Column*
| Author | Fried Van Hoof |
| Published date | 01 March 2000 |
| Date | 01 March 2000 |
| DOI | 10.1177/092405190001800101 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Column'
Human Rights: Millennium Proof?
Although during the past couple
of
months few issues were able to escape the millennium
hype, it sounds rather odd to ask the question as to whether human rights are millennium
proof. They certainly are, just as (most) computer systems turned out to be millennium
proof at midnight
of
31 December 1999. For, at that point in time there were no sudden
dramatic changes in the field of human rights; there was still the familiar
'bug'
of human
rights violations growing faster thanour capacity to prevent and remedy them. Conversely,
the international human rights edifice did not suddenly break down or even significantly
deteriorate on the first of January. With respect to human rights of course nobody
expected changes
of
the kind feared in the information and communication technology
field.
Nevertheless,
if
one takes the question in a somewhat different and longer-term
perspective as to the future of human rights it is particularly relevant. The time span to
be taken into account in such a perspective obviously cannot be the whole millennium or,
for that matter, the new century. Just trying to come to grips with the most important
human rights developments in the next decade or even the next couple
of
years is more
than difficult enough. Reflection on the future
of
human rights obviously never hurts, but
the start of the New Year certainly is as good a time as any.
The present author's urge for reflection was not so much triggered by the turn
of
the
year, but rather by a number
of
recent publications addressing what would seem to be
some fundamental topics developing in international human rights. At this very place in
the last issue
of
this Quarterly (NQHR, Vol. 17,
No.4,
1999, pp. 385-387), Marlies
Glasius learned from the East Timorese tragedy the lesson that 'international decisions
about a people, without the people, are not just undemocratic, they are dangerous'.
There is little doubt that viable solutions to structural human rights problems will to an
increasing extent require the involvement
of
the people concerned, particularly the actual
and potential victims (but - at least in some cases - probably also the (alleged)
perpetrators
of
violations). Nevertheless, in the short run Marlies Glasius' lesson would
seem more difficult to apply straightforwardly to other than the somewhat atypical case
of East Timor. For, the latter in fact constitutes a belated instance of decolonisation in that
the illegal annexation
of
a former colony was undone. But can, in the prevailing situation,
tangible results be expected from the application
of
the 'for the people, by the
people'-lesson to such troubled areas like Bosnia and Kosovo, the Great Lakes region of
Africa, parts
of
the Middle East or parts of the former Soviet Union? However desirable
the involvement of the people concerned might be, it would seem to become truly feasible
only after some other problems or dilemmas involved have been brought at least somewhat
closer to a solution.
One of these was raised in the last issue but one of the present Quarterly (NQHR, Vol.
17,
No.3,
1999, pp. 229-231). There Abdullahi A. An-Na'im has argued that the recent
NATO intervention in Kosovo is bad for human rights. In his view military intervention
in cases of special importance to leading powers like in Kosovo, coupled with a total lack
Fried van Hoof is Professor of Human Rights at the Netherlands Institute
of
Human Rights, Utrecht
University. Views expressed in this column are of a strictly personal nature and are not necessarily shared
by the editors.
Netherlands Quarterly
of
Human Rights. Vol.
1811.
3-5, 2000. 3
To continue reading
Request your trial