Future of Human Rights Forum
Geneva, 6 May 2013
Interview
transcript: Alfred de Zayas
Good morning or good afternoon. My name is Alfred de Zayas and
I am the United
Nations (UN) Independent Expert for the Promotion of a Democratic
and Equitable International Order. This is reminiscent of a
new economic order that has been the subject of various resolutions
of the United Nations (UN) General
Assembly in the past. As the first United
Nations (UN) Independent Expert on International Order, obviously
I have the chance to shape it, to give it life and to decide on
the priorities for the mandate.
I presented my
first report to the Human Rights Council September 2012,
my first
report to the United Nations (UN) General Assembly November
2012. It was very well received by states and, obviously, it
is a somewhat controversial issue to what extent economic, social
and cultural rights have the same status as civil and political
rights, to what extent the universality of human rights means
that the diversity that we all cherish is put into question.
As the case may be, the
mandate is for an initial period of 3 years, renewable for another
3 years.
As far as my background, I grew up in Chicago and my passion was
always history. I did both history and international law at Harvard
University. I was always fascinated by the idea of Manecaenism,
dividing the world into the good guys and bad guys, dividing the
world into black and white. And I noticed, especially studying
history, that there were many victims of gross violations of human
rights that are essentially ignored. You have victims of the first-degree
and victims that you ignore, you have consensus victims and then
you have politically incorrect victims about whom you don’t
talk.
That was a subject that drew me into international law, drew me
into human rights already at Harvard
University. But, as a young man I wanted to make money and
went to Wall Street. I spent my first years as a young lawyer with
a major Wall Street law firm, doing financing of public utilities.
After three years, essentially, I was bored to death. It was not
what I wanted to do with my life. So I decided to finish my doctorate
in history. I applied for a Fulbright and went to Germany, did
my doctorate in history and was associated with the Institute of
Public International Law at the University
of Göttingen. And then I went to the Max
Planck Institute in Heidelberg (Germany) before getting the
offer to come to Geneva, to the then Division of Human Rights which
subsequently became the Center for Human Rights and the United
Nations (UN) Office
of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and I was essentially,
the principal drafter in the team of the Human Rights Committee.
At that time, the jurisprudence that was being produced by the
Division of Human Rights was basically linked with petitions. We
had a petitions procedure with the Human Rights Committee, with
the Committee against Torture, with the Committee on the Elimination
of Racial Discrimination. After a very satisfying career --I must
say it is a great privilege to work for the United
Nations (UN) and there is nothing more noble, if you are going
to work for the United Nations (UN) to
work for human rights. And if you are in the position that I was,
to actually draft international law that goes from my hands to
the experts and from the experts it is issued as a judgment and
it is my language that went in there. I had a good sense of satisfaction,
and I considered that the actual impact of my work was part of
my remuneration. I always thought I would have made a lot more
money if I had stayed as a practicing lawyer. On the other hand,
the satisfaction of doing things for human rights and actually
making a difference, that made it all worthwhile.
After more than two decades in the Office
of High Commissioner I decided it was time to move on- So
I took early retirement at age 56. I went to teach at the University
of British Columbia in Vancouver (Canada), and then I came
to teach here at the Institut
de Hautes Etudes Internationals et du Développement, the
Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies (Geneva,
Switzerland), and subsequently got at job teaching international
law at the Geneva School
of Diplomacy (Geneva, Switzerland) where I am still the principal
international law professor. Now I enjoy this very much I mean
the contact with the young students also keeps you young.
But, back in 2008, my name was put by non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) on the list of possible candidates for positions as United
Nations (UN) Special Rapporteurs, United
Nations (UN) Independent Expert and I ended up on 8 different
shortlists and last year I was then selected and appointed the United
Nations (UN) Independent Expert for the Promotion of a Democratic
and Equitable International Order. Now that is a very generous
synthesis of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights.
I will prove it has added value, although the skeptics don’t
like the mandate because they think it is too broad, all over the
place. On the other hand I say it has the potential of bringing
everything together, of making sense of the interrelatedness and
the interdependence of all these rights.
In my first
report, I tried to focus on the concept of democracy, and
for me democracy is not just the ballot box. Democracy is not
the pro forma voting for candidate A or candidate B. What democracy
actually means is power to the people. What is means is that
there must be correlation between the needs, the will of the
population and the policies that affects them. And that is not
always the case. It is very easy to point fingers at developing
countries and say they are dictatorships or they are undemocratic.
On the other hand, it is a good exercise to look at ourselves
and see to what extend a majority of the people, of the United
States (US, USA) or of the United Kingdom (UK), or of Spain,
France, Japan, Germany and Italy would approve ways moneys are
being spent. If you had a referendum, would the populations of
these countries approve that 50% or 60% of the national budget
would go for matters associated with defense. Would they vote
for war? Would they have voted for NATO’s intervention
in the Yugoslav
War, would they have voted for the coalition of the willing
in 2003? These are crucial questions of what democracy is all
about. Do we just simply elect leaders and then the leaders do
whatever they want without consulting the population?
