International Political Dialogue - IAF Seminar on “Human and Civil Rights”

International Political Dialogue - IAF Seminar on “Human and Civil Rights” [printable version]

IAF Seminar on “Human and Civil Rights”
Gummersbach, Germany

It was a beautiful day, the 3rd of August when 23 participants from all around the world gathered together for the annual two weeks Human and Civil Rights Seminar of the International Academy for Leadership (IAF) in Gummersbach. It was a group of great minds who were all open to multicultural learning, exchange of experiences and ready to listen to different points of views as well as eager for gaining knowledge and further perspectives on human rights from a liberal approach. Despite their different political and cultural backgrounds they shared a very important common thing. They all believed that the protection and promotion of human rights is of utmost importance. And at the very core of human rights protection lays the principle of human dignity and that the preservation of human dignity prevails in all circumstances.

Since the seminar program covered a wide range of relevant and current topics concerning human rights and liberalism we had a tight schedule, which was not always easy to keep, but effective teamwork and disciplined and active participation made the whole seminar smooth. The concept of the seminar was systematic in approach and handled the subject from different angles, therefore was divided to six main
parts such as: the importance of human rights from a liberal perspective; liberalism and the universality of human rights; the relationship between the Rule of Law, the secular state and the liberal commitment to the protection of human rights; rights, society and the economy; some specific current issues like women’s rights, human rights and terrorism (freedom and security), the death penalty, humanitarian intervention; effective promotion of human rights through campaigning and negotiation.

The brainstorming session entitled “What does liberalism mean to me” and the subsequent discussion enabled the participants to see liberalism as a systematic approach, a paradigm, a way of life that centers on individual freedom on one hand and the respect for freedom of others on the other. This session also showed that despite coming from different backgrounds and beliefs the participants had a similar understanding of the basic values of liberalism. Besides the concept of freedom tolerance, equality, property rights, diversity and the concept of rule of law served as a common denominator for all of them. It was agreed that liberty is the precondition of responsibility and in turn responsibility exists only in a system where individuals are free to choose. The participants also concluded that equality for liberals translates into equality before the law and equal opportunities and rejects systematic and enforced preferences.

The participants got acquainted with the origins and elements of the principle of the rule of law, with a special emphasis on the so called moralized concepts meaning that the idea of the rule of law implies the acceptance of certain moral principles and it has to be distinguished from the “law and order” and “rule by law” concepts.

The session on the rule of law and secularism enabled the participants to recognize that separation of state and religion is an indispensable part and a precondition of an independent legal system that ensures equality under the law. Hence it is an inseparable element of the rule of law. Secularism together with the principle of rule of law guarantees that rights take precedence over religious laws and dogmas.

The separation of religion and state ensures that the state protects the rights of its all citizens, because it is there for all without discrimination.

Under the umbrella of “Liberalism and the Universality of Human Rights” we covered topics related to: the international and regional human rights instruments; the relationship between liberalism and human rights and the universality of human rights. The participants found out that there is a strong linkage between liberalism and the protection of human rights. It was shown that the struggle to secure individual rights for all was almost identical with the development of liberal ideas throughout the history. The participants recognized that even if many civil and political rights on the one hand and economic, social and cultural rights on the other are interdependent and interrelated, it is possible to categorize rights in order of importance. It was established that the right to life prevails in all circumstances and the right to liberty and equality before the law are quintessential principles for liberals, as well as the right to property that gives us freedom and brings about independence and the opportunity for the individuals to act freely. The potential for conflict in a large number of states between the objectives of international human rights treaties, on the one hand, and customary laws and practices as well as religious beliefs, on the other, has become a striking contemporary concern.

In the frame of a panel discussion we looked at some current topics that pose challenges to the universal idea of human rights, such as issues related to gender, religious laws and freedom of expression. Although there was a slight disagreement on where to draw the line between free expression and religious tolerance the participants agreed that the universal idea of human rights is a necessity in order to promote them effectively and to guarantee the same rights to all. It was shown that it is exactly a universal idea of human rights that can make the world safe for diversity.

The joint world café session entitled “Is there a right to food?” with the students of the Gieβen University gave the chance to the participants to discuss some issues related to current food crises and food shortages and to look at these problems from the viewpoint of young German students. In this lively and vivid open space exercise the participants were invited to look at and give possible answers to the following questions:

Do subsidies endanger the right to food?; Should developing countries produce cash crops for export markets or food crops for domestic use?; Do we need a second green revolution to cope with food insecurity?; Are authoritarian regimes directly proportionate to food crises?; “There is no bread without freedom” - generating one of the most heated and controversial debates of our world café session. Some of the participants argued that the proposition should be formulated the other way round, because bread comes first, hence there is no freedom without bread. However, other participants pointed out that without freedom, i.e. without certain political and civil rights and the participation in the decision making process one can easily end up in a system where there is neither bread nor freedom.

