Divided over human rights

The international human rights process could be facing a crisis over certain human rights issues on which the world remains divided.

For starters, what still strongly divides the international community is the issue of capital punishment.

While an increasing number of states has prohibited the death penalty — and the trend appears to continue — there are still many countries that oppose its prohibition either because of deep religious or cultural beliefs or due to heightened security concerns exacerbated by the rise in acts of terrorism worldwide.

It should be recalled that the initial doctrine behind the opposition to the death penalty arose within the UN Human Rights Committee on Civil and Political Rights in the early 1990s when some liberal European members of the human rights body argued that whereas Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights does not prohibit the death penalty outright, Article 7 outlaws torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment or treatment, and since the penal punishment in all its forms entails one or more of the prohibitions cited in Article 7, death penalty must be struck down as illegal.

Then came the adoption of the Second Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in 1991, aiming to the abolition of the death penalty in almost absolute terms.

In recent times we witness the application of the dictum against the death penalty to long-term prison sentences, especially life sentence.

It is now increasingly argued, especially at European level and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, that long-term prison sentences entail torture or cruel or inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment.

Where to draw the line has become a major bone of contention for human rights activists everywhere, especially in countries facing a rise in the rate of crime or acts of terrorism.

The second major challenge could be the so-called LGBT issue, where many international human rights bodies believe discrimination against them must be struck down.

It is not going to be easy to convince the entire international community, especially the traditional countries, to come on board on such a stance.

Recently, a certain human rights body called on Namibia to strike down a common law provision that outlaws sodomy and other “unnatural sexual acts”, again on the basis of the rationale that such legislation is discriminatory.

Such outlandish human rights positions are not going to go down uncontested by many traditional and religious groups of nations or communities.

A possible third hurdle is the division on the issue of polygamy, which is prohibited by the greater majority of nations as a grave violation, inter alia, of the principle of gender equality.

Muslim nations continue to argue that polygamy cannot be outlawed outright. 

The best that can be done on that issue, many Muslim countries argue, is to have it regulated.

Unless a reasonable accommodation can be struck in the international community, the human rights process might end up weakened.

The search for a middle ground that may resonate well with the majority of countries will surely continue, but the road ahead is not going to be easy.