TEXTUAL ENGAGEMENT WITH DAVID BOUCHERS THE LIMITS OF

ETHICS IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: NATURAL LAW, NATURAL

RIGHTS, AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN TRANSITION (2009)
The matter of human rights is perhaps the most contentious in international relations.
While the contention does not arise in the morality of these rights, given the
adoption of the UDHR without ualms !y world leaders in the wa"e of World War #,
it is perhaps the politics of the matter that have creased many a government or
academic !row. $t is this dilemma that the %oucher attempts to address in his
introduction to the !oo". This writer thin"s that this contri!ution is topical !ecause the
human rights impasse in international relations may !e !etter understood if the origins
of the concepts was properly grasped, especially as conte&tualised within the loose !ut
comple& terrain of international politics, complete with its sovereignty concerns.
%oucher lays out the o!'ective of the !oo"( an attempt to understand the relationship
!etween politics and morality, with the su!'ect of human rights as the focal point of
the arguments to !e made. )nd rightly so, given the fact that though human rights has
moral roots, it is perhaps the most pressing issue in contemporary national and
international politics. This is !uttressed !y Waldrons *+,-./ opinion that o!servance
of human rights has perhaps !ecome a ma'or criterion for political legitimacy.
The morality of human rights, which sees it as an offshoot of the need to effectively
ensure that glo!ally accepted norms of !ehaviour to guard against inhumanity to man
was adopted and adhered to !y nations, is hardly contested. This is more so given the
fact that the #0
th
century had witnessed more damning conseuences of mans
inhumanity to man, the apogee of which were the two World Wars and the numerous
genocides, civil wars, etc that have left more than 120 million people dead *3erry,
#004/. Theoretically, as %oucher and other writers argue, there are different positions
on the origins of human rights, and its conte&tual relationship with other concepts as
natural law and natural rights. While %oucher states that there is a transformational
relationship !etween the three *in that one transmutes to !ecome the ne&t, and the ne&t
after it/, the difference !etween natural rights and human rights 5 !oth of which have
their roots in natural law 5 is the su!'ect of religion. His point is that while natural
rights have the validation in religion, while human rights is devoid of, and !eyond
religious trappings *3erry, #004/.
This amoral view of human rights clearly sits well within the scope of politics.
However, !ecause of its moral trappings, the enforcement of human rights pits its
morality against its politics, and forces a contrasting !etween the ethical and political
notions of realism. $n this situation, moral realism which is an offshoot of universal
morality contrasts against realism, which says that the first responsi!ility of sovereign
states is to protect the political order *especially one which they set in motion for
themselves to guide their political !ehaviour/ and assert their identify in the
international community.
The argument a!out which is the strongest validation of human rights !etween politics
and morality is also discussed, with one position holding morality should supersede
politics in the determination of human rights, while the other opining that it is the
political order that will determine what falls under the scope of morality. )n e&tension
of the latter argument is that fostered !y 6ortman *#0++/ who writes that rights simply
means ethos of morality which are protected !y law *which is usually politically
determined/. 7ore so, 8ic"el *#0+1/ suggests that human rights as construed today
transcends moral o!ligation. $nstead, they are matters of law, in his words, 9the rights
of lawyers, rather than the a!stract rights of the philosophers:. 7oralists on the other
hand have countered this position !y stating that !ecause the law *politics/ does not
recognise a right *e.g. womens rights in closed societies/ does not negate the fact
that such persons as are !eing denied en'oyment of that right do not deserve to en'oy it
in the first place.
The Western origins of human rights is also mentioned, with %oucher stating that
moral realism 5 the moral roots of human rights 5 is deeply rooted in ;hristianity and
the spread of the Roman <mpire. Human rights is therefore a <uropean concept
which has !een e&ported to the rest of the world through the active machinery of
glo!alisation. 7ind=ie *#00,/ ma"es the argument that glo!alisation has made human
rights the primary o!ligation of nation>states, as against maintaining their sovereignty,
which is also a right as provided !y the United 8ations. The Western roots of this
trend, and the penchant of its promoters, the United ?tates, the United 8ations and the
<uropean Union, to coerce wea" *and usually aid>dependent/ states to adopt it *human
rights/ as well as their preferred system of government 5 li!eral democracy 5 !rings to
the fore one of the !itterest criticism of human rights( the fact that it impinges on
states right to sovereignty *?i""in", +,,-/@ the fact that it gives some states the right
to determine how other states are supposed to manage their affairs *6ortman, #0++/@
the fact that it is a su!tle attempt at foisting down Western political culture on other
societies *Tal!ott, #004/. The allegation that human rights as a legitimisation of
nation>states was a strategy used !y the West to counter communism during the ;old
War and in its wa"e also lends credence to Tal!otts position. Arause *#0+0/ moots
the notion that human rights may also !e a form of cultural imperialism, especially
given the Western nature of the concept and its promoters. This however does not
imply that human rights on the !asis of morality is not 'ustified@ however, the
rightness or wrongness of a set of human rights !ased on morality is a grey area,
given the political nature of human rights enforcement and the fact that morality
draws from religion, which differs from one region to the other.
