogue nowhere near so fluent at government level. Civil groups stand a much better chance of revealing the real essence of cultures, of listening to the voices of those bearing the consequences of ideological debates, whose opinions could not count any less for the official, governmental reports of totalitarian regimes. The paradox of human rights
- 108/109 -
dialogues is that any real dialogue requires a minimum set of human rights[40]. Hungry, illiterate and discriminated people excluded from public life are unable to attend the discussions over their rights. Deprivation of economic rights often constitutes to a sometimes complete absence of true choice, a lack of freedom. The freedom of speech so indispensable for liberal politics is significantly limited, if citizens depend financially on the state and if they are reluctant to jeopardize their economic and social status, instead they give up the right to publicly criticize the state and accept the official interpretation of culture. International cooperation of civil groups and international NGO activity have broadened operational possibilities and independence for each one of them and also brought about an increased efficiency in fighting human rights abuses and in achieving goals, at the same time reducing chances of states to get away with human rights violations.
By publicizing universal human rights, these civil initiations have contributed to the process of globalization. In the eyes of supporters of cultural relativism - those opposing universality - human rights movements are nothing but crusaders of Western cultures. Such Western attitude provokes disagreement first and resistance later as political leaders of mainly non-Western societies eagerly cite the prohibition of interference with internal affairs. The population then often rejects human rights interventions commonly viewed as declaration of superiority of Western social values and - based on their historical experience or just the interpretations of those in power - regards human rights themselves to be not more than manifestations of Western individualism and self-interest. The concept is somewhat misleading in the sense that solidarity from human rights movements with the victims of rights abuse and oppression could also be considered as a moral obligation[41] . Human rights groups have frequently reprimanded not only non-Western cultures, but also Western social practice, enabling these NGOs to more authentically call attention to human rights issues than Western states that have on several occasions been blamed for double measuring. All of these are in proper accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights making every person, not only states, obliged to respect basic human rights.
During the highly complex process of globalization, human rights development has been heavily influenced and human rights themselves have had their own wide range of effects on globalization. Along with intensifying international cooperation, basic human rights have become primary subjects of international law, several brand new rights emerged in response to global challenges and also universal human rights initiations have stimulated globalization.
Globalization has always had negative effects on the realization of human rights in many aspects of everyday life, but particularly so with increasing disparities. Globalizing economies have produced a number of rights abuses, arousing only slow-motion reactions - which are also controversial ever since - from the economic and financial bodies of global government. Instead of helping to solve problems, economic sanctions imposed on human rights violators have only worsened the situation caused by the violations. It is now widely believed, that although human rights abuses cannot be overlooked, instead of or along with economic sanctions alleviated with a combination of programs promoting human rights are to be implemented[42].
In the battle against globalization's negative side-effects there is a growing need for civil society organizations, for their international cooperation. Quite remarkably it is one of globalization's main catalysts, information technology and its innovations that supply "battle combatants" with the necessary tools.
Therefore globalization alone must not be doomed nor praised, its defects and benefits come hand in hand. International cooperation among states and also among civil groups is crucial in order to maintain balance between positive effects and negative ones, such as pollution or mass human rights violations inspiring anti-global protests against international economic organizations and multinational corporate policies[43]. ■
NOTES
[1] Bragyova, András: Can human rights be based on international law ? (Or can international law take the place of natural law?) Állam- és jogtudomány 1990. No. 1-4. 94.
[2] Weller, Mónika: Human rights and European integration. EJMKK, Budapest 2000. 19.
[3] Moltman, Jürgen: Man, mankind and the right of land. Világosság 1990. No. 8-9. 635-643.
[4] Bokorné Szegő, Hanna: The international community and human rights. In: Changes in the world community and international law. Jogtudományi Értekezések, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 1993.
[5] Weller, ibid.
[6] Vasak, Karell: La déclaration universelle des droits de l homme, 30 ans apres. Courrier de l UNESCO, 1977
[7] Mavi, Viktor: Rights of solidarity or the third generation of human rights? Állam- és Jogtudomány 1987-1988. No. 1-2. 151-173. Mr. Mavi often refers to the latest human rights as solidarity rights, placing solidarity among individuals and peoples as a common background.
[8] Kardos, Gábor: Human rights at the threshold of a new era. T-Twins publishing, Budapest 1995. chapter 2. Mr. Kardos refuses to refer to"third generation rights" as "rights" (for not having a clear subject and context), or as generations (for not showing proper coherence), and defines them as mere human rights responses to global issues on the basis of common "efforts to transform, synthesize and adapt global challenges into the system of human rights".
- 109/110 -
[9] Cancado Trindade, A. A.: Environmental Protection and the Absence of Restrictions on Human Rights. In: Mahoney, Kathleen E. - Mahoney, Paul (editor): Human rights in the 21st century: A global challenge. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1993. 584.
[10] On the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its obligatory force see detail: Kardos, Gábor: The discreet charm of international human rights. For the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Fundamentum 1998. No. 4. 5-9.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Rouland, Norbert: Les utilisations de la notion de droits de l'Homme dans le nouvel ordre international. Revue de la Recherche Juridique. Droit Prospectif, 1992. No. 1. 131-138., a 136.
[13] Le Roy, Étienne: Les fondements anthropologiques des droits de l'homme. Crise de l'universalisme et post-modernité. Revue de la Recherche Juridique. Droit Prospectif, 1992. No. 1. 131-138.