There must be a way of constantly consulting the population and
taking the temperature of world public opinion. I look at that
issue in my first
report and I am still very much looking at that issue because
I would like to find a solution. The model of direct democracy
that we know here in Switzerland seems to be a good one. It may
not be suitable to be exported to every country. On the other hand,
some elements of direct democracy are missing in the political
arena in the United States (US) or in the United Kingdom (UK) or
in Germany. I think it will be very helpful to know what people
really need and what people really want. That of course entails
access to information, because obviously everybody speaks in favour
of freedom of expression, freedom of opinion, freedom of the media,
freedom of the press. Obviously -- that is a given. But to what
extend is the private sector, the private media doing its job of
informing, of educating or is the private media just as guilty
of manipulating public opinion as the government in order to make
an informed decision on a particular issue impossible. So these
are matters that I think belong to the mandate and need to be dealt
with.
The other aspect of the mandate the aspect concerning equity.
There I have been looking at the work of the World
Trade Organization (WTO), at the work of the financial institutions -
the Bretton Woods institutions, of the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World
Bank. To what extend these bodies are furthering international
equity or are they undermining international equity or are they
adding to the problem, or are they themselves the problem? So these
are matters that I will explore in the course of my mandate. As
I said, I find a tremendous challenge. I am learning a great deal
in the process because my experience was primarily in the area
of civil and political (human) rights. I come from the United Nations
(UN) Human Rights Committee, dealing with torture, dealing with
arbitrary detention, dealing with the death penalty, dealing with
fair trial proceedings and so on and so forth. But, the right
to food, the
right to education, the
right to healthcare these are all crucial rights, which I would
call enabling rights. If you have food, if you have education and
if you have work, only then can you fully achieve your potential,
only then can you enjoy civil and political rights. So to a certain
extend a change of paradigm is necessary.
I have always spoken against the idea of dividing rights into
rights of the first generation -civil and political rights - rights
of the second generation- economic, social and cultural rights
- and then rights of the third generation - environmental rights,
right to peace and right to the homeland – which people say
that don’t even exist. And I have said: wait a minute! That
is a positivistic approach. It is not the codification of a right
that makes it a right. It is a human right long before it was codified.
Certainly the Déclaration
des Droits de l’Homme et du Citoyen of 1789, certainly
the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights of 1948 did not invent human rights. They just
simply put down on paper a limited number of those rights.
What is crucial, if you are a philosopher, is the concept of human
dignity. What attaches to human dignity, what are the components
of human dignity? And don’t all human rights actually derive
from this higher principle of human dignity? That is what we have
to examine and, say at the Nuremberg’s Trial, it has been
claimed that at the Nuremberg’s
Trial (Second World War) there were expos facto criminal norms
established like the crime against peace etc. But, what the judges
and what the prosecutors in Nuremberg (Germany) were trying to
say, there is a higher law, a natural law. And from this concept
of a higher law flow the whole structure of international law and
human rights protection. Also, these concepts flow into my mandate.
My mandate is not a positivistic mandate. I am not a bean counter;
I am not interested in just travelling the world and compiling
information and then coming forth with a nice compilation of facts
and statistics. That does not help anybody. I am trying to help
people to think, to think differently, to simply take the challenge
of thinking outside the box. Take the challenge of looking at the
system of human rights protection and see whether it is working
properly? How are we going to make it work better? How are we going
to help concretely a human being? We have norms, we have mechanisms,
but we have this famous implementation gap. How can we implement
these rights, how can we make them accessible to every human being
in every region of the world? That belongs to my mandate.
And what are the obstacles? Too many, I will not be able to explain
in a few minutes what I consider to be the major obstacles to the
realization of a democratic and equitable international order.
But, what I see as undermining the whole system is a tendency to
selectivity. Governments highjack a human right in their direction;
what is interesting economically or politically for them. So they
want to concentrate on those human rights that they can use or
instrumentalise for something else. So human rights become a tool
to achieve something else. Human rights are used as a weapon against
the state you want to demolish basically. So there is the tendency
of applying international law à la carte. I apply
international law today this way and tomorrow that way. There is
no logic in it, the only logic is your overarching economic interests,
and when your overarching interests require you to rely on a norm
of international law you do. So when they require you to ignore
that same norm, you will also ignore it.
Now if states would accept that it is in their own interest to
play the game and not to be opportunists, not to be intellectually
dishonest, I think we would make a considerable progress if the
mindset of the politicians could be, through a process of evolution,
made to conform with a uniformity of parameters in human rights
interpretation and in human rights application. There is another
problem, or another obstacle that I see and that is what I call
the lobbies, the lobby democracies, the problem of special interest
groups, the military industrial complex and the oil and gas industries.
None of these people are democratically elected, but they exercise
enormous power and they are not accountable to anybody. That is
a very serious problem, especially today, much more today than
a century ago. Multinationals are richer, more powerful than states.
And they make decisions that affect you, that affect me and I have
no way of influencing these decisions. As I said, they are not
democratically elected.