The porous and comple& nature of international law also ma"es the matter of human
rights more pro!lematic. The fact that human rights is determined !y international
non>state organisations as norms guiding the !ehaviour of states, non>state actors, and
citi=ens@ yet have to !e enforced !y national governments can !e construed as an
impingement on sovereignty, especially with varying opinions on the e&istence or
necessity of a universal moral code, given the cultural diversity that characterises the
world.
?i""in"s uestion on human rights !ecoming a consideration for international
legitimisation is also cogent. $f legitimisation is one of the ways to e&plain the
growing significance of human rights in international relations, then the issue of why a
sovereign state has to still suffer from illegitimacy, even though it satisfies all the
reuirements of a state as enumerated in the +,11 7ontevideo ;onvention on the
Rights and Duties of ?tates. )nother issue that arises concerning human rights in
international relations is the fact that in some situations, there is the matter of
hypocrisy, especially when it comes to the superpowers. 6or instance, the U? was
accused of using torture in their war against terrorism post ,B++, $srael has !een
indicted for human rights a!use against 3alestine, and ;hina has !een slated over and
over for their human rights a!use record in places li"e Ti!et, !ut no action has !een
ta"en against these countries !ecause they are either mem!ers of the ?ecurity ;ouncil
or have strong ties to the ?ecurity ;ouncil. Cet countries li"e ?omalia, )fghanistan,
$ra, etc. have !een invaded under the guise of humanitarian intervention, !ecause
they contravened human rights. This negates morality or Headleys *#00-/ concept of
9a common humanity and the principle of euality: which is the foundation of human
rights.
The am!iguity of theory in international relations, especially with respect to the e&tent
to which it differs from political theory is also a concern. This is particularly in
relation to the e&tent to which it affects the understanding and application of human
rights.
6rom the perspective of e&perts, it is hard not to agree with %oucher, even though the
reviewed chapter only provides a peripheral view of the su!'ect matter of the !oo".
<ven though he does not adopt any position on any of the issues he !rought up, the
arguments made are a cogent concern for international relations, especially in the #+
st
century where glo!alisation and advances in $;T has ensured that national !orders
have almost !een evaporated. Human rights 5 still evolving, with recent one such as
gay rights pushing the limits on the arguments of the moralityBpolitics of human rights
5 are now championed more persistently and pervasively, and national governments
placed under more scrutiny than ever !oth from local and international o!servers
REFERENCES
8ic"el, D. *#0+1/. EHuman RightsE, in <dward 8. Falta *ed./ The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy *?ummer #0+1 <dition/, retrieved online from
http(BBplato.stanford.eduBarchivesBsum#0+1BentriesBrights>human, on
+,B+0B#0+1
3erry, 7. D. *#004/ The 7orality Gf Human Rights( ) 8onreligious HroundI Emory
University School of Law, Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series,
Research 3aper 8o. 04>2, pp. ,.>+40
6ortman, %. de Haay *#0++/ 9Human Rights in the ;onte&t of $nternational Relations:
retrieved online from http(BBwww.e>ir.infoB#0++B0.B10Bhuman>rights>in>the>
conte&t>of>international>relations>a>critical>appraisalB, on #0B+0B#0+1
Tal!ott, W. *#004/. hich Rights Should be Universal!, G&ford( G&ford University
3ress.
7ind=ie, 7. ). *#00,/ Whither Human Rights in )frican $nternational RelationsI
"ccasional Paper #o$ %&, Dohannes!urg( ?outh )frican $nstitute of
$nternational )ffairs
?i""in", A. *+,,-/ Transnational 3olitics, $nternational Relations Theory, and Human
Rights. PS' Political Science and Politics Jol. 1+ *1/( pp. 4+2>4#1
Headley, D. *#00-/ The Europeani(ation of the orld' "n the "rigins of )uman
Rights and *emocracy. 3rinceton, 8D( 3rinceton University 3ress
Arause, ?. *#0+0/ E7oral ?entiment and the 3olitics of Human Rights,E in Dason
?wadley *ed./, The +rt of Theory, retrieved on from
http(BBwww.artoftheory.comBmoral>sentiment>and>the>politics>of>human>rights>
sharon>"rause, on #0B+0B#0+1