Volume 4 Number 1 March 2005

MIRKO BAGARIC and PENNY DIMOPOULOS provide a critique of international law in light of current and ongoing human rights violations. International human rights law is more popular than ever. Nations enthusiastically trumpet the importance of these ideals, and urge a commitment to them. However, there has been no improvement in the living standards of humankind to match the increase in `rights talk'. Human rights abuses continue to occur worldwide and in some cases are on the increase. Moreover, human flourishing on a global level is on some important measures declining. There are several reasons for the failure of international human rights law. Like other areas of international law, the principle of national sovereignty acts as a barrier to the enforcement of human rights instruments. International condemnation has not encouraged states to meet their human rights obligations. This is made easier by the fact that ‘rogue’ states can deflect criticism for breaching human rights instruments due to the ‘vague and unrealistic’ way in which such instruments are drafted. Culpability, however, is not confined to ‘rogue’ states. A true worldwide commitment to the interests of humankind would readily improve living conditions in much of the world. The lack of assistance offered by wealthy states to poor states makes them morally blameworthy for the living conditions in the latter. Wealthy states deny or avoid moral blame for this on the basis of two grounds: `the acts and omissions' doctrine and the `doorstep principle'. Both of these grounds are unsound and should be debunked. This would prevent first world countries from engaging in the hypocritical behaviour of criticising `rogue' states whilst simultaneously failing to assist poor countries. Removing the above distinctions would not necessarily increase the aid given to poor countries, however moral pressure is the strongest mechanism that poor states have for compelling rich countries to honour their commitment to improving human flourishing. If rich states remain unmoved by moral pressure we have simply exhausted the limits of international human rights law. We will not know if that point has been reached until the above distinctions are abolished from moral and political discourse.

DAN SAXON argues that one of the victims of the horrible terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was the protection of fundamental human rights within the United States and abroad. A murderous and sophisticated terrorist threat had to be contained while simultaneously the values that form the bedrock of our democratic society ahd to be defended. The tension between these two interests produced many controversial decisions and practices during the past three years, and national security priorities often trumped the protection of basic human rights. This article examines whether the traditional Western philosophical and legal foundations for human rights (utilitarianism, positivism, or natural rights theory) provide a coherent theoretical basis for the conduct of the U.S. government's war against terror. In times of crisis such as war and terrorism, natural rights theory may concurrently support and condemn the same kinds of conduct. This paper discusses the contradictions inherent in the application of different philosophies to the war, and offers some principles for efforts to stop terrorist activity. The author argues that a natural rights-based philosophy and jurisprudence that emphasizes the importance of human liberty andsurvival provides the most consistent and honest theoretical guide to efforts designed to counter terrorism.

In her article, SUSAN J. HENDERS argues that dominant human rights discourses conceptualize minority and indigenous self-government as separateness from the state and other outside actors. Premised on an individualistic self, this approach to self-government fails to enhance the choices, control, and security of vulnerable communities because it does not address their deep interconnectedness with the natural world and other human societies. The article examines insights from two alternative relational understandings of autonomy, or ecological self-government: the Five Point Peace Plan of the Dalai Lama and its links with Buddhism and Cho-Yon inter-polity relations, and the ‘landed citizenship’ of John Borrows, grounded in Anishanabek philosophy and Gus Wen Tah inter-polity relations. Ecological self-government accounts for the paradox that meaningful self-government requires steps to enhance the mutual human and environmental security of neighbouring communities, as well as effective minority and indigenou participation in decision-making processes outside their boundaries.