[14] See Van Reenen, Piet: A Culture's Receptiveness for Human Rights; A Preliminary Sketch of a Conceptual Framework. In: SIM Special, No. 21. 591-608.
[15] See details at Van Der Vyver, Johan D.: Universality and Relativity of Human Rights: American Relativism. Buffalo Human Rights Law Review, 1998. Vol. 4. 43-78., with particular note on pp. 65-76.
[16] See. Mills, Kurt: Reconstructing Sovereignty: A Human Rights Perspective. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 1997. No. 3. 267-290.; pp 285.
[17] As UN Secretary-general Kofi Annan puts it: "It was never the people who complained of the universality of human rights, nor did the people consider human rights as a Western or Northern imposition. It was often their leaders who did so." (www.unhchr.ch)
[18] See Cumaraswamy, Dato' Param: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Is it Universal? Human Rights Law Journal, 1997. No. 9-12. 476-478.
[19] See Kuitenbrouwer, Maarten: Human Rights and the Clash of Civilisations. An Interdisciplinary Perspective on the Huntington Debate. SIM Special No. 21. 557-575.
[20] Környei, Ágnes: Regionalism in universalizing human rights with special respect to the Organization of American States. EJMKK, Budapest 1999. 278.
[21] Pollis, Adamantia: Towards a New Universalism; Reconstruction and Dialogue. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 1998. No. 1. 5-23.
[22] See Schreuer, Christopher: Regionalism vs. Universalism. European Journal of International Law, 1995. 477-499. particularly pp. 485.
[23] A document introducing individual rights protection with special emphasis on state responsibility could hardly have room for an article about normative individual obligations; what is more, the power of control mechanisms over obligatory duties has a great impact on the depth of obligations voluntarily undertaken by states.
[24] See in details: Kamminga, Menno T.: Is the European Convention on Human Rights Sufficiently Equipped to Cope with Gross and Systematic Violations? Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 1994. No. 2.; valamint Reidy, Aisling -Hampson, Francoise - Boyle, Kevin: Gross violations of Human Rights: Invoking the European Convention on Human Rights in the Case of Turkey. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 1997. No. 2. 161-173. Diplomatic means could prove more efficient than individual claims, even though states are reluctant to turn to diplomatic channels for political reasons.
[25] Schreuer, ibid. 486.
[26] For comparison between regional human rights systems see: Környei, Ágnes: Regionalism in universalizing human rights with special respect to the Organization of American States. Acta humana studiosorum, 1999. p 362.
[27] Kuitenbrouwer, ibid. 574. As evident as it is from the nature of international legal regulations, it by no means aims at uniformity, on the contrary it is of rather subsidiary purpose, only setting minimum standards for basic human rights.
[28] Freeman, Michael: Human Rights and Real Cultures: Towards a Dialogue on 'Asian Values'. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 1998. No. 1. 25-39., p. 37.
[29] See Monshipouri, Mahmood: The Muslim World Half a Century after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Progress and Obstacles. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 1998. No. 3. 287-314.
[30] See Huntington, Samuel P.: The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. Európa Könyvkiadó, Budapest 1998. 320.
[31] See Kuitenbrouwer, ibid. 572.
[32] There have been previous efforts from WTO; see details at Farkas Orsolya: Social rights and policies of EU. Grimm Könyvkiadó, JATEPress, Szeged 1998. 174.
[33] Howse, Robert - Mutua, Makau: Protecting Human Rights in a Global Economy. Challenges for the World Trade Organization. International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development, http://www.ichrdd.ca/111/english/commdoc/publications/globalization/wtoRightsGlob.html
[34] Oloka-Onyango, J. - Udagama, Deepika: The realization of economic, social and cultural rights: Globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of human rights. Preliminary report to the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. UN Doc. E/CN.4/ Sub.2/2000/13. http://www.unhchr.ch
[35] Uo. Oloka-Onyango, J. - Udagama, Deepika ibid.
[36] Allmand, Warren: Trading in human rights: The need for human rights sensitivity at the World Trade Organization. International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development, http://www.ichrdd.ca/111/english/commdoc/publications/globalAllmand.html
[37] Oloka-Onyango - Udagama, ibid.
[38] Business and Human Rights: A Progress Report. http://www.unhchr.ch/business.htm
[39] Oloka-Onyango - Udagama, ibid.
[40] Freeman, ibid. 30. This is the democratic approach to cultural interpretation.
[41] Freeman, ibid. 38.
[42] Human Development and Human Rights. Report on the Oslo Symposium, 2-3 October 1998. http://undp.org/hdro/Oslorep2.html
[43] See also: Woodiwiss, Anthony: Globalisation, Human Rights and Labour Law in Pacific Asia: the Beginning of a Voyage in? http://www.bsos.umd.edu/CSS97/papers/woodipap.html; Serexhe, Bernhard: Deregulation/Globalisation: The Loss of Cultural Diversity? http:/www.ctheory.com/ga1.10-deregulation.html; Khan, Haider A.: Beyond Distributive Justice in the McWorld. http://www.du.edu/gsis/gj/sp99/beyondd.htm; Levine, David P.: Global Justice and Inequality. http://www.du.edu/gsis/gj/sp99/global.htm.
Lábjegyzetek:
[1] The Author is an Administrative State Secretary, Ministry of Justice.
Visszaugrás
