Relations internationales

C17(a) - Global Governance 3: Human Rights & Democracy

Date: Jun 5 | Heure: 10:15am to 11:45am | Salle:

Chair/Président/Présidente : Laszlo Sarkany (Huron University College)

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Laszlo Sarkany (Huron University College)

Does International Law Operate In The Hell: The Legitimization of Airstrikes in Armed Conflicts and its Implications on Human Rights John Shola, Landmark University Securitizing Human Rights: Why the UN Human Rights System Has Become a Surrogate for the Security Council Matias Margulis, University of Edinburgh Participatory Governance in EU External Relations: The Role of Civil Society in EU Democracy Assistance Micha Fiedlschuster, York University

Securitizing Human Rights: Why the UN human rights system has become a surrogate for the Security Council: Matias Margulis (UBC)
Abstract: A key role of the Security Council is to investigate conflict situations to obtain information and pressure parties to deescalate. In recent years, however, most investigations into conflicts have been initiated by the UN human rights institutions rather than the Security council. UN human rights institutions serving as a surrogate for the Security Council is surprising. What is more, this development challenges the conventional wisdom in the literature that UN human rights institutions are weak and irrelevant when it comes to international security issues. This paper seeks to explain these shifting roles of the Security Council and UN human rights institutions. Initial findings suggest that gridlock at the Security Council has spurred states to instead seek mandates under the UN human rights institutions. The paper also assesses the securitization of the UN human rights institutions on the legitimacy and efficacy of the international human rights regime.

Does International Law Operate In The Hell: The Legitimization of Airstrikes in Armed Conflicts and its Implications on Human Rights: John Shola (Osun State University)
Abstract: For decades Armed conflicts have become integral part of international system. From Multipolar to Unipolar world, countries have enmeshed in different high-profile conflicts. Armed conflicts have blighted the lives of millions of civilians with serious violations of international humanitarian law while human rights’ violations are common in many armed conflicts. In certain circumstances, some of these violations may even constitute genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity. However, with the use of airstrikes in recent decades, the violations of human rights in armed conflicts have climaxed. The application of airstrikes in armed conflicts are antithetical to the salient principles of international law such as distinction, proportionality among others. Distinction is a principle under international humanitarian law governing the legal use of force in armed conflicts, whereby belligerents must distinguish between combatants and protected civilians while the principle of proportionality prohibits attacks which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian lives, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects. This study investigates the use of airstrikes in Russia- Ukraine war and its legitimatization within the context of international law. During the autumn and winter of 2022-2023, Russia launched waves of missile and drone strikes against energy in Ukraine. The strikes targeted civilian areas beyond the battlefield, particularly critical power infrastructure which some conflict scholars considered as war crime. By the end of 2023, Russian forces had launched about 7,400 missiles and 3900 shahed drone strikes against Ukraine. Russia has refocused its missile attacks from Ukraine’s military air fields and air defenses to economic and logistical targets. Despite the prohibition of airstrikes by the international law, most especially in events that violate the principles of distinction and proportionality, countries have consistently used it in different armed conflicts, this devastating development has raised a major question that centers on the legality of airstrikes and the legitimacy of airstrikes. The study adopts methodological triangulation. The primary data were generated through the utility of Key Informant Interviews (KIIs), the secondary data were sourced from textbooks, journal articles and web-based materials. The data generated were analyzed using logic inductive methodologies and thematic analysis

Participatory Governance in EU External Relations: The Role of Civil Society in EU Democracy Assistance: Micha Fiedlschuster (York University)
Abstract: Democracy is a founding principle of the EU and a guiding principle of its external relations. Despite the strong normative basis, democracy assistance played a weak role in EU external relations for a long time. Many scholars pointed out a lack of substance in EU policies and Kurki (2013) has aptly characterized the EU as a fuzzy liberal democracy promoter. The pro-democracy movements in the Middle East and North African region in 2010/11 triggered some policy changes in EU democracy assistance that involved conceptual changes such as participatory governance, which gives greater weight to civil society, new organizations such as the European Endowment for Democracy and some budgetary increases for countries in democratic transition. In the following years, the EU’s neighbourhood did not become a more democratic space but to the contrary, we see a backsliding of democracy (also within the EU) and a shrinking space for civil society. We know that EU democracy assistance had only very limited success but scholars have not analyzed whether and how the EU has changed its strategy and policies. This paper will remedy this gap by analyzing the changes in EU policies and programs on democracy assistance of two European Commissions (2014-2024). I will focus in particular on the role given to civil society in the policies. I will argue that civil society’s participation in EU democracy assistance is rendered ineffective because of a governance approach and a managerial understanding of politics.