We need a more proactive United
Nations (UN) General Assembly functioning, which we haven’t
seen before. Take the World
Parliamentary Assembly idea, which former United
Nations (UN) Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali supports
very vocally and very emphatically. It is, I think, a possible
solution. A World
Parliamentary Assembly whereby all the representatives would
be directly elected into it. It would be likely to be more representative
of the people than the United
Nations (UN) General Assembly. The United
Nations (UN) General Assembly doesn’t have representatives
who are elected in their personal capacity, what you have in
the United Nations (UN) General
Assembly is Ambassadors, you have states that are members
of the United Nations (UN)
General Assembly, not people. Now, how many of these 193
plus states (United Nations, UN, member-states) in the United
Nations (UN) General Assembly are really representative of
their people. Obviously, back in the 1970s, 1980s everybody remembers
that the United Nations (UN)
General Assembly did the obvious and did not recognize the
credentials of the white minority government of South Africa.
Obviously, that government, the apartheid-government was not
representative of the people of South Africa. But, if you are
going to apply this precedent, with regard to other countries,
I think you would find that a considerable number of the United
Nations (UN) member-states are not represented or representative
of their respective populations, but only representative of a
ruling elite, of a small group of oligarchs that run everything,
and ignore the wishes of their people. So if you had a World
Parliamentary Assembly and you could actually elect individuals,
not Ambassadors but individuals like architects, medical doctors,
lawyers and engineers that might give it more legitimacy in a
democratic sense. Even if it has no legislative power, even if
it does not have the authority to issue, decrees or to make binding
decisions, if it makes its views public, it would be very difficult
for the United Nations (UN)
General Assembly, or even for the United
Nations (UN) Security Council, to ignore this new body called
a World Parliamentary
Assembly.
Now the bottom line in human rights is the human being. The bottom
line is helping the human being to achieve his or her potential,
and in order to do that, we already have a certain number of mechanisms,
and those mechanisms should be strengthened. On 5 May 2013 the Optional
Protocol to the United Nations Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights entered into force. At present, there are only
10 states parties to the Optional Protocol, but when the Optional
Protocol to the United Nations Covenant of Civil and Political
Rights entered into force way back in 1976, there were only
12. And by now it is about 114. It is not universal, but there
is a hell of a lot of states that do recognize the competence of
the United
Nations (UN) Human Rights Committee to receive and examine
petitions on matters of civil and political rights. This new procedure
for economic and social rights has enormous implications because
suddenly the right
to food, the right to work, the
right to equal pay, the right
to healthcare, the right
to education have become justiciable. An individual can claim
these individual rights before the Committee
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and that Committee
is going to do like the United
Nations (UN) Human Rights Committee, is going to generate jurisprudence.
That is, once again, a form of education. Case law has that advantage
that it concretizes a norm. Black letter law does not touch you,
but when you have a human face, you have a name of a victim and
you have a very concrete problem and there is a judgment of an
expert body that says Article 7, Article 8 of the Covenant have
been violated and the remedy to those violations is compensation,
or release from imprisonment or whatever, that creates not only
does it concretize the right we are talking about, but also provides
an illustration for public officials in the future. Public officials
will know what you are talking about. When you are referring to
this black letter law, that means that in any case like this you
are going to have to deal with it in this fashion. Otherwise, you
will be in violation. I am very much an advocate of petitions procedures
even if, in some cases, they are not implemented by governments.
Ultimately, we would like to see a World
Court of Human Rights with powers of enforcement. That is many
years down the line, but if we don’t think boldly now, we
will not have it tomorrow. If we don’t have dreams, we will
not be able to achieve those goals to make those dreams come true
in the future.
As the case may be, I have been given a wonderful mandate, and
I am consulting everybody, I mean I have told governments I am
not against you, not at all. We need you, because you are the ones
that are going to be implementing my recommendations. I want to
listen, and I want to listen and listen some more and then, if
I make a recommendation, I would like to see to what extend I can
help you in realizing the actual transformation of a recommendation
into action. That will vary from country to country. In this context
of an international order, what I would like to tell governments
is: I am not going to be naming and shaming, that is not my idea.
For some of the mandates, that is important. For my mandate less
so. What I would like to see is each individual government to take
an honest look at their practice of human rights, not only at the
laws, but also at the actual practice of human rights. And let
everybody take one step forward. Everybody make some modest improvements,
and if everybody does that, we have gained a great deal.
I have no illusions that we are going to do away with human rights
violations in the world. The Bible has been around for thousands
of years and the Bible has not done away with sin. I don’t
think that the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights or the 10 core human rights treaties
are going to do away with injustice. But they do provide a framework,
they provide a mechanism, and gradually step-by-step, we are going
in the right direction. Those who are pessimists, and I am not
a pessimist, I would like to tell them just look at the world in
the Middle Ages, look at the world at the time of the Renaissance,
look at the world at the time of the 30-Years War, at the time
of French
Revolution, at the time of the Bolshevik
Revolution, I think the world has made an enormous progress
in human rights, and today, every politician at the very least
has to pay lip-service to human rights. There is an emerging culture
of human rights, and if civil society is really strong and really
loud, their elected officials will have to listen to them. My hope
again is to give civil society greater voice and to advance to
world referenda, to advance to a World
Parliamentary Assembly, or a reinvigorated and re-strengthened
Inter-Parliamentary Union.
And on this note, I would like to thank you. |