Some of the participants also pointed out that in many cases (Zimbabwe for example) the lack of food is a result of corruption within the channels of distributions and government mismanagement and the deprivation of citizens from exercising their participatory rights within the decision making process.

The method of networking enabled the participants to look at human rights from an economic perspective and to identify important links between some core principles of liberalism and certain human rights. It was shown that open society, competition, free market and minimum government participation for instance strengthen the principle of the rule of law and thus contribute to a system where human rights can flourish. The participants also discussed the inter-relationship between human rights and objectives of development. It was established that human rights are not just compatible with development, but essential to it. The participants recognized the strong linkages between development and several aspects of freedom and they pointed out that strong property rights and equal opportunities as well as equality before the law and freedom of expression contribute to a greater GNP and social security for instance.

It was also underlined that violation of civil and political rights and social discrimination undermine development. They all recognized that development and freedom are interrelated and interdependent and agreed with Amartya Sen’s approach that development is “the enhancement of freedoms that allow people to lead lives that they have reason to value”.

In the course of the seminar we also addressed some major current human rights issues for liberals. We looked at the topic of rights and anti-discrimination and tried to agree on liberal measures that governments can take in order to combat discrimination. Despite the international and regional developments on the equal protection field, discrimination against women is still an emerging issue. Many societies still marginalize, devalue and treat women unequally. Millions of women throughout the world live in conditions of abject deprivation of, and attacks against, their fundamental human rights for no other reason than that they are women.

The participants were invited to look at two severe and systematic forms of women’s rights violation, domestic violence and women’s property rights abuses. It was shown that discriminatory laws, social stigma, discriminatory customs, ineffective courts and unresponsive authorities are the main factors that contribute to women’s rights violations.

Needless to say that the issue of a woman’s right to reproductive autonomy versus the right of an unborn child to life created one of the most heated debates in our seminar. Although no agreement had been reached on the issue, the “Choose life” slogan seemed to be acceptable to most of them.

Within the framework of human rights in emergency situation we handled the issue of terrorism – a special type of emergency that lacks temporariness. The participants had the chance to look at the question how far can governments go in limiting civil liberties while combating terrorism. They concluded that the presumption of achieving more security through limiting our freedoms leads us to a very slippery slope. Pursuing security objectives at all costs may create a world in which we are neither safe nor free.

In a form of a panel discussion we also tackled the question of capital punishment and the problem of torture as a form of interrogation method often used by governments to obtain information from suspected terrorists. After a heated and lively discussion it was concluded that capital punishment in all circumstances is inhuman and can never be justified from a liberal point of view.

Although the “ticking bomb hypotheticals” represent cases when torture might seem to be justified to find the ticking bomb, all participants agreed that there are certain principles that cannot be abandoned not even in the mists of war on terror. The fate of rule of law and democracy is that not all the means are acceptable to it. “Sometimes a democracy must fight with one hand tied behind its back.”

Within the framework of humanitarian intervention the participants got acquainted with the principle of “responsibility to protect” and discussed the question of the involvement of the international community in crisis like the genocide in Rwanda and Darfur or the recent crisis in Zimbabwe. This principle recognizes that the responsibility to protect any given population lies within the sovereign state. However, if a state is unable or unwilling to protect its population, or is itself the cause of the threat, the international community of states has a responsibility to protect those populations against genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity.

The role play of a simulated US presidential debate on the future of the American foreign policy was not only a very timely issue but also one of the most challenging and entertaining part of our seminar. The excellent performance of the two contenders – one playing the role of the presumptive Democratic candidate Barack Obama, another participant taking up the role of the presumptive Republican nominee John McCain and the focused and disciplined moderation carried out by another participant – as well as the strategy and quality of arguments presented by them made the debate a real success. It also has to be pointed out that the preparation of both nominees for the debate was supported by the very professional teamwork of of their consultants.

The enormous amount of discussion we had throughout the seminar on various subjects was the key to the fulfillment of the expectations of the participants on multicultural learning and exchanging experiences. Our hard time and intense work during the days was eased by the cozy atmosphere of the bar, the games at the billiard table and the vivid international table tennis tournament in which all the countries represented at the seminar took part.

By Enikö Gál